The EU’s Greening Freight Package is the bloc’s flagship policy package for decarbonisation in the transport sector. It looks to decrease emissions in European transport by 90 per cent in 2050. However, the package is not all sunshine and rainbows. Many disagreements about its content remain and the future of the package depends on the future European Parliament.
RailFreight.com spoke to the secretary general of the European Rail Freight Association (ERFA), Conor Feighan, about the Greening Freight Package. Feighan explains ERFA’s views on various contentious policy issues surrounding the package. The secretary general of the Brussels-based association also gives a status update on the various pillars of the package, namely the regulations on Rail Capacity, the CountEmissions, Combined Transport and the Weights and Dimension directive. Where does it stand now, and where are we heading?
Concerning the Rail Capacity regulation, is it possible to have one large overarching network for infrastructure managers (IMs), or should we have various smaller organisations for particular European corridors?
Having a single body could work, but is there a desire for such a body? Some of our members would say that we need one large European body. Others might warn against going that way because you could have a European organisation for all the international corridors on top of 27 national IMs, but no traffic ends at the international corridor.
It is important to realise what our goal is here, which is the ability to book capacity without going to all the IMs separately. The end-user wants a simple system. For now, I believe that we should focus on interoperability of the existing national systems. Who knows, maybe in the future, we may have a European system, but that should not be the focus now.
Should we include small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to also have the tools to measure their emissions within the framework of the CountEmissions regulation, or should they be left out of it?
Notably, the European Commission wants to have an opt-in scheme, which we consider to be a mistake. It should be mandatory, in our view. However, we would then also need to accept that the ability of some businesses, particularly SMEs, to monitor their emissions is limited. This could be solved by having an opt-out for SMEs from a mandatory system or some kind of automated emissions measurement system that enables these businesses to have some data.
What is the update on making CountEmissions mandatory?
The EU is not very receptive to this idea. The question of why this is the case is one for the politicians. Nevertheless, my guess is that the EU does not want to create the perception of extra administrative burden in the current political climate.
At the same time, when we look at the stated ambitions of the Greening Freight Package, then the 50 per cent growth of rail and the doubling by 2050 all sound nice. Yet, when you look at the actual legislative proposals, it seems that that same ambition is not quite there. This regulation is illustrative of that. We believe that, in order to have some progress, the regulation should be mandatory, at least for the larger businesses.
Why are there so many proposed definitions of combined transport for the Combined Transport Directive?
It is almost as if we are having two discussions at the same time. The first discussion is about how we open up and enable more companies to operate combined transport services. The second discussion concerns how we are going to create an easy-to-use and user-friendly system. Some would say that the priority should be on opening up combined transport more, whereas others believe that an easy-to-use system should be the main priority. That is why there are various views on the matter. However, the industry wants an easy-to-use and user-friendly system. If the administrative burden that goes with a combined transport operation becomes too complex, it will not be attractive to anyone considering switching to combined transport.
What do you think the definition of combined transport should be?
We need to go back to what our objective is, which is a move away from the road. The question then is: What is the easiest way to show a move away from the road, be it distance-based or based on a share of the journey? It is critical that there is a significant part without road transport along the route, at a section where there is a viable road alternative. In that way, you can guarantee that there is a move away from the road. At the same time, the definition of combined transport should be easily understood. You should not have to do research to understand whether your transport operation meets the definition or not.
Is the problem with the Weights and Dimensions Directive (WDD) that it is unfair vis-à-vis rail, or that it is unfeasible for both road and rail modalities? The road sector also needs to make significant changes, which it may find difficult to do.
The fundamental issue is that there is absolutely no benefit to rail at all. Some people might say that the risk to rail is minimal, but we believe that the risk is much bigger. We have all these previously mentioned directives, the Rail Capacity, CountEmissions and Combined Transport directives, but any benefit derived from them is going to be undermined by WDD.
There does not seem to be a coherent strategy in the Greening Freight Package. It approaches very relevant issues in total isolation. The question needs to be: how do we use each transport modality and use it for what it is good at? For example, you can use road for last mile and shorter distances, or where there is no long-distance viable alternative, and rail for longer distances. The WDD, to me, seems like it was created for the road sector from the road perspective alone and fails to take other issues into consideration. The very simple fact that WDD does not limit the changes in maximum weights and dimensions to electric trucks undermines all the other regulations.
What is the status update with all these directives?
The European Parliament has decided that the Combined Transport directive was put forward too late. It is for the newly elected parliament to decide whether or not to continue with it. As for the other three proposals, the Council is still establishing its position. This will probably be done in June. Depending on negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council, the European Parliament will adopt it afterwards.
What do you expect to happen with all the directives?
The new parliament may not continue with the Combined Transport directive. The Capacity Regulation and CountEmissions regulation could move fairly quickly because they are not as politically contentious. This, however, depends on the positions of the Council and European Parliament. Lastly, as for WDD, it might also prove to be close. Earlier votes in Parliament did not pass with a supermajority, and votes on particular aspects of the regulation were very tight.
Also read:
- New combined transport definition is still too vague, says TRAN Committee
- MEPs approve Weights and Dimensions Directive to rail’s dismay
- ‘All modes need to be equally efficient,’ says EC’s transport officer
