Last July, the European Commission adopted a package of initiatives on "greening transport" which included a proposal amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, the so called “Eurovignette Directive.”
The Directive sets common rules on distance-related tolls and time-based user charges for heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures but it does not include external costs in road tolls. Member States are not required to introduce charging, but, if they choose to do so, they would be obliged to comply with the Directive’s rules.
According to the Commission draft proposal Member States would be allowed to charge heavy road users for the costs they incur on society such as congestion, air pollution and noise. Member States would be able although not obliged to integrate in tolls levied on road hauliers an amount which reflects the cost of air pollution and noise pollution caused by traffic.
The proposal would also allow, during peak periods, tolls to be calculated on the basis of the cost of congestion imposed upon other vehicles. The amount of the charge related to external costs such as air pollution, noise and congestion, will vary taking into account the vehicle environmental quality, vehicles' Euro emissions class type, and the travelled distance, location and time of use of roads.
According to Bertil Dahlin, president of the International Road Union's Goods Transport Liaison Committee, "The Eurovignette Directive will only make the EU less competitive, and is likely to cause even further delocalisation which will, in turn, generate more road transport from abroad!"
On 9 December, the Transports Council have reached no agreement as it was expected by the French presidency. The member states’ positions are too different as they have different interests. Spain, Portugal and Greece have raised concerns of competitiveness of their businesses with the revision of the Eurovignette Directive.
The Commission has chosen Article 71 EC, transport policy, as the legal basis for its proposal. However, some Member States cannot accept it as they believe that the common transport policy is not the right basis. They consider that Article 93 EC should be used as a legal basis since some of the proposal's provisions are related to taxation. In this case the proposal would require unanimity at the Council and the European Parliament would have a consultative role. Presently, the proposal is going through the codecision procedure with QMV required at the Council.
The existing Directive applies its rules only to tolling schemes on the Trans-European Road Network however Member States are allowed to apply charging regimes on other roads provided they respect the Community principles of non-discrimination and freedom of movement. Member States are allowed to apply, on roads within built-up areas, regulatory charges particularly intended to reduce road congestion or combat effects on the environment.
The Commission has proposed to extend the scope of the Directive in force beyond the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) to cover the entire national road network. Some Member States prefer to restrict the scope of the directive to the trans-European transport network (TEN-T).
Several Member States have not backed the inclusion of congestion as a chargeable external cost. They argued that traffic congestion problems are mostly caused by privately- owned cars and not lorries.
The draft proposal lays down certain rules in order to ensure that tolls based on external costs are applied homogeneously within the internal market. The draft proposal sets up common charging principles as well as a common method of calculating chargeable costs. Member States would be required to collect the charge through electronic collection systems. The Commission has proposed common charging principles, methods of calculation and unit values for external costs.
The Commission’s proposal provides that the calculation formula and the maximum amounts of the external cost charges may be amended by comitology. Several Member States are calling for greater flexibility. Those member states want to study the economic implications of applying the proposed calculation formula. Other Member States argued that they lacked the technological means to implement the calculation methods.
The UK Government is pleased with the Commission's proposed methodology for assessing the costs of externalities which is compatible with the UK approach to such calculations.
Under the Commission draft proposal Member States would not be allowed to include the cost of CO2 emitted by road transport in their toll tariffs. The Commission believes that fuel taxes are a more efficient way to internalise CO2 costs.
At the moment it would be optional for Member States to impose tolls and charges for transport-related environmental and social costs however the Commission will reserve the right to review the situation in 2013 and then it might become an obligation. In 2013 the Commission might decide to introduce a compulsory minimum charge. The Commission will also review in 2013 to assess whether Member States should be allowed to include the cost of CO2 emissions in tolls.
The European Parliament has recently adopted Saïd El Khadraoui’s report on revising the Eurovignette Directive.
According to the Commission proposal the toll’s revenue should be used to develop alternative infrastructure for transport users, to improve CO2 and energy performance of vehicles. Unsurprisingly, the European Parliament supports the Commission proposal to reinvest revenues into the transport system however it has proposed to strengthen even more the obligation how revenues should be used to reduce external costs. Under such proposal Member States would not be able to use the revenue from the road charging schemes as they wish and allocate it to their general budget.
Obviously, this is a highly controversial issue among the Member States. Member states’ want to keep control of the takings from these tolls. The UK Government as well as the majority of the Member States opposes mandatory earmarking of charges to various measures contributing to the sustainability of transport. The French Presidency has proposed to delete such obligation and replace it with a mere encouragement.
A struggle between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament is set to happen. Whereas the majority of the EU Member States are opposed to legally binding earmarking of revenues this is a "sine qua non" condition to the European Parliament. It remains to be seen what will come out from the negotiations.
The UK Government agrees that Member States should be free to adopt lorry charges reflecting external costs such as those relating to environmental, noise and congestion impacts but it is not considering such a scheme at the moment. The UK Government would not support any requirement to introduce lorry charges.
On 30 March, the EU’s transport ministers held a public policy debate on a draft Eurovignette directive. The Council has discussed the Czech Presidency compromise proposal. The EU Member States could not agree yet on the proposed revision of the Eurovignette Directive.
The scope of the Directive continues to be an issue. The Commission has proposed to extend the scope of the Directive to the entire national road network. According to several Member States such proposal breaches the principle of subsidiarity.
Under the Czech presidency compromise proposal the scope of the Directive would be limited to TEN-T roads and any “other additional sections of Member States’ motorway networks which are not part of the trans-European network.”
The main controversial point for the Council is whether or not to allow the Member States to include the costs of traffic congestion in the tolls. Whereas some Member States believe that if applied, congestion charging can have a disproportionate impact on the direct price of transport as well as it could have an unfair treatment on commercial road transport in comparison with other road users, for others it is the most important element of this proposal.
The Czech Presidency “In order to bridge the gap between Member States who are in favour of the inclusion of congestion costs and those who are opposed” proposed that congestion charging will be allowed 4 years after the entry into force of this directive.
Moreover, the presidency compromise text provides for rules “intended to ensure that the internalisation of congestion costs is not a means of generating additional income without any benefit for the road transport sector, but an instrument governed by strict rules that will contribute to the development of a sustainable transport system.”
The presidency text also imposes stricter conditions on Member States who want to charge for the cost of congestion.
Member States which want to apply a congestion charge would be required to establish an action plan to improve traffic capacity on the roads concerned. They would also be obliged to cease to apply the congestion charge on the road sections concerned where such measures fail to cut traffic jam. The presidency text also provides for “the obligation to obtain formal Commission authorisation before any implementation of such a system.”
The Czech EU presidency is expecting to reach an agreement at the Transport Council in June.