EU transport policy – on the right road?

One of the most important drivers in EU policy today is the environment: most notably climate change, global warming, and pollution. The European Shippers’ Council will be seeking to influence the direction and detail of those policies and initiatives in order to best suit those we represent – the shipper, the owner of the goods, whether retailers, manufacturers or wholesalers; companies that procure freight services, and sometimes even own, lease and operate their own ships, trucks, barges and rail wagons.  

Industry itself will try to reduce waste to reduce costs and support the environment. A standardised measurement of emissions and pollution needs to be developed to help industry identify what, for example, their carbon footprint is for different logistics and supply chain models. Only when it is standardised can effective decisions and choices be made. Various sectors are already producing and developing measures to help, but ESC is willing to proactively help facilitate a coordinated approach that seeks to find one standard acceptable by all.

Some industries are moving faster than others. The majority will need help to invest in new technology and cover the set-up costs of implementing new measures, new practices, new systems; they will need to be informed of best practice and encouraged to proactively engage with the groups and associations – like the ESC, to find out more. The providers of freight services will need to work with their customers in order to find economically and environmentally sustainable solutions. Policies from government are only needed where there are barriers to delivering what is required, quickly. Therefore ESC is calling for the following actions:

• Open the way to a Global ETS system for aviation and maritime transport

The Emission Trade Scheme (ETS) makes the user aware of the GHG emissions of different modes of transport. This may encourage more users to choose those modes with lower emissions. ESC places an important condition on the acceptance of the ETS for transport: it should become a global regime and not regional. A global ETS scheme that extended to transport would prevent companies from locating in those countries where the rules happen to be less stringent and from creating unfair competition: Such a scenario is often referred to as ‘carbon leakage’.

• Open the way to Eco-combi’s in Europe

ESC is calling for policies that enable road freight to become more efficient, reduce their impact on the environment and serve industry better: in this regard we call for eco-combis, the European Modular System – where truck and trailer combinations carry more efficiently and with fewer trips the same or increased loads.

 • Open the way to unrestricted cabotage

ESC calls for cabotage restrictions to be removed so that shippers can get the best operational efficiencies from the haulage sector and reduce empty running of vehicles.

• Open up the accessibility of hinterland and inland waterways

Infrastructure and its development represents the foundation stone for reliable and efficient freight services: without the adequate provision of the right type of infrastructure at the right time and at the right price, freight services would be unable to operate effectively and efficiently. More transport would be required to support industry’s needs, and this would create more emissions and environmental consequences. ESC supports greater investment in hinterland infrastructure wherever a sound business case and freight demand forecasts reveal it is necessary and represents good value for money. The balance must be made, however, between costs and environmental benefit.

• Open access to rail freight infrastructure (including yards and marshalling areas)

ESC calls for policies to improve the efficiency and therefore appeal of rail freight – with open access to terminals, and yards and rail infrastructure and the creation of priority rail freight networks which place the users (shippers) within the management structure of these – not exclude them as current proposals suggest. Frankly, if you want to see more rail freight you must do these things – there is no other way but to open the mindset to embrace inclusivity in the management and shaping of future rail freight strategy rather than the exclusivity that exists in the rail sector today among the Member States administrations governing railways, the incumbent operators and among the rail infrastructure managers.

• Open the way to European Rail Freight Corridors

There is a wide and genuine interest in the potential of a truly open and interoperable rail network for international rail freight across Europe. The time has come for a step-change in the way we manage the infrastructure and services. Managing corridors, that run across borders and through member states, as a single entity rather than separate rail networks would represent a major opportunity to be grabbed with both hands for the sake of the economy and the environment.

• Open the debate on implementation of IMO marine fuel requirements

Newly introduced requirements on the use of low sulphur fuel for the maritime sector are inconsistent with the principles of the European Single Market. The requirements to use ultra-low sulphur fuel for all shipping entering and operating within the English Channel, North Sea and Baltic Sea has the very real potential of introducing significant costs for ship operators and users, and raise serious competitive issues for the ports, terminal operators and other freight industry service providers within those areas. The policy, therefore, results in unfair discrimination against those businesses in northern and north-western Europe, whilst favouring those sometimes competing businesses in the west, east and south.

This could create a distortion of trade and unfair competition, and as such should not be implemented as currently presented.

The policy could deter many freight transport users from using shipping services; whilst some may switch to rail if the services are available, the majority will switch instead to road. Whereas ESC does support lower emission of sulphur oxides from ships and believes that both the shipping industry and the users should take their responsibility to proactively seek and invest in ways to achieve this aim, it finds the regional rules in the North European (so-called) Emissions Control Areas (ECAs) unacceptable due to the competitive disadvantages it would create.

• Open up the debate on the ‘polluter pays’

And we also ask for a debate about the reality of applying a ‘Polluter Pays’ principle in our environmental and transport policies. If the application of this policy merely punishes rather than incentivises reduced emissions, if it does not facilitate mitigation of the effects of pollution or sustainable and viable alternatives in order to avoid producing the pollution, then we are simply adding costs to our economy and solving nothing.

• Open the way for removal of Operating Restrictions

Removal of operating restrictions that result in less efficient and increased freight transport activity must be examined. Often, the night time or weekends can be the best time for freight to move, avoiding peak time traffic congestion and the associated higher emissions; reducing accidents, delays and the need for more transport to compensate. Yet these are often the periods of the day or week when restrictions apply. Restrictions placed on industry need to be evaluated on the basis that they may be increasing road transport congestion, accidents, pollution, noise and traffic. Industry too should be cognizant of the benefits of adjusting work patterns (deliveries, production schedules, opening hours, etc), avoiding peak traffic periods, improving the turnaround time of freight vehicles and trailers (loading/unloading), to optimise and reduce transport use. Industry, planners and regulators need to work more closely together and have equal responsibility to find the optimum solutions.

• Open Skies and airport capacity

Greater reliability of air freight services as a result of fewer delays in the air and on the ground will positively contribute to lower emissions. Furthermore, shippers will need fewer air freight services because they can reduce inventories and only ship what is needed when it is needed, rather than holding excess freight in storage as a buffer stock.

Open your mind!

Comparison of the environmental benefits between rail and road should be undertaken with care. Invariably one is not comparing like with like. Trains may run on electricity or diesel: both have environmental consequences in terms of their use and production. Freight trains often run empty or below their full capacity but the comparisons do not always reflect this. Track conditions (affecting traction) and geography can also increase the energy required to move trainloads. Most train journeys have a road leg at either end: the handling and road legs are often omitted from any road-rail comparisons. Simply relying on tired stereotype images and perceptions of different modes, the actors and their roles within the supply chain, may prevent you from seeing the reality: industry, policy makers and all stakeholders from both the public/private transport sector and the freight industry need to engage together and open their minds more in order to find and make the best decisions for business and the environment together.