PRESENTATION OF ERFA

Transcription

1 PRESENTATION OF ERFA European Rail Network for Competitive Freight - Context, policies and interests of private actors vs incumbents - Ms M. Heiming (ERFA) Workshop «Primary European Rail Freight Network» 8th October St Gallen (CH)

2 Foundation: July 2002 in Brussels (B) > ERFA Legal Status: Belgian non-profit making association (asbl) Member category: open access RU s, wagon keepers, forwarders & associations : 16 countries (EU and OTIF)

3 Company : 1. AAE (D) 2. ARRIVA (D) 3. Bertschi (CH) 4. Crossrail (CH/B) 5. Duisport Rail (D) 6. ERS (NL) 7. Europorte 2 (F) 8. Freightliner Group (UK) 9. Hector Rail (S) 10.Hupac (CH) 11.LTE (A) 12.Metallurgtrans (UA) 13.MEV Eisenbahn-Verkehrsges. (D) 14.Nord Cargo (I) 15.Pannontrain Vasúti (HU) 16.Servtrans (RO) 17.Transachema (LIT) 18.Transpetrol GmbH (D) 19.Veolia Cargo (F) 20.Viamont (CZ) 21.Wascosa (CH) Association : 1. ASSTRA (I) 2. Ferrmed (B) 3. Izba Gozpodarcza Transportu Ladowego (PL) 4. NetzwerkPrivatbahnen (D) 5. Rail Freight Group (UK) 6. Verband deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen (D) 7. Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Fachverband der Schienenbahnen (A)

4 Legal level 3rd Railway Package: Light Driver License 1st Railway Package: Enforcement & Review in 2009! Open-access to training institutes: Ensure non-discriminatory legislation in Belgium Cross-border Agreements: Abolishment or Open to All! Single wagon traffic: Lobby to open up relevant facilities Security of land-bound transport chain: Counter-lobby Technical level Rolling Stock: Homologation, Cross-acceptance, ERTMS funding ERA: Representation in most important working groups Dedicated freight network: Concerted lobby Noise abatement: Lobbying for EU-wide subsidies for k and ll brake shoes Industrial level TAF TSI: Implementation of SEDP and Funding General Contract of Use: Implementation; EU-wide keeper definition; EU-wide harmonised maintenance rules House of Rail : Joint lobby activities to support private sector PR level Financial level State aids Equal access to aid for all market actors Bottlenecks: Financing to relieve major bottlenecks Marco Polo II: Follow-up and support 7th FP RTD: Follow-up and rail-related research Conferences: Organisation of own events on particular themes; active contribution to external events Annual statutory reception Press: Theme-related and ad-hoc press articles Brochures & Studies: Theme-related publications for general and particular target groups

5 EU rail freight policy general trend Evolution from the EU to wider Europe (direction East and South)

6 relating to networks A few examples of EU initiatives already based on EU corridor-approach: Under way TAF TSI (telematic application to allow tracking & tracing of freight train movements on TEN networks) Revision TEN-T guidelines (identif. corridors networks) of of & upcoming Adoption of implement ation plan for quicker ERTMS deploymen t on most important TENsections (- > slide) Reduction of railway noise (via retrofitting of wagons and imposing noise thresholds on specific traffic corridors) ERNCF proposal Revision of 1st Railway Package regulating the access to EU markets (including access rights to ports / terminals / 1st mile / last mile) EU NRMM Directive on exhaust emission caps on network ERA WG on Cross- Acceptance of Rolling Stock + EN Standard for landbound transport chain security Eurovignette (inclusion of external costs on TENnetwork)

7 relating to rail network for competitive freight Main objectives of the EU with ERNCF: Development of an efficient and sustainable EU transport system (comodality) Construction of an integrated and competitive railway area Revitalisation of rail freight: major challenge for EU, but slight increase of its modal share Good & adequate infrastructure for rail freight via: Fostering the cooperation (investments & operations) between IM s Developing intermodality Balancing capacity and traffic management between passengers & freight traffic Increasing competition Decreasing problems (commercial speed, capacity, access to services & infrastructure, cross-border operations, path allocation, etc.) Legal form chosen: Regulation* (to limit the scope of interpretation and variances on national level) Provisions addressed mainly to economic actors (IMs) A Regulation is more appropriate than a directive for the monitoring of transnational capacity (cf energy, air, transport) EU DIR 2001/14: provisions concerning targeted challenges not sufficient (currently challenged by EU -> MST s) *see support chart at the end of the ppt

8 relating to rail network for competitive freight > ERFA Milestones of EU with ERNCF: The concept changed its name x times: Rail network giving priority to freight Freight Priority Network Freight Oriented Network October 2007: Commission Communication Towards a rail network giving priority to freight March/June 2008: Strategic group of experts April 2008: July 2008: July 2008: September 2008: September 2008: Support of Council with invitation to EC to design measures for achieving the efficient operation of international rail freight Support by EESC Public consultation Impact Assessment Support by European Parliament (Cramer Report) October 2009: Informal consultation of Rapporteurs (EP/Council) November 2009: Adoption of Regulation by Council ERNCF Early 2010: Ratification of Regulation by Council

9 relating to rail network for competitive freight > ERFA Main features of EU with ERNCF: Min 1 rail freight corridor / Member State Single technical standards (lauding gauge, train lengths, axle load, speed, etc.) Harmonised operational processes (timetables, slot allocation, slot prices??) Uniform corridor management structure Priority rules for international rail freight traffic Effective network with termnials and shunting facilities

10 EU and sector (incumbent/non-incumbent) interests Most relevant EU proposals* and arguments of sector (public/private) Article 3 Designation of initial freight corridors Each Member State must create at least 1 corridor in next 1-3 years (2 if annual performance > 30 Billion Tonnes.kms; 3 if annual performance > 70 Billion Tonnes.kms). EP: Council: wants at least 1 corridor per Member State wants a first list of corridors in the Regulation* Incumbents: no list, unilateral definition of corridor (no coherent view) ERFA: list to be established with and after consultation of ALL stakeholders using the corridor (shippers, Rus, etc.). Arguments: selection and design of corridors based on production systems of incumbents only! Member States Principal routes 1. NL, BE, DE, IT Zeebrugge - Antwerp/Rotterdam- -Duisburg-[Basel]-Milan-Genova 2. NL, BE, FR, LU Rotterdam-Antwerpen-Luxemburg-Metz-Dijon-Lyon/[Basel] 3. SE, DK, DE, AT, IT Stockholm-Malmö-Copenhagen-Hamburg-Innsbruck-Verona-Palermo 4. PT, ES, FR Sines-Lisboa/Leixões -Madrid-San Sebastian-Bordeaux-Paris-Metz Sines-Elvas/Algeciras 5. PL, CZ, SK, AT, IT, SI Gdynia-Katowice-Ostrava/Zilina-Vienna-Trieste/ Koper 6. ES, FR, IT, SI, HU Almería-Valencia/Madrid-Zaragoza/Barcelona-Marseille-Lyon-Turin-Udine-Trieste/ Koper-Ljubljana-Budapest-Zahony (Hungarian-Ukrainian border) 7. CZ, AT, SK, HU, RO, BG, EL - Bucharest-Constanta Prague-Vienna/Bratislava-Budapest -Vidin-Sofia-Thessaloniki-Athens 8. DE, NL, BE, PL, LT Bremerhaven/Rotterdam/Antwerp-Aachen/Berlin-Warsaw-Terespol (Poland-Belarus border)/kaunas 9. CZ, SK Prague - Horni Lideč - Žilina-Košice-Čierna nad Tisou - (Slovak/Ukrainian border ) * source: draft regulation of Council of 9th September 2009

11 EU and sector (incumbent/non-incumbent) interests Most relevant EU proposals* and arguments of sector (public/private) Article 7 Governance of Freight Corridors For each freight corridor, Member States shall set up: - 1 Executive Board (= Member States) - 1 Management Board = (IM s) - 1 Advisory Board (= terminal managers/owners) Incumbents: no RUs involved with corridor governance ERFA: Governance consultation with sector (as with Netzbeirat in Germany) for transparency reasons; exclusion of RU s from governance of freight corridors acceptable and in line with 1st Railway Package * source: draft regulation of Council of 9th September 2009

12 EU and sector (incumbent/non-incumbent) interests Most relevant EU proposals* and arguments of sector (public/private) Article 12 One-stop shop for application for infrastructure capacity Each Management Board per freight corridor shall set up a One-Stop Shop (OSS) for freight path requests crossing at least 1 border along the freight corridor. The OSS activities shall be transparent and non-discriminatory and subject to control of the regulatory bodies (+ article 17). Incumbents: no mandatory OSS; no regulation of OSS activities ERFA: strengthening and incentives for OSS s; no mandatory usage now but creation of incentives to use them in the long-term; regulation needed and already enshrined in Directive 2001/14/EC; strong cooperation and development of best practice of OSS s * source: draft regulation of Council of 9th September 2009

13 EU and sector (incumbent/non-incumbent) interests Most relevant EU proposals* and arguments of sector (public/private) Article 13 Capacity allocated to freight trains IM s shall jointly define & organise international prearranged train paths for freight trains (recognizing the needs of passenger transport) and publish them 3 months prior to the final date for receipt of requests for capacity. Paths to be allocated first to freight trains which cross at least 1 border. IM s shall also define reserve capacities (if market need exists) for the same type of trains for satisfy ad hoc requests (capacities to be reserved for max 90 days). Train paths for freight operations may not be cancelled < 1 month before the schedule (unless approval of applicant exists). Incumbents: no priority for freight trains; want allocation of freight paths only AFTER passenger timetable slots are allocated; keen to redefine slots with kind of time tranches ERFA: rail freight priority rules are needed to increase quality and reliability of rail freight; malus system in passenger prevents freight from claiming same rights. Production features between passenger and freight not identical. Freight network helps reducing potential for conflicts on mixed infrastructure. * source: draft regulation of Council of 9th September 2009

14 Comments > ERFA After 2 years of various lobby activities (EU, incumbent and private actors), the ERNCF regulation will see the light by early However, it remains to be seen in detail which of the respective features of the 3 main actors (EU, incumbent and ERFA) will finally be part of the regulation or not and to what extent. EU EU Regulation Full administration Full RB compet* Full liberalisation INC NO Regulation INC administration NO RB compet Limited liberalisation ERFA EU Regulation Flexible administration Full RB compet Full liberalisation Nevertheless, the quality of the ENRCF principles will depend on the implementation in practice by all actors concerned. For incumbents and ERFA alike, it should speed up rail freight production, decrease costs and make rail freight more competitive, as the title European Rail Network for Competitive Freight promises today. For the shippers and customers, a project to support!! *RB compet = competence of the Regulatory Body

15 Support chart Legal type Regulation Directive Decision Recommendation Opinion White Paper Green Paper Comment Binding in all its parts Addressed to everyone They are self-executing and directly applicable They do not require any national legislation Binding in terms of the results to be achieved Addressed to Member States Member States can choose form & method to realise Directive s objectives Member States will implement Directives via national implementing legislation Entirely binding Ruling on a particular matter Individual measure Addressed to specified recipients Report of EC on specific subject Non-binding statement Reflects opinion of EU institutions Contains a set of proposals for action In case of approval by the Council, it can lead to an EU action programme Launch consultation on EU level Consultation on Green Paper can lead to White Paper