COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 with a view to adapting them to developments in the sector PART 2/2 - Hoofdinhoud

Council of the European Union

Brussels, 1 June 2017 (OR. en)

9668/17

Interinstitutional File: ADD 3

2017/0123 (COD) i

TRANS 212 CODEC 923 IA 100

COVER NOTE

From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director

date of receipt: 1 June 2017

To: Mr Jeppe TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union

No. Cion doc.: SWD(2017) 194 final PART 2/2

Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i

and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 i with a view to adapting them to developments in the sector

 PART 2/2

Delegations will find attached document SWD(2017) 194 final PART 2/2.

Encl.: SWD(2017) 194 final PART 2/2

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 31.5.2017 SWD(2017) 194 final

PART 2/2

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

amending Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 i with a view to adapting them to developments in the sector

{COM(2017) 281 final i}

{SWD(2017) 195 final}

Annex 1: Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the impact assessment report and the related initiative

Lead DG

The lead DG for this initiative is DG MOVE. This impact assessment report concerns two initiatives with Agenda planning references 2015/MOVE/029 - "Access to the road transport profession – Reg. 1071/2009" and 2016/MOVE/022 - "Access to the EU road haulage market – Reg. 1072/2009".

Foreseen adoption date: 31 May 2017

Organisation and timing

The initiative was validated in March 2016 and the impact assessment work started immediately afterwards. It lasted until April 2017.

The Inter-service Steering Group was chaired by the Secretariat-General with the close involvement of DG MOVE. All consultations of the associated DGs were closely coordinated between the two services. Besides from the current initiative (revision of Reg. 1071/2009 and Reg. 1072/2009), the Inter-service Steering Group was in charge of the revision of Directive 2006/1/EC i on the use of hired vehicles in international road transport.

The following DGs participated in the Inter-service Steering Group: LS, DG HOME, DG ECFIN, DG CNECT, DG COMP, JRC, DG RTD, DG GROW, DG EMPL, DG ENV, DG TAXUD and DG CLIMA.

Four Inter-service Steering Group meetings were held on 14 April 2016, 15 December 2016,

17 February 2017 and 5 April 2017 1 .

Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board ("RSB") was consulted on 29 March 2017. The RSB issued a positive opinion with reservations. The main points raised were the following:

 The Impact Assessment report did not sufficiently demonstrate the size of the

problems, in particular how illegal cabotage and letterbox companies affect the

market and how operations with light commercial vehicles ("LCV") are developing.

 This being a REFIT initiative, the scale of existing regulatory burdens should be

better quantified and their link to the proposed policy options better justified.

 The report should better explain the rationale and different components of certain

policy options.

 The report should explain better the interactions between this file and the initiative on

road social legislation.

These points were addressed in the following way:

 Additional quantitative and qualitative information was added in the problem

definition on the impacts of letterbox companies, illegal cabotage, regulatory burdens for hauliers and enforcement costs for national authorities. This included, for example, a rough estimation of the impacts of letterbox companies in terms of lost revenues for the Member States where the hauliers should be established (i.e. the Member State where they actually operate). On illegal cabotage, a rough estimation of the damage on compliant hauliers was calculated on the basis of the sanctions set by Member States for cabotage infringements. The evolution of LCVs was improved,

but quantitative data remains limited.

 The REFIT nature of the initiative was further emphasised in the problem definition,

where a quantification of the regulatory burdens for hauliers and enforcement costs for national authorities was retrieved from the ex post evaluation and from a study performed in the context of the eCMR protocol. The impacts of the proposed policy

measures on regulatory costs are also better captured.

 Regarding the policy options, the rationale for the structure of the policy options was

improved and several policy measures were better explained.

 The interactions between this initiative and the initiative on road social legislation

were better explained in the problem definition and baseline. Notably, the relation between this initiative, the ongoing revision of the Posting of Workers Directive (Commission proposal already adopted) and the intended proposal concerning the application of posting rules to transport, which is currently being considered under the social initiative, were explained. The interaction in terms of impacts of the different measures under the internal market and social file were also further explained,

whenever relevant.

Several other points which were revised:

 Regarding LCVs, it was better explained why this is an issue in the absence of solid

quantitative data. The link with ex post evaluation was included and the political context was better presented. The preferred option of a "light touch approach" and the

choice of criteria on access to profession extended to LCVs were also better justified.

 A series of indicators for the future ex post evaluation of the revised Regulations were

added.

 The policy measure concerning the pre-notification of cabotage was moved out of

policy option 2, leading to different impacts of the different policy options.

Data used in impact assessment and external expertise

The Commission sought external expertise in the economic field through a contract for a support study with Ricardo et al. The findings of the support study fed into the final impact

assessment report 2 . In the course of the support study, a wide range of stakeholders was

consulted to confirm the scope and the magnitude of the problems and to provide their views

on the potential solutions to these problems 3 . This IA support study itself followed up from

the support study for the ex post evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i and Regulation

(EC) No 1072/2009 carried out by the same consultant 4 . In parallel to the external studies, the

2 [Insert link once published].

3 See Annex 2 with the Synopsys report of the consultation activities for further details.

4 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/facts-fundings/evaluations/doc/2015-12-ex-post-evaluation

href="http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/facts-fundings/evaluations/doc/2015-12-ex-post-evaluation-regulations-2009r1071-and-2009r1072.pdf">regulations-2009r1071-and-2009r1072.pdf

This study was the main basis for the Commission's ex post evaluation of the Regulations:

Commission services sought further expertise and input from stakeholders by means of

dedicated meetings throughout the impact assessment, an open public consultation 5 , as well as

a dedicated Road Transport Forum co-organised by the Commission and the European University Institute (Florence School of Regulation) on 23 January 2017.

Other sources of data used included:

– Report on the State of the Union Road Transport Market (COM(2014)222 i) adopted in April 2014;

– Draft Impact Assessment accompanying a possible proposal for a Regulation amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009 i and (EC) No 1072/2009 (April 2013; unpublished);

– Report of the High Level Group on the Development of the EU Road Haulage Market of June 2012;

– Final reports by AECOM in preparation of the Impact Assessment above and the Report on the EU Road Transport Market below (February 2014);

– EP study "Development and implementation of EU road cabotage" of March 2013;

– Results of public consultation by High-Level Group in 2011;

– Member State reports on the activities of the competent authorities delivered to the Commission under Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i;

– Member State reports on the activities of the competent authorities delivered to the Commission under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 i (unpublished; fed into the Report on the State of the Union Road Transport Market prepared by the Commission mentioned above).

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/swd20160350.pdf

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation synopsis report

• 1. 

  Introduction

This report provides a summary of the outcomes of the stakeholder consultation activities which were carried out as part of the study to support the impact assessment.

It provides a basic analysis of the range of stakeholder groups that were engaged in those activities and a summary of the main issues which they raised.

The objectives of the consultation activities were to:

 Provide to the wide public and stakeholders an opportunity to express their views on

the importance and severity of the problems and issues related to the current legal framework, as identified in the ex post evaluation study, in order to help formulate and

refine the problem definition;

 Gather specialised input (data and factual information, expert views) on specific

aspects of the legislation from the enforcement community and from the industry; and

 Gather input (data and/or estimates, expert views) on the expected impact and level of

support of a set of measures intended to address issues and problems identified in the current legal framework.

The consultation activities included:

 An open public consultation organised by the Commission services which was

launched on 15/06/2016 and lasted until 15/09/2016 (12 weeks);

 An SME panel survey organised by the Commission services launched on 26/09/2016

and which lasted until 11/11/2016 (8 weeks);

 A survey of road transport operators organised by the consultant responsible for the

support study, which was launched on 07/11/2016 and remained open until 16/12/2016 (6 weeks);

 A survey of national authorities responsible for implementation and enforcement of

the legal framework organised by the consultant responsible for the support study, which was launched on 07/11/2016 and remained open until 16/12/2016 (6 weeks);

 31 telephone interviews with a number of stakeholders, including industry

representatives, trade unions, national authorities and individual hauliers conducted by the consultant responsible for the support study and its partners, which took place

during the period 15/11/2016 to 13/1/2017;

 Stakeholder seminars and discussions at several different events.

• 2. 

  Methodology

2.1. Open public consultation (OPC)

The objectives of the OPC were to help verify the problems faced by the sector, as identified in the ex-post evaluation, validate the objectives of the possible policy intervention and obtain the opinion of stakeholders on the appropriateness and expected impacts of the possible policy measures to address those problems.

A total of 175 responses were received, covering a variety of stakeholder groups, as shown in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Classification of stakeholders responding to the public consultation

Stakeholder category Number of responses % of responses

Medium and large hauliers (road transport 23 13% and shipping enterprises with 50 or more employees.)

Small hauliers (road transport and freight 18 10% forwarding enterprises with 49 or fewer employees)

Logistics industry representatives 17 10%

(associations representing shipping, freight forwarding and combined transport mode enterprises)

Associations representing road transport 33 19% workers and individual workers

Transport operators’ associations 48 27%

(associations representing road transport operators, the transport chain and contracting authorities)

National authorities and relevant 18 10% associations (enforcement authorities, national ministries and Inter-governmental organisation)

Other 18 10%

Total 175 100%

Notes: “Other” is based on the respondents’ choice and includes: Non-governmental transport organisations (five respondents), individual citizens and consumers (four respondents), consultancies (two respondents), trade associations (two respondents), a motoring organisation, a tachograph analysis provider, an association representing SME’s and a national business organisation.

Responses were received from respondents residing in, or organisations based in, 22 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom), as well as from Serbia, Switzerland and Norway. 65% of responses were from EU-15 Member States.

Moreover, as part of the public consultation 22 position papers were received from a variety of stakeholders including industry associations, workers organisations, national authorities, enforcement organisations, NGOs and experts.

2.2. SME Survey

The Commission SME panel survey focussed on issues around the use of light commercial vehicles (LCVs) in road transport and the potential impact of policy measures related to the extension of the scope of the legal framework to cover LCVs.

A total of 17 responses were received, including 7 providers of road freight transport services using owned or hired vehicles for hire and reward, 7 firms that use owned or hired goods vehicles for the transport of their own goods ("own account operators") and 8 users of road

freight transport services 6 , as shown in the table below.

The respondents represented a range of firms operating domestically and internationally, from six different Member States. The majority of the responses came from firms with less than 10 employees (11 respondents, 65%). Only 5 respondents (29%) were firms with 10-49 employees and there was only 1 response (6%) from a firm with 50-249 employees. The small sample size made it difficult to draw significant conclusions from the SME survey.

2.3. National Authority and Haulier Surveys

In the course of the study, by the consultant responsible for the support study carried out two surveys: one of national transport ministries and national enforcers and one of individual hauliers.

The survey of authorities aimed to obtain the views of the national authorities on the proposed policy measures in terms of their expected impact on the implementation and enforcement of the legal framework and to obtain data or estimates of the possible costs for authorities from the proposed measures. A total of 18 responses were received, covering 16

Member States 7 and 1 from Euro-Contrôle-Route.

The survey of hauliers was intended to obtain relevant data from transport operators on costs and characteristics of operations that could be used in the assessment of the impacts (as part of the baseline scenario) and also their views and estimates on the costs or savings from the policy measures under consideration.

A total of 80 firms responded to the survey of hauliers. As Table 2-3 shows, the majority of the responses were received from two EU-13 countries - Poland (39% of the responses) and Bulgaria (31% of the responses). Responses from EU-15 countries were limited despite the fact that national associations in a number of them (DE, DK, IE, UK, FR) encouraged their members to contribute. Overall, the number of responses is considered low, although it still provides a basis for assessing impacts of different measures and, critically, making comparisons between hauliers based in EU15 and EU13 Member States.

Table 2-2: Responses to the hauliers' survey

Member State Number of responses Percentage

EU13 55 69%

Poland 31 39%

Bulgaria 24 31%

EU15 25 31%

Belgium 13 16%

Denmark 2 3%

France 1 1%

Germany 7 9%

United Kingdom 1 1%

Ireland 1 1%

Total 80 100%

6 Respondents could indicate more than one type of activity. Some hauliers operated both for hire and reward

and for own account. This is why the total number of hauliers having responded (17) does not match the sum of the respondents in each category

2.4. Stakeholder interviews

The telephone interviews included 5 initial exploratory interviews (three EU-level organisations and two national enforcement authorities) to get information necessary to prepare the effective consultation activities, followed by 31 more semi-structured telephone interviews covering a range of stakeholders across the EU – at national and EU level (see Table 2-4).

The aim of the interviews was to gather more detailed insight on the stakeholders' experiences with regard to the different measures under consideration, obtain data or estimates on costs and views on possible issues and difficulties that may arise in relation to each measure. In some cases, the interviews built on the input provided by the same stakeholders to the survey of authorities or hauliers.

Table 2-3: Summary of interview programme

Type of Stakeholder Number of

interviews Member States completed covered

Transport Company 4 BG, DE, DK, ES

International transport Companies 1 EU wide

National Transport companies Associations 16 BG, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FR, IT, LV, NL, PL, RO, UK

National Authorities (Transport Ministries and 6 BG, DE, LV, PL, Enforcement Authorities) RO, UK

International Association of Transport Companies 2 EU wide

Total 31

2.5. Seminars and other discussions

The Commissioner in charge of Transport Policy and DG MOVE organised several stakeholder seminars, meetings and other events during the course of the ex post evaluation

and impact assessment of this initiative, involving the social partners. They also participated

in several initiatives organised by the social partners, notably:

 Seminar on internal market policy initiative in September 2015;  Meeting between Commissioner Bulc and the European Transport Workers Federation

(ETF) on 17 December 2015;

 ETF working group meeting on 13 January 2016;  Sectorial dialogue committee in road transport on 19 January 2016;  ETF meeting as part of the targeted consultation on the ex-post evaluation of social

legislation in road transport on 15 March 2016;

 Sectorial dialogue committee on road transport on 15 June 2016 and 16 November

2016;

 Florence Road Transport Forum on 15 July 2016 organised by the European

University Institute, with the participation of Commissioner Bulc and follow-up

seminar on 23 January 2017;

 Meeting between Commissioner Bulc and ETF on 24 January 2017.

The objective of these initiatives was to involve from an early stage the social partners in the

discussions, so that their input was taken into account in the design of the possible policy

intervention.

2.6. Conclusions and limitations

The objectives of the consultation activities have been largely achieved. All relevant stakeholders groups representing all EU Member States have been consulted and most provided their views, together with some quantitative information, where available, related to existing issues and the policy measures under consideration.

The information collected corresponded in general to the objectives and expectations of the consultation activities defined for each stakeholder group, although in a number of cases stakeholders were unable to quantify the expected costs or savings of the proposed measures. Furthermore, the number of responses to some of the consultation activities were below expectation. The responses to the SME panel survey were limited (17) and as a result it was not possible to draw significant conclusions from the analysis of the responses. The responses to the hauliers survey were also relatively limited (80) and the majority of the responses were received from two Member States - Poland (39% of the responses) and Bulgaria (31% of the responses). Still, it provided a basis for assessing impacts of different measures and, critically, making comparisons between hauliers based in EU15 and EU13 Member States. The targeted interviews with individual firms and other stakeholders helped address some of these data gaps, at least to some extent.

• 3. 

  Summary of input

3.1. Stakeholder input on problems with current legislation

Stakeholders provided significant input that helped validate and elaborate the definition of the problem and the areas where changes are considered necessary. Input in this area came primarily from the OPC and the SME panel survey and to a lesser extent from the other stakeholder engagement tools used.

The sections below summarise the inputs provided that covered the problems and what are considered to be the underlying causes and drivers of these problems.

 Presence of an uneven playing field between resident and non-resident operators;

 High regulatory burden of current legal framework;

 Inconsistent and ineffective enforcement of the legal framework;

 Differences in the implementation of the rules among Member States in a number of

areas.

3.1.1. Factors undermining fair competition between resident and non-resident transport operators

The majority of stakeholders supported the view that letterbox companies represent a problem. Among the OPC respondents, 43% considered it widespread practice for operators to set up subsidiaries that do not actually conduct their own operations and only 9% indicated that this is only a minor issue. The most concerned groups were road transport workers’ associations, small hauliers and individual workers. It was largely felt that this leads to a competitive disadvantage for hauliers from some Member States, with 70% of responses indicating this.

As regards cabotage, 126 respondents (75%) to the OPC questionnaire considered that the cabotage rules are insufficiently clear with little variance of opinion between respondent groups. The underlying reasons for the presence of illegal cabotage are considered to be inconsistent enforcement and lack of clarity of rules.

3.1.2. Regulatory burden of the current legal framework

There are different views among stakeholders as to the regulatory burden of the legal framework. 43% of respondents (65 out of 153 respondents) consider the costs of compliance for transport operators to be at least important, whereas 62 respondents consider the costs to be of little importance or not significant at all. Hauliers, national authorities, and consumers consider the compliance costs for transport operators are important. Medium and large hauliers display the greatest agreement, with 13 of 18 respondents (72%) considering these costs as at least important to road transport operators (4 respondents suggested they were very important). By contrast, responses from associations representing road transport workers and individual workers consider the costs to be of little importance, with 10 of 16 respondents indicating this. Whereas respondents did not report on the reasons why they think that costs for hauliers to comply with the Regulations are high or not, it can be presumed that hauliers are in a better position to judge about the importance of the costs they incur to comply with the Regulations than other categories of stakeholders. This could be the situation in particular in the case of drivers hired by medium and large hauliers, who are less acquainted with the administrative and accounting parts of the business.

Respondents from EU-13 Member States felt that the costs of compliance are more important for road transport operators. 25 of 32 respondents (78%) from EU-13 States felt the costs to be at least important, whereas, by contrast, only 27 of 90 respondents (31%) from EU-15 States felt the same way. This is also a picture from the hauliers survey where, according to the input provided, only 4 out of the 25 (16%) EU-15 respondents considered the costs of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i to be above 5% of their annual operating costs, while in the case of EU13, 31 out of 55 (56%) respondents considered the costs to exceed 5%. In the case of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 i, the respective answers were 4 out of 25 (16%) for EU-15 and 17 out of 55 (30%) for EU-13.

3.1.3. Inconsistent and ineffective enforcement of legal framework

Stakeholders pointed to a number of areas where there is inconsistent and ineffective enforcement of the legal framework.

Lack of cooperation between Member States was identified as one of the underlying causes. 125 of 167 (75%) respondents to the OPC suggested there were at least some cases of Member States not cooperating in relation with compliance with the stable and effective establishment criterion. This view was consistent across all respondent categories, although the share of those who believe that Member States in general are not cooperating well varies. For example, respondents from associations representing road transport workers and individual workers felt strongly that Member States are generally not cooperating (81% of respondents), whilst only 19% of respondents from national authorities and relevant associations agreed. 57% of respondents felt that this problem leads to a competitive disadvantage to hauliers from some Member States. This view was shared by all respondent categories.

Significant variation in the level of control exercised by Member States with regards to cabotage rules was another aspect identified by most stakeholders. 120 out of 167 respondents agreed that there is significant variation (72%), with 51 respondents indicating there is very significant variation. EU-15 and EU-13 based respondents showed similar patterns. The majority of OPC respondents (99 out of 123; 77%) also felt strongly that this variation would lead to a competitive disadvantage to hauliers from some Member States, where enforcement levels may be more stringent.

Stakeholders agreed that the current regulations are difficult to enforce, with 119 of 168 (71%) indicated this and only 28 (17%) considering that the rules are easy to enforce. This is also considered to lead to a competitive disadvantage for hauliers from some Member States, with 98 of 125 respondents indicating that this has a very important impact. With the exception of small hauliers, all other groups share the belief that the rules are difficult to enforce. In particular, national authorities and the relevant associations overwhelmingly felt that the regulations were difficult to enforce. 16 of 17 respondents from this category indicated this. In general, respondents from both EU-15 and EU-13 agreed that the rules are largely difficult to enforce. Only respondents based in France felt that these rules were easy to enforce (17 of 20 respondents).

3.1.4. Shortcomings of the rules

Stakeholders provided input in relation to a number of aspects and issues where there appear to be shortcomings. In relation to the implementation of Regulation 1071/1009, 43% of respondents to the OPC questionnaire felt that the imposition of additional conditions on access to the occupation of road haulier by some Member States constitutes a major problem for the road haulage sector (75% felt it is a least a minor problem). This is a view broadly shared by all the respondent categories to differing extents. Respondents from logistics industry representatives and national authorities were least likely to consider this a problem. Even in these cases, however, respondents felt that this constitutes at least a minor problem for the haulage sector, reflective of the conclusion drawn from the overall distribution. Additionally, this is a view shared by EU-13 and EU-15 based respondents, suggesting that it is considered to be a widespread issue for the road haulage sector.

The respondents felt that the options left for Member States concerning the "good repute" criterion constitutes a major problem. 70% of respondents indicated this, whilst only 4% indicated that this was not a problem. This view is fairly consistent across all respondent categories. Responses from small hauliers, association representing road transport workers and individual workers felt most strongly that this is a major problem. The respondents also felt that this has led to a very important impact on the equality of competitiveness of hauliers across Member States, and important compliance cost considerations.

Variation of the sanctions for infringements of the Regulations between Member States is another area where there are obvious differences. Most respondents (74%) to the OPC questionnaire considered this to be a major problem and only 15% of respondents didn’t consider this a problem. Most of the respondent categories tend to agree with this general view. However, associations representing road transport workers and individual workers most strongly oppose this conclusion. Both EU-15 and EU-13 based respondents had similar response profiles. There is a consensus that this is a major problem for the road haulage sector, with very few responses indicating that it is not a problem.

3.2. Stakeholder input on policy measures considered

Stakeholders provided input on the level of support and expected impacts of the policy measures under consideration. Input came from respondents to the OPC, the SME panel (in relation to the extension of the scope of the Regulations) and from the surveys and the interviews. An analysis of the input provided by stakeholders on the main (and more controversial) policy measures (essentially those in policy packages 3 and 4) is presented below.

3.2.1. Review of the criteria for stable and effective establishment

The proposal to review the criteria for stable and effective establishment to better ensure that road hauliers have a real activity garnered a mixed response from the OPC respondents. 56% of respondents agreed with the proposal to some extent (40% fully agreed), 37% expressed some disagreement (34% didn’t agree at all). Disaggregation by stakeholder category yields a set of differing opinions. Respondents from associations representing transport workers and individual works were most in favour of the suggestion (16 of 21 responses expressed full agreement). When the results are disaggregated by EU-13 and EU-15 groups, there is clearly an opposing opinion prevalent between the two groups. Respondents from EU-15 MS were more in favour of the criteria being reviewed, whereas respondents from EU-13 MS expressed much more disagreement

Most interview respondents considered the proposed changes to the definition of stable and effective establishment to be positive, however there was still a wide range of opinions on each specific measure. In particular, many respondents indicated that the requirement that core business documents can be accessed from the physical office, the requirement that the operator be subject to the fiscal system of the Member State of establishment and pay taxes relative to the revenues arising from its activity there and the requirement that the operator has a transport manager, were already in place in many EU-15 Member States. The other two proposed changes, namely the requirement that the operator has commercial contracts with clients established in that Member State and the requirement that the operator holds assets and employs staff in the Member State, were viewed positively by some respondents, but not considered appropriate by others.

The respondents to the national authorities’ survey supported the proposed additional requirements. Most respondents indicated a small or significant contribution to the reduction of letterbox companies in their Member State from the addition of each proposed measure. EU-15 based authorities were more likely to support these additions, compared to EU-13 based authorities. The authorities either did not know whether the measure would change the costs for their organisation, or stated that the costs would stay about the same.

Respondents to the hauliers’ survey also agreed that these measures would help prevent letterbox companies. Most significantly, 54 (68%) respondents supported the requirement that the original hauliers licence, labour contracts and other core business documents can be accessed from the physical office. All of the measures were more likely to be supported by EU-15 based hauliers, compared to EU-13 based hauliers. Furthermore, the requirement for core documents to be accessed from the physical office was also considered to have the smallest impact on hauliers’ overhead costs, compared to the other options.

3.2.2. Review of cabotage rules

Stakeholders were asked to comment on the appropriateness and possible impacts of changes to the definition of cabotage, including a removal of the maximum number of cabotage operations (currently 3), while reducing the maximum period for cabotage operations (currently 7 days).

Respondents to the OPC gave mixed responses to the proposed changes. 27% of respondents agreed with the measure, whilst 30% of respondents disagreed. Any conclusions drawn from this question, however, are hampered by the large share of respondents who were unsure whether this measure would be an acceptable solution. There is, however, large disagreement between stakeholder groups. For example, of the 21 respondents from associations representing road transport works and individual workers, 18 disagreed with the measure. By contrast, only 3 of the 18 respondents from the medium and large hauliers stakeholder category disagreed. 10 agreed with the measure, whilst the remainder were either unsure of the impacts or held no view. The distribution of results is fairly similar when split by EU-15 and EU-13 Member States, suggesting that the location of the respondents is not indicative of whether they agree with the measure.

A number of respondents (73) also provided more detailed comments on this topic, indicating a very strong response rate to this part of the survey. For example, a number of respondents interpreted the proposal as a step towards the liberalisation of the road haulage sector. This would lead to a shift towards low-cost suppliers, thereby effectively sacrificing social and working conditions in an effort to succeed in the market. The latter point about deteriorating working conditions as a result of the proposed measure is echoed by several respondents. Additionally, it was felt that domestic markets are likely to suffer due to the relaxation of the cabotage rules, which would allow cost-cutting international suppliers to compete on domestic levels across the EU. However, a few respondents indicated that removing the restrictions could have a positive impact on the road haulage sector. It was suggested by several respondents that it would introduce a degree of clarity for hauliers about the rules and hence remove legal uncertainty.

The results from the interviews were clearer on this question. Nearly all respondents interviewed agreed that removing the maximum number of cabotage operations would have a positive impact, as they are very difficult to enforce. However, there was a wide range of opinions on the time period over which cabotage operations should be allowed, ranging from 1 day to no limit. EU-15 based respondents favoured lower limits of 3 or 4 days for cabotage, while EU-13 based respondents tended to suggest at least 7, with some suggesting a 10 or 14- day period. Respondents to the hauliers’ survey considered that the removal of the maximum number of cabotage operations, while keeping the time limit, would have a positive impact. However, they expressed mixed opinions on the maximum period during which cabotage operations should take place. 31 (39%) respondents indicated that a 7-day maximum period would be appropriate, while a further 25 (31%) suggested other maximum limits ranging from 1 to 30 days. In general, EU-15 based respondents were more in favour of shorter maximums than EU-13 based respondents.

There were some indications from the survey of hauliers that this policy would have an impact on overhead costs due to a loss in flexibility to organise transport. The reported weighted average increase in overhead costs due to this measure was 3.5%, with the bulk of costs reported by EU-13 firms (5.2% weighted average increase) while the weighted average reported costs for EU-15 firms was -0.8% from this measure (i.e. it would result in cost savings). The responses to the survey did not directly elaborate on the underlying reasons for these changes, but input from the interviews with industry associations suggested that increases in overhead costs could arise because hauliers would find it more difficult to locate appropriate loads within a 4-day limit, and compliance could be more challenging in larger countries (NL, DK, CZ, BG). This is also reflected in the responses to the hauliers’ survey where it was suggested that cabotage behaviour in terms of number of trips and distance per trip would not substantially change under this measure, i.e. the limitation on cabotage activity is more to do with the number of trips that can be physically carried out per day given the distances involved and hence removal of the number of operations does not have a large impact on cabotage activity parameters.

The national authorities’ survey respondents indicated a mixed view on these measures. Some respondents thought that the measures would reduce the effectiveness of enforcement, while others thought that it would increase the effectiveness. Furthermore, the respondents were evenly split between the suggestion of 4 days and 7 days maximum period for cabotage operations, whit several respondents also indicating other responses which varied from 2 days to 10 days. Authorities were also divided on the suggestion of a minimum time waiting time between cabotage periods, with some indicating 3 days, some 7, and some suggesting that no limit should be in place.

3.2.3. Extension of scope to LCVs

In the case of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i, overall there was very strong agreement with this measure by the OPC questionnaire respondents. 57% of respondents who did not propose alternative measures expressed full agreement with this, whilst a further 15% agreed to a lesser extent. Only 19% expressed disagreement of any kind. Hauliers showed strong agreement with the proposal (21 of 28 respondents from either small, or medium and large haulier groups). When disaggregated by EU-13/EU-15, there are no significant differences.

The area where respondents felt this proposed measure would have the greatest positive impact is on the working conditions within the haulage sector. 66% of respondents felt it would have an overall positive effect, whereas, by contrast, only 5% felt it would have a negative effect. The primary area where the measure was thought to have a negative impact was on the administrative burden of public and enforcement authorities.

Most of the respondents to the SME panel survey agreed that the regulations should be the same for all vehicle categories, and that the proposed requirements for LCVs would have no effect on the use of LCVs, with some respondents saying that there may be a small increase in costs for firms. All of the benefits suggested by the questionnaire were agreed with by a majority of the respondents.

Respondents to the national authorities’ survey were quite evenly divided between agreeing that the same requirements should apply for all vehicle categories and disagreeing that the same requirements should apply in the case of LCVs. This differed from the overall trend seen in the OPC, as a greater share of respondents disagreed with this policy option. All four requirements were viewed equally, with the same number of respondents indicating agreement and disagreement. However, when split by geographical location, EU-15 based national authorities were more likely to agree with this option than EU-13 based authorities.

Most respondents to the hauliers’ survey indicated that the extension of the requirements to LCVs would either increase their use of LCVs, or have no effect. Very few respondents indicated that the extension would reduce their use of LCVs or result in them stopping using LCVs. The responses varied depending on whether the haulier used LCVs or HGVs or both, with LCV users the most positive about the extension, LCV and HGV users mostly expecting no effect and HGV users finding the change not applicable.

The input from individual interviewees showed a similar response to the extension to LCVs to that seen in the OPC questionnaire. A number of respondents commented that some Member States have already extended the rules to LCVs to some degree (BE, NL, IT, FR). The rationale for this focused on fairness of competition and safety. Further support to the extension came from industry representatives at EU-level (UETR; representing mainly small hauliers) which referred to the important role in the professionalization of the sector brought by these measures, pointing to the examples of Belgium and the Netherlands where such measures are already in place. A similar argument was brought forward by the Czech and Danish haulage associations and this is also very strongly supported by the hauliers. 45 out of 64 which responded to the specific question considered that the extension of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i will ensure a greater level of quality of service of transport operators that use LCVs. However, some respondents indicated that extending the requirements to LCVs would be overly burdensome on enforcement authorities and SMEs which make extensive use of LCVs.

Among interviewees, there were some suggestions that a partial extension would be more appropriate, although there was no agreement as to which requirements should apply. Good repute requirements were the most commonly supported, while a number of associations (NL, DK, BG) suggested than financial standing requirements should be reduced in comparison to HGVs. Less demanding requirements on professional competence were also proposed by the Danish industry.

In the case of the extension of the scope of Regulation 1072/2009 i, overall OPC questionnaire respondents agreed with this measure. 48% of respondents fully agreed with the proposal, whilst a further 19% indicated slight agreement. Only 17% expressed some disagreement to the proposal. When these results are disaggregated by respondent category, it is immediately apparent that hauliers and transport operators (and associations) are heavily in favour of the proposal. On the other end of the spectrum, national authorities and relevant associations and the miscellaneous “Other” group were the least positive about this proposal. The main areas where it is thought that this measure would have the greatest positive effect are on the working conditions (61% of responses), job creation and growth within the haulage sector (both 51%). There would also be a positive effect on SMEs (44%). Most of the SME panel survey respondents also agreed that the regulation should be the same for all vehicle categories. However, the respondents gave a more mixed opinion of the impact on costs and use of LCVs for firms. While there appeared to be slightly more respondents who thought there would be increased costs and a negative effect on LCV use, the small sample size makes it difficult to draw any conclusions here.

The respondents to the national authorities’ survey were evenly split between agreement and disagreement on this policy option. Both the requirement to hold a community licence and the requirement on the limits of cabotage duration had similar responses. However, as above, when split by geographical location EU-15 based national authorities were more likely to agree with this policy option than EU-13 based authorities.

The hauliers’ survey respondents indicated mixed views on extending Regulation (EC) No 1072 to LCVs. More respondents identified a positive effect from the requirement for a Community licence, than from the cabotage requirements, which was more likely to result in a negative effect on LCV use. A weighted average increase in annual costs of operation of 1.9% for the Community licence and 2.8% for cabotage limits was identified by the respondents. However, this figure was higher for EU-13 based respondents than EU-15 based respondents, and diverged even further when split by vehicle use, with LCV users indicating higher cost increases. That being said, most of the respondents agreed that extending Regulation (EC) No 1072 to LCVs would ensure fair competition a minimum level of quality of service.

Among interviewees, there were fewer comments in relation to Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 i, but they generally showed a similar response to the extension to LCVs in the case of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i. Concerns about the costs of using vans in the case of large operators with a single base close to borders were expected by one large operator but it was also commented that the use of LCVs in cabotage operations is very small. This was also supported by some industry representatives (DK, UK), but was disputed by other industry representatives (DE).

Annex 3. Who is affected by the initiative and how

Stakeholders affected by the current situation

The following stakeholders have been identified as the main groups of stakeholders affected by the existing problems in the market, as described in section 1 of the main report (problem definition).

• - 

  Transport operators: they are impacted by the factors undermining fair competition between resident and non-resident transport operators. In particular, the shortcomings of the rules, coupled with uneven montoring and control create opportunities and incentives for certain companies to take advantage of lower standards in some Mermber States (or in the extreme, to operate illegally) in order to reduce their costs and out-compete companies that must comply with higher standards. For example, Ricardo et al (2015) reports a weighted average cost advantage for letterbox companies of 10-30%, while the median category was 10-25%. Within a highly competitive industry such as road transport, this level of cost differential can be highly detrimental. Even short of the extreme case of illegal letterbox companies, smaller differences in standards cause competitive distortion in the highly competitive and price-sensitive the EU road haulage market. Those hauliers that operate internationally are also affected by different interpretations of the rules, which creates uncertainties and may lead to penalties for unintentionally breaking the rules. For example, according to SDG (2013b), the UK enforcers have found that the main cause of cabotage infringements is an inadequate understanding of the cabotage limitations.

• - 

  National authorities: are affected by difficulties in enforcement and cooperation, which lead to high enforcement costs and/or inability to effectively control compliance (as outlined above in the sections on drivers and root causes). In addition, to the extent that inadequate enforcement leads to illegal letterbox companies, national authorities also suffer from losses of fiscal revenues, estimated at around €40,875 per truck per year (Ricardo et al, 2015).

• - 

  Drivers: are affected by illegal cabotage and illegal letterbox companies, which are often (although not always) associated with criminal or dubious activities. This is an indirect effect, since undertakings without stable and effective establishment (i.e. letterbox companies) cannot be properly checked to the same extent as other undertakings – increasing the risk of businesses being able to infringe the road social legislation without detection and/or penalties. Impacts on drivers may therefore arise through poorer working conditions, or losses in terms of wages and social protection, although the extent to which they are affected cannot be quantified.

• - 

  Customers of transport operators: are affected by the shortcomings of the rules, which create different standards of service or less efficient transport operations that undermine the efficient functioning of the Internal Market.

Stakeholders affected in case of adoption of the preferred option

The preferred policy option is policy package 3 which includes several measures intended to strengthen enforcement (policy package 2) and 3 further measures which would in addition substantially change the existing legal framework: review of the cabotage rules, revision of the conditions for stable and effective establishment and laying down co-liability principles for shippers and freight forwarders. The horizontal policy package 4 (extension of rules to LCVs) is also preferred, but only to the extent that Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i is partially extended to LCVs (reduced financial standing requirement and proportional stable and effective establishment criterion).

The practical implications of the initiative for a representative road haulier and for a typical national enforcement agency, which are the most affected stakeholders, are further discussed below.

Road haulier

Hauliers involved in international traffic would have an incentive to move to electronic consignment notes as a consequence of the measure obliging enforcement authorities to accept these in international traffic, in order to benefit from the expected savings. This could represent an initial investment (estimated to be between €170 and €2,500 euros). Although this is not an obligation, it is expected that this move would be implemented in a relatively short timescale (first or second year from entry into force of the legislation) given the significant potential gains.

The policy measure involving changes to the reference points for stable and effective establishment would affect only some hauliers. A significant (but unmeasurable) proportion of hauliers would already comply with the establishment criteria, in particular those which are effectively established in a Member State. Hauliers which do not yet fulfil all of the establishment criteria or which have created letterbox companies would need to ensure that their establishments comply with the rules. This could involve costs, for example in requesting a tax number from the Member State of establishment (in case this is not yet required in the Member State concerned), hiring personnel in order to ensure that the level of staff is proportionate to the activity or transferring the different business documents to the operating centre (in case this is not yet required in the Member State concerned). Since the criteria would ensure strict proportionality according to the size of the haulier, it is not expected that very small undertakings would bear disproportionate costs. For example, selfemployed drivers or small hauliers would not need to have an office as operating centre (it could be their house), hire any personnel or invest in assets (parking places, maintenance facilities, etc.) to justify their effective and stable establishment. These potential costs would have to be incurred by the affected hauliers ahead of the entry into force of the new provisions, since they would be subject to potential inspections by the national enforcement authorities from day 1.

The policy measure involving a change in the cabotage rules (unlimited number of operations allowed within a reduced time period) would affect all hauliers involved in cabotage (as mentioned in section 1.1 above cabotage accounts for just over 2% of national transport activity) from the day when the new rules entered into force. This could potentially require some adaptation of operating behaviour from the concerned hauliers. For example, hauliers could look for a tighter time schedule for cabotage operations following the international carriage: shorter-distance operations, operations starting closer to the place of unloading of the international carriage, less time gaps between consecutive cabotage operations, etc. Transport operations are typically contracted and organised at relatively short call, in particular national operations such as cabotage. Thus, it is not expected that the process of adaptation to the new rules would have to be prepared a long time in advance of their entry into force.

Laying down co-liability principles for shippers and freight forwarders when they knowingly commission transport services from hauliers which infringe the rules would potentially lead freight forwarders and shippers to better select the transport companies they work with and not to contract hauliers with bad reputation or a history of infringements. This would lead to more business for compliant hauliers and less to non-compliant ones. The extent of these effects is however unmeasurable. In any event, this measure is not expected to have any immediate or direct impact on the typical haulier.

The extension of some of the criteria on access to the occupation of road haulier to operators using LCVs is expected to potentially affect between 19,000 and 97,000 hauliers (see section 5.1.1 of the main report). However, within this figure a substantial amount of hauliers (unmeasurable) will already comply with the criteria on financial standing and stable establishment (as revised under the preferred option). This is the case in particular given that the financial standing threshold would be much lower than the one for operators using HGVs and the establishment criteria would be strictly proportional to the size of the undertaking. The most affected hauliers would be those which are either in a very week financial position or which do not yet fulfil all of the establishment criteria (or even letterbox companies). As regards costs of alignment with the new rules, as mentioned in section 5.1.1 these could be significant. They would also have to be incurred ahead of the entry into force of the new provisions, since they would be subject to potential inspections by the national enforcement authorities from day 1.

National enforcement agency

As mentioned in section 5.1.4 of the main report, national enforcement agencies would need to incur significant costs in order to adapt to the new policy measures which involve strengthened enforcement.

Measures regarding common training of enforcers and joint controls would require significant preparation and would thus be expected to be prepared ahead of their entry into force. However, these measures would be in terms of "minimum amount per year" and therefore could be envisaged for the end of the year following the entry into force of the new rules. They could represent annual costs of between €2.5 and €4.2 million (common training of officers) and between €0.07 and €0.21 million for joint cross-border controls) for the whole of the EU. Each national enforcement authority would incur a part of these costs in proportion to its staffing level.

Measures dealing with the extension of information in ERRU and making this information available to roadside officers would also require some preparation ahead of their entry into force. Insofar as the additional data to be added in ERRU is not immediately available to enforcement agencies, it would have to be gathered from other databases or from the hauliers themselves (however, the required data would be expected to be readily available). The initial set-up costs are estimated to be around €55,000 for a small register and €550,000 for a large register. The yearly maintenance costs associated with keeping this information up-to-date are estimated to be around €5,000 for a small register and €55,000 for a large register. The obligation to make certain information in ERRU available to roadside officers by 2019 is already foreseen in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/480 and thus making this further information available does not require additional time or one-off investment cost for implementation.

Establishing a minimum number of checks of compliance with the cabotage provisions would have a cost for enforcement agencies which are currently under the proposed threshold. The estimated cost is up to €15.5 million per year for the whole EU-28 (3% of cabotage operations based on an estimated 34% of foreign vehicles controlled being involved in cabotage and on an average 210 Km per cabotage operation). In order to get to the amount which would have to be supported by each enforcement body, this figure would then have to be split between those agencies which do not currently respect the 3% threshold and according to the amount of cabotage in the respective Member State. This cost would have to be incurred as from the entry into force of the new rules. No prior preparation would in principle be needed, except if resources are insufficient to implement the new rule, in which case further resources would have to be hired in advance.

The policy measures involving changes to the risk rating systems, i.e. opening up of the national risk rating systems to other Member States, mandatory adoption of a common classification system to indicate risk levels and setting minimum common data to be included in the risk-rating systems, may require significant time and effort to implement. These measures may face language barriers, IT development requirements, management of access rights, etc. The respective yearly maintenance costs are estimated at €0.4 million for the EU- 28, but no quantification was available for the initial set-up costs. These set-up costs would need to be incurred ahead of the entry into force of the new rules.

The introduction of a maximum time period to reply to questions from other Member States about establishment provisions and the mandatory use of GNSS digital tachograph for control of cabotage are not expected to generate any additional costs or preparatory work ahead of entry into force.

As regards the mandatory acceptance of electronic consignment notes by enforcers, the set-up costs are expected to be limited and no preparatory work is needed.

As regards policy package 3, the revision of the reference points for establishment, change in cabotage provisions and inclusion of cabotage in the classification of serious infringements leading to loss of good repute are also not expected to have any major impact on enforcement costs or on require any preparatory work by enforcers.

As regards the partial application of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i to LCVs (policy package 4), this is expected to represent an additional yearly cost for all EU-28 enforcers in the range of €0.3 to €1.5 million. This would be split by enforcement agencies in proportion to the number of registered hauliers using exclusively LCV established in each Member State.

Annex 4. Analytical model used in preparing the impact assessment.

The analysis of impacts covers the baseline scenario and all policy options (PO). The key economic and social benefits and costs are captured quantitatively at a level of detail consistent with the available data. Other impacts are quantified where evidence suggests there are sufficient material and data available to enable quantification, otherwise they were treated qualitatively.

Based on a set of assumptions, an analytical tool was developed by the external consultant to assess the development of the baseline and the assessment of the effect of various policy measures and options within a 15-year span (from 2020 to 2035). This analytical tool aims at quantifying the industry responses to changes in the Regulations.

The focal element of the tool is the cost model, which is intended to provide an indication of the cost base for alternatively domiciled hauliers operating in their own Member State or other Member States. The cost model was fed by variables that define operating costs for each haulier and access costs to the defined jurisdiction.

Several key variables have been quantified in the baseline, as follows:

• 1. 

  Cost differentials between transport operators;

• 2. 

  Level of legal cabotage operations across the EU;

• 3. 

  Expected level of illegal cabotage operations;

• 4. 

  Expected level of letterbox companies across the EU;

• 5. 

  Regulatory costs; and

• 6. 

  Level of use of Light Commercial Vehicles in road freight transport that fall outside the scope of the legal framework.

The first four key variables are incorporated into an overarching modelling framework, which has been used to construct the baseline - see Figure 3-1. Further details, calculations and data sources are provided in the following sections, and in Annex B.

Figure 3-1: Modelling framework for analysis of cost differentials, cabotage (legal and illegal) and letterbox companies

• 1. 

  Cost differentials between transport operators

Domestic haulier operating costs

The operating costs considered in the model can be categorised into two main types:

 Variable costs that depend on vehicle mileage: These costs vary with the use of the

vehicle, including:

o Fuel costs;

o Tyre costs;

o Maintenance & repair;

o Insurance; and

o Driver costs – including salary, bonuses and social security contributions (e.g. pensions)

 Fixed costs that are independent of vehicle mileage: Values for these cost items are

typically provided on an annual basis, including:

o Ownership taxes (excise duty, axle tax);

o Vehicle financing & possession costs; o Overhead costs (costs taken on by a haulier to operate the business, regardless of revenue. These include costs for vehicle storage facilities, offices, IT equipment etc. and human resources other than drivers).

Error! Reference source not found. shows the results of operating costs in the base year (2012) for the different cost items by Member State.

Figure 3-2: Estimated average annual vehicle operating costs (EUR, 2012 prices)

Source: Results of the IA model developed for this impact assessment

In general, projections of future costs were based on constant (rather than nominal) prices, which is in line with the modelling underlying the EU Reference Scenario 2016. Assumptions on fuel costs were that they would develop in line with Diesel price forecasts in each Member State, consistent with the EU Reference Scenario 2016.

Driver costs represent a particular area of uncertainty. Theoretically, driver shortages should lead to increasing wages and faster convergence due to the excess labour demand, which should in turn call forth additional supply. However, it appears that various factors have contributed to lower labour cost convergence than expected, including an influx of labour from third countries willing to work for low wages (contributing to holding down wages) and liberal labour immigration rules (Sternberg et al, 2014; Ismeri Europa, 2012). It was decided to use the labour rate projections of the EU Reference Scenario for national operations.

Cost differentials for international transport operations as compared to national operations were developed by comparing:

• i. 

  A domestic haulier carrying out a transport operation in its own country (as established in the previous steps), and

• ii. 

  A non-domestic haulier carrying out the same transport operation in the same country (i.e. the ‘host country’ for the international haulier).

The comparisons were calculated for each country pair. To derive operation costs for a haulier from country A carrying out a transport operation in host country B, the period after which costs change from the country of establishment to the country of operation needs to be considered. For the baseline scenario it was assumed that for a non-domestic haulier operating in a host country:

 Fuel costs change immediately (i.e. after 0 days of being in the host country) to the

costs of the host country (the country where cabotage is carried out).

 Driver costs behave according to the baseline scenario. They follow the cost

structure of the country of establishment of the international haulier as a consequence of the ineffective application of the Posting of Workers Directive (i.e. driver wages are (unduly) paid according to the conditions of the country of establishment and thus do not change as a result of cabotage/international operations being carried out). In order to isolate the impacts of this initiative from other initiatives, notably the effective application and enforcement of the posting rules under the social road initiative, a time-based approach is also considered as a calculation

tool. This would consist of the effective application to transport operations of hostcountry

 minimum wage 8 in accordance with existing rules under the Posting of

Workers Directive (PWD). In this scenario, driver costs are assumed to be aligned with the minimum wage of the host Member State after 7 days of activity there, from 2020 onwards (as currently considered in the context of a parallel study on the

revision of the road social legislation).

• - 

  All other costs remain the same as the country of establishment (e.g. insurance, vehicle costs, overheads etc.).

The baseline scenario for driver costs and the alternative time-based approach do not reflect reality entirely, since the application of posting of workers rules raises a number of legal and practical implementation difficulties causing ineffective application of host country legislation on minimum rates of pay. However, the time-based approach can be seen to represent a situation in one “extreme”, where posting of workers laws are effectively enforced across the whole EU, whereas the baseline scenario represents the other “extreme” where no Member States effectively enforce posting of workers laws.

Based on the assumptions made for the different elements of the operating costs of hauliers, Figure 4-3 below shows the expected development of cost differentials for the example of a Romanian haulier operating in selected host countries for the baseline scenario. It can be seen that Romanian hauliers are forecast to maintain a significant operational cost advantage compared to most selected Member States (i.e. the cost differential is negative, meaning that, for example, operating costs for a Romanian haulier are up to around 50% lower compared to the ones of a domestic Danish haulier when operating in Denmark). However, cost differentials decrease over time, given the projected labour wage convergence across Member States. The exception is Bulgaria. Local Bulgarian transport operators appear to have a cost advantage compared to Romanian transport operators when carrying out transport operations in Bulgaria. This cost advantage for Bulgarian hauliers (over Romanian hauliers) is forecast to increase over time. This is again due to the underlying wage costs forecasts (i.e. wage costs in Bulgaria are assumed to increase relatively less over time compared to wage costs in Romania).

8 The Posting of Workers Directive 96/71/EC i mandates that the larger concept of "minimum rates of pay" of the host

Member State – where the service is provided – is respected by cross-border service providers. In this simulation, calculations are made on the basis of the "minimum wage" – a more narrow concept than the provision mandated by the Directive - for the sake of simplicity.

Figure 4-3: Development of cost differentials over time for the example of Romanian hauliers and selected host countries under the baseline scenario

Notes: *calculated as [total operating costs of Romanian haulier operating in host country X / total operating costs of local haulier operating in country X] - 1); for the baseline scenario (driver costs continue to follow the structure

of the country of establishment)

Figure 4-4 shows the same example under the time-based approach (i.e. effective application of the rules on posting of workers). It can be seen that the application of the rules on the posting of workers results in a significant reduction of wage differentials compared to the baseline scenario, as would be expected. The large step in the changes in wage differentials between years 2015 and 2020 is due to the assumption that the effective rules on the posting of workers do not come into effect until 2020.

Figure 4-4: Development of cost differentials over time for the example of Romanian hauliers and selected host countries (application of effective rules on the posting of workers)

Notes: *calculated as [total operating costs of Romanian haulier operating in host country X / total operating costs of local haulier operating in country X]; for the time-based approach (driver costs change to the cost structure of

the host country after seven days as of 2020)

• 2. 

  Level of legal cabotage operations across the EU

Cabotage penetration rates for a specific Member State pair were defined in line with Eurostat’s definition. The penetration rate cr H,O for a country H (the host country) with respect to hauliers with country of origin O (the country of their establishment) in a specific year is defined as

where

C H,O is the amount of cabotage carried out by hauliers from country O in country H (in tkm);

C H,EU28 is the amount of cabotage carried out by hauliers from any EU28 Member State in country H (in tkm); and

D H is the amount of domestic transport operations carried out by domestic hauliers in country H (in tkm).

To identify relationships between base year cabotage rates and cost differentials, a regression model was developed. Further details of the data sources and the regression methodology are provided in the Annex to the support study. The overall best model fit was obtained from introducing three explanatory factors for each country pair:

• i. 

  Cost differentials, as calculated in the previous sections

• ii. 

  International transport rate

• iii. 

  Distance between the country pairs

The relationship follows a constant elasticity function as shown below, and all coefficients were highly statistically significant (significant at the 1% level). The adjusted R-squared was 0.561 which indicates an overall good model fit.

where

is the cabotage rate country H carried out by hauliers from country O

k defines the intercept of the curve (i.e. the constant)

t H,O is the international road transport rate for the country pair H-O (see definition above)

d H,O is the distance (in km) between country O to country H

cratio H,O is the difference in operation costs between i) a haulier from origin country O carrying out a cabotage operation in host country H and ii) a haulier domiciled in country H carrying out the transport operation in their

own country H 9

β x are the respective coefficients that are estimated by the means of the regression analysis.

9 Note that for the purpose of the regression analysis the cost ratio was defined as [cost of non-domestic haulier / cost of

national haulier] in contrast to the concept of a cost differential [cost of non-domestic haulier / cost of national haulier - 1] as used throughout the report. This was to avoid negative input values.

Figure 3-3 illustrates the development of the cabotage penetration rate in the EU as a whole, as calculated according to the above relationship. The aggregate cabotage penetration rate decreases by around 9% (or 18%) in the 2012-2035 timeframe in the baseline scenario (or in the time-based approach, respectively). For the baseline scenario, this change is largely driven by reductions in labour cost differentials seen in the EU reference scenario. For the timebased approach, there is a clear effect of the implementation of the revised PWD (assumed to enter into force in 2020), which effectively forces a higher labour cost convergence which in turn suppresses the cabotage penetration rates. Note that the assumptions for the development of international trade levels in the baseline scenario and the time-based approach are the same (i.e. aligned with the EU reference scenario), so the difference seen between the two scenarios is purely driven by the labour cost differentials. As can be seen from the equation of the functional relationship above, the model shows that cabotage penetration rates are more

sensitive to the cost differentials than to changes in international transport activity – or more

specifically:

 The higher the international transport rate between two Member States, the higher

the predicted cabotage rate – each 10% increase in international transport rate leads to

a 5% increase in the cabotage penetration rate.

 The smaller the cost ratio between two Member States (i.e. indicating that the nondomestic

haulier has a cost advantage compared to the domestic haulier if the ratio is smaller than 1), the higher the predicted cabotage rate. Specifically, each 10% reduction in the cost ratio leads to a 26.3% increase in the cabotage penetration rate.

Figure 3-3: Development of an aggregate EU-wide cabotage rate (indexed to 1 in 2012; baseline scenario

in blue and time-based approach in grey)

Figure 3-4 shows that in absolute terms, the overall amount of cabotage (expressed in t-km) is forecast to increase by around 30% by 2035 in the baseline scenario (or by around 20% in the time-based approach). This increase in total activity (despite the reduction in the cabotage penetration rate) is due to the projected increases in overall transport activity across the EU up to 2035 (in line with the projections of the EU Reference Scenario).

Figure 3-4: Development of EU-wide absolute cabotage levels (in t-km; indexed to 1 in 2012; baseline

scenario in blue and time-based approach in grey)

• 3. 

  Expected levels of illegal cabotage

As regards the evolution of illegal cabotage activity, it is necessary to develop a functional relationship between the number of checks performed in a country, versus the effect it will have on infringement levels. Since illegal activities are by their nature difficult to observe directly, there is no direct source of data on illegal cabotage rates. Instead, the reported cabotage infringement detection rates are used (as obtained from the support study for the expost evaluation) as an indicator of the rate of illegal cabotage. This assumes that if cabotage rates increase, the infringement rates will also increase and vice versa. This relationship is, of course, imperfect, since detection rates may vary depending on other factors (such as the thoroughness of checks). However, in the absence of any other data, the infringement rates are considered the best available proxy.

Since it is widely considered that increasing the probability of being caught in an illegal activity (e.g. by increasing the number of checks) has a deterrent effect, a constant elasticity relationship was hypothesised between the intensity of cabotage checks (expressed as number of checks per million t-km of cabotage carried out in the country) and the infringement detection rate as follows:

Where:

 is the infringement detection rate (number of detected infringements per total

number of checks that were carried out)

 is the intensity of cabotage checks (number of checks per million t-km of cabotage)

In effect, the relationship suggests that each 10% increase in the intensity of cabotage checks leads to a 7.1% decrease in infringement detection rate. The results of the correlations using this relationship show a good fit (R2 of 0.78) and the coefficients are significant at the 1%

level, although there are a number of limitations to bear in mind – most importantly, the

sample size is rather small and probably not fully representative (it only includes two EU-13 countries), and there are likely factors missing from the equation that are relevant but for which no data are available. An additional limitation was that it was necessary to use infringement rates as a proxy for illegal activity. Also, since risk-rating systems do not have information on non-domestic operators in the baseline and checks should be nondiscriminatory, it was assumed that the infringement rate reflects the overall performance of the fleet performing cabotage (this may not be a good reflection of actual behaviour, especially where Member States do not have strong enforcement). The illegal cabotage rate is constant over time in the baseline (although the total amount changes in line with changes in cabotage activity), since it is assumed that the intensity of checks remains the same. This assumption was agreed because the level of controls is set by political decisions and therefore cannot be predicted using numerical methods.

It should be noted that estimates of illegal cabotage are not reported for individual Member States due to the limited data availability. The aggregate EU average figure will smooth out differences between countries and it is likely that some countries are more affected than others (as is the case today). As an illustration, the estimated infringement rates from the relationship above ranged from close to zero (0.016%) to 6.4% for different Member States, although results are skewed and 10 countries were estimated to have infringement rates of less than 0.5%.

In summary, the baseline scenario suggests that the problem of illegal cabotage will continue to affect some countries more than others, and is likely to be concentrated in a small number of countries.

This relationship is, of course, imperfect. However, in the absence of any other data, the infringement rates are considered the best available proxy.

• 4. 

  Expected levels of letterbox companies

In order to estimate the evolution of the number of letterbox companies, a linear relationship of the following form was developed (see Annex 1 for full details):

Where:

 is the letterbox infringement detection rate, as a percentage of authorisations granted

(using as a proxy the infringements of stable and effective establishment)

 is the total cost of operation in the country (EUR)

This indicates that the coefficient is statistically significant at the 10% level and that as costs increase, the prevalence of letterbox companies in a country decreases. This is as one would expect – since letterbox companies are more likely to be set up in low cost countries in order to benefit from cost savings. The expected number of letterbox companies in the baseline was estimated by applying the above relationship to the expected changes in costs over time for each Member State. As discussed above, infringement rates may not be an accurate reflection of the extent of letterbox companies. Nevertheless, this calculation can provide an indicator of the “risk” or “incentives” for setting up letterbox companies.

• 5. 

  Costs for the national authorities

Stakeholders were unable to provide quantitative estimates of the administrative cost savings of ERRU. Therefore, a proxy indicator is used to estimate the potential savings. Ricardo et al (2015) reported that the use of electronic systems (rather than paper-based) was the major source of administrative savings. Thus, an ex-post estimate of the time savings associated with the introduction of e-invoicing is used as a proxy for the expected gains from completion of ERRU. This proxy is used because the time-savings involved are likely to be similar, i.e. tasks of handling paper-based requests and similar potential savings in terms of, for example,

reduced handling time. This approach has also been taken in previous studies 10 .

The European Banking Association (2010) found the average costs of manually fulfilling a paper invoice to be €47.35, compared to €14.2 for an electronic invoice (a saving of €33.15), as shown in Table 4-7. This cost takes into account savings in materials (e.g. paper, postage), back office staff, archiving costs, payment fees, etc.

Table 4-7: Average costs of fulfilling paper versus electronic invoices (EUR per invoice)

Total Sent Received

Paper 47.35 28.8 18.55

Electronic 14.2 3.3 10.8

Difference 33.15 25.5 7.75

Source: (Euro Banking Association, 2010)

In the absence of any alternative estimates, the above figures are used as a proxy for the estimated time savings associated with moving from a paper-based to an electronic register system via ERRU.

Data on the number of requests sent and received (both for serious infringement notifications and good repute) is available from the most recent reporting period on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i (January 2013 to December 2014) for 12 Member States (BG, DK, EE, ES, FR, HR, LV, PL, RO, SI, SK, UK). This was scaled up to the EU-28 level by assuming that the remaining 16 Member States had the median level of activity. The median is used rather than the mean, since there is a very strong skew in activity levels (a very small number of Member States are highly active). Since ERRU was operational in 20 Member States in 2015, it is assumed that the average probability of having to send or receive requests using paper-based methods is directly proportional to the number of Member States connected (i.e. 1 - 20/28 = 29%). This makes the effective unit cost of sending and receiving respectively €10.59 and €13.01, using the weighted average of the costs for paper and electronic invoices from Table 4-7. It was also assumed that the data for requests received was more complete (by definition, each request sent should have a corresponding recipient, therefore the totals should be equal; however, the total for requests received was higher). As a result, the data on requests received was used for gap-filling.

Table 4-8: Calculations of baseline administrative costs for authorities

Data Requests received* Source / assumptions

Total requests received for 12 11 MS that

provided data 523,174 2016 monitoring report

Median for 12 MS that provided data 110 2016 monitoring report

Scaled to EU-28 level 524,934 Assuming that remaining 16 MS had median levels of activity

10 For example in ICF, 2014.

11 BG, DK, EE, ES, FR, HR, LV, PL, RO, SI, SK, UK.

Data Requests received* Source / assumptions

Probability of paper-based requests in

2015 29% Based on 20 MS connected in 2015

Weighted average of unit cost for Effective unit cost in 2015 (EUR) for

each request processed (sent + received) 23.60

paper and electronic communications from EBA (2010) – assuming requests sent = requests received

Total administrative cost in 2015 (EUR

millions) 12.35

Effective unit cost once ERRU is fully

operational (EUR) 14.10

Assuming fully electronic unit costs from EBA (2010)

Total administrative cost once ERRU

is fully operational (EUR million) 7.38

Assuming that activity levels remain stable

Total savings in the baseline once

ERRU is operational (EUR millions) 4.97

• * 

  Each request sent should have a corresponding recipient, therefore the totals should be equal. Since data on requests received seems more complete, it was used to scale both sending and receiving figures.

  • 6. 

    Use of Light Commercial Vehicles

For the purposes of comparison between Member States, the share of LCV activity as a percentage of all freight activity (LCVs and HGVs) is shown in Table 4-9. Across the EU as a whole, LCVs account for around 5% of total road freight activity, and this is expected to remain fairly constant over time. The final column shows the percentage point (pp) change between 2015 and 2035, indicating that overall for EU-28 a minor (0.04 pp) reduction in the share of LCVs in total freight activity is expected.

Table 4-9: Proportion of total freight activity carried out by LCVs

Source: (European Commission, 2016a)

There are no EU-wide studies assessing the extent to which LCVs are being used for international transport activities in direct competition with heavy commercial vehicles. The

most relevant study on the issue has been conducted by the French authorities 12 . It

summarises data and information from roadside checks, as well as from a review of goods vehicles passing automatic weight measurement stations over a single 24-hour period. The French weight measurement station counts comprise data from eight measurement stations. The data found that for every 100 heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) passing the measurement stations over the same 24h period, there were on average 0.5 (between 0.01 and 1.33) foreign chassis-body LCVs with sleeper cabs (which are characteristic of vehicles used in hire-andreward operations). When including all international LCVs and vehicles of unclear origin, the counts increased to an average of 3.2 (1.2 – 5.9) foreign LCVs for every 100 HGVs. Moreover, from roadside checks/surveys, the French study found the annual mileage of LCVs active in international hire-and-reward to be similar to that of typical long-haul HGVs, at around 100,000 km per year.

12 Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie, 2016.

The French data can be complemented with further observations on foreign LCV traffic from other Member States. German motorway traffic counts undertaken in 2003 and 2008 found

that foreign LCVs increased from 2.5% to 5.4% of overall goods traffic over the period 13 .

Another source of relevant data comes from the Road Traffic Centre of the German State of Baden-Wuerttemberg which borders on France and Switzerland. The State uses automatic traffic counters on all its major border crossings and has published the share of vans in overall

goods traffic crossing the border from 2002 to 2015 14 . The available data (see Figure 4-10)

suggest only a small growth trend over the period 2010-2015. Notably, the share of LCV traffic is much higher on border crossings with Switzerland than with France. The very high share of LCVs to HGVs crossing the border is not inconsistent with the previous observations. Around 15% of HGV traffic is international, so the observation of two HGVs for every LCV crossing the border (as observed at the Franco-German border) is consistent with an inland share of 7.5 LCVs in international traffic for every HGV.

Figure 4-10: LCV share of border crossings from the German State of Baden-Wuerttemberg with France

and Switzerland share of annual average)

Source: Road Traffic Centre of Baden- Wurttemberg, 2016

Using these diverse observations, Table 4-11 develops a lower-bound, upper-bound and bestestimate for international LCV mileage relative to overall HGV mileage.

Table 4-11 – Estimates of the share of LCV mileage relative to overall HGV mileage

Estimate Source Comment

(Ministère de l'Écologie, du

Lower-bound 0.5% Développement durable et de Includes foreign chassisl’Énergie, 2016) body LCVs only

(Ministère de l'Écologie, du Includes all foreign LCVs, Best estimate 3.2% Développement durable et de likely to include private and

l’Énergie, 2016) own-account

13 Büro für angewandte Statistik, 2003; 2008.

14 Road Traffic Centre of Baden- Wurttemberg, 2016.

Estimate Source Comment

figures e.g. from Germany indicate that international LCV traffic may well be higher elsewhere)

Upper-bound 15% (Road Traffic Centre of Baden Wurttemberg, 2016)

The next step is the development of estimates of international freight activity by LCVs. The French study (Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie, 2016) found that in terms of loading factors and empty runs, international LCVs active in hire-andreward resemble average HGVs. Critically, the study also shows that given the average payloads and load factors, one HGV typically carries the same load as around 28 LCVs, as shown in Table 4-12.

Table 4-12: Typical loading factors of vehicles in France

Typical French long-haul HGV Typical foreign hire-and-reward LCV

Payload 25t 1.13t

Proportion of vehicle mileage

loaded 87% 85%

Load level when loaded 88% 71%

Resulting average load 19.1t 0.68t

Number of LCVs required to

carry same load as one HGV 28

Source: (Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie, 2016)

In order to estimate the likely international freight activity by LCVs, the estimates of the tkm share by international LCV (from Table 4-11) are divided by 28 to obtain an estimate of international LCV activity in proportion to total HGV activity.

Table 4-13 - Estimate of international LCV activity in proportion to total HGV activity

Estimates of the share of Number of LCVs LCVs share in

LCV mileage required to carry same proportion to total load as one HGV HGVs

(A) (B) (A:B)

Lower bound 0.5% 0.02%

Best estimate 3.2% 28 0.11%

Upper bound 15% 0.53%

Source: Ricardo et al calculations

The estimated share can then be multiplied by the total HGV goods activity in order to gain an estimate of the absolute level of international LCV activity. As data concerning competition for HGV hire-and-reward operations by LCV have concentrated on Germany and France, the analysis is restricted to these two Member States, although it can be extrapolated to further Member States. The results are summarised in Table 4-14.

Table 4-14: Estimated and projected international LCV activity in Germany and France (in Gtkm)

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Minimum estimate

DE 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10

FR 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08

Best estimate

DE 0.46 0.48 0.53 0.57 0.60 0.62

FR 0.31 0.33 0.38 0.42 0.46 0.49

Maximum estimate

DE 2.16 2.25 2.49 2.65 2.81 2.89

FR 1.45 1.53 1.76 1.95 2.17 2.28

Source: Ricardo et al calculation on the basis of available data

Finally, by dividing overall activity by annual vehicle mileage and average payload an estimate of the number of LCVs active in international traffic can be obtained. The results are summarised in Table 4-15.

Table 4-15: Estimated and projected number of foreign registered LCVs active in international traffic in Germany and France

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Minimum estimate

DE 1,075 1,121 1,241 1,321 1,404 1,442

FR 725 762 880 973 1,082 1,135

Best estimate

DE 6,773 7,061 7,819 8,321 8,843 9,086

FR 4,570 4,802 5,546 6,130 6,815 7,153

Maximum estimate

DE 31,603 32,946 36,485 38,824 41,262 42,398

FR 21,323 22,406 25,880 28,605 31,800 33,375

 Source: Ricardo et al calculation on the basis of available data

The above estimates are based on the assumption that the share of LCVs in total vehicle fleet used in international transport remains constant. This is an important assumption which is made in the absence of any reliable data that could be used to develop a realistic estimate of the evolution of the share of LCVs over time. Responses to the hauliers' survey on the level of use of LCVs in international transport operations do not provide a clear picture. Asked to indicate how the share of LCVs in international transport operations has evolved over the last three years the responses are almost equally split between those that indicate an increase and those indicating a decrease (see Table 4-16).

Table 4-16: Is your use of LCVs today higher or lower compared to three years ago in your international transport operations?

% change in the share of LCVs in total v-km EU-13 EU-15 Total

>15% increase 4 7.3 2 8.0 6 7.5

5-15% increase 3 5.5 0.0 3 3.8

About the same (±5%) 9 16.4 5 20.0 14 17.5

5-15% decrease 4 7.3 0.0 4 5.0

>15% decrease 4 7.3 1 4.0 5 6.3

Not applicable 15 27.3 12 48.0 27 33.8

Do not know/No response 16 29.1 5 20.0 21 26.3

Total responses 55 100 25 100 80 100

Source: Survey of hauliers

While the increase in the level of e-commerce is identified as an important market driver for the increase in the use of LCVs, this is largely related to urban rather than inter-urban or, even less so, international transport.

On the basis of the limited available data, assuming a standard share of LCVs in total international transport is considered as an appropriate assumption for defining the baseline scenario.

Annex 5 – Justification for discarded policy measures

The list of policy options considered has evolved on the basis of the policy measures indicated in the terms of reference of the study and other suggestions from:

 The Ex-post Evaluation (Ricardo et al, 2015)

 Various position papers, e.g. Invalid source specified.; Invalid source specified.

 The previous IA carried out in 2013 (AECOM, 2014)

 The responses to the online public consultation

 The exploratory interviews

The list of screening criteria used to review of the policy options were:

 Legal feasibility: Options must respect the principle of conferral. They should also

respect any obligation arising from the EU Treaties (and relevant international agreements) and ensure respect of fundamental rights. Legal obligations incorporated

in existing primary or secondary EU legislation may also rule out certain options.

 Technical feasibility: Technological and technical constraints may not allow for the

implementation, monitoring and/or enforcement of theoretical options.

 Effectiveness and efficiency: It may already be possible to show that some options

would uncontrovertibly achieve a worse cost-benefit balance than some alternatives.

 Political feasibility: Options that would clearly fail to garner the necessary political

support for legislative adoption and/or implementation could also be discarded.

 Proportionality: Options may clearly restrict the scope for national decision making

over and above what is needed to achieve the objectives satisfactorily.

Table 6-1 below shows the draft screening of options against these criteria. Some general observations can be made:

 Overall, there is reason to include many of the options within certain packages, since

they are not mutually exclusive and address very specific needs identified in the Expost Evaluation (e.g. clarifications of specific definitions). This means that a large number of policy options pass the screening stage and are considered for inclusion in the policy packages.

 Regarding options on cabotage and enforcement, it is necessary to distinguish between

(and to combine) both short-term and long-term options. Specifically, options relying on GNSS / e-documents to improve enforcement will require significant lead time to implement, and should be complemented with options to improve enforcement in the

short-term, such as changes to the legal definitions and best practice exchange.

 The screening of certain options (such as proposals to introduce mandatory

enforcement levels) depends on the specific design of the option – such as the precise

minimum levels to be prescribed.

Table 6-1: Screening of policy options

Key: Low / poor assessment against criterion Medium High / good Depends on specific requirements

Proposed policy Source Legal Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality option feasibility feasibility efficiency feasibility

Driver 1a) Differing levels of monitoring and control among Member States

Promote common ToR No problems No issues May offer a partial Proven No problems training of foreseen solution. Experience in concept foreseen enforcement officers social legislation shows through Dir. and a common EU that effectiveness 2006/22 training curriculum varies

Introduce ToR No problems No problems May offer a partial Proven No problems voluntary/mandatory foreseen foreseen solution. Experience in concept foreseen cross-border joints social legislation shows through Dir. controls that effectiveness 2006/22

varies

Introduce a ToR No problems Possible issue Depends on specific Resistance Could be minimum number of foreseen of definition of requirements. To may be considered as checks of compliance minimum ensure efficiency, experienced being too with the cabotage number emphasis should be on depending on restrictive and provisions (depends on better-targeted checks, design and possibly nonpresence

of rather than overall perceived proportional to reliable volume. benefits – the size of the statistics) some claim problem in some

that minimum Member States requirements in Dir. 2006/22 are too restrictive

Set further minimum ToR Closely related Depends on Partial solution to the Depends on No problems common to specific issue, dealing with specific foreseen requirements for the amendments requirements. differing levels of requirements. administrative with regard to Options should stringency MS may resist procedure to assess which be designed change to their good repute and for infringements with national the rehabilitation should be enforceability procedures procedure. considered as in mind

most serious and assessment shall be done in parallel. Currently high degree of incoherence among Member States

Encourage wider (Ricardo No major Partially Many MS participate There appears No problems

participation in problems established voluntarily, indicating to be support foreseen

voluntary initiatives et al, 2015) foreseen through that cost: benefit is for the idea

examples like favourable among TISPOL / stakeholders

Proposed policy Source Legal Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality option feasibility feasibility efficiency feasibility

CORTE / ECR (public consultation, ex-post evaluation)

Establishment of a Public Would imply No problems Depending on extent of Strong support Could be European control consultation interference foreseen role and powers from French considered as agency with

competences Could be particularly

stakeholders. expensive Less strongly disproportionate

of MS and costly to establish and mentioned by and restrictive of amendments operate others. scope for national

to several action

instruments Depending on

extent of role and powers

Establishment of a ETF No major No problems As above No problems Depending on high level group of problems foreseen foreseen extent of role and competent foreseen powers authorities to regularly follow up after rules are designed and implemented

Driver 1b) Limited and ineffective cooperation between Member States

Opening up of the ToR No major Would need to Improving cross-border Depends on No issues national risk-rating problems be available to exchange on timescales and systems to other foreseen. Due roadside information is technical

Member States to to respect to officers to important for effective requirements promote exchange of data target checks enforcement. (e.g. crf. information on highprotection against Difficulties in risk companies and legislation vehicles linked setting up to target checks should be to their ERRU)

ensured. companies

Facilitate cross ToR May interfere No problems No issues - Based border checks on with

establishment competences No specific

foreseen on an existing

provisions, by of each issues -

example (PWD

introducing a national Procedure for

enforcement

maximum time authority. escalation may

Directive)

period for replies to be problematic

questions regarding establishment (along with a procedure for escalation it these timescales are not met).

Adopt common ETF No problems Depends on Will improve efficiency If it takes the No problems classification of foreseen. the specific / effectiveness in form of foreseen undertakings (green provisions but countries where guidance / amber, red label should not be minimum standards minimum used to indicate too difficult to are raised to be more requirements increasing level of establish in line with best rather than risk of nonpractice. harmonisation. compliance and be Several MS linked to more/less called for this frequent inspections) (Ex-post

evaluation).

Proposed policy Source Legal Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality option feasibility feasibility efficiency feasibility

Identify minimum ETF No problems Depends on Will improve efficiency If it takes the No problems common foreseen. the specific / effectiveness in form of foreseen data/information to data identified countries where guidance / be included in risk minimum standards minimum rating systems are raised to be more requirements

in line with best rather than practice. harmonisation. Several MS called for this (Ex-post evaluation).

Driver 1c) Difficulties to enforce current rules for cabotage

Remove maximum ToR No problems Eliminating Enforcement would Mixed No problems number of cabotage foreseen. control of likely be improved due support. foreseen operations (currently number of to simpler checks. Several

3), while reducing operation will stakeholders

the maximum period make it easier Different for cabotage to control interpretations of

(e.g.

operations (currently compliance. multi-drops would

coordinated

7 days). become irrelevant,

ETF response)

Issues with reducing burdens on strongly controlling the hauliers oppose this maximum option number of 4 Increases the days will possibility of

remain systematic cabotage (this is the main reason

for opposition).

Share best practices ToR Data No issue - Some improvements No problems No problems on how to conduct protection foreseen foreseen

cabotage checks legislation shall Makes use of

likely, although it will not be able to solve all

effectively and be complied existing issues efficiently, in with. documentation particular how to use / evidence, supplementary and based on evidence from proven sources other than experience

the CMR (such as tachograph data).

Removal of all Public More factual No issues Social / economic differences between May be cabotage restrictions consultation problems than MS preclude the opening of cabotage considered

legal ones. markets disproportionate to the size of the problem

Pre-notification of Public It may require An electronic system This measure Pre-notification of cabotage operations consultation ad hoc would improve can be seen as each cabotage

(Cabotage register) legislation to EU wide enforcement. Paper imposing an operation is specify the system may be additional expected to functioning difficult to

systems would barrier to the generate

and establish –

increase complexity/costs and provision of significant costs

management Depends on risk of fraud international for businesses in of such the specific road haulage the region of €3- register. requirements services, when €6 billion in the Implications of the long-term period 2020-2035. data objective of

protection. the EU is to have a fully

integrated and

Proposed policy Source Legal Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality option feasibility feasibility efficiency feasibility

open road haulage market.

Clearly stipulate that Public No problems No problems This would make Resistance No problems the haulier must consultation foreseen. foreseen with enforcement easier in from hauliers foreseen. keep on board feasibility cases where expected, who vehicle clear documentation is not call for a evidence of the available already. period of 48 cabotage operations Could be more costly hours to as well as of the for hauliers to ensure submit relating incoming compliance evidence international journey (public

consultation)

Amend the definition Public No problems Hauliers would Would contribute to Supported by No problems of cabotage to better consultation foreseen need to prevention of systemic those against foreseen. sustain its temporary provide cabotage the practice of nature by evidence that

introducing a waiting they had not May be costly to

systemic

period for the been in the implement and enforce

cabotage. Contrary to

vehicles engaged in country for the free market cabotage activity required

period

May be difficult/costly to develop relevant infrastructure across EU

Bring forward the Public Incoherence N/A Significant additional Already Could be seen as deadline for the consultation with prior costs to hauliers discarded in disproportionate implementation of tachograph the the ‘smart’ legislation and tachograph tachograph by transition regulation IA means of derogation periods. to Regulation (EU)

No 165/2014

Make it mandatory . Incoherence No specific Would increase costs This has not Problems of for hauliers found in with prior issues for hauliers (who may been widely proportionality of breach of tachograph unintentionally be in suggested and the sanction Community rules legislation. breach) and likely so limited

(social, labour, road) increase risk of support is to retrofit their lorry “phantom” transport expected fleets with the new managers generation of tachographs.

Mandatory use of ToR Problems with No issues – Should help increase Bringing No issues.

GNSS digital transition smart effectiveness/efficiency forward may tachograph for periods for tachographs of monitoring increase costs enforcement after a tachographs. mandatory for

certain date Old ones may new vehicles Only mandatory for

for authorities

coexist with from 2019 and new vehicles from

and may

digital/smart all vehicles 15 2019 and all vehicles

reduce

ones if not years later. 15 years later.

political feasibility

new vehicles.

This could lead Regulation 165/2014 i

Proposed policy Source Legal Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality option feasibility feasibility efficiency feasibility

to a breach in already the principle of stipulates the nonautomatic discrimination. registration of the location of the vehicle every 3 hours of cumulated driving (Art. 8)

Allow secure record ETF Geo As above As above As above No problems and storage positioning foreseen. (company site and may have data

Member State data protection base) of implications. geopositioning data of driver and vehicle

Mandatory ETF No problems No specific Should help increase Bringing No problems acceptance of foreseen issues - need effectiveness/efficiency forward use od foreseen. electronic to verify with of monitoring e-CMR may consignment notes relevant increase costs

by enforcers after a stakeholders Possible cost reduction for authorities

certain date for hauliers (moving from hard copy to and may

electronic format) and reduce

for authorities political feasibility

Driver 1d) Insufficient information available to authorities during enforcement

Include the ToR This may imply Proven MS that have Needs to be No problems conditions on an amendment concept (in implemented it report checked – foreseen. establishment in to both some MS) good experiences (exgiven

ERRU and possibly Regulation post evaluation) difficulties in financial standing 1071/2009 and establishing and professional Regulation ERRU, could be competence 1213/2010, some

(currently it only the latter not resistance includes good being fully repute). implemented

in all Member States.

Compliance with data protection legislation shall also be ensured.

Extend access to ToR Still today not Technical Would improve No problems ERRU to road side all Member feasibility effectiveness / foreseen. check officers and States are needs to be efficiency by ensuring make mandatory the interconnected confirmed with relevant info is fields in ERRU to the ERRU stakeholders available relative to vehicle system. registration plates.

Currently ERRU is Data only accessible to protection enforcement issues: which

Proposed policy Source Legal Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality option feasibility feasibility efficiency feasibility

authorities through data would be an administrative available, to request. whom and

under which circumstances.

Set up ‘integrated ETF No problems Technical No problems operator files’ where foreseen. feasibility foreseen. vehicle and driver needs to be are intrinsically confirmed with linked to the stakeholders operator as the main organiser of the transport activity and user of resources, and move this integrated file from paper-format to edocuments

Automatically ETF No problems Technical No problems detecting data foreseen. feasibility foreseen. conflicts and needs to be registering them in confirmed with the NERs, ERRU and stakeholders the risk rating systems, as part of the operator’s compliance record

Driver 2 - Different implementation of the rules

• I) 

  Different interpretations of certain cabotage provisions

Clarify the possibility ToR Currently no This is already More consistent legal This is already No problems of “groupage” legal the framework for hauliers, the foreseen. transport in coherence at interpretation improved certainty and interpretation cabotage to ensure EU level on the in several MS consistent in several MS. that multiple definition of interpretation of the Some loadings and groupage. rules opposition unloadings are could be possible as part of expected from one cabotage MS that have operation taken a

different view

Include combined ETF Will require Difficulties to More clear framework Limited No problems transport within the changes to check/prove but may create supported – foreseen. scope of cabotage Combined whether an problems in combined significant

Regulation Transport operation is transport opposition

1072/2009 Directive combined indicated in transport or the recent cabotage consultation

Provide definition of IRU No major No problems More consistent legal No major No problems combined transport problems foreseen. framework for hauliers, problems foreseen. within Regulation foreseen. improved certainty and foreseen.

1072/2009 consistent interpretation of the rules

Creation of an online Public No problems No problems Some improvements No problems No problems

Proposed policy Source Legal Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality option feasibility feasibility efficiency feasibility

platform where consultation foreseen. foreseen – possible, where foreseen foreseen.

Member States can depends on information availability post comprehensive specifications is contributing to information relating problems to applicable

national rules Costs depending on design

• ii) 

  Different interpretation among MS of provisions related to stable and effective and effective establishment, conditions leading to loss of good repute, terms used in the Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i regarding financial standing

Review reference ToR / public Needs to be Depends on Clear and harmonised Support for No problems points for effective consultation further specific reference points this measure foreseen. and stable assessed under requirements. should improve identified in establishment, so as the freedom of Options should enforcement and ex-post to ensure that the establishment be designed reduce risk of letterbox evaluation establishment in a and the with companies. among MS, given Member State constitutional enforceability industry and

is indeed effective right on in mind. Should be careful not associations and stable. (e.g. inviolability of Existing to penalise SMEs

require that the the domicile. examples can operator holds assets be used from and employs staff certain MS commensurate with the establishment’s scope of activity).

Provide a clearer ToR Data No problems Would help to reduce Support for No problems definition of the protection and foreseen the use of front men this measure foreseen. relevant persons to proportionality (since checking only identified in be checked for good issues. transport managers ex-post repute,.. may encourage the use evaluation

of “front men”)

Set more precise ToR No major No problems Clear and harmonised Support for No problems requirements on problems foreseen Bank provisions should this measure foreseen. how a newly foreseen but statement improve enforcement identified in established to bear in mind evidence could and legal certainty for ex-post enterprise can prove balance be accepted, companies evaluation its financial standing. between the as long as the

principle of no requisite discrimination financial and allowing amount is some flexibility available for new entrants in the market.

Development of a Public No problems N/A May have some No problems No problems practical guide for consultation foreseen. benefits if widely foreseen foreseen. interpretation of EU accepted rules, prepared for the road transport sector.

Introduction across ETF No clear legal Would need to The requirements of This has not May be seen as the EU of a social basis for the be charged per financial standing are been widely disproportionate guarantee fund as a creation of driver – checks already intended to suggested and to the size of the mandatory such fund. of compliance cover eventualities so limited problem. precondition to Social security could be such as court rulings support is engage in the is a carried out as requiring expected occupation of road competence of part of other compensation for transport operator, the Member standard salaries/social security

Proposed policy Source Legal Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality option feasibility feasibility efficiency feasibility

States. checks of Reg etc 1071/2009

• iii) 

  Some MS apply (some) of the provisions of Reg. 1071/2009 and Regulation 1072/2009 i to vehicles below 3.5t

Reduce the 3.5 tonne ToR Tachograph Depends on the Several MS are Available evidence limit for the legislation is specific design already suggests that is

application of applicable to Depends on

Regulation (EC) No vehicles <7.5 the specific Could be confirmed

considering becoming a more

1071/2009 tonnes. requirements through case studies

this or have important applied it. problem and

(partial/full) To be on MS that already Others may intervention is confirmed apply such rules oppose (to be needed – but

through case confirmed) extent to full

studies Partial scope may be introduction disproportionate

may be more acceptable

Reduce the 3.5 tonne ToR Tachograph Tachograph Could be confirmed Several MS are Available evidence limit for the legislation is use not through case studies already suggests that is application of applicable to mandatory for on MS that already considering becoming a more Regulation (EC) No vehicles <7.5 LCVs – apply such rules this or have important 1072/2009. tonnes. enforcement applied it. problem and

(partial/full) may be Depends on the Others may intervention is difficult specific design oppose (to be needed – but

To be confirmed) extent to full confirmed scope may be

through case disproportionate

studies

• iv) 

  Significant variation in the level of penalties for non-compliance

Introduce penalties ToR Possible No problems Depends on how Support Possible issue of for shippers and problems with foreseen implemented – among proportionality of freight forwarders, in proof of where difficulties with stakeholders the penalties with case they knowingly responsibility enforcement identified for co-liability, regard to the commission lies. in other legislative as long as it is infringement. transport services areas (e.g. social) not strict coinvolving liability infringements of the

Regulations (e.g. illegal cabotage operations).

Extend the ToR May require No problems More certainty for Support has Possible issue of empowerment for significant foreseen hauliers and more been proportionality of the Commission to changes to consistent framework expressed for the penalties with come forward with a national to dissuade more guidance regard to the classification of legislation infringement of the in this area. infringement. infringements which rules Some are not related to opposition safety and revise could be annex IV of expected from

Regulation (EC) No MS that wish

1071/2009 on the to retain their most serious existing infringements. classification

Introduce cabotage Public Problems of Related to Related to above Related to Proportionality of in the classification consultation lack of above above the penalties with of serious coherence regard to the

Proposed policy Source Legal Technical Effectiveness and Political Proportionality option feasibility feasibility efficiency feasibility

infringements between infringement will leading to the loss of Member be required . good repute States (i.e.

major differences in sanctions for same infringements).

• v) 

  Additional requirements for establishment in some Member States

Remove the ToR No major No problems Where additional Few problems Could be seen as possibility for problems foreseen requirements do not foreseen, disproportionate Member States to foreseen. effectively prevent although some by some MS add additional letterbox companies, MS may requirements for they only add to the demand establishment. cost of establishment specific

and enforcement freedoms

vi)) Different approaches adopted regarding transport of empty containers / pallets and transport for non-commercial purposes

Clarify the treatment ToR No problems No problems More consistent legal This is already No problems applicable to the foreseen. This foreseen. framework for hauliers, the foreseen. transport of empty is already the improved certainty and interpretation containers or pallets, interpretation consistent in several MS. to ensure that in several MS interpretation of the Some whenever the rules opposition transport of these could be goods is itself subject expected from to a contract, it MS that have should be considered taken a as a transport different view operation in its own right.

On the basis of this initial screening, the following policy measures were discarded, without further assessment of impacts:

 Establishment of a European control agency to assume responsibility for enforcement:

This is outside the scope of the present Impact Assessment as it would concern several different aspects of road transport legislation, such as the social rules, the rules on weights and dimensions, etc. It would also require additional legislation, going beyond a revision of the Regulations at stake in this Impact Assessment.

 Establishment of a high level group of competent authorities to regularly follow up after

rules are designed and implemented:

Monitoring the implementation of the rules by Member States and taking action (i.e. starting infringement procedures) in case of incorrect implementation is an exclusive competence and duty of the Commission. Competent authorities are free to set up multilateral bodies with other Member States' competent authorities, but this is without prejudice to the Commission's exclusive competence regarding the implementation of EU legislation.

 Removal of all cabotage restrictions:

The long-term objective of the EU rules on access the road transport market is the completion of the single European market. However, as mentioned in recital 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 i, "The gradual completion of the single European market should lead to the elimination of restrictions on access to the domestic markets of Member States. Nevertheless, this should take into account the effectiveness of controls and the evolution of employment conditions in the profession, the harmonisation of the rules in the fields of, inter alia, enforcement and road user charges, and social and safety

legislation."

The differences between Member States and stakeholders in terms of labour and social conditions have not reduced, from the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 i to date, to an extent that would allow complete removal of the cabotage restrictions. As shown in Figures 4 and 5 above, the existing cost differentials between Member States are expected to decrease moderately and progressively over the coming years (in both baseline scenario 1 and 2), but the overall reduction of these cost differences is not substantial to the point that would justify complete removal of cabotage

restrictions.

Moreover, there is at present no political support for such full liberalisation. Only Poland has expressed the view, in the context of the open public consultation, that all cabotage restrictions should be removed. Several low-wage Member States (Estonia, the Czech Republic and Malta) have expressed the view that the limit on the number of cabotage operations should be removed and the maximum period for performing cabotage (7 days) should be maintained. All of the other Member States having replied to the public consultation would support either supressing the limit on the number of cabotage operations while reducing the maximum period for performing cabotage or keeping the current rules. Therefore, there is an overwhelming majority of Member States opposed to

full liberalisation of the cabotage market at present.

 Requirement to submit a pre-notification of cabotage operations (cabotage register)

This would consist in setting a requirement for pre-notification of every cabotage operation which must be submitted by hauliers, prior to the beginning of their journey, to the competent authorities in the respective Member States to which they are travelling to. This notification is intended to control restrictions on access to the market (cabotage restrictions). While the measure could be expected to help enforce the cabotage restrictions, it can be seen as imposing an additional barrier to the provision of international road haulage services, when the long-term objective of the EU is to have a fully integrated and open road haulage market. It could therefore be seen as a step back in the completion of the single European market. Also, the measure would go against the REFIT objective of reducing costs for businesses. Pre-notification of each cabotage operation is expected to generate significant costs for businesses in the region of €3-€6

billion in the period 2020-2035 15 .

15 These additional costs would be in the range of €2,700-€5,850 million in the time-based approach (€180-€390 million per

year). The total cabotage activity, as calculated from the cabotage model, was converted to an approximate number of operations (each of which would require pre-notification) using assumptions on the average distance per cabotage trip. Two sources were used to give upper and lower bound estimates of the average distance. The lower-bound estimate was taken from the hauliers’ survey and indicated a median of 450km per trip (responses from 40 individual hauliers). For the upperbound estimate, data from a Germany study were taken (Rich et al, 2016), which were based on MAUT data and modelling results and suggested an average of 209km per trip. The wage rate is based on the average for an administrative assistant

 Establishing a waiting period between two consecutive cabotage periods:

This measure has been discarded on the basis that it does not directly contribute to the root causes/drivers identified, since the objective of the intervention is not to change the current state of opening of the cabotage market, but rather to make the rules more

enforceable.

Input from a number of authorities (Cyprus, Estonia, Poland) suggests that the measure would be difficult to enforce on the basis of the existing information available to enforcers (i.e. tachograph data, CMR consignment note, etc.). If a haulier is controlled and is found to be performing legal cabotage, this information is in principle not registered anywhere. If the same haulier would be controlled again some days later performing illegal cabotage in the same Member State on the basis that a hypothetical mandatory waiting period had not yet elapsed, the enforcers would have no way of proving the illegality of the operation.

Additionally, hauliers responding to the survey consider that the measure would be disruptive for operations and have significant costs. Over 60% of operators (45 out of 70) which responded to the specific questions in the hauliers survey considered that this

measure will have negative impact on their overhead costs.

Furthermore, if more effective rules on posting of workers are adopted (as foreseen in baseline scenario 2,), the attractiveness of "systematic cabotage", which this measure is

specifically aimed to address, will decrease without further intervention.

 Bring forward the deadline for the implementation of the ‘smart’ tachograph by means of

derogation to Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 i:

The introduction of the smart tachograph has been defined in the context of the revision of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 i (the Tachograph Regulation). It was decided to introduce an obligation for all newly registered vehicles to be equipped with the smart tachograph as from 2 March 2019 and for all vehicles involved in international traffic to be fitted with the smart tachograph by 2 March 2034. This timing took into account the need for the industry to develop the required technological solutions and for hauliers to adapt to the new requirements. The current technical state of the art would not allow for the immediate

introduction of the tachograph.

 Make it mandatory for hauliers found in breach of Community rules (social, labour, road)

to retrofit their lorry fleets with the new generation of tachographs:

This measure was discarded on the same basis as the previous one. Additionally, it would require a revision of the current tachograph rules and would generate significant

additional costs for hauliers. It was therefore considered as disproportionate.

 Introduction across the EU of a social guarantee fund as a mandatory precondition to

engage in the occupation of road transport operator:

This policy measure was discarded on the basis that there is no clear legal basis for the creation of such fund. Social security is a competence of the Member States. There are may also be technical (implementation) problems with this measure. The costs for hauliers to immobilise the necessary funds were also expected to be significant, adding to the

from Eurostat data. The time required for electronic notification is estimated to be no more than 10 minutes per cabotage activity (AECOM, 2013).

financial capacity which is already required under the existing four criteria on access to the occupation of road haulier. Thus, the measure was considered disproportionate.

 Include combined transport within the scope of cabotage Regulation 1072/2009 i

This measure would require a revision of Directive 92/106/EEC i (Combined Transport Directive), which is currently being the subject of a separate impact assessment. The adequateness of the possibilities and restrictions for hauliers to perform the road legs of combined transport operations should therefore be assessed under the impact assessment for the revision of the Combined Transport Directive. The results of this impact assessment are not expected to be available before the conclusion of the present impact

assessment exercise.

 Set up ‘integrated operator files’ where vehicle and driver are intrinsically linked to the

operator as the main organiser of the transport activity and user of resources:

This policy measure was discarded on the basis that it overlaps significantly with other measures focusing on extended information on the operators, which should be available to all enforcement bodies (see notably policy measures no. 14, 15 and 16). Thus, it is

considered to be redundant.

Annex 6 – SME test

Consultation with SME representatives

Consultation with SMEs took place throughout the following processes:

 The open public consultation (12 weeks from 15 th June 2016) gave SMEs the

opportunity to respond directly to the questionnaire. It also included questions to all respondents on the expected impacts on the economic situation of small transport

operators.

 The SME panel survey (8 week from 26 th September 2016) was specifically targeted

at SMEs. However, only 17 responses were received.

 The survey of hauliers made available on the Commission’s EU Survey Portal (6 weeks from 7 th November 2016, in Bulgarian, French, German, Polish and English).

80 responses were received, of which 47 were from companies with fewer than 10 employees, and a further 24 were from companies with 20-50 employees.

 A representative of SMEs in the haulage sector (UETR) was specifically interviewed.

UETR primarily promotes the interests of micro- small and medium enterprises in the road transport sector, and represents more than 200,000 road transport undertakings in

Europe.

 Three SMEs were interviewed directly, a self-employed haulier from BG, and Danish

firm (51-200 employees) and a Spanish firm (<10 employees).

 During all other consultations (interviews, surveys), we have asked specific questions

on the expected impact (positive or negative) on SMEs from the proposed policy

measures.

Assessment of businesses likely to be affected

The latest available Eurostat data indicates that in total there were 563,598 registered road freight transport enterprises in Europe with an average size of 5.2 employees per company (Eurostat, 2016b). 90% of companies count less than 10 employees, whereas 99% have less than 50 employees (Eurostat, 2016b).

As a direct consequence of the large share of SMEs in the sector, most of the impacts analysed for transport operators are essentially representative of SMEs. This is also reflected in the distribution of responses to the survey of hauliers, which were almost completely made up of SMEs (only 4 respondents in total had more than 100 employees).

Since the hauliers survey was one of the main sources of quantitative information used to calculate the impacts on businesses, the findings can be interpreted directly as being representative of SMEs. Nevertheless, there are still differences in the impacts between selfemployed, firms with fewer than 10 employees and more than 10 employees, which are analysed in the main report.

Identification of measures that could impact SMEs

The responses to the online public consultation (see Figure 7-7) provided some indications on the measures that are expected to have a sizeable positive or negative impact on economic situation of SMEs. They pointed to penalties to shippers or the extension of scope to cover LCVs as particularly positive, while the introduction of additional criteria for establishment and the removal of a maximum number of cabotage operations received the most negative reviews. A large number of respondents answering “no opinion” to all options.

Figure 7-7: Expected impact on economic situation of small transport operators by type of measure considered

Source: Public consultation

Furthermore, the analysis to the responses to the SME panel survey, which focused on the use of LCVs and the impact of the extension of the scope of the Regulations, also suggest a positive attitude of the extension of the scope of both Regulations (either in full or partially) and this was also supported by UETR which represents small size hauliers and a few national associations in DK.

At the same time, an increase in the costs of operation are expected from around half of the respondents. The introduction of requirement on financial standing under Regulation 1071/2009 i and the requirement for a Community license under Regulation 1072/2009 i are considered the most costly, although by no more than half of respondents. UETR suggested that the costs of compliance should not be significant. It should still be noted that there were only 18 responses to the SME panel survey with only 7 of them being hauliers. Furthermore, they only come from 5 countries within the EU. Thus, the views expressed are most probably not representative of the whole SME population.

Assessment of alternative, mitigating measures

There are several policy measures that are expected to disproportionately benefit SMEs (particularly around simplification and harmonisation of enforcement, such as use of electronic control documents). Hence, these options should be implemented as foreseen.

There are also several policy measures that are expected to disproportionately impact SMEs in a negative way. The most important of these is the proposal to review the reference points for stable and effective establishment, which is expected to result in relatively larger costs for SMEs (compared to firms with more than 10 employees, percentage cost increases would be 2.05 times larger for self-employed, and 1.5 times larger for firms with fewer than 10 employees). In this case, several options can be envisaged to mitigate these impacts:

• a) 

  Implementation of fewer requirements. For example, introducing only the three most effective measures for the new stable and effective establishment reference points (see Section 8.1.1.3 in the report) reduces the expected cost impacts, although there are still disproportionate effects. Compared to firms with more than 10 employees, percentage cost increases would be 1.85 times larger for self-employed, and 1.34 times larger for firms with fewer than 10 employees

• b) 

  Implementation of lighter requirements for SMEs. For example, a Dutch association suggested during an interview for this study that the requirements could be made proportionate to the size of the business – e.g. if a company comprises 1 to 3 trucks, they felt that the requirement regarding the presence of a transport manager would not be necessary. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that the requirements are not completely different for SMEs, since many smaller firms will want to grow and become large firms, while having very different requirements would be a barrier to this.

Implementation of the cabotage register is also expected to be costly for self-employed. The costs could be mitigated for industry in general (including self-employed) by ensuring the system is as simple as possible, electronic, does not require translation, and that notification is not required too far in advance of any cabotage operations.

Annex 7 – Analysis of possible interactions with proposed revisions to social legislation (significant interactions indicated in blue)

Haulage IA measures Interaction with Design interactions Effectiveness / Cost interactions proposed social IA benefit

measures? interactions

Promote common training None identified N/A N/A N/A of enforcement officers and a common EU training curriculum

(voluntary/mandatory)

Introduce cross-border Increase the number Preferable to N/A Not significant. joints controls of concerted checks require the same Social IA indicated (voluntary/mandatory) number of joint that cost to organise

controls for both joint controls was legislative areas in minor, so synergies order to be here (if any) will have

proportionate and a minor effect consistent.

Introduce a minimum N/A Could be based on N/A N/A number of checks of the existing compliance with the requirements for cabotage provisions minimum checks of

social legislation.

Changes to the level of minimum checks under social legislation are not foreseen

Set further minimum N/A N/A N/A N/A common requirements for the administrative procedure to assess good repute and rehabilitation procedure.

Encourage wider N/A N/A N/A N/A participation in voluntary initiatives

Opening up of the national Harmonise the control Requirements / Yes. Yes. risk-rating systems to other tools and systems used timeframes should Risk targeting can Fixed costs for any Member States to promote by enforcers, in be similar for both take into account changes to the exchange of information on particular national risk pieces of more data. system should be high-risk companies and to rating systems (RRS) legislation. incurred once and so target checks to enable there should be

comparability of data synergies if multiple and their exchange changes are made at

between Member the same time. States' enforcement authorities and software used to read and analyse data downloaded from the tachograph and driver's card

Haulage IA measures Interaction with Design interactions Effectiveness / Cost interactions proposed social IA benefit

measures? interactions

Facilitate cross-border Enhance the level and Requirements / Not significant. Not significant checks on establishment effectiveness of escalation Potential for provisions, by introducing a administrative procedure should minor maximum time period for cooperation within be similar for both improvements replies to questions and between Member pieces of (e.g. better regarding establishment States by improving legislation. compliance with

(along with a procedure for the exchange of required response escalation it these information on times) due to timescales are not met). infringements, checks increased

and investigations, familiarity with requirements

across multiple legislative areas

Adopt common Harmonise the control Requirements / Yes. Yes. classification of tools and systems used timeframes should Risk targeting can Fixed costs for any undertakings (green amber, by enforcers, in be similar for both take into account changes to the red label used to indicate particular national risk pieces of more data. system should be increasing level of risk of rating systems (RRS) legislation. incurred once and so non-compliance and be to enable there should be linked to more/less comparability of data synergies if multiple frequent inspections) and their exchange changes are made at

between Member the same time. States' enforcement authorities and software used to read and analyse data downloaded from the tachograph and driver's card

Identify minimum common Harmonise the control Requirements / Yes. Yes. data/information to be tools and systems used timeframes should Risk targeting can Fixed costs for any included in risk rating by enforcers, in be similar for both take into account changes to the systems particular national risk pieces of more data. system should be

rating systems (RRS) legislation. incurred once and so to enable there should be comparability of data synergies if multiple and their exchange changes are made at

between Member the same time. States' enforcement authorities and software used to read and analyse data downloaded from the tachograph and driver's card

Remove maximum number N/A N/A N/A N/A of cabotage operations

(currently 3), while possibly reducing the maximum period for cabotage operations (currently 7 days).

Share best practices on N/A N/A N/A N/A how to conduct cabotage

Haulage IA measures Interaction with Design interactions Effectiveness / Cost interactions proposed social IA benefit

measures? interactions

checks effectively and efficiently, in particular how to use supplementary evidence from sources other than the CMR (such as tachograph data).

Clearly stipulate that the N/A N/A N/A N/A haulier must keep on board vehicle clear evidence of the cabotage operations as well as of the relating incoming international journey

Amend the definition of N/A N/A N/A N/A cabotage to better sustain its temporary nature by introducing a waiting period for the vehicles engaged in cabotage activity

Use of GNSS digital Promote use of GNSS Requirements / Yes. Yes. tachograph for digital tachograph. timeframes should More available Additional costs of enforcement after a certain The digital tachograph be compatible with data to enforcers training / equipment date equipped with a GNSS both pieces of at the time of the for enforcers can be

function will be legislation check shared between the available from 2016- two pieces of 2017 and thanks to its legislation to some new satellite extent (although not positioning function, completely – e.g. will allow enforcers some training would to check at the need to be specific). roadside the movements of a vehicle.

Acceptance of electronic N/A N/A N/A N/A consignment notes by enforcers after a certain date

Allow secure record and N/A N/A N/A N/A storage (company site and

Member State data base) of geo-positioning data of driver and vehicle

Include the conditions on N/A N/A N/A N/A

establishment in ERRU and

possibly financial standing and professional competence (currently it only includes good repute).

Extend access to ERRU to Enable access of Requirements / Yes. Yes. road side check officers and controllers to RRS to timeframes should More available Possible synergies if

make mandatory the fields

Haulage IA measures Interaction with Design interactions Effectiveness / Cost interactions proposed social IA benefit

measures? interactions

in ERRU relative to vehicle help them check in be similar for both data to enforcers roadside officers registration plates. real time whether a pieces of at the time of the need additional Currently ERRU is only company is registered legislation. check equipment to access accessible to enforcement and to identify highboth systems authorities through an risk companies (unknown, to be administrative request. checked with

stakeholders what is

needed)

Set up ‘integrated operator Harmonize the control N/A N/A N/A files’ where vehicle and tools and systems used driver are intrinsically by enforcers, in linked to the operator as particular national risk the main organiser of the rating systems (RRS) transport activity and user to enable of resources (measure comparability of data proposed by ETF – similar and their exchange to the one below) between Member

States' enforcement authorities and software used to read and analyse data downloaded from the tachograph and driver's card.

Automatically detect data Harmonize the control Requirements / Yes. Yes conflicts and registering tools and systems used timeframes should More available Increased costs to them in the NERs, ERRU by enforcers, in be compatible with data to enforcers adapt the systems and the risk rating systems, particular national risk both pieces of at the time of the will be incurred and as part of the operator’s rating systems (RRS) legislation check may be assigned to compliance record to enable the 1071 revision, but

comparability of data would benefit and their exchange enforcement in

between Member general. States' enforcement authorities and software used to read and analyse data downloaded from the tachograph and driver's card.

Review reference points for N/A N/A N/A N/A effective and stable establishments, so as to ensure that the establishment in a given

Member State is indeed effective and stable.

Provide a clearer definition N/A N/A N/A N/A of the relevant persons to be checked for good repute

Set more precise N/A N/A N/A N/A requirements on how a newly established

Haulage IA measures Interaction with Design interactions Effectiveness / Cost interactions proposed social IA benefit

measures? interactions

enterprise can prove its financial standing.

Development of a practical N/A N/A N/A N/A guide for interpretation of

EU rules, prepared for the road transport sector.

Extend scope of Regulation Clarify and adapt, Requirements / Not clear Not clear (EC) No 1071/2009 to cover where necessary, the timeframes should Only relevant to the vehicles below 3.5 t fully. scope of the be compatible with extent that

legislation with both pieces of enforcement is regard to driver legislation carried out at the (professional, private, same time / by the occasional driver, same organisations, self-employed), to which is not always

vehicle (e.g. vehicles the case below 3,5 tonnes),

Extend scope of Regulation Clarify and adapt, Requirements / Not clear Not clear (EC) No 1071/2009 to cover where necessary, the timeframes should Only relevant to the vehicles below 3.5 t scope of the be compatible with extent that partially legislation with both pieces of enforcement is

regard to driver legislation carried out at the (professional, private, same time / by the occasional driver, same organisations, self-employed), to which is not always

vehicle (e.g. vehicles the case below 3,5 tonnes),

Extend scope of Regulation Clarify and adapt, Requirements / Not clear Not clear (EC) No 1072/2009 to cover where necessary, the timeframes should Only relevant to the vehicles below 3.5 t fully scope of the be compatible with extent that

legislation with both pieces of enforcement is regard to driver legislation carried out at the (professional, private, same time / by the occasional driver, same organisations, self-employed), to which is not always

vehicle (e.g. vehicles the case below 3,5 tonnes),

Extend scope of Regulation Clarify and adapt, Requirements / Not clear Not clear (EC) No 1072/2009 to cover where necessary, the timeframes should Only relevant to the vehicles below 3.5 t scope of the be compatible with extent that partially legislation with both pieces of enforcement is

regard to driver legislation carried out at the (professional, private, same time / by the occasional driver, same organisations, self-employed), to which is not always

vehicle (e.g. vehicles the case below 3,5 tonnes),

Introduce penalties for Introduce penalties for Intervention should Not significant Not significant shippers and freight shippers, freight be consistent forwarders, in case they forwarders and other between both knowingly commission actors in pieces of legislation transport services involving subcontracting chain, infringements of the in case they

Haulage IA measures Interaction with Design interactions Effectiveness / Cost interactions proposed social IA benefit measures? interactions

Regulations (e.g. illegal knowingly cabotage operations). commission transport

services involving infringements of the legislation. Such penalties would incentivise them to resort to transport operations carried out in a lawful way.

Extend the empowerment Establish minimum Intervention should Not significant Not significant for the Commission to requirements to be consistent May be some come forward with a determine between both mutual classification of appropriate types pieces of legislation reinforcement of infringements which are and levels of compliance with not related to safety and sanctions that are rules overall revise annex IV of proportionate to the where operators

Regulation (EC) No seriousness of offend in multiple

1071/2009 on the most infringements as areas serious infringements. established by the EU

legislation (e.g.: Regulation (EC) No 2016/403).

Introduce cabotage in the N/A N/A N/A N/A classification of serious infringements leading to the loss of good repute

Remove the possibility for N/A N/A N/A N/A

Member States to add additional requirements for establishment.

Clarify the possibility of N/A N/A N/A N/A

"groupage" transport in cabotage to ensure that multiple loadings and unloadings are possible as part of one cabotage operation

Creation of an online N/A N/A N/A N/A platform where Member

States can post comprehensive information relating to applicable national rules

Clarify the treatment N/A N/A N/A N/A applicable to the transport of empty containers or pallets, to ensure that whenever the transport of these goods is itself subject to a contract, it should be considered as a transport

Haulage IA measures Interaction with Design interactions Effectiveness / Cost interactions proposed social IA benefit

measures? interactions

operation in its own right.

Annex 8 – Identification of operational objectives and monitoring plan

A monitoring and evaluation framework has been developed on the basis that Package 3b (without including the cabotage register measure), in combination with Partial extension to cover LCVs (Policy Package 4b) is the preferred policy option.

Operational objectives of the preferred policy option

As a first step, the development of the monitoring and evaluation framework requires the establishment of the operational objectives of the preferred policy option.

A set of operational objectives that are derived from the respective generic and specific objectives and reflect the nature and type of measures adopted is presented in Table 9-1 below.

To those, we should also add the objective of successful adoption of the proposed measure which includes changes to the two Regulations, changes to national rules and other relevant provisions and actions at national level (from implementing and enforcement authorities) to make the necessary changes to the relevant systems (e.g. ERRU, national risk rating systems) and procedures.

Table 9-1 – Operational objectives

General objectives Specific objectives Operational objectives

Ensure a level playing Ensure coherent and  Set up rules and standards in relation to field between consistent monitoring and minimum number of enforcement activities resident and nonenforcement of the  Set (or update) requirements/standards for

resident hauliers; existing rules in Member opening access to ERRU, national rating States;

systems

 Set up rules for communication and

cooperation among Member States (e.g. period for responses)

 Set-up common training of enforcers and

joint cross-border controls

 Introduce necessary changes to Regulation

1072/2009 in relation to definition of cabotage and evidence needed to prove legality

 Introduce provisions concerning the

mandatory acceptance of electronic documents and GNSS tachographs

Ensure coherent  Introduce necessary changes to Regulation interpretation and and/or introduce other necessary legal acts application of the existing necessary in relation to: rules in Member States. o Criteria for checking stable and

effective establishment

o Clarification to existing provisions

(good repute, financial standings groupage, empty containers)

o Update and harmonise

classification of infringements and introduce principle of co-liability

o Define scope for extension to cover

LCVs and setting transition period

 Member States remove additional

provisions from national legislation (where applicable)

 Develop (update) practical guidance

document for road transport sector

Ensure proportionate Reduce burdens for  Reduce/Minimise associated compliance

regulatory costs. national authorities and and administrative costs for businesses

transport undertakings from adopted measures

 Increase efficiency of enforcement

activities

Monitoring and evaluation framework – Relevant indicators and data sources

The monitoring framework should cover the following aspects of the initiative:

 Implementation: Covers changes to the Regulation and adoption of measures that are

necessary to enable the implementation of the selected policy measures. In most cases relevant data should be available from the Commission services or possibly rely on

reporting from the national authorities.

 Application: Focuses on the actual changes observed as a result of the realisation of

the policy and is closely linked with the specific and operational objectives. Data for some of the relevant indicators should be relatively easily available and should be possible to include in the biennial reports submitted by authorities or collected directly by the Commission services. Other aspects will have to be covered as part of the evaluation of the Regulations where surveys and other tools will be used to collect

relevant information (such as costs of compliance).

 Enforcement and Compliance: This includes the extent of enforcement activities and

levels of compliance. Relevant data for most of the indicators is available in the

biennial monitoring reports submitted by authorities.

 Contextual information, if applicable: We consider that greater information on the

level of use of electronic documentation and smart tachographs but also level of use of LCVs in domestic and international transport (for which information is limited) should be considered. This is in addition to the more contextual information concerning the evolution of road freight transport (national, international, cabotage) which is already

monitored.

Table 9-2 below presents the indicators and data sources proposed for the four different aspects.

Table 9-2: Proposed monitoring and evaluation framework

Monitoring - evaluation aspect and Indicator Source(s) relevant objectives

Implementation of adopted changes

Make necessary changes to the text Extent that necessary changes to European Commission of Regulations 1071/2009 i and the test of Regulations 1071/2009 i

1072/2009 in line with the adopted and 1072/2009 has been measures completed by set date

Make necessary changes to Number of Member States that European Commission + respective national rules and other have adopted national rules in National authorities relevant provisions where relevant accordance with agreed changes (monitoring reports)

Monitoring - evaluation aspect and Indicator Source(s) relevant objectives

Implement necessary changes to

relevant systems (e.g. ERRU, risk Number of Member States that EU Commission + rating systems) to facilitate access has completed changes to relevant National authorities and cooperation systems by a set date (monitoring reports)

Application

Improved access to relevant Number of times that information European information during enforcement from ERRU and national rating Commission/National

activities (roadside and premises systems was used during controls authorities checks)

Increased level of communication Number of information exchanges European Commission and cooperation (ERRU system)

Number of joint-cross border National monitoring controls reports

Reduce enforcement costs for Costs associated with enforcement Evaluation (survey) authorities of Regulations

Reduce compliance/administrative Costs associated with compliance Evaluation (survey) costs for business Regulations

Administrative costs associated with Regulations (for HGV and LCV users)

Minimise/remove issues of non Number of cases of non-consistent European Commission coherent application of Regulations application documented

Increased use of electronic Number of authorities accepting National reports

documents and smart tachographs electronic documents Evaluation (survey)

Share of businesses using Evaluation (survey) electronic documents for proving

legality of cabotage

Enforcement and compliance

Increase overall enforcement effort Number of roadside and premises and reduce variation among checks

National monitoring reports

Member States

Reduce levels of non-compliance Total number of infringements of National monitoring with Regulation 1071/2009 i and Regulations reports

1072/2009

Level of illegal cabotage and National monitoring letterbox companies identified reports/Evaluation (subset of total infringements)

Total number of infringements of

Regulations in the case of haulers National monitoring using LCVs reports

Number of authorisations,

community licenses, certificates of National monitoring professional competence, reports

withdrawals Monitoring - evaluation aspect and Indicator Source(s) relevant objectives

Contextual information

Evolution of road freight transport Level of road freight transport activity (domestic, international Eurostat

and cabotage operations) (in t-kms and v-kms)

Use of LCVs in road freight transport Share of LCVs in domestic, international and cabotage Specialised study

operations (% of total vehicles and National statistics

t-km)

Level of uptake of e-CMR and GNSS Share of hauliers using e-CMR and tachograph by hauliers smart tachographs

Specialised study/market data

Evaluation

Annex 9 – Description of the road initiatives

THE ROAD INITIATIVES – THE 'BIG PICTURE' 1. INTRODUCTION

The Road Initiatives, which are all REFIT Initiatives, are fully inscribed in the overall priorities of the Juncker Commission notably under the 'A deeper and fairer Internal Market' and the 'Climate and Energy Union'.

The Communications from the Commission on 'Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and business' and on 'A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy' explicitly refer to the Road Initiatives.

The table below presents the link between the Juncker priorities, the Impact Assessments prepared for the Road Initiatives and the related legislative acts.

Priorities IAs Legislation

A deeper and Hired vehicles Directive 2006/1 i fairer Internal

Market Access to the haulage market and to Regulation 1071/2009 i & 1072/2009 the Profession

Social aspects: Driving/rest time, Regulation 561/2006 i and Regulation working time and enforcement 165/2014 measures (tachograph), Posting of

workers and enforcement measures Directive 96/71 i, Directive 2014/67 i, Directive 2002/15 i and Directive 2006/22 i

Access to the market of buses and Regulation 1073/2009 i

Climate and coaches

Energy Union Eurovignette Directive 1999/62 i

European Electronic Toll Service Directive 2004/52 i

(EETS) Commission decision 2009/750 i

Moreover, the transport strategy of the Commission as laid down in the White Paper "Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system" adopted on 28 March 2011, included references to the road

initiatives 16 .

• 2. 

  THE EU ROAD TRANSPORT MARKET

Road transport is the most prominent mode of transport. In 2014, almost three quarters (72%) of all inland freight transport activities in the EU were by road. On the passenger side, the relative importance of road as mode of transport is even greater: on land, road accounts for more than 90% of all passenger-kilometres: 83% for passenger cars and almost 9% for buses and coaches.

Almost half of the 10.6 million people employed in the transport and storage sector in the EU are active in carrying goods or passengers by road. Road freight transport services for hire and reward employs around 3 million people, while the road passenger transport sector (buses, coaches and taxis) adds another 2 million employed persons (a third of which are taxi drivers). This corresponds to more than 2.2% of total employment in the economy and does

16 More specifically in the Annex under points 6, 11 and 39 not include own account transport which in road freight transport alone provides employment for 500,000 to 1 million additional people.

There are about 600,000 companies in the EU whose main business is the provision of road freight transport services for hire and reward. Every year, they generate a total turnover of roughly €300 billion, around a third of which is value added by the sector (the rest being spent on goods and services from other sectors of the economy). The provision of road freight transport services for hire and reward is hence an important economic sector in its own right, generating almost 1% of GDP.

In road passenger transport, there are about 50,000 (mostly) bus and coach operators (of which 12,000 provide urban and suburban services, (some including tram and underground)) and around 290,000 taxi companies in the EU. Together, they generate a turnover of €110 billion. Without taxis, total turnover of the sector is around €90 billion per year, of which some €50 billion is value added.

• 3. 

  WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR ACTION?

Road transport is for a large part international (around 34% 17 ) and this share is increasing,

which explains the need for a common EU legal framework to ensure efficient, fair and sustainable road transport. The framework covers the following aspects:

 Internal market rules governing access for operators to the markets of freight and

passengers

 Social rules on driving/rest time and working time to ensure road safety and respect of

working conditions and fair competition

 Rules implementing the user and polluter pays principles in the context of road charging

 Digital technologies to enable interoperable tolling services in the EU and to enforcement

EU rules (e.g. the tachograph)

It is clear that current rules are no longer fit for purpose. Member States are increasingly adopting own national rules to fight "social dumping" while acknowledging that their actions have adverse effects on the internal market. Moreover, public consultations have shown a strong support for EU action to solve current issues in road transport. For example:

 Severe competition in the road transport sector has led many operators to establish in lowwage

countries without necessarily having any business activity in these countries. There is a lack a clear criteria and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that such establishment

practises are genuine, and that there is a level playing for operators.

 Measures on Posting of Workers implemented in 4 Member States (DE, FR, AT and IT)

are all different and obviously from other Member States which have not implemented any measure to implement the minimum wage to road transport on their territory.

Stakeholders ask for a common set of (simplified) enforcement rules.

 CO2 emissions from road transport represent a large share of total emission and the share

is set to rise in the absence of common action (at EU 28 level), which is needed to

17 Statistical Pocketbook 2016, EU Transport in figures contribute substantially to the commitment under the Paris Agreement and to the 2030 goals.

 Due to the increasingly more and more hyper-mobile nature of the sector, there is a need

for common and enforceable rules for workers. All workers should benefit from the same level of protection in all Member States to avoid social dumping and unfair competition between hauliers. This is currently not the case.

• 4. 

  WHAT ARE THE MAIN PROBLEMS?

The Internal market for road transport is not complete. It is our assessment that the current situation does not allow to exploit the full potential of transport services

 e.g. current rules on bus/coach services or the rules on hired vehicles are still very

restrictive. Some Member States have decided to unilaterally open their market, which has led to a fragmentation of the EU internal market.

Many rules are unclear, therefore leading to different level of implementation by Member States and problems of enforcement:

 e.g. on cabotage where all stakeholders agree that current rules are unenforceable

There are allegations of 'social dumping' and unfair competition in the road transport sector. This has led to a division between East and West in Europe. As a consequence, several Member States have decided to take national measures, which might jeopardize the unity of the EU market for road transport:

 E.g. minimum wage rules in DE, FR, IT and AT coupled with disproportionate

administrative requirements ; prohibition of drivers taking the weekly rest in the cabin of vehicles in FR and BE

Environmentally, we have made good progress on reducing pollutants from Heavy Good Vehicles but our legal framework currently does not address the issue of climate change (CO2). At the same time, the infrastructure quality is degrading in the EU despite that fact that user charges and tolls are levied on most TEN-T and motorways.

Electronic tolling systems in the EU are, despite the primary objective of the EU legislation of "one contract/one on-board unit/one invoice" for the users, far being interoperable. More generally, the benefits of digitalisation are still under-exploited in road transport, in particular to improve control of EU legislation (e.g. many Member States do not currently the use of electronic waybills).

• 5. 

  OPTIONS AND MAIN IMPACTS

To achieve these objectives, all IAs will consider a range of different options, which ultimately should improve the efficiency, fairness and sustainability of road transport.

The IA on Hired Vehicles will assess options aiming at removing outdated restrictions on the use of hired goods vehicles and thus at opening up new possibilities for operators and leasing/hiring companies alike. More flexibility for the hiring of vehicles should lead to more efficient operations, higher productivity and less negative environmental impacts as fleet renewal will be promoted.

The IA on Access to the haulage market and to the Profession will study various options to ensure effective and consistent monitoring and enforcement of the existing rules in Member States and to ensure coherent interpretation and application of the rules. Three broad groups of potential measures will be assessed, namely measures liable to improve enforcement, measures ensuring simplification and clarification of current rules and measures reinforcing the cooperation between Member States.

The IA on Access to the market of buses and coaches will assess options aiming at improving the performance of coach and bus services vis-a-vis other transport modes, especially private car and further developing the internal market for coach and bus services. This should lead to a reduction of the adverse environmental and climate effects connected with mobility. Various policy options will be considered for creating more uniform business conditions and also a level playing field for access to terminals.

The IA on Social aspects of road transport will study options aiming at ensuring the effectiveness of the original system put in place and therefore contributing to the original policy objectives, i.e.: (1) to ensure a level playing field for drivers and operators, (2) to improve and harmonise working conditions and (3) to improve the road safety level. An additional objective, in the context of the implementation and enforcement of the provisions on posting of workers, is to ensure the right balance between the freedom to provide crossborder transport services and the protection of the rights of highly mobile road transport workers. In this perspective, three broad groups of measures will be analysed: 1. Simplification, update and clarification of existing rules, 2. More efficient enforcement and cooperation between Member States and 3. Improved working conditions of drivers and fair competition between operators.

The IA on the Eurovignette will assess options to promote financially and environmentally sustainable and socially equitable (road) transport through wider application of the 'user pays' and 'polluter pays' principles. A number of different measures and their variants aiming at correcting price signals in freight and passenger transport will be considered in order to address the issues identified. The policy options range from minimum adjustments to the Directive required for improving its coherence and addressing all policy objectives, through the promotion of low carbon (fuel efficient) vehicles and the phasing out of time-based charging schemes (vignettes) for trucks to the optimisation of tolls for all vehicles.

The IA on EETS (European Electronic Tolling Service) will study options aiming at reducing the cost and the burden linked to the collection of the electronic tolls in the EU – for the users and for the society at large. It will equally seek to improve the framework conditions for the faster and more widely provision of an interoperable European Electronic Toll Service. Different policy options will be considered, including a non-legislative approach (facilitating exchange of best practice, co-financing EETS-related projects) and a legislative review.

These policy options and their impacts will be presented and assessed in detail in the respective IAs.

• 6. 

  EXPECTED SYNERGIES OF THE PACKAGE

The different initiatives constitute a coherent set of measures which will jointly contribute to an efficient, environmentally and socially sustainable road transport sector. It is expected that the impacts will be more than the addition of the impacts of each initiative, meaning that the initiatives are complementary. Some examples of such synergies are provided below.

 Current restrictions on cabotage are unclear and therefore lead to illegal cabotage. These

illegal activities are closely linked with the fact that transport operators established in low-wage countries exert unfair competition via 'social dumping' and not respecting the rights of workers, who often are staying in their trucks abroad for longer periods. This illustrates the clear link connection between compliance of internal market rules and social/fair competition aspects of road transport, which are all addressed by the road

initiatives and which cannot be dealt with separately.

 When assessing the laws applying a national minimum wage to road transport, Member

States explained the Commission that one of the reasons for adopting these national measures is to fight the phenomenon of fake establishments and “letter box” companies in low-wage countries. Tackling the issue of posting of workers in road transport goes therefore hand in hand with the issue establishment of road hauliers transport operators, which again illustrates the link connection between internal market and social aspects of

road transport.

 Promoting interoperability of electronic tolls systems will lead to lowering the

implementation costs of such systems by Member States. We can expect that this will incentivise Member States to put in place distance-based tolls, which better reflect the user and polluter pays principles use of infrastructure. This shows the close link between

the Eurovignette and EETS initiatives.

 Seeking to improve the performance of coach and bus services vis-a-vis other transport

modes will inevitably lead discussion on a level playing between road and rail services. Current EU legislation provides that rail users shall pay for the use of infrastructure, while it is not currently the case for buses and coaches which are outside the scope of the Eurovignette directive. The inclusion of buses and coaches in the Eurovignette initiative to ensure that they pay a fair price for using the road infrastructure is therefore essential

and will ensure endure overall coherence.

 The initiatives on hired vehicles is in particular related to the initiatives on the access to

the market and to the profession, all having the aim of establishing clear and common rules for a well-functioning and efficient Internal Market for road haulage : some of them by ensuring a good functioning of the market of transport services, others by ensuring the

best use of the fleet of vehicles.

Met de EU Monitor volgt u alle Europese dossiers die voor u van belang zijn en bent u op de hoogte van alles wat er speelt in die dossiers. Helaas kunnen wij geen nieuwe gebruikers aansluiten, deze dienst zal over enige tijd de werkzaamheden staken.

De EU Monitor is ook beschikbaar in het Engels.