LAND TRANSPORT - Second railway package = General debate - Montesquieu Instituut

COUNCIL OF Brussels, 21 November 2002

THE EUROPEAN UNION

Interinstitutional File: 14445/02

2002/0022 (COD)

2002/0023 (COD) -

2002/0024 (COD)

2002/0025 (COD)

TRANS 292

CODEC 1494

PRESIDENCY NOTE

to : COREPER/COUNCIL

Nos. Cion props : 5723/02 TRANS 18 CODEC 104 (Interoperability)

5724/02 TRANS 19 CODEC 105 (Agency)

5726/02 TRANS 20 (COTIF)

5727/02 TRANS 21 CODEC 106 (Market Access) 5744/02 TRANS 22 CODEC 110 (Safety)

Subject : LAND TRANSPORT

• - 

  Second railway package
• = 

  General debate

1.

The second railway package

2.

During the negotiations on the first railway package1 in the Council and the European

Parliament, and also as a result of experience gained in developing the technical specifications for interoperability for the high-speed rail system, the need for continued development of the regulatory framework became clear.

Furthermore, for historical reasons, the structure of the railway sector in the EU is characterised by a fragmentation flowing from the specificities of national markets. Each national railway system has its own technical specifications and safety systems, so that the barriers obstacles to create a true European railway area are not only regulatory in nature but also physical. These obstacles can only be overcome if and when common standards for interoperability and safety are put in place. This is a prerequisite for the long overdue application of internal market principles to the European rail sector.

Consequently, and with a view to adapting the existing regulatory framework to the aforementioned needs, the Commission tabled four legislative proposals and one recommendation, that make up the second railway package:

Directive on rail safety

• - 

  Directive on interoperability
• - 

  Community accession to the COTIF (Commission Recommendation for a Council Decision)

Furthermore, in order to perform the highly technical and complex tasks of designing the necessary tools - such as the Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI), the Common Safety Targets (CST), Common Safety Measures (CSM) - a European pool of expertise is proposed, in the form of a

European Railway Agency. These experts would aid in the

development of further Community legislation; they should provide independent expertise, and work from a European rather than a national perspective and together with experts from the rail sector. The Agency would have a purely advisory function.

Finally, the package provides for the accession of the Community to the

COTIF - the

Convention on International Transport by Rail. The EU's Member States already are members of the COTIF; the Community should also become a member in order to act with one voice in those areas where the Community has exclusive competence, and in order to strengthen the role of the EU in the development of international rail transport.

Examination of the second railway package by the Council instances

3.

Work on the second railway package by the Council was begun under the Spanish Presidency, in the form of a Council general debate on 26 March 2002

1.

The Danish Presidency, for its part and the from the outset of its term in office, has treated this package as a whole. Considerable progress on each of the proposals has been achieved in the course of technical work; the draft instruments as they stand following these proceedings are reflected in progress reports

2. The Council is invited to take note of these progress reports.

Issues for discussion by Ministers

Common Safety Targets and Common Safety Methods

• 4. 

  The introduction of transparency in the existing situation as regards safety targets and safety methods in force at national level is not contested by delegations. However, during the later stages of the examination of the proposal, a disagreement arose as to what the aim of the proposed adoption of common safety targets and methods on the European level should be.

Some delegations fear that introduction of common safety targets might force them to downscale their existing high safety level. Other delegations expressed concern that common safety targets might lead to an unforeseeable increase of costs in Member States. The Commission's intended aim for this Directive is to first establish transparency of the existing levels of safety by defining common methods to assess them, and subsequently to establish common safety targets which reflect a safety level that is sufficient and necessary to obtain in the EU in order to facilitate the creation of a single European railway area. In this connection, it is worthwhile noting that the general level of railway safety in the EU member States is already very high, in particular compared to other modes of transport.

In the current situation, a strict application of different national safety targets and methods can constitute a market access barrier. In the foreseeable future there will still be room for specific national measures and targets within the common approach established by the safety directive. Higher national targets should, however, not be used to create entrance barriers for railway undertaking by means of conditions for safety certification. This does not prevent the maintenance or establishment of higher national targets which do not constitute entrance barriers for railway undertakings.

Ministers are invited to consider this issue, whilst expressing their preference for one of the following options:

As long as Common Safety Targets and Common Safety Methods have not been adopted, national rules fully apply. Once Commons Safety Targets and Common Safety Methods are adopted:

option a) Member States shall ensure that the requirements set by the Common Safety

Targets and Common Safety Methods are fulfilled, but cannot require higher levels.

option b) Member States shall ensure that the requirements set by the Common Safety

Targets and Common Safety Methods are fulfilled, and they can maintain/adopt higher levels provided these are not imposed on railway undertakings from other Member States entering on their network which fulfil the requirements set by the Common Safety Targets and Common Safety Methods.

option c) Member States shall ensure that the requirements set by the Common Safety

Targets and Common Safety Methods are fulfilled, and they can maintain/adopt higher levels and impose them in a non discriminatory manner to all railway undertakings, including those from other Member States wanting to access their network.

In this case, additional national safety requirements: either (1) shall be notified to the Commission and may be subject to its

The scope of interoperability

• 5. 

  During the examination of the proposed Interoperability Directive, delegations expressed concerns about the potential high cost for the introduction of interoperability for the railway network in the EU: this cost concerns the adaptation of rail infrastructure or rolling stock not covered by Directives 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC to the Technical Specifications for interoperability (TSIs). In fact, such TSIs currently only apply to the trans-European high- speed rail system and to the Trans European Conventional Rail System.

On the other hand, delegations are aware that the current situation of non-interoperability not only constitutes a barrier for market access, but at the same time brings about the substantial "cost of non-interoperability" in terms of rail infrastructure and rolling stock. Two factors are of relevance here: firstly, trains, safety systems and infrastructure have to be tailormade for national or regional rail networks - or even for specific international trajectories. Secondly, because of this fragmented market, established manufacturers benefit from quasi-monopolies.

In the assessment of "the cost for the introduction of interoperability", account must be taken of the proposed exemptions and safeguards designed to prevent excessive costs:

-

Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/16/EC explicitly provides that in specific cases the internal compatibility of the existing rail system in Member States can be retained. These specific cases constitute de facto derogations from the TSIs, allowing Member States to use national/regional/local specifications instead of the TSI.

• - 

  Article 7 of both Directives 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC provides a list of exemptions: for example, a Member States does not have to apply a TSI "for the renewal, extension or upgrading of an existing line, whenever the application of the TSIs would compromise the economic viability of the project" or to isolated or separated networks.

-

The principle that the development of TSIs - which is an ongoing process - will always be subject to priorities, agreed-upon through Comitology, which take account of the cost-effectiveness of the proposed measures. A detailed cost-benefit analysis will furthermore be made when a draft TSI is being presented for adoption through Comitology.

-

Subcategories of lines and other infrastructure components to which the technical specifications for interoperability (TSIs) apply are specified

1. These subcategories

(which could be subdivided even further) make it possible to restrict interoperability to its most essential parts and thus suppress costs.

Furthermore, the proposed application of the interoperability requirements to the whole conventional rail system by 1 January 2008, as proposed by the Commission, applies only to such TSIs which have been specified by that date. As from that date, only the procedures of placing components on the market and of placing subsystems in service will be applicable, whilst TSIs for non-TEN lines and related rolling stock still need to be developed.

Ministers are invited to consider this issue, whilst expressing their preference for one of the following options:

Without prejudice to the exemptions and cost safeguards as foreseen by the currently proposed Interoperability Directive, and without prejudice to the gradual introduction of technical specifications for interoperability, this Directive should contain the following

provision:

option (a) interoperability should apply to the whole European railway network in the near-

to-medium-term (as currently foreseen in the draft Directive) ;

option (b) interoperability should only apply to a well-defined part of the network in the near

future;

option (c) (a combination of a) and b)) interoperability should apply to a specified part of the

network in the near future, and to the whole network in the near-to-medium-term.