EU considers truck pollution charges

According to Commission  sources, the draft document seen by EurActiv "concurs with the main pre-conclusions and the general philosophy" that is currently being pursued by the EU executive in terms of scope, factors to be included in 'external cost' charges, collection systems and earmarking of revenues. 

But the sources nevertheless cautioned that "many questions remain wide open," as the document, which is being drafted by the Commission's DG Transport, has not yet been sent for inter-service consultation – a process in which other Commission departments, such as DG Environment or DG Enterprise, get to have a say on the plans. 

Speaking to EurActiv, Damian Viccars, in charge of Social and Fiscal Affairs at the European office of the International Road Transport Union (IRU), said he regretted the fact that the Commission appeared to be going ahead with an approach exclusively based on the "polluter pays" rationale. 

"Policymakers see the internalisation of external costs via the Polluter Pays Principle as a panacea but it is in fact a limited and over simplified approach to the issue," according to IRU. While PPP may seem an "easy" way to collect taxes, it is "not an adequate response" because it is not based on any sound cost-benefit analysis or regulatory impact assessment, as the decision over who should pay is taken in advance, the association insists. 

It instead argues for a strategy based on a Cheapest Cost Avoider Principle (CCAP), under which it would be left to the party that can prevent or abate the damage at the lowest cost for the overall economy to take action. 

Regarding earmarking, Viccars told EurActiv that it would be "a fantastic step in the right direction" if the Commission would propose that funds raised from internalising external costs should be used exclusively for improving road transport, saying: "The money must be used to address the problem at source, not just to prop up member states' budgets." 

He nevertheless said it would be important to see the "whole picture" of the Commission's planned "Green Transport Package" – and notably how the Commission intends to treat other modes – before judging the proposal. 

The International Union of Public Transport (UITP)  stresses the need to increase the contribution of private car usage to covering the external costs it produces. This is a key deficiency of the current Eurovignette Directive, which deals only with commercial vehicles and long-distance transport, despite the fact that the majority of transport-related external costs are concentrated in urban areas, it points out. 

"With regard to passenger transport, the models should target the private car. Public transport should be exempted from tax burdens and should benefit from the revenue of hypothecated taxation on indirect beneficiaries," it stresses. 

The Community of European Railways (CER) welcomed the revision as an important "first step" towards creating a level playing field for all modes of transport, adding that it would put an end to the "outrageous situation" whereby member states are prevented by EU law from charging trucks – i.e. the most polluting means of transport – for any of the costs they produce for society, be it climate change, local pollution, noise, accidents or congestion. 

As for the earmarking of funds, the CER welcomed the fact that the use of revenues would be kept in the transport sector. However, it underlined its position that funds should be used "for investments that will further improve the possibilities for the least polluting modes to handle transport demand, the so-called modal shift". 

João Vieira, policy officer at T&E, the European Federation for Transport and Environment, agreed that "if it's designed right, the updated Eurovignette Directive could be a major step in the right direction," by finally requiring transport users to pay for their negative impacts on society and the environment. 

However, he highlighted "several worrying elements in the draft proposal". 

"Firstly it makes no sense to extend the restrictive EU-level rules to local roads; local authorities are best placed to decide the level and scope of charges to deal with the specific challenges they face. Secondly, the EU should not restrict member states from including the costs of accidents in road charges - they are a massive cost to society and there is no justification for excluding them. Thirdly allowing member states to 'earmark' road charges for road building projects should be prohibited - this simply rewards pollution with the possibility of more pollution - it is a crazy idea," he told EurActiv.