TRANNEWS. Presentation of draft report. TRAN Committee meeting 30 November and 1-2 December, Brussels. Adoption of draft report

Transcription

1 TRANNEWS Newsletter from the European Parliament Committee on Transport and Tourism Number 76, 6 December 2010 questions & subscription: ip-tran@europarl.europa.eu Link to the Committee meeting documents can be found here. The TRAN website can be found here. Useful links: Videos of webstreamed Committee meetings can be found here. TRAN Committee meeting 30 November and 1-2 December, Brussels Adoption of draft report Air services agreement West African Economic and Monetary Union Rapporteur: Mr Dieter-Lebrecht Koch (EPP, DE) Consent procedure, single reading Mr Koch's report, presented to the Committee on 26 October, was adopted unanimously. The main achievement of the agreement is the introduction of the concept of an 'EU carrier' in the existing 47 bilateral agreements. This will enable any EU air carrier, established in the territory of a Member State which is party to a bilateral agreement, to benefit from the rights enshrined in that agreement under same conditions as air carriers of that Member State. The report was adopted by: 33:0:0. Vote in Plenary: January Adoption of draft opinion European Urban Agenda and its future in Cohesion Policy Rapporteur: Ms Anna Rosbach (EFD, DA) Opinion to REGI Committee Ms Rosbach spoke on the amendments submitted. Some Members referred to the need to implement the current action plan. The compromise amendments proposed by the Rapporteur attracted broad support. The same goes for the general opinion that transport is a key element for urban development and therefore very important for future cohesion policy in this area. However some Members, including the Rapporteur, thought that urban transport was primarily a local and national responsibility falling under the principle of subsidiarity. The opinion was adopted by 33:1:0. Adoption in REGI: January Presentation of draft report Air services agreement between EC and Brazil Rapporteur: Ms Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D, RO) Consent procedure, single reading The Rapporteur explained the importance of EU- Brazil relations in terms of air traffic, trade and tourism. She presented details of the agreement, in particular relating to the removal of nationality restrictions in the existing bilateral agreements between Member States and Brazil. Ms Țicău called on Members to vote in favour of Parliament's consent. Members approved the agreement bringing about more competition and advantages for passengers. The lack of Parliament's involvement in negotiations was deplored. The aviation safety agreement with Brazil was mentioned, in particular the issue of Council's competence to amend it after adoption. The Commission agreed to the Rapporteur's presentation and pointed out that the air service agreement could not be modified without Parliament's consent. Deadline for amendments: 8 December 2010 Adoption in TRAN: January 2011 Adoption in plenary: February Presentation of draft opinion Implementation of the cohesion policy programmes Rapporteur: Mr Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL, CZ) Opinion to REGI Committee In Mr Kohlíček's and Ms Wils' absence, the Chairman presented the opinion. Mr Kohlíček has tried to align his opinion with that being prepared for the SURE Committee. Of 82 billion cohesion funding for transport, only half was going to TEN-T. Moreover the road/rail imbalance was being exacerbated. He called for more certainty on expenditure timetables and recalled the added value of TEN-T projects. Members noted the sectoral imbalances, low payments implementation, the role of national governments in project choice and, in particular, the importance of cohesion funding for transport infrastructure projects. They emphasised the need to optimise coordination, management and targeting of this expenditure, including through close coordination with the Committee on Regional Affairs. 1

2 Deadline for amendments: 8 December 2010 Adoption in TRAN: January 2011 Adoption in plenary: February Policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable EU after 2013 Rapporteur: Mr Brian Simpson (S&D, UK) Opinion to SURE Committee Ms Haug, Chairwoman, outlined the mandate of the SURE Committee. It worked in three phases: the horizontal issues, implementation of the 2020 Strategy, and would then move on to sectoral issues. It was important to set out Parliament's position. SURE was working on the basis of working documents feeding into a final report and resolution to Plenary. Mr Garriga Polledo, SURE Rapporteur, said that the first reflection documents were stimulating debate and the objective was wide consensus and a strong majority. We can not yet see the link between the 2020 Strategy and the financial perspective. He emphasised the importance of transport infrastructure expenditure and noted the contribution of the Galileo and Marco Polo programmes. Mr Simpson concentrated on added value and alluded to the need to develop TEN-T cross-border elements. Better coordinated use of the cohesion funds was an important element in this. He also raised the aspect of tourism as a major employer. Other Members referred to transport's impact on employment and innovation. The challenge would be to make better use of available resources. When would new funds be available, and would these be earmarked? Member States did not always provide the necessary parallel funding although they insisted on TEN-T support. Planning on a European scale was deficient. Other Members referred to the lack of investment resources in Eastern Europe. The need to find resources for transport investment in addition to transport budget lines was raised. Concerns were also expressed about Council's resistance to funding tourism. Mr Ruete, Director General of DG Move, recalled that 14% of household expenses went on transport and that Europe was a world leader in transport. In the Commission's view the break with oil gave an opportunity to develop added value. It was moving towards a common transport fund. Deadline for amendments: 8 December 2010 Adoption in TRAN: January Exchanges of views with ERA The Committee held an exchange of views with the Executive Director of the European Railways Agency (ERA), Mr Marcel Verslype, on the Agency's current and future activities. At the beginning of his presentation Mr Verslype underlined the inclusive approach taken by the Agency in its work by involving all the sector's actors. In total 157 tasks have been attributed to ERA, which had a 140 staff. Mr Verslype then listed ERA's priorities: Safety: ERA aims to establish a common approach to safety management through safety certification, monitoring the national safety rules, creating common safety targets and measuring EU railways' safety performance. Mr Verslype pointed out that the annual number of casualties caused by train accidents had decreased considerably over the last decade. Cross-acceptance of national rules: the ERA supports the principle of mutual recognition of national rules, carries out checks against these rules and the associated authorisations to place into service. According to ERA's Director, crossacceptance can significantly reduce costs for the sector, especially for cross-border operations. Economic evaluation: to avoid reducing railway transportation's competitiveness, the ERA provides decision-makers with a fair estimate of the effects of Agency recommendations. ERTMS: the ERA is the system authority for ERTMS and as such establishes the process to manage with the contributions of the sector s representatives; it works currently on the new version of ERTMS. Interoperability: ERA offers technical support for the implementation of European legislation in the field of interoperability. It produces proposals for Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs) related to infrastructure, energy and rolling stock. Mr Verslype pointed out that enhancing interoperability contributes to railway safety. Mr Verslype also pointed out that ERA was not involved directly in accident investigation. In the case of the 2010 Buizingen train accident, the Belgian safety agency requested ERA's assistance, but this was not the case for the 2009 Viareggio accident, for which a judicial process might explain the lack of information and cooperation with ERA. Neither was the Agency involved thus far in the safety certification procedure for Eurotunnel; it would need a request from the Commission or national authorities before doing so. Several Members asked for more information about ERA's activities in the Viareggio and Buizingen accident investigations. Others were critical about the management of the Channel tunnel and the impact of specific technical safety specifications on access to the tunnel. Some Members questioned the role of ERA in the cross-acceptance of national rules and the limited progress towards interoperability, especially concerning ERTMS. Certain Members criticised the accessibility of ERA's database and the conditions of use for the general public and researchers. Mr Verslype answered by recalling that security and interoperability were progressing in the European Union, as railways are the safest mode of transport. On ERTMS, he noted that progress was easier outside Europe, especially if no system, or very old ones, were in place, than in European countries where railway networks are already in place with recent technology. On interoperability, progress on 2

3 transparency has been made following the adoption of the related Directive, but it now had to be enforced by Member States. ERA's databases were too numerous, as they use the national data sent by Member States. The European Commission made a brief intervention supporting ERA's statements and considering that progress had been made over the last five years. An evaluation of ERA's future was planned to end in March An impact assessment will then be prepared in order to propose a revision of ERA's Regulation in The main issues to be dealt with might be increased cooperation and supervision of national authorities, improved training and dissemination of information and a role of direct authorisation in certain cases. with EMSA Mr Willem de Ruiter, EMSA's Executive Director, noted that the Commission had recently adopted a proposal to amend the Agency's founding Regulation. This proposal would enable EMSA to intervene if oil pollution was caused by offshore installations. In addition it would extend EMSA s technical assistance to cover all European Neighbourhood Policy countries and emphasize the Agency's central role in maritime surveillance. EMSA s scope to assist the development of EU policies would also be broadened to include issues such as the promotion of Motorways of the Sea, CO 2 emissions and climate change. While welcoming the proposal, Mr de Ruiter expressed concern about being asked to take on new tasks with insufficient resources. In particular, he pointed out that, if oil exploration started in areas which currently lacked EMSA vessels, such as the Arctic Sea, additional resources would be needed. Turning to EMSA's current tasks, Mr de Ruiter explained that it had built up a comprehensive chain of large pollution response vessels, operating in public-private partnership, stationed along the EU coastline. In case of major pollution, these ships must be ready to respond within 24 hours. Parliament would soon receive a mid-term review of this programme, which was financed until He also described a satellite based system, "CleanSeaNet", EMSA had developed to detect ships pumping oily waste overboard in EU waters. It identified hundreds of such cases each year and could also be used to monitor offshore installations. Another electronic system, "SafeSeaNet" made it possible to monitor all ships sailing in EU coastal waters and obtain details of the ship's identity, port of destination, estimated time of arrival and the nature of any dangerous cargo on board. A pilot project to extend SafeSeaNet and allow customs more easily to distinguish ships engaged purely in intra-eu traffic from ships engaged in external traffic was now being developed. This would alleviate the administrative burden for Short Sea Shipping, promote Motorways of the Sea and help customs authorities target their limited resources more effectively. Finally he emphasised that providing scientific and technical advice to the Commission remained the oldest and probably the Agency's most important task. Questions such as sulphur emissions control and alternative clean fuels, together with the important issue of CO 2 and climate change, were likely to provide EMSA with new challenges. Members expressed support for EMSA's work; questions included the possibility of extending the coverage of pollution response vessels, coordination with the Commission's maritime DG and cooperation with the IMO in the fight against piracy. Mr de Ruiter said that three potential areas had been identified for reinforced anti-pollution measures in 2011, including the Canary Islands or Western Mediterranean. No suitable offers had been received for the Bay of Biscay; another attempt would be made next year. While DG MOVE took the lead for the Commission, EMSA also worked on maritime, environmental and other issues with the appropriate DGs. It was contributing to the fight against piracy by means of its Long Range Identification and Tracking system, which was the world's largest. on TEN-T call for proposals DG Move Director, Mr Jean-Eric Paquet, presented the draft proposal for a decision on the selection of projects under the TEN-T 2010 Annual and Multiannual Work Programme according to the usual "privileged" droit de regard procedure, in parallel with Member States. The Annual Work Programme included 77 million allocated as grants and a contribution of up to 3 million to the European Investment Bank to assist the European Public-Private Partnership Expertise Centre (EPEC). This complemented the 130 million budget already made available under the 2010 Annual Work Programme for the Loan Guarantee Instrument (the LGTT, 50 million) and the 2020 European Fund for Energy, Climate Change and Infrastructure (the Marguerite Fund, 80 million). Mr Paquet mentioned that the 2010 Annual Work Programme included some specific priorities for the first time: Priority 1: promote the development of an integrated and environmentally friendly transport system (up to 30 million) Priority 2: accelerate/facilitate TEN-T projects' implementation (up to 40 million) Priority 3: support Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) (up to 7 million). The 2010 annual call had been largely oversubscribed, as was the case for the last two years. Concerning the two Multi-Annual Calls for grants of 95 million for the River Information Services ( 10 million) and Motorways of the Sea ( 85 million) he informed Members that a total of 19 project proposals had been received (RIS 5 and MoS 14). Members alluded to the fact that the relevant material was sent too late for a deeper evaluation of the selected projects. Some Members expressed interest in an evaluation of the LGTT and Marguerite 3

4 Fund financing instruments. For Motorways of the Sea, the Mediterranean appeared under-resourced compared to the Baltic. Concerns were also raised about overlaps between Priority 1 in the annual call and the Marco Polo programme as well as the lack of any MoS project for the Danube strategy. Mr Paquet said the private equity Marguerite Fund was only set up recently whereas the LGTT project had already started. An examination of the different financing instruments could be organised beginning of next year. He also regretted that no Motorways of the Sea projects had been requested by Romania. Tourism in Europe Rapporteur: Mr Carlo Fidanza (EPP, IT) Own-initiative report The Committee held a first exchange of views on the new framework for EU tourism policy, which will be the subject of an own-initiative report. The rapporteur outlined his initial view that the EU should elaborate a comprehensive and integrated strategy with clear and ambitious objectives. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, EU action should only be taken where it brings clear added-value and is complementary to national or regional policies. The Rapporteur considered that the primary objective of the EU's tourism policy should be to strengthen the competitiveness of the European tourism industry, among other things by measures aimed at fostering innovation and improving the quality of the services. The Rapporteur also said that he planned to devote a section of his report to sustainable tourism and the diversification of tourism offers. Furthermore he will make a number of suggestions for making tourism accessible to all groups in society. Finally, the Rapporteur raised the issue of financing and stressed that adequate resources must be made available for tourism policy in the EU budget. During the discussion, Members referred to several additional aspects, which they believe should be addressed in the future report. Among them is the necessity to co-ordinate tourism policy with other related policy areas. They argued that EU visa requirements should be adapted to allow tourists from countries such as Russia and China to visit Europe more easily. Furthermore, several Members emphasised the need to revise the EU Directive on package travel. Other issues touched upon included seasonality, education and training for tourism professionals, labelling and quality standards and the promotion of cross-border cultural and ecotourism. Presentation of draft report: 25 January 2011 Adoption in TRAN: March 2011 Adoption in plenary: April Air Transport Agreement between EC and USA Rapporteur: Mr Artur Zasada (EPP, PL) Consent procedure, single reading Mr Zasada explained that, under the Lisbon Treaty, Parliament could approve or reject the proposed protocol. He said the final aim was market liberalisation and wondered how far the new agreement represented movement in this direction. He also expressed concern about the Fly American programme. Despite these concerns, on balance, the Rapporteur would support the protocol. The Commission noted that the agreement had taken seven years involving 19 negotiating rounds. It reported on a positive stakeholder response. In addition to market access, where incentives are included to encourage progress, regulatory cooperation would now be possible in areas such as security, environment and social standards. More could be done on ownership and control but here Parliament's support would be welcome. Next spring, the Commission intended to organise an investment forum in Washington and would welcome the participation of Committee Members. Other Members agreed that the imbalance in investment opportunities was a matter of concern. This protocol could not represent the end of the negotiations. Several asked how the Commission would ensure Parliament's closer involvement in the process. The Commission confirmed that Member States had unanimously accepted both parts of the agreement. There was an opportunity to discuss new measures on each side. Draft report: January 2011 Adoption in TRAN: February 2011 Adoption in plenary: March Air Transport Agreement between EC and Canada Rapporteur: Ms Silvia-Adriana Țicău (S&D, RO) Ordinary legislative procedure, first reading The Rapporteur set out the main features of the Agreement and welcomed the economic benefits it would bring to each side as well as the scope for regulatory cooperation. She noted that the Joint Committee established by the Agreement would play an important role and requested that Parliament be kept informed of its work. The Commission confirmed that the Agreement reflected a high degree of ambition and took account of environmental and consumer issues, thereby going well beyond the traffic rights that were the main topic of the bilateral agreements between Member States and Canada. Cooperation on environmental issues could include exchanging information about new measures to combat greenhouse gases or limit excessive noise. Draft report: January 2011 Adoption in TRAN: February 2011 Adoption in plenary: March

5 Towards a European road safety area Rapporteur: Mr Dieter-Lebrecht Koch (EPP, DE) Own-initiative report After a brief introduction on the results of the Third Road Safety Action Programme, the Rapporteur presented his initial ideas on the Commission's Communication. In principle, he supported the strategic objectives proposed by the Commission. However, Mr Koch regretted that, instead of a new Action Programme, only some weaker policy orientations were put forward. He also argued that the envisaged measures - although going in the right direction - should be further developed in order to meet the Commission's proposed target of a further 50% reduction of road deaths by The Rapporteur outlined some of his ideas to complement the Commission's approach. They revolved around new technical solutions for cars and motorcycles, ITS (such as ecall for motorcycles, buses and trucks and the promotion of intelligent speed assistance systems), the improvement of data on road safety, and a further development of the road safety charter. The Rapporteur also advocated the nomination of an EU Coordinator for road safety (but not the setting-up of a new Agency), as well as a further harmonisation of rules and traffic signs. Finally he suggested a more ambitious 'Vision Zero' in the long run as well as additional and measurable targets for a better monitoring of road safety developments. In the subsequent debate Members by and large welcomed the Rapporteur's approach. The general view was that the Commission's policy orientations were insufficiently ambitious. Other issues raised included appropriate and harmonised limits for blood alcohol, effective cross-border enforcement of road transport legislation as well as new challenges with regard to the ageing population. For the Commission, Mr Pasquarelli said that the EU should focus on implementing existing rules rather than on new legislation. He stressed the need for an impartial accident investigation scheme and announced the publication of a new Road Safety Action Programme as a follow-up to the current policy orientations. Draft report: February 2011 Adoption in TRAN: May 2011 Adoption in plenary: June Mini-hearing on GNSS Applications context of Ms Țicău's own-initiative report on the Commission's Communication on GNSS. Two experts, Mr Peter Grognard of Septentrio and Mr Rainer Horn of Space Tec Capital, presented their perspectives. Mr Grognard spoke of his firm's experience as Europe's leading company in the development, production and sales of high-precision GNSS receivers for professional applications. He referred to the need and possibility of increasing Europe's market share and gave examples of transport applications. An underlying concern was the future of EU funding and support after the FP 7 programme and emphasised in this context the need for European GNSS downstream industry to be competitive in the future against US, Canadian, Chinese and Brazilian industries. Mr Horn spoke as someone with experience of bringing investment to GNSS. The applications he had been involved in included navigation, logistics and traffic management. He said that the venture capital community had "no radar for the GNSS specificities yet". The major gaps in GNSS funding were coaching and smart private co-investment; he suggested an EU risk capital fund for small and medium sized GNSS enterprises. He cited United Maps as a particularly successful transport application and thought it important that EU institutions close the remaining gaps in the GNSS innovation chain. The Rapporteur and other Members posed a number of questions ranging from the financing aspects to technical issues and transport applications. Ms Ticau asked, in particular, about standards of reliability and accuracy for transport. Draft report: January 2011 Adoption in TRAN: March 2011 Adoption in plenary: May New reports and opinions Reports: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) N 1406/2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency S&D Opinions: Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2000/25/EC as regards the provisions for tractors placed on the market under the flexibility scheme Ms Olga Sehnalová (S&D, CZ) 2012 EU budget S&D Action plan on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) applications Rapporteur: Ms Silvia-Adriana Țicău (S&D, RO) Own-initiative report The Committee held a mini hearing on Transport and Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) in the 5

6 TRAN Committee meeting January, Brussels Provisional agenda: Monday, 24 January 2011, afternoon Exchange of views with Belgian Presidency on transport Exchange of views with Belgian Presidency on tourism Cohesion policy/kohlíček Provisions for engines/sehnalová Policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable EU after 2013/Simpson Tuesday, 25 January 2010, morning Air services agreement EC-Brazil/Țicău (vote) Implementation of cohesion policy/kohlíček (vote) Provisions for engines/sehnalová (vote) Policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable EU after 2013/Simpson (vote) GNSS Applications/Țicău A new political framework for tourism in Europe/Fidanza Eurovignette/ El Khadraoui Tuesday, 25 January 2011, afternoon Exchange of views with Hungarian Presidency on transport Exchange of views on the Single European Railway Area/Serracchiani Wednesday, 25 May, Wednesday, 25 May, Monday, 20 June, Tuesday, 21 June, Tuesday, 21 June, Monday, 11 July, Tuesday, 12 July, Tuesday, 12 July, Wednesday, 13 July, Wednesday, 13 July, Tuesday, 30 August, Tuesday, 30 August, Wednesday, 31 August, Wednesday, 31 August, Thursday, 8 September, Monday, 10 October, Tuesday, 11 October, Tuesday, 11 October, Monday, 21 November, Tuesday, 22 November, Tuesday, 22 November, Wednesday, 23 November, Wednesday, 23 November, Monday, 19 December, Tuesday, 20 December, Tuesday, 20 December, Wednesday, 21 December, Wednesday, 21 December, Thursday, 26 January 2011, morning International air agreements under Lisbon Treaty/Simpson Air Transport Agreement EC and USA/Zasada Air Transport Agreement EC and Canada /Țicău Air Transport Agreement EC and Vietnam/Riquet Civil aviation safety agreement Brazil/Țicău Discharge 2009 Agencies and SESAR/Uggias Discharge 2009 Commission/Grosch TRAN Committee meetings 2011, Brussels Monday, 14 February, (Strasbourg) Monday, 28 February, Monday, 14 March, Tuesday, 15 March, Tuesday, 15 March, Wednesday, 16 March, Wednesday, 16 March, Monday, 11 April, Tuesday, 12 April, Tuesday, 12 April, Wednesday, 13 April, Monday, 23 May, Tuesday, 24 May, Tuesday, 24 May,