The Combined Transport (CT) Directive is back on the European Commission’s workplan. It is the only one out of 25 pieces of legislation that survived the withdrawal review on 22 July. That is for a good reason.
The combined rail-road transport association UIRR welcomes the CT Directive amendment proposal of the Commission being back on the European Commission’s workplan. It received a notification from DG MOVE announcing the Directive’s return, UIRR’s Director General Ralf-Charley Schultze tells RailFreight.com.
UIRR acknowledges that the survival of the combined transport proposal, if officially confirmed in September, would be “strong signal to the co-legislators”, namely the Council and European Parliament.
The CT Directive had stalled in the legislative procedure earlier. It seems that the Council and Parliament have been waiting for each other. “There was no need for that”, the UIRR Director General says. There was apparently “no appetite” to continue discussions on the Directive because of difficult negotiations under the Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies in 2024, Schultze explains.
Where to go from here?
Clearly, the Combined Transport Directive is important enough to put back on the agenda. The worst-case scenario would now be that the co-legislators fail to pick up the slack, says Schultze. UIRR will now focus on convincing the upcoming Lithuanian, Greek and Italian Presidencies to move it forward.
The main roadblock for a modernised CT Directive seems to be the definition of combined transport. For this reason, UIRR proposes that work on the legislation restart by looking at the contents beyond the definition first. This includes policy-framework-based support measures, financial incentives to promote CT, a European information portal on national rules and several framework measures to enable digitalisation, for instance.
Once this is out of the way, the discussion can return to the definition of CT and the rules of enforcement. This is unavoidable in a way, believes Schultze. The current CT definition is incompatible with the EU’s efforts to digitise freight transport documentation through eFTI. Consequently, something in the CT definition and the enforcement rules needs to change.
CT or no CT?
Schultze brought up the example of an Italian company from Verona that wanted to move its freight to Singen in Germany. It wanted a daily departure alongside a transit time of 24 hours and opted to transport its freight from Verona to Busto Arsizio, from where it could secure daily and fast shipment to Singen. Since this would qualify as CT, according to the company, it ran trucks of 44 tonnes. This is only allowed in cross-border operations under the 1992 Combined Transport legislation.
Nevertheless, the company was fined for exceeding the weight limit despite it being a cross-border operation. Italian authorities argued that the operation did not qualify as CT, because Busto Arsizio was not the nearest suitable rail terminal. Verona has its own Quadrante Europa terminal, but that one does not offer trains to Singen.
EU Member States diverge in their interpretation of the existing 1992 CT definition (such as what counts as the nearest suitable terminal) and may not always reason in the same way as Italy. This leads to legal confusion and uncertainties, delays and fines, as in the case of this Verona-based company. A good reason to modernise the Directive.
Moreover, with the introduction of eFTI, the entire administrative process that accompanies a physical freight movement should be digitised. However, how do you then digitise terminal suitability, wonders Schultze. “No one has been able to explain to me how to digitise these suitability designations”.
What is a good definition?
UIRR favours a new definition of CT based on a door-to-door distance of the transport and which “can easily be enforced”. The Commission proposed defining CT on the basis of reductions in negative externalities, where the intermodal solution must be 40% better compared to the unimodal road alternative.
However, that is too impractical for businesses to work with according to the road-rail CT association. Rather, starting with a 50% road, 50% rail or waterway definition while “taking into account some necessary derogations”, seems more realistic to UIRR. Later on, this threshold could be easily amended if deemed necessary. Still, keeping the current definition of CT could serve as plan B, but for enforcement it would require some clarifications and interpretations, the association believes.
The core message from UIRR remains that the co-legislators should pick up the slack, because the modernisation of the CTD is necessary: “the sooner the better”. The situation also presents an opportunity to the freight transport industry. “We have momentum now”, says Schultze. “The sector must come up with ideas. The co-legislators will decide which parts of the Commission proposal are good, and which ones should be improved and they will shape a proposal on that basis.”
