Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY AT THE EU LEVEL – AND THE NEW TRANSPORT WHITE PAPER Tamás Fleischer Institute for World Economics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY AT THE EU LEVEL – AND THE NEW TRANSPORT WHITE PAPER Tamás Fleischer Institute for World Economics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences."— Presentation transcript:

1 SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY AT THE EU LEVEL – AND THE NEW TRANSPORT WHITE PAPER Tamás Fleischer Institute for World Economics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences „Transport and the environment, sustainability, green corridors” Eighth SoNorA University Think Tank Conference Szczecin, June 16, 2011.

2 4 Two personal definitions, as seen from Budapest (being third time at a SoNorA Think-Tank Meeting) (1) SoNorA: Those better-off regions of Central Europe (mainly the western part) make their common plans to achieve EU sources for infrastructure development of „the” south- north corridor of Central Europe, through their territory. (2) Think-Tank Meeting: Unpaid studies from those Eastern-Central areas for which the SoNorA project doesn’t promise anything. As an exchange nobody uses or reads these studies. Before the contribution…

3 4 The main message of the contribution in four points (1) The environmental target of the White Paper for 2050 (sixty percent emission decrease, oil dependence decrease, phase out outmoded cars) is a very progressive vision, a clear target. (2) The tools to achieve that objectives are sometimes contradictory in the White Paper (3) There is no clear picture on the what-to-dos of the first ten years until 2020 (when probably a new White Paper will be issued). The back-casting is missing -- following the vision. (4) The Strategy chapter is not too much based on the 2050 vision but rather on the creation of a single European transport area. It was a relevant vision in the period of the EU-6s-9s-12s – but is it still really relevant for the EU-27s, or is it a myth/dream rather? Sustainable mobility at the EU level – and the transport white papers

4 4 Environmental criteria and sustainability 4 Transport and sustainability 4 Sustainability in EU transport policies before The White Paper and its accompanying documents 4 Focus objectives: emission cuts and a uniform European network 4 Integrated approach: transport split by 3 distance ranges 4 3 scenarios versus goal structures: 3 strands, 10 goals 4 Strategy starts from uniformity policy goals subordinating to it any other goals 4 Conclusions Sustainable mobility at the EU level – and the transport white papers

5 Usual sustainability approach: three equal pillars 4 The „three potatoes” Weak sustainability: the sum of the (environmental, social, economical) capital should not be decreased 4 It would mean that we considered the pillars as if one could substitute the other ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY ECONOMY

6 Usual sustainability approach: three equal pillars 4 The „three potatoes” Weak sustainability: the sum of the (environmental, social, economical) capital should not be decreased 4 It would mean that we considered the pillars as if one could substitute the other ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY ECONOMY

7 4 The three pillars in systemic order 4 Strong sustainability: the environmental constraints are to be respected in itself 4 We can have effect on the ‘economy’ or the ‘society’. There are external and internal conditions of the sustainability of these latter systems. The three sustainability pillars in systemic order ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY ECONOMY

8 Spatial dimension of sustainability Besides temporal relations of sustainability, we also have to underline the spatial interconnections 4 UN Bruntland report (Our Common Future 1987) definition of sustainable development “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” 4 The general sustainability approach focus on the time dimension of sustainability; taking care on the environmental conditions of the future generations (inter-generational solidarity) 4 Also important to speak about the spatial conditions of sustainability as spatial solidarity and spatial interdependence - or intra-generational solidarity and spatial self-defence 4 Spatial extension – intra-generational solidarity / defence „development, that meets the needs of those living here without compromising the ability of those living elsewhere to meet their own needs”

9 Spatial dimension of sustainability Besides temporal relations of sustainability, we also have to underline the spatial interconnections 4 Inter-generational connection is a one-way relation: our responsibility for future generations, - they can’t do anything for us... 4 Intra-generational relation is a two-ways relation: the activity of others can also effect our circumstances and possibilities. We have to count on their solidarity, but this is not enough, we must also do for defending our environment. Sustaining our activity in a changing environment besides the solidarity we need also a kind of self-defence. 4 Sustainability is also a fight for control over space out of control over time. “Space of places must retain its autonomy and its meaning independently from the evolution and dynamics of the space of flows” (Castells)

10 4 The key concept: „space of places” and „space of flows” (Castells, Manuel 1996 The Rise of the Network Society - The Information Age). 4 Space of places is our physical environment that has meaning and importance for us, with its order, culture, rules, and internal structures. Space of flows is the field of force: the effects arriving from outside. This latter is not a continuous space, but space of individual effects. 4 Castells do not want to exclude external impacts and do not deny the possibility of internal changes, just underlines that too rapid and too sudden external effects not serve, but rather disintegrate internal relations and structures. - defence is needed against. Spatial dimension of sustainability Besides temporal relations of sustainability, we also have to underline the spatial interconnections

11 What do the network can do? Provision, accessibility, transit, by-passing 4 Above terms can be translated to economic and transport relations using terms as provision, (connections of the ‘space of places’) and. accessibility, through traffic and by-passing. (trajectories of the ‘space of flows’) Different network relations relative to a region Source: After Plogmann (1980), with own additions

12 The key messages of the first part 4 Sustainability 4 Economy is embedded into the social and environmental systems 4 Transport also have to serve wider objectives, and adapt its own targets to the fulfilment of those wider objectives. 4 Sustainability is a temporal and a spatial issue in the same time. Internal networks can serve the internal structure. 4 Transport can serve the internal structure of a region (space of places) first of all by its good internal networks

13 SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY AT THE EU LEVEL – AND THE NEW TRANSPORT WHITE PAPER

14 Sustainable mobility at the EU level – and the transport white papers 4 White Paper 1992 (COM (92) 494 final. The Future Development of the Common Transport Policy – A Global Approach to the Construction of a Community Framework for Sustainable Mobility. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities) 4 White Paper 2001 (COM (2001.) 370.final. European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, CEC,) 4 Mid-term review 2006 (COM(2006) 314 final) Keep Europe moving - Sustainable mobility for our continent - Mid-term review of the European Commission’s 2001 Transport White paper. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Brussels, ) 4 White Paper 2011 (COM(2011) 144 final. White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport System. European Commission, Brussels, )

15 4 Before 1992 –no integrated transport policy at EU level, specific sub-sector level targets (vessel capacity annulation, rest time, flight security etc.) motivation was rather the competition policy balancing 4 EU CTP 1992 „Single network to a single market” –Main targets harmonisation of regulation and creating a common network –Integrated transport policy – but to one single level international links, overlapping networks –Inter-modality, interoperability, free access, corridor, TEN-T single market –The role of the environment is not central Common Transport Policy (CTP) 1992

16

17 European transport policy for 2010: „Time to Decide” (2001) 4 To be solved: congestion, services quality, environment damages, safety, isolated regions 4 Mixed results of the CTP Strategy: Breaking the link between economic growth and transport growth - Reduction in mobility - Redistribution amongst modes - Decreasing road transport by pricing, + efficiency measures in other modes + targeted investments (= TEN.T ) - Sixty proposals – in four blocks. - Shift the balance between modes, - Eliminate bottlenecks, - Users in the heart of transport policy, - Manage the globalisation of transport. 4 White Paper 2001 (COM (2001.) 370.final. European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, CEC,), Brussels, 12 September European Union

18 Keep Europe moving ! Mid-term review of the European Commission’s 2001 Transport White paper Access: _policy_review/doc/com_2006_0314_ transport_policy_review_hu.pdf _policy_review/doc/com_2006_0314_ transport_policy_review_hu.pdf

19 Keep Europe moving ! While the 2001 transport policy stressed a definite need to halt growth in transport performance and slow the increase in road traffic, the re- examination can be considered as a significant withdrawal. „Mobility must be disconnected from its negative side effects”, means ensuring traffic growth rather, not curbing it. ( Keep Europe Moving p. 4.) “to optimise each mode’s own potential”, means avoiding intervention between modes rather then redistribution amongst them. ( ibid p. 4.). Such sentence in the re-vision as: “The efforts to achieve the goals of meeting growing mobility needs and strict environmental standards are beginning to show signs of friction.” ( ibid. p. 29.). sought to imply quite strongly that strict environmental protection should be restored. Yet although it surrounded it with provisos, the re-examination nonetheless declared that “sustainable mobility policy therefore needs to build on a broader range of policy tools achieving shifts to more environmentally friendly modes where appropriate, especially on long distance, in urban areas and on congested corridors” ( ibid. p. 21.).

20 White Paper 2011 …Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system (COM(2011) 144 final. White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. European Commission, Brussels, ) Access: lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?u ri=COM:2011:0144:FIN:HU:PDF

21 4 Four documents 4 (COM(2011)144 final. White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport System. European Commission, Brussels, ) 4 SEC(2011) 358 final Commission Staff Working Paper: Impact Assessment European Commission, Brussels, SEC(2011) 359 final Commission Staff Working Paper: Summary of the Impact Assessment. European Commission, Brussels, _europeenne/sec/2011/0359/COM_SEC(2011)0359_HU.pdf _europeenne/sec/2011/0359/COM_SEC(2011)0359_HU.pdf 4 SEC(2011) 391 final Commission Staff Working Document: Accompanying the White Paper – Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. European Commission, Brussels, White Paper 2011 …Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system

22 4 White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system 4 1 Preparing the European Transport Area for the Future ( Current trends and future challenges: Growing out of Oil ) 4 2 A vision for a competitive and sustainable transport system ( A vision for 2050: an integrated, sustainable and efficient mobility network ) 4 3 The Strategy – what needs to be done ( Strategy: policies to steer change ) White Paper 2011 …Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system

23 4 Evaluation of the past decade since the 2001 White Paper 4 (§12) ‘a lot has been achieved’ -- market opening has taken place, safety and security of transport has been increased, new rules on working conditions and passenger rights have been adopted, trans- European transport network, high-speed railway lines has been built International ties and cooperation have been strengthened, a lot has been done to enhance transport’s environmental performance 4 (§13) BAU trend: in energy consumption, oil dependence, emissions, or cohesion of peripheral areas not just the measure of the changes is not enough, but even the prefix (+ or – ) does not show into the right direction 4 (Working document) Emission values of 2008 by region categories White Paper 2011 …Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system

24 4 Presentation of the situation by a three-level spatial scale White Paper 2011 …Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system GHG emission SEC(2011) 391 final p.18. Urban, (+suburban) Macro-regional ( medium here <500 km ) Global and inter-continental passenger17 %33 %10 % Road in that16 %29 %0 % fright6 %23 %11 % Road in that6 %19 %0 % Total transport emission in the EU = 100 % – each value relates to that. 23 % urban, 56 % macro-regional and 21 % intercontinental. From passenger transport 60 % from freight 40 % Road emits 70 % of the total emissions *Electricity production is not included

25 4 Vision for the future – objectives 4 General policy objective: long-term strategy for a sustainable transport system 4 Three specific objectives: – 60% CO 2 emission, drastic decrease in oil dependency, limit the growth of congestion => 4 (Working document) accessibility, equity, service quality, good provision, paid social costs ! 4 (Impact assessment) three policy options: (1) strict technology standards for vehicle and fuel (2) mobility-management and carbon pricing (3) mixture of 1+2 => (1) is not enough ! 4 WP three strands (§19) (1) vehicle+fuel technology, (2) transport chain performance improving technology, (3) transport + infra- structure efficiency by IT, traffic management, market measures 4 *FT + „implicit objective” …single European transport area” 4 *Unified and homogeneous Europe of 27s? Is it possible to even 2-times, 3-times, 4-times development differences with connection? White Paper 2011 …Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system

26 Ten goals to achieve 60 % GHG emission reduction target Urban + suburban Macro-regional (medium 300 (?)-800 (?) km) Global and intercontinental Vehicle and fuel (1) Phase out conventionally fuelled cars in cities (2) Reduce maritime emissions with 40%, low- carbon fuel planes achieve 40% share in fleet Multimodal chains and modal shift (3) 30% of >300km road fright at another mode by 2030; 50% by 2050; (4) 3x more h-s rail 2030, medium dis. Rail by 2050 (5? TEN-T) core netw. by 2030; >capacity by 2050 (6) rail provision of air- ports and ports by 2050 IT systems traff. management, safety market tools (9) 0 fatalit.by 2050 (10) User / polluter pays; h.ful subs.= 0 (8) Multimodal inform. Management payment sys (9) 0 fatalities by 2050 (10) User / polluter pays, harmful subsidies = 0 (7) Transport manag. syst. for air, land, water by Galileo (9) 0 fatalities by 2050 (10) User / polluter pays, harmful subsidies = 0

27 4 Strategy 4 * (here policy actions, tools and timing should be coupled to the objectives of the future vision) 4 Instead: old frame to start: uniform Union, eliminating market barriers btw countries, creating single European transport area 4 Social, safety, security and environmental requirements: mistaken attempt to subordinate them under above goal 4 This is the reverse of the logic of the sustainability 4 The decisions on common European social objectives should be brought on the basis of the social, environmental, safety and security considerations. The level of / border of the uniformity should be decided by that disciplines and that should be the frame to determine about the elimination of the obstacles to achieve these objectives and promoting the necessary connections White Paper 2011 …Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system

28 4 Strategy 4 * (here policy actions, tools and timing should be coupled to the objectives of the future vision) 4 Instead: old frame to start: uniform Union, eliminating market barriers btw countries, creating single European transport area 4 Social, safety, security and environmental requirements: mistaken attempt to subordinate them under above goal 4 This is the reverse of the logic of the sustainability 4 The decisions on common European social objectives should be brought on the basis of the social, environmental, safety and security considerations. The level of / border of the uniformity should be decided by that disciplines and that should be the frame to determine about the elimination of the obstacles to achieve these objectives and promoting the necessary connections White Paper 2011 …Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system

29 4 Summary 4 The White Paper 2011 offers progressive and explicit environmental frames, target-points for the horizon 2050 (2030) 4 The preparation of those objectives is well documented in the background papers of the White Paper, while many values have been lost in the main document 4 The chapter Strategy that should make the objectives more operative starts from another logic: it wants to adjust environmental and social requirements to the creation of the single European transport area 4 This second part of the objectives aren’t even built up in the document, its reference (in the Impact Assessment) is the 1992 EU Treaty. In the title of the White Paper still this implicit objective has got the first place 4 The back-casting of the 2050 vision is missing from the document, so the strategy couldn’t be built on it 4 Sustainability in the paper is seemingly progressive but uneven White Paper 2011 …Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system ?

30 SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY AT THE EU LEVEL – AND THE NEW TRANSPORT WHITE PAPER Fleischer Tamás Institute for World Economics of the HAS „Transport and the environment, sustainability, green corridors” Eighth SoNorA University Think Tank Conference Szczecin, June 16, THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION !


Download ppt "SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY AT THE EU LEVEL – AND THE NEW TRANSPORT WHITE PAPER Tamás Fleischer Institute for World Economics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google