Speech by Isabelle Durant

Speech by  Isabelle Durant,  Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Mobility and Transport Brussels, 20 May 2000

Mrs. de Palacio,

Mr. President,

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to begin by thanking the IRU for having invited me to speak at its Congress on the theme of "Mobility of People and Goods 2000+".

The theme that you have chosen is very topical indeed. Since I joined the Department of Mobility and Transport, I have come to the realisation that there is an increasing awareness in society of the importance of mobility.

And there’s no doubt that our awareness is raised on a daily basis, for example when stuck in a traffic jam or in a station waiting for a train.

We know that economic growth almost infallibly results in an increase in the demand for mobility.

In our country, located in the very heart of Europe with a very dense communication network, this evolution becomes immediately visible, affecting citizens, not to mention economic and political players.

But as transport professionals, you have been well aware of the stakes for some time. And you are legitimately concerned about the future of your companies and of all the workers that you employ.

I am most pleased to note that the need to reconcile economic development with sustainable development has been one of the objectives of the IRU and all its member associations for several years now.

I’m thinking, in particular, about the Charter on Sustainable Development that you signed in 1996.

I firmly believe that there can be no guarantee of long-term development in any sector of economic activity if company managers and workers do not take careful account of the needs of sustainable development.

In other words, there can be no long-term economic development without respecting the right of future generations to live in a quality environment.

This is as true for the transport sector – and I am thinking not only of road transport, but also of air transport – as it is for any other sector of economic activity.

At the Belgian level, this concern has resulted in the declaration "Driving towards the 21^st century" which the federal government – the first government to include members of the Green party in the history of Belgium – approved last July.

But what does this declaration tell us about the issue at hand today?

It very clearly states that Belgium must prevent the growing demand for mobility from turning solely to road transport and must insist on giving a larger role to the railways in transporting goods.

The governmental declaration also insists on the fact that Belgium must respect the commitments that it took during the Kyoto Summit in terms of cutting down on the production of greenhouse gases.

The Kyoto agreements also stipulate that by 2008-2010 Belgium must reduce its greenhouse gases by 7.5% compared to 1990.

If you take into consideration the continuing upward spiral in mobility figures, this is no small objective and it will prove important to evaluate the situation in the coming months and years.

This is the belief of my colleagues in government and I am speaking not only of the Green ministers for Health and Energy, but also of all my colleagues in government who share the concern for sustainable development mentioned in the governmental agreement.

I would like to insist on the fact that in order to meet the objectives of Kyoto, we must act in every sector that produces greenhouse gases. The main greenhouse gas is CO2 and according to the latest estimates of the Federal Planning Bureau, the amount of CO2 emissions will continue to rise between now and 2005.

Now transport (other than air transport) is already responsible for just over 20% of all CO2 emissions and of this 20%, the majority falls on the shoulders of road transport (cars and lorries combined).

In fact, the Green Paper of the Commission "Towards fair and efficient charging in transport" states that road transport is responsible for producing five times more CO2 emissions than rail transport, 3.5 times more CO and 4.6 times more NOX.

Naturally, road transport is not the only one to blame for the existing threats to the quality of our atmosphere. And it is also true that the gas emissions of buses, coaches and lorries have been reduced considerably in recent years thanks to the development of high-performance motors.

So we need to examine the full range of measures before determining the balanced contribution that each of the sectors (like industry and energy) can make to a gradual limitation in the production of greenhouse gases, but also of all polluting gases in general.

The other hot topic to be broached in the coming months is that of the external costs of transport. It is an extremely controversial issue, as the widely divergent opinions of experts in the matter prove.

I know, for example, that you do not agree with the arguments defended in the Commission’s 1998 White Paper on "Fair and equal charging for infrastructure use" on the internalisation of marginal costs.

You feel that if we internalised all transport costs, railways would be penalised far more than road transport operators.

To progress in this debate, it is important to update the data and to carefully examine the various existing reports before entering the decision process. And this is precisely what the Belgian government intends to do.

In the coming months and years, we must all rise to this challenge. And it won’t be easy. But while as an ecologist I fundamentally believe in defending the environment, I am neither dogmatic nor closed to dialogue.

I think, to the contrary, that the only way to make things advance is through information, dialogue and cooperation. Politics, and especially mobility politics, are increasingly becoming a conciliation procedure in which one must listen, discuss and convince before deciding. In my opinion, this is the best way of protecting our general interests.

In this scope, I would like to mention the demand put to the government to introduce "professional fuel" for the Belgian road transport sector, which claims to face unfair competition from its competitors.

I would be lying if I were to tell you that I am in favour of such a measure. I would first like to remind you once again that the high price of fuel in Belgium these days has nothing to do with taxation; rather, it is due to the high rates for fuel and the weakness of the Euro. And these two factors are affecting every other European country simultaneously.

Moreover, the comparisons that can be drawn between the level of excises levied in Belgium, in France and in the Netherlands do not demonstrate that the taxation policy on diesel fuel practiced in Belgium puts Belgian transport operators at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their foreign colleagues.

I would also like to recall that the recovery systems introduced abroad for transport operators have been approved by the European bodies because the countries in question simultaneously increased their excises within the framework of pluriannual diesel tax increase programmes.

I do think, however, that the idea of introducing more advantageous taxation on less polluting fuel merits follow-up. This idea fits perfectly within the framework of the governmental declaration that insists on the need for "green" taxation.

I would now like to touch upon the issue of the contribution of road transport to goods transport. While I am convinced, as I said earlier, of the need to stop the loss of market shares for goods transport by rail, I am also well aware of the fact that transport by lorry is and will always be an indispensable solution, especially for distances under 150 km.

We must therefore work to reinforce combined transport, while relaunching goods transport by rail.

As far as relaunching goods transport by rail is concerned, I was impressed to see that the European Transport Council has taken the bull by the horns, and I would like to congratulate Mrs. Loyola de Palacio, European Commissioner, for her determination in this dossier.

I am convinced that within the next few years, the implementation of the renowned "rail package", equipping the European Union with a vast rail network, will breathe new life into this sector.

As regards combined transport, my main concern is to meet the expectations of the economic players. This is why I am now examining the possibility of financial support for transfer operations from road to rail and then from rail to road with a view to further diminishing the competitive disadvantage faced by these operations.

Again at the European level, I would like to broach the topic of traffic bans on lorries during weekends and bank holidays that will be on the agenda of the European Council of Transport Ministers. Indeed, my colleague Jean-Claude Gayssot, future President of this Council, is rightly preoccupied with this dossier.

The regulations vary considerably from one country to the next, anywhere from one to two and a half days. This disparity is the source of great difficulties. Many lorries, in a hurry to continue their journey, get stuck at borders, causing traffic jams, while others drive far greater distances than necessary to avoid the ban schedule.

In Belgium, we have not yet reached a position on the matter, although I do think that the logic behind a ban could be interesting, provided that it is the source of rest and tranquillity, not only for roadside residents, but also for the lorry drivers.

I think that those countries that have not yet introduced any traffic bans should do so, but only gradually, with a view to harmonising with the countries that have already adopted such rules.

But there is no question of imposing a maximalist system that might disrupt the economy.

These are things that need discussing. This is why I intend, in the coming months, to organise round tables with all the federations concerned, to hear all the arguments, all the objections, the necessary transition periods, etc.

We must broach the topic without any taboos so that little by little we in Belgium can fix our position in the European debate.

In fact, the issue of working time, roadside checks and the employment of third country drivers may be included in a global approach within the framework of a "social package."

A document on this subject is being prepared by the services of the European Commission on the subject of social conditions in road transport (working and resting times, checks, training, employment conditions, etc.).

The goal of this note is most interesting, in that it represents an attempt to advance this set of issues by proposing an overall approach, making it possible to compromise between the different aspects.

Finally, the inclusion of road transport in the European Directive on working time is also on the agenda. This should make it possible to address the subject in an even more global manner.

In conclusion today, I would like to insist on a point of particular concern to me: public investments. Due to its public debt, our country has and continues to suffer from a considerable lag in public investment compared to the European average (in Belgium, we have 1.4% GDP versus the European average of 2.4%).

I am convinced that the improvement in the budgetary situation of the Belgian State should allow us to reassign a part of the profit margins recovered from stabilisation and from growth with a view to reinforcing public investment and to catching up this lag behind the European average.

At a federal level, this reinvestment must be for the benefit of both rail and the development of intermodality. But at the level of the regions, I think there are major needs to be met in terms of road infrastructure maintenance.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mrs de Palacio, Mr President, I would like to insist once again on the importance of an integrated and global approach to the mobility issue. We must take into account both our national specificities and our European dimensions.

As for me, I hope that in the coming months and years, important new steps will be taken at a European level to achieve a good balance between the development of the economic sector of transport and the essential respect of the rights of future generations.

[ top ]