Impact Analysis Study “EU-Turkey Road Freight Transport Liberalisation”

8/16/2019 Impact Analysis Study “EU-Turkey Road Freight Transport Liberalisation”

1/16


2/16

A"en#a

Purpose of the study

Analysis of the context and of the operational constraints

Scenario definition

Quantification of impacts in the different scenarios

Conclusions


3/16

Before$%T&$Tra#e 'acilitation A"ree(ent


4/16

April 20 ) %orl# Ba k report pu*lishe#+

-oa# Tra sport .uotas, especiallytra sit /uotas, restrict free(o e(e t of "oo#s1


5/16

urpose of the stu#y

Identify and quantify the impacts expected from liberalisation ofmarket access for road freight transport services arising fromagreements that might be negotiated between the ! and"urkey#Provide an assessment of the prospective economic impacts ofsuch agreements based on appraisal of a number of carefullyspecified scenarios#Carry out a comparative analysis of key aspects of the roadfreight sector in the ! and "urkey$ the market and trade flowsand other contextual factors#

"he study was produced under a contract between the uropeanCommission %&' ()* + and IC, International#


6/16

The conte3t"urkey is a significant trading partner for the !#

! exports to$ and imports from "urkey have grown fast in the last decades

-oad.s share of the import trade from "urkey %measured by value+ hasgrown while its share of export trade has declined$ but it represents nearly/01 of the trade'rowth in trade was facilitated by the Ankara Agreement and its subsequentextensions 2 modifications$ and the customs union which was completed in344/

%!S5 millions+


7/16

Tra#e *y roa# *et4een the E5 an# Turkey

(a6or partners and most relevant commodities were identified# (any"urkish companies %manufacturers$ as well as transport and logisticsoperators+ are owned or are subsidiaries of ! based companies

xchange by road$ regulated by bilateral agreements$ is growing and isexpected to grow in line with the evolution of ! and "urkish '&P7arger share of the market held by "urkish hauliers %but different figuresfor !3/ and !38 respectively+#

Important share of traffic managed via -o9ro maritime services %by"urkish truck carriers+)verall costs of "urkish hauliers comparable %but lower+ with !38countries$ far lower than !3/$ ma6or differences are found in the labourcost

Cost is the ma6or driver for the selection of transport service provider%thus explaining the larger market share of "!- and !38 operators+)n the legislation side$ further alignment required in the Access to the(arket and &riving licenses


8/16

er(it6relate# an# operational constraintsto roa# transport *et4een Turkey an# E5

!umber o" permits and practical issues! hauliers have access to a sufficient supply of "urkish permits$ though

with some problems reported#-epresentatives of ! hauliers report the application of ad hoc controls%e#g# on the origin and destination of route based on the invoice heading+when entering "urkey# Increases in waiting times$ and in some case in

high penalties#,or "urkish hauliers the principal issue is that demand for transit permitsexceeds the supply provided by some (ember States %Italy$ Austria$:ungary$ Slovenia$ and -omania+#"urkish hauliers also complain about deficit of bilateral permits for certain(ember States %e#g# ,rance$ Spain+#"he supply number of permits %including both bilateral and transit permits+has been kept nearly stable$ rather than growing in line with trade flows#


9/16


10/16

cenarios

All scenarios accompanied by agreements including further alignmentof "urkey to the ! acquis and fair and even application of rules#

!r Scenario !ame$ilateralpermits

Transitpermits

EU permits %licenses

EUagreements

3 $usiness as usual no change tobaselineno change tobaseline none none

8a Transit liberalisation Agreementadaptation removal none

=ot required$ buttransitliberalisationneeds a decision

of individual(ember States

8b Transit liberalisation &additional EU permits

Agreementadaptation removal

addaccording toreal needs

yes

> EU management o"'uotas

removal removal bilateral !permits yes

? Full liberalisation removal removal notnecessary not necessary


11/16

8onclusions of scenarios analysis

"he largest economic impact comes from removal of transit quotas#-estrictions on transit are the key barrier for "urkish imports per road into

the !#"ransit liberalisation leads to increase in the value of !9"urkey trade byan estimated @>#/ billion per annum$ out of which @3#4 bn are additionalimports from "urkey and @3# bn are exports to "urkey#

In terms of macroeconomic impacts$ the effects on the ! as a whole are

very small# "he employment effect in the "urkish economy in the order of8/ thousand new 6obs#

"he effect on "urkish '&P is estimated to be B0#3/1# )ut of the totalfigure of @8#>bn of additional output for the "urkish economy$ an estimated

@0#3/bn relates to !9ma6ority owned firms$ mainly in the textiles$

chemicals and machinery industries#(ost of the increase in road freight is expected to be carried by "urkishhauliers though there would be new opportunities for ! firms# "he largeshare held by "urkish operators in the exchanges with !3/ countriesmay be contended and bring benefits especially to !938 operators#


12/16

8onclusions of scenarios analysis

In the full liberalisation scenario$ the economic$ employment andenvironmental effects increase slightly# ,or the uropean consumers$ costsavings for the goods imported from "urkey are expected in the order of

@3?>m per annum#"he transit plus additional permits. scenario and the ! management ofpermits. scenario have effects equivalent to that of full liberalisation#

nvironmental impact to be considered as total road traffic increases# D1more import trips per annum$ approximately ?0$000#


13/16

u((ary of econo(ic i(pacts

Liberalisation o" "reight transport bet(eenEU and Turkey

Transitliberalisa-

tionAdditional

'uotasEU manage-

ment

Fullliberalisa-

tion

E""ects on the EU) change (ith respect to$AU*

! road exports to "urkey$ mln @ 3? 3/ 3/ 3/

change in 1 ?# 1 ?# 1 ?# 1 ?#41

! road imports from "urkey$ mln @ 3ED3 3D?3 3D?3 3D4?

change in 1 E#?1 E#E1 E#E1 E#41mployment$ thousand new 6obs 3>#8 3?#3 3?#3 3?#3

&irect consumer cost savings$ mln @ 3> 3?> 3?> 3?>

Selected e""ects in Turkey*

)utput expansion$ mln @ 8388 834> 834> 88/E

change in 1 0#801 0#801 0#801 0#831

xtra output of !9ma6ority owned firms$ mln @ 3?D 3/> 3/> 3/D

mployment effect$ thousand new 6obs 8>#? 8?#8 8?#8 8?#4

'&P effect$ 1 0#3?1 0#3/1 0#3/1 0#3/1 Additional ':' emissions$ 'g C) 8 eq# per year 3 ? ? E


14/16

9eneral conclusions

-egulatory reform would yield overall benefits in terms of growth in

trade$ economic output and 6obs# "he great impact comes fromremoving the quota instruments F in particular the transit permitsrequired by "urkish hauliers passing through many (ember States#

;enefits of liberalisation accrue to both the ! and "urkey#

Imports from "urkey into ! are expected to grow even faster than !exports# "his import growth will benefit the "urkish economy$ but also the

! consumers#


15/16

+,ou bear the responsibility to "i this broken tire.That is (hat the Turkish "reight transport industry

e pects "rom the /ommission01


16/16

=

T2A!3 ,4U F4R ,4UR ATTE!TI4!
http://www.zipfm.net/news/sandy-takes-blame-price-increasehttp://www.stopsignxpress.com/signs/stop-no-trucks-beyond-this-point-sign/sku-k-8876.aspx

Impact Analysis Study “EU-Turkey Road Freight Transport Liberalisation”

Documents

Transcript of Impact Analysis Study “EU-Turkey Road Freight Transport Liberalisation”