Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive Table 2.27: Cableways Related Companies Located in Austria Figure on Map Company Activity Location A Doppelmayr-Garaventa Manufacturer Wolfurt B Reisch Manufacturer Frastanz C Sun-kid Manufacturer Imst Leitner Manufacturer Telfs D Elektro Berchtold Electronic systems Pettnau E Siemens Alpine Technology Electrical drive, automation and visualisation Innsbruck F Carvatech Cabin manufacturer Schloss G Hoeglinger Elektromotoren Electric motors Lambrechten H Teufelberger Wire Ropes Wire Ropes Wels I Eisenbeiss Gear systems Enns J Martin Roof and electric mountings for cable cars (for Doppelmayr only) Mautern K Semperit Sheave Liners Wimpassing L ATB Motors Electric motors Vienna Leitner Design activity Vienna 2.4 International Trade 2.4.1 Impacts on Intra-EU Trade In general, the harmonisation of the internal market would mean that subsystems and safety components which are CE marked can move freely across borders and do not have to be approved separately in each country. This promotes competitiveness for exporting companies. Unfortunately, due to the higher number of mergers and acquisitions in the past decade, the impact of the Directive on competitive advantage (or opening up national markets) is difficult to clearly establish. As can be seen from Table 2.5, the French manufacturer Poma is still strong in France, accounting for 43% of the new installations in France in 2011, while its competitors Doppelmayr-Garaventa and Leitner installed only 12% and 5% respectively. A similar trend can be seen for the Italian manufacturer, Leitner which is equally strong in Italy, accounting for 40% of all new cableway installations in Italy (as shown in Table 2.6). Interestingly while Doppelmayr-Garaventa installed around 35% of the new installations in Italy, when the market shares of CCM Finotello and MEB Impianti (two smaller Italian firms) are included (18% and 5% respectively of new installations in 2008), it is clear that local businesses enjoy a distinct competitive advantage compared to non-local firms. Therefore, on the one hand, although manufacturers still maintain a strong market presence in their national markets, there are indications that the markets within Europe are now more international than a decade or so ago. For example, it was Page 34
Risk & Policy Analysts noted that up until 2000, the Italian market was closed to external competitors that only constructed one or two installations but this changed and is continuing to change (even though Italian companies still dominate the Italian market). This increased openness of national markets appears to be linked to the Directive removing trade barriers in the form of different national requirements and standards. For certain cableway products, the markets are dominated by companies which have larger market shares in their home countries. For example, the rope sector remains largely national which may be linked to the fact that the vast majority of ropes are highly customised products that are designed for specific cableways and there are still national variations in traditions and habits between the main markets (Austria, France and Italy). It also seems to the case that there are still occasional misunderstandings between national authorities and non-local manufacturers since approval of installations remains within the competence of national governments. For example, consultation shows that the Czech Republic requires that, in case of emergency, all passengers have to be evacuated within 2 hours rather than within the 3.5 hours which is a common requirement elsewhere in the EU. This resulted in a delay in approving a gondola installation in the Czech Republic which was supplied by a manufacturer from another country. Approval was withheld until the project was changed to include a rescue car with a capacity of fifteen, rather than the initially planned nine persons. A perceived shortcoming in the current framework is linked to the fact that the Directive is applicable to the installations built and put into service as from 3 May 2004, and to subsystems and safety components placed on the market as from that date. In Hungary, in recent years, no new ski lifts were installed and the market was fully served by second hand cableways which may predate the Directive but only required an automatic approval without new conformity assessments. 7 In the Czech Republic, in recent years, two-thirds of installations were second hand ski-lifts 8 and the authorities expressed concerns about automatic approval of 20-30 year old second hand installations. 9 Considering the long lifespan of cableway installations and the increasing trade of second hand ski lifts in particular from the Alpine countries to the New Member States, cableway markets in Member States which purchase large numbers of second-hand cableways appear to be predominantly outside the scope of the Directive. In this regard, it is also noted that EC (2011) highlights that there have been difficulties in the application of the Directive in respect of changes to existing installations, as it is sometimes difficult to identify the changes for which a new authorisation for putting into service is required under the different legislations of Member States. 7 8 9 Interview with the Hungarian Ministry of National Development, Department of Transport, 1 st March 2012. Interview with a Notified Body in the Czech Republic, 15 th March 2012. Joint interview with the Czech Ministry of Transport and with the Czech Association of Cableway Operators, 6 th March 2012. Page 35
Page 1: Ref. Ares(2012)1245393 - 22/10/2012
Page 4 and 5: DISCLAIMER While RPA considers that
Page 6 and 7: Executive Summary market. In additi
Page 8 and 9: Executive Summary Page iv
Page 10 and 11: Table of Contents 4. OPTIONS FOR RE
Page 13 and 14: Risk & Policy Analysts 1. INTRODUCT
Page 15 and 16: Risk & Policy Analysts 2. MARKET SI
Page 17 and 18: Risk & Policy Analysts Figure 2.1:
Page 19 and 20: Risk & Policy Analysts Austria Acco
Page 21 and 22: Risk & Policy Analysts It is of not
Page 23 and 24: Risk & Policy Analysts Western Euro
Page 25 and 26: Risk & Policy Analysts Japan The sk
Page 27 and 28: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 2.12:
Page 33 and 34: Risk & Policy Analysts SME). Taken
Page 35 and 36: Risk & Policy Analysts The industry
Page 37 and 38: Risk & Policy Analysts From the dat
Page 39 and 40: Risk & Policy Analysts SMEs In gene
Page 41 and 42: Risk & Policy Analysts of ski equip
Page 43 and 44: Risk & Policy Analysts Figure 2.6:
Page 45: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 2.26:
Page 49 and 50: Risk & Policy Analysts cableways ma
Page 55 and 56: Risk & Policy Analysts There are al
Page 57 and 58: Risk & Policy Analysts operation of
Page 59 and 60: Risk & Policy Analysts Other factor
Page 61 and 62: Risk & Policy Analysts Changes in P
Page 65 and 66: Risk & Policy Analysts From Table 2
Page 67 and 68: Risk & Policy Analysts Price Change
Page 69 and 70: Risk & Policy Analysts 2.6.4 Summar
Page 71 and 72: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 3.1: C
Page 73 and 74: Risk & Policy Analysts 3.3 Impacts
Page 75 and 76: Risk & Policy Analysts 3.3.4 Impact
Page 77 and 78: Risk & Policy Analysts 4. OPTIONS F
Page 79 and 80: Risk & Policy Analysts Box 4.1: The
Page 81 and 82: Risk & Policy Analysts The details
Page 83 and 84: Risk & Policy Analysts Overall, sta
Page 85 and 86: Risk & Policy Analysts Option 2 (
Page 87 and 88: Risk & Policy Analysts subject to E
Page 93 and 94: Risk & Policy Analysts out in Table
Page 95 and 96: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 5.2: K
Page 97 and 98:
Risk & Policy Analysts One example
Page 99 and 100:
Risk & Policy Analysts At least two
Page 101 and 102:
Risk & Policy Analysts Option A3 (R
Page 103 and 104:
Risk & Policy Analysts The cost of
Page 105 and 106:
Risk & Policy Analysts requirements
Page 107 and 108:
Risk & Policy Analysts may come to
Page 109 and 110:
Risk & Policy Analysts Operating Co
Page 111 and 112:
Risk & Policy Analysts Innovation a
Page 113 and 114:
Risk & Policy Analysts To this end,
Page 115 and 116:
Risk & Policy Analysts respondents
Page 117 and 118:
Risk & Policy Analysts Innovation a
Page 119 and 120:
Risk & Policy Analysts Summary of S
Page 121 and 122:
Risk & Policy Analysts Public Autho
Page 123 and 124:
Risk & Policy Analysts Is the cab
Page 125 and 126:
Risk & Policy Analysts Impact on Co
Page 127 and 128:
Risk & Policy Analysts Option F3:
Page 129 and 130:
Risk & Policy Analysts However, the
Page 131 and 132:
Risk & Policy Analysts 5.3.7 Proble
Page 133 and 134:
Risk & Policy Analysts Public Healt
Page 135 and 136:
Risk & Policy Analysts 6.2 Problem
Page 137 and 138:
Risk & Policy Analysts 6.6 Problem
Page 139 and 140:
Risk & Policy Analysts Commision de
Page 141 and 142:
Risk & Policy Analysts Kaiser (nd):
Page 143 and 144:
Risk & Policy Analysts STRMTG (2012
Page 145 and 146:
Risk & Policy Analysts ANNEX 1 Over
Page 147 and 148:
Risk & Policy Analysts A1. CONSULTA
Page 149 and 150:
Risk & Policy Analysts feedback was
Page 151 and 152:
Risk & Policy Analysts ANNEX 2 Revi
Page 153 and 154:
Risk & Policy Analysts B2. REVIEW O
Page 155 and 156:
Risk & Policy Analysts Table B2.2:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169:
Risk & Policy Analysts the NLF, imp
show all

Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?