UITP: European preference should not compromise decarbonisation targets and timelines, increase costs or restrict competition
UITP has published a position paper supporting the principle of European preference while calling for a pragmatic and gradual “Made in EU” framework for the public transport sector. The International Association of Public Transport (UITP) has outlined its position on the European Union’s emerging “Made in EU” agenda, stating that measures designed to strengthen European […]
UITP has published a position paper supporting the principle of European preference while calling for a pragmatic and gradual “Made in EU” framework for the public transport sector.
The International Association of Public Transport (UITP) has outlined its position on the European Union’s emerging “Made in EU” agenda, stating that measures designed to strengthen European industrial capacity should be implemented in a way that does not create additional administrative burdens for public transport authorities (PTAs) and public transport operators (PTOs). The position paper, titled “Made in EU: The Vision of the Public Transport Sector”, was prepared by the UITP EU Committee and released in June 2026.
According to UITP, the public transport sector supports the principle of European preference as a tool to reinforce European industrial competitiveness and security. At the same time, the association states that any future framework should be designed to strengthen the European market without compromising operational efficiency, financial sustainability, or the delivery of transport services.
The publication of the position paper comes as the European institutions are discussing the proposed Industrial Accelerator Act, presented by the European Commission in March 2026. The proposal identifies the automotive ecosystem, including buses and heavy-duty vehicles, among the strategic sectors targeted for strengthened industrial capacity within the European Union and introduces procurement provisions linked to origin and carbon-intensity requirements for publicly funded purchases. Under the current proposal, from 2029 publicly funded vehicle procurement contracts would be subject to minimum thresholds related to the origin of materials and production criteria. Discussions on the legislative text are ongoing within the European Parliament and the Council.
The introduction of a European preference should not lead to the establishment of a mandatory general rule applicable to all procurements. If such a mechanism were to be adopted, it should be strictly limited to truly strategic assets, i.e. those that pose a proven risk to sovereignty, security, service continuity (e.g. digital, energy, transport). Its scope should be defined clearly and restrictively to prevent its extension to procurements for which a requirement of European origin would be neither necessary nor proportionate. For sectors not in the scope, contracting authorities and entities should maintain full discretion and apply it when they consider it appropriate in the exercise of their administrative and technical discretion.
UITP’s Position Paper: “MADE IN EU: The Vision of the Public Transport Sector”
UITP: decarbonisation targets must remain the priority
A central element of the UITP position concerns the relationship between industrial policy and the decarbonisation of public transport fleets. The association states that “the procurement framework must support, not hinder, the speed of decarbonisation of the public transport sector. UITP emphasises that a European preference should not lead to increased costs, reduced competition or administrative burden that would put at risk the decarbonisation targets, such as the transition to zero-emission fleets.
The document notes that overly restrictive European-origin requirements could affect procurement processes in segments where European supply remains limited, including specific battery technologies. UITP therefore calls for a framework that balances European preference measures with climate and sustainability objectives, while maintaining the possibility of evaluating tenders using criteria beyond price, including the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) approach.
Supply chain resilience and industrial value creation
On supply chain resilience, UITP advocates a gradual implementation of any European preference mechanism. The association proposes progressive thresholds reflecting actual market availability rather than theoretical production capacity. According to the position paper, such thresholds should take into account whether European suppliers can effectively meet procurement requirements in terms of quantity, delivery schedules, and technical specifications.
The document also calls for derogation mechanisms allowing contracting authorities and operators to depart from European preference requirements under specific circumstances. These include situations where products are unavailable in sufficient quantities, where competition is excessively restricted, where procurement risks resulting in a single bidder, where innovation is constrained, or where higher costs could affect the financial sustainability of the transport buyer.
In UITP’s words, these are the cases for derogation: “if the required supplies are unavailable in sufficient quantities, within the required timeframes or under the necessary technical conditions, if the European preference hinders innovation, if it unduly restricts competition or leads to a “one bidder scenario”, if it leads to higher costs jeopardising the financial sustainability of the public transport buyer, if the market is tight”.
Regarding industrial policy, UITP argues that European preference should focus on genuine value creation within the European Union and the European Economic Area. The association states that final assembly alone should not be sufficient to classify a product as European if research, development, design, and key production stages are conducted outside the EU or EEA. The paper indicates that policy frameworks should recognise investment, innovation activities, and employment generated within Europe.
Simplification and targeted application
UITP further states that any future “Made in EU” framework should avoid creating complex compliance obligations for transport authorities and operators. The association notes that PTOs and PTAs do not possess the resources to conduct extensive origin investigations and calls for simplified procedures and third-party certification systems capable of verifying product origin.
The procurement framework must support, not hinder, the speed of decarbonisation of the public transport sector. UITP emphasises that a European preference should not lead to increased costs, reduced competition or administrative burden that would put at risk the decarbonisation targets, such as the transition to zero-emission fleets. An overly strict “Made in EU” requirement could, in certain sectors where European supply is not yet sufficient, delay the procurement of low-carbon materials and equipment. Any “Made in EU” requirement must be balanced with the primary goal of achieving climate targets through high-performing, sustainable technologies, using other than price criteria (incl. MEAT).
UITP’s Position Paper: “MADE IN EU: The Vision of the Public Transport Sector”
The paper also opposes the introduction of a general mandatory rule applicable to all procurement procedures. If a mandatory mechanism is adopted, UITP says it should be limited to strategic assets with demonstrated relevance for sovereignty, security, or service continuity, citing sectors such as digital systems, energy, and transport infrastructure. Outside such areas, authorities and operators should retain discretion in procurement decisions.
The association additionally highlights the need to maintain a level playing field between public and private buyers, noting that flexibility may be required in applying Union-origin requirements where private-sector competitors are not subject to equivalent obligations.
The position paper concludes with a call for what UITP describes as “a pragmatic, gradual, targeted approach” that avoids additional costs and administrative burdens for transport operators and authorities while supporting European industrial objectives.
