EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 10.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 3022 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the 
Proposal for a 
 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
amending Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 establishing the second ‘Marco Polo’ 
programme for the granting 
of Community financial assistance to improve the 
environmental performance of the freigh t transport system (‘Marco Polo II’) 
 
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
{COM(2008) 847 final} 
{SEC(2008) 3021} 
 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
amending Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 establishing the second ‘Marco Polo’ 
programme for the granting 
of Community financial assistance to improve the 
environmental performance of the freigh t transport system (‘Marco Polo II’) 
 
Summary of the Impact assessment 
The Marco Polo programme helps achieve the EU Transport Policy objective of ensuring 
sustainable mobility in Europe. The Programme contributes to this objective by helping to 
reduce the congestion in the roads and fostering the use of other more sustainable transport 
modes. In order to do this  the Programme supports project s aiming at avoiding freight 
transport on the roads or shifting freight off the roads to other transport modes which are more 
environmental friendly and have spare capacity, like shipping, railways and inland waterways. 
1. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
The results of the 2008 call of the second Marc o Polo programme and the findings of the 
external evaluation of the first Marco Polo pr ogramme show that although the Programme is 
achieving a substantial m odal shift, it will very probably not be able to meet its objective of 
avoiding or shifting a substantial part of the forecasted total growth of international road 
freight transport in Europe, as aimed by its legal base. 
The programme is instrumented through yearly calls for proposal s. Every year the requests for 
funding, and consequently the traffic avoidan ce or modal shift proposed, are decreasing, 
which shows a lack of interest by potential  applicants. The possible reasons for this 
diminished interest in the Programme are the following: 
• Lack of visibility of the Programme, with the consequent lack of knowledge by potential 
beneficiaries. 
• Lack of motivation by the potential beneficiaries because of the complexity of the 
Programme, not suitable funding mechanisms or low funding intensity. These issues can be 
traced in the text of th e Programme's regulation: 
– Unclear or unsuitable scope of the programme (art. 3) 
– Unclear or unsuitable conditions for e ligibility of beneficiaries (art. 4) 
– Unclear or unsuitable definition of  the types of projects (art. 5) 
– Unclear or unsuitable detailed rules concerning the procedure for submission and 
selection of projects (art 6) 
– Unclear or unsuitable funding conditions and requirements (annex I)  
– Unclear or unsuitable administrative procedures. 
 
EN 3   EN – Unsuitable financing instrument, grants 
2. OBJECTIVES  
The overall objective is to help the programme achieve its general aim, namely to avoid or 
shift off the roads a substantial part of the exp ected growth of interna tional road transport, 
estimated in 20bn tkm every year. 
With a view to help the programme to achieve its objective the underlying drivers of the 
problem must be tackled. Therefor e action is needed in order to improve the visibility of the 
programme and motivate potential beneficiaries to engage in projects aiming at traffic 
avoidance or modal shift of freight off the ro ads. The motivation for potential beneficiaries 
can be achieved with a simplification, clar ification or amendment of the legal text. 
A necessary condition is that any changes propo sed to the programme are adopted swiftly in 
order to be implemented as soon as possible. A major revision of the programme with policy 
implications should be discarded so  to avoid that the amendments agreed arrive too late in the 
life span of the programme (2007-2013). 
3. POLICY OPTIONS  
Option A  - The baseline scenario  considers the effects of the measures already taken by the 
Commission: 
1. Since 1.3.08 the management of the Program me has been entrusted to the Executive 
Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (E ACI), among other Community programmes. 
This will result in an increase of the Programme 's visibility and streamlining of management 
procedures. 
2. Following the procedure provided in letter d) , point 2 of Annex I to the regulation, the 
Commission will double the maximum funding intens ity from 1 to 2€ per 500 tkm avoided or 
shifted off the roads. 
Option B  – Targeted revision of the Legal Basis , by amending parts of the regulation 
without political implications, namely: 
B.1 – Facilitating Micro enterprises' access to th e Programme. This in turn will be achieved 
by 
B.1.1 - Allowing single undertakings to apply for support . Giving the possibility 
that projects are submitted by one single undertaking will clarify and simplify the conditions for eligibilit y of beneficiaries.  
B.1.2 - Creating an especially low thresho ld for Inland Waterway projects and 
Micro enterprises . A specific lower threshold will be created for projects aiming to 
shift cargo from the road to inland waterway s. This is a long standing request by the 
Inland Waterway sector and a specific reco mmendation for this fragmented transport 
sector by the external evaluation of  the first Marco Polo programme. 
 
EN 4   EN B.1.3 - Refunding of proposal preparatio n expenses to Micro enterprises . In 
order to foster applications by Micro enterprises, which characterize the road and Inland Waterway transport sectors, a lu mp-sum refund of proposal preparation 
expenses will be provided. 
B.2 – Improving the eligibility thresh olds, which will be implemented by: 
B.2.1 - Lowering and simplifying pr oject eligibility thresholds . Simplifying and 
lowering some thresholds will bring additional smaller projects and help achieve the Programme's objectives.  
B.2.2 – Deleting the specific threshol d for traffic avoidance projects . The current 
10% specific threshold for Traffic avoidan ce actions provided by the regulation is a 
further obstacle for a kind of project whic h did not manage yet to get Marco Polo 
support.  
B.3 – Raising the funding intensity. Through: 
B.3.1 - Computing the transport element in the modal shift calculations . It is 
considered convenient to allow that the wei ght of the transport elements carrying the 
freight should be included in the modal sh ift calculations. Conges tion on the roads is 
not only caused by the freight itself but by the trucks and containers, even if they are 
empty. 
B.3.2 - Longer project implementation du ration in exceptional cases . The 
external evaluation advises to extend th e maximum allowed project duration for 
projects which have suffered start up pr oblems. Having the possibility of an 
extraordinary extension can give reassuranc e to the beneficiaries that their start-up 
loses will be compensated by the Community subvention even if their projects suffer 
start-up delays. The Common Learning Acti ons, which currently has a shorter 
implementation period than the rest of th e actions, also find often difficulties to 
implement their objectives in time. In both  cases a prolongation possibility will be 
envisaged. 
B.4 – Simplification measures 
B.4.1 - Simplifying funding condi tions for infrastructure . The current framework 
for infrastructure funding is complex, adds  many exceptions and constraints to the 
deadlines for implementation of the projects  and requires complex calculations of the 
final subsidy allowed to each project. 
B.4.2 - Simplification of the Programme administrative procedures . The duration 
of the management cycle of the Programme,  from drafting the call to signature of 
contracts, amounts to 470 days, which seems too long not least because the beneficiaries are market operators subject to fast changing market conditions. The 
Commission will streamline the process of adopting the decisions to launch the call 
and award contracts. 
Option C  – Full revision of the Legal Basis  
Since action is needed quickly in order to improve the Programme's results, a full revision of 
the Programme, including policy choices is out  of the question and excluded from the 
 
EN 5   EN analysis. Therefore all the measures entaili ng an amendment of the following issues are 
excluded from the assessment: Scope of the Progr amme, definition of the types of projects 
and ceilings for Community assistance 
Option D – Stopping the impl ementation of the Programme 
The hypothetical option of stopping the implemen tation of the Programme is not analysed 
since the Progamme is an integral part of the EU Transport Policy, as defined in the revision 
of the White Paper on EU Transport Policy of 2006, and it is already ac hieving a substantial 
modal shift. 
 
EN 6   EN 4. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
 
5. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
The results of the assessment of option A show that if no action is taken to amend the 
regulation, the effectiveness of the Programme in  achieving its objectives will increase but the 
efficiency in achieving them will decrease, and ev en if the modal shift achieved will increase 
the objective set in the legal basis will not be reached. Impacts of the options 
Option Effectiveness 
(economic, 
environment 
and social 
benefits) Efficiency Distribution 
support among 
kinds of projects Simplification Evolution 
in time Non EU 
effects / 
specific 
geographical 
effects Administrative 
costs 
Option A – Baseline scenario 
No EC action  ++ -- Neutral + + Neutral + 
Option B – Targeted revision of the Legal Basis 
Measures benefiting small undertakings (B.1) 
Single 
undertaking + Neutral ++ ++ Neutral Neutral + 
IWT threshold + Neutral ++ - Neutral + - 
Expenses refund + Neutral + - + Neutral - 
Measures modifying elig ibility thresholds (B.2) 
Minimum 
thresholds + Neutral ++ + Neutral + + 
Traffic 
avoidance 
threshold + Neutral + + Neutral Neutral + 
Measures rising the funding intensity (B.3) 
Modal shift 
calculation ++ -- - ++ Neutral ++ + 
Implementation 
period ++ Neutral Neutral - Neutral Neutral - 
Simplification measures (B.4) 
Infrastructure 
funding + Neutral Neutral ++ Neutral Neutral + 
Procedures + Neutral Neutral +++ ++ Neutral +++ 
 
EN 7   EN All measures of option B have been found to be effective, and show that the complement each 
other. A ranking can be established considering their estimated impacts: 
In the first place, the measures raising the funding inte nsity (B.3) are the hi ghest effective, but 
as happens for option A, the high effectivenes s is however compensated with a substantial 
decrease in efficiency of  the Community intervention. 
In the second place, the measures aiming at a simplification of the legal base and its 
implementation (B.4) will of course  have a substantial impact in terms of simplification which 
will be compounded over time, with savings in administrative costs. 
In the third place, the measures benefiting sm all undertakings (B.1) will have above all a 
positive effect managing to balance the di stribution of Marco Polo support among the 
different alternatives to road transpor t and among the different project types. 
Finally, the measures modifying the eligibility thresholds (B.2) will have a very balanced 
effect in terms of the basic a ssessment criteria, with no negativ e impacts in any of them. The 
added value of these measures in comparison to th e baseline is a better balance of the grants 
awarded among the different transport modes, pr oject types and geographical areas benefiting 
from the Programme. 
Choice of options 
The conclusion of the assessment of the options is that action on the side of the Commission 
with a targeted revision of the legal basis has added value in terms of more effectiveness for 
the Programme, with substantial positive effect in terms of a better distribution of funding 
among types of projects, positive simplification effects and savings of administrative costs. In case of no action by the EU the effectiveness of the programme will increase because of the non-legislative measures which are in the pipeline, but the efficiency of the Community 
intervention will suffer and its administrative costs will increase. 
Section 7: Monitoring and evaluation 
The second Marco Polo regulation already sets  a clear indicator for the assessment of the 
results of the Programme's implementation. The modal shift and traffi c avoidance should be 
monitored in terms of tonne-kilo metres shifted or avoided in  the roads of the countries 
participating in the Programme.