Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the second "Marco Polo" programme for the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system ("Marco Polo II")
Date: 2004-07-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, carriage of goods, environmental protection, maritime transport, trans-European network

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 14.7.2004 
COM(2004) 478 final 

2004/0157 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

establishing the second “Marco Polo” programme for the granting of Community 
financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport 
system  
("Marco Polo II") 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 

Europe’s transport system faces considerable challenges in the next decade. It will be a huge 
battle to find the necessary money for long-term investment into transport infrastructures, and 
to  fend  off  the  collapse  of  our  road  freight  transport  system.  The  forecast  increase  of  road 
freight by 2013 is more than 60% in the European Union, and a doubling is foreseen for the 
10  new  member  states  by  2020.  The  results  are  congestion,  environmental  degradation, 
accidents, and a danger of loss of competitiveness of European industry, which needs to rely, 
for the management of its supply chains, on cost-efficient and reliable transportation systems. 

Road freight transport is also fully dependent on fossil fuel, which makes the transport system 
vulnerable to the changing global supply patterns. Fossil fuel is a major CO2 contributor. A 
more energy efficient transport system is therefore in the interest of the Union, both in terms 
of better environmental performance, and in terms of a more robust transport economy. 

In this situation, a stronger reliance on intermodality is necessary. Intermodality makes better 
use of existing infrastructure and service resources through integrating short sea shipping, rail 
and  inland  waterway  into  the  logistics  chain.  One  thus  does  not  have  to  wait  for  a  better 
transport  system  until  the  necessary  large-scale  network  infrastructures  are  in  place. 
Intermodality  provides,  today,  a  policy  option  for  avoiding  the  collapse  of  the  road  freight 
transport system. 

True to its practical nature, European intermodality policy features already a market-oriented 
programme to shift freight off the road towards the more environmentally friendly modes: the 
Marco Polo Programme (2003 – 2006) under Council and Parliament Regulation 1382/2003, 
endowed  with  a  budget  of  100  million  EUR.  Concretely,  this  programme  aims  to  shift  the 
average  yearly  increase  of  international  road  freight  towards  short  sea  shipping,  rail  and 
inland waterway.  

Responding to the big challenges mentioned above, a renewed and adapted “Marco Polo II” 
Programme  is  proposed  for  the  next  financial  perspectives  (2007  –  2013).  Relying  on  the 
proven  mechanisms  of  the  current  programme,  the  Commission  proposes  two  new  types  of 
action: Motorways of the Sea and Traffic Avoidance actions. They should actually lead to a 
reduction  in  international  road  freight,  much desired  by  our  citizens  and  industrial  transport 
users alike. Marco Polo II also enlarges the scope of the programme to all neighbours of the 
European  Union.  It  stresses  the  role  of  rail  freight  and  clarifies  the  scope  for  certain 
infrastructure measures. 

Based on an independent ex-ante evaluation, the Commission proposes an overall budgetary 
envelope of 740 million EUR for the period 2007 – 2013, i.e. roughly 106 million EUR per 
year. This will shift more than 140 billion tonne-kilometres of freight off the road (equivalent 
to  7  million  truck  journeys  of  1000  kilometres)  and  will  reduce  CO2  emissions  by  8400 
million kg. 

In terms of avoided environmental damage and less accidents, less energy consumption and 
less infrastructure damage, the benefits are forecast to be about 5 billion EUR. 1 Euro subsidy 
given  in  Marco  Polo  II  will  thus  generate  more  than  6  Euro  in  terms  of  social  & 
environmental benefits to our society. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
I 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

INTERMODALITY: A NECESSITY FOR A BETTER TRANSPORT SYSTEM 

Europe’s transport system faces considerable challenges in the decade to come. Two 
key figures make this clear. In the long term, about 600 billion EUR will be needed 
to complete the necessary infrastructures to create a trans-European network. At the 
same time, road freight transport, the current backbone of European logistics, is set 
to  increase,  by  2013,  by  more  than  60%  in  the  enlarged  European  Union,  and  a 
doubling is foreseen for the 10 new member states by 2020. It will be a huge battle to 
find the necessary money for long-term investment into transport infrastructures and 
to fend off the impending collapse of our road freight system.  

Thus,  as  of  now,  it  is  essential  to  make  better  use  of  existing  infrastructure  and 
service resources.  

This is the raison d’être of intermodality: linking the alternatives to road transport – 
short sea shipping, rail and inland waterway – better into the supply chain to increase 
their use, waiting neither for the future set-up of strategic infrastructures, nor for the 
road freight system to have collapsed.  

Intermodal policy is a sensible initiative to take off the pressure on the road freight 
sector.  This  is  good  for  road  transport,  but  also  for  society  at  large.  For  the 
alternatives to road freight transport are less polluting, cause less accidents and have 
still ample capacities. Based on common sense, intermodality policy thus proposes, 
with  relatively  little  financial  effort,  practical  and  immediately  effective  ways  to 
make  our  transport  system  better.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that  the  European 
Council of Gothenburg of June 2001 has declared that measures helping modal shift 
from  road  transport  to  more  environmentally  friendly  modes  are  at  the  heart  of  the 
policy for sustainable transport. 

However,  intermodal  transport  is  a  complex  transport  option,  involving  various 
actors  with  various  business  models,  in  a  fragmented  and  small-scale  environment, 
often  still  separated  by  modal  cultures  and  along  national  lines.  The  Commission 
recognises  that  it  is  in  the  first  place  the  task  of  market  operators  to  improve 
intermodal transport within markets, whose access is free and where the rules of free 
competition and supply and demand prevail. However, in order to fully unleash the 
potential of intermodal transport, the willingness to take risks inherent in switching 
from  road  to  the  alternative  modes,  needs  to  be  stimulated.  Many  transport 
companies  are  operating  today  in  markets  in  full  restructuring.  Their  margins  are 
low, planning is difficult, and the future uncertain. Therefore, practical and market-
oriented  support  programmes  need  to  be  devised to help the intermodal sector take 
risks  and  respond  to  the  challenge:  achieving  a  sustained  and  large  modal  shift,  in 
line  with  the  targets  set  in  the  Commission  White  Paper  of  2001.  These  were  to  at 
least keep, by 2010, the modal parts at their levels of the turn of the century. 

Besides  this  strong  policy-oriented  rationale,  there  is  another  emerging  reason  to 
fully  focus  on  intermodal  options.  Today,  Europe’s  industry  maintains  or  increases 
the  competitiveness  of  its  Europe-based  production  largely  by  advanced  logistics, 
optimising  production  and  distribution,  and  creating  value  in  the  process.  These 
sophisticated  supply  chains  are  increasingly  vulnerable  to  the  decreasing  reliability 
and increasing costs of road freight. Intermodal logistics will thus have to become a 
prime  occupation  for  Europe’s  production  industry,  if  we  want  to  maintain 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
productive  assets  and  processes  in  Europe.  Focussing  on  intermodal  logistics  will 
also  create  ample  opportunity  for  highly-skilled  labour  and  process  excellence, 
shielded  from  delocalisation.  Stronger  than  its  predecessor  programmes,  the  new 
version  of  the  Marco  Polo  programme  is  a  standing  invitation  to  the  supply  chain 
organisers to join the efforts for a sustainable and competitive transport system. 

THE PRESENT MARCO POLO PROGRAMME: FIRST ENCOURAGING LESSONS 

Already  in  1997,  the  Community  set  up  a  market-oriented  support  programme  to 
start-up new intermodal services which shift freight off the road, the Pilot Actions for 
Combined  Transport  (PACT)  under  Council  Regulation  2196/98.  This  programme 
could  count  on  a  budget  of  35  million  EUR  for  a  five-year  period.  An  external 
evaluation  of  the  programme  showed  that  the  money  spent  on  start-up  subsidies 
created  real  value  in  terms  of  savings  of  external  costs,  such  as  less  pollution,  less 
accidents,  less  congestion,  resulting  from  the  modal  shift.  On  the  basis  of  a 
Commission  proposal  of  February  2002,  Council  and  Parliament  decided,  in  July 
2003,  on  the  creation  of  the  “Marco  Polo”  programme,  based  on  Regulation 
1382/2003.  This  programme,  endowed  with  a  budget  of  100  million  EUR  for  the 
period 2003 – 2006, has very concrete objectives: help shift the anticipated increase 
of  international  road  freight  to  the  alternative  modes.  The  objectives  of  the 
programme are thus measurable, and the benefits can be clearly demonstrated. 

The  first  selection  procedure  for  the  Marco  Polo  programme  (2003-2006)  was 
launched in October 2003. Its results demonstrate the added value of a Community-
wide support programme for concrete market-based intermodal actions. With the 15 
million  EUR  provided  by  the  Community  budget,  new  services  shifting  freight  off 
the road will be triggered. According to the forecasts, the modal shift achieved will 
be  even  higher  than  the  expected  yearly  increase  of  international  road  freight, 
estimated  at  about  12  billion  tonne-kilometres.1  Thus  the  central  objective  of  the 
Marco Polo programme will be clearly met. Second, in terms of monetary value, the 
environmental  benefits  forecast  to  be  achieved  with  the  subsidy  –  in  terms  of  less 
pollution, less CO2, less accidents – are several times higher than the subsidy given. 
Finally, the Marco Polo programme expects the project participants to finance a large 
part – at least 65% - of the project costs themselves, which creates investments in the 
market.  As  a  result  of  the  2003  selection  procedure,  with  15  million  EUR  subsidy, 
projects amounting to more than 360 million EUR total value will be launched.  

On the negative side, the oversubscription of the programme is evident. In the 2003 
selection  procedure,  the  Commission  received  eligible  proposals  requesting  182 
million EUR subsidies, for an overall budget of 15 million EUR. The funding ratio is 
thus under 10%. This is bad. Such low funding ratios may discourage companies to 
submit  good  proposals,  as  they  fear  they  may  be  wasting  their  time  preparing  the 
submissions. 

II. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

One can thus conclude that the mechanisms and objectives of the current Marco Polo 
programme  are  sound,  and  should  be  largely  continued  also  for  the  next  financial 
perspectives. One can also conclude that the budgetary means of the programme are 

1  

Tonne-kilometre: the transport of one tonne of freight over a distance of one kilometre; 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
largely insufficient  to fund all good proposals. This means lost opportunities to the 
detriment of a better transport system. 

III. 

EX-ANTE EVALUATION AND STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION 

11. 

A group of independent experts conducted the ex-ante evaluation of the renewal of 
the Marco Polo II programme for the period 2007 – 2013, on the basis of currently 
applicable  best  practices  in  evaluation  techniques  and  frameworks.  The  experts 
reviewed  the  market  needs,  best  European  practices  in  funding  programmes  and 
placed a strong emphasis on budget needs, impact assessment and cost-effectiveness. 
Stakeholder  consultations  were  also  part  and  parcel  of  this  evaluation,  finalised  in 
June 2004.  

12. 

The current proposal takes full account of the evaluation and recommendation of the 
independent  experts.  The  financial  statement,  annexed  to  the  present  proposal, 
provides ample testimony to this fact.  

13. 

The following main conclusions should be retained: 

a) 

b) 

To achieve the long-term key objectives of the Marco Polo II programme, it is 
necessary  to  expand  the  scope  of  the  Programme,  with  a  corresponding  cost-
effective increase in budget. 

The  Marco  Polo  II  proposal,  when  reviewed  against  alternative  instruments, 
has  significant  intrinsic  strengths.  Its  structure,  based  on  direct  grants  to 
companies  for  setting  up  intermodal  services,  viable  in  medium-term,  is  the 
most  efficient  way  of  public  funding  for  intermodal  transport  currently 
available. 

c) 

The  Marco  Polo  II  proposal  is  fully  compatible  with  other  EU  and  Member 
States initiatives. 

d)  Given  the  concrete  and  ascertainable  objectives  of  the  Marco  Polo  II 
programme, the necessary budget can be objectively calculated and structured 
in a way to generate multiple benefits for society. 

IV. 

THE PROPOSAL FOR A SECOND PROGRAMME ‘MARCO POLO II’ (2007 – 2013) 

14. 

The proposal for a renewed Marco Polo programme does not fundamentally change 
the nature and procedures of the programme. Indeed, the three current types of action 
–  modal  shift,  catalyst,  and  common  learning  actions  –  are  maintained  under 
basically the same funding conditions and requirements as in the current programme. 
However, there are two new features. They are necessary to ensure that Marco Polo 
fully meets its overall strategic objectives in the framework of a sustainable transport 
policy: 

a)  Wider Geographic Scope 

15. 

Today,  Europe  –  and  not  just  the  “EU  25”,  the  Union  of  25  Member  States  –  is 
heading  towards  an  integrated  transport  market,  including  further  candidates  for 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
16. 

17. 

18. 

19 

enlargement.  But  also  EFTA  and  EEA  countries  as  well  as  Eastern  neighbours, 
especially  Russia,  Belarus,  and  the  Ukraine,  the  Balkans,  and  the  Mediterranean 
Region  are  part  of  an  emerging  large  integrated  market  for  transport  services. 
Production and supply chain patterns do not stop at the border of EU 25. 

In  order  to  provide  for  a  better  environmental  performance  of  the  transport  system 
within  the  EU,  intermodal  options  and  alternatives  to  road  transport  must  also  be 
considered  outside  the  EU.  It  has  been  shown  that  it  is  quite  difficult  to  consider 
alternatives  to  road  transport  in  the  EU,  once  the  freight  is  put  on  a  long-distance 
truck  outside  the  EU.  The  current  proposal  allows  therefore  the  possibilities  for 
companies  of  the  “Wider  Europe”  to  participate,  provided  their  countries,  neither 
members of the European Union nor accession candidates, have concluded a specific 
agreement  with  the  Union,  also  clarifying  their  contribution  to  the  programme 
budget. 

b)  New Action Types 

In line with the objectives spelt out in the Transport White Paper of 2001, the current 
Marco Polo programme sets out to shift the average yearly increase of international 
road  freight  transport  to  the  alternative  modes.  This  objective,  while  already 
ambitious, cannot be the final goal of our intermodal policies. Indeed, the European 
citizen and industry are not satisfied with a road transport system, in which, today, 
0.5%  of  European  gross  domestic  product  are  wasted  in  congestion.  They  are  not 
satisfied  with  a  transport  system  that  is  almost  entirely  dependent  on,  increasingly 
imported,  fossil  fuels  and  is  responsible  for  rapidly  increasing  emissions  of  CO2  - 
one of the greenhouse gases responsible for climate change. 

Therefore, the next Marco Polo programme must take the quantum leap towards an 
overall  reduction  of  international  road  freight  transport.  It  does  by  relying  on  the 
previous approach strengthened further in two ways: 

Motorways of the Sea 

The Transport  White  Paper of 2001 introduced the idea to provide for  high-quality 
logistics  services  based  on  short  sea  shipping  transport,  which  could  be  compared, 
because of their quality features, to road motorways, and called them “Motorways of 
the Seas”. This would endow maritime transport with further capacities to compete 
with through road transport, and thus help modal shift. Art. 12a of the new TEN-T 
Guidelines adopted on 29 April 2004 delimitates this concept further as regards the 
network infrastructure to be set up. The Marco Polo programme should dovetail with 
the concept. Therefore, the Commission proposes appropriately ambitious goals for 
Motorways of the Sea services. For example, Motorways of the Seas should be set up 
between France and Spain to avoid the road bottleneck of the Pyrenees, and similar 
initiatives come to mind between Italy and Spain.  

Given the large-scale set up for such Motorways of the Sea, the Marco Polo projects 
should do more than the already existing catalyst or modal shift actions. These intend 
to  shift  the  expected  increase  of  road  traffic  to  the  alternative  modes.  Rather,  the 
Motorways of the Sea actions should simply lead to less road traffic over time on a 
given corridor. This high Community added-value and clearly visible benefit to the 
European citizen warrants a high Community contribution, based on carefully set up 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

projects by large consortia involving shippers, transport operators and infrastructure 
providers. Art. 5(2) in conjunction with Article 2(i) clarify the concept. 

Traffic Avoidance Actions 

Reliance  on intermodal transport will  not structurally affect the growth in transport 
demand. If successful, it will spread out the growth of demand more evenly. In that 
sense  intermodal  transport  policy  does  not  yet  address  the  following  challenge, 
which  we  have  to  face  for  a  sustainable  transport  system:  How  are  we  going  to 
manage  the  demand  for  transport  without  affecting  our  competitiveness  and  well 
being?  

It is time to include more actively the production sector and logistics systems into a 
coherent  strategy  for  sustainable  development  actions.  The  production,  supply  and 
order  patterns  need  to  be  improved,  in  order  to  increase  the  transport  intensity  of 
industrial  production.  Therefore,  the  Commission  proposes  the  traffic  avoidance 
actions.  Industry  itself  has  started  to  address  this  issue,  largely  to  streamline  its 
supply chains and to reduce distribution and transport costs of road transport. There 
is thus a striking compatibility of interest between efficiency-enhancing measures of 
the  industry  and  the  political  will  to  reduce  the  negative  effects  of  transport  by 
simply avoiding transport. 

Two features of the action, as spelt out in Article 5(4), are noteworthy. First, there is 
a quantitative objective also here: reduction of tonne- or vehicle kilometres by 10% 
in  a  given  supply  chain.  This  reduction  must  not  be  caused  by  reduction  of 
production  or  employment,  so  as  to  avoid  paying  a  premium  to  companies  closing 
down factories.  

c)  Clarifications 

The  proposal  further  features  two  important  clarifications,  one  regarding  priority 
actions in the railway sector, the other clarifying the scope for infrastructure funding 
under the Marco Polo programme. 

Creating rail synergies 

In line with the overall intermodality strategy, a specific emphasis is proposed for all 
actions  in  the  freight  railway  sector  making  better  use  of  existing  infrastructures. 
Examples include setting up international rail freight networks with fast freight trains 
on  dedicated  tracks  for  consumer  goods  or  express  mail.  One  can  also  think  about 
increased  load  factors  due  to  new  logistics  approaches  and  new  technological 
solutions. Art. 5(1) spells this out. 

Funding for ancillary infrastructures 

The  current  Marco  Polo  programme  already  features  some  limited  funding  for  so-
called “ancillary infrastructures”. These are infrastructures, which are necessary and 
sufficient  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  service-related  actions  targeted  by  the 
Marco  Polo  programme.  The  first  call  of  the  current  Marco  Polo  programme  has 
shown  that  the  demand  in  industry  for  such  infrastructures  assisting  the  success  of 
the  services  is  considerable.  Consequently,  the  current  proposal  introduces  some 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
26. 

27. 

flexibility.  Annex  II  to  the  proposal  gives  time-  and  project-related  criteria  for 
eligible infrastructure measures and also clarifies that there can be no accumulation 
between TEN-T and Marco Polo funding for the same infrastructure item. 

There  is  no  overlap  in  this  type  of  demand-led  funding  for  infrastructures  and  the 
funding  instrument  of  the  TEN-T  programme.  Indeed,  the  programmes  are 
intrinsically  different  in  their  approach  to  funding.  TEN-T  is  an  instrument  to 
construct  a  European  infrastructure  network,  with  long-term  goals  such  as 
development  of  the  internal  market  and  economic  and  social  cohesion.  These 
considerations are largely absent from Marco Polo. It is a market-oriented, demand 
driven instrument focussing on sustained modal shift achieved by transport services. 
The  beneficiaries  of  Marco  Polo  are  exclusively  undertakings  striving  to  achieve 
short- and mid term commercial goals, while Member States and public authorities 
play a predominant role in the TEN-T.  

Projects financed under Marco Polo are less costly and their implementation period 
is much shorter compared to TEN-T projects. The construction of a railway tunnel, 
for instance, across the Pyrenees, would take at least 15 years and cost several billion 
euros compared to a maritime service co-financed in the framework of a Motorways 
of the Sea project funded under Marco Polo. 

V 

COMMENTS ON THE ARTICLES 

Article 1 spells out the objective of the Programme. The article is almost identical with the 
Article 1 of the current regulation. However, it states that “preferably more” than the expected 
yearly  aggregate  increase  of  international  road  freight  traffic  should  be  shifted  to  the  more 
environmentally friendly modes. 

Article  2  provides  definitions  of  the  most  used  terms  of  the  Regulation.  The  main  changes 
relate  to  definitions  concerning  new  actions  “Motorways  of  the  Sea”  and  “Transport 
Avoidance”. 

Article 3 deals with  the geographic scope of  the  Programme. It now clearly states that also 
countries  which  are  neither  Member  States  nor  Accession  Candidates  can  participate  in  the 
programme,  provided  they  neighbour  the  European  Union  and  conclude  the  appropriate 
agreements. 

Article  4  explains  the  eligible  applicants  and  is  identical  to  the  Article  4  of  the  existing 
Regulation. 

Article  5  lists  the  five  eligible  actions.  Apart  from  the  two  new  types  of  actions,  special 
attention is drawn to catalyst actions in the railway market. The current action types are left 
nearly  unchanged.  As  Article  5(6)  explains,  the  technical  conditions  for  funding,  scope  and 
intensity of the subsidy, contract duration and thresholds and dissemination obligations are set 
out in Annex I to the Regulation, inspiring itself very largely from the existing Programme. 
Annex  II,  also  mentioned  in  Article  5(6),  clarifies  the  conditions  for  ancillary infrastructure 
funding. 

Article 6 explains that detailed rules for submission and selection of projects shall be issued 
by the Commission, in order to allow for the necessary flexibility and adaptation of rules. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Article 7 clarifies the role of State aid and Marco Polo funding, respectively. 

Article 8 and Article 9 relate to the submission and evaluation of proposals in the selection 
rounds. 

Article 10 makes reference to the management committee procedure, the standard comitology 
rules for programme management. 

Article  11  gives  the  financial  reference  amount  for  the  next  financial  procedures.  Based  on 
the thorough assessment in the ex-ante evaluation, an amount of 740 million EUR is proposed 
for the seven year period 2007 – 2013, which equals roughly 106 million EUR per year.  

Article 12 provides for a global amount for accompanying measures and for the independent 
evaluation of the implementation of the Regulation. 

Article 13 spells out rules protecting the Communities’ financial interests. 

Article 14 spells out information obligations of the Commission towards the Committee, and 
also  proposes  that  the  Commission  come  forward  with  an  evaluation  report  of  the  current 
Marco Polo I programme by 30 June 2007. 

Article 15 stipulates the repeal of Regulation 1382/2003, the legal basis for the Marco Polo 
programme  from  2003  onwards.  This  regulation  has  an  intended  life  span  until  2010  (see 
Article  1  of  Regulation  1382/2003).  In  order  to  avoid  confusion  about  the  applicable 
instrument after 31 December 2006, it is necessary to repeal Regulation 1382/2003 from the 
moment of applicability of the new instrument, which is 1 January 2007. In line with general 
legal principles, the actions funded under Regulation 1382/2003 will continue to be governed 
by  the  rules  and  instruments  of  that  Regulation,  even  if  their  operational  and  financial  life 
time extends to a point in time after 31 December 2006.  

Article 16 regulates the entry into force of the Regulation. In order to avoid that Regulation 
1382/2003 and the new instrument co-exist, which could give rise to application problems, the 
entry  into  force  of  the  new  instrument  should  dovetail  with  the  repeal  of  Regulation 
1382/2003.  Therefore,  Article  16  provides  that  the  new  Regulation  enters  into  force  on  1 
January 2007. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 

COMMUNITY ADDED-VALUE, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

– 

What  are  the  objectives  of  the  planned  measure  in  relation  to  the  Community's 
obligations? 

Under  Art.  71(1)(c)  of  the  Treaty,  the  Community’s  transport  policy  includes  measures  to 
improve transport safety and the adoption of any other appropriate provision. Further, under 
Art.  2  and  3(1)(l)  of  the  Treaty,  the  Community  has  the  obligation  to  promote  the 
improvement of the quality of the environment through an environmental policy.  

The objective of the planned measure is to combat road  freight congestion and improve the 
environmental performance of the freight transport system, by making more efficient use of 
short sea shipping, rail and inland waterway. The planned measure should help to at least shift 
the aggregate expected increase of the growth of international road freight transport to short 
sea shipping, rail and inland waterway. This will contribute to increased transport safety and 
to a better environmental performance of the whole transport system. 

– 

Does  the  measure  fall  within  the  Community's  exclusive  competence  or  is 
competence shared with the Member States? 

According  to  Art.  71(1)  of  the  Treaty,  the  competence  is  shared  with  the  Member 
States.  Art.  80(2)  is  the  legal  basis  needed  to  include  the  maritime  sector  in  the 
programme. 

– 

What is the Community dimension of the problem? 

Congestion  caused  by  road  freight  is  a  problem  facing,  to  varying  degrees,  all 
Member  States.  A  large  percentage  of  road  freight  transport,  about  20%,  is 
international.  This  segment  presents  the  highest  growth  rates.  Member  States,  on 
their  own,  cannot  resolve,  in  an  optimal  way,  the  problems  related  to  the  constant 
increase  in  international  road  freight.  In  fact,  internationally  oriented  projects, 
executed by international consortia are much better in a position to achieve the heavy 
and  sustained  modal  shift  needed  for  a  balanced  transport  system  in  the  European 
Union. National measures will reach their limits much faster and will simply not be 
able to achieve a similar impact. Therefore, there is a clear Community dimension of 
the problem. 

The  planned  measure  also  foresees  financial  assistance  for  projects  aiming  at 
reducing market barriers. It thus contributes to achieving the internal market for the 
transport sector. 

A  practical  instrument  needs  to  be  developed  on  Community  level  to  ensure  that 
short  sea,  rail  and  inland  waterway  are  not  suffering  in  their  competitiveness  from 
the  fact  that  road  freight  transport  does  not  pay  the  full  costs  that  it  generates  for 
society. 

– 

Can the objectives not be adequately achieved by the Member States? 

On a purely national or regional level, the objective of reducing road congestion can 
be adequately tackled by Member States. However, reducing the level of congestion 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
caused  by  international  road  freight  cannot  be  achieved  by  the  Member  States  in  a 
satisfactory way. Here, there is a need for a Community initiative. If the promotion 
of international non-road freight services is left to Member States alone, the danger 
of  unacceptable  distortions  of  competition  resulting  from  un-coordinated  and 
possible double funding is especially great. 

– 

What  is  the  most  effective  solution,  that  achieved  by  Community  means  or  that 
achieved  by  national  means?  What  specific  added  value  is  contributed  by  the 
planned Community measure and what would be the cost of taking no action? 

As  stated  above,  Community  means  are  more  effective  for  reducing  international 
road  freight  than  Member  States’  measures  alone.  The  specific  added  value  of  the 
planned  measure  is  that  it  will  provide  a  framework,  for  transport  and  logistics 
industry, to tackle structural problems, which impede the functioning of the internal 
market for transport. No other actual or planned measure provides such a framework. 
There  is  no  other  Community  programme  which  offers  support  for  improving  the 
performance  of  the  logistics  market,  leading  to  a  better  environmental  performance 
of transport. 

Without  this  Community  intervention,  we  are  forecast  to  have  an  increase  of  more 
than  140  billion  tonne-kilometres  of  international  road  freight  on  European  roads 
during the next financial perspectives (2007 – 2013). This can also be translated into 
more  than  7  million  truck  journeys  over  a  distance  of  1000  kilometres,  a  typical 
international road  transport distance  in Europe.  If  the Community can  help  shifting 
these  millions  of  truck  journeys  off  the  road  with  the  help  of  the  indicated  budget, 
each  EUR  spent  as  a  Community  subsidy  will  generate  environmental  benefits  in 
terms of saved external costs (pollution, accidents etc.) of around 6 EUR. 

– 

Are the means of Community action proportionate to the objectives? 

The  objective  of  the  planned  measure  is  to  contribute  directly  and  immediately,  in 
the market for freight transport and logistics services, to easing road congestion and 
to improving the environmental performance of freight transport. 

What  is  the  most  suitable  act  for  achieving  the  objectives?  (Recommendation, 
financial support, mutual recognition, legislation, etc.). 

Financial support, based on a Parliament and Council Regulation, is the most suitable 
act  for  achieving  these  objectives.  The  regulatory  framework  for  the  EU  transport 
market  is  today  largely  in  place.  There  is  now  a  need  for  practical  and  financial 
support  to  industry  to  overcome  the  structural  barriers  in  the  market.  Furthermore, 
tailored financial support can ensure that short sea, rail and inland waterway are not 
suffering  in  their  competitiveness  from  the  fact  that  road  freight  transport  does  not 
pay the full costs that it generates for society. 

In  the  case  of  legislation,  is  the  scope,  duration  or  intensity  greater  than  what  is 
necessary? 

The scope of the intended instrument is enlarged compared to the current Marco Polo 
programme.  The  enlarged  substantial  scope  is  necessary  to  achieve  the  ambitious 
modal shift goals and launch a trend to overall road transport reduction. The duration 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
of the planned measure has been fixed for 2007 – 2013, in line with the next financial 
perspectives. 

As a rule, Community financial support has to be based on Parliament and Council 
Regulation.  The  planned  measure  foresees  the  formulation  of  essential  rules 
concerning  financial  assistance,  without  going  into  excessive  details.  Detailed 
implementing  rules  of  the  Commission  will  be  issued  according  to  Art.  6  of  the 
Regulation. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
2004/0157 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

establishing the second “Marco Polo” programme for the granting of Community 
financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport 
system  
("Marco Polo II") 

Text with EEA relevance 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 
71(1) and 80(2) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission2, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee3, 

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions4, 

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty5, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

The  Commission  White  Paper  on  the  Common  Transport  Policy  of  September  2001 
stresses the development of intermodality as a practical and effective means to achieve 
a balanced transport system, and proposes the development of Motorways of the Sea, 
high-quality  integrated  intermodal  maritime  options,  as  an  important  element  in  this 
strategy At its meeting in Gothenburg on 15 and 16 June 2001 the European Council 
declared that shifting the balance between the modes of transport is at the heart of the 
sustainable  development  strategy.  Furthermore,  at  its  meeting  on  15  and  16  March 
2002  the  European  Council  stressed  the  necessity  to  reduce  the  congestion  in  the 
traffic bottlenecks in several regions, mentioning in particular the Alps, the Pyrenees 
and  the  Baltic  Sea  –  an  indication  that  the  maritime  lines  of  sea  motorways  are  an 
integral and important part of the Trans European Network for Transport. A market-
driven funding programme for intermodality is a central instrument to further develop 
intermodality and should specifically support the set-up of Motorways of the Sea. 

2 
3 
4 
5 

OJ C […] […], p. […] 
OJ C.[…] […], p. […] 
OJ C […] […], p. […] 
Opinion  of  the  European  Parliament  of  …,  Council  Common  Position  of  …  and  Decision  of  the 
European Parliament of … 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

If no decisive action is taken, total road freight transport in Europe is set to grow by 
more  than  60%  by  2013.  The  effect  would  be  an  estimated  growth  of  international 
road freight for the period 2007-2013 of 20.5 billion tonne-kilometres per year for the 
25  Member  States  of  the  European  Union,  with  negative  consequences  in  terms  of 
accidents,  congestion,  reliability  of  the  supply  chain  and  logistics  processes  and 
environmental damage. 

In order to cope with this growth in road freight transport, short sea shipping, rail and 
inland waterway must be used even more than today, and it is necessary to stimulate 
further  powerful  initiatives  from  the  transport  and  logistics  sector  to  decrease  road 
congestion. 

The  programme  established  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1382/2003  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2003 on the granting of Community financial 
assistance  to  improve  the  environmental  performance  of  the  freight  transport  system 
(Marco Polo Programme)6 should therefore be enhanced by new actions, targeting an 
actual reduction of international road transport. The Commission therefore proposes a 
stronger programme, hereinafter referred to as the "Marco Polo II Programme", or "the 
Programme",  to  enhance  intermodality,  reduce  road  congestion  and  to  improve  the 
environmental performance of the freight transport system within the Community. To 
achieve this objective, the Programme should support actions in the freight transport, 
logistics  and  other  relevant  markets.  It  should  help  to  shift  at  least  the  expected 
aggregate  increase  in  international  road  freight  traffic,  but  preferably  more,  to  short 
sea shipping, rail and inland waterways or to a combination of modes of transport, in 
which  road  journeys  are  as  short  as  possible.  The  current  Marco  Polo  programme 
under Council and Parliament Regulation (EC) No 1382/2003 should then be replaced. 

The  Marco  Polo  II  Programme  will  feature  different  types  of  action,  which  should 
contribute  to  measurable  and  sustained  modal  shift  and  better  co-operation  in  the 
intermodal  market.  As  a  step  further,  actions  under  the  Marco  Polo  II  Programme 
should also contribute to an actual reduction in international road freight transport. 

Actions  to  be  funded  under  the  Marco  Polo  II  Programme  must  be  international  in 
geographic scope. In order to reflect the European dimension of the actions, projects 
should be submitted by undertakings established in different countries, in the form of a 
consortium submitting an action. 

Applicants  should  be  able  to  submit  new  or,  where  appropriate,  existing  projects 
which best match current market needs. Suitable projects should not be discouraged by 
any over-rigid definition of allowable actions. 

There may be cases in which the benefits of developing an existing service may be at 
least equal in terms of additional modal shift, quality and environmental and viability 
advantages to those of starting up a new service involving considerable expense. 

To  be  transparent,  objective  and  clearly  delimited,  aid  for  the  launch  of  modal  shift 
actions should be based on cost savings for society brought about by use of short sea 
shipping,  rail  and  inland  waterways,  instead  of  road  transport  alone.  For  this  reason, 

6 

OJ L 196, 2.8.2003 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the Regulation provides for an indicative amount of financial assistance of EUR 1 for 
each shift of 500 tonne-kilometres of road freight. 

(10)  The  results  of  all  actions  of  the  Programme  should  be  adequately  disseminated,  in 

order to ensure publicity and transparency. 

(11)  During  the  selection  procedure  and  during  the  lifetime  of  actions,  it  is  necessary  to 
ensure that the actions chosen make real contributions to the common transport policy 
and  do  not  cause  distortions  of  competition  contrary  to  the  common  interest.  The 
Commission  should  therefore  evaluate  the  implementation  of  both  Programmes.  It 
should  present  the  evaluation  report  on  the  results  achieved  by  the  Marco  Polo 
Programme for the period 2003-2006 not later than 30 June 2007. 

(12)  Since the objective of  the  Marco  Polo II Programme  cannot be sufficiently  achieved 
by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scope of the Programme, be 
better  achieved  at  Community  level,  the  Community  may  adopt  measures  in 
accordance  with  the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of  the Treaty. In 
accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportionality,  as  set  out  in  that  Article,  this 
Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. 

(13)  The measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted 
in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the 
procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission 7. 

(14)  This  Regulation  establishes  a  financial  framework  for  the  entire  duration  of  the 
programme, which is to be the principal point of reference for the budgetary authority, 
within  the  meaning  of  point  33  of  the  Interinstitutional Agreement  of  6  May  1999 
between  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  Commission  on  budgetary 
discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure. 

(15) 

In  order  to  safeguard  continuity  and  transparency  of  the  Marco  Polo  programme, 
transitional  provisions  should  be  laid  down  concerning  contracts  and  selection 
procedure.  

7 

OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

CHAPTER I 
GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Article 1 
Subject matter 

This  Regulation  establishes  a  financing 
the 
"Marco Polo II  Programme",  or  "the  Programme"  in  order  to  reduce  congestion,  to  improve 
the environmental performance of the transport system and to enhance intermodal transport, 
thereby  contributing  to  an  efficient  and  sustainable  transport  system.  The  duration  of  the 
Programme shall be from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013.  

instrument,  hereinafter  referred 

to  as 

For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply: 

Article 2 
Definitions 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

"action" means any project executed by undertakings, which contributes to reducing 
the 
congestion 
environmental performance of the transport system in the territories of the Member 
States or participating countries; 

transport  system  and/or 

the  road  freight 

improving 

to 

in 

"accompanying  measure"  means  any  measure  which  seeks  to  prepare  for  or  to 
support  current  or  future  actions,  inter alia  dissemination  activities  and  project 
monitoring  and  evaluation,  and  the  collection  and  analysis  of  statistical  data; 
measures  devoted  to  the  commercialisation  of  products,  processes  or  services, 
marketing activities and sales promotion are not "accompanying measures"; 

“ancillary infrastructure" means the necessary and sufficient infrastructure to achieve 
the goals of actions, including freight-passenger installations. 

any 

aimed 

action 

action"  means 

"catalyst 
at  overcoming 
innovative 
Community-relevant  structural  barriers  in  the  market  for  freight  transport  which 
impede  the  efficient  functioning  of  the  markets,  the  competitiveness  of  short  sea 
shipping, rail, or inland waterways, and/or the efficiency of transport chains making 
use  of  these  modes,  including  the  modification  or  creation  of  the  necessary 
infrastructure;  for  the  purpose  of  this  definition,  "structural  market  barrier"  shall 
mean  any  non-regulatory,  factual  and  non-temporary  impediment  to  the  proper 
functioning of the freight transport chain; 

"common  learning  action"  means  any  action  aimed  at  improving  cooperation  for 
structurally  optimising  working  methods  and  procedures  in  the  freight  transport 
chain, taking into account the requirements of logistics; 

"close  third  country"  means  any  country  not  a  member  of  the  Community,  or  a 
candidate  country  for  accession  to  Community,  with  a  common  border  with  the 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
Community or with a coastline on a closed or semi-closed sea neighbouring on the 
European Union; 

"consortium"  means  any  arrangement  by  which  at  least  two  undertakings  execute 
together and share the risk concerning an action; 

"modal  shift  action"  means  any  action  directly,  measurably,  substantially  and 
immediately shifting freight from road to short sea shipping, rail, inland waterways 
or  a  combination  of  modes  of  transport  in  which  road  journeys  are  as  short  as 
possible, without being a catalyst action; 

“motorways of the sea action” means any innovative action directly shifting freight 
from road to short sea shipping or a combination of waterborne with other modes of 
transport in which road journeys are as short as possible, including the modification 
or creation of the ancillary infrastructure, to timely implement a very large volume, 
high  frequency  intermodal  waterborne  transport  service,  and  including  non-road 
hinterland freight transport for integrated door-to-door services; 

“traffic  avoidance  action”  means  any  innovative  action  integrating  transport  into 
production  logistics  to  timely  avoid  a  large  percentage  of  freight  transport  by  road 
while  maintaining  overall  production  output  and  production  workforce  on  EU 
territory,  including  the  modification/creation  of  the  ancillary  infrastructure  and 
equipment; 

"preparatory  measure"  means  any  action  in  preparation  for  a  catalyst,  motorway  of 
the  sea  or  traffic  avoidance  action,  such  as  technical,  operational  or  financial 
feasibility studies and equipment tests; 

"tonne-kilometre"  means  the  transport  of  a  tonne  of  freight,  or  its  volumetric 
equivalent, over a distance of one kilometre; 

"undertaking"  means  any  entity  engaged  in  an  economic  activity,  regardless  of  the 
legal status of the entity and the way in which it is financed; 

“vehicle-kilometre”  means  the  movement  of  a  truck,  loaded  or  empty,  over  a 
distance of one kilometre; 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

(l) 

(m) 

(n) 

Article 3 
Scope 

1. 

The Programme shall cover actions: 

(a) 

involving the territory of at least two Member States, or 

(b) 

involving the territory of at least one Member State and the territory of a close 
third country. 

2. 

Where an action involves the territory of a third country, costs arising in the territory 
of that country shall not be covered by the Programme, except in the circumstances 
set out in paragraphs 3 and 4. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
3. 

4. 

1. 

2. 

The Programme shall be open to participation by countries, which are candidates for 
accession.  Participation  shall  be  governed  by  the  conditions  laid  down  in  the 
Association Agreements with those countries, and on the basis of the rules laid down 
in the decision of the Association Council for each country concerned. 

The Programme shall also be open to participation by EFTA and EEA countries and 
close  third  countries,  on  the  basis  of  supplementary  appropriations  in  accordance 
with procedures to be agreed with those countries. 

CHAPTER II 
ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS AND ACTIONS 

Article 4 
Eligible applicants and beneficiaries 

Projects shall be submitted by a consortium of two or more undertakings, established 
in at least two different Member States or in at least one Member State and one close 
third country. 

Undertakings  established  outside  one  of  the  participant  countries  referred  to  in 
Article 3(3)  and  (4)  may  be  associated  with  the  project,  but  may  under  no 
circumstances receive Community funding under the Programme. 

Article 5 
Eligible actions and funding conditions 

1. 

The following actions shall be eligible for funding under the Programme: 

a) 

catalyst  actions,  in  particular  those  aiming  at  improving  synergies  in  the  rail 
sector by better use of existing infrastructures deserve specific attention.  

b)  motorways  of  the  sea  actions;  such  actions  shall  use  as  a  rule  the  trans-
European  networks  as  defined  in  Decision  1692/96/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and Council, as amended;8 

c)  modal  shift  actions,  including,  where  appropriate,  the  additional  modal  shift 

brought about by the development of an existing service; 

d) 

traffic avoidance actions; 

e) 

common learning actions.  

2. 

The specific funding conditions and other requirements for the various actions are set 
out in Annex I of this Regulation. The funding conditions for ancillary infrastructures 
within the meaning of Art. 2(c) are set out in Annex II of this Regulation. 

8 

OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p.1. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

The political priority targets to be taken into consideration in the selection procedure 
for  catalyst  actions  and  common  learning  actions  shall  be  established  and,  if 
necessary, reviewed, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 10(2). 

Article 6 
Detailed rules 

Detailed  rules  concerning  the  procedure  for  submission  and  selection  of  actions  under  the 
Programme shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 10(2). 

Article 7 
State Aid 

Community financial assistance for the actions covered by the Programme shall not exclude 
those actions being granted State aid at national, regional or local level, insofar as such aid is 
compatible with the State-aid arrangements laid down in the Treaty and within the cumulative 
limits established for each type of action in Annex I to this Regulation. The total aid granted 
in  the  form  of  State  aid  and  Community  financial  assistance  in  respect  of  ancillary 
infrastructure shall not exceed 50% of eligible costs.  

CHAPTER III 
SUBMISSION AND SELECTION OF ACTIONS 

Article 8 
Submission of actions 

Actions  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Commission  according  to  the  detailed  rules  issued  under 
Article 6. The submission shall contain all the elements necessary to enable the Commission 
to make its selection in accordance with Article 9. 

Article 9 
Selection of actions for financial assistance 

Submitted actions shall be evaluated by the Commission. When selecting actions for financial 
assistance under the Programme, the Commission shall take account of the following: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

the objective referred to in Article 1; 

the conditions set out in Annexes I and II; 

the contribution of the actions to reducing road congestion; 

the  relative  environmental  merits  of  the  actions,  including  their  contribution  to 
reducing negative environmental effects caused by short sea shipping, rail and inland 
waterway.  Specific  attention  will  be  paid  to  projects  going  beyond  legally  binding 
environmental requirements. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
(e) 

the overall sustainability of the actions. 

The decision to grant financial assistance shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure 
referred to in Article 10(2). 

The Commission shall inform the beneficiaries of its decision. 

CHAPTER IV 
FINAL PROVISIONS 

Article 10 
Committee  

The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. 

reference 

Where 
this  paragraph,  Articles  4  and  7  of 
Decision 1999/468/EC  shall  apply,  having  regard  to  the  provisions  of  Article 8 
thereof. 

is  made 

to 

1. 

2. 

The period laid down in Article 4(3) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be three months. 

3. 

The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure. 

Article 11 
Budget 

The  financial  framework  for  the  implementation  of  the  Marco  Polo  II  Programme,  for  the 
period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013, shall be EUR 740 million. 

Annual appropriations shall be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the 
financial perspective. 

Article 12 
Reserve for accompanying measures and Programme evaluation 

Up to 5% of the budget provided for in this Regulation shall be set aside for accompanying 
measures and independent evaluation of the implementation of Article 5. 

Article 13 
Protection of the Communities’ financial interests 

1. 

The Commission shall ensure that, when actions financed under this Regulation are 
implemented,  the  financial  interests  of  the  Community  are  protected  by  the 
application  of  preventive  measures  against  fraud,  corruption  and  any  other  illegal 
activities, by effective checks and by the recovery of the amounts unduly paid and, if 
irregularities  are  detected,  by  effective,  proportional  and  dissuasive  penalties,  in 
accordance with Council Regulations (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 and (Euratom, EC) 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

No  2185/96,  and  with  Regulation  (EC)  No  1073/1999  of  the  European  Parliament 
and of the Council. 

For the Community actions financed under this Regulation, the notion of irregularity 
referred  to  in  Article  1  of  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  2988/95  shall  mean  any 
infringement  of  a  provision  of  Community  law  or  any  breach  of  a  contractual 
obligation resulting from an act or omission by an economic operator, which has, or 
would  have,  the  effect  of  prejudicing  the  general  budget  of  the  Communities  or 
budgets managed by them, by an unjustified item of expenditure. 

Contracts  and  agreements  as  well  as  agreements  with  participating  third  countries 
resulting from this regulation shall provide in particular for supervision and financial 
control by the Commission (or any representative authorized by it) and audits by the 
Court of Auditors, if necessary on-the-spot. 

Article 14 
Evaluation 

The  Commission  shall  inform  the  Committee  at  least  once  a  year  concerning  the 
financial execution of the Programme and give an update of the status of all actions 
financed under the Programme. 

The Commission shall present to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  an  evaluation 
report  on  the  results  achieved  by  the  Marco  Polo  Programme  for  the  period  2003-
2006 by 30 June 2007. 

Article 15 
Repeal  

Regulation (EC) No 1382/2003 is repealed, with effect from 1 January 2007. Contracts related 
to actions within the framework of Regulation (EC) 1382/2003 shall continue to be governed 
by those rules until their operational and financial closure. The entire evaluation and selection 
procedure  for  the  year  2006  shall  also  be  governed  by  Regulation  (EC)  1382/2003,  even  if 
that procedures ends in the year 2007.  

Article 16 
Entry into force 

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2007 and shall apply from that date.  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
Done at Brussels,  

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
. 

ANNEX I: Funding conditions and requirements according to Article 5 (2) 

Type of Action 

A. Catalyst 

B. Motorways of the Sea  C. Modal shift 

D. Traffic Avoidance 

E. Common Learning 

1. Funding 
conditions 

EN 

Art. 5(1)(a) 

Art. 5(1)(b) 

Art. 5(1)(c) 

Art. 5(1)(d) 

Art. 5(1(e) 

(a) the catalyst action 
will achieve its 
objectives within a 
period of a maximum of 
60 months, and stay 
viable after that period, 
as forecast by a realistic 
business plan;  

(a) the motorways of the 
sea (MoS) action will 
achieve its objectives 
within a period of a 
maximum of 60 months, 
and stay viable after that 
period, as forecast by a 
realistic business plan; 

(b) the catalyst action is 
innovative on a 
European level, in terms 
of logistics, technology, 
methods, equipment, 
products, infrastructure 
or services rendered; 

(c) the catalyst action is 
expected to lead to an 
actual, measurable and 
sustainable modal shift 
from road to short sea 
shipping, rail, inland 
waterways. 

(b) the MoS action is 
innovative on a European 
level, in terms of logistics, 
technology, methods, 
equipment, products, 
infrastructure or services 
rendered; specific regard 
will be given to high 
quality of service, 
simplified procedures and 
inspections, meeting safety 
and security standards, 
good access to the ports, 
efficient hinterland 
connections, and flexible 

(a) the modal shift action 
will achieve its objectives 
within a period of a 
maximum of 36 months, and 
stay viable after that period, 
as forecast by a realistic 
business plan; 

(b) the modal shift action 
will not lead to distortions 
of competition in the 
relevant markets, in 
particular between 
alternative modes of 
transport to road transport 
alone or within each mode, 
contrary to the common 
interest; 

(c) the modal shift action 
proposes a realistic plan 
setting out the specific 
stages by which it seeks to 
achieve its objectives; 

(a) the traffic avoidance 
action will achieve its 
objectives within a period 
of a maximum of 
60 months, and stay 
viable after that period, as 
forecast by a realistic 
business plan; 

(b) the traffic avoidance 
action is innovative on a 
European level, in terms 
of integration of 
production logistics into 
transport logistics; 

(c) the traffic avoidance 
action aims at 
encouraging higher 
efficiency in international 
freight transport in the 
European markets 
without impeding 
economic growth by 

(a) the common learning 
action will lead to the 
improvement of commercial 
services in the market, in 
particular promoting and/or 
facilitating road traffic 
avoidance or modal shift off 
the road to short sea 
shipping, rail and inland 
waterways, through 
improving co-operation and 
sharing of know-how and 
lasts for a maximum of 
24 months; 

(b) the action is innovative 
on a European level; 

(c) the action will not lead to 
distortions of competition in 
the relevant markets, in 
particular between modes of 
transport alternative to road 
transport alone or within 

23 
EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Type of Action 

A. Catalyst 

B. Motorways of the Sea  C. Modal shift 

D. Traffic Avoidance 

E. Common Learning 

Art. 5(1)(a) 

Art. 5(1)(b) 

Art. 5(1)(c) 

Art. 5(1)(d) 

Art. 5(1(e) 

(d) the catalyst action 
proposes a realistic plan 
setting out the specific 
stages by which it seeks 
to achieve its objectives 
and identifies the need 
for Commission steering 
assistance; 

(e) the catalyst action 
will not lead to 
distortions of 
competition in the 
relevant markets, in 
particular between 
modes of transport 
alternative to road 
transport alone or within 
each mode, to an extent 
contrary to the common 
interest; 

(f) when the action 
requires reliance on 
services provided by 
third parties not part of 
the consortium, the 

and efficient port services; 

(c) the MoS action aims at 
encouraging very large 
volume, high frequency 
intermodal services for 
freight transport by short 
sea shipping with the 
possibility of combined 
freight-passenger services; 
the action also encourages 
hinterland connections by 
rail and inland waterways; 

(d) the MoS action is 
expected to lead to an 
actual, measurable and 
sustainable modal shift 
higher than the predicted 
growth rate of freight 
transport on the road route, 
from road to short sea 
shipping and inland 
waterways.  

(e) the MoS action 
proposes a realistic plan 
setting out the specific 

(d) when the action requires 
reliance on services 
provided by third parties not 
part of the consortium, the 
applicant submits proof of a 
transparent, objective and 
non-discriminatory 
procedure for selection of 
the relevant services. 

each mode contrary to the 
common interest; 

(d) the common learning 
action proposes a realistic 
plan setting out the specific 
stages by which it seeks to 
achieve its objectives and 
identifies the need for 
Commission steering 
assistance. 

focussing on  
modification of the 
production and/or 
distribution processes, 
thereby achieving shorter 
distances, higher loading 
factors, less empty runs, 
reduction of waste flows, 
reduction of volume 
and/or weight or any 
other effect leading to a 
significant reduction of 
freight traffic on the road, 
while at least maintaining 
overall production output 
and production workforce 
on EU territory;  

(d) the traffic avoidance 
action is expected to lead 
to an actual, measurable 
and sustainable traffic 
avoidance of at least 10 
percent of the freight 
volume measured in 
tonnes-kilometres or 
vehicle-kilometres; 

EN 

24 
EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Type of Action 

A. Catalyst 

B. Motorways of the Sea  C. Modal shift 

D. Traffic Avoidance 

E. Common Learning 

Art. 5(1)(a) 

Art. 5(1)(b) 

Art. 5(1)(c) 

Art. 5(1)(d) 

Art. 5(1(e) 

applicant submits proof 
of a transparent, 
objective and 
non-discriminatory 
procedure for selection 
of the relevant services. 

stages by which it seeks to 
achieve its objectives and 
identifies the need for 
Commission steering 
assistance; 

(f) the MoS action will not 
lead to distortions of 
competition in the relevant 
markets, in particular 
between modes of 
transport alternative to 
road transport alone or 
within each mode, to an 
extent contrary to the 
common interest; 

(g) when the MoS action 
requires reliance on 
services provided by third 
parties not part of the 
consortium, the applicant 
submits proof of a 
transparent, objective and 
non-discriminatory 
procedure for selection of 
the relevant services. 

(e) the traffic avoidance 
action proposes a realistic 
plan setting out the 
specific stages by which 
it seeks to achieve its 
objectives and identifies 
the need for Commission 
steering assistance; 

(f) the traffic avoidance 
action will not lead to 
distortions of competition 
in the relevant markets, in 
particular concerning 
modes of transport 
alternative to road 
transport, to an extent 
contrary to the common 
interest; 

(g) When the traffic 
avoidance action requires 
reliance on services 
provided by third parties 
not part of the 
consortium, the applicant 
submits proof of a 
transparent, objective and 

EN 

25 
EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Type of Action 

A. Catalyst 

B. Motorways of the Sea  C. Modal shift 

D. Traffic Avoidance 

E. Common Learning 

Art. 5(1)(a) 

Art. 5(1)(b) 

Art. 5(1)(c) 

Art. 5(1)(d) 

Art. 5(1(e) 

2. Funding 
intensity and 
scope 

(a) Community financial 
assistance for catalyst 
actions shall be limited 
to a maximum of 35% 
of the total expenditure 
necessary to achieve the 
objectives of the action 
and incurred as a result 
of the action, including 
preparatory measures 
and ancillary 
infrastructure. Such 
expenditure shall be 
eligible for Community 
financial assistance, to 
the extent to which it 
relates directly to the 
implementation of the 
action. Expenditure 
incurred on or after the 
date of the submission 
of an application under 
the selection procedure 
shall be eligible for 

(a) Community financial 
assistance for MoS actions 
shall be limited to a 
maximum of 35% of the 
total expenditure necessary 
to achieve the objectives of 
the action and incurred as a 
result of the action, 
including preparatory 
measures and ancillary 
infrastructure. Such 
expenditure shall be 
eligible for Community 
financial assistance, to the 
extent to which it relates 
directly to the 
implementation of the 
transport service. 
Expenditure incurred on or 
after the date of the 
submission of an 
application under the 
selection procedure shall 
be eligible for Community 

(a) Community financial 
assistance for modal shift 
actions shall be limited to a 
maximum of 35% of the 
total expenditure necessary 
to achieve the objectives of 
the action and incurred as a 
result of the action. Such 
expenditure shall be eligible 
for Community financial 
assistance to the extent to 
which it relates directly to 
the implementation of the 
action. Expenditure incurred 
on or after the date of the 
submission of an application 
under the selection 
procedure shall be eligible 
for Community financial 
assistance provided that 
final approval for 
Community funding is 
given. A contribution 
towards the costs of 

non-discriminatory 
procedure for selection of 
the relevant services. 

(a) Community financial 
assistance for traffic 
avoidance actions shall 
be limited to a maximum 
of 35% of the total 
expenditure necessary to 
achieve the objectives of 
the action and incurred as 
a result of the action, 
including preparatory 
measures and ancillary 
infrastructure and 
equipment. Such 
expenditure shall be 
eligible for Community 
financial assistance, to 
the extent to which it 
relates directly to the 
implementation of the 
action. Expenditure 
incurred on or after the 
date of the submission of 
an application under the 
selection procedure shall 

(a) Community financial 
assistance for common 
learning actions shall be 
limited to a maximum of 
50% of the total expenditure 
necessary to achieve the 
objectives of the action and 
incurred as a result of the 
action. Such expenditure 
shall be eligible for 
Community financial 
assistance, to the extent to 
which it relates directly to 
the implementation of the 
action. Expenditure incurred 
on or after the date of the 
submission of an application 
under the selection 
procedure shall be eligible 
for Community financial 
assistance provided that 
final approval for 
Community funding is 
given. 

EN 

26 
EN 

 
 
 
 
Type of Action 

A. Catalyst 

B. Motorways of the Sea  C. Modal shift 

D. Traffic Avoidance 

E. Common Learning 

Art. 5(1)(a) 

Art. 5(1)(b) 

Art. 5(1)(c) 

Art. 5(1)(d) 

Art. 5(1(e) 

(b) The funding conditions 
for ancillary infrastructure: 
not applicable. 

Community financial 
assistance provided that 
final approval for 
Community funding is 
given. A contribution 
towards the costs of 
movable assets shall be 
contingent on the 
obligation to use such 
assets for the duration of 
the assistance, 
principally for the 
action, as defined by the 
subsidy agreement. 

(b) The funding 
conditions for ancillary 
infrastructure are set out 
in Annex II  

financial assistance 
provided that final 
approval for Community 
funding is given. A 
contribution towards the 
costs of movable assets 
shall be contingent on the 
obligation to use such 
assets for the duration of 
the assistance, principally 
for the action, as defined 
by the subsidy agreement. 

(b) The Community 
financial assistance, except 
for preparatory measures 
and transport 
infrastructure, determined 
by the Commission on the 
basis of the 
tonne-kilometres shifted 
from road to short sea 
shipping, rail, inland 
waterways, shall initially 
be set at EUR 1 for each 
shift of 500 
tonne-kilometres of road 
freight. This indicative 

movable assets shall be 
contingent on the obligation 
to use such assets for the 
duration of the assistance, 
principally for the action, as 
defined by the subsidy 
agreement. 

(b) The Community 
financial assistance, except 
for transport infrastructure, 
determined by the 
Commission on the basis of 
the tonne-kilometres shifted 
from road to short sea 
shipping, rail, inland 
waterways shall initially be 
set at EUR 1 for each shift 
of 500 tonne-kilometres of 
road freight. This indicative 
amount could be adjusted, in 
particular, in accordance 
with the quality of the 
project or the real 
environmental benefit 
obtained. 

(c) In accordance with the 

be eligible for 
Community financial 
assistance provided that 
final approval for 
Community funding is 
given. A contribution 
towards the costs of 
movable assets shall be 
contingent on the 
obligation to use such 
assets for the duration of 
the assistance, principally 
for the action, as defined 
by the subsidy agreement. 

(b) The Community 
financial assistance, 
except for preparatory 
measures, transport 
infrastructure and 
equipment, shall initially 
be set at EUR 1 for every 
avoidance of 500 
tonne-kilometres or 25 
vehicle-kilometres of 
road freight. This 
indicative amount could 
be adjusted, in particular, 

EN 

27 
EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Type of Action 

A. Catalyst 

B. Motorways of the Sea  C. Modal shift 

D. Traffic Avoidance 

E. Common Learning 

Art. 5(1)(a) 

Art. 5(1)(b) 

Art. 5(1)(c) 

Art. 5(1)(d) 

Art. 5(1(e) 

amount could be adjusted, 
in particular, in accordance 
with the quality of the 
project or the real 
environmental benefit 
obtained. 

(c) In accordance with the 
procedure referred to in 
Article 10(2), the 
Commission may 
re-examine, from time to 
time as necessary, the 
developments concerning 
the items on which this 
calculation is based and, if 
necessary, adapt the 
amount of Community 
financial assistance 
accordingly. 

(d) The funding conditions 
for ancillary infrastructure 
are set out in Annex II. 

procedure referred to in 
Article 10(2), the 
Commission may 
re-examine, from time to 
time as necessary, the 
developments concerning 
the items on which this 
calculation is based and, if 
necessary, adapt the amount 
of Community financial 
assistance accordingly. 

(d) The funding conditions 
for ancillary infrastructure: 
not applicable. 

in accordance with the 
quality of the project or 
the real environmental 
benefit obtained. 

(c) In accordance with the 
procedure referred to in 
Article 10(2), the 
Commission may 
re-examine, from time to 
time as necessary, the 
developments concerning 
the items on which this 
calculation is based and, 
if necessary, adapt the 
amount of Community 
financial assistance 
accordingly. 

(d) The funding 
conditions for ancillary 
infrastructure are set out 
in Annex II. 

3. Form and 
duration of 
subsidy 

Community financial 
assistance for catalyst 
actions shall be granted 

Community financial 
assistance for MoS actions 
shall be granted on the 

Community financial 
assistance for modal shift 
actions shall be granted on 

Community financial 
assistance for traffic 
avoidance actions shall 

Community financial 
assistance for common 
learning actions shall be 

EN 

28 
EN 

 
 
 
 
Type of Action 

A. Catalyst 

B. Motorways of the Sea  C. Modal shift 

D. Traffic Avoidance 

E. Common Learning 

Art. 5(1)(a) 

Art. 5(1)(b) 

Art. 5(1)(c) 

Art. 5(1)(d) 

Art. 5(1(e) 

agreement 

on the basis of subsidy 
agreements, with 
appropriate provisions 
for steering and 
monitoring. As a rule, 
the maximum duration 
of these agreements 
shall be 62 months. 

basis of subsidy 
agreements, with 
appropriate provisions for 
steering and monitoring. 
As a rule, the maximum 
duration of these 
agreements shall be 
62 months. 

Community financial 
assistance shall not be 
renewable beyond the 
stipulated maximum 
period of 62 months. 

Community financial 
assistance shall not be 
renewable beyond the 
stipulated maximum period 
of 62 months. 

the basis of subsidy 
agreements. As a rule, the 
maximum duration of these 
agreements shall be 
38 months. 

Community financial 
assistance shall not be 
renewable beyond the 
stipulated maximum period 
of 38 months. 

4. Contract 
value threshold 

The minimum indicative 
subsidy threshold per 
catalyst action shall be 
EUR 3 000 000. 

The minimum indicative 
subsidy threshold per MoS 
action shall be 
2 billion tonne-kilometres 
of modal shift or, in 
proportion to the indicative 
amount per euro of 
subsidy, EUR 4 000 000. 

The minimum indicative 
subsidy threshold per modal 
shift action shall be 
500 million tonne-kilometre
s of modal shift or, in 
proportion to the indicative 
amount per euro of subsidy, 
EUR 1 000 000. 

granted on the basis of 
subsidy agreements, with 
appropriate provisions for 
steering and monitoring. As 
a rule, the maximum 
duration of these agreements 
shall be 26 months. 

Community financial 
assistance shall not be 
renewable beyond the 
stipulated maximum period 
of 26 months. 

The minimum indicative 
subsidy threshold per 
common learning action 
shall be EUR 250 000. 

be granted on the basis of 
subsidy agreements, with 
appropriate provisions for 
steering and monitoring. 
As a rule, the maximum 
duration of these 
agreements shall be 
62 months. 

Community financial 
assistance shall not be 
renewable beyond the 
stipulated maximum 
period of 62 months. 

The minimum indicative 
subsidy threshold per 
traffic avoidance action 
shall be 500 
million tonne-kilometres 
or 25 million vehicle-
kilometres of freight 
traffic avoided or, in 
proportion to the 
indicative amount 
per euro of subsidy, 
EUR 1 000 000. 

EN 

29 
EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Type of Action 

A. Catalyst 

B. Motorways of the Sea  C. Modal shift 

D. Traffic Avoidance 

E. Common Learning 

Art. 5(1)(a) 

Art. 5(1)(b) 

Art. 5(1)(c) 

Art. 5(1)(d) 

Art. 5(1(e) 

5. Dissemination  The results and methods 
of catalyst actions shall 
be disseminated, as 
specified in a 
dissemination plan, in 
order to help achieve the 
objectives of this 
Regulation. 

The results and methods of 
MoS actions shall be 
disseminated, as specified 
in a dissemination plan, in 
order to help achieve the 
objectives of this 
Regulation. 

Specific dissemination 
activities for modal shift 
actions are not foreseen. 

The results and methods 
of traffic avoidance 
actions shall be 
disseminated, as specified 
in a dissemination plan, 
in order to help achieve 
the objectives of this 
Regulation. 

The results and methods of 
common learning actions 
shall be disseminated, as 
specified in a dissemination 
plan, in order to help 
achieve the objectives of 
this Regulation. 

EN 

30 
EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX II:  
Funding conditions for ancillary infrastructure according to Art. 2(c) and 5(2) of the 
Regulation 

(1) 

Community  financial  assistance  for  ancillary  infrastructure  shall  be  eligible  for 
funding under the Programme provided that the following conditions are satisfied 

a) 

b) 

c) 

the  action  requires  infrastructure  works  for  the  timely  implementation  of  a 
transport service shifting freight off the road, or, avoiding freight traffic on the 
road; 

the infrastructure works are completed within 18 months from the starting date 
of the action; for traffic avoidance actions the delay may be up to 24 months. 

the  transport  service  or  traffic  avoidance  starts  within  3  months  from  the 
completion  of  the  infrastructure  works;  additionally  for  traffic  avoidance 
actions  the  agreed  total  avoidance  is  achieved  within  the  duration  of  the 
subsidy agreement. 

(2) 

(3) 

d) 

the  respect  of  relevant  Community  legislation,  in  particular  concerning  the 
environment. 

The maximum duration of the agreement established for each type of action referred 
to  in  Art.  5  may  be  extended  by  the  time  required  to  complete  the  infrastructure 
works, but in any case not longer than a total period of 74 months. 

Where funding for infrastructure has been requested under this programme, funding 
from  other  Community  programmes,  and  specifically  funding  under  the  TEN-T 
Guidelines decision, for the same infrastructure item is excluded. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

Policy area: Promoting the Competitiveness, Security and Environmental Sustainability of 
EU Transport and Energy Network 

Activity: Inland, Air and Maritime Transport Policy (06 02) 

TITLE  OF  ACTION:  REGULATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL 
ESTABLISHING  THE  SECOND  “MARCO  POLO”  PROGRAMME  FOR  THE  GRANTING  OF 
COMMUNITY  FINANCIAL  ASSISTANCE  TO 
IMPROVE  THE  ENVIRONMENTAL 
PERFORMANCE OF THE FREIGHT TRANSPORT SYSTEM ("MARCO POLO II") 

1. 

BUDGET LINE(S) + HEADING(S) 

EX-06.0207 : Programme Marco Polo  

EX-06.01 04 01 : Programme Marco Polo – dépenses pour la gestion administrative 

2. 

OVERALL FIGURES  

2.1. 

Total allocation for action (Part b): € 740 million for commitment. 

The decision by the legislative authority is taken without prejudice of the budgetary 
decisions taken in the context of the annual procedure. 

2.2. 

Period of application: 

(2007 – 2013) 

2.3. 

Overall multiannual estimate of expenditure: 

a)  Schedule  of  commitment  appropriations/payment  appropriations  (financial  intervention) 

(see point 6.1.1) 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

Total 

€ million  

Commitments 

Payments 

29 

8 

47 

24 

95 

47 

124 

76 

124 

98 

142 

109 

142 

129 

0 

100 

0 

40 

0 

36 

0 

36 

703 

703 

b) Technical and administrative assistance and support expenditure (see point 6.1.2) 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

Total 

€ million  

Commitments 

Payments 

1 

1 

3 

3 

5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

6 

8 

8 

8 

8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

37 

37 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Subtotal a+b 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

Total 

€ million  

Commitments 

Payments 

30 

9 

50 

27 

100 

52 

130 

82 

130 

104 

150 

117 

150 

137 

0 

100 

0 

40 

0 

36 

0 

36 

740 

740 

c)  Overall  financial  impact  of  human  resources  and  other  administrative  expenditure  (see 

points 7.2 and 7.3) 

Commitments  1.865  1.865  1.865 

1.865 

1.865 

1.865 

€ million (to three decimal places) 
0 
1.865 

0 

0

0

13.055 

Payments 

1.865  1.865  1.865 

1.865 

1.865 

1.865 

1.865 

0

0 

0 

0

13.055 

Total a+b+c 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

Total 

€ million (to three decimal places) 

Commitments 

31.865 

51.865 

101.865 

131.865 

131.865 

151.865 

151.865 

0 

Payments 

10.865 

28.865 

53.865 

83.865 

105.865 

118.865 

138.865 

100 

0 

40 

0 

36 

0 

36 

753.055 

753.055 

2.4. 

Compatibility with financial programming and financial perspective 

[X]  Proposal 

is  compatible  with 

the  Communication  by 

the  Commission 

concerning 2007-2013 of 10 February 2004 (COM(2004)101). 

2.5. 

Financial impact on revenue:9 

[X]  Proposal  has  no  financial  implications  (involves  technical  aspects  regarding 

implementation of a measure) 

3. 

BUDGET CHARACTERISTICS 

Type of expenditure 

New 

EFTA 
contribution 

Contributions  form 
applicant countries 

Non-comp  Diff/ 

YES 

YES 

YES 

in 

Heading 
financial 
perspective 

Heading 1A 

4. 

LEGAL BASIS  

Art. 71 and 80 of the EC-Treaty 

9 

For further information see a separate guidance paper 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Regulation …. / …. of the European Parliament and of the Council, establishing the second 
“Marco Polo” programme for the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the 
environmental performance of the freight transport system ("Marco Polo II"). 

The  financial  envelope  of  the  Programme  can  cover  also  expenses  related  to  preparatory, 
follow-up, monitoring, audit and evaluation actions, which are directly required for managing 
the Programme and for achieving its objectives, in particular, studies, meetings, information 
and publication actions, (expenses linked to information networks aiming at the exchange of 
information),  as  well  as  all  other  expenses  for  administrative  and  technical  assistance,  to 
which the Commission can turn to, for managing the Programme. 

5. 

DESCRIPTION AND GROUNDS 

5.1. 

Need for Community intervention  

5.1.1.  Objectives pursued 

If nothing is done, total road freight transport in Europe is set to grow by about 60% by 2013. 
The effect would be an estimated growth of international road freight in the period 2007-2013 
would be 20.5 billion per year for the 25 Member States of the European Union, with negative 
consequences  in  terms  of  accidents,  congestion,  reliability  of  the  supply  chain  and  logistics 
processes  and  environmental  damage.  The  external  costs  to  society  and  the  environment  of 
the additional 20.5 billion tonne-kilometres on roads has been estimated at nearly 1 billion € 
per year. This is not acceptable. 

Table:  Forecast  and  target  level  of  international  road  transport  in  EU-25  (in  billion  tonne-
kilometres)10. 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Road transport 

1,762 

1,813 

1,864 

1,915 

1,966 

2,019 

2,073 

2,126 

International road 
transport 

696 

717 

737 

757 

777 

798 

819 

840 

Off the road target 

20.2 

20.2 

20.2 

20.2 

21.0 

21.0 

21.0 

Coping  with  this  growth  implies  using  alternatives  to  road  transport  more  intensively  and 
systematically  than  hitherto.  The  Marco  Polo  II  Programme  is  based,  as  well  as  its 
predecessor  programme  Marco  Polo,  on  the  Commission  White  Paper  on  Transport  of  12 
September  2001,  but  takes  the  concept  of  modal  shift  to  less  congested  and  more 
environmentally friendly modes of transport one significant step further in impact. 

Marco  Polo  II  is  conceived  to  overcome  the  dominant  legal  barrier  to  Community  funded 
modal  shift:  the  problem  of  undue  distortion  of  competition  apparent  in  non-innovative 

10 

Taken  from  ECORYS  ex-ante  report,  where  these  estimations  of  freight  transport  growth  have  been 
derived from the PRIMES model that has been presented by the European Commission in the European 
Energy  and  Transport  Trends  to  2030  report.  The  PRIMES  model  distinguishes  3  modes  for  freight 
transport (road, rail and inland waterways) and is one of the very few models with a wide geographical 
coverage (30 European countries) for freight transport forecasts. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
actions,  such  as  the  pure  modal  shift  actions  “just  taking  freight  off  the  road  without 
overcoming a market barrier”. Community support to such actions quickly leads to a stringent 
saturation  effect  over  the  lifetime  of  the  programme,  because  the  easy  large-volume  modal 
shift  actions  are  proposed  and  funded  at  the  first  selection  rounds,  but  then  successively 
competition aspects only permit to fund market-niche actions. This effect makes it impossible 
to achieve the projected annual modal shift. 

The quantifiable objective of the Marco Polo II Programme is to shift at least the whole 
aggregate  growth  of  international  road  freight  transport  to  short  sea,  rail  and  inland 
waterway  modes,  without  being  inhibited  by  the  saturation  effect.  In  total  144  billion 
tonnes-kilometres in the period 2007-2013. 

This  is  achieved  through  two  basic  measures:  (a)  moving  the  centre  of  gravity  of  the 
programme from pure modal shift to innovative modal shift actions, and (b) introduction of 
traffic avoidance actions.  

The  increase  in  annual  budgets  from  EUR  25  million  for  Marco  Polo  I  to  EUR  106 
million for Marco Polo II stems directly from (1) the overall objective for the modal shift 
(annually  20.5  billion  tkm)  and  (2)  the  widening  of  EC-support  for  ancillary 
infrastructure  to  move  the  programme’s  emphasis  to  innovative  action  types  (incl. 
traffic  avoidance).  Concretely  the  Marco  Polo  II  Programme  proposes  five  different 
types of actions. 

The  pure  modal  shift  actions  and  the  common  learning  actions  are  taken  over  from  the 
predecessor  programme  without  modification.  The  modified  catalyst  actions  as  well  as  the 
newly  introduced  Motorways  of  the  Sea  and  traffic  avoidance  actions  significantly  enlarge 
and  encourage  variety  and  potential  impact  of  innovative  solutions  through  widening  the 
definition of ancillary infrastructure. Effectively, the market-driven service-bound approach is 
maintained, while support for infrastructure works limited to implement the non-road service 
or totally avoid any traffic is added.  

In  view  of  globalisation  of  the  markets  and  in  particular  the  importance  of  a  seamless, 
efficient  transport  interface  to  the  neighbour  countries  of  the  European  Union  the 
geographical scope for full participation of all close third countries is offered, subject to the 
conclusion of specific agreements. 

The five types of actions: 

1. 

2. 

Catalyst  actions  should  tackle  structural  market  barriers  through  setting  up  of 
concrete  innovative  services.  In  order  to  increase  efficiency  of  infrastructure 
utilisation,  catalyst  actions  aiming  at  achieving  synergies  in  the  rail  sector  deserve 
specific  attention.  Integrated  freight-passenger  services  are  eligible  for  support. 
There is Community support for ancillary infrastructure, if such works are limited to 
implementation of the service.  

Motorways of the Sea actions are based on the catalyst action concept, but combine it 
with  a  concrete  very  large  modal  shift  objective.  They  focus  on  high  quality,  high 
frequency maritime transport with matching efficient, preferably non-road hinterland 
connections. There is Community support for ancillary infrastructure, if such works 
are limited to implementation of the service. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
3. 

4. 

5. 

Modal shift actions do not need to be innovative. They just shift freight off the road, 
and as much as possible. There is no Community support for any infrastructure. 

Traffic  avoidance  actions  are  also  based  on  the  catalyst  action  concept,  combine  it 
with a large modal shift objective, but additionally require an integrated approach to 
transport  and  production  logistics.  Under  stringent  conditions,  there  is  Community 
support  for  ancillary  infrastructure,  if  such  works  are  limited  to  the  avoidance  of 
traffic. 

Common learning actions are concerned with improving the co-operative spirit, the 
sharing of know-how and the increase of knowledge in the logistics sector.  

The estimated effect of the different actions can be summarised as follows:11 

ACTION12 

 Immediate 
impact 
traffic 
(< 1.5 years) 

on 
shift  

term 

Short 
effect  
(1.5 - 3 years) 

term 

Medium 
effects  
(4 – 7 years) 

Impact 
on 
structural change 

ACTION 
IMPACT 
(max = 12) 

Catalyst 

LOW/ 
MEDIUM 

MEDIIUM/
HIGH 

HIGH 

HIGH 

10/12 

Motorways  of 
the Sea 

LOW13/ 
MEDIUM 

HIGH 

HIGH 

HIGH 

10.5/12 

Modal shift 

Common 
learning 

Traffic 
avoidance 

PROGRAM 
IMPACT 
(max = 15) 

MEDIUM/
HIGH 

NIL/LOW 

MEDIUM  MEDIUM/ 

LOW 

7/12 

LOW 

LOW/ 
MEDIUM 

MEDIUM/ 
HIGH 

MEDIUM/ 
HIGH 

7/12 

NIL/LOW
14 

MEDIUM/
HIGH 

HIGH 

HIGH 

9/12 

6/15 

11.5/15 

13/15 

12.5/15 

Long term effects (more than 7 years) are expected to be similar to medium term effects. 

There are basically two groups of actions: (a) high impact: catalyst, Motorways of the Sea and 
traffic avoidance actions with 9-10.5 points; and (b) lower impact: modal shift and common 
learning actions with 7 points. Modal shift actions, despite their lower overall impact, are still 
of great importance due to their unique feature of having an immediate impact, - an essential 
element of the Marco Polo intervention. 

11 

12 
13 
14 

Points attributed: “3” is given for high effect/impact, “2” for medium effect/impact, “1” for low and “0” 
for no effect/impact. 
Impact of action type averaged over lifetime of the programme, i.e. including saturation effect. 
Low immediate impact due to infrastructure works preceding start of service. 
No or low immediate impact due to infrastructure works preceding traffic avoidance. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As further explained below, the allocation of funding to the different intervention reflects, to a 
large degree, the impact they are intended to have in the market place. The saturation effect 
for the modal shift actions is included in the assessment. 

5.1.2.  Measures taken in connection with the ex-ante evaluation  

5.1.2.1  Key features of the ex-ante evaluation: 

The ex-ante evaluation of the Marco Polo II Programme has been carried-out by a consortium 
lead by ECORYS through a designated Framework Contract on Impact Assessment and Ex-
ante Evaluations of DG-TREN. The evaluation was conducted between 15 April and 15 June 
2004. Two interim and the draft final report were delivered on 30 April, 13 May and 03 June 
2004,  respectively.  Given  the  short  project  duration,  a  focused  step-by-step  approach  is 
followed, based on a two-weekly reporting cycle, followed each time by a meeting with the 
Commission. 

The  methodology  of  the  Marco  Polo  II  ex  ante  evaluation  is  based  on  the  European 
Commission  document  ex-ante  evaluation  –  a  practical  guide  for  preparing  proposals  for 
expenditure programmes. This document provides a complete overview of steps to be carried 
out.  For  specific,  more  in-depth  guidelines  on  impact  assessment,  use  is  made  of  the 
document  a  handbook  for  impact  assessment  in  the  Commission  –  How  to  do  an  Impact 
Assessment. 

Consultants  used  their  own  databases,  but  have  also  co-operated  closely  with  DG  TREN 
experts  involved  in  Marco  Polo  and  Marco  Polo  related  areas.  All  documentation  and 
evaluations  of  PACT,  Mini-Call  for  Catalyst  Actions  2002  and  the  first  selection  round  of 
Marco Polo Programme (2003-2006) were provided. A stakeholders’ consultation exercise is 
carried out as part of the ex ante evaluation. Main stakeholders identified are representatives 
of  modal  or  sub-sector  associations.  An  overview  of  all  documentation  and  stakeholders 
consulted  as  input  for  the  evaluation  is  given  in  the  ex-ante  report  in  Annexes  1  and  9, 
respectively.  

ex-ante 

The 
is 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/marcopolo/index_en.htm 

available 

report 

on 

the  Marco 

Polo  website 

at 

5.1.2.2  Findings and lessons learnt from the ex-ante evaluation: 

The ex-ante evaluation resulted in the following main conclusions: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

To  achieve  the  long-term  key  objectives  of  the  Marco  Polo  programme,  it  is 
necessary to expand the scope of the Programme, with a corresponding cost-effective 
increase in budget. 

The  Marco  Polo  II  proposal,  when  reviewed  against  alternative  instruments,  has 
significant  intrinsic  strengths.  Its  structure,  based  on  direct  grants  to  companies  for 
setting up intermodal services, viable in medium-term,  is  the  most  efficient  way of 
public intervention for intermodal transport currently available. 

The Marco Polo II proposal is coherent with and complementary with other EU and 
Member  States 
the  Trans  European  Network  (TEN) 
programme. 

initiatives, 

including 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
4. 

Given  the  concrete  and  ascertainable  objectives  of  the  Marco  Polo  programme,  the 
necessary  budget  can  be  objectively  calculated  and  structured  in  a  way  to  generate 
multiple  benefits  for  society.  In  fact  Marco  Polo  II  provides  value  for  money:  the 
funding  scenario  favourised  by  the  ECORYS  experts,  the  “base  case”  with  about 
50% of the actions being of the innovative type (catalyst, Motorway of the Sea and 
traffic avoidance), results in EUR 5 billion of saved external cost for a programme 
budget  of  EUR  820  million,  calculated  over  the  contract  duration  alone.  Of  course 
viable actions will continue to save externalities beyond the end of their contract with 
the  Community.  Further  benefits  to  society  are:  (a)  creation  of  high-skilled  jobs, 
mostly  permanently  bound  to  local  infrastructure  on  EU-territory,  (b)  very  large 
private  investments  in  services  and  infrastructure  through  typical  public-private-
partnerships with the private sector being the main contributor, (c) more efficient use 
of  energy,  (d)  higher  utilisation  factors  of  non-road  transport  infrastructure  and  (e) 
direct  benefits  through  shifting  freight  off  the  road  allowing  better  movement15  of 
passenger vehicles – a relief to all citizens of the European Union. 

In the prediction of success rates for supported actions the Commission uses about 10% 
higher figures than the evaluators (see column 4 of table “Overview on distribution and 
impact of actions” in point 5.2). This permits to decrease the number of actions by 10%, 
which in turn decreases the budget of EUR 820 million recommended by the evaluators 
to  EUR  740  million  in  the  proposal.  Consequently,  the  probability  to  reach  the  modal 
shift objective of 144 billion tkm is lower, but still acceptable. Any further reduction of 
budget would denature the proposal. 

5.1.2.3  Assessment of alternative delivery mechanisms: 

The objective of the Marco Polo II programme is to shift at least the whole aggregate growth 
of  international road freight transport to short sea, rail and inland waterway modes,  without 
being  inhibited  by  the  saturation  effect.  In  total  144  billion  tonnes-kilometres  in  the  period 
2007-2013. This is a quantifiable and verifiable objective. 

First, this objective cannot be reached by regulatory action alone. As further explained in the 
Explanatory  Memorandum,  regulatory  action  has  made  large  progress  in  the  last  few  years. 
However, it is now time to implement, in the market, the chances and opportunities resulting 
from  the  regulatory  action.  Again,  the  Explanatory  Memorandum  points  out  that  given  the 
high  risks  inherent  to  the  exploitation  of  such  opportunities,  practical  Community  action  is 
necessary to stimulate risk-taking. 

Second, in terms of type of programme, an intervention into the transport and logistics service 
market has to be proposed. Programmes supporting studies would not achieve such concrete 
and  important  impacts  in  the  market.  Indeed,  the  evaluation  of  the  PACT  programme 
recommended  discontinuation  of  feasibility  studies.  Research  and  development  programmes 
can contribute to the preparation of a better functioning of markets through development of 
new technologies or spreading of research results. However, R&D funding does not intervene 
directly  in  the  market  and  can  therefore  not  steer  the  action  to  support  directly  a  concrete 
policy  output,  namely  the  shifting  of  20.5  billion  tonne-kilometres  per  year.  A  similar 
argument  prevails for the utilisation of pure infrastructure funding programmes  to reach  the 
above policy objectives. First, infrastructure projects do not yield immediate results in terms 

15 

Better movement of passenger vehicles if compared to a situation without a Marco Polo II programme.  

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  traffic  shift,  due  to  their  relative  long-term  nature. Second, it  is difficult, at this stage, to 
make an assessment of the concrete impact of an infrastructure on modal shift. To yield any 
impact, it will have to be used by transport services, which finally might not be the case, or at 
least  not  as  much  as  predicted  perhaps  one  decade  before.  This  use  cannot  be  concretely 
steered  by  the  Commission,  as  such  regulation  of  transport  use  and  demand  would  violate 
fundamental  principles  of  the  market  economy.  Thus,  a  programme  geared  to  put  concrete 
services in the market first and then attach some support to ancillary infrastructure is the best 
delivery  mechanism  to  achieve  concrete  modal  shifts,  especially  when  implemented  as  a 
public-private-partnership. 

Third, the scope and concrete mix of interventions proposed by the Marco Polo programme 
show  clear  benefits  when  compared  with  other  types  of  possible  market  intervention 
programmes  for  the  logistics  market.  In  the  first  place,  its  scope  covers  the  whole  of  the 
international  freight  and  logistics  market.  This  assures  the  largest  possible  opportunity  for 
modal shift. Second, by proposing five types of actions, Marco Polo also intends to cover the 
different  needs  of  industry,  in  order  to  trigger  the  best  proposals.  The  Explanatory 
Memorandum explains the differences and the linkage between the proposed actions. It is also 
important to see  the  reciprocal  dynamic and the interaction  between  catalyst, Motorways of 
the Sea, modal shift, traffic avoidance and common learning actions.  

Thus,  especially  compared  with  PACT-like  interventions,  which  focus  on  one  sector  of  the 
freight market only, and only allow one type of action, or Marco Polo I which is hindered by 
the saturation effect for pure modal shift actions, the Marco Polo II’s mix of actions, with its 
emphasis on innovation, including traffic avoidance, will ensure cost effectiveness as well as 
optimal delivery and flexibility on the way to reach its objectives when compared to actual or 
possible  alternatives,  such  as  price/tax  measures,  pure  infrastructure  packages,  strict 
legislation  and  pure  promotion  strategies.  Additionally  the  Community  subvention  rate  of 
maximum 35% was assessed to be optimal.  

The  ex-ante  report  concludes  in  the  relevant  chapter  4:  “Marco  Polo  II  has  been  reviewed 
against a series of alternative delivery mechanisms and risk categories and has, as currently 
conceived, significant intrinsic strengths. Marco Polo II is intended as a robust, practical and 
focused programme, which builds on the existing Marco Polo programme and has the merit of 
expanded scope to achieve the key objectives.” 

5.1.2.4  Expected results vs. costs 

The expected results of the Marco Polo programme are a yearly aggregate shift of 20.5 billion 
tonne-kilometre  freight  from  international  road  transport  to  short  sea,  rail,  inland  waterway 
and zero-traffic (traffic avoidance). The different Marco Polo interventions should also ensure 
that there will be a structural change in the sector, and that the sector will, through the quality 
improvements  induced  by  the  programme,  become  more  competitive  and  viable  on  a 
medium/long  term  and  sustainable  basis.  Within  the  financial  perspective  2007-2013,  the 
concrete goal is to achieve at least measurable shifts of 20.5 billion tkm per year, and of 144 
billion over the programme’s lifetime, in the 25 Member States. 

The  costs  to  the  Community  budget  to  achieve  these  results  are  calculated  to  be  EUR  740 
million  for  the  actions  plus  EUR  13  million  for  human  resources  and  other  administrative 
expenditure (see point 2.3.c). This budget is cost-effective from various points of view.  

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
Scientific  evidence  suggests  that  the  yearly  increase  of  international  road  freight  of  144 
billion tkm translates into extra costs to society of about EUR 5 billion.  

1 € expenditure under Marco Polo would thus generate about EUR 6 in savings on external 
costs  (EUR  4.980  billion  /  0.753  billion).  Additionally,  private  investments  of  at  least  EUR 
1.4 billion ((0.740 billion / 35 %) - 0.740 billion) are triggered. Experience with Marco Polo I 
indicate,  that  in  average  the  35%  ceiling  is  not  reached  by  far.  In  fact  in  the  first  selection 
round  EUR  15  million  of  Community  subsidies  triggered  an  investment  of  about  EUR  360 
million,  i.e.  the  subsidy  rate  was  about  4  %.  However,  this  very  low  percentage  can  not  be 
applied  directly  to  Marco  Polo  II,  because  of  the  absence  of  infrastructure  funding  under 
Marco Polo I. 

The  management  costs  (staff,  committee  meetings,  missions)  of  the  Marco  Polo  II 
programme, assessed to be EUR 1.865 million per year, indicate a further improvement vis-à-
vis  the  already  very  efficiently  managed  Marco  Polo  I  programme  when  compared  to  the 
programme’s budget. Concerning the number of management staff, the Commission follows 
here  the  recommendations  of  the  ex-ante  report  of  12-14  persons,  adding  a  secretariat  of  3 
persons.  The  resulting  team  of  about  16  permanent  staff  will  run  the  programme,  including 
the contracts.  

With the requested average yearly budget of Marco Polo is EUR 106 million this gives for the 
management costs a rate of only 1.8 %. 

5.1.2.5  Value added by the Community intervention  

In general: 

As  stated  in  the  Explanatory  Memorandum,  Member  States  on  their  own  are  not  able  in  an 
optimal  way  to  encourage  a  further  development  of  non-road  freight  transport,  given  that  a 
large part of this transport is international in nature. This fact creates a need for Community 
intervention. 

The Community intervention through the Marco Polo programme presents an instrument for 
risk-financing  and  structural  quality  enhancement  in  the  logistics  service  sector,  which  is 
otherwise not available, neither on Community, nor on Member States’ level. 

The Community intervention in the form of modal shift and catalyst actions creates additional 
added value, because the actions to be subsidised should be viable on their own after three or 
four years of subsidisation respectively. 

Finally, as explained above, the interventions under this programme should create a societal 
benefit in form of saved external costs. 

Complementarity to Trans European Networks: 

The  Trans  European  Network  programme  focuses  on  the  development  of  roads,  railways, 
inland waterways, airports, seaports, inland ports and traffic management systems in order to 
strengthen  the  creation  of  the  Internal  Market  and  reinforce  Economic  and  Social  Cohesion 
within the Union. Marco Polo is a service-oriented programme, providing the opportunity to 
fund  ancillary  (i.e.  small-scale)  infrastructure  that  is  supportive  to  the  services,  and  making 
use  of  large  scale  infrastructure,  such  as  developed  under  the  Trans  European  Network 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
programme.  In  this  respect  the  two  programmes  are  complementary;  the  Trans  European 
networks providing the infrastructure basis that are used by the Marco Polo initiated services. 

Motorways of the Sea are a particular field of interest. As stated in the White Paper: ‘certain 
shipping  links,  particularly  those  providing  a  way  around  the  bottlenecks  in  the  Alps  and 
Pyrenees,  should  be  made  part  of  the  Trans  European  Network,  just  like  motorways  or 
railways’.  The  Trans  European  Network  programme,  on  the  hand,  should  ensure  hinterland 
connections  from  and  to  the  ports,  integrating  the  Motorways  of  the  Sea  into  the  Trans 
European  Network.  On  the  other  hand,  Marco  Polo,  by  supporting  intermodal  services  to 
make use of the Motorways of the Sea, will contribute to raising a sufficient volume of traffic 
to validate the Motorways of the Sea.  

This  higher  utilisation  argument  applies  also  to  all  non-road  transport  infrastructure 
investments  European  and  national  in  the  Short  sea  shipping,  rail  and  inland  waterways 
sectors. 

The ex-ante report provides further details in chapter 5. 

5.2. 

Action envisaged and budget intervention arrangements 

The  Marco  Polo  programme  features  five  types  of  actions:  modal  shift  actions,  catalyst 
actions, Motorways  of  the  Sea  actions, traffic avoidance and common  learning  actions. The 
required information will be given for the five types of actions in turn: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Catalyst  actions  should  tackle  structural  market  barriers  through  setting  up  of 
concrete  innovative  services.  They  would  change  the  way  transport  is  being 
conducted  in  Europe.  They  will  be  complex  in  nature  and  require  more  time  and 
effort  to  be  successful  than  modal  shift  actions.  In  order  to  increase  efficiency  of 
infrastructure  utilisation,  catalyst  actions  aiming  at  achieving  synergies  in  the  rail 
sector deserve specific attention. Integrated freight-passenger services are eligible for 
support. There is Community support for ancillary infrastructure, if such works are 
limited  to  implementation  of  the  service.  In  terms  of  meeting  policy  objectives, 
catalyst actions will have the highest impact. 

Motorways of the Sea actions are based on the catalyst action concept, but combine it 
with  a  concrete  very  large  modal  shift  objective.  They  focus  on  high  quality,  high 
frequency maritime transport with matching efficient, preferably non-road hinterland 
connections. There is Community support for ancillary infrastructure, if such works 
are limited to implementation of the service. 

Modal shift actions do not need to be innovative. They just shift freight off the road, 
and as much as possible. There is no Community support for any infrastructure. 

Traffic  avoidance  actions  are  also  based  on  the  catalyst  action  concept,  combine  it 
with a large modal shift objective, but additionally require an integrated approach to 
transport  and  production  logistics.  The  frame  is  set  to  give  Community  support  to 
innovative  entrepreneurs  to  tackle  the  problem  on  how  to  decouple  market  from 
transport  growth.  Under  stringent  conditions,  there  is  Community  support  for 
ancillary infrastructure, if such works are limited to the avoidance of traffic. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
5. 

Common learning actions are concerned with improving the co-operative spirit, the 
sharing of know-how and the increase of knowledge in the logistics sector. Though 
not  directly  shifting  freight  off  the  road,  they  should  facilitate  achieving  the  modal 
shift objective of the programme. They will be geared towards prompting replication 
in the market. 

Table: Overview on distribution and impact of actions16: 

Actions 

Catalyst 
(rail 
synergy) 

Catalyst 
(others) 

Motorway 
of the Sea 

Modal 
shift 

Average 
Number of 
projects 
per year 

Number 
of 
projects 
(2007-
2013) 

Success 
rate 
projects 

of 

Tonne-
kilometre-
shift 
(billion) 

Tonne-
kilometre-
share 

EC subsidy 
for services 
(mio EUR) 

subsidy 
infra-

EC 
for 
structure 
(mio EUR) 

Total  EC-
subsidy 
cost 
(mio EUR) 

Subsidy 
share 

5.5 

38 

55% 

10.5 

7% 

37.9 

55.8 

94 

13% 

5.5 

5.5 

38 

38 

83% 

23.6 

16% 

56.9 

100.7 

159 

21% 

55% 

42.0 

29% 

151.6 

136.6 

287 

39% 

16.5 

115 

83% 

57.5 

40% 

138.3 

0 

138 

19% 

Traffic 
Avoidance 

Common 
Learning 

4.5 

4.5 

32 

32 

66% 

10.5 

7% 

31.6 

17.1 

83% 

- 

- 

13.7 

0 

49 

13 

7% 

2% 

Total 

42 

293 

144.1 

100% 

430.0 

310.2 

740 

100% 

In  summary,  293  outputs  are  envisaged  for  seven  years  (2007-2013),  an  average  of  42 
interventions out of 150 proposals submitted per year. This provides a success rate of one in 
three, which is essential to receive proposals from the best market players (see ex-ante report, 
chapter  7  “Stakeholders’  consultation”).  With  an  average  budget  of  EUR  106  million  per 
year, the financial assistance intensity per output would be EUR 2.5 million. This would be in 
average  about  2.5  times  more  than  the  average  contract  volume  of  Marco  Polo  I.  The 
corresponding efficiency gains in management costs have been described above.  

5.3.  Methods of implementation 

Because of the strong linkage of the programme to key transport policy objectives, the need to 
steer catalyst, Motorways of the Sea, traffic avoidance and common learning actions in view 
of  helping  achieve  policy  priorities,  this  programme  will  be  directly  managed  by  the 
Commission  using  regular  staff  and,  in  the  framework  of  accompanying  measures  and 
programme evaluation, outside expertise. 

16 

Figures given for total programme lifetime 2007-2013, except for column 2. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
6. 

FINANCIAL IMPACT 

6.1. 

Total financial impact on Part b - (over the entire programming period) 

(The method of calculating the total amounts set out in the table below must be explained by 
the breakdown in Table 6.2.) 

6.1.1.  Financial intervention 

Commitments (€ million) 

Breakdown 

2007  2008  2009  2010  2011 

2012 

2013 

Total 

Catalyst actions (rail synergy) 

4 

6 

13 

17 

17 

18 

19 

94 

Catalyst actions (others) 

6 

11 

21 

28 

28 

32 

33 

159 

Motorways of the Sea 

12 

20 

38 

50 

50 

61 

59 

287 

Modal shift actions 

Traffic avoidance 

Common learning actions 

Dissemination and accompanying measures 

5 

2 

1 

0 

9 

19 

24 

24 

28 

28 

138 

3 

1 

0 

7 

2 

0 

9 

2 

0 

9 

2 

0 

9 

2 

0 

10 

3 

0 

49 

13 

0 

TOTAL 

30 

50 

100 

130 

130 

150 

150 

740 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
6.1.2.  Technical  and  administrative  assistance,  support  expenditure  and  IT  expenditure 

(commitment appropriations) 

According  to  Article  12  of  the  proposal  the  values  given  below  indicate  maximum  figures, 
representing 5% of the budgetary envelope in point 2.1 of this financial statement. 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Total 

1 

3 

5 

6 

6 

8 

8 

37 

€ million 

1) Technical and 
administrative assistance 

a) Technical assistance 
offices

b) Other technical and 
administrative assistance: 

- intra muros: 

- extra muros: 

of which for construction 
and maintenance of 
computerised 
management systems 

Subtotal 1 

2) Support expenditure 

a) Studies 

b) Meetings of experts 

c) Information and 
publications 

Subtotal 2 

TOTAL 

1 

3 

5 

6 

6 

8 

8 

37 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2. 

Calculation  of  costs  by  measure  envisaged  in  Part  b  (over  the  entire 
programming period)17 

(Where  there  is  more  than  one  action,  give  sufficient  detail  of  the  specific  measures  to  be 
taken for each one to allow the volume and costs of the outputs to be estimated.) 

Commitments (in € million to three decimal places) 

Breakdown  

Type  
of 
outputs
(projects, files ) 

1 

Catalyst Actions (rail synergy) 

Projects 

Catalyst Actions (others) 

Motorways of the Sea 

Modal Shift Actions 

Traffic Avoidance 

Common learning actions 

Dissemination  and  accompanying 
measures 

TOTAL COST 

Projects 

Projects 

Projects 

Projects 

Projects 

Projects 

If necessary explain the method of calculation 

Number 
outputs 

of 

Average 
cost 

unit 

Total cost 

(total  for  years 
1…n)  

2 

38 

38 

38 

115 

32 

32 

0 

for 

years 

(total 
1…n)  

3 

4=(2X3) 

2.474 

4.184 

7.553 

1.200 

1.531 

0.406 

0 

94 

159 

287 

138 

49 

13 

0 

740

17 

For further information, see separate explanatory note. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
7. 

IMPACT ON STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE  

7.1. 

Impact on human resources 

Types of post 

Staff to be assigned to management of the 
action  using  existing  and/or  additional 
resources 

Number of 
permanent posts 

Number of 
temporary posts 

A 

10;  out  of  which  2 
existing 

0 

Officials or 
temporary staff 

B 

3;  out  of  which  1 
existing 

0 

C 

3; out of which 1 
existing 

Other human resources 

Total 

16; out of which 
existing 

0 

0 

Total 

10 

3 

Description  of  tasks  deriving  from  the 
action 

Selection  of  projects,  monitoring  and 
evaluation  of  catalyst,  MoS,  traffic 
avoidance 
learning 
and 
actions, dissemination activities 

common 

contract  management, 
Technical 
monitoring  of  modal  shift  actions, 
database and website management 

3 

Secretarial support 

16 

The number of staff follows directly chapter 12 of the Ex-ante Report, recommending 12 to 
14 staff plus secretariat. 

The  requirements  for  human  and  administrative  resources  will  be  covered  by  the  allocation 
assigned to the managing Directorate General in the frame of the annual allocation procedure. 

The allocation of posts will depend partly on the internal organisation of the next Commission 
and partly on an eventual re-allocation of posts between services, following the new financial 
perspectives. 

7.2. 

Overall financial impact of human resources 

Type of human resources 

Amount (€) 

Method of calculation *  

Officials 

Temporary staff 

Other human resources 

(specify budget line) 

Total per year 

1.728.000 

16 officials at standard costs 108.000 € 
each 

0 

0 

1.728.000 

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.3.  Other administrative expenditure deriving from the action 

Budget line 

(number and heading) 

Overall allocation (Title A7) 

A0701 – Missions 

A07030 – Meetings 

Amount € 

Method of calculation 

62.000 

78 x 800 € 

A07031  –  Compulsory  committees  –  Advisory 
committee according to Art. 3 of Comitology Decision 

75.000 

3 x 25.000 € 

A07032 – Non-compulsory committees 1 

A07040 – Conferences 

A0705 – Studies and consultations 

Other expenditure (specify) 

Information systems (A-5001/A-4300) 

Other expenditure - Part A (specify) 

Total per year 

137.000 

1 Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs. 

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months. 

The  needs  for  human  and  administrative  resources  shall  be  covered  within  the  allocation 
granted to the managing service in the framework of the annual allocation procedure  

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months. 

I. 

II. 

Annual total (7.2 + 7.3) 

Duration of action 

III. 

Total cost of action (I x II) 

1.865.000 € 

7 years 

13.055.000 € 

(In the estimate of human and administrative resources required for the action, DGs/Services 
must take into account the decisions taken by the Commission in its orientation/APS debate 
and when adopting the preliminary draft budget (PDB). This means that DGs must show that 
human  resources  can  be  covered  by  the  indicative  pre-allocation  made  when  the  PDB  was 
adopted.  

Exceptional cases (i.e. those where the action concerned could not be foreseen when the PDB 
was  being  prepared)  will  have  to  be  referred  to  the  Commission  for  a  decision  on  whether 
and how (by means of an amendment of the indicative pre-allocation, an ad hoc redeployment 
exercise,  a  supplementary/amending  budget  or  a  letter  of  amendment  to  the  draft  budget) 
implementation of the proposed action can be accommodated.) 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. 

FOLLOW-UP AND EVALUATION 

8.1. 

Follow-up arrangements 

Follow-up  and  monitoring  of  the  five  types  of  actions  envisaged  by  the  Marco  Polo 
programme will be as follows: 

Innovative  actions  (catalyst,  Motorways  of  the  Sea,  traffic  avoidance):  The  granting  of 
subsidies  to  these  types  of  action  will  be  based  on  the  standard  subvention  contract  of  the 
European Communities. The various monitoring, information and auditing provisions of this 
contract will fully apply. 

Further, the subvention contracts will also provide for steering powers of the Commission. On 
request of the Commission, or the beneficiaries, steering committees will be convened ad-hoc. 
As stated above, this close steering function will be an important feature of these innovative 
actions. Further, regular reporting obligations will be provided for. In line with the expected 
mission budget, each action will be monitored on spot several times during its life-time. 

The  objective  of  these  innovative  actions,  while  more  complex  than  the  one  of  the  (pure) 
modal shift actions, can be clearly described by a comparison of the existing situation and the 
expected  situation  at  the  end  of  the  project.  Based  on  this  description,  concrete  project 
objectives will be agreed upon. The project plan by the beneficiary will also have to provide 
work  packages,  with  concrete  sub-objectives  and  time  tables,  in  particular  for  ancillary 
infrastructure  works,  if  any.  This  will  ensure  that  eventual  problems  and  delays  can  be 
detected and remedied quickly. 

All these actions will also feature a modal shift / traffic avoidance objective, which is easily 
verifiable. 

Commission  staff  will  be  closely  involved  in  these  projects.  Depending  on  the  specific 
features of the project, “accompanying measures” for dissemination or monitoring of outputs 
should be included in the individual project’s work plan and budget. 

In line with the recommendations of the external evaluation of the PACT programme and the 
ex-ante  report  of  the  Marco  Polo  II  programme,  post-contractual  monitoring  will  be  agreed 
upon,  to  verify  the  effects  of  the  project  on  structural  change  and  traffic  shift  /  traffic 
avoidance after the termination of the subsidy. 

Modal  shift  actions:  The  granting  of  subsidies  to  this  type  of  action  will  be  based  on  the 
standard  subvention  contract  of  the  European  Communities.  The  various  monitoring, 
information and auditing provisions of this contract will fully apply. 

Further, the subvention contracts will also provide for steering powers of the Commission. On 
request of the Commission, or the beneficiaries, steering committees will be convened ad-hoc. 
Regular reporting obligations will be provided for. In line with the expected mission budget, 
each modal shift action should be visited at least once in its life-time on the spot. This practice 
has been followed already in the PACT and Marco Polo I programmes, with good success. 

The  objective  of  these  modal  shift  actions  is straightforward:  shift  500  tkm  per  1  €  support 
given from road to short sea shipping, rail, or inland waterway and achieve viability within a 
maximum of 36 months of support. The contract will therefore contain quantified objectives, 
whose attainment will be easily verifiable. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
In line with the recommendations of the external evaluation of the PACT programme and the 
ex-ante report on the Marco Polo  II programme, post-contractual monitoring  will  be  agreed 
upon, to verify the effects of the projects in terms of traffic shift after the termination of the 
subsidy. 

Common learning actions: The granting of subsidies to this type of action will be based on 
the  standard  subvention  contract  of  the  European  Communities.  The  various  monitoring, 
information and auditing provisions of this contract will fully apply. 

Further, the subvention contracts will also provide for steering powers of the Commission. On 
request of the Commission, or the beneficiaries, steering committees will be convened ad-hoc. 
Further,  regular  reporting  obligations  will  be  provided  for.  Each  common  learning  action 
should end with a work shop on the subject. This serves both dissemination purposes and a 
common  understanding  of  what  was  achieved.  Depending  on  the  type  of  project,  such 
workshops could also be an opportunity to agree of further implementation of the knowledge 
gained.  One  example  could  be  the  signing  of  an  action  plan,  to  be  implemented  under  the 
auspices – not necessarily always with further funding – of the Commission. 

The objective of the common learning actions can be clearly described by a comparison of the 
existing  situation  and  the  expected  situation  at  the  end  of  the  project.  Based  on  this 
description,  concrete  project  objectives  will  be  agreed  upon.  The  project  plan  by  the 
beneficiary  will  also  have  to  provide  work  packages,  with  concrete  sub-objectives  and  time 
tables.  This  will  ensure  that  eventual  problems  and  delays  can  be  detected  and  remedied 
quickly. 

In line with the recommendations of the external evaluation of the PACT programme and the 
ex-ante  report  of  the  Marco  Polo  II  programme,  post-contractual  monitoring  will  be  agreed 
upon, to verify whether the knowledge gained will be effectively applied in the market, and 
the effects of such application. 

8.2. 

Arrangements and schedule for the planned evaluation 

A thorough evaluation report on the Marco Polo I programme (2003-2006) is scheduled for 
the end of 2006, with the results being presented before 30 June 2007, according to Article 14 
of the proposal (Marco Polo II). This evaluation will be able to build on information gained 
from  four  selection  procedures,  a  number  of  modal  shift  and  common  learning  projects 
already terminated, and catalyst actions already well under way. 

The  evaluation  will  focus  on  the  impact  of  the Marco  Polo  I  programme  in  terms  of  traffic 
shift.  Stimulating  traffic  shift  is  the  prime  of  objective  of  the  Marco  Polo  I  programme. 
Besides, it will analyse the management and progress of the ongoing projects. 

Based on Article 12 of the proposal, additional external evaluations will be carried-out on the 
Marco  Polo  II  Programme.  In  line  with  the  recommendations  in  chapter  11  of  the  Ex-ante 
Report, such an exercise will be implemented for Marco Polo II as a Mid-Term Evaluation in 
2010 and an Ex-post Evaluation in 2015. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
9. 

ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES 

•  As  the  contracts  for  all  actions  envisaged  will  be  standard  subvention  contracts,  the 

generally applicable anti-fraud measures will apply. 

•  Output will be clearly visible and measurable in all types of action. The types of subsidy 
will  be  straightforward:  expenditure  in  investment,  and  costs  arising  from  operations. 
These items can be verified in details, and there is enough material and knowledge through 
the  PACT  and  Marco  Polo  I  projects  to  make  an  informed  assessment  of  the  dangers  of 
fraud. 

•  Furthermore, especially for catalyst, Motorways of the Sea, traffic avoidance and common 
learning  actions,  monitoring  will  be  close,  and  project  progress  will  be  rigorously 
appraised by Commission staff. Special attention will be given to the proper execution of 
the ancillary infrastructure works, if any. 

•  On the spot visits will be a steady feature of all projects.  

•  Depending on the complexity of the projects, specific monitoring tasks can be entrusted to 
specialised staff or outside consultants, for instance for validating business plans, viability 
forecasts, and other accounting problems as well as construction problems. 

•  Like  the  PACT  evaluation  did,  the  external  evaluation  foreseen  in  2006  should  also 

evaluate the control systems and the budgetary execution of the various actions. 

•  Like the PACT and Marco Polo I programmes, Marco Polo II will feature transparent and 
focussed  selection  procedures,  based  on  the  presentation  of  objective  and  verifiable 
applications. Commission staff from various departments will be evaluating the proposals. 
The  Member  States’  Committee  will  give  an  opinion  on  the  funding  proposal  by  the 
Commission.  In  order  to  further  increase  the  transparency  of  the  proposals,  industry 
associations  could  be  asked  to  comment  on  certain  aspects  of  applications,  such  as  their 
impact on competition. 

EN 

50 

   EN