Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the 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’) (COM(2004) 478 final — 2004/0157 (COD))
Date: 2005-03-09
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, budget, carriage of goods, combined transport, economic support, environmental protection, report, transport infrastructure

22.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/19

3.6
The introduction of random alcohol and drug testing for
all operational ATCOs is welcomed and is in line with ESARR5
as well as the psychological testing of all student ATCOs.

3.7
The issue of age is still a real concern. Statistics indicate
a greater risk of serious illness or sudden death with age.
National boundaries do not appear to have effected the require-
ment for an age limit on pilots.

Concerning in particular Article 4, the EESC suggests

3.8
that:

— paragraph 5 should indicate that an effective appeals
process must be in place to allow for redress for licensees;

— paragraph 7 should indicate that an effective appeals
process be in place to allow for inappropriate medical find-
ings leading to suspension of the licence.

Brussels, 9 March 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the 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’)

(COM(2004) 478 final — 2004/0157 (COD))

(2005/C 234/05)

On 15 February 2005 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 21 February2005. The rapporteur
was Mr Levaux.

At its 415th plenary session of 9 and 10 March 2005 (meeting of 9 March), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 129 votes, with three abstentions.

1. Introduction: Outline of the Commission's explanatory

memorandum

The Commission presents its proposal for a regulation
1.1
for the ‘Marco Polo II’ programme, setting out the reasons
why freight transport infrastructures must be developed:

— freight transport is set to double by 2020 and existing
networks are inadequate,
resulting in road congestion,
environmental degradation, accidents, and a loss of compe-
titiveness; and

1.2
The Commission reasserts that ‘a stronger reliance on
intermodality is necessary’, because intermodality makes better
use of existing infrastructures by incorporating short sea ship-
ping, rail and inland waterways into the logistics chain. Inter-
modal policy is already covered by the Marco Polo I
programme (2003/2006), which aimed to shift the average
yearly increase of international road freight towards the three
other modes of transport mentioned above.

The Commission proposes

the Marco Polo II
1.3
programme continue this policy over the 2007-2013 period,
extending the programme's scope to cover all of the European
Union's neighbours and adding two new types of action:

that

— sustainable development requirements are to be taken into
account, which requires a more energy-efficient transport
system.

— traffic avoidance action.

— motorways of the sea; and

C 234/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.9.2005

The Commission proposes

1.4
budgetary
envelope of EUR 740 million for the 2007-2013 period,
which should:

an overall

— shift more than 140 billion tonne-kilometres of freight off
the road (equivalent to 7 million truck journeys of 1,000
kilometres) towards other modes of transport;

— reduce CO2 emissions by 8,400 million kg; and

— produce social and environmental benefits estimated at
(This estimate was reached by a
around EUR 5 billion.
group of
experts and appended to the
independent
Commission proposal, with an evaluation of the harmful
effects of pollution on health).

— a management committee should be given the task of
monitoring actions on an on-going basis with a view to
making the necessary mid-term adjustments to the Marco
Polo programme;

— provision should be made for including in the projects
eligible for support under the Marco Polo programme
actions involving air and pipeline transport in a secondary
capacity, provided that other modes are also involved;

— financial aid should be approved for projects involving
actions taking place in just one Member State, provided
that the impact of such projects will benefit all users of
international shipments passing through the Member State
in question; and

2. General comments

2.1 Gist of the Committee's conclusions in its Opinion on Marco

Polo I

— a ‘European Guide’, covering all multimodal platforms in
the EU, describing their respective characteristics and laying
down minimum standards, should be drawn up for the
benefit of all users.

2.1.1 Whilst sometimes highlighting the lack of ambition or
the inadequacy of the resources provided, the Committee has
on numerous occasions confirmed its support for the policy
launched by the Commission to make it easier to transfer part
of the inevitable and foreseeable growth in road freight trans-
port to other modes of transport.

In the same opinion, the Committee added that the
2.1.3
only way to achieve these aims was to adopt a global policy
which would change certain practices and include firm
commitments for building new or complementary transport
infrastructures.

2.1.2
In particular, in its Opinion CES 842/2002 of 17 and
18 July 2002 on the proposal for a Regulation on Marco Polo
I, the Committee did not believe that this programme would,
by itself, make it possible to achieve the modal shift targets set
by the Commission, and suggested complementing it with ten
specific incentive measures, set out again here:

— tighter inspections and more severe penalties in the event

of labour law infringements;

— public financing of modal transport infrastructure, such as

terminals and access facilities;

— requiring operators to pledge to provide new ongoing
services of general interest in order to secure modal shifts;
failure to do this will mean that customers will not change
their habits;

— procedures should be set out forthwith for extending the
Marco Polo programme by two or three years in order to
ensure that it continues to operate up to 2010 (there is a
need to avoid the hiatus which occurred between the PACT
and the Marco Polo programmes);

— the greatest possible benefit should be drawn from the
experience
by
from the
concluding the external evaluation of the programme; the
positive effects of the PACT programme have not so far
been fully evaluated;

PACT programme

gained

— a timetable should be established for the measures imple-
menting the actions set out in the Marco Polo programme;

In particular, where large volumes of freight on long
2.1.4
journeys are concerned and where the delivery is not urgent
but must take place on a certain date, the Committee proposed
that the Commission consider changing over gradually from
the practice of zero stockholding to the concept of stock in
circulation. This would help to reduce the number of urgent
deliveries and to enable non-road transport to compete prop-
erly on cost and delivery times, whilst guaranteeing delivery
dates. Everyone understands the economic rationale that has
encouraged the growth of zero stockholding, which greatly
reduces delivery times by making urgency the overriding
commercial consideration. If the concept of sustainable devel-
opment is taken into account, it is clear today that this practice
and its consequences are very costly in terms of pollution and
excessive energy consumption. These issues must therefore be
to the
discussed and the Committee reiterates its request
Commission to be involved in these discussions. It considers
that, although road transport remains irreplaceable for short
distances, particularly for the final stage of deliveries, it is zero
stockholding taken to the extreme and urgency as an absolute
principle that have made it so difficult to shift some road
freight transport to other modes of transport, which are more
consistent with the desire for sustainable development.

2.1.5 Without prejudice to the outcome of a discussion on
this matter, the Committee considers that, in order to bring
about a change in the behaviour of the economic players
involved, restrictions might have to be placed on some prac-
tices, which might have been efficient in years gone by but
which are no longer in tune with today's objectives.

22.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/21

2.1.6
The Committee notes that only a few of the incentives
it suggested have been taken on board. Taking the view that
the situation in 2004 is not greatly different to that of 2002,
the Committee is submitting the same proposals again in this
opinion, expanding on some aspects of the proposals.

19-page document, written in English, has not been translated
into other languages and is merely briefly summarised in
section III(13) of the explanatory memorandum of the draft
regulation, presenting the conclusions drawn by the Commis-
sion from the experts' evaluation.

2.2 Evaluation of the initial results of the Marco Polo I programme:

2003-2006

The Commission considers the initial results of the
2.2.1
Marco
of
Polo I programme, which
EUR 100 million, to be encouraging. The Committee notes
that the first selection of programmes was launched in October
2003 — in other words, barely one year ago — and that, to
date, there has not been sufficient time to evaluate the real
effectiveness of the intermodal actions that have been under-
taken. The Committee also notes that:

budget

had

a

— in the White Paper of 12 September 2001 on European
transport policy for 2010: time to decide, EUR 120 million was
earmarked for the Marco Polo I programme for four years,
i.e. EUR 30 million per year;

— in its proposal
programme,
budget
of
EUR 23 million per year;

for a regulation on the Marco Polo I
the Commission forecast a
i.e.
five

in early 2002,
EUR 115 million over

years,

— in the end, however, the Marco Polo I programme was
given a budget of EUR 100 million for only five years, i.e.
EUR 20 million per year;

— for the first operating year of the Marco Polo I programme,
the Community budget provided only EUR 15 million.

2.2.2
The Committee is astonished at these successive reduc-
tions and questions the reliability of the forecasts, because
demand is predicted to be constantly increasing, whilst
resources are constantly decreasing.

2.2.3
In these circumstances and because no real informa-
tion has been provided on the matter, the Committee fails to
‘one can [also]
understand the Commission's assertion that:
conclude that the budgetary means of the programme are largely
insufficient to fund all good proposals …’, nor can the Committee
understand why,
the
budgetary
in
EUR 20 million have not been fully used.

programming,

the

2.3 Ex-Ante Evaluation and Stakeholders' Consultation

2.3.1
Section III(12) of the explanatory memorandum refers
to a financial document that is important because it attests to
the fact that the proposal for a regulation ‘takes full account of
the
independent
experts’ following their ex-ante evaluation of the renewal of the
Marco Polo II programme for the period 2007 — 2013. This

evaluation and recommendation of

the

The Committee wishes to point out that, for the sake
2.3.2
of accessibility, documents must be translated and that,
if a
complete translation of the experts' report is not available, the
experts should be asked to produce a summary of the report
which, once translated, would give all those concerned instant
access to the gist of their conclusions, accompanied by the rele-
vant arguments.

2.3.3 Moreover, the Committee recalls that, in its Opinion
(842/2002) on the Marco Polo I regulation, it welcomed the
fact that the Commission heard ‘the views of the parties concerned
before presenting its proposals’. It does, however,
‘regret the fact
that it was involved in this consultation process only at a late stage’
(point 2.5).

The Committee is, therefore, unable to comment on
2.3.4
the conclusions of
the
this evaluation except
Commission expects an appropriate increase in the budget
being presented and makes this a fundamental prerequisite for
the programme's effectiveness.

to note that

The Committee notes

2.3.5
the Commission has
provided it with assessments of three projects that have been
undertaken:

that

— the

creation of an Intermodal Rail

service between
Germany and Italy via Austria, operated by a private
company;

— the IKEA-RAIL project, launched in 2002, consisting of a
platform in Duisburg (Germany), which receives products
sent by rail (1,044 km) from Almhut (Sweden) for distribu-
tion to the rest of Europe. In 2002 and 2003, around 400
trains undertook this journey carrying IKEA freight alone;

— the establishment of regular sea crossings, for heavy goods

vehicles, between several ports in Italy and Spain.

These three projects illustrate the possibilities offered
2.3.6
by the monitoring mechanism put in place by the EU. The
Committee notes, however,
these projects have been
that
undertaken as part of the Pilot Actions for Combined Transport
(PACT) programme, which preceded Marco Polo I.

2.3.7
The idea behind these projects is particularly inter-
esting; they reinforce the measures currently being undertaken
and the Committee is extremely keen to be informed in due
course of
the current Marco Polo I
programme and how these results are being used.

the precise results of

C 234/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.9.2005

2.4 The Marco Polo II programme (2007/2013)

— transporting goods in dehydrated form obviates the
need to transport water, which is added once the goods
arrive;

2.4.1
current types of action:

The Marco Polo II programme does not change the 3

— modal shift (start-up aid);

— catalyst;

— common learning.

— locating

component-manufacturing

to
assembly sites obviates the need for long-distance jour-
neys.

near

sites

The Committee is in favour of experiments and projects along
these lines.

2.4.2
It provides broader geographical scope by covering
not only the Europe of 25 and the other applicant countries,
but also the EFTA and EEA countries. The Committee agrees
with this approach and accepts the Commission's statement
that: ‘Production and supply chain patterns do not stop at the border
of EU 25’. It also expresses its hope that the Commission adds
the word ‘trade’ after ‘production’ at the beginning of this
phrase.

The Commission wishes to ‘create rail synergies’ and
2.4.5
recommends, for example, the use of dedicated tracks, with
high-speed trains for freight and express mail. The Committee
supports projects of this nature even though — where ‘express
is concerned — it considers that developments in the
mail’
information electronically means that most
transmission of
mail can be sent this way now and increasingly so in the
future.

The Committee suggests that the Commission quote
2.4.3
the example of the Danube-Corridor VII, which typifies this
wider Europe, because it has the exceptional characteristics of an
intermodal
links all modes of
infrastructure that
transport, and these are:

transport

— river transport, by means of a continuous link between
the North Sea and the Black Sea, with the mid-point
located in Austria, at approximately 1500 km from each
end;

— road and rail transport which, through trade platforms,
will make it easier to irrigate large areas surrounding the
river; and

— maritime and sea-river transport which,

in the West
extend this river by means of the Rhine-Main-Danube link
to the Channel Islands and the North Sea and, in the East,
towards Russia (the Volga), Ukraine and Turkey by means
of the Black Sea.

2.4.4
types of action:

The Marco Polo II proposal provides for two new

— Motorways of

concept

the sea,

for which the
a
Committee has expressed strong support on several occa-
sions. Wider Europe of course has thousands of kilometres of
maritime coastline, hundreds of ports and river estuaries,
which are all potential points of access to hinterland
regions and to the entire mainland. It is therefore important
to encourage and assist transport and freight distribution
projects everywhere, by increasing the number of multi-
modal trade platforms located on coasts or on estuaries.

— Traffic avoidance action, a concept designed to improve
production, distribution and supply patterns and eliminate
unnecessary journeys. Examples include:

2.4.6
Nevertheless, whilst there is a need to create dedicated
high-speed freight lines, the interoperability of material, equip-
ment and rail regulations must first be guaranteed. Further-
more, before new lines are built, optimum use must be made
of existing networks and the possibility of using abandoned or
underused lines studied, in seeking to shift passenger traffic to
other modes of transport, in particular to high-speed lines.

2.4.7
The Committee therefore calls on the Commission to
ask Member States once again to list all ways of revitalising
disused or reduced-volume networks for freight transport. This
mainly concerns the rail network, but also inland waterways,
the aim being, wherever possible, to implement faster solutions
than roads and which also provide greater benefits in terms of
sustainable development.

2.4.8
Lastly, in order to give credibility to freight rail trans-
port and indeed to other non-road modes of transport, the
Committee again points out that it is time to translate inten-
tions into action by reserving or allocating a larger share of
appropriations for rail, sea and river infrastructures than they
receive today, in particular in TEN-T project funding, and in
funding granted to the new Member States, as well as the
Balkans region.

2.4.9
The Committee is pleased to note that the Commis-
sion underscores the ‘considerable’ demand in industry for
funding infrastructures which are necessary and adequate for
achieving the service targets under the Marco Polo programme.
As
the Committee
recalls that this was a recommendation made in its Opinion
(842/2002) on Marco Polo I.

funding ancillary infrastructures,

for

22.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/23

3. Specific comments on the proposed Regulation on the

Marco Polo II programme

3.1 Article 1: Subject matter

tium’. The Committee would, however, point out, as it did in
Opinion 842/2002, that in the exceptional cases where actions
are being carried out in a single country, the requirement for
undertakings to be established in at least two Member States or
in one Member State and a third country, does not apply.

that

The Committee notes

3.1.1
the Commission is
presenting its proposal in 2004 for a regulation for the 2007-
2013 period. This should make it easier to ensure the conti-
nuity of the Marco Polo programme and to avoid the delay
seen in 2001/2002 when Marco Polo I was launched. Today,
therefore, the Commission is not presenting an approach that
is significantly different to the implementation of Marco Polo I.
Acting in advance in this way will mean that it is possible to
give‘a management committee [that should be given] the task of
monitoring actions on an on-going basis with a view to making the
necessary mid-term adjustments to the Marco Polo programme’, as
the Committee called for in its Opinion 842/2002.

3.5 Article 5: Eligible actions and funding conditions

3.5.1
In points 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 of its Opinion 842/2002 on
the minimum subsidy
Marco Polo I,
thresholds per action were too high. It called for the minimum
subsidy thresholds proposed by the Commission to be reduced:

the EESC stated that

— from EUR 1 million to EUR 500,000 for modal shift

actions;

— from EUR 3 million to EUR 1.5 million for catalyst

3.2 Article 2: Definitions

actions;

least

that at

The Committee notes, in its definition of a ‘consor-
3.2.1
tium’
required. The
two undertakings are
Committee reiterates its earlier call for a consortium to be any
‘arrangement by which at least two undertakings, which do not form
part of the same group and one of which is not a subsidiary of the
other, execute together …’…

3.3 Article 3: Scope

in its view, too restrictive,

3.3.1
The Committee reiterates the call made in Opinion
842/2002, considering that the rules stipulated in this Article
are,
insofar as they require the
actions to involve at least two States, or one State and the terri-
tory of a close third country. The Committee also considers
that there are localised actions which affect one single state but
whose impact would benefit all users of the relevant modes of
transport passing through that state. One example of
this
would be actions on the use or development of multimodal
platforms situated in an infrastructure hub within a single terri-
tory.

3.3.2
The Committee welcomes the move to open up the
scope to cover third countries (whether or not they are appli-
cants for accession) and notes that the costs of actions still
being taken in those territories are not covered by the
programme except in the circumstances provided for in para-
graphs 3 and 4 of this article.

To ensure consistency, however,

3.3.3
it would like the
regulation to state that, as regards funding for actions in third
countries,
to
measures for developing non-road modes of transport or those
which encourage intermodality.

this should be dedicated,

insofar as possible,

3.4 Article 4: Eligible applicants and beneficiaries

3.4.1
The EESC endorses Article 4, subject to account being
taken of its comments above on the composition of a ‘consor-

— from EUR 500,000 to EUR 250,000 for common learning

actions.

The Committee notes that, where Marco Polo II is
3.5.2
concerned,
the indicative minimum subsidy thresholds for
actions set by the Commission in the annex detailing the
funding conditions referred to in Article 5 of the proposal are
still too high, (except for common learning actions, for which
the threshold has been reduced to EUR 250,000 as the
Committee had wanted). The Committee considers it crucial to
set lower and thus more attractive thresholds, to encourage the
start-up of projects that might be on a smaller scale but which
are often more effective at local level.

3.5.3

The Committee consequently calls for

— the minimum subsidy thresholds to be halved, or reduced:

— from EUR 1 million to EUR 500,000 for modal shift

actions;

— from EUR 3 million to EUR 1.5 million for catalyst

actions;

— from EUR 4 million to EUR 2 million for motorways

of the sea actions;

— from EUR 1 million to EUR 500,000 for traffic avoid-

ance actions;

— the minimal
actions,
proposal;

subsidy threshold for common learning
in the

to remain at EUR 250,000, as set out

transport with

a minimum threshold

— a specific category to be created for sea-river transport and
river
of
EUR 500,000. Although the minimum threshold of EUR
four million (reduced to EUR two million as the Committee
proposes) for motorways of the sea is acceptable for mari-
time transport, given the size of vessels and the volumes
transported, it is not appropriate for inland waterways.

C 234/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.9.2005

Lastly,

3.5.4
the Committee agrees that maximum time
periods should be set for carrying out the various actions, with
completion by the deadline ensuring that an action is eligible.
The Committee considers, however, that the 36 month deadline
for modal shift actions is too short and that it should, as for
the other actions, be set at 60 months.

3.6 Article 11: Budget

3.6.1
The EESC pointed out earlier that it does not have the
necessary information to assess the sum of EUR 740 million
that the Commission wishes to earmark for the Marco Polo II
programme.
It simply notes that the Commission considers
that this budgetary envelope of EUR 740 million must help to
achieve the savings totalling EUR 5 billion in social and envir-
onmental benefits referred to above in point 1.4.

The Committee hopes that the Commission will,

3.6.2
in
the course of 2005, halfway through the Marco Polo I
programme, publish an assessment of the projects that have
been completed and of the savings actually made.

As the Committee suggested in Opinion 842/2002,
3.6.3
the programme,
in the course of
the Commission should,
propose an increase in the budget
to provide additional
funding should there be a larger number of projects put
forward.

3.7 Article 14: Evaluation

the requests

The Committee is pleased to note, because this is one
3.7.1
of
the
it made in Opinion 842/2002,
Commission is to present to the EESC as well as to the Euro-
pean Parliament and the Committee of the Regions, an assess-
ment report on the results of the Marco Polo I programme for
the period 2003/2006, by 30 June 2007 at the latest.

that

3.7.2
It hopes to have sufficient information to be able to
deliver an opinion and possibly submit proposals with a view,
if necessary, to adjusting the Marco Polo II programme, which
will have begun on 1 January 2007 and will therefore be in the
initial stages of its implementation.

4. Conclusions

4.1
The Committee supports Marco Polo II, as it previously
supported the PACT and the Marco Polo I programme. These

Brussels, 9 March 2005

three programmes have been useful in implementing initiatives
that help to adapt freight transport systems to improve their
environmental performance.
Increasing the planned financial
to
contribution from EUR 100 million for Marco Polo I
EUR 740 million for Marco Polo II demonstrates the EU's
desire rapidly to achieve a more sustainable form of freight
transport management.

In order to achieve the targets for freight transfer set by
4.2
the Commission, the Committee wishes to recall some of the
measures put forward in its Opinion CES 842/2002 of 17 and
18 July 2002 concerning Marco Polo I:

— in order to establish fair competition between the various
inspections should be strengthened and
labour laws

transport modes,
penalties in the event of
should be increased;

infringements of

— operators benefiting from the Marco Polo programmes
must, on an ongoing basis, commit themselves to providing
services of general interest to secure transfers;

— the Marco Polo programme must provide for the possibility
of financing projects involving actions taking place in just
the impact of such
one Member State, provided that
projects will benefit all users of international shipments
passing through the Member State in question;

— a European Guide, covering all multimodal platforms in
the EU, describing their respective characteristics, should be
drawn up for the benefit of all users;

— provision should be made for including in the projects
eligible for support under the Marco Polo programme
actions involving air and pipeline transport with a break-off
terminal located on a multimodal platform.

4.3
To ensure that river and river-sea transport benefit from
the Marco Polo programme, the Committee calls for a specific
category to be established with a minimum subsidy threshold
lowered to EUR 500,000. River transport cannot be compared
to maritime transport,
for which the investment needed is
proportionate to vessel size.

4.4
The Committee wishes to hold discussions with the
Commission to achieve a switch from the practice of zero stock-
holding to stock in circulation for deliveries that are not urgent
(for certain heavy goods, only the delivery date needs to be
respected).

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND