Proposal for a Regulation (EC) No .../2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 establishing the second ‘Marco Polo’ programme for the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system (‘Marco Polo II’) (Text with EEA relevance) {Sec(2008)3021} {SEC(2008)3022}
Date: 2008-12-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, carriage of goods, combined transport, environmental protection, project evaluation

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 25.3.2009 
COM(2008) 847 final/2 

2008/0239 (COD) 

CORRIGENDUM:  
Annule et remplace le document COM(2008) 847 final du 10.12.2008 
Ajout de "Proposition de" dans le titre (versions FR – DE – EN) et correction de la même 
phrase dans la version SV 
Ne concerne que les versions FR – DE – EN - SV 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION (EC) No .../2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE 
COUNCIL 

amending Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 establishing the second ‘Marco Polo’ 
programme for the granting 
of Community financial assistance to improve the 
environmental performance of the freight transport system (‘Marco Polo II’) 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

{SEC(2008)3021} 
{SEC(2008)3022} 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL 

1.1.  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

The second Marco Polo programme is not completely meeting the objectives set in its legal 
basis  in  terms  of  modal  shift  and  traffic  avoidance.  Although  the  Programme  is  actually 
achieving a significant modal shift, both the results of the second call for proposals, in 2008, 
under  the  second  Marco  Polo  programme,  and  those  of  the  external  evaluation  of  the  first 
Marco Polo programme, show that the Programme will very probably not be able to reach its 
objective of avoiding or shifting a substantial part of the forecast total growth of international 
road freight transport in Europe, as envisaged by its legal basis. 

The implementation of the first Marco Polo programme is missing its modal shift target, as 
shown by an external evaluation, which estimates that 64% of the modal shift target1 will be 
achieved. This rate of success is corroborated by the level of response to the second call under 
the  second  Marco  Polo  programme,  which  shows  a  marked  decrease  of  the  total  proposed 
modal  shift.  Furthermore  the  new  types  of  actions  introduced  by  this  second  Programme, 
Motorways  of  the  Sea  and  Traffic  Avoidance,  have  not  attracted  enough  applications  (only 
9% of the proposals in 2007 and 4% in 2008). 

The  proposed  amendments  aim  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  the  Programme  in  terms  of 
tonne-kilometres avoided or shifted off the roads, in order to achieve the goals set in the legal 
basis.  The  specific  measures  intend  to  stimulate  applications  for  funding  by  increasing 
participation  by  small  enterprises,  particularly  the  Inland  Waterway  Transport  companies, 
lowering  the  eligibility  thresholds,  increasing  the  grant  intensity  and  simplifying  the 
administrative processes of the Programme. 

Evaluation of the Programme 

Article  14  of  the  Regulation  provides  that  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 to 2006. If this report reveals a need to adjust the Marco Polo II Programme, 
the Commission is required to submit proposals accordingly. 
Consequently the Programme underwent an independent evaluation2 in 2007. The findings of 
the evaluators show that: 

–  It is an appropriate strategy to contribute to an efficient and sustainable transport 

system, with complementarities to other EC interventions. 

–  Its  effectiveness  in  reducing  road  congestion  should  be  given  more  importance 

and visibility. 

–  It  has  a  strong  leverage  effect  in  generating  significant  business  investments. 

Every euro of planned subsidy entails €20 of eligible costs.   

1 
2 

12 billion tkm a year for MP I. 
By Ecorys. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/evaluation/activites/reports_en.htm. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  It is expected to realise a shift of 30.6 billion tkm, which corresponds to 64% of 

its target. 

–  It has engaged only 73% of the available budget. 

–  It  is  expected  to  realise  external  benefits  amounting  to  €650  million  in  terms  of 
reductions  in  congestion  costs,  environmental  costs,  transport  safety  costs  and 
other costs. 

–  The  formal  steps  for  evaluating  proposals  and  the  procedures  to  be  followed 
before contract signature are perceived by applicants as complex, non-transparent 
and requiring a long time between contract negotiations and contract signature. 

–  The  contacts  between  the  Commission  and  the  project  beneficiaries  were  very 

limited. 

•  The evaluators made the following recommendations: 

–  Extending the projects’ maximum duration. 

–  Lowering the thresholds for Inland Waterways projects aiming at modal shift. 

–  Enhancing the visibility of the Programme. 

–  Making  the  aspect  of  reduction  of  road  congestion  more  visible  in  the  proposal 

evaluation stage. 

–  Producing  user-friendly  guides  so 

the  applicants  and  beneficiaries  fully 
understand the rules to be followed when applying for funding and managing the 
projects. 

1.2.  General context 

The  Marco  Polo  programme  is  one  of  the  instruments  to  reduce  congestion  as  part  of  a 
coherent EU transport policy strategy which includes the internalisation of external costs and 
the use of market-based instruments to reflect the utilisation of infrastructure.  

The mid-term review of the White Paper on Transport3 estimates the total costs of congestion 
at 1% of the EU’s GDP and its environmental cost at 1.1%. One of the EU transport policy 
instruments  to  tackle  these  costs  is  the  Marco  Polo  programme.  The  more  successful  the 
Programme is, the lower congestion and environmental costs will be.  

The  external  evaluation  of  the  first  Marco  Polo  programme  estimates  that  64%  of  the 
objective of tkm to be shifted off the road is being met. Therefore if no action is taken, in a 
context  of  decreasing  proposals  and  successful  projects,  then  the  second  Marco  Polo 
programme  will  in  the  best  case  achieve  the  same  percentage  of  success.  This  would  imply 
missing the target of avoiding or shifting a substantial part of the estimated 60%4 growth of 
international freight transport by road, equivalent to 20.5 billion tonne-kilometres in absolute 

3 
4 

COM(2006) 314 final. 
PRIMES model, included in the Commission report ‘European Energy and Transport trends to 2030’. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
terms. This will have negative consequences in terms of additional road infrastructure costs, 
accidents, congestion, local and global pollution, environmental damage and unreliability of 
the supply chain and of logistics processes. 

1.3.  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

The current legal basis for the Programme is Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  October  2006  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)  and  repealing  Regulation  (EC) 
No 1382/2003. 

1.4.  Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

The  EU  transport  policy  aims  to  offer  a  high  level  of  mobility  to  people  and  business 
throughout the Union, while at the same time  protecting  the  environment  from  the  negative 
effects of transport. This is achieved by building on a broad range of policy tools to achieve 
shifts to more environmentally friendly modes, optimising each transport mode and aiming at 
an efficient use of different modes on their own and in combination; all of this should result in 
an optimal and sustainable utilisation of resources. 

In that context two kinds of measures can be distinguished: 

–  Measures  intended  to  increase  the  competitiveness  and  environmental  efficiency 
of  all  transport  modes,  particularly  those  which  are  less  congested  and  more 
environmentally friendly, namely, shipping, railways and inland waterways.  

–  Measures intended to increase the capacity and efficiency of the entire transport 
system with TEN-T (Trans-European Networks for Transport) funding, Cohesion 
Policy  funds  (European  Regional  Development  Fund  and  Cohesion  Fund)  and 
investments by Member States and private operators. 

The  above-mentioned  measures  aim  to  progressively  achieve  a  more  efficient  and 
environmentally-friendly  distribution  of  freight  flows  among  the  different  transport  modes. 
They will however take a number of years to materialise and the only measure at Community 
level aiming to encourage a more environmentally-acceptable distribution of freight flows in 
the very short term is the Marco Polo programme. 

2. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

2.1.  Consultation of interested parties 

On  4.04.08  a  public  consultation  was  launched  on  the  website  of  the  Executive  Agency  for 
Competitiveness  and  Innovation  (EACI),  which  manages  the  programme  on  behalf  of  the 
Commission. A notification of this publication was emailed twice to a list of more than 1500 
contacts,  including  industry  representatives  involved  in  preparation  and  management  of 
Marco  Polo  projects.  On  28.04.08  the  consultation  was  presented  to  a  meeting  of  the  Short 
Sea  Shipping  Focal  Points  and  Promotion  Network.  On  23.05.08  the  consultation  was 
presented to the meeting of the Marco Polo Committee. 

The  external  consultation  was  open  from  4.04.08  until  30.05.08.  13  precise  questions  were 
asked  with  the  purpose  of  assessing  the  acceptability  of  the  amendments  proposed  by  the 
Commission.  Furthermore  the  questionnaire  included  a  final  open  question  for  general 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
comments.  A  total  of  97  contributions  were  received  from  20  Member  States,  plus  Norway 
and Serbia. Only 12% of the respondents had not been involved or did not plan to be involved 
in a Marco Polo application, therefore the added value of the contribution is considered high. 

The two yearly  meetings of the Marco  Polo Programme  Committee  of  Member  States  have 
enabled it be continually involved in the consultation. 

2.2.  Collection and use of expertise 

The impact assessment was done with input in the form of the ‘Evaluation of the Marco Polo 
programme (2003-2006)’, carried out by Ecorys in November, 2007. A second external expert 
source  was  the  Interim  report  of  a  study  by  Price  Waterhouse  Coopers  on  an  Impact 
Assessment of setting up an innovation fund for the Inland Waterway Transport sector, which 
includes an assessment of the effects of amending the second Marco Polo regulation. 

2.3. 

Impact assessment 

The impact assessment concluded that a targeted revision of the legal basis by implementing 
all the proposed measures will bring considerable added value since it will: 

- Improve the effectiveness of the Programme in terms of tonne-kilometres avoided or shifted. 

- Achieve a more balanced distribution of modal shift and traffic avoidance among transport 
modes and project types. 

-  Simplify  the  legal  basis  and  the  management  of  the  programme  with  the  consequent 
reduction of administrative costs and burdens, and consequently attract more companies and 
smaller ones currently afraid of, or simply not equipped to manage, its complexity. 

- Have positive effects in terms of multi-dimensional distribution of the effects. 

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

3.1. 

Summary of the proposed action 

The proposed amendments aim at  a limited  revision  of  the legal  basis  (Regulation  (EC) No 
1692/2006) of the second Marco Polo programme to increase its effectiveness in terms of its 
traffic  avoidance  and  modal  shift  objectives,  measured  in  terms  of  tonne-kilometres.  Four 
kinds  of  amendments  are  proposed.  First,  measures  to  facilitate  participation  by  small 
enterprises;  second,  measures  lowering  the  tonne-kilometre  thresholds  for  eligibility;  third, 
raising funding intensity; and fourth, simplification of the Programme procedures. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
3.2.  Legal basis 

Articles  71(1)  and  80(2)  of  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community  set  the 
framework for Community intervention in international transport to or from the territory of a 
Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States. 

3.3. 

Subsidiarity principle 

The  Marco  Polo  programme  aims  to  have  an  impact  on  international  road  transport.  Since 
modal  shift  objectives  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. 

3.4.  Proportionality principle 

The  proposal  is  in  conformity  with  the  principle  of  proportionality  since  the  Community 
intervention is much lower than its effects. The current maximum grant intensity is €1 per 500 
tonne-kilometres  shifted  off  the  road,  which  compares  with  the  external  costs  saved  by  that 
modal shift amounting to an average of €9.15. Even  with the update of the grant intensity to a 
maximum of €2, the principle of proportionality  of the Community intervention is maintained. 
On  the  other  hand,  experience  with  the  Programme  shows  that  one  Euro  of  Marco  Polo 
subsidy  entails  around  €20  in  investments  in  pr ojects  aiming  at  a  more  environmentally-
friendly transport system.  

3.5.  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instrument: Regulation 

The  proposed  Regulation  amends  Regulation  (EC)  No  1692/2006  establishing  the  second 
Marco  Polo  programme  for  the  granting  of  Community  financial  assistance  to  improve  the 
environmental  performance  of  the  freight  transport  system  (Marco  Polo  II)  and  repealing 
Regulation (EC) No 1392/2003.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
2008/0239 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION (EC) No .../2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE 
COUNCIL 

amending Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 establishing the second ‘Marco Polo’ 
programme for the granting 
of Community financial assistance to improve the 
environmental performance of the 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 Commission, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee5, 

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions6, 

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty7, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

The Communication8 of the Commission 'Keep Europe moving – Sustainable mobility 
for  our  continent  –  Mid  term  review  of  the  European  Commission’s  2001  Transport 
White Paper' highlights the potential of the second Marco Polo programme as a source 
of financing for offering operators on congested roads alternatives using other modes 
of transport. The second Marco Polo programme is therefore one basic element in the 
current transport policy.  

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 in international road 
freight  by  2013  of  20.5  billion  tonne-kilometres  per  year  for  the  European  Union,  with 
negative consequences in terms of additional road infrastructure costs, accidents, congestion, 
local  and  global  pollution,  environmental  damage  and  the  unreliability  of  the  supply 
chain and of logistics processes. 

5 
6 
7 
8 

OJ. 
OJ… 
OJ… 
COM(2006) 314 final. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

In order to cope with this growth, greater use must be made of short sea shipping, rail 
and inland waterways than at present, and it is necessary to stimulate further powerful 
initiatives from the transport and logistics sector, to encourage new approaches and the 
use of technical innovations in all of our transport modes and their management. 

to  Article  14  of 

According 
the 
the  Regulation 
European Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  October  2006  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)  and  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No  1382/20039  the  Commission  is  to  do  an 
evaluation  of  the  Marco  Polo  II  Programme  and  submit  proposals  to  adjust  the 
Programme if necessary.  

(EC)  No  1692/2006  of 

An external evaluation on the results of the first Marco Polo Programme estimated that 
the Programme would not achieve its objectives in terms of modal shift and gave some 
recommendations for improving its effectiveness. 

The Commission has carried out an impact analysis of the measures proposed 
by the external evaluation and other measures aimed at increasing the efficiency of the 
Programme. This analysis showed the need of a number of amendments to Regulation 
(EC) No 1692/2006 to facilitate participation by small enterprises, to lower the project 
eligibility  thresholds,  to  increase  the  funding  intensity  and  to  simplify  the 
Programme’s implementation and administrative procedures. 

The  participation  by  small  enterprises  in  the  Programme  should  be  increased  by 
allowing  single  undertakings  to  apply  for  funding  and  lowering  the  eligibility 
thresholds for proposals submitted by inland waterways transport companies. 

The eligibility thresholds for proposals for funding should be lowered and expressed in 
terms of yearly tonne-kilometres shifted, except for Common Learning Actions. There 
is no further need for a specific threshold applying to Traffic Avoidance actions and a 
minimum  project  duration  is  established  for  this  kind  of  projects  and  Catalyst  and 
Motorways of the Sea projects. 

The  funding  intensity  should  be  increased  by  introducing  a  definition  for 
‘freight’, in order to include the transport element in the calculation of the modal shift, 
and  allowing  exceptional  extensions  of  the  maximum  project  duration  for  projects 
with start-up delays. The update of the funding intensity from €1 to €2 following the 
procedure of provided in letter d), point 2 of Annex I should be reflected. 

(10) 

In  order  to  simplify  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  Annex  II  to  Regulation 
(EC)  No  1692/2006  on  funding  conditions  for  ancillary  infrastructure  should  be 
deleted. Furthermore the comitology procedure for the yearly selection of projects to 
be funded should be eliminated and the detailed rules for selection of projects should 
be applicable to several years. 

(11)  A  more  detailed  link  between  the  Programme  and  the  Trans-European  Transport 
Network  framework  for  the  Motorways  of  the  Sea  should  be  established  and  the 

9 

OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 1.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
environmental considerations should be extended to include the whole external costs 
of the actions. 

(12)  Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly. 

(13) 

In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation can be applied in 
the most expedient and speedy way, this Regulation should enter into force as soon as 
possible after its adoption. 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 is amended as follows: 

1. 

In Article 2 point (p) is added: 

‘freight’ means, for the purpose of the modal shift calculations, the goods transported 
plus the transport unit, including its motorised parts. Empty transport units which are 
carried  on  another  transport  unit  will  be  considered  freight  for  the  purpose  of  the 
modal shift calculation.’ 

2. 

In Article 4 paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: 

‘1.  Actions  shall  be  submitted  by  undertakings  established  in  Member  States  or 
participating countries, as provided in paragraph 3 and 4 of Article 3.’ 

3. 

Article 5 is amended as follows: 

(a) 

In paragraph 1, point (b) is replaced by the following:  

‘Motorways  of  the  Sea  actions;  within  the  European  Union  such  actions  shall  be 
consistent with the features of the Motorways of the Sea priority project defined in 
the  framework  of  Decision  No  1692/96/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-
European transport network10’ 

(b) 

In paragraph 2, the second sentence is deleted. 

4. 

Article 6 is replaced by the following: 

‘Detailed Rules 

The detailed rules concerning the procedures for submission and selection of actions shall be 
adopted once for the entire life of the Programme following the procedure referred to 
in Article 10(2).’ 

5. 

In Article 7 the second sentence is deleted 

10 

OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, P.1. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
6. 

Article 9 is amended as follows: 

(a) 

In the first paragraph, point (d) the words ‘the relative environmental merits of 
the  actions’  are  replaced  by  ‘the  relative  merits  of  the  actions  in  terms  of 
reduction of external costs‘. 

(b) 

The second paragraph is deleted. 

7. 

Article 14, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: 

‘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 2003-2009 by 30 June 2011’ 

8. 

In the second paragraph of Article 15 the second sentence is deleted. 

Article 2 

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this 

1. 
Regulation. 

2. 

Annex II to Regulation 1692/2006 is deleted. 

Article 3 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  day  following  that  of  its  publication  in  the 
Official Journal of the European Union. 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

10 

   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 

Art. 5(1)(a) 

Art. 5(1)(b) 

Art. 5(1)(c) 

Art. 5(1)(d) 

Art. 5(1)(e) 

1. 
conditions 

Funding 

(a)  the  catalyst  action 
its 
will 
achieve 
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; 

(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; 

the 

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

the 

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

EN 

11 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Type of Action 

A. Catalyst 

Art. 5(1)(a) 

B. Motorways of the Sea 

C. Modal shift 

D. Traffic avoidance 

E. Common learning 

Art. 5(1)(b) 

Art. 5(1)(c) 

Art. 5(1)(d) 

Art. 5(1)(e) 

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

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

ports, 

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

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

to 

the 

action 

(b) 
is 
innovative on a European 
level; 

EN 

12 

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) 

(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; 

including 

combined 

(c) the MoS action aims at encouraging very 
large  volume,  high  frequency  intermodal 
services  for  freight  transport  by  short  sea 
freight-
shipping, 
passenger  services  as  appropriate,  or  a 
combination of short sea shipping with other 
modes  of  transport  in  which  road  journeys 
are  as  short  as  possible;  the  action  should 
preferably 
integrated  hinterland 
freight  transport  services  by  rail  and/or 
inland waterways; 

include 

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

in 

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

in 

the 

(c) 
traffic 
avoidance action aims 
at encouraging higher 
in 
efficiency 
freight 
international 
transport 
the 
European  markets 
impeding 
without 
economic  growth  by 
on 
focusing 
modification  of 
the 
and/or 
production 
distribution 
processes, 
thereby 
achieving 
shorter 
distances, 
higher 
less 
loading  factors, 
empty runs, reduction 
of 
flows, 
reduction  of  volume 
and/or  weight  or  any 
other effect leading to 
a 
significant 
reduction  of  freight 
traffic  on  the  road, 
but  not 
adversely 
affecting  production 
output or workforce; 

waste 

EN 

13 

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

(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, inland waterways 
or rail; 

the 
reliance 

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

of 

the 

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

stages 

seeks 

it 

EN 

14 

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) 

(e)  the  MoS  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; 

in 

lead 

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

the 

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

stages 

seeks 

it 

EN 

15 

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) 

(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; 

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

a 

the 

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

EN 

16 

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) 

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

transparent, 

objective 

a 

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

for 
the 

of 

of 

EN 

17 

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 

to 

be 

limited 

necessary 

(a)  Community 
financial 
assistance  for  catalyst  actions 
a 
shall 
maximum of 35 % of the total 
expenditure 
to 
achieve  the  objectives  of  the 
incurred  as  a 
action  and 
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. 
The  eligible  costs  related  to 
ancillary  infrastructure  shall 
not be higher than 10% of the 
total  eligible  costs  for  the 
project. 

to 

be 

limited 

necessary 

(a)  Community 
financial 
assistance  for  MoS  actions 
a 
shall 
maximum of 35 % of the total 
expenditure 
to 
achieve  the  objectives  of  the 
incurred  as  a 
action  and 
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. 
The  eligible  costs  related  to 
ancillary  infrastructure  shall 
not be higher than 10% of the 
total  eligible  costs  for  the 
project. 

necessary 

financial 
(a)  Community 
assistance 
for  modal  shift 
actions  shall  be  limited  to  a 
maximum of 35 % of the total 
expenditure 
to 
achieve  the  objectives  of  the 
incurred  as  a 
action  and 
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. 
The  eligible  costs  related  to 
ancillary  infrastructure  shall 
not be higher than 10% of the 
total  eligible  costs  for  the 
project . 

of 

to 

the 
necessary 

financial 
(a)  Community 
assistance 
traffic 
for 
avoidance  actions  shall  be 
a  maximum 
limited 
total 
of 35 % 
expenditure 
to 
achieve  the  objectives  of  the 
action  and 
incurred  as  a 
result  of  the  action.  Such 
expenditure  shall  be  eligible 
financial 
for  Community 
assistance,  to  the  extent  to 
which it relates directly to the 
implementation of the action. 
The  eligible  costs  related  to 
ancillary  infrastructure  shall 
not be higher than 10% of the 
total  eligible  costs  for  the 
project. 

to  achieve 

(a)  Community 
financial 
assistance 
for 
common 
shall  be 
learning  actions 
limited  to  a  maximum  of 
50 % of the total expenditure 
necessary 
the 
objectives  of  the  action  and 
incurred  as  a  result  of  the 
expenditure 
action.  Such 
shall 
for 
be 
financial 
Community 
assistance,  to  the  extent  to 
which it relates directly to the 
implementation of the action. 

eligible 

EN 

18 

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) 

of 

the  date 

Expenditure  incurred  on  or 
after 
the 
submission of an application 
under 
selection 
the 
procedure  shall  be  eligible 
financial 
for  Community 
that 
assistance  provided 
final 
for 
approval 
Community funding is given. 
A  contribution  towards  the 
costs  of  movable  assets  shall 
be 
the 
obligation  to  use  such  assets 
the 
for 
the  duration  of 
assistance,  principally 
for 
the  action,  as  defined  by the 
subsidy agreement. 

contingent 

on 

of 

the 

date 

eligible 

Expenditure  incurred  on  or 
after 
the 
submission  of  an  application 
under  the  selection  procedure 
shall 
for 
be 
Community 
financial 
assistance  provided  that  final 
for  Community 
approval 
funding 
A 
given. 
is 
contribution  towards  the  costs 
of  movable  assets  shall  be 
contingent on the obligation to 
for 
use 
the 
duration  of 
the  assistance, 
principally  for  the  action,  as 
subsidy 
defined 
agreement. 

such  assets 

the 

by 

of 

eligible 

the  date 

Expenditure  incurred  on  or 
after 
the 
submission  of  an  application 
under the selection procedure 
for 
shall 
be 
Community 
financial 
assistance provided that final 
for  Community 
approval 
funding 
A 
given. 
is 
contribution 
the 
towards 
costs  of  movable  assets  shall 
be 
the 
obligation  to  use  such  assets 
for 
the 
the  duration  of 
assistance, principally for the 
action,  as  defined  by  the 
subsidy agreement. 

contingent 

on 

of 

the 

date 

eligible 

Expenditure  incurred  on  or 
after 
the 
submission  of  an  application 
under  the  selection  procedure 
for 
shall 
be 
Community 
financial 
assistance  provided  that  final 
for  Community 
approval 
funding 
A 
given. 
is 
contribution  towards  the  costs 
of  movable  assets  shall  be 
contingent on the obligation to 
use 
the 
for 
duration  of 
the  assistance, 
principally  for  the  action,  as 
subsidy 
defined 
agreement. 

such  assets 

the 

by 

Expenditure  incurred  on  or 
after 
the 
the  date  of 
submission of an application 
under 
selection 
the 
procedure  shall  be  eligible 
financial 
for  Community 
that 
assistance  provided 
for 
final 
Community 
is 
given. 

approval 

funding 

EN 

19 

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) 

for 

(b)  Community  financial 
assistance 
traffic 
avoidance  actions  must 
not  be  used  to  support 
business  or  production 
activities  which  bear  no 
direct 
to 
transport or distribution. 

relation 

short 

(b)  The  Community  financial 
assistance,  determined  by  the 
Commission  on  the  basis  of 
the  tonne-kilometres  shifted 
from 
sea 
to 
road 
shipping,  rail  and 
inland 
waterways,  shall  initially  be 
set  at  EUR  2  for  each  shift  of 
500  tonne-kilometres  of  road 
freight. 
indicative 
amount  could  be  adjusted,  in 
particular, in accordance with 
the  quality  of  the  project  or 
the real environmental benefit 
obtained. 

This 

(b)  The  Community  financial 
assistance  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 2 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  real 
environmental benefit obtained. 

the  project  or 

road 

short 

(b)  The  Community  financial 
assistance  determined  by  the 
Commission  on  the  basis  of 
the  tonne-kilometres  shifted 
sea 
to 
from 
shipping, 
inland 
rail, 
waterways shall initially be set 
at  EUR 2  for  each  shift  of 
of 
500 tonne-kilometres 
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)  The  Community 
financial  assistance  shall 
initially  be  set  at  EUR 2 
for  every  avoidance  of 
500  tonne-kilometres  or 
25 vehicle-kilometres  of 
This 
freight. 
road 
indicative  amount  could 
be 
in 
adjusted, 
particular,  in  accordance 
with  the  quality  of  the 
project 
real 
environmental 
benefit 
obtained. 

the 

or 

EN 

20 

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) 

to 

as 

referred 

necessary, 

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

which 

on 

referred 

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

necessary, 

as 

to 

as 

referred 

necessary, 

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

which 

on 

(d)  In  accordance  with 
the procedure referred to 
the 
in  Article 10(2), 
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 
assistance 
financial 
accordingly. 

EN 

21 

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) 

3.  Form  and 
duration 
of 
subsidy 
agreement 

Community 
financial 
assistance  for  catalyst  actions 
shall  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,  and  the  minimum 
36  months. 
of 
extraordinary  implementation 
delays  adequately  justified  by 
the beneficiary, an exceptional 
extension  of  6  months  can  be 
awarded. 

case 

In 

Community  financial  assistance 
for  MoS  actions 
shall  be 
granted  on  the  basis  of  subsidy 
agreements,  with  appropriate 
steering  and 
provisions 
for 
monitoring.  As  a  rule, 
the 
maximum  duration  of  these 
agreements  shall  be  62 months 
and the minimum 36 months. In 
extraordinary 
case 
delays 
implementation 
the 
adequately 
beneficiary, 
exceptional 
an 
extension  of  6  months  can  be 
awarded.  

justified  by 

of 

financial 
Community 
assistance 
for  modal  shift 
actions shall be granted on the 
basis  of  subsidy  agreements. 
As  a  rule, 
the  maximum 
duration  of  these  agreements 
shall  be  38 months.  In  case  of 
extraordinary  implementation 
delays  adequately  justified  by 
the beneficiary, an exceptional 
extension  of  6  months  can  be 
awarded. 

for 

financial 
Community 
assistance 
traffic 
avoidance  actions  shall 
be granted on the basis of 
subsidy  agreements,  with 
provisions 
appropriate 
for 
and 
steering 
monitoring. As a rule, the 
maximum  duration  of 
these agreements shall be 
62 months 
the 
minimum  36  months.  In 
extraordinary 
case  of 
implementation 
delays 
adequately  justified  by 
the 
an 
beneficiary, 
exceptional extension of 6 
months can be awarded. 

and 

of 

Community  financial 
assistance for common 
learning  actions  shall 
the 
be  granted  on 
subsidy 
basis 
of 
agreements, 
with 
appropriate 
provisions for steering 
and  monitoring.  As  a 
the  maximum 
rule, 
duration 
these 
agreements  shall  be 
26 months,  which  can 
the 
be  extended  at 
request 
the 
beneficiary, within the 
budgetary 
initial 
envelope, 
an 
for 
additional period of 26 
months, 
if  positive 
results  are  achieved 
during 
the  first  12 
months of operation. 

of 

shall 

financial 
Community 
be 
not 
assistance 
renewable 
the 
stipulated maximum period of 
62 months,  or  in  exceptional 
cases 68 months. 

beyond 

Community  financial  assistance 
shall  not  be  renewable  beyond 
the  stipulated  maximum  period 
of  62 months,  or  in  exceptional 
cases 68 months. 

shall 

financial 
Community 
be 
not 
assistance 
renewable 
the 
stipulated maximum period of 
38 months,  or  in  exceptional 
cases 44 months. 

beyond 

financial 
Community 
assistance  shall  not  be 
renewable  beyond 
the 
stipulated 
maximum 
period  of  62 months,  or 
in  exceptional  cases  68 
months. 

Community  financial 
assistance  shall  not  be 
renewable  beyond  the 
stipulated  maximum 
period of 52 months. 

EN 

22 

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) 

Contract 

4. 
value threshold 

The  minimum 
indicative 
subsidy  threshold  per  catalyst 
action  shall  be  30  million 
its 
tonne-kilometres 
volumetric 
of 
modal 
traffic 
avoidance  per  year,  to  be 
implemented  over  the  entire 
life of the subsidy agreement;  

equivalent 
or 

shift 

or 

shall 

indicative 
The  minimum 
threshold  per  MoS 
subsidy 
action 
be 
250 million tonne-kilometres  or 
its  volumetric  equivalent  of 
modal  shift  per  year,  to  be 
implemented  over  the  entire  life 
of the subsidy agreement  

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

The  minimum  indicative 
subsidy 
threshold  per 
traffic  avoidance  action 
80 
be 
shall 
million tonne-kilometres 
million 
or 
vehicle-kilometres 
of 
traffic  avoided 
freight 
be 
per 
to 
year, 
implemented  over 
the 
entire  life  of  the  subsidy 
agreement  

4 

shall 

action 

The  minimum 
indicative 
subsidy  threshold  per  modal 
shift 
be 
80 million tonne-kilometres  or 
its  volumetric  equivalent  of 
modal  shift  per  year,  to  be 
implemented  over  the  entire 
life  of  the  subsidy  agreement. 
Modal  shift  actions  aiming  at 
implementing a shift to inland 
waterways will be subject to a 
special threshold of 17 million 
its 
tonne-kilometres 
volumetric 
of 
modal  shift  per  year,  to  be 
implemented  over  the  entire 
life of the subsidy agreement 

equivalent 

or 

EN 

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) 

actions 

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

encouraged, 

objectives 

and 

of 

Specific 
activities 
for  modal 
actions are not foreseen. 

dissemination 
shift 

shall 

actions 

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

shall 

traffic 

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

of 
shall 

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

in 

EN 

24 

EN 

 
  
 
 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

NAME OF THE PROPOSAL : 

Amendment of 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")  

ABM / ABB FRAMEWORK 

Policy Area(s) concerned and associated Activity/Activities: 

06: Energy and transport 

06 02: Inland, air and maritime transport  

06 01: Administrative expenditure of Energy and Transport policy area 

BUDGET LINES 

06 01 04 01: Programme Marco Polo II: Expenditure on Administrative management  

06  01  04  32:  Executive  Agency  for  Competitiveness  and  Innovation  –  Marco  Polo  II 
subsidy 

06 02 06: Marco Polo II Programme 

Duration of the action and of the financial impact: 

Start: 2010  end: 2015 

Budgetary characteristics : 

Budget line 

Type of 
expenditure 

New 

EFTA 
contribution 

Contributions 
from applicant 
countries 

Heading in 
financial 
perspective 

06 01 04 01 

06 01 04 32 

06 02 06 

Non-
comp 

Non-
comp 

Non-
comp 

Non-Diff 

NO 

YES 

YES 

Non-Diff 

NO 

YES 

YES 

Diff 

NO 

YES 

YES 

1a 

1a 

1a 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
SUMMARY OF RESOURCES 

Financial Resources 
Summary of commitment appropriations (CA) and payment appropriations (PA) 

Section 
no. 

Expenditure type 

Operational expenditure11 

Commitment 
Appropriations (CA) 

8.1 

Payment  Appropriations 
(PA) 

a 

b 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

Total 

62.275 

64.200 

68.100 

71.100 

265.67512 

24.910 

31.908 

43.001 

63.563 

102.293 

265.675 

Administrative expenditure within reference amount13 

Technical 
& 
administrative  assistance 
(NDA) 

8.2.4 

c 

1.725 

1.800 

1.900 

1.900 

1.392 

1.421 

10.138 

TTOOTTAALL  RREEFFEERREENNCCEE  AAMMOOUUNNTT  

Commitment 
Appropriations 

Payment 
Appropriations 

a+c 

b+c 

64.000 

66.000 

70.000 

73.000 

1.392 

1.421 

275.813 

1.725 

26.710 

33.808 

44.901 

64.955 

103.714 

275.813 

Administrative expenditure not included in reference amount14 

Human 
associated 
(NDA) 

resources 

and 
expenditure 

8.2.5 

d 

0.317 

0.317 

0.317 

0.317 

0.317 

0.317 

1.902 

Administrative  costs,  other 
than  human  resources  and 
associated 
not 
included in reference amount 
(NDA) 

costs, 

8.2.6 

e 

Total indicative financial cost of intervention  

TOTAL  CA 
cost 
Resources 

of 

including 
Human 

a+c
+d+
e 

64.317 

66.317 

70.317 

73.317 

1.709 

1.738 

277.715 

11 
12 

13 
14 

Expenditure that does not fall under Chapter xx 01 of the Title xx concerned. 
An amount of 20 M€ could be added between 2010 and 2013 to restore the amount not executed in 2008 and 
transferred in 2008 to another program 
Expenditure within article xx 01 04 of Title xx. 
Expenditure within chapter xx 01 other than articles xx 01 04 or xx 01 05. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
TOTAL  PA 
cost 
Resources 

of 

including 
Human 

b+c
+d+
e 

2.042 

27.027 

34.125 

45.218 

65.272 

104.031 

277.715 

Compatibility with Financial Programming 

The proposal is compatible with existing financial programming. 

Financial impact on Revenue 

The proposal has no financial implications on revenue 

Human Resources FTE (including officials, temporary and external staff) – see detail under point 
8.2.1. 

Annual requirements 

Year n 

n + 1 

n + 2 

n + 3 

n + 4 

n + 5 
and 
later 

Total 
number 
human resources 

of 

2.6 

2.6 

2.6 

2.6 

2.6 

2.6 

CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES 

The  implementation  of  the  first  Marco  Polo  programme  is  not  meeting  its  modal  shift  target,  as 
shown by the external evaluation, which estimates that 64% of the modal shift target15 will 
be achieved. This situation is corroborated by the level of response to the second call of the 
second  Marco  Polo  programme,  which  shows  a  marked  decrease  of  the  total  proposed 
modal  shift.  Furthermore  the  new  types  of  actions  introduced  by  this  second  Programme, 
Motorways of the Sea and Traffic Avoidance, have not attracted enough applications (only 
9% of the proposals in 2007 and 4% in 2008).  

Two measures have already been taken to improve the Programme's results without any need for a 
change in the Regulation: First, the outsourcing of the management of the Programme to an 
Executive  Agency  which  is  expert  in  managing  projects,  and  second,  the  doubling  of  the 
funding intensity for projects from €1 to €2 per 
500 tkm shifted or avoided, so as to attract 
more projects. 

But these measures will not be enough and a targeted revision of the Programme has been proposed, 
which will bring: 

- a further increase in the effectiveness of the programme,  

15 

12 billion tkm a year for MP I. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- a more balanced distribution of community support among project types,  

- a substantial simplification of the legal basis and the management of the Programme,  

- a significant reduction of administrative costs to manage the programme,  

- a positive effect in terms of benefits for peripheral areas and non-member countries,  

Value-added  of  Community  involvement  and  coherence  of  the  proposal  with  other  financial 
instruments and possible synergy 

As  stated  in  the  external  evaluation  report,  the  Marco  Polo  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate 
strategy  to  contribute  to  an  efficient  and  sustainable  transport  system.  The  programme  is 
also  complementary  to  other  EC  intervention  options,  in  particular  the  TEN-T  network 
grants. 

The objective pursued by the measures proposed will reinforce the already  existing consistency of 

the Programme’s objectives with other EU policies. 

In order to escape the adverse effects of mobility in terms of substantial growth of freight 
transport over the coming years, the mid-term revision of the White Paper on the Common 
Transport policy, of June 2006 proposes, among other measures, to continue with the policy 
of shifting freight towards the least polluting and most energy-efficient modes of transport.  

Modal shift and co-modality are two of the current objectives of the Union’s transport policy which 
put it at the heart of the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs. The set of transport policy objectives 
where modal shift is included are also longer term in nature, balancing the imperatives of economic 
growth, social welfare and environmental protection in all policy choices. 

As stated in the mid-term review of the White Paper on transport, besides the continuous reflection 
on  possible  policy  measures  to  be  adopted  in  the  future,  the  congestion  of  the  EU  road 
transport system and the environmental efficiency of the whole transport system are directly 
tackled with various measures which are currently being implemented or will be in the near 
future. 

At  Member  State  level,  national  schemes  like  the  Ecobonus,  in  Italy,  address  the  same  issue  at 
national level only and for a limited amount of time. In any case the Marco Polo regulation 
establishes a ceiling for Community assistance which takes into account national aid given 
to the transport link of the contract.  

The above-mentioned measures aim to achieve progressively a more efficient and environmentally-
friendly distribution of freight flows among the different transport modes; but they will take 
a  number  of  years  to  materialise  and  the  only  action  at  Community  level  aiming  at 
encouraging a reduction of congestion in the very short term is the Marco Polo programme. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
Objectives, expected results and related indicators of the proposal in the context of the ABM 
framework 

131  outputs  are  envisaged  for  six  years  (2010-2013),  an  average  of  36  interventions  out  of  120 
proposals submitted per year. This provides a success rate of around one in three, which is essential 
to  receive  proposals  from  the  best  market  players  (see  Marco  Polo  ex-ante  report,  chapter  7 
“Stakeholders’  consultation”).  The  average  financial  assistance  intensity  per  output  is  estimated  in 
around  EUR  1.8  million.  The  number  of  tonne-kilometres  to  be  avoided  or  shifted  off  the  road  is 
estimated in 60 billion for the period 2010-2013, 15 billion tkm per year. 

Method of Implementation  

Centralised Management: Delegation to the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation 
(EACI) 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Monitoring system 

The  granting  of  subsidies  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. 

EACI staff will be closely involved in the 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. 

Evaluation 

An external evaluation of the Marco Polo II Programme has been carried-out. The evaluation report 
is 
at 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/evaluation/activites/reports_en.htm 

available 

website 

TREN 

DG 

the 

on 

Terms and frequency of future evaluation 

In 2011 an evaluation will take place of the results achieved by the Marco Polo Programme for the 
period 2003-2009 

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. 

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

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
DETAILS OF RESOURCES 

8.1.  Objectives of the proposal in terms of their financial cost 

Type of 
output 

Av. 
cost 

2010  

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

TOTAL 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

of 

(Headings 
Objectives, 
actions 
and 
outputs  should  be 
provided) 

OPERATIONAL 
OBJECTIVE 
No.1 16 

Action  1:  TKM 
shifted/avoided 

- Output 1 

contract 

1.8 

35 

62.275 

36 

64.200 

38 

68.100 

39 

71.100 

TOTAL COST 

1.8 

35 

62.275 

36 

64.200 

38 

68.100 

39 

71.100 

131 

131 

265.675 

265.675 

16 

As described under Section 5.3 

EN 

30 

E

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
8.2.  Administrative Expenditure 

8.2.1  Number and type of human resources 

Types of 
post 

Staff to be assigned to management of the action using existing and/or 
additional resources (number of posts/FTEs) 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

1.6 

1 

1.6 

1 

1.6 

1 

1.6 

1 

1.6 

1 

A*/AD 

B*, 
C*/AST 

1.6 

1 

Officials 
or 
temporary 
staff17 
(XX 01 
01) 

Staff  financed18  by 
art. XX 01 02 

staff19 
Other 
financed  by  art.  XX 
01 04/05 

TOTAL 

2.6 

2.6 

2.6 

2.6 

2.6 

2.6 

8.2.2.  Description of tasks deriving from the action 

Programme definition and coordination 
Policy feedback to the EACI 
Adoption of annual work programmes serving as financing decisions 
Representing the Commission in the Programme Committee and the submission to it of 
measures to be taken where there is a comitology procedure 
Undertaking inter-service consultations within the Commission 
Strategic evaluations and strategic tenders 
Activities involved in launching and taking enforceable recovery decisions. 

8.2.3  Sources of human resources (statutory) 

The posts are currently allocated to the management of the programme 

17 
18 
19 

Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount 
Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount 
Cost of which is included within the reference amount 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
8.2.4  Other  Administrative  expenditure  included  in  reference  amount  (06  01  04  32  – 
Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation –Marco Polo II subsidy) 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Budget line 

(number and heading) 

2010 

2011  2012  2013  2014 

TOTAL 

Year 2015 

and later 

Technical 

and 
1 
assistance (including related staff costs) 

administrative 

Executive agencies20 

1.500 

1.575 

1.675 

1.675 

1.392 

1.421 

9.238 

Other 

technical 

and 

administrative 

assistance 

- intra muros  

- extra muros (IT maintanence) 

Total  Technical  and  administrative 
assistance 

0.225 

0.225 

0.225 

0.225 

900 

1.725 

1.800 

1.900 

1.900 

1.392 

1.421 

10.138 

8.2.5.  Financial  cost  of  human  resources  and  associated  costs  not  included  in  the 
reference amount 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Type of human resources 

Year n 

Year n+1  Year n+2  Year n+3  Year n+4 

Year n+5 

and later 

Officials  and  temporary  staff 
(XX 01 01) 

Staff financed by Art XX 01 02 
(auxiliary,  END,  contract  staff, 
etc.) 

(specify budget line) 

Total cost of Human 
Resources and associated 
costs (NOT in reference 
amount) 

0.317 

0.317 

0.317 

0.317 

0.317 

0.317 

0.317 

0.317 

0.317 

0.317 

0.317 

0.317 

20 

Reference  should  be  made  to  the  specific  legislative  financial  statement  for  the  Executive 
Agency(ies) concerned. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Calculation– Officials and Temporary agents 

Reference should be made to Point 8.2.1, if applicable 

Year 2010 and later: 2.6 officials (122.000 €/official/year)  

EN 

33 

   EN