1. Marco Polo – Towards a policy revision
Pawel Stelmaszczyk
Head of Unit
Logistics, co-modality, motorways of the sea & Marco Polo
Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport
European Commission

2. MARCO POLO - MARKET CONTEXT
annual freight transport growth (2.8% pa) higher than overall
economic growth (2.4%)
road: continues to gain market share compared to all other transport modes
short sea shipping: strong, sustained dynamism
inland waterway: considerable unexploited potential
rail: halted relative decline since 2001, higher increase in
states with early market opening
environmental impacts of transport remain high: 1% of GDP,
road congestion cost an additional 1% of GDP

3. MARCO POLO – POLITICAL CONTEXT
2001: Transport White Paper: intermodality as key concept
2003: MARCO POLO programme ( ) to support
intermodal services and alternatives to road-only transport
2006: Keep Europe Moving - Review of 2001 White Paper
Co-modality: promotion of optimal use and integration of
modes, and logistics: using existing capacities more
efficiently, cutting costs, reducing environmental impact
2006: Marco Polo II ( ): Enlarged scope and budget
2008: Greening of transport: Internalisation of external costs
2009: Communication on future of transport

4. MARCO POLO II
Continuing Marco Polo I with larger scale and scope
Duration:
Budget: 450 M €
Larger geographical scope – close third countries
5 action types; 2 new innovative ones:
Motorways of the Sea
Traffic Avoidance Actions
Since the Programme is managed by the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI)

5. MARCO POLO II – Key Features
objective: shift/avoid international increase in road freight
off the road (road freight transport estimated growth of
20.5 billion tkm/year over the period 2007/2013)
risk funding, business-driven
all segments of international freight (except air)
services only <> no research, studies or (core)
infrastructure

6. MARCO POLO II – Key Features
Legal entity: commercial undertakings only (private or
public)
Eligible for participation:
EU-27 Member States + “close third countries”
Eligible for EC-funding:
EU-27 Member States + EFTA & EEA States after conclusion of specific agreement + Candidate and close third countries after Memoranda of Understanding
European dimension
international routes (Member States and close third countries)
now ony 1 undertaking

7. MARCO POLO II – Key Features
Eligible costs: only costs incurred after submission date
of the application – even if the action starts earlier
No profit allowed: during the (accumulated) years for funding
Viability: - the project should show profit and continue
after MP funding
No state aid allowed: maximum combined public grant allowed = (35% - 50%)

8. MARCO POLO II – Key Features
No unacceptable distortion of competition: - a detailed justification must be given!
Credibility essential: proven by letters of intent, good business plan, market study etc.
Financial capacity: last annual financial statement
Technical capacity: track records and experience of all partners, CV’s etc.

9. MARCO POLO – OVERALL RESULTS Better budget execution in 2009

10. Basis for Marco Polo revision
Communication on the future of Transport
The Commission 2020 Strategy:
Modernise and decarbonise the EU Transport Sector and promote energy efficiency
Marco Polo II Regulation – Article 14
Communication on the results achieved by the Marco Polo Programmes before drawing up a proposal for a third Marco Polo Programme

11. Marco Polo after 2013: Possible Policy options
Marco Polo II continued
Extension of the Marco Polo II
Fundamental revision of the programme

12. Options for the future (1)?
Extension of the Scope of the Programme
Extending the programme to passenger inter-modality?
Extending the programme to pipeline transport?
Longer funding periods?
Taking into account effects of economic crisis
New financing Instruments?
Loans?
Involvement of the EIB?
New types of actions?

13. Options for the future (2)? Possible measures for the future
Different funding conditions for each transport mode on the basis of safety, environmental performance and energy efficiency?
Funding intensity expressed not only in tkm but also in terms of energy efficiency and environmental benefits?
Product-specific lowering of eligibility thresholds?
Additional support to SME’s?

14. How to carry on?
Consistency between Marco Polo, Logistics Action Plan and TEN-T
TEN-T, Marco Polo, MoS policy evaluation and impact assessment: parallel exercises
Input from Marco Polo II mid-term evaluation
Support from EACI’s experience of the programme management.

15. Timing
Spring 2010: Launch of a study on Marco Polo beyond 2013
Mid 2010: Public consultation
Second half 2010: Mid-term evaluation and consultation
Mid 2011: Communication and possible legislative proposal

16. Thank you for your attention!
For further information: