3 Environmental performance of the freight
transport system
| (25876)
11816/04
COM(04) 478
| Draft Regulation 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")
|
| Legal base | Articles 71(1) and 80(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 14 July 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 13 August 2004
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 26 August 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
3.1 In 1997 a programme to assist the start-up of new intermodal
services shifting freight off the road was established. Called
Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (PACT), it had a five-year
budget of €35 million (£23.19 million). External evaluation
of the programme showed that it reduced pollution, accidents and
congestion, as a result of shifting freight between modes of transport.
In the light of experience gained through PACT a broader grant
programme to support modal shift, called Marco Polo, was established
in July 2003 with a budget of €100 million (£66.26 million)
to run from 2003 to 2006.
3.2 The objectives of the Marco Polo programme are
to
- reduce road congestion;
- improve the environmental performance of the
freight transport system within the Community; and
- enhance intermodality.
It does this by facilitating the shifting of international
freight from road to rail or waterway. It provides financial assistance
for:
- "Modal Shift Actions"
— support for non-road freight services;
- "Catalyst Actions" — support
for actions to overcome structural (that is non-regulatory) barriers
to the efficient functioning of non-road freight services; and
- "Common Learning Actions" — promoting
co-operation in the freight logistics market.
3.3 The first selection for awards under the Marco
Polo programme was made in October 2003. The process was heavily
oversubscribed, with €182 million (£120.59 million)
worth of potential applications for a first year budget of €15
million (£9.94 million). The Commission judges that the projects
selected should provide:
- a modal shift of 12 billion
tonne-kilometres (the transport of one tonne of freight over a
distance of one kilometre) away from road transport — this
is higher than the expected annual increase in road freight over
the same period;
- environmental benefits valued in monetary terms
at several times the monetary value of the awards; and
- €15 million (£9.94 million) of grant
assistance leading to €360 million (£238.54 million)
of infrastructure investment — with participants contributing
a minimum of 65% of project costs.
The document
3.4 On the basis of advice from a group of independent
experts the Commission now proposes a draft Regulation to establish
a second, expanded, Marco Polo programme to run from 2007 to 2013.
In relation to a renewed programme the group advised that:
- to achieve the key objectives
it is necessary to expand the scope and budget of the programme;
- when reviewed against alternatives, the programme
is the most efficient way currently available to fund intermodal
transport publicly;
- the programme is fully compatible with other
Community and Member State initiatives; and
- the clear and measurable objectives of the programme
mean the budget can be calculated and structured in a way to generate
multiple benefits.
3.5 The Commission proposes a Marco Polo II programme
with a budget of €740 million (£490.32 million) —
or about €106 million (£70.24 million) annually. With
such expenditure the Commission would expect a shift of more than
140 billion tonne-kilometres of freight from the road, reducing
carbon dioxide emissions by 8,400 million kilogrammes. It suggests
€1 (£0.66) in subsidy would equate to more than €6
(£3.98) of social and environmental benefit.
3.6 The draft Regulation would retain the three original
categories of action eligible for financial assistance and add:
- schemes linked with use of
so-called "Motorways of the Sea" — that is intra-Community
sea routes promoted as alternatives to land routes; and
- "Traffic Avoidance Actions" —
innovative projects that reduce the need for transport through
design of the supply chain.
There would also be a wider geographical scope for
financial assistance. In addition to companies from Member and
Candidate States, the proposal allows for participation of those
from other European countries if their country has concluded a
specific agreement with the Union.
The Government's view
3.7 The Minister of State, Department of Transport
(Dr Kim Howells) tells us:
"The modal shift of freight transport from road
to water or rail is consistent with the Government's aims to reduce
the environmental impact that freight transport produces. As such,
the Government generally welcomes this programme.
"The Government will be seeking to ensure that
the criteria for evaluation of successful project proposals are
in line with UK transport policy and represent EU wide value for
money.
"The Government will make potential UK recipients
aware of the programme through the appropriate industry bodies."
3.8 But the Minister also says:
"The Commission is proposing a budget of €740
million (£490.32 million) for the implementation of Marco
Polo II over the period 2007-2013. This is a considerable increase
in comparison to the current programme expenditure. However, it
will not be possible to agree this budget until the overarching
negotiations on the new Financial Perspective have been agreed.
"The UK, along with some other Member States,
believes that the Union's priorities can be funded by a budget
stabilised at 1% of EU GNI. The level of funding available for
Marco Polo II will, therefore, need to be consistent with this.
The total level of funding agreed may impact on both the nature
of targets and potentially the balance of priorities of the programme."
Conclusion
3.9 Like the Government we see no problem with
the general principle of this proposal. But we will want to consider
its financial aspects further once the implications of a Financial
Perspective settlement are known. Meanwhile we do not clear the
document.
| 
