INEAInnovation and Networks Executive Agency

Workshop on Marco Polo II closure

Facts and findings

Anna Livieratou

Brussels, 06 October 2020

Marco Polo II – Final Report

EU ‘Keep Europe Moving’ (2006)

Problem

Foreseen increase of 20.5 bn tkm/year in EU freight transport in period 2007-2013

Policy initiative

Marco Polo II (Reg 1696/2006)

Objective

shift

143.5 bn tkm on the roads

avoid

Initial plan to reach the objective

€435 m

Modal shift

Catalyst(overcoming structural

market barriers)

Common

learning(knowledge, methods and co-

operation)

Motorways of the sea

Traffic avoidance

(innovation in production logistics avoiding freight

on the roads)

Main features

Simplified procedures & SMEs

Standard funding intensity €2/500 tkm

Environmental targets

Implementation

Competitiveyearly calls

Managed by EACI

(EASME) until January2014 (70 actions)

Entrusted to INEA sinceFebruary2014 (98

actions)

INEA added value

Grant management

Transport projects

Common beneficiaries

Synergies

Absorption of budget per call (€M)

58.0 59.0

66.3 64.0

56.9

64.5 66.7

45.4

34.4

61.9

52.1

33.6

47.3

40.7

19.2

8.5

17.9

25.0

17.5 22.4 20.4

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Available budget Initial Funding Final Funding

Actions per mode and final status

Type of Action

Total

Marco Polo II

portfolio

Terminated

actions

Implemented

and Closed

Actions

Rail 94 30 64

Maritime 29 6 23

Inland Waterways 10 6 4

Mixed 16 7 9

Traffic Avoidance 4 0 4

Common Learning 15 0 15

Total 168 49 119

Number of actions and final funding

6

15

4

4

139

Catalyst

Common learning

Traffic Avoidance

Motorways of the

Sea

Modal shift

€5.7 M

€9.6 M

€13.3 M

€14.4 M

€88.0 M

Objective vs. Final Results

143 bn tkm

113bn tkm

42bn tkm

m

m

m

€

€

€

Rail and SSS actions

Rail (23% reached beyond 80% of objectives)

+ special commercial agreements

+ stable clients

- unavailability of infrastructure loss of reliability

SSS (10% reached beyond 80% of objectives)

- long transport leg

- high volumes needed

Mixed actions and IWW

Mixed modal shift (19% reached beyond 80% of objectives)

- coordinating different transport modes

- interoperability problems

IWW actions (none reached at least 80% of objectives)

- unstable water levels

- infrastructure limitations

- too short distances

Traffic avoidance and commonlearning

Traffic avoidance (25% reached beyond 80% of objectives)

+ internal re-organisation of transport services within big manufacturing companies

+ whole transport chain was controlled by one entity

Common learning actions

performed better but they were measured differently

Unexpected obstacles

2008 economic recession and other changing market conditions

• Decrease of EU freight market

• Cancellation of key commercial agreements

• Main reasons why 29% of the grant agreements were terminated

Road transport maintained itsattractiveness

Not so ‘unexpected’ obstacles

Lack of interoperability

Lack of cooperation from infrastructure managers

Transport demand initially overestimated

Infrastructure limitations

• Higher costs

• Delays

• Loss of customers

Stakeholders feedback

"Programme instrumental in decision to set up a new

service"

"Grant helped to increase business capacity and

minimise financial risks. But it came with bureaucracy!"

"Sustainable impact: 97% of the services continued

their operations"

" Co-funding (€2 per 500 tkm shifted) was considered

broadly adequate"

Stakeholders feedback: ‘beyond modal shift’

Model for other non-granted services

improved market conditions

optimised load factors

more opportunities for rail transport

more stable and efficient supply chain

improved know-how in the area of intermodal transport

enhanced collaboration between ports across countries

Environmental benefits

Results achieved:

41.9 bn tkm shifted or avoided from the roads = 29% of target

(€130.9 m absorbed = 30% of the available budget)

Environmental benefits calculation:

Tkm avoided or shifted converted into external costs saved on the basis of standard coefficients by transport mode

Split of environmental benefits

CO2 emissions

avoided

(thousand tons)

Rail 1,936

Maritime 819

Mixed 239

Inland waterways 66

Traffic avoidance 421

Total3,481

Overall benefits

3.5bn T CO2 = €348m = €936m (long t)

2.3m full trucks between Rotterdam and Genoa

€1 grant = €3 of environmental benefits

Thank you for your attention

More information in :

https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/marco-polo

Marco Polo II Programme – Final Report

Available on our website as of today!

For more information

23

http://inea.ec.europa.eu

@inea_eu

Look for INEA!

Marco Polo programme

Marco Polo 2003 –2013, PACT - 2001

Supporting efficient freight transport

servicesStart-up aid

Quantified targetsand results

Unique design: the subsidy linked to achieved modal

shift/traffic avoidance

Payments to beneficiaries: conditional on

results

MP calculator – fair calculation of environmental

benefits

Adverse impact of the economic

downturn

Viability after the funding period

Competition issuesComplex

proceduresOther

Co-funded by the Marco Polo

Programme of the European Union

Terminals

THE FASTEST ROUTE TO EUROPE

Key data

Key Figures

Net sales 2019 € 105.000.000

Number of employees 350 FTE

Terminal Locations Quay 1111 and quay 1931, left bank of the river Scheldt.

Corporate structure Belgian, privately owned and independent.

Certification ISO9001, CDI-T, SQAS, ISPS, GMP and AEO.

Service portfolio

Tank storage 380 tanks for 360.000 m³ whereof 145.000 m³ in SS.

33.250 m³ expansion capacity in 2021

Full iso container logistics parking for 2.000 TEU, cleaning, heating and repair.

IMDG warehousing 2 warehouses for 39.000 m².

Drum- and IBC filling one fully automated and one back-up filling installation.

Conventional warehousing 4 warehouses for 70.000 m².

Transport bulk and packed cargo.

Customs import- and export customs services.

Green logistics on-site gas fuel station, green LNG/CNG transport fleet,

vapor incineration, 4.000 solar panels, CSP-installation.

Operating permit for IMDG classes 3-4-5-6-8 and 9

LLH TERMINAL

LLH TERMINAL

LLH TERMINAL - swot

CHALLENGES during the MP programm application:

• Condition of at least 3 signed Letters of Intent by key

customers, commitment to make use of rail car service IF

Adpo CAPEX in rail infrastructure /service, it took a lot of

energy, discussions with customers to convince them to sign

these LOI’s.

• A lot of spread sheets to be completed with complexity of data

to be produced, with a significant impact on our accounting

team, marathon run.

LLH TERMINAL - swot

STRENGHTS :

• Door to Door service from our terminal blocktrains (20-25

railtankcars) to customer plants within Europe (i.e.

Ludwigshafen (D) – Geleen (NL).

• Neighbour customer (INEOS) had no rail connection, today

connected with pipeline to our terminal tanks and ADPO load

railtankcars on daily basis shifting 30.000 road trucks per

year to rail for one customer = customer is now physical

connection = long term contract signed. Also customers as

BASF chemicals have strong focus on rail transport today.

LLH TERMINAL - swot

STRENGHTS:

• ADPO has sustainability status: answer to climate challenge:

reducing carbon footprint for our customers by using rail

instead of road shipments.

• Thanks to the MP program ADPO, we could count on a

‘bridge finance’ to get our rail service economical feasible

during the first 3 years because the volumes had to grown by

our customers year by year.

• Today, the original routes within Europe declared in the MP

application are still running.

LLH TERMINAL

2020-10-06

Chart 1

Marco Polo Programme 2007-2013

Closure of MP II Programme

Workshop

Session I – Impact: Results and Challenges

Uwe Sondermann, MD, KombiConsult GmbH

Frankfurt am Main, 06.10.2020

2020-10-06

Chart 2

Personnel Memory of „Marco Polo II“ after five years

Traffic Avoidance

- No experience, but recommendation:

- Do not ask the transport sector to avoid traffic

- (Freight) Transport follows the „derived demand“

Catalyst Action

- No experience, but recommendation:

- „break through“ what? For whom? Individual assessment

Modal Shift Action

- Bread and Butter activities of logistics servcice providers/operators

- We count what we did, but we do not count what we avoided

Common Learning

- The intellectual overhead, sharing, creating mind set for modal shift

2020-10-06

Chart 3

MOVER

LUNAKAI

LUCAS FLIPPER

TRIANGLE

CONNECT

Simplified Visualisation of

Modal Shift Actions

2007-2015

Project Acronym

Intermodal TerminalKAI

SEEIS

Modal Shift Actions

2020-10-06

Chart 4

Common Learning Actions

Cooperative Solutions for Managing Optimized Services

Fostering the development of (combined) intermodal

transport in South-East Europe (2012-2014)

www.intermodal-cosmos.eu

Improvement of management, operation and services

of intermodal terminals: Good practices manual,

database, website, terminal interest group

(2009-2011) -> Continued since then

www.intermodal-terminals.eu

DEployment of STandards for INtermodal efficiencY

Market Introduction of OCR-Gate in hinterland terminals

Load Security in Intermodal Transport (2012-2014)

Coordinated Implementation of the ILU Code according

to EN 13044-1 www.ilu-code.eu -> Continued since then

2020-10-06

Chart 5

Positive Observation

In some (early) cases: new services, significant improvement of existing services,

but in later phase: shifting from one operator/terminal to the other

Financial aid to compensate losses (fixed train costs vs. marginal prices for single

transports) while starting regular round trips until daily roundtrip in place

Earlier/Faster start of new services or earlier improvement of service frequency

Compensation of unfavorable framework conditions (< 740m train length, < 2.500

tonnes trains, long border stopping times, lack of interoperability of equipment and

staff) which cause higher costs compared to direct road transport

Generation ERASMUS -> „Generation Marco Polo“ learned to set-up projects for

subsidies, contacts/networking

2020-10-06

Chart 6

Negative Observations

Lottery

Will the call deadline fit with my service start-up timing?

Will I be able to „survive“ the negotiations and get the contract?

Will I be able to maintain the service during the action life-time?

Audits

Ex-ante audit of the „recording system“

Normal audit by the companies‘ (normal) certified public accountant

Ex-post audit by INEA officers and EU Auditors -> one should be sufficient

Subsidy

High(er) funding rates have the potential of distortation of competition, and

challenge maintaining the service after the funding period (large difference to

road price)

Politically wanted modal shift on small(er) distances contradicts with „tonne x

kilometre target“ –> if shorter distances then „€ per truck load“

2020-10-06

Chart 7

What we do apart from Marco Polo

Klaus-Uwe Sondermann

Managing Director

KombiConsult GmbH

Zum Laurenburger Hof 76

60594 Frankfurt am Main

Phone +49.69.244 32 93 - 172

Mail usondermann@kombiconsult.com

Web www.kombiconsult.com

Closure of Marco Polo II programme Workshop

Impact of Marco Polo II programme: results and challenges

Road

Maritime

Air

Rail

Shipowner & Maritime Line operator

Ship Agencies and Liner Representative

Road Transport operator

Chartering

Port operations

Project cargo

Warehousing: storage & handling

Customs Agency

Bunkering & Crude Oil Transport

Railway terminals

Multimodal Logistics Solutions

Morocco Algeria

France

Tenerife

Las Palmas

Casablanca

Tanger

Cádiz

Huelva

Sevilla

Madrid

Sagunto

Valencia

Barcelona

Tarragona

Marseille

Vigo

Avilés

Gijón Santander

Bilbao

Alicante

Nantes-

St.NazaireOur Network

600Employees

México

Colombia

Bolivia

Peru

OFFICES

WAREHOUSES

La Coruña

CartagenaArgel

Algeciras

Motril

Maritime

Lines

Tenerife

Las Palmas

Casablanca

Tanger Mostaganem

Alger

Barcelona

VigoBilbao

Santander

St. Nazaire

Marseille

ZeebruggeSouthampton

Liverpool

Bristol

Dublin

Greenock

AlgecirasMálaga

Tarragona

Valencia

Sagunto

Grimsby

Sheerness

Livorno

Savona

Le Havre

Emden

FleetName Type Capacity* GT

GALICIA Ro/Ro 50 TRL / 1200 cars 16.361

SUAR VIGO Ro/Ro 105 TRL / 1200 cars 16.361

BOUZAS Ro/Ro 100 TRL / 1200 cars 15.224

TENERIFE CAR Ro/Ro 45 TRL / 1200 cars 13.112

GRAN CANARIA CAR Ro/Ro 50 TRL / 950 cars 9.600

LA SURPRISE Ro/Ro 100 TRL / 1200 cars 15.224

L'AUDACE Ro/Ro 100 TRL / 1200 cars 15.224

IVÁN Ro/Ro 70 TRL / 750 cars 8.191

VIKING DRIVE (*) Ro/Ro 55 TRL / 2800 cars 33.831

PAGANELLA (*) Ro/Ro 90 TRL / 5000 cars 47.020

MOSSEL ACE Ro/Ro 70 TRL / 4300 cars 37.237

GREENOIL Bunkering Tanker 4.500 m3 2.743

BUNKER BREEZE Bunkering Tanker 5.000 m3 3.500

BUNKER BAY Bunkering Tanker 4.350 m3 2.906

ENDEAVOR Container - 7.642

* Approximated real capacity, not strictly adjusted value to DWT

Maritime lines

Motorway of the Sea

SUARDIAZ Atlantica

Tenerife

Las Palmas

Casablanca

Tanger Mostaganem

Alger

Barcelona

VigoBilbao

Santander

St. Nazaire

Marseille

ZeebruggeSouthampton

Liverpool

Bristol

Dublin

Greenock

AlgecirasMálaga

Tarragona

Valencia

Sagunto

Grimsby

Sheerness

Livorno

Savona

Le Havre

Emden

FREQUENCY:

• 3 +1 departures per week and port

• 1.200 cars or 100 s/r

ALLOCATED FLEET:

• 2 + 1 Specialized PCTC Vessels

GESTION PORTUAIRE:

• Terminal + Stevedoring

• St Nazaire and Vigo

CONVENTION CIG – Multi-year (+7 years)

Tripartite: – Marco Polo Prog.

− French Gov.

− Spanish Gov.

CARGO COMBINATION:

• 16,000 trailers per year

• 70-80.000 cars per year

• 4,000 mafis and truck+trailer per year

Tenerife

Las Palmas

Casablanca

Tanger Mostaganem

Alger

Barcelona

VigoBilbao

Santander

St. Nazaire

Marseille

ZeebruggeSouthampton

Liverpool

Bristol

Dublin

Greenock

AlgecirasMálaga

Tarragona

Valencia

Sagunto

Grimsby

Sheerness

Livorno

Savona

Le Havre

Emden

Maritime lines

Motorway of the Sea

SUARDIAZ Atlantica

Maritime lines

Motorway of the Sea

SUARDIAZ Atlantica

Cargo variety

Maritime lines

Motorway of the Sea

SUARDIAZ Atlantica Cargo variety

3,90 x 5,50 1,60 x 5,30

1,60 x 4,80

5,50

4,60

4,60

TWEENDECK

CARDECK nº 3

CARDECK nº 2

CARDECK nº 1

UPPER DECK

MAIN DECK

PRINCIPAL

LOWER HOLD 2,35

4,60

4,60 SUARDIAZ

SUARDIAZ

SUARDIAZ

2,25

2,35

2,25

2,35

2,25

2,25 2,25

1,90

2,70

1,90

2,70

1,90

2,70

2,25 2,35 2,70 4,60 1,90

Maritime lines

Motorway of the Sea

SUARDIAZ Atlantica Specialized Vessels Flexible Intake

BENEFITS:

• Sea going alternative to Road Transport

• Cost reduction

• CO2 reduction (Decarbonisation & EU Green

Deal)

• High frequency service & Short LeadTime

• Outbound Cars giving synergies to inbound

Parts

• Buffer stock in Ports

• D2D serviceTenerife

Las Palmas

Casablanca

Tanger Mostaganem

Alger

Barcelona

VigoBilbao

Santander

St. Nazaire

Marseille

ZeebruggeSouthampton

Liverpool

Bristol

Dublin

Greenock

AlgecirasMálaga

Tarragona

Valencia

Sagunto

Grimsby

Sheerness

Livorno

Savona

Le Havre

Emden

Maritime lines

Motorway of the Sea

SUARDIAZ Atlantica

Maritime lines

Motorway of the Sea

Extension to TANGIERS

FREQUENCY:

• 2 departures per week per port

• 1.200 cars / 100 Trailers

ALLOCATED FLEET:

• 1 Specialized PCTC Vessels

ADDITIONAL BENEFITS:

• Alternative to Strait congestion

Tenerife

Las Palmas

Casablanca

Tanger Mostaganem

Alger

Barcelona

VigoBilbao

Santander

St. Nazaire

Marseille

ZeebruggeSouthampton

Liverpool

Bristol

Dublin

Greenock

AlgecirasMálaga

Tarragona

Valencia

Sagunto

Grimsby

Sheerness

Livorno

Savona

Le Havre

Emden

BENEFITS of the PROGRAME

• Support during the ramp-up period

• Direct access from Private Companies vs

need of Public Entities participation

IMPROVEMENT AREAS

• Budget Adjustments during the life of the

project

Tenerife

Las Palmas

Casablanca

Tanger Mostaganem

Alger

Barcelona

VigoBilbao

Santander

St. Nazaire

Marseille

ZeebruggeSouthampton

Liverpool

Bristol

Dublin

Greenock

AlgecirasMálaga

Tarragona

Valencia

Sagunto

Grimsby

Sheerness

Livorno

Savona

Le Havre

Emden

Marco Polo Project

MoS SUARDIAZ Atlantica

Thank you

www.suardiaz.com @suardiazgroup

Closure of Marco Polo II programme Workshop

Project B2S (Barge to Ship) by Mosolf

The Business of Mosolf

2

‖ Mosolf is a specialist logistics provider

‖ exclusively for finished road vehicles

‖ concerning transport, the company is using predominantly its own

resources for road, rail and waterways

‖ A network of compounds is vital for the fulfilment of their services

3

4

Locations

5

Situation and Task B2S

6

‖ Vans produced in Düsseldorf and destined for the UK have for many

years been transported by to Rotterdam for onward shipping by a

dedicated ro/ro barge by MOSOLF

‖ Vans for markets to be reached via Antwerp were transported by road

by competitors

‖ Volume to Antwerp was to be increased and a tender was launched

by the shipper

‖ The idea to ship Antwerp volumes also by barge was developed

‖ This necessitated additional barge capacity

‖ Project Duration 2013 - 2017

Challenges

7

‖ Additional incidental transport from factory to port of Düsseldorf

‖ Distance by barge longer than by road

‖ Return of barge empty (until return loads acquired)

‖ Initial transport by road from factory to the port terminal

‖ Proper planning of schedules becaue of limited space at loading

terminal in Düsseldorf

‖ Innovative concept for barge engine (diesel-electric)

‖ Commercial viability can be reached over time only

‖ Marco Polo support required to achieve shift from road

Considerations for the Action

8

‖ The operational benefits were not enough to justify the change

‖ The break-even point with road transport was some time away

‖ The project, therefore, needed initial financial assistance

‖ Shift action support was found to balance the initial losses

‖ After the cost issue with the help of Marco Polo was resolved the

decission for the more environmental friendly route was agreed by

our customer

Reasons for Shift

9

‖ In the first place a change of shipping method has to be based on ist

commercial merrits – total cost must be comparable to the existing

route

‖ B2S improved the chain of transport because of the continuous

incidental transport (factory to port) as this relieved the plant from

irregular loadings (as in the case before)

‖ For the receiving terminal in Antwerp the stevedoring of the barge

also was easier and more cost-effective

‖ The putting into service of an additional vessel strengthened the

existing service to Rotterdam

‖ A method of transport which is less damaging to the environment is

preferred within the company policy and the shipper`s own policy

Old Route (road)

10

‖ The use of trucks for transport caused evironmental damage,

exacerbated by over-proportionate empty legs

‖ For the shipper this methode caused high administrative costs

because of the low capacity per truck (3 vans per truck) and resulting

in high numbers of trucks to be dealt with

New Route

11

‖ Barge route plus incidental

Loading Point at Düsseldorf Port

12

Barge Terra 2

13

Results and Experience

14

‖ Volumes transported exceeded plan

‖ Shifted 90.864.655 tkm/plan 83.267.174

‖ Some synergies by operating two vessels (i. e. coupled state

between Düsseldorf and Dordrecht) did not materialise, due mostly to

increased volumes necessitating shorter transit times

‖ Return loads were acquired – at satisfactory levels by end of project

period

‖ Volumes remained at similar levels until pandemic lockdown and

recovered afterwards

Our View on Marco Polo

15

‖ Because of the use of all means of transport by own fleets Mosolf is

well placed to judge the viability of shift actions

‖ Marco Polo has been an effective methode of making shifts from road

to alternatives happen

‖ Application proces and administration have been acceptable - no

need for assistance by outside consultants

‖ CEF is not an easy replacement of Marco Polo for shift actions – far

too involved for applicants from the logistics sector

‖ If quick shifts are intended by INEA a new Marco Polo is urgently

required

‖ Equally, the modernisation of rail transport by innovations into rolling

stock or digital solutions should be included in „New Marco Polo“

Suggestions for New Marco Polo

16

‖ On-going applications should be possible as transport demand is not

plannable beforehand – it just pops up

‖ This may be detrimental to the concept of competition amongst

applications with similar concepts, but would still maintain competition

amongst different stakeholders for the same cargo with different

concepts

‖ The selection proces of calls should become more transparent and

business-like, in particular by the possibility to present projects in

person and answering questions right-away

‖ Instead of interim reporting at set dates an ongoing monitoring could

be preferable