inea - ec.europa.eu · executive agency workshop on marco polo ii closure facts and findings ......
TRANSCRIPT
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 [email protected]
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