Informationen zur Raumentwicklung Heft 7/8.2012 381

Motorways of the sea – from concept Maciej Matczak to implementation within the area

1 The concept of Motorways van Miert Report) in 2003. The Report con- of the Sea sidered the concept as one of the eighteen new infrastructure projects in the European A free movement of commodities, citizens Union. The fact that the Report defines four and financial resources are pillars of the main areas of concept implementation is . For that reason, an ef- also of great significance. The four main ar- ficient and effective transport system is a eas are as follows (High Level Group TEN-T necessary element for the functioning and 2003): development of the EU. A variety of geogra- (1) Motorway of the Baltic Sea phical and special structures of cargo flows as well as environmental concerns require (2) Motorways of the Sea of Western Europe modern and friendly transport and logistics (leading from the Iberian peninsula via the solutions for Europe. The Motorways of the Atlantic Arc to the and the (MoS) concept aims at introducing new Sea) intermodal maritime-based logistics chains (3) Motorways of the Sea of South-East Eu- in the EU. These chains should be more rope (connecting the with the sustainable and more efficient in commer- and the Eastern Mediterranean cial terms than road transport. including ) The qualification “motorways of the sea” (4) Motorways of the Sea of South-West Eu- was for the first time defined in the White rope (Western Mediterranean) connecting Paper “European transport policy for 2010: , , including and time to decide” ( linking the Motorways of the Sea to South- 2001). The Commission proposed the devel- East Europe. opment of MoS as a “real competitive alter- native to land transport”. Unfortunately, the Additionally, the Report defines a list of pre- authors of the document did not present a requisites or parallel actions for successfully precise definition of the sea motorway con- launching the new sea motorway projects: cept, which consists of several, generally • concentrating freight on maritime routes known transport policy ideas such as short sea shipping, sustainable development, in- • convincing haulers, shippers and forwar- termodal transport, shifting the balance ders about the benefits and merits of the between the modes of transport, linking maritime alternative modes of transport, and development of • eliminating customs checks and other Trans-European Transport Infrastructure. administrative burdens and developing To sum up, according to the document, sea electronic reporting for port authorities motorways should become a “real competi- • providing appropriate facilities that tive alternative to land transport”. should preferably be specifically desig- According to the assumptions, the concept ned for this activity (e.g. ro-ro terminals, of sea motorways consists of several ship- logistic equipment, parking places) and ping line connections which are an exten- direct access to ports sion of land routes. MoS should substitute • adhering to free market competition ru- land transport and resolve bottleneck prob- les lems on roads. Main elements of the MoS concept are shipping connections, seaports, • ensuring year-round navigability in the regulations and coordination issues. Baltic Sea with icebreakers. Dr. Maciej Matczak A very important element of the sea motor- The network of Motorways of the Sea con- Gdynia Maritime University way implementation process is placing the sists of facilities and infrastructure of at ul. Morska 81–87 81-225 Gdynia concept on the list of the priority projects in least two ports in two different Member Poland the Report of the High Level Group on the States. The sea motorway should consist of E-Mail: Trans-European Transport Network (Karel the following elements: port facilities, elec- [email protected] Maciej Matczak: 382 Motorways of the sea – from concept to implementation within the Baltic Sea area

tronic logistics management systems and tural Funds by Member States or their re- administrative and customs procedures as gions or federal states (infrastructure). Ac- well as infrastructure for direct land and tually, TEN-T and Marco Polo funding are sea access including winter access to secure of crucial importance for the MoS concept year-round safety navigation. development (see Table 1). The foregoing report has become a basis for The calls for MoS project proposals were redefining priority projects in 2003/2004. In launched in 2005 (within TEN-T) and 2007 the Decision No. 884/2004/EC of the Euro- (Marco Polo) by the TEN-T Executive Agen- pean Parliament and the Council of 29 April cy (TEN-TEA) and the Executive Agency 2004 formal approval of the projects and for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI, new guidelines for Trans-European Net- Transformation of Intelligent Energy Execu- (1) works (TEN) were established. Thirty new tive Agency). These special agencies are re- Priority Project 21: West Med Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN- sponsible for implementing the TEN-T and Corridors (2006), High Qual- ity Rail and Intermodal Nordic T) projects were indicated among which Marco Polo programmes on behalf of the Corridor Königslinie (2008), 21 incorporated the MoS concept. Despite European Commission. Moreover; they ef- Motorways of the Sea projects plenty of documents issued, discussing the in the Baltic Sea Area Klai- ficiently manage the entire project life cycle péda-Karlshamn link (2008), notion of a sea motorway, a detailed defi- (organizing calls, supporting the Member Motorways of the Sea Esbjerg- nition of the concept was not developed at States), prepare financial decisions and pro- Zeebrugge (2008), Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona (2009), MoS that time. vide feedback to the European Commission. 24 (2010), MOS4MOS (2010), So far, the MoS projects, which have been MIELE (2010), Motorway of A more precise definition of the MoS was the Sea Rostock-Gedser established in Vademecum issues in con- selected and financed by the Agencies, are (2010), The Baltic Sea Hub and as follows: Spokes Project (2010), MonaLi- junction with the call for proposals TEN-T sa (2010), LNG infrastructure of 2005. The document indicates crucial ele- 1. TEN-TEA: 12 projects (calls 2006–2010)1 filling stations and deployment ments of the MoS concept like eligibility of in ships (2010) 2 projects, evaluation criteria, beneficiaries 2. EACI: 3 projects (calls 2007–2010) . (2) Marco Polo: Ro-Ro Past France and eligible costs or financing plan with re- It could be stated that the portion of MoS (2007), FRES MOS (2009), Gulf- lationships to other support programmes. in overall transport projects is very low: in stream.mos (2010) According to the document, the eligible case of TEN-T, MoS projects only constitute (3) costs of the programme included: 0.7% of the total budget (TEN-TEA 2011). The TEN-T budget is divided into two parts: Multiannual In- • investment aid in infrastructure and faci- Within the Marco Polo programme, 104 dicative Perspective (MIP) and projects were selected. Within this amount, Annual Perspective (non-MIP). lities Projects funded under the only three are MoS projects. Multi-Annual Calls (MIP) are • start-up aid related to capital costs expected to help complete the The financial sources available in the TEN-T network as approved • studies related to the Motorways of the framework of the MoS concept in the fund- by the Sea projects. and the Council with a target ing period 2007–2013 for projects are as fol- completion date of 2020. In lows: general, Multi-Annual projects Moreover, the funding sources were point- are of a larger size and longer ed out in the TEN-Regulation and TEN-T • Marco Polo: approx. EUR 450 million al- duration than Annual projects. Guidelines (TEN-T fund), the Marco Polo 80 to 85 % of the TEN-T budg- located to five types of action (catalyst, et is allocated through Multi- programme, the Structural Fund Pro- Motorways of the Sea, modal shift, traffic Annual Calls. Annual Calls are grammes (Cohesion funds, ERDF, INTER- intended to complement the avoidance, common learning) Multi-Annual Calls, thus also REG) and in national state aid programmes. giving priority to projects that TEN-T funding has been applied for by the • TEN-T: approx. EUR 8 billion in total in- address key TEN-T issues such Member States (infrastructure), Marco Polo cluding about EUR 450 million for the as bottlenecks or cross-border 3 projects. funding by companies (service), EU Struc- MoS project . In both cases, TEN-T and Marco Polo, the last call for proposals was launched in 2011. In case of TEN-T, the call for proposals end- Table 1 ed (the deadline was 23 September 2011). Characteristics of TEN-T and Marco Polo support for the MoS concept The total budget of the call was EUR 150 Marco Polo TEN-T million, for MoS EUR 40 million (European - Transport services - Infrastructure and facilities Commission 2011a). The financial contri- - Ancillary infrastructures - Start-up aid - Modal shift objective - Creation of a transport network bution of TEN-T co-financing for MoS in - Private sector driver - Public sector driven 2011 is 20 % for infrastructure works and - Direct call for proposals - Member State pre-selection facilities (implementation projects), 30 % Source: www.mos-helpdesk.eu (20.07.2010) for cross-border sections, 50 % for pilot ac- Informationen zur Raumentwicklung Heft 7/8.2012 383

tions, 50 % for studies or study parts of pro- unit (TEU) in 2009 and 7.395 million TEU in jects, 30 % for start-up aid, i.e. depreciation 2010 (with a majority of feeder traffic, Matc- of capital costs. zak 2011b: 13). The Marco Polo call for proposals 2011 re- The Baltic Sea is almost an inland sea of ferring to MoS was open until 16 January the European Union. Therefore it has a sig- 2012. For the MoS action the grant was lim- nificant position in the process of spatial ited to 30 % of the total eligible costs neces- integration of the EU. The main element sary and actually incurred. Ancillary infra- of integration seems to be a transport sys- structure costs were eligible up to 20 % of tem. Therefore, the process of limiting road the total eligible costs. transport between Baltic Sea countries and shifting these flows to ferry and sea con- Important initiatives concerning the devel- tainer connections is so important. At the opment, marketing and implementation same time, heavy maritime traffic to/from process of the MoS concept are created by Russia (e.g. oil, coal, containers) has a sig- the Motorways of the Sea – One Stop Help nificant influence on the situation of the Desk. The mos-helpdesk.eu website aims to Baltic. provide: The other group of Baltic features are en- • information on funding possibilities for vironmental characteristics concerning the Motorways of the Sea projects the inland location of the sea (limited ex- • details about information events (called change of sea water and high fresh water info days) and promotional activities to outflow from rivers), a relatively shallow support the calls for proposals relevant to area (limited draught of vessels), difficult Motorways of the Sea projects conditions of winter navigation (necessity of icebreaking). The significance for recog- • tips on how to prepare funding applica- nized ecological or socio-economic reasons tions for Motorways of the Sea projects has caused the Baltic to be listed by the In- under the TEN-T and Marco Polo pro- ternational Maritime Organization (IMO) grammes. as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA), Emission Control Area (ECA) and Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA). To sum up, 2 Motorways of the Sea in the Baltic the crucial features concerning the Baltic Sea area Sea, the following elements can be indicat- ed: The Baltic Sea is one of the most intensely utilized sea areas in the world. It is con- • sea area with some of the most dense nected with the strong activity of both bulk traffic flows in the world (oil and chemi- shipping (export of Russian mineral resour- cal tankers, ro-ro, containers, passengers) ces – oil, coal) and general cargo, like con- • a well developed system of shipping lines 4 tainers, “ro-ro” and ferry traffic. The Baltic (fast growth in container traffic) seaports served over 752 million tonnes of cargo in 2010. The leading group of cargo • sensitive environment (inland location, was liquid bulk with a share of about 45 %. shallow, heavy climatic conditions) The other important areas of activity were: • special requirements regarding winter dry bulk (24 %), containers (8 %), ro-ro car- navigation. go (12 %) and other types (11 %). The Baltic Sea is an area of location of the The basic area of the MoS concept develop- sea motorway, as has been previously pre- ment is the ro-ro and container segment. sented in official EU documents. As a follow It could be stated that the total volume of up, the Baltic countries and the European cargo transported by ferries through the Commission have started multilateral co- Baltic reached a level of 3.12 million trail- operation in order to specify, plan and im- (4) Ro ro is the abbreviation for ers and 9.86 million passenger cars in 2010 plement the MoS concept in the Baltic. The Roll-on/Roll-off which refers (Matczak 2011a). The majority of traffic oc- activity is realised by several types of ac- to vessels designed to carry wheeled cargo such as cars, curred between Baltic seaports (internal tions like bilateral or multilateral projects, trucks riven on and off the ship connections). At the same time, the total common actions on the national level and on their own wheels. This is in contrast to lo-lo (lift-on/lift-off) container traffic in Baltic seaports reached establishment of the Baltic Sea Task Force vessels which use a crane to a level of 5.9 million twenty-foot equivalent Group. load and unload cargo. Maciej Matczak: 384 Motorways of the sea – from concept to implementation within the Baltic Sea area

10 (5) The Baltic Sea Task Force Group was estab- funding (Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona ) The objective of this project is lished in Copenhagen during its first meet- in the framework of call 2009. In order to to upgrade the existing rail ferry ing in January 2004. Leading countries were encourage Baltic applicants even more, an link between the ports of Trelle- borg (Sweden) and Sassnitz chosen to chair the sub-groups working on “Open regional call for proposals concern- (Germany) in order to increase different key issues within the context of ing Motorways of the Sea projects in the the share of rail and intermodal transport on the Swedish- the Task Force Group. Poland was chosen Baltic Sea area 2009–2013” was published German corridor in particular to lead the infrastructure sub-group, Ger- on 25 November 2009. The main charac- and the Sweden-Central Eu- rope/Italy corridor. Improving many the financing sub-group, Finland the teristics of the “open” call were that project the infrastructure in the ports information exchange (information motor- proposals had to be directly submitted to will enable operation on a suf- ficient volume basis combining ways) sub-group, Sweden the icebreaking the transport ministries of the Baltic coun- rail and intermodal transport. In sub-group and Estonia the safety and secu- tries and authorized for pre-evaluation (not Trelleborg, the port will be able rity sub-group. The Group initiated several TEN-TEA). The proposals have been jointly to efficiently service more than one rail/road/intermodal ferry studies in the framework of the Master Plan evaluated by these ministries and authori- route. In Sassnitz, the new in- Studies for development of the Motorways ties based on specific evaluation criteria. frastructure and equipment will enable the port to load, unload of the Baltic Sea (work packages: Study on The approved MoS project proposals re- and store intermodal transport goods flows and maritime infrastructure – ceived the necessary governmental support units (e.g. unaccompanied trail- ers). “Baltic Sea Maritime Outlook 2006”, Baltic and were presented by the relevant Member Sea Winter Motorways, Safe major routes (6) States for TEN-T financing. Project pro- The objective of the action is to in the Baltic Sea motorways, and North posals could be submitted to the Member increase the share of intermod- Sea Baltic Hub) and made a contribution States concerned at any time. However, the al transport in the South-East/ South-West Baltic Motorways to such activities for instance with the Ger- Member States concerned needed approxi- of the Sea link through Klai- man/Finnish Call for MoS proposals in Feb- mately three months for internal evaluation. peda and Karlshamn. The main goal of the project is to invest ruary 2006 and the Joint Baltic Call for MoS When submitting a proposal, there was a in order to increase the capaci- proposals from 14 September 2006 to 8 Jan- need to coordinate the time schedule for ties and effectiveness of the Klaipeda and Karlshamn ports uary 2007 (Yliskylä-Peuralahti 2010). the relevant EU call. by transporting more cargo by sea and in this way to decrease Special focus should be placed on the sec- The next opportunity for submitting a MoS traffic on roads. MoS activities ond element because in the framework project proposal was the call for proposals in Karlshamn are building a new Shunting yard, building a of the Joint Baltic Call 13 proposals were in 2010. In the framework of the call, the new Combi Terminal, renovat- prepared. Eight projects were submitted following Baltic MoS projects were select- ing the port’s rail track, mak- and two of them received TEN-T budget 11 ing investments in a new crane ed : with higher container capacity, contributions (the first Baltic MoS projects, • 2010-EU-21108-P: The Baltic Sea Hub a new reach stacker, and a new cf. Baltic Ports Organzation/TransBaltic entrance to the ro-ro terminal. and Spokes Project12 2010: 10-17): (7) • 2010-EU-21107-P: Motorway of the Sea Not in the framework of the (1) 2008-EU-21010-P: High Quality Rail and multi-annual indicative pro- Rostock-Gedser13. gramme Intermodal Nordic Corridor Königslinie 5 14 (8) (MoS: Sassnitz – Trelleborg) • 2010-EU-21109-S: MonaLisa The ad hoc programme adopt- ed in 2009 in the framework (2) 2008-EU-21015-P: Motorways of the • 2010-EU-21112-S: Infrastructure of filling of the Commission‘s Euro- Sea projects in the Baltic Sea Area Klaipda – stations for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) pean Economic Recovery Plan 6 15 aimed to give an immediate Karlshamn link . and deployment in ships . boost to the European econo- my by accelerating investments The next TEN-T call for proposals in 2008 So far, there is no information concerning in infrastructure. (non-MIP7) did not include the MoS ac- the outcomes of the TEN-T call for proposal (9) tion. The financial crisis and problems of 2011. Acts as a flexible comple- the global economy have caused a wider ment to the efforts developed To summarize, as of today (January 2012) scope of financial support provided in the under the Multi-Annual Work seven MoS projects located in the Baltic Sea Programme. This includes an framework of TEN-T. The call for propos- amount of EUR 60 million for have received financial support from the als 2009 included the European Economic the Loan Guarantee Instrument. TEN-T budget (see Fig. 1). It could be stated, Recovery Work Programme (EUR 500 mil- (10) that the Baltic Sea is the main area of loca- Activities envisaged in the lion)8, the Annual Work Programme (EUR tion of European MoS projects in the frame- project include investments in 140 million)9 and the Multi-Annual Work port and hinterland transport work of TEN-T. infrastructure: a new goods Programme (EUR 370 million). Within the terminal in Alvesta, Sweden, framework of the Multi-Annual Work Pro- The main challenge in the Baltic MoS devel- in the breakpoint of the Coast- to-Coast Line and the TEN-T gramme it also focused on MoS (maximum opment process is the creation of an overall priority object South Main Line EUR 30 million). However, following the in- strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and the (part of the Nordic triangle); a new ferry berth and upgrading ternal and external evaluation process, only consistent implementation of that schedule. the railway and road access to one MoS proposal was recommended for So far, the theoretical efforts concerning the Informationen zur Raumentwicklung Heft 7/8.2012 385

Figure 1 Baltic Motorways of the Seas in TEN-T projects (2008–2010)

the port of Karlskrona in Swe- den together with investments for noise reduction along the rail and road access; creating new ferry berths and a ferry terminal together with a new storage yard, intermodal ter- minal and access roads in the Port of Gdynia.

(11) Internet: http://tentea. ec.europa.eu/en/ten-t_projects/ ten-t_projects_by_transport_ mode/water.htm (30.12.2011)

(12) The aim of the action is to cre- ate the necessary framework for an integrated maritime transport system, which will promote and support a cost- effective and efficient door-to- door transport solution, link trade to transport and facili- tate growth in the entire BSR. The action consists of 4 main activities: The Marine Integra- tion Project (MIP), Port Access Aarhus, Port Access Gothen- burg and Port Security Tallinn.

(13) The Action is part of a global project covering infrastructure initiatives on the transport axis Copenhagen-Berlin: extension of the railway Rostock-Berlin, upgrading of the European road E55 into the port of Ros- Source: author´s graph tock, infrastructure investments in the port of Gedser and the Nykøbing Falster bypass road. Moreover, in the framework of the Action, new ferries with double capacity will be put into service (2012). future structure of the Baltic MoS (e.g. Mas- schedule will conduct the process of MoS (14) The Action aims at improving ter Plan) did not define a clear plan, in time implementation. the quality of maritime trans- and spatial aspects, for launching efficient port, safety at sea, the ex- The other way to support the development change of maritime data, the and effective maritime transport connec- environmental performance of process of MoS in the Baltic is the Marco tions. Instead of that, bilateral cooperation shipping and the implemen- Polo fund. Three MoS project proposals tation of e-Maritime relevant has succeeded in project implementation applications. The project is ex- were approved: (e.g. German – Sweden, Lithuania – Swe- pected to deliver a new meth- odology in maritime route plan- den). These accidental activities should be (1) Ro-Ro Past France (2007) ning similar to air navigation; a replaced by a comprehensive and coherent new pilot system of automated plan for future development of the Baltic (2) Fres MoS (2009) verification of ship crew certifi- cates; re-surveys of HELCOM MoS. For that reason, a good international (3) Gulfstream MoS (2010). fairways in the Baltic Sea lead- cooperation focusing on the preparation ing to harmonized distribution Despite the large number of proposals sub- of survey data and water level of a strong theoretical background for Bal- information; a pilot system for tic MoS is needed. The analysis of the car- mitted, no specific Baltic MoS projects have sharing maritime data at a global scale. go flows in the Region and the attempt of received financial contribution from Marco concentration of these flows (according to Polo so far. That situation is connected with (15) The project consists of feasibil- the green corridors concept) should create two kinds of problems. The first are the bar- ity studies on the LNG seaport several main MoS on the Baltic Sea. New riers and limitations of the Marco Polo pro- filling station infrastructure (Bel- gium, Denmark) as well as a Baltic MoS should be selected after detailed gramme, the second is the scarcity of well full-scale pilot action. The pilot investigations of the spatial, infrastructural, prepared applications. Thus, for concept project deals with the modifica- tion of the design of two newly environmental and market characteristics activation, application framework, require- built Ro-Pax vessels into a of particular solutions. Then, a clear time ments and process need to be revised. LNG propulsion system. Maciej Matczak: 386 Motorways of the sea – from concept to implementation within the Baltic Sea area

3 Further perspectives The Connecting Europe Facility is a frame- work perspective for TEN-T development As far as MoS policy is concerned, four are- in the period 2014–2020. The financial en- as will be considered during the revision: velope for the implementation of the pro- gramme shall be EUR 50 billion. The con- • the scope of MoS (including ro-ro passen- tribution for transport is estimated EUR ger traffic and bulk cargo transport) 31,649 billion. The main objectives in the • redefining the MoS concept (establish- field of transport are defined as follows: re- ment of a single MoS concept with clear moving bottlenecks and bridging missing criteria of evaluation where also regional links, ensuring sustainable and efficient characteristics are taken into considera­ transport in the long run, optimizing the in- tion – e.g. Baltic Sea) tegration and interconnection of transport • MoS funding (elimination of fragmentati- modes and enhancing the interoperability on of financial sources; funds for seaport of transport services. It should be indicated hinterland connections or utilization of that the contribution of the Connecting Eu- soft/smart infrastructure) rope Facility for the MoS development is defined on the level of infrastructure (grant • MoS implementation (scale of modal for works on ports infrastructure and hin- shift as well as limitation of externalities terland connections) or traffic management as the main evaluation criteria). systems (grants for supporting the devel- Moreover, monitoring process or practi- opment of the MoS up to 20 % of eligible cal effects (financial and cargo transship- costs). What is also important is the fact ment monitoring procedures) should be that the document includes proposals of improved by other quantitative and qualita- nine new core network corridors in the field tive elements, e.g. market penetration, ef- of transport. Two of them include the Baltic ficiency of gains, safety and security, social Motorways of the Seas: conditions, etc. (Baltic Ports Organization/ (1) Baltic-Adriatic Corridor includes MoS TransBaltic 2010: 10-17). These elements connection: Helsinki – Tallinn also apply to the TEN-T programme. (2) Helsinki-Valetta Corridor foresees MoS: Important impulses for changes in the MoS Turku – Stockholm. concept were generated in 2011. Two new documents concerning the future of the The key role of MoS development in the European transport policy were issued: the Baltic Sea is also underlined by Regional White Paper “Roadmap to a Single Euro- policy documents. For instance, the con- pean Transport Area – Towards a competi- cept could be an effective solution for tive and resource efficient transport system” meeting the challenges defined in the EU (European Commission 2011b) and the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (European Regulation of the European Parliament and Commission 2009) or the VASAB Long-Term of the Council establishing the Connect- Perspective for Territorial Development of ing Europe Facility (European Commission the Baltic Sea Region (VASAB Secretariat 2011c). 2010: 30). The Baltic MoS implementation could improve the transport sustainability The new White Paper 2011 focuses on envi- as well as territorial coherence of the Re- ronmental impacts of the transport system gion. in Europe. One of the goals of the new poli- cy (No. 3) is “…30 % of road freight over 300 To summarize, it could be stated that the km should shift to other modes such as rail MoS concept is still in the first phase of or waterborne transport by 2030, and more implementation. On the European as well than 50 % by 2050”. From that point of view, as the Baltic scale there are only a few ex- a radical improvement of the programme of amples of MoS projects co-financed within MoS should be a core area of future activ- the context of both TEN-T and Marco Polo. ity. Unfortunately, the MoS concept is not However, it is important that the majority of directly indicated in the document but only actions has been continuing the construc- mentioned as an element of the TEN-T net- tion process. For that reason, the real influ- work. Nevertheless, a new funding frame- ence of the MoS development on the Baltic work for transport infrastructure concern- transport system can only be estimated in ing TEN-T will be available for MoS as well. the future. The concept has become more Informationen zur Raumentwicklung Heft 7/8.2012 387

and more mature and the applicants more ropean policy on sustainable transport experienced. Thus, it is very probable that solutions create a unique opportunity for the number of supported projects will in- speeding up the future implementation crease during the next calls. Despite that, process of MoS in the Baltic Sea Region. the redefinition of TEN-T or especially Mar- On the other hand, the size of the Baltic Sea co Polo priorities is necessary. maritime transport market as well as the Owing to its internal location and environ- concentration of cargo flows in a few main mental sensitivity (e.g. PSSA, ECA, SECA), transport corridors have created a highly the Baltic Sea should be regarded as a nat- competitive environment. Thus, the neces- ural area of MoS development. Financial sity of keeping a fair competition could lim- contributions from TEN-T or Marco Polo it the tempo of MoS development. programmes and concentration of the Eu-

­­ References

Baltic Ports Organization/TransBaltic, 2010: Baltic Mo- European Commission, 2011c: Regulation of the Eu- torway of the Sea. Successful projects, barriers and ropean Parliament and of the Council establishing challanges for MoS policy implementation. Report. the Connecting Europe Facility. COM (2011) 665/3, Sopot/Poland. Brussels 19.10.2011. EACI: http://ec.europa.eu/eaci. High level group on the Trans-European Transport Net- work (TEN-T), 2003: Report. 27.6.2003, www.eu- European Commission, 2001: White Paper „European ropa.eu.ten. transport policy for 2010: time to decide”. Brussels. Matczak M., 2011a: Baltic Ro-Ro & Ferry Market IN- European Commission, 2009: European Union Strategy TRODUCTION. Conference – Transport Week. for the Baltic Sea region (2009). COM(2009)248 final. Gdansk,1.3.2011. Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/coop- erate/baltic/index_en.cfm. Matczak M., 2011b: Baltic Container Outlook 2011. Ac- tia Forum Ltd, Gdynia. European Commission, 2011a: Commission Implement- ing Decision of 22.6.2011 amending Commission TEN-TEA, 2011: TEN-T Projects in FIGURES. Brussels, Decision C(2011) 1766 of 22 March 2011 establish- http://tentea.ec.europa.eu/download/publications/ ing a multiannual work programme 2011 for grants agency_in_numbers_0611_final.pdf. in the field of trans-European transport Network TEN-TEA: http://tentea.ec.europa.eu/en/home.htm. (TEN-T) for the period 2007-2013. C(2011) 4317 fi- VASAB Secretariat, 2010: VASAB Long-Term Perspec- nal. Brussels, 22.6.2011. tive for Territorial Development of the Baltic Sea Re- European Commission, 2011b: White Paper. Roadmap gion. Latvia. to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a Yliskylä-Peuralahti, J., 2010: Motorways of the Sea in competitive and resource efficient transport system. the Baltic – will it work? TransBaltic Seminar: Baltic COM (2011) 144 final, Brussels, 28.3.2011. Motorways of the Sea – barriers and challenges, Po- land/Sopot 11 May 2010.