Enhancing Euro-Asian Transport Linkages: Evaluation Results and Project Prioritization

1. 4th Expert Group Meeting on Developing Euro-Asian Transport Linkages 21 – 24 November 2006, Thessaloniki, Greece Results of the evaluation and prioritization of projectsStrengths and weaknesses By the External Consultant Dimitrios A. Tsamboulas Associate Professor Department of Transportation Planning and Engineering School of Civil Engineering National Technical University of Athens (NTUA)

2. Brief Presentation Outline • Part A: Methodology • Part B: Projects database • Part C: Results • Part D: Conclusions

3. Part A: Methodology Objectives Phases Analysis of Phases & Definitions Data Needs, Processes & Templates

4. Objective • Identify project’s prioritization/ categorization, • support elaboration of a medium and long-term investment strategy • encourage the realization of projects that have good chances of implementation • all projects that are on the EATL routes or being extensions of those routes will be considered

5. Phases of Methodology • Three consequent phases • PHASE A – Identification • PHASE B – Evaluation • PHASE C – Prioritisation

6. Identification: the initial screening process that grouped projects in two groups, those with committed funding and those without committed funding. • Evaluation of projects without committed funding with respect to more specific evaluation criteria. • Prioritisation of the projects -based on the screening process and the evaluation results- in order to classify them into four specific Priority Categories (I, II, III, IV). • It has to be noted that projects with no sufficient data/information were not possible to pass the identification phase and were directly placed in to a “Reserve Priority Category”. • The whole exercise was based on the countries’ reports.

7. Identification Phase • Within the identification phase, projects were grouped according to whether they have committed funding or not. • If a project has already secured necessary funding was directly prioritised as Priority Category I. • The rest would pass the evaluation phase • In the identification phase and based on the country reports, the consultants completed TEMPLATE 1, which contained the list of projects proposed in their country reports, indicating the securitization of funds or not.

8. TEMPLATE 1 – Identified Projects

9. Data to be collected - between Identification and Evaluation Phases • Regardless the case of a project having secured funds or not the countries were requested to further elaborate this list of projects in TEMPLATE 1 and also complete the respective TEMPLATES 2, in the following manner • For projects with funding committed, only some additional technical information should be completed (Section 1 of TEMPLATE 2). • For projects without funding committed, additional technical information and evaluation criteria questionnaire should be completed (Section 1 and Section 2, respectively, of TEMPLATE 2). • For newly proposed projects, complete all necessary information in TEMPLATE 2.

10. TEMPLATE 2 – Road Project Fiche / Section 1

12. TEMPLATE 2 – Rail Project Fiche / Section 1

14. TEMPLATE 2 – Inland waterway Project Fiche / Section 1

16. TEMPLATE 2 – Ports/Depots/Terminals etc. Project Fiche / Section 1

18. TEMPLATE 2 –Project Fiche (for all project types) / Section 2

22. Evaluation Phase • Selection of Criteria – two dimensions of criteria • horizontal dimension or CLUSTER A “Functionality/ Coherence” expresses the role of the project in the functionality and coherence of the Euro-Asian Transport Linkages (CA) • vertical dimension or CLUSTER B “Socio-economic Efficiency/ Sustainability” expresses the socio-economic return on investment (CB) • Measurement of criteria – physical performances • Quantification of Criteria - Scores • Weighting/ Hierarchy of Criteria – Delphi/Paired Comparison • Total Performance of Project

23. Selection of Criteria 1. Serve international connectivity (reaching a border crossing point or provide connection with a link that is border crossing); (CA1) A: Greatly improves connectivity, B: Significantly improves connectivity, C: Somewhat improves connectivity, D: Slightly improves connectivity, E: Does not improve connectivity. 2. Promote solutions to the particular transit transport needs of the landlocked developing countries; (CA2) The projects provides solution.. A: Greatly, B: Significantly, C: Somewhat, D: Slightly, E: Does not

24. 3. Connect low income and/or least developed countries to major European and Asian markets; (CA3) The projects connects.. A: Greatly, B: Significantly, C: Somewhat, D: Slightly, E: Does not 4. The project crosses natural barriers, removes bottlenecks, raises substandard sections to meet international standards, or fills missing links in the EATL; (CA4) The project crosses natural barriers or removes bottlenecks and/ or missing links in EATL.. A: Greatly, B: Significantly, C: Somewhat, D: Slightly, E: Does not

25. 5. Have high degree of urgency due to importance attributed by the national authorities and/or social interest; (CB1) The project is.. A: In the national plan and immediately required (for implementation up to 2008), B: In the national plan and very urgent (for implementation up to 2010), C: In the national plan and urgent (for implementation up to 2015), D: In the national plan but may be postponed until after 2015, E: Not in the national plan. 6. Pass socio-economic viability test; (CB2) The project is expected to increase traffic (both existing and generated) … A: More than 15%, B: 10-15%, C: 5- 10%, D: less than 5%, E: Will not affect traffic

26. 7. Have a high degree of maturity, in order to be carried out quickly (i.e. project stage); (CB3) Project’s is at stage of… A: Tendering, B: Feasibility study, C: Pre-feasibility study, D: Planning, E: Identification 8. Financing feasibility; (CB4) Projects’ financing feasibility is.. A: Excellent, B: Very Good, C: Good, D: Medium, E: Low 9. Environmental and social impacts; (CB5) The project has potentially has negative environmental or social impacts (pollution, safety, etc). A: No impact, B: Slight impact, C: Moderate impact, D: Significant impact, E; Great impact.

27. Measurement of Criteria • The physical scale of criteria measurement was derived by the consultant based on his experience from similar studies. • The physical scale ranges from A to E as presented before • Criteria were measured by direct classification (from A to E) performed by the countries’ (the national representatives in the EATL project) by completing the evaluation criteria questionnaire (Section 2 of TEMPLATE 2 as already presented).

28. Quantification of Criteria • Then the transformation of criterion measurement to the artificial scale (derivation of scores) took place. • According to the quantification of criteria the A value is 5 (the highest) in terms of score and respectively for value E, is 1 (the lowest). • Therefore: where: J = A or B and i = 1,….,5

29. Criterion Scores from Country Experts • It has to be noted here, that the good communication between the externals and the country experts is necessary in order to quantify as good as possible all the criteria. • Nonetheless, for unfunded projects that no answers were provided in the evaluation questionnaire, the lowest scores were assigned.

30. Weighting/ Hierarchy of Criteria • By using Paired Comparison Method weights were derived. According to “policy” priorities set out from the interviewed experts (the consultants, UNECE and UNESCAP) pair wise comparisons of all criteria were made • A standard axiom of most of multicriteria methods is that the sum of criteria weights should be 1. • Therefore: and where: J= A or B and i = 1,….,5

31. Paired Comparison Method • Paired comparison approach is a scaling approach. • Onlyone question to be answered is “is this criterion more important than the other?”. • This means that the paired comparison matrix (see Table I next) can be filled with zeros and ones, where one represents “is more important”. • By adding these values over the column, a measure is obtained for the degree to which a criterion is important compared to all other criteria, if finally these measures are standardised (see Formula I next), a set of criteria weights is created.

32. TableI An example of Paired Comparison matrix Standardised score wi = (I)

33. Criteria Weights from the Country Experts • It has to be noted here, that countries (though national representatives) may provide their own weights, with the proper justification of course.

34. Total Performance of Project • To derive the project’s total score we use the following relationship: • T.S.Project = where: CJi [1,5] WJi [0,1] J = A or B and i = 1,….,5 TSProject [1,5]

35. Prioritization Phase • The combination of the criterions scores and priorities puts each project in one of the four priority categories or reserve category. • If the project already has committed funding, it belongs to priority category I. • If the project scores between 4-5 then it belongs to priority category II. • If the project scores 3 -4 then it belongs to priority category III. • If the project scores 1 -3 then it belongs to priority category IV. • If the project has not pass the pre-selection phase then it belongs to reserve category.

36. Priority Categories • I: projects, which have funding secured and are ongoing or planned and are expected to be completed in the near future (up to2010). • II: projects which may be funded and implemented rapidly (up to 2015). • III: projects requiring some additional investigations for final definition before likely financing (up to 2020). • IV: projects requiring further investigations for final definition and scheduling before possible financing • Reserve: projects to be implemented in the long run, including the projects where insufficient data existed.

37. Part B: Projects database Countries participation Coding/Abbreviation Number, types of infrastructure and cost of projects Statistics on project’s types and costs

38. Countries participation • Out of the 18 countries participating in this project, 15 countries have submitted data on the projects under evaluation. • Countries that submitted data: • Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Georgia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Romania, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan. • Countries not submitting data: • Afghanistan, Russian Federation ,Turkmenistan

39. Coding/Abbreviations • Each project is identified with a unique Project ID specifying country, transport mode and a specific number. • Abbreviations for country : Afghanistan (AFT), Armenia (ARM), Azerbaijan (AZT), Belarus (BL), Bulgaria (BG), China (CH), Georgia (GE), Islamic Republic of Iran (IR), Kazakhstan (KZ), Kyrgyzstan (KG), Moldova (MD), Romania (RO), Russian Federation (RU), Tajikistan (TJK), Turkey (TU), Turkmenistan (TM), Ukraine (UKR), Uzbekistan (UZB). • Abbreviations for type of infrastructure : Road projects (ROD), Railway project (RLW), Maritime projects (MAR), Inland waterway project (INL). Inland/border crossing and other projects (INM). • So a project with an ID such as AZT-RLW-1 is thus railway project number 1 in Azerbaijan.

40. Projects submitted – in raw numbers • In total 230 projects were included in this phase for a total value of $ 42.02 bill. of which: • 112 road projects for a total value of $ 11.9 bill. • 68 railway projects for a total value of $ 22.7 bill. • 37 maritime projects for a total value of $ 5.7 bill. • 11 inland waterway projects for a total value of $ 1.6 bill and • 2 inland/border crossing etc. projects for a total value of $ 0,003 bill. • Table next slide

41. Table 1 Data submitted by countries for all projects and per type of infrastructure (costs in mio. $) Table includes only the countries that sent data.

42. Projects submitted –statistics • 48,7% of the Projects are Road projects, for a total value of 11.956,07 mio$, representing 28,45% of the total investment cost. • 29,6% of the Projects are Railway projects, for a total value of 22.755,82 mio$, representing 54,15% of the total investment cost. • 16,1% of the Projects are Maritime projects, for a total value of 5.735,45 mio$, representing 13,65% of the total investment cost. • 4,8% of the Projects are Inland waterway projects, for a total value of 1.570,65 mio$, representing 3,74% of the total investment cost. • 0,9% of the Projects are Inland/Cross border (etc.) projects, for a total value of 3,12 mio$, representing 0,01% of the total investment cost.

43. No Project type/No All projects • 230 projects • 112 road projects • 68 railway projects • 37 maritime projects • 11 inland waterway projects • 2 inland/border crossing etc. projects Project type cost/Cost of all projects • total value $ 42.02 bill. • road projects $ 11.9 bill. • railway projects $ 22.7 bill. • maritime projects $ 5.7 bill. • inland waterway projects $ 1.6 bill • inland/border crossing etc. projects $ 0,003 bill.

44. Part C: Results Combined analysis - in raw numbers and statistics -of: Prioritization results – all and per infrastructure type Cost analysis – all and per infrastructure type

45. Prioritization results and cost analysis (for all and per type of infrastructure) – raw numbers *All costs in mio $ **Projects received priority categorisation IV, due to lack of data

46. Prioritization results and cost analysis (for all) – statistics • 56,5% of the Projects belong to Priority Category I, for a total value of 20.602,79 mio$, representing 49,03% of the total investment cost. • These projects have secured funding • 7% of the Projects belong to Priority Category II, for a total value of 13.244,02 mio$, representing 31,52% of the total investment cost. • For these projects funding was not secured but the national representatives have sent sufficient data/answers on criteria valuation and thus it was possible to perform multi-criteria evaluation method and derive priority • 5,7% of the Projects belong to Priority Category III, for a total value of 3.058,35 mio$, representing 7,28% of the total investment cost. • For these projects funding was not secured but the national representatives have sent sufficient data/answers on criteria valuation and thus it was possible to perform multi-criteria evaluation method and derive priority • 31,3% of the Projects belong to Priority Category IV, for a total value of 5.115,95 mio$, representing 12,17% of the total investment cost. • For these projects funding was not secured and the national representatives have not sent sufficient data/answers on criteria valuation and thus the consultant assigned directly the lowest score and derived the lowest priority

47. No Project per Priority Category/No All projects • 230 projects • 130 in Priority Category I • 16 in Priority Category II • 13 in Priority Category III • 72 in Priority Category IV Cost of Projects per Priority Category/ Cost of all projects • All Priorities - total value 43.4 bill. $ • Priority Category I, 20,6 bill. $ • Priority Category II, 13,2 bill. $ • Priority Category III, 3,05 bill. $ • Priority Category IV, 5,1 bill. $

48. Statistics concerning Road Projects’ priorities and cost • 80,4% of the Road projects belong to Priority Category I, for a total value of 10.175,47mio$, representing 85,11% of the total investment cost for Road projects. • 1,8% of the Road projects belong to Priority Category II, for a total value of 640 mio$, representing 5,35% of the total investment cost for Road projects. • 8 % of the Road projects belong to Priority Category III, for a total value of 678,05 mio$, representing 5,66% of the total investment cost for Road projects. • 10,7% of the Road projects belong to Priority Category IV, for a total value of 462,55 mio$, representing 3,87% of the total investment cost for Road projects.

49. No of Road projects per Priority Category/No All Road projects • 112 Road projects • 90 in Priority Category I • 2 in Priority Category II • 9 in Priority Category III • 12 in Priority Category IV Cost of Road projects per Priority Category/Cost of All Road projects • All Priorities for Road projects - total value 11.95 bill. $ • Priority Category I, 10,2 bill. $ • Priority Category II, 0,64 bill. $ • Priority Category III, 0,68 bill. $ • Priority Category IV, 0,46 bill. $

50. Statistics concerning Rail Projects’ priorities and cost • 38,2% of the Railway projects belong to Priority Category I, for a total value of 9.581,2 mio$, representing 42,1% of the total investment cost for Railway projects. • 16,2% of the Railway projects belong to Priority Category II, for a total value of 8.212,42 mio$, representing 36,09% of the total investment cost for Railway projects. • 5,9% of the Railway projects belong to Priority Category III, for a total value of 2.380,3 mio$, representing 10,46% of the total investment cost for Railway projects. • 39,7% of the Railway projects belong to Priority Category IV, for a total value of 2.581,9 mio$, representing 11,35% of the total investment cost for Railway projects.