Transcript WP B: Cost benefit analysis of selected transport projects.

Cohesion Fund (including
former ISPA) 2000 -2006 ex
post evaluation
Jurate Vaznelyte, Adam Abdulwahab
Evaluation Network Meeting
Brussels, April 14th 2011
1
Evaluation structure and timing
WP A: Contribution to EU transport and environment policies.
Contract awarded to RGL Forensics /AECOM (UK). Work started in
January 2010, to be completed in July 2011.
WP B: Cost benefit analysis of selected transport projects.
Contract awarded to Frontier Economics (UK). Work started in
January 2010. Final report expected in May 2011.
WP C: Cost benefit analysis of selected environment projects.
Contract awarded to COWI (DK). Work started in January 2010. Final
report expected in May 2011.
WP D: Management and Implemenation
Contract to be awarded within 2011. Study should be completed within
5 months.
WP E: Drawing conclusions and recommendations.
Internal work of the Evaluation unit
2
WP A: Contribution to EU transport
and environment policies (1)
•
Cohesion Fund (CF) co-financed 1,139 projects and
allocated 34 million euro during the 2000-2006 period.
•
On average, CF contributed 11% of the total investment
needs of each of the beneficiary countries.
•
For EU4 countries, on average, CF funding equals to 0.21%
of their GDP (ranges from 0.07% in Ireland to 0.3% in
Portugal)
•
For EU10 countries, CF as a proportion to GDP ranges
from 0.12% in Cyprus to 0.66% in Bulgaria (on average
0.36 % of GDP)
3
WP A: Contribution to EU transport
and environment policies (2)
• Transport sector:
– CF co-financed 1,281 km of new roads and 3,176 km of
reconstructed roads (4,457 km roads (new and
reconstructed) in total)
– CF co-financed 2,010 km of new rail and 3,840 km of
reconstructed rail (5,350 km rail (new and reconstructed)
in total)
• Environment sector:
– 17.2 million additional people were served by water
supply projects
– 18.9 million additional population were served by
waste water projects
4
WP B: Cost benefit analysis of selected
10 transport projects (1)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1. M1 motorway – Ireland
2. Agiou Konstantinou bypass – Greece
3. Railway line Thriassio-Pedio- Eleusina-Korinthos – Greece
4. Levante – Francia motorway - Spain
5. High-speed rail line Madrid- Barcelona-French border –
Spain
6. Modernisation of the Algarve rail line - Portugal
7. IXB Transport Corridor – Lithuania
8. Construction of A2 Motorway – Poland
9. Eastern Section of the M0 Budapest Ring Road between
National Road 4 and M3 – Hungary
10. Modernisation of the railway line Senkevice-Cifer and
stations Raca-Trnava – Slovak Republic
5
WP B: Cost benefit analysis of
selected 10 transport projects (2)
• All projects delivered value for money.
• Some questions about the utilisation rates (e.g. A23 motorway
in Spain exhibits a utilisation rate of 5%, while M1 motorway in
Ireland around 100%)
• The Cohesion Fund contribution was needed to unlock the
economic benefits of these projects.
• Benefits from these projects come from 8 categories (travel
time saving, vehicle operating cost, safety improvements,
carbon emission, air and noise reduction ad other).
• It was difficult to establish a direct causal link between the
transport infrastructure investments and the wider socioeconomic impacts (especially relevant for GDP).
6
WP B – some qualitative findings (3)
• Wider impacts are an important source of costs and
benefits, but infrastructure impacts on (local)
economy are difficult to measure.
• Ex ante CBA is one among many factors considered
in the decision making process.
• Ex ante vs. ex post comparisons require historical
memory and common model.
• Ex post evaluation helps to improve the ex ante
analysis (demand modeling, risk analysis) and adds
transparency to the ex ante analysis
7
WP C: Cost benefit analysis of
selected 10 environment projects (1)
• 4 solid waste and 6 water/wastewater projects
• Delay of implementation: more of an up-date of
ex ante CBA than actual ex post
– Limited information on operation
– Non-technical results are not yet observable
• Monitoring and data on before/after situation is
problematic
• Technical solutions are generally OK
8
WP C: revision of ex ante CBAs (2)
• Legal compliance is the main driver of
investments
• CBA is focused on the “administrative” project
– “Ticking the box” approach, not integrated into
decision-making processes
– Quality to be improved
– Individual project components are not valued
individually
– Missing the “big picture” (total river basin,
synergies among projects)
9
WP C: lessons learnt (3)
• CBA helps decisions if:
– Carried out early in the process
– Process seems to be more important than the values
attached to costs & benefits
– Roles of financial and economic analysis are clear and
distinguished
• Carrying out ex post CBAs:
– More useful if ex ante CBA is of good quality
– Benefits can be best identified by examining individual
components
– Wider benefits are important but difficult to quantify
10
Thank you for your attention
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/rado_en.htm
11