DSIT_STAR Framework: Measuring Progres on Social Sustainability

8/10/2019 DSIT_STAR Framework: Measuring Progres on Social Sustainability

1/34

Ko Sakamoto, Transport Economist, ADB

Phil Sayeg, Consultant, ADB

The Sustainable Transport Appraisal

Rating (STAR) Framework

Measuring progress on Social

Sustainability


2/34

1. History and context

2. Fundamentals of STAR

3. Example of application to ADBs portfolio

4. Focus on social objectives

Outline:


3/34

History and context


4/34

Need to monitor

progress towardssupporting accessible,safe, environmentally-friendly, and affordabletransport

Implementing ADBs

Sustainable TransportOperational Plan


5/34

Better, more sustainable transport projects

Are we on track?we are committed to introducing annual reporting on our

sustainable transport related lending and to developing common

arrangements for this purpose.we have initiated work on definitions, setting targets and

choosing indicators for sustainable transport/mobility andassistance provided to support sustainable transport/mobility,with a view to finalizing these within 2012.

Over the coming decade we expect to provide more than $175 billionof loans and grants for transport in developing countries. These

investments will help to develop more sustainable transport systems

Fulfilling our Rio+20

Commitment


6/34

An assessment system that is:

Encompassing of different dimensions of sustainability

(not narrowly defined)

Project based, which can also lead to portfolio analysis

Able to be applied at various stages of project cycle

Objective and transparent

Easy to conduct and communicate

What we needed


7/34

NATA

LEED

GreenLites

ILAST

STARS

Envision

Greenway

Green Roads Invest

CEEQUAL

BE2ST

None of these were particularly suited to ourwork as an MDB

Needed to develop a system in-house

Which rating system

for MDBs?


8/34

Fundamentals of STAR


9/34

Sustainable TransportAppraisal Rating

Rates a projects contribution to sustainability

in relation to a set of sustainability objectivesthat cover the economic, social andenvironmental dimensions of sustainability.

Objectives are based on, and are in line withwell-established definitions and frameworks onsustainable transport (including definition inMDBs Joint Statement).

Compares against a do nothing scenario.


10/34

Economic

Environmental12.GHG emissions13.Transport-related emissions & nuisances14.Natural & built environment15.Resource efficiency16.Climate resilience

1. Efficiency: people2. Efficiency: businesses3. Quality & reliability4. Fiscal burden5. Employment6. Wider economic benefits

Social

7. Basic accessibility8. Affordability9. Inclusion10.Social cohesion11.Safety, security & health

Risk to

Sustainability

17.Design & evaluation risk

18.Implementation risk19.Operational risk

What constitutes

sustainable transport?

Overallsustainability

Criteria Subcriteria


11/34

30%

30%

30%

10%

Economic

Environmental

11.Transport-relatedemissions & pollution

12.Natural & builtenvironment

13.Resource efficiency

14.Climate resilience

1. Efficiency: people &businesses

2. Quality & reliability3. Fiscal burden4. Employment

5. Wider economic benefits:cross-border, urban, rural

Social

6. Basic accessibility

7. Affordability8. Inclusion9. Social cohesion10.Safety, security

& health

Risk to Sustainabili ty

Design & evaluation risk

Implementation risk Operational risk

Weights


12/34

Economic

Environmental

Social

Risk to

Sustainability

Step 1: Rate project by

each subcriteria

Overallsustainability

Criteria

12.GHG emissions13.Transport-related emissions & nuisances14.Natural & built environment15.Resource efficiency16.Climate resilience

1. Efficiency: people2. Efficiency: businesses3. Quality & reliability4. Fiscal burden5. Employment

6. Wider economic benefits7. Basic accessibility8. Affordability9. Inclusion10.Social cohesion11.Safety, security & health



Subcriteria


13/34

Scoring (1)

Score Descriptor Guidance

3Major Positive

Major positive impacts on a large population or environmentresulting in substantial and long-term improvements from thebaseline.

2 Large Positive

Large positive impact, possibly of short-, medium- or long-termduration. Impact may not be absolute but only perceived incomparison to the without case.

1 ModeratePositive

Moderate positive impact, possibly only lasting over the short-term. May be confined to a limited area, e.g. pilot projects.

0Neutral/Margina

lly Positive

No discernible or predicted positive or negative impacts.

-1Moderate

Negative

Moderate negative impact, probably short-term, able to bemanaged or mitigated and will not cause substantial detrimentaleffects. May be confined to a small area.

-2 Large Negative

Large negative impacts. Impacts may be short-, medium- or long-term and impacts will most likely respond to managementactions.

-3 Major Negative

Major negative impacts with serious, long-term and possiblyirreversible effects leading to serious damage, degradation ordeterioration of the physical, economical or social environment.May require a major re-scope of concept, design, location,justification, or requires major commitment to extensive

management strategies to mitigate the effect.


14/34

Scoring (2)


15/34

SUBCRITERIA: ECONOMIC EFFECTIVENESS

ECO-1: Transport

Efficiency - People enable efficient peoples mobility? -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

ECO-2: TransportEfficiency -Businesses

enable efficient goods mobility andoperation of transport services?

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

ECO-3: Quality and

Reliability

improve the quality and reliability of

transport systems?

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

ECO-4: Fiscal burden reduce or increase the cost of transportsystems for the taxpayer?

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

ECO-5: Employment create quality employmentopportunities?

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

ECO-6: WiderEconomic Benefits

enable concentration of economicactivity in urban centers? foster rural agricultural development facilitates cross-border trade?

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3


16/34

SUBCRITERIA: SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

SOC-1: Basic

Accessibility

enhance access to basic social

services, including hospitals, schools,community centers and leisure facilities?-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

SOC-2: TransportAffordability

make transport services moreaffordable to the poor

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

SOC-3: Safety andSecurity

improve transport safety for road usersand local communities

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

SOC-4: Inclusion enhance the mobility of all members of

society, particularly vulnerable groups?-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

SOC-5: SocialCohesion

contribute to the development ofcohesive and liveable communities?

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3


17/34

SUBCRITERIA: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

ENV-1: GHG

emissions

reduce transport-sector emissions of

greenhouse gases? -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

ENV-2: Pollution andnuisances

reduce transport-related emissions of airpollutants, noise, vibration and light andpollution of surface water, ground waterand soil?

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

ENV-3: Resourceefficiency

minimize transport-sectors use ofnatural resources, materials, energy, waterand land, and limits waste generation anddisposal?

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

ENV-4: Natural andbuilt environment

preserve the natural environment andmaintain integrity of ecosystems,

biodiversity and the services they provide,and enhance the built environment,landscape, townscape, physical culturalresources and their settings?

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

ENV-5: Climate

resilience

improve the climate resiliency of the

transport system? -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3


18/34

CORE CRITERIA: RISK TO SUSTAINABILITY

RISK-1: Design and

evaluation risk

do the project estimated costs, demand and

expected benefits involve risks anduncertainty? High Medium Low

RISK-2:Implementation risk

is project implementation likely to lead todelay, cancelations or below-expectation

project performance High Medium Low

RISK-3: Operationalsustainability risk

are the projects outcomes likely to besustained during operation?

High Medium Low


19/34

Economic

Environmental12.GHG emissions13.Transport-related emissions & pollution14.Natural & built environment15.Resource efficiency16.Climate resilience


6. Wider economic benefits

Social

7. Basic accessibility8. Affordability9. Inclusion10.Social cohesion11.Safety, security & health

Risk to

Sustainability



Step 2: Aggregate scores

to Criteria LevelCriteria Subcriteria

Over

allsustainability


20/34


21/34

Economic

Environmental

Social

Risk to

Sustainability

Step 3: Add up scores to

calculate overall sustainabili ty

Criteria

Over

allsustainability

12.GHG emissions13.Transport-related emissions & pollution14.Natural & built environment15.Resource efficiency16.Climate resilience


6. Wider economic benefits7. Basic accessibility8. Affordability9. Inclusion10.Social cohesion11.Safety, security & health



Subcriteria


22/34

RatingHighly

Unsustainable UnsustainableModerately

UnsustainableMarginally

SustainableModeratelySustainable Sustainable

HighlySustainable

Score -5 to -10 -2 to -4 -1 to 0 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 to 10

Overall rating of this project isModerately Sustainable


23/34

Information recorded

in a summary table

Project Name: Second Road Improvement (Sector) Project

Project Description: Rehabilitation of 30km of national, provincial and secondary roads, road maintenance and capacity development

ADB Fin anc ing: $20 million Year: 2012

Sustainable Transport Objectives Contribution to each ObjectiveRating by

DimensionScore

ECONOMY

Transport Efficiency People Moderately Positive

Moderately

Economically

Effective

1

Transport Efficiency B usinesses Moderately Positive

Quality & Reliability Strongly Positive

Fiscal Burden Neutral

Employment Moderately Positive

Wider economic benefits Neutral

SOCIAL

Basic accessibility Strongly Positive

Socially

Inclusive2

Affordability Moderately Positive

Safety Neutral

Social cohesion Neutral

Inclusion Neutral

ENVIRONMENT

GHG Emissions Neutral

Moderately

environmenta

lly

sustainable

1

Emissions and pollution Neutral

Resource efficiency Neutral

Natural and built environment Neutral

Climate resilience Strongly Positive

RISK

TO

SUST

Design and evaluation risks Medium

High -1Implementation risks High

Operational sustainability risks High

Overall Rating: Moderately Sustainable 3


24/34

Application to ADBs

portfolio of 2013 approved

projects


25/34

A small team of 6 trained auditors Reviewed ADBs 2013 transport portfolio Consisting of 22 projects: 15 road (some with trade

impacts), 1 air, 2 rail, 3 UT, 1 policy. Value USD3.1B.

Time to conduct the analysis: 1-2 hours perproject, total of 48 hours (just over 1 person week)

Reducing subjectivity:Review meetingsExternal validator (Phil Sayeg)

What we did

R l


26/34

Results:

By subsector

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Highly SustainableSustainableModerately

Sustainable

Marginally

Sustainable

Moderately

Unsustainable

Road Transport Rail Transport

Water Transport Air Transport

Urban Transport Transport Management and Policies


27/34

By criteria

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Sustainable

Marginally

Sustainable

Moderately

Unsustainable

Economic Social Environment


28/34

STAR can:Be applied relatively quickly

Accommodate a variety of projects in differentsubsectors

Be used to undertake an analysis of an entireportfolio of an MDB, and by extension that of agroup of MDBs

Be a powerful tool to understand the strengths andweaknesses of the portfolio, and draw lessons forfuture improvement

Findings


29/34

Focus on social

objectives


30/34

Composition of social objective

22/09/2014 30

- Based largely on poverty impact channels

- Formulated in strong consultation with social experts at ADB


31/34

By criteria

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Sustainable

Marginally

Sustainable

Moderately

Unsustainable

Social

STAR results for Social Objectives


32/34

STAR results for Social Objectives

22/09/2014 32

0 10 20 30 40 50

Very strongly positive

Strongly positive

Moderately positive

Marginal

Moderately negative

Strongly negative

Very strongly negative

Ratings by Social Sub-Objective

Basic access Affordability Safety Inclusion Cohesion Employment

No. of projects


33/34

What can be done to improve social

effectiveness (examples)Projecttypes

Opportunities

Rural roads Provision of sidewalks and dust suppression near villages Provision of accessible bus stops and shelters, measures to enhance public transport services and

affordability to all user groups (e.g. women, children, other vulnerable groups, persons with disabilities)

Community road safety awareness Cross-sectoral coordination new community services (e.g. health centers) opened up by supporting

road investments

Explicit consideration of employment generation during implementation & operation (in all below also)

National &

regional

highways

Connecting rural roads and bus services Road safety enhancement appropriate speed regimes for road type and location Provision of accessible bus stops and shelters, measures to enhance public transport services and

affordability

Rail Connecting bus services and secure and safe access at inter-modal terminals Ticketing/ fare systems that enhance affordability and convenience for families Basic features to enhance security, ensure relevance to all user groups

Aviation Measures to improve aviation safety Regulatory regimes that provide new entrants and lower fares Basic features of services and terminals to enhance security, ensure relevance to all user groups

Maritime Similar to aviation

Urban transport Integrated transport services, focus on walk/ NMT, public transport as well as vehicles Accessible, secure stops and terminals Ticketing/ fare systems that enhance affordability and convenience for families, etc

22/09/2014 33


34/34

Thank you!

Documents

DSIT_STAR Framework: Measuring Progres on Social Sustainability