Results of the evaluation Results of the evaluation and prioritization of and prioritization of

projectsprojectsStrengths and weaknessesStrengths and weaknesses

By the External Consultant By the External Consultant Dimitrios A. TsamboulasDimitrios A. Tsamboulas

AssociateAssociate Professor ProfessorDepartment of Transportation Planning and Department of Transportation Planning and

EngineeringEngineeringSchoolSchool of Civil Engineering of Civil Engineering

National Technical University of Athens National Technical University of Athens (NTUA)(NTUA)

4th Expert Group Meeting on Developing Euro-Asian Transport Linkages21 – 24 November 2006, Thessaloniki, Greece

Brief Presentation Brief Presentation OutlineOutline

Part APart A: Methodology: Methodology Part BPart B: Projects database: Projects database Part CPart C: Results: Results Part DPart D: Conclusions: Conclusions

Part A: MethodologyPart A: MethodologyObjectivesObjectivesPhasesPhasesAnalysis of Phases & DefinitionsAnalysis of Phases & DefinitionsData Needs, Processes & Data Needs, Processes & TemplatesTemplates

ObjectiveObjective

Identify project’s prioritization/ Identify project’s prioritization/ categorization, categorization, support elaboration of a medium and long-support elaboration of a medium and long-

term investment strategyterm investment strategy encourage the realization of projects that have encourage the realization of projects that have

good chances of implementationgood chances of implementation all projects that are on the EATL routes or all projects that are on the EATL routes or

being extensions of those routes will be being extensions of those routes will be considered considered

Phases of MethodologyPhases of Methodology

Three consequent phasesThree consequent phases

PHASE A – IdentificationPHASE A – Identification

PHASE B – EvaluationPHASE B – Evaluation

PHASE C – PrioritisationPHASE C – Prioritisation

Identification:Identification: the initial screening process that grouped the initial screening process that grouped projects in two groups, those with committed funding and projects in two groups, those with committed funding and those without committed funding. those without committed funding.

Evaluation of Evaluation of projects without committed funding with projects without committed funding with respect to more specific evaluation criteria.respect to more specific evaluation criteria.

PrioritisationPrioritisation of the projects -based on the screening of the projects -based on the screening process and the evaluation results- in order to classify them process and the evaluation results- in order to classify them into four specific Priority Categories (I, II, III, IV).into four specific Priority Categories (I, II, III, IV). It has to be noted that projects with no sufficient It has to be noted that projects with no sufficient

data/information were not possible to pass the identification data/information were not possible to pass the identification phase and were directly placed in to a “Reserve Priority phase and were directly placed in to a “Reserve Priority Category”.Category”.

The whole exercise was based on the countries’ reports.The whole exercise was based on the countries’ reports.

Identification PhaseIdentification Phase

Within the identification phase, projects were Within the identification phase, projects were grouped according to whether they have grouped according to whether they have committed fundingcommitted funding or or notnot. . If a project has already secured necessary funding If a project has already secured necessary funding

was directly prioritised as Priority Category I.was directly prioritised as Priority Category I. The rest would pass the evaluation phaseThe rest would pass the evaluation phase

In the identification phase and based on the In the identification phase and based on the country reports, the consultants completed country reports, the consultants completed TEMPLATE 1TEMPLATE 1, which contained the list of , which contained the list of projects proposed in their country reports, projects proposed in their country reports, indicating the securitization of funds or not.indicating the securitization of funds or not.

TEMPLATE 1 – Identified TEMPLATE 1 – Identified ProjectsProjects

Data to be collectedData to be collected - - between Identification and between Identification and

Evaluation PhasesEvaluation Phases Regardless the case of a project having secured funds Regardless the case of a project having secured funds

or not the countries were requested to further or not the countries were requested to further elaborate this list of projects in TEMPLATE 1 and also elaborate this list of projects in TEMPLATE 1 and also complete the respective TEMPLATES 2, in the complete the respective TEMPLATES 2, in the following mannerfollowing manner For projects with funding committed, only some For projects with funding committed, only some

additional technical information should be completed additional technical information should be completed (Section 1 of TEMPLATE 2). (Section 1 of TEMPLATE 2).

For projects without funding committed, additional For projects without funding committed, additional technical information and evaluation criteria technical information and evaluation criteria questionnaire should be completed (Section 1 and questionnaire should be completed (Section 1 and Section 2, respectively, of TEMPLATE 2).Section 2, respectively, of TEMPLATE 2).

For newly proposed projects, complete all necessary For newly proposed projects, complete all necessary information in TEMPLATE 2.information in TEMPLATE 2.

TEMPLATETEMPLATE 2 2 –– Road Road ProjectProject Fiche / Section 1 Fiche / Section 1

TEMPLATETEMPLATE 2 2 –– Rail Rail ProjectProject Fiche / Section 1 Fiche / Section 1

TEMPLATETEMPLATE 2 2 –– Inland waterway Inland waterway ProjectProject Fiche / Section 1 Fiche / Section 1

TEMPLATETEMPLATE 2 2 –– Ports/Depots/Terminals etc. Ports/Depots/Terminals etc. ProjectProject Fiche Fiche / Section 1/ Section 1

TEMPLATETEMPLATE 2 2 –– ProjectProject Fiche (for all project types) / Fiche (for all project types) / Section 2Section 2

Evaluation PhaseEvaluation Phase Selection of CriteriaSelection of Criteria – – two dimensions of criteriatwo dimensions of criteria

horizontal dimension horizontal dimension oror CLUSTER A CLUSTER A

““Functionality/ CoherenceFunctionality/ Coherence” expresses the role of the ” expresses the role of the project in the functionality and coherence of the Euro-Asian project in the functionality and coherence of the Euro-Asian Transport Linkages Transport Linkages ((CCAA))

vertical dimension vertical dimension oror CLUSTER B CLUSTER B

““Socio-economic Efficiency/ SustainabilitySocio-economic Efficiency/ Sustainability” expresses ” expresses the socio-economic return on investment the socio-economic return on investment ((CCBB))

Measurement of criteria – Measurement of criteria – physical performancesphysical performances Quantification of Criteria Quantification of Criteria - - ScoresScores Weighting/ Hierarchy of Criteria Weighting/ Hierarchy of Criteria – – Delphi/Paired Delphi/Paired

ComparisonComparison Total Performance of Project Total Performance of Project

Selection of CriteriaSelection of Criteria

1. Serve international connectivity (reaching a border 1. Serve international connectivity (reaching a border crossing point or provide connection with a link that crossing point or provide connection with a link that is border crossing); (CA1)is border crossing); (CA1)A: Greatly improves connectivity, B: Significantly A: Greatly improves connectivity, B: Significantly improves connectivity, C: Somewhat improves improves connectivity, C: Somewhat improves connectivity, D: Slightly improves connectivity, E: connectivity, D: Slightly improves connectivity, E: Does not improve connectivity.Does not improve connectivity.

2. Promote solutions to the particular transit transport 2. Promote solutions to the particular transit transport needs of the landlocked developing countries; (CA2)needs of the landlocked developing countries; (CA2)The projects provides solution..The projects provides solution.. A: Greatly, B: Significantly, C: Somewhat, D: A: Greatly, B: Significantly, C: Somewhat, D: Slightly, E: Does not Slightly, E: Does not

3. Connect low income and/or least developed 3. Connect low income and/or least developed countries to major European and Asian markets; countries to major European and Asian markets; (CA3)(CA3)The projects connects..The projects connects..A: Greatly, B: Significantly, C: Somewhat, D: A: Greatly, B: Significantly, C: Somewhat, D: Slightly, E: Does notSlightly, E: Does not

4. The project crosses natural barriers, removes 4. The project crosses natural barriers, removes bottlenecks, raises substandard sections to meet bottlenecks, raises substandard sections to meet international standards, or fills missing links in the international standards, or fills missing links in the EATL; (CA4)EATL; (CA4)The project crosses natural barriers or removes The project crosses natural barriers or removes bottlenecks and/ or missing links in EATL..bottlenecks and/ or missing links in EATL..A: Greatly, B: Significantly, C: Somewhat, D: A: Greatly, B: Significantly, C: Somewhat, D: Slightly, E: Does not Slightly, E: Does not

5. Have high degree of urgency due to importance 5. Have high degree of urgency due to importance attributed by the national authorities and/or social attributed by the national authorities and/or social interest; (CB1)interest; (CB1)The project is.. The project is.. A: In the national plan and immediately required (for A: In the national plan and immediately required (for implementation up to 2008), B: In the national plan and implementation up to 2008), B: In the national plan and very urgent (for implementation up to 2010), C: In the very urgent (for implementation up to 2010), C: In the national plan and urgent (for implementation up to national plan and urgent (for implementation up to 2015), D: In the national plan but may be postponed 2015), D: In the national plan but may be postponed until after 2015, E: Not in the national plan.until after 2015, E: Not in the national plan.

6. Pass socio-economic viability test; (CB2)6. Pass socio-economic viability test; (CB2)The project is expected to increase traffic (both existing The project is expected to increase traffic (both existing and generated) …and generated) …A: More than 15%, B: 10-15%, C: 5- 10%, D: less than A: More than 15%, B: 10-15%, C: 5- 10%, D: less than 5%, E: Will not affect traffic5%, E: Will not affect traffic

7. Have a high degree of maturity, in order to be carried 7. Have a high degree of maturity, in order to be carried out quickly (i.e. project stage); (CB3)out quickly (i.e. project stage); (CB3)Project’s is at stage of…Project’s is at stage of…A: Tendering, B: Feasibility study, C: Pre-feasibility study, A: Tendering, B: Feasibility study, C: Pre-feasibility study, D: Planning, E: IdentificationD: Planning, E: Identification

8. Financing feasibility; (CB4)8. Financing feasibility; (CB4)Projects’ financing feasibility is..Projects’ financing feasibility is..A: Excellent, B: Very Good, C: Good, D: Medium, E: LowA: Excellent, B: Very Good, C: Good, D: Medium, E: Low

9. Environmental and social impacts; (CB5)9. Environmental and social impacts; (CB5)The project has potentially has negative environmental or The project has potentially has negative environmental or social impacts (pollution, safety, etc). social impacts (pollution, safety, etc). A: No impact, B: Slight impact, C: Moderate impact, D: A: No impact, B: Slight impact, C: Moderate impact, D: Significant impact, E; Great impact.Significant impact, E; Great impact.

The physical scale of criteria measurement was The physical scale of criteria measurement was derived by the consultant based on his derived by the consultant based on his experience from similar studies. experience from similar studies. The physical scale ranges from A to E as presented The physical scale ranges from A to E as presented

beforebefore Criteria were measured by direct classification Criteria were measured by direct classification

(from A to E) performed by the countries’ (the (from A to E) performed by the countries’ (the national representatives in the EATL project) by national representatives in the EATL project) by completing the evaluation criteria questionnaire completing the evaluation criteria questionnaire ((Section 2 of TEMPLATE 2 as already presentedSection 2 of TEMPLATE 2 as already presented). ).

Measurement of CriteriaMeasurement of Criteria

Quantification of CriteriaQuantification of Criteria Then the transformation of criterion Then the transformation of criterion

measurement to the artificial scale (derivation measurement to the artificial scale (derivation of scores) took place. of scores) took place.

According to the quantification of criteria the A According to the quantification of criteria the A value is 5 (the highest) in terms of score and value is 5 (the highest) in terms of score and respectively for value E, is 1 (the lowest).respectively for value E, is 1 (the lowest).

Therefore:Therefore: where:where: J = A or B andJ = A or B and i = 1,….,5i = 1,….,5

5,1JiC

Criterion Scores from Criterion Scores from Country ExpertsCountry Experts

It has to be noted here, that the good It has to be noted here, that the good communication between the externals and the communication between the externals and the country experts is necessary in order to quantify country experts is necessary in order to quantify as good as possible all the criteria. as good as possible all the criteria.

Nonetheless, for unfunded projects that no Nonetheless, for unfunded projects that no answers were provided in the evaluation answers were provided in the evaluation questionnaire, the lowest scores were assigned. questionnaire, the lowest scores were assigned.

Weighting/ Hierarchy of Weighting/ Hierarchy of CriteriaCriteria

By using Paired Comparison Method weights were By using Paired Comparison Method weights were derived. According to “policy” priorities set out from derived. According to “policy” priorities set out from the interviewed experts (the consultants, UNECE the interviewed experts (the consultants, UNECE and UNESCAP) pair wise comparisons of all criteria and UNESCAP) pair wise comparisons of all criteria were madewere made

A standard axiom of most of multicriteria methods is A standard axiom of most of multicriteria methods is that the sum of criteria weights should be 1.that the sum of criteria weights should be 1.  

Therefore: Therefore: and and

where:where:

J= A or B andJ= A or B and

i = 1,….,5i = 1,….,5

1,0JiW 15

1

B

AJ iJiW

Paired Comparison Paired Comparison MethodMethod

Paired comparison approach is a scaling Paired comparison approach is a scaling approach. approach.

OnlyOnly one one question to be answered is “is this question to be answered is “is this criterion more important than the other?”. criterion more important than the other?”.

This means that the paired comparison matrix This means that the paired comparison matrix (see Table I next) can be filled with zeros and (see Table I next) can be filled with zeros and ones, where one represents “is more important”. ones, where one represents “is more important”.

By adding these values over the column, a By adding these values over the column, a measure is obtained for the degree to which a measure is obtained for the degree to which a criterion is important compared to all other criterion is important compared to all other criteria, if finally these measures are criteria, if finally these measures are standardisedstandardised (see Formula I next) (see Formula I next), a set of , a set of criteria weights is created.criteria weights is created.

Table I An example of Paired Comparison matrix

W1 W2 … WN W1 W2 … WN

Standardised score wi = (I) scoresraw

wscoreraw i

''

..''

Criteria Weights from the Criteria Weights from the Country ExpertsCountry Experts

It has to be noted here, that countries (though It has to be noted here, that countries (though national representatives) may provide their own national representatives) may provide their own weights, with the proper justification of course.weights, with the proper justification of course.

Total Performance of Total Performance of ProjectProject

To derive the project’s To derive the project’s total scoretotal score we use the we use the following relationship:following relationship:

T.S.T.S.ProjectProject = =

where:where:

CCJiJi [1,5] [1,5]

WWJiJi [0,1] [0,1]J = A or B andJ = A or B andi = 1,….,5i = 1,….,5

TSTSProjectProject [1,5] [1,5]

B

AJ iJiJi WC

5

1

*

Prioritization PhasePrioritization Phase The combination of the criterions scores and The combination of the criterions scores and

priorities puts each project in one of the four priorities puts each project in one of the four priority categories or reserve category. priority categories or reserve category. If the project already has committed funding, it If the project already has committed funding, it

belongs to priority category belongs to priority category II.. If the project scores between 4-5 then it belongs If the project scores between 4-5 then it belongs

to priority category to priority category IIII.. If the project scores 3 -4 then it belongs to If the project scores 3 -4 then it belongs to

priority category priority category IIIIII.. If the project scores 1 -3 then it belongs to If the project scores 1 -3 then it belongs to

priority category priority category IVIV.. If the project has not pass the pre-selection If the project has not pass the pre-selection

phase then it belongs to reserve categoryphase then it belongs to reserve category..

Priority CategoriesPriority Categories II: projects, which have funding secured and are : projects, which have funding secured and are

ongoing or planned and are expected to be ongoing or planned and are expected to be completed in the near future (up to2010). completed in the near future (up to2010).

IIII: projects which may be funded and implemented : projects which may be funded and implemented rapidly (up to 2015).rapidly (up to 2015).

IIIIII: projects requiring some additional : projects requiring some additional investigations for final definition before likely investigations for final definition before likely financing (up to 2020).financing (up to 2020).

IVIV: projects requiring further investigations for final : projects requiring further investigations for final definition and scheduling before possible financingdefinition and scheduling before possible financing

ReserveReserve: projects to be implemented in the long : projects to be implemented in the long run, including the projects where insufficient data run, including the projects where insufficient data existed.existed.

Part B: Projects databasePart B: Projects databaseCountries participationCountries participationCoding/AbbreviationCoding/AbbreviationNumber, types of infrastructure Number, types of infrastructure and cost of projectsand cost of projectsStatistics on project’s types and Statistics on project’s types and costscosts

Countries participationCountries participation

Out of the 18 countries participating in this Out of the 18 countries participating in this project, 15 countries have submitted data on the project, 15 countries have submitted data on the projects under evaluation. projects under evaluation. Countries that submitted data: Countries that submitted data:

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Georgia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Romania, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Romania, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan. Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Countries not submitting data:Countries not submitting data: Afghanistan, Russian Federation ,TurkmenistanAfghanistan, Russian Federation ,Turkmenistan

Coding/AbbreviationsCoding/Abbreviations Each project is identified with a unique Each project is identified with a unique Project ID Project ID

specifying country, transport mode and a specific number. specifying country, transport mode and a specific number. Abbreviations for country Abbreviations for country : : Afghanistan (AFT), Armenia Afghanistan (AFT), Armenia

(ARM), Azerbaijan (AZT), Belarus (BL), Bulgaria (BG), China (ARM), Azerbaijan (AZT), Belarus (BL), Bulgaria (BG), China (CH), Georgia (GE), Islamic Republic of Iran (IR), (CH), Georgia (GE), Islamic Republic of Iran (IR), Kazakhstan (KZ), Kyrgyzstan (KG), Moldova (MD), Romania Kazakhstan (KZ), Kyrgyzstan (KG), Moldova (MD), Romania (RO), Russian Federation (RU), Tajikistan (TJK), Turkey (RO), Russian Federation (RU), Tajikistan (TJK), Turkey (TU), Turkmenistan (TM), Ukraine (UKR), Uzbekistan (UZB).(TU), Turkmenistan (TM), Ukraine (UKR), Uzbekistan (UZB).

Abbreviations for type of infrastructure Abbreviations for type of infrastructure : Road projects : Road projects (ROD), Railway project (RLW), Maritime projects (MAR), (ROD), Railway project (RLW), Maritime projects (MAR), Inland waterway project (INL). Inland/border crossing and Inland waterway project (INL). Inland/border crossing and other projects (INM).other projects (INM).

So a project with an ID such as AZT-RLW-1 is thus railway So a project with an ID such as AZT-RLW-1 is thus railway project number 1 in Azerbaijan.project number 1 in Azerbaijan.

Projects submitted – Projects submitted – in raw in raw numbersnumbers

In total 230 projects were included in this phase for In total 230 projects were included in this phase for a total value of $ 42.02 bill. of which:a total value of $ 42.02 bill. of which: 112 road projects for a total value of $ 11.9 bill.112 road projects for a total value of $ 11.9 bill. 68 railway projects for a total value of $ 22.7 bill.68 railway projects for a total value of $ 22.7 bill. 37 maritime projects for a total value of $ 5.7 bill.37 maritime projects for a total value of $ 5.7 bill. 11 inland waterway projects for a total value of $ 11 inland waterway projects for a total value of $

1.6 bill and1.6 bill and 2 inland/border crossing etc. projects for a total 2 inland/border crossing etc. projects for a total

value of $ 0,003 bill. value of $ 0,003 bill.

Table next slideTable next slide

Table includes only the countries that sent data.

Table 1 Data submitted by countries for all projects and per type of infrastructure (costs in mio. $)

Projects submitted –Projects submitted –statisticsstatistics

4848,,77% of the Projects are Road projects, for a total % of the Projects are Road projects, for a total value of 11.956,07 mio$, representing 28,45% of value of 11.956,07 mio$, representing 28,45% of the total investment cost.the total investment cost.

29,629,6% of the Projects are Railway projects, for a % of the Projects are Railway projects, for a total value of 22.755,82 mio$, representing total value of 22.755,82 mio$, representing 54,15% of the total investment cost.54,15% of the total investment cost.

16,116,1% of the Projects are Maritime projects, for a % of the Projects are Maritime projects, for a total value of 5.735,45 mio$, representing 13,65% total value of 5.735,45 mio$, representing 13,65% of the total investment cost.of the total investment cost.

4,84,8% of the Projects are Inland waterway projects, % of the Projects are Inland waterway projects, for a total value of 1.570,65 mio$, representing for a total value of 1.570,65 mio$, representing 3,74% of the total investment cost.3,74% of the total investment cost.

0,90,9% of the Projects are Inland/Cross border (etc.) % of the Projects are Inland/Cross border (etc.) projects, for a total value of 3,12 mio$, projects, for a total value of 3,12 mio$, representing 0,01% of the total investment cost.representing 0,01% of the total investment cost.

MAR; 16,09%

RLW; 29,57%

ROD; 48,70%

INM; 0,87%INW; 4,78%

No Project type/No All projects

Project type cost/Cost of all projects

230 projects 230 projects •112 road projects 112 road projects •68 railway projects68 railway projects•37 maritime projects37 maritime projects•11 inland waterway 11 inland waterway projects projects •2 inland/border crossing 2 inland/border crossing etc. projectsetc. projects

ttotal value $ 42.02 bill.otal value $ 42.02 bill. •road projects $ 11.9 bill.road projects $ 11.9 bill.•railway projects $ 22.7 bill.railway projects $ 22.7 bill.•maritime projects $ 5.7 bill.maritime projects $ 5.7 bill.•inland waterway projects $ 1.6 bill inland waterway projects $ 1.6 bill •inland/border crossing etc. projects inland/border crossing etc. projects $ 0,003 bill.$ 0,003 bill.

INW; 3,74% INM; 0,01% ROD; 28,45%

RLW; 54,15%

MAR; 13,65%

Part C: ResultsPart C: ResultsCombined analysis - in raw numbers Combined analysis - in raw numbers and statistics -of:and statistics -of: Prioritization results – all and per Prioritization results – all and per infrastructure typeinfrastructure type Cost analysis – all and per Cost analysis – all and per infrastructure typeinfrastructure type

Prioritization results and cost Prioritization results and cost analysis (for all and per type of analysis (for all and per type of infrastructure) – raw numbersinfrastructure) – raw numbers

*All costs in mio $**Projects received priority categorisation IV, due to lack of data

Prioritization results and Prioritization results and cost analysis (for all) – cost analysis (for all) –

statisticsstatistics 56,5% of the Projects belong to Priority Category I, for a total value of 56,5% of the Projects belong to Priority Category I, for a total value of

20.602,79 mio$, representing 49,03% of the total investment cost.20.602,79 mio$, representing 49,03% of the total investment cost. These projects have secured fundingThese projects have secured funding

7% of the Projects belong to Priority Category II, for a total value of 7% of the Projects belong to Priority Category II, for a total value of 13.244,02 mio$, representing 31,52% of the total investment cost.13.244,02 mio$, representing 31,52% of the total investment cost. For these projects funding was not secured but the national representatives For these projects funding was not secured but the national representatives

have sent sufficient data/answers on criteria valuation and thus it was have sent sufficient data/answers on criteria valuation and thus it was possible to perform multi-criteria evaluation method and derive prioritypossible to perform multi-criteria evaluation method and derive priority

5,7% of the Projects belong to Priority Category III, for a total value of 5,7% of the Projects belong to Priority Category III, for a total value of 3.058,35 mio$, representing 7,28% of the total investment cost.3.058,35 mio$, representing 7,28% of the total investment cost. For these projects funding was not secured but the national representatives For these projects funding was not secured but the national representatives

have sent sufficient data/answers on criteria valuation and thus it was have sent sufficient data/answers on criteria valuation and thus it was possible to perform multi-criteria evaluation method and derive prioritypossible to perform multi-criteria evaluation method and derive priority

31,3% of the Projects belong to Priority Category IV, for a total value 31,3% of the Projects belong to Priority Category IV, for a total value of 5.115,95 mio$, representing 12,17% of the total investment cost.of 5.115,95 mio$, representing 12,17% of the total investment cost. For these projects funding was not secured and the national representatives For these projects funding was not secured and the national representatives

have not sent sufficient data/answers on criteria valuation and thus the have not sent sufficient data/answers on criteria valuation and thus the consultant assigned directly the lowest score and derived the lowest priorityconsultant assigned directly the lowest score and derived the lowest priority

No Project per Priority Category/No All projects

Cost of Projects per Priority Category/ Cost of all projects

230 projects 230 projects •130 in Priority Category I130 in Priority Category I•16 in Priority Category II16 in Priority Category II•13 in Priority Category III13 in Priority Category III•72 in Priority Category IV72 in Priority Category IV

All Priorities - total value 43.4 All Priorities - total value 43.4 bill. $ bill. $ •Priority Category I, 20,6 bill. $ Priority Category I, 20,6 bill. $ •Priority Category II, 13,2 bill. $Priority Category II, 13,2 bill. $•Priority Category III, 3,05 bill. $Priority Category III, 3,05 bill. $•Priority Category IV, 5,1 bill. $Priority Category IV, 5,1 bill. $

I; 56,52%

II; 6,96%III; 5,65%

IV; 31,30%

IV; 12,17%

III; 7,28%

II; 31,52%

I; 49,03%

Statistics concerning Road Statistics concerning Road Projects’ priorities and costProjects’ priorities and cost

80,4% of the Road projects belong to Priority Category 80,4% of the Road projects belong to Priority Category I, for a total value of 10.175,47mio$, representing I, for a total value of 10.175,47mio$, representing 85,11% of the total investment cost for Road projects.85,11% of the total investment cost for Road projects.

1,8% of the Road projects belong to Priority Category 1,8% of the Road projects belong to Priority Category II, for a total value of 640 mio$, representing 5,35% of II, for a total value of 640 mio$, representing 5,35% of the total investment cost for Road projects.the total investment cost for Road projects.

8 % of the Road projects belong to Priority Category 8 % of the Road projects belong to Priority Category III, for a total value of 678,05 mio$, representing III, for a total value of 678,05 mio$, representing 5,66% of the total investment cost for Road projects.5,66% of the total investment cost for Road projects.

10,7% of the Road projects belong to Priority Category 10,7% of the Road projects belong to Priority Category IV, for a total value of 462,55 mio$, representing IV, for a total value of 462,55 mio$, representing 3,87% of the total investment cost for Road projects.3,87% of the total investment cost for Road projects.

No of Road projects per Priority Category/No All Road projects

Cost of Road projects per Priority Category/Cost of All Road projects

112 Road projects 112 Road projects •90 in Priority Category I90 in Priority Category I•2 in Priority Category II2 in Priority Category II•9 in Priority Category III9 in Priority Category III•12 in Priority Category IV12 in Priority Category IV

All Priorities for Road projects - total All Priorities for Road projects - total value 11.95 bill. $value 11.95 bill. $

• Priority Category I, 10,2 bill. $ Priority Category I, 10,2 bill. $ • Priority Category II, 0,64 bill. $Priority Category II, 0,64 bill. $• Priority Category III, 0,68 bill. $Priority Category III, 0,68 bill. $• Priority Category IV, 0,46 bill. $Priority Category IV, 0,46 bill. $

I; 85,11%

II; 5,35%

III; 5,67% IV; 3,87%

IV; 10,71%

III; 8,04%

II; 1,79%

I; 80,36%

Statistics concerning Rail Statistics concerning Rail Projects’ priorities and costProjects’ priorities and cost

38,2% of the Railway projects belong to Priority 38,2% of the Railway projects belong to Priority Category I, for a total value of 9.581,2 mio$, Category I, for a total value of 9.581,2 mio$, representing 42,1% of the total investment cost for representing 42,1% of the total investment cost for Railway projects.Railway projects.

16,2% of the Railway projects belong to Priority 16,2% of the Railway projects belong to Priority Category II, for a total value of 8.212,42 mio$, Category II, for a total value of 8.212,42 mio$, representing 36,09% of the total investment cost for representing 36,09% of the total investment cost for Railway projects.Railway projects.

5,9% of the Railway projects belong to Priority Category 5,9% of the Railway projects belong to Priority Category III, for a total value of 2.380,3 mio$, representing III, for a total value of 2.380,3 mio$, representing 10,46% of the total investment cost for Railway projects.10,46% of the total investment cost for Railway projects.

39,7% of the Railway projects belong to Priority 39,7% of the Railway projects belong to Priority Category IV, for a total value of 2.581,9 mio$, Category IV, for a total value of 2.581,9 mio$, representing 11,35% of the total investment cost for representing 11,35% of the total investment cost for Railway projects. Railway projects.

No of Rail projects per Priority Category/No All Rail projects

Cost of Rail projects per Priority Category/Cost of All Rail projects

68 Rail projects 68 Rail projects •26 in Priority Category I26 in Priority Category I•11 in Priority Category II11 in Priority Category II•4 in Priority Category III4 in Priority Category III•27 in Priority Category IV27 in Priority Category IV

All Priorities for Rail projects - total value All Priorities for Rail projects - total value 23,4 bill. $ 23,4 bill. $

• Priority Category I, 9,5 bill. $ Priority Category I, 9,5 bill. $ • Priority Category II, 8,2 bill. $Priority Category II, 8,2 bill. $• Priority Category III, 2,4 bill. $Priority Category III, 2,4 bill. $• Priority Category IV, 2,6 bill. $Priority Category IV, 2,6 bill. $

III; 5,88% II; 16,18%

I; 38,24%IV; 39,71%

I; 42,10%

II; 36,09%

III; 10,46%

IV; 11,35%

Statistics concerning Statistics concerning Maritime Projects’ Maritime Projects’ priorities and costpriorities and cost

16,1% of the Maritime projects belong to Priority 16,1% of the Maritime projects belong to Priority Category I, for a total value of 253,75 mio$, Category I, for a total value of 253,75 mio$, representing 4,42% of the total investment cost representing 4,42% of the total investment cost for Maritime projects.for Maritime projects.

5,4% of the Maritime projects belong to Priority 5,4% of the Maritime projects belong to Priority Category II, for a total value of 4.190 mio$, Category II, for a total value of 4.190 mio$, representing 73,05% of the total investment cost representing 73,05% of the total investment cost for Maritime projects.for Maritime projects.

78,4% of the Maritime projects belong to Priority 78,4% of the Maritime projects belong to Priority Category IV, for a total value of 1.291,7 mio$, Category IV, for a total value of 1.291,7 mio$, representing 22,52% of the total investment cost representing 22,52% of the total investment cost for Maritime projects.for Maritime projects.

No of Maritime projects per Priority Category/No All Maritime projects

Cost of Maritime projects per Priority Category/Cost of All Maritime projects

37 Maritime projects 37 Maritime projects •6 in Priority Category I6 in Priority Category I•2 in Priority Category II2 in Priority Category II•29 in Priority Category IV29 in Priority Category IV

All Priorities for Maritime projects - total All Priorities for Maritime projects - total value 5,7 bill. $ value 5,7 bill. $

• Priority Category I, 0,2 bill. $ Priority Category I, 0,2 bill. $ • Priority Category II, 4,2 bill. $Priority Category II, 4,2 bill. $• Priority Category IV, 1,3 bill. $Priority Category IV, 1,3 bill. $

III; 0,00%

II; 5,41%I; 16,22%

IV; 78,38%

I; 4,42%

II; 73,05%

III; 0,00%

IV; 22,52%

III;

Statistics concerning Statistics concerning Inland waterway Projects’ Inland waterway Projects’

priorities and costpriorities and cost 54,5% of the Inland waterway projects belong 54,5% of the Inland waterway projects belong

to Priority Category I, for a total value of to Priority Category I, for a total value of 589,25 mio$, representing 37,52% of the total 589,25 mio$, representing 37,52% of the total investment cost for Inland waterway projects.investment cost for Inland waterway projects.

9,1% of the Inland waterway projects belong to 9,1% of the Inland waterway projects belong to Priority Category II, for a total value of 201,6 Priority Category II, for a total value of 201,6 mio$, representing 12,84% of the total mio$, representing 12,84% of the total investment cost for Inland waterway projects.investment cost for Inland waterway projects.

36,4 % of the Inland waterway projects belong 36,4 % of the Inland waterway projects belong to Priority Category IV, for a total value of to Priority Category IV, for a total value of 779,8 mio$, representing 49,65% of the total 779,8 mio$, representing 49,65% of the total investment cost for Inland waterway projects.investment cost for Inland waterway projects.

No of Inland waterway projects per Priority Category/No All Inland waterway projects

Cost of Inland waterway projects per Priority Category/Cost of All Inland waterway projects

11 Maritime projects 11 Maritime projects •6 in Priority Category I6 in Priority Category I•1 in Priority Category II1 in Priority Category II•4 in Priority Category IV4 in Priority Category IV

All Priorities for Maritime projects - total All Priorities for Maritime projects - total value 1,6 bill. $ value 1,6 bill. $

•Priority Category I, 0,6 bill. $ Priority Category I, 0,6 bill. $ •Priority Category II, 0,2 bill. $Priority Category II, 0,2 bill. $•Priority Category IV, 0,8 bill. $Priority Category IV, 0,8 bill. $

IV; 49,65%

III; 0,00%

II; 12,84%

I; 37,52%

IV; 36,36%

III; 0,00%

II; 9,09%

I; 54,55%

Statistics concerning Statistics concerning Inland/Border crossing (etc.)Inland/Border crossing (etc.) Projects’ priorities and costProjects’ priorities and cost

100% of the Inland/Border crossing (etc.) 100% of the Inland/Border crossing (etc.) projects belong to Priority Category I, for a total projects belong to Priority Category I, for a total value of 3,12 mio$.value of 3,12 mio$.

Part D: ConclusionsPart D: Conclusions

Missing data – next stepsMissing data – next steps

Strengths and weaknessesStrengths and weaknesses

Data missingData missing Three countries have not sent data at allThree countries have not sent data at all

Afghanistan, Russian Federation and TurkmenistanAfghanistan, Russian Federation and Turkmenistan Half of the countries that submitted projects, have not Half of the countries that submitted projects, have not

provided all necessary data (specifically: Armenia, provided all necessary data (specifically: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Romania, Tajikistan, Ukraine)Romania, Tajikistan, Ukraine) either for their unfunded projects they have not completed either for their unfunded projects they have not completed

Section 2 of TEMPLATE 2 with the evaluation criteria (in Section 2 of TEMPLATE 2 with the evaluation criteria (in order to ease the evaluation exercise for these projects)order to ease the evaluation exercise for these projects) so for these unfunded projects that no answers were provided so for these unfunded projects that no answers were provided

in the evaluation questionnaire, the lowest scores were in the evaluation questionnaire, the lowest scores were assignedassigned

or in some cases they have not provided projects costs or if or in some cases they have not provided projects costs or if the project is funded or unfundedthe project is funded or unfunded

Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths and Weaknesses in the EATL exercisein the EATL exercise

More than 50% of projects have secured funding (Priority I) These “secured” projects represent almost 50% of total cost In each type of infrastructure (except maritime), Priority I

projects is the majority Overall :

Good chances of quick implementation of EATL network

30% of projects belong to Priority IV – due to lack of data The above is very obvious especially for Maritime projects Too many road projects (48,7%), enough railway (29,6), some

maritime (16,1%) and very few inland waterway (4,8 %) etc. – no balance among infrastructure types

Overall: serious lack of data (reversible weakness) unbalance of infrastructure types