1. 1 Evaluation of projects for the Northern Dimension Partnership on Transport and Logistics Martti Miettinen Transys Ltd, Helsinki, Finland NETLIPSE Network Meeting, Vilnius, 17-18 May 2010 17 May 2010

2. Northern Dimension Partnership on Transport and Logistics NDPTL 17 May 2010Martti Miettinen Transys Ltd 2

3. 17 May 2010 Transys Ltd Martti Miettinen 3 NDPTL is a Partnership between the Ministries of Transport EU Member States: Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Latvia Lithuania Poland Sweden + EU Commission Non-EU members: Belarus Norway Russia

4. 17 May 2010 Transys Ltd Martti Miettinen 4 Main Developments in Organising the NDPTL A two-year process came to an end in 2009: Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed by all the Ministers of Transport by December 2009 1st Steering Committee meeting was held in Stockholm, December 18, 2009 1st High-Level meeting between the Transport Ministers will be held in Zaragoza, Spain, June 8-9 Lithuania has the first Chairmanship, Jan-Dec 2010 Permanent Secretariat will be established in early 2011 at the Nordic Investment Bank in Helsinki

5. 17 May 2010Transys Ltd Martti Miettinen 5 NDPTL Aims The main goal is to improve major transport connections and logistics to stimulate sustainable economic growth by focusing on a limited number of priorities that reflect both regional and national priorities. The specific aims are to assist in: Improving the major transnational transport connections between the Parties Accelerating the implementation of transport and logistics infrastructure projects along the major transnational connections Accelerating the removal of non-infrastructure related bottlenecks Providing effective structures to monitor the implementation of the proposed projects and measures.

6. 17 May 2010Transys Ltd Martti Miettinen 6 COOPERATION FRAMEWORK High Level Meetings between the Ministers to take strategic decisions and to give political impetus, strategic orientation and direction to the Partnership. Steering Committee to co ‑ ordinate the joint work and to follow and monitor the implementation of the Action Plan Permanent Secretariat to provide administrative and technical support to the Steering Committee and the High Level Meetings Working Groups as deemed necessary

7. 17 May 2010Transys Ltd Martti Miettinen 7 Main Transnational Transport Corridors – the Focus of the NDPTL

8. 17 May 2010Transys Ltd Martti Miettinen 8 Consultancy Assignment for Preparing the NDPTL Co-operation

9. 17 May 2010Transys Ltd Martti Miettinen 9 The Assignment 1.Trade and traffic analyses and forecasts 2.Minimum data set (for continuous and effective monitoring) 3.Guidebook on a sound methodology on project evaluation and appraisal 4.Preliminary list of infrastructure projects 5.Methodology for identifying non-infrastructure related bottlenecks 6.Methodology for drawing up a short list of projects and measures 7.Series of meetings and/or conferences

10. PRELIMINARY PROJECTS Infrastructure projects (Non-infrastructure projects)

11. Guidelines for proposing project Obvious significance for the international trade and transport in the ND region; e.g. cross-border impact Projects should not already: –be in the construction phase, –have been awarded financing, or –be so advanced that the intervention of the NDPTL is not necessary Some political endorsement, such as an inclusion in the national transport investment plan Projects need not necessarily be on the priority axes. However, they should be considered projects of interest for the future NDPTL transport network Proposed projects should be located on the Northern Axis corridors with significant international trade and transport flows Projects should address physical and operational bottlenecks or contribute to their removal Projects, which cannot be implemented by a single country

12. Kari Lautso

13. Preliminary Classification Are the projects corridors (programmes) or distinct projects? Have the projects been endorsed (proposed) by one or several countries? Has a project organisation of any kind been set up?

14. Preliminary Classification

15. Table 1a - CORRIDORS WITH SEVERAL ENDORSERS AND AN ORGANISATION Tables 1a and 1b list the corridors, which have possibly advanced the best and longest. They have already a more or less functioning organisation for project development and promotion. For these reasons the corridors are likely to belong to GROUP 1 (Keep up the good work). Question: (1) Are all these projects already sufficiently managed so that they need no assistance from the NDTPL Steering Committee?

16. Screening and Prioritisation Methodology (A proposal by the Consultant)

17. EUROMED Method

18. Problems with EUROMED Social criteria and environmental criteria do not reflect the traditional impacts of project development, as they are expressed as project types (e.g. New rail project). This will: –predetermine the types of projects selected –give double weight to selected project types Cannot be applied to non-infrastructure projects Use of Project Maturity concept (IPAT) ?

19. Methodology for Drawing up a Shortlist of Infrastructure Projects Version 1: Northern Dimension methodology based on EUROMED Version 2: Northern Dimension methodology

20. Methodology Version 1 (based on EUROMED)

21. Methodology Version 2: Aims of the NDPTL Memorandum of Understanding: Within the general aim of promoting international trade, the specific aims of the Northern Dimension Partnership on Transport and Logistics are to assist in: Improving the major transnational transport connections between the Sides with the view to stimulate sustainable economic growth at the local/regional and global levels; Accelerating the implementation of transport and logistics infrastructure projects along the major transnational connections, and facilitate the approval of projects of mutual interest; Accelerating the removal of non-infrastructure related bottlenecks, affecting the flow of transport in and across the region, and facilitate the improvement of logistics in international supply chains; Providing effective structures to monitor the implementation of the proposed projects and measures.

22. Requirements Clarity with regard: –Fulfilment of the aims of NDPTL ( Improvement of transnational transport corridors ) => Goals indicator –Project progress ( Accelerating project implementation ) => Maturity indicator Non-infrastructure measures analysed similarly Provision the basis for future monitoring => Maturity Support for ready incorporation of ”Infrastructure Project Assessment Tool (IPAT)” developed in Netlipse project Direct incorporation of regional and global environmental impacts possible (not yet included)

23. Methodology Version 2 Goals indicator measures the compatibility of the project against the NDPTL goals and objectives Maturity indicator measures how well the needs of project development have been addressed at the time of evaluation

24. Martti Miettinen Transys Ltd Methodology Version 2 Goals Indicator 0 B A 10 Maturity Indicator 0 B A 10 Environmental Indicator 0 B A 10 Partnership aims Project progress IPAT/Netlipse? Environment Greenhouse gases CO 2 Carbon

25. Martti Miettinen Transys Ltd Scoring Project A: 9,1 / 5,2 / 1,0 5,1 Goals / Maturity / Environment Project B: 1,0 / 5,2 / 9,1 or

26. Martti Miettinen Transys Ltd Rating A A A Goals Maturity Environment A A B A B B B B B

27. Martti Miettinen Transys Ltd Methodology Version 2 (Projects/programs > 5 years)

28. Martti Miettinen Transys Ltd Methodology Version 2 (Projects < 5 years)

29. Martti Miettinen Transys Ltd Methodology Version 2 Goals benchmarks: Location benchmarks indicate whether the project is located e.g. on a previously prioritised corridor. Functional benchmarks reveal whether the project finalises an already started program, or it only launches one. Operational benchmarks look into the expected usage of the project. i.e. what is the future volume of international traffic. Economic development benchmarks are indirect indicators using expected changes in travel time and costs. Quality of life benchmarks are included to take into account some special project goals, such as traffic safety and environmental impact mitigation.

30. Martti Miettinen Transys Ltd Methodology Version 2 Maturity benchmarks (projects/programs >5 years): Status with regard the national Transport Plan or equivalent Affordability Risks with regard the nature preservation areas, especially Natura areas Coordination of the projects on the same corridor with neighbouring countries Additional benchmarks for immediate projects (< 5 years): Economy and finance reveal the financial feasibility and status of the project Planning status indicate the preparedness of the plans and engineering documents of the project Permitting and environment describe the attainment of legal and regulatory permits and approvals

31. Martti Miettinen Transys Ltd Project Rating By using multi-criteria analysis

32. Martti Miettinen Transys Ltd Grouping of Projects Projects vs. programs. For the purposes of this study the distinction between a project and a program is probably necessary Timing. Time-specific groups that can be applied are such as 10 years Transport mode. This classification is not proposed Previous priority lists. The projects located on the priority corridors should be automatically placed on the shortlist of projects? However, this rule has not been proposed

33. Martti Miettinen Transys Ltd Addressing Environmental Concerns Methodology addresses: Project specific environmental concerns, which are stated in the current national laws and regulations (e.g. FS, EIA, public participation) Methodology does not address: General environmental considerations, which are ND-wide or global and go beyond the current national laws and regulations. They are primarily new systemic and regulatory concerns, e.g. caps on greenhouse gases.

34. Martti Miettinen Transys Ltd Work to Be Done Selecting the method for developing the final methodology Selecting benchmarks/criteria and defining them in detail Setting weights for each benchmark/criteria Applying the selected method to the preliminary list of projects

35. How to Benefit from IPAT? 17 May 2010Transys Ltd Martti Miettinen 35 Maturity - Long term Maturity - Short term Decision Phase IPAT?