Una metodologia di Analisi Costi-Benefici nellImpact assessment delle politiche dei trasporti Andrea...

Una metodologia di Analisi Costi-Beneficinell’Impact assessment delle politiche dei trasporti

Andrea Tedeschi, Giuseppe Siciliano, Carlo Vaghi

XI Riunione Scientifica SIETTrieste, 16-18 giugno 2009

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo

Sommario

• Introduzione e obiettivi

• Descrizione del progetto

• Metodologia

• Impatti

• Conclusioni


Introduzione: l’Impact assessment

L’impact assessment è uno strumento utilizzato dalla Commissione Europea per la valutazione ex-ante di progetti; è volto ad aiutare la decisione del decisore politico.

La metodologia è stata sviluppata ed implementata all’interno di uno studio di IA commissionato dalla Commissione Europea con l’obiettivo di stimare ex-ante alcuni fra i maggiori impatti delle politiche a favore dell’implementazione di un Maritime Common Space in Europa.

EC guidelines, pivotal steps of an IA:1 – identifying the problem

2 – define the objective

3 – develop main policy options

4 – analyse the impacts of the options

5 – compare the options

6 – outline policy monitoring and evaluation


Rationale del progetto

• Customs and tax rules• Immigration, trade• Statistics• Environment and waste• Phytosanitary, veterinary and healt protection• Security and safety regulations

Rallentano il trasporto marittimo ed intermodale, generando ridondanze e maggiori costi (posizione svantaggiata rispetto al trasporto stradale)

E’ necessaria una razionalizzazione, armonizzazione e riduzione di queste procedure, per aumentare la competitività dello SSS e stimolare

modal shift dalla strada.

Complessità procedure amministrative in SSS intra EU


Attività del progetto: identificazione dei bottlenecks, misure, policy option ed analisi costi benefici

Identification of 4 Policy OptionsA) Simplification of regulations on

carriage of dangerous goods in the case of “Authorised Regular Shipping Services”

B) License of “Authorised Regular Shipping Service” to be connected with operators (not with vessels)

C) Separation of areas in ports (Community and non-Community goods)

D) One-stop administrative shops in ports

E) Enhanced electronic data transmission (elimination of paperwork)

F) Single document for all administrative procedures

G) Maximum elimination of administrative procedures in ports

H) Use of English as second official administrative language

1) Additional time, delay of the ship and/or of the goods

2) Different procedures for SSS and road transport (in particular for dangerous goods)

3) Specific national procedures

4) Individual interpretations of EU legislation

5) Language requirements (English not universally accepted)

6) Not all ports recognise electronic manifests

7) “Authorised Regulars Shipping Service” Licence only for specific routes (linked to the vessel – not to the operator).

8) Use of IT for customs purposes is not the rule in all ports

9) Administrative procedures for security standards

Identification of 9 Bottlenecks

Identification of 8 Measures

1. Evaluation of the measures

2. Grouping of the measures

3. Policy Options’ proposal

4. PoE’s and DG TREN’ s feedbacks

5. Policy Options to be assessed

BAU: “Do-nothing”

Policy Option B1: Licence of “Authorised Regular Shipping Service” linked to operators, with simplifications of dangerous goods procedures

Policy Option B2: One-stop shops, Single Document, Electronic data transmission, use of English

Policy Option C: Maximum elimination of procedures

1. Assessment of the DO NOTHING SCENARIO

Quantitative evaluation of the SSS trade (EU and DG Goods)

Trend’s forecast (modal shift)

2. EVALUATION of the main IMPACTS

Economic, Environmental, Social

3. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS for each Policy Option

4. POLICY OPTIONS’ COMPARISON

Cost Benefit Analysis


Descrizione del progetto: le policy options

Policy Options Measures involved Description

A Do-nothing No measure Evolution of the market according to the baseline scenario

B1 Licence of “Authorised Regular Shipping Service”, with simplifacations of dangerous goods’ procedures

• “Authorized Regular Shipping Service” Licence to be linked with operators;

• Simplification of regulations on carriage of dangerous goods in the case of “Authorized Regular Shipping Services”.

• Simplification of the regulations on Dangerous Goods, in the case of Authorised Regular Shipping Services; once authorized, there would be no need to stick to the complex procedures set by the IMDG Code and by Directive 2002/59 and by national regulations. A simplified regime could be devised. Harmonisation of regulations on maritime transport to the ones for road transport

• Linking the licence of Autorised regular liner service to the operators and not with routes/vessels.

B2 One-stop shops, Single Document, Electronic data transmission, use of English

• Electronic data transmission;• One-stop administrative shops in

ports • Single document;• Use of English as a second official

language for administrative procedures in SSS.

• Issuing of a single document and identification of one-stop administrative shops for traders (which also implies the implementation of appropriate information technologies for data transmission).

• Possibility of using English as the second language for all the maritime in relation to all administrative documents and procedures.

C Maximum Elimination of administrative procedures

Sum of B1 and B2 and Maximum Elimination of administrative procedures in port.

• Complete elimination of administrative procedures for vessels carrying EU-cleared goods between EU ports;

• Complete elimination of administrative procedures on EU-cleared goods;

• Reduction of inspection on vessel /goods in case of EU goods and of vessel with only EU goods on board;

• Maintaining a single electronic information flow and one shop stop concept (electronic single document delivered before ships’ arrival); single shop in ports, guaranteeing the ship-owner and the ship agent a single counterpart for the payment of fee and any other information exchanges;

• Extension of the status of “Regular Authorised Shipping Service” to operators and simplification of DG procedures (as PO B1);


Metodologia

L’ACB è uno degli strumenti che all’interno dell’IA si usa per effettuare la misurazione degli impatti.

La peculiarità della metodologia oggetto dello studio sta nell’approccio usato per implementare l’ACB, data l’ampia portata geografica degli impatti prodotti dalle politiche soggetto della valutazione.

Approccio congiunto bottom-up (generalmente usato in CBA per progetti di trasporto a livello locale) e top down


Metodologia: top down and bottom up approach


Main assumptions: ritardi su merci e navi dovuti a procedure amministrative

• No delay on vessels seems to be generated when carrying administrative procedure (<1h);• Different scenarios on delays on goods: no delay on goods for some major ports of the northern range (for instance

Belgium) is generated;• Delay for inspections affects only non-EU goods;

• Moreover, answers received by the stakeholder consultation have been considered and the following assumptions are set:

• for each time range, an average time (in hours) has been considered;• The overall delay is expressed as a probability value, weighted against

different percentages for each time range (related to percentage of answer within the time range1);

Weight = 1 1-6 6-12 12-24 >24

Delay (P)on goods

Delay (P) on vessel

Average time chosen 1 3 9 18 48

Form. on GOODS 50% 41% 9% 5% 9% 0% 1.42 0.52

Form. on VESSELS 40% 48% 3% 0% 1% 1% 0.8 0.56

Dangerous Goods 5% 55% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0.95 0.55

Phytosanitary 2.5% 32% 5% 0% 5% 5% 3.45 0.32

Animal origin 2.5% 18% 5% 0% 0% 5% 2.5 0.18

Weighted average delay 1,48 0.47

(1) the percentage only refers to the total number of answers received on the specific issue of delays and not on the whole of the answers to the consultation. In case answers are not provided to the specific question, the reference sample has been eliminated from the calculation;

WeightDelay

on goods

Delay on

vessel

Form. on GOODS 50% 1.42 0.52

Form. on VESSELS 40% 0.8 0.56

Dangerous Goods 5% 0.95 0.55

Phytosanitary 2.5% 3.45 0.32

Animal origin 2.5% 2.5 0.18

Weighted avg. delay 1,48 0.47


Quantificazione degli impatti: Bills of Lading

Peculiarità dell’ACB utilizzata:• Assessment costi di investimento (implementazione) su larga scala• Assessment dei costi/benefici di gestione

• time costs, valutati mediante l’utilizzo di stime del valore del tempo di trasporto merci inventory costs + delay costs

• time related costs dei FTE (personale Full Time Equivalent) coinvolti

Il calcolo è basato sul numero dei B/L (sui quali i controlli vengono effettivamente effettuati) piuttosto che sul numero di unità di carico movimentate o sulle tonnellate/km.

Si è tenuto conto dei diversi segmenti del trasporto SSS (container, Ro-Ro, Ro-pax, Ro-Lo, bulk), e delle diverse specificità delle merci (dangerous goods, animali vivi ecc..)

Inoltre, si è tenuto conto dello status delle linee intra EU (Authorised Regular Shipping Services e non ARSS), e dello status dei beni trasportati su queste linee (EU e non EU goods).

[1] Cabotage excluded.


Container Ro-Ro Ro-Lo Ro-pax Bulk

Vessel size 800 TEU 350 LU100 LU + 200 TEU

80 LU20,000 tonnes

Load Factor of vessels 70% 80%80%(LU), 70%(TEU)

80% 80%

N of lines in the EU SSS market 308 136 39 74 50,000[1]

Avg n of port calls per line 4.23 2.84 4.15 2.03 2

Avg n of B/L's per line per vessel

448 400 170 91 4

Avg n of line loops per year 67.2 195.1 153.0 415.5 -

Type of Vessel B/L per yearRo-Ro 10,615,153.9Ro-Lo 1,016,094.9

Container 9,277,669.5Ro-Pax 2,811,288.4

Bulk 200,000Total 23,920,206.7

The assumptions made on average vessels’ capacities and load factors, validated y experts and stakeholders interviewed during the study[1]; the following parameters were assessed:

Average vessels’ capacities (considered for each type of vessel evaluated); average vessels’ loads (considered for each type of vessel evaluated); the share of cargo embarked/disembarked in each port of call on a shipping

line (considered per each type of vessel evaluated); conversion factors[2] from the number of LU[3] to the number of B/L; conversion factors[4] from the number of tonnes to the number of B/L;

(1) Based on our elaborations and data from previous study, interviews to experts and validation of the gathered data at the Antwerp meeting April 15th 2008;(2)1,4 LU per B/L in Ro-Ro traffic and 2,5 TEU per B/L in containerised one;(3) Containers and Loading Units;(4) 1,4 LU per B/L in Ro-Ro traffic and 2,5 TEU per B/L in containerised one.

Main assumptions: Il calcolo del numero del B/L per anno


Modal shift: riduzione dei costi esterni

By improving the internal efficiency of SSS, the policies determine a modal shift from Road and Rail. Thus, there is a positive impact in terms of reduction of external costs.

In the Base-line scenario, the modal shift for SSS of EU Goods in 2020 is equal to 8.6 bln tkm (0.77% of the total 1,116 bln tkm of SSS of EU Goods forecast).

• Based on indications from the previous EC Studies ISIC and MTCP, it is assumed that the EMS will determine an overall additional modal shift of:

• +0,097% in the Low Scenario• +0,194% in the High Scenario

In terms of external costs saved, the advantages equal an average of:

• 14.0 million Euro per year in the Low Scenario (ref. 2020)

• 28.0 million Euro per year in the High Scenario (ref. 2020)

Cumulated reduction of external costs up to 2040 (million Euro)

-

50

100

150

200

EMS Low EMS High

Air pollution

Global w arming

Noise

Accident costs

Congestion

Infrastructure

Mio tkm shifted to SSS, 2020 Low

-550 -256

962

EMSLow

- fromroad

- fromrail

Mio tkm shifted to SSS, 2020 High

-511-1.100

1.923

EMSHigh

- fromroad

- fromrail


% reduction of P (Delay) on Goods (1)PO B1 PO B2 PO C

Discount rate 50% 20% 20%

Formalities on vessels 1% 21% 21%

Formalities on Goods 7% 25% 31%

Dangerous Goods 40% 25% 40%

Phytosanitary 0% 25% 25%

Animal origin 0% 25% 25%

Other standard goods 7% 25% 31%

Weighted avg. delay 8% 25% 30%

Riduzione dei Time cost dovuta alla riduzione dei ritardi sulle merci (incremento della puntualità)

Assumptions:

A reduction in the time required for carrying out administrative procedures could produce a proportional probability reduction in the delays on goods. However:

• most delays are not directly associated to “standard procedures (they are caused by periodic inspections on goods);

• Delays are not produced by the time spent preparing documents (before the arrival port the ship).

Delay (prob.) on goods

BAU PO B1 PO B2 PO C

Formalities on vessels 0.80 1.24 1.06 0.36

Formalities on goods 0.77 0.78 0.62 0.44

Dangerous goods 0.95 0.57 0.72 0.57

Phytosanitary 3.45 3.45 2.59 2.59

Animal origins’products

2.50 2.50 1.88 1.88

Other standard goods 1.42 0.99 0.75 0.84

Weighted avg delay 1.48 1.07 0.83 0.82

6418 6272 5816 5414


-16%

Impact on Delay = Impact on Time reduction x discount rate (Low for Po B1 and High for PO B2 and C).

€/t*hour

Container 1.22

Ro-Ro 2.98

Ro-Lo 2.98

Ro-Pax 2.98

Bulk 1.02

Dangerous goods

4.0

Cost for delays on goods for each scenario (€ per call)

+

Time values applied

-9%-2%

Avg. cost reduction of delays on goods (h per call)

Quantification of impacts (4/7)


Assumptions:

• The consultation’s results and the data gathered through different interviews have been used for quantifying average delays in port;

• Delays on vessels, rare and never higher than 1 hour;

• Overall delay is expressed as a probability value, weighted against different percentages for each time range: the percentage of answers within each time range has been associated to the probability of happening of the specific event.

1120,8 1102,9

619,1446,3


-60%

Costs for delay on vessels for each PO scenarios (€ per call)

-45%-2%

Avg. cost reduction of delays on vessels (h per call)

Percentage reduction of P (Delay) on Goods

PO B1 PO B2 PO C

Formalities on vessels 1% 44% 59%

Formalities on Goods 3.7% 43% 62%

Dangerous Goods 50% 30% 50%

Phytosanitary 0% 30% 30%

Animal origin products 0% 30% 30%


Formalities on vessels

0.56 0.55 0.31 0.23

Formalities on Goods 0.52 0.50 0.28 0.20

Dangerous Goods 0.55 0.27 0.38 0.27

Phytosanitary 0.32 0.32 0.22 0.22

Animal origin 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.13

Other standard goods 0.52 0.48 0.28 0.20

€/h

Container 476

Ro-Ro 625

Ro-Lo 625

Ro_pax 625

Bulk 1250

+

Costs for one hour vessel

Impact on vessel’s delay = impact of time reduction (however, only delays’ time ranges shorter than 1 hour have been considered).

Quantification of impacts (5/7)Riduzione dei Time cost dovuta alla riduzione dei ritardi sulle navi


Options’ comparison (1/4)

Policy Option

id Impact B1Low B1High B2Low B2High C1Low C1High

A External costs saved by modal shift 37.4 74.8 145.3 290.5 182.7 365.3

B Personnel cost savings 11.7 11.7 232.7 234.7 244.4 244.4

CTime cost savings (improvement of punctuality rate for goods in door-to-door transport)

270.4 270.5 1852.4 1853.3 2171,6 2173,1

D Ship cost savings 0.17 0.17 25.9 25.9 26.0 26.0

E=A+B+C+D Total Benefits 310.9 348.34 2,321.7 2,470.1 2,624.7 2,808.9

F=B+C+D

Total Internal Benefits (No Modal Shift)

273.5 273.5 2,176.5 2,179.6 2,442.1 2,443.6

G Design, Developmt & Training 47.5 47.5 70.8 70.8 111.6 111.6

H Running 233.2 233.2 407.3 407.3 530.6 530.6

I = G+H Total costs 280.7 280.7 478.1 478.1 642.2 642.2

J NET PRESENT VALUE 40.9 78.5 1,861.9 2,010.3 2,007.2 2,191.4

L = E/G Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.11 1.24 4.86 5.17 4.09 4.37

L = F/G Internal Benefit /Cost Ratio 0.97 4.45 3,8

M IRR 8.9% 12.0% 61.3% 62.5% 60.7% 61.9%

Cost-Benefit Analysis: results overview

Values in MEuro (PV, discount rate ratio = 4%)


Analisi costi benefici: comparazione dei diversi impatti

Reduction of external cost caused by modal shift

Reduction in personnel costs

Reduction of costs for improvement of punct. Rate on goods

Focus on benefits (Policy Option C)Total Cost and Benefit (Values in M€)

PO B1 PO B2 PO C

IRR Low 8.9% 61.3% 60.7%

IRR high 12.0% 62.5% 61.9%

IRR related to different Policy Options

13%9%

1%

77%

Red. delay on vessel

costs

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

B1 Low B1 High B2 Low B2 High C1 LOW C1 HIGH

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

TOTAL BENEFIT TOTAL COST B/C Ratio

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

B1 Low B1 High B2 Low B2 High C1 LOW C1 HIGH

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Personnel and Delay Ship BENEFIT TOTAL COST B/C Ratio

Total Cost and Benefit related to personnel and Ship (M€)


Conclusioni

• La comparazione totale dei costi e dei benefici, per tutte le opzioni, ha mostrato risultati positivi: a fronte di costi di implementazioni trascurabili si possono ottenere grandi benefici a livello comunitario. Nel caso in cui siano considerati solo i benefici interni (correlati solamente alle operazioni SSS), la comparazione fra costi e benefici risulta più bilanciata.

• Trade off fra semplificazione procedure perorata dalla (DG TREN e DG MARE) e riduzione della security potenziale dovuta alla riduzione di controlli doganali (DG TAXUD) che dovranno essere superate.

• Sussistono grandi differenze per quanto riguarda tempi delle operazioni e procedure fra nazioni e fra range portuali.

• Pilot exemption certificate e separation of areas in ports (non-EU goods, EU-goods, Schengen traffic). Misure infrastrutturali costose e non attuabili nella maggior parte dei porti.

• Il tema degli “Infected vessels” non è stato considerato.

La commissione ha adottato nel gennaio 2009 una comunicazione ed una proposta legislativa sull’implementazione di un European Maritime Space without barriers, in cui vengono recepiti i maggiori risultati di questo studio

Andrea Tedeschi, Giuseppe Siciliano, Carlo Vaghi

XI Riunione Scientifica SIETTrieste, 16-18 giugno 2009

GRAZIE PER L’ATTENZIONE

memit.unibocconi.itMaster Universitario

in Economia e Management dei Trasporti, della Logistica e delle Infrastrutture

Una metodologia di Analisi Costi-Benefici nellImpact assessment delle politiche dei trasporti Andrea...

Documents

Transcript of Una metodologia di Analisi Costi-Benefici nellImpact assessment delle politiche dei trasporti Andrea...