Una metodologia di Analisi Costi-Benefici
nell’Impact assessment delle politiche dei trasporti
Andrea Tedeschi, Giuseppe Siciliano, Carlo Vaghi
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
XI Riunione Scientifica SIET
Trieste, 16-18 giugno 2009
Sommario
• Introduzione e obiettivi
• Descrizione del progetto
• Metodologia
• Impatti
• Conclusioni
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
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.
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
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.
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
Rationale del progetto
Complessità procedure amministrative in SSS intra EU
•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.
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
Attività del progetto: identificazione dei bottlenecks,
misure, policy option ed analisi costi benefici
Identification of 9
Bottlenecks
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 8
Measures
A) 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
Identification of 4
Policy Options
1. Evaluation of the measures
2. Grouping of the measures
3. Policy Options’ proposal
Cost Benefit
Analysis
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
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
Descrizione del progetto: le policy options
Policy Options
Measures involved
Description
A Do-nothing
No measure
B1 Licence of
“Authorised Regular
Shipping Service”, with
simplifacations of
dangerous goods’
procedures
•
B2 One-stop shops,
Single Document,
Electronic data
transmission, use of
English
•
•
C Maximum Elimination
of administrative
procedures
•
Sum of B1 and B2 and Maximum
Elimination of administrative procedures
in port.
•
•
•
•
Evolution of the market according to the baseline scenario
•
“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.
•
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.
Electronic data transmission;
One-stop administrative shops in
ports
Single document;
Use of English as a second official
language for administrative
procedures in SSS.
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
•
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
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
Metodologia: top down and bottom up approach
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
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
Average time chosen
=1
1-6
6-12 12-24 >24
1
3
9
18
48
Delay (P)
on goods
Delay (P)
on vessel
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
1,48
0.47
Weighted average delay
Weight
Delay
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
1,48
0.47
Weighted avg. delay
(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;
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
[1]
Cabotage excluded.
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, Ropax, 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).
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
Main assumptions: Il calcolo del numero del B/L per anno
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;
Container
Ro-Ro
Ro-Lo
Ro-pax
Bulk
800 TEU
350 LU
100 LU +
200 TEU
80 LU
20,000
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
-
Vessel size
Type of Vessel
Ro-Ro
Ro-Lo
Container
Ro-Pax
Bulk
Total
(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.
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
B/L per year
10,615,153.9
1,016,094.9
9,277,669.5
2,811,288.4
200,000
23,920,206.7
Modal shift: riduzione dei costi esterni
Mio tkm shifted to
SSS, 2020 Low
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.
962
Mio tkm shifted to
SSS, 2020 High
1.923
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).
-511
•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:
•
•
EMS
Low
+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)
-550
-256
- from
road
- from
rail
-1.100
EMS
High
- from
road
- from
rail
Cumulated reduction of external costs up to
2040 (million Euro)
200
Air pollution
150
Global w arming
Noise
100
Accident costs
Congestion
50
Infrastructure
-
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
EMS Low
EMS High
Riduzione dei Time cost dovuta Quantification
alla riduzione dei
ritardi (4/7)
of impacts
sulle merci (incremento della puntualità)
Avg. cost reduction of delays on goods
Assumptions:
(h per call)
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).
Impact on Delay = Impact on Time reduction x discount
rate (Low for Po B1 and High for PO B2 and C).
Time values applied
% 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%
+
Container
Ro-Ro
Ro-Lo
Ro-Pax
Bulk
Dangerous
goods
€/t*hour
1.22
2.98
2.98
2.98
1.02
4.0
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
Delay (prob.) on
goods
BAU
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
PO B1 PO B2 PO C
Cost for delays on goods for each scenario
(€ per call)
6418
BAU
6272
-2%
PO B1
5816
-9%
PO B2
-16%
5414
PO C
Riduzione dei Time cost dovutaQuantification
alla riduzione dei
ritardi (5/7)
of impacts
sulle navi
Assumptions:
Avg. cost reduction of delays on vessels
(h per call)
• The consultation’s results and the data gathered
through different interviews have been used for
quantifying average delays in port;
BAU
• 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.
Impact on vessel’s delay = impact of time reduction (however,
only delays’ time ranges shorter than 1 hour have been considered).
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%
+
Container
Ro-Ro
Ro-Lo
Ro_pax
Bulk
€/h
476
625
625
625
1250
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
PO C
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
Costs for delay on vessels for each PO
scenarios (€ per call)
Costs for one hour vessel
Percentage reduction of P (Delay) on
Goods
PO B1 PO B2
-2%
1120,8
-45%
619,1
BAU
-60%
1102,9
PO B1
PO B2
446,3
PO C
Options’ comparison (1/4)
Cost-Benefit Analysis: results overview
Values in MEuro (PV, discount rate ratio = 4%)
Policy Option
Impact
id
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
C
Time cost savings (improvement of
punctuality rate for goods in door-todoor 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
47.5
47.5
70.8
70.8
111.6
111.6
G
Design, Developmt & Training
H
Running
233.2
233.2
407.3
407.3
530.6
530.6
Total costs
280.7
280.7
478.1
478.1
642.2
642.2
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
I = G+H
J
M
IRR
0.97
8.9%
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
4.45
12.0%
61.3%
3,8
62.5%
60.7%
61.9%
Analisi costi benefici: comparazione dei diversi impatti
Total Cost and Benefit (Values in M€)
Focus on benefits (Policy Option C)
3000.0
6.00
2500.0
5.00
2000.0
4.00
1500.0
3.00
1000.0
2.00
500.0
1.00
0.0
Reduction of external cost
caused by modal shift
13%
Reduction in
personnel costs
9%
1%
-
B1 Low
B1 High
B2 Low
TOTAL BENEFIT
B2 High
C1 LOW
TOTAL COST
C1 HIGH
Red. delay
on vessel
costs
77%
Reduction of costs for improvement of
punct. Rate on goods
B/C Ratio
Total Cost and Benefit related to personnel and Ship (M€)
700.0
6.00
600.0
5.00
500.0
4.00
400.0
IRR related to different Policy Options
3.00
300.0
2.00
200.0
PO B1
PO B2
PO C
IRR Low
8.9%
61.3%
60.7%
IRR high
12.0%
62.5%
61.9%
1.00
100.0
0.0
-
B1 Low
B1 High
B2 Low
B2 High
Personnel and Delay Ship BENEFIT
C1 LOW
TOTAL COST
C1 HIGH
B/C Ratio
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
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
CERTeT – Centro di Economia Regionale, Trasporti e Turismo
Andrea Tedeschi, Giuseppe Siciliano, Carlo Vaghi
GRAZIE PER L’ATTENZIONE
memit.unibocconi.it
Master Universitario
in Economia e Management dei Trasporti,
della Logistica e delle Infrastrutture
XI Riunione Scientifica SIET
Trieste, 16-18 giugno 2009