The Egnatia Motorway
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EX POST EVALUATION OF INVESTMENT PROJECTS CO-FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND (ERDF) OR COHESION FUND (CF) IN THE PERIOD 1994-1999 THE EGNATIA MOTORWAY PREPARED BY: CSIL, CENTRE FOR INDUSTRIAL STUDIES, MILAN PREPARED FOR: EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY POLICY DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION MILAN, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 This study is carried out by a team selected by the Evaluation Unit, DG Regional Policy, European Commission, through a call for tenders by open procedure no 2010.CE.16.B.AT.036. The consortium selected comprises CSIL – Centre for Industrial Studies (lead partner – Milan) and DKM Economic Consultants (Dublin). The Core Team comprises: - Scientific Director: Massimo Florio, CSIL and University of Milan; - Project Coordinators: Silvia Vignetti and Julie Pellegrin, CSIL; - External experts: Ginés de Rus (University of Las Palmas, Spain), Per-Olov Johansson (Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden) and Eduardo Ley (World Bank, Washington, D.C.); - Senior experts: Ugo Finzi, Mario Genco, Annette Hughes and Marcello Martinez; - Task managers: John Lawlor, Julie Pellegrin and Davide Sartori; - Project analysts: Emanuela Sirtori, Gelsomina Catalano and Rory Mc Monagle. A network of country experts provides the geographical coverage for the field analysis: Roland Blomeyer, Fernando Santos (Blomeyer and Sanz – Guadalajara), Andrea Moroni (CSIL – Milano), Antonis Moussios, Panos Liveris (Eurotec - Thessaloniki), Marta Sánchez-Borràs, Mateu Turró (CENIT – Barcelona), Ernestine Woelger (DKM – Dublin). The authors of this report are Gelsomina Catalano and Davide Sartori of CSIL who were also responsible for the field research. Useful research assistance has been provided by Chiara Pancotti and Stathis Karapanos. The authors are grateful for the very helpful comments from the EC staff and particularly to Veronica Gaffey, José-Luís Calvo de Celis and Kai Stryczynski. They also express their gratitude to all stakeholders who agreed to respond to the team’s questions and contributed to the realisation of the case study. The authors are responsible for any remaining errors or omissions. Quotation is authorised as long as the source is acknowledged. Cover: The Egnatia motorway. Source: Egnatis Odos S.A. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 7 1.1 CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................................ 7 1.2 GREECE’S TRANSPORT CONNECTIONS ................................................................................................... 9 1.3 STRUCTURAL FEATURES AND SERVICE DELIVERED .................................................................................. 13 1.4 CURRENT PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................................. 18 2 ORIGIN AND HISTORY ............................................................................................................... 23 2.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 23 2.2 FINANCING DECISION ...................................................................................................................... 25 2.3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................. 27 2.4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS .................................................................................................................. 30 3 LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS ........................................................................................ 33 3.1 KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 33 3.2 DIRECT ECONOMIC GROWTH ............................................................................................................ 37 3.3 ENDOGENOUS DYNAMICS ................................................................................................................ 45 3.4 INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY .................................................................................................................. 48 3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................................................................... 48 3.6 TERRITORIAL COHESION ................................................................................................................... 50 3.7 SOCIAL HAPPINESS .......................................................................................................................... 53 4 DETERMINANTS OF PROJECT OUTCOMES .................................................................................. 55 4.1 KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 55 4.2 APPROPRIATENESS TO THE CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 56 4.3 PROJECT DESIGN AND FORECASTING CAPACITY ..................................................................................... 56 4.4 MANAGERIAL RESPONSE .................................................................................................................. 58 4.5 PROJECT GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................... 58 5 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 63 ANNEX I. METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATION .................................................................................. 67 ANNEX II. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 73 ANNEX III. MAP OF STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................. 105 ANNEX IV. GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 107 ANNEX V. LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ................................................................................................ 109 ANNEX VI. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 111 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AADT Annual average daily traffic BSEC Black Sea Economic Cooperation CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis CF Cohesion Fund CSF Community Support Framework DG Move Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport DG Regio Directorate General for Regional Policy EC European Commission EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIB European Investment Bank ENPV Economic Net Present Value ERDF European Regional Development Fund ERR Economic Rate of Return ESF European Social Fund ESPON European Spatial Planning Observation Network EU European Union FNPV Financial Net Present Value FYROM The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia GDP Gross Domestic Product GHG Greenhouse Gas Grd Greek drachma GVA Gross Value Added HR Hour ICT Information and Communication Technology IMF International Monetary Fund IRR Internal Rate of Return MEPPW Ministry of Environment, Planning and Public Works NGO Non-governmental Organization NPV Net Present Value SA Public limited Company (French abbreviation for Société Anonyme) SCF Standard Conversion Factor TEN-T Trans-European Transport Networks TEUs Twenty-foot Equivalent Units ToRs Terms of references PATHE Patras-Athens-Thessaloniki-Evzonoi motorway PATHE/P Patras-Athens-Thessaloniki-Idomeni/Promachnonas railway PPS Purchasing Power Standard S.A. Public Limited Company (The French abbreviation for Société Anonyme is used in Greece) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This case study analyses the implementation of the Egnatia motorway, a road crossing horizontally Northern Greece with a length of 670 km and a width of 24.5 m (or 22 m along mountainous adverse sections). The motorway runs from Igoumenitsa to Kipoi and crosses five regions: East Macedonia & Thrace, Central Macedonia, West Macedonia, Epirus and Thessaly. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the socio-economic long-term effects generated by the project and to disentangle the possible determinant factors that may have contributed to producing these effects. More details on the overall evaluation approach are recalled in the Box below and, more extensively, in Annex I. OVERALL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The Conceptual Framework developed in the First Intermediate Report has been developed starting from the evaluation questions included in the ToRs1, and further specified and organised as per the team’s understanding. In particular, the Team identified three relevant dimensions of analysis: a. The object of the evaluation (the ‘WHAT’): this relates to the typologies of long-term contributions which can be observed. Starting with the typologies identified in the ToR (socio-economic development and quality of life) the Team developed the following classification of long-term effects: ‘Economic development’ (including effects on GDP growth and endogenous dynamics) and ‘Quality of life’, synonymous with additional social wellbeing, i.e. including effects that are not captured