Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Interventions 2000‐ 2006 Financed by the Cohesion Fund (Including Former ISPA)

8th Floor, Dashwood Telephone +44 (0)20 7065 7900 69 Old Broad Street Facsimile +44 (0)20 7065 7910 London EC2M 1QS rgl.com Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Interventions 2000‐ 2006 Financed by the Cohesion Fund (including former ISPA)

Work Package A: Contribution to EU Transport and Environmental Policies

Second Intermediate Report

4 November 2011

RGL Forensics is the trading name of RGL LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England & Wales, Registered Office as above, LLP. No. OC304572 Contents

1 Executive Summary 3 2 Introduction 32 3 Data Gathering 34 4 Methodology 42 5 The Unit Cost Database Tool 48 6 Estimated and Actual Unit Costs and Completion Times 50 7 Statistical analysis 126 8 Ex ante risk assessment 140 9 Recommendations 147 10 Annex 1 – Project names 150

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction

RGL Forensics, in association with AECOM and Imperial College, University of London, presents the Second Intermediate Report for the ‘Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy interventions 2000 – 2006, financed by the Cohesion Fund (including former ISPA) – Work Package A: Contribution to EU Transport and Environmental Policies.’

The main objective of this evaluation is to assess the contribution of the Cohesion Fund and ISPA to the development of the EU transport system, to achieving the EU acquis in the field of environment and the effect of ISPA as a preparation for Structural Fund and Cohesion Fund programmes. The evaluation covers 17 countries in total including the 10 former ISPA beneficiaries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia) and the original Cohesion Fund 4 (Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Greece) together with Cyprus, Malta and Croatia.

This report covers the work carried out in Task 2.3 and Task 3. The requirements of Task 2.3, as set out in the Terms of Reference are:

“The evaluator will collect certain information (“Level 1” information concerning all closed or almost closed projects (together maximum 500)...Collecting this information will be based on desk research only, especially from financing memoranda, project final reports or the latest monitoring sheets.

Limited to 150 of the closed projects the evaluator will collect the more detailed information... (“Level 2” information) and the time for implementation (planned and actual values both for costs and times.”

Using the data collected in Task 2.3, Task 3 represents an analysis of the financial efficiency of co-financed projects. This process includes the following components:

 An analysis of ‘Level 1’ unit costs for all closed and almost closed projects (for which data is collected under previous tasks);  An analysis of ‘Level 2’ unit costs for a sample of 150 projects (for which data is collected under Task 2.3);  A statistical analysis of the relationship between certain project characteristics and costs;

 An analysis of cost and time overruns and their causes, further developing the methodology for doing so, if necessary; and  An update and development of the analysis of risk assessment in Work Package 10.

This analysis draws on the methodologies and analysis set out in Work Package 10 (WP10) of the Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2000 – 2006 financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in Objective 1 and 2 regions. We also develop, update and use the spreadsheet tool developed in WP10 for calculating unit costs.

1.2 Data gathering

The terms of reference required that we collect ‘Level 1’ unit cost information for all closed and almost closed projects co-financed by the Cohesion Fund and ISPA between 2000 and 2006. We were to include projects co-financed by the ERDF and evaluated previously in our database. However, the ERDF projects are not included in this report. The data for this task was gathered using the project documentation supplied to us by the EC. In addition, we were required to collect further ‘Level 2’ data on 150 projects. To collect this data, we issued questionnaires to the managers of 291 projects (from which we received responses for 150 projects). We also conducted desk based research to increase the number of projects for which we would have some Level 2 data.

1.2.1 Level 1 data gathering

The Terms of Reference required that we extract data from all ‘maximum 500’ closed and almost closed projects. Hence, we have looked at 567 projects in total across the road, rail, water and solid waste sectors. The distribution of these projects is set out in Table 1 below. In addition, we have a number of projects classified as ‘Other’, such as airports, ports, technical assistance and restorations of river basins which we have not included in our analysis.

Table 1 Number of closed and almost closed projects examined

Sector Number of projects Rail 82 Road 73 Water 293 Waste 119 Total 567

We have attempted to extract data to calculate Level 1 unit costs for all 567 projects. However, not all projects contained adequate data to calculate both estimated and actual figures.

We have successfully calculated Level 1 unit costs from the vast majority of transport projects. We have calculated estimated unit costs for 71 out of 73 road projects and for all 82 rail projects. Also we have calculated actual Level 1 unit costs for 78 rail projects and 62 road projects.

Environmental projects present a greater challenge due to their greater complexity and diversity. For example, we have examined a total of 119 completed solid waste projects. However, due to their complexity and the differing types of data available, we have successfully calculated Level 1 estimated unit costs for 53 projects and actual unit costs for 44 projects.

Similarly, we have analysed a total of 293 water projects and, from these, have successfully extracted estimated unit costs for 234 projects and actual unit costs for 141 projects. This is due to many project reports not providing adequate information to calculate Level 1 costs which are comparable to other projects in that sector.

Table 2 below shows the total number of closed or almost closed projects from which we have successfully calculated Level 1 unit costs broken down by country and sector. Column 4 (Water) is made up of water supply, waste water and mixed projects. More detail of the breakdown of these projects is given in Table 3 on the following page.

Table 2 Level 1: Number of projects split by country and sector

Rail Road Water Solid Waste Total Country Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Bulgaria 1 1 11 Croatia Cyprus 1 1 11 Czech Rep6 4 5 3154 26 11 Estonia 5562 11 7 Greece4 4 7 716143130 26 Hungary 2 2 11613212 6 Ireland 113332 76 Latvia 3285921 21 9 Lithuania 1 1 9 10 5 2 2 17 13 Malta 1 1 11 Poland 5 4 9 5 15 2 1 31 10 Portugal 10 10 9 9 16 8 6 5 41 32 Romania 22421 74 Slovakia 44118 13 5 Slovenia 3311753314 12 Spain 43 43 8 7 124 99 32 32 207 181 Total 82 78 71 62 234 141 53 44 440 325

We have extracted ‘estimated’1 Level 1 data from a total of 440 projects and ‘actual’2 Level 1 data from a total of 325 projects. In order to increase the number of data points, when analysing the environmental projects, we divided many of the projects into sub projects.

We have separated some environmental projects, where appropriate, into sub-projects to provide more granular detail of certain project components. For example, sub-projects may

1 This represents the ex ante estimation of the unit cost of the project. 2 The unit cost of the project as reported ex post.

provide data on individual sections of a sewerage network or on the construction of a waste water treatment plant, both of which would be part of a larger ‘master’ project.

For those projects which are divided into sub-projects, the master project has been extracted, leaving only the subprojects. The subprojects are denoted in our data and can be distinguished as their project code includes the code of the master project followed by either a letter or a number (for example 2000ES16CPE001-01 or 2000ES16CPE001a). This has enabled a more thorough benchmarking exercise by providing more data points and allowing a more detailed analysis of specific projects. The number and distribution of sub projects are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Level 1: Number of Projects (including sub projects)

Rail Road Water Supply Waste Water Water: Mixed Solid Waste Total Country Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Bulgaria 1 1 11 Croatia 00 Cyprus 1 1 11 Czech Rep 6453 9351 25 11 Estonia 5 5 4 1 2 1 11 7 Greece 4477 1166973130 26 Hungary 2 2 1 1 6 1 3 2 12 6 Ireland 1133 32 76 Latvia 3 2 8 5 8 2 1 20 9 Lithuania 1 1 9 10 4 2 2 16 13 Malta 1 1 11 Poland 5495 1 6 8 2131 10 Portugal 10 10 9 9 4 5 30 1 4 2 8 8 65 35 Romania 22 11111 54 Slovakia 4 4 1 1 5 10 5 Slovenia 3311 32433314 12 Spain 43 43 8 7 38 35 149 128 17 13 38 44 293 270 Total 82 78 71 62 44 41 222 145 62 32 61 59 542 417

Analysis at ‘Level 1’ for waste projects was particularly difficult as, for some types of projects (in particular Integrated Waste Management projects), a common unit is difficult to determine. Where this is apparent, we have tried to choose a unit for which we have a reasonable amount of matching data and which remains appropriate for calculating the unit cost of the project.

1.2.2 Level 2 data gathering

Table 4 below shows the number of projects for which we have calculated Level 1 and Level 2 unit costs. This table includes those projects for which we have received questionnaires, plus those projects for which we have conducted further desk based research. The projects shown under Level 1 in Table 4 reflect the figures in the “Total” column of Table 3. The figures shown under the Level 2 heading represent the number of projects with Level 2 data. In total 252 projects have at least one Level 2 data point.

We have drawn our information for Level 2 analysis from the 252 projects. Each project may have more than one type of Level 2 data point. For example, for rail projects we have

7 obtained Level 2 cost and unit data for trackwork for 32 out of the 34 projects shown below in Table 4. However, our data for tunnels is more limited (less than 32 datapoints). While we have collected information regarding the number and length of tunnels, the cost data was limited. Similarly, for water supply projects, we were able to collect 40 data points (out of the total of 40 projects) for the cost and length of the supply network, but were not able to collect data on other Level 2 indicators such as drinking water purification plants and pumping stations. Furthermore, we have not, in all cases, managed to obtain data on both estimated and actual unit costs.

Table 4 Level 1 & Level 2: Projects

Level 1 Level 2 Sector Total Level 2 Estimated Actual Projects Projects from WPB Projects Rail 82 78 31 3 34 Road 71 62 46 3 49 Water Supply 44 41 40 40 Waste Water 222 145 113 113 Water: Mixed 62 32 N/a N/a Solid Waste 61 59 16 16 Total 542 417 246 6 252

1.3 Unit cost analysis 1.3.1 Methodology for unit cost analysis

In order to calculate unit costs, we adopted various ‘levels’ of cost indicators to reflect different degrees of cost disaggregation. We defined two main ‘levels’ of disaggregation, which were set out during Work Package 10 of the ERDF evaluation:

 Level 1: indicators that show the ‘all in’ costs of a project, including all project components.  Level 2: indicators that reflect the ‘build’ costs of specific, key components of projects (for example, bridges and tunnels).

To ensure comparability, we have grouped our projects into the categories set out below.

Table 5 Breakdown of project types

Project type Categories Construction Road Reconstructions Constructions Rail Reconstructions Constructions Extensions Water supply Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Mixed (Construction with a reconstruction component) Constructions Extensions Waste water Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Mixed (Construction with a reconstruction component) Constructions Extensions Mixed projects Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Construction with a reconstruction component Landfill Closure/Construction/Rehabilitation Recycling plant Construction/Rehabilitation Composting centre Construction/Rehabilitation Solid Waste Waste Transfer, Recycling and Collection Creation / Rehabilitation/ Integrated Waste Management Systems Creation/Upgrade/Construction with Upgrade component

Level 2 unit costs are calculated using only the build cost of the component (for example, tunnels), divided by an appropriate metric (for example, tunnel length). The metrics which we calculated were largely dependent upon the data provided in the questionnaires and the information provided in the project documentation provided by the EC.

Table 6 below summarises Level 1 and Level 2 unit cost indicators which we have calculated for each sector.

Table 6 Level 1 and 2 information

Level 1 Level 2 costs Sector Costs Level 2 Units (key components) (‘all in’)

Trackwork Kilometres

Stations Number Rail Kilometres Bridges Number

Tunnels Kilometres Pavement Kilometres

Road Kilometres Tunnels Kilometres

Bridges Area (m2) / Number Water supply network (km) Water supply network Kilometres Water supply ------Additional population served PE capacity ------Sewerage network Kilometres Waste water Sewerage network WWTP Number / PE capacity (km) PE capacity ------Water: Mixed Sewerage N/a N/a network (km) Landfills created / closed / rehabilitated (nr) ------Recycling plant capacity Landfills created / closed / rehabilitated Solid Waste Number / capacity (tonnes) (tonnes) Landfill projects ------Recycling plant Recycling plant projects Number Compost Compost centre projects centre Compost centres Waste Transfer, Recover and capacity Number Collection projects (TRC) (tonnes) Integrated waste management Waste Transfer, Recovery and ------Area served (km2) projects (IWM) Collection Systems TRC capacity (tonnes) ------IWM population served (nr)

Finally, various adjustments are necessary to compare projects carried out in different jurisdictions and different time periods. We have made two adjustments to the data. The first adjustment was to adjust all cost data for inflation, converting figures to a common price base (2007 prices). We used Eurostat’s country-specific harmonised index of consumer prices.

1.3.2 Sector unit costs

We have calculated and presented the estimated and actual unit costs for projects co- financed by Cohesion Fund and ISPA during the 2000 – 2006 programme period. These are presented separately for road, rail, water and waste projects. Here, in the executive summary, we present a Summary of each sector. The main body of the report includes detailed figures for Level 1 and Level 2 unit costs for each of the sectors outlined above.

1.3.3 Rail: Summary

Table 7 Rail: Summary Benchmarks

Level 1 Unit Costs Project Type Projects Mean Minimum Maximum No. EURm/km EURm/km EURm/km Estimated 54 8.8 0.4 73.6 Construction Actual 52 11.6 1.22 111.9 Estimated 28 2.48 0.01 6.52 Reconstruction Actual 26 3.57 0.04 14.85

The unit cost data shows a huge variation in the Level 1 unit costs for rail construction projects. The estimated values range from over 73M Euro/km to less than 1M Euro/km. The actual Level 1 costs per kilometre have a huge range of between 1.22 EURm/km and 111.9 EURm/km. There is also a margin between the average estimated and average actual cost. The mean estimated cost for construction projects is 8.8 EURm/km3, while the mean actual cost for construction projects is 11.6 EURm/km4.

There is some variety across projects in the estimated unit cost for rail reconstruction projects, but the range is not as great as we have seen for road reconstructions. The estimated costs ranged between 0.01 EURm/km and 6.52 EURm/km. Similarly the actual unit costs for rail reconstruction projects vary significantly between 0.04 EURm/km and 14.85 EURm/km.

3 Taken from a total of 54 projects. 4 Taken from a total of 52 projects.

There is a great deal of variety in the data for all three level 2 components (trackwork, stations and tunnels) with more limited data points for stations and tunnels for constructions and reconstructions. For example, when analysing trackwork, we found one construction project which stands out with very high trackwork costs in Spain. This project’s unit cost was significantly above the average for Level 2 trackwork construction costs of 3.94 EURm/km. Reconstruction projects, overall, showed a much lower unit cost for trackwork with an average actual unit cost of 1.05 EURm/km. The results show that modernising trackwork is less expensive than construction.

The situation was similar for stations, bridges and tunnels, with significant variation around the mean unit cost. We found this to be particularly the case with new bridge constructions, though bridge reconstructions were generally lower, as one may expect, and fell within a smaller range.

When analysing the reasons for cost overruns and time delays, “Project specific” and “Project environment” issues were ranked as most significant. This included, principally, “Degree of innovation”, “Design Complexity” and “Delays by statutory authorities and/or contractors”.

1.3.4 Road: Summary

Table 8 Road: Summary Benchmarks

Level 1 Unit Costs Project Type Projects Mean Minimum Maximum No. EURm/km EURm/km EURm/km Estimated 39 6.3 0.3 27.3 Construction Actual 36 7.6 0.4 31.1 Estimated 32 2.1 0.10 16.0 Reconstruction Actual 26 2.2 0.12 17.2

As shown above in Table 8, the Level 1 unit costs for road projects show a great deal of variation. Estimated costs range from between 0.3 EURm/km to 27.3 EURm/km. The range of actual costs is slightly larger with figures falling between 0.4 EURm/km and 31.1 EURm/km. These data clearly show that there is significant variation from the mean construction costs of 6.3 EURm/km and 7.6 EURm/km for estimated and actual costs respectively. There are many reasons for high unit costs and looking at specific projects to provide examples we have seen that high cost projects include short sections of motorway under construction in very mountainous regions which require substantial tunnels. In addition, building in very urban areas where terrain is flat and soft also tends to have high

build costs and, in one case, large land costs also. Finally, one four lane motorway in Spain was constructed through high cost mountainous terrain and marshy conditions.

Similarly, there is very great variation in the Level 1 unit costs for road reconstruction projects. The estimated unit costs for reconstruction projects range from between 0.1 EURm/km and 16 EURm/km, whilst the actual data ranges between 0.12 EURm/km and 17.2 EURm/km. This represents a considerable range around the mean unit costs of 2.1 EURm/km and 2.2 EURm/km for estimated and actual costs respectively.

There is also a great deal of variety in the data for all three level 2 components (pavement, bridges and tunnels) with limited data points for tunnels. Our data for pavement construction is the most complete. All projects cost less than EURm 3.5 per kilometre. Construction projects had an average actual pavement unit cost of 0.84 EURm/km, though this had a quite large range of between 3.2 EURm/km and 0.2 EURm/km. Reconstruction projects, meanwhile, had an average unit cost of 0.51 EURm/km.

For the unit “build” cost of bridges per ‘000 m2, the mean actual cost per square metre for construction projects was 0.96 EURm/’000 m2 and for reconstruction projects, the mean actual cost per square metre was 0.61 EURm/’000 m2. There is some variation in the actual unit costs for bridges, as the costs for construction projects ranged from 0.09 EURm/’000 m2 to 1.72 EURm/’000 m2, whilst that for reconstruction projects had a smaller range of between 0.08 EURm/’000 m2 to 1.66 EURm/’000 m2.

When analysing the reasons for cost overruns and time delays, “Project specific” and “External Issues” were the most significant factors which caused cost overruns, and the latter is due in part to inflation being considered a major contributor towards costs. “Project Specific” and “Project Environment” are the most significant factors determining time delays for road projects. “Construction period” was the most significant cause of time delays.

1.3.5 Water supply: Summary

Table 9 Water Supply: Summary Benchmarks

Level 1 Unit Costs Project Type Projects Mean Minimum Maximum No. EURm/km EURm/km EURm/km

Construction / Estimated 19 0.60 0.11 2.87 Extension Actual 17 0.64 0.12 2.04

Reconstruction / Estimated 6 0.33 0.07 0.59 Rehabilitation Actual 6 0.49 0.07 0.92 Construction with Estimated 19 0.36 0.09 1.19 Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Actual 18 0.50 0.07 1.60

Table 9 shows considerable variation across all types of water supply projects. For example actual costs for constructions/extensions varied between 0.12 EURm/km and 2.04 EURm/km, whilst the smallest range was for reconstruction / rehabilitations, which varied between 0.07 EURm/km and 0.92 EURm/km. The mean actual costs for ‘Constructions/Extensions’, ‘Reconstructions/Rehabilitations’ and ‘Construction with Reconstruction/Rehabilitation’, also differ quite considerable, with averages of 0.64 EURm/km, 0.49 EURm/km and 0.50 EURm/km respectively.

We only had adequate data to analyse Level 2 unit costs for water supply network (for both water supply and mixed projects). The highest results from this analysis are mixed projects and are situated in the Czech Republic and Lithuania. Across all the projects, the estimated unit costs vary between 0.01 EURm/km and 2.46 EURm/km, with an average of 0.35 EURm/km. This shows some deviation from the actual unit costs which varied between 0.03 EURm/km and 0.88 EURm/km, with an average of 0.31 EURm/km. We note, however, that the figures for estimated data are derived from 36 projects, compared to 30 projects for which actual data was available.

When analysing time delays, we found that the funding stage of the project process happened faster than was estimated (in 41% less time) and that permissions and constructions were also completed faster than estimated. The planning phase of water projects appears to be only marginally delayed at 1.7%.

1.3.6 Waste Water: Summary

Below we show the wide variation in the unit cost of waste water treatment plants and sewerage projects.

Table 10 Waste Water: Summary Benchmarks - WWTP projects

Level 1 Unit Costs Project Type Projects Mean Minimum Maximum No. EURm/000 PE EURm/000 PE EURm/000 PE

Construction / Estimated 25 0.34 0.03 1.54 Extension Actual 16 0.35 0.04 1.01

Reconstruction / Estimated 17 0.19 0.01 0.41 Rehabilitation Actual 5 0.23 0.05 0.40 Construction with Estimated 29 0.30 0.02 1.89 Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Actual 4 0.50 0.31 0.94

Table 11 Waste Water: Summary Benchmarks - Sewerage projects

Level 1 Unit Costs Project Type Projects Mean Minimum Maximum No. EURm/km EURm/km EURm/km

Construction / Estimated 69 0.82 0.04 6.40 Extension Actual 53 0.96 0.03 6.59

Reconstruction / Estimated 43 0.77 0.09 3.70 Rehabilitation Actual 35 1.49 0.12 8.05 Construction with Estimated 39 1.12 0.06 13.67 Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Actual 32 1.67 0.07 11.49

The majority of projects specifically targeted the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD). Though the number of actual data points is fewer than the number of estimated data points, the difference between the estimated and actual unit costs is shown by the mean unit costs across all WWTP projects (including Construction/Extension, Reconstruction/Rehabilitation and Construction with Reconstruction/Rehabilitation), with the average estimated unit cost at 0.23 EURm/’000 PE and the average actual unit cost measuring 0.35 EURm/’000 PE.

We have also calculated Level 1 costs for sewerage networks using kilometres of network. In terms of actual costs, Extensions are consistently the lowest unit cost category of projects. Constructions and Reconstructions have a small number of higher unit cost projects with the rest of the projects more focussed around the mean of 1.67 EURm/km. The range for this category of project is striking, however, with a minimum actual cost of 0.07 EURm/km and a maximum actual cost of 11.49 EURm/km.

Our Level 2 analysis of waste water treatment plants produced a single outlier with a far higher cost per WWTP than the average of 10.95 EURm/WWTP. Without this project, the average cost per WWTP falls to 5.52 EURm/WWTP. The projects also differ in their physical implementation, showing a range of those with 1 WWTP to a project with 4 WWTPs and from those with 2 pumping stations to a project with 41 pumping stations.

Similarly, when analysing the PE capacity of the WWTP and using this as our Level 2 unit, we found that the PE for all the projects except one were in the region of 200,000 – 250,000PE (a single Lithuanian project had a lower PE of just over 100,000.) The actual average unit cost per PE of constructing a WWTP was 0.099 EURm/PE, though if one were to exclude the outlier, this falls to 0.06 EURm/PE. As one may expect, the average actual unit cost of reconstruction projects was considerably lower, at 0.006 EURm/PE.

When looking at the Level 2 costs for sewerage network, we noted one project which stood out with high unit “build” costs, 2000ES16CPE060, against all the other construction and reconstruction projects. This project in Spain was very large in comparison to all others and focused on building 4 underground reservoirs in Barcelona. The vast majority of the cost was the sewage network development. With regard to the construction projects in the same figure, the highest unit cost project, 2003ES16CPE025, was a sub-marine outlet which focused on draining marshes in a region of Spain. Again it was by far the most expensive project overall in this category.

We have found some variety in the unit costs for Extension and Reconstruction/Upgrade projects as seen in Figure 47 but the majority of projects are around or under 0.5 EURm/km. Indeed the average unit cost for these two categories of projects is 0.57 EURm/km, with the lowest cost falling at 0.06 EURm/km. Extension project 2002ES16CPE002 is a very high cost sanitation project of just under 20,000m of sewerage network. In the section for Reconstructions/Upgrades the highest unit cost project is a sewerage network upgrade of over 5,000m and again it is the largest cost project of the section.

1.3.7 Solid Waste: Summary

In the main body of the report, we have calculated unit costs for several categories of projects, including landfills, recycling plants, composting centres, waste transfer, recovery and collection and integrated waste management projects. Table 12 below shows the minimum, maximum and mean Level 1 unit costs for Integrated Waste Management projects only. The figures demonstrate the variation in the unit cost.

Table 12 Solid Waste: Summary Benchmarks (IWM projects only)

Level 1 Unit Costs Integrated Waste Management Projects Projects Mean Minimum Maximum EURm/’000 pop EURm/’000 pop EURm/’000 pop No. served served served Estimated 15 0.048 0.002 0.163 Construction Actual 15 0.061 0.002 0.238 Construction with Estimated 11 0.043 0.007 0.114 an upgrade component Actual 1 0.036 0.036 0.036 Estimated 3 0.063 0.027 0.113 Upgrades Actual 2 0.113 0.076 0.149

Integrated waste management projects can include a wide variety of components which makes comparisons across projects problematic. We have used population served as a denominator to provide a measure of scale. The costs of these projects range between

0.002M Euro/’000 population served and 0.24M Euro/’000 population served. The majority of integrated waste management projects were new constructions / creations of systems, as opposed to upgrading existing integrated systems.

The average estimated unit cost for construction projects falls at 0.048 EURm/’000 population served, compared to an actual unit cost of 0.61 EURm/’000 population served. The range for actual data is also larger, falling between 0.002 and 0.16 EURm/’000 population served using the estimated data and 0.002 and 0.238 EURm/’000 population served when looking at actual data. We note, however, that the project samples aren’t identically sized.

For Construction with an Upgrade component projects, there is a significant difference in the size of the samples of projects for estimated and actual data. The average estimated data presents a range of 0.007 to 0.114 EURm/’000 population served, with an average of 0.043 EURm/’000 population served. The single project for which we have actual data had a unit cost of 0.036 EURm/’000 population served, which is within the range of estimated data. This particular project actually came in under budget as it had an estimated cost of 0.040 EURm/’000 population served.

Upgrade projects had an average estimated unit cost of 0.063 EURm/’000 population served and a mean actual unit cost of 0.113 EURm/’000 population served. If one considers only those projects for which estimated and actual data is present, then the estimated unit cost rises to 0.08 EURm/’000 population served – closer to the mean actual cost.

In terms of Level 2 unit costs, in the main body of the report, we have examined landfills looking by at two measures of unit cost. For these projects, the average estimated unit cost for ‘Closure’, ‘Construction’ and ‘Rehabilitation’ projects were: 4.63 EURm/Landfill5, 3.78 EURm/Landfill and 2.46 EURm/Landfill respectively. Regarding the capacity of the landfills, the actual average unit cost of Landfill construction is 4.40 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity.

Our Level 2 analysis of recycling plants has found that there is significant variety in the unit cost for recycling plants. In particular, the average actual Level 2 unit costs for construction projects was 3.86 EURm/Recycling plant, far higher than the average of 1.39 EURm/Recycling plant for rehabilitation projects.

Our Level 2 sample of composting plants was very limited, at only 3 projects, for which the average actual Level 2 unit cost was 8.76 EURm/composting plant, though there was a significant upward outlier included in this, costing €25m.

5 Though we note that this figure is dragged up by an outlier. Without this outlier, the average is only 0.54 EURm/Landfill.

Our data for waste transfer, collections and recovery projects was more populated. We used the area served in km2 as the unit for calculating the costs of these projects. We found that the mean actual unit cost for these projects is 0.0050 EURm/km2 served, compared to a lower estimated cost of 0.0039 EURm/km2. This is due to the fact that all projects overran on costs, though this was very marginal in some cases.

‘Delays by statutory authorities and/or contractors’ and ‘Political’ reasons were given as the most significant determinants of cost overruns. ‘Political’ and ‘Technology’ were cited as the most likely causal factors for time delays.

1.4 Cost overruns and project delays

In addition to calculating the unit costs of projects, we also looked at the extent to which they overran on time and costs, compared to their original, ex ante estimates. The methodology and results are set out below. Further detail is available in the main body of the report. The terms of reference state that, if necessary, the project team updates the methodology for conducting this analysis. We have seen no need to do so as the data we have collected has been compatible with the methodology used in WP10. By keeping a single methodology, this ensures that the results are comparable with analysis done previously.

1.4.1 Methodology for time and cost overrun analysis

We collected timing information for each phase of the projects’ execution. This was denominated in the estimated and actual months for each phase to be completed. We have divided these figures by an appropriate unit to standardise the measurements and compare projects of varying size (to calculate, for example, a months’ per kilometre metric for each construction phase – the unit varies between project types). We then calculated the average estimated and actual completion times across all projects. This was undertaken for the following project phases:

 Planning  Funding  Permissions  Site preparation  Construction

This analysis enabled us to identify some areas within projects and sectors which have a tendency to suffer from delays as well as identifying project development phases where the largest delays are likely to occur.

The study also identified the main causes for delays. Table 13 below shows the cost overrun and time delay categories used in the project questionnaires.

Table 13 Type 1 and Type 2 cost overrun and time delay categories

Type 1 Type 2 Complexity of Contract Structure Design Changes Contractor specific difficulties Procurement Issues Disputes with suppliers and subcontractors Poor Planning/Methodological errors Project specific Design Complexity

Type 1 Type 2 Degree of Innovation Environmental Impact Site access difficulties Suspension of works Delays by statutory authorities and/or contractors Late commencement of work Construction period Inadequacy of the Business Case Large Number of Stakeholders Client Specific Funding Availability/Problems Project Management Team Public Relations Project environment Site Characteristics Permits/Consents/Approvals Political Economic Changes in Legislation/Regulations Technology External issues Inflation Exchange Rates Force Majeure Other

Questionnaire respondents scored their applicable projects based on the categories in Table 31. We used a scale of 0-3, with 0 representing ‘no cause of delay’, 1 a ‘minor factor’ (less than 20%), 2 a ‘significant factor’ (20-50%) and 3 a major factor (greater than 50%).

We then aggregated the responses received to obtain average scores for each Type 1 category, namely procurement issues, project-specific issues, client-specific issues, project environment issues and external issues. This allowed us to rank the categories with respect to their relative impact on the projects’ cost overruns and time delays.

1.4.2 Overall results of cost overrun and time delay analysis

Table 14 shows the results of the analysis of cost overruns grouped by sector and by country. Table 15 shows the corresponding results for time delays. The tables show both average cost overruns and time delays in percentage terms, to ensure comparability across countries and sectors. Positive values illustrate cost overruns or time delays. Equally, negative values indicate cost savings and actual completion times lower than expected. The number of observations for each country is shown alongside. When examining the results for each individual country, the number of projects for that country must be taken into

account before drawing conclusions, as the total number of projects varies between countries.

Table 14 Cost overrun summary by country and sector - average percentage difference between estimated and actual costs

Table 15 Time delay summary by country and sector - average percentage difference between estimated and actual completion times

Rail ConstructionRail Reconstruction Road Construction Road Reconstruction Water supply Waste water Solid waste projects Weighted Country average by % Projects % Projects % Projects % Projects % Projects % Projects % Projects sector Bulgaria -51% 1 29% 1 -11% Cyprus 49% 1 29% 1 39% Czech Rep -3% 4 -38% 1 -10% Estonia 25% 5 25% Greece 6% 4 58% 5 0% 1 1% 1 0% 10 15% Hungary 68% 2 57% 1 54% 1 20% 4 41% Ireland -2% 1 -1% 3 -22% 2 -8% Latvia -4% 1 41% 1 0% 1 12% Lithuania 0% 1 15% 3 3% 5 7% Poland 20% 4 0% 2 85% 2 31% Portugal 23% 3 76% 5 27% 8 -40% 9 -18% 4 8% Romania 51% 2 51% Slovakia 6% 2 9% 1 7% Slovenia 2% 2 -2% 1 -3% 1 0% 3 0% Spain 9% 43 -2% 7 -5% 41 17% 20 2% 26 4% Weighted 9% 29% 17% 26% -11% 16% 1% average In Table 14, for those projects where data were available6, the rail reconstruction projects were most likely to overrun on costs, with a weighted average cost overrun of 38%. All countries apart from Latvia and Poland overran on average on these projects. Secondly, though waste water projects had a weighted average cost overrun of 15%, it should be noted that, firstly, waste water represents the largest sample of projects with information on cost overruns and, secondly, these projects are very concentrated in one country; Spain. For example, the two Irish waste water projects and the Estonian project with data available came in significantly under budget.

6 In order to calculate our figures for time delays and cost overruns, we required data on the completion time/cost overrun of each project and we needed each of the projects for which we had this data to have a common unit in for the denominator. Matching data were not available for all projects in all countries.

Rail construction projects were also likely to overrun on costs, with an average overrun of 25%, though we note again that a large number of these projects are situated in Spain, which had an average delay of 25%.

The time delays shown above in Table 15 indicate that rail reconstruction projects were most likely to experience delays. According to our variance analysis, the most likely causes of these delays (for rail projects in general) were “design changes”, “delays by statutory authorities” and “obtaining permits, consents of approvals”. Road reconstructions were the next largest group to suffer time delays. The delays in Poland were the most significant, with an average of 85%, though this is only based on two projects. The average delays in both the Romania and Hungary were also significant. On average water supply projects finished ahead of schedule with an average delay of -11%. For these projects, Portugal, on average, completed its projects in 40% less time than was originally envisaged.

1.5 Statistical Analysis

We have undertaken statistical analysis in each of the major sectors: road, rail, water and solid waste. This involved a correlation analysis of certain project characteristics with their Level 1 unit costs. It established whether there are links between, say, kilometres of road tunnel and the total unit costs of road projects. This analysis is available in the main body of the report. Below we present descriptive statistics on the Level 1 unit costs of projects, including means, medians and standard deviations for each component cost of projects (Build, Soft, Land, Taxes and Contingency). This served to highlight the large spread of unit costs between projects of seemingly comparable type.

We conducted a regression analysis on the projects using physical characteristics of the projects as explanatory variables. For all project types the results have proven non-robust, because few of the variables were statistically significant causal factors for the unit cost and the models as a whole did not explain the movements of the unit costs. This type of econometric analysis is typically very data intensive and requires large datasets to determine causal trends. Though the total number of Cohesion Fund and ISPA funded projects is large, the individual data (i.e. water supply projects, road projects etc) are too small to yield robust results. Furthermore, the huge breadth of factors which may help to determine a project’s unit cost mean that idiosyncratic project factors are very important to consider. This makes building a general model of unit costs more difficult and consequently an extremely large dataset is needed to ‘average out’ the project specific factors.

1.5.1 Road projects

Below, in Table 16 we have set out the average actual unit costs (Level 1) of road projects broken down by component.

Table 16 Road: Actual average unit cost breakdown

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency Project Type Component EURm/km Mean 6.78 0.23 1.30 0.88 0.45 Construction Median 3.54 0.07 0.10 0.50 0.09 Standard 7.49 0.44 3.43 0.92 0.55 Deviation Mean 2.15 0.04 0.01 0.21 0.03 Reconstruction Median 0.63 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.02 Standard 3.95 0.047 0.29 0.02 Deviation

The unit cost of ‘Build’ for both types of project formed the largest portion of the total cost on average. For construction projects, there was a large margin between the median and mean. The standard deviation was also relatively high, indicating a large spread of data. For reconstruction projects, there was only one project which included Land costs. Therefore, we have not included a figure for standard deviation.

The standard deviation is highest in ‘Build’ for both construction and reconstruction projects, illustrating the high range of ‘Build’ unit costs for projects. This, and the considerable difference between the mean and the median for construction projects in particular indicates that the mean ‘Build’ cost may not be particularly representative of the average unit cost of building a road. For construction projects, there is a considerable margin between the mean and the median ‘Soft’ costs. Similar to ‘Build’ costs, this is representative of outliers and indicates that perhaps the mean is not representative of the ‘Soft’ costs of projects.

1.5.2 Rail projects

Using the data provided to us to calculate unit costs, we have calculated summary descriptive statistics for rail projects. In Table 17 below, we have set out the breakdown of the average unit costs for rail projects. There was insufficient data on ‘Taxes’ and ‘Contingency’ for construction projects to calculate an average.

Table 17 Rail: Actual average unit cost breakdown

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency Project Type Component EURm/km Mean 11.06 0.39 0.32 Construction Median 7.23 0.14 0.27 Standard 16.11 0.81 0.31 Deviation

Mean 3.64 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.71 Reconstruction Median 3.14 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.53 Standard 3.39 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.69 Deviation

As with road projects, the mean exceeds the median by a considerable margin in all cases. This indicates there are upward outlier unit costs exerting an effect on the mean.

The cost overrun on the ‘Build’ component of projects was by far the most costly component on average, though the high margin between the mean and median again illustrates the extent to which the data is skewed upwards by outliers. The large spread of data, particularly for ‘Build’ construction projects is illustrated by the high standard deviation figure of 16. ‘Contingency’ also provided a significant proportion of costs as a proportion of the total, particularly for rail reconstruction projects.

1.5.3 Water supply projects

Using the data provided to us to calculate unit costs, we have calculated summary descriptive statistics for water supply projects. We have used kilometres of water supply network as our unit for these calculations. Below, in Table 18, we have presented the breakdown of the Level 1 unit costs for water supply projects.

Table 18 Water Supply: Actual average unit cost breakdown

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency Project Type Component EURm/km Mean 0.60 0.02 0.01 0.04 Construction / Median 0.38 0.02 0.00 0.04 Extension Standard 0.61 0.03 0.01 0.03 Deviation Mean 0.32 0.02 0.03 0.04 Reconstruction / Median 0.41 0.01 0.03 0.04 Rehabilitation Standard 0.28 0.03 0.03 Deviation Mean 0.35 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 Construction with Reconstruction / Median 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 Standard Rehabilitation 0.49 0.01 0.01 0.03 Deviation

There was insufficient data on the amount of ‘Contingency’ for each project to calculate averages and standard deviations for all project types. Of all the components, the ‘Build’ costs dominate the total cost of the project. Construction/Extension projects exhibit the highest standard deviation, illustrating the variation in the ‘Build costs of new projects. ‘Soft’ costs also tend to have high standard deviations in relative terms but, for all types of project, appear to form a relatively small portion of the total unit costs.

1.5.4 Waste Water Projects

Using the data provided to us to calculate Level 1 unit costs, we have calculated summary descriptive statistics for waste water projects. This analysis is conducted separately for projects which predominantly consist of sewerage network and those which comprise a waste water treatment plant.

Table 19 Waste Water: Actual average unit cost breakdown (Sewage network projects)

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency Project Type Component EURm/km Mean 0.84 0.03 0.07 0.15 Construction / Median 0.48 0.00 0.02 0.08 Extension Standard 1.02 0.07 0.08 0.26 Deviation Mean 2.17 0.04 0.02 0.15 Reconstruction / Median 1.03 0.02 0.02 0.04 Rehabilitation Standard 4.67 0.07 0.26 Deviation Mean 1.53 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.29 Construction with Reconstruction / Median 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.29 Standard Rehabilitation 2.57 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.23 Deviation

The margin between the mean and median for construction projects indicates that there are significant upward outliers which are forcing the mean upwards. This is supported by the high standard deviation figure. The breakdown of unit costs shows that much of the divergence between the mean and median occurs in the ‘Build’ costs of the projects. The standard deviation figures for construction with reconstruction projects shows that there is a considerable spread in the unit costs, particularly in the ‘Build’ phase of projects, which has a standard deviation figure of 2.57. ‘Soft’ costs appeared to form a relatively low proportion of the total cost on average, with ‘Taxes’ forming the second largest component for both construction/extension projects and reconstruction and rehabilitation projects.

Table 20 Waste Water: Actual average unit cost breakdown (WWTP projects)

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency Project Type Component EURm/1000 PE Mean 0.34 0.01 0.04 0.03 Construction / Median 0.24 0.00 0.04 0.01 Extension Standard 0.29 0.00 0.03 Deviation Mean 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.02 Reconstruction / Median 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.02 Rehabilitation Standard 0.13 0.02 Deviation Construction with Mean 0.46 0.01 0.01 0.07

Reconstruction / Median 0.34 0.01 0.01 0.07 Rehabilitation Standard 0.30 1.91 Deviation

Table 20 shows that, for construction/extension and construction with reconstruction/rehabilitation projects, there is considerable deviation of the mean from the median; which indicates outliers which are skewing the mean upwards. The breakdown of unit costs shows the divergence between the mean and median is most pronounced in build costs.

In this case, construction with reconstruction/rehabilitation projects were, on average, the most costly per unit of all the projects in terms of ‘Build’ costs. Overall, as shown in Table 20, the median cost of these projects overall was also the highest, though the mean cost is less than that for construction/reconstruction projects.

1.5.5 Solid Waste Projects

Using the data provided to us to calculate Level 1 unit costs, we have calculated the following summary descriptive statistics for solid waste projects. For this analysis, we have conducted the analysis on integrated waste management projects, as the majority of projects incorporated several components. We have separated these projects into Constructions, Constructions with an upgrade component and Upgrades to existing systems.

Table 21 Solid Waste: Descriptive Statistics

Median total unit Mean total unit cost Standard deviation cost Project Type EURm/1000 EURm/1000

population served population served Estimated 0.048 0.036 0.053 Construction Actual 0.061 0.040 0.065

Construction with an Estimated 0.043 0.040 0.033 upgrade component Actual 0.036 0.036 Estimated 0.063 0.048 0.045 Upgrades Actual 0.113 0.113 0.052

The data for construction projects shows that, on average, actual costs of implementation tended to exceed estimated costs, as shown by both the mean and the median costs. ‘Actual’ data for constructions with an upgrade component and Upgrade projects was not available for the majority of projects used to measure the average estimated costs. Therefore, comparison of these two figures should not be undertaken. The only project which provided both estimated and actual costs was 2001ES16CPE057, which was completed with a lower unit cost than was originally estimated after inflation has been taken

into account (0.036 compared to 0.040 EURm per ‘000 population served). Similarly with the ‘Upgrade’ projects, only three completed projects were classified under this heading, two of which provided both estimated and actual costs. Both of these projects cost more than was originally estimated once inflation was taken into account. The diversity and breadth of these projects means that it is difficult to compare them usefully. Our attempts to conduct an analysis of the factors which tend to have a positive or negative effect upon the unit cost of these projects have not produced robust results as the drivers of cost from project to project are extremely varied.

1.5.6 General conclusions

As a result of all the statistical analysis across the four main sectors, we believe that a regression analysis would be of considerable value in the future. Given the huge breadth of project types, physical and financial features, the Level 1 unit costs we have calculated in our report are extremely varied. A rigorous econometric analysis would be likely to help quantify the extent to which projects are affected by idiosyncratic characteristics and may help future planning and funding. We attempted to undertake regression analysis with the current data, however, we were unable to estimate robust results. We believe that by continuing to collect comparable data on unit costs and other physical characteristics of projects (number of lanes, geographic location, terrain) that over time, this analysis will be possible.

1.6 Risk assessment

We examined 28 projects in our ex-ante risk assessment including the findings from Work Packages B and C. We examined how closely the ex-ante risk assessments followed the five steps recommended in the EC document on cost benefit analysis7. In no cases were the full five steps followed. Most projects appeared, based on the evidence, to stop after step 1 (Sensitivity Analysis) or Step 2 (probability distribution). Our assessment was based on information from the project application forms and in some cases feasibility reports.

The majority of ex ante risk assessments consisted of sensitivity analysis including sensitivities around investment costs to gauge their impact on NPV. Some projects also undertook scenario modelling on two or three variables. Several environmental projects did not include an ex ante risk assessment, and those that did focussed primarily on sensitivity/scenario variations around investment costs. As a result, limited sources of risk were identified while evidence to support analysis of the magnitude of risk and development of mitigation strategies was not evident.

7 Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects, July 2008.

Based on the evidence, it is not possible to clearly associate the ex ante risk assessment results with the various project phases (Project design, Project implementation). However we have noted where possible similarities between the critical variables identified in the sensitivity testing at the ex-ante stage with our ex-post results from the level 2 unit cost questionnaire results.

1.7 Recommendations

Continued development of the EU Funds Database

We have developed a dedicated database capable of holding a huge variety of information on EU Funds. This, in addition to, the updated spreadsheet tool developed during the evaluation of ERDF, should continue to be developed as an ongoing source of data for the Commission. In order for these tools to be exploited we believe that the next steps are:

 Ensure consistent measures of data within the different sectors to facilitate comparability of physical characteristics, financial characteristics and unit costs.  Mandate the provision of standardised unit costs as part of the final reporting for each closed project.  Ensure comparability of the estimated and actual data provided for singular projects across all sectors.  Review the reporting of environmental projects with a view to further standardisation.

Facilitating the collection of project information

The project team faced significant challenges to collect detailed information. The challenges included: difficulties determining the project manager, limited responses to our requests for information and varying institutional structures. Future evaluations would be facilitated by:

 Incentivising the relevant authorities within the Member States to participate in ex post evaluations.  Ensuring that comprehensive information is provided on closure of the project, including contact information for the project manager and other senior project representatives.  Centralisation of processing and recording the information in project reports (CBA, Financing Memoranda, Decisions, Progress Reports and Final Reports) into the EU Funds Database.

Enabling future comparisons of projects across countries

The evaluation team has found that, until there is more data, comparisons across countries can be misleading, particularly when the projects are not evenly spread across all countries. The needs of the countries’ vary considerably and these differences are not reflected in the unit costs of projects.

Furthermore, comparisons between ISPA projects and Cohesion Fund projects should be made with caution because of the differences in the amounts of funding allocated in total, the ability of countries to draw down the funds and the different institutional practices of the funds. Future analysis would be enhanced by:

 the continued collection of detailed information about infrastructure projects. This will facilitate econometric analysis to determine robust models of unit cost. The following factors are examples which are likely to have a material impact on unit costs;  length of tunnels;  number of tracks;  number of lanes; and  additional population served.

Robust modelling will enable the Commission to more accurately and fairly compare across countries, funds and regions.

Improving ex ante risk assessments in funding applications

Our data for the analysis of ex ante risk assessment comprised 28 projects including the results from WPB and WPC. While not a large sample, our assessment determined the following issues: very high level sensitivity analyses/scenario testing only, very limited variables included in the sensitivity analysis, no co-variable analysis and no risk mitigation strategies. In order to improve the value of these ex ante risk assessments we recommend the following:

analysis at the ex-ante stage, learning from past ex-post results, will improve the overall risk assessment process.  Encouraging a spirit of using the ex ante risk assessment as a tool to a) decide on projects, and; b) mitigate risk. There is little evidence to suggest that project risk is assessed ex-ante and used as a decision making tool to rank projects for funding. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that when potential risks are identified, a risk prevention strategy is put in place with some form of monitoring during the life of the project. There is great room for improvement here.

2 Introduction 2.1 Background

This report covers the work carried out in Task 2.3 and Task 3. The requirements of Task 2.3, as set out in the Terms of Reference are:

Using the data collected in Task 2.3, Task 3 represents an analysis of the financial efficiency of co-financed projects. This process includes the following components:

 An update and development of the analysis of risk assessment in Work Package 10.

2.2 Report Structure

This report follows the following structure:

 Data gathering: This section sets out our data gathering process, the difficulties we have encountered and the number of projects for which we have collected data.  Methodology: This section sets out and defines the unit costs we have calculated and the information we have collected for analysis of time and cost overruns and our variance analysis.  The Unit Cost Database tool: This section reviews the database created in the Ex Post Evaluation of ERDF, Work Package 10 and briefly outlines the changes we have had to make to the tool in order to make it compatible with our data and generate unit costs for other types of project.  Estimated and Actual Unit Costs and Completion Times: This represents the bulk of our report and presents the results of our analysis of unit costs for road, rail, water and solid waste projects. This section also sets out our analysis of time delays and cost overruns and the reasons for these.  Statistical Analysis: Section 7 represents our statistical analysis or unit costs and the physical characteristics of the projects.  Ex ante risk assessment: In this section we present our analysis of the ex ante risk assessment regime currently in place for infrastructure projects.  Recommendations: In this section we set out the recommendations which arise from our analysis in previous chapters.  Annex 1: provides a list of project names, codes and countries and denotes which of these we have calculated Level 1 and Level 2 unit costs for.

3 Data Gathering

3.1 Introduction

In this section we discuss our data gathering efforts, first in respect of the project documents provided by the European Commission and, second, in respect of gathering further physical and financial project indicators from the Member States’ managing authorities. The terms of reference required that we collect ‘Level 1’ unit cost information for all ‘maximum 500’ closed and almost closed projects co-financed by the Cohesion Fund and ISPA between 2000 and 2006. We were to include projects co-financed by the ERDF and evaluated previously in our database. However, the ERDF projects are not included in this report. The data for this was gathered using the project documentation supplied to us by the EC. In addition to this, we were required to collect further ‘Level 2’ data on 150 projects.

3.2 Overview of the data gathering process

The Commission provided the evaluation team with the financing memoranda and, where the projects were closed or almost closed, the latest progress reports and final reports for those projects which were financed by either Cohesion Fund or ISPA between the years 2000 and 2006. Physical and financial information including Level 1 costs was extracted from these reports and inserted into a database to allow efficient data management.

In many cases where a project had several amendments throughout its execution, the most recent project document was used to determine which information to extract and insert into the database. This ensured that the data gathered would be as accurate and up to date as possible.

All projects were sorted into 4 main, “project type” categories in the database; water, solid waste, rail and road projects. Of these, transport projects were then sub-divided into 2 generic categories: construction and reconstruction projects. Water projects were subdivided into water supply, waste water and mixed projects (i.e. those with both water supply and waste water components).

Further data gathering was required to collect Level 2 unit cost data as the level of information supplied in the project documents was highly varied and, in many cases, limited. We instigated a second phase of data gathering in October 2010. This was to collect ‘Level 2’ data on the project costs which consisted of matching construction costs and units for component parts of projects (for example, bridges, tunnels, waste water treatment plants and water supply network). Croatia, Cyprus and Malta were not included in this phase of

34 data gathering given the small number of projects they had executed throughout the 2000- 2006 period.

The results of our data gathering efforts using questionnaires are summarised in below.

Table 22 Level 2: Summary of our data gathering results

Numbers of projects Total

Target shortlist size 291

Data returns received to date 150

These projects were supplemented with data from the projects analysed in the Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Fund (including former ISPA) 2000 – 2006 – Work Package B, which provided Level 2 data on a small number of rail and road projects. We also integrated data from the Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Fund (including former ISPA) 2000 – 2006 – Work Package C, but the data provided in this work package was not compatible with the information we had collected from Member States and project reports.

We have also supplemented our data with desk based research which has proven relatively successful for additional Level 2 data.

3.2.1 Level 2 data gathering: Questionnaire responses

As of 15th June 2011 we had received 150 questionnaires. The completion of questionnaires was slow and sporadic. We believe the main reason for this was because there was little obligation on Managing Authorities or agencies to provide the information requested. In the majority of cases, individuals were contacted several times via email for an update on the submitted questionnaires and failed to respond until a valid telephone number was identified to speak to a member of the Authority directly. Even so, after receiving confirmation over the telephone that the data requested would be delivered by the deadline set, it was often not the case and further follow-up calls had to be made before finally receiving the information requested. In a number of cases, despite having established a contact for the relevant Authority, we were unable to contact people able or willing to assist us. In some cases this was due to individuals being unwilling to take part.

The level of inter-departmental bureaucracy was also held accountable for the delayed response rate of our information request. Often several departments had to be contacted before reaching the people able to complete the questionnaires. On many occasions, our

35 original email requesting further data was forwarded onto different agencies or departments without our prior notification. This made it particularly difficult when trying to identify the whereabouts of our original request; and the contact details of the new individual completing our questionnaires.

With regards to some Member States there would sometimes be only one individual managing all projects, particularly for transport sector. In some cases this placed a large burden of work on one individual. In addition to this, at times there were communication difficulties between the team and the relevant individuals in the Member States. This proved to be an issue for both sides and led to further delays in some cases.

By extending the deadline and including responses received up until the middle of June, we had a total of 150 projects.

3.2.2 Level 2: The response rate and distribution

There are two main implications of the response rate and distribution: (i) a slightly reduced sample of size overall compared to the plan and (ii) a sample that is skewed towards waste water and solid waste sectors.

A more indirect implication of the response rate is the limiting result of the range and profundity of the ‘Level 2’ unit cost analysis. The sector which is most subject to this limitation of range is rail. As mentioned above, this is due to the sparse level of questionnaires which were returned for projects in the sector.

Table 23 below shows the structure of the 291 project shortlist that was our starting point to analyse 150 projects.

Table 23 Level 2: Distribution of the shortlisted 291 projects

Total no. of Projects Sectors Country shortlisted Road Rail Water Waste Bulgaria 2 1 1 Croatia Cyprus Czech Rep 32 4 6 22 Estonia 21 5 12 4 Greece 36 9 3 16 8 Hungary 7 1 1 2 3 Ireland 2 1 1 Latvia 37 10 3 14 10 Lithuania 16 8 5 3 Malta Poland 19 6 5 4 4 Portugal 22 7 3 6 6 Romania 7 2 4 1 Slovakia 22 1 4 16 1 Slovenia 7 1 1 3 2 Spain 61 7 17 33 4 Total 291 63 43 139 46

We include a larger number of water projects for analysis as they accounted for the largest proportion of projects executed by Member States, financed by Cohesion Fund or ISPA between 2000 and 2006.

Table 24 shows the structure of the actual sample of 150 projects which we received to form the basis for our analysis.

Table 24 Level 2: Questionnaire response rate from the shortlisted 291 projects

Sectors Country No. of Projects Road Rail Water Waste Bulgaria 1 1 Croatia Cyprus Czech Rep 11 2 2 7 Estonia 11 5 4 2 Greece 26 6 4 13 3 Hungary 7 1 1 2 3 Ireland 2 1 1 Latvia 8 2 4 2 Lithuania 15 8 4 3 Malta Poland 15 6 3 2 4 Portugal 17 7 2 3 5 Romania 4 2 2 Slovakia 3 1 2 Slovenia 4 1 1 2 Spain 26 5 17 4 Total 150 40 22 62 26

3.3 Total data and metrics collected

In this section we discuss the wider data set which includes information from project documentation, questionnaires from Member States and further desk-based research.

We have separated some environmental projects, where appropriate, into sub-projects to provide more granular detail of certain project components. For example, sub-projects may provide data on individual sections of a sewerage network or on the construction of a waste water treatment plant both of which would be part of a larger ‘master’ project.

For those projects which are divided into sub-projects, the master project has been extracted, leaving only the subprojects. The subprojects are denoted in our data and can be distinguished as their project code includes the code of the master project followed by either a letter or a number (for example 2000ES16CPE001-01 or 2000ES16CPE001a). This enabled a more thorough benchmarking exercise by providing more data points and allowing a more detailed analysis of specific projects.

The Terms of Reference required that we extract Level 1 data from all ‘maximum 500’ closed and almost closed projects. Hence, we have looked at 567 projects in total across the road, rail, water and solid waste sectors. The distribution of these projects is set out in Table 25

38 below. In addition, we have a number of projects classified as ‘Other’, such as airports, ports, technical assistance and restorations of river basins which we have not included in our analysis.

Table 25 Number of closed and almost closed projects examined

Sector Number of projects Rail 82 Road 73 Water 293 Waste 119 Total 567

We have attempted to extract data to calculate Level 1 unit costs for all 567 projects. However, not all projects contained adequate data to calculate both estimated and actual figures.

Similarly, we have analysed a total of 293 water projects and, from these, have successfully calculated estimated unit costs for 234 projects and actual unit costs for 141 projects. The difference is due to many project reports not providing adequate information to calculate Level 1 costs which are comparable to other projects in that sector.

Table 26 below shows the total number of closed or almost closed projects from which we have successfully calculated Level 1 unit costs broken down by country and sector. Column 4 (Water) is made up of water supply, waste water and mixed projects. This is illustrated in Table 27.

Table 26 Level 1: Number of projects split by country and sector

We have extracted ‘estimated’8 Level 1 data from a total of 440 projects and ‘actual’9 Level 1 data from a total of 325 projects. In order to increase the number of data points, when analysing the environmental projects, we divided many of the projects into sub projects as outlined above. This provided more data points and the number and distribution are shown in Table 27 below.

Table 27 Level 1: Number of Projects (including sub projects)

8 This represents the ex ante estimation of the unit cost of the project. 9 The unit cost of the project as reported ex post.

reasonable amount of matching data and which remains appropriate for calculating the unit cost of the project.

The projects shown under Level 1 in Table 28 below reflect the figures in the total column of Table 27. The figures shown under the Level 2 heading represent the number of projects with Level 2 data. These figures include the projects for which we have received questionnaires plus projects for which we have conducted further desk based research. In the case of waste projects, some returned questionnaires did not include enough information to derive Level 2 unit costs using the metrics we have selected. For these reasons, the figures shown under the Level 2 heading in Table 28 do not correspond to those in the total row of Table 24.

In total, 252 projects have at least one Level 2 data point and we have undertaken our Level 2 analysis from these 252 projects. Each of these projects may have more than one type of Level 2 data point. For example, for rail projects we have obtained Level 2 cost and unit data for trackwork for 32 out of the 34 projects shown below. However, our data for tunnels is more limited (less than 32 datapoints) as, although we have collected information regarding the number and length of tunnels, the cost data was limited. Similarly, for water supply projects, we were able to collect 40 data points (out of the total of 40 projects) for the cost and length of the supply network, but were not able to collect data on other Level 2 indicators such as drinking water purification plants and pumping stations.

Table 28 Level 1 & Level 2: Projects

We have not, in all cases, managed to obtain data on both estimated and actual unit costs.

4 Methodology

4.1 Defining unit cost indicators

With the aid of our questionnaires we are able to compile comparable cost information for all four project sectors; Road, Rail, Water and Solid Waste.

We adopted various ‘levels’ of cost indicators to reflect different degrees of cost disaggregation. We defined two main ‘levels’ of disaggregation, as follows:

Where data is available, Level 1 costs are broken down into the costs of the various build stages. This breakdown consists of:

 build costs  soft costs (including project management, technical assistance and design costs)  land costs  taxes; and  contingency.

Level 1 unit costs are calculated by dividing each of the individual component costs, as set out above, by the unit chosen. The sum of these components equates to the total unit cost of the project. By using unit costs, projects of difference scales can be compared. To ensure comparability, we have grouped our projects into the categories set out in Table 29 below.

Table 29 Breakdown of project types

Project type Categories Construction Road Reconstructions Constructions Rail Reconstructions Constructions Extensions Water supply Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Mixed (Construction with a reconstruction component) Constructions Extensions Waste water Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Mixed (Construction with a reconstruction component) Constructions Extensions Mixed projects Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Construction with a reconstruction component Landfill Closure/Construction/Rehabilitation Recycling plant Construction/Rehabiliation Composting centre Construction/Rehabilitation Solid Waste Waste Transfer, Recycling and Collection Creation / Rehabilitation/ Integrated Waste Management Systems Creation/Upgrade/Construction with Upgrade component

Table 30 below summarises Level 1 and Level 2 unit cost indicators which we have calculated for each sector.

Table 30 Level 1 and 2 information

Level 1 Level 2 costs Sector Costs Level 2 Units (key components) (‘all in’)

Trackwork Kilometres

Stations Number Rail Kilometres Bridges Number

Tunnels Kilometres Pavement Kilometres

Road Kilometres Tunnels Kilometres

4.2 Defining data for cost overrun and time delay analysis

In addition to measuring project unit costs, we also analysed estimated and actual cost overruns, time delays and completion times. The terms of reference state that, if necessary, the project team updates the methodology for conducting this analysis. We have seen no need to do so as the data we have collected has been compatible with the methodology used in WP10. By keeping a single methodology, this ensures that the results are comparable with analysis done previously.

We collected information on completion times for each phase of the projects’ execution. This was denominated in the estimated and actual months for each phase to be completed. We have divided these figures by an appropriate unit to standardise the measurements and compare projects of varying size (to calculate, for example, a months’ per kilometre metric for each construction phase – the unit varies between project types). We then calculated the average estimated and actual completion times across all projects. This was undertaken for the following project phases:

 Planning  Funding  Permissions  Site preparation  Construction

4.3 Identifying the causes of cost overruns and time delays

The study also identified the main causes for delays. Table 31 below shows the cost overrun and time delay categories used in the project questionnaires.

Table 31 Type 1 and Type 2 cost overrun and time delay categories

Type 1 Type 2 Environmental Impact Site access difficulties Suspension of works Delays by statutory authorities and/or contractors Late commencement of work Construction period Inadequacy of the Business Case Large Number of Stakeholders Client Specific Funding Availability/Problems Project Management Team Public Relations Project environment Site Characteristics Permits/Consents/Approvals Political Economic Changes in Legislation/Regulations Technology External issues Inflation Exchange Rates Force Majeure Other

4.4 Methods for achieving comparability of data

Various adjustments are necessary to compare projects carried out in different jurisdictions and different time periods. We have made two adjustments to the data. The first adjustment was to adjust all cost data for inflation, converting them to a common price base (2007 prices). We used Eurostat’s country-specific harmonised index of consumer prices. These figures are shown below in Table 32.

Table 32 Inflation Index Figures Used (2007 = 1)

Country 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Austria 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.05 Belgium 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.07 Bulgaria 0.49 0.58 0.60 0.66 0.71 0.75 0.77 0.82 0.87 0.93 1.00 1.12 1.15 1.18 Croatia 0.78 0.82 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.06 1.08 1.09 Cyprus 0.75 0.78 0.80 0.81 0.84 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.04 1.05 1.07 Czech Rep 0.69 0.74 0.81 0.83 0.86 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.94 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.06 1.07 1.08 Denmark 0.81 0.83 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.04 1.05 1.07 Estonia 0.59 0.65 0.70 0.73 0.75 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.90 0.94 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.14 Finland 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.04 1.06 1.07 France 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.03 1.03 1.05 Germany 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.03 1.03 1.04 Greece 0.68 0.72 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.04 1.06 1.11 Hungary 0.41 0.49 0.55 0.61 0.67 0.73 0.77 0.81 0.86 0.89 0.93 1.00 1.06 1.10 1.16 Ireland 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.78 0.83 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.96 1.00 1.13 1.31 1.41 Italy 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.76 0.80 0.83 0.87 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.01 Latvia 0.78 0.80 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.89 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.06 Lithuania 0.59 0.64 0.67 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.91 1.00 1.15 1.19 1.18 Luxembourg 0.73 0.80 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.11 1.16 1.17 Malta 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.07 Netherlands - - - 0.83 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.05 1.07 1.09 Poland 0.78 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.89 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.04 Portugal 0.55 0.64 0.71 0.76 0.84 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.11 Romania 0.74 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.85 0.88 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.03 1.02 1.03 Slovakia 0.04 0.11 0.18 0.26 0.39 0.52 0.64 0.73 0.82 0.89 0.95 1.00 1.08 1.14 1.21 Slovenia 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.63 0.71 0.76 0.79 0.85 0.92 0.94 0.98 1.00 1.04 1.05 1.06 Spain 0.53 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.72 0.78 0.84 0.89 0.92 0.94 0.96 1.00 1.06 1.06 1.09 Sweden 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.83 0.85 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.06 UK 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.07

Source: Eurostat, RGL calculations

We also considered using the Eurostat construction price inflation index. However, this inflation data was not up to date enough to value projects after 2008.

The second adjustment was to adjust exchange rates for countries that did not report their costs in Euros. Almost all projects required no exchange rate adjustment as they were denominated in Euros. The two exceptions were 2005PL161PR003 and 2005PL161PR004 which were denominated in Polish Zlotys.

5 The Unit Cost Database Tool

5.1 Introduction

For the Ex post evaluation of ERDF projects, WP10 created a database tool to provide summary unit cost information for project data and to form a depositary for new data as it becomes available.

We have used this tool to calculate the unit costs for our projects. This has proven relatively simple for transport projects for which the database tool was designed to provide a repository. However, for environmental projects the tool required adjustment so that it provided the requisite detail for our analysis. This section summarises the current database and its structure.

5.2 Review of the WP10 Database Tool

The spreadsheet follows a simple structure. Input sheets allowed the user to enter new project data. Normalisation sheets converted raw data into comparable unit costs, adjusting for exchange rates and inflation. This was undertaken using construction cost indices and annual average exchange rates. Finally, output sheets allowed the user to examine detailed information for particular projects and to gain an overview of all the projects in the database for a particular sector.

The input sheets were data entry forms and one was provided for each sector: Road, Rail, Water and Waste. When entered, this data was saved to a database sheet. It was automatically normalised using a sheet which contained all inflation and exchange rate information which allowed the data to be compared.

The spreadsheet calculated unit costs using this normalised data and the unit costs could then be viewed on a project by project basis or as a summary sheet for the whole sector, Level 1 and Level 2.

5.3 Updates and developments of the database

We have endeavoured to keep the structure of the database as similar to its original form as possible. It has been necessary, however, to make some changes to the way in which the database works. These are set out below.

 Project input: We have collected information for a significantly larger number of projects than previously and the data has been entered into a MS Access database – the EU Funds Database. This, we believe, will become a useful and flexible tool for the EC to record the physical and financial characteristics of projects. For project

input we have created a link to the amended WP10 database which automatically updates all data and enters new information and projects from the EU Funds Database. On first use the connections in the WP10 database require setting up but subsequent updates are automatic.  Project normalisation: We have used harmonised indexes of consumer prices in order to adjust for inflation. This is because we were unable to obtain an up to date construction cost index series for all countries which would have allowed us to value projects up to 2010.  Water projects: We have created new output sheets for water projects which separate the project types into water supply and waste water projects and provide the ability to input more detailed data based on which project type is being used.  Solid waste projects: We have created new output sheets for solid waste projects which allows for the entry of information specific to solid waste projects to generate unit costs for different types of solid waste projects.

Detailed instructions are available in both the EU Funds Database and the unit cost database tool.

6 Estimated and Actual Unit Costs and Completion Times

6.1 Introduction

In this section we present the estimated and actual unit costs for projects co-financed by Cohesion Fund and ISPA during the 2000 – 2006 programme period. We present these separately for road, rail, water and waste projects.

The figures provided comprise two levels of unit costs. Level 1 provides ‘all in’ costs and we have included all projects for which we have data. We then present our more granular Level 2 data for the components of projects. Data for these more granular figures was considerably sparser but we have presented calculations for all projects where data was available.

Each section also includes an analysis of estimated and actual project completion times. Where the data would allow it, we have provided the average estimated and actual project completion times for each of the various phases of the project. This is followed by an analysis of the reasons for the cost overruns. This has been determined using questionnaires completed by individuals in the Member States, who ranked a wide variety of reasons for cost and time overruns from 0 - 3.

We conclude this section by consolidating the findings of our cost overrun and time delay analysis and considering the results on a ‘per country’ and ‘per sector’ basis.

6.2 Rail projects

We have collected Level 1 data on rail projects and have analysed this separately for construction and reconstruction projects. We have also incorporated data from Work Package B on transport projects into our analysis. This section presents our calculations for Level 1 and Level 2 unit costs for rail projects.

This section will conclude with our analysis of the time delays and cost overruns associated with projects and the associated variance analysis which seeks to determine the principal reasons for the time delays and cost overruns.

6.2.1 Rail Constructions – Level 1 Costs

Below we have analysed the data for “all in” Level 1 costs and these are shown in two separate figures – estimated and actual. Each figure also includes a label for the country to which each project corresponds. We have grouped all projects for each country together. For example, Spain, which had the largest number of rail projects is shown in both figures under the code ES.

Figure 1 shows the “all in” estimated unit costs for all rail construction projects while and Figure 2 compares the “all in” actual unit costs. We also provide data on key components where it was available.

Figure 1: Level 1 rail: "all in" estimated unit cost for construction projects

120

100

60 EURm/km

0 1999IE16CPT001 2005ES16CPT002 2004ES16CPT009 2003ES16CPT020 2004ES16CPT002 2002ES16CPT003 2003ES16CPT019 2003ES16CPT026 2004ES16CPT003 2004ES16CPT001 2003ES16CPT010 2003ES16CPT027 2001ES16CPT009 2004ES16CPT008 2001ES16CPT010 2001ES16CPT005 2003ES16CPT021 2000ES16CPT005 2001ES16CPT015 2003ES16CPT006 2000ES16CPT003 2003ES16CPT012 2004ES16CPT012 2003ES16CPT005 2003ES16CPT007 2003ES16CPT011 2004ES16CPT015 2003ES16CPT024 2004ES16CPT016 2003ES16CPT013 2001ES16CPT006 2003ES16CPT008 2001ES16CPT017 2004ES16CPT018 2004ES16CPT013 2001ES16CPT014 2004ES16CPT010 2001ES16CPT016 2004ES16CPT011 2001ES16CPT018 2004ES16CPT014 2003ES16CPT004 1999ES16CPT001 2000ES16CPT002 2000LV16PPT004 2002CZ16PPT013 2002CZ16PPT015 2000PT16CPT009 2000PT16CPT013 2000PT16CPT012 2003GR16CPT001 2000GR16CPT003 1994GR16CPT109 1994GR16CPT110

CZ GR IE LV PT ES

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 2: Level 1 rail: “all in” actual unit cost for construction projects

120

100

60 EURm/km

0 1999IE16CPT001 2004ES16CPT009 2005ES16CPT002 2004ES16CPT002 2003ES16CPT019 2003ES16CPT020 2004ES16CPT003 2002ES16CPT003 2003ES16CPT026 2003ES16CPT027 2004ES16CPT001 2001ES16CPT009 2004ES16CPT008 2003ES16CPT010 2003ES16CPT006 2001ES16CPT005 2001ES16CPT010 2003ES16CPT021 2000ES16CPT005 2003ES16CPT012 2000ES16CPT003 2001ES16CPT015 2004ES16CPT012 2003ES16CPT007 2003ES16CPT005 2003ES16CPT011 2003ES16CPT013 2004ES16CPT015 2003ES16CPT024 2004ES16CPT016 2001ES16CPT006 2003ES16CPT008 2004ES16CPT013 2004ES16CPT018 2001ES16CPT014 2001ES16CPT017 2004ES16CPT010 2004ES16CPT011 2001ES16CPT016 2001ES16CPT018 2003ES16CPT004 2004ES16CPT014 1999ES16CPT001 2000ES16CPT002 2000LV16PPT004 2000PT16CPT009 2000PT16CPT013 2000PT16CPT012 2003GR16CPT001 2000GR16CPT003 1994GR16CPT109 1994GR16CPT110

GR IE LV PT ES

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

The level of variation in unit costs between construction projects estimated and actual is great and quite varied across projects. The actual Level 1 costs per kilometre have a huge range of between 1.22 EURm/km and 111.9 EURm/km. There is also a margin between the average estimated and average cost. The mean estimated cost for construction projects is 8.8 EURm/km10, while the mean actual cost for construction projects is 11.6 EURm/km11.

The huge variation in the costs of projects is expected due to the many differences in the types of rail projects carried out. For example, in Figure 1, the project with the highest actual unit cost per km was a short section of track, 2.2 km, in Lisbon to extend the metro railway12. However, a second project in Portugal to construct 1.8 km of track had a much lower actual unit cost.13 In addition, the rail construction projects reflect both the creation of high speed lines and sub-sections of lines with trains capable of speeds up to 350 kph versus shorter sections of track with highly complex build criteria due to construction over motorways, other rail lines and rivers.

Spain has the highest number of projects but, as expected, shows a great variety in their unit costs which reflects the range and scope of projects.

In Figure 3 and Figure 4 we show the average estimated and actual unit cost/km by country for rail construction projects. Two countries, Ireland and Latvia, are represented by one project only. All countries demonstrate actual unit costs higher than estimates with the exception of Latvia. The Czech Republic only appears in the estimates figure as their projects were not formally closed and so actual costs were not available. Portugal has maintained the highest unit cost due to the high cost of the project which was the extension to the Lisbon metro railway. Spain, which had the highest number of rail projects at 43, also had many projects with low unit costs per project km. Given the wide variety in the number of projects for each country, (aside from Spain) it is inadvisable to draw conclusions across countries.

10 Taken from a total of 54 projects. 11 Taken from a total of 52 projects. 12 See 2000PT16CPT009. 13 See 2000PT16CPT013.

Figure 3: Level 1 rail: estimated average unit cost/km by country for rail construction projects

30 EURm/km

0 Czech Rep Greece Ireland Latvia Portugal Spain

Build Soft Land Tax es Contingency

Figure 4: Level 1 rail: actual average unit cost/km by country for rail reconstruction projects

30 EURm/km

0 Greece Ireland Latvia Portugal Spain

Build Soft Land Tax es Contingency

6.2.2 Rail Reconstructions – Level 1 Costs

Figure 5 and Figure 6 compare Level 1 “all in” estimated and actual unit costs for all rail reconstruction projects. Each figure includes a label for the country to which each project corresponds. We have grouped all projects for each country together in each figure. We also provide data on key components where it was available. There is some variety across projects in the estimated unit cost for rail reconstruction projects, but the range is not as great as we have seen for road reconstructions. The estimated costs ranged between 0.01 EURm/km and 6.52 EURm/km.

When examining the actual unit costs for rail reconstructions, there are much wider variations across countries and projects. This is reflected by the more significant range of between 0.04 EURm/km and 14.85 EURm/km. There is one very costly actual rail reconstruction project, 2001SK16PPT0314, which had a long project duration and appears to have been strongly affected by inflation. In contrast, the actual lowest unit cost projects were in Latvia and Lithuania. In both cases their focus was on track and turnout replacements. In addition, there was modernisation of the telecoms, power supply and signalling in the Lithuanian project. The focus for many of the other, higher unit cost projects, was on modernising track, replacing/repairing bridges, stations and building over and underpasses and agricultural crossings. We also note a margin between the mean estimated (2.48 EURm/km) and actual (3.57 EURm/km) costs per kilometre for projects, indicating cost overruns on some projects.

Figure 7 and Figure 8 illustrate the estimated and actual average unit cost/km by country. In all cases rail reconstruction projects have a higher actual average unit cost/km than estimated average unit cost/km. The range of projects with actual unit costs represented within each country start at 1 project for Lithuania and rises to 7 projects for Portugal. Given the small number of projects per country we do not recommend comparing costs across countries.

14 Modernisation of the Rail Track Senkvice-Cifer & Stations Race-Trnava

Figure 5: Level 1 rail: "all in" estimated unit cost for reconstruction projects

8 EURm/km

0 2000SI16PPT001 2002SI16PPT003 2004SI16CPT002 2004LT16PPT009 2001PL16PPT014 2000PL16PPT002 2002PL16PPT016 2001PL16PPT012 2001PL16PPT015 2001SK16PPT003 2002SK16PPT005 2000SK16PPT001 2004CZ16CPT002 2005CZ16CPT001 2000CZ16PPT002 2000CZ16PPT006 2000LV16PPT003 2001LV16PPT007 2003PT16CPT008 2003PT16CPT004 2000PT16CPT002 2000PT16CPT001 2001PT16CPT003 2000PT16CPT003 2001PT16CPT001 2004SK16CPT001 2000HU16PPT002 2000HU16PPT001

CZ HU LV LT PL PT SK SI

Build Soft Land Tax es Contingency

Figure 6: Level 1 rail: "all in" actual unit cost for reconstruction projects

8 EURm/km

0 2000SI16PPT001 2002SI16PPT003 2004SI16CPT002 2004LT16PPT009 2001PL16PPT014 2000PL16PPT002 2002PL16PPT016 2001PL16PPT015 2001SK16PPT003 2002SK16PPT005 2000SK16PPT001 2000LV16PPT003 2003PT16CPT008 2003PT16CPT004 2000PT16CPT002 2000PT16CPT001 2001PT16CPT003 2000PT16CPT003 2001PT16CPT001 2004SK16CPT001 2005CZ16CPT001 2004CZ16CPT002 2000CZ16PPT002 2000CZ16PPT006 2000HU16PPT002 2000HU16PPT001

CZ HU LV LT PL PT SK SI

Build Soft Land Tax es Contingency

Figure 7: Level 1 estimated average unit cost/km by country

4 EURm/km

0 Czech Rep Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 8: Level 1 actual average unit cost/km by country

4 EURm/km

0 Czech Rep Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

6.2.3 Level 2 Unit costs – Rail

Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 12 compare Level 2 unit “build” costs for all rail projects. Figure 11 shows the actual cost per bridge in each country. Each figure includes both construction and reconstruction projects and is split by country. We summarise all the information available for the specific Level 2 unit costs. Not all information is always available for all projects. Some projects have either estimated data or actual data, but not both. Where this is the case, we leave the missing data column blank.

The figures which have a star (*) next to a project, for example 2000PT16CPT003*, denotes a project from WPB and these projects only contain actual data. There is no estimated data available.

There is a great deal of variety in the data for all three level 2 components (trackwork, stations and tunnels) with more limited data points for stations and tunnels for constructions and reconstructions. Looking at Figure 9, where we have the most data points, we see a great variation in the unit build cost for trackwork. There is one construction projects which stands out with very high trackwork costs in Spain (2003ES16CPT019). This is significantly above the average for Level 2 trackwork construction costs of 3.94 EURm/km. Reconstruction projects, overall, showed a much lower unit cost for trackwork with an average actual unit cost of 1.05 EURm/km. The results show that modernising trackwork is less expensive than construction.

Figure 10 shows the “build” cost of stations for both constructions and reconstructions. There is great variation amongst both construction and reconstruction projects. Similarly, for Figure 11 and Figure 12 the variation in the unit cost for tunnels and the cost per bridge vary significantly with a high unit cost project in each figure. We note that the cost per bridge has much greater variation for constructions than reconstructions. To provide some context for Figure 11, in the construction section project 2003GR16CPT001 has 4 bridges and 2004ES16CPT013 has just 1 bridge. In the reconstruction section, project 2001PL16PPT014 has 22 bridges, project 2001PL16PPT012 has 16 bridges and 2003PT16CPT004 has 2 bridges.

In Figure 12, the tunnel project with the highest unit cost is 1994GR16CPT109. The reason for this is unclear but the project only comprised one short tunnel (0.177km), at a cost of €17m. We also note that there are no reconstruction projects in the tunnel category.

Figure 9: Level 2 rail: estimated and actual unit “build” cost of trackwork

8 EURm/km 6

0 2002SI16PPT003 2001PL16PPT012 2001PL16PPT014 2000PL16PPT002 2002PL16PPT016 2001PL16PPT015 2000PT16CPT013 2000PT16CPT012 2000CZ16PPT006 2000CZ16PPT002 2003PT16CPT004 2003PT16CPT008 2001PT16CPT001 2000SK16PPT001 2002SK16PPT005 2003ES16CPT019 2003ES16CPT006 2004ES16CPT012 2004ES16CPT015 2004ES16CPT018 2004ES16CPT013 2003ES16CPT004 2005CZ16CPT001 2004CZ16CPT002 2000HU16PPT002 2000HU16PPT001 1994GR16CPT110 1994GR16CPT109 2000GR16CPT003 2000PT16CPT003* 1999ES16CPT001* 2003GR16CPT001*

GR PT ES CZ HU PL PT SK SI

Construction Reconstruction

Estimated Actual

Figure 10: Level 2 rail: estimated and actual unit “build” cost of stations

40 EURm/Station

0 2002SI16PPT003 2001PL16PPT012 2000PT16CPT013 2000PT16CPT012 2000CZ16PPT002 2000CZ16PPT006 2003PT16CPT008 2003PT16CPT004 2002SK16PPT005 2000HU16PPT002 2000HU16PPT001 1994GR16CPT110 2000GR16CPT003 2000PT16CPT003* 1999ES16CPT001* 2003GR16CPT001*

GR PT ES CZ HU PL PT SK SI

Construction Reconstruction

Estimated Actual

Figure 11: Level 2 rail: estimated and actual “build” cost per bridge

15 EURm/Bridge

0 2000PL16PPT002 2001PL16PPT012 2002PL16PPT016 2001PL16PPT014 2002CZ16PPT013 2000PT16CPT012 2000CZ16PPT002 2000CZ16PPT006 2003PT16CPT004 2000SK16PPT001 2004ES16CPT013 2004ES16CPT015 2004ES16CPT018 2004CZ16CPT002 2000HU16PPT002 1994GR16CPT110 2003GR16CPT001 2000GR16CPT003 2000PT16CPT003* 1999ES16CPT001*

CZ GR PT ES CZ HU PL PT SK

Construction Reconstruction

Estimated Actual

Figure 12: Level 2 rail: estimated and actual unit "build" cost of tunnels

40 EURm/km

0 2000PT16CPT012 2004ES16CPT015 2004ES16CPT012 2004ES16CPT013 1994GR16CPT109 1994GR16CPT110 2003GR16CPT001 1999ES16CPT001* 2003GR16CPT001*

GR PT ES

Construction

Estimated Actual

6.2.4 Rail: Cost overruns and time delays

As discussed above, in our questionnaire we asked that a series of factors be ranked in order of their importance in causing time delays and cost overruns for rail projects. The rankings ranged from 1 (small influence on cost/time overrun) to 3 (major impact). We have calculated the average score for rail projects and this is shown in Figure 13.

Project specific factors were considered the most important cause of cost overruns and this ‘Type 1’ category includes factors such as the “complexity of design” and the “degree of innovation”. Project Environment, which includes factors such as “issues over permits”, “consents or approvals”, “site characteristics” and issues with public relations was considered the next most important cause of cost overruns.

Figure 13: Type 1 Rail: Average cost overrun scores

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50 Cost OverrunCost Score

1.00

0.50

- Project Specific Project Environment External Issues Procurement Issues Client Specific

We have also examined the average completion times for rail projects for each phase of their construction. This is shown below separately for rail construction and reconstruction projects in Table 33 and Table 34. Completion times are shown in months per km to make the results comparable across projects of different size.

We note that although each of the project phases shown below is sequential, there is a degree of overlap. Therefore, the total completion time of the project is not the sum of each category of project timing. To compare projects, in addition to separating construction and reconstruction projects, we have standardised the measures of delay using the length of

60 projects. The information shows each project phase to illustrate which phases have the longest delay. Project delays will differ by project and its related characteristics and this data focuses on estimated completion time delays.

The tables show the average number of months per kilometre. However, project timing measures should not be extrapolated to estimate likely completion times for similar projects as most projects will have a fixed time component that does not change with the project length as well as a variable component which increases with it. Consequently, times in months per kilometre tend to be less than the average for projects that cover long distances.

As one would expect, reconstructions tend to take far less time per kilometre for all stages of the project defined. In particular, on average, there was considerable overrun in the process for obtaining funding of 83% (constructions) and 118% (reconstructions). The largest “absolute delay” for both construction and reconstruction projects was funding.

Table 33 Rail Construction: Estimated completion times, actual completion times, absolute delay and percentage delay

Estimated Actual completion Absolute delay Percentage delay Project Phase completion time time Months per km % Planning 5.2 5.5 0.3 5.6 Funding 2.7 4.9 2.2 82.5 Permissions 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 Site Preparation 1.6 1.7 0.1 8.8 Construction 8.6 7.9 -0.7 -8.1

Table 34 Rail Reconstruction: Estimated completion times, actual completion times, absolute delay and percentage delay

Estimated Actual completion Absolute delay Percentage delay Project Phase completion time time Months per km % Planning 0.9 1.3 0.5 51.9 Funding 0.8 1.8 1.0 118.2 Permissions 0.4 0.4 0.0 5.7 Site Preparation 0.1 0.2 0.1 70.7 Construction 1.3 1.5 0.2 14.4

Using a similar framework to that for cost overruns, we have scored and ranked the reasons for time delays for rail projects. We have done this in aggregate for construction and reconstruction projects. This is shown below in Figure 14. Project Specific factors again

61 proved the most important determinate of delays, with Project Environment deemed the second highest source of time delays, with issues with “permits consents and approvals” scoring particularly highly.

Figure 14: Type 1 Rail: Average time delay scores

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50 Time Delay Score

1.00

0.50

0.00 Project Specific Project Environment Procurement Issues External Issues Client Specif ic

Figure 15: Type 2: Average score of cost overrun and time delay categories

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

Score 0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

Cost Overrun Score Time Delay Score

The categories shown in Figure 15 consist of various ‘Type 2’ factors for cost overruns and time delays. This figure shows the principal cause of cost overruns was the “degree of innovation” followed closely by “design complexity”. Difficulties obtaining “permits/consents/approvals” proved to be major determinant of time delays followed by “delays by statutory authorities and/or contractors” and “design complexity”.

6.2.5 Rail: Summary

Table 35 Rail: Summary Benchmarks

The unit cost data shows a huge variation in the Level 1 unit costs for rail construction projects. See Table 35. These range from over 100M Euro/km (in Portugal) to less than 1M Euro/km. This highlights the vast variety of types of rail projects. Similarly the rail reconstruction projects vary significantly between 15M Euro/km and under 1M Euro/km – far less expensive on average than rail construction projects.

Comparing between countries is not recommended for Level 1 unit costs because there is not an even distribution of projects and project types across all countries.

There is a great deal of variety in the data for all three Level 2 components (trackwork, stations, bridges and tunnels) with more limited data points for stations and tunnels for constructions and reconstructions. Our data for trackwork construction is the most complete. Two projects stood out with very high costs and both of these were undertaken in rural, mountainous, difficult terrain. Almost all other construction projects had a track construction unit cost of less than 8M Euro/km.

“Project specific” and “Project environment” issues were the most significant factors which caused cost overruns and time delays for rail projects. This included, principally, “Degree of innovation”, “Design Complexity” and “Delays by statutory authorities and/or contractors”.

6.3 Road projects

We have collected Level 1 data on road projects and have split this into road constructions and reconstructions for separate analysis. We have also incorporated projects from Work Package B into our analysis. This section presents our calculations for Level 1 and Level 2 unit costs for road projects.

6.3.1 Road Constructions – Level 1 costs

Below we show the unit costs for road construction projects. Each figure for estimated and actual costs also includes a label for the country to which each project corresponds. We have grouped all projects for each country together in each figure.

Figure 16 and Figure 17 show the “all in” estimated and actual unit costs for all road projects. We also provide data on key components where it was available.

Similarly to rail projects, the Level 1 unit costs for road projects show a great deal of variation. Estimated costs range from between 0.3 EURm/km to 27.3 EURm/km. The range of actual costs is slightly larger with figures falling between 0.4 EURm/km and 31.1 EURm/km. These clearly show that there is significant variation from the mean construction costs of 6.3 EURm/km and 7.6 EURm/km for estimated and actual costs respectively. There are many reasons for high unit costs and looking at specific projects to provide examples we have seen that high cost projects include short sections of motorway under construction in very mountainous regions which require substantial tunnels. In addition, building in very urban areas where terrain is flat and soft also tends to have high build costs and, in one case, large land costs also. Finally, one four lane motorway in Spain was constructed through high cost mountainous terrain and marshy conditions. .

There is one project in Ireland (2000IE16CPT001) which reflected mainly build costs in the estimate figure but when actual costs were reported the majority of cost was land rather than build.

Finally, Figure 18 and Figure 19 below provide the estimated and actual average unit cost/km for each country for road construction projects. However, some countries such as Latvia, Slovakia and Slovenia only have one project represented, therefore making comparisons across countries is not recommended. Other countries such as Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain have a larger number of projects represented (between 3 and 9)

and therefore comparisons are more appropriate. However other factors such as terrain, geography and experience must also be taken into account. The change between the estimated and actual cost component breakdown illustrates that the total cost data was broken down in more detail in the estimated reporting than in the final reporting and that the actual cost was much greater than the estimate.

Figure 16: Level 1 Road: "all in" estimated unit cost for construction projects

EURm/km 15

0 2000IE16CPT001 2000IE16CPT002 2000IE16CPT003 2004SI16CPT001 2000LT16PPT003 2004LT16CPT004 2003PL16PPT020 2000PL16PPT001 2000PL16PPT005 2002PL16PPT019 2001SK16PPT002 2003ES16CPT028 2001ES16CPT013 2001ES16CPT011 1999ES16CPT004 1999ES16CPT005 2003ES16CPT029 1999ES16CPT003 1999ES16CPT002 2000LV16PPT001 2003PT16CPT007 2000PT16CPT008 2006PT16CPT002 2002PT16CPT001 2004PT16CPT003 2005PT16CPT002 2000PT16CPT006 2000PT16CPT005 2000PT16CPT007 2001CZ16PPT009 2004CZ16CPT001 2000CZ16PPT003 2001CZ16PPT012 2001GR16CPT004 2000GR16CPT007 2000GR16CPT006 2000GR16CPT001 2001GR16CPT003 2000GR16CPT002

CZ GR IE LV LT PL PT SK SI ES Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 17: Level 1 Road: "all in" actual unit cost for construction projects

EURm/km 15

0 2000IE16CPT001 2000IE16CPT002 2000IE16CPT003 2004SI16CPT001 2000LT16PPT003 2004LT16CPT005 2004LT16CPT004 2000PL16PPT001 2003PL16PPT020 2000LV16PPT001 2001SK16PPT002 2003ES16CPT028 2001ES16CPT013 2001ES16CPT011 1999ES16CPT005 1999ES16CPT004 2003ES16CPT029 1999ES16CPT003 2000PT16CPT008 2003PT16CPT007 2006PT16CPT002 2002PT16CPT001 2004PT16CPT003 2005PT16CPT002 2000PT16CPT006 2000PT16CPT005 2000PT16CPT007 2001CZ16PPT009 2001CZ16PPT012 2001GR16CPT004 2000GR16CPT007 2000GR16CPT006 2000GR16CPT001 2001GR16CPT003 2000GR16CPT002

CZ GR IE LV LT PL PT SK SI ES Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 18: Level 1 Road: estimated average unit cost/km by country for road construction projects

15 EURm/km

0 Czech Rep Greece Ireland Latvia Lithuania Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 19: Level 1 Road: actual average unit cost/km by country for road construction projects

15 EURm/km

0 Czech Rep Greece Ireland Latvia Lithuania Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

6.3.2 Road reconstructions – Level 1 costs

Figure 20 and Figure 21 compare Level 1 “all in” estimated and actual unit costs for all road reconstruction projects. Each figure includes a label for the country to which each project corresponds. We have grouped all projects for each country together in each figure. We also provide data on key components where it was available. For Latvia and Poland we have more projects with estimated data than actual data.

There is very great variation in the Level 1 unit costs for road reconstruction projects. The estimated unit costs for reconstruction projects range from between 0.1 EURm/km and 16 EURm/km, whilst the actual data ranges between 0.12 EURm/km and 17.2 EURm/km. This represents a considerable range around the mean unit costs of 2.1 EURm/km and 2.2 EURm/km for estimated and actual costs respectively.

The two projects with the highest actual Level 1 unit costs are a 2.1 km Expressway bypass in the Czech Republic and a 4.5 km upgrade bypass in Cyprus. The Czech Republic project had high costs for earthworks and sheet piling suggesting that terrain featured strongly in the high costs. The Cypriot project had a significant amount of bridge works and noise barriers which would increase costs. The country with the third highest average unit cost was Latvia, but here we have estimated data for 7 projects and actual data for 4 projects. From looking at Figure 20 and Figure 21 it is clear that the Latvian projects represent a range of actual costs with a 20 km bypass construction at the top end at just over 6M Euro/km to a 17.9 km stretch of road under “modernisation” including road bearing capacity increasing and widening of the carriageway at the lower end.

The average country unit cost graphs of Figure 22 and Figure 23 show similar results to those above. When viewing the country comparison graphs it is important to keep in mind that for 6 (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary and Malta) of the 11 countries represented, the data reflects 1 project only. Looking at the data for Lithuania with 7 projects there is wide variation in the length of projects from a small amount of road reconstruction of 13 km to one project with a length of 327 km. Similarly the number of bridges noted in project files ranged from 4 bridges in one project to 27 in another. Therefore, drawing meaningful conclusions to compare countries’ unit costs from the graphs is not advisable.

Figure 20: Level 1 Road: "all in" estimated unit cost for road reconstruction projects

EURm/km 8

0 2000LT16PPT002 2002LT16PPT007 2000LT16PPT001 2004LT16CPT006 2004LT16CPT002 2004LT16CPT001 2004LT16CPT003 2003EE16PPT004 2001EE16PPT002 2000EE16PPT001 2005EE16CPT003 2004EE16CPT002 2001PL16PPT009 2000PL16PPT007 2000PL16PPT004 2000PL16PPT008 2002PL16PPT018 2000CZ16PPT001 2002LV16PPT008 2003LV16PPT009 2001LV16PPT005 2000LV16PPT002 2004CY16CPT001 2005LV16CPT001 2004LV16CPT001 2005LV16CPT003 2000BG16PPT001 2000RO16PPT002 2000RO16PPT004 1994GR16CPR941 2001HU16PPT006 2004MT16CPT001

BG CY CZ EE GR HU LV LT MT PL RO

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 21: Level 1 Road: "all in" actual unit cost for road reconstruction projects

EURm/km 8

0 2000LT16PPT002 2002LT16PPT007 2000LT16PPT001 2004LT16CPT006 2004LT16CPT001 2004LT16CPT002 2004LT16CPT003 2005EE16CPT003 2001EE16PPT002 2003EE16PPT004 2004EE16CPT002 2000EE16PPT001 2000PL16PPT004 2002PL16PPT018 2000CZ16PPT001 2002LV16PPT008 2004LV16CPT001 2000LV16PPT002 2003LV16PPT009 2004CY16CPT001 2000BG16PPT001 2000RO16PPT002 2000RO16PPT004 1994GR16CPR941 2001HU16PPT006 2004MT16CPT001

BG CY CZ EE GR HU LV LT MT PL RO

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 22: Level 1 Road: estimated average unit cost/km by country for road reconstruction projects

EURm/km 8

0 Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Estonia Greece Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Romania

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 23: Level 1 Road: actual average unit cost/km by country for road reconstruction projects

EURm/km 8

0 Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Estonia Greece Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Romania

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

6.3.3 Level 2 Unit costs – Road

Figure 24, Figure 25, Figure 26 and Figure 27 compare Level 2 unit “build” costs for pavements, bridges and tunnels for all road projects. Figure 25 shows the actual cost per bridge in the country. Each figure includes both construction and reconstruction projects and is split by country. We summarise all the information available for the specific Level 2 unit costs. Not all information is always available for all projects. Some projects have either estimated data or actual data, but not both, for example. Where this is the case, we leave the missing data column blank.

The figures which have a star (*) next to a project, for example 2000GR16CPT007*, denotes a project from Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Fund and ISPA; Work Package B (WPB) and these projects only contain actual data. There is no estimated data available.

There is a great deal of variety in the data for all three level 2 components (pavement, bridges and tunnels) with limited data points for tunnels. We note that for our most complete component, pavements, all projects cost less than 3.5 EURm/km. The range of pavement unit costs is relatively small, with all projects costing less than EURm 3.5 per kilometre. Construction projects had an average actual unit cost of 0.84 EURm/km, though this had a quite large range of between 3.2 EURm/km and 0.2 EURm/km. Reconstruction projects, meanwhile, had an average unit cost of 0.51 EURm/km.

For the unit “build” cost of bridges per ‘000 m2, Figure 26, we have limited data comparing estimated versus actual data. For example, looking from a country perspective, Romania has two reconstruction projects with actual data for the cost of building bridges. The first project, (2000RO16PPT002) represents the cost per m2 for 4 bridges and the second project (2000RO16PPT004) represents the cost per m2 for 27 bridges. From the data shown, the mean actual cost per square metre for construction projects was 0.96 EURm/’000 m2 and for reconstruction projects, the mean actual cost per square metre was 0.61 EURm/’000 m2. There is some variation in the actual unit costs for bridges, as the costs for construction projects ranged from 0.09 EURm/’000 m2 to 1.72 EURm/’000 m2, whilst that for reconstruction projects had a smaller range of between 0.08 EURm/’000 m2 to 1.66 EURm/’000 m2.

Figure 27 illustrates the build cost for tunnels with all but one project example reflecting data for tunnel construction versus reconstruction. These have a large range of between 50.8 EURm/km and 4.9 EURm/km (which represents the only reconstruction project). The least expensive construction project cost 9.9 EURm/km, compared to an average of 23 EURm/km for all tunnel constructions.

Figure 25 shows the cost per bridge split by constructions and reconstructions, including estimates and actual costs. Where the data points appear to be missing (for example 2000PT16CPT007) this is because the cost per bridge was very small and does not show up on the figure. In this example the actual cost for bridges was just over 1 EURm and the actual number of bridges in the project was 10. At the other extreme where we only have estimated figures, two bridges were envisaged in 2001CZ16PPT009 at a total estimated cost of Euro 82 million (2003 prices). However, we do not compare across countries as many countries only have one project and others where there is only estimated data. It would be inappropriate to therefore draw conclusions at this level.

Figure 24: Level 2 Road: estimated and actual unit “build” cost of pavement

3.5

2.5

1.5 EURm/km

0.5

0 2000IE16CPT003 2000PL16PPT001 2000PL16PPT005 2003PL16PPT020 2003LV16PPT009 2001LV16PPT005 2002LV16PPT008 2002PL16PPT018 2000PL16PPT008 2000PL16PPT004 2000PL16PPT007 2001CZ16PPT009 2001SK16PPT002 2000EE16PPT001 2003EE16PPT004 2004CZ16CPT001 2004EE16CPT002 2005EE16CPT003 2004CY16CPT001 2000RO16PPT004 2000RO16PPT002 2001HU16PPT006 2000GR16CPT006 2001GR16CPT004 2000GR16CPT002 2000GR16CPT007 2001GR16CPT003 2000GR16CPT001 1994GR16CPR941 1999ES16CPT002* 2000HU16PPT001* 2000GR16CPT007*

CZ GR IE PL SK CY EE GR HU LV PL RO ES

Construction Reconstruction

Estimated Actual

Figure 25: Level 2 Road: estimated and actual “build” cost per bridge

EURm/Bridges 15

0 2000IE16CPT003 2000LT16PPT003 2000LT16PPT002 2002LT16PPT007 2000LT16PPT001 2004LT16CPT005 2004LT16CPT004 2000PL16PPT005 2003PL16PPT020 2000PL16PPT001 2003LV16PPT009 2001LV16PPT005 2002LV16PPT008 2004LT16CPT001 2000PL16PPT007 2000PL16PPT008 2000PL16PPT004 2002PL16PPT018 2005LV16CPT001 2003EE16PPT004 2001CZ16PPT009 2006PT16CPT002 2003PT16CPT007 2004PT16CPT003 2005PT16CPT002 2000PT16CPT006 2000PT16CPT007 2001SK16PPT002 2005EE16CPT003 2004EE16CPT002 2004CZ16CPT001 2003ES16CPT028 2004CY16CPT001 2001HU16PPT006 2000RO16PPT002 2000RO16PPT004 2001GR16CPT004 2000GR16CPT006 2001GR16CPT003 2000GR16CPT001 2000GR16CPT002 2000GR16CPT007 1994GR16CPR941 1999ES16CPT002* 2000HU16PPT001*

CZ GR IE LT PL PT SK ES CY EE GR HU LV LT PL RO

Construction Reconstruction

Estimated Actual

Figure 26: Level 2 Road: estimated and actual unit “build” cost of bridge per m2

4.5

3.5

2.5

2 EURm/'000 m2 1.5

0.5

0 2000LT16PPT003 2000LT16PPT002 2002LT16PPT007 2000LT16PPT001 2004LT16CPT004 2004LT16CPT005 2000PL16PPT001 2003PL16PPT020 2000PL16PPT005 2001LV16PPT005 2002LV16PPT008 2003LV16PPT009 2004LT16CPT001 2000PL16PPT004 2000PL16PPT007 2002PL16PPT018 2005LV16CPT001 2001CZ16PPT009 2003EE16PPT004 2004EE16CPT002 2004CY16CPT001 2001HU16PPT006 2000RO16PPT002 2000RO16PPT004 2000GR16CPT006 2000GR16CPT002 2000GR16CPT007 2001GR16CPT003 2001GR16CPT004 2000GR16CPT001

CZ GR LT PL CY EE HU LV LT PL RO

Construction Reconstruction

Estimated Actual

Figure 27: Level 2 Road: estimated and actual unit “build” cost of tunnels

30 EURm/km

0 2001CZ16PPT009 2000PT16CPT008 2003PT16CPT007 2003EE16PPT004 2003ES16CPT028 2001GR16CPT004 2000GR16CPT007 2001GR16CPT003 2000GR16CPT007*

CZ GR PT ES EE

Construction Reconstruction

Estimated Actual

6.3.4 Cost overruns and time delays

Our analysis of road projects’ time delays and cost overruns was based upon questionnaires sent out to representatives in the Member States. Our analysis followed the same framework as that for the rail sector and factors affecting cost overruns is presented below in Figure 28. This figure shows the average score given to different Type 1 explanations of cost overruns.

“Project specific” factors was the most important category. This includes aspects such as “design complexity”, issues with “environmental impact” and the “length of the construction period”. “External Issues” was the next most important category of reasons. This includes factors such as “Inflation”, “Political” reasons and “Exchange rates”. In particular, “Inflation” was ranked quite highly by several projects as the reason for cost overruns. Also of considerable importance was “Project environment” which includes “Site characteristics” and “Permits, Consents and Approvals”.

Figure 28: Type 1 Road: Average cost overrun scores

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50 Cost Overrun Overrun Score Cost

1.00

0.50

- Project Specif ic External Issues Project Environment Procurement Issues Client Specif ic

We have also considered the average completion times for each phase of an average road project. While the phases are sequential, there may be an element of overlapping so the total project completion time is not given by the sum of completion times for each phase. These figures are shown below in Table 36 and Table 37. We have presented the figure for road construction and reconstruction projects separately. We have normalised completion times using project length in kilometres. Given only part of the unit delays shown below is variable with the length of the project (there is a proportion of the completion times which is fixed), these figures should not be extrapolated to estimate the likely completion times for projects.

The estimated and actual completion times for construction projects greatly exceeds that of reconstruction projects. However, the delays have occurred at different phases for the two types of project. In particular, there is a greater percentage delay in the Funding Phase for reconstruction projects on average than for construction projects.

The “Permissions” phase has a 66% delay for construction projects and a 27% delay for reconstruction projects. Finally for construction projects, on average the Construction Phase represented the highest delay (24%) whilst for reconstruction projects, the delay was small at only 7%.

Table 36 Road Construction: Estimated completion times, actual completion times, absolute delay, percentage delay

Estimated Actual completion Absolute delay Percentage delay Project Phase completion time time Months per km % Planning 3.5 3.8 0.3 9.6 Funding 2.8 3.4 0.6 22.1 Permissions 1.7 2.8 1.1 65.9 Site Preparation 1.8 2.0 0.1 7.2 Construction 3.8 4.6 0.9 23.6

Table 37 Road Reconstructions: Estimated completion times, actual completion times, absolute delay, percentage delay

Estimated Actual completion Absolute delay Percentage delay Project Phase completion time time Months per km % Planning 0.6 0.7 0.1 15.7 Funding 0.2 0.4 0.2 90.9 Permissions 0.1 0.1 0.0 27.2 Site Preparation 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 Construction 1.5 1.6 0.1 6.7

Below we show the results of our analysis of the reasons for the time delays, which uses the same methodology as that for the cost overruns shown above. This is shown below in Figure 29.

Of these Type 1 factors, project specific factors were deemed to be the most important determinants of time delays, with “Environmental Impact” scoring particularly highly, along with “delays by statutory authorities and/or contractors” and “site access difficulties”. “Project environment” and “procurement issues” were also oft cited factors, with “site characteristics” (a component of project environment) scoring particularly highly.

Figure 29: Type 1 Road: Average time delay scores

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50 Time Delay Score

1.00

0.50

- Project Specific Project Environment Procurement Issues Client Specif ic External Issues

In Figure 30 below, we show the ‘Type 2’ reasons for time delays and cost overruns. Notably, inflation was deemed to have a considerable effect upon the cost overruns of the projects. The ”Construction period” was deemed to be a principal cause of delays, with an average score of around 1.4, whilst delays by statutory authorities and contractors scored highly for both cost overruns and time delays.

Figure 30: Road Type 2: Average score of cost overruns and time delays

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

Score 0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

Cost Overrun Score Time Delay Sco re

6.3.5 Road: Summary

Table 38 Road: Summary Benchmarks

There is a large variation in Level 1 unit costs for road construction projects as shown above in Table 38. These range from over 31M Euro/km to less than 1M Euro/km. This highlights the vast variety of types of road projects. Road reconstruction projects vary significantly between around 17M Euro/km and under 1M Euro/km – far less expensive on average than road construction projects.

Comparing between countries is not recommended for Level 1 unit costs because there is not an even distribution of projects and project types across all countries.

There is a great deal of variety in the data for all three Level 2 components (pavement, bridges and tunnels) with limited data points for tunnels. Our data for pavement construction is the most complete. Three projects stood out with very high actual costs but the reasons for this are unclear. Almost all other construction projects had a pavement unit cost of less than 1M Euro/km.

“Project specific” and “External Issues” issues were the most significant factors which caused cost overruns, and the latter is due in part to inflation being considered a major contributor towards costs. “Project Specific” and “Project Environment” are the most significant factors determining time delays for road projects. “Construction period” was the most significant cause of time delays.

6.4 Water supply projects

We have collected Level 1 data on all water supply projects. This section presents our calculations for Level 1 and Level 2 unit costs for water supply projects. This section will conclude with our analysis of the time delays and cost overruns associated with projects and the variance analysis which seeks to determine the principal reasons for the delays and overruns.

We provide data for water supply projects illustrated in two different formats. Figure 31 and Figure 32 compare Level 1 data based on the cost per ‘000 additional population served15. Figure 33 and Figure 34 show water supply projects comparing the “all in” estimated and actual unit costs. In all four figures we include all projects split into four categories: Constructions, a combination of Construction and Reconstructions, Extensions and Reconstruction only projects.

Where appropriate, we have separated our projects into sub-projects which look at each of the components of a project in more detail and to provide more data points for our analysis.

6.4.1 Water supply – Level 1 costs

The vast majority of projects in both Figure 31 and Figure 32 are situated in Spain. The only other country represented is Portugal where we have a handful of projects with estimated cost data and 2 projects with actual cost data. Within each of the four categories there is variation in the cost of the projects based on the additional population served and we have more projects with estimated than actual data, as shown in Figure 32. The highest actual cost project based on the additional population served was 2000ES16CPR007. The reason for the increase in cost appears to be in part the impact of inflation and the delay in beginning the project.

When looking at Figure 33 and Figure 34 which show the “all in” Level 1 unit cost of network supply/km, again the majority of projects are situated in Spain across all four categories, however we do have one Greek project and a handful of Portuguese projects within data. Those projects with the highest unit cost appear to be in urban areas. The mean actual costs for ‘Constructions/Extensions’, ‘Reconstructions/Rehabilitations’ and ‘Construction with Reconstruction/Rehabilitation’, differ quite considerable, with averages of 0.64 EURm/km, 0.49 EURm/km and 0.50 EURm/km respectively. Construction projects had the largest range, of between 0.12 EURm/km and 2.04 EURm/km, whilst the smallest range was for reconstruction / rehabilitations, which varied between 0.07 EURm/km and 0.92 EURm/km.

15 This represents the figure in the project for the additional population served by the project.

Figure 31: Level 1 Water Supply: estimated cost/ ‘000 additional population served

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20 EURm/'000 additional populationserved

0.10

0.00 2003ES16CPE027 2002ES16CPE060 2003ES16CPE032 2000ES16CPE113 2002ES16CPE050 2001ES16CPE021 2000ES16CPE071 2000ES16CPE115 2000ES16CPE078 2003ES16CPE026 2000ES16CPE074 2000ES16CPE045 2002ES16CPE031 2000ES16CPE010 2000ES16CPE007 2001ES16CPE041 2000ES16CPE008 2000ES16CPE009 2004ES16CPE009 2001ES16CPE002 2002ES16CPE035 2002ES16CPE010 2002ES16CPE016 2000PT16CPE006 2001PT16CPE004 2004PT16CPE005 2000PT16CPE009 1999PT16CPE001

ES PT ES ES ES

Construction Construction & Reconstruction Extension Reconstructio

Build Soft Land Tax es Contingency

Figure 32: Level 1 Water Supply: actual cost/ ‘000 additional population served

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20 EURm/'000 additional populationserved

0.10

0.00 2003ES16CPE027 2003ES16CPE032 2000ES16CPE113 2000ES16CPE071 2000ES16CPE078 2000ES16CPE115 2003ES16CPE026 2000ES16CPE074 2000ES16CPE045 2000ES16CPE010 2000ES16CPE007 2000ES16CPE008 2000ES16CPE009 2004ES16CPE009 2001ES16CPE002 2002ES16CPE035 2002ES16CPE010 1999PT16CPE001

ES PT ES ES

Construction Construction & Reconstruction Extension

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 33: Level 1 Water Supply: “all in” estimated unit cost /km

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

EURm/km 1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 2003ES16CPE032 2002ES16CPE059 2003ES16CPE014 2002ES16CPE061 2002ES16CPE050 2002ES16CPE060 2003ES16CPE006 2000ES16CPE113 2004ES16CPE005 2003ES16CPE027 2003ES16CPE026 2000ES16CPE074 2000ES16CPE128 2000ES16CPE010 2001ES16CPE020 2002ES16CPE056 2000ES16CPE045 2002ES16CPE031 2000ES16CPE078 2000ES16CPE077 2001ES16CPE021 2004ES16CPE030 2000ES16CPE011 2000ES16CPE115 2000ES16CPE071 2002ES16CPE035 2004ES16CPE009 2000ES16CPE009 2000ES16CPE035 2001ES16CPE002 2001ES16CPE039 2000ES16CPE007 2001ES16CPE041 2000ES16CPE121 2001ES16CPE023 2001ES16CPE003 2004ES16CPE034 2002ES16CPE016 2000PL16PPE008 1999PT16CPE001 2004PT16CPE008 2001PT16CPE007 2004PT16CPE005 2003GR16CPE010

PL ES PT ES ES GR ES

Construction Construction & Reconstruction Extension Reconstruction

Build Soft Land Tax es Contingency

Figure 34: Level 1 Water Supply: “all in” actual unit cost/km

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

EURm/km 1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 2003ES16CPE032 2002ES16CPE059 2002ES16CPE061 2003ES16CPE014 2002ES16CPE050 2002ES16CPE060 2003ES16CPE006 2000ES16CPE113 2003ES16CPE027 2003ES16CPE026 2000ES16CPE128 2000ES16CPE074 2000ES16CPE010 2001ES16CPE020 2000ES16CPE045 2000ES16CPE078 2000ES16CPE077 2001ES16CPE021 2004ES16CPE030 2000ES16CPE071 2000ES16CPE115 2000ES16CPE011 2002ES16CPE035 2004ES16CPE009 2000ES16CPE009 2000ES16CPE035 2001ES16CPE002 2000ES16CPE007 2001ES16CPE039 2001ES16CPE041 2000ES16CPE065 2000ES16CPE121 2001ES16CPE003 2001ES16CPE023 2004ES16CPE034 1999PT16CPE001 2000PT16CPE006 2004PT16CPE008 2001PT16CPE007 2004PT16CPE005 2003GR16CPE010

ES PT ES ES GR ES

Construction Construction & Reconstruction Extension Reconstruction

Build Soft Land Tax es Contingency

6.4.2 Water supply projects - Level 2 unit costs

For water supply projects, the data would not allow us to calculate a variety of unit costs. We have, however, obtained construction costs and length for a large number of water networks. We attempted to collect information for drinking water purification plants and pumping stations but were unsuccessful whereby in a small number of cases we were given units but never the corresponding costs. Not all information is always available for all projects. Some projects have either estimated data or actual data, but not both. Where this is the case, we leave the missing data column blank.

Figure 35 shows the Level 2 unit “build” cost for water supply projects and mixed projects with a water network element. We illustrate the same four categories as at Level 1. However, for Level 2 unit costs we have a much wider range of countries with data on the cost of the network with a water element but consequently only a small number of projects per country, with the exceptions of Greece and Spain.

The three projects with the highest estimated unit costs (2 Czech and 1 in Lithuania) are all mixed projects (i.e. they include a waste water element in addition to water supply.)

Across all the projects, the estimated unit costs vary between 0.01 EURm/km and 2.46 EURm/km, with an average of 0.35 EURm/km. This shows some deviation from the actual unit costs which varied between 0.03 EURm/km and 0.88 EURm/km, with an average of 0.31 EURm/km. We note, however, that the figures for estimated data are derived from 36 projects, compared to 30 projects for which actual data was available.

Figure 35: Level 2 Water Supply: estimated and actual unit “build” cost/km

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5 EURm/km

1.0

0.5

0.0 PPE005 2000SI16PPE003 2001LT16 2004LT16CPE005 2001LV16 PPE007 2000LV16 PPE002 2004LV16CPE001 2000PT16CPE006 2001CZ16PPE004 2002EE16PPE012 2002CZ16PPE010 2001EE16PPE007 2004ES16CPE005 2003ES16CPE032 2003ES16CPE014 2003ES16CPE006 2004CZ16CPE003 2000ES16CPE065 2000ES16CPE121 2001ES16CPE003 2004ES16CPE034 2005ES16CPE005 2000ES16CPE010 2003ES16CPE026 2000ES16CPE128 2000ES16CPE071 2000ES16CPE011 2000ES16CPE045 2000ES16CPE009 2000ES16CPE035 2000ES16CPE007 2001GR16PPE022 2001GR16CPE010 2001GR16CPE025 2001GR16CPE028 2001GR16CPE006 2001GR16CPE001 2001GR16CPE019 2001GR16CPE014 2003GR16CPE010 2001GR16CPE013

GR LT ES CZ EE LV PT ES GR ES CZ EE GR LV LT SI ES

Construction Construction & Reconstruction Extension Reconstruction Estimated Actual

6.4.3 Water supply – Time delays

We have examined the average completion times for water supply projects for each phase of their construction. This is shown below in Table 39 .

To make different projects comparable, we have normalised completion times using project length in kilometres. However, these measures should not be extrapolated to estimate the likely completion times for similar projects. Specifically, completion times are likely to be made up of a fixed time component that does not change with project length in kilometres and a variable time component that increases with it. This tends to make the times in months per kilometre less than the average for projects that cover a longer distance.

The table shows that funding happened far faster than was estimated at - 41% and that permissions and constructions were also completed faster than estimated. The planning phase of water projects appears to be only marginally delayed at 1.7%.

Table 39 Water Supply: estimated completion times, actual completion times, absolute delay and percentage delay

Estimated Actual completion Absolute delay Percentage delay Project Phase completion time time Months per km water network % Planning 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.7 Funding 1.2 0.7 -0.5 -41.3 Permissions 1.0 1.0 -0.1 -5.0 Construction 4.5 4.1 -0.4 -9.3

6.4.4 Water supply: Summary

Table 40 Water Supply: Summary Benchmarks

Level 1 Unit Costs Project Type Projects Mean Minimum Maximum No. EURm/km EURm/km EURm/km

Construction / Estimated 19 0.60 0.11 2.87 Extension Actual 17 0.64 0.12 2.04

Reconstruction / Estimated 6 0.33 0.07 0.59 Rehabilitation Actual 6 0.49 0.07 0.92 Construction with Estimated 19 0.36 0.09 1.19 Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Actual 18 0.50 0.07 1.60

The Level 1 unit cost per additional population served varied somewhat from 0.7M Euro/’000 additional population served to less than 0.05M/’000 additional population served. The vast majority of water supply projects were situated in Spain. We have calculated Level 1 costs using kilometres of water supply network as a further measure. Table 40 shows considerable variation across all types of water supply projects. For example actual costs for constructions/extensions varied between 0.12 EURm/km and 2.04 EURm/km.

Funding happened far faster than was estimated at - 41% and that permissions and constructions were also completed faster than estimated. The planning phase of water projects appears to be only marginally delayed at 1.7%.

6.5 Waste Water projects

We have collected Level 1 data on all waste water projects. This section presents our calculations for Level 1 and Level 2 unit costs for waste water projects.

We provide data for waste water projects illustrated in two different formats. Figure 36 and Figure 37 compare Level 1 data based on the estimated and actual cost per ‘000 population equivalent. Figure 38 to Figure 41 and show waste water projects comparing the “all in” estimated unit costs per km of sewerage network. Figure 42 and Figure 43 show the “all in” actual cost per km of sewerage network. In all figures we include all projects analysed between four categories (where applicable): constructions, a combination of construction and reconstructions, extensions and reconstruction only projects.

Where appropriate, we have separated some projects into constituent sub projects. This is to provide more data points for analysis. In this section we show both project and sub-project level data in these figures. For example, a code such as 2000PT16CPE001-01 or 2000ES16CPE027b shows the sub-project “01” or “b” for the umbrella project. To avoid double counting data, we have removed the umbrella projects from the data set where we have included sub-projects. We have included sub-projects in these figures where we have sub-project level data points.

This section concludes with a section on the time delays experienced by water supply projects. The analysis of the factors affecting time and cost overruns will be presented separately for water projects.

6.5.1 Waste Water – Level 1 costs

We have chosen two different metrics to calculate the Level 1 unit costs based on whether the project included a waste water treatment plant. For projects which predominantly involved waste water treatment plants, we have used a ’000 PE capacity as our metric. For projects which predominantly involved a sewerage network, we have used the km of sewerage network as our Level 1 unit.

Figure 36 and Figure 37 illustrate the split of waste water projects based on the population equivalent and number of waste water treatment plants. There is wide country representation for estimated costs in Figure 36, but with some countries having only one or two projects/sub-projects (Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic). Similarly, the variation in estimated cost ranges from 0.1M Euro/’000 PE to a high of 1.9MEuro/’000 PE and there is significant variation in each category.

Figure 37 shows projects and sub-projects with actual data and there are many less data points as we do not have the final reports for all projects. However, comparing the two figures where possible, we can see that for projects 1999IE16CPE002, 2002ES16CPE051- 03 and -02 where estimated costs were high in proportion to other projects in each category, actual costs were lower than estimated. Though the number of actual data points is fewer than the number of estimated data points, the difference between the estimated and actual unit costs is shown by the mean unit costs across all WWTP projects (including Construction/Extension, Reconstruction/Rehabilitation and Construction with Reconstruction/Rehabilitation), with the average estimated unit cost at 0.23 EURm/’000 PE and the average actual unit cost measuring 0.35 EURm/’000 PE.

Figure 38, Figure 39, Figure 40 and Figure 41 depict projects based on their estimated cost/km of sewerage network. We have split this data into four separate figures by category due to the large number of projects. There is wide variation in Figure 38, Constructions and Figure 41, Reconstructions and Upgrades. This variation is clearly shown in Table 43 which shows a minimum estimated unit cost of 0.09 EURm/km and a maximum estimated unit cost of 3.70 EURm/km. Figure 39, Extensions and Figure 40, Constructions and Reconstructions, each have 1 – 2 projects with high unit costs and the remaining projects all sit within a small range.

Figure 42 and Figure 43 show the actual cost/km of sewerage network. Extensions are consistently the lowest unit cost category of projects. Constructions and Reconstructions have a small number of higher unit cost projects with the rest of the projects more focussed around the mean of 1.67 EURm/km. The range for this category of project is striking, however, with a minimum actual cost of 0.07 EURm/km and a maximum actual cost of 11.49 EURm/km.

Figure 36: Level 1 waste water: estimated cost/ ‘000 population equivalent

2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

EURm/1000 PE 0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00 02 02 03 01 01 07 01 14 02 13 03 03 02 01 06 04 05 03 01 02 04 06 08 07 10 12 09 04 05 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ PT16CPE009 2002SI16PPE008 2000SI16PPE005 1999IE16CPE002 2000IE16CPE001 1999IE16CPE001 2002ES16CPE021 2001ES16CPE054 2002ES16CPE044 2002PL16PPE036 2002ES16CPE030 2002ES16CPE048 2002ES16CPE022 2003ES16CPE008 2002ES16CPE036 2001ES16CPE034 2004ES16CPE010 2002ES16CPE045 2002ES16CPE063 2002ES16CPE002 2004PT16CPE021 2002PT16CPE005 2000PT16CPE004 2000PT16CPE008 2001CZ16PPE009 2004CZ16CPE002 2000RO16PPE009 2000ES16CPE037f 2000HU16PPE003 2000HU16PPE001 2000ES16CPE005c 2000ES16CPE037c 2000ES16CPE037g 2000ES16CPE027b 2000ES16CPE037a 2000ES16CPE005b 2003ES16CPE004b 2000ES16CPE005a 2000ES16CPE037b 2000ES16CPE037d 2000ES16CPE037e 2000ES16CPE027a 00 2002ES16CPE058 2002ES16CPE051 2002ES16CPE051 2002ES16CPE051 2000PT16CPE001 2002PT16CPE007 2002PT16CPE007 2000PT16CPE009 2000PT16CPE001 2000PT16CPE009 2002PT16CPE007 2000PT16CPE009 2002PT16CPE007 2003PT16CPE003 2002PT16CPE007 2002PT16CPE007 2002PT16CPE007 2001PT16CPE004 2001PT16CPE004 2001PT16CPE004 2001PT16CPE004 2000PT16CPE009 2000PT16CPE009 2000PT16CPE009 2000PT16CPE009 2000PT16CPE009 2000PT16CPE009 2000PT16CPE009 2000PT16CPE009 20

HU IE PT RO SI ES IE PL ES CZ HU PT SI ES

Construction & Reconstruction Construction Extension Reconstruction/Upgrade

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 37: Level 1 waste water: actual cost/ ‘000 population equivalent

2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20 PE

1.00 EURm/1000 0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00 03 02 ‐ ‐ 2000SI16PPE005 1999IE16CPE002 1999IE16CPE001 2002ES16CPE021 2001ES16CPE054 2002ES16CPE048 2003ES16CPE008 2001ES16CPE034 2002ES16CPE002 2002ES16CPE030 2000PT16CPE008 2000RO16PPE003 2000ES16CPE037f 2000HU16PPE001 2000ES16CPE037c 2000ES16CPE005a 2000ES16CPE037g 2000ES16CPE027a 2000ES16CPE037a 2000ES16CPE037e 2003ES16CPE004b 2000ES16CPE037b 2000ES16CPE037d 2002ES16CPE051 2002ES16CPE051

IE RO ES IE ES HU SI PT ES

Construction & Reconstruction Construction Extension Reconstruction/Upgrade #REF!

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 38: Level 1 waste water: estimated cost/km of sewerage network - Constructions

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

EURm/km 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 04 ‐ 2000SI16PPE002 2003PL16PPE039 2003PL16PPE037 2000EE16PPE001 2000SK16PPE001 2003ES16CPE025 2005ES16CPE007 2003ES16CPE012 2004CZ16CPE008 2000GR16CPE007 2001GR16CPE005 2001GR16CPE024 2003GR16CPE001 2003ES16CPE011c 2003ES16CPE004c 2003ES16CPE011a 2003ES16CPE011e 2003ES16CPE011d 2002ES16CPE051

CZ EE GR PL SKSI ES

Construction

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 39: Level 1 waste water: estimated cost/km of sewerage network - Extensions

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0 EURm/km

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 2001PL16PPE026 2004ES16CPE028 2000ES16CPE068 2001ES16CPE038 2001ES16CPE033 2001ES16CPE056 2002ES16CPE013 2000ES16CPE058f 2000ES16CPE090f 2000ES16CPE075c 2001ES16CPE034c 2000ES16CPE090c 2000ES16CPE120c 2000ES16CPE058c 2001ES16CPE052c 2000ES16CPE096c 2000ES16CPE058e 2000ES16CPE082e 2000ES16CPE040a 2000ES16CPE044a 2001ES16CPE034a 2001ES16CPE050a 2001ES16CPE061a 2000ES16CPE090g 2000ES16CPE079a 2000ES16CPE105a 2000ES16CPE112a 2000ES16CPE120e 2001ES16CPE048a 2000ES16CPE075a 2001ES16CPE035e 2000ES16CPE090a 2000ES16CPE058a 2000ES16CPE090e 2001ES16CPE035d 2001ES16CPE034b 2000ES16CPE082d 2001ES16CPE049b 2000ES16CPE044b 2000ES16CPE112b 2000ES16CPE080b 2001ES16CPE061b 2000ES16CPE090h 2001ES16CPE017b 2001ES16CPE048b 2000ES16CPE097d 2000ES16CPE120d 2000ES16CPE073b 2000ES16CPE090b 2000ES16CPE058d

PL ES

Extension

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 40: Level 1 waste water: estimated cost/km of sewerage network – Constructions & Reconstructions

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0 EURm/km

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0 2001PL16PPE025 2000PL16PPE022 2002EE16PPE013 2000ES16CPE060 2000ES16CPE062 2004ES16CPE011 2003ES16CPE016 2001ES16CPE036 2001ES16CPE037 2003ES16CPE019 2001ES16CPE016 2000CZ16PPE001 2000CZ16PPE002 2002CZ16PPE012 2004CZ16CPE015 2003HU16PPE021 2003HU16PPE020 2000ES16CPE085f 2000ES16CPE080f 2001ES16CPE017c 2000ES16CPE073c 2001ES16CPE035c 2000ES16CPE097c 2000ES16CPE067c 2000ES16CPE112c 2000ES16CPE097a 2000ES16CPE096a 2000ES16CPE067a 2000ES16CPE082a 2001ES16CPE035a 2001ES16CPE052d 2000ES16CPE067b 2000ES16CPE097b 2000ES16CPE082b 2000ES16CPE105d 2000ES16CPE096b 2000ES16CPE090d 2001ES16CPE017d 2001ES16CPE052b

CZ EE HU PL ES PL

Construction & Reconstruction

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 41: Level 1 waste water: estimated cost/km of sewerage network – Reconstuctions & Upgrades

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0 EURm/km

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 2002ES16CPE009 2003ES16CPE036 2001EE16PPE008 2000EE16PPE002 2003SK16PPE015 2003SK16PPE017 2000SK16PPE003 2003SK16PPE018 2003CZ16PPE017 2004CZ16CPE005 2000ES16CPE048i 2000ES16CPE082i 2003GR16CPE008 2003GR16CPE002 2000ES16CPE082f 2000ES16CPE048f 2003HU16PPE019 2001HU16PPE011 2000ES16CPE085c 2000ES16CPE080c 2000ES16CPE048c 2000ES16CPE044c 2000ES16CPE048e 2000ES16CPE082g 2000ES16CPE038a 2000ES16CPE075e 2000ES16CPE064a 2001ES16CPE052a 2000ES16CPE048a 2000ES16CPE073a 2000ES16CPE048g 2000ES16CPE085a 2003ES16CPE004d 2000ES16CPE048h 2000ES16CPE082h 2000ES16CPE079d 2000ES16CPE085d 2000ES16CPE075b 2000ES16CPE080d 2000ES16CPE048d 2000ES16CPE048b 2000ES16CPE085b 2000ES16CPE038b

CZ EE GR HU SK ES

Reconstruction/Upgrade

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 42: Level 1 waste water: actual cost/km of sewerage network - Constructions

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0 EURm/km

4.0

2.0

0.0 04 ‐ 2000SI16PPE002 2003ES16CPE025 2005ES16CPE007 2003ES16CPE012 2002EE16PPE013 2000ES16CPE060 2001ES16CPE036 2001ES16CPE016 2003ES16CPE019 2001ES16CPE037 2004ES16CPE011 2001ES16CPE018 2000ES16CPE062 2003ES16CPE016 2000CZ16PPE001 2000CZ16PPE002 2002CZ16PPE012 2000GR16CPE007 2001GR16CPE005 2001GR16CPE024 2003GR16CPE001 2000ES16CPE085f 2000ES16CPE080f 2003ES16CPE011c 2000ES16CPE112c 2000ES16CPE073c 2003ES16CPE004c 2000ES16CPE097c 2001ES16CPE035c 2001ES16CPE017c 2000ES16CPE067c 2000ES16CPE097a 2000ES16CPE096a 2003ES16CPE011a 2000ES16CPE067a 2001ES16CPE035a 2001ES16CPE049a 2003ES16CPE011e 2000ES16CPE097b 2003ES16CPE011d 2000ES16CPE067b 2001ES16CPE052d 2003ES16CPE011b 2000ES16CPE096b 2000ES16CPE090d 2000ES16CPE082b 2001ES16CPE017d 2001ES16CPE052b 2002ES16CPE051

GR SI ES CZ EE ES

Construction Construction & Reconstruction

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 43: Level 1 waste: actual cost/km of sewerage network – Extensions & Reconstructions

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0 EURm/km

4.0

2.0

0.0 03 ‐ 2004ES16CPE028 2000ES16CPE068 2001ES16CPE038 2001ES16CPE033 2002ES16CPE013 2002ES16CPE009 2003ES16CPE036 2003GR16CPE008 2003GR16CPE002 2000ES16CPE048i 2000ES16CPE082i 2000ES16CPE058f 2000ES16CPE090f 2000ES16CPE082f 2000ES16CPE048f 2001ES16CPE034c 2000ES16CPE058c 2001ES16CPE049c 2000ES16CPE090c 2001ES16CPE052c 2000ES16CPE096c 2000ES16CPE044c 2000ES16CPE085c 2000ES16CPE048c 2000ES16CPE080c 2001ES16CPE034a 2000ES16CPE040a 2001ES16CPE050a 2000ES16CPE090g 2000ES16CPE112a 2001ES16CPE048a 2000ES16CPE090a 2000ES16CPE058a 2000ES16CPE082g 2000ES16CPE085a 2000ES16CPE048g 2000ES16CPE038a 2000ES16CPE048a 2001ES16CPE052a 2000ES16CPE064a 2000ES16CPE073a 2000ES16CPE082e 2000ES16CPE058e 2001ES16CPE035d 2001ES16CPE034b 2001ES16CPE049b 2001ES16CPE035e 2000ES16CPE044b 2000ES16CPE082d 2000ES16CPE112b 2000ES16CPE080b 2001ES16CPE017b 2000ES16CPE090h 2000ES16CPE058d 2000ES16CPE090b 2001ES16CPE048b 2000ES16CPE090e 2000ES16CPE097d 2000ES16CPE073b 2000ES16CPE085b 2000ES16CPE038b 2001ES16CPE050b 2000ES16CPE080d 2000ES16CPE048e 2000ES16CPE048b 2000ES16CPE048d 2000ES16CPE085d 2000ES16CPE048h 2000ES16CPE075e 2000ES16CPE082h 2002ES16CPE058

Extension Reconstruction

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

6.5.2 Waste Water – Level 2 costs

We show the Level 2 unit cost analysis in three formats. Figure 44 shows the unit “build” cost per waste water treatment plant, Figure 45 shows the unit “build” cost /Population Equivalent and Figure 46 and Figure 47 show the unit “build” cost per km of sewerage network. We have split the data into the same four categories as in Level 1. Not all information is always available for all projects. Some projects have either estimated data or actual data, but not both. Where this is the case, we leave the missing column blank.

Figure 44 contains a combination of waste water projects and mixed projects (those with both waste water and water supply components). It has one project which stands out with a much higher cost per waste water treatment plant (WWTP), but this is by far the highest cost project in this figure and is well above the average of 10.95 EURm/WWTP. Without this project, the average cost per WWTP falls to 5.52 EURm/WWTP. The projects also differ in their physical implementation, showing a range of those with 1 WWTP to a project with 4 WWTPs and from those with 2 pumping stations to a project with 41 pumping stations. However, not all projects provide the number of pumping stations. Three projects have tertiary water treatment and one has secondary treatment but there is no data for the remaining projects.

Figure 45 contains a small set of projects and similarly to Figure 44 has one very high cost project in the mix. The PE for all the projects except the Lithuanian project is in the region of 200,000 – 250,000PE. The Lithuanian project has a PE of just over 100,000. The actual average unit cost per PE of constructing a WWTP was 0.099 EURm/PE, though if one were to exclude the outlier, this falls to 0.06 EURm/PE. As one may expect, the unit cost of reconstruction projects is considerably lower, at 0.006 EURm/PE.

We have split the Level 2 unit cost analysis of the sewerage network into two figures. Figure 46 shows the estimated and average costs for Construction and Reconstruction projects and Construction only projects. Figure 47 shows the same data for Extension and Reconstruction or Upgrade projects. For Figure 46 there is one project which stands out with high unit “build” costs, 2000ES16CPE060, against all the other construction and reconstruction projects. This project in Spain was very large in comparison to all others and focused on building 4 underground reservoirs in Barcelona. The vast majority of the cost was the sewage network development. With regard to the construction projects in the same figure, the highest unit cost project, 2003ES16CPE025, was a sub-marine outlet which focused on draining marshes in a region of Spain. Again it was by far the most expensive project overall in this category.

There is some variety in the unit costs for Extension and Reconstruction/Upgrade projects as seen in Figure 47 but the majority of projects are around or under 0.5 EURm/km. Indeed the average unit cost for these two categories of projects is 0.57 EURm/km, with the lowest cost falling at 0.06 EURm/km. Extension project 2002ES16CPE002 is a very high cost sanitation project of just under 20,000m of sewerage network. In the section for Reconstructions/Upgrades the highest unit cost project is a sewerage network upgrade of over 5,000m and again it is the largest cost project of the section.

Figure 44: Level 2 Waste water: estimated and actual unit “build” cost / WWTP

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00 EURm/wwtp

20.00

10.00

0.00 PPE012 1999IE16CPE002 2002LT16PPE009 2004LT16CPE005 2000LV16PPE002 2002CZ16 2000PT16CPE008 2000ES16CPE058 2001RO16PPE015 2000RO16PPE003 2001GR16CPE005

GR LT CZ IE RO ES LV LT PT

Construction Construction & Reconstruction Reconstruction/Upgrade

Estimated Actual

Figure 45: Level 2 Waste water: estimated and actual unit “build” cost / PE

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15 EURm/PE

0.10

0.05

0.00 2004LT16CPE005 1999IE16CPE002 2001RO16PPE015 2000RO16PPE003 2000ES16CPE058 2002LT16PPE009 2000PT16CPE008

LT IE RO ES LT PT

Construction Reconstruction/Upgrade

Estimated Actual

Figure 46: Level 2 Waste water: estimated and actual unit “build” cost/km

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

EURm/km 6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00 PPE003 2000SI16PPE002 2001LV16PPE007 2000PL16PPE022 2004LT16CPE005 2002CZ16PPE012 2001CZ16PPE008 2000CZ16PPE001 2000CZ16PPE002 2002EE16PPE013 2000EE16PPE001 2000SK16PPE001 2000ES16CPE060 2000ES16CPE086 2001ES16CPE036 2001ES16CPE016 2000ES16CPE058 2003ES16CPE025 2005ES16CPE007 2002ES16CPE032 2003ES16CPE008 2002ES16CPE048 2003ES16CPE012 2004CZ16CPE015 2004CZ16CPE003 2004CZ16CPE008 2000HU16 2000RO16PPE003 2001RO16PPE015 2001GR16CPE025 2001GR16CPE024 2000GR16CPE007 2001GR16CPE010 2001GR16CPE005 2003GR16CPE001 2000ES16CPE085f 2000ES16CPE097c 2000ES16CPE112c 2001ES16CPE017c 2003ES16CPE004c 2003ES16CPE011c 2000ES16CPE096a 2000ES16CPE082a 2000ES16CPE082b 2001ES16CPE052b 2000ES16CPE096b 2000ES16CPE097a 2000ES16CPE097b 2003ES16CPE011e 2003ES16CPE011a 2000ES16CPE105d 2001ES16CPE052d 2000ES16CPE090d 2001ES16CPE017d

CZ EEHU LV PL RO ES CZ EE GR LT SK SI ES

Construction & Reconstruction Construction

Estimated Actual

Figure 47: Level 2 Waste water: estimated and actual unit “build” cost/km

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50 EURm/km

1.00

0.50

0.00 PPE017 PPE005 PPE002 PPE008 PPE007 2000LV16 2004LV16CPE001 2004LV16CPE004 2003CZ16 2001CZ16 2001EE16 2001EE16 2002ES16CPE002 2000ES16CPE006 2001ES16CPE033 2003ES16CPE036 2004CZ16CPE014 2001GR16CPE006 2001GR16CPE014 2001GR16CPE001 2003GR16CPE002 2001GR16CPE013 2001GR16CPE019 2000ES16CPE082i 2000ES16CPE090f 2000ES16CPE082f 2000ES16CPE120c 2000ES16CPE090c 2001ES16CPE052c 2000ES16CPE096c 2000ES16CPE080c 2000ES16CPE085c 2000ES16CPE058a 2000ES16CPE044b 2000ES16CPE105a 2000ES16CPE044a 2000ES16CPE058e 2000ES16CPE082e 2000ES16CPE040a 2001ES16CPE049b 2000ES16CPE080b 2001ES16CPE017b 2001ES16CPE048a 2000ES16CPE090b 2000ES16CPE090e 2001ES16CPE048b 2000ES16CPE073b 2000ES16CPE064a 2001ES16CPE052a 2000ES16CPE073a 2000ES16CPE090h 2000ES16CPE058d 2000ES16CPE120d 2000ES16CPE082d 2000ES16CPE090g 2000ES16CPE097d 2003ES16CPE004d 2000ES16CPE079d 2000ES16CPE082g 2000ES16CPE080d 2000ES16CPE085d 2000ES16CPE082h

ES CZ EE GR LV ES

Extension Reconstruction/Upgrade Construction

Estimated Actual

6.5.3 Waste Water – Time delays

We have examined the average completion times for waste water projects for each phase of their construction. This is shown below in Table 41. Completion times are shown in months per ’000PE capacity to make the results comparable across projects of different size. It also shows absolute and percentage time delays. We note that, while some of the project phases are sequential, there is a degree of overlapping. Therefore, the total project completion time is not given by the sum of the completion times for each phase.

To make different projects comparable, we have normalised completion times using PE capacity. However these measures should not be extrapolated to estimate the likely completion times for similar projects. Specifically, completion times are likely to be made up of a fixed time component that does not change with project length in kilometres, and a variable time component that increases with it. This tends to make the times in months per kilometre less than the average for projects that cover a longer distance.

The table shows that funding occurred more slowly than expected with a percentage delay of 13.5% but that permissions and site preparation were completed faster than estimated. The planning phase of water projects appears to be only marginally delayed at 0.3%.

Table 41: Waste water estimated completion times, actual completion times, absolute delay and percentage delay

Estimated Actual completion Absolute delay Percentage delay Project Phase completion time time Months per 1000 PE capacity % Planning 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.3 Funding 0.10 0.11 0.01 13.5 Permissions 0.05 0.05 0.00 -2.0 Site Preparation 0.05 0.03 -0.03 -50.3 Construction 2.14 2.59 0.45 21.1

6.5.4 Waste Water: Summary

Table 42 and Table 43 below show the wide variation in the unit cost of waste water treatment plants and sewerage projects.

Table 42 Waste Water: Summary Benchmarks - WWTP projects

Level 1 Unit Costs Project Type Projects Mean Minimum Maximum No. EURm/000 PE EURm/000 PE EURm/000 PE

Construction / Estimated 25 0.34 0.03 1.54 Extension Actual 16 0.35 0.04 1.01

Reconstruction / Estimated 17 0.19 0.01 0.41 Rehabilitation Actual 5 0.23 0.05 0.40 Construction with Estimated 29 0.30 0.02 1.89 Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Actual 4 0.50 0.31 0.94

Table 43 Waste Water: Summary Benchmarks - Sewerage projects

Level 1 Unit Costs Project Type Projects Mean Minimum Maximum No. EURm/km EURm/km EURm/km

Construction / Estimated 69 0.82 0.04 6.40 Extension Actual 53 0.96 0.03 6.59

Reconstruction / Estimated 43 0.77 0.09 3.70 Rehabilitation Actual 35 1.49 0.12 8.05 Construction with Estimated 39 1.12 0.06 13.67 Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Actual 32 1.67 0.07 11.49

The Level 1 unit cost per population equivalent (PE) capacity ranged from 0.1M Euro/’000 PE to less than 0.1M/’000 PE. This demonstrates the high degree of variation between the projects and has a similar profile to that for water supply projects (EuroM/’000 additional population served). The majority of projects specifically targeted the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD). We have also calculated Level 1 costs for sewerage networks using kilometres of network. Whilst the actual unit costs show some variation, the majority of construction projects fall under 2M Euro/km.

Level 2 unit costs for waste water treatment plants fall under 10M Euro/WWTP with one exception, based in Ireland. Sewerage network unit costs are far more varied with the largest outlier falling within the “Construction and Reconstruction” category.

Site preparation happened far faster than was estimated at - 50% with the construction phase most likely to experience a time delay.

6.6 Mixed projects

We provide data for mixed projects illustrated in two different formats. Figure 48 and Figure 49 compare Level 1 data based on the estimated and actual cost per ‘000 population equivalent. Figure 50 and Figure 51 compare the “all in” estimated and actual unit costs per km of sewerage network. In all figures we include all projects split into four categories (where applicable): Constructions, a combination of Construction and Reconstructions, Extensions and Reconstruction/upgrade projects. In this section we show both project and sub-project level data in these figures. For example, a code such as 2002ES16CPE051-03 or 2002ES16CPE024e shows the sub-project “03” or “e” for the umbrella project. To avoid double counting data, we have removed the umbrella projects from the data set where we have included sub-projects. We have included sub-projects in these figures where we have sub-project level data points. We have chosen two different metrics to calculate Level 1 unit costs. For some projects, we have included the capacity of the project in population equivalent. Where it is more appropriate and the project mostly revolved around building network components, we have used the length of sewerage network as our Level 1 metric.

We have not provided Level 2 analysis for mixed projects as the project components were include in our Level 2 analysis of water supply and waste water sections.

This section concludes with a section on the time and cost overruns for all water projects. This includes our variance analysis which seeks to identify the main reasons for cost overruns and time delays.

6.6.1 Mixed – Level 1 costs

Figure 48 and Figure 49 show the split of mixed projects into estimated and actual costs calculated using ‘000PE. In Figure 48 there are three significant outliers, two in the Construction category and one in the Reconstruction category. As a consequence, the mean unit cost for construction projects is higher than the average estimated costs for other types of project, at 3.47 EURm/’000 PE. The two higher cost sub-projects in the construction category (2002ESCPE024e and 2002ES16CPE024f) both have low PE variables (600 and 900) in comparison to the third project which is much larger and has a PE of 108,000. Aside from the projects being very different types, the variation in PE will also have an impact on the costs shown here. The situation is similar for the one outlier project in the Reconstruction section (2000SL16PPE004). The PE for the outlier is much lower (500), compared to 39,800 and 78,600 in the other two projects. The estimated costs for Construction and Reconstruction projects are broadly similar.

Figure 49 shows much more consistency aside from one project in the Reconstruction category. As a result of this high cost, the mean actual cost is higher than the estimated actual cost at 0.52 EURm/’000 PE, compared to 0.20 EURm/’000 PE, as shown in Table 45. We note, however, that the number of projects from which the actual means are calculated are fewer than those from which the estimated data are calculated.

Figure 50 and Figure 51 show the split of mixed projects into estimated and actual cost/km of sewerage network. In some cases we will only have estimated data or actual data and not both for each project. Both figures show 2 projects with high unit costs while most other projects sit within a reasonably small range, with many clustered around the means of 1.15 EURm/km for estimated data and 1.35 EURm/km for actual data (calculated across all project categories (Construction, Construction & Reconstruction, Extensions and Reconstruction/Upgrade).

Figure 48: Level 1 mixed projects: estimated cost/ ‘000 PE

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

EURm/1000 PE 4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00 2000SI16PPE001 2002SI16PPE007 2000SI16PPE004 2000SI16PPE003 2001PL16PPE028 2002ES16CPE032 2000ES16CPE058 2001ES16CPE019 2001EE16PPE007 2001CZ16PPE008 2001PT16CPE004 2000PT16CPE009 2004LV16CPE001 2001RO16PPE015 2002ES16CPE024f 2000ES16CPE039c 2002ES16CPE024e

ES CZ PL PT RO SI ES EE LV SI

Construction Construction & Reconstruction Reconstruction

Contingency Taxes Land Soft Build

Figure 49: Level 1 mixed projects: actual cost/ ‘000 PE

12.00

10.00

8.00 PE

6.00 EURm/1000

4.00

2.00

0.00 2000SI16PPE001 2000SI16PPE004 2000SI16PPE003 2004LT16CPE005 2002LT16PPE009 2002ES16CPE032 2005ES16CPE005 2001ES16CPE019 2000ES16CPE058 2004LV16CPE001 2001RO16PPE015 2000ES16CPE039c

LT ES RO SI ES LVLT SI

Construction Construction & Reconstruction Reconstruction

Contingency Taxes Land Soft Build

Figure 50: Level 1 mixed projects: estimated cost/km of sewerage network

14.000

12.000

10.000

8.000

EURm/KM 6.000

4.000

2.000

0.000 03 2000SI16PPE001 2002SI16PPE007 2000SI16PPE003 2000SI16PPE004 2000LT16PPE001 2002LT16PPE009 2003LT16PPE015 2001LT16PPE005 2000ES16CPE058 2000ES16CPE086 2005ES16CPE005 2000ES16CPE005 2001ES16CPE019 2000ES16CPE129 2001ES16CPE022 2001ES16CPE006 2002ES16CPE032 2002PL16PPE035 2002PL16PPE033 2000PL16PPE016 2003PL16PPE042 2004PL16CPE021 2000PL16PPE021 2004PL16CPE029 2001PL16PPE028 2004CZ16CPE014 2001EE16PPE007 2004LV16CPE003 2000LV16PPE002 2004LV16CPE001 2004LV16CPE002 2000LV16PPE001 2004CZ16CPE007 2004CZ16CPE003 2001CZ16PPE004 2001CZ16PPE008 2002EE16PPE012 2002LV16PPE009 2001LV16PPE008 2001LV16PPE007 2001PT16CPE007 2001GR16CPE028 2001RO16PPE015 2001GR16PPE022 2001GR16CPE014 2001GR16CPE019 2001GR16CPE001 2001GR16CPE013 2001GR16CPE006 2001GR16CPE010 2001GR16CPE025 2000ES16CPE039c 2002ES16CPE024c 2000ES16CPE080a 2002ES16CPE024a 2002ES16CPE024g 2000ES16CPE070a 2002ES16CPE024b 2000ES16CPE070b ‐ 2001PT16CPE002

GR LV ES CZ EE LV PL PTRO ES GR LT ES CZ EE GR LV LT SI ES

Construction Construction & Reconstruction Extension Reconstruction/Upgrade

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 51: Level 1 mixed projects: actual cost/km of sewerage network

EURm/KM 6

0 03 ‐ 2000SI16PPE001 2000SI16PPE003 2000SI16PPE004 2002LT16PPE009 2000ES16CPE058 2000ES16CPE086 2001ES16CPE019 2005ES16CPE005 2000ES16CPE129 2001ES16CPE022 2001ES16CPE006 2004LT16CPE005 2002ES16CPE032 2001CZ16PPE008 2001EE16PPE007 2004LV16CPE001 2000LV16PPE002 2001PT16CPE007 2001RO16PPE015 2001GR16CPE010 2001GR16CPE025 2001GR16PPE022 2001GR16CPE014 2001GR16CPE019 2001GR16CPE001 2001GR16CPE013 2000ES16CPE039c 2000ES16CPE080a 2000ES16CPE080e 2000ES16CPE070a 2001ES16CPE021d 2001PT16CPE002

LT ES CZ PT SI ES ES EE GR LVLT SI ES

Construction Construction & Reconstruction Extension Reconstruction/Upgrade Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

6.6.2 Mixed: Summary

Table 44 and Table 45 below show the large variation in the costs of network and WWTP.

Table 44 Mixed: Summary Benchmarks (network as metric)

Level 1 Unit Costs Project Type Projects Mean Minimum Maximum No. EURm/km EURm/km EURm/km

Construction / Estimated 12 1.12 0.03 7.23 Extension Actual 6 1.07 0.34 3.17

Reconstruction / Estimated 18 1.00 0.11 5.90 Rehabilitation Actual 12 1.63 0.21 10.81 Construction with Estimated 30 1.26 0.155 12.84 Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Actual 14 1.18 0.13 8.71

Table 45 Mixed: Summary Benchmarks (PE as metric)

Level 1 Unit Costs Project Type Projects Mean Minimum Maximum No. EURm/000 PE EURm/000 PE EURm/000 PE

Construction / Estimated 3 3.47 0.93 5.80 Extension Actual 2 0.12 0.11 0.14

Reconstruction / Estimated 10 0.20 0.10 0.34 Rehabilitation Actual 6 0.52 0.10 1.81 Construction with Estimated 4 2.41 0.11 8.72 Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Actual 4 2.90 0.23 10.19

The Level 1 unit cost per population equivalent (PE) capacity and per cost of kilometre of sewerage network mainly sat within a small range. There were two exceptions, measured by PE which ranged up to 10M Euro/’000 PE. The reasons for these high cost projects are unclear.

6.6.3 Cost Overruns and Time delays for ALL types of water projects

As part of our question aire developed to gather Level 2 unit cost data we asked that a series of factors be ranked in order of their importance in causing time delays and cost overruns for water projects. The rankings ranged from 1 (small influence on cost/time overrun) to 3 (major impact). We have calculated the average score for water projects and this is shown in Figure 52.

100

“Procurement issues” were considered the most important cause of cost overruns and this ‘Type 1’ category included factors such as design changes and complexity of contract structures. The next two categories, “Project Specific” and “Project Environment” were ranked similarly and included factors such as issues with “permits, consents or approvals”, “Design complexity” and “delays by statutory authorities or contractors”.

Figure 52: Type 1 water: average cost overrun scores

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50 Cost Overrun Score

1.00

0.50

- Procurement Issues Project Specific Project Environment External Issues Client Specific

Using a similar framework to that for cost overruns, we have scored and ranked the reasons for time delays for water projects. This is shown below in Figure 53. “Procurement Issues” proved to be the most important factor when determining time delays. This category includes factors such as “Design changes”, “Complexity of project structure” and “Contractor specific difficulties”. The second highest factor was “Project Specific” issues including “Delays by statutory authorities”, “Late commencement of work” and “the Construction period”.

101

Figure 53: Type 1 water: average time delay score

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50 Time Delay Score

1.00

0.50

- Procurement Issues Project Specif ic Project Environment External Issues Client Specif ic

Figure 54 illustrates the range of ‘Type 2’ factors for cost overruns and time delays. This figure shows one cause of both cost overruns and time delays was changes in design.

Figure 54: Type 2: average score of cost overrun and time delay categories

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80 Score 0.60

0.40

0.20

Cost Overrun Score Time Delay Sco re

102

6.7 Solid Waste projects

We have collected Level 1 data on all solid waste projects. This section presents our calculations for Level 1 and Level 2 unit costs for solid waste projects. This section will conclude with our analysis of time delays and cost overruns and the variance analysis which seeks to determine the principal reasons for the delays and overruns.

We have split waste projects at Level 1 into five categories. We examine:

 The cost for landfills which have been closed, rehabilitated or constructed  The cost/’000 tonnes for recycling plants which have been created or rehabilitated  The cost/’000 tonnes for a composting centre which has been created or rehabilitated  The cost/’000 tonnes for transfer, collection and recovery projects  The cost/’000 additional population served for integrated waste projects.

Figure 55 and Figure 56 show estimated and actual data for landfill projects. There is significant variation between the unit costs and this could in part be due to the various numbers of landfills closed or rehabilitated in each project which create varying unit costs. Rehabilitation projects appear more costly than closures. For those projects with both estimated and actual cost data, the actual unit cost was almost always greater than the estimate. This is demonstrated by a comparison of the mean estimated and actual unit costs for these projects. Estimated costs had a mean of 5.32 EURm/Landfill across all categories, with a particularly low mean of 1.29 EURm/Landfill for Closures. In comparison, the actual costs had a mean unit cost of 7.54 EURm/Landfill with a considerably higher mean of 5.6 EURm/Landfill closure (though this is disproportionately high due to an outlier – 2000PL16PPE018 – and without this project, the average actual unit costs falls at 1.99 EURm/Landfill).

Figure 57 and Figure 58 show the estimated and actual build costs/’000 tonnes capacity for recycling plant projects. We do not have both estimated and actual data for most projects, therefore a direct comparison is not possible. In Figure 58, sub project 20001ES16CPE007a has the highest unit and has a low tonnage of 1656 tonnes versus sub project 2000ES16CPE141b which has a lower cost and with a higher tonnage of 9000 tonnes. These projects present a mean estimated unit cost of 0.20 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity and a mean actual unit cost of 0.21 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity. The proximity of these figures is striking, but, as mentioned above, a direct comparison cannot be carried out as we do not have both estimated and actual data for most projects.

Figure 59 and Figure 60 show the estimated and actual build costs/’000 tonnes for composting centres with great variety amongst the unit costs. In most cases where we have

103 estimated and actual data for the same projects, the actual costs are always greater than estimates. There is one exception, for project 2001ES16CPE029, which had a very slightly lower unit cost. The highest unit cost project was a large waste treatment and high capacity composting facility in Spain. The discrepancy between estimated and actual costs is illustrated by the differences between their means – though we note that there is not an equal number of projects with estimated and actual data. The mean estimated unit cost falls at 0.08 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity across all project types and the average actual unit cost is 0.09 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity. The discrepancy is further illustrated when looking at the average actual unit cost just for those projects for which we also have estimated data; 0.10 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity – 25% higher than the average estimated unit cost of the same projects.

Figure 61 and Figure 62 show the estimated and actual unit build costs for collection, recovery and transfer projects. Almost all projects in this category are located in Spain. Review of Figure 62 shows that one project has a very high unit cost, 2000ES16CPE017. This is most likely due to the small capacity created in relation to its cost compared to all other projects. There is a considerable range in both the estimated and actual costs (across all project categories) with the estimated costs ranging between 0.005 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity and 0.67 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity and the actual range falling between 0.008 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity and 5.34 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity (although this project is a significant outlier and the next highest figure is 0.737 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity). The average estimated unit cost, therefore, falls at 0.212 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity, whilst the mean actual unit cost is lower, at 0.198 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity (when the outlier is excluded – it rises to 0.519 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity when it is included).

Figure 63 and Figure 64 show the estimated and actual unit costs for integrated waste projects based on the ‘000 additional population served. For projects where we have estimated and actual data there is no set pattern in the relationship between estimated and actual unit costs. In Figure 64 the majority of projects are Constructions in Spain with a handful of other countries having one integrated waste management project in the figure.

104

105

Figure 55: Level 1 Solid Waste: “all in” estimated unit cost for landfills

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00 EURm/Landfill closed, rehabilitated or constructed

0.00 1998PT16CPE001 1998PT16CPE001‐01 2002ES16CPE025 2001ES16CPE053 2001PT16CPE001 2000PT16CPE003 1998PT16CPE001‐03 2000SI16PPE006

PT PT ES PT SI

Closure Rehabilitation Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 56: Level 1 Solid Waste: “all in” actual cost for landfill

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00 EURm/Landfill closed, rehabilitated or constructed

0.00 1998PT16CPE001 1998PT16CPE001‐01 2002ES16CPE025 2001ES16CPE053 2000PL16PPE018 2001PT16CPE001 2000PT16CPE003 1998PT16CPE001‐03 2000SI16PPE006

PT PT ES PL PT SI

Closure Rehabilitation Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

106

Figure 57: Level 1 Solid Waste: “all in” estimated unit cost/’000 tonnes for recycling plant

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30 EURm/Capacity 1000 TonnesEURm/Capacity 1000 0.20

0.10

0.00 2004PT16CPE016 2004PT16CPE020 2000ES16CPE141b 2000ES16CPE141c 2000ES16CPE141e 2004ES16CPE033

PT ES

Creation Rehabilitation

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 58: Level 1 Solid Waste: “all in” actual unit cost/’000 tonnes for recycling plant

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60 EURm/Capacity 1000 TonnesEURm/Capacity 1000 0.40

0.20

0.00 2001ES16CPE007a 2000ES16CPE141b 2000ES16CPE141e 2000ES16CPE141c 2001PT16CPE003 ‐ 01 2001PT16CPE003 ‐ 02 2004ES16CPE033

ES PT ES

Creation Rehabilitation

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

107

Figure 59: Level 1 Solid Waste: “all in” estimated unit cost /’000 tonnes for a composting centre

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10 EURm/CapacityTonnes 1000

0.05

0.00 2001ES16CPE013 2001ES16CPE026a 2000ES16CPE144b 2003ES16CPE030 2000ES16CPE029 2005ES16CPE001

Creation Rehabilitation

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 60: Level 1 Solid Waste: “all in” actual unit cost/’000 tonne for a composting centre

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10 EURm/Capacity 1000 TonnesEURm/Capacity 1000

0.05

0.00 2001ES16CPE013 2001ES16CPE026a 2001ES16CPE010c 2000ES16CPE144b 2001ES16CPE029 2003ES16CPE030 2001ES16CPE057b 2000ES16CPE029 2005ES16CPE001

Creation Rehabilitation

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

108

Figure 61: Level 1 Solid Waste: “all in” estimated unit cost/’000 tonne capacity for transfer, collection and recovery projects 0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30 EURm/CapacityTonnes 1000 0.20

0.10

0.00 2000ES16CPE132 2001ES16CPE005 2004ES16CPE031 2000ES16CPE024 2002ES16CPE043 2000ES16CPE069 2000ES16CPE028 2000ES16CPE015 2006GR16CPE002 2000ES16CPE141f 2002ES16CPE028b 2001ES16CPE026b

ES ES ES GR ES

Collection ‐ Creation Collection ‐ Recovery ‐ Creation Recovery ‐ Transfer ‐ Creation Upgrade Upgrade

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 62: Level 1 Solid Waste: “all in” actual unit cost/’000 tonne capacity for transfer, collection and recovery projects

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00 EURm/CapacityTonnes 1000

1.00

0.00 2004ES16CPE031 2000ES16CPE132 2001ES16CPE005 2000ES16CPE024 2000ES16CPE017 2000ES16CPE069 2002ES16CPE043 2000ES16CPE015 2000ES16CPE028 2000ES16CPE141f 2001ES16CPE007c 2001ES16CPE007e 2001ES16CPE042a 2001ES16CPE026b 2001ES16CPE010d 2001ES16CPE042b

ES ES ES ES ES

Collection ‐ Creation Collection ‐ Upgrade Recovery ‐ Creation Recovery ‐ Transfer ‐ Creation Upgrade

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

109

Figure 63: Level 1 Solid Waste: “all in” estimated cost /'000 population served for integrated waste projects

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10 EURm/1000 population served

0.05

0.00 2002SI16PPE009 2004SI16CPE001 2001LT16PPE004 2003LT16PPE016 2001LT16PPE008 2000PL16PPE002 2000PL16PPE005 2001LV16PPE006 2000ES16CPE145 2001ES16CPE057 2001ES16CPE009 2000ES16CPE014 2000ES16CPE025 2000ES16CPE141 2001ES16CPE010 2000ES16CPE146 2004ES16CPE003 2001ES16CPE011 2000ES16CPE140 2000ES16CPE138 2000ES16CPE144 2000ES16CPE022 2001ES16CPE025 2004PT16CPE015 2003GR16CPE007 2000RO16PPE001 2000HU16PPE004 2000HU16PPE007 2000HU16PPE006

GR HU LV PT SI ES LT HU LT PL RO ES HU SI ES

Construction Construction with Upgrade component Upgrade

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

Figure 64: Level 1 Solid Waste: “all in” actual cost /'000 population served for integrated waste projects

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10 EURm/1000 population served

0.05

0.00 2004SI16CPE001 2002SI16PPE009 2001ES16CPE010 2000ES16CPE141 2000ES16CPE146 2000ES16CPE138 2000ES16CPE022 2004ES16CPE003 2000ES16CPE140 2001ES16CPE011 2001ES16CPE025 2000ES16CPE144 2002ES16CPE001 2001ES16CPE057 2000PT16CPE015 2003GR16CPE007 2000HU16PPE004 2000HU16PPE006

GR HU PT SI ES HU SI

Construction Construction Upgrade with Upgrade component

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency

110

6.7.1 Level 2 unit costs

We have created three sets of figures showing level 2 unit costs for waste projects. These draw on estimated and actual data where it exists. They are:

 The unit “build” cost in Euro m/closed, constructed or rehabilitated landfill projects  The unit “build” cost in Euro m/’000 tonnes capacity for landfill projects  The unit “build” cost in Euro m/ recycling plant  The unit “build” cost in Euro m/ composting plant  The unit “build” cost in Euro m/square km for transfer, collection and recovery projects.

Not all information is always available for all projects. Some projects have either estimated data or actual data, but not both. Where this is the case, we leave the missing data column blank.

Figure 65 and Figure 66 examine landfills looking at two measures of unit cost. Figure 65 shows the range of projects whereby a landfill was Closed, Constructed or Rehabilitated. For example, project 2000PT16CPE011 contained both closed landfill and construction of new landfill. For landfill projects, the average estimated unit cost for ‘Closure’, ‘Construction’ and ‘Rehabilitation’ projects were 4.63 EURm/Landfill16, 3.78 EURm/Landfill and 2.46 EURm/Landfill respectively. Regarding the capacity of the landfills, the actual average unit cost of Landfill construction is 4.40 EURm/’000 tonnes capacity.

Figure 67 provides actual data only for the cost per recycling plant. Clearly there is variety amongst the costs of these 5 projects in part due to the differing numbers of recycling plants constructed or rehabilitated. For example, project 2000PT16CPE013 was the project with the highest cost and had 1 recycling plant created while 2001LV16PPE006 had a lower starting cost and created 9 plants. The average actual Level 2 unit costs for construction projects was 3.86 EURm/Recycling plant, far higher than the average of 1.39 EURm/Recycling plant for rehabilitation projects.

Figure 68 shows a very small data set for the build cost of composting plants – only 3 projects, for which the average actual Level 2 unit cost was 8.76 EURm/composting plant, though there was a significant upward outlier included in this, costing €25m.

Figure 69 shows the estimated and actual build cost/ square km for transfer, collection and recovery projects. Project 2001ES16CPE009 has a high unit cost as the area which the system covers is small at 186km2 compared to project 2000HU16PPE005 which covers 458

16 Though we note that this figure is dragged up by an outlier. Without this outlier, the average is only 0.54 EURm/Landfill.

111 km2 and 2001PT16CPE003 which covers 14,000km2. The mean actual unit cost for these projects is 0.0050 EURm/km2 served, compared to a lower estimated cost of 0.0039 EURm/km2. This is due to the fact that all projects overran on costs, though this was very marginal in some cases.

112

Figure 65: Level 2 Solid Waste: estimated and actual unit “build” cost in Euro m/ landfill

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

EURm/Landfill closed, constructed rehabilitated or constructed closed, EURm/Landfill 0.0 PPE005 2004LT16CPE003 2001LV16PPE006 2000PL16PPE002 2000PL16PPE005 2000PL16PPE018 2000EE16PPE004 2001EE16PPE005 2000HU16 2000GR16CPE001 2000PT16CPE011 (Constr. 2000PT16CPE013 (Rehab) 2003LT16PPE016 (Constr.) 2003LT16PPE016 (Closure) 2000PT16CPE011 (Closure) 2000PT16CPE013 (Closure)

EE LT PT EE GR HU LV LT PL PT PT

Closure Construction Rehab.

Estimated Actual

Figure 66: Level 2 Solid Waste: estimated and actual unit “build” cost/’000 tonne capacity for landfills

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0 EURm/Landfill closed, constructed or rehabilitated

1.0

0.0 2000EE16PPE004 2000HU16PPE005 2003LT16PPE016 2000PL16PPE002 2000PL16PPE005 2000PT16CPE011 2000PT16CPE013

EE HU LT PL PT PT

Construction Rehab.

Estimated Actual

113

Figure 67: Level 2 Solid Waste: estimated and actual unit “build” costs/recycling plant

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0 EURm/Recycling Plant

2.0

1.0

0.0 2000GR16CPE001 2001LV16PPE006 2004LT16CPE003 2000PL16PPE005 2000PL16PPE002 2000PT16CPE013 2000PT16CPE011

GR LV LT PL PT

Construction

Estimated Actual

Figure 68: Level 2 Solid Waste: estimated and actual unit “build” cost/composting plant

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

EURm/Composting Plant EURm/Composting 10.0

5.0

0.0 2000HU16PPE005 2001LT16PPE004 2002PT16CPE002

HU LT PT

Construction

Estimated Actual

114

Figure 69: Level 2 Solid Waste: estimated and actual unit “build” cost/square km for transfer, collection and recovery projects

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010 EURm/sq km served

0.005

0.000 2001EE16PPE005 2000HU16PPE005 2000PT16CPE011 2000PT16CPE013 2001ES16CPE009 2001PT16CPE003

EE HU PT ES PT

Creation Rehabilitation

Estimated Actual

115

6.7.2 Waste projects: Time delays and costs overruns

As part of our questionnaire developed to gather Level 2 unit cost data we asked that a series of factors be ranked in order of their importance in causing time delays and cost overruns for waste projects. The rankings ranged from 1 (small influence on cost/time overrun) to 3 (major impact). We have calculated the average score for water projects and this is shown in Figure 70. “External issues” was the most important factor for cost overruns which includes “technology”, “inflation”, “changes in legislation/regulation” and, most importantly in this case, “political”.

Figure 70: Type 1 Waste: average cost overrun scores

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50 Cost Overrun Overrun Score Cost

1.00

0.50

0.00 External Issues Procurement Issues Project Specif ic Project Environment Client Specific

We have examined the average completion times for solid waste projects for each phase of their construction. This is shown in Table 46. Completion times are shown in months/’000 people served by the project. The figure also shows absolute and percentage time delays. To make different projects comparable, we have normalised completion times using the months/’000 people served by the project.

The table shows that Planning and Construction phases happened more slowly than planned with a small percentage delay attributable to each, while Funding happened faster than expected.

116

Table 46: Solid Waste estimated completion times, actual completion times, absolute delay and percentage delay

Estimated Actual Absolute delay Percentage delay Project Phase completion time completion time Months per 1000 persons served by project % Planning 0.12 0.13 0.01 7.1 Funding 0.10 0.12 0.02 20.0

Construction 0.36 0.35 -0.01 -3.5

Using a similar framework to that for cost overruns, we have scored and ranked the reasons for time overruns for water projects. This is shown below in Figure 71. Again “External Issues” rank highest for causing time delays followed by “Procurement issues”.

Figure 72 shows the ‘Type 2’ factors for cost overruns and time delays. This figure shows that the major cause of cost overruns is political including delays by statutory authorities or contractors. These causes also contribute heavily to time delays. “Technology” was also raised as the third most important factor for time delays.

Figure 71: Type 1 Waste: average time delay score

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50 Time Delay Score

1.00

0.50

0.00 External Issues Procurement Issues Project Specif ic Client Specific Project Environment

117

Figure 72: Type 2: Average score of cost overrun and time delay categories

2.50

2.00

1.50 Score

1.00

0.50

0.00

Cost Overrun Score Time Delay Score

6.7.3 Solid Waste: Summary

Table 47 below shows the minimum, maximum and mean Level 1 unit costs for Integrated Waste Management projects. The figures demonstrate the variation in the unit cost.

Table 47 Solid Waste: Summary Benchmarks (IWM projects only)

We have more categories for solid waste projects due to their complexity. Integrated waste management projects can include a wide variety of components which makes comparisons across projects problematic. We have used population served as a denominator to provide a measure of scale. The costs of these projects range between 0.01M Euro/’000 population

118 served and 0.23M Euro/’000 population served. The majority of this project type were construction projects.

Our Level 2 data points are spread across different types of project – landfills, recycling plants, composting and transfers, collections and recoveries.

119

6.8 Cost overruns and time delays

After analysing each type of project individually, we bring together the results of the cost overruns and time delays to carry out a comparison across project types and countries. This analysis is predominantly descriptive but we have calculated average values where appropriate. The terms of reference state that, if necessary, the project team updates the methodology for conducting this analysis. We have seen no need to do so as the data we have collected has been compatible with the methodology used in WP10. By keeping a single methodology, this ensures that the results are comparable with analysis done previously.

6.8.1 Cost Overruns

Table 48 below illustrates the average scores for the ‘Type 1’ causes of cost overruns. As noted earlier, we asked respondents to classify each category from 0 to 3. A classification of 0 means ‘no cause of delay’, 1 means a ‘minor factor’ (less than 20%), 2 means a ‘significant factor’ (20-50%) and 3 means a ‘major factor’ (more than 50%).

Table 48 Level 1 Cost overruns: Average score (0-3) by sector

Factor Rail Road Water Solid waste Procurement issues 0.55 0.61 0.67 0.67 Project specific 0.88 0.77 0.43 0.57 Client specific 0.37 0.57 0.14 0.50 Project environment 0.67 0.62 0.40 0.56

External issues 0.57 0.71 0.35 0.86 Table 48 above shows that across transport sectors, ”Project specific” and ”Project environment” factors tend to be the lead cause for cost overruns. For some rail and water projects, “Procurement issues” also appear to rank among the highest cause of cost overruns. For solid waste projects, ”External issues” appear to contribute to cost overruns and the case is similar for road projects. This includes factors such as “Political” (such as changes in government) and “Inflation”, which was an oft cited reason for cost overruns.

6.8.2 Time delays

Table 49 summarises the percentage delays by project phase and sector. On average, Rail Reconstruction projects appear to be those with the highest level of overall delay across the majority of the project phases, followed by Mixed water projects and Road Reconstruction projects. Water supply projects seem to accumulate the smallest delay and, on average, the funding stage of the process appeared to take far less time than was originally estimated.

120

This is in stark contrast to other types of project where funding appears to be the phase with the highest level of delay. This effect is most evident in Mixed water projects which saw a delay of approximately 175%.

Table 49 Percentage delays by project phase and sector

Planning Funding Permissions Site preparation Construction Project Type % Rail Construction 5.59 82.52 0.00 8.76 ‐8.13 Rail Reconstruction 51.88 118.16 5.71 70.73 14.45 Road Construction 9.62 22.08 65.88 7.24 23.63 Road Reconstruction 15.74 90.90 27.15 1.68 6.72 Water supply 1.72 ‐41.27 ‐5.04 ‐‐9.32 Waste water 0.28 13.48 ‐2.02 ‐50.34 21.07 Mixed water projects 144.14 175.10 ‐‐39.48 2.99 Solid waste projects 7.10 20.00 ‐‐‐3.50

Table 50 below presents a summary of the average scores that the respondents gave to ‘Type 1’ delay factors. “Project specific” and “Procurement issues” appear to be among the key causes explaining time delays in all sectors. “External issues” and “Client specific” factors appear to have a less pronounced role, apart from for solid waste projects, which ranked “external issues” as the most important determinate of time delays.

Table 50 Level 1 time delays: Average score (0-3) by sector

Factor Rail Road Water Solid waste Procurement issues 0.89 0.48 0.59 0.77 Project specific 0.80 0.71 0.51 0.63 Client specific 0.44 0.25 0.13 0.58 Project environment 0.41 0.68 0.31 0.50

External issues 0.32 0.21 0.22 0.79 6.8.3 Interaction between cost overruns and delays

In this section we briefly explore the possible relation between cost overruns and time delays. To use the largest sample possible, we gathered all the projects in the database.

Figure 73 illustrates a scatter plot of road and rail project observations. As shown, most observations are scattered around the origin, showing no apparent correlation between cost overruns and time delays. Indeed, the correlation coefficient between the two datasets is extremely low, at 0.09. However, it is important to note that the statistical significance of the results is low as they are based on relatively small samples. Therefore, this conclusion cannot rule out the existence of this relationship in a larger sample.

121

Figure 73: Cost overrun per km against absolute delay per km for road and rail projects

8 km 6 per

delays

4 Time

0 ‐2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

‐2

‐4 Cost overruns per km

Figure 74 below also shows a scatter plot of water supply and waste water project observations. We have used the amount of network created as our denominator throughout. For water supply projects the unit used is kilometres of water network and, for waste water projects, we have used kilometres of sewerage network.

Similarly to Figure 73, the majority of observations are scattered around the origin and we have added a line of best fit which has a positive gradient. The former implies that there is not a high degree of correlation in the two data sets. The correlation coefficient between them is only weakly positive (albeit more than for transport projects) with a value of 0.14. The line of best fit is not a statistically significant predictor. The data set would need to be far larger with more variables to determine a robust relationship which could quantify, for example, the affect of an extra month delay on the cost overrun.

122

Figure 74: Cost overrun per km of network against absolute delay per km for water supply and waste water projects

network 5

3 km

per 1 delay ‐2.00 ‐1.50 ‐1.00 ‐0.50 ‐‐1 0.50 1.00 1.50

Time ‐3

‐5

‐7

‐9

‐11

‐13

‐15 Cost overrun per km of network

We checked whether the data we collected showed any differences across countries in terms of cost overruns and time delays. In this case, the analysis cannot go beyond its descriptive function, as no rigorous statistical analysis can be carried out, given the small sample size.

Table 51 shows the results of the analysis of cost overruns grouped by sector and by country. Table 52 shows the corresponding results for time delays. The number of projects

shown in the tables below do not match the number of projects shown in Table 27 because not all projects had sufficient data to conduct this analysis. The tables show both average cost overruns and time delays in percentage terms, to ensure comparability across countries and sectors. Positive values illustrate cost overruns or time delays. Equally, negative values indicate cost savings and actual completion times lower than expected. The number of observations for each country is shown alongside. When examining the results for each individual country, the number of projects for that country must be taken into account before drawing conclusions, as the total number of projects varies between countries.

123

Table 51 Cost overrun summary by country and sector – average percentage difference between estimated and actual costs

Table 52 Time delay summary by country and sector – average percentages difference between estimated and actual completion times

Rail ConstructionRail Reconstruction Road Construction Road Reconstruction Water supply Waste water Solid waste projects Weighted Country average by % Projects % Projects % Projects % Projects % Projects % Projects % Projects sector Bulgaria -51% 1 29% 1 -11% Cyprus 49% 1 29% 1 39% Czech Rep -3% 4 -38% 1 -10% Estonia 25% 5 25% Greece 6% 4 58% 5 0% 1 1% 1 0% 10 15% Hungary 68% 2 57% 1 54% 1 20% 4 41% Ireland -2% 1 -1% 3 -22% 2 -8% Latvia -4% 1 41% 1 0% 1 12% Lithuania 0% 1 15% 3 3% 5 7% Poland 20% 4 0% 2 85% 2 31% Portugal 23% 3 76% 5 27% 8 -40% 9 -18% 4 8% Romania 51% 2 51% Slovakia 6% 2 9% 1 7% Slovenia 2% 2 -2% 1 -3% 1 0% 3 0% Spain 9% 43 -2% 7 -5% 41 17% 20 2% 26 4% Weighted 9% 29% 17% 26% -11% 16% 1% average For those projects where data was available, the rail reconstruction projects were most likely to overrun on costs, with a weighted average cost overrun of 38%. All countries apart from Latvia and Poland overran on average on these projects. Secondly, though waste water projects had a weighted average cost overrun of 15%, it should be noted that, firstly, waste water represents the largest sample of projects with information on cost overruns and, secondly, these projects are very concentrated in one country; Spain. For example, the two Irish waste water projects and the Estonian project with data available came in significantly under budget.

The time delays shown above in Table 52 indicate that rail reconstruction projects were most likely to experience delays. According to our variance analysis, the most likely causes of these delays (for rail projects in general) were “design changes”, “delays by statutory

124 authorities” and “obtaining permits, consents of approvals”. Road reconstructions were the next largest group to suffer time delays. The delays in Poland were the most significant, with an average of 85%, though this is only based on two projects. The average delays in both the Romania and Hungary were also significant. On average water supply projects finished ahead of schedule with an average delay of -11%. For these projects, Portugal, on average, completed its projects in 40% less time than was originally envisaged.

125

7 Statistical analysis

In this section we set out the statistical data on the projects and their characteristics. In particular, we present the mean, median and standard deviation of the unit costs for each category of projects. This analysis is done at a “total cost” level for estimated and actual costs and at a more granular level for actual costs. The mean and median provide measures of the average unit cost of projects. In some circumstances, in particular when there are upward or downward outliers which may skew the data, the median is a more useful guide of the average unit cost. The standard deviation gives a measurement of how dispersed the data is around the mean. A high standard deviation implies that the data tend to be spread out around the mean, whereas a low standard deviation indicates that data are concentrated around the mean. These figures can be compared for different types of project to measure relative dispersion.

We conducted a regression analysis on the projects using physical characteristics of the projects as explanatory variables. For all project types the results have proven non-robust, because few of the variables were statistically significant causal factors for the unit cost and the models as a whole did not explain the movements of the unit costs. This type of econometric analysis is typically very data intensive and requires large datasets to determine causal trends. Though the total number of Cohesion Fund and ISPA funded projects is large, the individual data (i.e. water supply projects, road projects etc) are too small to yield robust results. Furthermore, the huge breadth of factors which make help to determine a project’s unit cost mean that idiosyncratic project factors are very important to consider. This makes building a general model of unit costs more difficult and consequently an extremely large dataset is needed to ‘average out’ the project specific factors.

Therefore, we have instead calculated a series of correlation coefficients to show which factors appear to be related to the unit costs of projects. This provides a prima facie view of the relationship between certain factors and the unit costs of a project. Correlation coefficients fall between -1 and 1. A coefficient close to 1 indicates a strong positive correlation between the two data sets and a coefficient close to -1 implies strong negative correlation. A negative correlation would explain that an increase in the explanatory variable is associated with a negative movement in the unit cost.

Blank spaces in the tables below indicate that there was insufficient data to calculate a figure.

126

7.1 Road projects

Using the data provided to us to calculate unit costs, we have calculated the following summary descriptive statistics for road projects. Table 53 shows the estimated and actual statistics for road construction and reconstruction projects. We have used the length of the project in kilometres as the unit for this analysis.

Table 53 Road: Descriptive Statistics

Median total unit Mean total unit cost Standard deviation Project Type cost EURm/km EURm/km Estimated 6.33 4.75 6.42 Construction Actual 7.63 4.42 8.02 Estimated 2.10 0.85 3.32 Reconstruction Actual 2.11 0.71 3.80

The data shows that for all types of project the mean exceeds the median by a significant factor. This confirms that there are outliers which skew the data upwards. Furthermore, the high level of variation in the data is demonstrated by the high standard deviation.

Below, in Table 54 we have set out the average actual unit costs (Level 1) broken down by component for projects.

Table 54 Road: Actual average unit cost breakdown

The unit cost of Build for both types of project formed the largest portion of the total cost on average. For construction projects, there was a large margin between the median and mean. The standard deviation was also relatively high, indicating a large spread of data. For reconstruction projects, there was only one project which included Land costs. Therefore, we have not included a figure for standard deviation.

The standard deviation is highest in Build for both construction and reconstruction projects, illustrating the high range of Build unit costs for projects. This, and the considerable

127 difference between the mean and the median for construction projects in particular indicates that the mean Build cost may not be particularly representative of the average unit cost of building a road. For construction projects, there is a considerable margin between the mean and the median ‘Soft’ costs. Similar to ‘Build’ costs, this is representative of outliers and indicates that perhaps the mean is not representative of the ‘Soft’ costs of projects.

We have identified below several variables from our data set which may have a causal effect upon the unit cost of a project. These include:

 whether the project was situated in the EU15  the number of lanes  the proportion of the project cost eligible for funding by EU funds  the number of bridges  the kilometres of tunnels  whether it was a construction or reconstruction project  the construction period length; and  the time delay on the project.

Table 55 below shows the correlation coefficient between each factor and the unit cost of road projects.

Table 55 Road: Correlation Coefficients

Factor Correlation coefficient EU15 0.14 Number of lanes 0.45 % eligible for co-financing -0.15 Number of bridges -0.12 Km of tunnels 0.39 Construction/reconstruction 0.27 Construction time per km 0.57 Project time overrun (months 0.32 per km)

The coefficient for the number of lanes and tunnels show a positive correlation with the unit cost of the project. In other words, as the number of lanes and tunnels increase in any particular project, the unit cost of the project increases. There is also a positive correlation between the projects’ unit costs and whether it was situated in an EU15 country. Countries which began the 2000 – 2006 period as ISPA beneficiaries tended to implement less costly projects than those which have been part of the EU throughout the period. The reasons for this are unclear, but one explanation may be the higher level of funding which countries are eligible to draw down from the Cohesion Fund or ERDF versus ISPA. There is also a

128 negative coefficient on the percentage eligible variable. It would seem, therefore, that as the eligibility for co-financing increases, the unit costs are likely to decrease.

Slightly surprising is the negative coefficient on the number of bridges (indicating that as the number of bridges increases, the unit costs fall), though the reasons for this are unclear. Due to significantly varied project specific factors, it is likely that our dataset is insufficiently large to ‘average out’ these idiosyncratic factors. Consequently, it may be that the correlation has been affected by outliers. The construction time per km is another factor which has a positive correlation with the unit cost, as does the project time overrun per kilometre which is, perhaps, to be expected as, for the amount of time spent on the construction phase of the project would be likely to increase variable costs such as labour and utilities.

Finally, and unsurprisingly, the coefficient for construction/reconstruction is positive. This indicates that construction projects tend to be more expensive per kilometre than reconstruction projects.

In addition to this, we have conducted a regression analysis with the objective of identifying and quantifying the extent of causality of variables. Our analysis failed to produce robust results, with the majority of the available variables proving statistically insignificant and, therefore, the overall explanatory power of the variables was poor. This possibly illustrates the extent to which the idiosyncratic characteristics of the projects are likely to be the principal causal factor of their unit cost. In other words, each project should be assessed on its own merits.

However, the results confirmed that two variables, the number of lanes and the kilometres of tunnels, are statistically significant.

7.2 Rail projects

Using the data provided to us to calculate unit costs, we have calculated the following summary descriptive statistics for rail projects. Table 56 shows the estimated and actual statistics for rail construction and reconstruction projects. We have used the length of the project in kilometres as the unit for this analysis.

Table 56 Rail: Descriptive Statistics

Median total unit Mean total unit cost Standard deviation Project Type cost EURm/km EURm/km Estimated 8.8 6.1 11.3 Construction Actual 11.6 7.5 16.7 Estimated 2.48 1.94 2.00 Reconstruction Actual 3.57 3.00 3.23

129

As with road projects, the mean exceeds the median by a considerable margin in all cases. This indicates there are upward outlier unit costs exerting an effect on the mean. The high standard deviation (in relation to the mean) also indicates there is a large spread of data points.

In Table 57 below, we have set out the breakdown of the average unit costs for rail projects. There was insufficient data on Taxes and Contingency for construction projects to calculate an average.

Table 57 Rail: Actual average unit cost breakdown

Build Soft Land Taxes Contingency Project Type Component EURm/km Mean 11.06 0.39 0.32 Construction Median 7.23 0.14 0.27 Standard 16.11 0.81 0.31 Deviation Mean 3.64 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.71 Reconstruction Median 3.14 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.53 Standard 3.39 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.69 Deviation

The cost overrun on the Build component of projects was by far the most costly component on average, though the high margin between the mean and median again illustrates the extent to which the data is skewed upwards by outliers. The large spread of data, particularly for build construction projects is illustrated by the high standard deviation figure of 15. Contingency also provided a significant proportion of costs as a proportion of the total, particularly for rail reconstruction projects.

Below, we have identified several variables from our data set which may have a causal effect upon the unit cost of a project. These include:

 Whether the project was situated in the EU15  Project length in kilometres  the number of tracks  the proportion of the project cost eligible for funding by EU funds.  the number of bridges  the number of stations  the length of tunnels  whether it was a construction or reconstruction project  construction period length, and

130

 project delays per km.

Table 58 below shows the correlation coefficients between each factor and the unit costs of the projects.

Table 58 Rail: Correlation Coefficients

Factor Correlation coefficient EU15 0.29 Project length -0.40 Number of tracks 0.29 % eligible for co-financing 0.12 Number of bridges -0.13 Number of stations -0.25 Km of tunnels 0.02 Construction/reconstruction 0.34 Construction time per km 0.75 Project delays (months per km) -0.23

The coefficient on the number of tracks shows a positive correlation with the unit cost of projects. This is intuitive as the construction of a two track line would cost less than an equivalent four track rail line on the same route. Perhaps surprisingly, however, the number of stations and bridges constructed or reconstructed seems to give a negative coefficient. This is an unusual result and is most likely a combined result of an inadequate number of data points or a downward outlier. When one conducts the same correlation analysis on construction projects only, this coefficient increases to -0.08 (only indicating a small amount of negative correlation.)

The coefficient on whether the project is a construction or a reconstruction project is positive, confirming that there is an upward effect on cost arising from developing construction projects over reconstruction. Furthermore, the coefficient on project length (-0.4) suggests that the unit cost falls as the length of the project increases. This remains negative (-0.33) if one conducts the analysis on just construction projects as well. This result would suggest that there are significant fixed costs associated with the project which are not linked to the length of the project. These fixed costs are then spread over a larger number of kilometres as the project length increases.

Delays in construction time do not seem to have an upward effect on cost which is counterintuitive, but the data shows a negative correlation. The coefficient of -0.23 increases to - 0.05 when one examines only construction projects indicating that there is significant negative correlation between the unit cost of reconstruction projects and project time delays. The total construction time per kilometre is, as one may expect, quite strongly positively

131 correlated with the unit cost of projects. Intuitively, as more time is spent on constructing each kilometre of the project, the costs increase.

To attempt to quantify the effects of these factors upon the unit cost of projects, we have undertaken a regression analysis. Similarly to road projects, our results were not robust enough to draw conclusions. However, the analysis did find that two factors appear significant when determining the unit costs of projects, namely; project delays per kilometre and the construction time per kilometre.

We have attempted to analyse causal factors for the projects’ time delays and cost overruns, but our analysis has not yielded any statistically significant physical characteristics of projects which explain the delays or overruns. The idiosyncratic properties of rail projects are such that they are difficult to capture within the broad set of project characteristics which we have analysed.

7.3 Water Supply Projects

Using the data provided to us to calculate unit costs, we have calculated the following summary descriptive statistics for water supply projects. We have used kilometres of water supply network as our unit for these calculations. Table 59 shows the estimated and actual statistics for water supply Constructions and Extensions, Reconstructions/Rehabilitations and Construction projects with a reconstruction/rehabilitation component.

Table 59 Water Supply: Descriptive Statistics

Median total unit Mean total unit cost Standard deviation Project Type cost EURm/km EURm/km

Construction / Estimated 0.60 0.26 0.73 Extension Actual 0.64 0.39 0.63

Reconstruction / Estimated 0.33 0.34 0.18 Rehabilitation Actual 0.36 0.50 0.29 Construction with Estimated 0.36 1.19 0.33 Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Actual 0.36 0.27 0.50

As with other infrastructure projects, the mean project length for projects with a new construction component is considerably greater than the median, indicating considerable upward outliers. This is not true of reconstruction and rehabilitation projects, which seem to have fewer outliers (albeit with a lower number of projects in this category) and, as such, the median cost is in line with the mean cost for both actual and estimated data. The standard deviation for reconstruction and rehabilitation projects is also proportionately lower than the other project types, indicating a more narrow distribution of data. Projects with both a

132 construction and reconstruction element are only slightly more expensive on average than pure reconstruction projects. This perhaps reflects the broad mix of construction and reconstruction components which form the projects.

Below, in Table 60, we have presented the breakdown of the Level 1 unit costs for water supply projects.

Table 60 Water Supply: Actual average unit cost breakdown

There was insufficient data on the amount of Contingency for each project to calculate averages and standard deviations for all project types. Of all the components, the Build costs dominate the total cost of the project. Construction/Extension projects exhibit the highest standard deviation, illustrating the variation in the Build costs of new projects. Soft costs also tend to have high standard deviations in relative terms but, for all types of project, appear to form a relatively small portion of the total unit costs.

Below, we have identified several variables from our data set which may have a causal effect upon the unit cost of a project. These include:

 the length of drinking water network  the number of drinking water purification plants  the number of pumping stations  the proportion of costs eligible for co-financing by EU funds  the capacity of water storage  the additional population served by the project  whether it was a new construction project  construction period length per kilometre of network; and  time delays per kilometre of network.

133

We have calculated the correlation coefficients for these factors against unit costs and these are presented below in Table 61.

Table 61 Water Supply: Correlation Coefficients

Factor Correlation coefficient Length of water distribution -0.39 network No. of DWPP -0.00 Pumping stations 0.09 % eligible for co-financing -0.10 Water Storage 0.15 Additional population served 0.53 New construction project 0.06 Construction Time 0.58 Construction time delay -0.47 (0.16)

Table 61 above shows that the amount of time spent in the construction phase per kilometre has the highest correlation with the unit cost of the project with a score of 0.58. This figure rises if the coefficient is calculated just using new construction projects (to 0.64).

The data shows that time delays are negatively correlated with the unit cost. This would imply that as the per kilometre delay decreases, the unit cost increases – a counterintuitive result. This is the result of a single large outlier project in Spain which finished considerably ahead of schedule (it took only 75% of the projected time). When this data point is removed, the correlation coefficient falls to 0.16 as shown in brackets in Table 61.

The length of the water distribution network is also negatively correlated with the unit cost of the project; implying that as the water network length increases, the unit cost falls. Similarly to rail, this is prima facie evidence of high fixed costs associated with the projects. Fixed costs do not vary with the project length and so as the project length increases, these costs may be spread across an increasing number of kilometres. An example is the construction of a drinking water purification plant. This would represent a cost which wouldn’t vary with the length of the distribution network (up to a certain point). Other examples would be design costs and the cost of technical assistance, neither of which would necessarily be proportionate to the length of the water distribution network.

Although our regression analysis did not yield robust results, the variable which appears to be statistically significant is the additional population served. Whilst the estimator from our regression analysis may be biased (due to a lack of other statistically significant explanatory variables), this is in line with the correlation coefficient shown above of 0.53. This shows that as the number of additional population served increases, the unit cost per kilometre tends to increase. This may be symptomatic of costs increasing in urban areas (where the number of

134 population served is likely to be highest), where the number of kilometres constructed may fall (if the area served is quite concentrated) whilst the cost of the works may increase. This would have the effect of increasing the unit cost in areas of high population density.

7.4 Waste Water Projects

In this section we conduct statistical analysis on waste water projects. This analysis is conducted separately for projects which predominantly consist of sewerage network and those which comprise a waste water treatment plant.

Table 62 and Table 63 below give the descriptive statistics and their breakdown for waste water projects which predominantly consist of sewerage network works.

Table 62 Waste Water: Descriptive Statistics (Sewage network projects)

Median total unit Mean total unit cost Standard deviation Project Type cost EURm/km EURm/km

Construction / Estimated 0.82 0.43 1.00 Extension Actual 0.96 0.51 1.08

Reconstruction / Estimated 0.77 0.39 0.88 Rehabilitation Actual 1.49 1.08 1.57 Construction with Estimated 1.38 0.61 2.79 Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Actual 1.67 0.89 2.59

Table 63 Waste Water: Actual average unit cost breakdown (Sewage network projects)

Table 62 shows the extent to which the mean actual cost deviated from the estimated cost per kilometre of sewerage network for construction projects with a reconstruction element (i.e. those without an element of reconstruction). The margin between the mean and median for construction projects indicates that there are significant upward outliers which are forcing

135 the mean upwards. This is supported by the high standard deviation figure. We note that in all cases the mean estimated cost was less than the mean actual cost implying cost overruns on the projects. However, for constructions/extensions, the median actual cost is less than the median estimated cost. Due to the high standard deviation, the median may be a more reliable estimator for this project type.

The breakdown of unit costs shows that much of the divergence between the mean and median occurs in the Build costs of the projects. The standard deviation figures for construction with reconstruction projects shows that there is a considerable spread in the unit costs, particularly in the Build phase of projects, which has a standard deviation figure of 2.57. Soft costs appeared to form a relatively low proportion of the total cost on average, with Taxes forming the second largest component for both construction/extension projects and reconstruction and rehabilitation projects.

Below, in Table 64 and Table 65 we show the descriptive statistics for projects including the construction of a waste water treatment plant and a breakdown by cost category.

Table 64 Waste Water: Descriptive Statistics (WWTP projects)

Median total unit Mean total unit cost Standard deviation Project Type cost EURm/1000 PE EURm/1000 PE

Construction / Estimated 0.34 0.19 0.40 Extension Actual 0.35 0.26 0.29

Reconstruction / Estimated 0.19 0.16 0.18 Rehabilitation Actual 0.20 0.19 0.15 Construction with Estimated 0.30 0.18 0.39 Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Actual 0.57 0.45 0.33

Table 65 Waste Water: Actual average unit cost breakdown (WWTP projects)

136

These tables show that the actual mean unit cost for pure construction/extension projects and reconstructions/rehabilitation projects did not deviate substantially from the mean estimated unit costs. There is, however, considerable deviation from the median, again indicating outliers which are skewing the mean upwards. The breakdown of unit costs shows the divergence between the mean and median is most pronounced in build costs.

In this case, construction with reconstruction/rehabilitation were, on average, the most costly per unit of all the projects in terms of build costs. Overall, as shown in Table 64, the median cost of these projects overall was also the highest, though the mean cost is less than that for construction/reconstruction projects.

Below we have calculated the correlation coefficients between the unit cost (EURm/PE) and a variety of variables which may have some effect upon cost. These include:

 the length of sewerage network  the number of WWTP  the number of pumping stations  the proportion of costs eligible for co-financing by EU funds  whether the country is in the EU15  whether the project was mixed (i.e. included both waste water and water supply components  whether the project included both construction and reconstruction components  the construction time (per ‘000 PE capacity) of the project; and  the time delay per 1000 PE capacity of the project.

Table 66 Waste Water: Correlation Coefficients

Factor Correlation coefficient Length of sewage network -0.01 Number of WWTP -0.07 Pumping Stations -0.10 % eligible for co-financing -0.03 EU15 -0.16 Mixed project 0.12 Construction & reconstruction 0.35 Construction Time 0.71 Construction time delay 0.26

The coefficient on the construction time is strongly positive and, as such, implies that the construction time is a strong indicator of the unit cost of the project per PE. Further, the construction time delay is also positively correlated, implying time delays lead to increases in

137 project unit cost. Projects which include both a construction and reconstruction component tend to also be more costly per unit than either construction or reconstruction projects.

Perhaps counterintuitive is the weakly negative correlation with the number of pumping stations. However, on reflection this may be explained by the likelihood that with an increase in WWTP comes an increase in the PE denominator with which the unit cost is calculated. Therefore, although the number of WWTPs may increase the total cost of the project, this is offset by an increase an increase in the PE capacity of the project, leading to weak negative correlation. This may also help explain the slightly negative correlation on the length of sewage network and pumping stations. Increases in these may be symptomatic of an increase in the PE capacity of the system which will have a negative effect upon the unit cost of the project.

There is a positive coefficient on whether the project is a mixed project although it is weakly positive. This implies that mixed projects are likely to be more expensive per PE capacity than those which just provide waste water services.

7.5 Solid Waste projects

Using the data provided to us to calculate unit costs, we have calculated the following summary descriptive statistics for solid waste projects. For this analysis, we have conducted the analysis on integrated waste management projects, as the majority of projects incorporated several components. We have separated these projects into Constructions, Constructions with an upgrade component and Upgrades to existing systems.

Table 67 Solid Waste: Descriptive Statistics

Median total unit Mean total unit cost Standard deviation cost Project Type EURm/1000 EURm/1000

population served population served Estimated 0.048 0.036 0.053 Construction Actual 0.061 0.040 0.065

Construction with an Estimated 0.043 0.040 0.033 upgrade component Actual 0.036 0.036 Estimated 0.063 0.048 0.045 Upgrades Actual 0.113 0.113 0.052

138 which provided both estimated and actual costs was 2001ES16CPE057, which was completed with a lower unit cost than was originally estimated after inflation has been taken into account (0.036 compared to 0.040 EURm per ‘000 population served). Similarly with the ‘Upgrade’ projects, only three completed projects were classified under this heading, two of which provided both estimated and actual costs. Both of these projects cost more than was originally estimated once inflation was taken into account. The diversity and breadth of these projects means that it is difficult to compare them usefully. Our attempts to conduct an analysis of the factors which tend to have a positive or negative effect upon the unit cost of these projects have not produced robust results as the drivers of cost from project to project are extremely varied.

139

8 Ex ante risk assessment

8.1 Introduction

The role of the ex-ante risk assessment as part of the project appraisal process is clearly outlined in the EC document on cost benefit analysis17. The document notes five recommended steps for assessing project risk as follows:

 Sensitivity analysis  Probability distributions for critical variables  Risk analysis  Assessment of acceptable levels of risk  Risk prevention.18

We have reviewed 17 CBAs provided by the European Commission to determine the level of ex-ante risk assessment undertaken for a selection of projects. Of the 17 CBA provided by the EC, 7 were also covered in WPC. We also included the data from the one further environment project in WPC bringing the total number of environment projects to 18. In addition, we have drawn on the risk assessments undertaken in Work Package B for transport projects to develop an indicative picture of the totality and level of risk assessments undertaken in relation to the five steps for assessing project risk mentioned above.

We note that our assessment is based on the evidence provided in project application forms and in some cases feasibility reports. The level of information provided varied by project. Therefore, is it possible that further evidence is available to show that more detailed ex-ante risk assessment measures were developed, but which has not been provided to us. We also note from the results of WPB and WPC that much more detailed risk assessments appear to have been undertaken in the ex-post reviews.

In addition to the above analysis, we undertook to expand the ex-ante risk assessment to try and ascertain the extent to which the ex ante risk assessment submitted as part of the funding application achieved the following:

 Correctly identified the relevant sources of risk influencing the project’s unit costs and completion times  Adequately assessed the potential magnitude of the risks in the project’s ex-ante sensitivity analysis  Devised appropriate risk mitigation strategies to safeguard the successful completion of projects.

17 Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects, July 2008. 18 Ibid, pg. 60 and Annex H.

140

Secondly, if possible, the risk assessment analysis was to differentiate the types of risks into a taxonomy as follows:

 Risks related to project design versus project implementation  Risks outside the control of the project designer or implementation unit  Risks which were technical (engineering design difficulties, environmental conditions); financial (unexpected funding gaps); or political (approval delays, public opposition).

The number of projects for the risk analysis assessment was small with a total of 18 environment projects and 10 transport projects (all information taken from WPB analysis).

8.2 Transport project findings

How closely did ex-ante risk assessments follow the 5 steps for project risk?

In all 10 projects reviewed from WPB some form of ex-ante risk assessment is carried out however, in all cases it appears to be sensitivity testing and in some cases scenario modelling rather than full risk assessment and attendant mitigation strategies. We note from the WPB report that in 2 projects it is clearly stated that no stand alone risk assessment was prepared. For the remaining 8 projects we have no evidence to suggest that any further analysis was undertaken. Therefore it appears from our evidence that only step 1 of the five steps has been followed.

The variables included in the sensitivity/scenarios varied but included:

 Investment costs (+ or – base case)  Operating costs  Demand profiles/forecasts  Traffic flows/growth  Value of time  Journey time  Safety/accidents (used to calculate economic benefits)  Discount rates  Construction costs (higher than base case)/overruns.

The analysis of the above variables was in the main to gauge their impact on the NPV of the project. Most of the project documentation illustrated the impact of the sensitivity and scenario modelling on two or three key variables. In several projects the ex-post analysis carried out in WPB illustrated that while one set of variables was assessed ex-ante, a different set of variables was found to have actually had the most impact ex-post.

141

Did the projects’ ex-ante risk assessments achieve the following objectives?

 Correctly identified the relevant sources of risk influencing the project’s unit costs and completion time. We can only judge this based on the findings in WPB in the ex-post analysis. We note that for four projects the following was found: o traffic flow variance was more likely to cause the actual BCR to be below the forecast range and this aspect was not part of the sensitivity testing o procurement delays and variations to works caused capital costs to be higher than expected. This aspect was not included in the sensitivity testing o Actual project risks were: investment costs, travel demand, number of accidents saved and the opening year of the project (delayed) o Actual project risks were: impact on travel demand of not completing other transport projects, time overruns causing delay in opening of transport, investment cost underspend.  Adequately assessed the potential magnitude of the risks in the project’s ex-ante sensitivity analysis. We cannot say that the potential magnitude of the risks was identified based on the evidence.  Devised appropriate risk mitigation strategies to safeguard the successful completion of projects. Again there was no evidence that risk mitigation strategies were developed at the ex-ante stage of the project.

Was it possible to differentiate the types of risks into a taxonomy?

We reiterate below the ex-post results of our level 2 unit cost analysis and then examine if there are any similarities between the critical variables identified at the ex-ante stage and the ex-post results.

Top reasons for cost overruns:

 Technical: “design changes”, “site characteristics”, “design complexity” and “construction period”.  Political: “changes in legislation/regulations”, “delays by statutory authorities” and “political”  Financial: “Inflation”.

142

The most notable difference between road and rail projects was that “inflation” was mentioned as the most important variable for road projects while “changes in legislation/regulations”, “delays by statutory authorities” and “political” were in the top five issues for rail projects.

Top reasons for time delays:

The reasons given by rail projects include: “delays by statutory authorities”, “permits/consents/approvals”, “design changes”, “late commencement of work” “and “design complexity”. Time delays in road projects differed slight by including: “construction period”, “site characteristics” and “complexity of contract structure”.

The critical variables cited most often (8 of 10 projects) in the ex-ante sensitivity testing were investment costs, operating costs and construction costs. 4 of 10 projects tested discount rates, but this was not found to be an actual risk in the ex-post analysis. These variables could be affected by the technical, political or financial reasons noted above which cause a range of delays. For example in one project in WPB higher investment costs were the result of procurement delays and variations to works.

A comparison of the ex-ante and ex-post risk assessments and the actual results of the project will lead to better ex-ante risk assessments in future. It may then also be easier and practical to further develop the taxonomy of risk types to actual project results.

The continued and improved application of the risk assessment at the ex-ante stage would mean some of the above issues could be addressed at an earlier stage of the project lifecycle or be avoided from the start.

8.3 Environment projects findings

How closely did ex-ante risk assessments follow the 5 steps for project risk?

Seven of the 18 projects actually undertook some form of quantified sensitivity analysis. In most cases this included identifying the critical variables for the project and subjecting them to some variation against a base case (+ - 10%) and examining the impact on IRR or NPV.

The variables included the following:

 Changes in investment/construction costs  Changes in operating costs  Demand assumptions/consumption levels  Depreciation time  Price

143

 Affordability of water tariffs  Level of increase in GDP.

For 10 projects there was no evidence of any risk assessment being undertaken at the ex- ante stage of the project. Indeed for 2 projects, no economic analysis of any sort was undertaken. Finally, one project referred to previous stages of the project where a CBA was provided. However, there was no evidence in the stage of the project application which we reviewed.

The second step of the project risk process is the probability distribution for critical variables. We saw one example of this analysis with the probability distribution of the project’s IRR but there was no detail to explain the type of method employed or any diagrams or figures to explain the results and implications for the next steps. Two projects stated “the probability x will occur is low”. Also if there was an assumption that say operating costs might increase, this will be followed by a tariff increase removing the risk.

The third step is the risk analysis itself taking into account the first two steps and calculating the probability of the project’s NPV or IRR. One project undertook the above analysis for three critical variables. It result was a negative NPV and IRR without Cohesion Fund assistance. A second project, while not undertaking the calculation as per the guidelines did at least identify three project execution risks: the requirement for a permit before offering services, acceptance of the project by the public and payment of a bonus for electricity production.

The final two steps, assessment of the levels of risk and risk prevention, were not evidentially addressed in any of the projects at the ex-ante stage. We note in some of the findings from WPC that had the risk assessment been undertaken as planned, then some of the risks which arose could have been mitigated earlier on.

Did the projects’ ex-ante risk assessments achieve the following objectives?

 Correctly identified the relevant sources of risk influencing the project’s unit costs and completion time. To answer this question we tried to undertake a correlation test between the risk assessment undertaken and the results from our task to gather level 2 data on ex-post time delays and cost overruns. However, we did not have the time and cost data for 16 projects. For the two projects where we have ex-post time and cost data, there was no ex-ante risk assessment for comparison.  Adequately assessed the potential magnitude of the risks in the project’s ex-ante sensitivity analysis. Clearly the answer based on the evidence is no.

144

 Devised appropriate risk mitigation strategies to safeguard the successful completion of projects. Again there were no risk mitigation strategies developed at the ex-ante stage of the project.

Was it possible to differentiate the types of risks into a taxonomy?

While we cannot create a correlation between the ex-ante risk assessment findings and time and cost overrun analysis, below we reiterate the ex-post results of our level 2 unit cost analysis and then examine if there are any similarities between the critical variables identified at the ex-ante stage and the ex-post results.

Top reasons for cost overruns:

 Technical: “Design changes” and “Design complexity”  Political: “Complexity of contract structure”, “Permits and consents/approvals” and “Delays by statutory authorities or contractors”.  Financial: “Inflation”

Top reasons for time delays:

 Technical: “Design delays”, “Late commencement of work” and “Construction period”  Political: “Complexity of contract structure” and “Delays by statutory authorities”

The critical variables cited most often in the sensitivity testing were investment costs, operating costs and construction costs. These variables could be affected by the technical, political or financial reasons noted above which cause a range of delays. A comparison of the ex-ante and ex-post risk assessments and the actual results of the project will lead to better ex-ante risk assessments in future. It may then also be easier and practical to further develop the taxonomy of risk types to actual project results.

Based on our review no risk prevention strategies were developed ex-ante. However when looking at the ex-post results for time and cost overruns, technical aspects of the projects clearly had a significant impact. These areas should be further developed at the ex-ante stage and then checked after project completion to compare ex-ante and ex-post results. While it is more difficult to mitigate against the political elements, permits and approvals

145 should be confirmed before project acceptance. Also the impact of inflation if a critical factor must be tested during the development of the financial analysis.

146

9 Recommendations

Continued development of the EU Funds Database

Facilitating the collection of project information

Enabling future comparisons of projects across countries

147

 The continued collection of detailed information about infrastructure projects. This will facilitate econometric analysis to determine robust models of unit cost. The following factors are examples which are likely to have a material impact on unit costs;  length of tunnels;  number of tracks;  number of lanes; and  additional population served.

Robust modelling will enable the Commission to more accurately and fairly compare across countries, funds and regions.

Improving ex ante risk assessments in funding applications

Our data for the analysis of ex ante risk assessment comprised 28 projects including the results from WPB and WPC While not a large sample, our assessment determined the following issues: very high level sensitivity analyses/scenario testing only, very limited variables included in the sensitivity analysis, no co-variable analysis and no risk mitigation strategies. In order to improve the value of these ex ante risk assessments we recommend the following:

 The enforced application of the methods for ex ante assessment of project risks set out in the Commission’s guide to cost benefit analysis. The first step or two of the guide appear to be followed on some occasions but the final two to three steps including the actual risk analysis, assessment of the acceptable level of risk and risk prevention do not appear to take place at the ex-ante stage.  A more detailed assessment of the variables which impact on risk, beyond the investment cost. It was particularly evident from reading the ex-post results in WPB and WPC that in some cases the critical variables identified ex-ante were not the right ones. The ex-post analysis identified a different set of variables. More detailed analysis at the ex-ante stage, learning from past ex-post results, will improve the overall risk assessment process.  Encouraging a spirit of using the ex ante risk assessment as a tool to a) decide on projects, and; b) mitigate risk. There is little evidence to suggest that project risk is assessed ex-ante and used as a decision making tool to rank projects for funding. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that when potential risks are identified, a risk

148

prevention strategy is put in place with some form of monitoring during the life of the project. There is great room for improvement here.

149

10 Annex 1 – Project names

This annex gives a list of projects for each of the different sectors and denotes whether we have Level 1 and/or Level 2 data.

10.1 Rail projects

# Country Project Code Project Name Level 1 Level 2

Optimisation of the Usti nad Orlici - Ceska Trebova Railway 1 Czech Rep 2000CZ16PPT002   Section 2 Czech Rep 2000CZ16PPT006 Modernisation of Zabori - Prelouc Railway Section  

3 Czech Rep 2002CZ16PPT013 Optimisation of Zabreh na Morave - Krasikov railway section   European Train Control System (ETCS), Pilot project Poricany- 4 Czech Rep 2002CZ16PPT015  Kolin in Central Bohenia  5 Czech Rep 2004CZ16CPT002 Modernisation of Cervenka-Zabreh na Morave railway section  

6 Czech Rep 2005CZ16CPT001 Optimization of Plzen - Stribro Railway Section   Consruction of a double track railway line at the section 7 Greece 1994GR16CPT109   EVANGELISMOS-LEPTOKARYA(phase B) 8 Greece 1994GR16CPT110 Construction of the railway line Thriassio-Elefsina-Korinth   Construction of the new railway line Korinthos-Kiato & studies 9 Greece 2000GR16CPT003   for section Korinthos-Patras CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW DOUBLE TRACK RAILWAY 10 Greece 2003GR16CPT001   LINE THRIASIO-ELEFSINA-KORINTHOS Rehabilitation of the Budapest-Cegléd-Szolnok-Lökösháza 11 Hungary 2000HU16PPT001   railway line Rehabilitation of the Budapest-Györ-Hegyeshalom railways 12 Hungary 2000HU16PPT002   line Heuston Terminal and South-West Rail Corridor Development 13 Ireland 1999IE16CPT001  (Stage 1) 

 14 Latvia 2000LV16PPT003 Replacement of track turnouts (Latvian East-West rail corridor)  Rezekne II new rail reception yard (Latvian East-West rail 15 Latvia 2000LV16PPT004  corridor) located in the district of Rezekne in Latvia  Modernisation of hot-box detection system (Latvian East-West 16 Latvia 2001LV16PPT007  rail corridor)  Modernisation of Telecommunications, Power Supply & 17 Lithuania 2004LT16PPT009  Signaling on Pan Europe Corridors No.IXB & IXD  Modernisation of the E-20 Railway Line on section Minsk 18 Poland 2000PL16PPT002   Mazowiecki - Siedlce Modernisation of the E-20 railway line on the section Siedlce- 19 Poland 2001PL16PPT012   Terespol, Phase 1 20 Poland 2001PL16PPT014 Modernisation of the Poznan rail node (E-20 railway)   Improvement of the railway infrastructure & liquidation of 21 Poland 2001PL16PPT015   operational bottlenecks Modernisation of E30 railway line on the sections Wegliniec- 22 Poland 2002PL16PPT016   Zgorzelec & Wegliniec-Bielawa Dolna Modernisation of the Northern Line - Remodelling the 23 Portugal 2000PT16CPT001  Entroncamento - Albergaria section  Modernisation of the Northern Line - Remodelling the Quintans 24 Portugal 2000PT16CPT002  - Ovar section 

150

Modernisation of the Algarve Railway line – stage II – sections 25 Portugal 2000PT16CPT003 Pinhal Novo-Poceirão-Pinheiro; Grândola-Ermidas and Sines   line

Extension of Lisbon metro railway network to join up with RTE- 26 Portugal 2000PT16CPT009  T - Baixo-Chiado / Santa Apolonia link  Modernisation of the Algarve Railway line - stage III - 27 Portugal 2000PT16CPT012   Contruction of the Coina/Pinhal Novo sub section Connection to the Northern line - Entrecampos/Chelas depot 28 Portugal 2000PT16CPT013   sub section Modernisation of the Algarve IV rail link: Redesign of the 29 Portugal 2001PT16CPT001   Pinheiro - PK 94 sub-section Modernisation of the Algarve V rail link - Redesign of the 30 Portugal 2001PT16CPT003  Ermidas–Faro section  31 Portugal 2003PT16CPT004 Modernisation of the Minho Line: Lousado-Nine section  

32 Portugal 2003PT16CPT008 Link to the Minho Line: Remodeling the Nine - Braga Section   Modernisation of the Rail Track Bratislava-Trnava (section 33 Slovakia 2000SK16PPT001   Bratislava Rac-Senkvice Modernisation of the Rail Track Senkvice-Cifer & Stations 34 Slovakia 2001SK16PPT003  Race-Trnava  modernisation of the rail track Trnava-Nove Mesto nad Vahom, 35 Slovakia 2002SK16PPT005   section Trnava-Piest'any ZSR Modernisation of Railway Track Trnava-Nove Mesto nad 36 Slovakia 2004SK16CPT001  Vahom   37 Slovenia 2000SI16PPT001 Renewal of cut Krizni vrh on railway line Zidani Most - Maribor  38 Slovenia 2002SI16PPT003 Upgrading the Ljubljana-Zidani Most-Maribor railway line  

39 Slovenia 2004SI16CPT002 Modernisation of the Pragersko-Ormoz railway line - Project A   40 Spain 1999ES16CPT001 MAD-BCN-FRA High-Speed Rail Link (MAD-LLE Stretch)   High speed rail link MAD-BCN-FRA, Madrid-Lleida Stretch: 41 Spain 2000ES16CPT002  Electrification, Signalling and Communication Works  High speed rail link MAD-BCN-FRA, Rail approaches into the 42 Spain 2000ES16CPT003  new Zaragoza rail station  High speed rail link MAD-BCN-FRA: Lleida-Martorell Stretch 43 Spain 2000ES16CPT005  Platform works stage 2  High speed rail link MAD-BCN-FRA: Sub-stretches IX-A 44 Spain 2001ES16CPT005  between Lleida-Martorell (El Vendrell y Bellvei)(Platform)  High speed rail link MAD-BCN-FRA: Sub-stretches IX-B 45 Spain 2001ES16CPT006  between Lleida-Martorell 

High speed rail link MAD-BCN-FRA: Platform work, sub-  46 Spain 2001ES16CPT009 sections XI-A and XI-B Lleida to Martorell (Sant Sadurmi  d'Anoia and Geliada)

High speed rail link MAD-BCN-FRA: Platform work, sub- 47 Spain 2001ES16CPT010  section XI-C Lleida to Martorell (L'Arboç-Olerdola) 

Madrid-Valladolid High Speed Railway Line - Segovia-  48 Spain 2001ES16CPT014 Valladolid Section, Sub-Section I (Garcillan-Anaya-Santa  Maria la Real de Nieva) Platform works

Madrid-Valladolid High Speed Railway Line - Segovia- 49 Spain 2001ES16CPT015  Valladolid Section, Tabladillo Tunnel  Madrid-Valladolid High Speed Railway Line - Segovia- 50 Spain 2001ES16CPT016  Valladolid Section, Sub-Section III  Madrid-Valladolid High Speed Railway Line - Segovia- 51 Spain 2001ES16CPT017  Valladolid Section, Sub-Section IV  Madrid-Valladolid High Speed Railway Line - Segovia- 52 Spain 2001ES16CPT018  Valladolid Section, Sub-Sections V and VI 

151

Madrid-Valladolid High Speed Railway Line - Soto del Real- 53 Spain 2002ES16CPT003 Segovia Section, Sub-Section - NW Mouth of the Guadarrama   Tunnel-Segovia High speed rail link MAD-BCN-FRA: Lleida-Olérdola Section 54 Spain 2003ES16CPT004   (Trackwork) Madrid-Valladolid High Speed Railway Line - Madrid-Miraflores 55 Spain 2003ES16CPT005  de la Sierra Section, Sub-Section – Cantoblanco-Tres Cantos  Madrid–Valladolid high-speed line (Madrid-Miraflores section) 56 Spain 2003ES16CPT006   Fuencarral–Cantoblanco subsection Madrid–Valladolid high-speed line (Madrid–Miraflores section) 57 Spain 2003ES16CPT007  Tres cantos-Colmenar Viejo subsection  East-coast high-speed line (Xátiva–Valencia section) 58 Spain 2003ES16CPT008  Algemesí–Benifaió Picassent subsection  High speed rail link MAD-BCN-FRA: Gelida-Sant Llorenc-Sant 59 Spain 2003ES16CPT010  Esteve Sub-Section  East-coast high-speed line (Xátiva–Valencia subsection) 60 Spain 2003ES16CPT011  Alcàsser–Valencia subsection  East-coast high-speed line (Xátiva–Valencia subsection) 61 Spain 2003ES16CPT012  Picassent–Alcasser subsection  East-coast high-speed line (Xátiva–Valencia subsection) 62 Spain 2003ES16CPT013  Alzira–Algemesí subsection 

Madrid-Valladolid high-speed line (Mad–Miraflores section) 63 Spain 2003ES16CPT019 Colmenar Viejo–Soto del Real subsection (east and west   tunnels)

Madrid–Valladolid high-speed line (Mad–Miraflores section) 64 Spain 2003ES16CPT020  Soto del Real–Miraflores de la Sierra subsection  East-coast high-speed line (Xátiva–Valencia subsection) 65 Spain 2003ES16CPT021  Xátiva–L'Enova subsection  East-coast high-speed line (Xátiva–Valencia section) L'Enova– 66 Spain 2003ES16CPT024  La Pobla Llarga–Alzira subsection 

Madrid–Barcelona high-speed line (Martorell–  67 Spain 2003ES16CPT026 Barcelona section) Sant Esteve Sesrovires–  Martorell–Río Llobregat subsection

Madrid–Barcelona high-speed line (Martorell–  68 Spain 2003ES16CPT027 Barcelona section) Río Llobregat–Costa Blanca–  Conexión Vallés subsection

 69 Spain 2004ES16CPT001 Sub-section: Conexión Valles - Castellbisbal - El Papiol  70 Spain 2004ES16CPT002 Railway Stretch: El Papiol - Sant Vincenc dels Horts   'Ramal de Mercancías' to 'Puerto de Barcelona': Sub-section: 71 Spain 2004ES16CPT003  Sant Joan Despí - Hospitalet - Can Tunis (platform) 

New 'Levante' high-speed rail access. Madird - Castill La  72 Spain 2004ES16CPT008 Mancha - Valencian Community - Region of Murcia. Stretch:  Xativa - Valencia. Sub-section: Xativa - Novelé - Xativa

New 'Levante' high-speed rail access. Madrid - Castilla La  73 Spain 2004ES16CPT009 Mancha - Valencian Community - Region of Murcia. Alicante /  Elche access. Access to Alicante (phase 1)

New 'Levante' high-speed rail access. Madrid - Castilla La Mancha - Valencian Community - Region of Muricia. Stretch: 74 Spain 2004ES16CPT010  Motilla del Palancar - Valencia. Sub-section: Motilla del  Palancar - Iniesta - Minglanilla

New 'Levante' high-speed rail access. Madrid - Castilla La Mancha - Valencian Community - Region of Murcia. Stretch: 75 Spain 2004ES16CPT011  Cuenca - Albacete. Sub-section: Monteagudo de las Salinas -  Solera de Gabaldón - Motilla del Palancar.

152

New 'Levante' high-speed rail access. Madrid - Castilla La Mancha - Valencian Community - Region of Murcia. Stretch - 76 Spain 2004ES16CPT012   Cuenca - Albacete. Sub-section: Tunnel of Tendero (Monteaguado de las Salinas - Monteagudo de las Selinas)

New 'Levante' high-speed rail access. Madrid - Castilla La Mancha - Valencian Community - Region of Murcia. Stretch: 77 Spain 2004ES16CPT013   Cuenca - Albaceste. Sub-section: Villalgordo del Júcar - La Gineta

New 'Levante' high-speed rail access.Madrid - Castilla La  78 Spain 2004ES16CPT014 Macha - Valencian Community - Region of Murcia. Stretch:  Cuenca - Albacete. Sub-section: La Gineta - Albacete

New 'Levante' high-speed rail access. Madrid - Castilla La Mancha - Valencian Community - Region of Murcia. Stretch: 79 Spain 2004ES16CPT015   Cuenca - Albacete. Sub-section: Fuentes - Monteagudo de las Salinas

New 'Levante' high-speed rail access. Madrid - castilla La Mancha - Valencian Community - Region of Murcia. Stretch: 80 Spain 2004ES16CPT016  Cuenca - Albacete. Sub-stretch: Gabaldón - Villanueva de la  Jara - Villalgordo de Júcar

New 'Levante' high-speed rail access. Madrid - Castilla La Mancha - Valencian Community - Region of Murcia. Stretch: 81 Spain 2004ES16CPT018   Motilla del Palancar - Valencia. Sub-section: Venta del Moro - Caudete de las Fuentes

Access to Barcelona. Subsection: Sant Joan Despi - Sant Boi 82 Spain 2005ES16CPT002  de Llobregat - Hospitalet - La Torrasa - Sants (Platform) 

153

10.2 Road projects

# Country Project Code Project Name Level 1 Level 2

Transit roads rehabilitation project III - sections on the Pan- 1 Bulgaria 2000BG16PPT001  European Transport Corridors  Upgrading of the Limassol By-pass Germasogeia & AG. 2 Cyprus 2004CY16CPT001   Athanasios Roundabouts 3 Czech Rep 2000CZ16PPT001 Expressway R48 - Belotin Bypass    4 Czech Rep 2000CZ16PPT003 Section of R48 Expressway Frydek - Mistek - Dobra  D8 Motorway Prague-Usti nad Labem-Czech/German border: 5 Czech Rep 2001CZ16PPT009   section 807 Trmice-border Expressway R48 Dobra-Tosanovice-Zukov, Stage 1 Dobra- 6 Czech Rep 2001CZ16PPT012  Tosanovice  Expressway R48 Dobra-Tosanovice-Zukov, Stage 2 7 Czech Rep 2004CZ16CPT001   Tosanovice-Zukov 8 Estonia 2000EE16PPT001 Via Baltica: Rehabilitation of Ikla-Tallinn-Narva Road  

9 Estonia 2001EE16PPT002 Rehabilitation of Ikla-Tallinn-Narva Road - Phase II   10 Estonia 2003EE16PPT004 E20 Tallinn - Narva Road, Reconstruction Maardu-Valgejoe  

11 Estonia 2004EE16CPT002 Reconstruction of Johvi-Tartu-Valga Road   Reconstruction of Tallinn-Tartu-Voru-Luhamaa road Vaida- 12 Estonia 2005EE16CPT003   Aruvalla section & Puurmanni junction 13 Greece 1994GR16CPR941 Pathe section :Iliki-Ag. Konstantinos  

14 Greece 2000GR16CPT001 Via Egnatia - Completion of outer Thessaloniki ring  

15 Greece 2000GR16CPT002 Via Egnatia : Section Kouloura - Kleidi   Ionian road, section Agelokastro-Kouvaras of wider Agrinio 16 Greece 2000GR16CPT006   deviation Pathe section: Agios Konstantinos by-pass - Kamena Vourla 17 Greece 2000GR16CPT007   by-pass

18 Greece 2001GR16CPT003 Egnatia: section: Nymphopetra-Rentina-Asprovalta  

19 Greece 2001GR16CPT004 Via Egnatia : Section METSOVO - PANAGIA Interchange   Eastern Section of the M0 Budapest Ring Road between 20 Hungary 2000HU16PPT001  National Road 4 and M3  Road rehabilitation programme for achieving 11.5 + load 21 Hungary 2001HU16PPT006   bearing capacity - Phase I, trunk roads 3 and 35

 22 Ireland 2000IE16CPT001 M50 South Eastern Motorway (Stage 2) 

 23 Ireland 2000IE16CPT002 M1 Cloghren/Lissenhall (Stage 2)  24 Ireland 2000IE16CPT003 M1 Lissenhall/ Balbriggan  

 25 Latvia 2000LV16PPT001 Improvement of VIA Baltica road  Improvements of links to Via Baltica (Airport Access Road  26 Latvia 2000LV16PPT002 (P133) & a related section on A10) located in the district of  Riga in Latvia Improvements of Via Baltica (Corridor I) from Riga to Adazi 27 Latvia 2001LV16PPT005   (km 0 to km 6.3) located in Latvia

Improvement of Via Baltica Route, Construction of Saulkrasti 28 Latvia 2002LV16PPT008   Bypass

29 Latvia 2003LV16PPT009 E67 Via Baltica, section Kekava - Iecava  

 30 Latvia 2004LV16CPT001 Improvement of the TEN road network in Latvia, Project 1 

154

Reconstruction of Access Roads to Ventspils Port Terminals 31 Latvia 2005LV16CPT001   in Latvia 32 Latvia 2005LV16CPT003 Reconstruction of Access Roads to Liepaja Port in Latvia   33 Lithuania 2000LT16PPT001 Upgrading of IXB Transport Corridor   Development of Via Baltica road in 2000-20003 (Pan 34 Lithuania 2000LT16PPT002   European Corridor I) Development of Pan-European Corridor IA in the Years 35 Lithuania 2000LT16PPT003   2001-2004 located in Lithuania Upgrading of IXB Transport Corridor in the years 2003-2004 36 Lithuania 2002LT16PPT007   located in Vilnius, Kaunas, Taurage, Telsiai Klaipeda Modernisation of the sections of roads E85 & E272 of the 37 Lithuania 2004LT16CPT001   TET Network in th eyears 2004-2006 Modernisation of the section of road E28 of the TENT 38 Lithuania 2004LT16CPT002  Network in the years 2004-2006  Development of the road transport corridor No.IXB in the 39 Lithuania 2004LT16CPT003  years 2004-2006  Development of IXD Transport Corridor in the Years 2004- 40 Lithuania 2004LT16CPT004   2006 Development of the Road Transport Corridor No.1 (Via 41 Lithuania 2004LT16CPT005   Baltica) in the Years 2004-2005

 42 Lithuania 2004LT16CPT006 Modernisation of Marshaling Yeards on Crete Corridor IX 

 43 Malta 2004MT16CPT001 Restoration and Upgrading of Sections of TEN-T  Construction of A4 motrway section KA4E Klcezczow- 44 Poland 2000PL16PPT001   Sosnica National road No.717 Reinforcement of the surface pavement 45 Poland 2000PL16PPT004   of the section Sochaczew-Grojec Construction of expressway Bielsko Biala-Skoczow-Cieszyn, 46 Poland 2000PL16PPT005   TINA no.6 Pavement strengthening of the National Road no.7 Gdansk- 47 Poland 2000PL16PPT007   Warszawa-Chyzne section from Gdansk to Jazowa Pavement strengthening of state road No.4 Krakow-Tarnow- 48 Poland 2000PL16PPT008   Rzeszow-Korczowa to carrythe traffic of 115kN/axle 49 Poland 2001PL16PPT009 Reconstruction of A4 Expressway, section Krzywa-Wroclaw   Upgrading of National Road No.50, section: Grojec-Minsk 50 Poland 2002PL16PPT018   Maz. Second Carriageway of National Road No.18, Olszyna- 51 Poland 2002PL16PPT019  Golnice  Construction of A2 Motorway: Section Konin-Strykow (Lodz) 52 Poland 2003PL16PPT020   Subsection Emilia-Strykow II  53 Portugal 2000PT16CPT005 Construction of the IP2 - section between EN216 and EN102  54 Portugal 2000PT16CPT006 Connection of IP 3 and IP 5 Motorways  

55 Portugal 2000PT16CPT007 Construction of the IP 6 - Abrantes to Mouriscas Section  

56 Portugal 2000PT16CPT008 Construction of the Castro Daire Tunnels on the IP 3  

 57 Portugal 2002PT16CPT001 IP 6 - Peniche Section / IC 1  North-South Route: Padre Cruz Avenue link to the Lisbon 58 Portugal 2003PT16CPT007   Inter Regional Circular (CRIL) Construction of a stretch of road on the EN220 By-pass: 59 Portugal 2004PT16CPT003   Torre Moncorvo link to the IP2

60 Portugal 2005PT16CPT002 IC3 link from Tomar to the IP6  

61 Portugal 2006PT16CPT002 IP4-E82, Quintanilha international bridge and access   Widening to 4 lanes of sections of national road No.5 from 62 Romania 2000RO16PPT002   Bucharest to Giurgiu Rehabilitation of the section Craiova-Drobeta Turnu Severin 63 Romania 2000RO16PPT004   on the national road No.6 (Ph.1 of Craiva-Lugoj) in Oltenia

155

Construction of D61 Motorway, Section Vienna Road - 64 Slovakia 2001SK16PPT002   Riverport Bridge in Bratislava Construction of the Smednik-Krska vas Motorway (Motorway 65 Slovenia 2004SI16CPT001  on Corridor X-Dolenjska Leg  Motorway - Levante - France via Aragon (Huesca-Nueno 66 Spain 1999ES16CPT002   Stretch) Levante-France Motorway, Monreal del Campo-Calamocha 67 Spain 1999ES16CPT003  sub-stretch  Levante-France Motorway, Sta. Eulalia-Monreal del Campo 68 Spain 1999ES16CPT004  sub-stretch 

 69 Spain 1999ES16CPT005 Lleida-Barca Motorway, Variante de Cervera stretch.  CN-II, Lleida-Barcelona Motorway, Cervera-Santa María del 70 Spain 2001ES16CPT011  Camí Stretch  Motorway Southern section, Zaragoza 4th ring road. Section 71 Spain 2001ES16CPT013  N-II (Madrid) to N-232 (Vinaroz)  Cantabria-Meseta Motorway. CN-611 Palencia-Santander, 72 Spain 2003ES16CPT028   Molledo-Pesquera Stretch Levante-Aragon-France Motorway: Teruel (N)- Santa Eulalia 73 Spain 2003ES16CPT029  del Campo Sub-Section 

156

10.3 Water projects

# Country Project Code Project Name Level 1 Level 2

Waste water treatment plant Gorna Oriahovitza, Liaskovetz, 1 Bulgaria 2001BG16PPE005 Dolna Oriahovitza  2 Czech Rep 2000CZ16PPE001 Extension of Sewerage System in Ostrava City  

3 Czech Rep 2000CZ16PPE002 Sewer System of the City of Brno   Monitoring and Assessment of Hydrosphere in Compliance 4 Czech Rep 2000CZ16PPE003 with EC Environmental Directives 

Reconstruction of drinking water supply system, construction of sewerage system, reconstruction of water treatment and 5 Czech Rep 2001CZ16PPE004   waste water treatment in region Podkrusnohori (North Bohemia)

Jihlava Waste Water Treatment Plant and Sewer System 6 Czech Rep 2001CZ16PPE005   Upgrading 7 Czech Rep 2001CZ16PPE008 Olomouc Sewer System Upgrading  

8 Czech Rep 2001CZ16PPE009 Water Protection of the Dyje River Basin   Jesenik: Waste Water disposal management & drinking water 9 Czech Rep 2002CZ16PPE010  supply  10 Czech Rep 2002CZ16PPE012 Clean River Becva and WWT measures   Providing Standards of European Union for the Water Supply 11 Czech Rep 2002CZ16PPE013 System of South Bohemia  Zd'ar & Sazavou Sewer System Reconstruction in Vysocina 12 Czech Rep 2002CZ16PPE014 Region  13 Czech Rep 2003CZ16PPE017 Znojmo, Sewer SystemReconstruction in Southerm Moravia  

14 Czech Rep 2004CZ16CPE002 Pribram WWTP Upgrading   Pilsen: Expansion of the Water distribution & Sewer 15 Czech Rep 2004CZ16CPE003   infrastructure Regional Urban Waste Water management project Karlovy 16 Czech Rep 2004CZ16CPE005  Vary   17 Czech Rep 2004CZ16CPE007 Klatovy-Clean Town  18 Czech Rep 2004CZ16CPE008 Sewerage System Extension in Beroun Agglomeration  

19 Czech Rep 2004CZ16CPE014 Quality Improvement of the Upper Morava River Basin   Sewage system and waste water treatment in Radbuza River 20 Czech Rep 2004CZ16CPE015   basin

21 Czech Rep 2004CZ16CPE017 Olomouc Sewer System II part   22 Czech Rep 2005CZ16CPE008 Trebicsko - Drinking water infrastructure   Improvement of Water Quality at river junction of Becva & 23 Czech Rep 2005CZ16CPE016 Morava  24 Estonia 2000EE16PPE001 Tartu Tunnel Collector  

 25 Estonia 2000EE16PPE002 Central Municipal Wasterwater Treatment Plant in Viljandi  26 Estonia 2000EE16PPE003 Narva water and waste water network  

27 Estonia 2000EE16PPE011 Valga Water and Sewerage Network   28 Estonia 2001EE16PPE007 Expansion & Rehabilitation of Tartu water & sewage network  

29 Estonia 2001EE16PPE008 Narva water & waste water network  

30 Estonia 2002EE16PPE011 Valga, water and sewerage network   31 Estonia 2002EE16PPE012 Rapla Water Management  

157

Kohtla-Jarve area sewage treatment system in Ida-Virumaa 32 Estonia 2002EE16PPE013   County 33 Estonia 2004EE16CPE003 Paide Water Network & Sewage  

34 Estonia 2004EE16CPE004 Matsalu sub-river basin, water & sewage system   Studies end Expropriations for the supply of Patras from the 35 Greece 2000GR16CPE002 rivers Peiro and Parapeiro  36 Greece 2000GR16CPE007 Waste and rain water sewage, municipality of patras   Extension, upgrade and modernisation of water supply - 37 Greece 2001GR16CPE001   sewage municipality of Ioannina 38 Greece 2001GR16CPE005 Sewage Pipes to the watewater PREVEZA  

39 Greece 2001GR16CPE006 Water supply & sewerage of Igoumenitsa   Sewage pipeline & station of waste water treatment of 40 Greece 2001GR16CPE007 Grevena 

Construction of networks of water supply, waste & rain water & 41 Greece 2001GR16CPE010 waste treatment plant in the municipality of Malia in   Herakleion, Crete

Construction and System Improvement of water Supply for 42 Greece 2001GR16CPE013 removal of waste water, extension of the treatment plant of   sewage to the municipality of Karditsa

Contsruction and system improvements to water supply 43 Greece 2001GR16CPE014 extending evacuation station wastewater treatment to the   Municipality of Larissa

Water supply and drainage for sewage and rainwater of 44 Greece 2001GR16CPE019   Komotini,and telecontrol-remote command Sewerage network & waste treatment plant municipality of 45 Greece 2001GR16CPE024   Chalastras Water Supply & evacuation of waste water & rain water of the 46 Greece 2001GR16CPE025   municipality of Corfu

Extension at Westside water supply networks and sewage of 47 Greece 2001GR16CPE028 the town hall of Katerini-Extension Station Wasterwater   Treatment of boards

Extension et amelioration du reseau d'adduction et 48 Greece 2001GR16PPE022   d'evacuation des eaux usees et de pluie de la Mairie de Serres

Extending the network of sewers in the tourist areas of 49 Greece 2003GR16CPE001   Thessaloniki Construction of a sewer in the region of Sinds (Mairie 50 Greece 2003GR16CPE002   d'Echedoros et dePefka de Thessaloniki Extension of waste water sewage of Arta and extension 51 Greece 2003GR16CPE008  revalorisation of biological treatment plant located in Greece  52 Greece 2003GR16CPE010 Water Supply to Volos in the region of Thessaly   Upgrading the sewage treatment plant of the municipality of 53 Hungary 2000HU16PPE001  Gyor  54 Hungary 2000HU16PPE003 Szeged - establishing waste water treatment system  

55 Hungary 2001HU16PPE011 Sopron region sewerage and sewage treatment programme   Kecskemet Agglomeration: Waste water collection and 56 Hungary 2003HU16PPE019  treatment programme  Waste water collection and treatment of Debrecen and its 57 Hungary 2003HU16PPE020  vicinity  Szombathely: Development of the waste water collection and 58 Hungary 2003HU16PPE021  treatment system   59 Ireland 1999IE16CPE001 Cork Main Drainage Scheme (Stage 3)  60 Ireland 1999IE16CPE002 Limerick City and Environs Main Drainage Scheme (Stage 3)  

61 Ireland 2000IE16CPE001 Dublin Region Wastewater Treatment Scheme-Stage 5  

158

62 Latvia 2000LV16PPE001 Development of water services in Riga   63 Latvia 2000LV16PPE002 Development of Water Services in Jelgava  

64 Latvia 2000LV16PPE003 Development of water services in Ventspils   Development of water services in the river basins of Eastern 65 Latvia 2001LV16PPE007   Latvia  66 Latvia 2001LV16PPE008 Jurmala water services development located in Latvia   67 Latvia 2002LV16PPE009 Development of Water Services in Rezekne City  68 Latvia 2004LV16CPE001 Development of Water Services in Ventspils, Stage II  

 69 Latvia 2004LV16CPE002 Water Service Development in Olaine & Jaunolaine  70 Latvia 2004LV16CPE003 Development of water services in Liepaja, Stage 2   71 Latvia 2004LV16CPE004 Development of Water Services in Daugavpils, Stage 2   Rehabilitation & Extension of Water Supply & Sewage 72 Lithuania 2000LT16PPE001  Collection Systems in Vilnius  Druskininkai Wasterwater Treatment System Upgrading and 73 Lithuania 2000LT16PPE002 Extension located in Druskininkai Alytus Region 

Jonava Waste Water Treatment Plant Reconstruction, Sewer 74 Lithuania 2001LT16PPE005 Network Extension & Potable Water Network Rehabilitation in   Jonava

Neringa town drinking water & wastewater treatment systems 75 Lithuania 2001LT16PPE006 development located in Neringa  Extension of Kaunas Wastewater Treatment Plant for 76 Lithuania 2001LT16PPE007  Biological Treatment & Network Extensions  Reconstruction of Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rehabilitation 77 Lithuania 2002LT16PPE009   & Extension of Sewer & Water Supply Networks in Kedainiai Construction of Mazeikiai Wastewater Treatment Plant in 78 Lithuania 2002LT16PPE014 Telsiai  Plunge Water Supply & Waste Water System (phase 1) in 79 Lithuania 2003LT16PPE015  Telsiai County  Water supply & wastewater collection network Dvpt in 80 Lithuania 2004LT16CPE005   Klaipeda

81 Poland 2000PL16PPE001 Bydgoszcz water supply & sewerage project  

82 Poland 2000PL16PPE004 Katowice Waste Water Treatment   83 Poland 2000PL16PPE008 Pila Drinking Water Supply  

84 Poland 2000PL16PPE009 Waste water treatment in Przemysl   85 Poland 2000PL16PPE010 Water & sewerage management in Torun    86 Poland 2000PL16PPE016 Szczecin water quality improvement, Stage 1   87 Poland 2000PL16PPE021 Suwalki water quality improvement  88 Poland 2000PL16PPE022 Brzeg waste water treatment  

89 Poland 2001PL16PPE024 Bialystok Water Quality Improvement   90 Poland 2001PL16PPE025 Rybnik Waste Water Collection System    91 Poland 2001PL16PPE026 Boleslawiec Waste Water Treatment   92 Poland 2001PL16PPE028 Opole water quality improvement 

93 Poland 2002PL16PPE029 Lublin Waste Water Treatment    94 Poland 2002PL16PPE033 Jelenia Gora water supply & waste water treatment  95 Poland 2002PL16PPE035 Czestochowqa waste water & drinking water treatment    96 Poland 2002PL16PPE036 Mielec Waste Water Treatment  97 Poland 2003PL16PPE037 Grudziadz waste water treatment  

159

98 Poland 2003PL16PPE039 Sosnowiec waste water treatment   Drinking Water Improvement Programme for the Rzeszow 99 Poland 2003PL16PPE040 Agglomeration   100 Poland 2003PL16PPE042 Stalowa Wola drinking water & waste water treatment   101 Poland 2004PL16CPE021 Water & Wastewater Management Programme in Tarnobrzeg   102 Poland 2004PL16CPE029 Wastewater Management for Zielona Gora & Swdnica  Water Supply to southern Greater Porto (2nd Phase): 103 Portugal 1999PT16CPE001  Enlargement of the Vale do Sousa Region   104 Portugal 2000PT16CPE001 Group of projects for the Intergrated Water System of Oeste  105 Portugal 2000PT16CPE004 Sobreiras (West Porto) waste-water treatment plant   Interconnection of the Multi-municipal water supply for 106 Portugal 2000PT16CPE006   Barlavento and Sotavento, Algarve 1st phase of the Inter-municipal water supply and drainage 107 Portugal 2000PT16CPE007  system for the Alto Zêzere and Côa  Integrated Remediation of the Hydrographic Basins of River 108 Portugal 2000PT16CPE008   Lis and Ribeira de Seiça 1st phase of the Inter-municipal water supply and drainage 109 Portugal 2000PT16CPE009  system for the Minho-Lima  1st Phase of Improved Water Management on the 110 Portugal 2001PT16CPE002  Autonomous Region of Madeira  111 Portugal 2001PT16CPE004 Water Supply and Sanitation in Northern Alentejo   Multi-municipal water supply and sanitation system for Raia, 112 Portugal 2001PT16CPE007  Zêzere and Nabão - 1st Phase   113 Portugal 2002PT16CPE005 Waste Water Treatment in the municipality of Braga  Multimunicipal water supply and sanitation system for Trás- 114 Portugal 2002PT16CPE007  os-Montes and Alto Douro  Multimunicipal Water Supply and Sanitation System in Vale do 115 Portugal 2002PT16CPE009 Ave — Studies/Projects/Consultancy 

Group of Projects relating to the multimunicipal water supply  116 Portugal 2003PT16CPE003 and sanitation system of Trás os Montes e Alto Douro — 2nd  phase

117 Portugal 2003PT16CPE005 Drainage, Barrinha de Esmoriz   Multimunicipal Water Supply and Sanitation System for Trás- 118 Portugal 2004PT16CPE005  os-Montes and Alto Douro - 3rd phase  Multi-municipal Water Supply and Sanitation System for the 119 Portugal 2004PT16CPE008  West - 3rd Phase  Interceptors and a Wastewater Treatment Station for the 120 Portugal 2004PT16CPE021  Douro River Basin, Santa Maria da Feira  121 Romania 2000RO16PPE003 Constanta Sewerage & Wastewater Treatment Rehabilitation   Danutomi Wastewater Treatment Plant Extension - Biological 122 Romania 2000RO16PPE009  Stage located in Jiu Valley  Rehabilitation of the Sewerage Network & Wastewater 123 Romania 2001RO16PPE013  Treatment Plant in Oradea  Rehabilitation of Drinking Water Supply & Wastewater 124 Romania 2001RO16PPE015   Collection & Treatment for the City of Targu Mures 125 Slovakia 2000SK16PPE001 Trencin Right Bank Wastewater Treatment   Extension of Wastewater Treatment Plant for Urban 126 Slovakia 2000SK16PPE002 Agglomeration of Nitra   127 Slovakia 2000SK16PPE003 Wastewater Disposal System in Banska Bystrica 

128 Slovakia 2000SK16PPE004 Komarno Municipality Wastewater Project   Reconstruction & Extension of the Wastewater Treatment 129 Slovakia 2001SK16PPE005 Plant in the city of Zvolen 

160

Sewerage & Wastewater Treatment in the town Martin & the 130 Slovakia 2001SK16PPE007  region Dolny Turice  131 Slovakia 2002SK16PPE008 Southeast Zemplin Drinking Water & Sewerag   Povazska Bystrica Waste Water Treatment Plant & Sewerage 132 Slovakia 2002SK16PPE010 System  Zilina Waste Water Treatment Plant Intensification & 133 Slovakia 2002SK16PPE011  Sewerage Upgrade 

134 Slovakia 2003SK16PPE014 Kosice City Sewerage & Wastewater Treatment Plant    135 Slovakia 2003SK16PPE015 Wastewater disposal system of the Sal'a region  Horny Zemplin-Humenne Slovakia: sewerage system & 136 Slovakia 2003SK16PPE016 wastewater treatment plant  137 Slovakia 2003SK16PPE017 Wastewater treatment plant & sewerage in the Trnava region   Piest'any Sewerage Reconstruction & Waste Water Treatment 138 Slovakia 2003SK16PPE018  Plant Upgrade   139 Slovakia 2003SK16PPE019 Completion of Poprad-Matejovce Wastewater Treatment Plant   140 Slovenia 2000SI16PPE001 Waste Water Treatment Plant - Celje  Sewerage System and Central Waste Water Treatment Plant 141 Slovenia 2000SI16PPE002   Lendava Paka river basin: wastewater treatment and upgrading of 142 Slovenia 2000SI16PPE003   sustainable water supply system Water supply of the Gora Area - sustainable water supply of 143 Slovenia 2000SI16PPE004  Trnovsko-Banjiski Plateau  Waste water treatment plant Slovenj Gradec - wastewater 144 Slovenia 2000SI16PPE005  treatment in the Mislinja River Basin   145 Slovenia 2002SI16PPE007 Waste water treatment in the Mislinja River Basin   146 Slovenia 2002SI16PPE008 Wastewater treatment of Sava River Basin 

147 Spain 1999ES16CPE001 Dam in Casares de Arbás   148 Spain 2000ES16CPE001 Sewage and water treatment in Cantabria    149 Spain 2000ES16CPE003 Water purification and sanitation in the Guadiana basin  150 Spain 2000ES16CPE004 Water purification and sanitation in Andalusia. Phase 1    151 Spain 2000ES16CPE005 Water purification and sanitation in the Segura basin.  152 Spain 2000ES16CPE006 Water purification and sanitation in the Jucar basin.  

153 Spain 2000ES16CPE007 Water treatment and supply in the Tajo river basin.  

154 Spain 2000ES16CPE008 Water supply in the Guadiana river basin.   155 Spain 2000ES16CPE009 Water supply in the Guadalquivir river basin.  

156 Spain 2000ES16CPE010 Water supply in the Segura river basin.  

157 Spain 2000ES16CPE011 Water supply in the Ebro river basin.   Water treatment and purification in the Guadalquivir river 158 Spain 2000ES16CPE026  basin.  159 Spain 2000ES16CPE027 Water Sanitation in the Ebro basin  

160 Spain 2000ES16CPE033 Water Supply at the Melonares Dam in Seville   161 Spain 2000ES16CPE035 Water Supply to Zaragoza and the Ebro Corridor  

162 Spain 2000ES16CPE036 Water treatment and purification of the lower Bierzo.    163 Spain 2000ES16CPE037 Water Sanitation in Galicia   164 Spain 2000ES16CPE038 Water treatment and purification in Lugo and Ourense  Water sanitation and purification in the Northern Basins II - 165 Spain 2000ES16CPE039  Asturias 

161

166 Spain 2000ES16CPE040 Water sanitation in the Basque Country (North Basin III)  

167 Spain 2000ES16CPE044 Water sanitation in Malaga  

168 Spain 2000ES16CPE045 Water Supply Projects across Southern Spain  

 169 Spain 2000ES16CPE048 Water Sanitation in Valencia  170 Spain 2000ES16CPE058 Water Supply and Sanitation in the Segura Basin 2001  

171 Spain 2000ES16CPE060 Sewerage in Barcelona   Environmental restoration of the River Besos riverbed - phase 172 Spain 2000ES16CPE061 II   173 Spain 2000ES16CPE062 Water Purification and Drainage in Cantabria  174 Spain 2000ES16CPE063 Water Purification and Sanitation in Louro River Basin   Water sanitation and purification in the Basins of the South: 175 Spain 2000ES16CPE064   Manilves and Ronda Water Supply to the populations in and around Cadiz - Water 176 Spain 2000ES16CPE065   channeling Drainage and water treatment in the Guadiana basin: Campiña 177 Spain 2000ES16CPE067  Sur, Guadajira river and Vegas Bajas.  Water Treatment and Purification in the Jucar River Basin - 178 Spain 2000ES16CPE068  WPS in Alzira  Drainage and water supply upgrades in the Duero River basin 179 Spain 2000ES16CPE070  2001  180 Spain 2000ES16CPE071 Water Supply Upgrade in the East Side of Gijon  

181 Spain 2000ES16CPE073 Water Sanitation and Purification in the Canary Islands  

 182 Spain 2000ES16CPE074 Water Supply in The Canary Islands  183 Spain 2000ES16CPE075 Sanitation in the Guadiana River Basin 2001 Group    184 Spain 2000ES16CPE077 Water Supply and Sanitation in the Guadalquivir River Basin  185 Spain 2000ES16CPE078 Water Supply in the Duero River Basin   Wastewater drainage projects for the Duero Basin (2001 186 Spain 2000ES16CPE079   Group) Water Sanitation in the Jucar River Basin - Upgrade work to 187 Spain 2000ES16CPE080 the WPS IN Albacete and surrounding areas 

Drainage and water treatment in local communities in 188 Spain 2000ES16CPE082 Catalonia. Ebro basin - sewers, channeling and other   environmental restoration works

189 Spain 2000ES16CPE085 Drainage projects in the North basin III: Basque Country  

190 Spain 2000ES16CPE086 Water Sanitation in the Ripoll River Basin   Drainage and water treatment projects in the. Guadalquivir 191 Spain 2000ES16CPE090   basin Wastewater drainage projects for the Northern Basin — 192 Spain 2000ES16CPE096   Galicia Water Sanitation in the North - Asturias 2001 Gp 1 - Upgrade 193 Spain 2000ES16CPE097 and Extension of the Langreo sewage Network  Drainage and water treatment projects in the Guadalquivir 194 Spain 2000ES16CPE105   basin Disposal and treatment of waste water in the Ebro catchment 195 Spain 2000ES16CPE112   area: Miranda de Ebro, Valle de. Esera.  196 Spain 2000ES16CPE113 Water supply projects in the Ebro basin   197 Spain 2000ES16CPE115 Water supply in the Guadiana basin  198 Spain 2000ES16CPE120 Water-disposal and treatment projects in the Tagus basin  

199 Spain 2000ES16CPE121 Water Supply Works in the North of Spain 2001 group  

162

200 Spain 2000ES16CPE128 Water Supply in the Jucar River basin 2001  

 201 Spain 2000ES16CPE129 Water Sanitation in the Balearic Islands 2001  Extension to Water Supply system and re-sourcing of water 202 Spain 2001ES16CPE002  from the Taibilla Canal in Murcia  203 Spain 2001ES16CPE003 Water supply in the Guadalquivir basin   Water Sanitation in the Ebro river basin 2001 group 1 - 10 204 Spain 2001ES16CPE006  WPSs and 2 WTS sludge waste treatment  Water Sanitation in the Guadiana river basin 2001 group 2 - 5 205 Spain 2001ES16CPE016   sewage network work projects Water-disposal and treatment projects in the Guadalquivir 206 Spain 2001ES16CPE017   basin Water Sanitation in the Ebro river basin 2001, group 3 - Series 207 Spain 2001ES16CPE018  of sewer constructions and upgrades  208 Spain 2001ES16CPE019 Water sanitation in Andalusia 2001 Group 1    209 Spain 2001ES16CPE020 Water supply projects in the Canary Islands.   210 Spain 2001ES16CPE021 Water-supply measures in the Ebro basin  211 Spain 2001ES16CPE022 Drainage and water supply in Galicia 2001    212 Spain 2001ES16CPE023 Water supply measures in the Northern Basin — Asturias  213 Spain 2001ES16CPE024 Desalination plant of marine waters in Melilla   Water sanitation in Andalsuia 2001 group 1 - 17 WPS and 214 Spain 2001ES16CPE033   drainage works  215 Spain 2001ES16CPE034 Drainage measures in the Ebro basin   216 Spain 2001ES16CPE035 Water-disposal measures in the Tagus basin  217 Spain 2001ES16CPE036 Water Sanitation in Galicia 2001 Group 3   Water Sanitation in the Jucar river basin - 4 WPS and other 218 Spain 2001ES16CPE037  sewerage works  Water sanitation and purification in the Valle de Liebana: 219 Spain 2001ES16CPE038  Potes, Camaleño y Cillorigo de Liebana-Cantabria  Water supply in the North-west of the Montejurra County in 220 Spain 2001ES16CPE039  Navarra  Regulating water deposit and water supply network 221 Spain 2001ES16CPE041  connections between San Antonio, Ibiza and Eulalia del Rio  222 Spain 2001ES16CPE048 Drainage in the North basin: Asturias — 2001 — Group 2   Drainage in the North basin: Basque Country — 2001 — 223 Spain 2001ES16CPE049   Group 1 Water-disposal measures in the Júcar basin — 2001 — Group 224 Spain 2001ES16CPE050  2   225 Spain 2001ES16CPE051 Water sanitation in the Canary Islands  Water-disposal projects in the Balearic Islands. — 2001 — 226 Spain 2001ES16CPE052   Group 2 Sludge Treatment and Urban WW Reutilisation in Catalonia - 227 Spain 2001ES16CPE054  18 Sub-projects each with further sub-projects  Water sanitation and purification in the Tajo river basin 2001 228 Spain 2001ES16CPE056  Group 2  Biological Water Treatment and Capacity Increase at the WPS 229 Spain 2001ES16CPE058 in Besos (Barcelona)   230 Spain 2001ES16CPE061 Drainage in the Tagus basin - 2001 - Group 3  Sanitation in the Tajo River Basin - WW Emissaries in Getafe 231 Spain 2002ES16CPE002   and El Culebro to the local WPS 232 Spain 2002ES16CPE003 Increasing the supply to las Navas del Marqués  

163

Environmental restauration of the beach San Juan, Salinas 233 Spain 2002ES16CPE004 (Castrillón)  Reuse of the effluent from the Baix Llobregat waste-water 234 Spain 2002ES16CPE009  treatment plant for irrigation and other measures  Technical assistance fo water supply to Villaviciosa, Oviedo 235 Spain 2002ES16CPE010 and Llanera  Water disposal Technical Assistance in el Ferrol, Lugo and 236 Spain 2002ES16CPE011 Orense  Expansion of the network of collectors and the waste-water 237 Spain 2002ES16CPE013  treatment plant in Guadalajara.  Drawing up draft project and projects for the second principal 238 Spain 2002ES16CPE014 supply network in the Autonomous Community of Madrid  Water supply in Zaragoza and its surroundings, 2nd phase: 239 Spain 2002ES16CPE016  Ramales de Jalon and Huerva branches 

240 Spain 2002ES16CPE017 Water supplies in the Northern River Basin   241 Spain 2002ES16CPE019 Water disposal and treatment in Gipuzkoa   Integral water-disposal and treatment in various settelements 242 Spain 2002ES16CPE021  in the upper Guadiana basin.  Integral water-disposal and treatment in Sierra de Gata in the 243 Spain 2002ES16CPE022  lower Tagus basin  Cleaning the estuaries of A Coruña, O Burgo and surrounding 244 Spain 2002ES16CPE024 municipalities-2nd phase  245 Spain 2002ES16CPE030 Water disposal and treatment in the Balearic. Islands   Water supply actions in the catchment area of Ebro, Navarra 246 Spain 2002ES16CPE031  and Aragon  247 Spain 2002ES16CPE032 Water-disposal along the River Segura in. Murcia  

248 Spain 2002ES16CPE034 Drinking water supply from Llubí to Crestatx in Majorca   Underground pipeline from the Guadarrama well field and 249 Spain 2002ES16CPE035  Griñón drinking water treatment plant (WWTP)  Water disposal and treatment in the middle and lower Miera 250 Spain 2002ES16CPE036  basin: Medio Cudeyo 

251 Spain 2002ES16CPE037 Water disposal and treatment in Bizcaia —. 2002  Waste-water disposal and treatment in protected natural areas 252 Spain 2002ES16CPE044  of Andalusia — Phase II  Water disposal and treatment in the mid-Guadalquivir basin 253 Spain 2002ES16CPE045  (Province of Córdoba)  Wastewater drainage and treatment measures in the Tagus 254 Spain 2002ES16CPE048   basin Supply of drinking water to the Ribera district, Valencia - 255 Spain 2002ES16CPE050  Partial Draft 2 

 256 Spain 2002ES16CPE051 Water disposal in the northern basin —Asturias 

257 Spain 2002ES16CPE054 Water disposal in the Guadalquivir basin —2002 — Group 1.   Waste-water disposal and treatment in the Guadalquivir basin 258 Spain 2002ES16CPE055 - 2002 - Group II: Sustainable water use from the WWTP to  water green spaces in San Fernando

Supply of water to supra-municipal systems in the Province of 259 Spain 2002ES16CPE056  Huelva 

Supply of water to systems covering several municipalities in 260 Spain 2002ES16CPE057 the Provinces of Cádiz and. Jaén.  Expansion and improvement of water sanitation facilities in the 261 Spain 2002ES16CPE058  Júcar basin — Group 3 - 3 WWTP upgrades  Harnessing the water resources in the Sierra Tramontana - 262 Spain 2002ES16CPE059  Majorca 

164

 263 Spain 2002ES16CPE060 Improvement of water supply to the District of Azuaga  Supply of water to systems covering several municipalities in 264 Spain 2002ES16CPE061  the Provinces of Granada and Málaga.  Construction of secondary treatment facilities at the waste- 265 Spain 2002ES16CPE063  water treatment plant in La Línea de la Concepción (Cádiz)  Re-use of treated waters for the irrigation of green spaces in 266 Spain 2003ES16CPE003  the Municipality of Tenerife - expansions of treatment facilities  Extension and improvement of drainage in the Jucar basin in 267 Spain 2003ES16CPE004   Valencia — Group IV

268 Spain 2003ES16CPE006 Water supply in the region of Talavera de la Reina (Phase 1)  

Water sanitation and purification in the basin of La Reguera - 269 Spain 2003ES16CPE008   an emissary and treatment station. Waste-water disposal and treatment in the Northern River 270 Spain 2003ES16CPE011 Basin 2003 - Perez Pimentel Road seperating drain  Waste-water disposal and interceptors in the Elche municipal 271 Spain 2003ES16CPE012   district 2004 Water supply to Lérida and surrounding area from the Santa 272 Spain 2003ES16CPE014   Ana dam (2nd phase) Wastewater drainage and treatment in the Ebro basin 2003 273 Spain 2003ES16CPE016  Group 2  Wastewater drainage and treatment in the Tagus basin 2003 274 Spain 2003ES16CPE019  Group 1 

 275 Spain 2003ES16CPE024 WWTP in San Pantaleón (draining the Santoña marshes)  Submarine outlet in Berria (draining the Santoña marshes) in 276 Spain 2003ES16CPE025   Cantabria

277 Spain 2003ES16CPE026 Water supply to Cantabria (Santander and Torrelavega areas)  

278 Spain 2003ES16CPE027 Water supplies in the Duero — 2003.   Reservoir, DWPP and ancillary installations for the supply of 279 Spain 2003ES16CPE032   water in Hellín

280 Spain 2003ES16CPE036 Upgrades to the primary Sewage Network in Vitoria-Gasteiz  

Technical Assistance for the Study & Drafting of the 'Supply to 281 Spain 2004ES16CPE004 the population of Alto Tiétar from the River Alberche' Project  Supply Contruction to the Populations of Castilla y León: 282 Spain 2004ES16CPE005 Supply to the populations of Valladolid (2nd phase) and other   municiplaities in Zamorra.

283 Spain 2004ES16CPE008 Drainage/ Plumbing in León, Valladolid & Ponferrada 2004   284 Spain 2004ES16CPE009 Extention of water supply to the community of Algodor  Improvement of Ferrol's purifications and spillages. The Cabo 285 Spain 2004ES16CPE010  Prioriño sewage water purification plant  North (phase III) and north-south sewers in the autonomous 286 Spain 2004ES16CPE011  city of Ceuta  Drafting of the ' Supply of Water to the Areas of Aragón from 287 Spain 2004ES16CPE027 the Mataraña Basin' Project  General Sewers & The 'Novelda & Monforte del Cid' Sewage 288 Spain 2004ES16CPE028  Treatment Plant (Alicante) 

 289 Spain 2004ES16CPE030 Water Supply in the Hydrografic Basin of 'El Tajo', 2004  Application of the Delphi analisis on the Júcar & Segura 290 Spain 2004ES16CPE032 hydrographic basins (Murcia-Valencia-Andalucía regions)  Reconstruction & Improvement of water supply network in the 291 Spain 2004ES16CPE034   Municipality of Elda (Alicante) Developing infrastructures and water purification in the 292 Spain 2005ES16CPE005   residential area of Benzú Lateral collectors/overspills alongside the canalisation of the 293 Spain 2005ES16CPE007   river Seco de Castellón

165

10.4 Solid Waste projects

# Country Project Code Project Name Level 1 Level 2

 1 Estonia 2000EE16PPE004 Tallinn Waste Management - Phase I  Tallinn Waste Management - Ph.2 (Closing down of Paaskula 2 Estonia 2001EE16PPE005  landfill), in Harju, Yallinn & Harju County 

3 Estonia 2001EE16PPE006 Parnu Waste Management   4 Estonia 2002EE16PPE010 Narva Closure of Ash Field no.2    5 Greece 2000GR16CPE001 Waste Management - Chania  Systeme integre de gestion des dechets de Macedonia 6 Greece 2001GR16CPE002 Occideniale  Taurage Regional Waste Management System Development 7 Greece 2001LT16PPE004   in Taurage

8 Greece 2002GR16CPE001 Solid waste management in the island of Samos   9 Greece 2002GR16CPE002 Building project of discharges (Unite de Gestion)  

10 Greece 2002GR16CPE003 Construction of landfill sites in Larisa (Unit3) & Trikala   Final rehabilitation of X.Y.T.A Tagaradon and Leasate 11 Greece 2002GR16CPE004 treatment Unit 

12 Greece 2002GR16CPE007 Gestion de Dechets solides de la region de la Macedonia   CONSTRUCTION OF SEWAGE DRAINAGE NETWORK 13 Greece 2003GR16CPE007  MYNICIPALITY OF IRAKLION AND ALIKARNASSOS 

STAGE III EXTENSION AND COMPLETION OF WASTE 14 Greece 2006GR16CPE002 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES, THESSALONIKI   GREECE

Establishing a selective waste collection, utilisation, and 15 Hungary 2000HU16PPE002 community waste management system in Hadju-Bihar County   16 Hungary 2000HU16PPE004 Miskolc regional waste management project   17 Hungary 2000HU16PPE005 Szeged regional waste management programme  Tisza lake: Development of the municipal waste management 18 Hungary 2000HU16PPE006  system according to EU standards  Waste management system in the Szolnok area (Jasz- 19 Hungary 2000HU16PPE007  Nagykun-Szolnok county)  Dublin Region Solid Waste Management Infrastructures 20 Ireland 2000IE16CPE002 (Stage I) 

21 Latvia 2000LV16PPE004 Solid household waste management in Ventspils region  

22 Latvia 2001LV16PPE005 Solid Waste Management in Liepaja region   23 Latvia 2001LV16PPE006 Solid Waste Management in Ziemelvidzeme region  

24 Latvia 2002LV16PPE010 Solid Waste Management in the region of East Latgale  

25 Latvia 2002LV16PPE011 Solid Waste Management in the region of South Latgale   26 Latvia 2004LV16CPE005 Solid Waste Management in the Zemgale Region  

27 Latvia 2004LV16CPE006 Solid Waste Management in the Maliena Region  

28 Latvia 2005LV16CPE002 Hazardous waste management system in Latvia, Stage 1   Solid waste management in Ziemelvidzeme (North Vidzeme) 29 Latvia 2006LV16CPE001 region Stage 2  30 Lithuania 2001LT16PPE008 Siauliai Regional Waste Management System Development   Telsiai Regional Waste Management System Development in 31 Lithuania 2003LT16PPE016   Telsiai County

166

32 Lithuania 2004LT16CPE003 waste management system development in Utena County   Upgrading of the Sant'Antnin waste treatment plant and 33 Malta 2004MT16CPE001 material recycling and recovery facility  34 Poland 2000PL16PPE002 Dolina Redy I Chylonki solid waste treatment plant  

35 Poland 2000PL16PPE005 Krakow solid waste treatment, Stage 1  

36 Poland 2000PL16PPE006 Lodz solid waste treatment   37 Poland 2000PL16PPE018 Solid waste treatment in Wroclaw, Stage 1  

38 Poland 2002PL16PPE030 Kalisz Solid Waste Treatment  

39 Poland 2002PL16PPE034 Random solid waste treatment   Municipal Solid Waste Treatment and Final Destination on the 40 Portugal 1998PT16CPE001  Islands of S. Miguel, Pico and Terceira 

41 Portugal 1999PT16CPE005 Construction of the VALORSUL Organic Recycling Centre   Solid Waste treatment in Greater Porto: Phase of the LIPOR 42 Portugal 2000PT16CPE003  landfill site project  Multi-municipal system for the treatment of solid urban waste 43 Portugal 2000PT16CPE011  in Baixo Tâmega  Multi-municipal system for the treatment of solid urban waste 44 Portugal 2000PT16CPE012 in Alto Tâmega  Multi-municipal system for the treatment of solid waste in 45 Portugal 2000PT16CPE013  North Alentejo  46 Portugal 2000PT16CPE015 Solid Urban Waste Treatment in Cova da Beira - 2nd phase   The Baixo Alentejo Integrated Municipal Solid Waste 47 Portugal 2001PT16CPE001  Treatment and Recycling System  Complementary measures for the treatment of solid urban 48 Portugal 2001PT16CPE003   waste ntegrated Management of LIPOR Solid Waste – Organic 49 Portugal 2002PT16CPE002  Waste Recycling  Recycling of Biodegradable Urban Waste in Alto Tamega, 50 Portugal 2004PT16CPE010 Baixo Tamega, Vale do Douro Sul and Vale do Douro Norte 

Recycling of Biodegradable Urban Waste produced in the  51 Portugal 2004PT16CPE015 areas served by the Amagra, Amalga, Amcal and Amde  waste treatment systems.

Recycling of Organic Waste in the Municipalities of Terra 52 Portugal 2004PT16CPE016 Quente Transmontana, Terra Fria do Nordeste Transmontano   and Douro Superior.

 53 Portugal 2004PT16CPE020 Construction of a Recycling Centre in the Sousa Valley   54 Romania 2000RO16PPE001 Piatra Neamt Waste Management Programme  environmental improvement of the Liptov region, located in 55 Slovakia 2002SK16PPE009 Liptovsky Mikulas, Zilina  Waste management Centre Dolenjska - Stage I - located in 56 Slovenia 2000SI16PPE006  Novo Mesto in Slovenia  57 Slovenia 2002SI16PPE009 Puconci : Waste management centre    58 Slovenia 2004SI16CPE001 Regional Waste Management Centre Celje 

59 Spain 2000ES16CPE002 Industrial and Urban Waste Treatment Complex in Cantabria  

60 Spain 2000ES16CPE012 Waste management in the region of Andalusia  

61 Spain 2000ES16CPE013 Waste management in the region of Aragon   62 Spain 2000ES16CPE014 Waste management in the region of Asturias    63 Spain 2000ES16CPE015 Waste management in the Balearic Islands  64 Spain 2000ES16CPE016 Waste management in the Canary Islands    65 Spain 2000ES16CPE017 Waste management in the region of Cantabria 

167

66 Spain 2000ES16CPE019 Waste management in the region of Catalonia  

67 Spain 2000ES16CPE021 Waste management in the region of Galicia   68 Spain 2000ES16CPE022 Waste management in the Madrid region    69 Spain 2000ES16CPE024 Waste management in the region of La Rioja   70 Spain 2000ES16CPE025 Waste management in the Valencia region  Waste management works in the Autonomous Community of 71 Spain 2000ES16CPE028  Castile and Leon  72 Spain 2000ES16CPE029 Waste management in the Autonomous Community of Murcia  

73 Spain 2000ES16CPE041 Waste Management in Coruña   Biomethanisation, Composting and Energy Recuperation Plant 74 Spain 2000ES16CPE069  in Pinto  Pneumatic Waste Collection System of Solid Urban Waste in 75 Spain 2000ES16CPE132  Majorca   76 Spain 2000ES16CPE138 Waste Management in Andalusia 2001 Group 1  77 Spain 2000ES16CPE140 Waste management in Castile La Mancha 2001 group 1    78 Spain 2000ES16CPE141 Waste management in Castile-Leon  79 Spain 2000ES16CPE143 Waste management in Madrid   Waste-management and environmental measures in the 80 Spain 2000ES16CPE144  Community of Valencia   81 Spain 2000ES16CPE145 Waste-management in the Basque Country   82 Spain 2000ES16CPE146 Waste Treatment in Melilla  Pneumatic Waste Collection system and extension to services 83 Spain 2001ES16CPE005  in Zarzaquemada  84 Spain 2001ES16CPE007 Waste management in Andalusia   Waste Management Projects across Andalucia, Group 3, 85 Spain 2001ES16CPE008 mainly landfill site closures  Waste management in Asturias 2001 - Local landfill site 86 Spain 2001ES16CPE009   creation 2nd phase and composting facility  87 Spain 2001ES16CPE010 Waste management in Catalonia  Waste Management in Galicia 2001 - recycling banks and 88 Spain 2001ES16CPE011  landfill closures  Waste Management in Madrid 2001, Group 2 - 89 Spain 2001ES16CPE012 Biomethanisation Plant  Waste Management in Pais Vasco 2001 Group 2 - Waste 90 Spain 2001ES16CPE013  treatment plant and composting facility  Underground Waste Collection systems 'eco-islands' in 91 Spain 2001ES16CPE014 Cantabria 

Enlargement of urban waste treatment facilities in Andalusia  92 Spain 2001ES16CPE025 2001 - 7 waste recovery and composting plants and one  landfill sites project

 93 Spain 2001ES16CPE026 Waste management in Valencia  Composting system in tunnels under the waste treatment 94 Spain 2001ES16CPE029  facility in Menorca  Waste treatment, recycling and sorting plant in La Rioja 95 Spain 2001ES16CPE030 Phases 1&2   96 Spain 2001ES16CPE042 Waste management in Castile-La Mancha  Management of solid urban waste in the. Autonomous 97 Spain 2001ES16CPE043 Community of Extremadura — 2001.  98 Spain 2001ES16CPE045 Waste management in Galicia — 2001 — Group 2.  

168

Biomethanisation Plant in Solid Urban Waste Counties of 99 Spain 2001ES16CPE046 Ribera, Navarre  Waste management in the Basque Country 2001 Group 3 - 100 Spain 2001ES16CPE053  Closure of landfill sites in Guipuzcoa  Construction and Conditioning of waste treatment facilities in 101 Spain 2001ES16CPE055 Catalonia  Treatment plants of municipal waste in the counties of Urgell, 102 Spain 2001ES16CPE057  Pallars Jussa and Conca de Barbera - Cataluna  Centre for the treatment of urban waste in Gomecello — 103 Spain 2002ES16CPE001  Salamanca  Waste management in the Autonomous Community of 104 Spain 2002ES16CPE012 Andalusia  Programme to improve, seal off and close down landfills in 105 Spain 2002ES16CPE025  Galicia  Infrastructure to develop the urban waste Plan in the region of 106 Spain 2002ES16CPE026 Murcia  Waste management measures in the Autonomous Community 107 Spain 2002ES16CPE028  of Valencia  Improvement of municipal-waste incineration facilities in 108 Spain 2002ES16CPE042 Catalonia to comply with Directive  Selection Plant and Biotreatment of Urban Waste in Sant Adria 109 Spain 2002ES16CPE043  del Besos  110 Spain 2002ES16CPE064 Environmental improvements in waste treatment in Catalonia  

111 Spain 2003ES16CPE021 Sorting plants and transfer plants - Andalusia - 2003   112 Spain 2003ES16CPE030 Urban waste treatment centre in Palencia   Urban waste management in the Autonomous Community of 113 Spain 2003ES16CPE033 Castile-Leon  Vitrification plant for incineration ash from the Melilla 114 Spain 2003ES16CPE035 incineration plant   115 Spain 2004ES16CPE003 Urban Waste Treatment Plant in Alicante   116 Spain 2004ES16CPE031 Waste management in Castilla La Mancha, 2004  Extention of solid waste assessment facilities in 117 Spain 2004ES16CPE033  Valdemingómez Park (Madrid)  Project for the Waste Treatment Centre of Valles Oriental - 118 Spain 2005ES16CPE001  Granollers  119 Spain 2005ES16CPE003 Urban waste treatment complex in Zaragoza  

169