Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00003441 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF-09304) ON A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 3.987 MILLION TO THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC FOR A GEF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT AND AIR QUALITY PROGRAM April 29, 2015 Transport & ICT Global Practice Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay Country Management Unit Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective as of April 29, 2015) Currency Unit = Argentina Peso US$ 1= AR$ 8.894 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS APL Adaptable Program Loan BRT Bus Rapid Transit CAI Clean Air Institute CAI-LAC Clean Air Initiative for Latin American Cities CO2 Carbon Dioxide CPS Country Partnership Strategy FM Financial Management GEF Global Environment Facility GEO Global Environmental Objectives GHG Greenhouse Gas GoA Government of Argentina ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report MTR Mid-Term Review NMT Non-motorized Transport OP Operation Policy PAD Project Appraisal Document PCU Project Coordination Unit PDO Project Development Objective PIU Project Implementation Unit PTUBA Urban Transport operation for Greater Buenos Aires PTUMA Metropolitan Areas Urban Transport Project RF Results Framework STAQ Program GEF Sustainable Transport and Air Quality Program TA Technical Assistance TDM Travel Demand Management TOR Terms of Reference VKT Vehicle Kilometers of Travel Senior Global Practice Director: Pierre Guislain Practice Manager: Aurelio Menéndez Project Team Leader: Veronica Ines Raffo ICR Team Leader: Veronica Ines Raffo ICR Primary Author: Melanie Glass ARGENTINA GEF Sustainable Transport and Air Quality Program CONTENTS Data Sheet A. Basic Information  B. Key Dates  C. Ratings Summary  D. Sector and Theme Codes  E. Bank Staff  F. Results Framework Analysis  G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs  H. Restructuring  I. Disbursement Profile 1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design........................................ 1  2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .................................................. 5  3. Assessment of Outcomes .............................................................................................. 11  4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ............................................................. 19  5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ......................................................... 20  6. Lessons Learned............................................................................................................ 22  7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners............... 22  Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .............................................................................. 24  Annex 2. Outputs by Component...................................................................................... 28  Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ..................................................................... 31  Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes................. 41  Annex 5. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ......................... 42  Annex 6. List of Supporting Documents .......................................................................... 59  MAP .................................................................................................................................. 61  DATA SHEET A. Basic Information AR-GEF Sustainable and Country: Argentina Project Name: Transport and Air Quality Project Project ID: P114008 L/C/TF Number(s): TF-93048 ICR Date: 03/03/2015 ICR Type: Core ICR Lending Instrument: APL Borrower: REGIONAL Original Total USD 3.99M Disbursed Amount: USD 3.88M Commitment: Revised Amount: - Environmental Category: B Global Focal Area: C Implementing Agencies: PTUMA - Ministry of Interior and Transport Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 04/08/2005 Effectiveness: 08/04/2010 07/12/2012 Appraisal: 09/04/2008 Restructuring(s): 09/11/2013 Approval: 11/04/2008 Mid-term Review: 11/15/2011 03/14/2012 Closing: 12/31/2012 10/31/2014 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Moderately Satisfactory Risk to Global Environment Outcome Moderate Bank Performance: Moderately Unsatisfactory Borrower Performance: Moderately Unsatisfactory C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Moderately Moderately Quality at Entry: Government: Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Implementing Quality of Supervision: Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Moderately Overall Borrower Moderately Performance: Unsatisfactory Performance: Unsatisfactory i C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments (if Indicators Rating Performance any) Potential Problem Project Quality at Entry Yes None at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any Quality of Supervision Yes None time (Yes/No): (QSA): GEO rating before Moderately Closing/Inactive status Satisfactory D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Public Administration- Transportation 63 63 Urban Transport 37 37 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) City-wide Infrastructure and Service Delivery 10 10 Climate change 60 60 Environmental policies and institutions 10 10 Pollution management and environmental health 20 20 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Jorge Familiar Pamela Cox Country Director: Jesko S. Hentschel Pedro Alba Practice Manager/Manager: Aurelio Menendez Jose Luis Irigoyen Project Team Leader: Veronica Ines Raffo Veronica Ines Raffo & Paul Procee ICR Team Leader: Veronica Ines Raffo ICR Primary Author: Melanie Glass F. Results Framework Analysis Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators (as approved) The GEO as defined in the Grant Agreement states: “The objectives of the Project are to assist the Eligible Municipalities to: (a) reduce GHG emissions by increasing the use of less energy intensive transport modes in cities; and (b) induce policy changes in favor of sustainable transport projects.” ii The GEO as defined in the PAD states: “The Argentina GEF Sustainable Transport and Air Quality Program, as well as the STAQ Program, seeks to reduce the rate of growth of GHG emissions from transport in Latin America through the promotion of less energy intensive and cleaner modes of transport. In addition, it serves as an example of how cites can tackle environmental problems, and implement sustainable transport policies through a national program, which at the same time builds on a larger Regional Program consistent with the programmatic goals of GEF Operation Policy 11 and the GEF Strategic Priority in Climate Change focal area (CC-6).” The PDO as defined in the PAD states: “The Argentina GEF Project followed the higher level objectives of the STAQ Regional Program, focusing on assisting cities in: (i) reducing the rate of GHG emissions by increasing the use of less energy intensive and cleaner modes of transport; and (ii) inducing policy changes in favor of sustainable transport policies.” Revised Global Environment Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators and reasons/justifications (a) GEO/PDO Indicator(s) Actual Value Original Target Formally Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Values (from Revised Target Completion or Target approval documents) Values Years Indicator 1 Number of trips in public transportation increase in intervened corridors compared to corridor (dropped): baseline 10% increase in Value number of trips in (Quantitative or n/a (Dropped) (Dropped) public transport in Qualitative) intervened corridors Date achieved - 11/04/2008 07/12/2012 10/31/2014 Comments This indicator was dropped because none of the public transportation interventions to be (incl. % designed under this project would be implemented by the time the project closed. achievement) Formally Original Target Actual Value Achieved at Revised Indicator Baseline Value Values (from Completion or Target Target approval documents) Years Values Indicator 2 : Number of NMT trips increase in intervened areas compared to corridor baseline Rosario: (target met) Rosario (bike trips): 5 % increase in - Bv. 27 de Febrero: 1599 Value - Bv. 27 de febrero: 863 number of public (85%) (Quantitative or - Bv. O. Lagos: 756 - transport modal share - Bv. O. Lagos: 964 (28%) Qualitative) - Avellaneda: 847 in intervened areas - Avellaneda: 1264 (50%) Cordoba: n/a Cordoba: n/a Bv. 27 de Febrero and Bv. O. Lagos: traffic survey, 2011. Rosario: traffic survey, Date achieved 11/04/2008 - Avellaneda: traffic survey, 2014. 2013. iii Cordoba: a household survey conducted in 2012 revealed that 6.1% of people surveyed used the Comments bicycle as their primary mode of transport. Currently, updated data is not available. The city will (incl. % be conducting a traffic survey in May 2015. Counts made by the Municipality estimate that the achievement) number of cyclists using the new corridors has seen a four-fold increase. Actual Value Original Target Formally Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Values (from Revised Target Completion or Target approval documents) Values Years Indicator 3 Decrease of CO2 equivalent tons emitted by ground transport in intervened corridors (dropped) : 5% decrease in GHG Value emissions from ground (Quantitative or n/a (Dropped) (Dropped) transport in selected Qualitative) corridors. Date achieved - 11/04/2008 07/12/2012 10/31/2014 This indicator was dropped because infrastructure interventions need a longer time frame to Comments consolidate emission reductions. (incl. % Notwithstanding, the applied methodology to measure emission reductions in the bikepaths achievement) constructed in Rosario calculated a reduction of 165.32 CO2 equivalent tons in the year after construction of the intervened corridors. Actual Value Original Target Formally Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Values (from Revised Target Completion or Target approval documents) Values Years Number of cities that are integrating environment and climate change components, with urban Indicator 4 : transport, and land use into master plans and studies developed, including regulatory and financial frameworks that foster sustainable transport systems at local and national level Value At least 1 integrated (Quantitative or 1 transport and land use - 4 (target met) Qualitative) plan or study finalized Date achieved 08/13/2010 11/04/2008 - 10/31/2014 Rosario: In 2010 Rosario elaborated an Integrated Mobility Plan (PIM) under a strong participatory approach, including the establishment of a “mobility pact” involving over 100 institutions; an updated version was published in 2014. Cordoba: The city has a Master Plan denominated “Plan Director Cordoba 2020”, elaborated in Comments 2008. Additionally, a diagnostic for the development of a Strategic and Integrated Mobility Plan (incl. % for the city of Cordoba was undertaken in 2012. achievement) Tucuman: the city has a strategic urban plan for the 2006-2016 period. Additionally, in 2012, the government developed a Transit and Transport Plan for the city of San Miguel de Tucuman. The “Plan Estrategico Posadas 2022” was elaborated in 2008; based on its guidelines an Environmental Urban Plan was developed in 2012. Actual Value Original Target Formally Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Values (from Revised Target Completion or Target approval documents) Values Years Number of internationally recognized validated methodologies to assess GHG and air pollutant Indicator 5 (not emissions as a result of transport and land-use measures are applied. reported) : Value 0 n/a - 1 iv (Quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved - - - 10/31/2014 This key indicator listed in the PAD, was not included as part of the results framework in the Annex 3 of the PAD, therefore it does not have a baseline or a target, and was not reported during implementation. Comments Regarding the outcome, CAI developed a number of tools, methodologies and guidelines (incl. % specifically designed for the region; as well as reference cases to guide cities in measuring GHG achievement) impacts, including IES, Mobile 6, and IVE models. The city of Rosario with CAI assistance applied the proposed methodology to measure CO2 reductions derived from the construction of bikepaths. Actual Value Original Target Formally Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Values (from Revised Target Completion or Target approval documents) Values Years Indicator 6 Number of new other transport initiatives aimed at enabling use of less energy intensive (added) : transportation modes. Value More than 3 (target (Quantitative or 0 - 3 met) Qualitative) Date achieved 07/12/2012 - 07/12/2012 10/31/2014 This indicator was added in the July 2012 restructuring as a realistic indicator of the enabling characteristics of this project. Initiatives included: Comments The expansion of bikeway networks in Rosario, Cordoba and Tucuman. (incl. % Campaigns to promote NMT and sustainable transportation in Rosario and Cordoba. achievement) Bike-sharing Program in Rosario. “Recreational roads” on Sundays in Rosario Construction of exclusive lanes for public transport in Posadas, Rosario and Cordoba. Network extension and new cars for the Electric trolleybus in Rosario and Cordoba. (b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s) Window 2 – Transport and Urban Planning: Designs of policies and regulations for sustainable land use and transport development. Actual Value Original Target Formally Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Values (from Revised Target Completion or Target approval documents) Values Years Indicator 1 Number of cities with revised/new land-use policies and regulations designed/proposed that (revised): create incentives for more efficient and sustainable transport oriented development Value 4 cities preparing (Quantitative or 0 land-use policies and - 4 (target met) Qualitative) regulations Date achieved 08/13/2010 11/04/2008 - 10/31/2014 This indicator was modified by adding “revised/new” before “land-use”, to facilitate the Comments definition of a baseline indicator. (incl. % New policies and regulations included: achievement) Rosario: (i) Municipal Order 8864-Creation of segregated BRT type lanes; (ii) Municipal Order 9030-Creation of Public Bicycle System; (iii) Municipal Order 9145-Construction of v underground parking; and (iv) Municipal Order 9238-Parking prohibition in central area of the city. Tucuman: (i) Municipal Decree 0957/SG/2008- Parking prohibition in central area; (ii) creation of pedestrian roads in central area of the city; (iii) establishment of public bicycle system; and (iv) proposed network of bicycle lanes. Posadas: (i) Municipal Order 3333/13-Environmental Urban Plan; (ii) Municipal Order 3372/13- Urban plan for the city of Posadas; and (iii) development of a Control and Information Center for Public Transport in the city of Posadas. Cordoba: (i) Municipal Order 12.076 – regulatory framework for the urban bus transport service; (ii) Municipal Order 12.146 - concession of the urban bus transport service; (iii) Municipal Order 11712/10- Provision of bike parking; and (iv) Municipal Order under revision- creation of Public Bicycle Plan. Window 3 – Public Transport Enhancement: Design of mass transit system in cities and strengthen capacity to promote interconnectivity with other transport modes. Actual Value Original Target Formally Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Values (from Revised Target Completion or Target approval documents) Values Years Indicator 1 Number of Km of segregated BRT with final design in cities (revised) : Value (Quantitative or 0 4 km - 5.5 km (Target met) Qualitative) Date achieved 08/13/2010 11/04/2008 - 10/31/2014 This indicator was modified from “implemented BRTs” to “BRTs with final designs” since civil works of BRT will not be completed by ICR date. Posadas completed the final design for 3 km of a BRT on Av. Uruguay (financed by GEF). Comments Rosario adjusted the final designs for 2.5 km of BRT-type lanes for the north-south corridor (incl. % project, with their own resources and guidance from the GEF team, with civil works currently achievement) under procurement to be funded by PTUMA. Cordoba constructed 5.3 km of a pilot BRT-type project in Av. Sabatini, with their own resources. Actual Value Original Target Formally Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Values (from Revised Target Completion or Target approval documents) Values Years Number of cities preparing or implementing specific measures to promote inter-connectivity Indicator 2 : among transport modes. Value (Quantitative or 0 2 - 2 (target met) Qualitative) Date achieved 08/13/2010 11/04/2008 - 10/31/2014 Posadas, with support from the GEF operation, has established a Monitoring and Information Center for Public Transport, whose objective is to maximize the use of public transport, facilitating modal exchange and promoting the efficiency of public transportation. Comments Cordoba renewed the Terminal Station 1, connected to the bikeway network, and has developed (incl. % the analysis and pre-feasibility studies for the construction of three new transfer terminals in the achievement) city. Rosario has introduced the use of a smartcard, facilitating the integration of different modes of transport, including buses, bicycles, taxis and public parking, within the city. vi Window 4 – Non-Motorized Transport: Increase public use, awareness and acceptance of cycling as mode of transport in cities and develop local capacity to design non-motorized facilities in selected cities. Original Target Actual Value Achieved at Values (from Formally Revised Indicator Baseline Value Completion or Target approval Target Values Years documents) Indicator 1 Number of increased cyclists in intervened corridors/areas (revised) : Rosario: (target met) Rosario (bike trips): - Bv. 27 de Febrero: 1599 Value - Bv. 27 de Febrero: 863 5% increase in the (85%) (Quantitative or - Bv. O. Lagos: 756 - number of cyclists - Bv. O. Lagos: 964 (28%) Qualitative) - Avellaneda: 847 - Avellaneda: 1264 (50%) Cordoba: n/a Cordoba: n/a Bv. 27 de Febrero and Bv. O. Lagos: traffic survey 2011. Date achieved 11/04/2008 07/12/2012 Rosario: traffic survey 2014. Avellaneda: traffic survey 2013. This indicator was adjusted by adding “increased” before “cyclists” to facilitate the definition of a baseline indicator; also the missing target was added. Comments Cordoba: a household survey conducted in 2012 revealed that 6.1% of people surveyed used the (incl. % bicycle as their primary mode of transport. The city will be conducting traffic surveys in May achievement) 2015. Counts made by the Municipality estimate that the number of cyclists using the new corridors has seen a four-fold increase. Actual Value Original Target Formally Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Values (from Revised Target Completion or Target approval documents) Values Years Indicator 2 Number of km of additional bikeways built. (revised): Value (Quantitative or 0 - 6.3 km 17.7 km (target met) Qualitative) Date achieved 08/13/2010 11/04/2008 07/12/2012 10/31/2014 This indicator was adjusted by replacing “pedestrian bikeways and ancillary facilities” by Comments “bikeways”; also the missing target was added. (incl. % Under the GEF Program, the original target almost tripled: Rosario built 11.8 km of bikeways; achievement) and Cordoba 5.9 km. G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Date ISR Actual Disbursements No. GEO IP Archived (USD millions) 1 11/25/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 05/15/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 3 11/13/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 4 05/25/2010 Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 0.00 vii 5 02/09/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.00 6 07/27/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.00 7 04/04/2012 Moderately Unsatisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 0.40 8 10/28/2012 Moderately Unsatisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 1.17 9 07/01/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.54 10 01/25/2014 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.84 11 08/22/2014 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 2.64 H. Restructuring ISR Ratings at Amount Board Restructuring Restructuring Disbursed at Reason for Restructuring & Key Approved GEO Date(s) Restructuring Changes Made Change GEO IP in USD millions The GEF Project underwent a Second Level Restructuring, with the objective of: (i) requesting a one-year extension to the closing date, from December 31, 2012 to 07/12/2012 N MU MU 0.52 December 31, 2013; and (ii) adjusting the Project’s results framework, modifying PDO result indicators and revising the language of intermediate results indicators. The Project underwent a Second Level Restructuring with the objective of requesting a 10-month 09/11/2013 N MS MS 1.54 extension to the closing date, from December 31, 2013 to October 31, 2014. viii I. Disbursement Profile ix 1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal Introduction 1. At the time of appraisal, the transport sector was responsible for more than one-third of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Latin America, and was the fastest growing emitting sector. The International Energy Agency projected that CO2 emissions from vehicles would increase by a factor of 2.4 (or 140%): from about 4.6 gigatons in 2000 to 11.2 gigatons in 2050. The vast majority of this increase was expected to take place in developing regions, especially in Latin America and Asia, as a result of increased motorization and vehicle use. 2. At the same time, Latin American cities were growing rapidly. Approximately 80% of Latin Americans lived in urban areas, concentrating most of the vehicle kilometers of travel (VKT). Urban transport, therefore, represented a key sector for long-run greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation efforts in Latin America. In addition, cities in Latin America were expanding and sprawling rapidly as the mobility needs were being primarily satisfied by a growing reliance on individual motor vehicles and poor public transit systems, further increasing emissions and reducing energy efficiency. 3. Additionally, LAC had the highest share of urban poor, representing over one fourth of the population of LAC cities. As stated in the PKS on “Green and Inclusive Urban Mobility”: “the mobility challenge is a combination of an inclusiveness challenge of having too little quality public transport and non-motorized infrastructure, and an environmental problem of having too much motorization at the same time”. 4. Argentina represented this trend perfectly, being one of the most urbanized countries in Latin America, with over 89% of its population living in urban areas of over 2,000 inhabitants. Almost 38% of the country’s population lived in the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area (AMBA), resulting in high population densities of 14,800 people/ km2 in the city of Buenos Aires. Moreover, urban population continued to grow at a fast pace. This increase in urban population, growing motorization, suburbanization, inadequate transport and traffic management, worsening congestion and air pollution was a trend common to many metropolitan areas and medium sized cities in the country. 5. The GEF Sustainable Transport and Air Quality Program (STAQ Program) was proposed to reduce the rate of growth of GHG emissions from transport in Latin America through the promotion of less energy intensive and cleaner modes of transport. This US$79 million program1 was designed as a horizontal Adaptable Program Loan (APL). It was divided into four projects respectively: a regional umbrella project and three Country Projects in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico.2 Each of the Country Projects included three or four city-level sub-projects with the aim 1 Including US$20.8 million of GEF funding. 2 It was decided that the four projects would be evaluated as four separate projects, as they have different loan agreements and TTLs, as well as independent timelines. This is due to the following considerations: (i) these operations have separate PADs; (ii) there are different Global Environmental Objectives (GEOs) and results frameworks; (iii) the projects are implemented by different agencies; (iv) the projects have different closing dates; and (v) the ICR template is not appropriate for reporting on four separate operations. 1 of developing sustainable urban transport investments and reducing GHG emissions by promoting investment in the following thematic windows: (i) Freight Transport Management, (ii) Integration of Land Use, Transport and Environmental Planning, (iii) Modal Shift to Public Transport, (iv) Non-motorized Transport (NMT), and Travel Demand Management (TDM). These sub-projects were expected to provide valuable lessons to inform and develop appropriate policies at a national level. With the support of the regional project, they were also expected to address the most common barriers to sustainable urban transport practices at city and national level in Latin America, including institutional, regulatory, financial, technical, and cultural barriers. Rationale for Bank Assistance 6. The main factor for the Bank’s involvement in the STAQ Program was to address transport and environment issues in a coordinated way at the regional level and to ensure that Latin American cities were well positioned to meet the growing demands posed by the climate change agenda. The Bank’s presence in the transport sector across various Latin American countries, including Argentina, provided it with a strategic advantage to facilitate a region-wide knowledge exchange process and ensure the involvement of governments, private sector and other development agencies in the quest to mainstream climate change in urban transport. The Bank, with support from other partners, had already created the Clean Air Initiative in Latin American cities (CAI-LAC) in 1998, as a network-based partnership managed by the World Bank, to engage Latin American stakeholders and facilitate a number of activities, including information exchange, capacity building, and knowledge creation on air quality and transport issues. 7. Despite the rapid growth in urbanization and motorization, most Latin American cities are not yet locked into an absolute automobile dependence pattern, with rates of motorization of 100 vehicles/ 1,000 inhabitants, which are low compared to international standards. Public transport and alternative modes still constitute a significant part of the transportation matrix, providing a clear opportunity to develop long term policies reinforcing the link between land use, transport and environment. 8. During appraisal, there were several ongoing urban transport initiatives in Argentina. Building on an Urban Transport operation for Greater Buenos Aires (PTUBA), the Government was initiating the preparation of a new urban transport operation, Metropolitan Areas Urban Transport Project (PTUMA), covering the Buenos Aires metropolitan area, as well as several other metropolitan areas, including all four areas defined as beneficiaries of the GEF Project (Tucuman, Rosario, Cordoba and Posadas). The PTUMA would finance works to improve public transportation services in these metropolitan areas, including segregated busways and feeder routes, trolleybus extensions and mass transit systems, as well as tailored technical assistance to participating cities, being totally consistent with activities outlined under the GEF. The PTUMA was included as part of the 2007-2009 CAS, as a US$150 million operation. This operation was consistent with the objectives set by the CAS including deepening Bank participation in strategic areas such as sustainable transport, air quality, and climate change. Strategic Approach 9. The Argentina GEF Project was conceived under the umbrella of the Regional STAQ Program, approved under the GEF III Strategic Priorities, and consistent with the programmatic 2 goals of the GEF Operation Policy (OP) 11 and the GEF Strategic Priority in the Climate Change focal area CC-6. Initially, funding under the program was to be allocated through a region-wide competition. However, during the appraisal, a decision was taken to limit participation in the program to cities from Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. In each case, the Bank would enter into an individual grant agreement with the respective government to finance the implementation of low carbon technologies, modal shifts to less polluting forms of transport, and interventions related to bus rapid transit systems, non-motorized transport, traffic management, and land use planning, consistent with the overriding Program objective. 10. Therefore, this operation was aimed at advancing specific GEF co-financed technical assistance and pilot investments at city level, promoting cross-fertilization between cities, and serving as an entry-point in the design of comprehensive urban and land-use policy guidelines. Four metropolitan areas were pre-identified to participate in the Argentina GEF Project: Tucuman, Rosario, Cordoba and Posadas. The selection of specific projects to be financed within these metropolitan areas resulted from evaluating the soundness of city proposals, assessed on criteria of technical quality, local capacity, commitment and political support. 1.2 Original Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators (as approved) 11. The GEO as defined in the Grant Agreement states: “The objectives of the Project are to assist the Eligible Municipalities to: (a) reduce GHG emissions by increasing the use of less energy intensive transport modes in cities; and (b) induce policy changes in favor of sustainable transport projects.”3 12. The GEO as defined in the PAD states: “The Argentina GEF Sustainable Transport and Air Quality Program, as well as the STAQ Program, seeks to reduce the rate of growth of GHG emissions from transport in Latin America through the promotion of less energy intensive and cleaner modes of transport. In addition, it serves as an example of how cites can tackle environmental problems, and implement sustainable transport policies through a national program, which at the same time builds on a larger Regional Program consistent with the programmatic goals of GEF Operation Policy 11 and the GEF Strategic Priority in Climate Change focal area (CC-6).” 13. The PDO as defined in the PAD states: “The Argentina GEF Project followed the higher level objectives of the STAQ Regional Program, focusing on assisting cities in: (i) reducing the rate of GHG emissions by increasing the use of less energy intensive and cleaner modes of transport; and (ii) inducing policy changes in favor of sustainable transport policies.” The PDO as stated in the PAD is very much in line with the GEO, as defined in the Grant Agreement. 14. Progress towards achievement of the PDO was to be measured through a set of key indicators, including (i) an increase in the number of trips in public transportation by 10% in the intervened corridors (sub-projects under Window 3), in relation to baseline data for the relevant corridor; (ii) an increase in the number of NMT by 5% in areas of intervention (sub-projects under Window 4), in relation to baseline data for the relevant corridor; (iii) a decrease by 5% of CO2 equivalent tons emitted by ground transport in intervened corridors resulting from improvements in modal split, where applicable; (iv) number of transport and urban development plans and 3 Outcomes will be evaluated using the GEO, as defined in the Grant Agreement. 3 regulatory/ financial incentives for sustainable transportation at local and national level in place; and (v) number of internationally recognized validated methodologies to assess GHG and air pollutant emissions as a result of transport and land-use measures are applied.4 1.3 Revised GEO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification 15. The PDO was not revised. PDO result indicators, however, were modified through a second level restructuring, approved by the Country Director, undertaken in July 2012, given that they were not considered realistic or attainable due to the scale and timeframe of the Project. This restructuring was undertaken after the MTR given that the Project had had a two-year effectiveness delay, which effectively reduced the Project implementation period to 1.5 years, altering the expected timing of GEF-financed and co-financed activities, as well as the timeline in which the impacts of the activities were expected to materialize. Specific changes to PDO indicators included:  Two PDO level result indicators were dropped: (i) Indicator 1: increase in the number of public transportation trips, compared to corridor baseline; and (ii) Indicator 3: decrease of CO2- equivalent tons emitted by ground transport in intervened corridors; and  One PDO level result indicator was added: Indicator 5: number of new transport initiatives aimed at enabling use of less energy intensive transportation modes. 16. The fact that the PDO was not modified created a disconnection between the Project’s broader level objectives and the selected results indicators. However, the possibility of modifying the PDO, requiring a level one restructuring (approved by the Board), was not deemed possible at the time, given that an informal moratorium was in place, in which no Argentina Project could be brought to the Bank’s Board. The moratorium ended shortly after the GEF Project had closed. 1.4 Original Components (as approved) 17. Pilot investments, technical assistance, and capacity building activities in selected cities (US$3,987,000). This component was aimed at co-financing measures under three thematic windows (out of the five identified under the Regional STAQ Program5), in 4 selected Argentine cities, with the objective of removing barriers for sustainable transport. Window 2: Better coordination and integration of transport and land-use planning and environmental management: included technical assistance measures to foster more integrated transport and land-use planning to reduce the use of private motor vehicles, reduce trip lengths and increase accessibility to public and non-motorized transport. Proposed funding was US$205,000. Window 3: Modal Interconnection, and Effectiveness and Efficiency of Public Transport: included pilot investments and technical assistance to facilitate the improvement of public transport systems and/or improve the effectiveness and interconnectivity of those systems with other modes of transport, inducing mode switching away from private cars. Proposed funding was US$2.382 million. 4 This indicator is not included in the Project’s results framework (Annex 3 of the PAD). 5 Windows 1 and 5 of the STAQ Program were not included under the Argentina GEF Project. 4 Window 4: Non-motorized transport: included pilot investments and technical assistance to better integrate walking and biking into the culture and planning processes of cities, and to create incentives for their use. Proposed funding was US$1.4 million. 1.5 Revised Components 18. Project components were not revised. 1.6 Other significant changes 19. The Argentina GEF Project underwent, in July 2012, a Second Level Restructuring, with the objectives of: (i) requesting a one-year extension to the Closing Date, from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013; and (ii) adjusting the Project’s Results Framework, modifying PDO result indicators and revising the language of intermediate results indicators. This was primarily a corrective restructuring to adjust for design flaws, weak commitment at Federal level in the initial phase of project execution and implementation problems. However, there were also elements of an adaptive restructuring in response to changes in government’s priorities that emphasized non- motorized transport in cities of the interior and PTUMA’s evolution, among others. 20. Additionally, in September 2013, the Project underwent a new Second Level Restructuring with the objective of requesting a 10-month extension to the Closing Date, from December 31, 2013 to October 31, 2014. This extension was deemed necessary due to: (i) delays in implementation due to the internal restructuring process within the PIU; (ii) the need to redefine key projects, including the re-procurement of the bike sharing program in Rosario, which delayed the disbursements; and (iii) the need for additional time to develop a key project, consisting of the design of 3km of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the city of Posadas. 1.7 Main Beneficiaries 21. Four metropolitan areas were selected as beneficiaries of the Argentina GEF Project: Tucuman, Rosario, Cordoba and Posadas. San Miguel de Tucuman had a population of over 600,000 (representing over 50% of the provincial population); Rosario had a population of 1.2 million people, being the third largest metropolitan area of the country; the city of Cordoba had a population of 1.3 million, being the second largest metropolitan area of the country; and the city of Posadas had a population of 366,000 (representing 40% of the provincial total). These cities were selected on the basis of the following criteria: (i) they were economic and government centers at the national or regional level; (ii) the municipal governments were committed to addressing environmental and sustainable transport issues; and (iii) they complied with the Federal regulations and were entitled to prepare projects for the World Bank. The participation of these four cities was guaranteed through specific Implementation Agreements between the respective Municipalities and the Federal Government. 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry 22. Soundness of background analysis. Project preparation relied on prior Bank experience in urban transport operations within the Latin American regions as well as Argentina. This provided the Bank with a unique cross-reference perspective, allowing it to play a critical role in 5 the coordination of initiatives, promoting good practices and drawing on lessons learned. During the preparation, the Bank team worked closely with the Argentine counterparts, including the PIU and the four participating cities, in coordinating investments activities planned under the different urban transport operations financed by the Bank in the country (PTUBA, PTUMA and GEF). The underlying concept was to conceive these operations as “building blocks” for sustainable urban transport projects in participating cities. For example, PTUBA was expected to finance household transport surveys in all participating cities, transport planning models and comprehensive transport plans. The Argentina GEF would then take on the required feasibility studies, finance project designs and some small works in cases in which designs were concluded. Finally, PTUMA would conclude designs, where needed, and finance the remaining works. This coordination and interconnection between the three operations were critical in establishing the Project design. 23. Additionally, an exhaustive consultative process, requiring substantial input from participating cities, characterized the Project preparation. Through this consultation process, cities were identified, evaluated and prioritized for technical assistance needs for projects and expected to be included under the Project. Formal procedures were agreed upon by which cities submitted their technical assistance needs and were organized and prioritized by CAI and PTUBA, and once an agreement was reached among all parties, these were introduced into a project design. This implied that technical assistance support was customized to the city needs. This collaborative approach was also undertaken in the establishment of implementation agreements with beneficiary cities, making each agreement tailored to the specific needs of the city. 24. Assessment of Project Design. Despite being a small operation (US$3. 9 million), Project design revealed a high degree of complexity and ambitious goals, as revealed by the Project’s original Results Framework (RF). Some of the original outcome indicators mirrored longer-term outcomes, which would not be reachable at Project closure, even under the most optimistic scenarios. The GEF Project was expected to finance preparatory studies for infrastructure investments that would be subsequently constructed; however, the original outcome indicators for the GEF Project reflected the outcomes expected after said infrastructure were constructed and in operation. For example, the grant was expected to finance the detailed design of a mass transit corridor in the city of Rosario, which, in a subsequent phase, the Government through PTUMA was expected to finance. Notwithstanding, the Project’s original RF included expected emission reductions after the corridor was implemented and in use. Although the inclusion of an indicator on emission reduction was mandated by the GEF, the possibility of achieving significant effects given the project scope and timeframe, proved to be unrealistic. Deficiencies in the original selection of indicators under the Project’s RF were partially addressed through the Project’s first level-two restructuring in 2012 (refer to Section 1.6). 25. Government Commitment/ Ownership. Another critical issue in Project design was the choice of implementing arrangements. Although cities were the ultimate beneficiaries of the GEF Project, a decision was taken to keep Project implementation centralized at Federal level, placing the PIU within the Ministry of Federal Planning and Public Investment, and relying on the experience gained by said PIU through the implementation of prior urban transport operations financed by the Bank, specifically through PTUBA. This choice of implementing arrangement, by which every city had to enter into a specific implementation agreement with the PIU, added a layer of complexity to Project design, causing delays in the early phases of project implementation (given that these agreements constituted Project effectiveness conditions) and requiring continuous coordination efforts between the Bank, the PIU and the beneficiary cities. Additionally, the fact 6 that the PIU was responsible for implementing PTUMA and the GEF Project in parallel, given the difference in scale of these operations, created a natural imbalance in Government priorities. Finally, the fact that the local counterpart was provided through PTUMA and not through the municipal government, created issues in terms of the actual ownership of the cities vis-à-vis the activities being undertaken through the Project. 26. Assessment of Risks. Risk assessments undertaken at Project design failed to identify some of the most pressing issues encountered during implementation including: (i) problems in Project evaluation-given the existing mismatch between the objectives and indicators set and the actual scope of the Project; (ii) issues of coordination between the PIU and beneficiary cities, particularly given the participation of multiple cities and the different capacities in place to implement project activities across cities; and (ii) implementation and governance risks affecting the PIU, shared with PTUMA. 2.2 Implementation 27. Initial delays in declaring the Project effectiveness (2008-2010). Although the Board approved the Project in November 2008, it was only declared effective in August 2010. The delay between approval and effectiveness is mainly attributed to the political economy associated with support to the cities of the interior and lack of priority given by the Federal Government to this operation. Given that the signing of the Decree went beyond the 18-month deadline established in the Grant Agreement, the Government had to request a waiver to avoid losing the donation. The Presidential Decree was finally signed on May 10, 2010. Only once the Decree was sanctioned, could the Grant Agreement be signed. Moreover, the effectiveness conditions, as established by Project design, were limited to formal actions that the executing agency could not take until after grant signing, including the signature of necessary implementation agreements between the PIU and CAI, as well as between the PIU and the four participating cities. This implied a series of delays, with effectiveness being finally declared on August 3, 2010. 28. Delays in initiating implementation/ disbursements (2010-2012). Once the Project was declared effective, additional issues were encountered in initiating execution and disbursements, including: (i) inadequacy of the monitoring and evaluation framework; (ii) lack of priority of the Project within the PIU, given the relative scale of the GEF vis-à-vis PTUMA; (iii) changes in the structure and staffing of the PIU; and (iv) issues of coordination between the Federal PIU and beneficiary cities; among others. This translated into a lack of Project disbursements in the first three years after effectiveness. 29. Project’s Midterm Review (2012) and Restructuring. The Project’s Midterm Review was undertaken in March 2012, concluding that a second level restructuring was necessary to meet the Project’s objectives. Delays in the initial stages of Project implementation, as well as the realization that the RF was to a large degree inadequate to effectively monitor Project results, led to the first Project restructuring in 2012. Despite this restructuring, the practical impediment to modifying the PDO, led to a disconnection between the Project’s broader objectives and the selected result indicators. This impediment to modifying the PDO was sustained throughout the lifetime of the Project, given that the moratorium was lifted once the Project had closed. 30. Monitoring and Evaluation. Considerable bottlenecks were encountered in the construction of baselines and the collection of information required to effectively monitor Project execution. This was partly due to the fact mentioned previously that although the Project 7 monitoring remained formally a responsibility of the PIU, the actual responsibility for the construction of baselines and collection of data remained at city level, with the PIU lacking any capacity to enforce this responsibility when the cities did not comply. Also, technical support to be provided by the CAI did not materialize as expected under the regional GEF grant. 31. Implementation arrangements and governance. In part due to allegations in the press of irregularities in the procurement and implementation of specific contracts financed by PTUMA, which shared the same PIU of the GEF Project, a complete turnover in the structure of project management was undertaken by the Government in mid-2012. The INT investigation resulting from these allegations and undertaken by the Bank in 2012, led to a freeze in the execution of all operations under the PIU, for over one year. Originally, the PIU was housed within the Secretariat of Transport, under the Ministry of Federal Planning and Public Investment. However, through Decrees 874 and 875, in June 2012, competencies related to transportation were transferred, and upgraded to Ministerial status, under the Ministry of Interior and Transport. In this context, a unified central implementing unit for the Ministry was created, handling all projects and programs with external financing, falling under the sphere of influence of the Ministry. This change in structure went hand in hand with a change of staff within the implementing unit. However, in hindsight, this restructuring had an extremely positive effect in picking up the Project’s implementation pace towards the final years of Project execution, and on the ability of the Project to be almost fully disbursed by its Closing Date. The new management emphasized on cleaning the house and improving management systems. Additionally, new management prioritized moving GEF procurement processes forward, reviewing and completing contracts under implementation as expeditiously as possible. In the last 2 years of project implementation, 15 of the 19 envisaged projects were completed, as revealed in the pick-up in the Project’s disbursement curve, particularly between 2013 and 2014. 32. Government commitment, relationship between the Federal PIU and beneficiary cities and changes in authorities at city level. Various issues influenced the perceived lack of commitment of the Government, both at Federal and Municipal level vis-à-vis the GEF operation. The fact that the GEF Project was a US$3.9 million operation, being managed by the same executing agency in charge of PTUMA, a US$150 million operation, did not place the GEF as a top priority for the PIU and the Federal Government. Additionally, as mentioned previously, the fact that cities had no financial responsibility or contribution towards the Project, further contributed to the general lack of ownership or commitment by beneficiary cities towards the operation-although it is fair to say that levels of commitment varied from city to city. Moreover, cities, more often than not, lacked the staff or the time to respond to the demands placed by the Project and the PIU, making the information exchange and communication between the PIU and the cities difficult. Finally, changes in local authorities, particularly in the case of Cordoba, complicated the day-to-day execution of the Project having changed local counterparts over 5 times in the lifespan of the Project. 33. Conclusion: despite the restructurings and actions taken to improve implementation track record, overall, the implementation was not at the pace and scale envisioned during the project preparation, particularly during the first years of Project execution. Only after 2012, following the changes within the PIU, the implementation truly started, reducing the Project’s actual implementation period to 2.5 years. 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization 8 34. Design. The choice of original indicators proved to be deficient in many cases, as reflected by the need to restructure the Project’s original RF in 2012. Specific PDO indicators had to be dropped, including: (i) PDO-1: increase in the number of public transportation trips, compared to corridor baseline; and (ii) PDO-3: decrease of CO2 equivalent tons emitted by ground transport in intervened corridors. In the case of PDO-1, none of the public transportation interventions designed under the GEF and expected to be financed by PTUMA (Tucuman, Posadas and Rosario) were to be implemented by Project closure and ICR date. In the case of PDO-3, infrastructure interventions require a longer time frame to result in emission reductions. Although this could have been envisaged during Project design, some of these indicators were mandated by the GEF, in order to have common indicators among the Country Projects, to allow for results comparisons and aggregation of information. 35. Therefore, although GEF financed project outputs were reasonable, project outcomes, as reflected in the original Results Framework, were overly ambitious and not in line with the scale of the Project (US$3.9 million operation) or its timeframe. In other words, there was a clear disconnect between Project activities and selected result indicators, implying that even if the proposed activities/ works were completed under the GEF, selected result indicators would not attributable to these achievements. 36. Implementation. The restructuring of the RF in 2012 adjusted the results indicators to the scope and scale of the Project. However, although the RF was improved by the restructuring, project evaluation became one of the key challenges of this operation due to weak ownership, low capacity, inadequate baseline construction and complex implementation arrangements that placed reporting accountability with the federal government and responsibility for data collection with the cities.. 37. Baselines. The PAD stated that simple household surveys would be carried out to determine the baseline of transport mode use (number of trips, mode and average distance) in every one of the cities and on major corridors (available at: www.ptuma.gob.ar/publicaciones/). These were to be financed by PTUBA and would therefore not imply additional costs to the GEF Project. Additionally, the PAD established that a follow-on series of household surveys using the same methodology would be carried out after GEF Project closure to determine the impact of the Project and measure relevant indicators. 38. Although CAI was formally responsible for developing the guidelines and methodologies for baseline assessments in GEF cities, as well as of providing general support and guidance in terms on Monitoring and Evaluation, in practice, this proved to be overambitious and CAI was ultimately incapable of providing relevant M&E assistance to Country Projects (explained in detail in the ICR of the Regional STAQ Program). This, to a large degree explains the difficulties encountered in the implementation of the M&E framework, because Project design assumed that CAI would compensate for eventual lack of local capacity in terms of Project evaluation, particularly given the complexity of some of the original indicators. In retrospect, the task team could have been more proactive in identifying additional resources to bring to bear on assisting the local teams in developing robust baselines at the first restructuring. 39. Therefore, although some surveys and traffic counts were undertaken in intervened cities, as is the case in Rosario, for example, these were not conducted in a systematic manner throughout the 4 intervened cities, preventing timely comparisons. 9 40. Implementation arrangements. Although Project monitoring was ultimately the responsibility of the Project’s PIU, beneficiary cities were responsible for data collection and reporting project results both to the PIU and CAI, as established in the Implementation Agreements signed between the beneficiary cities and the PIU. However, cities in most cases did not comply with this responsibility in time and form, making the PIU’s task in terms of M&E difficult. 41. Utilization. Given that information on Project performance, as measured by the selected results indicators, was not made available in time and form by cities, neither to the PIU or the Bank, it did not support decision making throughout the Project’s life cycle, as normally intended. 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 42. Safeguards. The Project was considered Category B, given the inclusion of small pilot investments such as bikeways. It was anticipated that these civil works could have minor and localized negative environmental impacts. During appraisal, each of the participating cities prepared an Environmental and Social Management Manual. Additionally, although none of the proposed city projects required involuntary resettlement, given that the precise location of some works was not defined during appraisal, a Resettlement Policy Framework was prepared. The Project complied with the Bank’s procedural and policy requirements for safeguards. No issues were encountered during implementation. 43. Procurement and Financial Management (FM). Management of procurement and financial management issues by the PIU was overall satisfactory. Staff was qualified and had previous experience in the implementation of the Bank financed projects (PTUBA), facilitating the day-to-day administration of the GEF Project. However, some issues were encountered in terms of specific procurement processes, including problems in the bidding of one of the key projects included under the Project-the bike-sharing program in Rosario-which had to be dropped because offers presented during the bidding process doubled the available budget for the Project. 44. Additionally, since the PIU was shared with the PTUMA Project, issues raised by the INT investigation under PTUMA, and the results of the forensic audit conducted on both PTUMA and GEF processes, ultimately impacted Project management. Although the Bank declared the ineligibility/ misprocurement of expenses in some cases, none of these affected GEF processes or disbursements. However, as a result of this process, the PIU and the Bank’s procurement and financial management team agreed on a fiduciary action plan including: (i) the review of the organizational structure and set up of profiles for the PIU’s fiduciary functions; (ii) the review and adjustment of operational procedures; and (iii) definition of a staff training program. 45. Changes to the PIU ended up having a positive impact in terms of Project implementation and disbursements, jumping from US$825.000 in 2013 to US$3.8 million in 2014 (97.4%). Additionally, to speed up the disbursements, the team adopted a strategy whereby disbursements for activities co-financed with PTUMA (Posadas and Tucuman) were deducted first from the GEF account and then completed with PTUMA funds. 46. Finally, the audit reports of the Project were submitted on time and considered acceptable to the Bank. 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 10 47. A new operation is being proposed through GEF VI STAR, under the climate change chapter/ assignment. This operation builds directly into the agenda pushed forward through the Argentina GEF, PTUMA, and PTUBA, promoting new mobility policies aimed at reducing emissions in urban areas. This new operation would give continuity to the line of work developed under these prior operations, introducing technological innovations, applied to sustainable mobility, integrating land use policies, promoting public and non-motorized transportation, intelligent cities and metropolitan coordination. The operation would focus on the metropolitan area of Buenos Aires, providing support to the new Metropolitan Transport Agency, created in 2014. The operation would also support the development strategies for other metropolitan areas within the country in coordination with PTUMA. Conversations are also being held on a second phase for PTUMA. Its key objective would be to undertake the investments whose studies and executive designs are being financed through PTUMA 1. However, the fact that only one third of the Project has been disbursed to date could become a bottleneck in justifying a second phase for the operation. 48. Additionally, most cities are undertaking various interesting initiatives in the field of sustainable transport with their own resources, including construction of bikeway networks (Rosario, Cordoba, Tucuman), bike-sharing programs (Rosario and Tucuman), campaigns to promote NMT (Rosario and Cordoba) and construction of exclusive lanes for public transport (Posadas, Rosario and Cordoba), among others. 3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation Overall rating: High 49. Project relevance is rated high, given that the Project’s objectives, design and implementation are still consistent both with the country’s current development strategy and GEF priorities. The new CPS for Argentina, elaborated in 2014, is selectively built around nine World Bank Group (WBG) result areas, set within three broader themes: (a) Employment Creation in Firms and Farms; (b) Availability of Assets for People and Households; and (c) Reducing Environmental Risks and Safeguarding Natural Resources. The strategy highlights the importance of working with cities, establishing urban transport and environmental management as a key priority. One of the result areas of the CPS (#2) refers to extending the benefits of agglomeration economies towards low income groups and specifically mentions urban transport as a key strategy in the integration of lower income quintiles to urban services, employment and education opportunities. Regarding GEF priorities, the Project’s higher-level objective is to reduce the rate of growth of GHG emissions from transport through the promotion of less energy intensive and cleaner modes of transport. The broader GEF Program was approved under the GEF-3 Strategic Priorities, and is consistent with the programmatic goals of GEF Operational Program 11 (OP-11) and the GEF Strategic Priority of promoting energy efficient, low carbon transport and urban systems in the Climate Change focal area (CC-6), ongoing to date. 50. Additionally, the Project design needs to be commended for being innovative and fostering increased regional coordination among Latin American cities on the sustainable transport agenda. The “umbrella” structure, including one Regional Project, implemented by CAI, and three Country Projects, moving in parallel, yet interacting and sustaining an implementation dialogue, both 11 between cities and with CAI, was an original and worthwhile design concept, despite some of the implementation challenges encountered down the line. 3.2 Achievement of Global Environmental Objectives Overall rating: Substantial GEO Achievement 51. The assessment of Project outcomes will respond to the GEO, as defined in the Grant Agreement (which is very much in line with the wording of the PDO used in the PAD). The GEO contains two main objectives: (1) reducing GHG emissions by increasing the use of less energy intensive transport modes; and (2) inducing policy changes in favor of sustainable transport projects.6 Objective 1: Reducing GHG emissions through the use of less energy intensive transport modes 52. Reductions in GHG emissions are typically longer-term impacts, requiring policy changes be implemented and investments be completed and in use for a significant period of time. This was precisely the argument used to justify dropping PDO indicator 3, measuring the Project’s impact in terms of emission reductions, under the Project’s first restructuring in 2012. However, initial information is available, for the Project’s NMT component in the city of Rosario, based on traffic counts undertaken on each of the intervened corridors. After the civil works were completed, the ex-post analysis was conducted using actual figures form traffic counts in each corridor and applying a simplified model to compare with and without project scenario. The results revealed that the construction of the bike path on avenue 27 de Febrero helped to reduce 41.66 CO2 equivalent tons, and on the Ovidio Lagos corridor the amount reduced was 58.45 CO2 equivalent tons, compared to predicted emissions on a without-project scenario. On the Avellaneda corridor, the new bicycle lane provided reduced CO2 emissions by 65.22 equivalent tons after the completion of the civil works. Adding the three interventions the amount saved added up to 165.32 CO2 equivalent tons in the year after construction, a decline of 0.6% in comparison to the without project scenario. 53. The construction of new bikeways/ expansion of bikeway network (Rosario, Cordoba and Tucuman). The GEF Project financed a total 18km of bikeways (12km in Rosario and 6km in Cordoba7), largely surpassing the target set at 6.3km. In this sense, the Project has had a significant impact in terms of increased use of NMT in intervened areas as compared to baseline data, also surpassing the established target (5% increase). In the case of Rosario, manual counts8 undertaken on different key arteries, including corridors financed through the Project, show a significant increase in bike use. On the “27 de Febrero” corridor, the number of users went from 863 in 2011 to 1599 in 2014, representing an 85% increase. On the “Ovidio Lagos” corridor, the number of users went from 756 in 2011 to 964 in 2014, representing a 28% increase. Finally, on the 6 Indicators used to report progress on these two objectives are primarily those resulting from the 2012 restructuring. The application of a “disbursement-weighted” split rating was considered not viable in this case, given that disbursements prior to restructuring in 2012 were negligible (only US$0.4 m.) 7 Cordoba surpassed the 100 km benchmark of bikeways with the construction of these new paths and in Rosario the network also includes over 100km of bike circuits, and another 32 kilometers are to be constructed in 2015. 8 In 2014, over 94 surveys were undertaken in 28 corridors in Rosario. 12 “Avellaneda” corridor, users went from 847 in 2013 to 1267 in 2014, representing a 50% increase in only one year. Other bike lanes in the city, not financed by GEF, have also seen a huge increase in ridership in the last few years. In the case of the “Pellegrini” corridor, users went from 94 in 2013 to 310 in 2014, representing a threefold increase in only one year. In Cordoba, the O/D survey made in 2009 showed that 2.69% of people traveled by bike, but less than 0.5% of passengers traveling to the downtown area did it by bike. After the completion of the first bikeway improving the connection of the outer city with the central area, another type of household survey conducted in the city revealed that 6.1% of respondents traveled by bike. Even though the survey methods are not comparable, it provides a sense of the significant impact the bikeways have in promoting a change in the preferred mode of transport. In addition, the City of Tucuman developed a bike network plan, and 2.1km of bike lanes on Av. America are currently under construction, fully financed by PTUMA. 54. Exclusive lanes for public transport (Rosario, Posadas and Cordoba). Although the BRT- type projects promoted by GEF cannot be evaluated since they have not been constructed yet, the construction of this new type of infrastructure will likely increase the use of public transport. Rosario is moving forward with the construction of 9.5 km of BRT-type lanes on the North-South corridor. The civil works of the first section and the final design of the other two sections are been financed by PTUMA. The first section of 2.5km is currently under procurement and is programmed to enter operation by the end of 2015 (estimated budget of US$ 5 million). This project is expected to increase the number of public transport users by 3.131 new riders per day (5% increase compared to the baseline). Also the project will allow for an increase in the average commercial speed of 4.5 km/h, which will save 2.25 minutes of passenger travel time. Additionally, the GEF Program financed the final design for 3.2 km of a BRT on Av. Uruguay in Posadas, with an estimated budget of US$ 24.8 million. This project is expected to increase the number of public transport users by 3.8% compared to the baseline (approximately 1.700 new riders). The Municipality of Cordoba constructed 5.3 km of a pilot BRT-type project in Av. Sabatini, with an estimated cost of US$3.5 million using their own resources. After the construction of this project, half of the people traveling through this corridor use public transport (58.000 passengers per day) and the commercial travel time was reduced by 24%. 55. Other initiatives. All four beneficiary cities undertook numerous initiatives during the timeframe of the Project, aimed at enabling the use of less energy intensive transport modes, including:  Bike-sharing Programs (Rosario and Cordoba). In Rosario, the GEF program included the procurement of 480 public-use bicycles to complement the city’s bike sharing program, successfully launched in April 2015. The bike sharing system is expected to provide 4,000 new rides per day, which will affect the modal share towards the usage of public transport by 1%.9 Cordoba approved in 2014 a new regulation establishing the Plan BiciCiudad, and is initiating studies for the implementation of a bike sharing program.  Undertaking of campaigns to promote NMT and sustainable transportation (Rosario and Cordoba). In Rosario, the “All in Bike” (Todos en Bici) campaign included the elaboration of 9 This estimates was calculated based on a similar bike sharing system recently implemented in Buenos Aires, and international studies relating the modal shift caused by bike infrastructure integrated with BRTs, as seen as in the city of Leon, in Mexico. 13 diverse audiovisual and merchandizing materials, including an institutional video. Media campaigns were undertaken to promote NMT and materials developed are constantly being reused by the city. A new campaign, called “Plan your Trip” is to be launched in 2015, to promote the use of public transport in the city.  Change of bus fleets (Posadas, Cordoba y Rosario). All cites have renewed their bus fleets to cleaner and more energy-efficient vehicles. Cordoba renewed 80% of their 800 units to buses using EURO 3 technology standards. Posadas has renewed 300 units of its transport system, 25% of them during the last year, showing a strong commitment from the private operating companies to modernize their fleets.  Construction of transfer terminals to promote interconnectivity among transport modes (Cordoba). The executive design for one of the terminals was originally envisaged under the GEF, but was finally not undertaken, due to changes in local authorities and political priorities. However, the city is now moving forward with this initiative with other funds. The city of Cordoba has programmed the construction of three transfer terminals in the city. Terminal 1 would be linked to the end point of a bike path and a renewed public space, including civil works to improve interconnectivity.  Introduction of a smartcard in Rosario, facilitating the integration of different modes of transport, including buses, bicycles, taxis and public parking, within the city. Over 1 million smartcards are now in use in the city. Cordoba, Tucuman, and Posadas are moving ahead to use the SUBE smartcard launch by the national government for electronic payment of public transport.  Establishment of a Monitoring and Information Center for Public Transport in Posadas, whose objective is to maximize the use of public transport, facilitating modal exchange and promoting the efficiency of public transportation. Specifically, the center, financed through this GEF, will allow the municipality to monitor the public transportation fleet, observing its routes, speeds and frequencies. Additionally, the center will give local authorities a greater response capacity in case of incidents within the public transportation network, and improve communication with public transportation users, through improved communication and information tools. A pilot is currently in place, facing some issues in terms of technology introduction and physical infrastructure. The installation of 8 panels with dynamic information is pending, and will be financed through PTUMA.  Electric trolleybus in Rosario. The new corridor has an extension of over 25km and would introduce 12 new cars.  “Recreational road” in Rosario. On Sundays, the city opens a 28km circuit; free of cars, for citizens to practice sports, ride bikes, etc. A total of 60,000 citizens have been registered using the corridor.  Development of pedestrian corridors, facilitating the integration of low-income groups to the public transport network, and representing a zero emission private transport option. Walking accounts for about one third of all trips in LAC cities and is the predominant mode of travel among the poor. The Argentina GEF Project organized training workshops for teams in Buenos Aires and Rosario on “walkability strategies in a multi-modal city”. Cordoba, with 29 pedestrian blocks in the downtown area, is one of the most walking-friendly cities in Latin 14 America. Also, Rosario and Tucuman have plans for extending pedestrian corridors in central areas. Objective 2: Inducing policy changes in favor of sustainable transport projects 56. This second objective was largely achieved in all four participating cities. Through the GEF Project, local authorities of all four cities were exposed to cutting edge trainings and world- level conferences on sustainable transport, largely impacting the mind-frame of decision makers at local level and consequently becoming a relevant topic within the public agenda (when before the Project, this was not necessarily the case). Evidence of this change in mind-frame and the installation of sustainable transport within the public policy agenda of these cities is presented below, detailing efforts undertaken by these cities in the development of master plans, planning instruments, new policies and regulatory frameworks during the lifespan of the Project. 57. All four cities have developed master plans integrating environment and climate change with urban transport: (i) Rosario updated its Strategic Plan, including sustainable transport initiatives, in 2008, and formally reported on progress made in terms of projects included under the Plan in 2010. Additionally, in 2010, Rosario elaborated an Integrated Mobility Plan for the city-PIM 10 for its acronym in Spanish- under a strong participatory approach, including the establishment of a “mobility pact” with over 100 institutions, public and private actors and civil society representatives; (ii) the Cordoba Master Plan denominated “Plan Director Cordoba 2020”, was elaborated in 2008. Additionally, a diagnostic for the development of an Integrated Mobility Plan for the city of Cordoba was undertaken in 2012, supported through the GEF project, which provided technical assistance for a participatory process in the development of the Mobility Plan; (iii) the “Plan Estrategico Posadas 2022” was elaborated in 2008, containing a chapter on mobility, transportation and territorial integration, oriented towards the restructuring of the existing system of urban mobility; and (iv) Tucuman has a strategic urban plan for the 2006-2016 period. Additionally, in 2012, Tucuman also developed a Transit and Transport Plan for the city of San Miguel de Tucuman, co-financed by PTUBA. 58. Additionally, all four cities have sanctioned new policies and regulations which create incentives for more efficient and sustainable transport use: (1) Rosario: (i) Municipal Order 8864- Creation of segregated BRT type lanes; (ii) Municipal Order 9030-Creation of Public Bicycle System; (iii) Municipal Order 9145-Construction of underground parking; and (iv) Municipal Order 9238- Parking prohibition in central area of the city; (2) Tucuman: i) Municipal Decree 0957/SG/2008- Parking prohibition in central area; (ii) creation of pedestrian roads in central area of the city; (iii) establishment of public bicycle system; and (iv) proposed network of bicycle lanes; (3) Posadas: (i) Municipal Order 3333/13-Environmental Urban Plan; (ii) Municipal Order 3372/13-Urban plan for the city of Posadas; and (iii) development of a Control and Information Center for Public Transport in the city of Posadas; and (4) Cordoba: (i) Municipal Order 12.076 – regulatory framework for the urban bus transport service; (ii) Municipal Order 12.146 - concession of the urban bus transport service; (iii) Municipal Order 11712/10- Provision of bike parking; and (iv) Municipal Order under revision-creation of Public Bicycle Plan. 10 The PIM has three main pillars, all aligned to the objective being pursued under GEF: (1) Promoting public transportation; (2) Developing NMT; and (3) Dissuading the use of private vehicles. In 2014, a formal report was issued on progress made under PIM. 15 59. It is fair to say that through capacity building and training efforts sponsored through the Project, momentum was generated in all four cities, which helped move forward these initiatives, aimed at promoting more sustainable transport policies; this ultimately being the second Development Objective pursued though the Project (inducing policy changes). All of these initiatives, aimed at directly or indirectly provoking a modal shift in cities, towards cleaner, less energy intensive modes of transport, through the promotion of NMT and public transport alternatives are bound to have significant impacts in terms of emission reductions in the near future. Particularly considering that the most important designs and initiatives undertaken under the GEF Project are now being pursued by the cities with other sources of funds. 3.3 Efficiency Overall rating: Moderate 60. At the time of appraisal, for undertaking the preliminary economic analysis of the GEF operation’s investments, the cost-effectiveness of indirect impacts was selected as the primary indicator. This approach was considered appropriate, since the primary emphasis of the proposed GEF operation was to enable further action to be taken by cities and national governments in the realm of sustainable transport and climate change. 61. In the case of Argentina (aggregating the four beneficiary cities), the incremental cost analysis conducted at appraisal, on the basis of expected GHG emission benefits over 20 years, estimated reductions at between 684,000 to 3,400,000 CO2 equivalent tons. Regarding the direct infrastructure investments financed by the GEF Grant, the GHG emissions reductions were estimated at between 435,000 to 750,000 CO2 equivalent tons. The adopted methodology recognized several weaknesses, thus these calculations were not directly comparable, but were shown for orders-of-magnitude. 62. The assumed baseline scenario was the implementation of measures aimed at improving transport, without considering GHG emission reductions. The alternative scenario included complementary activities that would introduce climate change considerations, i.e., land-use incentives to promote a more efficient use of transport (more passengers per vehicle kilometer), developing BRT corridors (in order to reduce average travelled km), and an accelerated promotion and development of alternatives means of NMT, among others. Most of the measures identified in the different windows of intervention interrelate to each other, posing significant synergetic effects, having an expansive effect on reducing GHG emissions.11 63. The impact of transport and land-use policy measures represent a huge potential for achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions in the long term. However, due to the complex calculations required for measuring emission reductions from land-use changes or social campaigns, this analysis could not be performed for this Project. Also, the most significant direct impacts in terms of reduced GHG emissions will come through the implementation of BRT projects. However, until the Project is not constructed, it is not possible to undertake an ex-post incremental cost analysis to compare against the appraisal scenario. 11 According to Wright and Fulton, additional GHG reductions may double as a result of further modal shift, especially from cars, minibuses, motorcycles, and taxis, provided the right complementary measures are in place (i.e., regulation, accessibility, effective networks, effective land use planning).Wright, L. and L. Fulton, 2005. Climate Change Mitigation and Transport in Developing Nations, Transport Reviews, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp-691-717. 16 64. The only measurable short-term impact with enough data was the incremental cost estimate for the construction of bikeways. Despite the fact that the indicator measuring the Project’s impact in terms of CO2 emission reductions was dropped as part of the Project’s first restructuring in 2012, it is possible to undertake a partial analysis of the NMT component in the case of Rosario. Although no data for bike modal shift on a citywide level is available, since the last O/D survey was conducted before the bikeways construction; calculations based on traffic counts undertaken on each corridor were made available by the city. 65. CAI collaborated with the Municipality of Rosario in developing a methodology to calculate emission reductions and hence evaluate the impact of the construction of the bikeways. The results for the ex-ante evaluation performed by CAI with this model showed the potential for reducing CO2 emissions with the construction of the bike path in Bv. 27 de Febrero and Bv. Ovidio Lagos, at approximately 240.8 tons/year. However, CAI used a broader intervention area overestimating the number of trips and their potential impact. 66. The ex-post analysis conducted after the completion of the civil works using actual figures from traffic counts revealed that the construction of the bike paths reduced 41.66 CO2 equivalent tons on the avenue 27 de Febrero, 58.45 CO2 equivalent tons on the Ovidio Lagos corridor, and 65.22 CO2 equivalent tons on the Avellaneda corridor, in comparison to a without-project scenario. Adding the three interventions, the amount saved added up to 165.32 CO2 equivalent tons in one year after construction. 67. The estimated Social Values of Carbon in WBG financed projects are US$ 30 per metric ton of CO2,12 resulting in a value of approximately US$ 5,000 (US$30 times 165 CO2 equivalent tons) for the first year of this project. This does not include the long-term benefits, including the lifecycle of the project and the change in modal share due to new riders using this infrastructure. Therefore, it is likely that these interventions would generate a larger benefit in the years to come. The estimates made by CAI, based on the O/D survey from 2008, expected cumulative savings of approximately 2,000 CO2 equivalent tons eight years after completion of the civil works. 68. GEF provided financing for two contracts of US$ 911,040 for the construction of 11.7 km. of bikepaths in Rosario; the cost per kilometer of bikepath is US$ 77,338.13 The calculation of the construction cost of the civil works divided by the emission reduction shows that the cost effectiveness of the bike paths was US$ 5,510 per ton (US$ 911,040 divided by 165 CO2 eq. tons). This compares similarly to other cost effectiveness calculations in analogous projects.14 69. International experiences, like the one in Santiago de Chile, showed that after four years of implementation of the bike paths, the number of trips increased by 45%. In comparison, Rosario’s 12 New research has argued that the actual calculation of the social cost of carbon is US$220 per ton, thus elevating the savings up to US$ 36.000 for current year. See, F. C. Moore & D. B. Diaz, Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy, Nature Climate Change 5,127–131, 2015. 13 Based on a study analyzing 77 pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the US, the average construction cost for a Bicycle Lane is US$83,231 per Km. See, “Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements”, UNC Highway Safety Research Center, October, 2103. 14 In order to do a comparison, the Orange Line bicycle facilities in Los Angeles County, reduce between 314 and 507 CO2 eq. ton per year, and this reductions would be achieved at an average cost of US$5,125 per ton. See, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cost Effectiveness Study”, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, June 2010, and J. M. Matute and M. V. Chester, “Cost-Effectiveness of Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from California High-Speed Rail and Urban Transportation Projects”, April 9, 2014. 17 new corridors have shown an increase of cyclist using the new bikeways of between 24% and 52%, during the first year. Also the modal share for bicycles in these corridors grew between 12% and 43%, in comparison with the international benchmark of 40%.15 70. Accordingly, while the originally envisaged amount of GHG emission reductions was not achieved because the estimates were ambitious, the actual reductions seem reasonable in light of Project design. The analysis shows an effective CO2 emission reduction, a significant increase of cyclist usage of roads and their growth in the modal share of the corridor, with the potential to lead to additional reductions in coming years. 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 71. The overall rating is moderately satisfactory. Project Objectives and design remain highly relevant to the country’s current Development Strategy and GEF priorities. Project efficacy is considered substantial given the scale and timeframe of the Project. Despite the ambitiousness of the Project’s broader Development Objectives, existing evidence indicates the positive impact being had by the Project in terms of increased use of NMT and initial reductions in emissions (expected to evidence further reductions in the future with the incremental usage of bikes), as well as its influence in advancing initiatives, policies and regulations at local level to promote sustainable transport. Additionally, all result indicators included under the Result Framework have been met. Finally, efficiency is considered modest at this point in time. Despite methodological impediments to undertaking a comprehensive ex-post incremental cost analysis, partial analysis conducted for the NMT component of the Project reveal initial savings in terms of reduced emissions, only expected to increase in time. 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 72. Project proponents expected to have an impact, down the line, in terms of improving transport conditions and overall accessibility among low-income users, who typically suffer the most from inequitable access to transport and tend to be most affected by public transport shortfalls. In Argentina where much of the poverty is urban, the urban mobility agenda is a critical element to address the Bank’s core mission of eradicating extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity. There is considerable evidence from the region and internationally, that mobility is a critical developmental challenge for these urban poor. 16 Essentially, mobility barriers –due to issues related with accessibility, affordability, and time spent commuting– influence negatively 15 Based on international experience we can assume that two out of three bike riders were a result of a mode shift from more pollutant means of transport. 16 Alexandre Gomide, “Transporte Urbano e Inclusão Social: Elementos para Políticas Públicas”, Texto para Discussão No. 960. IPEA, 2003; Instituto de Desenvolvimento e Informação em Transporte, “Mobilidade e Pobreza: Relatório Final”, ITRANS, 2004. CIPPEC, “Hacia una tarifa social para la calidad con equidad en el sistema de transporte de pasajeros del AMBA”, presentation, September 2013. 18 the abilities of the low income population to search and compete for better paying jobs and find economic opportunities. 73. The Project financed the executive project/ design for the provision of basic infrastructure works (paving, drainage) for Barrio 11 de Marzo in Tucuman, facilitating the access of this vulnerable sector of the city, evidencing high levels of urban poverty, to the public transportation network. Under this initiative, the Project undertook a Social Impact Evaluation, establishing a baseline on which to evaluate the impact, once the works are developed. Although financing for these works was not provided through PTUMA, as originally envisaged, the municipality is undertaking the project with its own funds, with investments totaling $8 million argentine pesos. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening 74. Through the provision of tailored technical assistance, the Project intended to strengthen existing institutional capacity at local, provincial and national level in the area of sustainable transport, conducting numerous capacity-building activities, workshops, clinics, conferences, etc. To provide some examples: local authorities participated in conferences sponsored through GEF in Mexico and Rio de Janeiro; the Project partially financed the XVIII Latin American Congress of Urban and Public Transport in Rosario (CLATPU) under the theme of sustainable transport; provided TA to the mobility entity of Rosario in required software (TransCAD); and elaborated a pilot street design manual for the City of Buenos Aires in partnership with ITDP, among others. 75. All these efforts in terms of training and capacity building, undertaken through the Project, were not reflected in the Project’s Result Framework, and yet are mentioned by all Project beneficiaries as one of its greatest contributions. Another one of the most relevant results of the Project was its capacity to introduce the topic of sustainable transport into the public agenda. Most of the cities agreed on the fact that using donation funds to move forward innovative measures within the cities, helped position this agenda in the public realm, generating higher receptivity and acceptability on behalf of civil society. This was clearly evidenced in the case of bikeways, both in Cordoba and Rosario. 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops 76. No beneficiary survey or stakeholder workshops took place. 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Moderate 77. Although projects included under the GEF operation were selected through rigorous competition based on technical quality, local capacity, commitment and political support, sustained commitment by the Federal Government and the respective cities to projects being promoted through the GEF and PTUMA, will be critical to Project sustainability, as several of the products of this Project are feasibility studies and designs of programmed infrastructure interventions. Therefore, the actual undertaking of these investments is subject to the leveraging of funds, either through PTUMA or the GoA, at Federal or Municipal level. This was how the Project was originally designed, conceiving the different urban transport operations being undertaken in the country, as “building blocks”. This design required that the next operation, in this case PTUMA, would step in to actually implement the interventions designed under the GEF. Therefore, guaranteeing this complementarity between operations is critical to ensuring the sustainability of Project objectives. 19 78. On a deeper level, changes in participating cities and the corresponding local authorities, in terms of modified mind frames and the installation of sustainable transport as a central issue within the public agenda, as revealed by the wide range of initiatives, regulations and policy measures undertaken in this direction in the last years, constitute a long-term safeguard towards Project’s sustainability in time. 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory 79. There are various elements worth highlighting within the appraisal process. First, this Project was originated as part of an “umbrella project”, originally conceived as one integrated project, and later divided into a Regional Program and three country Projects. This structure was expected to promote cross coordination and cooperation between the 11 GEF cities, generating dialogue among the cities, joint participation in conferences, etc. Bank’s effort in generating this interaction among local players at a regional scale should be commended, even if implementation presented challenges. The Argentina GEF is the first Country Project to close, with Brazil and Mexico currently struggling to conclude. Additionally, the team placed significant efforts in ensuring adequate coordination between the different urban transport initiatives being promoted by the Bank in Argentina (PTUBA, PTUMA and GEF) during preparation. The overriding principle during preparation was conceiving these operations not in isolation, but rather as “building blocks” in the broader strategy of achieving sustainable urban transport in participating cities. Finally, Project participation was characterized by a strong participatory approach, requiring strong input from participating cities in defining the actual content of projects financed through the GEF. This guaranteed that the TA being provided was aligned to concrete city demands. 80. However, despite these positive elements evidenced during the preparation/ appraisal period, there were evident shortcomings in Project design, including, primarily, deficiencies in the selection of Project objectives and result indicators, which proved to be overly ambitious and unrealistic given Project scale and timeframe. Questions are also raised regarding the choice of implementation arrangements, and whether these proved to be the most convenient given the nature of the operation. (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 81. According to the PAD, supervision of the operation would be undertaken by the World Bank team and the PIU, with support from the Consulting Committee and the regional executing agency, CAI. However, in practice, CAI’s role in the implementation and supervision of this operation was minimal. Although CAI was expected to play a “coordinating role”- providing technical monitoring and supervision to Country Projects-in practice, this was not the case and budget constraints often impeded CAI from providing effective coordination to Country Projects. 82. The Argentina GEF’s Project supervision was undertaken in parallel to PTUMA’s, through joint supervision missions, every 6 months on average, sharing the same technical team (procurement, safeguards, etc.). Although different issues were raised during project implementation, as mentioned previously, response capacity on behalf of the Bank’s team was 20 adequate, as revealed by the Project’s two restructurings, the undertaking of the forensic audit, the establishment of action plans, and the provision of technical assistance where needed. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory 83. The Bank’s overall performance is considered moderately unsatisfactory. This rating is justified on the basis that despite some positive elements in Bank participation, both in terms of efforts made by the team in the preparation and supervision of the operation, there were evident shortcomings in the design of the operation, particularly in terms of the monitoring and evaluation framework and the selection of implementation arrangements. 5.2 Borrower (a) Government Performance Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory 84. Commitment shown by the Federal Government in the initial phases of the Project was unsatisfactory, and risked losing the GEF donation. As mentioned previously, obtaining the signature of the Presidential Decree approving the Grant by Argentina’s Executive Power took over 18 months, requiring a waiver on behalf of the Bank, to avoid losing the donation. The initial phases of implementation were also characterized by low Government commitment with practically no disbursements in the first two years of Project execution. Allegations in the press of irregularities in the procurement and implementation of specific contracts financed by PTUMA, sharing the same implementation unit as the GEF Project, led to an INT investigation and the undertaking of a forensic audit, which also kept the Project’ s implementation frozen for a year. 85. However, at Municipal level, existing commitment towards the Project varied among beneficiary cities, and although in general, Project ownership and overall response capacity of municipal governments was low, some cities, particularly Rosario, did show considerable commitment towards the Project. The other beneficiary cities justified their lack of responsiveness to insufficient technical staff, and existing local capacity assigned to the Project. Finally, in some cities (Cordoba for example), rotation of technical teams within the municipalities further undermined local commitment to the Project. (b) Implementing Agency Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 86. Performance of the implementing agency prior to 2013 was overall unsatisfactory. Despite being declared effective in 2010, almost no disbursements were undertaken prior to 2013. One of the key reasons being the lack of priority given to this operation within the implementing unit, whose efforts were focused on implementation of PTUMA. 87. Through Decree No. 2024/2013, dated December 4, 2013, the executing agency was modified, becoming a Central Executing Unit within the Ministry of Interior and Transport, unifying all resources (staff, physical and economic resources) of Programs or Projects being financed through external financing under the Ministry. The change in project management in 2013 was critical in achieving a turnover in project implementation and disbursements. The new team had ample experience in projects financed by IFIs, and staff profiles aligned to project needs (procurement, financial management, engineering, territorial planning, social and environmental 21 management, etc.). Additionally, the PIU was effective in coordinating initiatives, both technically and administratively, with the respective counterparts at city level. 88. However, although performance of the PIU after 2013 was satisfactory, given the record prior to 2013, overall performance of the implementing agency is rated as moderately satisfactory. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory 89. The Borrower’s overall performance is considered moderately unsatisfactory. Federal Government commitment is considered unsatisfactory; however, commitment among participating cities varied with some cities (Rosario particularly) revealing high commitment and responsiveness. Performance of the implementation unit prior to its restructuring in 2013 is considered unsatisfactory, however, after 2013, performance became highly satisfactory, resulting in a considerable pick up in the execution pace and project disbursements. 6. Lessons Learned 90. The value of associating GEF operations to larger urban transportation Projects needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Although linking GEF Projects to larger Bank operations has become common practice, in order to leverage funds and save supervision and coordination costs, this link could also result in slower implementation of GEF Projects (given their relative priority vis-à-vis the larger operation at Government level), and the setting of overly ambitious objectives which go beyond the scale and timeframe of the GEF Project. The adoption of long-term objectives under short-term operations, as was the case under this GEF, may result in implementation challenges, given the disconnection between Project activities and the Result Framework. Therefore, even if operations are linked, objectives and result indicators should remain independent, and aligned to the actual scope and timeframe of the Project. 91. The selection of implementation arrangements (centralized versus decentralized implementation) under GEF Projects raises complex political economy questions that need to be thoroughly analyzed during appraisal. In the case of the Argentina GEF, the option of placing implementation at city-level was discussed during project preparation, however, a decision was taken, between the Federal Government and the Bank to keep implementation centralized, given formal lending requirements and existing local capacities. This decision had considerable implications during implementation, given that adding a level of intermediation added complexity and in many cases caused delays in Project execution. However, there are also innumerous examples of highly decentralized projects that have had huge delays in implementation due to lack of local capacity. Therefore, issues of existing local capacity, as well as existing Bank requirements for decentralized execution, need to be considered during appraisal. 92. Donations, such as GEF operations, should be used as “catalyst financing” for they provide an important vehicle in the Bank’s agenda-setting power/ capacity. Although overall funding under these donations tends to be limited, these operations have the ability to move forward innovative and trend setting issues, positioning them within the public debate. As mentioned previously, the nature of this funding increases positive public acceptance and receptivity to new, cutting-edge initiatives that would otherwise not be as well received. 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners 22 (a) Borrower/implementing agencies 93. In Argentina, the Ministry of Interior and Transport, through the Central Executing Unit (UEC), was responsible for project implementation and execution. The funding was aimed at studies and works related to the coordination of planning and transport demand, promotion and improvement of non-motorized transport, improvement of urban space and the modernization of public transport, including implementation of bicycle lanes in four metropolitan areas in Argentina (Rosario, Córdoba, Posadas and Tucuman). 94. In relation to Window 2, the GEF contributed, in Tucumán, to greater coordination and integration of transport planning, land use and environmental management, increasing access to public and non-motorized transport. The GEF not only provided technical assistance but also strengthen the institutional capacity of municipalities. 95. Under Window 3, projects were carried out in the cities of Córdoba, Rosario and Posadas. Pilot investments and technical assistance were conducted to facilitate the improvement of public transport systems and increase the effectiveness and interconnectivity of these systems with other modes of transport and induce less use of private cars. Among others, conferences, dissemination and awareness campaigns, participatory processes and the implementation of a control center in the city of Posadas were funded with the GEF. 96. Finally, in relation to Window 4 investments in Rosario and Córdoba were carried out as well as technical assistance to increase the integration of walking and cycling to the culture and planning processes of cities. Thus, two bike paths in Córdoba and two bike paths in Rosario were funded, as well as the purchase of bicycles in the latter. 97. Procurement processes were conducted under the rules of the World Bank and the same did not generate major problems, taking place in a timely manner. 98. Regarding the performance of the UEC, note the change of management in 2012, after which project execution improved significantly, despite the huge delay on the part of the provinces to submit the information requested by the UEC. For its part, the Bank was always willing to assist in the proper implementation of the project, accompanied the whole process of changes in the UEC, quickly answering the queries made by the UEC and the requests for No Objection that allowed progress in meeting the objectives proposed under the GEF. 99. In terms of lessons learned, the highlight would be: (i) that proper management left installed capacity in both the UEC and the Beneficiary Cities; (ii) that ownership of projects by the Beneficiary Cities is essential to ensure proper implementation and the involvement of the community in its different stages; (iii) that it is important to plan from the beginning an economic cost-benefit analysis of the project in order to see after the real impact; (iv) to foresee that generally Beneficiary Cities do not have extra budget to carry out complementary activities. 100. The Borrower ICR/comments received were incorporated in the report (see Annex 5). (b) Cofinanciers 101. Not applicable. (c) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society) 23 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in US$ equivalent) Components Appraisal Actual/Latest Percentage of Estimate Estimate Appraisal (%) Window 2 205,000 336,199 164% Tucuman 205,000 336,199 164% Window 3 2,382,000 1,039,410 44% Cordoba 750,000 0 0% Posadas 732,000 866,882 118% Rosario 900,000 165,553 19% Window 4 1,400,000 2,236,435 160% Cordoba 700,000 883,332 126% Rosario 700,000 1,353,103 193% Operating Cost 0 275,525 Total Baseline Cost 3,987,000 3,880,594 97% Physical Contingencies 0 Price Contingencies 0 Total Project Costs 3,987,000 3,880,594 97% Project Preparation Facility (PPF) Front-end fee IBRD Total Financing Required (b) Financing (in US$ million equivalent) Appraisal Actual/Latest Type of Percentage of Source of Funds Estimate Estimate Cofinancing Appraisal (USD millions) (USD millions) Borrower 7.73 9.70 125% Global Environment Facility (GEF) 3.99 3.88 97% 24 (c) Financing by City (in US$ million equivalent) SUBPROJECT SAN MIGUEL DE TUCUMÁN GEF Co-financing Window Expenditure category Contribution (USD) (USD) Goods & Non-consulting services 0 0 Works 0 950,00017 Window 2. Transport and Consulting Services 336,19918 678,95019 Land Use Policies Operating costs 0 0 Subtotal 336,19 1,628,950 Goods & Non-consulting services 0 0 Works 0 950,000 Overall Project Budget Consulting Services 336,199 678,950 Operating costs 0 0 Total 336,199 1,628,950 SUBPROJECT ROSARIO GEF Contribution Co-financing Window Expenditure category (USD) (USD) Goods & Non-consulting services 165,55320   40,752 21 Works 0 0 Window 3. Public Transport Enhancement Consulting Services 0 142,560 22 Operating costs 0 0 Subtotal 165,553 183,312 17 Based on the detailed designs financed by GEF, the city of Tucuman started the civil works on pavement and drainage with an investment of US$950,000. 18 The detailed design for Barrio 11 de Marzo upgrade were fully financed by the GEF funds; originally this consulting service was going to be co-financed by PTUMA. 19 The Transportation Master Plan for the Metropolitan Area of San Miguel de Tucuman listed on the PAD, was financed by the IADB (US$ 678.855) and the Municipality of Tucuman used the O/D survey financed by PTUBA (US$ 200.095), for the required 20% local contribution. 20 GEF Funds provided to assist on the organization of the CLAPTU Congress in 2014 and GEF Conference in 2011. Also, financed a workshop on TransCAD. 21 The Municipality of Rosario co-financed the GEF Conference in 2011 and the CLAPTU Congress in 2014 with their own resources (US$ 40,752). Over the GEF project implementation period, the local bus operating companies (public and private) installed GPS equipment in all units. This investment surpassed the US$ 618,100 for committed at the time of the original PAD for the purchased of on-board equipment for 533 buses. 22 Technical assistance was provided for the update of the feasibility study for a mass transit system in the North South Metropolitan Corridor of Rosario Metropolitan Area, funded by PTUMA. The detailed design and bidding documents for the first section of the N-S Corridor were funded by the Municipality of Rosario (US$ 19,008). The civil works currently under procurement process, are being financed by PTUMA (US$ 4.6 million), as well as the detailed design for section 2 and 3 (US$ 700,000). Also, the Municipality of Rosario financed activities to promote the city’s mass transport system with their resources, for instance: the final design and bidding documents for the dedicated bus lanes project (US$ 19,008); the bidding documents for the new public transport bus system concession agreement ($ 101,376); and the final design and bidding documents (US$ $ 3,168) for the electric trolleybus line extension (the estimate budget for this project is US$ 3.900.000). The co-financing form the Municipality for consulting service listed above add up to US$ 142,560. 25 SUBPROJECT ROSARIO GEF Contribution Co-financing Window Expenditure category (USD) (USD) Goods & Non-consulting services 315,99023 150,00024 Works 911,040 25 1,700,00026 Window 4. Non- Consulting Services 126,07227 25,344 28 motorized Transport Operating costs 0 $ 4,752 Subtotal 1,353,102 1,880,096 Goods & Non-consulting services 488,518 190,752 Works 911,041 1,700,000 Overall Project Budget Consulting Services 126,072 167,904 Operating costs $0 4,752 Total 1.518.655 2,063,408 SUBPROJECT POSADAS GEF Co-financing Window Expenditure category Contribution (USD) (USD) Goods & Non-consulting services 324,80229 0 Works 58,80030 0 Window 3. Public Transport 2,350,000 31 Enhancement Consulting Services 542,07832 500,00033 Operating costs 0 0 Subtotal 866,881 0 Goods & Non-consulting services 324,802 0 Works 0 2,408,800 Overall Project Budget Consulting Services 542,078 500,000 Operating costs 0 0 Total 866,881 2,908,800 23 Procurement of 480 public-use bicycles to complement city’s bike sharing program. 24 Estimated budget for the bike station of the bike sharing program. 25 GEF-funded bikeways, two contracts for 11.7 km which complement the existing network. 26 34 km of bikeways constructed by the Municipality during the same period. 27 Campaign to promote NMT, including the elaboration of audiovisual and merchandizing materials. 28 Local funds committed to the NMT campaign. 29 Equipment and software for the establishing of the Monitoring and Information Center for Public Transport. 30 The municipality contributed with the new offices for the Center and PTUMA will finance some activities to complete the installation of public information boards. 31 Construction of the two bus terminals for transfers on Municipality property and financed by the private sector operating companies. 32 Final design for the construction of the three first km of segregated busways in Av. Uruguay and auxiliary works in the corridor. Also, GEF provided funds for providing technical assistance for a participatory workshops related to this project. 33 Planning studies for the metropolitan integration of the transport system, funded by the Municipality and private bus operators. 26 Parallel financing: Over the GEF project implementation period, the private bus operating companies purchased new buses EURO III (conventional and articulated) and installed GPS equipment in 300 units. SUBPROJECT CORDOBA GEF Co-financing Window Expenditure category Contribution (USD) (USD) Goods & Non-consulting services 0 034 Works 0 2,530,00035 Window 3. Public Transport Consulting Services 0 577,00036 Enhancement Operating costs 0 0 Subtotal 0 0 Goods & Non-consulting services 0 0 Works 832,73237 0 Window 4. Non-motorized Consulting Services 50,600.0038 0 Transport Operating costs 0 0 Subtotal 883,332.17 0 Goods & Non-consulting services 0 0 Works $ 832,732 2,530,000 Overall Project Budget Consulting Services $ 50,600.00 577,000 Operating costs 0 0 Total 883,332.17 3,107,000 Parallel financing: Over the GEF project implementation period, the private bus operating companies invested US$ 600 million to purchase buses with EURO III technology. PTUBA financing O/D surveys for each participating city: Rosario: US$ 893.297 Posadas: US$ 805.105 Tucuman: US$ 733.606 Cordoba: US$ 1.137.415 34 Trolleybus line 10km extension budget is US$10 million and will be financed by the Russian Government. The Russian Trolley Company Trolza will start constructing trolleybuses in a new plant in Cordoba. The local government will buy 7 new cars to modernize the fleet of 44 units. 35 Construction of a new 5.3km segregated busway corridor in Avenue Sabatini funded by Municipality. 36 Technical Assistance for the Urban Sustainable Mobility Plan financed by CAF and the Municipality. 37 Construction of two bike lanes (5.9 Km) integrated to bikeway network. 38 Technical assistance to conduct a participatory process for the Cordoba Mobility Agreement. 27 Annex 2. Outputs by Component Component: Pilot investments, technical assistance, and capacity building activities in selected cities Window 2: Transport and Urban Planning Designs of policies and regulations for sustainable land use and transport development Contribution to the Contribution to the Outputs achievement of the GEO39 project outcomes Output  Number of cities with revised/new land-use policies and regulations Aligned to PDO-2: Aligned to the second indicators designed/proposed that create incentives for more efficient and sustainable Number of cities that objective of the GEO: and degree of transport oriented development40. are integrating Inducing policy changes in achievement environment and favor of sustainable Financing of participative workshops in the development of mater plans/ mobility plans in climate change transport projects. Posadas, Cordoba and Tucuman. components, with Through capacity building Rosario: In 2010 Rosario elaborated an Integrated Mobility Plan (PIM) under a strong urban transport, and and training efforts participatory approach, including the establishment of a “mobility pact” involving over 100 land use into master sponsored through the institutions; an updated version was published in 2014. plans and studies Project, momentum was Cordoba: A diagnostic for the development of a Strategic and Integrated Mobility Plan for developed, including generated in all four cities, the city of Cordoba was undertaken in 2012. regulatory and which helped move Tucuman: In 2012, the government developed a Transit and Transport Plan for the city of financial frameworks forward various initiatives, San Miguel de Tucuman. that foster sustainable regulations, and planning transport systems at instruments, aimed at Provision of technical assistance to Government officials of 4 cities on issues of local and national promoting more sustainable transport, climate change and air quality level. sustainable transport Through the Project, local authorities of all four cities were exposed to cutting edge policies. trainings and world-level conferences on sustainable transport, largely impacting the mind- frame of decision makers at local level and consequently becoming a relevant topic within the public agenda (when before the Project, this was not necessarily the case). Conferences attended by Government officials under the Program included: -Rosario CLATPU Conference, April 2009 -Mendoza-Course on Urban Transport Planning, June 2009 -Cordoba-Course on Social and Environmental Issues, September 2009 39 The GEO as defined in the Grant Agreement states: “The objectives of the Project are to assist the Eligible Municipalities to: (a) reduce GHG emissions by increasing the use of less energy intensive transport modes in cities; and (b) induce policy changes in favor of sustainable transport projects.” 40 This indicator was modified through the 2012 restructuring by adding “revised/new” before “land-use”, to facilitate the definition of a baseline indicator. 28 -XV San Miguel de Tucuman-Course to Provincial and Municipal Governments, August 2010 -Mexico City, STAQ Program Conference, October 2010 -Rio de Janeiro, STAQ Program Conference -Rosario, Conference on Sustainable Transport, Air Quality and Climate Change, May 2011 -TA to the mobility entity of Rosario on TransCAD Financing of executive design for Barrio 11 de Marzo: The GEF financed the executive project/ design for the provision of basic infrastructure works (paving, drainage) for Barrio 11 de Marzo in Tucuman, facilitating the access of this vulnerable sector of the city, evidencing high levels of urban poverty, to the public transportation network. These works are already being undertaken using local public funding. Window 3: Public Transport Enhancement Design of mass transit system in cities and strengthen capacity to promote interconnectivity with other transport modes  Number of Km of segregated BRT with final design in cities41 Aligned to PDO-3: Aligned to both objectives Posadas completed the final design for 3km of a BRT on Av. Uruguay (financed by GEF) Number of new of the GEO: (i) Reducing Rosario currently has 10 km of segregated lanes in operation, and an additional 2.5km of transport initiatives GHG emissions through the BRT-type lanes are programmed to enter operation in 2015, with civil works under aimed at enabling use use of less energy intensive procurement by PTUMA of less energy transport modes; and (ii) Cordoba constructed 5.3 km of a pilot BRT-type project in Av. Sabatini, with their own intensive Inducing policy changes in resources. transportation modes. favor of sustainable transport projects  Number of cities preparing or implementing specific measures to promote inter- connectivity among transport modes. Posadas, with support from the GEF operation, has established a Monitoring and Information Center for Public Transport, whose objective is to maximize the use of public transport, facilitating modal exchange and promoting the efficiency of public transportation. Cordoba renewed the Terminal Station 1, connected to the bikeway network, and has developed the analysis and pre-feasibility studies for the construction of three new transfer terminals in the city. Rosario has introduced the use of a smartcard, facilitating the integration of different modes of transport, including buses, bicycles, taxis and public parking, within the city. Over 1 million smartcards are now in use in the city. Additionally, the city has installed over 1000 41 This indicator was modified through the 2012 restructuring from “implemented BRTs” to “BRTs with final designs” since civil works of BRT would not be completed by ICR date. 29 bicycle-parking stations strategically placed in bus stations and other points of interconnection with other transport modes. Window 4: Non Motorized Transport Increase public use, awareness and acceptance of cycling as mode of transport in cities and develop local capacity to design non-motorized facilities in selected cities  Number of increased cyclists in intervened corridors/areas42 Completely aligned Aligned to both objectives Rosario: Manual counts undertaken on different key arteries, including corridors financed to PDO-1: Increase in of the GEO: (i) Reducing through the Project, show a significant increase in bike use: the number of NMT GHG emissions through the -On the “27 de Febrero” corridor, number of users went from 863 in 2011 to 1599 in 2014, in intervened areas use of less energy intensive representing an 85% increase. compared to corridor transport modes; and (ii) -On the “Ovidio Lagos” corridor, number of users went from 756 in 2011 to 964 in 2014, baseline Inducing policy changes in representing a 28% increase. The Project has had a favor of sustainable -On the “Avellaneda” corridor, users went from 847 in 2013 to 1267 in 2014, representing a transport projects. significant impact in 50% increase in only one year. terms of increased Information is available for use of NMT in the NMT component in the Financing of media campaigns to promote NMT: intervened areas as city of Rosario: (i) on the Rosario: The “All in Bike” (Todos en Bici) campaign included the elaboration of diverse compared to baseline 27 de Febrero corridor audiovisual and merchandizing materials, including an institutional video. Media campaigns data, surpassing the there was a decrease of were undertaken to promote NMT and materials developed are constantly being reused by established target 34.43 CO2 equivalent tons the city. A new campaign, called “Plan your Trip” is to be launched in 2015, to promote the (5% increase). from 2011 to 2014; (ii) on use of public transport in the city the Ovidio Lagos corridor, there was a decrease of Procurement of 480 public-use bicycles, in Rosario to complement city’s bike sharing 48.30 CO2 equivalent tons program, expected to inaugurate in April 2015. in the same time period;  Number of km of additional bikeways built43 and (iii) on the Avellaneda Construction of 18km of new bikeways. corridor, there was a Rosario: Construction of 12km of new bikeways: i) Bv. 27 de Febrero: 4km; (ii) Bv. Ovidio reduction of 53.90 CO2 Lagos: 3,2km; (iii) Avellaneda: 3.3km; and (iv) Pellegrini: 2.5km equivalent tons after the Cordoba: Construction of 6km of new bikeways: (i) Ciclovia I: 2,9km; (ii) Ciclovia II: completion of the works. 3km. 42 Through the 2012 restructuring, this indicator was adjusted by adding “increased” before “cyclists” to facilitate the definition of a baseline indicator; also the missing target was added. 43 Through the 2012 restructuring this indicator was adjusted by replacing “pedestrian bikeways and ancillary facilities” by “bikeways”; also the missing target was added. 30 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis 1. At the time of appraisal, for undertaking the preliminary economic analysis of the GEF operation’s investments, the cost-effectiveness of indirect impacts was selected as the primary indicator. This approach was considered appropriate, since the primary emphasis of the proposed GEF operation was to enable further action to be taken by cities and national governments in the realm of sustainable transport and climate change. While some direct investments were planned under the program’s three Windows, for example in non-motorized facilities, these were conceived primarily as demonstrative pilots; to show what kind of outcomes was feasible. 2. The analysis adopted, therefore, does not consider the immediate or direct program outcomes –that is, the reduction or elimination of barriers that impede adoption of policies that lead to structural reductions in CO2 emissions from the sector– but rather, the indirect outcomes that will occur if the policies promoted by the program were adopted. 3. The methodology used to estimate the impact in terms of CO2 emission reductions was based on the comparison between the aggregated measures proposed by each participating city and the results obtained in the case study of Bogota over seven years, serving as a regional reference, to gauge the kind of changes that might be expected from GEF interventions. Thus, two scenarios were analyzed: an upper limit scenario in which all cities accomplish the Bogotá mode share changes, and a lower limit (conservative) scenario in which a small portion of the potential mode share change is accomplished (only 20%). 4. In the case of Argentina (aggregating the four beneficiary cities), the incremental cost analysis conducted at appraisal, on the basis of expected GHG emission benefits over 20 years, estimated reductions at between 684,000 to 3,400,000 CO2 equivalent tones. Regarding the direct infrastructure investments financed by the GEF Grant, the GHG emissions reductions were estimated at between 435,000 to 750,000 CO2 equivalent tones. The adopted methodology recognized several weaknesses, thus these calculations were not directly comparable, but were shown for orders-of-magnitude. 5. The assumed baseline scenario was the implementation of measures aimed at and improving transport, without considering GHG emission reductions. The alternative scenario included complementary activities that would introduce climate change considerations, i.e., land- use incentives to promote a more efficient use of transport (more passengers per vehicle kilometer), developing BRT corridors (in order to reduce average travelled km), and an accelerated promotion and development of alternatives means of NMT, among others. Most of the measures identified in the different windows of intervention interrelate to each other, posing significant synergetic effects having an expansive effect on reducing GHG emissions.44 6. The impact of transport and land-use policy measures represent a huge potential means for achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions in the long term. However, due to the complex calculations required for measuring emission reductions from land-use changes or social 44 According to Wright and Fulton, additional GHG reductions may double as a result of further modal shift, especially from cars, minibuses, motorcycles, and taxis, provided the right complementary measures are in place (i.e., regulation, accessibility, effective networks, effective land use planning).Wright, L. and L. Fulton, 2005. Climate Change Mitigation and Transport in Developing Nations, Transport Reviews, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp-691-717 31 campaigns, this analysis could not be performed for this Project. Also, the most significant direct impacts in terms of reduced GHG emissions will come through the implementation of BRT projects. However, until the project is not constructed it is not possible to undertake an ex-post incremental cost analysis to compare against the appraisal scenario. 7. The only measurable short-term impact with enough data was the incremental cost estimate for the construction of bikeways. Despite that measuring the Project’s impact in terms of CO2 emission reductions was dropped as part of the Project’s first restructuring in 2012, it is possible to undertake a partial analysis of the NMT component in the case of Rosario. Although no data for bike modal shift on a citywide level is available, since the last O/D survey was conducted before the bikeways construction; calculations based on traffic counts undertaken on each corridor were made available by the city. Rosario bikeways emission analysis 8. CAI collaborated with the Municipality of Rosario in developing a methodology to calculate emission reductions and hence evaluate the impact of the construction of the bikeways. The results for the ex-ante evaluation performed by CAI with this model showed the potential for reducing CO2 emissions with the construction of the bike path in Bv. 27 de Febrero and Bv. Ovidio Lagos, at approximately 240.8 tons/year. However CAI used a broader intervention area overestimating the number of trips and the potential impact. 9. After the civil works were completed, the ex-post analysis was conducted using actual figures form traffic counts in each corridor and applying a simplified model to compare the situation with the implemented bikepaths and comparing to similar scenario without the project. Some assumptions were made with the available data in order to get a dynamic baseline for a side- by-side comparison of CO2 emission reduction for the corridor with the bicycle lanes and predicted numbers without them. Overall Assumptions:  Trip Length: The figures used were the same average trip length amounts provided by CAI in the baseline methodology, which were based on the O/D survey in 2008.  Motorcycle Occupancy: The figures used were the same numbers provided by CAI in the baseline methodology, which were based on the O/D survey in 2008.  Emission Figures: In order to calculate the emission factors for the CO2 emission rate per vehicle-kilometer for each vehicle category, the data was taken from the vehicular emission factors from the city of Buenos Aires and adjusted to the characteristics of the vehicle fleet existing in Rosario.45  Cost per ton of Carbon: the Social Values of Carbon recommended for the WBG in US$ per 1 metric ton of CO2 equivalent for 2015 is US$ 30.46  Expansion factor: to calculate the traffic volume it was necessary to convert the actual figures from the traffic counts of the peak hour volume to a daily volume. Based on 45 Based on: Ariela D’Angola, Laura Dawidowsky, Dario R. Gomez, Mauricio Osses, “On road traffic emission in a megacity”, 2009. 46 SDNCE/CCGCE, Guidance note on social value of carbon in project appraisal, July 14, 2014. 32 previous analysis used by the Municipality the factor used was 11. The expansion factor to convert daily volume to yearly was 330. Overall Assumptions Average Average Trip Average Mode Source Occupancy Length Emissions (g/km) CAI 2011 Baseline Report/ Cars 1.10 5.3 227 TEEMP Model/ PIM CAI 2011 Baseline Report/ Trucks 2.00 7.3 771 TEEMP Model/ PIM Public CAI 2011 Baseline Report/ 50.00 6.5 771 TEEMP Model/ PIM Transport CAI 2011 Baseline Report/ Bicycles 1.00 2.75 0 TEEMP Model/ PIM CAI 2011 Baseline Report/ Motorcycles 1.05 4.3 50 TEEMP Model/ PIM Description of the calculation procedures:  STEP 1: Demonstrate 2011 and 2014 actual daily corridor users by mode: The Municipality of Rosario provided 2011 and 2014 traffic counts for all modes. These figures were multiplied by the mode occupancy figures and the expansion factor to arrive at the both the count and modal percentage of people taking each mode per day. (Mode Count) x (Mode Occupancy) x (Daily Expansion Factor of 11) = Daily Corridor Users by Mode  STEP 2: Calculate the change in bicycle activity directly attributable to the new bicycle lanes: This figure is calculated through a two part process. 1) Calculate overall corridor use growth/decline rate: this rate was calculated by analyzing the overall change in the actual number of people using the corridor from 2011 to 2014. (Total Daily Corridor Users in 2014 – Total Daily Corridor Users in 2011)/(Total Daily Corridor Users in 2011) = Corridor Use Growth/Decline Rate 2) Calculate the bicyclist user’s growth or decline directly attributable to the new bicycle lane: This calculation is based on the assumption that, with or without the bicycle lane, we would experience the overall corridor use growth/decline rate identified above. If we assume this average growth rate, we can then go back to the 2011 bicyclist user count and multiply by the use growth/decline rate to get the predicted count of 2014 bicyclist users. This figure is then subtracted from the actual 2014 bicyclists user count to arrive at the count attributable directly to the new bicycle lane. For example, with O. Lagos it would be expected that, given overall trends, bicyclist users would decrease from 60 users 40 users, yet it actually increased to 76 users in 2014. Therefore, we can roughly contribute this growth of 36 bicyclists to the bicycle lane. 33 (2014 Daily Bicyclist Users) – (2011 Daily Bicyclists Users x (1 + Corridor Use Growth/Decline Rate) = Bicyclists User Count Directly Attributable to the New Bicycle Lane  STEP 3: Calculate the 2014 predicted corridor modal users if no bicycle lanes installed: For this step, we first predict that the “Bicyclists User Count Directly Attributable to the New Bicycle Lane” (calculated in the step above) would have chosen a different mode in 2014 if the bicycle lane were not available. Therefore we distribute these new bicyclists (i.e. 36 in the case of O. Lagos) among the other modes in the following process: 1) Remove the bicyclist counts from the 2011 modal counts and recalculate new modal share user percentage splits. 2) Redistribute the new bicyclists (i.e. 36) among all of the non-bicyclist modes through the following calculation: 2014 Actual Modal Figures + ((Bicycle Count Directly Attributable to New Lanes (i.e. 36))*(Mode Share Percentage from 2011 without bicycles))/Occupancy per mode) 3) Calculate the bicyclist users by multiplying the 2011 bicyclist users by the corridor use growth/decline rate. This predicted figure demonstrates that demand remains constant (in terms of number of people using the corridor), but that the mode share would shift depending on the presence of the bike lane.  STEP 5: Calculate the 2014 actual vs. predicted CO2 emissions: In order to calculate the actual versus predicted CO2 emissions, multiply each modal share (for actual and predicted) by: (1) Average Trip Length by Mode x (2) Average Emissions by Mode (g/km) x (3) Yearly Expansion Factor (330 days). Divide this sum by 1,000,000 to convert it to tons. Add the result from each mode to calculate the total yearly CO2 emissions.  STEP 6: Caluclate the overall economic impact: Finally, calculate the overall cost savings by multiplying the total yearly CO2 emissions (for both actual and predicted figures) by the average CO2 cost of $30 per ton of CO2. Analysis of each corridor: i. Bikeway Ovidio Lagos A. Characteristics of the Bikeway: The bike path is 3.2 Km long constructed on the road pavement at both sides of the central boulevard, and it is separated from traffic by horizontal signaling. B. Vehicular Activity: The results of the traffic count conducted during peak hour for vehicles in 2011 (ex-ante) and in 2014 (ex-post), and estimations were made for 2014 without the Bike path. 34 2011 Actual 2014 Actual Figures with 2014 Predicted Figures Figures the Bicycle Lane without the Bicycle Lane Expanded Expanded MODE # [%] # [%] # % # per day # per day Cars 1166 74% 1289 14179 80% 1299 14284 81% Trucks 42 3% 51 561 3% 51 565 3% Public Transport 56 4% 24 264 1% 24 269 2% Bicycles 60 4% 76 836 5% 40 439 3% Motorcycles 250 16% 178 1958 11% 180 1980 11% TOTAL 1574 100% 1618 17798 100% 1594 17536 100% C. Estimation of the number of bicycle change before and after the project directly attributable to the bicycle lane: Corridor Use Growth/Decline Rate Bicyclist User Growth (2011 to 2014) Directly (2011 to 2014, by users)) Attributable to the New Bicycle Lane -33.6% 36 D. Emission Calculation: These are the emissions per type of vehicle on this corridor in 2014 with and without the project: 2014 Actual Emissions with Bicycle 2014 Predicted Emissions without Lane (CO2 Tons/Year) Bicycle Lane (CO2 Tons/Year) MODE # [%] # [%] Cars 5629.4 78% 5670.9 78% Trucks 1042.0 14% 1049.0 14% Public 436.6 6% 444.9 6% Transport Bicycles 0.0 0% 0.0 0% Motorcycles 138.9 2% 140.5 2% TOTAL 7246.9 100% 7305.3 100% E. Results: The comparison between 2011 and 2014 shows a small increase in the number of cars and duty trucks and a significant decrease in the number of motorbikes. The number of bikes also increases by 27% as well as their percentage of the modal share by 23%. Overall Impact: Ex-ante vs. Ex-post Increase in bike trips 27% Increase in bike modal share 23% For the Ovidio Lagos corridor, the new bicycle lane provided reduced CO2 emissions by 58.45 equivalent tons, compared to predicted emissions without a bicycle lane. This represents a decline 35 of 0.8% in CO2 emissions in comparison with the situation without the project. In economic terms, the project cost savings after the first year would be US$ 1,753. Overall Impact: Actual vs. Predicted CO2 Tons/Year -58.45 Percent -0.8% Cost Savings $ (1,753.36) ii. Bikeway 27 de Febrero A. Characteristics of the Bikeway: The bike path is 4 Km long constructed on the road pavement at both sides of the central boulevard, and it is separated from traffic by horizontal signaling. B. Vehicular Activity: The results of the traffic count conducted during peak hour for vehicles in 2011 (ex-ante) and in 2014 (ex-post), and estimations were made for 2014 without the Bike path. 2011 Actual 2014 Actual Figures with 2014 Predicted Figures without Figures the Bicycle Lane the Bicycle Lane Expande Expanded # MODE # [%] # d # per [%] # % per day day Cars 1385 82.2% 1824 20064 79.9% 1831 20146 80.5% Trucks 54 3.2% 90 990 3.9% 90 993 4.0% Public Transport 27 1.6% 29 319 1.3% 29 321 1.3% Bicycles 62 3.7% 94 1034 4.1% 77 848 3.4% Motorcycles 156 9.3% 247 2717 10.8% 248 2726 10.9% TOTAL 1684 100% 2284 25124 100% 2276 25034 100% C. Estimation of the number of bicycle change before and after the project directly attributable to the bicycle lane: Corridor Use Growth/Decline Rate Bicyclist User Growth (2011 to 2014) Directly (2011 to 2014, by users) Attributable to the New Bicycle Lane 24.4% 17 D. Emission Calculation: These are the emissions per type of vehicle on this corridor in 2014 with and without the project: 36 2014 Actual Emissions with Bicycle 2014 Predicted Emissions without Lane (CO2 Tons/Year) Bicycle Lane (CO2 Tons/Year) MODE # [%] # [%] Cars 7965.9 75.7% 7998.3 75.7% Trucks 1838.8 17.5% 1844.7 17.5% Public Transport 527.6 5.0% 530.2 5.0% Bicycles 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% Motorcycles 192.8 1.8% 193.4 1.8% TOTAL 10525.0 100% 10566.6 100% E. Results: The comparison between 2011 and 2014 shows an increase in the number of cars, duty trucks and motorbikes, as a result of the overall increase in the automobile fleet in Rosario during the four-year period. The number of bikes increases by 52% as well as their percentage of the modal share by 12%. Overall Impact: Ex-ante vs. Ex-post Increase in bike trips 51.6% Increase in bike modal share 11.8% For the 27 de Febrero corridor, the new bicycle lane provided reduced CO2 emissions by 41.46 equivalent tons, compared to predicted emissions without a bicycle lane. This represents a decline of 0.4% in CO2 emissions in comparison with the situation without the project. In economic terms, the project cost savings after the first year would be US$ 1,250. Overall Impact: Actual vs. Predicted CO2 Tons/Year -41.66 Percent -0.4% Cost Savings $ (1,249.75) iii. Bikeway Avellaneda A. Characteristics of the Bikeway: The bike path is 4.6 Km long constructed on the road pavement at both sides of the central boulevard, and it is separated from traffic by horizontal signaling. B. Vehicular Activity: The results of the traffic count conducted during peak hour for vehicles in 2013 (ex-ante) and in 2014 (ex-post), and estimations were made for 2014 without the Bike path. 37 2013 Actual 2014 Actual Figures with 2014 Predicted Figures Figures the Bicycle Lane without the Bicycle Lane Expanded Expanded # MODE # [%] # [%] # % # per day per day Cars 2267 80.2% 1988 21868 80.8% 2001 22012 81.5% Trucks 42 1.5% 59 649 2.4% 59 652 2.4% Public Transport 12 0.4% 19 209 0.8% 19 210 0.8% Bicycles 82 2.9% 102 1122 4.1% 81 892 3.3% Motorcycles 424 15.0% 293 3223 11.9% 295 3250 12.0% TOTAL 2827 100% 2461 27071 100% 2456 27015 100% C. Estimation of the number of bicycle change before and after the project directly attributable to the bicycle lane: Corridor Use Growth/Decline Rate Bicyclist User Growth (2013 to 2014) Directly (2013 to 2014, by users) Attributable to the New Bicycle Lane -1.1% 21 D. Emission Calculation: These are the emissions per type of vehicle on this corridor in 2014 with and without the project: 2014 Actual Emissions with Bicycle 2014 Predicted Emissions without Lane (CO2 Tons/Year) Bicycle Lane (CO2 Tons/Year) MODE # [%] # [%] Cars 8682.1 83.0% 8739.2 83.0% Trucks 1205.4 11.5% 1210.4 11.5% Public Transport 345.6 3.3% 346.9 3.3% Bicycles 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% Motorcycles 228.7 2.2% 230.6 2.2% TOTAL 10461.8 100% 10527.0 100% E. Results: The analysis shows a decrease in the number of cars and motorcycles for the year 2014 and a significant increase in the number of bicycles by 24.4%, as well as their percentage of the modal share by 42.9%. Overall Impact: Ex-ante vs. Ex-post Increase in bike trips 24.4% Increase in bike modal share 42.9% 38 For the Avellaneda corridor, the new bicycle lane provided reduced CO2 emissions by 65.22 equivalent tons, compared to predicted emissions without a bicycle lane. This represents a decline of 0.6% in CO2 emissions in comparison with the situation without the project. In economic terms, the project cost savings after the first year would be US$ 1,957. Overall Impact: Actual vs. Predicted CO2 Tons/Year -65.22 Percent -0.6% Cost Savings $ (1,956.56) Conclusion 10. Adding the three interventions the amount saved added up to 165.32 CO2 equivalent tons in the year after construction. The estimated savings of the project considering the Social Values of Carbon per ton at US$ 30,47 are approximately US$ 5,000 for the first year. This analysis does not performed a long term approach, which takes into consideration the lifecycle of the project and shifting of modal share due to new riders using the infrastructure. Therefore, it is likely that these interventions would generate a larger benefit in the years to come. The estimates made by CAI, based on the O/D survey from 2008, expected cumulative savings of approximately 2,000 CO2 equivalent tons eight years after completion of the civil works. Results O. Lagos 27 de F Avellaneda Sum CO2 Tons/Year -58.45 -41.66 -65.22 -165.32 Percent -0.80% -0.39% -0.62% -0.58% Cost Savings $ (1,753.36) $ (1,249.75) $ (1,956.56) $ (4,959.68) Increase in bike trips 26.7% 51.6% 24.4% 33% Increase in bike modal share 23.2% 11.8% 42.9% 24.7% 11. GEF provided financing for two contracts of US$ 911,040 for the construction of 11.7 km. of bikepaths in Rosario; the cost per kilometer of bikepath is US$ 77,338.48 The calculation of the construction cost of the civil works divided by the emission reduction shows that the cost effectiveness of the bike paths was US$ 5,510 per ton (US$ 911,040 divided by 165 CO2 eq. tons). This compares similarly to other cost effectiveness calculations in analogous projects.49 47 New research has argued that the actual calculation of the social cost of carbon is US$220 per ton, thus elevating the savings up to US$ 36.000 for current year. See, F. C. Moore & D. B. Diaz, Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy, Nature Climate Change 5,127–131, 2015. 48 Based on a study analyzing 77 pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the US, the average construction cost for a Bicycle Lane is US$83,231 per Km. See, “Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements”, UNC Highway Safety Research Center, October, 2103. 49 In order to do a comparison, the Orange Line bicycle facilities in Los Angeles County, reduce between 314 and 507 CO2 eq. ton per year, and this reductions would be achieved at an average cost of US$5,125 per ton. See, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cost Effectiveness Study”, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, June 2010, and J. M. Matute and M. V. Chester, “Cost-Effectiveness of Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from California High-Speed Rail and Urban Transportation Projects”, April 9, 2014. 39 12. International experiences, like the one in Santiago de Chile, showed after four years of implementation of the bikepath the number of trips increase by 45%. In comparison, Rosario’s new corridors have shown an increase of cyclist using these new bikeways between 24% and 52%, during the first year. Also the modal share for bicycles in these corridors grew between 12% and 75%, in comparison with the international benchmark of 40%.50 13. Accordingly, while the originally envisaged amount of GHG emission reductions was not achieved because the estimates were ambitious, the actual reductions seem reasonable in the light of the Project design. The analyses shows an effective CO2 emission reduction, a significant increase of cyclist usage of roads and their growth in the modal share of the corridor with the potential to lead to additional reductions in coming years. 50 Based on international experience we can assume that two out of three bike riders were a result from mode shift from more pollutant means of transport. 40 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Responsibility/ Names Title Unit Specialty Lending Paul Procee Program Leader EACCF TTL Veronica Ines Raffo Senior Infrastructure Specialist GTIDR TTL Marcelo Hector Acerbi Senior Environmental Specialist GENDR Environment Natalia Cecilia Bavio Finance Analyst WFALN Financial. Mgmt. Ana Maria Grofsmacht Senior Procurement Specialist GGODR Procurement Ricardo Schusterman Consultant GEDDR Social Supervision/ICR Veronica Ines Raffo Senior Infrastructure Specialist/ GTIDR TTL Maria Catalina Ochoa Sepulveda Transport Specialist GTIDR TTL Paul Procee Program Leader EACCF Urban Transport Shomik Raj Mehndiratta Lead Urban Transport Specialist GTIDR Urban Transport Natalia Cecilia Bavio Finance Analyst WFALN Financial Mgmt. Daniel Chalupowicz Financial Management Specialist GGODR Financial Mgmt. Marcelo Hector Acerbi Senior Environmental Specialist GENDR Environment Santiago Ezequiel Arias E T Consultant GTIDR Urban Transport Andres Sebastian Gartner Junior Professional Associate GTIDR Urban Transport Ana Maria Grofsmacht Procurement Specialist GGODR Procurement Carlos A. Molina Social Development Specialist GSURR Social Ricardo Schusterman Consultant GURDR Social Gerhard Menckhoff Consultant GTIDR Urban Transport (b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project Cycle USD Thousands (including No. of staff weeks travel and consultant costs) Lending FY08 Total: 0.00 Supervision/ICR FY09 1.23 3,874.98 FY10 0.86 1,082.84 FY11 2.49 7,678.28 FY12 3.70 10,957.94 FY13 16.66 72,277.09 FY14 9.27 27,296.10 FY14 3.88 17,677.00 Total: 38.09 140,845.98 41 Annex 5. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR 1.- INTRODUCCIÓN Y COMENTARIOS GENERALES Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible y Calidad del Aire - Donación AR-GEF TF 93048 fue aprobada en Directorio el 4 de noviembre 2008 por un monto total de US$ 3.987.000 y firmado el 10 de mayo 2010, siendo la fecha de efectividad de la donación el 3 de agosto 2010. El Acuerdo de Donación tuvo una Enmienda (Reestructuración de Nivel 2) aprobada por el Directorio del Banco en julio de 2012 (modificación de Matriz de Resultados) y una Enmienda (Reestructuración de Nivel 2) para extensión de fecha de cierre a 31/10/14 aprobada en septiembre 2013. Los objetivos de desarrollo se mantuvieron sin alteraciones: Asistir a los Municipios Elegibles para: (i) reducir las emisiones de GEI a través del incremento en el uso de modos de transporte con menor intensidad en el consumo de energía; e (ii) inducir cambios en políticas a favor de proyectos de transporte sustentable. Avance en la ejecución Monto US$ % Total desembolsado 3.884.357,80 97,4% Monto sin desembolsar 102.642,20 2,6% Monto total ejecutado 3.880.593,88 97,3% En la Argentina, el Ministerio del Interior y Transporte de la Nación, a través de la Unidad Ejecutora Central, fue el responsable de la implementación del proyecto y su ejecución. El financiamiento fue destinado a estudios y obras relacionadas con la coordinación de planeación y demanda de transporte, la promoción y mejora del transporte no motorizado, el mejoramiento del espacio urbano y la modernización del transporte público, incluyendo implementación de ciclovías, en cuatro áreas metropolitanas seleccionadas de la Argentina (Rosario, Córdoba, Posadas y Tucumán). Al momento de aprobarse el GEF, había en Argentina, varios proyectos en curso que, si bien no estaban del todo relacionados con los objetivos del GEF, si contribuyeron a la construcción de bases sólidas para abordar el transporte y los problemas ambientales. En el Sector de Transporte Urbano, el Banco Mundial , sobre la base de un proyecto ejecutado para el Gran Buenos Aires (PTUBA), inicio la preparación de una nueva operación de Transporte Urbano (PTUMA) que cubre el Gran Buenos Aires y varias áreas metropolitanas, incluyendo las cuatro áreas metropolitanas beneficiarios del proyecto GEF (Tucumán , Rosario , C6rdoba y Posadas). En estas cuatro áreas metropolitanas, se están financiando obras de mejora de los servicios públicos de transporte y la asistencia técnica, todo lo cual es plenamente coherente y complementario al Programa Regional del GEF. 2.- DESCRIPCIÓN DE LAS ACTIVIDADES La UEC en su carácter de organismo ejecutor de la donación y a los fines de dar cumplimiento a las actividades necesarias para llevar adelante la ejecución del Programa, realizó las siguientes contrataciones:  Curso de TransCad: En el marco del fortalecimiento y capacitación de los consultores de la UEC, se contrató una firma consultora (Information Technology Transport & Logistics (ITTL)) a los efectos de brindar un curso del Software TransCAD y modelos de transporte 42 de nivel inicial y avanzado, orientado principalmente a fortalecer y mejorar la utilización de las herramientas que ofrece el mencionado software por parte de los consultores de la Unidad.  Adquisición de equipamiento tecnológico para la instalación de una sala de video conferencias a fin de facilitar la comunicación entre la UEC y los organismos internacionales de crédito y/o las ciudades del interior; en el ejercicio cotidiano de las funciones que le son propias. Asimismo la adquisición incluyó equipamiento informático para el desarrollo de las funciones de la UEC en su carácter de organismo ejecutor de proyectos. Las adquisiciones mencionadas facilitaron la gestión de los proyectos llevada a cabo por la UEC y contribuyeron al cumplimiento de los compromisos asumidos en el marco de la Donación del GEF. La ejecución financiera por ciudad fue la siguiente: Categorías Presupuesto Ejecución Ejecución % de Monto de periodo Acumulada Avan Disponible Inversión 2° Semestre al 31/12/14 ce 2014 Monto % Monto Monto Rosario 1.552.000,00 39% 499.868,16 1.518.655,53 98% 33.344,47 Córdoba 1.400.650,00 35% 427.840,93 883.332,17 63% 517.317,83 Posadas 710.040,00 18% 522.009,23 866.881,73 122% -156.841,73 Tucumán 198.850,00 5% 0,00 336.199,19 169% -137.349,19 Costos 125.460,00 3% 149.871,97 275.525,26 220% -150.065,26 Operativos Totales 3.987.000,00 100% 1.599.590,29 3.880.593,88 97% 106.406,12 US$ En cuanto a los cuatro subproyectos propuestos, los mismos llevaron a cabo medidas en tres “Ventanas”: que se describen a continuación. A) Ventana 2 A.1. Objetivo En el marco de la ventana 2 del GEF, el objetivo planteado fue mejorar el servicio de transporte público y fortalecer las capacidades institucionales del área metropolitana de San Miguel de Tucumán mediante la elaboración de un Plan Maestro de Transporte. Si existe un mejor servicio, eficiente, seguro y sostenible, se reduce la dependencia de los automóviles privados y disminuyen los niveles de polución, ruido y congestión. A.2. Descripción y Estado En este marco, el GEF conjuntamente con fondos del PTUMA, financió la contratación de una firma consultora para la elaboración del Proyecto Ejecutivo para el proyecto de “Mejora de la Accesibilidad al Transporte Urbano de Pasajeros San Miguel de Tucumán y su área Metropolitana: subprograma de obras Barrio 11 de Marzo”, con la finalidad de que el Municipio cuente con los documentos técnicos para licitar una obra de mejora de la infraestructura para ómnibus y mejore el acceso a las paradas de transporte público del Barrio 11 de Marzo. 43 La Unión Transitoria de Empresas (UTE) compuesta por las firmas consultoras TECNO MAK S.A y GDS Plus LTD desarrolló el proyecto ejecutivo denominado “Proyecto Ejecutivo y documentación técnica para las obras de pavimentación de las calles en el Barrio 11 de marzo de la Ciudad de San Miguel de Tucumán”, que contempló una intervención en tres áreas, asociadas a las necesidades de infraestructura y conectividad de autotransporte: i) Infraestructura de Desagües Pluviales, ii) Infraestructura Vial de Calzada, iii) Veredas y Equipamiento Urbano y Conectividad Urbana del barrio con el resto de la ciudad, favoreciendo en este último caso la concreción del “corredor de autotransporte colectivo de pasajeros” propuesto por el Municipio. A.3. Resultados. El GEF contribuyó a una mayor coordinación e integración de la planificación del transporte, el uso de tierras y de la gestión ambiental. La elaboración del proyecto en el marco del GEF se enmarcó en el “Plan Estratégico Urbano Territorial” desarrollado en el año 2005 por la Ciudad, así como también se basó en los datos de la Encuestas de Movilidad Domiciliaria en el Área Metropolitana de Tucumán realizada durante la primera mitad del año de 2011 financiado con recursos del PTUBA. En la instancia de preparación se llevó a cabo la elaboración del anteproyecto y evaluación económica. Se desarrollaron en Tucumán unos planes maestros que promueven sistemas de transporte sostenibles: Plan Director 2006 y Plan LOGIT-IRV. Además se generaron iniciativas de transporte dirigidas a la utilización de modos de transporte con menor consumo energético: Estudio de Apoyo al Programa de Modernización del Transporte Urbano de San Miguel de Tucumán que incluye una Red de Ciclovias y una propuesta de sistema público de bicicletas. Dentro de las iniciativas también podemos destacar las siguientes capacitaciones, jornadas y conferencias:  XV CLATPU - Abril de 2009 – Buenos Aires  Jornadas de Planificación del Transporte Público Urbano – Junio 2009 – Mendoza  Jornadas de Trabajo de los Aspectos Sociales y Ambientales - Setiembre de 2009 – Cordoba  Primeras Jornadas de Gobiernos Provinciales y Municipales – Agosto 2010 – San Miguel de Tucumán  Clínica del Programa STAQ – Octubre 2010 - México DF  Conferencia de Transporte Sustentable, Calidad del Aire y Cambio Climático – Mayo 2011 – Rosario Asimismo, se promovieron políticas y reglamentaciones de uso del suelo hacia un desarrollo del transporte más eficiente y sostenible: Decreto 0957/SG/2008 – Prohibición del Estacionamiento en el Casco Histórico de San Miguel de Tucumán y Plan de Peatonalización del centro. Por último se llevaron a cabo obras de pavimentación y cordón cuneta en el Barrio 11 de Marzo incluidas en el Proyecto Ejecutivo realizado por la firma Tecnomak S.A. por un monto total de aproximadamente 1 millón de dólares. Lo expuesto constituye un valioso aporte, no sólo en términos técnicos por la utilidad de los documentos elaborados, sino también en términos de fortalecimiento de la capacidad institucional del Municipio, ya que el GEF no solo brindó asistencia técnica, sino que el hecho de participar de las reuniones de seguimiento y análisis técnico para la ejecución del proyecto ejecutivo, constituyó 44 una oportunidad de incorporar nuevas capacidades, así como de estar en contacto y realizar consultas a especialistas en materia de transporte sostenible, generando un espacio enriquecedor para la gestión del Municipio. En términos de los objetivos planteados, se obtuvo el resultado esperado dado que se concretó la elaboración del Proyecto ejecutivo y documentos técnicos que permitirán a la Ciudad de San Miguel de Tucumán llevar a cabo las licitaciones de las obras correspondientes. El financiamiento brindado por el GEF en este proyecto constituyó un puntapié inicial a este tipo de inversiones y logró promover la incorporación de temáticas de tendencia “limpia” en el transporte y uso de las tierras. El mero hecho de elaborar las propuestas del GEF y participar del proceso de ejecución del mismo constituyó un incentivo para que la ciudad incorporara a sus estrategias de transporte cuestiones vinculadas con la sostenibilidad y la calidad del aire. Un ejemplo de esto es la presentación por parte de la Ciudad de un proyecto de red de ciclovías para su financiamiento en el marco del PTUMA. B) Ventana 3 B.1. Objetivo En el marco de la ventana 3 se llevaron a cabo proyectos en las ciudades de Córdoba, Rosario y Posadas. En Córdoba, se llevó a cabo la Consultoría “Asistencia Técnica para llevar adelante un proceso participativo para la Municipalidad de la Ciudad de Córdoba”. El objeto de la Consultoría Asistencia Técnica fue desarrollar un proceso participativo a fin de estimular y sistematizar las percepciones, ideas y aportes de la ciudadanía, las empresas y el Estado sobre el transporte sostenible y la calidad del aire en la ciudad de Córdoba. La propuesta técnica implicó un modelo estratégico participativo de trabajo que permitió afianzar el vínculo entre los distintos actores y compartir espacios de diálogo para la comprensión de los problemas públicos y las distintas modalidades de resolución de la política pública. A través del GEF, se esperaba no solo eliminar barreras, sino también obtener un impacto en la reducción de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero a través de la promoción de modos de transporte de menos energía intensiva y un impacto inmediato en el atractivo del transporte público no motorizado, aumentan los niveles de patrocinio al mismo. En Rosario, el objetivo era implementar un sistema de tránsito masivo en el corredor metropolitano norte-sur que, a través de servicios de alta calidad y frecuencia, contribuya a reducir el uso de los automóviles y a mejorar la calidad del aire. También se apuntaba a la modernización de la flota de transporte público a través de proyectos piloto que pusieran a prueba la nueva tecnología GPS para rastrear ómnibus. Desde el inicio se previó un co-financiamiento con recursos del PTUMA, Proyecto de Transporte Urbano en las Áreas Metropolitanas de la Argentina. El proyecto presentado por la Ciudad de Posadas tenía por objeto ampliar el Sistema Integrado de Transporte, dejando de lado las unidades convencionales y adoptando una menor cantidad de unidades articuladas y de gran capacidad (EURO III). Asimismo, el proyecto buscaba eliminar la superposición de recorridos, reducir el ruido en la Av. Uruguay y establecer un sistema de integración de tarifas en las estaciones de transbordo. Además se planificaron la realización de 3 km de corredor BRT en la Av. Uruguay. En este contexto, la donación de GEF se proponía mejorar la calidad de vida de los habitantes de la Ciudad de Posadas incrementando la calidad y la confiabilidad de la red de transporte público, 45 racionalizando los recorridos y mejorando las frecuencias en los vecindarios periféricos. El proyecto presentado apuntaba a promover el uso de sistemas de tránsito masivo para reducir el uso de automóviles privados y así lograr un ahorro de combustible y una disminución del ruido en la zona céntrica. El Sistema Integrado de Transporte pretende incentivar a las empresas de ómnibus a mejorar sus patrones operativos racionalizando los recorridos y los servicios, y, de esa forma, reducir las emisiones de gas invernadero por el consumo de combustible de los automóviles y los vehículos de transporte público. B.2. Descripción y Estado La Ciudad de Rosario llevó a cabo actividades y estudios de preparación del Proyecto, que se financiaron con el PTUBA, los cuales posibilitaron que actualmente se esté gestionando el proceso licitatorio del Tramo 1 de la construcción de Carriles exclusivos en el Corredor Norte Sur en el marco del PTUMA. En tal sentido, los recursos del GEF se afectaron mayoritariamente a las actividades previstas en la ventana 4. No obstante cabe mencionar que con fondos del GEF se financiaron en Rosario acciones para la organización de actividades de capacitación y seminarios que contribuyen a la sensibilización y concientización en materia de transporte sostenible:  Conferencia Regional sobre Transporte Sustentable, Calidad del Aire y Cambio Climático para América Latina y el Caribe, realizada en la Ciudad de Rosario del 9 al 13 de mayo de 2011.  XVIII Congreso Lationoamericano de Transporte Público y Urbano en la Ciudad de Rosario.  Capacitación en TransCAD. A través del GEF se financió, en Posadas, la contratación de una firma consultora que realizó un Proyecto Ejecutivo a fin de que el Municipio cuente con los documentos técnicos necesarios para licitar una obra de BRT sobre la Avenida Uruguay optimizando así no solo las condiciones de la Avenida sino también optimizando el uso del espacio público para el transporte público. El proyecto buscaba también, la disminución de contaminación visual, sonora y de combustión sobre la Avenida coincidiendo con el objeto de la donación de mejorar la calidad del Aire. El proyecto se denominó “Sistema de Transporte Urbano en Áreas Metropolitanas de Argentina: Obras de Intervención sobre la Av. Uruguay”. El trayecto cubría aproximadamente 3 Km de avenida y a solicitud del Municipio se amplió el alcance mediante el desarrollo de trabajos adicionales elegibles y aprobados por la Unidad y el Banco. Por otro lado, en Abril del 2012, el Municipio de Posadas elevó a la UEC y en el marco del GEF, la solicitud de financiamiento de un centro operativo y de control para el transporte público en el Área Metropolitana de Posadas. Dicho pedido se fundamenta en el marco de la ventana 3 del convenio, “Interconexión modal y eficacia y eficiencia del transporte público” cuyo objetivo principal es maximizar el uso del transporte público en ciudades medianas y grandes facilitando el intercambio modal y promoviendo la eficiencia y la imagen de los servicios de transporte público. El proyecto se denominó “Provisión, puesta en marcha de equipos y sistemas, para un Centro de Control e Información para Transporte Público en la Ciudad de Posadas”. La firma contratada fue Gesosystems S.A.y el proyecto consistió en la creación y equipamiento desde el inicio de un centro de control, la elaboración, instalación y puesta en marcha de un sistema de control de transporte público y creación de una página web para información del usuario. Asimismo, se 46 instalaron carteles de información dinámica en dos centros de transferencia específicos y carteles de información dinámica en aquellas paradas de mayor caudal de gente, que serán financiados parcialmente por el PTUMA. B.3. Resultados En Córdoba, según la EDP (2012) un 6,1% de los encuestados utilizaban la bicicleta como medio de transporte para desplazarse al lugar de trabajo o estudio. Se podría interpretar como una tendencia al aumento del uso de este medio de transporte para realizar los desplazamientos cotidianos. En las áreas intervenidas circulan en promedio 7 bicicletas cada 15 minutos, es decir 28 bicicletas por hora (en hroario diurno). En cuanto a la existencia de estudios y planes maestros cabe destacar el Plan integral de Movilidad de la Ciudad de Córdoba orientado a generar mejores condiciones de desarrollo socioeconómico con el propósito de optimizar la calidad de vida de los habitantes y promocionar modos de transporte sustentables. El gobierno municipal viene elaborando el Plan de Movilidad desde el año 2012 con un pre-diagnóstico realizado en Mayo 2012 y los “Lineamientos del Plan Estratégico Urbano Territorial del Área metropolitana de Córdoba” en diciembre 2012. El centro de estudios de transporte de la UNC participó en los trabajos de armado de la encuesta de movilidad domiciliaria realizada en el año en 2009, financiada por PTUBA y que sirvió de base al Plan Integral de Movilidad de la ciudad de Córdoba. En dicha EOD (2009) se señalaba que de los viajes al centro de la ciudad solo el 0,5% se realizaban en bicicleta, debido principalmente a la falta de infraestructura acorde en arterias congestionadas de autos y motos particulares. Durante en agosto 2012 se llevó a cabo una encuesta de preferencias por la UNC y CEPIM, a los fines de determinar las demandas y necesidades entorno al uso de la bicicleta. Asimismo, en el año 2012, se llevó a cabo el Concurso de Ideas “Movilidad Urbana” a fin de generar propuestas que respondan a la problemática de movilidad de la Ciudad de Córdoba. Por medio de la Ordenanza N°12.076 se sancionó el Nuevo Marco Regulatorio para el Servicio Público de Transporte Urbano de pasajeros para la ciudad de Córdoba. Mediante un proyecto de ordenanza, en el año 2014, se creó el Plan Cordobés Bici Ciudad y se encuentra actualmente en estudio en el Consejo Deliberante. En relación a las iniciativas de transporte dirigidas a la utilización de modos de transporte con menor consumo energético, podemos destacar la construcción de ciclovias, campañas de difusión y talleres participativos. En noviembre 2012 se realizó la campaña de difusión “Programa EDUCAMBIENTE”, el cual fue reeditado en el 2013. También se llevaron a cabo actividades participativas a partir del año 2012con el objeto de avanzar en la elaboración del Plan de Movilidad. En octubre del 2012, la Comisión de Elaboración del Plan de Movilidad participó del Congreso Argentino de Vialidad y Tránsito a los fines de integrar el panel “Proyectos y desafíos de movilidad urbana” y en el año 2014 participaron de la Conferencia “Reordenamiento del Transporte Publico”. En cuanto a la promoción de la interconectividad entre diferentes modos de transporte, se propusieron tres centros de transferencia en tres puntos estratégicos de la ciudad. En relación a los km adicionales de bicisendas, primero se implementó un plan de revalorización y mantenimiento de las ciclovias existentes (casi 800 metros). Además está en estudio una propuesta de la UNC para ampliar la red de ciclovias existente con 42 km de nuevos trazados. En el año 2012 se finalizó el primer tramo de ciclovia con financiamiento del GEF, construyéndose un total de 11,8km de bicisendas con dicha donación. 47 Además se implementaron 5.3 km de carriles SOLO BUS en Avenida Sabattini (principal acceso a la ciudad de Córdoba con financiamiento propio (Municipalidad de Cordoba). En Rosario, el número de viajes en TNM aumentó en las 3 ciclovias intervenidas con fondos del GEF (27 de febrero, Ov. Lagos y Avellaneda) alcanzando la meta establecida en un incremento del 5% en el número de viajes realizados. En cuanto a los Planes Maestros, se actualizaron y registraron avances respecto al Plan Estratégico Rosario (PER) y al Plan Integral de Movilidad (PIM), y empezó a desarrollarse el Plan Ambiental de Rosario. En relación a las iniciativas de transporte dirigidas a la utilización de modos de transporte con menor consumo energético, podemos destacar:  Nuevo Corredor Eléctrico de 25,6 km en el cual se incluirán 12 nuevos coches (en evaluación de ofertas).  Ampliación de la Red de Ciclovías. Actualmente se superan los 100 km de recorrido ciclista y se prevé la construcción de 32 km durante el 2015.  Campañas de concientización y educación que promuevan el transporte sustentable (Campaña “Todos en Bici” y “Planificá tu viaje”).  Implementación de Calle Recreativa (espacio libre de vehículos con un total de 28 kilómetros en la doble traza).  Nueva Licitación del Transporte Urbano de Pasajeros (en evaluación).  10 km de Carriles Exclusivos para el Transporte Urbano de Pasajeros y se proyecta inaugurar este año el Carril Exclusivo del Norte por Bv. Alberdi. En Rosario, también se implementaron políticas y reglamentaciones de uso de suelo que promuevan el desarrollo de un transporte más eficiente y sostenible:  Ordenanza Nº 8864/201: Creación de Carriles Exclusivos  Ordenanza Nº 9030/201: Creación del Sistema Público de Bicicletas  Ordenanza Nº 9145/2013: Construcción de Estacionamientos disuasorios soterrados  Ordenanza Nº 9238/2014: Prohibición de Estacionamiento en el Área Central En la ciudad de Rosario no se cuenta con BRT pero si con Carriles Exclusivos para la circulación del Transporte Público de Pasajeros (CE). Actualmente tiene 10km de carriles exclusivos, 2,5 km de Carril Exclusivo de Alberdi se encuentran en proceso de Licitación y 4,8 y 2,2 km de carril exclusivo están proyectados para los Tramo I y II respectivamente. La meta a alcanzar al finalizar el proyecto, era de 4kms segregados de BRT con diseño final. Por último, se implementaron medidas específicas para promover la interconectividad entre diferentes modos de transporte:  Incorporación de la Tarjeta Sin Contacto en el año 2011 para el Transporte Urbano de Pasajeros.  Próxima Inauguración de Sistema de Bicicletas Públicas, estaciones ubicadas en paradas estratégicas del Transporte Urbano, incluyendo la Terminal de Ómnibus.  Incorporación del Tren Rosario -Buenos Aires. En Posadas, se fue implementando el Plan Estratégico Posadas 2022 y desarrolló en 2012 el Plan Urbano Ambiental de Posadas como herramienta única y fundante en todo aquello que se refiere al ordenamiento del territorio que se encuentra dentro del ejido municipal. Este particular 48 valor que se le otorga al plan deviene en especial de su condición de documento que responde a las orientaciones expresadas por el Plan Estratégico Posadas –PEP 2022. En relación a las iniciativas de transporte dirigidas a la utilización de modos de transporte con menor consumo energético, podemos observar la realización de diversos talleres participativos en la ciudad de Posadas. La modalidad de trabajo comenzó en el mes de abril del año 2012, teniendo como marco previo el proceso participativo del PEP2022 iniciado en el 2008, con más de veinte instituciones públicas y privadas de Posadas para orientar el nuevo instrumento normativo. A fines del año 2013, se continuó con la dinámica participativa, esta vez en el ámbito de la comisión de Obras públicas y Urbanismo del Concejo Deliberante para discutir y readecuar los artículos en vistas a su aprobación. Asimismo se llevaron a cabo unas Jornadas de Metropolización Binacional entre Municipios de las metrópolis de Posadas y Encarnación (Paraguay) en Agosto 2014 y redacto un borrador de Acuerdo Metropolitano Binacional entre los mismos. En cuanto a las políticas y reglamentaciones de uso de suelo que promuevan el desarrollo de un transporte más eficiente y sostenible, cabe mencionar la Ley 4299/2006 del Sistema Integrado de Transporte Metropolitano de Posadas y datos de relevamiento 2011, Ordenanza 3333/13 del Plan urbano Ambiental y la Ordenanza 3372/13 de Ordenamiento Urbanístico de la Ciudad de Rosario. Se llevó a cabo el Proyecto Ejecutivo/diseño final de BRT para la Av. Uruguay en Posadas cuyo recorrido es de 3km. Por último, el PEP 2022 incluye entre los distintos ejes temáticos, un Programa de Movilidad, transporte y articulación territorial orientado a una reestructuración y optimización de los sistemas de movilidad urbana, acordes a las demandas actuales y futuras, en cuanto al crecimiento demográfico y el parque automotriz, mediante un sistema de transporte multimodal que vincule y optimice de la manera más eficiente los distintos modos de transporte disponibles, la jerarquización y completamiento vial, la accesibilidad y movilidad urbana a todo ciudadano dentro del espacio público. Durante los Jornadas Binacionales en Agosto 2014, se propuso una integración de transporte multimodal entre ambos márgenes del Paraná con la concreción del tren internacional de pasajeros en Posadas y Encarnación (Posadas) en Enero 2015. Por último se implementó el uso de la tarjeta SUBE Misionero como medio de Pago Electrónico para transportarse en el área metropolitana de Posadas. Ventana 4 C.1. Objetivo Con relación a la ventana 4, el objetivo fue incrementar el porcentaje modal del transporte no motorizado en Rosario y Córdoba. C.2. Descripción y Estado En relación a la Ventana 4 del GEF, se construyeron dos ciclovías en Cordoba. El objeto del primer contrato fueron 2.9 Km de Ciclovía, en tres tramos. Tramo 1: Hipólito Irigoyen desde Plaza ex Velez Sársfield a Plaza España; Tramo 2: de plaza España por Av. Poeta Lugones y calle Tránsito Cáceres de Allende y Tramo 3: de Plaza España por Bv. Chacabuco, de la Ciudad de Córdoba. El objeto del segundo contrato fueron 3 Km de Ciclovía. En Rosario, se llevaron a cabo las siguientes actividades: 49  Construcción de 12km de Ciclovías: La primera Ciclovía se realizó en Bv. 27 de febrero donde se construyeron 8km de bicisendas (4 km de recorrido en doble sentido) y en Bv. O. Lagos donde se construyeron 6,4km de bicisendas (3,2 km de recorrido en doble sentido). En cuanto a la segunda Ciclovía, la misma fue realizada en Avellaneda y Borderhere donde se construyeron 6,6km de bicisendas (3,3 km de recorrido en doble sentido) y en Pellegrini donde se construyeron 2,5km de bicisendas (1,28 km de recorrido en doble sentido).  Adquisición e implementación de un sistema de bicicletas públicas para la Ciudad de Rosario. En el marco de la Donación, se adquirieron 480 bicicletas a Comercialización y Producción Mayorista S.R.L para uso público en la Municipalidad de Rosario.  Diseño e implementación de una campaña de sensibilización y promoción del uso de la bicicleta para la ciudad de Rosario. Como parte de esta campaña también se adquirieron bienes (merchandising).  Realización de un Video Institucional para la difusión de los proyectos de Ciclovías y de Campaña de Difusión del Uso de la Bicicleta. C.3. Resultados Se han construido kilómetros adicionales de ciclovías en Córdoba por 11,8 km (financiados con fondos de la Donación GEF).  Ciclovía I: 5,8km de bicisendas (2,9 km de recorrido en doble sentido).  Ciclovía II: 6km de bicisendas (3 km de recorrido en doble sentido). Se han construido kilómetros adicionales de ciclovías en Rosario por 23,5 km (financiados con fondos de la Donación GEF).  Ciclovía I: En Bv. 27 de febrero se construyeron 8km de bicisendas (4 km de recorrido en doble sentido). En Bv. O. Lagos se construyeron 6,4km de bicisendas (3,2 km de recorrido en doble sentido).  Ciclovía II: En Avellaneda y Borderhere se construyeron 6,6km de bicisendas (3,3 km de recorrido en doble sentido). En Pellegrini se construyeron 2,5km de bicisendas (1,28 km de recorrido en doble sentido). La meta a alcanzar al finalizar el proyecto, era obtener 6,3km adicionales de bicisendas construidas. 4.- ASPECTOS AMBIENTALES PROYECTO: Proyecto Ejecutivo y documentación técnica para las obras de pavimentación de las calles en el Barrio 11 de marzo de la Ciudad de San Miguel de Tucumán” Se realizaron, de acuerdo con lo establecido en el Manual de Manejo Ambiental y Social de PTUMA para la Ciudad de San Miguel de Tucumán, los estudios socioambientales preliminares: Screening, Evaluación Expeditiva y el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y Social. Como parte del mismo se incluyó la elaboración del PGAS (Plan de Gestión Socioambiental). Este componente fue desarrollado por el equipo socioambiental de la UTE con el correspondiente seguimiento realizado por el equipo socioambiental interno de la UEC-PTUMA. El proceso de consulta comunitaria no se llevó a cabo como parte del proceso del EIA, dado que la empresa consultora en consonancia con lo sostenido por las autoridades municipales, 50 consideraron que la realización de actividades de consulta podría generar mayores expectativas y erosionar la credibilidad en el proyecto. El equipo de la UEC-PTUMA observó en su momento que este argumento tenía sentido dado que en el año 2009 se había realizado un taller informativo con los vecinos del barrio y en 2010 se organizaron tres grupos focales y encuestas a los hogares a fin de generar una línea de base para una futura evaluación de impacto social del proyecto. Estas actividades de por sí habían sido acogidas de manera positiva por la comunidad, por lo que insistir en otra actividad en la instancia de planificación del proyecto, en línea con lo destacado por el Municipio, se entendía podría generar mayores expectativas entre la población del barrio. Sin embargo el equipo socioambiental de la UEC-PTUMA destacó que, en caso de avanzarse en la concreción de la obra, deberían realizarse los correspondientes acercamientos con la comunidad, previos al inicio de obra. Evaluación de Impacto 2009-2010 - Barrio 11 de marzo de San Miguel de Tucumán La evaluación de impacto se planteó como un estudio específico, que tenía como fin analizar los cambios que se producirían a partir de la ejecución de la pavimentación de las calles en el barrio 11 de marzo, vinculando los impactos que tendría la obra sobre la calidad de vida de la población en términos del acceso a los servicios y necesidades básicas, como lugares de trabajo, escuelas, hospitales, etc. Durante el período 2009-2010 PTUMA trabajó en la construcción de la línea de base de esta evaluación de impacto, la cual comprendió la realización de cinco grupos focales y una encuesta domiciliaria. Los resultados de estos relevamientos, permitieron establecer, tanto para el barrio 11 de marzo como para un barrio similar (barrio control) la situación inicial sin proyecto: indicadores socioeconómicos, de transporte público, calidad de vida, movilidad y accesibilidad de la población, percepción respecto al transporte público. Para llevar adelante este estudio se contó con el trabajo conjunto de PTUMA, las áreas técnicas y sociales del Municipio de San Miguel de Tucumán, docentes y estudiantes de la Carrera de Trabajo Social de la Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Asimismo se contó con la asistencia técnica del Banco Mundial, a través del consultor experto en encuestas, Lic. Carlos Becerra. PROYECTO: “Proyecto Ejecutivo y Documentación Técnica para las Obras de Pavimentación de la Avenida Uruguay en la Ciudad de Posadas” En relación a los aspectos socioambientales y de acuerdo con lo establecido en el Manual de Manejo Ambiental y Social de PTUMA para la Ciudad de Posadas, se realizaron, los estudios socioambientales preliminares: Screening, Evaluación Expeditiva y el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y Social. Como parte del mismo se incluyó también la elaboración del PGAS (Plan de Gestión Socioambiental). Asimismo se incluyó, como parte de estos trabajos, la realización de instancias de participación con la comunidad. Todas las actividades vinculadas a la concreción de los estudios socioambientales fueron desarrolladas por el equipo socioambiental de la UTE con el correspondiente seguimiento realizado por el equipo socioambiental interno de la UEC. Para la realización de las instancias de participación con la comunidad se realizó una contratación de una “Asistencia Técnica para la realización de talleres participativos en Posadas”, que fue llevada adelante por la consultora Instituto de Gestión de Ciudades (I.G.C). El equipo socioambiental interno de la UEC-PTUMA también realizó el seguimiento correspondiente. 51 A partir de estos talleres se esperaba obtener la visión de los diferentes actores involucrados en el proyecto, relevar y sistematizar las opiniones críticas del mismo a fin de que sean utilizados como insumos para que el equipo de diseño realice los ajustes necesarios al proyecto. Los talleres consistieron en dos rondas de consultas la primera consulta de aspectos más generales del Sistema de Integral de Transporte y la segunda ronda más específica de la Avenida. Con la realización de dichas instancias participativas, se dio cumplimiento a la necesidad de realizar una Consulta Pública, requisito que forma parte del marco de políticas de salvaguardia socioambiental del Banco Mundial y está incluida dentro del Manual de Manejo Ambiental y Social de PTUMA para la Ciudad de Posadas. Durante el último semestre de 2014, y en el marco de la la ampliación de los alcances del contrato, por la obra del puente sobre el arroyo Vicario que posibilitará la recomposición de la trama urbana permitiendo la vinculación de ambos tramos (este y oeste) de la av. Mariano Moreno, surgió la necesidad de relocalización de dos espacios comunitarios, la Biblioteca y Museo de los Deportes y la Plaza de la Salud. Si bien estos desplazamientos se proponen a una distancia de unos 10 metros de su ubicación actual, se procuró un acercamiento con la persona encargada del museo para informarle que, en caso de que la obra se realice, se hará una consulta entre vecinos y usuarios para validar las nuevas locaciones elegidas. Esta estrategia de consulta pública ciudadana fue solicitada por el Banco Mundial. En consecuencia, previo al inicio de la licitación de la obra, el Municipio se comprometió a realizar una instancia de consulta participativa amplia con la comunidad, en la que se trate el tema de la relocalización de la Biblioteca y Museo de los Deportes y de la Plaza de la Salud. 5.- PROCESOS DE ADQUISICIONES Las adquisiciones que se llevaron a cabo durante el Proyecto se llevaron a cabo de acuerdo a lo establecido en el Anexo 2 del Contrato de Donación. Se llevaron a cabo un total de 23 procesos por un monto de USD 3.880.593,88. 2 procesos fueron de contratación directa, 7 Comparaciones de Precio, 6 licitaciones públicas nacionales y en las consultorías, 2 SCC, 2 SSF, 2 SBCC y 1 SSS. Por ultimo hubo un proceso de gastos administrativos de la UEC. Se adjunta un cuadro resumen de los procesos licitatorios que formaron parte del Proyecto. 52 Fecha de Monto Monto Saldo Categoría de Fin del Descripción Código SEPA firma de Contrato Pagado pendiente Inversión Contrato contrato (US$) (U$S) (US$)51 ROSARIO Servicio de organización. Conferencia CA-15-CD-S- Servicio de No 02/05/11 14/05/11 75.011,56 73.545,31 1.466,25 Medioambiental GEF. Rosario, mayo 2011. Consultoría Servicio de Edición de Video. Ciudad de Rosario. CA-39-CP-S- Servicio de No 19/06/14 22/06/14 490,20 498,13 -7,93 Consultoría Impresión de Folletería para el XVIII CLAPTU. CA-34-CP-S- Servicio de No 22/09/14 22/10/14 29.690,84 29.637,98 52,86 Ciudad de Rosario Consultoría Construcción de Ciclovías o infraestructura para el uso CA-12-LPN-O- Obras 02/05/12 31/07/12 562.807,66 543.409,88 19.397,78 de la bicicleta. Ciudad de Rosario LPN N° 4/2013 Obra Ciclovías II Ciudad de Rosario CA-28-LPN-O- Obras 07/01/14 04/07/14 435.812,58 367.631,46 68.181,1252 Adquisición de Bicicletas para la Ciudad de Rosario CA-29-LPN-B- Bienes 15/08/14 29/09/14 312.590,40 315.989,56 -3.399,16 Adquisición bienes para la Campaña de bicisenda en CA-18-CP-S- Servicio de No 25/04/14 17/10/14 40.958,26 40.958,26 0 Rosario Consultoría Contratación de un servicio de edición de video para CA-41-CP-S- Servicio de No 28/10/14 31/10/14 1.624,48 1.637,98 -13,50 los proyectos de Ciclovías y de Campaña de Difusión Consultoría del Uso de la Bicicleta, Ciudad de Rosario Alquiler de Auditorio XVIII Congreso CA-31-CD-S- Servicio de No 17/10/14 24/10/14 61.542,86 61.871,57 -328,71 Latinoamericano de Transport Público y Urbano. Consultoría Ciudad de Rosario. Diseño e implementación de una campaña de CA-26-SCC-CF- Consultoría 21/10/13 01/04/14 106.873,41 83.475,39 23.398,02 sensibilización y promoción del uso de la bicicleta firmas para la Ciudad de Rosario CORDOBA Construcción de Ciclovías o proyecto de CA-13-LPN-O- Obras 11/07/12 05/01/13 478.571,15 393.271,01 85.300,1453 peteatonalización. Ciudad de Córdoba 51 A menos que se aclare otra cosa, la diferencia se debe a diferencias cambiarias al momento del pago. 52 Obra finalizada. Certificado de 99,37%. Se hizo acta de reducción de monto por la diferencia. 53 La diferencia entre monto de contrato y monto pagado se debe a una penalidad de $ 185.578,41 que representa el 9% del monto total del contrato y una diferencia de cambio. 53 Construcción de Ciclovías II Ciudad de Córdoba CA-27-LPN-O- Obras 19/12/13 13/06/14 547.812,52 439.461,16 108.351,3654 Asistencia técnica para llevar adelante un proceso CA-24-SCC-CF- Consultoría 15/10/13 15/03/14 50.600 50.600 0 participativo para la Municipalidad de Córdoba firmas POSADAS Proyecto Ejecutivo: "Sistema de Transporte Urbano en CA-10-SBCC- Consultoría 14/12/11 28/09/14 519.323,96 497.302,81 22.021.15 Áreas Metropolitanas de Argentina: Obras de CF- firmas Intervención sobre la Av. Uruguay". Posadas Provisión, puesta en marcha de equipos y sistemas, CA-22-LPN-B- Bienes 15/01/14 30/09/14 364.486,27 324.802,90 39.683,3755 para un Centro de Control e Información de transporte público, en Área Metropolitana de Posadas Asistencia técnica para la realización de talleres CA-30-SSS-CF- Consultoría 4/11/13 11/02/14 45.729,80 44.776,03 953,77 participativos en Posadas firmas TUCUMAN Proyecto Ejecutivo para la pavimentación de calles en CA-16-SBCC- Consultoría 06/12/11 01/08/12 664.986,82 336.199,19 328.787,6356 el Barrio 11 de marzo de la ciudad de SM de Tucumán CF-2.3.3 firmas UEC Gastos Administrativos Unidad Ejecutora CA-5--SGO-1 Gastos 131.556,81 -16.928,45 Operativos 114.628,36 Adquisición de Equipamiento para Video CA-36-CP-B- Bienes 22/10/14 25/10/14 9.432,55 9.638,31 -205,76 Conferencias Adquisición de Equipamiento Informático para la CA-37-CP-B- Bienes 15/10/14 30/10/14 97.765 98.931,17 -1.166,17 UEC Adquisición de insumos de papelería y librería CA-38-CP-SGO- Gastos 24/10/14 29/10/14 10.866,03 10.690,84 175,19 Operativos Contratación de la firma ITTL para la prestación de un CA-35-SSF-CF- Consultoría 24/10/14 31/10/14 17.169,31 17.732,76 -563,45 curso en TransCAD para Consultores de la UEC firmas Curso de Capacitación en TransCAD-Rosario CA-33-SSF-CF- Consultoría 29/09/14 14/10/14 6.922,70 6.975,37 -52,67 Firmas 54 Se eliminó Tramo 1 de la Ciclovía, por eso se redujo el valor del contrato en $ 862.717. 55 La diferencia reflejada corresponde a los 8 Carteles de información que no se han instalado. Serán financiados con fuente 22 del PTUMA. 54 6.- EVALUACIÓN DE DESEMPEÑO El objetivo de este apartado es evaluar el desempeño de los actores intervinientes en la ejecución del Proyecto. En este sentido los actores principales son la UEC en carácter de Organismo Ejecutor, el Banco Mundial y las Ciudades en su carácter de beneficiarios de las actividades desarrolladas en el marco del GEF, así como también los proveedores y consultores contratados. Si bien todos estos actores tienen incidencia en el desempeño global del Proyecto, solamente se explicitará la gestión de la UEC y el Banco. Con relación al Organismo Ejecutor del Programa, actualmente es el Ministerio del Interior y Transporte a través de su Unidad Ejecutora Central (UEC). La UEC, es el resultado de un reordenamiento institucional, iniciado en Junio de 2012. Originalmente el Organismo Ejecutor del Proyecto, fue el Ministerio de Planificación Federal, Inversión Pública y Servicios, pero con fecha 6 de junio de 2012 se dispuso, mediante los Decretos Nº 874 y 875, la transferencia de las competencias que en materia de transporte tenía asignadas el MINISTERIO DE PLANIFICACIÓN FEDERAL, INVERSIÓN PÚBLICA Y SERVICIOS al entonces MINISTERIO DEL INTERIOR, modificándose los respectivos organigramas y la denominación de este último por la de MINISTERIO DEL INTERIOR Y TRANSPORTE, respectivamente. Esta transferencia de competencias, conllevó el traslado de los programas y proyectos financiados con préstamos, créditos o donaciones externos y, en este marco, la ejecución de esta Donación queda bajo la órbita del Ministerio del Interior y Transporte. Con la transferencia de las competencias de transporte al MIyT, la Unidad Ejecutora Central del Ministerio del Interior y Transporte (UEC) centraliza como única dependencia jerárquico funcional, dependiente de manera directa del Sr. Ministro del Interior y Transporte la formulación, gestión, ejecución, supervisión, monitoreo y evaluación de programas o proyectos financiados con recursos provenientes de Organismos Multilaterales de Crédito, contando a tales efectos con los recursos y las capacidades suficientes. En tal sentido, se inicia a partir de mediados de 2012 una revisión y reordenamiento de prioridades, focalización de proyectos y establecimiento de mecanismos y procedimientos adecuados para su ejecución. Al hacer un gráfico evolutivo de los fondos desembolsados, vemos un claro aumento en el año 2013 y 2014 debido principalmente al cambio de gestión en la UEC. 2,047,384 825,426 772,344 400,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 55 Con relación a esta Donación la UEC tiene a su cargo la coordinación de las actividades del proyecto, la realización del conjunto de acciones necesarias para la debida ejecución de sus componentes, la ejecución de los procesos de adquisiciones requeridos, la administración financiera de los fondos del Proyecto, el monitoreo y seguimiento del desarrollo, y la evaluación de los resultados del mismo. En orden a lo expuesto, la UEC, se vinculó con los responsables de cada una de las Ciudades beneficiarias de esta Donación del GEF desde el inicio hasta la finalización de su ejecución, con el objeto de brindar asistencia técnica a las Ciudades a fin de preparar la documentación de los proyectos a ser financiados de manera consistente con los objetivos buscados por el GEF y las normas y políticas del Banco Mundial aplicables en cada caso. El Equipo de la UEC tiene amplia experiencia en la ejecución de proyectos con financiamiento externo, y cuenta con profesionales competentes en materia de adquisiciones, de ingeniería, planificación territorial y temas ambientales quienes llevaron adelante tanto los aspectos administrativos como técnicos de forma articulada con otras entidades provinciales en Rosario, Tucumán, Córdoba y Posadas. La evaluación final encuentra que el esquema de ejecución fue apropiado a los objetivos y alcances del programa pues la experiencia adquirida en la administración del proyecto, incluyendo aspectos conceptuales y técnicos, reside en el personal de las entidades que tuvo la responsabilidad de implementarlo. Asimismo el Banco se mostró siempre dispuesto a apoyar en la implementación adecuada del proyecto, acompañó todo el proceso de cambio de la UEC, contestando rápidamente las consultas hechas por la UEC así como las solicitudes de No Objeción que permitieron avanzar en el cumplimiento de los objetivos propuestos en el marco del GEF. Asimismo cabe destacar el aporte y asistencia técnica brindada en todo momento por los especialistas que el Banco puso a disposición de la UEC y las Ciudades quienes brindaron su conocimiento y enriquecieron los procesos de preparación y ejecución en cada uno de los proyectos. 7.- LECCIONES APRENDIDAS Las lecciones aprendidas se han clasificado según aspectos del proyecto, desde su diseño hasta su implementación. La tabla siguiente presenta la síntesis de las lecciones aprendidas del proyecto con base en el ejercicio participativo de evaluación. Lecciones aprendidas Contexto de las políticas y del programa – incluida la capacidad institucional  El cambio institucional acaecido durante la ejecución del Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible y Calidad del Aire, pone de manifiesto el impacto que la variable "equipo de trabajo" y "organización institucional" tienen para la gestión de un Proyecto en términos de tiempo y obtención de resultados. La ejecución del Proyecto hasta diciembre de 2012, medida en término de desembolsos fue del 9% y la ejecución durante 2013 y 2014 tuvo un incremento del 88%. Esto se debe a una fuerte decisión política y una adecuada gestión institucional. 56 Lecciones aprendidas  Esta adecuada gestión instalada dejó además capacidad instalada tanto en la UEC como en las Ciudades Beneficiarias. Proceso de planificación y diseño del proyecto  La apropiación de los proyectos por parte de las Ciudades Beneficiarias resulta un aspecto esencial para garantizar una adecuada ejecución. La participación de las ciudades en la elaboración de proyectos, términos de referencia y en la selección de los contratistas o consultores es necesaria para que las Ciudades se apropien de los Proyectos. La gestión llevada a cabo por la UEC a partir de julio 2012, asignó gran cantidad de tiempo a lograr este involucramiento y apropiación por parte de las autoridades municipales y provinciales, lo cual tuvo un impacto en la ejecución del Proyecto en su etapa final.  La participación de la comunidad en sus diferentes etapas: anteproyecto, proyecto y ejecución permite disminuir la resistencia al cambio, propia de la implementación de proyectos nuevos y facilita la gestión de los riesgos durante la ejecución de los proyectos. Aquellos casos donde los actores de la comunidad no se sintieron involucrados en la definición del Proyecto, tuvieron inconvenientes a la hora de impulsar el inicio de la ejecución de las obras.  La firma de Convenios de Ejecución con las Provincias y/o Municipios resultó una herramienta útil para establecer los compromisos de las partes, pero no alcanza por sí sola para garantizar una adecuada ejecución del Proyecto. A fin de complementar estas acciones la UEC acordaba complementariamente con las Ciudades la entrega de documentación o antecedentes con carácter de condición previa a la firma de las adjudicaciones. De este modo se garantizaba que los consultores contaran con la información de base antes de la firma del contrato.  En las licitaciones, se implementaron metodologías de control con formularios tipo “check-list” y una mejor definición en conjunto (UEC y Ciudades) de las Especificaciones Técnicas, lo que permitió llevar adelante procesos de adquisiciones más efectivos y eficientes. Ámbito del proyecto (objetivos, recursos, presupuesto, etc.)  Las demoras en la puesta en marcha de las actividades del Proyecto, sea cual fuere el motivo, pone en riesgo la factibilidad u oportunidad de los proyectos. En algunos casos los proyectos presentados originalmente quedaron "obsoletos" al momento de poner en marcha los contratos y requirieron modificaciones en su alcance.  En general las Ciudades del Interior no cuentan con presupuesto adicional para llevar a cabo actividades complementarias. Las mismas si son requeridas para la ejecución del contrato principal deben ser previstas en el marco del mismo proyecto para evitar el riesgo de no lograr los resultados previstos por este motivo. Hipótesis y riesgos  Uno de los principales supuestos del proyecto era el compromiso y participación de otros estamentos del gobierno provincial/municipal. Este aspecto requirió muchos esfuerzos para reencauzar los vínculos y comunicación con las Ciudades pero finalmente se reestablecieron las relaciones institucionales, 57 Lecciones aprendidas  Importante planificar desde el inicio un análisis económico de costo-beneficio del Proyecto para luego poder ver el impacto real del mismo. Procedimientos de gestión y coordinación del proyecto y participación de los actores.  A partir de la nueva gestión iniciada en 2012, se reestablecieron los canales de comunicación y se acordaron procedimientos claros respecto a los roles a cumplir por las Ciudades beneficiaras en cada una de las instancias de la planificación y ejecución de los proyectos.  A nivel social se dio participación a los actores locales en talleres y entrevistas. Se considera una lección aprendida que este tipo de proyectos deben necesariamente establecer procesos de comunicación, intercambio y retroalimentación con todos los actores a efectos de que la comunidad toda participe en la gestión de los proyectos.  El seguimiento de indicadores demostró ser un instrumento útil para sistematizar el relevamiento y procesamiento de datos a cargo de la propia UEC en su carácter de organismo competente, la que además modificó y mejoró los indicadores originales en función de la dinámica del proyecto y la restructuración. El gran problema es la demora por parte de las Provincias en enviar la información solicitada por la UEC. Sostenibilidad  Temas técnicos: al involucrar en la creación e implementación a los actores, las soluciones técnicas implementadas son sostenibles.  Temas financieros: los recursos requeridos implican un reto para las instituciones responsables, en especial Tucumán y Posadas. 58 Annex 6. List of Supporting Documents - Aide Memoires of preparation and supervision missions, and Implementation Status and Results Reports, series 1 through 11, 2008-2014. - Alexandre Gomide, “Transporte Urbano e Inclusão Social: Elementos para Políticas Públicas”, Texto para Discussão No. 960. IPEA, 2003. - Apoyo al Programa de Modernización del Transporte Urbano de San Miguel de Tucumán, BID - Municipalidad de San Miguel de Tucumán, 2012. - Ariela D’Angola, Laura Dawidowsky, Dario R. Gomez, Mauricio Osses, “On road traffic emission in a megacity”, 2009. - CIPPEC, “Hacia una tarifa social para la calidad con equidad en el sistema de transporte de pasajeros del AMBA”, presentation, September 2013. - Country Partnership Strategy for the Republic of Argentina 2015-2018, Report. No. 81361-AR, August 7, 2014. - F. C. Moore & D. B. Diaz, “Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy”, Nature Climate Change 5,127–131, 2015. - Final Report: “Estimación de la línea base de emisiones de CO2 del proyecto: Diseño y construcción de ciclovías sobre la Bv. 27 de Febrero y Bv. Ovidio Lagos, en la Ciudad de Rosario”, CAI, January 2012. - Grant Agreement, AR-GEF Sustainable Transport and Air Quality Program. - Implementation Completion and Results Report (TF-93591), Regional GEF STAQ Program, Report No: ICR2719, December 20, 2013. - Informe de Cierre de Proyecto, Municipalidad de Córdoba, 2015. - Instituto de Desenvolvimento e Informação em Transporte, “Mobilidade e Pobreza: Relatório Final”, ITRANS, 2004. - J. M. Matute and M. V. Chester, “Cost-Effectiveness of Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from California High-Speed Rail and Urban Transportation Projects”, April 9, 2014. - Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cost Effectiveness Study”, June 2010. - Marco Regulatorio e Institucional del SITM (Sistema Integrado de Transporte Metropolitano), Posadas, 2014. - Plan Estratégico Urbano Territorial SMT 2016, Municipalidad de Tucumán, 2016. - Plan Integral de Movilidad – Avance, EMR, Municipalidad de Rosario, 2014. - Plan Integral de Movilidad, EMR, Municipalidad de Rosario, 2010. - Plan Urbano Ambiental Posadas, Municipalidad de Posadas, 2012. - Project Appraisal Document, AR-GEF Sustainable Transport And Air Quality Program, Report No: 43049-AR, September 18, 2008 - Project Appraisal Document, Metropolitan Areas Urban Transport Project (PTUMA), Report No: 50467-AR, September 18, 2009. 59 - Project Progress Reports, Mid-term Review Report, and Final Implementation Report, AR-GEF STAQ, UEC. - UNC Highway Safety Research Center, “Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements”, October, 2103. - SDNCE/CCGCE, “Guidance note on social value of carbon in project appraisal”, July 14, 2014. - Wright, L. and L. Fulton, “Climate Change Mitigation and Transport in Developing Nations”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp-691-717, 2005. 60 MAP 61