Ko Sakamoto, Transport Economist, ADB

Phil Sayeg, Consultant, ADB

The Sustainable Transport Appraisal
Rating (STAR) Framework
Measuring progress on Social
Sustainability
1. History and context
2. Fundamentals of STAR
3. Example of application to ADBs portfolio
4. Focus on social objectives
Outline:
History and context
Need to monitor
progress towards
supporting accessible,
safe, environmentally-
friendly, and affordable
transport
Implementing ADBs
Sustainable Transport
Operational Plan
Better, more sustainable transport projects
Are we on track?
we are committed to introducing annual reporting on our
sustainable transport related lending and to developing common
arrangements for this purpose.
we have initiated work on definitions, setting targets and
choosing indicators for sustainable transport/mobility and
assistance provided to support sustainable transport/mobility,
with a view to finalizing these within 2012.
Over the coming decade we expect to provide more than $175 billion
of loans and grants for transport in developing countries. These
investments will help to develop more sustainable transport systems
Fulfilling our Rio+20
Commitment
An assessment system that is:
Encompassing of different dimensions of sustainability
(not narrowly defined)
Project based, which can also lead to portfolio analysis
Able to be applied at various stages of project cycle
Objective and transparent
Easy to conduct and communicate
What we needed
NATA
LEED
GreenLites
ILAST
STARS
Envision
Greenway
Green Roads
Invest
CEEQUAL
BE2ST
None of these were particularly suited to our
work as an MDB
Needed to develop a system in-house
Which rating system
for MDBs?
Fundamentals of STAR
Sustainable Transport Appraisal Rating
Rates a projects contribution to sustainability
in relation to a set of sustainability objectives
that cover the economic, social and
environmental dimensions of sustainability.
Objectives are based on, and are in line with
well-established definitions and frameworks on
sustainable transport (including definition in
MDBs J oint Statement).
Compares against a do nothing scenario.
Economic
Environmental
12.GHG emissions
13.Transport-related emissions & nuisances
14.Natural & built environment
15.Resource efficiency
16.Climate resilience
1. Efficiency: people
2. Efficiency: businesses
3. Quality & reliability
4. Fiscal burden
5. Employment
6. Wider economic benefits
Social
7. Basic accessibility
8. Affordability
9. Inclusion
10.Social cohesion
11.Safety, security & health
Risk to
Sustainability
17.Design & evaluation risk
18.Implementation risk
19.Operational risk
What constitutes
sustainable transport?
O
v
e
r
a
l
l

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Criteria Subcriteria
30%
30%
30%
10%
Economic
Environmental
11.Transport-related
emissions & pollution
12.Natural & built
environment
13.Resource efficiency
14.Climate resilience
1. Efficiency: people &
businesses
2. Quality & reliability
3. Fiscal burden
4. Employment
5. Wider economic benefits:
cross-border, urban, rural
Social
6. Basic accessibility
7. Affordability
8. Inclusion
9. Social cohesion
10.Safety, security
& health
Risk to Sustainability
Design & evaluation risk
Implementation risk
Operational risk
Weights
Economic
Environmental
Social
Risk to
Sustainability
Step 1: Rate project by
each subcriteria
O
v
e
r
a
l
l

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Criteria
12.GHG emissions
13.Transport-related emissions & nuisances
14.Natural & built environment
15.Resource efficiency
16.Climate resilience
1. Efficiency: people
2. Efficiency: businesses
3. Quality & reliability
4. Fiscal burden
5. Employment
6. Wider economic benefits
7. Basic accessibility
8. Affordability
9. Inclusion
10.Social cohesion
11.Safety, security & health
17.Design & evaluation risk
18.Implementation risk
19.Operational risk
Subcriteria
Scoring (1)
Score Descriptor Guidance
3
Major Positive
Major positive impacts on a large population or environment
resulting in substantial and long-term improvements from the
baseline.
2 Large Positive
Large positive impact, possibly of short-, medium- or long-term
duration. Impact may not be absolute but only perceived in
comparisonto the without case.
1
Moderate
Positive
Moderate positive impact, possibly only lasting over the short-
term. May be confinedto a limitedarea, e.g. pilot projects.
0
Neutral/Margina
lly Positive
No discernible or predictedpositiveor negativeimpacts.
-1
Moderate
Negative
Moderate negative impact, probably short-term, able to be
managed or mitigated and will not cause substantial detrimental
effects. Maybe confinedto a small area.
-2 Large Negative
Large negative impacts. Impacts maybe short-, medium- or long-
term and impacts will most likely respond to management
actions.
-3 Major Negative
Major negative impacts with serious, long-term and possibly
irreversible effects leading to serious damage, degradation or
deterioration of the physical, economical or social environment.
May require a major re-scope of concept, design, location,
justification, or requires major commitment to extensive
managementstrategies to mitigatethe effect.
Scoring (2)
SUBCRITERIA: ECONOMIC EFFECTIVENESS
ECO-1: Transport
Efficiency - People
enable efficient peoples mobility?
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
ECO-2: Transport
Efficiency -
Businesses
enable efficient goods mobility and
operation of transport services?
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
ECO-3: Quality and
Reliability
improve the quality and reliability of
transport systems?
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
ECO-4: Fiscal burden
reduce or increase the cost of transport
systems for the taxpayer?
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
ECO-5: Employment
create quality employment
opportunities?
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
ECO-6: Wider
Economic Benefits
enable concentration of economic
activity in urban centers?
foster rural agricultural development
facilitates cross-border trade?
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
SUBCRITERIA: SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
SOC-1: Basic
Accessibility
enhance access to basic social
services, including hospitals, schools,
community centers and leisure facilities?
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
SOC-2: Transport
Affordability
make transport services more
affordable to the poor
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
SOC-3: Safety and
Security
improve transport safety for road users
and local communities
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
SOC-4: Inclusion enhance the mobility of all members of
society, particularly vulnerable groups?
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
SOC-5: Social
Cohesion
contribute to the development of
cohesive and liveable communities?
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
SUBCRITERIA: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
ENV-1: GHG
emissions
reduce transport-sector emissions of
greenhouse gases?
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
ENV-2: Pollution and
nuisances
reduce transport-related emissions of air
pollutants, noise, vibration and light and
pollution of surface water, ground water
and soil?
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
ENV-3: Resource
efficiency
minimize transport-sectors use of
natural resources, materials, energy, water
and land, and limits waste generation and
disposal?
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
ENV-4: Natural and
built environment
preserve the natural environment and
maintain integrity of ecosystems,
biodiversity and the services they provide,
and enhance the built environment,
landscape, townscape, physical cultural
resources and their settings?
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
ENV-5: Climate
resilience
improve the climate resiliency of the
transport system?
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
CORE CRITERIA: RISK TO SUSTAINABILITY
RISK-1: Design and
evaluation risk
do the project estimated costs, demand and
expected benefits involve risks and
uncertainty?
High Medium Low
RISK-2:
Implementation risk
is project implementation likely to lead to
delay, cancelations or below-expectation
project performance
High Medium Low
RISK-3: Operational
sustainability risk
are the projects outcomes likely to be
sustained during operation?
High Medium Low
Economic
Environmental
12.GHG emissions
13.Transport-related emissions & pollution
14.Natural & built environment
15.Resource efficiency
16.Climate resilience
1. Efficiency: people
2. Efficiency: businesses
3. Quality & reliability
4. Fiscal burden
5. Employment
6. Wider economic benefits
Social
7. Basic accessibility
8. Affordability
9. Inclusion
10.Social cohesion
11.Safety, security & health
Risk to
Sustainability
17.Design & evaluation risk
18.Implementation risk
19.Operational risk
Step 2: Aggregate scores
to Criteria Level
Criteria Subcriteria
O
v
e
r
a
l
l

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Economic
Environmental
Social
Risk to
Sustainability
Step 3: Add up scores to
calculate overall sustainability
Criteria
O
v
e
r
a
l
l

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
12.GHG emissions
13.Transport-related emissions & pollution
14.Natural & built environment
15.Resource efficiency
16.Climate resilience
1. Efficiency: people
2. Efficiency: businesses
3. Quality & reliability
4. Fiscal burden
5. Employment
6. Wider economic benefits
7. Basic accessibility
8. Affordability
9. Inclusion
10.Social cohesion
11.Safety, security & health
17.Design & evaluation risk
18.Implementation risk
19.Operational risk
Subcriteria
Rating
Highly
Unsustainable
Unsustainable
Moderately
Unsustainable
Marginally
Sustainable
Moderately
Sustainable
Sustainable
Highly
Sustainable
Score
-5 to -10 -2 to -4 -1 to 0 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 to 10
Overall rating of this project is
Moderately Sustainable
Information recorded
in a summary table
Project Name: Second Road Improvement (Sector) Project
Project Description: Rehabilitation of 30km of national, provincial and secondary roads, road maintenance and capacity development
ADB Financing: $20 million Year: 2012
Sustainable Transport Objectives Contribution to each Objective
Rating by
Dimension
Score
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y
Transport Efficiency People Moderately Positive
Moderately
Economically
Effective
1
Transport Efficiency Businesses Moderately Positive
Quality & Reliability Strongly Positive
Fiscal Burden Neutral
Employment Moderately Positive
Wider economic benefits Neutral
S
O
C
I
A
L
Basic accessibility Strongly Positive
Socially
Inclusive
2
Affordability Moderately Positive
Safety Neutral
Social cohesion Neutral
Inclusion Neutral
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
GHG Emissions Neutral
Moderately
environmenta
lly
sustainable
1
Emissions and pollution Neutral
Resource efficiency Neutral
Natural and built environment Neutral
Climate resilience Strongly Positive
R
I
S
K

T
O
S
U
S
T
Design and evaluation risks Medium
High -1
Implementation risks High
Operational sustainability risks High
Overall Rating: Moderately Sustainable 3
Application to ADBs
portfolio of 2013 approved
projects
A small team of 6 trained auditors
Reviewed ADBs 2013 transport portfolio
Consisting of 22 projects: 15 road (some with trade
impacts), 1 air, 2 rail, 3 UT, 1 policy. Value USD
3.1B.
Time to conduct the analysis: 1-2 hours per
project, total of 48 hours (just over 1 person week)
Reducing subjectivity:
Review meetings
External validator (Phil Sayeg)
What we did
Results:
By subsector
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Highly Sustainable Sustainable Moderately
Sustainable
Marginally
Sustainable
Moderately
Unsustainable
Road Transport Rail Transport
Water Transport Air Transport
Urban Transport Transport Management and Policies
By criteria
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Highly Sustainable Sustainable Moderately
Sustainable
Marginally
Sustainable
Moderately
Unsustainable
Economic Social Environment
STAR can:
Be applied relatively quickly
Accommodate a variety of projects in different
subsectors
Be used to undertake an analysis of an entire
portfolio of an MDB, and by extension that of a
group of MDBs
Be a powerful tool to understand the strengths and
weaknesses of the portfolio, and draw lessons for
future improvement
Findings
Focus on social
objectives
Composition of social objective
22/09/2014 30
- Based largely on poverty impact channels
- Formulated in strong consultation with social experts at ADB
By criteria
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Highly Sustainable Sustainable Moderately
Sustainable
Marginally
Sustainable
Moderately
Unsustainable
Social
STAR results for Social Objectives
STAR results for Social Objectives
22/09/2014 32
0 10 20 30 40 50
Very strongly positive
Strongly positive
Moderately positive
Marginal
Moderately negative
Strongly negative
Very strongly negative
Ratings by Social Sub-Objective
Basic access Affordability Safety Inclusion Cohesion Employment
No. of projects
What can be done to improve social
effectiveness (examples)
Project
types
Opportunities
Rural roads Provisionof sidewalks and dust suppression near villages
Provision of accessible bus stops and shelters, measures to enhance public transport services and
affordability to all user groups (e.g. women, children, other vulnerable groups, persons with disabilities)
Community road safety awareness
Cross-sectoral coordination new community services (e.g. health centers) opened up by supporting
road investments
Explicit consideration of employment generation during implementation & operation (in all below also)
National &
regional
highways
Connecting rural roads and bus services
Road safety enhancement appropriate speed regimes for road type and location
Provision of accessible bus stops and shelters, measures to enhance public transport services and
affordability
Rail Connecting bus services and secureand safe access at inter-modal terminals
Ticketing/ fare systems that enhance affordabilityand convenience for families
Basic features to enhance security, ensure relevance to all user groups
Aviation Measures to improveaviation safety
Regulatory regimes that provide new entrants and lower fares
Basic features of servicesand terminalsto enhance security, ensure relevance to all user groups
Maritime Similar to aviation
Urban transport Integrated transport services, focus on walk/ NMT, public transport as well as vehicles
Accessible, secure stops and terminals
Ticketing/ fare systems that enhance affordabilityand convenience for families, etc
22/09/2014 33
Thank you!