Improving Transport Project Appraisals
In the Islamic Countries
23
Table 1.3: Elements of the governance and capacity aspect
Aspect Elements included
Governance of
project
appraisal
1. Roles: who is responsible for transport capital expenditure decisions? Is
there a coordinating entity at central level or are project appraisal practices
largely delegated to sectoral/local procurement agencies? Which activities
are delegated at sectoral/local level? Who performs transport project
appraisals? is project appraisal performed by a technical unit within the
administration or by private consultants? How are responsibilities and
functions of procurement agencies, project promoter and project appraisers
specified?
2. Quality review : How are quality standards for project appraisal defined? Is
there a system of independent quality review of project appraisal?
3. Publicity: are project appraisal reports publicly available? how are the
stakeholders included into the appraisal process? Are project appraisal
results systematically used to inform public consultations and debate?
Ad 1) Roles
The institutional system influences the way in which roles and responsibilities are allocated
across sectors and departments. In particular, it is important to recognise that there are three
crucial roles: the analyst (who performs the appraisal), the evaluator (who checks its
consistency and quality) and the decision-maker (who takes a decision based on the appraisal
results). The role of project promoter, as sometimes distinct from the analyst, can also be
identified. A balance of roles, in terms of distinction and coordination, shall be ensured.
If planning and implementing agencies are manifold, a matter of coordination and consistency
is at stake. Project appraisal tradition of the last century was embedded in a more centralistic view
of government and consequently of investment planning and decision. The experience of the
overarching coordinating role of the Treasury in the UK , just to mention an example, where
echoed in the seminal Little andMirrlees (1974) contribution, originally sponsored by the OECD.
In the Little and Mirrlees view, a Central Office of Project Evaluation was responsible for both
the computation of parameters and reference values and the allocation of capital expenditures.
A recent and interesting example of overarching coordination body comes from Lithuania . Here,
a centralised system for management of investments exists. The Central Project Management
Agency (CPMA) plays the role of competence centre and ensures the implementation of
investments and consistent and systematised management of project preparation, selection,
appraisal, procurement, contracting and control as well as in full accordance with European
Union (EU) legislation and national Lithuanian law. It coordinates and rules capital investment
planning and implementation of all Line Ministries.
Over the years, government has often evolved in a more decentralized institutional setting, with
public investment decisions delegated to sub-national level, or to sector departments and
agencies. An important dimension is the sharing of responsibilities between central and