Current practice in project appraisal in Europe

Trans European Network transport infrastructure projects and regulations pose a significant problem in the area of appraisal. Whereas previously national appraisal guidelines have been used for the appraisal of such projects there is an increased demand for consistency of approach where projects cross country boundaries or have some other international dimension. With the EU expanding to 25 countries in 2004 this has become an even more pertinent issue. The purpose of the 6th framework HEATCO project (from which this paper is derived) is to develop a set of harmonised guidelines for project assessment and transport costing at an EU level. This paper will present the approaches, methods and values currently used for project appraisal and then review their comparability and consistency across the 25 member states. It is the first general attempt to include the current appraisal practice of the 10 new member states in a review. The review is based on the results from a country based proforma, which was designed to elicit the extent to which the different elements of infrastructure appraisal are harmonised and highlight what potential barriers to harmonisation may exist. In doing this it builds on the previous survey undertaken as part of the EUNET project (Grant-Muller, Mackie, Nellthorp and Pearman, 1998), updating it to account for the changes in practice that have occurred over the intervening 7 years as well as extending it to the new member states. The elements of infrastructure appraisal practice that will be reviewed are: appraisal methodology and framework; construction related costs including the treatment of uncertainty and optimism bias; user benefits and vehicle operating costs; safety; environmental impacts and indirect socio-economic effects. The analysis and comparison of existing practice of project assessment and transport costing highlights a number of similarities and differences across countries and modes. For example, all countries use cost benefit analysis in some form, but for countries in the east region of the EU (e.g. Latvia) cost benefit analysis is most commonly/ only used for projects which are promoted for EU co-funding. There are also clear regional differences on how to treat the different impacts of a project, such as noise effects. None of the countries in the south region of the EU (Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal or Spain) include noise in a cost benefit analysis. The review shows that while some points of commonality exist between EU countries there is still a long way to go to achieve harmonisation in national practices. It concludes with a discussion of some of the key issues that need to be resolved before the harmonisation of guidelines for project assessment and transport costing at the EU level can be achieved.

泛欧洲网络（Trans European Network）交通基础设施项目及其监管规范在评估领域面临显著难题。此前这类项目的评估一直沿用各国自身的评估指南，但如今对于跨境或具备其他国际属性的项目，业界对评估方法一致性的需求日益提升。随着欧盟于2004年扩容至25个成员国，这一问题变得愈发紧迫。
本研究依托的第六框架计划HEATCO项目，旨在制定一套适用于欧盟层面的项目评估与交通成本核算统一指南。本文将梳理当前各国用于项目评估的方法、手段与评估基准值，并对25个成员国的评估方法的可比性与一致性展开评估。本次评估首次将10个新成员国当前的项目评估实践纳入统一综述范畴。
本次综述基于国别标准化调研问卷的结果，该问卷旨在调研基础设施评估各环节的统一化程度，并梳理阻碍统一化推进的潜在因素。本次调研依托EUNET项目（Grant-Muller、Mackie、Nellthorp与Pearman，1998）此前开展的调研工作，一方面针对七年间评估实践的变化进行内容更新，另一方面将调研范围拓展至新成员国。
本次综述将评估的基础设施评估实践环节包括：评估方法论与框架；与施工相关的成本核算（含不确定性与乐观偏差的处理方式）；用户收益与车辆运营成本；安全评估；环境影响与间接社会经济效应。
对当前项目评估与交通成本核算实践的分析与对比，揭示了不同国家与交通模式间存在的诸多共性与差异。例如，所有成员国均以不同形式采用成本效益分析，但欧盟东部成员国（如拉脱维亚）通常仅将成本效益分析用于申请欧盟联合资助的项目。此外，各国在处理项目的各类影响（如噪声影响）时也存在显著的区域差异，欧盟南部成员国（塞浦路斯、希腊、意大利、马耳他、葡萄牙及西班牙）均未将噪声影响纳入成本效益分析范畴。
本次综述显示，尽管欧盟各国在部分评估环节存在共性，但要实现各国评估实践的统一仍任重道远。本文最后将探讨在欧盟层面实现项目评估与交通成本核算指南统一前，亟待解决的若干核心问题。