document of the world bankdocuments1.worldbank.org/curated/en/765381468000926339/... · 2016. 7....

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

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

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

i

DATA SHEET A. Basic Information

Country: Argentina Project Name: AR-GEF Sustainable and 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 Commitment:

USD 3.99M Disbursed Amount: USD 3.88M

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

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual Date(s) Concept Review: 04/08/2005 Effectiveness: 08/04/2010

Appraisal: 09/04/2008 Restructuring(s): 07/12/2012 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

Quality at Entry: Moderately Unsatisfactory Government: Moderately

Unsatisfactory

Quality of Supervision: Moderately Satisfactory Implementing Agency/Agencies: Moderately Satisfactory

Overall Bank Performance:

Moderately Unsatisfactory

Overall Borrower Performance:

Moderately Unsatisfactory

ii

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators

Implementation Performance Indicators

QAG Assessments (if any) Rating

Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

Yes Quality at Entry (QEA):

None

Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

Yes Quality of Supervision (QSA):

None

GEO rating before Closing/Inactive status

Moderately 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.”

iii

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)

Indicator Baseline Value Original Target

Values (from approval documents)

Formally Revised Target

Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 (dropped):

Number of trips in public transportation increase in intervened corridors compared to corridor baseline

Value (Quantitative or Qualitative)

n/a

10% increase in number of trips in public transport in intervened corridors

(Dropped) (Dropped)

Date achieved - 11/04/2008 07/12/2012 10/31/2014 Comments (incl. % achievement)

This indicator was dropped because none of the public transportation interventions to be designed under this project would be implemented by the time the project closed.



Formally Revised Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at Completion or Target

Years

Indicator 2 : Number of NMT trips increase in intervened areas compared to corridor baseline


Rosario (bike trips): - Bv. 27 de febrero: 863 - Bv. O. Lagos: 756 - Avellaneda: 847 Cordoba: n/a

5 % increase in number of public transport modal share in intervened areas

-

Rosario: (target met) - Bv. 27 de Febrero: 1599 (85%) - Bv. O. Lagos: 964 (28%) - Avellaneda: 1264 (50%) Cordoba: n/a

Date achieved

Bv. 27 de Febrero and Bv. O. Lagos: traffic survey, 2011. Avellaneda: traffic survey, 2013.

11/04/2008 - Rosario: traffic survey, 2014.

iv

Comments (incl. % achievement)

Cordoba: a household survey conducted in 2012 revealed that 6.1% of people surveyed used the bicycle as their primary mode of transport. Currently, updated data is not available. The city will be conducting a traffic survey in May 2015. Counts made by the Municipality estimate that the number of cyclists using the new corridors has seen a four-fold increase.




Values



Indicator 3 (dropped) : Decrease of CO2 equivalent tons emitted by ground transport in intervened corridors


n/a

5% decrease in GHG emissions from ground transport in selected corridors.

(Dropped) (Dropped)

Date achieved - 11/04/2008 07/12/2012 10/31/2014


This indicator was dropped because infrastructure interventions need a longer time frame to consolidate emission reductions. Notwithstanding, the applied methodology to measure emission reductions in the bikepaths constructed in Rosario calculated a reduction of 165.32 CO2 equivalent tons in the year after construction of the intervened corridors.




Values



Indicator 4 : Number of cities that are integrating environment and climate change components, with urban 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


1 At least 1 integrated transport and land use plan or study finalized

- 4 (target met)

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 2008. Additionally, a diagnostic for the development of a Strategic and Integrated Mobility Planfor the city of Cordoba was undertaken in 2012. 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.




Values



Indicator 5 (not reported) :

Number of internationally recognized validated methodologies to assess GHG and air pollutant emissions as a result of transport and land-use measures are applied.

Value 0 n/a - 1

v

(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. Regarding the outcome, CAI developed a number of tools, methodologies and guidelines specifically designed for the region; as well as reference cases to guide cities in measuring GHG 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.




Values



Indicator 6 (added) :

Number of new other transport initiatives aimed at enabling use of less energy intensive transportation modes.


0 - 3 More than 3 (target met)

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: The expansion of bikeway networks in Rosario, Cordoba and Tucuman. Campaigns to promote NMT and sustainable transportation in Rosario and Cordoba. 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.




Values



Indicator 1 (revised):

Number of cities with revised/new land-use policies and regulations designed/proposed that create incentives for more efficient and sustainable transport oriented development


0 4 cities preparing land-use policies and regulations

- 4 (target met)

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 definition of a baseline indicator. New policies and regulations included: 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

vi

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.




Values



Indicator 1 (revised) : Number of Km of segregated BRT with final design in cities


0 4 km - 5.5 km (Target met)

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). Rosario adjusted the final designs for 2.5 km of BRT-type lanes for the north-south corridor project, with their own resources and guidance from the GEF team, with civil works currently 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.




Values



Indicator 2 : Number of cities preparing or implementing specific measures to promote inter-connectivity among transport modes. Value (Quantitative or Qualitative)

0 2 - 2 (target met)

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. 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.

vii

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.

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at Completion or Target

Years

Indicator 1 (revised) : Number of increased cyclists in intervened corridors/areas


Rosario (bike trips): - Bv. 27 de Febrero: 863 - Bv. O. Lagos: 756 - Avellaneda: 847 Cordoba: n/a

- 5% increase in the number of cyclists

Rosario: (target met) - Bv. 27 de Febrero: 1599 (85%) - Bv. O. Lagos: 964 (28%) - Avellaneda: 1264 (50%) Cordoba: n/a

Date achieved

Bv. 27 de Febrero and Bv. O. Lagos: traffic survey 2011. Avellaneda: traffic survey 2013.

11/04/2008 07/12/2012 Rosario: traffic survey 2014.


This indicator was adjusted by adding “increased” before “cyclists” to facilitate the definition of a baseline indicator; also the missing target was added. Cordoba: a household survey conducted in 2012 revealed that 6.1% of people surveyed used the bicycle as their primary mode of transport. The city will be conducting traffic surveys in May 2015. Counts made by the Municipality estimate that the number of cyclists using the new corridors has seen a four-fold increase.




Values



Indicator 2 (revised): Number of km of additional bikeways built.


0 - 6.3 km 17.7 km (target met)

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 “bikeways”; also the missing target was added. Under the GEF Program, the original target almost tripled: Rosario built 11.8 km of bikeways; and Cordoba 5.9 km.

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No. Date ISR Archived GEO IP Actual Disbursements

(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

viii

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

Restructuring Date(s)

Board Approved GEO

Change

ISR Ratings at Restructuring

Amount Disbursed at

Restructuring in USD millions

Reason for Restructuring & Key Changes Made GEO IP

07/12/2012 N MU MU 0.52

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 December 31, 2013; and (ii) adjusting the Project’s results framework, modifying PDO result indicators and revising the language of intermediate results indicators.

09/11/2013 N MS MS 1.54

The Project underwent a Second Level Restructuring with the objective of requesting a 10-month extension to the closing date, from December 31, 2013 to October 31, 2014.

ix

I. Disbursement Profile

1

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.

2

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

3

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.

4

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.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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.

10

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

11

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

12

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.

13

“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.

14

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

15

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-PIM10 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.

16

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.

17

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.

18

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 p