73057Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized...the review activity in Armenia and...

Country Report – REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA

Review of road safety management capacity and proposals

for a short to long-term investment strategy

FINAL 26th June 2006 Eric Howard VicRoads International Jeanne Breen Jeanne Breen Consulting

73057

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

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

2

1. Introduction 1.1. Background

The road safety situation in the Republic of Armenia is serious and deteriorating. In the context of substantial and continual administrative change since independence, increasing motor vehicle traffic volumes and inadequate road safety management, the risk of death and serious injury as well as the socio-economic costs of road traffic crashes in Armenia’s road traffic system are rising. In 2005, there were 310 reported deaths and 1,771 injuries representing increases of 24% and 29% respectively since 2001. Around 52% of fatalities are car occupants and 45% are pedestrians. Child road traffic deaths comprise 8% of total road traffic deaths. The majority of deaths take place on highway and republican roads (49%) and in the city of Yerevan (25%) where around 77% of deaths are to pedestrians. Since 2000, the number of licensed drivers has doubled and the number of licensed motor vehicles has trebled1. The death rate per 100,000 of population is 10.3 which is about twice as high as the best in Europe. The death rate per 10,000 vehicles 16.6 which is over 8 times as high as Europe’s best. In 2003, the socio-economic costs were estimated to be between US$ 25.7 – 37.0 million per year representing over 1% of national GDP for Armenia. In addition to these costs, the loss of the main wage earner in road traffic crashes pushes families into poverty. Research in high-income countries has shown that children from the lowest income groups are 5 times as likely to sustain fatal and serious injury in road traffic than other groups2. With over 40% of the population already below the poverty line, improving road safety in the Republic of Armenia is also a key issue for both national poverty reduction and child mortality reduction strategies. Road safety activity in Armenia has been supported by previous World Bank assistance3. A multi-sectoral co-ordinating National Road Safety Council was established by the Government in 2001 under this project bringing together around 13 government stakeholders under the chair of the Minister of Transport and Communications. It became inactive after the completion of the project and a tiny road safety function now exists within Armenia Roads. However, following a Presidential decree in April 2006, traffic management and road safety is set to become an increasing priority for policymakers in Armenia4. Following the establishment of an inter-governmental task force, substantial structural reforms of transport organization have taken place, and further legislative change is planned. These steps are commended and are acknowledged as an important indicator of the preparedness of senior agency staff to embrace change in a co-operative and effective manner working across government. These will provide key building blocks towards the development and implementation of a new road safety strategy. Interest was expressed by key stakeholders in coming together to develop a road safety strategy and programme.

1 Police data 2005

2 Roberts I and Power C (1996). Does the decline in child injury mortality vary by social class? A comparison of class specific mortality in 1981 and 1991. British Medical Journal 313, 784-786

3Document of The World Bank Report No: 32279 Implementation completion report (tf-25535 ida-33750) on a credit in the

amount of SDR 29.9 million (US$40.0 million equivalent) to the Republic of Armenia for a transport project June 28, 2005 Infrastructure and Energy Department Europe and Central Asia Region

4 Presidential Decree: On Approval of the Action Plan to Implement Proposals on the Solution of Traffic Related Issues in the

Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, April, 2006.

3

1.2. The road safety review

The main objective of this road safety review is to set out a strategy for the short to long term to address the serious road safety situation in Armenia. Its purpose is to guide future World Bank investments, based on a review of country road safety management capacity and taking account of other activity in this field carried out by other international organizations with programmes and partnerships in Armenia. Section 2 outlines the findings of the road safety management capacity review. Section 3 presents the short to long term strategy prepared in response to these findings and developments. Section 4 outlines a short term action plan. Section 5 presents an assessment of the revised operational guidelines for road safety capacity review based on the review activity in Armenia and Ukraine in May-June 2006. 1.3. Armenia’s development objectives and international partnerships

Armenia’s development goals In August 2003, the Government of the Republic of Armenia adopted the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) and approved, in January 2004, an action plan of measures to implement the PRSP’s programme during 2004-2006. The main pillars of the Poverty Reduction Strategy - are:

Sustainable and equitable economic growth

Public administration and the anti-corruption programme

Human development World Bank Country Assistance goals Taking account of these objectives, the World Bank adopted its new Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) for Armenia in 2004 for the period 2004-2008. The main priorities envisaged in the CAS are:

Promoting private sector led economic growth Making growth benefit the poor Reducing non-income poverty Maintaining infrastructure Improving the targeting of expenditures for social protection and education

The World Bank estimates that Armenia is likely to meet the Millennium Development Goals for gender and education, may meet the goals for poverty reduction, infectious diseases and environmental sustainability, but is unlikely to meet those on child mortality and maternal health 5.

Previous World Bank support (US $0.5 million) included the establishment of the National Road Safety Council with a permanent Secretariat, the development of an Accident Data System; carrying out safety engineering activities including the establishment of accident standards, conducting safety audits; establishing the capacity for making signs and for road marking, support for a vehicle inspection program, providing safety engineering training, providing traffic control equipment such as speed detectors, providing safety education within the school system, and making the physical changes needed to eliminate some accidents black spots as these were identified through the accident reporting system. World Bank Transport Strategy and Road Safety World Bank recommendations on global road safety management are set out in the World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention6 which it co-produced with the World Health Organization and its follow up guidance on

5 World Bank Country Assistance Strategy for the Republic of Armenia, Report 28991, June, 2004

6 World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention eds. Peden et al, WHO, World Bank, 2004

4

implementation activity in the Transport Note TN-17 and its draft revision. The establishment of the Global Road Safety Facility and the Bank’s stated aim in its new transport strategy in pursuit of a ‘safer, cleaner and affordable road transport system’ underlines its commitment to play a leading global role in road safety. European Union initiatives Armenia is aiming for progressive integration into EU models and standards and was included in the European Neighbourhood Policy in June 2004. In November 2005, a draft Action Plan presented by the EU was discussed. Amongst a wide range of fields, co-operation and reforms in the spheres of transport, energy and environment are also highlighted. Due consideration is given to scientific co-operation, which will prepare Armenia’s integration into the European Research Area and into the Community research and development Framework Programme. The TACIS programme in Armenia for 2004-2006 (€20 million) covers support for institutional, legal and administrative reform and support in addressing the social consequences of transition with an emphasis on the vocational education sector 8,9,10. ECMT/OECD initiatives Armenia joined the European Conference of Ministers of Transport in 2003 and adopted the ECMT Acquis upon joining the organization which involves signing up to the aspirational target to reduce deaths by 50% by the year 2012 and adoption of various road safety resolutions.

EBRD initiatives in Armenia have, to date, comprised maintenance elements of road infrastructure and work with small and medium enterprises.

WHO initiatives The World Health Organization has a biennial Collaborative Agreement with the Ministry of Health of Armenia (currently for 2006-7) although there are no specific road injury prevention, pre-hospital care or trauma care provisions at present.

The road safety investment strategies will need to take account of the importance of road injury prevention in achieving national and international development priorities for reducing poverty and child mortality and identify opportunities for developing further international strategic partnerships and programmes, particularly with European Union and ECMT, EBRD and WHO Europe, given Armenia’s aspiration for further European integration. 1.4. Road safety strategy review process A five step process was used to conduct the safety strategy review in Armenia.

Step 1: Appraise current safety practices and outcomes.

An on-site review of road safety management capacity was carried out on behalf of the World Bank between 28th May and 2nd June by Eric Howard and Jeanne Breen of VicRoads International and Jeanne Breen Consulting in association with the World Bank Yerevan Office and Armenia Roads. Meetings were held with Government stakeholders and international organizations as outlined in Annex 1. The review team was asked to assess the road safety management capacity of Armenia using international best practice as a benchmark. This involved using operational guidelines provided in World Bank Transport Note 1 (revised draft).

7 Bliss A, Implementing the Recommendations of the World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention, Transport Note No. TN-1,

World Bank, Washington DC, April 2004.

8 European Neighbourhood Policy Country Report Armenia {COM(2005) 72 final} Brussels, 2.3.2005

9 Country Strategy Paper 2002-2006, Republic of Armenia, European Union, December, 2001

10 Tacis National Indicative Programme for Armenia 2004-2006, European Commission, 2003

5

Effective road safety management is characterised by three key strategic elements: clearly defined performance targets which are challenging but achievable, a comprehensive framework of integrated interventions across the system and effective implementation arrangements involving key stakeholders. Taking into account some additional elements in the revised draft TN -1 and in a draft road safety management guide being produced for the World Bank, the appraisal checklist of TN-1 was used to assess country capacity in terms of ‘system’ and ‘effectiveness’ to provide a ‘diagnosis’. The ‘system’ capacity review appraises road safety management along the three international best practice dimensions: results management, interventions and implementation (taking account of structure which relates to institutional organisation and processes and culture which concerns how things get done in the country) The ‘effectiveness’ capacity review tries to assess where the country is in terms of its road safety development. It requires consideration of the social cost densities of networks, and where the greatest concentrations of crashes and related deaths and injuries occur, because it is in these corridors and areas that the most potential for accelerating effectiveness occurs. The first phase involves a slow accretion of capacity and the second phase sees capacity improving rapidly which broadly coincide with 1st and 2nd Generation projects. 1st Generation Projects are usually part of a road construction project. 2nd Generation are usually stand-alone projects.

The ‘diagnosis’ of a country safety management system and its effectiveness represents professional appraisal of the state of readiness in a country to move from 1st Generation Projects to 2nd Generation Projects. Step 2: Set a vision

The vision set for the purposes of the review was that in fifteen years time the Armenia would have in place a robust safety management system that produces high quality safety outcomes on a controllable and sustainable basis.

This vision acknowledges that to achieve parity with best practice safety management systems is going to take sustained effort over a long period of time. However, it is recognized that with sufficient commitment and ambition this vision could possibly be achieved more quickly.

Step 3: Determine phasing of developments.

To achieve the specified vision, three phases of development of the safety management system for Armenia were identified over the fifteen year period. These were defined as the establishment, growth and consolidation phases.

Step 4: Set strategic priorities for each phase

These were set for the strategic elements and related dimensions.

Step 5: Propose a short term package

A five year investment plan was developed to help launch the strategy.

6

2. Capacity review findings 2.1. Summary System capacity for road safety management

There is clear political interest at the highest level to improve road safety with ambition to achieve the good practice road safety levels achieved in Europe. A Presidential Decree in April 2006 and associated action plan seeks to introduce measures, principally, to improve traffic management and identify various stakeholder responsibilities. They include classifying the road network, defining roles and responsibilities of various ministries in relation to road traffic, providing for new systems of technical inspection and driver licensing, and clarifying the structure of the state traffic police and their functions, against a background of national concern about bribery and corruption. These provide a new general framework for transport and traffic system organization in the Republic of Armenia away from the old Soviet model. While this is to be commended as necessary steps to establish the environment for future effective road safety performance and there are certain actions which in themselves hold promise for road safety, they are not focused on specific outcomes and interventions for road casualty reduction. At the same time, various Government stakeholders have acknowledged that targeted road safety co-ordination is lacking, that approaches need to change and that the key government stakeholders needed to come together at senior management working level (rather than just at Ministerial level), probably around the establishment of a new national road safety strategy. A useful crash data analysis capacity exists at Armenia Roads, based on provision of data by Police. Computer-based vehicle registration and driver licensing systems are available. Socio -economic costs of road crashes for Armenia have been analysed and an overall estimate prepared (however this was in 2003). The non governmental sector in road safety is developing which can provide a useful contribution. These are important basic strengths which will support future effective road safety performance In general however, road safety management across Government in Armenia is inadequate and lacks focus and capacity. While new legislation is setting out the parameters of various responsibilities for road safety, responsibilities for strategy development and implementation, in general, are not clearly specified. No one Government Department is giving an effective lead to road safety activity. While some of the responsible agencies have worked together previously within the framework of a World Bank project, the National Road Safety Council established by government in 2001 is no longer operational. There is a serious lack of expert capacity, resources and skills in road safety within the responsible agencies and across government. Results focus

Achievable and realistic targets for the reduction of road trauma have not been set, the road safety situation is not monitored effectively by any responsible government department, and road crash data is not widely shared. The absence of a GIS-based analysis system inhibits identification of individual high-risk sites throughout the network and the absence of specific road injury data sets in computerised health sector systems inhibits understanding of road injury epidemiology.

Apart from final outcomes, no measurement is carried out of safety performance including key road user behaviours. An in-depth understanding of the problems based on research and analysis of crash data and other indicators is necessary. Challenging but achievable final outcome targets need to be set. Intermediate outcomes need to be identified. Up to date estimates of the socio-economic costs of road traffic crashes need to be made.

7

Interventions

The vehicle fleet is old (12 years on average) and of poor safety quality. Road safety engineering activity is not evident in the road network. Traffic management arrangements (as distinct from targeted road safety measures) in urban areas, especially Yerevan, are poor and do not support lower risk driver and pedestrian behaviour. Enforcement activity is currently limited and needs to address key safety rules. There is a severe lack of equipment in transport, justice and health sectors to carry out effective road safety activity. There is a lack of management capacity in the vehicle safety field and also in road user behaviour field which constrains the ability to develop, recommend to government and when approved, to implement behaviour-related policy improvements. There is need for improvement in access to the pre-hospital medical system and a trauma care system. Implementation – structure and culture

Leadership of road safety in Armenia is currently lacking and new arrangements need to be put in place to develop capacity which can deliver understanding of the road safety problem (without emphasis on blame – a specific responsibility for prosecution by Police) together with evidence-based and data-led strategies and countermeasures. While road safety management problems have been identified by government, working relationships across government, both vertically and horizontally, are poor and currently impede progress. Against the background of very poor public respect for traffic law, effective multi-sectoral working relationships need to be established urgently at senior managerial level, Director level and Ministerial levels. Following on from the important and substantial reforms in road transport system organization which have been taken recently, a national road safety strategy is needed to set out clear management responsibility on the part of the different government agencies and to provide for effective co-ordination arrangements with a dedicated secretariat. Road safety funding arrangements are inadequate and lack transparency. In general national capacity for dedicated road safety research and development barely exists. The review’s findings of system capacity for road safety management across these results, interventions and implementation - structure and culture) dimensions are outlined in Table 2.1. Effectiveness

Armenia is in the first phase of effectiveness. There is little useful analysis in transport, police and health sectors of the risks in the road traffic system and, in general, an absence of multi-sectoral understanding as to where the priority areas for action lay. Diagnosis

Armenia is at the threshold of motorization and already has serious road safety problems. With new political will that ensures accountability, effective multi-sectoral co-ordinated activity, enhanced results management and effective knowledge transfer, it has the potential to move quickly into its next phase. It has the capacity to take on a 2nd Generation road safety project.

8

Table 2.1. Strategic review of road safety management capacity in Armenia

Results focus Strategic review

Final safety outcomes – costs, fatalities and serious injuries

No casualty reduction targets have been set. The socio-economic costs of road traffic crashes are not estimated on an annual basis, but an estimate was made for costs in 2003 (human capital methodology). Data is collected, processed and analysed by the State Police. Basic overviews of outcomes were prepared for the review team. The health sector has a national computerised system, but within this no specific provision has made to identify road traffic injuries, although it was acknowledged that this could be done relatively easily..

Intermediate safety outcomes

There are no intermediate outcome targets for speeds, helmet use, seat belt use and drink driving and these behaviours are not measured. There is, however, a target for ambulance response times in the emergency medical system.

Safety programme outputs

There are no agency output targets.

Interventions System elements:

Design and operation of road network

Road standards A new road classification has recently been introduced with responsibilities assigned to the Ministry of Transport and Communications for inter-state, republican and regional roads (except Yerevan), Yerevan City Hall for all roads in and passing through Yerevan, city communities for city roads and rural communities for local roads. Apart from 3 members of staff (part-time on road safety in Armenia Roads), there is no road safety engineering capacity elsewhere in Armenia. Roads are, in general, of poor quality and standards are those of the Soviet era which are much lower than good European practice. On highways and republican roads and city centre roads which contribute the highest numbers of fatalities, there is little evidence of road safety engineering. There is a general absence of key road furniture, lane and other road markings, pedestrian and public transport user facilites. In late 2003, the Traffic Police department and Armenia Roads had introduced a new accident data system (MAAP-5) to identify the nature of accident black spots but the lack of a GIS system is inhibiting mapping of specific sites. There is no prioritization of high risk site treatments based on cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analysis (the crash costs are not taken into account in new road schemes). There is reasonable understanding in Armenia Roads of the scope of road safety engineering due to past World Bank knowledge transfer work, but little capacity exists to ensure that this is carried out or to transfer knowledge to city and local authorities.

Conditions of entry and exit to the road network for vehicles and users

Vehicles The fleet is old (around 12 years on average) and of low safety quality. There are no national vehicle safety standards. Vehicles are mainly imported from Europe and Russia (the only requirement for Russian imports is to meet European emissions standards). About 10,000 cars are imported into Armenia annually. A new privatised vehicle technical inspection system is being introduced. Users A new framework for driver licensing and testing is due to come into effect in October 2006 involving a theory and practice test. It is recommended that all user fees and fines are collected by a central government agency rather than the police and allocations made to specific departments through annual budgets.

Compliance with safety standards and rules in the road environment

Users Compliance with safety rules is not measured but appears low. There is widespread flouting of speed limits, failure to observe traffic controls and pedestrian crossing rules, virtually no seat belt use by general public. Respect for the traffic police is low, against the background of widespread and widely acknowledged levels of bribery and corruption. Presidential intervention has led to some re-organization of traffic police role, structures and operations. However, continuation of police collection of on-the-spot fines will do little to alleviate the situation.

Emergency medical services

Technical equipment levels are low. Staff training, guidelines, and standardised information systems are needed. There are several emergency numbers for access to the emergency medical system.

Implementation – structure and culture

Leadership, coordination and high level promotion

Road safety management in Armenia is inadequate and lacks focus and capacity. Legislative and compliance functions are mixed. The distribution of departmental responsibilities are atypical of good European practice. Following Presidential decree, a multi-sectoral task force has come together recently, but the focus has been mainly on much needed traffic management and reform of transport system frameworks and responsibilities. This ongoing activity and reform is commended. Various Government stakeholders, however, have acknowledged that road safety co-ordination is lacking and that the key government stakeholders need to come together at senior management working level (rather than just at Ministerial level) , probably around the establishment of a new national road safety strategy. Previous co-ordination established under a World Bank project has folded.

9

Legislation

There have been a variety of road safety acts since independence. Some safety rules are in place but there are important exceptions e.g. urban speed limits do not reflect good practice (60 km/h compared to a 50 km/h or lower which is normal European practice). There is no evidential breath testing machinery. There is no crash helmet law or licensing requirement for moped riders and there is no penalty points system for drivers and riders. Duty and driving times of heavy goods drivers and long distance public transport drivers are not covered by legislation. There is no mandatory third party insurance system. Fines are considered to be token neither providing a deterrent nor reflecting relative road safety risks although there are plans to increase their severity.

Resource allocation

Road safety is receiving very little resource in Armenia and there are no specific allocations of resources in Government budgets.

Funding mechanisms

Sustainable funding arrangements for road safety need to be reviewed.

Monitoring and evaluation

The only monitoring which seems to be carried out is road traffic crash monitoring by the police and emergency service monitoring by the Ministry of Health. Highway authority data is limited and there is no evidence of monitoring of road safety by city and local authorities.

Research and development and knowledge transfer

There is zero road safety research capacity in government and outside. Some knowledge transfer about traffic policing has taken place within Task Force activity but the general lack of capacity across government is a priority issue.

Parliamentary relations

There is little evidence yet of engagement on road safety.

Non-governmental organization engagement

A new umbrella organization – the National Road Safety Council has recently been founded which is acknowledged by key government stakeholders to be a useful development.

3. Strategic priorities for the short, medium and long term for the Republic of Armenia 3.1 . Vision In developing a road safety strategy for the longer term it is important to have a vision of where a country would like to be by the end of the planning horizon and a clear understanding of how its achievement would be recognized11. The review findings indicate that the Republic of Armenia faces a significant challenge in its goal to create acceptable levels of safety in its road traffic system. The proposed strategy sets out a sequence of priorities to be addressed over three 5-year phases to achieve the following vision:

Within 15 years, the Republic of Armenia will build a robust road safety management system that produces best practice road safety outcomes on a manageable and sustainable basis.

In pursuit of this vision, the focus is on building institutional capabilities in transport, health, education and justice sectors and creating the supporting partnerships within central, regional and local government, communities, non-governmental organizations and the private sector that are critical to achieving positive and sustainable results. To achieve the proposed vision it is necessary to put in place a robust safety management system that produces high quality safety outcomes on a controllable and sustainable basis. Three phases of development of the safety management system for Armenia were identified over a fifteen year period. These were defined as the establishment, growth and consolidation phases. Within each phase, strategic priorities for multi-sectoral government stakeholder action were identified by the review team for different system elements and related dimensions in response to the findings of the capacity review presented in Table 2.1.

11

Bliss A, Transport safety strategy review, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, World Bank, Washington, July 2003

10

3.2. Strategic phases and priorities

Short term (next 5 years)

The establishment phase involves establishing which government departments are responsible for different elements of the safety of the traffic system, taking into account the setting of standards and achievement of compliance with land use planning, road design and operation, vehicle safety requirements, and user behaviour in order to manage exposure to risk, crash prevention, crash protection and post impact care. The priorities are to begin performance measurement for key indicators, to extend data collection and introduce greater data sharing; to build data analysis and knowledge capability to identify priorities for intervention development and for the roll out of strategies and measures for the next phase; and to review legislative, funding, research and development and co-ordination requirements. This could be achieved under the direction of a new National Road Safety Co-ordination Council comprising the co-operation of key agencies at Chief Executive and senior management levels in committees under a supervisory Ministerial Council (See Annex 3)

Medium term (next 10 years)

The priorities for this growth phase are to establish a robust performance management framework for all participating agencies, to implement the findings of all short-term reviews and to roll out targeted safety programme systematically across the country.

Long term (next 15 years)

The key priorities are to further roll out safety programmes and devolve the performance management framework to regional and local levels; to improve management and operational efficiency; to upgrade safety programmes and to research future countermeasures. The proposed strategies are set out in Table 3.1.

11

Table 3.1. Strategic priorities for the short, medium and long term in the Armenia

System elements

Strategic priorities for next 5 years Strategic priorities next 10 years Strategic priorities next 15 years

Results focus Final outcomes

Work towards establishing final outcome targets for a new national road safety strategy and:

- Agree types of final outcome indicators taking into account traffic trends and set challenging but achievable targets for the reduction in :

- numbers of deaths and serious injuries

- deaths and serious injuries per vehicle

- deaths per population

Extend crash injury data collection for multi-agency use.

Urgently introduce greater data sharing between police, highway authorities and urban administrations.

Build multi-sectoral data analysis capability to identify priorities for intervention development.

Monitor progress against targets, refining programme accordingly to maximise casualty reduction.

Devolve components of targets to local level.

Intermediate outcomes

Identify and establish measurement of key safety performance indicators.

Set national and regional targets for the long-term road safety strategy

Monitor progress against targets, refining interventions accordingly.

Start monitoring and measuring at local level

Outputs Establish further institutional road safety outputs and review existing emergency services outputs.

Set national and regional targets for the Police and the Ministry of Transport and adjust emergency service outputs as appropriate.

Interventions Design and operation of road environment

In addition to much needed traffic management measures, particularly in the capital city which include parking regulation, bus stop provision, lane and stop line markings, traffic signal upgrades, channelisation and other engineering treatments and one-way street provision) implement the following road safety measures:

Upgrade road safety engineering knowledge and capacity to allow:

- highest risk network locations to be identified;

- guidelines for low cost/high return engineering treatments to be upgraded or developed;

- safety standards, compliance requirements, road safety audit policies to be updated;

- understanding of ‘safe system’ approach.

Priority treatments in stretches, locations and areas to be identified and highest benefit/cost ratio locations funded to reduce fatalities and serious injuries.

Review and reduce urban road speed limits.

Crash rates for all major roads and for different types of road identified for the network.

Multi-sectoral countermeasures introduced throughout the network for highest risk lengths and area-wide locations in urban and rural areas.

Apply road safety audit processes to all new large road projects with a value in excess of US$ 0.5 million.

Review urban and rural hierarchies to achieve a better match between function, speed and road layout and pilot with demonstration projects.

Review experience of previous 10 years and revise design and operation procedures accordingly.

12

Conditions of entry and exit to road environment

Benchmark effectiveness of current driver preparation and licensing arrangements to good practice. Examine driving experience requirements prior to licensing.

Review vehicle standards arrangements for light and heavy vehicles against good European practice.

Implement review findings

Achieve best European practice in heavy vehicle and driver safety compliance.

Support and promote the findings of New Car Assessment Programmes to encourage a high level of protection.



Review operational strategies and policing tactics to develop effective deterrence models for activities.

Provide for knowledge transfer in transport and police sectors to achieve capacity for development of road user awareness and behaviour measures.

Determine traffic police equipment and operational training requirements and set related national and regional priorities to address current road safety risks.

Review funding, resources, equipment and training requirements to deliver traffic safety education in pre-schools, primary and secondary schools.

Pilot multi-sectoral packages of measures in a high-risk corridor and an urban centre to improve compliance with speed limits, seat belt and crash helmet use laws, excess alcohol legislation and compliance with safe overtaking rules (in addition to the road safety engineering measures mentioned previously)..

Roll out good practice multi-sectoral packages of measures nationally and locally to improve compliance with speed limits, seat belt and crash helmet laws, excess alcohol legislation and safe overtaking rules.

Extend traffic safety education to all pre-school, primary and secondary schools in Armenia.



Provide for equipment, knowledge transfer between emergency services and medical trauma specialists.

Review funding of emergency trauma care based on analysis of hospital trauma data and ambulance performance data.

Improve access to the emergency medical system in multi-sectoral pilots.

Upgrade pre-hospital and hospital emergency care provision on high-risk corridors and urban centres.

Extend upgrade nationally.


Leadership and coordination

Adopt a vision for effective road safety management within government to enable the production of an effective road safety programme.

Agree lead agency role for road safety on first amongst equals basis

Make new effective arrangements for co- ordination of key Ministries: Transport, Interior, Health and Education around the development of a new national road safety strategy.

Mount national conference in association with international agencies to launch new road safety approaches every 2 years.

Set clear agency accountabilities and manage agency performance.

Ensure effective co-ordination is established at regional levels.

Mount national conference in association with international agencies to launch new road safety approaches every 2 years.

Ensure that there is effective road safety co-ordination from national to local level.

Mount national conference in association with international agencies to launch new road safety approaches every 2 years

Legislation Review key road safety legislation and consider introduction of urban speed limits, drinking and driving legislation, crash helmet use for moped riders, a penalty points system, long

Review road safety legislation and regulations, better align penalties with relevant road safety risks and

Review road safety legislation and regulations, better align penalties with relevant road safety risks and

13

distance truck and bus drivers’ hours of work legislation.

strengthen legislative settings where necessary.

Introduce legislation and capacity for further enforcement to deter. emerging unsafe behaviours.

strengthen legislative settings where necessary.

Resource allocation

Introduction of staff training across road organisations in road safety risk assessment and countermeasure development.

Development of pilot multi-sectoral road safety projects (transport, health, police and education) on identified high risk corridors covering speed, alcohol use and seat belt use.

Maximise cost-effective treatments of high-risk locations on road network

Roll out programmes to national, regional and municipal networks.

Target comprehensive programmes down to local level.

Funding mechanisms

Develop long term funding proposals and associated prioritisation and financial management systems with clear road safety funding streams in government budgets.

Consider allocating 10% of revenue from proposed mandatory 3

rd party insurance or existing vehicle property

insurance premium to road safety.

Earmark 10% of all new road project funding for road safety purposes beyond those projects.

Develop long term funding proposals, associated prioritisation and financial management systems with clear road safety funding streams in government budgets.



Build comprehensive crash data base, available to all government users initially, to enable targeted interventions to be developed and develop compatibility with future health sector injury surveillance systems.

Introduce national and regional monitoring of key road safety behaviours.

Upgrade road traffic crash databases and extend performance monitoring to local levels.


Build and encourage road injury prevention research capacity across all key sectors inside and outside government.

Develop a national road safety research strategy as part of long term national road safety programme.

Start to implement a multi-disciplinary national road safety research programme inside and outside government.

Encourage and support further road safety research capacity situated outside government.


Encourage all party Parliamentary interest in road safety. All Party Parliamentary Road Safety Committee established to inquire into road safety issues.


Support the development of the road safety NGO sector and the development of road safety educational and promotional tools.

Engage professional organizations in road safety e.g. engineering and medical professions.

Support the non-governmental sector to develop and promote specific road safety activity.

14

4. Defining a short-term investment strategy for the Republic of Armenia The following priority steps are recommended:

Accountability, leadership, co-ordination:

Governmental agreement that the focus of road safety effort should be on achieving a road transport system designed and operated in a way that minimises risk to life, placing obligations on all the key Government stakeholders involved, rather than adopting a “blame the victim” approach. Agreement of a vision for road safety management for the next 15 years.

Governmental agreement on the specific road safety responsibilities of various departments for different elements of the safety of the traffic system taking into account setting standards and achieving compliance with land use planning, road design and operation, vehicle standards, and user standards for managing exposure to risk, crash prevention, crash protection and post impact care.

Nominate the lead agency for the road safety role (on a ‘first among equals’ basis - carrying out co-ordination, facilitation, convening meetings), but with each department responsible for its own areas of accountability, preferably established by legislation.

Establish a new National Road Safety Co-ordination Council bringing together key Ministries: Interior, Transport, Health, Education, Yerevan City at 3 levels - Senior Management, Chief Executive and Ministerial and adopt the vision: “Within 15 years, Armenia will build a robust road safety management system that produces best practice road safety outcomes on a manageable and sustainable basis” (See Annex) .

Make new effective arrangements for co-ordination of these key Ministries around the development of a new national road safety strategy, including the establishment of appropriate working groups. Multi-sectoral working relationships need to be built between Departments/ key individuals and considered an integral part of job performance.

Identify and introduce national means of sustainable funding for road safety e.g. though specific road safety budget streams in general departmental budgets, through a specific allocation from road user fees and charges, through a 10% allocation of proposed mandatory 3rd party insurance revenue or existing vehicle property insurance premiums as well as 10% of all new road project funding to road safety purposes ( beyond those projects).

Measures proposed by Senior Police to reduce corrupt practice by some Police members should be introduced quickly and further strengthened as soon as possible.

Expect all senior officials and politicians to show a positive example by complying with road laws at all times. Remove any existing exemptions from compliance (within enforcement practices or regulations) for certain office-holders.

Mount a national conference in association with international agencies to launch and promote road safety approaches every 2 years

Results management and knowledge transfer:

A multi-sectoral data working group should be established as a priority to introduce improved crash data collection and initial analysis, to extend data sharing with highway authorities, to introduce it to urban administrations (e.g. Yerevan City), to develop links to enhanced health system data and to build multi-sectoral data analysis capability to identify priorities for intervention development.

Key road safety performance indicators e.g. average speeds, level of seat belt use, level of excess alcohol need to be identified and measured on an ongoing basis.

Road safety capacity across all departments and urban administrations needs to be upgraded to improve understanding of the road safety problem, to identify in detail the nature of the crash problems and the key strategies and countermeasures, based on evidence and data analysis that can be introduced reasonably quickly to reduce road trauma. Early measures need to be taken to upgrade capacity for: understanding and analysis of road safety engineering needs to address high-risk parts of the network at individual sites, along sections of road and on an area-wide basis. Understanding and analysis of road user behaviour in order to develop and implement measures to further improve road user compliance are needed.

15

Interventions

Review the potential for system-wide (road infrastructure, vehicle, user) interventions to contribute to road casualty reduction and cost and prioritise measures

Develop and obtain funding for pilot multi-sectoral road safety projects (transport, health, police and education) on identified high risk corridors and in urban city centres covering speed, alcohol use, seat belt use and targeted road safety engineering improvements including the use of road safety audits.

Urban speed limits need to be reviewed and reduced within such pilots to address the high proportion of pedestrian deaths. Consider giving road authorities (with some National control and requiring consultation with Police) the responsibility to set speed limits.

The proposed short term strategy is set out in Table 4.1 which highlights a range of other priority tasks including reviews of additional road safety legislation needs, research and development needs, and support for the non-governmental sector.

16

Table 4.1. Action plan addressing short-term strategic priorities

System elements

Strategic priorities for next 5 years

Action plan for next 5 years Recommended funding (US $)

Results focus Final outcomes

Work towards establishing final outcome targets for a new national road safety strategy and:

- Agree types of final outcome indicators taking into account traffic trends and set challenging but achievable targets for the reduction in :

- numbers of deaths and serious injuries

- deaths and serious injuries per vehicle

- deaths per population

Extend crash injury data collection for multi-agency use.

Urgently introduce greater data sharing between police, highway authorities and urban administrations.

Build multi-sectoral data analysis capability to identify priorities for intervention development.

Agree and measure final outcome indicators such as the number of fatalities and serious injuries, deaths per population, deaths per 10,000 vehicles for built-up and non-built up areas.

Establish data group from Police, Transport, Health, Education and Yerevan City to

(a) agree data requirements and collection arrangements and pilot these (b) provide data to key agencies on a monthly basis (c) introduce GIS crash data and supplement computerised health sector surveillance system

T = Training

E = Equipment

S = Staffing

SER = Services

I = Infrastructure

$ 0.5 million systems costs to health, transport and police (E)

Intermediate outcomes

Identify and establish measurement of key safety performance indicators.


Measurement of:

- average free speeds in traffic in urban and rural areas

- levels of alcohol detected in the driving population, levels of blood alcohol in fatal and serious injury crashes

- number of speeding infringements by speed bands over speed limits

- seat belts and helmet use, seat belt wearing for vehicle occupants in fatal and serious crashes

- vehicle fleet quality by % of 4* and 5* EuroNCAP vehicles in fleet.


$ 0.2 million over two years for initial technical assistance on protocols and equipment (T)

Outputs Establish institutional road safety outputs and review existing emergency services outputs.

Police outputs Number of vehicles screened for speed, number of drivers tested for blood alcohol content, number of drivers checked for seat belt wearing, number of riders checked for crash helmet use.

Road authority outputs Number of blackspots and blacklengths analysed

$0.1 million over 2 years – technical equipment and assistance (T) and (E)

(See next section)

Interventions Design and operation of road environment

In addition to much needed traffic management measures, particularly in the capital city which include parking regulation, bus stop provision, lane and stop line markings, traffic signal upgrades,

Impacts for Armenia Roads, Yerevan City and other urban centres. Provide road safety engineering staff resource - Armenia Roads (1) minimum and

17

channelisation and other engineering treatments and one-way street provision) implement the following road safety measures:

Upgrade road safety engineering knowledge and capacity to allow:

o highest risk network corridors, areas and sites to be identified;

o guidelines for low cost/high return engineering treatments to be upgraded or developed;

o safety standards, compliance requirements, road safety audit policies to be updated;

o understanding of ‘safe system’ approach.

Priority treatments in stretches, locations and areas to be identified and highest benefit/cost ratio locations funded to reduce fatalities and serious injuries.

Review and reduce urban road speed limits.

Yerevan City (2) minimum.

Provide training to national and local safety engineers.

Identify and map highest risk sections and intersections in built-up and non built-up areas.

Implement pilot multi-sectoral packages (including user compliance measures) of good practice safety upgrades on a high-risk corridor and an urban centre (Yerevan). Implement safety upgrades based on good practice at high-risk sites on highway and republican roads and urban areas.

Provide technical support for good practice road safety audit towards agreed and implemented new road safety audit policies and guidelines; introduce ‘safe system’ concept into risk assessment processes at Armenia Roads and Yerevan City.

$ 0.5million over 5 years (T)

$ 0.25 million over 5 years (T)

$15 million over 5 years (minimum) (I)

$ 0.3 million over 3 years (T)

Consider synergies with EBRD objectives

Conditions of entry and exit to road environment

Benchmark effectiveness of current driver preparation and licensing arrangements to good practice. Examine driving experience requirements prior to licensing.

Review vehicle standards arrangements for light and heavy vehicles against good European practice.

Benchmarking exercise including consideration of promotion of benefits of increased pre-license experience in reducing post license crashes in public campaign; age of access to the network of two-wheeled motor vehicle riders (prepare for future!)

Appoint official/outside expert to identify safety benefits and opportunities for increasing numbers of cars in national fleet, either by regulation, imports policy and /or consumer information, which conform to EU vehicle standards of key importance e.g. front and side impact protection for car occupants, pedestrian protection, HGV underrun protection

Fund NGO activity to provide objective consumer information on the crash performance of cars

$ 0.05 million over 2 years of technical assistance (T)

$ 0.10 million over 3 years (SER)

Note synergy with possible international motoring organization activity


Review operational strategies and policing tactics to develop effective deterrence models for activities.

Provide for knowledge transfer in transport and police sectors to achieve capacity for development of road user awareness and behaviour measures.

Determine traffic police equipment and operational training requirements and set related national and regional priorities to address current road safety risks.

Review funding, resources, equipment and training

Provide resource to assist this development and training in the transport and police sectors

Traffic police equipment such as radar, laser and mobile and fixed cameras, together with necessary back office support, evidentiary alcohol breath testing equipment, communications access to licensing and registration databases

Develop curriculum packages and in-service training and tools for traffic safety education in schools

$ 0.1 million over 1 year (T)

$ 2.5 million over 5 years (E)


18

requirements to deliver traffic safety education in pre-schools, primary and secondary schools.

Pilot multi-sectoral packages of measures in a high-risk corridor and an urban centre to improve compliance with speed limits, seat belt and crash helmet use laws, excess alcohol legislation and compliance with safe overtaking rules (in addition to the road safety engineering measures mentioned previously).

Develop and implement multi-sectoral public information campaigns to provide advice on major road safety risks and means to address those risks (3 months ahead of implementaton of enforcement).

Roll out pilots in high-risk corridors and urban areas


See above for infrastructure and police spend


Provide for equipment, knowledge transfer between emergency services and medical trauma specialists.

Review funding of emergency trauma care based on analysis of hospital trauma data and ambulance performance data.

Improve access to the emergency medical system in multi-sectoral pilots.

Provide guidelines, training and equipment to improve emergency services.

$ 1 million over 2 years (T & E)


Leadership and coordination

Adopt a vision for effective road safety management within government to enable the production of an effective road safety programme.

Agree the lead agency road safety role on a first amongst equals basis.

Make new effective arrangements for co- ordination of key Ministries: Transport, Interior, Health and Education around the development of a new national road safety strategy.

Mount national conference in association with international agencies to launch new road safety approaches every 2 years

Agree the lead agency role, ensuring separation of the legislative and compliance functions, set out its responsibilities as well as the responsibilities of other key Departments;

Establish a new National Road Safety Co-ordination Council bringing together key Ministries: Interior, Transport, Health, Education at 3 levels - Senior Management, Chief Executive and Ministerial (See Annex 4) and adopt vision:

“Within 15 years, Armenia will build a robust road safety management system that produced best practice road safety outcomes on a manageable and sustainable basis.

Establish appropriate working groups to develop a national road safety strategy

$0.5 million project assistance and management costs over 2 years (SER)

Legislation Review key road safety legislation and consider introduction of urban speed limits, drinking and driving legislation, crash helmet use, penalty points system, long distance truck and bus drivers’ hours of work.

Urgent priorities:

reduce urban speed limits to 50km/h and below

introduce new blood alcohol limits 0.02 for novice drivers. truck and minibus drivers, evidentiary breath testing equipment and random breath testing implementation

mandatory crash helmet use for moped users

Over 5 years, set up combined legislative and technical expert working groups to review priorities

Resource allocation

Introduction of staff training across road organisations in road safety risk assessment and countermeasure development.

Development of pilot multi-sectoral road safety projects (transport, health, police and education) on

Execute programmes with international technical assistance

$0.1 million over 3 years (T)

See earlier sections

19

identified high risk corridors covering speed, alcohol use and seat belt use.

Maximise cost-effective treatments of high risk locations on road network

Funding mechanisms


Consider allocating 10% of revenue from proposed mandatory third party insurance or vehicle property insurance premiums to road safety

Earmark 10% of all new road project funding for road safety purposes beyond those projects.

In line with developing national road safety strategy, establish funding needs and agree road safety budgets within different Ministries

Ensure sustainable funding sources for the strategy

Allocate earmarked funding to highest safety return projects within established Ministry road safety funding streams


Build comprehensive crash data base, available to all government users initially, to enable targeted interventions to be developed and develop compatibility with future health sector injury surveillance systems.

See previous sections

Before and after studies of road safety pilot packages

See previous sections

$0.1 million (SER)


Build and encourage road injury prevention research capacity across all key sectors inside and outside government.

Develop a national road safety research strategy as part of long term national road safety programme.

Establish road safety research posts in government

Develop a national road safety research strategy as part of long term national road safety programme..

$0.2 million over 5 years – minimum (S)

$0.1 million over 3 years for specific (SER) external assistance to guide development


Encourage all party Parliamentary interest in road safety.

Provide capacity for Parliamentary relations in lead agencies


Support the development of the road safety NGO sector and the development of road safety educational and promotional tools.

Engage professional organisations in road safety e.g. engineering and medical professions.

Provide pump-priming funding for NGO activity in specific areas and for tool development

Engage international professional organisations in national capacity development for the production of guidelines

$0.1 million over 4 years in addition to above-mentioned allocation (SER).

$0.1 million for technical assistance, conference and workshop development over 5 years (SER).

TOTAL

YEAR 1 $ 2.659 million YEAR 2 $ 5.759 million YEAR 3 $ 4.834 million YEAR 4 $ 4.685 million YEAR 5 $ 4.610 million TOTAL $22.547 million

20

5. Review of the draft Revised World Bank Transport Note (TN-1) on road safety management capacity (outline)

5.1. Introduction

The World Bank’s views on road safety management are set out in the World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention, which it co-produced with the World Health Organization (2004), the follow up implementation guidance note (TN-1, 2004) and its recent revision (in outline) (Annex 6, 2006) The review team was asked to assess the draft revised note during the road safety management capacity review carried out in Kiev, Ukraine and Yerevan, Armenia between 21stMay-24thJune 2006. 5.2 Review Safety Management Capacity Operational Guidance

The revised note outline stipulates that country capacity is to be reviewed in terms of ‘system’ and ‘effectiveness’ culminating in a ‘diagnosis’ of country capacity for road safety management. The guidance for assessing ‘system’ capacity which is largely based on the previous World Bank TN-1 note benchmarking results, intervention, implementation (structure and culture) against international best practice, is judged to be a sound review strategy. The additional focus on intermediate outcomes is supported, since measurement of these can precede final outcome target setting, should existing data be of insufficient quality or coverage. The revised note refers to ‘Structure and culture’ which equates to ‘Implementation arrangements’ and this should be clearly noted. ‘Structure’ is a key dimension in low to middle income countries, given that the absence of capacity for institutional arrangements for implementation is a major issue. ‘Structure’ equates to ‘Organizational functions, structures and processes’ and the latter is a clearer description. ‘Culture’ needs definition. A cautionary note should explain that cultural differences are often used as an excuse for not implementing proven strategies or countermeasures. In Ukraine, for example, reference was made to the Slav tendencies. The idea that the safety management capacity review could link to other tools e.g. Structure and culture to forthcoming global guideline for road safety management, system interventions to guidelines on road safety programming, road safety intervention etc. is promising. The need for determining the phases of ‘effectiveness’ over time again is well-understood by the review team, but the guidance for assessment needs to be clearly spelled out. The scope of 1st and 2nd Generation projects could usefully be defined. The revised note guidance needs be practical with full explanation (or removal) of any abstract concepts. Recommendations- summary

i. Soundness of system review strategy is confirmed ii. Guidance is needed for objective assessment of ‘effectiveness’ phases iii. Project scope definition requires further explanation 5.3. Review Checklist

The review team used the World Bank TN-1 questions as the basis of their interviews with the stakeholders in Ukraine and Armenia under the headings results focus, interventions and structure and culture. These questions were considered to be correct and effective. The team also used a variety of questions from the SWOV study and from the draft checklist in the draft road safety management guide. The lesson, however, was not to sacrifice broad questioning for interesting and useful detail in those contacts with key stakeholders with time constraints. If further questions are to be asked, then the additions to the original list should be minimal – perhaps 2 -3 more

21

questions for each of the three dimensions. In many respects, these additional elements could be provided as background paragraphs to guide questioning in the operational note rather than in the form of specific questions. A comprehensive checklist could be devised as an aide-memoire for the review team (rather than as a basis of specific questioning) to ensure that the ground has been covered, rather than for use in direct questioning. Some further suggestions for additional questions include: Results: Are average speed, seat belt use, crash helmet use, and excess alcohol use measured? Interventions: What is the policy development contribution of Research and Parliamentary organisations? What is the quality of draft policy and business case submissions to government? What demonstrates the commitment of elected and professional leaders to introduce proven but challenging measures? Implementation: (After legislative instruments question) Are regular on-going adjustments recommended to legislative settings? How is day to day support provided to ministers for proactive and reactive situations in the public arena and within government? The review team agrees that questions need to be developed for effectiveness and agrees that instructions for the investment strategy need to be provided. The review team found that the World Bank Vietnam Report 12 provided a very good framework for presenting findings on capacity review, the short, medium and long term strategy and the short term investment strategy in tabular form. Recommendations

(1) Usefulness of questions in World Bank TN-1 with minimal additions is confirmed (2) Questions need to be developed for effectiveness (3) Expand commentary in revised note to provide more detail about results, interventions and

structure and culture (e.g. identify lead agency functions c/f draft road safety management guide)

(4) Use Vietnam report road safety management vision, tabular presentation of short, medium and long term strategy as part of the investment strategy advice.

5.4 Conduct of review Organization

Notwithstanding the international experience of the review team, the organization of these reviews was very challenging for a number of reasons: overly tight time framework for site reviews and report-back; unexpected lack of organizational back-up in one of the local offices during the first visit; logistical difficulties with travel between two countries; and exceptionally high-risk travel scenarios in air and land transport. Such factors could impact adversely on review quality. Recommendations:

(1) Country reviews which need to be conducted over a short period of time might be better treated as single stand-alone projects to help travel and organization logistics

12

Bliss A, Transport safety strategy review, Socialist republic of Vietnam, World Bank, Washington, July 2003

22

(2)The importance of support from the local office for all the elements mentioned in the revised note is confirmed, as well as pre-preparation by World Bank Headquarters (3) Suggest that local staff who are responsible for the mission are made familiar with World Bank road safety policies (4) Suggest that in the guidance given to local offices, appropriate emphasis is given to carrying out the road safety management capacity review and proposing the short-medium and long term strategies, rather than creating an expectation amongst key stakeholders for early project definition (4) Suggest that the World Bank develops a safe travel policy for its fleet/ taxi transport contracts based on car safety performance ratings and a blacklist of airlines which do not conform to international air safety standards

Pre-survey

An inception report from and by the client country is essential which spells out the different responsibilities of the different governmental stakeholders and the legislative base for these to supplement the knowledge of the local World Bank offices. No such report was available on this mission and several days were lost before even the most basic assessment of final outcome data in useful format was available. Without an inception report, it is also possible to lose important opportunities in early interview sessions with senior policymakers. Recommendations:

(1) Need for inception report is confirmed (2) Guidelines should be established for pre-survey to identify key information to be provided (3) Suggest that presentation of final outcome data in specific formats is specified in an Annex to

the operational guidance

Workshop and meetings

Two workshops were carried out in Ukraine and Armenia. These are essential to inform participants of progress with the review, to encourage discussion on preliminary findings and to bring key stakeholders together in some cases to meet each other for the first time. Recommendations:

(1) Need for workshop at the end of each capacity review is confirmed (2) The workshop needs to be chaired by World Bank local office – there may be tensions

between different government departments (3) Guidance should specify the different sectors to be involved in the capacity review rather

than leave it to local office or local lead agency knowledge/decision-making (4) Guidance needs to emphasise adequate lead time to be given for invitations and materials

to be circulated and follow up to secure good attendance, as achieved in Ukraine and Armenia

Monitoring

It is recommended that monitoring be established of the take-up of road safety management capacity review findings in subsequent project definition as well as project and country road safety outcomes.

23

ANNEX 1 List of participants in the road safety management capacity review/workshop A. Manukyan Minister of Transport and Communication

H. Beglaryan First Deputy Minister. Ministry of Transport and Communication

A. Mahtesyan First Deputy Head of Police

I. Ishkhanyan Head of Traffic Police

H. Davtyan General Counsel, Ministry of Finance and Economy

G. Grigoryan Head of Foreign Relations Department, Ministry of Transport and Communication

H. Sargsyan Deputy Head of Traffic Police

H. Petrosyan Head of Road Development, Armenia Roads

K. Petrossyan Armenia Roads

A, Sahakyan Transport Department Chief, Mayor's Office, City of Yerevan

A. Gaspasyan City of Yerevan Transport Department

M. Bouzrusouzyan City of Yerevan Transport Department

K. Sahakyan Chief of Transport Department, Ministry of Transport

K. Melkonyan PIU, Ministry of Education

V.Poghosyan Ministry of Health

A. Sax European Bank of Reconstruction and Development

P. Shahinyan Executive Director, National Road Safety Council

N. Korchakova European Union Office Yerevan

24

ANNEX 2 Comment on measures proposed by the Task Force on solution of traffic-related issues established in the Republic of Armenia in response to a Presidential Decree in December 2005 At the Workshop held on June 22nd 2006 in Yerevan to discuss the draft findings of the Road Safety Capacity Review carried out by the international specialists, concerns were expressed that there was not a more comprehensive response to the Task Force recommendations on traffic-related issues. The specialists agreed to include a more extensive response in the final report while pointing out the specific references which had been made in the Issues Paper and the Workshop Presentation to this process and its expected outcomes as a strength in road safety in Armenia.

The reforms as currently proposed can be considered under six general headings as follows:

1. Classifying the road network and formalising roles and responsibilities for operation and maintenance of the component sections of the network including line marking and traffic signal standards 2. Introduction of more efficient arrangements for vehicle roadworthiness inspection 3. Implementing improved procedures and systems for registration of vehicles and driver licensing

and testing 4. Improved procedures for review of driver training organizations 5. Reorganization of the traffic police system 6. Provision of new enforcement and communications equipment for the traffic police

Response to proposals The first measure relates to clarity of various accountabilities and this is a welcome reform that will strengthen management of road network conditions including traffic signal systems. It is one important building block.

The second measure is principally about greater efficiency and improved customer service. It is a useful action from those viewpoints, however limited safety benefit is likely to be achieved. The third group of proposals is an important initiative for supporting more effective deterrence of unsafe behaviours through enforcement and will be a key contributor to the effectiveness of all legislative /regulatory behavioural measures which are in place or introduced in future.

The fourth measure is worthwhile with some potential road safety benefit. It will set the foundation for ongoing change to the system which could deliver additional but very limited road safety benefits. Proposals five and six are very important initiatives which will support introduction of a number of effective road safety activities. In the 5 year action plan prepared by the specialists, specific funding for police enforcement and communications equipment is clearly recommended. In addition the workshop presentation made the point that all of the road safety departments/agencies needed to support police in addressing many of the changed practices they are seeing to introduce.

Further Assessment of Proposals The proposals have been assessed against the three best practice dimensions utilized to review road safety management system capacity in Armenia, ie.

Results Focus

Interventions

25

Implementation Results Focus. The proposals clarify a number of departmental responsibilities. However they do not set out any proposed reductions in road trauma as a specific outcome target, nor do they identify any intermediate measure targets, for example in the behavioural area, such as mean speed reductions or increased seat belt wearing rates which the new settings would enable to be achieved. Interventions The improved driver testing arrangements and the capacity to strengthen deterrence of unsafe behaviours through more widespread and less corruption prone road law enforcement using automated enforcement technologies, improved license and vehicle record systems and better access to those systems, are substantial Intervention Proposals, with potential to improve outcomes. At the same time, negative measures in road safety terms are foreshadowed e.g. reduction in enforcement of excess alcohol rules. Random checking for alcohol impairment is a crucial road safety measure which Armenia should move to adopt for extensive implementation as soon as possible, rather than discontinue. Some 30% of fatalities in developed countries involve alcohol impairment. It will be a major factor in Armenia’s road toll and has to be decisively addressed as soon as the necessary legislation (for random testing and acceptance of breath testing equipment as evidential standard), police and hospital staff training, administrative and court processes can be put in place. At the same time the capacity to conduct random checks for possession of license is essential to deter drivers from driving unlicensed and, by extension, to deter drivers from engaging in practices which could cause them to lose their license in future.

The concerns about random activity being conducted by police would be addressed by the proposed police measures to prevent individual police from intercepting motorists unless there is more than one police person in attendance and where the operation has been endorsed centrally in advance. Darkened glass in vehicles is prohibited in most countries and is a safety issue. The proposal to remove the prohibition on use of curtains and darkened glass on vehicles will not help road safety. Implementation The proposals do seek to improve Implementation Arrangements through allocating clear responsibilities for many functions, improving supporting systems and providing for more effective means of operation of the police to support their enforcement task. Summary In summary, most of the proposed changes recommended by the Task Force are key steps in the process of organizational change to improve the efficiency and transparency of transport services. These are to be commended as important structural reforms and substantial enabling arrangements which provide some foundation rather than focus on specific outcomes and comprehensive interventions for road casualty reduction.

It should be recorded that the current government agency representatives are demonstrating a clear resolve to improve road safety outcomes. The current group of involved officers have the commitment necessary to underpin achievement of improved performance subject to the ongoing acquisition of increased knowledge, the development of an effective, focused road safety strategy and associated actions and the provision of appropriate financial and political support by Government for timely implementation of those actions. The challenge ahead for Armenia is to move to implement measures in a climate of cooperative integrated planning and action, with an agreed action plan and clear accountabilities for implementation in order to achieve agreed targets. Performance against those targets should be regularly measured and published.

26

ANNEX 3 An organizational model for multi-sectoral inter-governmental co-ordination

The Ministerial Road Safety Council meets 4 times each year to ensure a coordinated approach to road safety. It can provide a powerful voice in cabinet for the pursuit of road safety policies, funding of new initiatives including legislation. The Chair is occupied by the lead agency or can be rotated at each meeting. The group signs off the national road safety strategy based on detailed methodologies for established likely outputs by the main stakeholders for certain key policy initiative inputs. The Chief Executives attend Ministerial Council meetings.

The Road Safety Executive Group reports to, supports and receives direction from the Ministerial Council. The Group determines strategic directions, monitors and reports progress to the Government through the Ministerial Council. The Group meets approximately 4 times each year and the Chair is occupied by the lead agency or rotates between agencies.

The Road Safety Management Group is the hub of the road safety co-ordination meeting monthly. The Chair is occupied by the lead agency or rotates between agencies. With the lead agency as the key link, the group coordinates implementation of the road safety strategy, develops and implements programmes and countermeasures, reviews identified programmes, identifies research priorities, and promotes a coordinated national programme of activities..

The Road Safety Reference Group is a consultative body comprising all the main road safety stakeholders including the non-governmental sector which meets quarterly and is chaired by the lead agency head of road safety.

Ministerial Road Safety Council

Ministers of Transport,

Health, Education, Police, Yerevan City

Road Safety Executive Group

Chief Executives from

Transport (Armenia Roads), Health, Education, Police,

Yerevan City

Road Safety Management Group

Senior managers from

Transport and Armenia Roads, Health, Education,

Police, Yerevan City

Technical Working Groups

Comprising professional and research experts

from within government and outside

Road Safety Reference Group

Broad consultative group of road safety stakeholders

27

Suggested terms of reference for multi-sectoral inter-governmental co-ordination

Functions: Aided by the lead agency, the multi-sectoral inter-governmental co-ordination will provide a range of functions:

Accept responsibility as a collective entity to improve the safety and health of road users;

Provide leadership and decision-making throughout Government in national road safety;

Agree long term visions, goals and related targets for future safety improvements;

Make road safety a core business of all responsible government sectors for road safety

Recommend related safety funding levels, approve policies and safety measures to be taken;

Build institutional capacity and partnerships for the delivery of road safety both inside and outside Government;

Monitor overall safety performance and the performance of member agencies;

Re-assess priorities over time and adjusting funding, policies and measures accordingly;

Report to the Cabinet and taking its direction and advice.

Structures and processes:

Coordination is horizontal and vertical between government departments and according to a clear-decision-making hierarchy;

A clear decision-making hierarchy is established involving a Ministerial level, an agency chief executive (or departmental head) level, and senior manager level. The senior manager group of officials from different departments is at the core of the coordination hierarchy. Management structures comprise technical sub-committees which focus on specific areas of interest who work in depth on high-priority issues and provide technical support. Coordinated consultation across the broader stakeholder partnership is carried out lower down the hierarchy .

Coordination is carried out between central and local government activity through clear responsibilities set out in legislation, targets, plans, contracts, funding mechanisms and annual monitoring arrangements;

Formal specification of the leadership and decision-making role of the coordinating body is set out in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and set out in the road safety strategy. A MOU is established with each participating member agency and used to encourage their delivery of concrete results; establish their accountability; and work collectively to achieve shared objectives;

All member agencies directly involved present their specific road safety initiatives and related work programmes to the coordinating committee for consideration, review and funding and commit to fully implementing their work programmes and achieving results in terms of reducing road injuries and fatalities.

A strong management role is played by the lead agency which closely manages the working process including the preparation of documents and agreements and appropriate follow up;

A secretariat, usually from the lead agency, is provided with adequate capacity to provide multi-disciplinary technical support to the coordinating agency and its sub-committees. Successful operation hinges on the intellectual capacity and independence provided by the secretariat and its responsiveness to the tasks it is set. The coordinating body draws up a budget for its activity including that of the secretariat.

Ref: Extract from draft Global guide on road safety organization - Institutional arrangements for road safety management, (World Bank 2006)

28

ANNEX 4 Notes of a Workshop held at the World Bank, Yerevan, on June 22nd, 2006 to consider draft findings on Road Safety in Armenia

The workshop was opened by the Country Manager for the World Bank in Armenia, Roger Robinson, who summarized the very serious road safety problem facing Armenia, congratulated the government and attendees on their commitment to addressing the issue and encouraged attendees to contribute their responses and other input to the draft findings of the specialists during the workshop. Attendees expressed general satisfaction with the work of the consultants and the draft findings. Specific discussion points were as follows:

It was considered that the important role of the concept paper recently prepared by a Government Task Force in response to a Presidential request, which addresses a number of legislative, regulatory, penalty and institutional issues in relation to traffic management and road safety was not sufficiently reflected nor assessed in the presentation. Further amendments would be introduced to the Assembly in September this year. It was also stated that many additional legislative and institutional responsibility reforms required could be introduced quite quickly as a part of the current concept process or as a later follow up process. It was agreed, however that many desirable legislative measures would require a considerable lead time in order for equipment and training of police and in some cases, hospital staff, to occur and for administrative procedures and computerized systems changes to be put in place to establish evidentiary provisions and other prosecution requirements and to enable offences to be promptly recorded against relevant license holders. While the review team offered reassurance that account of these reforms had been taken in the assessments in their report, they agreed to include a specific response to the paper.

The shortage of funds available to provide for necessary equipment for police, for police cars, for traffic signal equipment, upgraded safety infrastructure on rural and urban roads, for operating improvements such as line marking and other on-road treatments, plus needs for equipment (including medical equipment) and curriculum development in the education area was raised as the major barrier to effective implementation of improved road safety settings. The need for effective co-ordination was also raised by stakeholders.

In recommending that an increased levy be applied to insurance premiums and funds earmarked for road safety purposes it was recommended by the meeting that the levy be applied to the property insurance arrangements as a levy currently is applied and it would be more efficient to extend this levy rather than introduce a further levy. The amount of any increased levy is recommended to be equivalent to 10% of the proposed mandatory third party insurance premium which has been foreshadowed for introduction in the near future.

Concern was expressed at the timeframes indicated in the presentation for implementation of actions, particularly improved enforcement. It was agreed that the period for publicity to raise public awareness prior to expanded enforcement commencing (at different stages) for initiatives such as addressing speeding, drink driving, seat belt wearing and compliance with overtaking and other rules could be shorter than the 12 months proposed.

The meeting commented on previous cooperation on road safety which took place in the 2002 to 2004 period. It was agreed that while this was a basis to build upon, much more committed efforts would be needed from all players if effective coordination was to be achieved in future and road safety objectives achieved. Frank discussion of some shortcomings in recent communication and co-operation between the attendees took place with a commitment to address these issues in future. The meeting was of the view that Armenia was a small country and the population could be quickly informed of proposed new measures or tougher

29

enforcement of existing measures. Accordingly, the implementation framework for the draft action plan will be amended to reflect this.

Some dissatisfaction was expressed by police with some responsible entities not adequately discharging their responsibilities. It was agreed that the agencies/departments should meet to resolve these issues and if necessary identify and recommend any changes in agency/departmental responsibilities to government for decision.

The benefits of moving to harmonise legislative settings with EU provisions was raised and recommended. It was acknowledged that this could not occur, comprehensively, in the short term, but over time it was possible.

Discussion centred around means of improving the safety standard of imported vehicles in the future including differential import taxation incentives. The current proposals to extend annual roadworthiness checks to private sector assessors certified by government were described. It was agreed that within the next 10 years there should be progressive tightening of Armenian technical standards for vehicle safety and consequent compliance requirements for all imported vehicles. The final report would address this issue.

On behalf of the review team, Eric Howard presented sincere thanks to all the stakeholders for their contributions to the Review and, in particular to the World Bank office in Yerevan for their assistance with the co-ordination of meetings and workshop organization.

30

ANNEX 5 Breakdown of short-term investment plan costs by component type ($million)

Year Training Infrastructure Equipment Staffing Services Year Total

1 0.733 - 0.825 0.04 0.611 2.659

2 0.633 3.75 0.825 0.04 0.511 5.759

3 0.283 3.75 0.5 0.04 0.261 4.834

4 0.15 3.75 0.5 0.04 0.245 4.685

5 0.15 3.75 0.5 0.04 0.170. 4.610

Over 5-years 1.949 15 3.60 0.2 1.798 22.547

31

ANNEX 6

Multi-sectoral projects in high risk corridors and urban centres

General aims:

To identify and reduce deaths and serious injuries to car users and pedestrians in high-risk locations in the road network

To implement on a multi-sectoral basis, effective, evidence-based remedial measures to address the identified problems

To monitor the effects of these actions

To provide guidance for the roll out of such activity on a national basis Stakeholders involved:

Ministry of Transport and Communications

Traffic Police

Ministry of Health

Ministry of Education

Armenia Roads

Yerevan City Administration

Key interventions and implementation issues: INTERVENTION

IMPLEMENTATION

Assessing baseline road safety performance for: Final outcomes Deaths and serious injuries Deaths and serious injuries per 100,000 population Death and serious injuries per 10,000 vehicles Socio-economic costs of deaths and serious injuries Intermediate outcomes Average mean speeds Levels of seat belt use Levels of excess alcohol Emergency response times % of vehicles known to have 4* and above EuroNCAP rating

Establish multi-sectoral data group comprising all key government stakeholders mentioned above to collect data using a GIS system, carry out surveys, make suggestions for improvements in national data systems. Bring together the epidemiology of road injury for these locations. Identify the socio-economic costs of road traffic crashes in these locations.

Identify key road traffic injury problems in high risk corridors and centres

Analysis by the multi-sectoral group on the basis of final and intermediate outcome data collected with reference to traffic volume and distance travelled.

Identify evidence-based multi-sectoral remedial measures in high risk corridors and centres

Set multi-sectoral working groups to identify appropriate countermeasures with reference to best practice as identified for example in the World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. Interventions will include road safety engineering, police enforcement, publicity, vehicle safety and improvements to the emergency medical system. Rank measures in terms of their cost-effectiveness or benefit to cost.

Set immediate outcome targets which can be pursued in the life of the project e.g. average mean speeds and seat belt use etc, to be reduced by x amount.

On the basis of the above, establish realistic intermediate outcome targets for specific interventions

Implement multi-sectoral interventions

Work on an implementation plan which specifies the departmental responsibilities for different actions, the different stakeholder actions, deadlines for implementation, the source and amount of funding and the costs of implementation

Monitor the effectiveness of implementation

Establish a monitoring plan to establish the post-implementation effectiveness of measures over a period of time.

32

Examples of possible locations: High risk corridors and high risk urban area-wide locations are not routinely identified and initial support for knowledge transfer is needed. However, based on data and site visits by the review team these locations are suggested as two examples of possible candidates. High risk corridors

Mapping by Armenia Roads indicates that the corridors with the majority of crashes involving fatalities are:

Yereven to Lake Sevan 30-50 fatal injury producing crashes annually

Yereven to Yegegnadzor 20-30 fatal injury producing crashes annually

Route north of Ashtarak 20-30 fatal injury producing crashes annually Armenia Roads has agreed to map the risk values for the network based on death and serious injury rate per traffic and distance travelled, where possible. Key factors include: excessive speed, a serious lack of separation between pedestrians and high speed motor vehicles, lack of median crash barriers, roadside furniture, safe junction facilities. Safety measurement of seat belt use, average mean speed, excess alcohol, emergency response times for access to the medical system are unknown.

Yerevan City

Yerevan City is identified as a potential candidate for multi-sectoral area-wide road safety and traffic management treatments with reference to best practice urban safety management principles. The majority of deaths involve pedestrians. Key factors include: excessive speed, negligible seat belt use, limited and unsafe pedestrian crossing and bus stop facilities and poor safety engineering and layout at junctions including lack of channelisation, appropriate junction controls and road markings. Safety measurement of seat belt use, average mean speed, excess alcohol are unknown. Emergency response times for access to the medical system are monitored.

Possible pilot projects composition to assist discussion purposes Yerevan City ( $ 7.5m over 4 years – infrastructure: $ 1.0m over 5 years – police equipment, $ 50,000 per year for 5 years to support public information campaigns re the pilot) Measures:

Reduce urban speed limit to 50km/h in central city including ring road and to 40km/h in very high risk areas

Conduct public information campaigns on speeding and drink driving

Enforce speed compliance through use of mobile photo radar cameras(police equipment budget)

Enforce stopping on red and speed compliance through installation of 3 combined speed/redlight cameras at signalized intersections (police equipment budget)

Introduce random breath testing and evidentiary status for RBT tests based on breath as legislative initiatives as soon as possible and enforce strategically with marked and unmarked vehicles

Upgrade existing pedestrian signals and install signals at currently unsignalized pedestrian crossing sites, say $ 3.0m

Other possible measures could include:

Install roundabouts at suitable high risk unsignalized intersection crash sites - say 3 No.- $ 0.9m

33

Upgrade signals at high risk intersection crash sites – say 5 No. – $ 1.0m

Install median refuges for pedestrians – say 100 No. – $ 0.40m

Install kerb outstands at intersections to reduce pedestrian crossing distance/time- say 100 No. - $ 0.5 m

Install Stop and Give Way line marking and signage at unsignalized intersections – $ 0.5m

Install traffic signals and pedestrian signals plus kerb outstands, median refuges and stop line markings where required on major arterials leading into the city with highest pedestrian crash problem– $ 1m

Provide marked bus stop bays or indented bays - $ 0.2m

Utilise funding for emergency management system improvement to enhance emergency response times, improve the standard of pre-hospital care and augment hospital care.

Provide community education programs through the schools to inform students and their parents of the purposes of the pilots and inform them of outcomes utilising funding for education programmes.

State Highways and Republican roads ( $ 7.5m over 4 years – infrastructure on selected higher crash risk roads: $ 1.5m over 5 years – police equipment: $ 50,000 per year for 5 years to support public information campaigns re the pilots) Measures: These are targeted road safety measures to reduce death and serious injury at various locations/lengths along these sections, based on comprehensive risk analysis and prioritization of treatment projects which are a response to crash risk type and locations

Yerevan to Lake Sevan ( $ 2.5m over 4 years – targeted infrastructure safety upgrades )

Road north of Ashtarak ( $2.5 m over 4 years – targeted infrastructure safety upgrades)

Yerevan to Yegegnadzor ($2.5m over 4 years – targeted infrastructure upgrades)

Deterrence of speeding, drink driving, non-use of seatbelts through targeted enforcement and some fixed speed cameras at higher risk intersections

Review speed limits on high risk low standard sections where engineering treatments to improve safety are not justified on the basis of estimated crash reduction benefits.

Utilise funding for emergency management system improvement to enhance emergency response times, improve the standard of pre-hospital care and augment hospital care .

Provide community education programs through the schools to inform students and their parents of the purposes of the pilots and inform them of outcomes utilising funding for education programmes.

.

34

ANNEX 7

World Bank Road Safety Projects - Safety Management Capacity Reviews

Operational Guidelines

1. Introduction

Set out background to Bank experience with road safety projects, starting with the informal 1982 guidelines,

picking up on 1990s material, through to 2004 TN-1, in context of World Report and related global

mandates.

Explain purpose of guidelines, and note that the 1982 guidelines were prescient. These new guidelines restate

the first guidelines, nearly 25 years later, and reflect the greater level of urgency and greater knowledge of

prevention. While the evaluation issues remain, there is also a greater understanding emerging of the

economic benefits of successful programs in high mortality settings.

The focus is on first determining the safety management capacity of a country, then outlining a long-term

investment strategy to build sustainable safety management capacity, and finally identifying options for

Bank financed road safety projects to launch the investment strategy.

Direct that these guidelines be used for the consideration of all proposed Bank road safety projects. Note that

support to implement the guidelines will be available from the Global Road Safety Facility, funding

permitting.

2. Improving road safety

Set out what is meant by safety and how we go about improving it.

Discuss safety philosophies and advocate a modern approach (as set out in strategic elements of World

Report, especially focus on Sustainable Safety and Vision Zero,)

This implies a heavy reliance on Dutch and Swedish design principles for infrastructure, and it is important

to stress that there is plenty of room for local creativity here (each according to their means).

Give some indication of performance measures, and how low and middle-income countries fit into this

picture.

Emphasize that the protection of all road users is paramount, especially vulnerable road users (in this way

making the link back to the safety philosophy advocated).

3. Safety Management Capacity

Country capacity is diagnosed in terms of ‘system’ and ‘effectiveness’.

System

System is the LTSA/Sunflower triangle (structure and culture, interventions, results).

This system is further summarized as the production (structure and culture, and interventions) and the

measurement (results focus/quality assurance) of safety. That is, how does a country produce safety and how

does it know it is achieving it?

Structure and culture are the crucial considerations in the production of safety, as they determine what

interventions can be produced. These are two complex dimensions which will initially be defined in simple

ways, and with further experience will be refined.

35

Structure concerns the institutional organization of road safety and the related political processes (vertical

and horizontal arrangements, locus of effective control over delivery, how resources get allocated, agency

and industry accountability).

Culture concerns how people get things done in the society in question, within their organizations and in the

wider community (how consultation is conducted, how decisions get made within and across organizations,

how conflict is managed, how offenders are dealt with, how victims are compensated). Note that we are not

talking about ‘safety culture’ here, but more the culture of organization and society.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness is the Mulder/Wegman S curve, which has three phases over time. The first phase involves a

slow accretion of capacity, the second phase sees capacity improve rapidly, and the final phase shifts back to

capacity building slowly.

These phases coincide with 1st, 2

nd and 3

rd Generation Projects respectively. These project types will be

clearly defined.

The guidelines concern the first and second phases, and more specifically accelerating the shift from 1st to

2nd

Generation Projects.

The emphasis is on taking a country more quickly in the rapid capacity building phase that might otherwise

occur in the absence of strong measures.

This in turn requires consideration of the social cost densities of networks, and where the greatest

concentrations of crashes and related deaths and injuries occur, because it is in these corridors and areas that

the most potential for accelerating effectiveness occurs. We will need to show some illustrations of this.

Diagnosis

Diagnosis of a country safety management system and its effectiveness ultimately requires professional

appraisal of the state of readiness in a country to move from 1st Generation Projects to 2

nd Generation

Projects.

It is acknowledged that in certain circumstances 1st Generation Projects may remain the priority, but given

the level of urgency set by the global mandates the focus of 1st Generation Projects should be on enabling a

rapid transition to 2nd

Generation Projects.

We also need to consider the packaging of 1st and 2

nd Generation Projects. 2

nd Generation will usually be

stand-alone projects, but there are possible exceptions to this (e.g. as a part of a wider health sector project,

like is being envisaged in Russia; or separating the infrastructure component from the stand-alone

multisectoral package, and having the former still embedded in a highway project, like is being envisaged in

Pakistan.)

4. Review Checklist

System

We need to review the questions closely, and introduce suggested questions.

Effectiveness

We will need to develop questions for this. They will be aimed at identifying which phase the country is in,

and how ready it is to move the accelerated phase.

36

Investment Strategy

We will need to develop instructions for this.

Project Generation

We will need to distinguish between this task and the task of project preparation which is far more detailed.

Separate project preparation guidelines will be prepared as a companion to the capacity review guidelines.

The project preparation guidelines will address, among other things, the evaluation issues. They will also put

a strong emphasis on establishing agreed project management processes across the participating sectors,

before getting into the detail of individual interventions. That is, structure and culture come first, and only

then will the proposed interventions get prepared in more detail

5. Conduct of Review

Ownership

The client country, usually through the Minister of Transport (and/or the Minister of Transport), must request

the capacity review.

Organization

The capacity review must be organized with the full status of a Bank mission. This will include introductory

and wrap-up meetings/workshops, a fully organized itinerary, accompanying personnel, drivers, and so on).

Pre-survey

This to be conducted by the client country.

Review (phase 1, QA, phase 2)

This to be sorted out, but the basic model is to have two visits, with a quality assurance review in between.

Diagnosis

We need to consider the QA role here.

Wrap-up workshop and meetings

These may be staggered, but given the need to keep down costs and to ensure immediacy, there is a need to

come to major conclusions at the close of the review.

Attachments

1982 Guideline

TN-1

TOR Template

Pre-Survey Template

Global Road Safety Facility

73057Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized...the review activity in Armenia and...

Documents

Transcript of 73057Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized...the review activity in Armenia and...