UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE€¦ · Temp import priv. veh., 1954 Suppl. road...

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe - Tran sport Division 1

UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Accession to and implementation of UNECE legal instruments in the field

of transport at the EATL and national levels:

Achievements and challenges

Jaromir CekotaTransport Division, [email protected]

Kyiv, 17-18 December 2007

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe - Tran sport Division

• EATL project identified and analysed non-physical obstacles

• Preliminary results available in joint study<www.unece.org/trans/main/eatl/in_house_study.pdf>

• Focus on key UNECE transport-facilitatinglegal instruments

• Recommended by SPECA PWG-TBC

2

Non-physical obstacles to EATL


Key Legal Instruments

• Infrastructure (AGR, AGC, AGTC)

• Road transport regulations (2 Vienna conventions, 2 supplementary European Agreements, AETR)

• Border-crossing facilitation (CMR, TIR, Harmonization of frontier controls, 3 conventions on temporary import rules)

• Dangerous and special goods (ADR, ATP)


Acceptance by legal instrument

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Temp import priv. veh., 1954

Suppl. road traffic, 1971

Suppl. road signs, 1971

Temp import comm. veh., 1956

AGC E-rail, 1985

ADR dang. goods, 1957

ATP per. goods, 1970

AGTC combined, 1991

AGR E-roads, 1975

Containers, 1972

AETR, 1970

Road signs, 1968

Harmonized controls, 1982

Road traffic, 1968

CMR road contract, 1956

TIR Convention, 1975


Acceptance by country

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

China

Afghanistan

Tajikistan

Turkmenistan

Iran

Kyrgyzstan

Armenia

Uzbekistan

Moldova

Azerbaijan

Georgia

Turkey

Kazakhstan

Ukraine

Belarus

Russian Federation

Romania

Bulgaria


Wider acceptance, better implementation

•• More accessions More accessions desirabledesirable•• Ukraine Ukraine stillstill has to has to adoptadoptCMR and 2 conventions on CMR and 2 conventions on

temporarytemporaryimportation of road importation of road vehiclesvehicles• Effective implementation is key• ‘Goodness’ of implementation can’t be measured

directly• But indicated by observed outcomes• Example: road traffic safety • Example: border-crossing facilitation

Remaining challenges

6


People killed per million vehicles, 2004

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

EU-15

Bulgaria

Turkey

Romania

Belarus

Moldova

Russia

Ukraine

Azerbaijan

Tajikistan

Georgia

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan


Legal transposition index, 2007

Legal transposition of the 1968 Vienna Convention o n Road Traffic(Index, max. = 100)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Belgium

Ukraine

Croatia

Luxembourg

Latvia

Switzerland

Russia


Legal instruments are not enough

• Accession to key UNECE transport agreements and conventions necessary but not sufficient

• Effective implementation: based on evidence, comparison of costs and benefits

• Benefits not easy to estimate

• Example: speed management


The Power Model

• www.vv.se/filer/41555/speed_and_road_accidents.pdf

• Y(1)/Y(0) = [S(1)/S(0)]x

• Fatalities: x = 4.5• Serious injuries: x = 3.0• Property-damage only: x = 1.0• Valid range: 25 km/h – 120 km/h• Application: cost-benefit analysis


The Power Model (cont’d)

• Reduce speed from 60 km/h to 50 km/h• Predict change in fatalities, serious injuries • [50/60]4.5 = 0.4402; [50/60]3 = 0.5787• Fatalities ↓ 56%, serious injuries ↓ 42%• Use results to estimate benefits• Estimate costs (new signs, …) & compare• Another example: trade facilitation


Trading on Time

• The World Bank’s ‘Doing Business’ database provides comparable performance indicators

• Procedural requirements for exporting and importing a standardized cargo of goods

• Number of documents required• Time necessary to comply with mandatory

procedures

• Costs associated with procedures

• www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreTopics/TradingAcrossBorders


Cost of export procedures

US$ per container, 2007

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

China (7)

Iran (8)

Turkey (7)

Ukraine (6)

Romania (5)

Georgia (8)

Armenia (7)

Bulgaria (7)

Moldova (6)

Belarus (8)

Russia (8)

Afghanistan (12)

Uzbekistan (7)

Azerbaijan (9)

Kazakhstan (12)

Tajikistan (10)


Length of export procedures

Days per container, 2007

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Georgia (8)

Romania (5)

Turkey (7)

China (7)

Bulgaria (5)

Belarus (8)

Iran (8)

Armenia (30)

Ukraine (6)

Moldova (6)

Russia (8)

Azerbaijan (9)

Afghanistan (12)

Uzbekistan (7)

Tajikistan (10)

Kazakhstan (12)


Structure of export procedures

Source: www.doingbusiness.org

313212245630TOTAL

34341310Inland transport & handling

352452Ports & terminal handling

2325101Customs clearance & tech. control

23205112817Documents preparation

UkraineMoldovaGeorgiaBelarusAzerbaijanArmenia

Export procedures in selected EATL countries (days), 2007


What a difference a day makes

• Modern research shows that trading on time matters <www.doingbusiness.org/Documents/TradingOnTime_DEC06.pdf>

• Length of export procedures ↓ 10% → exports ↑ 3.5%

• Reducing export procedures by 1 day could increase exports of Ukraine by up to $437 million per year

• Could be achieved by policies that improve the business environment

• Adoption and good implementation of UNECE transport-facilitating conventions makes economic sense


Conclusion

Recommendations

• Implement effectively the UNECE transport-facilitating agreements and conventions already adopted

• If administrative capacity sufficient, accede to 3 conventions (CMR, temporary importation of private and commercial road vehicles)

• Evaluate the goodness of implementation continuously with the aid of performance indicators

17


Thank you for your attention

www.unece.org/trans

18

UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Date post:	09-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times