2010年-世界发展银行全球_Evaluation_of_Proposed_Ouagadougou-Donsin_Airport_Development_Burkina_Faso_123页_4mb

报告摘要

Summary of the Evaluation of Proposed Ouagadougou - Donsin Airport Development, Burkina Faso

Core Content

This report evaluates two airport development options for Burkina Faso: the redevelopment of the existing Ouagadougou International Airport (Option 1) and the construction of a new airport at Donsin (Option 2). The evaluation was commissioned by the Government of Burkina Faso and conducted by Mott MacDonald on behalf of the World Bank Group. The report includes a detailed technical and financial analysis, as well as an assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts and project risks.

Main Development Options

Option 1: Redevelopment of the Existing Airport

Location: Remain at the current city centre site in Ouagadougou.
Key Features:
- Construction of a new 'Donsin design' terminal building on the opposite side of the existing runway.
- Relocation of the current fuel farm and environmental remediation.
- Addition of new terminal and cargo aprons with appropriate taxiway connections.
- Improved runway signage.
- Two resurfacings of the existing runway.
- Reduction in bird strike risk via relocation of nearby abattoir.
- Environmental and safety improvements, including interceptors and treatment facilities.
Assumptions:
- Government contributes 55% of the capital, private sector 45%.
- Includes additional capital expenditure identified during the Ouagadougou workshops.

Option 2: Development of a New Airport at Donsin

Location: New site 35 km north-west of Ouagadougou.
Key Features:
- Designed to meet forecasted demand and allow for unconstrained future growth.
- Releases the existing airport site for economic and social development.
Assumptions:
- Same 55% Government and 45% private sector contribution.
- New airport construction involves no existing infrastructure.

Financial and Economic Assessment

Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

Option 1:
- NPV (10%): 144,304,653 FCFA
- IRR (10%): 21.6%
- NPV (12%): 83,863,974 FCFA
- IRR (12%): 21.4%
Option 2:
- NPV (10%): 109,570,004 FCFA
- IRR (10%): 16.3%
- NPV (12%): 49,300,831 FCFA
- IRR (12%): 16.1%

Project Level Returns

Public Sector Returns:
- Option 1 (10%): 95,924,393 FCFA
- Option 1 (12%): 50,865,068 FCFA
- Option 2 (10%): 81,130,974 FCFA
- Option 2 (12%): 33,645,528 FCFA

Private Sector Returns

Option 1 (10%): 48,380,261 FCFA
Option 1 (12%): 32,998,906 FCFA
Option 2 (10%): 28,439,031 FCFA
Option 2 (12%): 15,655,302 FCFA

Key Financial Observations

Option 1 yields higher returns for both public and private sectors at both discount rates.
The difference in returns is due to the lower capital costs of Option 1, as it redevelops existing infrastructure.
Both options are financially viable and deliver positive NPVs.

Technical Assessment

Both options are evaluated against ICAO standards for runways, terminals, and airfield infrastructure.
Option 2 has more developed technical plans and specifications.
Option 1 is also deemed feasible, provided that appropriate Master Planning is carried out to ensure compliance with international standards.
Technical review identified potential issues at the current airport that could be resolved through the redevelopment process.

Risk Assessment

Six key risk categories were identified:

Market Risk: Related to financial market volatility and investor appetite. Mitigated through selection of a reputable concessionaire.
Economic Risk: Involves economic growth, inflation, and political stability. Mitigated by spreading land sales over the concession period.
Construction/Procurement Risk: Includes design, cost overruns, and delays. Mitigated through effective project management.
Design Effectiveness Risk: Risks from premature design freeze. Mitigated by allowing concessionaire flexibility to optimize design.
Policy, Institutional & Regulatory Risk: Uncertainty in the new SEM (Société d'économie mixte) structure. Requires clear and stable policy and regulatory frameworks.
Management, Control & Operational Risk: Concerns over concessionaire autonomy and service quality. Mitigated through performance requirements and detailed planning.

A risk matrix was developed during the Ouagadougou workshops to test the economic robustness of both options under base, pessimistic, and optimistic scenarios.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Both options are viable and deliver positive NPVs.
Option 1 is more financially attractive, offering higher returns and shorter breakeven periods.
The Government's strategic objectives, such as economic decentralisation and social development, should be considered alongside financial analysis.
The selection of the development option should be based on a balanced assessment of financial, economic, social, and policy considerations.
Mott MacDonald recommends that the Government of Burkina Faso use this report as a baseline for decision-making, alongside input from funding agencies and private sector investors.

Key Information

The project involves a public-private partnership (SEM).
The Ouagadougou workshops played a crucial role in consensus-building and finalizing the development options.
The final validation of financial models led to minor adjustments in NPVs but did not alter the relative ranking of the options.
The breakeven timelines and cash flow profiles are critical considerations in the decision-making process.
The existing airport is seen as inadequate to meet future demand, prompting the need for redevelopment or relocation.
The Donsin airport project is viewed as a potential catalyst for economic growth and development in the surrounding area.

Final Notes

The report emphasizes the importance of strategic alignment with the Government's broader development goals.
The financial model provided by Lufthansa Consulting was validated by Mott MacDonald.
The selection of the concessionaire is a key factor in the success of both options.
The social and environmental impacts of each option are outlined, with Option 2 offering greater potential for regional development.

展开完整摘要