2010年-世界发展银行全球_Romania_-_Functional_Review___Transport_Sector_170页_2mb

Summary of Romania Transport Sector Functional Review

Core Content

This report presents a Functional Review of Romania's transport sector, conducted by the World Bank in 2010. The review aimed to assess the performance of the transport industry, identify governance and management challenges, and propose a strategic action plan to enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability in both road and rail sectors.

Main Objectives

• To evaluate the current state of transport governance and management in Romania.
• To identify the key challenges and inefficiencies in the sector.
• To recommend actionable steps for improving the sector's performance and alignment with European standards and practices.

Key Findings and Recommendations

Sector Governance

1. Lack of a National Transport Strategy

   • No comprehensive, multi-modal national transport strategy exists to guide both public and private participants.
   • Recommendation: The Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure (MOT) should prepare and publish a realistic medium-term national transport strategy covering strategic objectives, policies, and proposed programs for the next 5 years. This strategy should be updated periodically.

2. Fragmented and Overlapping Responsibilities

   • The MOT is functionally and modally fragmented, leading to inefficiencies and a lack of strategic direction.
   • Recommendation: Restructure the MOT into a more substantial and multi-modal General Directorate to reduce functional overlaps and gaps.

3. Unclear Roles Between Government and Transport Companies

   • The roles of the MOT and transport companies are not well defined, leading to inconsistencies in funding and cost recovery.
   • Recommendation: Clarify roles and responsibilities between the MOT and transport companies to ensure a more coherent and effective governance framework.

4. Inefficient Use of EU Funds

   • Despite the availability of significant EU funding (EUR 4.6 billion between 2007 and 2013), there is a lack of utilization due to governance and management issues.
   • Recommendation: The MOT and implementing entities should adopt more disciplined and strategic approaches to project selection and prioritization to maximize EU funding leverage.

5. Need for Performance Agreements

   • A Performance Agreement with RNCMNR is necessary to align the company's operations with national goals and improve accountability.
   • Recommendation: Establish an annually reviewed Performance Agreement with RNCMNR that includes a multi-annual perspective and budget envelope.

6. Regulatory Oversight

   • The regulatory framework is not effective, with unclear responsibilities and lack of oversight in key areas.
   • Recommendation: Establish a multi-modal Transport Licensing and Safety Agency and transfer railway regulatory functions to another ministry.

Corporate Governance

1. Flawed Governance Structures

   • The corporate governance of the four main state-owned companies (RNCMNR, CFR SA, CFR Calători, CFR Marță) is seriously flawed, failing to meet OECD standards.
   • Recommendation: Improve corporate governance by separating ownership responsibilities from the MOT and establishing more independent and professional Boards of Directors.

2. Board Composition and Independence

   • The Boards of the four companies are dominated by MOT officials and lack the necessary commercial and technical expertise.
   • Recommendation: Nominate smaller but more professional and independent Boards with a wider range of skills and experience.

3. CEO Selection and Performance Management

   • The selection of CEOs is not based on merit and lacks clear performance targets.
   • Recommendation: Establish fixed-term management contracts with explicit performance targets for CEO appointments.

Management and Processes

1. RNCMNR (National Company for Motorways and National Roads)

   • Needs improved corporate management practices, a stronger relationship with the government through a Performance Agreement, and enhanced planning and design capabilities.
   • Recommendation: Strengthen planning and engineering functions, and implement performance-based maintenance contracts.

2. CFR SA (Railway Infrastructure Company)

   • The rail infrastructure network is deteriorating due to insufficient funding and poor management.
   • Recommendation: Work with the government and operators to evaluate options for a financially sustainable network and consider reorganizing CFR SA as an infrastructure management company.

3. CFR Calători (Railway Passenger Company)

   • The current Public Service Contract (PSC) lacks incentives for efficiency and revenue generation.
   • Recommendation: Redesign the PSC to include operational and commercial targets and incentives. Explore integrated rail and bus systems for better value for money.

4. CFR Marță (Railway Freight Company)

   • The company faces declining productivity and a dire financial situation due to competition from private operators.
   • Recommendation: Privatize CFR Marță to enable it to compete effectively in the freight market and contribute to the European rail freight industry.

Sector Funding and Budgeting

1. Current Funding Challenges

   • The transport investment program contains many unfunded or uncompleted projects, and EU funds are underutilized.
   • Recommendation: Restructure the transport funding program based on the three-year fiscal strategy and prioritize projects with EU funding availability.

2. Budget Execution and Management

   • The MOT needs to improve financial and human resource management in line with broader public administration reforms.
   • Recommendation: Enhance budget formulation and execution processes, and ensure greater transparency and accountability.

Private Sector Participation (PSP)

1. Private Sector Involvement in Services

   • Romania has successfully attracted private participation in passenger and freight services, but infrastructure financing remains challenging.
   • Recommendation: Encourage private sector participation through performance-based contracts and PPPs for simpler and less costly highway projects, and explore opportunities in other sectors like airports.

2. PPP Opportunities and Challenges

   • Despite the potential for PPPs, Romania has not effectively utilized them for infrastructure projects.
   • Recommendation: Develop a clear PPP policy and framework, and consider pilot projects for regional passenger services and road maintenance.

Key Entities and Frameworks

• MOT (Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure): Central authority responsible for transport policy and governance.
• RNCMNR (Romania National Company for Motorways and National Roads): State-owned entity managing national roads and motorways.
• CFR SA: National railway infrastructure company.
• CFR Calători: National railway passenger company.
• CFR Marță: National railway freight company.
• PSC (Passenger Service Contract): Agreement between the government and state-owned passenger railway company.
• PBMC (Performance-Based Maintenance Contract): Contractual approach to road maintenance based on performance criteria.
• PPP (Public-Private Partnership): Mechanism for private sector involvement in transport infrastructure.

Conclusion

The review highlights the need for comprehensive reform in Romania's transport sector, emphasizing the importance of a coherent national strategy, improved corporate governance, and more effective use of public and private funding. It recommends the establishment of a multi-modal strategy group, the restructuring of the MOT, and the adoption of performance-based contracts and PPPs to enhance the efficiency and sustainability of transport services and infrastructure.