Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 1 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 2 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Report No: AUS0000831 . Europe and Central Asia EaP Transport Panel Secretariat Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region . June 2019 . TDD . 3 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region . . © 2017 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: “World Bank. {YEAR OF PUBLICATION}. {TITLE}. © World Bank.” All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. 4 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Acknowledgements This activity was funded by a grant from the European Commission – DG NEAR, under the umbrella of the World Bank support to the Eastern Partnership Transport Panel. This activity is expected to contribute towards safer roads in Eastern Partnership countries. This report was written by Ioannis Dimitropoulos (Senior Transport Specialist). The activity has been carried-out by a World Bank team led by Radoslaw Czapski (Senior Transport Specialist), Antonio Nunez (Senior Transport Specialist), Elena Lungu (Transport Specialist), Simon Ellis (Program Leader) and the author, and including Mariya Ivchenko (Road Safety Consultant), Dragoslav Kukic (Road Safety Consultant) and Dejan Jovanov (Road Safety Consultant). The report benefited from the comments of Peer Reviewers Veronika Liskova (EC DG MOVE), Per Mathiasen (European Investment Bank), Svetlana Vukanovic (Senior Transport Specialist) and Dipan Bose (Senior Transport Specialist). The team is grateful for the guidance provided by Karla Gonzalez Carvajal (Practice Manager), Baher El-Hifnawi (Program Leader), Aymen Osman Ali (Senior Transport Specialist), Nijat Valiyev (Senior Infrastructure Specialist), Yevhen Bulakh (Transport Specialist), Robert Mutyaba (Climate Change Specialist) and Country Office teams in the six Eastern Partnership Countries. The World Bank team would like to thank its counterparts in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine for fruitful discussions, consultations, ideas and access to data and information. The World Bank would also like to thank IRF-Global (International Road Federation), Lithuanian Police and Polish Road Authority for their participation and support in knowledge sharing activities. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. This report, created by The World Bank, is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CCBY3.0) license. Cover: Victor Corwik. 5 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Table of Contents Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................. 3 Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 6 Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 9 [1] Introduction – Institutional Background........................................................................................ 11 1.1. The Eastern Partnership and the Transport Panel ..................................................................... 11 1.2. European Union context ............................................................................................................ 11 1.2.1. European Union road safety objectives – Valletta Declaration (2017) .............................. 11 1.2.2. EaP road networks as an extension of TEN-T ..................................................................... 13 1.2.3. EaP road safety objectives – Ljubljana Declaration (2018) ................................................. 15 1.3. Previous regional work .............................................................................................................. 15 1.4. The World Bank and other IFIs in EaP countries ........................................................................ 16 [2] Road Safety Situation In EaP Countries ......................................................................................... 17 2.1. Road safety data ........................................................................................................................ 17 2.1.1. Regional and national fatality rates .................................................................................... 17 2.1.2. Fatality and injury trends .................................................................................................... 19 2.1.3. Pedestrian and cyclist share of fatalities ............................................................................ 20 2.1.4. Seatbelt use......................................................................................................................... 20 2.2. Key road safety issues in EaP countries ..................................................................................... 21 2.2.1. Lack of data- and evidence-driven decision-making........................................................... 21 2.2.2. Unsafe urban traffic environment ...................................................................................... 21 2.2.3. Problematic enforcement ................................................................................................... 21 2.3. Road safety priorities for the EaP Transport Panel.................................................................... 22 2.3.1. Pillars of activities and recommended actions ................................................................... 22 2.3.2. Defining the collaboration framework................................................................................ 22 [3] Improving the Road Safety Knowledge Base in EaP ...................................................................... 25 3.1. Benchmarking of EaP countries’ performance and practices .................................................... 25 3.1.1. Crash data systems ............................................................................................................. 25 3.1.2. Lead entities ........................................................................................................................ 29 3.1.3. Enforcement ....................................................................................................................... 30 3.1.4. Infrastructure safety assessment – The EU Road Safety Directive ..................................... 31 3.2. Country fiches ............................................................................................................................ 32 3.3. Priority horizontal activities ....................................................................................................... 33 3.3.1. Development of the EaP Road Safety Observatory Concept .............................................. 33 6 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 3.3.2. EaP online collaboration platform development ................................................................ 34 3.3.3. Facilitating EaP countries’ interface with EU institutions and IFIs on road safety ............. 35 3.3.4. Monitoring of EaP national road safety action plans following the Ljubljana Declaration 36 [4] Action plan for improvement ......................................................................................................... 37 4.1. Management and coordination – Lead entities.......................................................................... 37 4.1.1. Progress on the cooperation framework ............................................................................. 37 4.2. Crash Data Systems .................................................................................................................... 39 4.2.1. Progress on the cooperation framework ............................................................................. 40 4.2.2. Quick wins - Priority project: Road safety performance indicators collection ................... 40 4.3. Speed management and enforcement ....................................................................................... 41 4.3.1. Progress on the cooperation framework ............................................................................. 42 4.3.2. Quick wins - Priority project: Traffic calming measures around schools ............................. 42 4.4. Seatbelt enforcement................................................................................................................. 43 4.4.1. Progress on the cooperation framework ............................................................................. 44 4.5. Infrastructure safety assessment ............................................................................................... 45 4.5.1. Progress on the cooperation framework ............................................................................. 46 4.6. Blackspots................................................................................................................................... 46 4.6.1. Progress on the cooperation framework ............................................................................. 48 4.6.2. Quick wins - Priority project: Identification of top ten blackspot locations ......................... 48 [5] Achievements So Far and Next Steps............................................................................................. 50 5.1. Summary of the achievements so far ........................................................................................ 50 5.2. Future actions for the short term – Year 2020 .......................................................................... 51 5.2.1. Implementation of priority projects and other selected actions........................................ 51 5.2.2. Creation of the EaP road safety observatory to support data-driven decision-making ..... 51 5.2.3. Refinement and implementation of the cooperation framework ...................................... 51 5.3. Future actions for the long term – Year 2030............................................................................ 52 5.4. Sustainability: Steering and monitoring..................................................................................... 52 Annexes ................................................................................................................................................ 54 [A] Benchmarking tables and charts ..................................................................................................... 55 A.1 – Road infrastructure safety measures – EU Directive (Working Group 3) ................................ 56 [B] Details on priority projects .............................................................................................................. 57 B.1. Identification of priority projects within the Working Groups .................................................. 57 B.2. Detailed Terms of Reference ..................................................................................................... 59 B.2.1. Projects for WG1 ................................................................................................................. 59 B.2.2. Projects for WG2 ................................................................................................................. 65 B.2.3. Projects for WG3 ................................................................................................................. 70 7 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region [C] Road Safety Declarations................................................................................................................. 74 C.1. Valletta Declaration, 2017 ......................................................................................................... 75 C.2. Ljubljana Declaration, 2018 ....................................................................................................... 81 [D] Details on Working Groups ............................................................................................................. 84 D.1. Coordination meetings ............................................................................................................. 84 D.2. Activity planning ........................................................................................................................ 84 8 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Executive Summary Fatality rates in the Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries are about twice as high as in the European Union (EU) / European Free Trade Association (EFTA) area. In this context, road safety has been prioritized as a key component of World Bank (WB) support to the Eastern Partnership (EaP) Transport Panel. This report summarizes the road safety activities undertaken as part of this support during the first phase of cooperation, between April 2017 and April 2019. In parallel with the United Nations’ Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020, the European Union set its own road safety goals and objectives for the same timeframe. The central goal was the halving of road fatalities during the said decade. Indicative extensions of Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) have been identified for the six EaP countries. Within the EU, the TEN-T network has been treated with high priority as regards implementation of safety measures; similarly, the “core” and “comprehensive” road links can be the starting points for road safety improvements, with the understanding that road safety is no less of a priority for the totality of the EaP countries’ road traffic, including the non-TEN-T portions. In the opening Transport Panel Road Safety Workshop led by the WB in June 2017, the EaP countries’ representatives adopted the ambitious target of reducing road fatalities by 25% between the years 2016-2020. The Workshop also resulted in the selection of focus areas for action, chosen for being shared by all EaP countries and for their potential for higher impact and quick wins. EaP member countries agreed topical Regional Working Groups (RWG) corresponding to the focus areas and nominate participants for them. The main task of the RWGs was to share good practices and promote EaP countries’ commitment to adopting improved practices in the focus areas, primarily during the first phase but with the potential to continue activities beyond that time. Each RWG’s theme corresponded to two focus areas, namely: (WG1) Road safety management & coordination / Crash data system improvement; (WG2) Speed management / Enforcement; (WG3) Safety engineering / Blackspot management. The support provided by the WB focused on coordination of the working groups and on knowledge generation and sharing. The coordination role included the preparation of a framework for cooperation, and the facilitation of several face-to-face and virtual regional workshops. The knowledge activity focused on the six focus areas. Beyond supporting the thematic RWGs, the WB also prepared a benchmarking of road safety performance and practices among EaP countries, country fiches describing key road safety characteristics of each EaP country, generic terms of reference for development of three priority projects (one per each RWG) identified jointly with EaP countries during the assignments and a proposed initial concept for the creation of an EaP Regional Road Safety Observatory. It also developed an EaP road safety web collaboration platform, compiling key road safety data and documents. In the six main thematic areas, key achievements include:  Management and coordination (incl. lead entities): Confirmation of high-level coordination structures and, in certain cases, of operational lead entities.  Crash data: EaP countries are working together with the WB team on identifying the current degree of convergence of the national crash data sets with the EU’s Common Accident Data 9 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Set (CADaS) and the steps needed to achieve full compatibility. All countries have organized crash databases, but these have different levels of compliance with CADaS. Compatible databases will facilitate benchmarking and reporting to the future regional EaP Road Safety Observatory.  Speed management and enforcement: Ukraine introduced 50 km/h limits within towns (down from 60km/h), a development recommended for all EaP countries. The WB team is working with EaP countries on developing traffic calming specifications and pilot testing in representative urban areas, to induce speeds below the limit.  Seatbelts: A comprehensive benchmarking on enforcement is also being developed, covering not only speed enforcement data but also alcohol and restraint systems adoption. There are examples of active NGOs involvement in supporting seatbelts and other enforcement measures , particularly in Ukraine and Belarus.  Infrastructure assessment: The WB team is working together with the EaP countries towards institutionalization of Road Safety Inspection (RSI) and Road Safety Audit (RSA), as well as the piloting additional tools such as Road Safety Impact Assessment (RSIA) recommended by the EU and World Bank Road Safety Assessment Tool (RSAT) allowing identification of road safety impacts at an early stage of preparation of road modernization projects.  Blackspot treatment: At least three EaP countries follow a systematic procedure for identifying and treating locations of high accident concentration. So the WB team has worked with the EaP countries on the development of specific terms of reference for blackspot identification and management, as one of priority projects. The WG meetings also provided the opportunity for demonstrations of successful practices both from the EaP region and from other European (EU or non-EU) countries. With less than two years from the target date (end 2020) for the bold 25% reduction of road traffic fatalities, EaP countries now need to define concrete (costed and timed) plans for immediate implementation of the selected ongoing priority projects and key actions. Moreover, the EaP regional road safety observatory needs to be developed as the authoritative reference point of the EaP countries as well as the EU, IFIs and other key road safety stakeholders. The remaining activities from the cooperation framework need to be reexamined, taking into account the relevance and potential impact of each individual activity for achieving the targets for 2020 and for the countries’ own individual strategies / action plans; as well as realistic timelines, budgets, and implementation requirements. Moving forward, road safety must be part of a comprehensive approach for mobility and regional integration. Implementation of the priority projects, creation of the EaP Regional Road Safety Observatory and all other selected key activities should be part of action plans for the decade 2021- 2030 featuring prioritized actions at the national level that should be defined in cooperation with the EU institutions and main IFIs. Steering and monitoring is important to achieve sustainability of the action plans and can be supported through definition of safety indicators, official and public reporting of progress and a periodic (at least mid-term) review. 10 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region [1] Introduction – Institutional Background 1.1. The Eastern Partnership and the Transport Panel The Eastern Partnership was launched in May 2009 by the European Union to enhance the cooperation with six countries of Eastern Europe and Southern Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The Eastern Partnership Transport Panel was established on 23 September 2011. The Panel is a framework for exchange of information and best practice between the partner countries and the EU Member States. Its goal is to strengthen transport connections both between the partner countries and the EU and between partner countries themselves. It incorporates the inseparability of services - in trade, logistics, human mobility, and information - from the underlying infrastructure to improve the flow of goods, people and data. Transport connectivity is built on linkages to provide economic growth and job opportunities, greater access to basic services and markets, enhanced resilience, and reduced vulnerability to shocks and to climate change-induced events. Improved transport connectivity promotes regional integration and regional development which directly addresses the Bank’s twin goals of reducing poverty and promoting shared prosperity. To achieve the objectives of the Eastern Partnership Transport Panel, the WB entered in a Trust Fund agreement with the European Commission to provide Technical Assistance. To support reduction of traffic related fatalities and injuries in the EaP region, road safety has been prioritized as one of the key areas for WB support. The EaP road safety cooperation carried out through direct dialogue with the RWGs members aims to fit the regional activities into the national context of each of the countries including existing plans/strategies and to tackle road safety forward together as a region using exchange of global and regional EaP knowledge and good practice in specific road safety topics. The objective of the working groups on road safety is to expand the discussion on safety beyond purely physical improvements on roads and to address issues such as institutional arrangements, enforcement, education and emergency response. The working groups are to use benchmarking of performance between countries and linking specific activities to the achievement of results. 1.2. European Union context 1.2.1. European Union road safety objectives – Valletta Declaration (2017) In parallel with the United Nations’ Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020, the European Union set its own road safety goals and objectives for the same timeframe. The central goal was the halving of road fatalities during the said decade. The seven main objectives, as identified in the EU Policy Orientations 1, include (a) improved road user education and training; (b) increased enforcement; (c) safer infrastructure; (d) safer vehicles; (e) promoting use of modern technology; (f) improving emergency and post-injury services; (g) protecting vulnerable road users. In March 2017, the EU Transport Ministers’ Valletta Declaration 2 identified the smaller-than- envisaged achieved reduction of fatalities to date, the need to reduce serious injuries along with fatalities, the different progress made among member states and the significant impact of behavioral 1 Brussels, 20.7.2010; COM(2010) 389 final 2 Full text in Annex C.1. 11 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region factors. It called for a new policy framework for the years after 2020, with additional elements of enhanced cooperation; emphasis on cycling and walking; focus on the non-TEN-T network; reduction of speed limits in high-risk areas; deployment of the e-call system and connected vehicles; in-depth investigations and data analysis; halving serious injuries between 2020-2030; post-collision care; and broader enforcement of traffic behavior rules. The Third Mobility Package Principles of the road safety policy framework for the years 2021-2030, as part of the EU’s Third Mobility Package, include:  "Safe System" approach  Confirmation of "Vision Zero" (2050)  New interim targets (50% reduction in fatalities and serious injuries)  Monitoring based on key performance indicators  Reinforced coordination between levels and sectors  Funding support  Global dimension The main road safety-related actions of the Third Mobility Package include:  Proposed revision of Infrastructure Safety Management Directive  Proposed revision of General Safety Regulation for vehicles  Communication "On the road to automated mobility: An EU strategy for mobility of the future"  Strategic Action Plan addressing all "Safe System" areas (governance, funding, roads, vehicles, road use, emergency response) as well as emerging challenges and EU's global role  Call for voluntary commitments As part of its envisaged “global role”, the EU aspires to “export road safety” to the immediate neighbors including Western Balkans, Eastern Partnership and Turkey. 12 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 1.2.2. EaP road networks as an extension of TEN-T Indicative extensions of Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) have been identified for the six EaP countries and are depicted in Figure 1 as regards the road network. They follow the two tiers (“core” and “comprehensive”) present in TEN-T definitions. Figure 1 - Indicative TEN-T road (and airport) extension to the six EaP countries Source: EaP draft investment plan, World Bank E-numbered routes across the EaP countries largely correspond to the indicative TEN-T extensions, as shown in Figure 2. 13 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Figure 2 - E-numbered routes across EaP countries Source: UNECE site Commercial, private and service road users travel along these corridors (and the remaining network, as feeder roads thereto) and should ideally have similar, high expectations of safety during their trips, especially when crossing several country jurisdictions. Within the EU, the TEN-T network has been treated with high priority as regards implementation of safety measures; similarly, the “core” and “comprehensive” road links can be the starting points for road safety improvements, with the understanding that road safety is no less of a priority for the totality of the EaP countries’ road traffic, including the non-TEN-T portions. 14 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 1.2.3. EaP road safety objectives – Ljubljana Declaration (2018) The early work of the EaP Transport anel contributed to the formulation of road safety objectives for the six EaP countries. In the opening Road Safety Workshop of the EaP Transport Panel in June 2017, the EaP countries adopted the ambitious target of reducing road fatalities by 25% between the years 2016-2020. This intent was reconfirmed in the 2018 Ljubljana Declaration 3, in which additional goals were jointly committed to by EU Ministers of Transport and representatives of all six EaP countries. These goals -for which the initial technical discussion in the context of the EaP Transport Panel provided important inputs- fall into the following six road safety areas: (i) Strengthening road safety management – through strengthened cooperation; definition of lead road safety entities in each country; development of national strategies; provision of resources. (ii) Developing targeted road safety measures – by adopting the “vision zero” perspective and “safe system” approach; defining targets for reducing fatalities and serious injuries by 50% between 2020-2030 (in addition to the reconfirmed -25% fatality reduction target for 2016-2020); improving data collection and reporting it to the future regional Observatory. (iii) Promoting safer infrastructure – by mainstreaming road safety beyond EU-/IFI-funded projects and beyond TEN-T; applying EU infrastructure safety management principles; establishing and enforcing adequate speed limits; improving vulnerable users’ safety. (iv) Protecting road users – through promotion of a safety culture; enforcement of behavioral measures; continued education; cooperation with and among police forces. (v) Promoting the use of safer vehicles – with safety/roadworthiness and protection standards; and rolled-out ITS systems compatible with those in the EU. (vi) Enhancing cooperation and exchange of experience – by mobilizing partners at all levels, promoting dialogue with EU, using EU and member states’ expertise and involving civil society in joining the European Road Safety Charter. 1.3. Previous regional work Previous regional initiatives on road safety that were utilized for the purpose of the EaP Transport Panel work include in particular the following:  EU funded TRACECA Regional Road Safety Action Plan (RRSAP) project, covering 10 countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia sub-regions (all EaP countries excluding Belarus). The project sought to identify the safety needs in each of the countries covered and developed a regional road safety action plan. That action plan was prepared at the end of 2011 and published in early 2012. This regional plan was endorsed by all 10 beneficiary countries and has been accepted as the desired regional plan but, because it was not specific to the country level needs, it has not been possible to implement it in any single country.  EU funded TRACECA Regional Road Safety Project II (Jan 2014- Mar 2016). This project was a follow up to an earlier EU funded RRSAP project in order to assist beneficiary countries to develop effective country specific action plans. The project was aimed at supporting 10 beneficiary countries in their efforts to enhance their capacity to implement improvements aligned to 6 sectors of road safety; 5 of which are same as the 5 pillars in the UN Decade of Action (safety management, safer roads, safer vehicles, safer road users and safer emergency services). In addition, the project also included activities in a 6th sector “changing attitudes”. 3 Full text in Annex C.2. 15 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region  UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) manages a number of United Nations road safety legal instruments. They are negotiated by governments and become legally binding for states that accede to them. These legal instruments cover: o Traffic rules o Road signs and signals o Construction and technical inspection of vehicles o Road infrastructure o Driving times and rest periods for professional drivers o Safe transport of dangerous goods and hazardous materials These conventions are administered by the relevant Working Parties or Administrative Committees in charge of updating and amending these instruments. The UNECE secretariat incorporates a governance structure that offers a multi-dimensional approach to assist with accession and to facilitate implementation. The conventions enhance road safety and facilitate international road traffic, trade and tourism. The Working Party on Road Traffic Safety (WP.1), the main coordinating body in the area of road safety, works in conjunction with other working parties to offer a comprehensive platform that enables cooperation and the exchange of information and best practices among governments. The UNECE also provides secretariat services to the United Nations Secretary-General Special Envoy for Road Safety. 1.4. The World Bank and other IFIs in EaP countries The World Bank is present and active since the 1990s in all six EaP countries through its Country Offices in Kyiv, Minsk, Chisinau, Tbilisi, Baku and Yerevan. Transport is a prominent activity in the project portfolios of all six countries, which include both lending and advisory operations. Several of the projects ongoing at the time of conducting this work included road safety components or elements and the team benefited from the cooperation of all country offices and the respective counterparts. In 4 of the EaP countries – namely Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia and Georgia – the Bank conducted road safety management capacity reviews. Moreover, in Georgia it provided assistance towards the development of a road safety strategy and action plan. Other IFIs are also active on road safety technical assistance in the EaP region. The European Investment Bank (EIB) has worked in several countries, most notably Ukraine and Georgia, through its own resources and additional instruments such as the Neighborhood Investment Platform (NIP) and the Eastern Partnership Transport Assistance (EPTA) and provided technical assistance towards drafting legislation, training, financing safety audits and other measures, running roads safety campaigns and reviewing national road design standards and norms. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has also supported a number of EaP countries, including Ukraine and Azerbaijan, with technical assistance and support to reforms. 16 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region [2] Road Safety Situation In EaP Countries 2.1. Road safety data 2.1.1. Regional and national fatality rates In general, the six EaP countries have lower road safety levels than the EU/EFTA area (see Figure 3). In 2016, the fatalities per population rates in each EaP country were higher than the European average. Belarus had the lowest level, with just under 62 fatalities per million inhabitants, being at the approximate level of Hungary and Slovenia. Georgia, followed by Ukraine, had the highest rates. Although several European countries have achieved high levels of road safety, the situation is far from uniform across the region. Within the EU and EFTA4, in general, northern and western European countries have better performance than eastern and southern ones (see Figure 4). The average annual number of fatalities per million inhabitants in the EU is 51. Figure 3 - Fatalities per 100,000 population in 2016 with EaP average and EU average 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Romania Latvia France Austria Finland Georgia Moldova Czech Republic Ukraine Poland Greece Netherlands Belarus Cyprus Denmark Bulgaria Azerbaijan Croatia Hungary Slovenia Luxembourg Estonia Italy Ireland Germany Spain Lithuania Portugal Belgium Malta Slovakia Armenia United Kingdom Deaths per 100,000 inhabitants EaP Average EU Average Source: Annual Road Safety Performance Index (PIN) Report, ETSC 4 Norway, Switzerland and Iceland (together with Liechtenstein) are the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) countries. 17 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Figure 4 - Road deaths per million inhabitants, 2017 (source: European Commission) Source: European Commission 18 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 2.1.2. Fatality and injury trends In four of the six EaP countries, data on the evolution of absolute numbers of road traffic fatalities and injuries between 2010 and 2017 are available. Fatality numbers (Figure 5) generally show a downward trend which, nevertheless, is short of achieving the broader goals. The trend is less sharp in Armenia and Georgia. Both of those countries actually have increased injury numbers (Figure 6) compared to 2010. All countries have gone through increases in motorization over the examined period, which partly explains the higher difficulty they face, compared to EU countries, in meeting road safety targets. Figure 5 – Road traffic fatality trends per country (2010-2017, indexed) Road traffic fatality trends (2010=100) 140 120 ARMENIA 100 GEORGIA 95 80 UKRAINE 75 70 67 60 MOLDOVA 40 20 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 19 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Figure 6 – Road traffic injury trends per country (2010-2017, indexed) Road traffic injury trends (2010=100) 250 194 200 ARMENIA GEORGIA 150 136 100 UKRAINE 89 80 MOLDOVA 50 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2.1.3. Pedestrian and cyclist share of fatalities In 2016, being the latest year of available data on fatalities per road user group, the share of pedestrians was high for all countries: it was 45% for Moldova, 36% for Georgia, 35% for Armenia and 28% for Ukraine. These figures are well above the EU’s average for the same year, which was 21%, and signifies the need for particular emphasis on this user category. Fatality statistics for cyclists are considerably lower than for pedestrians. Five percent of traffic fatalities in Ukraine were cyclists, compared to 2% in Moldova and under 1% for Georgia and Armenia. The average for the EU is 6%. The relatively limited usage of bicycles in most EaP countries, due to a mix of terrain, climatic and cultural factors, means that the safety problems for this user category may appear to be less acute than those of pedestrians. Nevertheless, traffic-calmed environments can prove beneficial for all categories of vulnerable road users. 2.1.4. Seatbelt use In the largest and most populous of EaP countries, Ukraine, a national study showed that only 15% of drivers use seat belts, compared to over 70% in typical EU countries. Moreover, vast regional differences were observed. Namely, the regions around larger towns such as Kyiv, Dnipro and Lviv show better percentages (25% to 38%), whereas more rural districts have rates below 20% and in some cases single-digit percentages (e.g. under 7% for Khmelnytskyi and under 8% for Mykolaiv). 20 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 2.2. Key road safety issues in EaP countries Based on the information available in country statistics and a review of previous work in the region, key road safety issues of interest for all EaP countries have been identified. The majority of countries are burdened by common problems, although there are areas of relative strength for some and weakness for others. 2.2.1. Lack of data- and evidence-driven decision-making EaP countries are in need of improving their crash data recording systems, so as to maximize utilization of available information. Several countries face issues of underreporting as well. Moreover, the flow of information between the authorities responsible for collecting accident data and those in charge of managing the road network is not always effective. As a result the team has placed significant attention and effort towards encouraging EaP countries to improve their crash data recording systems and to harmonize them as far as possible with common practice in the EU and EFTA countries. Safety management of the road networks in EaP countries also needs to more systematically use the results of expert analysis of safety impacts (for planned projects), design issues as well as problems observed during operation. The EU’s Road Safety Directive stipulates a package of professional practices, such as road safety impact assessment, audit, inspection and dangerous-location (blackspot) analysis, whose systematic use in EaP countries will help prioritize interventions and use wisely the commonly tight road safety budgets. 2.2.2. Unsafe urban traffic environment With the exception of Ukraine, which recently introduced compliance with the European norm of 50 km/h limits in urban areas, all other countries insist in applying the 60-km/h limit. Anecdotal observations imply that this reluctance is probably related to the region’s culture of promoting continued road traffic through city centers with a minimum of limitations, whether physical ones (like extensive pedestrianization) or regulatory ones (e.g. bans for all or some vehicle categories). Moreover, infrastructure for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users is not particularly friendly, as most urban centers have a lack of convenient at-grade crossings (often with poor or non-existent ramps for the disabled) and suburban / rural areas have relatively few footpaths. Bypasses have been introduced around most major cities and grade-separated pedestrian crossings are increased, which are nevertheless not always convenient for the respective intended users and are therefore under- utilized. As a result, all EaP countries report poor safety for pedestrians. For this reason, the team and the Working Groups have prioritized traffic calming -and speed management in general- as a key direction for subsequent projects. 2.2.3. Problematic enforcement With the exception of Belarus, which has implemented a comprehensive national-level speed enforcement system, with private-sector participation and active involvement from both the road operator and the enforcement authority, EaP countries have only recently made steps towards improving the monitoring of user behavior. Except for speeding, other driver behaviors also need to be better controlled – such as seatbelt use, including rear seats and child restraint systems, where significant room for improvement exists. In certain cases legislative gaps will need to be filled in; however, the effectiveness and efficiency in enforcing existing laws can be vastly improved as part of 21 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region a coordinated system for managing road safety, including contribution to its financing through a well- designed fining system. 2.3. Road safety priorities for the EaP Transport Panel 2.3.1. Pillars of activities and recommended actions In the Global Plan for the 2011-2020 decade of road safety action, the UN Road Safety Collaboration - under the coordination of the World Health Organization (WHO)- defined five “pillars” of activities:  road safety management;  safer roads and mobility;  safer vehicles;  safer road users; and  post-crash response. In their earlier major global report on road safety -the 2004 World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention- the WHO and the World Bank had recommended the following specific actions for national governments: 1. Identify a lead agency in government to guide the national road safety effort 2. Assess the problem, policies and institutional settings relating to road traffic injury and the capacity for road traffic injury prevention in each country. 3. Prepare a national road safety strategy and plan of action. 4. Allocate financial and human resources to address the problem. 5. Implement specific actions to prevent road traffic crashes, minimize injuries and their consequences and evaluate the impact of these actions. 6. Support the development of national capacity and international cooperation. 2.3.2. Defining the collaboration framework Further to the definition of overall road safety targets, the opening Transport Panel Road Safety Workshop -led by the WB in June 2017- also resulted in the selection of focus areas for action. The choice was made following consideration and discussion of basic road safety principles, as reflected in the “pillars” and recommendations mentioned earlier – as well as a consideration of the key issues identified from available data and studies. Given the available time and resources, the most appropriate course of action was to adopt a balanced, selective and focused approach rather than a comprehensive one. Thus, the Workshop had to identify focus areas for specific actions. The following criteria were important in defining the choice:  Relevance to all six EaP countries, as despite the similarities observed the six countries are not facing identical issues nor do they share exactly the same priorities.  The potential for higher impact and quick wins. Not all actions chosen are lending themselves to immediate results. Priority was placed to a mix of actions, addressing the need for solid analytical basis and capacity-building on the one hand and (relatively) easily-implementable measures of proven high effectiveness on the other. The following focus areas were thus defined: 1. Management and coordination / Lead entities. This corresponds to the first of the WHO/WB recommendations (as well as to the first UN “pillar”) and is the basic starting point for the 22 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region implementation of the second through sixth recommendations. Ideally, all countries should have their own road safety strategies -implemented by those lead agencies- with corresponding action plans specifying time, responsibilities and budgets for activities. 2. Crash data systems. The lack of good-quality data was one of the main conclusions regarding the existing situation, in all EaP countries. The effort made at the EU level has led to comparable definitions and thus more meaningful and accurate analyses. 3. Enforcement. In principle, good enforcement is a way to address two pillars – user and vehicle - and is proven to be effective, especially when coupled with campaigns related to it. Problematic enforcement was a main conclusion from analysis of the existing situation. Two focus areas were defined as having the greatest perceived potential for quick wins: a. Speed management and enforcement. b. Seatbelt enforcement. Other enforcement activities such as those related to vehicle condition and documentation, though not chosen at this stage, can be examined in subsequent phases or in combination with the above. 4. Safer roads. The gaps in the quality of trunk road networks in the six EaP countries are well- documented. Two focus areas were defined in relation to the pillar of infrastructure safety: a. Infrastructure safety assessment, exploring implementation of the EU Road Safety Directive in the EaP countries. b. Blackspots, to initiate identification and treatment programs for road sections with the highest accident risk. The relative lack of data concerning the remaining pillar of post-crash care made it impossible to directly address it in the first phase of the WB support work. It is expected that improved crash data through enhanced cooperation between road managers and emergency services will provide an adequate basis for in-depth analyses of accident response information and the formulation of targeted proposals in that area too during subsequent phases. In the June 2017 Workshop, EaP member countries agreed to confirm topical Regional Working Groups (RWG) corresponding to the focus areas and to nominate participants for them. The main task of the RWGs was to promote EaP countries’ commitment to adopting improved practices in the focus areas, primarily during the first phase but with the potential to continue activities beyond that time. Each RWG’s theme corresponded to two focus areas, namely: (WG1) Road safety management & coordination / Crash data system improvement; (WG2) Speed management / Enforcement; (WG3) Safety engineering / Blackspot management. The resulting cooperation framework is shown in Table 1. 23 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Table 1 - Cooperation framework – Focus areas Focus Area Main Objective Target Corresponding Working Group Management Effective Effective high-level coordination and WG1 and management & operational Lead Entity structures are coordination coordination at created and working in each EaP country; the / Lead national & latter in a form of an autonomous institution entities regional level or a major unit/function within an established institution Crash data Improved - Reliable and accessible national crash data WG1 systems management is available in each of the EaP countries and access to (preferably in line with CADaS) reliable crash - Concept for EaP-EU Regional Road Safety and other road Observatory developed and adopted by EaP safety data countries and EC Speed Improved speed - Increased speed controls by instituting at WG2 management management least mobile/random regular speed and and enforcement systems in EaP countries and enforcement enforcement implementing / improving automatic systems - Adoption of max 50 km/h limit in urban areas in all EaP countries Seatbelt Improve Increased seatbelt wearing rate in all EaP WG2 enforcement enforcement of countries in front and back seats seatbelts use in all EaP countries Infrastructure Implementation Practice of safety impacts identification WG3 safety of the Directive following the Directive 2008/96 for at least assessment 2008/96 one priority road investment project in each EaP country Blackspots Black spot - Definition of Black Spots (high-crash WG3 treatment and locations) and at least top ten Black Spot audit/inspection locations identified in each EaP country programs - At least one specific Black Spot treatment initiated. project at one location initiated in each EaP country 24 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region [3] Improving the Road Safety Knowledge Base in EaP 3.1. Benchmarking of EaP countries’ performance and practices Once the six focus areas were defined, it was important to collect additional information on the EaP countries’ performance and practices through the three Working Groups, so as to elaborate quantitative and qualitative comparisons in each areas. The main benchmarking activities were concluded by the end of calendar year 2018. The following is a presentation of provisional benchmarking results. Additional detailed information on benchmarking is presented in Annex A. 3.1.1. Crash data systems The CADaS (Common Accident DataSet) is the EU standard for road accident data collection. It is characterized by a minimum set of data elements, including variables and values that follow the common definition used in the EU’s CARE database. CADaS serves to produce comparable accident data across European countries as well as more detailed and reliable road safety analyses at a European level. The basic CADaS structure consists of variables related to (i) the accident, (ii) the road, (iii) the traffic units, i.e. vehicles or pedestrians, (iv) the person(s) involved. It is presented in Table 2. All proposed variables contain values for each variable. The number of proposed values depends on needs for description of concrete variable. 25 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Table 2 - The basic CADaS structure with main variables Accident Road Traffic Unit Person ACCIDENT ID ACCIDENT ID ACCIDENT ID ACCIDENT ID ACCIDENT DATE LATITUDE TRAFFIC UNIT ID TRAFFIC UNIT ID ACCIDENT TIME LONGITUDE TRAFFIC UNIT TYPE PERSON ID NUTS E-ROAD VEHICLE SPECIAL DATE OF BIRTH FUNCTION LAU E-ROAD KILOMETRE TRAILER GENDER WEATHER CONDITIONS FUNCTIONAL CLASS – 1ST ENGINE POWER NATIONALITY ROAD LIGHT CONDITIONS FUNCTIONAL CLASS 2ND ACTIVE SAFETY INJURY SEVERITY ROAD EQUIPMENT ACCIDENTS WITH MOTORWAY VEHCILE DRIVE ROAD UDER TYPE PEDESTRIANS ACCIDENTS WITH PARKED URBAN AREA MAKE ALCOTEST VEHICLES SINGLE VEHICLE ACCIDENTS JUNCTION MODEL ALCOTEST SAMPLE TYPE AT LEAST TWO VEHICLES – RELATION TO JUNCTION / REGISTRATION YEAR ALCOTEST RESULT NO TURNING INTERCHANGE AT LEAST TWO VEHICLES – JUNCTION CONTROL TRAFFIC UNIT MANOEUVRE ALCOHOL LEVEL TURNING OR CROSSING HIT & RUN ACCIDENT SURFANCE CONDITIONS FIRST POINT OF IMPACT DRUG TEST OBSTACLES FIRST OBJECT HIT IN DRIVING LICENSE ISSUE DATE CARRIAGEWAY TYPE FIRST OBJECT HIT OFF DRIVING LICENSE VALIDITY NUMBER OF LANES VEHICLE INSURANCE FOR SAFETY EQUIPMENT DRIVER / RIDER EMERGENCY LANE HIT & RUN POSITION IN / ON VEHICLE MARKINGS REGISTRATION COUNTRY DISTRACTED BY DEVICE TUNNEL PSYCOPHYSICAL / PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT OR CONDITION BRIDGE TRIP / JOURNEY PURPOSE WORK ZONE RELATED INJURY MAIS SCALE ROAD CURVE ROAD SEGMENT GRADE 26 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Figure 7 - Benchmarking on accident- and road-related data 100.0% 90.0% 15.4% 30.8% 30.8% 80.0% 46.2% 70.0% 61.5% 60.0% 76.9% 46.2% 23.1% 50.0% 46.2% 40.0% 23.1% 30.0% 23.1% 20.0% 46.2% 38.5% 30.8% 10.0% 23.1% 23.1% 15.4% 0.0% Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Moldova Ukraine % of +++ % of + % of - 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 40.0% 70.0% 56.0% 68.0% 60.0% 80.0% 76.0% 92.0% 8.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 24.0% 16.0% 52.0% 20.0% 16.0% 20.0% 10.0% 16.0% 20.0% 4.0% 4.0% 8.0% 0.0% Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Moldova Ukraine % of +++ % of + % of - Benchmarking has been carried out by the WB team on the degree of compliance of the six EaP countries with the CADaS structure (Figures 7 and 8) 5. Based on the information provided by six EaP countries:  On accident-related data, Moldova, Ukraine and Armenia, have relatively better degrees of convergence. Azerbaijan has the lowest compliance.  On road-related data, all EaP countries have low level of compatibility with variables proposed by CADaS, only Ukraine has a slightly better level of compliance but not enough to become good example among EaP countries in accordance to road -related data (Georgia and Azerbaijan having the lowest).  On traffic unit-related data, only Ukraine has the satisfactory degree of compliance, followed by Moldova – the other countries have very low degrees. 5 For Ukraine, the proposed crash data form (in the process of adoption) is analyzed. 27 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region  On person-related data, again Ukraine followed by Moldova are most compliant and again Georgia having the lowest level of compatibility. Figure 8 - Benchmarking on traffic unit- and person-related data 100.0% 11.1% 90.0% 11.1% 80.0% 55.6% 50.0% 70.0% 72.2% 72.2% 60.0% 88.9% 50.0% 40.0% 16.7% 77.8% 16.7% 30.0% 20.0% 16.7% 22.2% 27.8% 33.3% 10.0% 5.6% 5.6% 11.1% 5.6% 0.0% Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Moldova Ukraine % of +++ % of + % of - 100.0% 90.0% 14.3% 80.0% 38.1% 52.4% 52.4% 47.6% 70.0% 76.2% 42.9% 60.0% 50.0% 19.0% 40.0% 30.0% 38.1% 42.9% 42.9% 20.0% 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% 10.0% 4.8% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 0.0% Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Moldova Ukraine % of +++ % of + % of - The quality of crash data in all EaP countries remains a critical issue:  Underreporting on injuries/deaths in road crashes exist in all EaP countries;  Only Belarus has recognized concept of road safety database (Beldorcenter), but still not in use and still not publicly available.  Crash data in the EaP countries are not validated.  Only Azerbaijan has definition of road deaths up to 7 days after accident happened, which is not in line with recommendation of WHO, international practice, most of the developed and developing countries has definition of road deaths up to 30 days after accident happened as well as other EaP countries.  Georgian improvement of crash database is launched in 2018 and still ongoing. 28 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region  Three of the six EaP countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova) last modified their data collection scope in the years 2006-2010. The remaining three have introduced modifications in recent years (2016-2018).  Three of the six EaP countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova) use databases without GIS interfaces.  Only Moldova maintains a central database for all severity types of accidents (killed, seriously and slightly injured).  Only Georgia and Azerbaijan make general road accident data available to the public.  Four countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova) publish reports periodically. Ukraine and Moldova have overall better degrees of compliance with CADaS, albeit with differences depending on the type of accident. Three of the countries use earlier structures without GIS interfaces; location is a highly critical parameter as it is important both in understanding the regional/local allocation of crashes and in identifying high-risk locations and sections (e.g. blackspots). Throughout EaP, data quality and especially underreporting and missing of validation is a critical issue. 3.1.2. Lead entities Nominally, all six EaP countries have lead entities, but more at a strategic / steering level and no executive agencies. Most commonly, the Ministry responsible for the police (“Ministry of Internal Affairs” or similar) is the one tasked with coordinating implementation of strategies and plans, as shown in the detailed presentation hereafter.  In Armenia, the National Road Safety Council (NRSC) under the Prime Minister office plays a role of the coordinating body. The last meeting of the NRSC took place in 2012. The full functional development of the National Road Safety Council (NRSC) within Government is a critical step. There is no permanent Secretariat to support/implement decisions of the coordinating body.  In Azerbaijan, the National Road Safety Commission (NRSC) under the Cabinet of Ministers plays a role of the coordinating body. The Head of Commission is Deputy Prime Minister. There is no permanent Secretariat to support/implement decisions of the coordinating body. The Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies and Azeravtoyol OSC (Road Agency) are the main government agencies in charge of coordinating and developing road safety programmes and strategies. The State Traffic Police Department (under the MIA) is the main enforcement agency implementing these programmes.  In Belarus, since 2007 the functions of the coordinating body are carried out by the Permanent Commission on Road Safety under the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus. The Commission meets at least twice a year at the parliament level and not less than four times a year at the regional level. In reality the meetings tend to take place even more often. There is no permanent Secretariat to support/implement decisions of the coordinating body. According to the Law on Road Traffic, the Ministry of Internal Affairs “coordinates the actions of state bodies and other organizations to eliminate causes and conditions” of traffic rules violation and commission of accidents.  In Georgia, the inter-agency Road Safety Commission and National Working Group were created for the implementation of the National Road Safety Strategy and the Action Plan. The members of Road Safety Commission are Deputy Ministers and the members of Working Group are representatives of the relevant departments. The meetings of the Road Safety Commission are held on a quarterly basis. The Working Group are held on a monthly basis. There is no permanent Secretariat to support/implement decisions of the Commission. 29 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region According to the Government Decree №1389 dated 11 July 2016 the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development of Georgia was defined as a Lead Agency for the implementation of the measures considered by the National Road Safety Strategy and Action Plan.  In Moldova, the National Council for Road Traffic Safety is established by the Government of the Republic of Moldova and is the key advisory body for the promotion and direction of the state policy in the field of road safety. The meetings take place "de jure" - every six months, "de facto" - the last meeting took place on August 15th, 2013. The Permanent Secretariat ensures the current activity of the National Council for Road Traffic Safety. The Secretariat comprises four staff members: the Executive Secretary of the Council (within the Road Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs), representative of the Ministry of Education and the two representatives of the Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure. The Permanent Secretariat as executive body is inactive due to lack of resources and operational capacity.  In Ukraine, an Interagency Working Group on reforming state road safety management system in Ukraine was established by the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers № 938 dated 09.11.2016. The Road Safety Council was established by the Cabinet’s Resolution no. 153 of 28.2.2018. 3.1.3. Enforcement The enforcement benchmarking focuses on a focused but still broad range of areas, including (i) speed enforcement, (ii) use of restraint systems and (iii) alcohol enforcement. The benchmarking framework features a results-focused five-level hierarchy, shown in Figure 9: Figure 9 - Enforcement benchmarking framework Social costs Outcome Number killed and Final outcomes injured Safety performance Intermediate outcomes indicators Programmes and measures Policy performance Policy output Policy input Structure and Culture Policy context The key indicators to be developed include:  Structure and culture (agencies/functions, data types, programmes)  Speeding – Limits, ASE systems, 30-zones, traffic calming  Alcohol – General and special (young, professional, recidivist etc.) BAC limits, drugs, devices used 30 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region  Restraint systems – Front seat, rear seat, helmets for riders/passengers and bicycles, child systems  Penalties – Average fines, demerit points, suspensions, rehabilitation  Campaigns – Targeting, coordination with enforcement  Controls – Number of controls performed per type  Systems – Utilization of automatic enforcement Data are under collection and will be analyzed and used for the enhancement of road safety country profiles, as well as for benchmarking & comparison of performance – eventually linked to actions for improving enforcement in the EaP countries. 3.1.4. Infrastructure safety assessment – The EU Road Safety Directive The benchmarking survey on implementation of EU road safety Directive measures in each of the EaP countries was conducted by the WB team in two rounds. Initially, a quantitative survey was conducted, where EaP countries self-reported the degree to which the introduction of individual measures from the EU 2008/96 Directive on road infrastructure safety has been achieved. Results of this survey were presented and discussed in the March 2018 meeting of WG3. Subsequently, an additional qualitative survey was produced by the Bank team, focusing on the four main tools of Road Safety Audit (RSA), Inspection (RSI), Impact Assessment (RSIA) and Blackspot Management (BSM) and aiming at a closer understanding of the current situation. As regards blackspot management, Belarus (average 79%) & Armenia (78%) report being the most advanced, while Moldova (19%) & Ukraine (16%) the least.  Belarus mentioned existence of guideline (technical code) TCP 586-2016 defining a.o.t. “areas of concentration of traffic accidents”, including methodology and formula, performed by RUE Beldorcenter (under Ministry of Transport and Communications). Criteria include road class; 3-year no. of accidents; AADT; base length of 1 km. Road administrations are in possession of the data needed. There is no separate budget for road safety (maintenance budget is used); road managers plan remedial works annually (also consulting police).  Ukraine mentioned the SOU 45.2-00018112-007:2008 (Standard) defining procedure. Methodology for definition specifies a minimum of 12 accidents over a “specified period”. Ukravtodor is in possession of the data needed. Road safety budget was introduced from 2018 (road fund). Remedial works planned annually in coordination with police.  Georgia stated that a method is under preparation but there is an ongoing remedial program worth 4.1 mn GEL for 18 road sections. Otherwise, there is no regular safety budget (it is included in maintenance / rehab / reconstruction). Nevertheless, the national road administration is in possession of data, which it receives from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. As regards the key measures of the EU Directive, road safety inspection (RSI) was reported as the most familiar measure (average rating of 55%), followed by impact assessment (RSIA, 49%) and lastly audit (RSA, 46%). On road safety inspection (RSI):  Azerbaijan declares the highest familiarity with RSI (88%), followed by Belarus (70%). In contrast, Ukraine’s self-rating is extremely low (average under 1%)  Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine perform seasonal inspections (with RSI elements, but no explicit procedure and no specified budget) twice a year, with participation of police 31 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region  In Belarus, RSI is part of the seasonal inspection routine (twice/yr), carried out under technical code 604-2017, with participation of police, environmental authorities and RUE Beldorcenter. There is no dedicated budget and no requirement for explicit follow-up.  In Moldova, inspections are performed twice a year; RSI is performed by order of the Ministry of Economy and Infrastructure, by State Road Administration jointly with police. Administration solely decides on follow-up. No dedicated budget.  In Ukraine, inspections are performed twice a year; no separate RSI exists, but road owners appoint inspection commissions involving police and “other bodies”. No separate budget. Follow-up is made by road owner in agreement with national police.  In Georgia, there is an RSI manual and a dedicated budget (1.5 mn GEL in 2018) and it is required to perform RSI every 3-5 years. RSI is performed by the Road Safety and Organization Division of the Roads Department (for the upper two classes of road). On road safety impact assessment (RSIA):  Azerbaijan declares the highest familiarity with RSIA (88%), followed by Armenia (73%).  Ukraine has the lowest self-rating (zero), followed by Belarus (36%).  Inadequate qualitative info was elicited. On road safety audit (RSA):  Azerbaijan declares the highest familiarity with RSA (76%), followed by Georgia (63%). Ukraine has the lowest self-rating (2%), followed by Moldova (28%)  Georgia states that RSA is not mandatory but pre-opening audits (jointly with patrol police) and design audits are carried out on the order of the head of road department; guidelines exist and external auditors are used and there is follow-up  Moldova states that RSA is used only in IFI-financed road projects  Ukraine states that RSA is planned for introduction (draft amendment to roads law exists) 3.2. Country fiches The EaP countries have committed to improving the quality of systematic and consolidated data collection – and to reporting this data to the future Regional Road Safety Observatory – by endorsing the EaP Declaration on Road Safety in April 2018. The country profiles are focusing on the regional dimension of road safety with comparative data for 6 countries will foster exchange of expertise and good practices between the EaP countries. They are meant to help provide a more solid evidence base for decision makers to develop better policies and monitoring the progress; to ensure better coordination between the other IFI’s and donors’ activities; and to help towards better understanding of the main challenges for road safety in each country. As of March 2019, the “pilot” structure of the Road Safety Country Profiles has been developed. It contains the following elements: 1. Basic Data and Country Characteristics 2. Road Safety Data 3. Road Safety Performance Indicators – RSPIs 4. Road Safety Management Structure 32 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 5. Road Safety Funding Framework 6. Traffic Laws and Regulations 7. Enforcement 8. Road User Education and Training 9. Road User Behaviour 10. Infrastructure 11. Socio-economic costs 12. IFIs and Donor’s involvement Information collection by the Regional Working Groups and the World Bank team is underway. An inventory of all data collected to spot the serious gaps is under preparation. Subsequently, an optimal set of data for each of the EaP countries can be developed, so that the first drafts of the Country Profiles can be produced in the immediate future. The expected results include:  A “go-to” source for experts, providing an overview of the road safety situation in the EaP region and in each of the EaP countries  Comparative data for 6 EaP countries  Visually impactful fact sheets with a more detailed information available in the country sections  Simple data-base with all this info, which can become the seed for the future EaP Observatory 3.3. Priority horizontal activities The WB team also conducted a number of priority horizontal activities which also support the enhancement of the road safety knowledge base for the EaP countries. These include:  Concept development for the EaP Road Safety Observatory  Strengthening EaP road safety community through EaP online collaboration platform development  Facilitation of the EaP countries’ interface with EU institutions and IFIs on road safety  Monitoring of EaP national road safety action plans following the Ljubljana Declaration 3.3.1. Development of the EaP Road Safety Observatory Concept The establishment of the regional EaP Road Safety Observatory has been discussed with the EaP countries and its development is envisaged in the 2018 Ljubljana Declaration. Under the ongoing activities of the WB team on crash data systems analysis and recommendations for improvements, the concept and action plan for establishment and operation of the EaP Regional Road Safety Observatory (RSO) was prepared during 2018. The concept paper was planned to be presented at the occasion of the next EaP Transport Ministerial meeting during 2019 (tentative date). The main objectives of the RSO should be based on the coordination of strategies, action plans and initiatives in road safety at a regional level based on the generation of timely, objective and reliable 33 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region information that effectively contributes to achieving a reduction in road accidents in the EaP region. Initiatives undertaken within RSO are to bring knowledge, exchange of best experiences, different causes and alternatives of interventions and to obtain resources for the financing of necessary activities. One of the main tasks of EaP Road Safety Observatory will be collection, analysis and monitoring of road safety indicators and basic final outcomes within EaP. Benchmarking and country fiches (as described in sections 3.1 and 3.2 respectively) are essential inputs for the future EaP Road Safety Observatory as envisaged in the 2018 Ljubljana Declaration. These collected data can be later used as inputs to international databases such as IRTAD. 3.3.2. EaP online collaboration platform development As a first step towards collaboration and dissemination on road safety, to integrate existing available information as currently available prior to the establishment of the Observatory, the WB team has initiated development of a road safety subpage at the EaP collaboration platform, accessible at the following address: https://collaboration.worldbank.org/content/sites/collaboration-for- development/en/groups/eastern-partnership-transport-panel/groups/road-safety.html This online collaboration platform serves as a knowledge hub for all community members and is used to facilitate virtual discussions on major ongoing activities. Site is accessible to WB staff and external members and consists of 3 main elements: a homepage with e-library of 250+ documents collected from all EaP members, a road safety subpage and virtual discussions forums. Apart of the EaP portal community members have access to a dedicated EaP shared knowledge folder on OneDrive. The road safety subpage should serve the following objectives:  Present the road safety situation and trends at national and regional level through the use of text, graphs, tables and maps;  Provide a space for interaction with stakeholders and networking of national road safety experts in the EaP countries;  Collect road safety data from various national and international sources;  Facilitate exchange of knowledge on road safety problems and solutions and on successful and unsuccessful practices in the EaP countries. The action plan for its further development includes:  Website architecture and operational issues (preparing a RS site mock-up; redesigning navigation system and layout; fixing broken sections and links; verifying uploading documents; etc.)  Website content (detailed information about all WG meetings; updating of “Documents” and “Featured Content” folders; discussion forum enhancements) Figure 10 shows the starting page of the EaP Transport Panel platform, highlighting the link to the road safety section. 34 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Figure 10 - The EaP Transport Panel online platform with the highlighted link to the road safety subpage 3.3.3. Facilitating EaP countries’ interface with EU institutions and IFIs on road safety The World Bank Group is active in all six EaP countries, having country offices and a developed transport project portfolio, with lending and advisory operations in the road sector and in certain cases targeted road safety sub-components. Further to utilizing the Bank’s convening power in getting the EU Delegations and IFI representatives involved in the broader dialogue with EaP countries on transport and in particular on safety, the WB team has also sought the active participation of EU institutions and IFI representatives (primarily EIB and EBRD) in the Working Groups. EU Delegation representatives have attended a number of WG meetings; most recently, the EC DG NEAR representative participated in the October 2018 meetings. A crucial step towards a more substantial interaction between EaP countries, EU institutions and IFIs is expected as soon as the EaP countries have formulated specific action plans with prioritized hard and soft actions aimed at achieving road safety targets, including those in the focus areas of the cooperation framework. Ideally, EaP’s should be encouraged to involve the EU and main IFIs including the World Bank in a coordinated process of defining priority actions towards achieving the road safety targets, as part of 10-year action plans for the decade 2021-2030. 35 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Moreover, it is conceivable to introduce stronger mechanisms to enable more reliable implementation of requested road safety components, possibly in the form of indicators such as DLI's (Disbursement Linked Indicators) or RSPI (Road Safety Performance Indicators). This can provide additional incentives for EaP Countries to implement road safety features in more efficient way. 3.3.4. Monitoring of EaP national road safety action plans following the Ljubljana Declaration In the run-up to the October 2018 Working Group meetings, EaP countries were asked to demonstrate how their national road safety action plans are addressing the elements of the Ljubljana Declaration. Following the provision and subsequent refinement of such information, the WB team can recommend strategic-level enhancements to the action plans so that they will match the broader policy directions and thus increase the justification for EU / IFI funding. This action can provide the top-level input for the 2021-2030 road safety action plans. 36 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region [4] Action plan for improvement For each of the six focus areas, the cooperation framework was further subdivided into specific measures and actions, each with a corresponding timeline. The Working Groups were tasked with exploring and promoting the commitment of EaP countries to adopting improved practices in each focus area. Τhere were no formally set intermediate or specific quantified targets, nor adequate disaggregated data available in EaP that would allow a solid “results framework” during this phase. This would and should be possible after specific actions have been selected for implementation subsequently. 4.1. Management and coordination – Lead entities Definition of a lead operational entity for “fully implementing road safety policies” in each EaP country is among the commitments made in the 2018 Ljubljana declaration, as are national road safety strategies / action plans and provision of sufficient resources. All countries have their high-level coordination structure for road safety. However, not all have an active lead entity. Where this exists (as in Azerbaijan, Belarus and Georgia), it is in the form of a Ministry with general responsibility to implement the national action plan. Action plans or safety concepts are in place in most countries, with only certain ones (Belarus, Ukraine) having introduced -at least nominally- dedicated road safety funds. Across the EaP region, there is no clear example of an implementation structure where the responsible entity has the power to manage a dedicated road safety budget and is accountable for implementing and monitoring road safety action plans. 4.1.1. Progress on the cooperation framework The supporting measures, actions and corresponding timelines are detailed in Table 3. 37 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Table 3 - Measures, actions and timelines for management, coordination and lead entities Measure Actions by Timeline Status (end March 2019) EaP countries Establish a high-level coordination structure Assure the End of The Coordination structures (road safety council / committee) in each structures are 2018 are in place in each of the EaP EaP country, to set strategic direction, in place and countries. coordinate policies and programs and meeting monitor progress in engagement of the regularly. government administrations and other road safety stakeholders towards achievement of the national road safety goals. Establish a full-time permanent executive Assure the End of Lead Entities exist at least Road Safety Lead Entity / Secretariat operational 2019 nominally, as detailed in the responsible for stimulating and supporting structures are relevant benchmarking implementation of policies and programs, in place and section. In certain countries continuous detailed monitoring of progress, meeting these bodies are operational coordinating analytical work and necessary regularly. (e.g. Georgia, Azerbaijan, decision-making process. Belarus), while in the rest they are inactive. Review of the national road safety policies Undertake Mid-2019 Ukraine: strategy and action and legislation to support implementation reviews with plan in place. of the “best practice” road safety laws support from Georgia: strategy adopted in supporting the general casualty reduction IFIs 2016. target of 25% by year 2020. Armenia: 5-year road safety action plan expected for approval in 2019 Belarus: 2016-2020 “road safety concept” Establish Sustainable Funding Mechanisms Stabilize End of Belarus has a “fund of to ensure provision of funding for road financing for 2019 preventive measures” in safety and that adequate resources are road safety addition to standard allocated to national road injury prevention budgets. Ukraine has programmes. decreed that 5% of the Road Fund’s proceeds are to be dedicated to road safety, but this has not been fully applied yet. 38 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 4.2. Crash Data Systems Reliable crash data databases are key to the success in defining, implementing and evaluating road safety programs and action plans. The Common Accident Data Set (CADaS) has been established as the European Union’s standard for comparable road accident data across Europe, providing a protocol for the layout of data records to be transferred to the EU’s common road crash database (CARE). The 2018 Ljubljana Declaration calls for compliance with “best EU and international practices” and improvement of data quality as well as reporting to the future Regional Observatory. In alignment to this goal, the WB team is working together with the six EaP countries on identifying the current degree of convergence with CADaS and the steps needed to achieve full compatibility. The current activity of the WB team aimed to develop detailed action plans and suggest improvements in regulations and practices in all EaP countries primarily regarding crash data-base systems, but also wider understood road safety data systems, including: development CADaS-based data sets and structures required for stakeholders, improving access by stakeholders and general public (following open data principles) and facilitate regular collection procedure of key data by each EaP country for national policies and programs and across all the EaP countries for regional and global comparisons and benchmarking. The activities focused mainly on recommendations for improvement of the system in all aspects, starting from legislation, via recognition of the main road safety stakeholders in charge for collecting the data and recognition of institution in charge of development of national road safety information systems (databases) in all EaP countries. Assessment of the road safety database system and recommendations for improvement are presented in Country Notes related to road safety database systems in all EaP countries. Outputs produced include:  Country Notes for all 6 EaP countries  General Guidelines for road accident data collection in accordance with CADaS  Each of the EaP countries assisted in development of the national level action plans for improvements in database systems based on produced recommendations Each of the EaP countries assisted in preparation of pilot project for crash data collection in accordance with CADaS  Concept and action plan for establishment of the EaP Regional Road Safety Observatory using CADaS standards, including cost estimate for its establishment 39 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 4.2.1. Progress on the cooperation framework The supporting measures, actions and corresponding timelines are shown in Table 4. Table 4 - Measures, actions and timelines for crash data Measure Actions by Timeline Status (end March 2019) EaP countries Develop and adopt detailed regulations in Initiate End of See relevant benchmarking each EaPC on crash data-base including: implementation 2018 section. CADaS-based data sets and structures of action plans required for stakeholders, access by ToR has been developed for stakeholders and general public (following priority project. open data principles) and collection procedure across the country Two rounds of technical Establish effective data analysis and Assure regular Mid-2019 discussions held with the key management system to ensure usage of the analysis and stakeholders in each of the crash data analysis in the determination of management of EaP countries policy measures, allocation of resources data. and measuring the progress Completed analysis of Adopt detailed concept and action plan for Decide on Mid-2019 existing crash data form per establishment of the EaP Regional Road establishment country and comparison Safety Observatory using CADaS standards of EaP with CADaS to allow regular monitoring of EaP Observatory countries’ road safety performance and and initiate cross-country comparisons preparatory works (with IFIs support) 4.2.2. Quick wins - Priority project: Road safety performance indicators collection The priority project selected is titled “Monitoring of Safety Performance Indicators – Benchmarking of road safety progress”. Its objective is to develop more effective road safety strategies and action plans for monitoring progress, helping the EaP countries towards use of evidence-based and data-driven approach to road safety management. It is aimed at introducing the usage of safety performance indicators and benchmarking of road safety progress to track the development of road safety in the EaP countries and provide a better understanding of areas where they can direct much more activities and efforts to improve the road safety situation. Specific tasks of the project include: [1] Establishment of a methodological approach for safety performance indicators (SPIs) data collection [2] Applying methodological approach for benchmarking road safety performance of countries [3] SPI data collection pilot project on observed proposed area (city or municipality) [4] Implementation of benchmarking model with data collection for assessment and monitoring of road traffic safety performance of the country [5] Analysis, publishing and addressing of SPI data collection results and benchmarking results in practice – Sharing the data An advanced draft of the ToR detailing all tasks as well as possible timelines and qualifications was presented at the October 2018 WG1 meeting. The members of the WG have undertaken to propose 40 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region both overall modifications – that can be potentially useful to all six EaP countries – and specific tailoring to the needs of each country. EaP countries are also expected to provide an indicative timeline for the procurement and implementation of the project. 4.3. Speed management and enforcement With the recent exception of Ukraine, none of the EaP countries follow the standard European practice of specifying 50 km/h as the standard speed limit within towns – persisting in a 60 km/h limit. Applying this basic measure throughout the EaP region – at a time when EU countries are increasingly adopting even lower limits to cover residential and other sensitive areas – will be a positive signal of attributing higher priority to safety concerns. Countries need to perform reviews of their speed limits at least on the core national networks such as the indicative TEN-T extensions. Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) is systematically implemented in certain countries, most notably Belarus – where the National Photo Enforcement and Traffic Monitoring System in place since 2012. A typical challenge is the coordination between infrastructure managing entities and enforcement agencies (police), since automated enforcement is an area where both have a role. A more general issue is the reported lack of capacities for traffic enforcement among police forces; technology allows for automated enforcement in many domains, which can provide increased efficiency, if accompanied by an adequate legal framework. The examples of implementation shown in section 4.3.3 are useful in identifying parameters and stakeholders involved in this process. A comprehensive benchmarking on enforcement -covering speeding, alcohol and restraint systems- is underway. Traffic calming focused on schools, hospitals and residential areas has been identified by a majority of countries as a priority action. Most EaP countries already apply policies of going one or several 10- km/h steps below the standard speed limit in such areas. Systematizing regulations and standards, tailoring practices and creating a traffic-calming “culture” is, at best, in early stages. 41 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 4.3.1. Progress on the cooperation framework The supporting measures, actions and corresponding timelines are shown in Table 5. Table 5 - Measures, actions and timelines for speed management and enforcement Measure Actions by EaP Timeline Status (end March 2019) countries Implement improved speed enforcement Initiate regular End of To be developed. based on the Safe System Approach to speed monitoring of 2019 management, involving cooperation speed on the between key stakeholders and different networks and mutually reinforcing measures, including enforcement proper Info & communication on at least scale and core road transport networks, including efficiency. extensions of TEN-T in all EaP countries. - Initiate implementation of action plans for improvement of speed enforcement Review speed limits at least on core road Review speed Mid-2019 To be developed. network to reflect road function, traffic limits at least on conditions and safety of vulnerable users to the core lead to reduction of casualties and vehicle networks emissions. Introduce traffic calming measures to lower Develop and Mid-2019 ToR prepared by WB team speed below 50 km/h limit near schools, begin as a priority project for EaP hospitals and in residential areas. implementing countries (sub)programs of improving safety in sensitive areas Wider use of engineering and infrastructure Promote use of Mid-2019 Ukraine: traffic calming related speed management solutions by all infrastructure included in new EaP countries (in cooperation with WG3 – solutions to infrastructure standards. Infrastructure Safety) manage speed An EIB urban road safety project is a good example. Assure necessary legislation, equipment, Undertake Mid-2019 Workshop organized in procedures and training for Police to be able comprehensive October 2018 WG to undertake regular speed enforcement. projects (with meetings. Concept to be support of IFIs) developed in 2019. to strengthen speed management systems. 4.3.2. Quick wins - Priority project: Traffic calming measures around schools The priority project selected is titled “Introduction of traffic calming measures to lower speed below 50 km/h limit near schools, hospitals or in residential areas”. Its objective is to go one step below the “standard” (typically 50 km/h) limit in selected areas (indicatively: around schools, hospitals or residential areas) by introducing traffic calming measures. Specific tasks of the project include: [1] Preparation of a “practical guide” 42 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region [2] Review and update of legislation and regulations [3] Pilot testing in at least 5 different situations [4] Preparation of typical technical specifications for traffic calming [5] Development of training courses curriculum [6] Collection of information for a traffic calming works sub-program (annual, then multi-annual) [7] Preparation of promotion, possibly with local authorities [8] Review safety impact of traffic calming measures An advanced draft of the ToR detailing all tasks as well as possible timelines and qualifications was presented at the October 2018 WG2 meeting. The members of the WG have undertaken to propose both overall modifications – that can be potentially useful to all six EaP countries – and specific tailoring to the needs of each country. EaP countries are also expected to provide an indicative timeline for the procurement and implementation of the project. 4.4. Seatbelt enforcement The ongoing WB work related to comprehensive benchmarking on enforcement -covering speeding, alcohol and restraint systems- is to cover also seatbelt use. The 2018 Ljubljana Declaration actually makes two references to seatbelts: Not only should occupants be required to use them as well as other restraint systems – and punished if not – but it is also a factor of vehicle roadworthiness. The Bank team emphasizes the need for reliance on a mix of communication and enforcement, as opposed to campaigns alone. A mature system will not need to advertise enforcement as it should be a normal and consistent occurrence. However, in the transition phase EaP countries may find benefits in undertaking annual combined campaigns consisting of communication and enforcement elements. The role of civil society, as for example in the case of road safety-related NGOs (active in Ukraine and Belarus), should not be underestimated. 43 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 4.4.1. Progress on the cooperation framework The supporting measures, actions and corresponding timelines are shown in Table 6. Table 6 - Measures, actions and timelines for seatbelt enforcement Measure Actions by Timeline Status (end March 2019) EaP countries Improve Police practices and procedures Improve Mid-2019 Azerbaijan: detection made used for enforcing seatbelt use promotion and by automatic and manual enforcement means of seatbelt use Improve communication related to Initiate regular Mid-2019 To be developed. seatbelts use and enforcement monitoring of seatbelt use and enforcement scale and efficiency. Undertake at least one combined seatbelt Run regular Mid-2019 To be developed. enforcement and communications coordinated campaign annually in each EaPC. information and enforcement campaigns on seatbelt use Involve professional road user groups Improve End of 2018 Initial contacts have been (public admin, emergency services, involvement of made with civil society Police, bus, taxi) NGOs and celebrities in key social organizations in Ukraine and promoting seatbelt use groups in their Belarus. promotion and enforcement of seatbelt use Adopt legislation reinforcing seatbelt use Adopt End of 2018 Ukraine has increased the at front- and backseats legislation on fine for non-use of seatbelts. seatbelt use In Azerbaijan rear seatbelt and fitting has been obligatory enforcement since 1998. 44 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 4.5. Infrastructure safety assessment None of the EaP countries has adopted the measures recommended in the European Road Safety Directive (EU 2008/96) -nor the Directive per se- in a systematic way. However, all EaP countries have some familiarity with at least two of its tools. Road Safety Inspection (RSI) is a procedure already formally applied in Georgia and can be developed also in other countries through a substantial enhancement of the already-implemented routine (maintenance) inspections, to introduce additional requirements on expertise and focus. Road safety audit (RSA) is typically a feature of IFI-funded investment projects; certain countries (e.g. Ukraine) are moving towards introduction of regular safety auditor functions and processes. As the European Commission is recommending to continue using the tools of the Directive and to broaden their application also outside the TEN-T core, it will be important for EaP countries to continue with formal introduction, coupled with domestic capacity building (training of auditors and inspectors). As a minimum, RSA and RSI should be institutionalized, as they cover the majority of phases in a project’s lifetime (all the way from design through operation). To include the initial stage of prioritization among projects, a process such as Road Safety Impact Assessment (RSIA) -or similar tools allowing identification of impacts at an early stage- should also be introduced, possibly in the context of the Investment Action Plan. 45 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 4.5.1. Progress on the cooperation framework The supporting measures, actions and corresponding timelines are shown in Table 7. Table 7 - Measures, actions and timelines for infrastructure safety assessment Measure Actions by EaP Timeline Status (end March 2019) countries Identify which road infra Commit and begin End of Identification has been made procedures from the Directive introduction of the 2018 by the Transport Panel as 2008/96 and how effectively are Directive 2008/96 into per relevant benchmarking. used in EaP countries legislation and practice No country has yet initiated formal adoption of the Directive. Assuring that key procedures of Introduce (with IFIs Mid-2019 There is a relatively good the Directive EC 96/2008 are support) at least Road familiarity with processes formally introduced in the Safety Audit, Road Safety (esp. RSA in IFI-funded country with emphasis on: Road Impact Assessment and projects and RSI due to Safety Audit, Road Safety Impact Road Safety Inspection similarity with maintenance Assessment and Road Safety into national systems. inspections) but limited Inspection formal introduction of the The system for professional Decide on and introduce End of- processes in national training and certification for road certification for road safety 2019 systems, with the exception safety auditors/inspectors auditors/inspectors in line of Georgia (RSI being established in all EaP countries. with the Directive 2008/96 mandatory) and Ukraine into their legislation and (establishing auditor practice. function and planning RSA At least one group of Organize (with IFIs End of introduction). Additional professional auditors and support) at least one 2019 attention is needed for inspectors from among designers training for a group of implementing RSIA. and road administration designers and road employees trained engineers Safety impact identified Analyse safety impact End of A proposed priority activity (preferably quantified) for at assessment for at least one 2018 for 2019. Demo of RSSAT least one priority road of the priority project from presented as an alternative investment project per each extension of TEN-T in WG3 October 2018 EaPC country. network in their respective meeting. EaP countries countries as identified expected to identify project jointly with EC and TPS for applying RSIA or RSSAT. Road safety infrastructure Organize at least one End of No known plans. management techniques are event (with IFIs support) 2019 promoted for use on the for road infrastructure secondary road networks i.e. professionals promoting beyond just core national use of road infrastructure network safety measures on other than just core national network. 4.6. Blackspots Blackspot treatment is relatively familiar in EaP countries. Three countries (Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine) follow a systematic procedure for identifying and treating locations of high accident concentration. Although not mentioned as such, the process is implicit in the EU Directive in the network safety management module. Being a relatively low-cost investment, blackspot treatment has 46 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region been implemented using either domestic funds (portion of road sector budget) or specialized IFI- funded programs. A main challenge is blackspot identification, which to a large extent depends on the availability and quality of crash data, which should necessarily include precise location information. For this reason several EaP countries identified their preference to develop terms of reference for blackspot identification and treatment, as part of a priority project for the EaP WB team. The project covers not just the general procedural preparation and training, but also the very practical and substantial task of identifying a minimum of ten blackspot locations per country and designing/supervising their treatment. 47 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 4.6.1. Progress on the cooperation framework The supporting measures, actions and corresponding timelines are shown in Table 8. Table 8 - Measures, actions and timelines for blackspots Measure Actions by EaP countries Timeline Status (end March 2019) Identifying the degree of EaP countries to commit to Mid-2018 Part of the priority project preparation, implementation institute at least medium- under preparation. and sustainability of Black Spot term Black Spot type type programs in EaP countries programs. Accessibility of non- Each EaPC to assure End of confidential crash data to the efficient exchange of crash 2018 road administrations assured data between crash datra- base holder and road administration (with IFIs support), with emphasis on assuring reliable data on crash locations Identification of at least top ten Each EaPC to adopt End of blackspot locations in each EaP definitions and identify at 2018 country least top ten black spot locations for improving safety in short to medium- term. Initiating Black Spot type EaP countries to intitate Mid-2019 programs i.e. regular road regular monitoring and infrastructure safety publication of crash improvements on national road statistics on at least core network to address key black national road network. spots in the country, through Each EaPC to initiate procurement of relevant work implementation of action projects. plans for instituting Black Spot type program. Road safety criteria used by Assure that road safety is Mid-2019 To be developed, in road administrations in all EaP taken into account when conjunction with the RSIA / countries for road maintenance prioritizing investments and RSSAT assessment and investments projects maintenance activities on prioritizing resulting in the national road network dedicated Black Spot treatment by including road safety programs and/or regular criteria in their internal maintenance programs. needs assessment practices and procedures. 4.6.2. Quick wins - Priority project: Identification of top ten blackspot locations The priority project selected is titled “Identification of at least top ten blackspot locations in each EaP country and initiation of blackspot improvement programs”. The main objective is to establish blackspot management (BSM) as a regular procedure and identify 10 blackspots per EaP country, as well as prepare a national program for improvements (remedy measures with action plan for implementation). Specific tasks of the project include: [1] Adoption of definitions of black spots (BS) at national level, harmonized if possible. 48 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region [2] Identification of initial broader set of potential BS list (pre-identified locations), based primarily on crash data, regardless of the causes of accidents. [3] Second-level analysis of pre-identified locations where locations with local road conditions as contributing factor to crashes are selected. [4] Preparation of final list of BS (selection of at least 10 locations for improvement). [5] Proposed treatments of BS (with preferably low-cost and high-effectiveness measures). [6] Preparation of draft bidding documents for detailed design and improvement works on BS. [7] Preparation of costed and timed national program (action plan) for BS improvement. [8] Proposal of evaluation of implemented measures on locations and national programs. An advanced draft of the ToR detailing all tasks as well as possible timelines and qualifications was presented at the October 2018 WG3 meeting. The members of the WG proposed both overall modifications – that can be potentially useful to all six EaP countries – and specific tailoring to the needs of each country. EaP countries are also expected to provide an indicative timeline for the procurement and implementation of the project. 49 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region [5] Achievements So Far and Next Steps 5.1. Summary of the achievements so far The six EaP countries have cooperated, with the support of the European Commission and the Transport Panel Secretariat (World Bank team), in a joint effort to share experiences and knowledge, understand the current situation in the region regarding specific road safety issues - and seek focused and substantial improvements for the immediate and near future. The early part of the common work, starting in the middle of 2017, has helped shape the 2018 Ljubljana Declaration, which sets out the guiding principles for achieving ambitious targets in reducing road traffic fatalities and injuries across the region. In the field of management and coordination (incl. lead entities), the EaP countries have confirmed the presence of high-level coordination structures and, in certain cases, of operational lead entities with the mandate to fully implement road safety policies. Countries where operational lead entities are not in place have committed to introducing them and, importantly, to vesting them with authority and accountability for implementation of road safety action plans (and not just safety concepts). Secured funding for road safety needs to be ensured everywhere through the vehicles deemed suitable in each EaP country – as not all may want to select the road fund approach. Regarding crash data, the EaP countries are working together with the WB team on identifying the current degree of convergence with the EU’s Common Accident Data Set (CADaS) and the steps needed to improve the current national crash data systems. All countries have organized databases, but these have different levels of compliance with CADaS. Older structures have no GIS interface, which is a problem when it comes to identification of high-risk sections and blackspots. Compatible databases will facilitate the reporting to the future regional Road Safety Observatory – similarly to the way CADaS does the same within EU for its CARE database. Speed management and enforcement has a regulatory and a technical dimension. At the regulatory level, Ukraine is leading the way for convergence with the European norm of 50 km/h limits within towns, which is recommended for all other EaP countries still applying 60 km/h. At the technical level, the implementation of automated speed enforcement in Belarus presents a valuable case study for addressing the issues of importance to infrastructure managers and police authorities (as well as their interface). Also, the WB team is working with EaP countries on developing traffic calming specifications and pilot testing in representative urban areas, to induce speeds below the standard limit. A comprehensive benchmarking on enforcement is also underway to be prepared by the WB team, covering not only speed enforcement but also alcohol and restraint systems. Seatbelt use is prominent in the 2018 Ljubljana Declaration, both in terms of usage/enforcement and as a basic factor of vehicle roadworthiness. The involvement of NGOs for road safety -with active examples in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova- is a welcome development with a potentially high-impact role in the development of mixed communication/enforcement campaigns as a first step (while systematization of enforcement is to be developed). On infrastructure assessment, all EaP countries have some familiarity with at least two of the tools foreseen by the EU Road Safety Directive (2008/96), namely Road Safety Inspection (RSI) and Road Safety Audit (RSA). As the Directive is expected to remain a key element of reference in the European road safety domain, RSA and RSI should be institutionalized, with formal introduction in parallel with development of domestic capacity building through certification and training. The WB team is 50 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region preparing together with the EaP countries for the piloting and eventual inclusion of additional tools such as Road Safety Impact Assessment (RSIA) -or other tools allowing identification of impacts at an early stage, for prioritization (e.g. in the Investment Action Plan). Finally, blackspot treatment is relatively familiar in EaP countries; at least three EaP countries follow a systematic procedure for identifying and treating locations of high accident concentration. Being a relatively low-cost investment, blackspot treatment has been implemented using either domestic funds (portion of road sector budget) or specialized IFI-funded programs. The WB team is working with the EaP countries on terms of reference for blackspot identification and treatment, as a priority project – covering procedures as well as the practical task of identifying a minimum of ten blackspot locations per country and designing/supervising their treatment. 5.2. Future actions for the short term – Year 2020 5.2.1. Implementation of priority projects and other selected actions In the course of the Working Group activities, the six EaP countries have committed themselves to implementing priority projects aimed at establishing quick wins in a targeted selection of focus areas. With just over two years ahead of the target date (end 2020) for the bold 25% reduction of road traffic fatalities, it is imperative that EaP countries define in early 2019 concrete (costed and timed) plans for immediate implementation of the selected priority projects and other key actions, namely:  Definition of operational lead entities and publication of road safety strategies / action plans  Defining and monitoring safety performance indicators (priority project)  Introduction of 50 km/h speed limit  Introducing traffic calming with reduced speed limits (below 50 kph) in residential areas and around schools and hospitals (priority project)  Benchmarking for enforcement  Application of Road Safety Impact Assessment or similar early-assessment tool for projects included in the Investment Action Plan  Identifying top ten blackspots and initiating national blackspot treatment programs (priority project) 5.2.2. Creation of the EaP road safety observatory to support data-driven decision-making The EaP road safety observatory can be the equivalent of the EU’s corresponding tool (the ERSO) in EaP countries. The types, sources and uses of data needed to support factually-substantiated decision- making are being identified through different activities of the WB teams (together with the Working Groups). The concept and design of the observatory requires focused specific work that can be undertaken in subsequent phases of the current engagement or its possible extension. The observatory needs to be the authoritative reference point of the EaP countries as well as the EU, IFIs, civil society as well as all types of professionals and institutions active in the field of road safety. Solid data sets are also an important tool in the EaP countries’ aspiration for improved technical capacities. 5.2.3. Refinement and implementation of the cooperation framework Besides continuing and strengthening the already-achieved steps, EaP countries will need to reconfirm and possibly refine during 2019 the part of the cooperation framework that hasn’t already commenced, by taking into account: 51 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region  The relevance and potential impact of each individual activity for achieving the targets for 2020 and for the countries’ own individual strategies / action plans.  Realistic timelines and budgets, funding possibilities and implementation requirements for each of the activities. Depending on the assessment, the content of the cooperation framework can be adapted. Depending on possible arrangements for extending its support, the WB team will provide support to the development and implementation of specific priority projects and activities. 5.3. Future actions for the long term – Year 2030 In the long run, all the EaP countries should remain committed to the imminent target, aiming to develop action plans for the decade 2021-2030 – if need be by adapting and extending any strategies / plans already in force. Ideally these plans should be:  Structured on the basis of the Ljubljana declaration, including compatible quantified targets  Cover comprehensively all factors contributing to road safety, with hard and soft measures (including the prioritized investments and priority projects identified in this work)  Steered by the coordinating entity at the political level and led by the lead agencies  Inclusive of all stakeholders including civil society, ideally through local road safety councils  Monitored and assessed using commonly-agreed data structures (primarily CADaS) and eventually by means of the EaP road safety observatory  Shared and discussed at the EaP level through a permanent, evolved version of the Working Groups  Featuring prioritized actions at the national level, defined in cooperation with the EU institutions and main IFIs 5.4. Sustainability: Steering and monitoring Among priority projects, it can be reasonably claimed that the work on crash data reporting and quality, to be followed up by the creation of the EaP Road Safety Observatory, is a highly important tool towards the steering and monitoring of progress on road safety towards the 2030 horizon. Reliable and comparable data are key, among other things, for defining baseline and target indicators for road safety performance. Commitments at the highest political level need to include quantitative and qualitative objectives, both at regional level and for individual countries or groups thereof. Permanent (i.e. standing) working group arrangements are needed for the technical monitoring and steering of selected actions and projects. Annual official reporting of progress to the European Commission should be accompanied by publicly-accessible dissemination to stakeholders, civil society and the general public. Such reporting should include technical as well as financial information. A mid- term review is recommended as a minimum occasion of interim assessment and possible redefinition of the ten-year EaP road safety action plan. Finally, additional engagement of the EU and IFI's (WB, EIB, EBRD, etc.) within transport projects in all EaP countries regarding road safety issues will enable strong support to road safety components of all future Projects. Introduction of performance indicators within transport-related projects can have significant impact towards improvement and better management of the road safety situation in the countries. 52 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 53 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Annexes 54 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region [A] Benchmarking tables and charts 55 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region A.1 – Road infrastructure safety measures – EU Directive (Working Group 3) AVERAGE Initial benchmarking March 2018 EaP Objectives and desired outcomes Impact Indicators used ARM AZE BLR GEO MDA UKR AVE 1. Legal basis for RSIA exists 90 95 25 60 70 0 57 2. Adequate RSIA manual in official use 80 95 70 60 5 0 52 3. Trained staff for RSIA available 60 50 30 50 30 0 37 2.1. Implementation of road safety 4. Road Authorities have a budget to purchase RSIA 50 95 15 15 40 0 36 impact assessment (RSIA) 5. All Major new roads and reconstructions passed RSIA 75 95 25 80 50 0 54 procedure 6. RSIA Recommendations being accepted in feasibility 80 95 50 30 100 0 59 stage 1. Legal basis for RSA exists 85 50 40 80 80 0 56 2. Adequate RSA manual in official use 95 70 70 80 5 0 53 3. Trained road safety auditors available 25 50 30 50 30 5 32 2.2. Implementation of road safety 4. Road Authorities have budget to purchase RSA 25 95 30 10 5 0 28 audit (RSA) 5. All new, reconstructed and rehabilitated roads being 50 95 60 80 30 5 53 safely audited 6. RSA Recommendations being implemented by Roads 80 95 50 80 20 0 54 Authority 2.3. Implementation of road safety 1. Legal basis for RSI exists 75 95 80 80 70 0 67 inspection (RSI)* 2. Adequate RSI manual in official use 65 95 80 80 50 0 62 3. Trained road safety inspectors available 60 95 50 50 30 5 48 *NOTE: 4. Road Authorities have budget to purchase RSI 50 95 50 20 5 0 37 RSI is a procedure similar to RSA, 5. Roads systematically being inspected 70 95 80 80 50 0 63 but relates to existing roads. Usual work of state inspectors or traffic 6. RSI Recommendations being implemented by Roads police is just a small part of the 80 50 80 80 50 0 57 Authority RSI’s full scope. 1. Legal basis for BSM exists 60 50 90 30 10 20 43 2. Adequate BSM Manual in official use 50 35 90 50 5 30 43 3. Clear definition (criteria) of black spot exists 80 80 90 50 20 30 58 4. Trained black spot investigators available 80 80 70 30 30 5 49 2.4. Black spot treatment (Black 5. Annual black spot improvement program in place 95 75 70 30 5 20 49 Spot Management) - BSM 6. Road Authorities have dedicated funds for BSM 90 50 70 20 10 5 41 improvements 7. BSM recommendations being implemented by Roads 90 70 70 50 50 5 56 Authority AVERAGE June 2018 Update EaP Objectives and desired outcomes Impact Indicators used ARM AZE BLR GEO MDA UKR AVE 1. Legal basis for RSIA exists 90 95 5 5 5 5 57 2. Adequate RSIA manual in official use 80 95 5 5 5 5 52 3. Trained staff for RSIA available 60 50 5 5 10 5 37 2.1. Implementation of road safety 4. Road Authorities have a budget to purchase RSIA 50 95 5 5 5 5 36 impact assessment (RSIA) 5. All Major new roads and reconstructions passed RSIA 75 95 5 5 5 5 54 procedure 6. RSIA Recommendations being accepted in feasibility 80 95 5 5 5 5 59 stage 1. Legal basis for RSA exists 85 50 5 30 5 5 56 2. Adequate RSA manual in official use 95 70 5 85 5 5 53 3. Trained road safety auditors available 25 50 5 50 30 15 32 2.2. Implementation of road safety 4. Road Authorities have budget to purchase RSA 25 95 5 10 5 5 28 audit (RSA) 5. All new, reconstructed and rehabilitated roads being 50 95 5 10 25 5 53 safely audited 6. RSA Recommendations being implemented by Roads 80 95 5 50 20 5 54 Authority 2.3. Implementation of road safety 1. Legal basis for RSI exists 75 95 25 75 85 5 67 inspection (RSI)* 2. Adequate RSI manual in official use 65 95 25 80 20 5 62 3. Trained road safety inspectors available 60 95 25 50 30 10 48 *NOTE: 4. Road Authorities have budget to purchase RSI 50 95 75 20 5 5 37 RSI is a procedure similar to RSA, 5. Roads systematically being inspected 70 95 75 75 35 5 63 but relates to existing roads. Usual work of state inspectors or traffic 6. RSI Recommendations being implemented by Roads police is just a small part of the 80 50 75 80 50 5 57 Authority RSI’s full scope. 1. Legal basis for BSM exists 60 50 90 10 10 50 43 2. Adequate BSM Manual in official use 50 35 75 70 5 85 43 3. Clear definition (criteria) of black spot exists 80 80 85 10 20 85 58 4. Trained black spot investigators available 80 80 70 40 30 20 49 2.4. Black spot treatment (Black 5. Annual black spot improvement program in place 95 75 70 75 5 20 49 Spot Management) - BSM 6. Road Authorities have dedicated funds for BSM 90 50 70 50 10 5 41 improvements 7. BSM recommendations being implemented by Roads 90 70 70 70 50 5 56 Authority 56 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region [B] Details on priority projects B.1. Identification of priority projects within the Working Groups Based on the cooperation framework for the two focus areas of each WG, and the discussions of the first two WG meetings (December 2017 and March 2018), four potential quick wins were identified and formulated as “projects”, as detailed in the relevant sections. Countries’ representatives in the WG were asked to indicate their preference (or strong preference, as relevant) among the four projects. Tables B.1 to B.3 list the projects rated for the three WGs. For at least one of the projects, selected during the third meeting (June 2018) the WG’s would subsequently produce generic Terms of Reference (ToRs), to be later tailored where needed to individual countries’ needs before being used for the purpose of tendering. The WB team developed the first drafts of ToRs and presented them during the October 2018 meeting. The EaP countries are expected to indicate their plans for tendering and implementing the priority projects. Table B.1 - WG1 quick wins / potential priority projects WG 1 ARM AZE BEL GEO MD UKR Project 1: Project on crash data collection in + + + + + accordance with CADaS Project 2: Project on road safety performance + + ++ + + + indicators collection Project 3: Project on defining black spots and selecting priority locations for treatment Project 4: Accessibility of non-confidential crash data to road administrations, for effective + usage of analysis in road safety management Table B.2 - WG2 quick wins / potential priority projects WG 2 ARM AZE BEL GEO MD UKR Project 1: Review of speed limits on core road + + network Project 2: Introduction of traffic calming ++ + measures to lower speed below 50 km/h limit near schools, hospitals or in residential areas. Project 3: Definition of legal, institutional, + procedural and technical/training requirements supporting more regular and efficient speed enforcement by Police Project 4: Improving legislation and operational procedures reinforcing seatbelt use at front- and backseats 57 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Table B.3 - WG3 quick wins / potential priority projects WG 3 ARM AZE BEL GEO MD UKR Project 1: Accessibility of non-confidential + + crash data to road administrations, for effective usage of analysis in road safety management. Project 2: Identification of at least top ten + + blackspot locations in each EaP country and initiation of blackspot improvement programs. Project 3: Identification and quantification of ++ safety impacts for at least one priority road investment project in each EaP country. Project 4: Preparation for formal introduction of key EU Directive 2008/96 procedures in each EaP country - emphasis on Road Safety Inspection, Audit and Impact Assessment. 58 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region B.2. Detailed Terms of Reference B.2.1. Projects for WG1 PROJECT NO. 1: “PROJECT ON CRASH DATA COLLECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CADaS” 1. Introduction At the Ministerial meeting in Ljubljana on 27th April the six EaP countries have adopted the Eastern Partnership Declaration on Road Safety and have committed to adopting an aspirational target for reducing road fatalities by 25% between 2016 and 2020 and adopt the necessary targeted measures to reach this objective. Improving quality of systematic and consolidated data collection on road traffic deaths and serious road injuries in line with best EU and international practices has been identified as one of the priority activities for the EaP road safety cooperation. 2. Project objectives and expected outcomes To develop more effective road safety strategies and action plans and monitoring progress the EaP countries should consider using evidence-based and data-driven approach to road safety management. This new approach cannot be realized without high-quality road safety data. There is a need for improvement of current crash data system, the analyses of data and accessibility to such data by other stakeholders in the EaP countries. The proposed pilot project is aimed to implement data collection procedure in line with CADaS- based data sets and structures in one of the municipalities in the EaPC. The pilot project targets at least one municipality (police station and police officers in-charge for crash data collection in the chosen administrative unit – municipality or city) in each of the EaP countries. If successful in achieving the pilot project objectives, it is possible that the project may be extended to additional cities in further phases. The proposed pilot project will support improved crash data collection and analysis of data and will deliver the following outcomes:  Crash data collection in accordance with CADaS in the selected administrative unit (municipality or city)  Training of police officials to use new Crash Data Form and to collect crash data in accordance with CADaS  Improved coordination and exchange of data with the local road administrations to carry out road safety analysis and better understanding the road safety problems at the municipal level including development of enforcement and other activities based on data  Improved access to non-confidential police crash data by the other stakeholders Expected outputs of the pilot project are, as follows:  Guidelines for the pilot project implementation at the municipal level  Curriculum for the training of traffic police on data collection in accordance with CADaS and proper analysis/recognition of contributory factors  1-week training of traffic police officers (policemen) who will be in charge of the pilot project implementation (crash data collection in accordance with CADaS) and which could be used in 59 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region future for ‘Train the Trainers’ in the further process of implementation of CADaS in whole country.  Final Report on project implementation 3. Project scope Phase 1 – Selection of police stations which cover concreate administrative unit (municipality (-ies) or city) to participate in the pilot project implementation and identification of key project stakeholders. WB Team should prepare official letter (with all necessary details) to the Ministry of Interior and/or to the National (Traffic) police authority in each EaP country with request for involving chosen police station or police officers in charge of crash data collection in pilot project activities. The duration of Phase 1 will depend on the responsiveness of the EaP countries officials from the Ministry of Interior and/or National (Traffic) police. Phase 2 – Developing the pilot project action plan and agreeing it with the key project stakeholders Phase 3 – Conducting 1-week ‘Train the Trainers’ training of traffic police who will be in charge of the pilot project implementation Phase 4 – Launching pilot project in chosen police stations (municipalities – cities) and conducting road accident data collection in accordance with CADaS Phase 5 – Summarizing the project results and preparation of the Final Report 4. Organization and timeline The expected inputs of the EaP countries are as follows: • Nominate the responsible representative who will be responsible for the project coordination on a country level and the focal point for the WB Secretariat team. • Select the initial police station in municipality or city to participate in the pilot project implementation. • Provide GPS devices (or smartphones for the pilot project purposes) for road accident data collection for the pilot project. The expected inputs of the WB Secretariat team are as follows: • Guidelines for the pilot project implementation at the municipal level • Develop simplified Crash Data Form in accordance with CADaS • Develop Curriculum for the training of traffic police on data collection in accordance with CADaS and proper analysis/recognition of contributory factors (including presentations for the training course) • Conduct 1-week training of traffic police officers (policeman) who will be in charge of the pilot project implementation • Develop template of the Final Report Duration: 6 months 60 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region PROJECT NO. 2: “PROJECT ON ROAD SAFETY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS COLLECTION” 1. Introduction At the Ministerial meeting in Ljubljana on 27th April the six EaP countries have adopted the Eastern Partnership Declaration on Road Safety and have committed to adopting an aspirational target for reducing road fatalities by 25% between 2016 and 2020, and adopt the necessary targeted measures to reach this objective. Improving quality of systematic and consolidated data collection on road traffic deaths and serious road injuries in line with best EU and international practices has been identified as one of the priority activities for the EaP road safety cooperation. 2. Project objectives and expected outcomes To develop more effective road safety strategies and action plans and monitoring progress the EaP countries should consider using evidence-based and data-driven approach to road safety management. The proposed pilot project is aimed to introduce the usage of RSPIs to track the development of road safety in the EaP countries and better understanding the factors causing road crashes. The pilot project targets at least one municipality in each of the EaP countries. If successful in achieving the pilot project objectives, it is possible that the project may be extended to additional cities in further phases. The proposed pilot project will support collection of RSPIs and analysis of data and will deliver the following outcomes:  Collection of some RSPIs in the selected administrative unit (municipality or city)  Training of research institute or other responsible organization to collect RSPIs  Improved coordination and exchange of data with the police to better understanding the road safety problems at the municipal level including development of enforcement and other activities based on data Expected outputs of the pilot project are, as follows:  Guidelines for the RSPI pilot project implementation at the municipal level  Curriculum for the training on RSPI collection and analysis  2-day training of research institute or other organization who will oversee the pilot project implementation  Final Report on project implementation 3. Project scope Phase 1 – Selection of administrative unit (municipality (-ies) or city) to participate in the pilot project implementation and identification of key project stakeholders Phase 2 – Developing the pilot project action plan and agreeing it with the key project stakeholders Phase 3 – Conducting 2-day training of research institute or other organization who will be in charge of the pilot project implementation Phase 4 – Launching pilot project in the selected municipality/city 61 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region Phase 5 – Summarizing the project results and preparation of the Final Report 4. Organization and timeline The expected inputs of the EaP countries are as follows: • Nominate the responsible representative who will be responsible for the project coordination on a country level and the focal point for the WB Secretariat team • Select the initial municipality or city to participate in the pilot project implementation • Provide equipment needed for RSPIs collection for the pilot project The expected inputs of the WB Secretariat team are as follows: • Guidelines for the pilot project implementation at the municipal level • Develop Curriculum for the training for the training on RSPI collection and analysis • Conduct 2-day training of research institute or other organization who will be in charge of the pilot project implementation • Develop template of the Final Report Duration: 6 months 62 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region PROJECT NO. 3: “IDENTIFICATION OF AT LEAST TOP TEN BLACKSPOT LOCATIONS IN EACH EaP COUNTRY AND INITIATION OF BLACKSPOT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS” Objective Adoption of definitions for accident blackspots by all EaP countries. Analysis of crash data and identification of at least ten top blackspot locations in each EaP country for improving safety in the short / medium term. Development of action plans in all EaP countries for blackspot improvement programs. Initiation of implementation of blackspot programs through procurement of relevant works projects. [Tentative target: mid 2019] Scope of work  Definition of what constitutes an accident blackspot in all EaP countries o Consultation with national road administrations of all EaP countries  Identification of accident blackspots on the national road networks of all EaP countries o Collection of available data o Analysis of data o Consultation with national road administrations o Report on top ten blackspot locations  Development of national action plan for blackspot improvement programs o Proposal on methodology - Consultation with national road administrations o Costed proposal for multi-year blackspot improvement program o Identification of legal, procedural, administrative requirements for implementation in all EaP countries o Draft national action plans - Consultation with national, regional & local administrations o Final national action plans  Draft bidding documents for blackspot improvement works in all EaP countries Duration: 10 months 63 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region PROJECT NO. 4: “ACCESSIBILITY OF NON-CONFIDENTIAL CRASH DATA TO ROAD ADMINISTRATIONS, FOR EFFECTIVE USAGE OF ANALYSIS IN ROAD SAFETY MANAGEMENT” Objective Assistance to EaP countries in assuring efficient exchange of crash data between the crash database holders and the road administrations, with emphasis on assuring reliable data on crash locations. An effective data analysis and management system will ensure usage of the crash data analysis in the determination of policy measures, allocation of resources and measuring of progress. [Tentative target: end of 2018] Scope of work  Definition of data needs for accident analysis, blackspot identification and overall road safety management o Consultation with national road administrations of all EaP countries  Confirmation of relevant data availability in all EaP countries o Consultation with crash database holders  Definition of procedure for data exchange between crash database holder and national road administration o Legal framework examination in all EaP countries o Identification of any technical, administrative or other gaps and identification of timelines for their resolution o Formulation of protocols o Consultation with database holders and administrations in all EaP countries o Preparation of MoUs  Proposal for monitoring and publishing of crash statistics  Proposal for extension of procedure to regional and local road administrations Duration: 4 months 64 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region B.2.2. Projects for WG2 PROJECT NO. 1: Review speed limits on core road network. Objective and expected outcome Contributing to improving speed enforcement system by reviewing speed limits on the core road network in line with international good practice. Expected outcome: speed limits on all core roads reviewed and updated by mid-2019 Scope of work  Collection of good practices in setting speed limits for roads with different functions and adopting them to the structure of road network  Consultation and adoption of principles for speed limits by key stakeholders (national road administrations, Police, others)  Reviewing and if necessary updating legislation related to speed limits to reflect system approach and international good practice  Developing proposal for piloting review on selected part(s) of the network, including selection of network part(s) to be covered, organizational arrangement (identification of team composition, documentation requirements, schedules etc.)  Developing training program for staff undertaking the review  Undertaking pilot review(s)  Analyzing lessons from pilot review(s) and improving the review procedures and all associated arrangements  Roll out of the review on the complete network - it may be considered to be done as part of routine annual review of technical status of road network Organization and timeline:  Clearly attributed project management and organization needed  Legal speed limits to be preferably reviewed and if necessary modified (reduced) to internationally recognized safe levels for different types of roads  Reviews to be undertaken jointly by at least road administration and police specialists  Estimated duration: 4 months (2 months for design and piloting + 2 months full roll-out) – may take longer if legal procedures for modifying speed limits are required Minimum qualifications:  Team leader: Road safety policy/speed management specialist, minimum 10 y (5 years of international experience)  Team member: Road infra safety specialist, minimum 7 y (preferable in EaP countries)  Team member: Legal expert, minimum 5 y (preferable international) 65 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region PROJECT NO. 2: Introduction of traffic calming measures to lower speed below 50 km/h limit near schools, hospitals or in residential areas. Objective Contributing to improving speed management system by introducing traffic calming measures below 50 km/h limit in selected areas (around schools, hospitals or residential areas). Expected outcome: developing and beginning implementation of (sub)programs reducing speed in sensitive areas by mid-2019 Scope of work  Collection of good practices in traffic calming measures for sensitive areas and adopting them for use in the EaP country – in the form of manual or guideline  Reviewing and if necessary updating national or internal technical regulations to reflect proposed traffic calming measures  Selecting at least a few priority locations for piloting installation of traffic calming measures – preferably of different nature  Developing standard specifications and documents for tendering/contracting traffic calming improvements  Assuring funding for introduction of traffic calming measures in selected locations  Implementing traffic calming in selected locations  Developing promotion and training program for professionals designing and implementing traffic calming solutions – preferably with technical university  Collecting information on all sensitive locations requiring traffic calming on national road network  Preparing medium, long-term (sub)program of traffic calming in sensitive areas at least on national road network – it should preferably become part of regular annual work program  Preparing promotion of traffic calming measures on lower level roads – if applicable in cooperation with self-government partners  Undertaking reviews of impact of traffic calming measures on fatalities and injuries at specific locations Organization and timeline:  National road administration is expected to champion such project  Clear project management structure needed and cooperation with other institutions (Police, local road administrations, technical university)  Technical guidelines to be extensively promoted among private sector partners (designers, road safety inspectors etc.)  Estimated duration: 12 months (6 months for piloting in selected few locations + 6 months for broader roll-out on national network and promotion for use on lower level networks) Minimum qualifications:  Team leader: Road infra safety management specialist, minimum 10 y (5 years of international experience)  Team member: Road traffic management, minimum 5 y (preferable in EaP countries)  Team member: Civil engineer (specialized in traffic calming solutions), minimum 5 y (preferable international, including some EaP countries)  Team member: Legal expert, minimum 5 y (can be local) 66 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region PROJECT NO. 3: Definition of legal, institutional, procedural and technical/training requirements supporting more regular and efficient speed enforcement by Police. Objective Contributing to improving speed enforcement system by reviewing and suggesting improvements in legal, institutional, procedural/operational and technical equipment needed for improving speed enforcement by Police. Expected outcome: Comprehensive speed enforcement improvement project developed and introduced in the country by mid-2019 Scope of work  Review of legal / institutional environment and identification of requirements for improvements to be introduced to make speed enforcement by Police more efficient – preferably composed of mobile and fixed sub-systems  Developing action plan for introducing necessary legal and institutional changes  For each of sub-systems (fixed and mobile) identifying: o improvements in planning and operational procedures needed and development of action plan and supporting tools (instructions, manuals, etc.) o equipment needed and basic technical and functional specifications  Implementation of pilot/testing speed enforcement campaigns of mobile speed enforcement, preferably combined with communication/information campaigns  Implementation of pilot/testing of fixed speed enforcement sub-system, preferably combined with communication/information campaigns  Analysing lessons from pilot phase and introducing improvements in both sub-systems  Developing national action plan for roll-out of complete speed enforcement system on at least national road network, including: o Manuals of procedures/guidelines for speed enforcement planning and campaigns o Installation of fixed speed cameras (preferably spot and section/point-to-point) o Communication plan regarding speed enforcement (preferably in coordination with enforcement campaigns) o Time and cost estimate for full roll-out  Proposals for extension of speed enforcement system to lower level road network  Regular/periodic analysis of results of speed enforcement campaigns and other measures on real travel speed and crash fatalities and injuries on at least sample set of specific locations  Promoting results and impact of speed enforcement on real travel speed, fatalities and injuries  Stimulating development of research regarding speed related behaviors and impact of speed enforcement on attitudes and behaviors of different road users Organization and timeline:  Strong political commitment and support is necessary  Clear project management and structure needed, preferably led by (Traffic) Police  Legal speed limits to be preferably reviewed and if necessary modified (reduced) to internationally recognized safe levels for different types of roads and traffic environments 67 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region  Estimated duration: 18 months (12 months for design and piloting + 6 months for full roll- out) – may take longer if extensive legal procedures for modifying speed limits are necessary or large scale institutional or operational improvements needed  Special attention should be paid to coordination of enforcement with well designed and targeted information/communication activities  Strong focus needed on promoting impact and results achieved thanks to improved speed enforcement Minimum qualifications:  Team leader: Road safety policy/speed enforcement specialist, minimum 10 y (preferable 5 years of international experience, including EaP countries)  Team member: Organizational/operational enforcement procedures expert, minimum 7 y (preferable international)  Team member: Legal expert, minimum 7 y (preferable international)  Team member: Technical expert(s) in speed enforcement equipment (fixed and mobile), minimum 5 y (preferable international)  Team member: IT/communication expert – preferably specialized in intelligent transport systems/speed enforcement, minimum 5 y (preferable international)  Team member: Road safety communication specialist, minimum 5 y (preferable international, with some experience in EaP countries) 68 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region PROJECT NO. 4: Improving legislation and operational procedures reinforcing seatbelt use at front- and backseats Objective Contributing to improving traffic safety enforcement system by reviewing speed limits on the core road network in line with international good practice. Expected outcome: safe system approach based legislation on seatbelt use and enforcement adopted by the end of 2018 Scope of work  Reviewing and proposing legislative changes related to seatbelts use in line with safe system approach and international good practice  Assistance in legislative process of adopting necessary changes  Reviewing and suggesting improvements in Police operational procedures related to seatbelt enforcement  Support in reviewing and updating internal police regulations, manuals and guidelines for seatbelts use enforcement  Assistance in developing communication plan supporting seatbelts use enforcement Organization and timeline:  Clear project management needed – preferably by (Traffic) Police  Particular attention to be paid on coordination of seatbelts enforcement with information/communication campaigns  Estimated duration: 4 months (2 months for review and proposals + 2 months for adoption and roll-out of the new approach) – may take longer if cumbersome legal procedures for modifying seatbelt related laws and regulation are required Minimum qualifications:  Team leader: Traffic laws enforcement specialist, minimum 10 y (5 years of international experience)  Team member: Legal expert, minimum 5 y (can be local, but preferably with some international experience)  Team member: Road safety communication specialist, minimum 5 y (can be local, but preferably with some international experience) 69 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region B.2.3. Projects for WG3 PROJECT NO. 1: “ACCESSIBILITY OF NON-CONFIDENTIAL CRASH DATA TO ROAD ADMINISTRATIONS, FOR EFFECTIVE USAGE OF ANALYSIS IN ROAD SAFETY MANAGEMENT” Objective Assistance to EaP countries in assuring efficient exchange of crash data between the crash database holders and the road administrations, with emphasis on assuring reliable data on crash locations. An effective data analysis and management system will ensure usage of the crash data analysis in the determination of policy measures, allocation of resources and measuring of progress. [Tentative target: end of 2018] Scope of work  Definition of data needs for accident analysis, blackspot identification and overall road safety management o Consultation with national road administrations of all EaP countries  Confirmation of relevant data availability in all EaP countries o Consultation with crash database holders  Definition of procedure for data exchange between crash database holder and national road administration o Legal framework examination in all EaP countries o Identification of any technical, administrative or other gaps and identification of timelines for their resolution o Formulation of protocols o Consultation with database holders and administrations in all EaP countries o Preparation of MoUs  Proposal for monitoring and publishing of crash statistics  Proposal for extension of procedure to regional and local road administrations Duration: 4 months Qualifications:  Team leader: Road accident analysis specialist, minimum 10 years of experience (5 years of international experience)  Team member: Road infrastructure safety specialist, minimum 7 years of experience (preferable international experience)  Team member: Legal expert, minimum 7 years of experience (preferable experience in EaP countries) 70 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region PROJECT NO. 2: “IDENTIFICATION OF AT LEAST TOP TEN BLACKSPOT LOCATIONS IN EACH EaP COUNTRY AND INITIATION OF BLACKSPOT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS” Objective Adoption of definitions for accident blackspots by all EaP countries. Analysis of crash data and identification of at least ten top blackspot locations in each EaP country for improving safety in the short / medium term. Development of action plans in all EaP countries for blackspot improvement programs. Initiation of implementation of blackspot programs through procurement of relevant works projects. [Tentative target: mid 2019] Scope of work  Definition of what constitutes an accident blackspot in all EaP countries o Consultation with national road administrations of all EaP countries  Identification of accident blackspots on the national road networks of all EaP countries o Collection of available data o Analysis of data o Consultation with national road administrations o Report on top ten blackspot locations  Development of national action plan for blackspot improvement programs o Proposal on methodology - Consultation with national road administrations o Costed proposal for multi-year blackspot improvement program o Identification of legal, procedural, administrative requirements for implementation in all EaP countries o Draft national action plans - Consultation with national, regional & local administrations o Final national action plans  Draft bidding documents for blackspot improvement works in all EaP countries Duration: 10 months Qualifications:  Team leader: Road infra safety specialist, minimum 10 y (5 years of international experience)  Team member: Road safety policy specialist, minimum 7 y (preferable in EaP countries)  Team member: Road accident analysis expert, minimum 7 y (preferable international)  Team member: Civil engineer, minimum 5 years of experience in construction including bidding documents 71 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region PROJECT NO. 3: “IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF SAFETY IMPACTS FOR AT LEAST ONE PRIORITY ROAD INVESTMENT PROJECT IN EACH EaP COUNTRY” Objective Analyze safety impacts for at least one priority project, belonging to the extended TEN-T network, in each EaP country, using the principles of the EU 2008/96 road safety Directive. Using results from this pilot, develop an action plan for introducing Road Safety Impact Assessment processes in each EaP country and for road safety mainstreaming (using safety management techniques) to cover all projects and all networks. [Tentative target: end 2018 for pilot; end 2019 for road safety mainstreaming] Scope of work  Identification (jointly with EC and EaP Transport Panel Secretariat) of at least one project for pilot RSIA implementation in each EaP country  Performance of pilot RSIA jointly with national administration staff  Development of national guideline for RSIA implementation, based on EU Directive 2008/96 and results of pilot o Analysis of national legal / administrative frameworks o Costing o Draft RSIA action plans – consultations o Final RSIA action plan for each EaP country  Development of national action plan for road safety mainstreaming o Draft toolbox of measures for national, regional and local networks o Identification of legal, procedural, administrative requirements for implementation in all EaP countries o Draft national action plans - Consultation with national, regional & local administrations o Final costed and timed national action plans Duration: 8 months Qualifications:  Team leader: Road infra safety specialist, minimum 10 y (5 years of international experience, experience required on RSIA)  Team member: Road safety policy specialist, minimum 7 y (preferable in EaP countries)  Team member: Legal expert, minimum 7 y (preferable in EaP countries) 72 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region PROJECT NO. 4: “PREPARATION FOR FORMAL INTRODUCTION OF KEY EU 2008/96 PROCEDURES IN EACH EaP COUNTRY - EMPHASIS ON R.S. INSPECTION, AUDIT & IMPACT ASSESSMENT” Objective Identify technical and legal requirements for introduction of road safety inspection (RSI), audit (RSA) and impact assessment (RSIA) in the national systems of each EaP country. Define national action plans for training and certification of inspectors and auditors in accordance with principles of EU 2008/96, adapted to each EaP country. Perform pilot RSI and RSA in all EaP countries. [Tentative target: mid 2019] Scope of work  Identification of legal / institutional requirements for introduction of RSA and RSI in all EaP countries  Identification of technical (capacity-building incl. training) requirements for introduction of RSA and RSI in all EaP countries  Identification of projects / sections for pilot RSI and RSA in all EaP countries, jointly with national road administrations  Performance of pilot RSI and RSA (at least one of each, per EaP country) in joint teams including national road administration staff  Draft training and certification plan for RSA and RSI in each EaP country  Consultation with national road administrations; usage of RSIA consultancy results (as available)  National action plan for RSI, RSA and RSIA for each EaP country, including o Manual o Training curriculum o Certification framework o Time and cost estimate for national road network o Proposals for extension to regional and local networks Duration: 12 months Qualifications:  Team leader: Certified (EU country or equivalent level) road infra safety auditor/inspector, minimum 10 y (5 years of international experience)  Team member: Road safety expert, minimum 7 y (preferably international)  Team member: Road safety policy specialist, minimum 7 y (preferable in EaP countries)  Team member: Legal expert, minimum 7 y (preferable in EaP countries) 73 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region [C] Road Safety Declarations 74 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region C.1. Valletta Declaration, 2017 75 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 76 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 77 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 78 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 79 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region 80 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region C.2. Ljubljana Declaration, 2018 Eastern Partnership Declaration on Road Safety endorsed by the Ministers of Transport and representatives of the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, meeting in Ljubljana on 27 April 2018, Recognizing the right of all citizens to accessible and safe mobility and the importance of promoting sustainable modes of transport; Concerned that the high number of fatal and serious road traffic injuries is a major problem in our societies causing unacceptable human suffering and significant economic loss; Acknowledging the efforts of the Eastern Partnership countries and the European Union in enhancing road safety, and expressing the wish to strengthen cooperation in the framework of the Eastern Partnership road safety cooperation; Affirming our willingness to intensify national and, where appropriate, regional action as well as European cooperation with a view to implement effective road safety policies and measures in order to reduce the number of killed and seriously injured on our roads; Reaffirming that road safety is a shared responsibility, and that concrete and joint action is required by the national and local authorities, as well as by the industry and civil society, each in their areas of competences; Expressing our commitment to reduce the number of those killed and seriously injured on the roads, and more generally, to strongly improve road safety across the Eastern Partnership countries, wherever possible, we will: Strengthening road safety management - Put road safety high on the political agenda and take steps to strengthen the coordinated planning and implementation of road safety policies in our countries, as well as the collaboration between governments, the civil society and the private sector; - Define a leading operational entity responsible for fully implementing road safety policies in each of the Eastern Partnership countries; - Recognise that developing national road safety strategies and action plans is an effective tool for improving road safety management, and invite those countries that have not yet done so to develop, implement and share information and good practices on national road safety plans and strategies; 81 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region - Provide sufficient resources to implement road safety policies and programmes, including cooperation and innovation in enforcement, accident investigation, information and awareness-raising and other dedicated road safety initiatives; Developing targeted road safety measures - Adopt the Vision Zero perspective and the Safe System approach when developing road safety strategies and policies, with a view in particular to preventing severe crash outcomes when inevitable human errors on the roads occur; - Commit to adopting an aspirational target for reducing road fatalities by 25% between 2016 and 2020, and adopt the necessary measures to reach this objective; - Commit to further reducing the number of fatal and serious road traffic injuries by 50% from 2020 to 2030, in line with the targets applied in the EU and at the UN level; - Commit to improving the quality of systematic and consolidated data collection on road traffic deaths and serious road injuries in line with best EU and international practices, and to reporting this data to the future Regional Road Safety Observatory; Promoting safer infrastructure - Mainstream road safety in national and regional road projects, also beyond those benefiting from EU financing or receiving support from international financial institutions, and also beyond the TEN-T network; - Apply the EU road infrastructure safety management principles on the Eastern Partnership road network through a combination of proper planning and safety assessment, design, building and maintenance of roads, and in particular through the identification of the most dangerous portions and their improvement in terms of road safety; - Establish and enforce adequate speed limits supported by appropriate safety measures such as road signs, speed cameras, and other speed restricting mechanisms, to ensure the safety of all road users; - Improve the safety of vulnerable road users, and develop specific measures for their protection, in particular the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists by appropriate infrastructure design and speed management; Protecting road users - Develop and promote road safety culture, based on commonly shared values as well as on the Safe System approach that emphasises the responsibility of all actors, including road users to be more aware of the risks they face and the risks they may pose to others on the roads; 82 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region - Enforce effective road safety measures to address unsafe behaviour on the roads, and in particular to prevent road users from speeding, drink and drug driving, failing to use seatbelts, child restraints, helmets and other protective equipment, or otherwise being impaired or distracted on the roads; - Improve road users' behaviour by continued and effective education and training, focusing in particular on novice drivers, motorcycle riders and professional drivers, as well as by targeted information and awareness-raising campaigns; - Ensure that the competent services identify the appropriate resources and technical support to national police forces and foster cooperation between the polices forces of each respective EaP partner; Promoting the use of safer vehicles - Improve safety standards and roadworthiness of vehicles to protect road users, and in particular vulnerable road users by adopting policies and measures in line with best EU and/or international standards; - Promote the use of vehicles meeting the minimum standards for occupant and other road users protection equipped with seat belts, air bags and active safety systems; - Promote the roll-out of cooperative intelligent transport systems across the Eastern Partnership region, ensuring that services and systems are compatible and interoperable with EU standards; Enhancing cooperation and exchange of experience - Mobilise all partners at regional, national and local levels to strengthen the focus on road safety and support the exchange of experience and best practices; - Take all measures within our remit to promote continued dialogue between the Eastern Partnership countries and the European Union; - Use the expertise and technical assistance of the European Union and its Member States to support investment decisions and the preparation of new road projects, as well as the collection of quality data and the development of effective road safety measures; - Boost voluntary commitments to improve road safety, in particular by joining the European Road Safety Charter with the active involvement of civil society. 83 Towards Safer Roads in the Eastern Partnership Region [D] Details on Working Groups D.1. Coordination meetings The following working group meetings have taken place in the period through March 2019:  First meeting (virtual): December 13-15, 2017  Second meeting (physical): March 5-7, 2018 – Tbilisi, Georgia  Third meeting (virtual): June 6-8, 2018  Fourth meeting (physical – including workshop): October 16-19, 2018 – Minsk, Belarus  Fifth meeting (virtual): January 24, 2019 D.2. Activity planning The chart of Table D.1 summarizes the activity planning for all three working groups for the period through the middle of 2019 – as updated (and partially accomplished) through the end of March 2019. Table D.1 - Activity planning for working groups through June 2019 May-18 May-19 Sep-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Aug-18 Sep-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Feb-19 Mar-19 Jan-18 Jun-18 Jan-19 Jun-19 Oct-17 Apr-18 Oct-18 Apr-19 Jul-18 TIME FRAME Working Group initial 1 Establishment current initial 2 Benchmarking current Identification of quick initial 3 wins current Development of a 2- initial 4 year Action Plan current Implementation of the initial 5 2-year Action Plan current Preparation of technical initial 6 documents current initial 7 Regular meetings current 84