A RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS FOR PLANNING … · Dr. Mohamed Ziara Research Submitted In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for The ... criteria such as availability of technical

The Islamic University of Gaza غزة–الجامعة اإلسـالمية High Studies Deanships عمـادة الدراســات العليا Faculty of Engineering Civil Engineering Department قسم الهندسة المدنية-كلية الهندسة

Infrastructure Engineering

هندسـة البنية التحتية

A RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS FOR PLANNING INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR IN PALESTINE

EMPHASIZING TECHNICAL CRITERIA

By Jawad S. Alagha

Supervised by Dr. Mohamed Ziara

Research Submitted In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for The Degree of Master of Science In Civil-Infrastructure Engineering

March 2005

قل إن صالتي ونسكي وحمياي ال شريك له وبذلك ومماتي رب العاملني أمرت وأنا أول املسلمني

ــام ـــ ــــورة األنع س

163 ، 162 سـورة األنعــام

I

ABSTRACT

The undertaken research work is concerned with the development of an approach

for allocating the resources for infrastructure sector at the national level. The

developed approach is suitable for use in Palestine since it considers technical

criteria such as availability of technical requirements and execution, operation and

maintenance suitability. Furthermore the approach accounts for local driven

criteria and other influencing factors such as risks, uncertainties, political factors

and donor well. The framework of the developed approach could also be applied

for other developing countries and for other sectors.

The developed approach includes both description of the prioritization process as

well as description of the institutional arrangement to conduct the process. The

approach consists of four steps i.e., Step 1: Institutional Arrangements and

Framework; Step 2: Preparation of the Process; Step 3: Prioritization Process;

Step 4: Monitoring and Feedback.

In the developed approach, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been adopted

as the main decision making tool to prioritize the alternatives against 17 sub-

criteria gathered in 5 main criteria. as well as benefit cost analysis was also

conducted and considered in the process.

For the demonstration of its effectiveness, the approach was applied to a real life

case study which is a list of eleven proposed infrastructure programs identified by

the Ministry of Planning MOP. In addition, a user-friendly software that helps

decision makers in allocating the financial resource was developed.

The developed approach has successfully implemented on the case study. It is

recommended to adopt it and use the developed software for allocation of

resources for infrastructure sector and for other sectors.

II

ملخص البحث

يقدم هذا البحث طريقة لتوزيع الموارد المخصصة لقطاع البنية التحتية على البرامج والمشاريع

الطريقة المقترحة تصلح لالستخدام والتطبيق في فلسطين كونها تحتوي على المعايير . المختلفة

وتشغيل وصيانة الفنية مثل توفر المتطلبات الفنية للمشاريع وكذلك ما يتعلق بإمكانية تنفيذ

باإلضافة إلى ذلك فالطريقة المقترحة تأخذ بعين االعتبار كافة العوامل المؤثرة وكذلك . المشاريع

المعايير الخاصة التي تفرضها الظروف في فلسطين مثل المخاطرة، عدم التأكد، العوامل السياسية

كن استخدامه كذلك في دول اإلطار العام للطريقة المقترحة يم. ورغبات وتوجهات الدول المانحة

. نامية أخرى وفي قطاعات أخرى غير قطاع البنية التحتية

تشتمل الطريقة المقترحة على شقين أولهما ما يتعلق بوصف لعملية تحديد أولويات مشاريع وبرامج

البنية التحتية المقدمة من قبل المؤسسات المختلفة، أما الشق الثاني فهو عبارة عن توصيف كامل

. لمؤسسات التي ستقوم بإجراء هذه العملية شامالً تحديد العالقات بين هذه المؤسسات المختلفةل

اإلطار المؤسسي الذي سيقوم بعملية توزيع : تتكون الطريقة المقترحة من أربع خطوات وهي

هي الموارد المالية، التجهيز والتحضير للعملية، عملية تحديد األولويات، أما الخطوة األخيرة ف

كأداة رئيسية لعملية اتخاذ (AHP)تم اعتماد طريقة الهيكلية التحليلية . المراقبة والتغذية الراجعة

معيار 17القرار المتعلق بتحديد أولويات المشاريع وتقييم البدائل المختلفة وذلك باالستناد على

- Benefitئدة والتكلفة معايير رئيسية، باإلضافة لذلك تم أخذ تحليل الفا5فرعي تم تجميعها في

Cost بعين االعتبار في الطريقة المقترحة .

برنامج تخص 11إلثبات فعاليتها فقد تم تطبيق الطريقة المقترحة بنجاح على قائمة مكونة من

كذلك تم في هذا البحث . قطاع البنية التحتية تم الحصول عليها من وزارة التخطيط الفلسطينية

سهل وميسر االستخدام يساعد متخذي القرارات على إجراء عملية تحديد تطوير برنامج حاسوب

. أولويات مشاريع وبرامج البنية التحتية المختلفة

III

Dedication

This research is dedicated to:

The memory of my father, may Allah grant him mercy…

My mother for her love, pray, and continuous sacrifices… Martyrs specially Engineer : Ismail H. Abu-Shanab…

IV

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First, all praises and glory are due to ALLAH for all the bounty and support granted to

me. This work would not be done without God’s endless guidance and support.

I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank all individuals who have helped

me in this efforts. Primarily, I would like to thank my supervisor and mentor

Dr. Mohammed Ziara for his unlimited guidance, encouragement, and support. I am

really indebted to this man for his valuable advice and his vision which inspired this

research.

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my mother, brothers,

sisters and friends who gave me love, moral support, and motivation.

I would like to express my grateful appreciation and thanks to everyone who gave me

support to bring this research into reality, specially Engineer Rami Shameya for his

valuable efforts in the preparation of the software (FRAS INFRA). Also, I could not

forget the role of my colleagues in Ministry of Public Works and Housing and in

Ministry of Planning for their help and encouragement.

V

Table of Contents .................................................................................................. I ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................I DEDICATION......................................................................................................III AKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................... IV TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... V LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... IX LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. X LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..............................................................................XI

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.......................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1

1.2 THE RESEARCH PROBLEM.......................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Importance .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Scope................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................. 3

1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................................... 3 1.4.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................ 3 1.4.2 Consultation Meetings ......................................................................................... 3 1.4.3 The Development of Resource Allocation Approach ............................................ 4 1.4.4 Case Study........................................................................................................... 4

1.5 RESEARCH ORGANIZATION ....................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2: NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING.......................... 6 2.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 6

2.2 NATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS..................................................................... 6

2.3 NATIONAL PLANNING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR .......................... 8 2.3.1 Infrastructure Definition ..................................................................................... 8 2.3.2 Significance of National Infrastructure................................................................ 9 2.3.3 Characteristics of National Infrastructure Planning............... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ 2.3.4 Responsibilities and Institutional Framework ..................................................... 12 2.3.5 General Deficiencies Facing National Infrastructure Planning ............................ 15 2.3.6 Infrastructure Planning Philosophy ................................................................... 17 2.3.7 Examples of National Infrastructure Planning Practices..................................... 18

2.3.7.1 Japan Practices...........................................................................................19 2.3.7.2 USA Practices .............................................................................................19 2.3.7.3 Bulgaria Practices.......................................................................................19 2.3.7.4 Other Practices ...........................................................................................19

2.4 THE ROLE OF DONORS AND FUNDING AGENCIES ....... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

2.5 CONCLUSION DRAWN FROM THE REVIEWED EXPERIENCES.............. 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VI

CHAPTER 3: A RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS................................ 25 3.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 25

3.2 ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AT NATIONAL LEVEL............................ 26 3.2.1 Steps of Allocation of Resources....................................................................... 27 3.2.2 Allocation of Resources in Infrastructure Sector................................................. 29

3.3 DECISION MAKING PROCESS................................................................... 29 3.3.1 Decision Making Process for Infrastructure Strategic Planning.......................... 29 3.3.2 Multi-criteria Decision Making........................................... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ 3.3.3 Decision Making Techniques (DMT)................................... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ 3.3.4 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).................................................................... 32 3.3.5 Decision Making Players ................................................................................... 34 3.3.6 Decision Making Criteria .................................................................................. 34

3.3.6.1 Characteristics of Sound Decision Making Criteria ......................................35 3.3.6.2 Decision Making Criteria for Infrastructure Sector.......................................35

3.3.7 Concluded Remarks.......................................................................................... 36

CHAPTER 4: CURRENT RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS FOR INFRASTRUCTUE SECTOR (RAPI) IN PALESTINE........................... 38

4.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 38

4.2 NATIONAL LEVEL PLANNING IN PALESTINE ........................................ 38 4.2.1 Situation Before Oslo Accord ........................................................................... 38 4.2.2 Situation After 9/1993 till 9-2000...................................................................... 39 4.2.3 Al Aqsa Intifada (Period 9-2000 till present (2004)) ............ .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

4.3 CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE SITUATION ................ . غري معرفةاإلشارة املرجعية! خطأ

4.4 ROLE OF DONORS IN PALESTINE ............................................................ 44 4.5 INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR IN PALESTINIAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN

(PDP) ............................................................................................................ 48 4.5.1 Objectives of Infrastructure Sector in the PDP ................................................... 48 4.5.2 Current Procedures of National Planning Process in Palestine ........................... 49

4.5.2.1 Project Selection Process in PDP .................................. .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ 4.5.2.2 Priorities of Infrastructure and Natural Resources Management اإلشارة املرجعية ! خطأ.غري معرفة

4.6 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS FACING INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING IN PALESTINE ............................................................................... 54

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION OF THE CURRENT (RAPI) IN PALESTINE .......................................................................................... 56

5.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 56 5.2 INFLUENCING FACTORS AFFECTING NATIONAL PLANNING AND

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES IN PALESTINE........................................ 56 5.3 DEFICIENCIES IN CURRENT PLANNING OF INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR

IN PALESTINE..................................................................................................... 57

5.4 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................... 68

VII

5.5 MAIN FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED RAPI ............................................ 68 CHAPTER 6: PROPOSED APPROACH OF RESOURCE ALLOCATION

PROCESS FOR PLANNING INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR (RAPI) IN PALESTINE.................................................................. .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

6.1 FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSED RAPI .................... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

6.2 STEP (1): INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND FRAMEWORK ......... 75

6.3 STEP (2) : PREPARATION OF THE PROCESS............... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ 6.3.1 Activity 1: Definition of the Term Infrastructure Sector ...... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ 6.3.2 Activity 2: Definition of the Term National Infrastructure Programs اإلشارة املرجعية ! خطأ

.غري معرفة 6.3.3 Activity 3: Data Collection .................................................. .املرجعية غري معرفةاإلشارة ! خطأ 6.3.4 Activity 4: Objectives of Infrastructure Sector...................... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

6.4 STEP (3): PRIORITIZATION PROCESS ......................... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ 6.4.1 Activity 1: Determination of Suitable Decision Making Technique . اإلشارة املرجعية ! خطأ

.غري معرفة 6.4.2 Activity 2: Determination of the Prioritization Criteria ......... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

6.4.2.1 Socioeconomical Effects and Sustainability ................... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ 6.4.2.2 Donor’s preference ......................................................................................84 6.4.2.3 Environmental Impact ..................................................................................84 6.4.2.4 Availability of Technical Requirements.........................................................84 6.4.2.5 Execution, Operation and Maintenance Uncertainty.....................................84 6.4.2.6 Program Importance Inside the Sector..........................................................85 6.4.2.7 The Benefit-Cost Indicator B/C.....................................................................85

6.4.3 Activity 3: Conducting Prioritization Assignment. ............................................. 86

6.5 STEP (4): MONITORING AND FEEDBACK ................................................ 88

6.6 CONCLUDED REMARKS............................................................................. 88

CHAPTER 7: APPLICATION OF THE DEVELOPED APPROACH TO CASE STUDY .......................................................................... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................ .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

7.2 CASE STUDY ................................................................. .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

7.3 CASE STUDY - STEP (1): INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND FRAMEWORK ............................................................... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

7.4 CASE STUDY - STEP (2) : PREPARATION OF THE PROCESS اإلشارة املرجعية ! خطأ.غري معرفة

7.4.1 Case Study – Step (2): Activity 1: Definition of the Term Infrastructure Sector ! خطأ.اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة

7.4.2 Case Study – Step (2): Activity 2: Definition of the Term National Infrastructure Programs .......................................................................... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

7.4.3 Case Study – Step (2) : Activity 3: Data Collection .............. .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

VIII

7.4.4 Case Study – Step (2) : Activity 4: Objectives of Infrastructure Sector ............... 95

7.5 CASE STUDY – STEP (3) : PRIORITIZATION PROCESS ............................ 96 7.5.1 Case Study – Step (3) : Activity 1: Determination of Suitable Decision Making

Technique....................................................................................................... 96 7.5.2 Case Study – Step (3) : Activity 2: Determination of Prioritization Criteria ........ 96 7.5.3 Case Study – Step (3) : Activity 3: Conducting Prioritization Assignment. ......... 96

7.6 CASE STUDY - STEP (4): MONITORING AND FEEDBACK اإلشارة املرجعية غري ! خطأ.معرفة

7.7 DISCUSSION OF CASE STUDY RESULTS .................... .فةاإلشارة املرجعية غري معر! خطأ 7.7.1 Criteria and Sub-criteria...................................................... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ 7.7.2 Program Pairwise Comparison ............................................ .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

7.8 CONCLUDED REMARKS.............................................. .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

7.8 DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE............ .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

Chapter 8: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

8.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEVELOPED APPROACH.... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

8.2 THE DEVELOPED APPROACH .................................... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

8.3 STRENGTH OF THE DEVELOPED APPROACH ........... .غري معرفةاإلشارة املرجعية ! خطأ

8.4 PREREQUISITIES OF THE APPROACH ....................... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

8.5 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................. .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

8.6 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................. .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ

REFERENCES..................................................................... .اإلشارة املرجعية غري معرفة! خطأ 2

APPENDIX 1: ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) .................. A-1 APPENDIX 2: PROGRAM PROFILE ............................................................. B-1 APPENDIX 3: CASE STUDY CALCULATIONS AND TABLES.................. C-1 APPENDIX 4: FINANCIAL RESOURCE ALLOCATION SOFTWARE

(FRAS INFRA) ......................................................................................... D-1

IX

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 : Examples of Infrastructure National Planning Practices

Table 4.1 : Accessibility to Sanitation Facilities in Some Countries in 2000

Table 4.2 : Pledges, Commitments and Actual Disbursements by Donors to The Palestinian

People (1994-2001)

Table 4.3 : Sectoral Allocated by PDP Versus Commitments and Disbursed by Donors

Table 4.4 : International Assistance to Palestinian People With Focus by Donor

Table 4.5 : Infrastructure Sector Prioritization Table

Table 6.1 : Responsibility Matrix of Infrastructure TWG’s in the Developed FRAPI

Table 6.2 : Summary of the Criteria and Sub-Criteria Used in RAPI

Table 6.3 : Comparison Between the Developed Approach and the Existing Practice

Table 7.1 : Case study - List of Programs and their Estimated Budget

Table 7.2 : Application of National Program Definition on the Case Study Programs

Table 7.3: Pairwise Comparison Between Criteria in the Case Study

Table 7.4 Pairwise Comparison Between Sub-criteria of the Main Criterion (Availability of

Technical Requirements)

Table 7.5: Relative Weights of Cub-criteria Used in RAPI.

Table 7.6: Rating of Program (1) regarding to criteria 4 (Availability of Technical

Requirements)

Table 7.7: Program Pairwise Comparison With Respect to Environmental Impact

Table 7.8: AHP Composite Priority Vector for Prioritization Process

Table 7.9: Priority Index for Case Study Programs

Table 7.10: RAPI Score and Ranking of Case Study Programs

Table 7.11: Results of PDP Prioritization Process

Table 7.12 : Ranking of Programs Using Both RAPI and PDP Procedures

X

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 : Steps of National Planning Process

Figure 2.2 : Model of Development of Physical Work Flow

Figure 3.1 : Diagram Showing Resource Allocation Process

Figure 3.2 : Classification of Multi-Objective Multi-Criteria DMT

Figure 3.3 : General Hierarchy of AHP

Figure 4.1 : Classification of 100 Country Regarding to Percentage of Population

Accessibility to Sanitation Facilities

Figure 4.2 : Mechanisms of Donor Coordination and Organization in PNA Territories

Figure 4.3 : Hierarchy of Current National Planning Process in Palestine

Figure 4.4 : MOPIC Prioritization Methodology

Figure 5.1 : Problem Tree of Resource Allocation Process for Infrastructure Sector (RAPI)

in Palestine

Figure 5.2 : Strategies Tree of Resource Allocation Process - (Features of Proposed RAPI)

Figure 6.1 : Steps for Development of the Proposed Approach

Figure 6.2 : Framework of RAPI

Figure 6.3 : Steps and Activities of RAPI

Figure 6.4 : Institutional Interrelationships and Responsibilities for the Developed RAPI

Figure 6.5 : Sequence of Institutional Arrangements for the Developed RAPI

Figure 6.6 : Classification of RAPI Prioritization Criteria

Figure 7.1: Comparison Between RAPI & PDP Regarding to % of Score of Each Program

In Relation to Summation of Programs Scores.

Figure 7.2: Effect of Score Inside Sector and Benefit Cost Indicator on Ranking of

Programs

XI

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Resource Allocation Process RAP Palestinian Development Plan PDP National Infrastructure Development Strategy NIDS Thematic Working Group TWG Urban Management Committee of Cabinet UMCC Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats SWOT Decision Making Technique DMT Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP Financial Resource Allocation Process FRAP Resource Allocation Process for Infrastructure Sector RAPI Palestinian Liberation Organization PLO Palestinian National Authority PNA Palestinian Economy Council for Development & Reconstruction PECDAR Ministry of Planning & International Cooperation MOPIC Ministry of Planning MOP Ministry of Public Works MOPW Ministry of Local Government MOLG Ministry of Finance MOF Ministry of Foreign Affairs MOFA Palestinian Water Authority PWA Environmental Quality Authority EQA Ministry of Telecommunication & Information Technology MOTIT Energy & Natural Resources Authority ENRA Ministry of Transportation MOT Ministry of National Economy MONE Palestinian Public Investment Program PIPP Palestinian Legislative Council PLC Non-Governmental Organization NGO United States Agency for International Development USAID Sectoral Working Group SWG Higher Planning Ministerial Committee HPMC General Directorate of Infrastructure Planning GDIP Infrastructure Resource Allocation Department IRAD Infrastructure Action Plan IAP Thematic Action Plan TAP International Donations Coordination Unit IDCU Inconsistency Index ICI

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Economic growth for any community depends greatly on many factors, including

political stability, law and order, strength of institutions, manpower, technology,

management, and most crucially, the provision of physical infrastructure (Akatsuka, and

Yoshida, 1999). The quality and efficiency of infrastructure affect the quality of the life,

the health of social system, and the continuity of economic and business activity (Hudson et al., 1997).

Expenditures for infrastructure sector represent large fraction of yearly budget for either

developed and developing countries. For example, during the period from 1994 to

2000, expenditures for infrastructure sector in Palestine represent 35% of expenditures

for all other sectors (Shaat 1, 2002) . Also from 1992 to 1998, Australian government

have invested $30 billion on capital works state-wide and of that approximately $21

billion was for infrastructure projects (MUIM, 1998). Therefore, the way in which the

limited resources are allocated and managed to various infrastructure programs

influences the achieved and expected returns. So, there is a need to specify resource

allocation process for infrastructure sector in order to fulfill established performance

and service objectives (Garven, 2000).

1.2 THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

1.2.1 Importance

Planning of physical infrastructure systems is a complex process that requires the

consideration of various interconnected influencing factors. The technical specialists

responsible for guiding this process should be knowledgeable in subjects ranging, for

example, from ecology to economy, from sanitary and transport engineering to urban

planning and decision making. Moreover, they must be able to integrate this knowledge

in their planning approach. In this regard, there is especially in developing countries a

pressing need for qualified professionals capable of directing the conception, planning,

design, construction and operation of complex infrastructure facilities and networks,

while at the same time working within the constraints of severely limited budgets. So,

2

deciding how to allocate the limited budgets and other resources to meet the needs is

very difficult and pivotal issue.

Resource allocation processes (RAP) should be conducted at all decision-making levels

in all fields. The importance of this process increases when dealing with national

strategic planning, where, RAP aims at achieving national objectives mentioned

normally in the national developmental plans. Unfortunately, countries usually have

limited resources, which are inadequate to cover the needs of all sectors and projects.

Therefore, countries need to allocate their limited resources to various infrastructure

fields in such way to maximize their benefits and their impacts on achieving the

intended objectives. To realize this, it is necessary for countries to follow a scientific,

rational, transparent and systematic process in allocating the available resources they

have such as financial, natural, human, etc.

1.2.2 Scope

The undertaken research work is concerned with development of an approach for

allocating the resources for planning infrastructure sector (RAPI) at the national level

emphasizing the influence of technical criteria such that this approach is suitable for use

in Palestine. For this purpose, recognized national infrastructure planning approaches

and resource allocation process worldwide were reviewed. In addition to that, the

approach currently used in Palestine was also studied. Based on literature revision and

extensive consultation and meetings with decision makers in infrastructure sector, an

approach was developed to be used as a model in the process of allocating the resources

for infrastructure sector in Palestine emphasizing technical criteria in addition to other

influencing factors. The proposed approach was prepared to suit the special

circumstances in Palestine through considering local driven criteria such as risks,

uncertainties, political factors and donor well. In addition to that institutional framework

and responsibilities to conduct the developed approach is proposed.

To demonstrate its effectiveness, the developed approach was applied to a real life case

study which is a list of proposed infrastructure programs from the Palestinian Ministry

of Planning MOP. In addition, a user-friendly software that helps decision makers in

allocating the resources was developed.

3

1.3 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The main aim of the undertaken research is to utilize more effectively the available

limited resources in Palestine by developing an approach for planning the infrastructure

sector using allocating of resources emphasizing technical aspects. To be more specific,

the research work is intended to achieve the following objectives.

1. To identify and develop a reliable and practical resource allocation approach for

infrastructure sector in Palestine based on justified and measurable criteria.

2. To develop project selection criteria that are suitable for use in Palestine.

3. To participate in the enhancement of the credibility of Palestinians on the

international level by using transparent and rational process.

4. To develop a software for easy implementation of the developed RAPI.

5. To draw conclusions and give recommendations related to the ongoing RAPI in

Palestine.

1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The objectives of research have been achieved by conducting the following steps:

1.4.1 Literature Review

Relevant documents, papers and reports are reviewed in the following fields:

− Strategic planning.

− Infrastructure planning.

− Infrastructure projects selection criteria.

− Resource allocation techniques.

− Optimization and decision making techniques.

− Palestinian Development Plan (PDP) and other local plans.

− Emergency Plans prepared by PNA institutions.

− Relevant World Bank, European Union, UNDP reports and publications.

− Other relevant research documents conducted in the Islamic University of

Gaza (IUG) and other institutions in Palestine

1.4.2 Consultation Meetings

A set of meetings and interviews with decision-makers in the field of infrastructure and

other relevant institutions have been conducted. In addition to that, consultations with

4

experts and academic professionals in Palestine and abroad have also been conducted

which helped in determining:

− Influential aspects and local conditions affecting infrastructure sector in

Palestine.

− Deficiencies of current national infrastructure planning in Palestine.

− Criteria for selecting national infrastructure projects.

− Relative importance of each criterion.

− Other issues as will be discussed in relevant sections.

1.4.3 The Development of Resource Allocation Approach

In the light of literature review, meetings, interviews and consultations, the current

practice of infrastructure planning in Palestine has been studied in order to point out its

weakness and strength points which is the base of the developed National Level

Resource Allocation Process for Infrastructure Sector (RAPI) in Palestine.

1.4.4 Case Study

The practicality of the developed RAPI has been investigated by applying it on

infrastructure national programs included in the PDP. The results of the case study has

been discussed with infrastructure sector decision makers which resulted in further

modification and refinement.

1.5 RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

This research thesis consists of eight chapters as follows:

Chapter One: Introduction: this chapter includes introductory to the research

problem, its importance, scope and also describes the research organization.

Chapter Two: National Infrastructure Planning: This chapter summarizes literature

about national planning issues, concepts, steps and approaches with emphasis on the

special characteristics of infrastructure sector planning.

Chapter Three: Resource Allocation Process: This chapter summarizes literature

about resource allocation as a decision making process with concentration on allocation

of resources for infrastructure sector. The chapter reviews the decision making

techniques, players and criteria used for national level resource allocation.

5

Chapter Four: Current Resource Allocation Process for Infrastructure Sector

(RAPI) in Palestine: This chapter reviews the history of infrastructure planning in

Palestine and the current situation for physical infrastructure in addition to the role of

donors in Palestine. The main issue introduced in the chapter is the current resource

allocation process followed by Palestinian National Authority PNA concentrating on

infrastructure sector.

Chapter Five: Discussion and Evaluation of the Current RAPI in Palestine: This

chapter discusses and evaluates the process presented in the previous chapter. This

discussion is conducted on the light of the literature review and tackles both institutional

arrangement and the prioritization process itself. The main features of the proposed

approach are also included in this chapter.

Chapter Six: Proposed Approach of Resource Allocation Process for

Infrastructure Sector (RAPI) in Palestine: This chapter describes step by step the

developed approach that can be applied in Palestine.

Chapter Seven: Application of the Developed Approach: The proposed approach is

implemented and applied to PDP list of national infrastructure programs. In addition, a

computer software developed during the research work is described.

Chapter Eight: Conclusions and Recommendations: This chapter includes the main

conclusions and recommendations drawn from the undertaken research.

6

CHAPTER 2

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Infrastructure is considered as the perpetual bottleneck for a country’s development

(Aldaba et al, 2000). A nation’s economy strength is reflected in its infrastructure assets.

Many examples can be cited from history indicating the positive effects of infrastructure

on the progress of nations (Hudson et al., 1997). For example, Romans built a strong

empire by constructing all-weather roads and viaducts throughout Europe, North Africa,

and the Middle East to move people, goods and water. In the USA and other regions of

the world, development of economic and social systems closely parallels phases of

infrastructure development.

Demands on infrastructure and related services increase as people expect a higher

standard of living and public services. But, more importantly, good infrastructure

facilitates a higher quality of life. A nation’s infrastructure represents a sizable asset. In

1995, the value of these assets in the United States was estimated at $20 trillion (Hudson

et al., 1997). Therefore, infrastructure sector specially at the national level should be well

planned and managed due to its importance. In the following sections, the basic issues

and elements related to national level planning will be introduced emphasizing on

infrastructure sector.

2.2 NATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS

A typical critical path of the planning process begins with the situation analysis and

moves on to strategic analysis that defines the pattern of major objectives or goals, and

essential policies and plans for achieving them.

Various policies, programs and projects, and their different combinations and

permutations are choice variables in a planning exercise. These would have different

degree of effectiveness regarding their ability to contribute to the attainment of

objectives.

Fig.(2.1) is a diagrammatic presentation of the national level planning process showing

its sequential steps (Kabra, 1997). As shown in the figure, the national planning process

begins with studying both the existing situation of the sector under study as well as the

7

available resources and the institutional pattern of the economy considering all

constraints, then the next step is the identification of the long and short term objectives

whose the alternative strategies are defined to achieve these goals. Then these strategies

are translated into specific programs in their physical and financial dimensions, which

are implemented through related qualified agencies. After implementing the selected

projects, the path of the planning continues during monitoring and evaluation that used

as the input of new planning cycle.

The national planning process deals with issues that have national influence. The

national planner for a specific sector concerns the achievement of the sector’s national

goals. This in turn affects the nation’s overall goals which is usually to achieve

economical development and social justice for all territories of the state. This type of

planning usually depends on long term perspective. Meanwhile the planners at the local

level (such as municipality or district council level) deal with local issues and details

with shorter periods.

Fig. ( 2.1): Steps of National Planning Process (Source: Kabra, 1997)

Research into the resource base and institutional pattern of the economy: existing and latent

Identification and choice of objectives: long and short-run

Research into the nature of the existing situation and problems in their historical perspective

Defining alternative strategies for achieving the objectives, preparing a perspective plan

Formulation of specific, consistent programs in their physical and financial dimensions

Choosing instruments and agencies for plan implementation

Evaluation of Plan implementation: information processing

Plan implementation: Physical activities

8

From the previous figure, it could be concluded that the planning process for any sector

at the national level can be performed through the following steps:-

1. Institutional mandatory and framework.

2. Study and analysis of the existing situation of the sector under question.

3. Determination of national goals and objectives of the sector.

4. Definition of strategies.

5. Formulation of programs and projects.

6. Implementation.

7. Monitoring and Evaluation.

2.3 NATIONAL PLANNING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR

2.3.1 Infrastructure Definition

The word Infrastructure can have broad meanings. Authors and institutions have

defined the term infrastructure in different ways. The word infrastructure may be

defined as physical systems or facilities that provide essential public services, such as

transportation, utilities (water, gas, electricity), energy, telecommunications, waste

disposal, park lands, sports, recreational buildings, and housing facilities (Hudson et al.,

1997). Infrastructure can also be considered as a word comprised of those physical and

social structures that support the life and interactions of a society including factories,

roads, and schools, that are needed for it to function properly (ACG, 2003). Others have

added the banking system or the legal framework for the definition of infrastructure

(Aldaba et al, 2000).The variety in defining the term infrastructure may be refereed to the

variation in the vision and concern of the defining agencies and persons. For the

purpose of this research, the definition of Palestinian Development Plan (PDP) will be

adopted with some modifications. The considered definition is limited to physical

infrastructure; e.g. the roads, water, wastewater, power system, etc. (PDP, 1998). In

addition to that all human resource developments and capacity building issues

associated with providing the physical facilities are also included in the modified

definition.

9

2.3.2 Significance of National Infrastructure

Infrastructure development can be expected to help a society achieve two primary

objectives: economic growth and equitable distribution of wealth among regions and

people. This is true when the infrastructure responds to effective demand by providing

efficient services. Furthermore, without adequate infrastructure, the private sector may

be unwilling to invest in productive activities, so the lack of infrastructure often

becomes a major constraints on private sector activities, which in turn limits the

potential increase in a nation’s welfare (Akatsuka, and Yoshida, 1999). Generally,

successfully planned, implemented and operated infrastructure projects should achieve

the following four goals: (1) achieving greater social justice; (2) developing the

economy and sustainable employment; (3) developing more financially responsible

programs; and (4) protecting the environment. (MUIM 1998, and Ziara et al, 2002). Each is

briefly discussed below:

1. Achieving Greater Social Justice

Social justice results in a better quality of life to all communities. This benefit is

achieved by fair distribution of available resources where population growth provides

challenges for human services and needs, appropriate access to employment, facilities

and services, and ensures citizen participation in the process of decision making. The

development objectives should tackle problems in areas related to poor facilities and

hygienic conditions, as well as areas needing economic development. Poor and marginal

communities often directly benefit from good infrastructure services, because they

usually live in areas subject to unsanitary conditions, hazardous emissions and high

accident risk.

2. Developing the Economy and Sustainable Employment

Focus should be placed on investment, exports, legislation, efficient transport and

communication systems, innovation, ongoing training and development of workforce,

and business conditions conducive to success. In this regard, infrastructure facilities

function as a catalyst for investment and enhance the sustainability of jobs.

3. Developing Financially Responsible Programs

Infrastructure programs should ensure sound allocation of available funds and reduce

public debt and unfunded liabilities. They should foster competition, participation of the

10

private sector, and effective management of all available resources at the

microeconomic level.

4. Protecting the Environment

Protecting the environment should include minimizing air and noise pollution,

conservation and improvement of water, minimizing waste and conserving natural

resources. Economic development should be integrated with protection of the

environment by introducing regulations, public awareness programs and incentives.

In conclusion, the importance of infrastructure development necessitates the accurate

preparation of infrastructure strategies and plans so as to achieve the aforementioned

positive outcomes. In addition to that the project selection criteria should be directly

connected to the overall sector goals. The importance of infrastructure planning

increases in developing countries that have inadequate resources meanwhile have urgent

needs to basic infrastructure as the case of Palestine.

2.3.3 Characteristics of National Infrastructure Planning

The general principles of national planning process are the same for any sector.

However their details are modified in relation to the specific characteristics of the sector

in question according to its nature. When dealing with infrastructure sector, one of the

most important attributes of infrastructure results from the long gestation periods of

infrastructure projects. For example, a port project may take a number of years to plan, a

further few years to construct, and can then remain in service for more than 100 years if

adequate maintenance is carried out (Kabra, 1999). Gaza Port is a good example about

this issue, where planning phase began 10 years ago but up till now the project has not

seen the light. As a result, infrastructure planning approaches should be developed to

suit the special nature of infrastructure sector, so, there is a need to adopt systematic

decisions on investment in infrastructure sector based on long term perspective. In

addition to that infrastructure projects absorb large amounts of money and due to the

direct effects of infrastructure on the developmental process, infrastructure decisions

should be based on economic analysis and forecast.

In the field of infrastructure, it is important to define when, where and what

infrastructure elements should be constructed in terms of their possible long term

11

influence on economical and social aspects. Also planning of infrastructure facilities is a

multi-sector complex process that involves a number of decision-makers, uncertainties,

conflicting criteria, policies, etc. Since the process of developing and planning begin,

goals must be formulated, criteria determined, critical needs counter-weighted, and

policies and programs designed that will lead to long-term sustainable development and

not just short term gain (Kharouby and ziara, 2003).

In General, infrastructure national planning should incorporate a triple bottom line

assessment, which involves analyzing the economic, social and environmental impacts

of infrastructure. Economic impacts include the return on investment, maintenance

needs and whole of life costs. Environmental impacts include the likely environmental

consequences of the infrastructure’s construction, maintenance and use. Social impacts

include the distribution of infrastructure, equitable provision of infrastructure, the

levels of customer service obligations, employment opportunities and customer (IEA,

2003).

The vision toward infrastructure planning differs between developed and developing

countries. In developed countries, the concentration is directed toward management,

operation and maintenance of infrastructure facilities which are already exist. In the

developing countries, the society usually suffers from lack of basic physical

infrastructure, so the construction of new facilities occupies the main concern.

Fig(2.2) is a model suggested for Development Physical Works (GBVI, 1999). This

model includes analysis of existing economical, environmental, social and physical

conditions of the sector under study. The integrated situation study are resulted from the

collection of the studies of different sectors which lead to determine the National

Infrastructure Development Strategy (NIDS) that leads to achieve the pre-stated goals

and objectives..

It could be concluded that, as infrastructure projects affect the living conditions of

citizens and have considerable consequences on other sectors, infrastructure plans

should be accurately prepared and be based on a comprehensive vision and

compatibility with other sectors. Economic, social and environmental impacts of

infrastructure should be analyzed, and hence should be considered as criteria for

12

SOCIAL PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTALECONOMIC

QUALITY OF LIFE

National Infrastructure Development Strategies

STRATEGIES

INTEGRATED SITUATION (MAIN ISSUES/SOLUTIONS)

SECTOR/STUDY AREAS BACKGROUND PAPERS

Fig (2.2) Model for 3

Development Physical Work Flow

selecting and prioritizing projects. In addition to that, in many cases some constrains

may exist and affect infrastructure planning, these may be used as criteria included in

the prioritization of infrastructure projects. For example, technical criteria such as

availability of construction materials and technology and ability for local labors, etc.

may be used as a project selection criteria. These influencing factors will be considered

in the proposed approach.

Source: (GBVI, 1999)

2.3.4 Responsibilities and Institutional Framework

In general, planning involves many tasks, no one way to assign these responsibilities

exists because different circumstances require different approaches. Whatever method is

agreed upon, the organization and assignment of responsibilities and time frames within

13

the planning process are early and critical steps, which require considerable thought and

are vital for the success of the planning effort. Failure to address this properly and at

the right time is a major source of risk (GBVI, 1999).

It was recognized that there is a wide acceptance all over the world, that infrastructure

facilities and services are usually provided free of charge or at regulated prices.

Therefore, the provision of basic infrastructure is primarily a responsibility of the public

sector despite the varying degree of public sector intervention that is, the differing role

and function of government as regards economic management from country to country.

Because infrastructure development is one of the prerequisites for achieving a nation’s

social and economic objectives, the government is expected to play a leading role. It is

widely believed that as a country goes through the early stages of economic

development, as the case of Palestine, the basic physical infrastructure should be

provided by the government for the following reasons (Akatsuka, and Yoshida, 1999):

1. The private sector is too marginal to provide the capital technology, and

managerial capabilities needed for such investment;

2. Infrastructure investment entails a long gestation period thus it carries a

risk;

3. Infrastructure has an impact on income distribution and so has a social

objective;

4. The services provided are recognized as basic human needs. As a

consequence, infrastructure in general is provided by government or public

enterprises. This is particularly true in developing countries.

But, governments can not bridge the infrastructure gap alone. All partners must

contribute to the planning, financing, developing, monitoring, maintaining, and

improving of infrastructure. So, building and financing the state’s infrastructure is a

shared responsibility, accomplished through and by various partners (State of California,

2002).

In some countries, there has been a trend to limit the role and functions of central

agencies only to facilitate, and support of the local bodies through guiding standards of

rules and regulations, and monitoring the local efforts. To make this available,

14

institutional support at the central level is required to enhance the capacity at the local

level (KON ,2000).

It is important to involve the key stakeholders or agents of social and economic change

in the planning process of infrastructure. This includes representatives from the public

and private sectors, non-government, community-based organizations and individuals.

The involvement of these stakeholders guarantees the development of a shared national

vision that will capture the aspirations of the people. It will also provide a clear picture

of the future with which all the key actors in the development process can be identified (GBVI, 1999).

A diversity of entities may be involved in the development of a particular type of

infrastructure, and each organization has its own characteristics. Each entity generally

develops its own plans for the efficient implementation of infrastructure according to its

own perceived interests and concerns. However, since it is vitally important that

infrastructure be well-balanced on a nationwide or regional basis, relations among the

entities concerned are coordinated through a variety of established systems in which the

state plays a central role. The state is responsible for the development of key

infrastructure having a national influence which is called national infrastructure,

whereas prefectures (governorates) take on aspects of the infrastructure that relate more

closely to local citizens. Cities, towns and villages also act as infrastructure developers

in some fields. National level development planning with its multi-level and multi-stage

character necessitates certain exclusive, high level central decision-making functions

and agencies entrusted with the task of carrying out such functions. Therefore, national

planning necessitates a central planning agency which is different from a host of other

lower level, dispersed decentralized agencies concerned both with formulation and

execution of the plan (Kabra, 1997).

Many countries all over the world have established a central infrastructure entity to

manage and enhance the effectiveness of infrastructure sector. Even countries which

have very limited resources and pass through early stages of reconstruction such as

Afghanistan have adopted this idea through establishment of an Inter-Ministerial

Commission for national development and reconstruction to enhance the effectiveness

of development strategies and multi-sectoral planning (MRRD, 2003). One of the most

15

effective ways to improve efficiency in planning, regulating and operating infrastructure

is to form a National Infrastructure Council. The council may include senior federal and

state ministers and local government. Also business representatives involved in

financing, provision, operation and utilization of infrastructure should be involved. The

main roles of the council are to identify the strategic infrastructure issues facing the

nation over the next 5 to 20 years and provide strategic advice on major infrastructure

priorities and initiatives, investment time-lines and private and public sector

involvement (IEA, 2003).

2.3.5 General Deficiencies Facing National Infrastructure Planning

Many deficiencies usually face national level infrastructure planning process, these

could be summarized as the following (Nathaniel and de Villa,1995 and NRC, 1995):

1. Sectoral Isolation of Planning

The first and probably the most crucial is the narrow sectoral basis of planning which

resulted both from the way resources are allocated nationally to the main government

ministries, and from the role of the largely autonomous government corporations. Many

problems in large areas are complex and necessarily demand intersectoral solutions. For

example, the improvement of health sector requires potable water, which requires a

wastewater disposal system, which may require drainage/flood control measures.

Therefore, without close intersectoral co-ordination over the location and time of

investments it is extraordinarily difficult to formulate any area-based strategy.

2. Inadequate Involvement of Local Governments

The absence of local government participation in national planning is one of the major

challenges facing national level infrastructure planning process. Changes are clearly

needed to allow the local governments to play a role in developing, implementing and

operating these projects and programs because they have more ability to judge and

assess the needs of local society.

3. Inadequacies in Planning Techniques

The planning process includes selection of certain alternatives at certain times in certain

places. This necessitates using adequate and suitable planning methods. Planning

approaches, resource allocation techniques, criteria used, etc. should be well studied and

16

selected in order to produce the optimum planning output. In this regard, one of the

most important and critical issue is the identification of criteria used in the selection of

projects. These criteria should cover the important issues related to infrastructure

development and should be derived from sector objectives. Furthermore, other criteria

related to the influencing factors and specifics of each country have to be considered in

the decision making process.

4. Institutional Fragmentation

In the Third World, a project approach to development had led to the establishment of a

number of individual projects and programs mostly implemented by central government

agencies and their corporations within individual sectors. In practice many of the

agencies tend to pursue totally independent paths, each developing fresh projects and

taking different policy initiatives as needs were newly perceived and new agencies were

commonly formed. Since the mandates of each of these agencies tend to be rather

loosely defined, so their roles have become increasingly diffuse. As a result, the

programs within a single sector could in part duplicate each other and yet, taken

together, fail to meet stated objectives. So, it is encouraged to improve inter agency

cooperation and coordination on integration issues to make the greatest use of the

available capacity as well as to ensure information and lessons are shared (FIJI, 2003).

In addition to the above deficiencies, other points could also be added that will decrease

the return from physical infrastructure. These are application of the experience of other

countries that have different circumstances, planning by foreign experts and

concentration on capital investment and ignoring operation and maintenance issues.

Many studies show that less accessibility to information, and less direct user

involvement and participation furthermore, ignoring of the values of accountability and

inclusiveness by developing countries’ governments are remarkable deficiencies from

which these countries suffer. Accountability is based on the idea that people have the

right to hold their government answerable (accountable) for how they use the resources

and authority. Meanwhile, inclusiveness means that all those who have a stake in a

governance process and want to participate in it are able to do so on an equal basis and

government also should treat everyone equally without any discrimination or exclusion (W.B1, 2003).

17

2.3.6 Infrastructure Planning Philosophy

In the world, there are varieties in the planning philosophies and approaches of national

infrastructure, The system of infrastructure development from project’s conception

through to its construction and operation; systems such as financial arrangements,

administrative structures and planning methods. These arrangements are specific to each

country depending on its history, culture, social values and other factors. For this reason

any one country’s experience and results are unique and of limited applicability

elsewhere (Akatsuka, and Yoshida, 1999).

There are three fundamentally different approaches of national planning. In the first,

the “up-bottom approach,” objectives and philosophies flow downward from top

management. In the second, the “bottom-up approach,” plans are conceived for

different divisions or sectors at a lower level, and are then aggregated to create an

overall plan. The third is a “combination approach,” where top level sets the broad

direction and objectives, then the strategies and policies are proposed at the lower

“sectoral” level (GBVI, 1999).

Participatory and decentralization approaches in planning process have been widely

adopted due to their positive effects on empowering people and increasing access to

resources and equity, providing space for people to participate in development both at

delivery and receiving ends. This also ensures transparent and efficient allocation and

mobilization of resources. Trends toward participatory and decentralization has many

useful outcomes such as providing flexibility to respond to various local or regional

problems, improving local governance through increased autonomy and better

accountability, empowering people in the development of their communities and

mobilizing private resources for local development (Serageldin et. al., 2000).

It has been recognized that projects that are centrally planned and executed without

input from local beneficiaries often have a higher probability of failure and are usually

poorly maintained. There is so much to be gained in allowing local participation in the

development process. Not only does it increase efficiency but it also strengthens the

sense of community ownership of projects and ensures transparency and accountability

in project planning and implementation. Local participation enables the planning of

projects to meet the needs of the end users which makes them willing to contribute to

18

project operations and maintenance costs. To be effective, it should reach all end users

of infrastructure services to ensure that the project meets their requirements, uses local

materials and technologies, and is provided and maintained at lower costs ( Lungu and

Price, 2000).

On the other hand, the participatory and decentralized planning should be

institutionalized and its linkages with the periodic plans should be further strengthened

and enhanced. Norms and parameters for coordination and implementation mechanism

between programs of local bodies and central agencies and among the local bodies

themselves should be developed. Overlapping and duplication of activities between line

agencies, local bodies over the same task and resources should be avoided (KON, 2000).

In conclusion, regardless to the governance general policy and characteristics, the

government should be the gavel holder in the infrastructure development process since

this process provides basic needs that touch the day to day life of citizens. Also the

participation of all stakeholders in the infrastructure decision-making process

consolidates the process and guarantees achieving the national goals specially social

equity. The local government and other stakeholders should have an appropriate

strategic guidance by the central government to improve their capacities in planning and

management system. It is believed that intermediate degree of decentralization and

participation may suit the conditions of many developing countries such as Palestine as

it makes the lower, cutting-edge level agencies find themselves increasingly involved

with higher level decision-making which makes the distance between plan formulation

and its implementation narrows. Also it overcomes the problems of lack of coordination

and compatibility resulted from high degree of decentralization.

2.3.7 Examples of National Infrastructure Planning Practices

The planning and decision-making mechanisms are different from country to another.

This variance may be referred to cultures, political systems and economic conditions

(Grigg, 1994). The effect of culture and governance style is an important factor that

specifies in the planning mechanism. This is clear in developing countries where,

government tends to be paternalistic, feels itself justified in undervaluing the opinions,

abilities and capacity of the citizens. There is no tradition of open government, and

19

many agencies are unwilling to share information with citizens. Citizens undervalue

their own opinions, feel helpless, see themselves as unable to change the system. Some

politicians may even tend to want to perpetuate these perceptions in order to preserve

their power bases. The end result is a national culture of distrust, and the gap between

government and people will widen (Jamaica, 2002).

The following is presentation of national infrastructure planning procedures in various

countries. The nature of countries are different in culture, values and economic

conditions. Also some of them depend on donations as the case of Palestine.

2.3.7.1 Japan Practices

Japan which ranks second in the world in terms of economic power, has adopted the

up-bottom centralized approach but with high degree of participation, which effectively

enables in solving many intergovernmental problems. This may be referred from the

trust factor between people and government, hard work related values, commitment and

scientific approaches in planning and management. The relationship between Japan’s

national ministries, prefectures, and local governments seems too closer. Japanese

traditions and customs of unity, focus on the group, personal relationships, cooperation,

central planning, and flat management pyramid, could be definitely seen in the

relationships of the public. They know each other, work together and coordinate a lot (Grigg, 1994).

2.3.7.2 USA Practices

The political conditions in the U.S., the culture and nature of the American people make

planning process more complicated. The relationships between U.S. federal department,

state and local governments seem more distant than in Japan case. Needs are identified

by various public agencies, research institutions and private interest groups. Then the

needs get aired in the press. The national and state budget processes may or may not

pick them up.

USA case is a typical example about the effect of political status and demographical

structure on planning approach. The variation in regulations and laws between states

20

may complicate the national integrated planning process. Each state through its federal

government is considered as the main actor of planning process (Grigg, 1994).

2.3.7.3 Bulgaria Practices

Bulgaria is a middle income European country that has limited resources and

economical deficiencies (W.B2, 2003). Combination between bottom-up and up-down

planning approaches are adopted. Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works

(MRDPW) is the key planning entity. Thematic Working Groups TWGs were formed to

carry out the planning process for each sub-sector. TWGs follow MRDPW and each

TWG includes representatives of related governmental and local institutions, trade

unions and private sector. Each TWG performs SWOT analysis for the sector it is

responsible for, then the results are gathered by team of experts appointed by MRDPW

to prepare comprehensive Regional Development Plan and Operation Plan (Veselka,

2000).

It is obvious that the integrated vision toward planning process is clear. Also the

dependency of TWGs on experts and participatory approach are positive points.

2.3.7.4 Other Practices

Table (2.1) presents summary about infrastructure national planning process in both

Australia and Albania. The table includes the planning approach, interrelationships

between different entities, national planning procedures and general remarks.

In conclusion, it is clear that each planning mechanism has its own characteristics,

advantages and disadvantages. It could be said that the experience of Bulgaria seems to

have remarkable advantage since it depends on participation, technical working groups

and adequate coordination between national planning entities. The adoption of package

approach in Australia has contributed in finding comprehensive and regional solutions

to problems rather than local treatment.

21

Table (2.1) Examples of Infrastructure National Planning Practices

Item Australia (a) Albania ( b)

Country Classification(1) Developed & high income middle-income

Planning Approach Bottom Up Approach Bottom up approach

National

Infrastructure

Planning (NIP)Body

Urban Management Committee of

Cabinet UMCC composed of 9

ministers chaired by minister of

Planning and Urban Affairs

Technical Sector Working Group

inside each ministry is responsible for

elaboration the sector issue

Role of Governmental

Agencies Each develops five-year capital plan Each is responsible for its sub-sector

Procedure

The plans are prepared by

governmental agencies, then gathered

and used by UMCC to produce an

Urban Management Plan

Each specialized ministry is

responsible of preparing sub-sector

plan, then these plans are gathered and

coordinated by Central Working

Group, then the they are approved by

the ministerial steering committee

Advantages and

Remarks

The comprehensive vision in

addressing planning issues may be lost.

There are lacks of adequate

coordination and integration.

To overcome lack of coordination

problem ‘package approach’ was

adopted that enables the satisfaction of

a number of infrastructure demands

with a comprehensive solution

sector plans are scattered lacking of

unified vision. The coordinating role of

the working group is not enough.

Since Albania receives donation from

different countries, representatives of

donor community are members in the

steering committee.

(1) Source: (W.B2, 2003)

(a) Source: (MUIM,1998)

(b) Source: (ROA,2001)

2.4 THE ROLE OF DONORS AND FUNDING AGENCIES

In many lower-income countries, support from external organizations and countries

often necessary for the development and implementation of a strategy. This may be in

the form of grants or loans and it could be also as bilateral or multi-lateral support

(SNSD, 2000). For example, during the years between 2000 to 2003, US$ 20.8 billion

are lent by World Bank to large number of countries (W.B 3, 2003). World Development

Report 2004 discussed the issue of donations, drawing attention to insufficiencies

regarding to the performance of donors (W.B 4, 2004). The main reasons of these

22

insufficiencies are that donors prefer to support only capital spending also aid agencies

want to be able to identify their own contributions despite that recipients may not

consider these targeted sectors as high priority areas. Aid agencies want to see quick

results, donors often are most comfortable with services delivery systems of the type

operating in their own country, also donors prefer to design and implement of their

intervention. Therefore donor should simplify policies and practices and allow

recipients to pursue their objectives more efficiently. There is a need for donor

coordination, so that the capacities of recipient communities are not undermined or

distracted by overlapping and sometimes conflicting demands (Byerlee, 1999).

Many donors may initiate to present donations to specific country, with average on 14

number of donors per recipient (W.B 4, 2003) . Each one may support different and

uncoordinated strategy initiatives. This leads to considerable bewilderment in many

developing countries, which in turn results in a substantial waste of resources. Many

donors became considered as manipulators of national and local strategies, rather than

as facilitators. Yet the principal lesson for donors underlying all others is that strategies

must be led by the recipient country. In Pakistan which is classified as low-income and

severely indebted country ( W.B 2, 2003), the government established a multi-donor

coordination group specifically to integrate donor support. A special technical working

group was established to assist the donors (SNSD, 2000).

In conclusion, donations for developing countries are an important source for funding

different types of projects in different fields. However, the performance of donors and

their relationships with recipient countries need to be reviewed. In general, all papers

and reports touched on this issue recommended that donors should minimize and

simplify their interventions so that coordination by recipient governments becomes less

onerous. It is believed that the political issues and economical goals are the main

reasons that make donors present aids to developing countries. Therefore such

intervention may be related to the same political and economical goals. No one can

deny the right of donors to guarantee that their money have well-targeted and are

applied within nationally-driven policy framework. But this right should not become

dictations. Also donors have the right to choose the areas and fields in which they prefer

to work and fund, but they should be flexible and respond to highly prioritized needs

23

and requirements of recipients. The wise developing country’s government is the one,

which understands the nature, concerns and policy of donors’ government, maximize

the utilization of them by developing the bilateral relations with them, convince them

with the government’s capacity and justify the required project or initiative.

2.5 CONCLUSION DRAWN FROM THE REVIEWED EXPERIENCES

From the previous review, it could be concluded that:-

1. There is no ideal planning approach that can achieve the national

objectives. Each country should adopt the mechanisms that suit its

circumstances. Thus, Palestine should develop suitable planning approach

including agreed upon resource allocation process, which is the main

objective of this research.

2. There is a wide agreement that all stakeholders should be involved in

national planning and decision making process which lead to better

assessments of needs and better agreement on objectives and strategies also

this will guarantee the accurate implementation of the plans.

3. It is believed that the combination of bottom-up approach and up-down

approach is better for reflecting the actual conditions and to guarantee

acceptable level of coordination and unified vision.

4. Degree of centralization is needed to organize and manage the outcomes

and efforts of stakeholders. The formation of central high level planning

entity, regardless to its name, members and responsibilities, is an agreed

upon procedure to control the planning process. There may be conflict in the

needs and concerns of different ministries and local agencies, some of them

probably have no long, medium or even short term plans, many use different

time horizons, and each agency may use different assumptions and

indicators on anticipated situation. Therefore, the mission of such body

become more important and more complex.

5. It is believed that the central planning body such as a national planning

committee that includes line ministers chaired by for example the minister

of planning if exist or prime minister is needed. The committee’s main task

24

is to supervise planning process in all sectors. The advantage of the high

level committee is due to its ability to obligate with its decisions.

6. It is believed that planning process in Bulgaria is effective and can be

considered when developing the approach in Palestine.

7. The accurate definition and determination of mandates, responsibilities,

and span of work of each entity minimize the conflicts between parties

concerning infrastructure sector.

8. It is obvious that the local circumstances of each country impose the

selection of the appropriate planning approach as well as the objectives of

each developmental sector and resource allocation process for this sector.

The role of each concerned institution, the decision making techniques,

criteria used, constraints, etc. should suit the local country conditions.

9. Allocation of resources is considered as a pivotal issue in planning process

because the final output of the planning process is arisen through resource

allocation. Therefore this process should be accurately tackled taking into

account all influencing factors.

These remarks will be carefully accounted for in the developed approach for

allocating the resources which is the objective of this research. Decision making

regarding allocation of resources is the pivotal issue in the planning process.

Therefore, this process has many important issues that will be discussed in the

following chapter.

25

CHAPTER 3

RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

In any organization, the main responsibility of top management is allocating the

available resources in order to achieve the organization’s goals and objectives (Forman

and Selly, 1998). There are many resources such as financial, natural, human, etc. These

resources should be allocated to various programs or projects so as to achieve the goals.

In this research the concentration will be directed toward the allocation of financial

resources taking into account other resources such that as soon as the financial resources

are allocated in the form of projects or actions, other needed resources will be directed

and utilized in the selected highly prioritized projects or actions.

Decision making process regarding to resource allocation is a complicated process

because of existence of numerous factors that have to be included. These factors such as

objectives, needs, constraints, criteria, etc. should be carefully considered in any

resource allocation exercise. The most important factor is the criteria used in the

resource allocation process. While some factors are tangible that can be measured,

others are intangible that are difficult to measure. The existence of a number of criteria

requires the use of multi-criteria approach for allocation of resources (Kwak and Lee,

1998). The complexity of life today makes most of important decisions require a

multiple criteria decision making process. Some decisions may be made considering a

single criterion, but these are very limited to the simple and relatively unimportant ones.

Almost no decisions of significance can be made based on only one criterion. Given

these conditions, the two terms “multiple-criteria” and “decision-making” are nearly

inseparable, especially when making complex decisions that require consideration of all

the different aspects that affect the decision (Ababutain, 2002).

In public sector there is a complex interaction between national, regional and local

administrators, trade unions, pressure groups, etc. Decisions related to resource

allocation involve many and often divergent interests of these groups. The set of

evaluation criteria is large and has a wide variety of both quantitative and qualitative

criteria, whose values are difficult to establish. (Pieter and Freerk, 2000). In this research

26

BEGIN

Stakeholder Needs &

Objectives

Evaluation Filter

Queue Project

Allocation to meet Needs &

Objectives

Implementation

Needs & Objectives

met?

END

YES

NO

Prioritization Selection

AvailableResources

Project Identification

Fig. (3.1) Diagram Showing Resource Allocation Process (Source: Gregory, R.A. and Pearce, A.R., 1999 )

the technical criteria will be carefully considered and included in the resource allocation

process

3.2 ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

The national level resource allocation is a process to integrate physical planning with

finance and operations to produce a financial and operating plan that realistically

reflects the needs, goals and resources of the nation. The process of allocating resources

as shown in Fig. (3.1), begins with consideration of the needs and objectives of

stakeholders, followed by identification of actions such as projects, that may meet those

needs and objectives.

With limited resources as are typical of most decision situations, these projects are

subjected to some sort of evaluation filter or criteria that may be derived from

stakeholder needs and objectives, resulting in optimization use of resources. At the end

of the cycle, any new or unmet needs and objectives feed back into the next iteration of

the cycle to serve as a basis for identification of new actions (Gregory and Pearce, 1999).

27

3.2.1 Steps of Allocation of Resources

Regardless to the sector under concern, there are many ways to achieve a systematic,

rational and defensible allocation of resources. The methodology discussed below

(Forman and Selly, 1998) is quite flexible and can be adapted to a wide variety of

situations and constraints. The methodology consists of the following steps:

1. Identify/design alternatives.

2. Identify and structure the goals and objectives.

3. Prioritize the objectives and sub-objectives.

4. Measure each alternative’s contribution to each of the lowest level sub-

objectives and criteria.

5. Find the best combination of alternatives subject to constraints.

Details regarding to the previous five steps are discussed below:

1. Identify/Design Alternatives

Identifying and/or designing alternatives is an art and science that need expertise in the

field under question. This process results from wide understanding of current situation

and accurate assessment of needs based on wide participation from all stakeholders. The

alternatives may be an action, project, package of projects, etc.

2. Identify and Structure the Goals and Objectives

Decisions must be made on the basis of achievement of goals and objectives. Therefore,

the goals, objectives and sub-objectives, must be addressed at early stage. This may not

seem easy to be done in a large enterprises, organizations or sectors; however, it can be

done the same way that large organizations are typically organized, that is,

hierarchically. A good bet is that the hierarchy of objectives, sub-objectives, and so on,

must be broad enough to encompass every existing or desired activity that is a part of

the resource allocation process. If not, proponents of an activity will not be able to show

how much the activity can contribute to the objectives. For example, the goal of water

sector can be:

“provide sufficient quantity of acceptable quality water in equitable manner and develop

water resources to achieve sustainability”.

28

The objectives may be:

1. Optimally manage, protect and conserve the existing water resources and

develop new resources to meet the present and future demands.

2. Guarantee the right of access to water of good quality for both present

population and future generations at costs that they can afford.

The sub-objectives may be:

1. Improving water resources management to meet current and future

demand.

2. Developing new water resources.

3. Improving water supply systems to meet standards for both quantity and

quality.

4. Strengthening the institutional and regulatory framework for

management of water sector

3. Prioritize the Objectives and Sub-Objectives

The relative importance of the objectives and sub-objectives must be established in

order to make a rational allocation of resources. Assuming that all the main objectives

are equally important is a mistake. This process is conducted by developing criteria that

enable to prioritize these objectives and sub-objectives. The criteria should be derived

from the objectives to be achieved.

4. Measure Each Alternative’s Contribution to Each of the Lowest Level

Sub-Objectives and Criteria

Having prioritized the objectives and sub-objectives using the criteria, the next step is to

evaluate how much each proposed alternative or action would contribute to each of the

lowest level sub-objectives. This could be done by many common techniques that will

be discussed in Section 3.3.3.

5. Find the Best Combination of Alternatives Subject to Constraints

After prioritizing the objectives and sub-objectives and measuring the contribution of

the competing activities to the lowest level objectives, ratio scale measures of the

29

relative contribution of each alternative to the overall objectives are made. (Forman and

Selly, 1998)

3.2.2 Allocation of Resources in Infrastructure Sector

All over the world, there is an urgent need to specify resource allocation process of

national infrastructure projects. In the following sections the financial resources will be

considered taking into account other resources which will be directed toward the highly

prioritized projects. Also some of other resources are equivalent to money such as land.

Infrastructure related needs have continuously grown to meet the population rapid

increase. What make the problem more serious is the limitation of resources coupled

with the fact that infrastructure projects need large funds. Resource allocation process of

infrastructure facilities is a basic branch of infrastructure management aiming at

programming of the available resources and adjusting infrastructure service provision to

fulfill established performance and service objectives (Garven, 2000). It can be said that

the resource allocation is a decision making process, therefore in the following section

decision making process will be briefly discussed.

3.3 DECISION MAKING PROCESS

Decision-making is a process of choosing among alternative courses of action in order

to attain goals and objectives. A rational decision is one which best achieves the

multitude of objectives of the decision maker(s). In a decision with more than one

objective, the relative importance of the objectives will influence the choice of the best

alternative. Since every important decision has more than one objective, and since the

relative importance of the objectives is subjective, so every important decision is

subjective. But as said, objectivity is nothing more than agreed upon subjectivity

(Forman and Selly, 1998). So sound decision is the one that depends on scientific basis

and is made in participation of all related to the issue.

3.3.1 Decision Making Process for Infrastructure Strategic Planning

Each strategic Planning process must produce specific decisions that conclude the

problem analysis and suggest alternatives for best solutions. The development of

appropriate and effective tools for decision-making process for national infrastructure

sector requires an understanding of the environmental and social context within which

30

these decisions are made. Socio-political influences and existing organizational

structures and formalized frameworks, which define both the stakeholders and how they

interact, impose specific process towards achieving desired outcomes (Alterman, 1983).

A well planned system of infrastructure facilities is one of the primary prerequisites for

country sustainable development. Thus when making decisions related to sustainable

development two principles should be considered. The first principle relates to the

integration of environmental, economic and social objectives in decision making. The

second principle relates to the importance of community involvement in decision

making process and active participation from multiple stakeholder groups. Both

principles create a complex decision environment that involves value laden tradeoffs

between conflicting objectives, input from multiple stakeholder groups and synthesis of

large and complex data sets (Hajkowicz and Prato, 1998). Therefore these two important

principles would be considered in the proposed approach.

3.3.2 Multi-criteria Decision Making

Decisions become difficult when they involve several competing objectives and

attributes. The greater the number of objectives the more complex the decision (Ernest

Forman and Selly, 1998). Multiple-criteria decision-making involves making a decision

based on more than one criterion. Criteria are the rules, measures, and standards that

guide decision-makers. Since decision-making is conducted by selecting or considering

key attributes, objectives, or variables, all these elements can be referred to as criteria.

That is, criteria are all those attributes, objectives, or variables which have been judged

relevant in a given situation by a particular decision-maker. Thus, as the name suggests,

multiple-criteria decision-making involves optimizing multiple attributes, objectives,

and goals to arrive at an optimal solution. Criteria can be either well defined and

quantitatively measurable (e.g., cost, size, etc.), or qualitative and difficult to measure

(e.g., appearance, satisfaction, etc.). Even when criteria can be measured easily,

conflicts often arise between decision-makers over the priority and significance of each

one (Ababutain, 2002). Thus decision making process regarding to allocation of resources

in infrastructure sector is considered as multi criteria decision making process.

31

Nature of

Alternatives

Nature of

Criteria &

Objectives

Discrete

Qualitative / Mixed

Continuos

Linear Programming Goal Programming

Multi-attribute Utility Theory Weighted Summation Ideal Point Method

Quantitative

AHP Permutation Method Concordance Analysis Evamix Method

Fig. (3.2) : Classification of Multi-Objective Multi-Criteria DMT Source: (Hajkowicz and Prato,1998)

3.3.3 Decision Making Techniques (DMT)

Different techniques can be used in decision making process. DMT can be used to

identify a single most preferred option, to rank options, to short-list a limited number of

options for subsequent detailed appraisal or simply to distinguish acceptable from

unacceptable possibilities (Malczewsk, 1999). DMT vary in theoretical background,

simplicity and skills needed. Each technique can suit specific decision making

conditions. Fig. (3.2) illustrates classification of multi objective decision making

techniques. As shown in the figure, the nature of alternatives whether it is continous or

discrete as well as the nature of criteria and objectives whether it is quantitative or

qualitative govern the selection of the DMT.

The alternatives of national level resource allocation process are lists of needed

programs or projects. This means that these alternatives are discrete. In addition to that

the criteria used for national level infrastructure DM are both qualitative such as social

32

impact and uncertainty, and quantitative such as cost. According to Fig.(3.2), Analytic

Hierarchy Process AHP suits this mode of decisions.

3.3.4 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a decision making process that allows the decision

maker to model a complex problem in a hierarchical structure showing the relationships

between goal, objectives, sub objectives, and alternatives (Papke, 2002). AHP was

developed at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania by

Thomas Saaty, it helps decision-makers deal with the complexity inherent in multi-

criteria based decisions (Hansen, 1999). It is perhaps the most commonly used method

for prioritization of decision alternatives. It is a multi-criteria decision-making

methodology that allows subjective as well as objective factors to be considered in the

evaluation process. AHP is a method that can be used to establish and connect both

physical and social measures, including cost, time, public acceptance, environmental

effects, etc. The method is a systematic procedure that organizes the basic rationale of

the decision problem by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts and then calling

for only one simple pairwise comparison of judgments to develop priorities within each

hierarchy. AHP is an extraordinarily powerful decision-making tool. It brings structure

to a decision-making, yet it is flexible because hierarchy of goals, criteria, and options

customized to the particular problem could be designed at hand. It can be used with

groups as a collaborative effort. Also it can bring consensus to decision-making and

allows to quantify judgments, even subjective ones. In addition AHP allows setting

priorities by taking into consideration several factors, that interplay and affect each

other. AHP also was found to be a powerful tool for selecting projects and proposals

overcoming the limitations of other multiple-criteria decision-making techniques

(Ababutain, 2002). More than 60 countries in the world use AHP technique (Forman and

Selly, 1999).

AHP requires the decision-maker to first represent the problem within a hierarchical

structure. The purpose of constructing the hierarchy is to evaluate and prioritize the

influence of the criteria on the alternatives to attain or satisfy overall objectives. To set

the problem in a hierarchical structure, the decision-maker should identify his/her main

purpose in solving a problem. In the most elementary form, a hierarchy is structured

33

Goal

Objective Objective Objective

Sub-objective

Sub-objective

Sub-objective

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Fig. (3.3) : General Hierarchy of AHP

from the top level (objectives), through intermediate levels (criteria on which

subsequent levels depend) to the lowest level (which is usually a list of alternatives). A

schematic hierarchy of AHP is shown in Fig. (3.3)

Criteria are then chosen and weighted according to the priority of their importance to

the decision-makers. The different alternatives are then evaluated based on those

criteria, and the best one is chosen (Ababutain, 2002).

AHP method involves the following steps:

1. The overall goal (objective) is identified and the issue is clearly defined.

2. The criteria used to satisfy the overall goal are identified. Then the sub-criteria

under each criterion are realized so that a suitable solution or alternative may

be specified.

3. The hierarchical structure is constructed.

4. Pairwise comparisons are constructed; elements of a problem are paired (with

respect to their common relative impact on a property) and then compared.

5. Weights of the decision elements are estimated by using the eigenvalue

method.

6. Consistency of the judgments is checked.

34

A detailed description of AHP procedures and equations are illustrated in appendix 1.

Checking the consistency of judgement is one of the strength points AHP has compared

with other decision making techniques which has not any check about the consistency

of judgement and comparison. If there are large sub-criteria, the comparison process

will be difficult. The alternative approach is to use the five-rating score of outstanding

(O=5), good (G=4), average (A=3), fair (F=2) and poor (P=1) to rate each alternative

according to each sub-criterion. Also, this helps to decrease unexpected bias that might

occur in the process of decision-making when there are a large number of sub-criteria to

be compared (Atthirawong and MacCarthy,2002).

3.3.5 Decision Making Players

Decisions are often made through group consensus, yet it is often difficult for all

members of a group to meet, or for each member’s opinions to be heard (Forman and

Selly, 1998). There is a number of involved players in the decision situation. Each of

them has a significant role and / or can affect the decision. The decision maker is

responsible for choosing the alternative action, however, the analyst can help the

decision maker understand the consequences of choosing each alternative. It is the

responsibility of the decision maker to ensure all stakeholders are involved (Taha, 2004).

The decision players can be grouped into the following categories:

1. The decision maker, individual or group that has the authority to make or

approve the decision.

2. The stakeholders, individual or group that influence the decision and / or

affected by the decision.

3. The analyst, individual or group that synthesize the subjective and objective

inputs of the decision maker and stakeholders into meaningful outputs that aid

in making a selection.

3.3.6 Decision Making Criteria

The criteria and sub-criteria are the measures of performance by which the options are

judged. A measurement or a judgment needs to specify how well each option meets the

objectives expressed by the criteria (DTRL, 2000). The potential sources of decision

35

criteria are diverse and include values, goals and objectives, laws and regulations,

scientific theories and data, aspirations and concerns of individuals and social groups (Taha, 2004).

3.3.6.1 Characteristics of Sound Decision Making Criteria

The sound criteria that could be used in decision making techniques should have some

characteristics as follows (Citygate, 1999):

1. Simple and clearly understood.

2. Comprehensive.

3. Reflects policy guidelines.

4. Relevant to goals and policies.

5. Measurable and supported by reliable, relevant information.

6. Could be applied to a wide divergence of projects.

7. Consider major consequences of the project.

8. Practical in terms of cost, time and application.

Others characteristics could be added which are (DTRL, 2000):-

• Decomposable; be amenable to partitioning into subsets of criteria, which

may be necessary to facilitate a hierarchical approach to decision

analysis.

• Non-redundant; avoid the double-counting of decision consequences.

• Minimal; have the property of the smallest complete set of criteria

characterizing the consequences of a decision.

3.3.6.2 Decision Making Criteria for Infrastructure Sector

Infrastructure performance is measured in terms of the effectiveness, efficiency, and

reliability of its contribution to providing or enabling movement of goods and people,

clean water supplies, waste disposal, and a variety of other services that support other

economic and social activities, a safe and healthful environment, and a sustainability

high quality of life (NRC, 1995).

There is a number of criteria that could be explicitly incorporated into selection of

national infrastructure projects. These criteria, should follow directly from the overall

36

objectives underpinning the infrastructure national plan. These are as follows

(SNSD,2000):

1. Economic impact as measured by an appropriate measure of additional

economic activity or employment.

2. Cost-effectiveness, i.e. overall benefits in relation to project costs.

3. Environmental impact.

4. Impact on equity of opportunity.

5. Impact on urban and rural development.

It is accepted that a degree of flexibility may be required in the translation of these

considerations into individual program contexts and that the weight to be attached to

each will vary in the light of specific measure/scheme objectives. Sustainability is one

of the most important criterion that should be accounted for when planning an

infrastructure sector. There is increasing pressure to incorporate principles of

sustainability into decisions and actions regarding resource allocation process.

Sustainability means that the basic needs of stakeholder are met in present and future.

Furthermore, the project is said to be sustainable if it has neutral impact on ecosystem

and it preserves the right of future generations to utilize resources (Pearce et. al., 2000).

In Gaza strip (Kharouby and Ziara, 2003) suggests the following criteria to be used in

strategic planning for water and wastewater sector:-

1. Cost.

2. Implementation and flexibility.

3. Maintenance and operation.

4. Social Impact.

5. Sustainability.

6. Project importance.

7. Uncertainty.

8. Consequence of Failure.

9. Water conservation and reuse.

3.3.7 Concluded Remarks

Allocating of resources for various infrastructure projects is an especially complex and

difficult process. The selection process is a conflict analysis characterized by

37

reconciliation of technical, socioeconomic and political value judgments. Multi-criteria

evaluation techniques aim to provide such a set of tools and a flexible approach to deal

with the qualitative multidimensional effects of this process which will be the main

output of this research. The criteria used in national RAP should be comprehensive that

consider all influencing factors i.e. economical, social, political and technical that suit

the special circumstances of each country.

In Palestine, it is necessary to apply an approach for allocating resources for planning

national infrastructure sector that is based on various relevant criteria. The criteria used

should be connected to the internal and external political, economical, and social

conditions and should be directly and numerically accounted for in the resource

allocation process. Many criteria such as uncertainty, risk and donor’s will be accounted

for. In addition to that technical criteria such as availability of materials and execution

suitability should be taken into account since they may govern the project

implementation.

38

CHAPTER 4 CURRENT RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR (RAPI) IN PALESTINE

4.1 INTRODUCTION

After reviewing general literature about infrastructure planning process as well as

resource allocation process and decision-making issues, this chapter presents and

illustrates the current practice of national planning process for infrastructure sector in

Palestine emphasizing the national level Financial Resource Allocation Process.

4.2 NATIONAL LEVEL PLANNING IN PALESTINE

In accordance with the overall circumstances and political changes in the Palestinian

territories, infrastructure planning has been characterized by large variances. In general

infrastructure sectors in Palestine have been suffering from various constraints for a

long time period. These include shortage of resources, limit of budgets, risks and

uncertainties, conflicts and contradictions in decision making process, etc. (Kharouby,

2004). Infrastructure planning during the last three decades could be classified into

three different periods each has its own characteristics. The following is a brief

description about these stages.

4.2.1 Situation Before Oslo Accord

Over three decades of Israeli occupation before Oslo Accord i.e. Before 9/1993 have

resulted in a technical and administrative void, among other things which has created a

grossly inadequate capacity level among current local, regional and national

government levels. This covered the fields of spatial, physical, socioeconomic and

environmental planning (Shaat, 2002). During the occupation period, a total of US$ 15

per capita was spent on infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, compared with

US$ 400 in Jordan and US$ 1500 in Israel (UNRWA, 1999). During that period, all

projects were implemented without any clear criteria and supervised by Israeli Civil

Administration through Public Works Department and local municipalities. In addition

to that some international agencies such as UNRWA and NGO’s have implemented

limited number of small scale infrastructure projects. It could be said that in that period,

there was no planning process with a scientific concept that aimed to develop the

39

Palestinian areas. Moreover, the planning process in that period was taken from the

viewpoint of occupation which was against Palestinian demands. Lack of financial

resources, insufficient planning and management methods, nonexistence of will may be

the main reason behind this deterioration (PECDAR,2003).

The first national level plan was prepared abroad specifically in Tunisia in 1993 by

Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The plan was a developmental program

aiming at renovation of Palestinian economy. Three hundreds team members in 5

working groups have participated in the preparation of the plan. Unfortunately, this plan

has never seen the light for unknown reasons (PECDAR,2003). It is thought that the main

reason for not utilizing the plan is that it was prepared abroad far from the real

circumstances by experts who have not enough understanding about actual needs.

4.2.2 Situation After 9/1993 till 9-2000

This is the period between signing the Oslo accord to the beginning of Alaqsa Intifada

(which is the uprising of the Palestinian people against Israeli government as a result of

the Israeli continuous breaches of peace agreements between the two sides). Before the

actual establishment of PNA on Gaza Strip and Jericho in 5/1994, the Palestinian

Economy Council for Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR) has been officially

formed in 11/1993. The decree of PECDAR establishment has been issued by (PLO)

which was in Tunisia at that time. Upon its establishment, PECDAR have the following

missions (PECDAR,2003):

1. Drawing economical policies and managing public expenditures for the

new Palestinian National Authority.

2. Coordinate external aids to the Palestinian people.

3. Managing and controlling investment activities and technical assistance

funded through external donations.

At that period, PECDAR was the only official institution working on the national level.

An Economic Conference for Donors was held in Washington 10/1993 with

participation of 45 countries and international agencies. During the conference, the

participated countries agreed and committed to present donations to implement

hundreds of projects that aimed to help the embryonic Palestinian economy and create

40

job opportunities. Most of these projects were planned and implemented through

PECDAR. During this period all projects implemented were emergency and

rehabilitation oriented projects. The project lists were prepared with coordination

between PECDAR staff and local government institutions to reconstruct and renovate

the deteriorated assets, so there were not a specific plan or agreed upon mechanism to

implement project.

As a result of Oslo accord, specifically in 5/1994, the agreement on first step in transfer

of power and responsibilities was signed and accordingly, the control and authority of

Gaza strip and Jericho was transferred to Palestinian National Authority. Many

governmental institutions were established, many of these institutions were related to

infrastructure sector such as Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation

(MOPIC1), Ministry of Public Works (MOPW), Palestinian Water Authority (PWA),

etc. Therefore, the authority and tasks of PECDAR began to decrease. PECDAR’s

previous planning and aid coordination role was transferred to (MOPIC), and the new

PECDAR’s role was just an implementing agency and MOPIC became the most pivotal

institution in the planning process in Palestine. The integrated vision toward the

development and planning began to crystallize, so during that period MOPIC has

prepared many documents, reports and plans regarding to planning issues such as The

Palestinian Public Investment Program (PIPP) which was presented to the Donors

Consultative Group (CG) in 1996. Then within MOPIC, the Palestinian Development

Plan Unit PDPU was established to prepare national development plan that covered all

developmental sectors. The PDPU produced the first National Plan 1996-1998, then the

plan was developed to cover the period from 1998 to 2003. Ministerial committee

chaired by minister of planning and international cooperation supervised the preparation

of the Palestinian Development Plan (PDP) through coordination with PNA related

institutions in various sectors (PIPP,1997, PDP,1998, MOP seniors Interviews). This five-

year plan presented the priority needs for funding with proposed share of total

allocation. Infrastructure and natural resources 49%, institutional development 9%,

social development 25%, and productive sector 17% (Shadid, 2002).

41

Some institutions considered that the role of MOPIC grabbing over their rights, so they

resisted this role. Ministry of Economy, for example, insisted on making its own

decisions, and there were others that referred to their own leadership capacities and

financial resources and refused to accept the coordinator role of MOPIC (Al’abed,1999).

Other PNA infrastructure institutions such as Ministry of Public Works (MOPW),

Ministry of Local Government (MOLG), Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and

municipalities have received funds from donors to implement hundreds of projects

either with coordination with MOPIC or not. The MOPIC role in most of donation

agreements was not as central planning agency but as aid coordination side. The

nonexistence of mandates that specifically determine the responsibilities and tasks of

each body in the planning and resource allocation process created competition between

MOPIC and other involved institutions. For example Ministry of Finance believed that

it should have a role in the coordination of external donations. The Palestinian

Legislative Council (PLC) and Council of Ministers did not take actual steps to

overcome this situation. This ambiguity in responsibilities and not commitment from all

sides including donors themselves adversely affect the planning process in Palestine.

Details about the procedures of preparing PDP will be discussed in Section 4.5.2.

4.2.3 Al Aqsa Intifada (Period 9-2000 till present (2004))

The continuous Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and deterioration of the

Palestinian economy and facilities during Alaqsa Intifada have provoked increasing

concern for the humanitarian condition of the population. For example, unemployment

rate increased from 10% in 2000 to more than 36% in 2002 and the losses in the

Palestinian economy exceeded US$5.4 billion of them US$800 million as total direct

damages in physical infrastructure, public and private properties during the period 9-

2000 to 9-2002 (AF, 2003). In response to this crisis, the attention of the PA as well as

the donor community was diverted away from the medium and long term development

projects to meet the needs of the humanitarian disastrous situation created by the Israeli

incursions and closure policy (UNCTAD, 2003). Therefore, most of planning activities in

MOPIC and other governmental institutions have been directed toward job creation,

1 In 2002, Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation has been divided by prime minister’s decree into two different ministries which are Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) and Ministry of Planning (MOP), the latter is responsible on national planning

42

emergency and relief projects to relieve the Palestinian economy that subjected to

massive crises. Therefore rehabilitation and renovation of the deteriorated infrastructure

facilities were the dominant type of projects in this period. Also there was increasingly

trend toward consultation with municipalities and village councils on the choice and

design of projects. (W.B, 2002).

4.3 CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE SITUATION

West Bank and Gaza Strip have massively suffered from lack of adequate infrastructure

facilities whether during occupation period or after the establishment of Palestinian

National Authority PNA. Despite that after the establishment of PNA notable

improvements in infrastructure services have been occurred, the provision of essential

services is still inadequate in different degrees and some services have very serious

problems (Sewell, 2002). As reported by PECDAR (PECDAR,2003), the level of

infrastructure services are still below the services level in the neighboring countries. For

example, according to (UNRWA, 1999), over 40% of the existing road network requires

urgent repair. As well as, only 29% of the population of West Bank and Gaza Strip are

connected to public sewage system, and raw sewage continues to be diverted into

cesspits or disposed to the sea, posing an environmental hazard to the underground

aquifers, which are the main water resource. In the current Intifada, infrastructure

situation become worse, for example, Gaza International Airport has been subjected to

large damages estimated at more than US$15 million, Gaza Seaport project which was

assumed to start construction in October 2000, has been frozen and the preparatory

physical works have been destroyed. Hundreds of residential buildings have been totally

or partially damaged and hundreds of kilometers of roads have been bulldozed and

damaged.

It could be concluded that before the current Intifada, infrastructure needs were

inadequate to meet the minimum demands to populations. With the current Intifada, the

situation has deteriorated. Therefore the level of infrastructure services is very low. For

example, percentage of countries whose population are accessible to sanitation facilities

with ratio of more than 40%, are 85%, whereas in PNA territories only 29% of

population have this access. Fig. (4.1) illustrates classification of 100 country in relation

to accessibility of their population to sanitation facilities. Even when compared with

43

very poor countries the situation in PNA territories is very bad. To demonstrate this,

Table (4.1) illustrates percentage of population accessible to sanitation facilities in many

underdeveloped and developing countries including PNA territories.

Fig. (4.1): Classification of 100 Countries Regarding to Percentage of Population

Accessibility to Sanitation Facilities

Source: (W.B 4, 2003)

Table (4.1): Accessibility to Sanitation Facilities in Some Countries in 2000

Country Access to Sanitation

Facilities % Population Country

Access to Sanitation

Facilities % Population

Congo 21 Yemen 38

Palestine 29 Madagascar 42

Chad 29 Nigeria 54

Burkina Faso 29 Albania 91

Mauritania 33

Source: (W.B 4, 2003)

The above figure and table necessitate urgent and wise intervention, firstly to stop

deterioration in existing conditions, and secondly to improve the bad situation. In other

words, PNA territories are badly in need to great deal of various infrastructure services,

also the existing facilities need operation and maintenance. With limited resources,

PNA needs to develop modern procedures for infrastructure planning including rational

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Less than20%

20% to40%

40% to60%

60% to80%

80% to99%

100%

% of Accessibility

% o

f C

ount

ries

44

resource allocation process with agreed and appropriate criteria in order to provide

essential services to people then to achieve economic growth and social equity which

are outcomes of infrastructure development.

4.4 ROLE OF DONORS IN PALESTINE

Palestinian economy depends mainly on external aids which cover about 80% of the

funds needed to finance capital investment projects and to cover the deficit in PNA

budget. This dependence on donations is expected to continue over the next years

(PECDAR, 2003). This may be referred to many reasons such as limitation of national

incomes and lack of self resources, also barriers and obstacles put by Israel, and stumble

of peace process which in turn lead to lack of private sector and external investors

participation (Shaat 1, 2002).

Table (4.2) illustrates pledges, commitments and actual disbursements by donors to The

Palestinian people in the period between 1994 to 2001.

Table (4.2): Pledges, Commitments and Actual Disbursements by Donors to The

Palestinian People (1994-2001) Pledges Commitments Actual disbursements

Amount Billion $ 6.1 5.2 3.4

Percentage % 100 85 55.7

Source: (Shaat 1, 2002).

About 84% of the pledged are in the form of grants and about 16% are loans. Donor

interests and Palestinian priorities seem to deviate significantly. This is demonstrated by

comparing the proposed allocation by sectors and donor’s commitments in 2000 as

shown in table(4.3 )

Table (4.3 ): Sectoral Allocated by PDP Versus Commitments and Disbursed by Donors

Sector or Sub-sector Allocated by PDP

($1000)

Committed by

Donors ($1000)

Disbursed by

Donors($1000)

% Disbursed to

Allocated

Agriculture 48,534 13,923 9,770 20

Transportation 59,094 23,147 43,978 74

Environment 11,250 17,991 1,384 12

Source: (Shadid, 2002).

45

The variation does not mean that the assistance to Palestinian people has not been

effective but its impact could have been much greater if donor funding interests and

Palestinian development priorities were more closely matched. The management of

donors relation is never simple. Aid is an investment of foreign policy, and is intended

to serve the interests of donors, the objective is always to minimize the divergence

between the interests of donors and recipients (Shadid,2002).

The external donations to Palestinians were consistent with donors policy and with

Israeli priorities regardless to PNA needs and priorities, in addition to that the

disbursement rate was relatively under expectations (Shaat 1,2002 ). Some donors prefer

to fund NGO’s projects such as USAID. About 7% of the total aids to Palestinians are

channeled through NGO’s, with significantly higher disbursement rate which is about

81% compared with 65% for total aids (Shadid, 2002). Other sources state that about

13% of the total commitments to Palestinians are committed to NGO’s. The actual

disbursements are more than 15% of the total commitments to the Palestinian people

(PECDAR, 2003). This variance in figures resulted in not documentation of much of

NGO’s donations in addition to lack of coordination.

The compendium prepared by UNCTAD secretariat Consultative Meeting July 2003

about the International Support to the Palestinian People (UNCTAD, 2003), reviewed the

foreign aids extended the Palestinian people through the past years. The report

considered that these aids rose steadily in the period 1994-1998, with an average of

about half a billion dollar per year. Given the weak economic planning and revenue

raising capacities of the PNA during that period, almost half of these funds were spent

on recurrent type of expenditures rather than on development projects. In the two years

prior to the Al-Aqsa Intifada (1999-2000), this pattern started to shift more towards

investments in human and capital infrastructure. However, this welcome change was

abruptly seized by the events that led to the second Intifada in September 2000. The

PNA and the international community were forced to switch their efforts from

development to relief to meet the devastating conditions imposed on the Palestinian

people by the Israeli security measures and its external and internal closure policy.

46

The challenge facing the PNA is to learn from the experience of the past years and

avoid their deficiencies to overcome the present crisis and set the stage for economic

recovery and sustained growth. The PNA needs to have its own priorities to be able to

play the leading role in coordinating large sum of moneys and a substantial number of

donors, each of whom has different views, agendas and comparative advantages. Table

(4.4) illustrates general breakdown of international assistance with focus by donors.

Table (4.4) : International Assistance to Palestinian People With Focus by Donor Donors Sub-sectors

Canada Municipal services, water and sanitation

France Water and sanitation,

Germany Solid waste management, water and sanitation

Japan Water and sanitation,

Italy Water and sanitation,

Netherlands Environment, telecommunication, water & sanitation,

Spain Electricity and Power , water & sanitation, municipal services

Norway Electricity and Power, water and sanitation

Sweden Electricity and power, transportation, municipal services, water & sanitation,

UK Water and sanitation,

USA Electricity and power, transportation, water & sanitation

UNDP Electricity & power, environment, municipal services, water & sanitation,

Source : (UNCTAD, 2003)

This needed coordination is not just a matter of who does what, but also why, where and

when. The objective should not be to use relief aids just to employ people and distribute

donor fund to reduce poverty, but it should be further expanded so that relief efforts are

capable of creating a self-sustaining environment for the population in certain

strategically and economically important sectors, which should reinforce the survival

mechanism and later could form the economic base required for the recovery and

sustained growth.

The main point of the above discussion is that PNA should play the leading role in the

donor coordination process, and this cannot be achieved without a clear vision as to

what are national and sectoral objectives, how can they be attained and what are the

highly prioritized programs and projects.

Fig. (4.2) illustrates the current mechanism of donor’s coordination in PNA territories.

47

Consultative Group for Palestine (CG) All-Donor Forum

Est. Oct. 1993 Chair: World Bank

Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC) Principal Policy Coordinator – International Level

Est. Oct. 1993 by Multilateral Talks Steering Group Chair: Norway

Meets approximately every 6 months

Joint Liaison Committee (JLC) Discussion Forum on Economic Policy &

Practical Matters of Donor Assistance Est. Nov. 1994 by AHLC

Shepherd: Norway (Chair of AHLC) Gavel Holder: PA

Local Aid Coordination Committee (LACC) Local Discussion Forum (Priority Setting)

Est. Nov. 1994 by AHLC Chairs: Norway, UNSCO, WB

Meets monthly

Sectoral Sub-Committee Working Groups (SWGs)

Est. Nov. 1994 by LACC

Environment Private Sector Public Finance Agriculture

Education Health Housing & Infrastructure

Telecommunication & Transportation

Institution Building Tourism Employment Creation

Police

Task Force On Project

Implementation

Reports

Reports

Reports

Consult

Shepherds Report

Secretariat: World Bank Members: Canada, EU, USA, Japan, Russia, Norway, Saudi Arabia Associate Members: UN, PLO, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia

Secretariat: World Bank, UNSCO Members: PNA, Donors IMF participates regularly in the meetings

Secretariat: World Bank, UNSCO

Members in each SWG: PA representatives & representatives of donors involved or interested in a specific sector. Gavel holders are PA representatives ( from a relevant ministry) Shepherds are donor representatives

Fig. (4.2) Mechanisms of Donor Coordination and

Organization in PNA Territories

Source : MOPIC

48

As Shown in Fig. (4.2) the higher entities (such as CG, AHLC, LACC) are

responsible for drawing donors’ policies regarding funding allocations and assistance

fields. In the sectoral working groups which include members from PNA related

institutions, a donor country is a shepherd of each SWG. It is clear that there are

many entities involved in donor coordination process, many committees, groups and

task force. Also PNA is a member in all these entities, which means that PNA and

donors continuously meet, communicate and coordinate. So, theoretically

coordination process is perfect.

On the other hand, PNA decision makers, senior officials and experts in national

planning issues confirm that there is a gap between the actual implementation of the

process and theoretical mechanisms. They stressed that political atmosphere largely

affects the performance of these entities toward PNA.

4.5 INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR IN PALESTINIAN DEVELOPMENT

PLAN (PDP)

Because this research deals with national developmental projects, the light will be

concentrated on the Palestinian Development Plan (PDP). PDP was first presented in

Paris in January 1996 and was intended to form a framework for ministries and

institutions that would enable them to realize development objectives using strategies

that take into account Palestinian needs, best-practice global experience and the

constraining political and socioeconomic environment (Al’abed, 1999 ).

PDP is made up of four sectors. These are: Infrastructure and Natural Resources

Management, Institutional Capacity Building, Human Resources and Social

Development, and Productive Development Sector. The infrastructure sector

encompasses nine sub-sectors which are: Transportation, Water and Wastewater,

Strategic and National Projects contains the Airport and Harbor, Environment, Solid

Waste, Energy, Telecommunication and Information Systems, Housing and General

Infrastructure Projects for multi-sectoral projects (PDP, 1998).

4.5.1 Objectives of Infrastructure Sector in the PDP

The objectives of the PDP regarding the infrastructure sector are as follows (Action

Plan, 2000):

49

1. To upgrade and create the infrastructure required for private sector-

driven economic growth.

2. To rehabilitate roads that ensure movement of goods and people

between Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Israel.

3. To facilitate access to external markets for exports and imports by

establishment of Gaza Seaport, Gaza Airport, Gaza Railway links

between Gaza, West Bank and onward to Jordan and Egypt and safe

passage between the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

4. To ensure provision of adequate water and sanitation.

5. To improve transport and power facilities with private sector

participation.

6. To address long-neglected environmental problems particularly for

water treatment and reuse and for solid waste disposal.

It could be said that these goals are detailed and deal with specific sub-sector. The

developmental dimension of infrastructure is almost absent. This will be further

discussed later.

4.5.2 Current Procedures of National Planning Process in Palestine

Within the Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation MOPIC. There are

Macro-Economic Planning Unit and Technical Planning Unit both were established

for the PDP process (PDP, 1998 and Action Plan, 2000). The Macro-Economic

Planning Unit's responsibilities were to establish the resource ceilings for the sectors,

sub-sectors, and ministries based on macroeconomic considerations and recurrent

cost implications, as well as establish the national, sectoral, and ministerial

objectives and strategies for the coming planning period. The Technical Planning

Unit's responsibilities were to work directly with the PA ministries and authorities in

producing their programs and projects for the coming planning. Communication was

also to be established with the Governorates and the general public in the aim of

bringing public participation into the process.

The central core of the process resides with the planning activities in the PA

ministries and authorities. All PA ministries and authorities were involved in the

50

Coordination

Office of Mi nisters

Higher Planning Ministerial

Committee

Ministry of Planning- PDP Unit

Ministry of Planning &

Ministry of Finance

AHLC

LACC

SWG’sPLC Coordination

Coordination

Productive Sector

Capacity Building Sector

Social Sector

Infrastructure Sector

PNA Institutions

Fig. (4.3): Hierarchy of Current National Planning Process in Palestine Source: MOPIC

PDP process. The PDP Technical Planning Unit ensured that inconsistencies were

cleared, conflicts with other entities resolved, data was integrated, and the planning

was realistic and representative of the PA national goals and objectives. Once plans

from all PA line institutions were submitted, the screening and planning process had

to continue. The provision of sectoral resource ceilings in this planning cycles

assisted in the prioritization and planning of the PDP. It is within this framework that

the PDP took its final form.

The PDP Ministerial Committee oversaw the development in the PDP process, and

set policy and gave guidelines with regards to issues related to the plan. The

Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) was also a part of the process through the

approval process of the Plan before it goes to the Council of Ministers for final

approval. PDP preparing process shown in Fig. (4.3).

51

4.5.2.1 Project Selection Process in PDP

The project selection process followed in PDP is as follows:

1. The programs and projects are submitted to MOPIC by the PA line

ministries and authorities for development planning.

2. The line ministries and authorities identified their priorities during the

planning process. The identification of priorities aided the selection process

once resource ceilings were identified for each sector. Therefore all

programs/projects identified in the PDP are priority programs/projects

identified by the ministry/authority responsible.

3. The sectoral prioritization was the main means for selecting

programs/projects based on the resource ceilings identified. This was

conducted after a screening process was conducted on all ministerial plans

submitted. The screening process involved intensive negotiations with the

ministries so that programs/projects that did not conform to the ministerial,

sectoral, or national goals and objectives were removed from the submission.

Second, programs/projects that conflicted or duplicated other similar

submissions from another ministry/authority were removed, resolving the

duplication. Third, budgeting of the programs/projects was investigated with

the ministry if deemed that the projected need was excessive to the

programs/projects final output. Fourth, programs/projects that were not of a

developmental nature were removed. Fifth, projects where sustainability was

in question were investigated with the ministry/authority and either removed

or reformulated to better meet the needs and capacity of the PA. This process

was cyclical and once all issues were resolved and a prioritized list was

identified, the resource ceilings could then be applied keeping only the top

priority projects that fit within the ceiling.

4.5.2.2 Priorities of Infrastructure and Natural Resources Management

The prioritization methodology adopted by MOPIC is summarized in Fig. (4.4). The

followed methodology was as follows:

52

List of Indicators

Weight of each indicator

Total Weight of indicator coverage

Weight of sectors & sub-sectors

Total weight of sectors with its

indicators

Ranking of Projects

Collect from different sources of information

Ranked by most needy governorate

Weighing relevancy of indicators to each sector & sub-sectors

Weighing of sectors & sub-sectors according

PNA priorities

Total weight of sector and sub-sector by governorate for prioritization of projects

National Priority for each project as whole

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Fig. (4.4): MOPIC Prioritization Methodology Source: (Action Plan, 2000)

1- List of Indicators:

Large number of indicators regarding to various fields were used, each one would be

used in prioritization of specific sector or sub-sector. Preparing of indicator’s table

needed detailed and accurate data collection about the existing conditions in all

governorates beginning from population to total dissolved solids in the water, etc.

2- Weight of Each Indicator

The Palestinian 16 Governorates were ranked with respect of each indicator from 1

to 16. For example regarding to the population, Hebron has taken the score of 16.

This meant that it had the largest population among Palestinian governorates,

whereas Jericho which has the least number of population had the figure of 1.

3- Weighing relevancy of indicators to each sector and sub-sectors

The average of the scores of all indicators related to each sub-sector for each

government was calculated to indicate the relative importance of each sub-sector in

each governorate.

53

4- Weight of Sector and Sub-sector

This weighing was conducted according to PNA priorities by consultations,

brainstorming and studies of macro economic planning unit in PDPU. Table (4.5)

illustrates the results of such weighing.

Table (4.5) Infrastructure Sector Prioritization Table (PDP,1998)

Name of Sector or Sub-sector Weight

Sub-Sub-

Sub-Sector

Weight

Sub-Sub-

Sector

Weight

Sub-

Sector

Weight

Sector

Weight

Infrastructure Development and Natural Resources Management 4

Transportation 9

Roads 10

• Regional Roads 3600 10

• Local Roads 3240 9

• Agricultural Roads 2880 8

• Access Roads 2880 8

• Other Transport Related 2520 7

Environment 7

• Resource Management and Protection 2800 10 10

• Environment Policy and Law 2520 10 9

Water and Sanitation 10

Water Supply 10

• Const. Of Main Transmission & Trunk

Pipelines WB 4000 10

• Const. Of Main Transmission & Trunk

Pipelines GS 4000 10

• Replacement/Rehab/ Expan. of Water

Networks, WB 2800 7

• Replacement/Rehab/ Expan. of Water

Networks, GS 2800 7

• Impl. of New Water Supply Networks,

WB/GS 3200 8

• Const. Of Water Storage reservoirs/ Tanks,

WB/GS 3600 9

• Other Water Related Projects 2800 7

Sewerage Collection, Treatment and Urban Drainage 10

• New Const/Rehab Of WW Collection 3600 9

54

Systems, GS

• New Const/Rehab Of WW Collection

Systems, WB 3600 9

• Sewage and Storm Water collection,

WB/Gaza Strip 3200 8

• New Const. /Rehab Of Treatment Plan, WB 4000 10

• New Const. /Rehab Of Treatment Plan,

Gaza Strip 4000 10

Water Resources 9

• Water Resources Management, WB/Gaza

Strip 2880 8

• Drilling New Wells Including Aux.

Facilities, WB 3600 10

• Rehabilitation or Equipping Existing Wells,

WB 3240 9

• Drilling New Wells Including Aux.

Facilities, GS 3600 10

• Rehabilitation or Equipping Existing Wells,

GS 3240 9

• Sea Water Desalination, GS 2520 7

Telecommunication and Information System 2000 10 10 5

Energy 3200 10 10 8

Solid Waste 2800 10 10 7

Housing 2400 10 10 6

General Infrastructure Projects 2000 10 10 5

Example for Illustration

To determine the score of local roads the following steps are followed:

1. The infrastructure sector has given the score 4.

2. Transportation has given score 9 out of 10.

3. Inside transportation sub-sector, roads has given the score of 10.

4. Inside roads sub-sub-sector, local roads is given the score of 9

The overall score of local roads = 4 * 9 * 10 * 9 = 3240

5- Total weight of sectors with their indicators This weight could be resulted by multiplying the score of each sub-sector, which

resulted from the previous step, by the Weighing relevancy of indicators to each

sector and sub-sectors.

55

6- Ranking of Project Each project in the list submitted to PDP was subjected to the above five steps to

determine its overall score

4.6 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS FACING INFRASTRUCTURE

PLANNING IN PALESTINE

As mentioned before, there are general deficiencies facing national planning process

in general, which are: sectoral isolation, inadequate involvement of local

governments, inadequacies in planning methods and institutional fragmentation. In

addition to these points, the special circumstances in Palestine impose new

challenges related to national planning such as the following (Shaat, 2002):

1. Unstable and uncertain political situation,

2. Lack of sovereignty over resources,

3. Impediment created by spread numerous Israeli colonies and

related by-pass roads,

4. The anticipated, but at the same time uncertain increase in

population in regard to returnees,

5. Deteriorated physical environment purposely neglected by

Israel through its years of occupation,

6. Limited Accessibility to natural resources, e.g., water, and

7. Lack of unified planning laws and regulations

From the previous illustration of the process of current practice of the RAP

for national infrastructure projects in Palestine and major challenges facing

this process, it is necessary to evaluate and draw remarks regarding the

current process in the light of other countries’ practices and of the local

circumstances in Palestine. This will be the main subject of the following

Chapter.

56

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION OF THE CURRENT (RAPI) IN PALESTINE

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The current practice of Resource Allocation Process for Infrastructure Sector (RAPI)

in Palestine has been evaluated to identify the weakness areas in the process so as to

determine the required strengthening. In addition to that the main features of the

specific conditions in Palestine that affect the planning process have to be discussed.

Therefore in this chapter, analysis of the influencing factors that affect the planning

process will be investigated. In addition current RAPI will be evaluated so as to

identify its advantages and disadvantages and the areas that need for strengthening

which in turn lead to determine of the main features of the approach developed in

this research.

5.2 INFLUENCING FACTORS AFFECTING NATIONAL PLANNING

AND ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES IN PALESTINE

Palestinian territories has many special conditions that affect national

planning and allocation of resources, these are:

1. Palestinian dependency on external aids.

2. Geographical detachment and differences in demographical structure between

West Bank and Gaza Strip.

3. Lack of unified planning laws and regulations.

4. Consequences of Israeli occupation.

5. Uncertainty regarding political circumstances.

6. Al Aqsa Intifada consequences.

7. Lack of sovereignty over resources.

8. Deteriorated physical environment and inadequate infrastructure.

9. Limitation of national incomes and lack of self resources and service revenue

management.

10. Lack of private sector and external investors participation.

11. The anticipated, but at the same time uncertain increase in population in

regard to returnees.

57

The aforementioned influencing factors largely affect the planning and resource

allocation process in Palestine. Therefore the proposed approach will consider these

factors. For example, this could be achieved by regulating the responsibilities of each

institution, donation management and considering uncertainties and risk factors as

decision making criteria.

5.3 DEFICIENCIES IN CURRENT PLANNING OF INFRASTRUCTURE

SECTOR IN PALESTINE

Figure (5.1) illustrates tree presenting the main problems affecting national

infrastructure planning process in Palestine. The following remarks are drawn from

analyzing the current process in Palestine in the light of the literature review, and

from the interviews held with decision makers in infrastructure related PNA

institutions. In addition the needed strengthening measures for each weakness point

are also identified.

1. Lack of Specific Mandates of Governmental Institutions and Lack of

Coordination

There are responsibility conflicts between governmental institutions, each institution

tends to possess responsibility and authority from others. This may be referred to

absence of specific mandate guidelines that regulate the relationships between all

parties.

Remedial Measures:

It is needed to prepare detailed responsibility matrix that accurately specifies the

responsibilities and span of supervision in the infrastructure sector related institutions

and their interrelationships.

2. Lack of Accountability and Inclusiveness Measures

National planning process in Palestine lacks of the values of accountability and

inclusiveness which are necessary to improve performance and build the trust

between government and population.

59

Insufficient RAP in

Infrastructure Planning

Lack of Integrated &

Unified Vision

Ambiguous Institution

Mandate

Donors

Intervention

Lack of Institutional

Coordination

Lack of Community

Participation

Insufficient RA

Techniques

Need Assessment is

not sufficient

Inst

itutio

nal &

Ext

erna

l Fa

ctor

s

Insufficient

Prioritization Methods Nonexistence of Central

Accessible database

Disagreement about

Objectives &Criteria

Lack of Relevant

Technical Experience

Inte

rnal

Fac

tors

Lack of Transparency

& Accountability

Very Limited Resources

Fig. (5.1) Problem Tree of Resource Allocation Process for Infrastructure Sector (RAPI) in Palestine

Political Conditions &

Israeli Aggression

60

Remedial Measures:

So, the central national planning entity should be accountable by Palestinian

Legislative Council PLC. Also government should build the lost trust through

adopting the two pillars of good governance; accountability and inclusiveness. In

addition to that population should know their rights and hold on them through public

awareness and activation of civil society associations. For example, Association of

Engineers should have a stronger role in infrastructure planning process. The

proposed approach will take this point into account by activating the role of civil

society and professionals in decision making process. In addition to that the

accountable role of PLC should be strengthened.

3. Lack of Teamwork Skills and Work Group Culture

Societies in most of developing and eastern countries including Palestine have not

learnt many important skills such as working group and teamwork skills. According

to dominant values and traditions, many persons or institutions tend to work alone or

in least number of mates. Data sharing, information dissemination, coordination, and

teamwork skills are almost absent specially in governmental institutions. These

problems go back to home, school and university level.

Remedial Measures:

Therefore, change in learning methodologies especially in universities should be

occurred that encourage the new learning trends. Also advanced training courses

related to planning, management and interpersonal skills for staff working in the

departments of infrastructure planning should be conducted. This issue will be one of

the recommendations of this research and will be a part of the requirements of the

proposed approach.

4. Absence of Efficient Institutions and Staff

In Palestine, there are lack of relevant experience and skills. This may be due to two

reasons, the first is the long years of Israeli occupation, and the second, which is

more important, is the negligence selecting the qualified persons to be employed in

governmental institutions especially at the top of institution’s hierarchy. Also

capacity building efforts are not sufficient.

61

Remedial Measures:

Therefore, civil servants especially technical and top management staff should be

carefully selected. To develop the skills of existing employees, specialized advanced

training courses in planning and management issues should be designed. This is a

basic requirement of the proposed approach, also the involvement of experienced

stakeholders in planning and decision making process in the proposed approach is

stressed on which will support this idea.

5. Insufficient Relationships Between MOPIC and Other Involving

Institutions

The most important point to be observed is that there is a gap between plans and

actual implementation. This means that the PDP was not implemented or committed

either by PNA agencies or donors. In a paper about the Palestinian experience in

strategic planning, it was mentioned that many ministries resist the role of Ministry

of Planning (Al’abed,1999). The main reason of this deviation may be the ambiguity

in the regulations and procedures and the mandates of institutions as mentioned

before. Also this may be due to nonexistence of national high-level will to commit

the plan, low degree of satisfaction PNA institutions feel towards to the plan and the

methodology by which it was prepared. In addition, despite donors’ involvement in

preparing the plan, they usually agree to fund many projects presented by individual

institutions. It seems that it needs more time to develop and nurture relations built on

confidence and coordination between those involved in planning process. This may

be carried out through regulations, legislation, dialogue and training.

Remedial Measures:

Therefore, it is needed to activate the higher ministerial committee as a supervisor of

all national planning activities in Palestine. It is thought that MOP has a good

experience during the last decade, which ease its role as a secretariat of the higher

planning committee. A specialized infrastructure directorate within MOP should be

established to manage the national infrastructure planning and resource allocation

process in Palestine. The mandate of higher ministerial planning committee and

MOP should be accurately specified by PLC and cabinet. In the case where MOP

does not exist (as the case of many countries) a specialized central planning entity

62

should be established as a substitute of MOP. But in the proposed approach MOP is

still suggested to be the key planning entity.

Palestinian Legislative Council PLC should adopt a law that regulates the planning

process and enforce to commit the plan. So, the role of PLC in regulating the

planning process will be obvious in the proposed research. Regarding to the issue of

donors, accurate determination of donors’ role and donors’ involvement in plan’s

preparation which will strengthen the process will be specifically determined in the

proposed approach.

6. Insufficiency of Infrastructure Goals in PDP

The goals of any sector should be agreed upon by all stakeholders. The coordination

between economy related ministries and planning sector should be conducted to

determine goals of infrastructure sector based on strategic and comprehensive vision.

The agreed upon goals should suit the local political, economical and social

conditions in Palestine. It could be seen that the developmental, social and

economical vision and impacts of infrastructure are not carefully concerned in PDP

infrastructure goals. The PDP infrastructure sector goals should be more general and

comprehensive. So, these goals can suit sub-sectors rather than the main sectors.

Remedial Measures:

Therefore, inter-sectoral coordination between all developmental sectors and with all

stakeholders in all levels could achieve consensus about national level goals. The

agreed goals should be set based on sustainable development oriented vision. Social

and economical impacts of infrastructure should be considered when setting goals. In

the proposed approach, all sides related to a specific sub-sector will set the sub-sector

objectives. Meanwhile, the goals and objectives of infrastructure sector will be put

by central infrastructure entity. The proposed objectives will consider the

developmental, social and economical dimensions and effects of infrastructure

sector.

7. Neglecting Uncertainty and Risk Factors

Uncertainty is generally inherent in any planning process because the future can only

be projected and not accurately predicted. People's perceptions and judgments

63

depend on the specific context in which they make a decision. Related to uncertainty

is the notion of "risk," which involves both uncertainty and some kind of loss or

damage that might be received if particular events do occur. Political instability is

one of the basic features of the Palestinian overall circumstances. The PDP is not

flexible and it has not accounted for the uncertainty factors, therefore, as soon as

beginning of Al-Aqsa Intifada, the plan has been frozen.

Remedial Measures:

Accounting for uncertainty is very important in planning process in Palestine. This

may be occurred by further investigation in data collection, forecasting and need

assessment, conducting sensitivity analysis, and developing other alternative

scenarios. Furthermore, integrated vision of planning by linking political, social and

economical factors in the overall planning environment may reach maximizing the

accuracy in predicting the future. This point is too important and it will be considered

as a project selection criterion in the proposed approach.

8. Donors’ Intervention

In Palestine, there is full dependency on donations in paying not only capital costs of

projects but also in paying even civil servants’ salaries. This issue is a critical point

that in many cases disables Palestinians to implement the programs and projects they

need. Donors’ intervention is one of the challenges facing planning process in

Palestine. Many of them intentionally contribute in the defect through imposing their

will and refuse funding highly prioritized projects if these projects are not consistent

with their policies. Also they do not have a unified financing policy. They sometimes

accept the implementation of projects through ministries and other times through

municipalities. So it is clear that Palestinian full dependency on donations is a big

problem.

In addition, Palestinian sides participate in the problem through lack of coordination

between different Palestinian entities and non- commitment with the national plans.

Remedial Measures:

Therefore, PNA should adopt strategies that gradually decrease the full dependency

on donations, but this issue is difficult through the current hard situation.

64

Involvement of donors in the planning process and detailed agreement and

negotiations with them should be made to maximize the utilization of donations. So,

donor’s will, can not be neglected in the resource allocation process since they are

the resource. Therefore, donor’s preferences should be taken into account in resource

allocation as one of project selection criteria.

9. Nonexistence of Technical Thematic Working Groups

The strategies and policies of each sub-sector are set by the responsible

institution with isolation from other related institutions. Meanwhile, it is

noted that the resource allocation process itself is conducted by MOPIC

without full coordination with other related institutions. This may cause

contradiction and conflicts and lead to lack of unified vision.

Remedial Measures:

Therefore, specialized local thematic working groups TWG’s for each sub-sector

containing all sides related to each sub-sector are to be formed. The main task of

each TWG is to be the specialized side that is responsible of its sub-sector i.e. setting

goals and strategies, drawing policies and conducting the sub-sector prioritization

process. The advantage of these TWG’s is to unite the sub-sector vision at the

national level, so that when meeting with donors, PNA plans would be

comprehensive, unified and ready. In the proposed approach, TWG’s will be

adopted as the main entities responsible for planning of each sub-sector.

10. Redundancy in the Number of Sub-sectors

There are nine sub-sector inside infrastructure sector, some of these sub-sectors may

have common responsibilities.

Remedial Measures:

So some of these sub-sectors could be merged such as environment and solid waste

as well as strategic and multi-sector projects.

11. Nonexistence of Specific Identification of National Projects

PDP did not mention any definition about the nature of projects submitted to

MOPIC. So, there is not any distinguishing between projects that categorized under

national projects and other local project.

65

Remedial Measures:

As mentioned before, the national infrastructure planning entity, regardless its name,

should carry the responsibility of planning infrastructure projects that have national

influence, whereas projects that tackle local issues in a specific city or village should

not be under the responsibility of MOPIC. It is believed that intermediate degree of

decentralization may suit the conditions of many developing countries that do not

have strong local government such as Palestine, but this should be associated with

specialized training courses in the field of planning. Therefore, well identification of

national projects should be set out on specific criteria. Consequently, any

municipality will have the delegation and authorization to prioritize the local projects

through special budgets of these institutions under the control of ministry of finance.

12. Deficiencies in Prioritization Process

Priority setting is a critical element of the resource allocation process, because it is

used to determine the comparative value of the competing projects. The analysis of

the current process in Palestine identified a number of remarks as the following:

i. Prioritization Technique Used

The technique used in prioritization process depends on scoring method which

proves weakness and have many limitations (Taha,2004).

Remedial Measures:

Other techniques can be used such as AHP or combination of more than one method.

This will be a main part of the developed approach.

ii. Prioritization Criteria

The local practice of prioritization criteria identifies many deficiencies as follows:

1. There are no clear criteria used to prioritize the sectors and projects. Even

objectives of infrastructure sector are not linked to the criteria to clarify and

justify the prioritization process. This makes it difficult to determine the extent

to which a project conforms to the objectives.

2. There is random selection of the scores expressing the relative

importance of each sub-sector compared with other sub-sector. For

66

example to say that generally, sewerage systems is more important than

roads is not reasonable.

3. Moreover, the national policies are neglected in many cases, for

example water desalination is not national priority, due to political

consideration, even though its score is higher than housing sub-sector.

Remedial Measures:

So, the criteria used in RAPI should be directly derived from the objectives

underpinning the infrastructure sector. In addition to that other constraints

and influencing factors should be considered as project selection criteria. The

criteria used for infrastructure sector in Palestine could be economical (such

as: cost effectiveness and project influence on economical activities), social

(such as: target group and jobs created by the project), environmental (such

as: environmental effects), technical (such as: execution suitability and

availability of local materials) and local distinguished criteria (such as:

donor’s preference and uncertainty).

iii. Criteria used by Local Institutions and Other Ministries

When discussing the issue of local level participation in decision making, the

following deficiencies were arisen:

1. There is no coordination between MOPIC and other PNA institutions

regarding to prioritization of projects at local and institutional level. General

policy and guidelines of PNA should be provided by MOPIC to other

institutions for helping them in prioritization of their projects in such a way to

be consistent with national policies.

2. It is noticed that outputs of prioritization process conducted by PNA ministries

and local institutions were not utilized during the national level prioritization

process conducted by MOPIC.

3. The relative importance of programs or projects in any sub-sector in the

government has not been taken into consideration, so that all roads in

Gaza governorate has the same overall score.

Remedial Measures:

67

As mentioned in point 9, the list of projects for each sub-sector should be prepared

by TWG rather than institutions. These lists submitted to MOPIC should be

prioritized based on agreed upon technique and criteria to be consistent with national

policies. In addition to that the sub-sector prioritization output should be utilized as

an input of the infrastructure sector prioritization process.

iv. Rating Procedure

The numbers used to score the sub-sectors are not based on reliable bases. Even

within the same sub-sector, the rating of programs is arbitrary. There is narrow range

for the rating of sub-sub-sectors and programs. Hence, the governing factor for the

prioritization is the rate of the main sectors. This leads for instance, that

environmental laws and regulations to be more important than housing because

environment sub-sector has higher score than housing.

Remedial Measures:

Changing the prioritization technique, choosing of appropriate criteria and study the

program effect on achieving goals will treat this point, this will be a main part of the

proposed approach.

v. Nature of projects

By further review of PDP projects, it is noted that most of projects are capital

projects i.e. operation and maintenance projects or budgets were not included despite

that operation and maintenance of existing projects may be more important than

construction of new facilities.

Remedial Measures:

When adopting TWG’s, study and evaluation of all alternatives will be conducted

leading to proposing operation and maintenance needs.

vi. Project Information

From the previous description, there are no rules or instructions regarding to project

information. To be more precise, the plan deals only with the project name and

estimated budget without any details about other issues. It is too difficult by knowing

68

only the project name to evaluate the extent that the project will achieve the

objectives.

Remedial Measures:

Standard application form for national infrastructure project should be prepared that

contains all elements and data needed for the application of the proposed approach.

5.4 CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the implementation of the current national infrastructure RAPI in

Palestine involves a number of deficiencies and weakness points that are in need for

strengthening. These deficiencies could be divided into two categories: Firstly, is

related to the practice and interrelationships between different entities involved in

planning process such as lack of specific mandates, lack of accountability and

inclusiveness measures, insufficient relationships between different institutions,

insufficiency of infrastructure goals and neglecting many influencing factors such as

uncertainty and donors will in the process, etc. Secondly, is related to deficiencies in

prioritization process itself, this includes for example, insufficiencies in

prioritization technique, criteria used, rating procedure, etc.

The needed strengthening measures should emphasize on both categories. This

means that management of the planning process and regulating the interrelationships

between different entities are very important but not enough to create complete

process. On the other hand, developing an appropriate and reliable prioritization

technique without regulating and managing planning process itself is meaningless.

Therefore, in the proposed approach, both the two issues will be considered.

5.5 MAIN FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED RAPI

Problem tree shown in Fig. (5.1) presents the main problems facing RAPI in

Palestine. As a response to that, strategies tree is illustrated in Fig.(5.2) presents the

main response actions to the problems tree.

The following are the main features of the actions and strengthening measures

needed, these represent the basic points of the developed approach:

69

1. Existence of high level will.

2. Accurate, clear and detailed institutional mandate.

3. Coordination mechanisms between all stakeholders.

4. High degree of commitment with the process.

5. Increasing the national income and decrease our dependency on

donations as much as possible.

6. Capacity building of staff.

7. Participation by all stakeholders.

8. Agreement and coordination with donors.

9. Greater accessibility to information.

10. Effective accountability mechanisms.

11. Sufficient and agreement on objectives.

12. Transparent, rational and appropriate prioritization process that

includes:

12.1 Selecting the appropriate prioritization technique.

12.2 Selection of appropriate prioritization criteria including

economical and technical criteria

12.3 Agreement on the criteria used by PNA and local institutions.

12.4 Developing of rating procedure.

12.5 Considering operation and maintenance in RAP.

12.6 Preparation of complete project data.

All points mentioned above will be carefully considered in the approach developed

in the following chapter.

70

Reliable RAP in

Infrastructure Planning

Formation of Unified

Vision

High Level Will

Agreement with Donors

to Centralize Funds

Increase Institutional

Coordination

Activate Community

Participation

Sufficient RA

Techniques

Comprehensive & Accurate

Need Assessment

Sufficient

Prioritization Methods

Establishment of Central

Accessible databases

Agreement about

Objectives &Criteria

Training of Decision

Makers

Transparency & Account-

ability Measures

Accurate & Detailed

Institutional Mandate

Fig. (5.2) Strategies Tree of Resource Allocation Process - (Features of Proposed RAPI)

71

CHAPTER 6

PROPOSED APPROACH OF RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR (RAPI) IN

PALESTINE

6.1 FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSED RAPI

In this chapter, a resource allocation approach for infrastructure sector that is suitable

for use in Palestine is developed taking into account the shortcomings of current

practice.

Fig. (6.1) illustrates the steps for the development of the proposed approach. The

discussion and evaluation of the current RAPI, remedial and strengthening measures,

lead to the development of the approach. This process were conducted through

consultation, interviews and meetings with experts and decision makers working in

infrastructure sector. Also many of these have been involved in setting the criteria,

and determination of the significance of each criterion.

The RAPI process could be divided into external arrangements and internal process as

illustrated in Fig. (6.2). The external arrangements are for organizing and

institutionalizing of RAPI. These arrangements include institutional framework,

responsibility of each part, regulations and legislations that organize the process,

coordination and interrelationships with all stakeholders, as well as relationships and

donor coordination mechanisms. Whereas, the internal process is the prioritization

technique itself that determines the technique used, criteria and influencing factors as

well as the determination of the relative importance of each criterion.

Literature Review Ch 2,3

− key issues of national infrastructure planning and RAP

− experiences of other countries

− Decision making techniques

Current RAP Practice Ch 4

Weakness Elements in the Current RAP Ch 5

Strengthening Requirements in Current RAP Ch 5

Development of the Approach Ch 6

Fig. (6.1) Steps for Development of the Proposed Approach

72

Fig. (6.2): Framework of RAPI

Institutional Framework Donors Legislation Stakeholders Community Participation

External

Arrangements

Regulations

Mandates

Interrelation-ships

Accountability

Measures

Internal

Process

prioritization

Techniques & Criteria

To achieve a systematic, rational and appropriate approach for (RAPI) in Palestine

the following questions should be answered:

1. Who will manage the process? (Institutional Responsibilities)

2. What types of projects which will be the input in the process? (Definition of

national infrastructure projects)

3. What are the goals of infrastructure sector to be achieved?

4. How could the process be conducted? (Prioritization technique)

5. What are the influencing factors that affect prioritization process? (The criteria

to be used)

6. What are the performance measurements? (Monitoring and evaluation)

The answers of these questions will be the steps of the proposed approach that will be

presented in details in the following.

The proposed RAPI consists of four steps. Step (1) is Institutional Arrangements and

Framework. Step (2) is the Preparation of the Process, this step consists of 4

activities which are: definition of the term infrastructure sector, identification of the

term national infrastructure program, determination of goals and objectives of

infrastructure sector, and data collection. Step (3) is Prioritization Process, this step

consists of three activities which are: determination of suitable decision making

technique, determination of project prioritization criteria and conducting project

73

prioritization assignment. Step (4) is Monitoring, and Feedback. Fig. (6.3) illustrates

the proposed RAPI approach. The previous steps and activities are detailed in the

following.

74

Step (2): Preparation of the Process

Step (1): Institutional Arrangements and

Framework

Activity (1)

Definition of the Term Infrastructure Sector

Activity (4)

Data Collection

Step (3): Prioritization Process

Activity (1)

Determination of suitable decision making technique

Activity (2)

Determination of prioritization criteria

Activity (3)

Conducting prioritization assignment

Step (4)

Monitoring and Feedback

Fig. 6.3: Steps and Activities of RAPI

Activity (2)

Identification of the Term National Infrastructure Program

Activity (3)

Determination of Goals & Objectives

75

6.2 STEP (1): INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND FRAMEWORK

The first step which is one of the key issues in the approach is the determination of

the institutional arrangements, hierarchy, responsibilities and interrelationships. This

includes the determination of the sides involved in conducting RAPI as follows:

1. In the proposed approach, the basic physical infrastructure is provided by

government. All partners and stakeholders contribute in the process of

infrastructure planning. The participatory approach is institutionalized such that

overlapping and duplication of activities between line agencies, local bodies and

others over the same task and resources are avoided. The approach is based on

the combination of bottom-up and up-down planning approaches. This will

reflect the actual conditions and needs of local society and will guarantee

acceptable level of coordination and unified vision compatible with national

policies.

2. The hierarchy and responsibilities of the national planning bodies are

summarized as follows:

2.1.The developed approach requires the activation and restructuring of the

Higher Planning Ministerial Committee (HPMC). This committee is

chaired by Prime Minister that has a higher level authority over all

other institutions. Its role is to control planning process and to approve

national plans for different sectors in Palestine. This will guarantee a

unified vision and solve any conflicts between the main sectors. In

addition to that the committee coordinates at high level with donors,

through donor groups with full participation of Ministry of Foreign

Affairs.

HPMC members are ministers of planning (Secretary), finance, foreign

affairs, economy, education, and labor.

2.2. The key entity of planning process is the Ministry of Planning (MOP),

which is acting the role of secretariat of HPMC. (In cases where MOP

does not exist such as the case of many countries, independent

planning body is established to bear the role of MOP). Within MOP,

four general directorates are formed, each one to follow up the

76

planning issues of one main sector (Infrastructure, social, productive,

capacity building sectors).

2.3. Regarding infrastructure sector, General Directorate of Infrastructure

Planning (GDIP) is established within MOP, to be the supervisor of

preparing the national infrastructure plan, set objectives, policies and

strategies.

2.4. The GDIP is considered as the secretary of seven local thematic

working groups. Infrastructure TWG’s are transportation, water and

wastewater, environment and solid waste, energy, telecommunication,

housing, strategic infrastructure and multi-sector projects. TWG’s are

entities that are responsible of preparing the strategic plans for the sub-

sector of which it is responsible. Moreover they are responsible to

prepare annual Thematic Action Plan (TAP) that contains the annual

needs of their sub-sector in the form of programs and projects and

prioritize them due to specific criteria derived from the overall

objectives of each sub-sector (set by TWG’s and re-evaluated each 5

years and approved by HPMC). These groups are composed of local

specialists from GDIP and from related institutions, civil society and

NGO’s that concern the field of the TWG. Table (6.1) illustrates the

participants and the responsibility matrix of the seven TWG’s in the

developed approach.

As soon as the TWG’s conduct the sectoral prioritization process for

their sub-sector, they will hand them over to Infrastructure Resource

Allocation Department (IRAD) within the GDIP.

2.5. IRAD conducts the RAPI (due to the methodology which will be

illustrated later). then produces Infrastructure Action Plan (IAP) that

determines the highly prioritized programs and projects each year (the

output of RAPI). The preparation of IAP is conducted with full

coordination with Directorate of Budget in MOF so as to include the

highly prioritized infrastructure projects in the annual budget. The

plans and IAP will be handed over to HPMC for approval.

77

2.6. It is encouraged to present needs in the form of programs rather than

projects because it carries comprehensive vision, tackle regional

problems, and presents comprehensive solutions. Herein and after, the

term program will be used to express either a project or a group of

projects.

79

Table 6.1: Responsibility Matrix of Infrastructure TWG’s in the Developed RAPI

PNA Institutions Civil Society

& NGO’s

Private

Sector MOP MONE MOTIT MOT ENRA EQA PWA MHPW MOLG Thematic Working

Groups + + ++ +++ + + - Transportation + + ++ + +++ + - Water & Wastewater + + ++ +++ + + - Environment & Solid

Waste + + ++ + +++ + - Energy + + ++ + +++ - Telecommunication. + + ++ +++ + - Housing + + +++ + + + + + + + + - Strategic &Multi-

sector Projects

+++ Gavel holder ++ Secretary + Member Note: Other governmental institutions may be added to any TWG as needed such as Ministry of Health in Environment & Solid Waste TWG. Abbreviations

MOLG Ministry of Local Government ENRA Energy & Natural Resources Authority MHPW Ministry of Housing & Public Works MOT Ministry of Transportation PWA Palestinian Water Authority MOTIT Ministry of Tele. & Information Technology EQA Environment Quality Authority MONE Ministry of National Economy

80

2.7. The strategic thematic plans prepared by TWG’s are prepared by full

coordination with all related sides. Ministry of Local Government

(MOLG) will be the responsible of the municipalities’ needs in relation

to national programs. TWG’s have the right to re-propose the

submitted programs to achieve compatibility and consistency between

different regions e.g. central treatment plant that serve two cities

instead of one plant for each city. These projects will be included in

preparation the sub-sector strategic plan and these are included in

TWG’s processes to be ranked at the national level.

2.8. If any municipality gets donations by its relationships for a program

that affects other regions, no objection certificate is taken from related

TWG.

2.9. Resource allocation techniques for the municipal level should be

approved by HPMC based on recommendation by MOP. The

commitment of municipalities with the approved techniques will be

controlled and monitored by MOLG.

2.10 Since flexibility is an advantage of the RAPI, high level degree of

flexibility will be considered through preserving percentage of funds

to emergency projects as well as considering risk and uncertainty

factors in the proposed approach.

Fig. (6.4) illustrates the institutional interrelationships and responsibilities for the

developed RAPI. Fig. (6.5) illustrates sequence of institutional arrangements for the

developed RAPI

3. The role of donors and funding agencies in the developed approach is very

important since Palestinians fully depend on donations, The HPMC will be

responsible to coordinate with donors and to attend the donors’ annual meetings

that draw donors’ policy. Regarding to infrastructure sector, IRAD will full

coordinate with International Donations Coordination Unit IDCU (contains

members from MOP, MOF and MOFA) so as to take the donor interests as a

81

part of the RAPI. Donors will be a part of the process by establishing a multi-

donor coordination group to coordinate donor’s support with IDCU.

General Directorate of Infrastructure Planning GDIP - (MOP)

• Coordinate with institutions through Thematic Working Groups • Set goals and draw policies regarding IS sector. • Responsible for preparation Infrastructure Plans. • Responsible for RAPI

Infrastructure Related Governmental Institutions

• Need Assessment in their Field of Activities. • Researches, studies and project proposals. • Management and supervision of implemented

projects • Coordination through TWG

Municipalities

• Need Assessment regarding services they provide. • Preparation of strategic plan & annual action plan • Management and supervision of implemented

projects • Plan for local projects with specific ceiling • Submit Project Proposals to MOLG

Higher Planning Ministerial Committee (HPMC) • Chaired by Prime minister and include number of ministers • Approve Country Policies & Strategies for different sectors • Responsible for National Planning and donor coordination.

District Councils

• Community participation based needs assessment. • Follow up the implemented projects

Civil Society Institutions

• Accountability role

• Need Assessment

• Advisory side

• Studies and proposals

Cabinet

MOLG

Donors

General Directorates of Other Sectors

PLC Accountability & Plan’s Approval

MOF

7 Thematic Working Groups (TWG)

• Have members of related institutions, NGO’s and private sector. • Set goals and draw policies regarding each IS sub-sector. • Responsible for preparation Sectoral IS Plans and Action Plans.

Fig (6.4): Institutional Interrelationships and Responsibilities for the Developed RAPI

82

General Directorate of Infrastructure Planning GDIP - (MOP)

Higher Planning Ministerial Committee (HPMC)

District Councils

Civil Society Institutions & NGO’s are involved in all stages with all parties due to their fields and levels

Cabinet

MOLG

PLC

MOF

7 Thematic Working Groups (TWG)

Need Assessment

Need Assessment, & Municipal Strategic Action

Plan

Infrastructure Related Institutions

Need assessment and proposals

Thematic Strategic Plans & Sectoral Prioritized

Action Plan National Infrastructure Policies & Strategies

National Infrastructure Plan and RAPI

National Policies & Directions

Present Sectoral Plans to Be Reviewed then Approved

Municipalities

Policies

Approval

Submit to be

approved Review &

Modifications

Coordination & Negotiation

Monitor & Control

Sectoral Policies & Strategies

Negotiation

Budgeting

Negotiation

Policies

International Donations Coordination Unit IDCU

Multi-donor Coordination

Groups

Donors Group

Fig(6.5): Sequence of Institutional Arrangements for the developed RAPI

83

6.3 STEP (2) : PREPARATION OF THE PROCESS

After conducting the first step of the process, the next step is the preparation of the

process which has two activities as follows:

6.3.1 Activity 1: Definition of the Term Infrastructure Sector

In the developed approach, the infrastructure sector encompasses seven sub-sectors

which are, Transportation, Water and Wastewater, Environment and Solid Waste,

Energy, Telecommunication and Information Systems, Housing and finally Strategic

and Multi-Sectoral Infrastructure Projects. Also management and human resources

development associated with providing physical facilities such as infrastructure

training courses are included.

6.3.2 Activity 2: Definition of the Term National Infrastructure Programs

Since national level resource allocation is related to national level programs, the

following definition of the national infrastructure program is adopted in the approach.

National Infrastructure Program is any program (package of projects) and policy

measures designed to achieve specific developmental objectives within a designated

period. This program should be related to one of the seven infrastructure sub-sectors

(Transportation, Water and Wastewater, Environment and Solid Waste, Energy,

Telecommunication and Information Systems, Housing and finally Strategic and

Multi-Sectoral Infrastructure Program). This program should be consistent with

national objectives and at least one of the following conditions are applied:

• Has national influence.

• Has more than one shareholder i.e. more than one side are involved in

the program. (e.g. common between two governorates).

• Important to express sovereignty of the country.

• Serves more than 5% of the total Palestinian population (150,000

inhabitants) either directly on indirectly.

This definition distinguishes between local and national programs. The local one may

be included in any municipality action plan such as paving of interior roads,

rehabilitation of water house connections, etc. These programs could be planned and

implemented by the municipality itself. The municipality will be given the delegation

to prioritize and implement such programs based on their vision through specific

84

budget. Local infrastructure budget for municipalities could be allocated based on

different indicators such as population and overall infrastructure conditions.

6.3.3 Activity 3: Data Collection

Before conducting RAPI, Infrastructure Resource Allocation Department (IRAD)

needs to acquire accurate and detailed information about the program lists. The

provision of IRAD with the needed data about programs is the responsibility of

TWG’s. The needed data such as program readiness for implementation and number

of working days provided by the program or project, etc. These data should be

accurately collected with full cooperation with all concerned sides. Also the collected

data should be continuously updated in a specific form as illustrated in Appendix 2.

6.3.4 Activity 4: Objectives of Infrastructure Sector

Objectives of infrastructure sector in Palestine are identified based on the overall

circumstances in Palestine. Based on conducting consultations and interviews with

experts and senior officials, the framework of the objectives of infrastructure sector in

Palestine are related to achieve socioeconomical growth, sustainability, sovereignty

and create job opportunities in addition to rehabilitate of deteriorated infrastructures.

6.4 STEP (3): PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

The key issue in the RAPI is the prioritization of the programs using an effective

technique based on agreed criteria. The following activities describe this step:

6.4.1 Activity 1: Determination of Suitable Decision Making Technique

In the developed RAPI, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method will be used as the

main DMT due to its remarkable advantages such as its suitability for application to

solve highly complex decision problems, flexibility and allowing to quantify

judgments. Even subjective judgments consider several influencing factors into

account that interplay and affect each other. In addition to use AHP, cost benefit

analysis will also be conducted, since it is very important in evaluating infrastructure

programs.

6.4.2 Activity 2: Determination of the Prioritization Criteria

After reviewing the prioritization criteria used in many countries for infrastructure

sector, many meetings with local decision maker in infrastructure related institutions

85

were conducted to set the prioritization criteria. In the selected criteria, values, goals

and objectives, laws and regulations, local conditions, technical issues, constraints,

etc. were considered. The following are the criteria that will be used in the

prioritization exercise:

1. Socioeconomical Effects and Sustainability

2. Donor’s Preference

3. Environmental Impact

4. Availability of Technical Requirements (3Ms:men, machines, materials)

5. Execution, O&M Uncertainty

6. Program Importance Inside the Sector

7. Cost- effectiveness

These criteria can be classified to three types as shown in Fig.(6.6) (one criterion may

be common in more than one category).

The aforementioned criteria will be discussed as follows:

6.4.2.1 Socioeconomical Effects and Sustainability

This criterion tackles the effects of the proposed program on economical and social

environment in addition to sustainability issue. Any infrastructure program will have

high score regarding to this criterion if it encourages the participation of the private

sector, facilitates investment and is directed toward poor and ignored groups. Also if

present or future programs depend on the proposed program e.g. if Ministry of

Transportation proposes a road that leads to industrial zone or a University, this road

will have a high priority. Also programs related to reconstruction of damaged

facilities will have high priority in this stage. Also this criterion includes one most

important points that is derived from the local conditions in Palestine which is the

General criteria -Socioeconomical effects

& Sustainability

-Environmental impact

-Cost- effectiveness

-Uncertainty

Local Driven

criteria -Donor’s preference

-Execution, O&M

Uncertainty

-Availability of 3Ms

Technical Criteria -Environmental impact

-Availability of 3Ms

-Execution, O&M Suitability

Uncertainty

-Program importance inside sector

Fig. (6.6) : Classification of RAPI Prioritization Criteria

86

issue of job opportunities created by infrastructure program which is one of the

objectives of infrastructure sector. Therefore, any program that hires large number of

persons will have high priority regarding to this point.

In additional to the above sub-criteria, this criterion includes also a measurement of

program sustainability, which are the reliability of the program to meet present and

future needs. For example, establishing energy generation plant is more sustainable

that establishing transformation lines from Israeli Electricity Company. Furthermore,

the program is said to be more sustainable than another if it has less impact on

preserving the right of future generations to utilize resources.

6.4.2.2 Donor’s preference

In Palestine, donor’s will could not be ignored. Through Palestinian bodies charged

with coordination with donors, each donor states the fields and sectors they intended

to finance during the next period. So, the sub-sectors and programs which have high

preferences from number of donors will have higher scores than others.

6.4.2.3 Environmental Impact

This criterion is divided into two parts, firstly, the contribution of the program

in protecting environment and public health and solve environmental problems

including air, soil and water, etc. The second is the effects of the program on

the environment as determined from Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

6.4.2.4 Availability of Technical Requirements

This technical criteria is too important regarding to local conditions in Palestine,

where Palestinian market lacks well trained technicians, suitable construction

materials, high level technology and sophisticated equipments. So, each program is

studied in the light of the availability of these elements which will guarantee quick

and easy implementation of the program.

6.4.2.5 Execution, Operation and Maintenance Uncertainty

This criterion touches one of the most important technical issues in Palestine which is

uncertainty in relation to execution, operation and maintenance. This will be

considered in the prioritization of programs by comparing the programs each other

regarding to many points. These include accuracy and completeness data, execution

87

readiness such as availability of land, completion of all prerequisites and previous

phases (e.g. paving of a street could not be performed without installation of

wastewater lines in a street, so, wastewater project has high score regarding this

criterion). Also, effects of instability of political conditions regarding settlements and

accessibility to program sites are also considered. So, programs that have high risk

probability either political or technical will have low priority. Furthermore Easiness

and ability of execution, operation and maintenance is very important technical issue

that may be a potential source of uncertainty.

6.4.2.6 Program Importance Inside the Sector

Since it is important that national prioritization process should achieve the sub-

sectoral goals which are reached from TWG’s prioritization process inside the sub-

sector. Here it is worth mentioning that the techniques used from different TWG’s

should be the same in order to make the process consistent. If TWG does not

prioritize their sub-sector programs, the neutral is taken so as not to affect the result.

Because this criterion represents the importance of the program in relation to its sub-

sector (based on sub-sectoral criteria derived from the sub-sector specific goals), in

the developed approach, it is detached from AHP process. For example, if 2 national

infrastructure programs related to different sub-sectors are prioritized using AHP, the

final score is RAPI composite priority vectors that represents the relative importance

of each other regarding to national criteria. The effect of sub-sector prioritization can

be calculated by multiplication of RAPI composite priority vectors by sub-sectoral

score, the output of this process is the priority index. The sub-sectoral score is

conducted by considering that the mean value of all scores inside the sub-sector will

have score 1, then the score of each program is divided by the mean value, and the

result will express the importance of the program inside the sub-sector.

The output of the prioritization process using the previous six criteria is termed as

priority index (PI).

6.4.2.7 The Benefit-Cost Indicator B/C The cost of the program should be considered as a criterion in the resource allocation

process through the term benefit-cost indicator that could be calculated by division of

88

priority index (PI) over the present value (PV) of capital and operating cost (Million $)

along the project life time.

B/C = PI / PV

Where :

Final Score

The final result of RAPI (RAPI Score (Final Score FS)) will be calculated using the

following formula which was derived after extensive consultations and discussion

with decision makers and specialists in infrastructure field.

FS = PI + 0.1 B/C

Where :

If it is needed to prioritize projects inside the program, the FS is multiplied by

governorate indicator that represents current situation regarding the proposed project

in the governorate. For example the indicators of construction of water wells are

suggested to be water quantity per capita, water quality, TDS. These indicators are to

be developed by TWG. Table (6.2) illustrates a summary of the criteria and sub-

criteria used in RAPI.

6.4.3 Activity 3: Conducting Prioritization Assignment.

The prioritization process will be conducted by IRAD staff (who are mostly experts)

through the following steps:

1. Pairwise comparison will be conducted to determine the relative

importance of each criterion regarding to others. The criteria used in

AHP are all the aforementioned criteria except the last two which are,

program importance inside the sector and benefit-cost indicator. Inside

each criterion, sub-criteria are compared each other to determine the

significance of each sub-criterion inside the main criterion.

FS is the final score (RAPI Score)

PI is Priority Index

B/C is Benefit – Cost Indicator

B/C is Benefit – Cost Indicator PI is Priority Index

PV is present value of capital and operating cost (Million $)

89

Table (6.2) Summary of the Criteria and Sub-Criteria Used in RAPI.

No Criteria Sub-criteria

1

Socioeconomical Effects and Sustainability

• The dependency of existing or future programs on the proposed program.

• Effect of program on facilitating investment and encouraging private sector participation.

• Target group (poor and ignored groups).

• Program relevancy to reconstruction of damaged facilities.

• Job opportunities created by the program.

• Program sustainability.

2 Donor’s Preference

• Program relevancy to sub-sectors preferred from number of donors.

• Program has preliminary approval to be financed from a donor side.

3 Environmental • Contribution of the program in protecting environment and public

health.

• Effects of the program on the environment (EIA).

4

Availability of Technical Requirements (3Ms:men, machines, materials)

• Availability of professionals & technicians to design and implement the program.

• Availability of construction materials.

• Availability of needed technology and equipments.

5

Execution, O&M Suitability and Uncertainty

• Accuracy and completeness of data.

• Execution readiness (Availability of land, Completion of studies and all requirements and previous phases).

• Easiness and ability of operation and maintenance.

• Effects of instability of political conditions on the program execution.

6 Program Importance Inside Sub-Sector

• The score of the program inside its sub-sector.

7 Benefit-Cost Indicator

• It is calculated by division of overall score of the program reached from the prioritization process regarding to the previous criteria, over the present value of capital and operating cost along the project life time.

2. The relative Pairwise comparison will be conducted between sub-criteria with

each other inside each main criterion.

3. Pairwise comparison will be conducted between programs regarding to each

sub-criterion. The program is rated regarding to each sub-criterion using the five-rating

score of outstanding (5), good (4), fair (3), poor (2) and very poor (1).

90

4. With respect to the main criteria, The program is rated by summation of the

program score regarding to each sub-criterion by sub-criterion priority vector.

5. Then the programs are pairwise compared regarding to each main criterion

depending on the program score calculated from the previous step.

6. After completing AHP exercise, each program has a score expressing its

importance called “composite priority vector”. This score will be multiplied by the score

of the program inside its sub-sector to get Priority Index (PI).

7. PI represents the benefit from the program, when it is divided by the present

value of program’s capital and operating cost it may represent benefit-cost indicator

(B/C).

8. The output of the approach is called RAPI Score (Final Score FS) which could

be calculated by adding PI and 10% of B/C.

9. If it is needed to prioritize projects inside the program the main factor will be the

governorate indicator (similar to the methodology used in the PDP)

6.5 STEP (4): MONITORING AND FEEDBACK

The main purpose of this phase is to ensure that the activities are being implemented

as it planned. The following steps are used to monitor the proposed approach:

1. Compare the gap between planning and implementation either

financially or physically.

2. Check the program and project actual data and statistics through

implementation.

3. Compare the real data with the pre-implementation data that used in

decision making process.

4. Perform qualitative studies to measure the extent to which the program

is achieving its objectives.

5. Measure the indication of population regarding the implemented

programs.

The results of the monitoring phase will provide IRAD with data needed to evaluate

the previous RAPI exercise. This may cause modifications in the process itself so as

to add or delete other criteria or change relative importance of each one which in turn

enhance RAPI in the next cycle.

91

6.6 CONCLUDED REMARKS

It is believed that the developed approach has a number of strength points compared

with the existing practice. Also it greatly fits the local conditions and influencing

factors. Table (6.3) presents the main advantages of the approach compared with the

existing practice.

Table (6.3):Comparison Between the Developed Approach and the Existing Practice:

Item Developed Approach Current Practice

Commitment − Legislations and regulations to

guarantee high degree of commitment.

− No clear legislations nor regulations to guarantee commitment of the process.

Vision

− Integrated vision through activation of the central planning council and central TWGs.

− No integrated vision because of deactivating the central planning council.

Institution’s Mandate

− Accurate, clear and detailed institutional mandate.

− Conflicts occur due to ambiguous and general mandate.

Coordination Mechanism

− Detailed coordination mechanism between all entities and stakeholders involved either local or international.

− Theoretical coordination mechanism exists but actually there is lack of coordination.

Participation

− The approach depends on stakeholders participation (Private sector, civil society and NGO’s).

− Local level degree of decentralization.

− Participation is restricted only to governmental institutions.

Relationship With Donors

− Agreement and coordination with donors.

− Involvement of donors from early stages.

− Donor’s preference is considered as a decision making criterion.

− Theoretical coordination and cooperation with donors.

− Donors impose their will due to local disagreement and conflicts.

− Donor’s preference is not considered.

Data Sharing

− There is greater accessibility to data and information needed to make decisions through central data collection in TWG.

− Lack of data sharing among different sides. Each institution may preserves its data.

Accountability − Effective and multi-levels of

accountability mechanisms by PLC and NGO’s.

− No clear accountability mechanisms.

Objectives Setting

− Objectives of infrastructure sector are set by GDIP due to national goals set by HPMC. Meanwhile, sub-sectors’ objectives are set in TWGs through full participation by all.

− Objectives of infrastructure sector were set by MOPIC. Meanwhile, there is no clear objectives of sub-sectors.

92

This guarantee sufficient consensus regarding objectives.

Main Planning and RA Entities

− TWGs are the entities responsible for planning of each sub-sector. These depend on professionals and well-trained staff.

− RAP are conducted by specialized staff of IRAD that follows GDIP within MOP.

− Technical unit within MOPIC is the main central planning and resource allocation process.

Item Developed Approach Current Practice

Financing Policy

− The approach requires centralization in funding channels through MOF.

− Mixed financing policy,(from MOF or directly from donors to the institution).

Prioritization Process

Transparent, rational and appropriate prioritization process that includes:

− Using AHP method as the main prioritization technique which widely and successfully used, in addition to cost benefit analysis.

− Using different types of appropriate criteria (technical, social, economical) that are linked with objectives.

− Consideration of local driven criteria such as risk and uncertainties and donor preferences.

− Utilization of program score inside sub-sector.

− Clear definition of national program or project.

− Dependency on complete set of data regarding to each program.

− Scoring method were used which has many limitations.

− Rating procedures are arbitrary. − No clear criteria were used. − Indicators used is not linked

with objectives. − Local influencing factors were

not considered in the process. − Prioritization process of

programs or projects by local institutions is not utilized in infrastructure prioritization process.

− No clear definition of national infrastructure program or project.

− Prioritization process did not depend on complete data.

Monitoring & Feedback

− Continuous monitoring and feedback.

− Monitoring and feedback mechanism are not clear.

The aforementioned comparison indicates that the developed approach overcomes

many weakness points from which the current practice suffers. Some of these issues

are related to institutional and regulatory framework responsible for conducting the

process. Meanwhile, others are concerning the prioritization approach itself.

The developed approach may need some refinement or modifications, this will appear

through applying it on a case study which will be the main issue of the following

chapter.

93

CHAPTER 7

APPLICATION OF THE DEVELOPED APPROACH TO CASE STUDY

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The practicality of the developed approach for use in real life application is

demonstrated in this chapter. The developed approach is applied on considering 11

national infrastructure programs included in the PDP. These programs were selected

with consultation and coordination with MOP senior staff. The programs were a part

of the prioritization process conducted by MOPIC staff through PDP preparation.

The application of the developed approach has been based on the data included in

programs proposals available in MOPIC. The needed discussion, forecast, and

judgment have been carried out with consultation of number of seniors and decision

makers in the field of infrastructure in Palestine. Thus, these have acted as the

responsible entities for implementing the developed approach.

The four steps of the developed approach have been implemented in the case study as

discussed in the following sections.

7.2 CASE STUDY

The case study list of programs shown in Table 7.1 were chosen from PDP list. These

programs are from different infrastructure sub-sectors and geographically distributed

over Palestinian territories. The developed approach is implemented to the case study

following the approach steps.

7.3 CASE STUDY - STEP (1): INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND

FRAMEWORK

Figs. 6.4 and 6.5 illustrate the institutional arrangement needed for the application of

the developed approach. The researcher has acted as the different entities mandated

for conducting the RAPI with consultation with influencing people from different

relevant institutions mentioned in the process which was described in the previous

chapter. Subsequently, it assumed that TWG’s has prepared the lists of programs

prioritized inside their sub-sectors according to the strategies and policies.

94

Table 7.1 Case study - List of Programs and Their Estimated Budget

Program \ Project Title

Sub- Secto

r*

Location Budget

(1000$)

Construction of Carrier Segment P1 W & WW GS 9000

Establishment of Transportation Research Center P2 RT All 2130

Gaza Central WWTP P3 W & WW Gaza 60000

Development of Electrical Distribution System South of West Bank

P4 EN WB 3700

Ramallah – Nablus Main Road P5 RT WB 3250

New Wadi Elnar Road (Sawahra – Beit Sahour) P6 RT Bethlehem 18000

Gaza International Airport Road P7 RT Rafah 1200

Construction of 3 Landfill Sites P8 EV WB 18700

Infrastructure for Alzahra Housing Project P9 HO Zahra 5000

Palestinian Environmental Action program P10 EV All 1400

Establishment of Postal Banks P11 CO All 5900

• W&WW: Water and Waste Water, RT: Road and Transportation, EN: Energy, EV:

Environment, HO : Housing, CO : Telecommunication

7.4 CASE STUDY - STEP (2) : PREPARATION OF THE PROCESS

7.4.1 Case Study – Step (2) : Activity 1: Definition of the Term Infrastructure

Sector

The infrastructure sector encompasses seven sub-sectors which are, Transportation,

Water and Wastewater, Environment and Solid Waste, Energy, Telecommunication

and Information Systems, Housing and finally, Strategic and multi-sectoral

Infrastructure Programs. Also management and human resources development

associated with providing physical facilities such as infrastructure training courses,

are included. The aforementioned programs lie within the previous definition of

infrastructure.

7.4.2 Case Study – Step (2) : Activity 2: Definition of the Term National

Infrastructure Programs

The selected programs lie within the definition of national infrastructure program

mentioned before. Table (7.2) illustrates the application of constituents of national

programs on the selected programs. It is noted that at least one of the constituents of

the definition of national programs is applied to each selected program.

95

Table (7.2): Application of National Program Definition on the Case Study Programs

Constituents of the Definition Program Has

National Influence

Has More Than One

Shareholder

Express Sovereignty

Serves 5% or more of

population Construction of water Carrier - GS X X X X

Establishment of Transportation Research Center X X X

Gaza Central WWTP X X X

Development of Electrical Distribution System South of WB X X X

Ramallah – Nablus Main Road X X X X

New Wadi Elnar Road (Sawahra – Beit Sahour) X X X X

Gaza International Airport Road X X X X

Construction of 3 Landfill Sites X X

Infrastructure for Alzahra Housing Project X X

Palestinian Environmental Action program X X X

Establishment of Postal Banks X X X

7.4.3 Case Study – Step (2) : Activity 3: Data Collection

The needed data for applying the developed approach are collected from MOP and

from institutions that proposed these programs. The data collected regarding to the

aforementioned programs are illustrated as follows:

1. Construction of Carrier Segment

The program is a comprehensive water supply system for the entire Gaza Strip. It will

include 91 km long pipeline passing through Gaza Strip governorates from Beit Lahia

in the north to Rafah in the south. The carrier will receive the fresh water from 7 wells

and 3 seawater desalination plants and 3 connections from Israeli water distributors.

The carrier will be redirected to local municipal and industrial users along Gaza Strip.

The water withdrawal points along the carrier are established at local demand centers

which are parts of local municipalities. Each is characterized by its local storage

reservoirs.

2. Establishment of Transportation Research Center

The goal of establishment such a center is to provide a basic technical support for

transportation sector including transportation planning and management, conducting

researches and studies on materials used, in addition to information technology related

to transportation sector.

96

3. Gaza Central Waste Water Treatment Plant

The program aims at establishing a wastewater treatment plant in the middle area of

Gaza strip to serve both Gaza and middle governorate with the capacity of 85,000 m3

per day . The program includes constructing the structures of the plant in addition to

pumping stations and main lines leading to the plant. The documents of the program

is ready and all problems were solved.

4. Development of Electrical Distribution System South of West Bank

The program aims at rehabilitation and development of electrical distribution system

south of West Bank. This will increase the efficiency of electrical distribution which

in turn reduce the financial losses. Furthermore, the program will achieve the

accessibility of electric current to all areas in the south of West Bank.

5. Ramallah – Nablus Main Road

The program involves upgrading a 43 km road. A comprehensive infrastructure

rehabilitation (water, wastewater, storm water and electricity) is included. Also the

program includes the installation of traffic control facilities. The project will improve

the accessibility between northern and southern parts of West Bank which in turn will

facilitate and induce economic growth.

6. New Wadi Elnar Road (Sawahra – Beit Sahour)

The proposed road connects northern and middle parts of southern West Bank with

each other. This will reduce travel time, save energy , improve safety, and induce

economic growth. The program includes construction of 9 km road and construction

of box and pipe culverts for surface drainage in addition to install traffic control

devices.

7. Gaza International Airport Road

The proposed road links Gaza International Airport with road #4 (Salah Eddein

Road). This will facilitate movements of all Gaza Strip population in general and

passengers in particular from and to Gaza International Airport. The program includes

construction of 2.8 km road and construction of box and pipe culverts for surface

drainage in addition to install traffic control devices and street lights.

8. Construction of Three Landfill Sites in West Bank

97

The objectives of the program is to establish a solid waste council to be the higher

organization responsible to regulate the solid waste matters, and to construct three

landfill sites in three WB governorates which are Tulkarem, Ramallah and Nablus.

9. Infrastructure for Alzahra Housing Project

Alzahra housing project has a total area of 32 hectare, it includes 2200 residential

units. The proposed project includes providing the needed infrastructure services such

as landscaping, water, wastewater networks, roads and parks pavement in additional

to external electricity and lighting networks.

10. Palestinian Environmental Action Program

The program is considered as the national Strategy of protecting Palestinian

environment that includes regulations, measures and enforcement mechanisms in

relation to environmental issues. The program will provide a technical assistance to

dumping sites and suggest a suitable database for hazardous and toxic wastes. The

program is currently under negotiation with Netherlands.

11. Establishment of Postal Banks

The program includes procurement of servers, teller stations, appropriate database

softwares, communications and other supporting equipments for 62 existing postal

branches West Banks and Gaza Strip. This modifications increase governmental

financial resources and accelerating and facilitating services offered to customers.

This program will offer 200 job opportunities.

7.4.4 Case Study – Step (2) : Activity 4: Objectives of Infrastructure Sector

The following are the objectives of infrastructure sector in Palestine for the coming

period:

1. Rebuilding and rehabilitation of damaged infrastructures due to Israeli

aggression;

2. Well balanced distribution of the basic infrastructure services needed to

Palestinian people;

3. Creating the infrastructure required for achieving the national economical

growth and sovereignty;

4. Upgrading and creating the infrastructure required for sustainable

development and encouraging the private sector;

5. Developing sustainable programs that create job opportunities to reduce

98

Palestinian dependency Israel and donations;

6. Protecting the environment and public health;

7. Achievement of objectives of infrastructure sub-sectors.

7.5 CASE STUDY – STEP (3) : PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

7.5.1 Case Study – Step (3) : Activity 1: Determination of Suitable Decision

Making Technique

In the developed RAPI, AHP method and benefit cost analysis have been used.

7.5.2 Case Study – Step (3) : Activity 2: Determination of Prioritization Criteria

As mentioned in the developed approach, the following are the criteria used in the

case study:

1. Socioeconomical Effects and Sustainability (SES)

2. Donor’s Preference (DP)

3. Environmental Impact (EI)

4. Availability of Technical Requirements (3Ms:men, machines, materials) (3M)

5. Execution, O&M Suitability and Uncertainty (EU)

6. Program Importance Inside the Sector (PIS)

7. Benefit – Cost analysis (BC)

7.5.3 Case Study – Step (3) : Activity 3: Conducting Prioritization Assignment.

After approving the previous criteria, firstly, the criteria are compared each other as

shown in Table (7.3). For example, when comparing SES and DP the figure (5) (shaded)

means that SES is strongly more important than DP. The last column indicated that SES is

the most important criterion that represents 52%, meanwhile, each criterion of 3M and EU

represent 16%. Then DP and EI have lower significance. Detailed example about AHP

method is illustrated in appendix 1

Table (7.3) : Pairwise Comparison Between Criteria in the Case Study

Criteria SES DP EI 3M EU Priority

SES 1 5 7 4 4 0.52

DP 0.2 1 3 0.5 0.5 0.105

EI 0.143 0.33 1 0.33 0.33 0.053

3M 0.25 2 3 1 1 0.161

EU 0.25 2 3 1 1 0.161

99

It is worth mentioning that the Inconsistency Index (ICI) check has been conducted

for the previous pairwise comparison and for all comparison cases. The ICI

calculations appear acceptable results indicating that the comparisons are consistent.

Then sub-criteria are subjected to pairwise comparison to determine their relative

importance each other inside each criterion. All tables about the case study is

illustrated in Appendix 3. For example, the results of conducting pairwise comparison

between sub-criteria of the main criterion availability of technical requirements

indicate that the availability of construction materials and availability of technology

and equipment have the same score which is 46.6% meanwhile the availability of

technician has less importance. This is illustrated in Table (7.4).

Table (7.4): Pairwise Comparison Between Sub-criteria of the Main Criterion

(Availability of Technical Requirements)

Sub-Criteria Availability of

Professionals and technicians

Availability of construction

materials

Availability of technology and

equipments Priority

Availability of technicians

1.00 0.143 0.143 0.067

Availability of construction materials

7 1.00 1 0.4665

Availability of technology and equipments

7 1 1.00 0.4665

The results of the pairwise comparison for all sub-criteria will result in the relative

weights as illustrated in Table (7.5).

Then the programs are rated regarding to each sub-criterion based on the five point

rating score, then the score of each program regarding to each criteria is obtained. For

example, the rating of project 1 ( construction of carrier segment - GS) regarding to

Availability of Technical Requirements are determined as in Table (7.6).

Then pairwise comparison has been conducted between programs regarding to each

criterion as shown in Table (7.7) which illustrates the pairwise comparison of the

programs regarding to the criterion execution suitability. This comparison is based on

the results of rating of programs regarding to each sub-criterion as in Table (7.6). The

100

total scores of each program regarding to the same criterion are compared based on

the difference between the two scores.

Table (7.5): Relative Weights of Sub-criteria Used in RAPI.

Criteria Sub-criteria Relative Weight

1. The dependency of existing or future programs on the proposed program.

0.068

2. Effect of program on facilitating investment and encouraging private sector participation. 0.068

3. Target group (poor and ignored groups). 0.155 4. Program relevancy to reconstruction of damaged facilities. 0.333 5. Job opportunities created by the program 0.333


6. Program sustainability 0.043

1. Program relevancy to sub-sectors preferred from number of donors. 0.25 Donor’s Preference

2. Program has preliminary approval to be financed from a donor side. 0.75

1. Contribution of the program in protecting environment and public health

0.5 Environmental

2. Effects of the program on the environment (EIA). 0.5

1. Availability of professionals & technicians to design and implement the program

0.067

2. Availability of construction materials 0.4665

Availability of Technical Requirements (3Ms:men, machines, materials) 3. Availability of needed technology and equipments 0.4665

1. Accuracy and completeness of data. 0.05

2. Execution readiness (Availability of land, Completion of studies and all requirements and previous phases). 0.403

3. Easiness and ability of operation and maintenance 0.144

Execution, O&M Uncertainty

4. Effects of instability of political conditions on the program execution. 0.403

Program Importance In Sub- Sector

• The score of the program inside its sub-sector

Benefit - Cost

• Calculated by division of score of the program reached from the prioritization process regarding the previous criteria, over the PV of capital and operating cost along the program life time.

Table(7.6):Rating of Program (1) regarding to criteria 4 (Availability of Technical

Requirements) 1 2 3

Sub-Criteria Five Rating Score

Priority of Sub-criterion

Score 1X2

Availability of professionals & technicians 4 0.067 0.268

Availability of construction materials 2 0.4665 0.9334

101

Availability of needed technology & equipments 2 0.4665 0.9334

Total 2.134

Table (7.7 ): Program Pairwise Comparison With Respect to Environmental Impact

Prog. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 Priority Vector

P1 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 3.00 0.136 P2 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 3.00 0.136 P3 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 2.00 0.084 P4 0.33 0.33 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 0.50 0.50 0.17 1.00 0.050 P5 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.50 0.032 P6 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.50 0.032 P7 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.33 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.33 0.022 P8 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 2.00 0.084 P9 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 2.00 0.084

P10 3.00 3.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 5.00 0.290 P11 0.33 0.33 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 0.50 0.50 0.20 1.00 0.051

The final output of AHP process is the composite priority vector given in Table (7.8)

which combines both programs and criteria.

Table (7.8): AHP Composite Priority Vector for Prioritization Process

SES DP EI 3M EU Criteria Priorities 0.52 0.105 0.053 0.161 0.161

Composite Priority Vector

Program Program Local Priorities P1 0.105 0.169 0.136 0.027 0.106 0.101 P2 0.061 0.026 0.136 0.025 0.124 0.065 P3 0.105 0.190 0.084 0.021 0.106 0.100 P4 0.099 0.040 0.050 0.014 0.060 0.070 P5 0.105 0.040 0.032 0.127 0.032 0.086 P6 0.113 0.040 0.032 0.127 0.032 0.090 P7 0.099 0.040 0.022 0.202 0.032 0.094 P8 0.061 0.190 0.084 0.113 0.027 0.078 P9 0.089 0.040 0.084 0.082 0.210 0.102 P10 0.089 0.190 0.290 0.224 0.136 0.139 P11 0.075 0.035 0.051 0.038 0.136 0.073

After completing the AHP exercise, each program has a score expressing its

importance. This score will be multiplied by the score of the program inside its sub-

sector (PIS). For the purpose of this research, the PDP’s sectoral prioritization (which

based on sub-sector indicators) for the programs will be considered as the score of the

program inside the sector. The overall score after this step which called Priority Index

(PI) is illustrated in Table (7.9).

102

Table(7.9) : Priority Index for Case Study Programs

Program Composite Priority Vector (1)

Score inside sub-sector (2)

Priority Index (PI) (1)*(2)

P1 0.101 1.420 0.144 P2 0.065 1.290 0.084 P3 0.100 1.100 0.110 P4 0.070 1.120 0.079 P5 0.086 1.070 0.092 P6 0.090 0.953 0.086 P7 0.094 0.915 0.086 P8 0.078 1.136 0.089 P9 0.102 1.116 0.114

P10 0.139 0.920 0.128 P11 0.073 0.880 0.064

Priority Index calculated from the previous step represents benefit from the program,

when it is divided by the present value of program’s capital and operation cost, the

result represents benefit-cost indicator (B/C). It is assumed that the cost of the

program mentioned in PDP represents the Present value (PV) of capital and operating

cost of each program.

The suggested formula to determine RAPI Score (FS) is applied which is the final

output of prioritization process. This step is illustrated in Table (7.10).

Table(7.10) RAPI Score and Ranking of Case Study Programs

Program

(1) Priority

Indix (PI)

(2) Program Budget

Million $

(3) Benefit- Cost

Indicator (1)/(2)

RAPI Score (FS)

(1)+0.1*(3)

Ranking of Programs

P1 0.144 9.00 0.016 0.1452 1 P2 0.084 1.40 0.059 0.0902 7 P3 0.110 60.00 0.002 0.1097 4 P4 0.079 3.70 0.021 0.0810 10 P5 0.092 3.25 0.028 0.0950 5 P6 0.086 18.00 0.005 0.0863 9 P7 0.086 1.20 0.072 0.0937 6 P8 0.089 18.70 0.005 0.0896 8 P9 0.114 5.00 0.023 0.1159 3

P10 0.128 1.40 0.092 0.1373 2 P11 0.064 5.90 0.011 0.0655 11

103

7.6 CASE STUDY - STEP (4): MONITORING AND FEEDBACK

After performing the RAPI exercise, it is needed to monitor the implementation of the

programs. Therefore the following issues should be reviewed:

1. Gap between planning and implementation

2. Check the program and project actual data and statistics through

implementation such as the actual program cost.

3. Compare the real data with the pre-implementation data that used in

decision making process. For example the estimated working days

created by the program or the proposed construction period may be

different from the actual.

4. Perform qualitative studies to measure the extent to which the program

is achieving its objectives. For example, qualitative studies should be

conducted to measure the indication of population regarding the

programs implemented using data collection tools such as

questionnaires and interviews.

The results may cause modifications in the process itself so as to add or delete other

criteria or change relative importance of each one which in turn enhance RAPI in the

next cycle.

7.7 DISCUSSION OF CASE STUDY RESULTS

7.7.1 Criteria and Sub-criteria

The opinions of decision makers give the socioeconomic and sustainability (SES)

criterion the highest score among the other four criteria. It is believed that this result is

reasonable because this criterion includes several important sub-criteria of which

many are related to the local circumstances such as job opportunities created by the

program and relevancy of the program to reconstruction of damaged facilities which

both are given the highest scores among (SES) sub-criteria. In addition to that the

target group is too important factor that is considered worldwide as one of the

objectives of infrastructure sector. The dependency of existing or future programs on

the proposed program is another issue included in (SES). This sub-criterion is fully

neglected during current infrastructure planning and implementation, where this issue

results from lack of coordination between different entities and leads to massive

losses.

104

The second important criteria are both availability of technical requirements (3M’s),

and execution, operation and maintenance uncertainty (EU). In many cases the first

one (3M’s) may control the implementation of the program, where unavailability of

technical requirements such as machines and materials ( both sub-criteria are given

the highest scores over availability of professionals) in Palestine may postpone the

program or even cancel the donor commitment regarding financing the program. This

is also applicable for program readiness to implementation and the effects of

instability in political conditions which are sub-criteria of the second criterion (EU)

where both have the highest scores among other sub-criteria.

Finally, it is noticed that donor’s preference (DP) and environment impact of the

program (EI) are the fourth and fifth ranking respectively.

Generally, the ranking of criteria and sub-criteria seems to be justifiable that is

consistent with the local conditions in Palestine.

7.7.2 Program Pairwise Comparison

Table (7.11) illustrates the scores of prioritization process and ranking of programs in

PDP.

Table (7.11) The results of PDP prioritization process Program \ Project Title Score Ranking

Construction of Carrier Segment P1 44300 1

Establishment of Transportation Research Center P2 35000 2

Gaza Central WWTP P3 34457 3


P4 32000 4

Ramallah – Nablus Main Road P5 30600 5

New Wadi Elnar Road (Sawahra – Beit Sahour) P6 27000 6

Gaza International Airport Road P7 25920 7

Construction of 3 Landfill Sites P8 23975 8

Infrastructure for Alzahra Housing Project P9 23333 9

Palestinian Environmental Action program P10 19530 10

Establishment of Postal Banks P11 17125 11

The comparison between the results obtained from both RAPI and PDP prioritization

process illustrates some differences. This comparison is illustrated in Table (7.12).

Also Fig. (7.1) illustrates a comparison between the RAPI and PDP approaches

regarding to percentage of the score of each program in relation to summation of

105

programs scores.

106

Table( 7.12): Ranking of Programs Using Both RAPI and PDP Procedures

Program RAPI Score (FS)

RAPI Ranking

PDP Ranking

Construction of Carrier Segment 0.1452 1 1

Establishment of Transportation Research 0.0902 7 2

Gaza Central WWTP 0.1097 4 3

Development of Electrical Distribution System 0.0810 10 4

Ramallah – Nablus Main Road 0.0950 5 5

New Wadi Elnar Road (Sawahra – Beit Sahour) 0.0863 9 6

Gaza International Airport Road 0.0937 6 7

Construction of 3 Landfill Sites 0.0896 8 8

Infrastructure for Alzahra Housing Project 0.1159 3 9

Palestinian Environmental Action Program 0.1373 2 10 Establishment of Postal Banks 0.0655 11 11

Fig. (7.1) indicates that there is a difference between the two results. In five programs

RAPI score is higher that PDP score. The percentage of increase range from 2% to

99%. For example, RAPI approach resulted that the scores of Palestinian

Environmental Action Program (P10) and Infrastructure for Alzahra Housing Project

(P9) are 99% and 43% greater than PDP score respectively. Meanwhile, the scores of

Establishment of Transportation Research (P2) and Development of Electrical

Distribution System South of West Bank (P4) using RAPI approach have values

about 25% less than PDP score.

0.0000.0500.1000.150

P1

P3

P5

P7

P9

P11

Prog

ram

s

% of ProgramScore to TotalUsing PDP

% of ProgramScore to TotalUsing RAPI

Fig. (7.1): Comparison Between RAPI & PDP Regarding to % of Score of Each Program

In Relation to Summation of Programs Scores.

107

The RAPI ranking indicates that (P1) which is Construction of Carrier Segment in

Gaza Strip is the program that has the highest score among other programs, the high

score is resulted from the high score of this program regarding to (SES), (DP) and

(EI) criteria which represent 68% of the total criteria meanwhile the program scores

regarding to (EU) and (3M’s) are almost low. The main pivotal point regarding (P1) is

the score inside the sub-sector which make it to have the first score.

The second program in order is Palestinian Environmental Action program (P10).

Despite that this program has relatively low score regarding (SES) but it compensates

this through the high score in all other criteria. This program is negatively affected by

score inside the sub-sector which make it the second instead the first.

It is noticed that score inside the sector and benefit cost indicator affect the ranking of

programs in RAPI approach. Figure (7.2) demonstrates this effect.

To conclude, it is believed that the results of RAPI express the reality more than PDP

method. For example (P2) which is Establishment of Transportation Research Center

has get the ranking of 2 in PDP which means that it is more important than the other

nine programs which seems not logic. In addition to that (P10) which is Palestinian

Environmental Action Plan has the ranking of 10 in PDP method meanwhile in RAPI

it has the ranking of 2 indicating its importance on public health, environment, for

donors, execution suitability and certainty and furthermore its cost effectiveness.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

P1P2P3P4P5P6P7P8P9P10P11

Program

Ran

king

CompositePriority Vector

Priority Index(ConsideringScore InsideSub-sector)

RAPI Score(ConsideringScore insideSector &Benefit CostIndicator)

Fig. (7.2): Effect of Score Inside Sub-sector and B\C Indicator on Program Ranking

108

7.8 CONCLUDED REMARKS

1. The application of the developed approach on the case study appears that

the approach has successfully implemented. The programs were

prioritized in a better way compared with the PDP procedure because it

considers different aspects of the program including socioeconomical,

political and operational, etc.

2. The Prioritization process in RAPI approach is based on complete data

expressing the effects of the program on achieving the intended

objectives.

3. The results of applying the approach on a case study reflect the reality

more than the current procedure. The highly ranked programs are those

which better achieve the objectives of infrastructure sector than others.

Other influencing factors are also considered.

4. Infrastructure sector objectives and scores given to criteria and sub-

criteria were based on the opinion and viewpoint of the decision makers

and professionals consulted in this research. Therefore, the results may be

different if the prioritization process are repeated and conducted by others

who have other vision toward infrastructure planning and objectives.

5. The scores given to each program regarding to each sub-criteria were

based on the available data collected from line institutions.

7.9 DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE

When applying the prioritization process included in the RAPI manually, it was

noticed that this process requires large number of tables, the output of each table is

used as an input in other tables, many calculations were required, etc. Furthermore,

the process includes multi-stages i.e. main criteria are compared each other, sub-

criteria within the main criterion are compared, each program is rated with respect to

each sub-criterion, then both program score and criteria and sub-criteria comparison

results are combined together to get priority index. In addition, benefit cost analysis is

also required to get the final score. Therefore, to ease this process related to

calculation work, a computer software was developed to handle the problem. This

software is designed to be user friendly such that decision makers need only to follow

instructions and to fill certain required data regarding the project, criteria, etc. The

software will then perform the needed calculations and provide the ranking results.

109

Brief description of the developed software which is named FRAS INFRA including

its menus, windows, input method, output results, etc. is presented in Appendix 4.

Chapter 8

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEVELOPED APPROACH

During its path toward sovereignty and complete independence, Palestinian state

suffers major obstacles. Limitation of resources is one of these obstacles Palestinian

embryonic state faces. Therefore, determination of the method to allocate these

limited resources is a pivotal challenge that governs and guides the developmental

path as whole. What makes the problem more serious is the growing increase in

population needs in all field. The importance of resource allocation process increases

for sectors that both have deteriorated conditions and affect the state situation such as

physical infrastructure.

National level resource allocation is a main phase of national planning process that

should be based on comprehensive, detailed and accurate analysis of all aspects

affecting the sector under question. When planning for infrastructure sector,

economical, social and political factors should be well studied and carefully tackled.

The developed Resource Allocation Process for Infrastructure Sector RAPI in

Palestine has been proposed to account for both local and technical influencing factors

affecting infrastructure sector as well as the recognized worldwide factors. In the

developed approach, concentration has been directed toward two aspects, the first is

the institutional arrangement and framework that will conduct the national planning

process for infrastructure sector in Palestine, the second is the process used to

prioritize infrastructure programs and projects including decision making techniques

and players as well as different types of criteria.

To study its applicability, the developed approach has been applied to a list of

national infrastructure programs included in PDP.

8.2 THE DEVELOPED APPROACH

The developed approach has been prepared to help decision makers of infrastructure

sector in Palestine to allocate the limited resources for various infrastructure

110

programs. The approach includes both description of the institutional arrangement as

well as description of the prioritization process which concerns the prioritization

criteria emphasizing the technical criteria. The approach can be summarized as

follows:

1. Step (1): Institutional Arrangements and Framework: This step is related to

determination of the various entities involved in the process of national

infrastructure planning and the responsibilities of each one as well as the

coordination mechanisms between them.

2. Step (2): Preparation of the Process: This step is divided into four activities

which are: definition of the term infrastructure sector, identification of the term

national infrastructure program, determination of goals and objectives of

infrastructure sector, and data collection.

3. Step (3): Prioritization Process: This step is the main part of the research,

which is related to description of the methodology of the decision making

process needed for project prioritization. This step consists of three activities

which are: determination of suitable decision making technique (in this

research AHP is adopted), determination of project prioritization criteria and

conducting prioritization assignment.

4. Step (4): Monitoring and Feedback: In this step the resource allocation

process is followed up, monitored, and evaluated according to pre-stated

indicators. The main findings of this step are utilized during the future phases

and cycles of the process in the form of feedback.

8.3 STRENGTH OF THE DEVELOPED APPROACH

The developed approach has a number of strength points that increase its effectiveness

and reliability as follows:

1. The approach includes an accurate description of the responsibilities and tasks

of the institutions involved in the RAPI.

2. The approach accurately specifies the coordination mechanisms among

different entities including donors, that guarantee formation of integrated

vision through the central high level body and Thematic Working Groups.

111

3. The approach concentrates on participation of all stakeholders in the planning

and resource allocation process. This includes central and local government as

well as NGO’s and private sectors.

4. The approach depends on specialists, experts and well-trained staff specially in

Thematic Working Groups.

5. The approach overcomes the main weakness points of the current resource

allocation approach by accounting for the influencing factors and inclusion of

the important criteria in decision making process.

6. The approach includes different types of criteria (e.g. technical, social,

economical).

7. The approach considers both local driven criteria such as uncertainty and donor

preferences in addition to technical criteria and sub-criteria such as project

readiness and availability of materials, technology and staff.

8. The approach uses one of the most well known and successfully used decision

making tool which is Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP as the main

prioritization technique.

9. The approach includes continuous monitoring and evaluation measures that

enable to provide feed back to that will modify, update and develop the

process.

8.4 PREREQUISITIES OF THE APPROACH

The developed approach prerequisites are:

1. Regulations and enforcement by authorized bodies through clear legislations.

This commitment will guarantee well implementation of the approach.

2. Agreement with donors on funding mechanisms and limitations of their

interventions.

3. Team work and participation skills. Most of developing countries suffer from

lack of these skills. Therefore, this will be achieved by training on these skills.

4. Coordination mechanisms, data sharing and dissemination between all relevant

entities.

5. Preparation of accurate data and preliminary studies about the proposed

programs and projects.

112

6. Well-trained technical staff to conduct the pairwise comparison in

prioritization process.

7. Before applying the proposed prioritization process, sub-sectoral prioritization

process should be conducted in each TWGs to prioritize programs and projects in side

their sub-sector based on sub-sector criteria drawn from objectives.

8. Continuous monitoring and evaluation. This leads to revision of objectives,

criteria, sub-criteria and significance of each criterion.

8.5 CONCLUSIONS

1. Allocation of resources is considered as a pivotal issue in planning

process because the final output of the planning process is arisen through

resource allocation, therefore this process should be accurately tackled

taking into account all influencing factors that suit local conditions.

2. There is no ideal national planning and resource allocation approach,

therefore, each country should adopt planning mechanisms that suit its

circumstances. Consequently, Palestine should develop suitable planning

approach including agreed upon resource allocation process, which is the

main objective of this research.

3. Participation of all stakeholders, coordination mechanisms, accurate

definition and determination of mandates, formation of central planning

entity are the main common issues for all national planning approaches.

4. Application of an appropriate approach for allocating the different

resources for national infrastructure sector in Palestine is necessary. This

approach which is developed in this research is based on various criteria.

The criteria are directly and numerically connected to the local and

political, economical, and social factors.

5. The developed approach includes two parts, the first is the institutional

framework and interrelationships between different entities involved in

the process. The second part is the prioritization process itself. The

decision making regarding prioritization process depends on AHP as the

main decision making technique in addition to cost benefit analysis. Seven

various criteria were used including technical, economical, environmental

and local driven criteria.

113

6. Many criteria such as uncertainty and donor’s preference are accounted

for. In addition to that technical criteria and sub-criteria such as

availability of materials and equipment and execution readiness are taken

into account since they may govern the project implementation in

Palestine.

7. The developed approach could implemented in the case study and did not

need refinements.

8. The application of the developed approach on the case study has resulted

in prioritization of program list derived from PDP.

9. A computer software (FRAS INFRA) has been developed in this

research work. This software helps decision makers to perform the

prioritization process between program list easily and accurately.

8.6 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. It is recommended to adopt the developed approach as a main national level

resource allocation approach for infrastructure sector in Palestine. Therefore,

MOP can utilize the developed approach, MOP staff may review it and modify

some points due to their needs and strategies.

2. It is recommended to use the developed approach in national planning for

other sectors other than infrastructure. Off course it needs some modifications

regarding to criteria and sub-criteria themselves and the significance of each

criterion but the basic principles will remain the same. Also, the developed

approach is recommended to be used for preparing sub-sectoral list of

programs by each Thematic Working Group (TWG), the criteria are set based

on the sub-sectoral agreed objectives, strategies and influencing factors.

3. It is also recommended to use the computer software FRAS INFRA developed

through this research work by decision makers in MOP and by others working

in different infrastructure sub-sectors.

4. Continuous training courses for senior decision makers should be designed to

provide them with strategic planning and decision making skills. Also

communication, negotiation and teamwork skills should be provided to all

students and advanced courses should be given to decision makers in this

regard.

114

5. Central data bank to be established inside each TWG for each sub-sector to

make the sub-sectoral planning based on solid bases.

6. It is recommended to expand the developed approach emphasizing on

performing economical analysis for the benefits of infrastructure programs and

performing comprehensive strategic plan for infrastructure sector in Palestine.

This may be conducted depending on accurate data collection and SWOT

analysis so as to specify the goals, objectives and influencing factors. It is also

advised that future researches may be conducted after use of the developed

approach, evaluate it and to determine any potential weakness points that may

appear during the approach implementation.

7. It is advised also to develop a more sophisticated computer software that

combines decision making tools used in FRAS INFRA with central database

and GIS softwares.

112

References 1. Ababutain Y. Abdulaziz, (2002). A Multi-Criteria decision-Making Model for

Selection of BOT Toll Road Proposals Within the Public Sector, PHD Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

2. ACG (The Allen Consulting Group), (2003).Funding Urban Public

Infrastructure, Report for the Property Council of Australia. 3. Action Plan, (2000) – One Year, Palestinian National Authority, MOPIC,

Volume(1). 4. AF (Alaqsa Fund), (2003). Third Annual Report 2002-2003, Jeddah. 5. Akatsuka, and Yoshida, (1999). Systems for Infrastructure Development -

Japan’s Experience-, Japan International Cooperation Publishing Company, Tokyo.

6. Al’abed Samih, (1999). the Palestinian Experience in Strategic Planning,

Seminar. 7. Aldaba, Monette Serafica, and Lee U, (2001). Infrastructure and Regulatory

Reform, Yellow Paper II-The Post – ERAP Reform Agenda. 8. Alterman R., (1983). Planning and Policy Analysis: Converting or Diverting

Trends, Journal of the American Planning Association. 9. Atthirawong Walailak and MacCarthy Bart, (2002). An Application of the

Analytical Hierarchy Process to International Location Decision-Making, Operations Management Group School of Mechanical, Materials, Manufacturing Engineering and Management University of Nottingham, NG7 2RD.

10. Byerlee Derek, (1999). Targeting Poverty Alleviation in Priority Setting in

National Research Organizations: Theory and Practice. 11. Citygate Associates, (2003). Analysis of Salt Lake City’s General Fund -

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 1999.(www.ci.slc.ut.us/council/cip/5recs.doc) Last Accessed Oct.2003.

12. DTRL, (2000). Manual of Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) techniques,

National Economic Research Associates, London. 13. Fiji, (2003). Recommendations of Sustainable development and Economic

Policy and Planning Workshop, Nadi, Fiji 26-27 March 2003. 14. Forman Ernest and Selly Ann, (1998). Decision By Objectives (How to

convince others that you are right), Expert Choice Inc. 15. Garven Michael J., (2000) Challenges of Infrastructure Asset Management.

http://www.ci.slc.ut.us/council/cip/5recs.doc)

113

16. GBVI (Government of the British Virgin Islands), (1999). National

Integrated Development Strategy – Conceptual Framework. 17. Gregory, R.A. and Pearce, A.R., (1999). Cost Effective Allocation of

Research Funds for the Development of Emerging Technologies, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice.

18. Grigg Neil, (1994). Infrastructure Management: US and Japanese System

Contrasted, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 120. 19. Hajkowicz Stefan and Prato Tony, (1998). Multiple Objective Decision

Analysis of Farming Systems in Goodwater Creek Watershed, Missouri Center for Agricultural, Resource and Environmental Systems - University of Missouri-Columbia, Research Report No. 24.

20. Hansen Richard L., (1999). Risk-Based Fire Research Decision

Methodology, Master’s Thesis, Faulty Of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 21. Hudson, Hass, Waheed Uddin, (1997). Infrastructure Management:

Integrating Design, Construction, Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and Renovation, McGraw-Hill.

22. IEA (Institution of Engineers – Australia), (2003). Policy Position Infrastructure

Planning. 23. Jamaica, (2002). Local Sustainable Development Planning Process –

Participatory and Capacity Development Frameworks In Jamaica. 24. Kabra Kamal, (1997). Development Planning in India, Sage Publications,

New Delhi. 25. Kharouby Amran, (2004). Risk informed Strategic Planning Approach for

Infrastructure: Water Sector Case Study in Gaza City, Master thesis. 26. Kharouby Amran and Ziara Mohammed, (2003). Proposed Risk-Informed

Strategic Planning Approach for Infrastructure: Case Study Water Sector in Gaza City, Proceedings of International Conference for Engineering and City Development, Islamic University, Gaza, Palestine.

27. KON (Kingdom of Nepal), (2000). Enhancing Decentralized Governance

and Poverty Alleviation Initiatives. 28. Kwak N.K and Lee Changwon, (1998). A Multi-criteria Decision-Making

Approach To University Resource Allocation and Information Infrastructure Planning, European Journal of Operational Research.

29. Lungu, and Price, (2000). Sustainability considerations and funding criteria

for infrastructure projects in developing countries, Zambia.

114

30. Malczewski, J., (1999). GIS and Multi-criteria Decision Analysis, John Wiley and Sons.

31. MRRD (Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development - Transition

Islamic State of Afghanistan), (2003), Rehabilitation and development Plan. 32. MUIM (Ministry of Urban Infrastructure Management), (1998).Urban

Infrastructure Management Plan in Australia. 33. Nathaniel and de Villa, (1995): The Capital Investment Folio - An

Innovative Approach to Metropolitan Management in the Philippines, UMP-Asia Occasional Paper No.21.

34. NRC (National Research Council), (1995) - Committee on Measuring and

Improving Infrastructure Performance, , Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.

35. Papke K. E., (2002). Strategic Manufacturing Planning Systems and Their

Linkage to Planning System Success, Decision Science Journal, Volume 33. 36. PDP (Palestinian Development Plan), (1998). Ministry of Planning and

International Cooperation – PNA. 37. Pearce Annie R., Gregory Rita A., Vanegas Jorge A., (2000). Resource

Allocation and Problem Prioritization for Sustainable Facilities and Infrastructure.

38. PECDAR, (2003). Palestinian Economy Through Transition Period, second

Edition, Jerusalem. 39. Pieter W.G. and Freerk Lootsma, (2000). Decision Support in the Public

Sector, Journal of Multi-criteria Decision Analysis, Netherlands. 40. PIPP (The Palestinian Public Investment Programme), (1996). MOPIC,

presented to Consultative Group meeting on the assistance to the Palestinian people - Paris.

41. ROA (Republic of Albania), (2001). Council of Ministers, Growth and

Poverty Reduction Strategy (2002-2004). 42. Serageldin, Suzanne Kim, Sameh Wahba, (2000). Decentralization and

Urban Infrastructure Management Capacity, The Third Global Report on Human Settlements, The center for Urban Development Studies - Harvard University.

43. Sewell David, (2002). Decentralization and Intergovernmental Finance in the

Palestinian Authority. 44. Shaat Ali, (2002). Physical Planning Challenges In Palestine.

115

45. Shaat Ali 1, (2002). Finance: Its Fields and Management, Human

Development Report, Bierzeit University, 2002. o 2002 جامعة بیرزیت، التمویل مجاالتھ وعملیة ترشیده، تقریر التنمیة البشریة،–علي شعت

46. Shadid Mohammed, (2002). Donor’s assistance to Palestinian Development :

Towards Better Guidance, Human Development Report, Bierzeit University. 47. SNSD (Strategies of National Sustainable Development), (2000). Pakistan. 48. State of California, (2002). Who is Responsible for Infrastructure?, Technical

Report. 49. Taha Salah, (2004). A Decision Making Technique for Prioritization of

Municipal Infrastructure Projects, Master Thesis. 50. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), (2003).

International Support to the Palestinian People 1999-2003, Consultative Meeting - Palestine Rehabilitation and Development Forum.

51. UNRWA, Programme of Cooperation for West Bank and Gaza Strip 1998-

1999. 52. Veselka Ivanova, (2000). Mechanisms of Planning and Monitoring

Structures for Co-ordination at Regional and National Level in Bulgaria, Bulgaria.

53. W.B (World Bank), (2002). Fifteen months-Intifada, Closures and

Palestinian Economic Crisis- An Assessment. 54. W.B1 (World Bank), (2003). Better Governance for Development in the

Middle East and North Africa- Enhancing Inclusiveness and Accountability, MENA Development Report, Washington.

55. W.B2 (World Bank), (2003). Global Development Finance Table - Summary

and Country Tables, Washington. 56. W.B 3 (World Bank), (2003). Annual Report 2003, Volume 1, Washington. 57. W.B 4 (World Bank), (2003). World Development Report, Making Services

Work for Poor People, Washington. 58. Ziara Mohamed, Nigim Khaled, Enshassi Adnan, and Ayyub Bilal, (2002).

Strategic Implementation of Infrastructure Priority Projects: Case Study in Palestine, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 8, No. 1.

A-1

A. APPENDIX 1

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The AHP has four major steps as follows:

Step 1: Decomposition of the Problem into Hierarchy

The problem is decomposed into three-level (higher, lower, and lowest) hierarchy

structure that captures important elements fig(A-1) .

Fig(A-2) illustrates example of using AHP for project prioritization

Goal

Objective Objective Objective

Sub-objective

Sub-objective

Sub-objective

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Alternative

Fig. (A-1) General Hierarchy of AHP

Prioritiza Projects

Operation & Maintenance

Reliability Execution Suitability

Sector Importance

Project Importance

Project 1

Project 2

Project 3

Project 4

Fig. (A-2) AHP Example for Project Prioritization

A-2

Step 2: Pair-wise Comparison of Criteria

This step in AHP generates a set of matrices as shown below.

A = (aij)

Where A is a reciprocal matrix (aij = 1/ aji ). The priority vector w can be calculated

by solving the following Eigenvalue problem:

Aw = Ymax w

Where Ymax is the Eigenvalue. Inconsistency index is an important parameter that

need to be considered which is given by:

ICI = (Ymax -n)/ (n-1)(R.I.)

Where n is the number of criteria considered and R.I. is the random index that

depends on matrix size. The random index is equal to 1.32 and 1.49 for 7X7 and

10X10 matrices, respectively. If the inconsistency index is less than 0.1 then the

judgement are considered satisfactory.

Table A-1 : Preference weight of the comparison Preference

weights Definition Explanation level of importance

1 Equally preferred Two activities contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderately preferred Experience and judgement slightly favour one activity over

another

5 Strongly preferred Experience and judgement strongly or essentially favour one

activity over another

7 Very strongly preferred An activity is strongly favoured over another and its dominance

demonstrated in practice

9 Extremely preferred The evidence favouring one activity over another is of the highest

degree possible of affirmation 2,4,6,8 Intermediates values Used to represent compromise between the preferences listed above Reciprocals

Table (A-2) includes example of the reciprocal matrix of the pairwise comparison of

seven criteria used as project prioritization criteria in infrastructure sector.

Step 3: Pair-wise Comparison of Candidate Alternatives

In this step, the corresponding priority vector and inconsistency indices are obtained

using the same analytical procedures as in the previous step. In this step the

comparison is made between the lower level (candidate projects in the example) in

relation to each criterion as shown in table (A-3).

A-3

Table(A-2): Reciprocal Matrix Criteria Project

Importance Sector Importance

Finance Suitability

Execution Suitability

Operation Suitability

Reliability Consequence of Failure

Priority

Project Importance

1.00 0.20 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.18

Sector Importance

5.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.16

Finance Suitability

1.00 0.33 1.00 5.00 1.00 0.20 5.00 0.16


0.33 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.14


0.33 0.33 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14

Reliability

1.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12

Consequence of Failure

1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10

A-4

Table (A-3) Project Pairwise Comparison with respect to Consequence of Failure Project Project1 Project2 Project3 Project4 Priority Vector

Project1 1.00 0.80 0.80 2.00

Project2 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.63

Project3 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.63

Project4 0.50 1.60 1.60 1.00

The previous table will be repeated 7 times (one time for each criterion).

Table (A-4) represents the priority vectors resulted from pairwise comparison of the

projects with respect to each of the seven criteria.

Table (A-4) Project Pairwise Comparison with Respect to the Seven Criteria Project Project

Importance Sector Importance

Finance Suitability



Reliability Consequence of Failure

Project1

Project2

Project3

Project4

Step 4: Synthesis of Priority Alternatives:

This step is to apply the principle of composition priorities to obtain the cardinal

ranking of infrastructure alternatives.

Table (A-4) Composite Priority Vector Criteria Project

Imp. Sector Imp.

Finance Suit.


Oper. Suitability

Reliability

Cons. Failure

Criteria Priorities

0.18 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.10

Project Project local Priority


Project1 Project2 Project3 Project4

Final Output of AHP

B-1

B. Appendix 2

Program Profile

Program Code: Sub-sector:

Program Name:

City: Location: Annual Cost for O&M ($) Capital Cost (M$)

No of permanent job opportunities for O&M % of wages during

construction phase:

Program Justification:

Description and output of the Program:

Answer the following (5 indicates strongly agree, 1 strongly disagree) 1 2 3 4 5

Has the prog. approval to be financed by any donor? Does the prog. positively affect environment & public health? Is the local staff able to design and implement the prog.? Are the construction materials available? Are equipments and technology available? Are prog. data accurate and complete? Are the prog. ready for execution ( land, studies, etc)? Will operation and maintenance technically easy? Does political instability affect on the prog. execution?

General Notes & Remarks:

C-1

C. Appendix 3

Case Study Calculations and Tables

Case study - list of programs and their prioritization scores in PDP

Program \ Project Title Budget

(1000$) Score

Construction of Carrier Segment P1 9000 44300

Establishment of Transportation Research Center P2 2130 35000

Gaza Central WWTP P3 60000 34457


P4 3700 32000

Ramallah – Nablus Main Road P5 3250 30600

New Wadi Elnar Road (Sawahra – Beit Sahour) P6 18000 27000

Gaza International Airport Road P7 1200 25920

Construction of 3 Landfill Sites P8 18700 23975

Infrastructure for Alzahra Housing Project P9 5000 23333

Palestinian Environmental Action program P10 1400 19530

Establishment of Postal Banks P11 5900 17125

1. Socioeconomical Effects and Sustainability (SES)

2. Donor’s Preference (DP)

3. Environmental Impact (EI)

4. Availability of Technical Requirements (3Ms:men, machines, materials) (3M)

5. Execution, O&M Suitability and Uncertainty (EU)

1. Pairwise Comparison Between Criteria in the Case Study

Criteria SES DP EI 3M EU Priority

SES 1 5 7 4 4 0.52

DP 0.2 1 3 0.5 0.5 0.105

EI 0.143 0.33 1 0.33 0.33 0.053

3M 0.25 2 3 1 1 0.161

EU 0.25 2 3 1 1 0.161

C-2

2. Pairwise Comparison Between Sub-criteria inside the Main Criterion each other

a. Pairwise Comparison for Sub-criteria of the Main Criterion (SES) Sub-Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 Priority

1. The dependency of Existing future programs on the proposed program.

1.00 1 0.33 0.2 0.2 2 0.068

2. Effect of program on facilitating investment and encouraging private sector participation.

1 1.00 0.33 0.2 0.2 2 0.068

3. Target group (poor and ignored groups). 3 3 1.00 0.33 0.33 4 0.155

4. Program relevancy to reconstruction of damaged facilities.

5 5 3 1.00 1 6 0.333

5. Job opportunities 5 5 3 1 1.00 6 0.333

6. Program Sustainability 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.167 0.167 1.00 0.043

b. Pairwise Comparison for Sub-criteria of the Main Criterion (Donor’s Preference) Sub-Criteria 1 2 Priority

1. Program relevancy to sub-sectors preferred from number of donors. 1.00 0.33 0.25

2. Program has preliminary approval to be financed from a donor side. 3 1.00 0.75

c. Pairwise Comparison for Sub-criteria of the Main Criterion (Environmental) Sub-Criteria 1 2 Priority

1. Contribution of the program in protecting environment and public health

1.00 1 0.5

2. Effects of the program on the environment (EIA). 1 1.00 0.5

d. Pairwise Comparison for Sub-criteria of the Main Criterion (3Ms:men, machines,

materials) Sub-Criteria 1 2 3 Priority

1. Availability of professionals & technicians 1.00 0.143 0.143 0.067

2. Availability of construction materials 7 1.00 1 0.4665

3. Availability of needed technology and equipments 7 1 1.00 0.4665

e. Pairwise Comparison for Sub-criteria of the Main Criterion (Execution, O&M Uncertainty ) Sub-Criteria 1 2 3 4 Priority

1. Accuracy and completeness of data. 1.00 0.143 0.2 0.143 0.05

2. Execution readiness (Availability of land, Completion of all requirements and previous phases).

7 1.00 4 1 0.403

3. Easiness and ability of operation and maintenance 5 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.144

4. Effects of instability of political conditions on program execution.

7 1 4 1.00 0.403

C-3

3. Relative weights of sub-criteria used in FRAPI.

Criteria Sub-criteria Relative Weight

• The dependency of existing or future programs on the proposed program.

0.068

• Effect of program on facilitating investment and encouraging private sector participation.

0.068

• Target group (poor and ignored groups). 0.155

• Program relevancy to reconstruction of damaged facilities. 0.333

• Job opportunities created by the program 0.333


• Program sustainability 0.043

• Program relevancy to sub-sectors preferred from number of donors. 0.25 Donor’s Preference

• Program has preliminary approval to be financed from a donor side. 0.75

• Contribution of the program in protecting environment and public health

0.5

Environmental

• Effects of the program on the environment (EIA). 0.5

• Availability of professionals & technicians to design and implement the program

0.067

• Availability of construction materials 0.4665

Availability of Technical Requirements (3Ms:men, machines, materials) • Availability of needed technology and equipments 0.4665

• Accuracy and completeness of data. 0.05

• Execution readiness (Availability of land, Completion of studies and all requirements and previous phases).

0.403

• Easiness and ability of operation and maintenance 0.144

Execution, O&M Uncertainty

• Effects of instability of political conditions on the program execution. 0.403

Program Importance Inside the Sector

• The score of the program inside its sub-sector

Benefit – Cost Indicator

• It is calculated by division of overall score of the program reached from the prioritization process regarding to the previous criteria, over the present value of capital and operating cost along the project life time.

C-4

4. Rating of Programs Regarding to Sub-Criteria

Rating of Program 1 (Water Carrier ) regarding to criteria (1) 1 2 3



Score 1X2

The dependency of Existing future programs on the proposed program. 5 0.068 0.340 Effect of program on facilitating investment and encouraging private sector participation.

4 0.068 0.272

Target group (poor and ignored groups). 4 0.155 0.620 Program relevancy to reconstruction of damaged facilities. 3 0.333 0.999 Job opportunities 4 0.333 1.332 Program Sustainability 4 0.043 0.172

3.735

Rating of Program2 (Transportation research center) regarding to criteria (1) 1 2 3

Sub-Criteria Five Rating

Score Priority of

Sub-criterion

Score 1X2


4 0.068 0.272


3.179

Rating of Program3 (Gaza Central WWTP) regarding to criteria (1) 1 2 3


Score Priority of

Sub-criterion

Score 1X2


3 0.068 0.204


3.729

C-5

Rating of Program4 (Electrical Network South of WB) regarding to criteria (1) 1 2 3


Score Priority of

Sub-criterion

Score 1X2


5 0.068 0.340


3.692

Rating of Program5 (Ramallah - Nablus) regarding to criteria (1) 1 2 3


Score Priority of

Sub-criterion

Score 1X2


5 0.068 0.340


3.735

Rating of Program6 (New Wadi Alnar Road) regarding to criteria (1) 1 2 3


Score Priority of

Sub-criterion

Score 1X2


5 0.068 0.340


3.803

C-6

Rating of Program7 (Gaza Airport Road) regarding to criteria (1) 1 2 3


Score Priority of

Sub-criterion

Score 1X2


5 0.068 0.340


3.648

Rating of Program8 (Construction of 3 Landfill Sites) regarding to criteria (1) 1 2 3


Score Priority of

Sub-criterion

Score 1X2


3 0.068 0.204


3.155

Rating of Program9 (Infrastructure of Alzahra housing project) regarding to criteria (1) 1 2 3


Score Priority of

Sub-criterion

Score 1X2


3 0.068 0.204


3.512

C-7

Rating of Program10 (Environmental Action Program) regarding to criteria (1) 1 2 3


Score Priority of

Sub-criterion

Score 1X2


3 0.068 0.204


3.309

Rating of Program11 (Postal Banks) regarding to criteria (1) 1 2 3


Score Priority of

Sub-criterion

Score 1X2


4 0.068 0.272


3.223




Score 1X2

Program relevancy to sub-sectors preferred from number of donors. 4 0.25 1

Program has preliminary approval to be financed from a donor side. 5 0.75 3.75

4.75

C-8

Rating of Program2 (Transportation research center) regarding to criteria (2)

1 2 3 Sub-Criteria Five Rating

Score

Priority of Sub-

criterion

Score 1X2

Program relevancy to sub-sectors preferred from number of donors. 2 0.25 0.5


2.75




Score 1X2



5




Score 1X2



3.25

Rating of Program5 (Ramallah – Nablus Road) regarding to criteria (2) 1 2 3



Score 1X2



3.25




Score 1X2



3.25

C-9




Score 1X2



3.25




Score 1X2



3.25




Score 1X2



3.25




Score 1X2



3.25




Score 1X2



3.00

C-10




Score 1X2

Contribution of the program in protecting environment and public health 5 0.5 2.5

Effects of the program on the environment (EIA). 3 0.5 1.5

4.00




Score 1X2



4.00




Score 1X2


Effects of the program on the environment (EIA). 2 0.5 1

3.5




Score 1X2



3.00




Score 1X2



2.5

C-11




Score 1X2



2.5




Score 1X2



2.5




Score 1X2



3.5




Score 1X2



3.5




Score 1X2



5.0

C-12




Score 1X2



3.0




Score 1X2




2.134




Score 1X2




2




Score 1X2




1.6675

C-13




Score 1X2




1.134




Score 1X2




4.067

Rating of Program6 (New Wadi Alnar Road ) regarding to criteria (4) 1 2 3



Score 1X2




4.067




Score 1X2




4.5335

C-14




Score 1X2




3.933




Score 1X2




3.6005




Score 1X2




4.866




Score 1X2




2.5335

C-15

Rating of Program 1 (Water Carrier ) regarding to criteria (5)

Rating of Program2 (Transportation research center) regarding to criteria (5)

Rating of Program3 (Gaza Central WWTP) regarding to criteria (5)

Rating of Program4 (Electrical Network South of WB) regarding to criteria (5)

1 2 3 Sub-Criteria Five Rating

Score Priority of

Sub-criterion Score 1X2

Accuracy and completeness of data. 5 0.05 0.25

Execution readiness (Availability of land, Completion of studies and all requirements and previous phases).

5 0.403 2.015

Easiness and ability of operation and maintenance 4 0.144 0.576

Effects of instability of political conditions on the program execution. 2 0.403 0.806

3.647

1 2 3



Score 1X2



5 0.403 2.015



4

1 2 3



Score 1X2



5 0.403 2.015

Easiness and ability of operation and maintenance 3 0.144 0.432 Effects of instability of political conditions on the program execution. 3 0.403 1.209

3.906

1 2 3



Score 1X2



4 0.403 1.612



3.1

C-16

Rating of Program5 (Ramallah - Nablus Road) regarding to criteria (5)

Rating of Program6 (New Wadi Alnar Road ) regarding to criteria (5)

Rating of Program7 (Gaza Airport Road) regarding to criteria (5)

Rating of Program8 (Construction of 3 Landfill Sites) regarding to criteria (5)

1 2 3



Score 1X2



3 0.403 1.209



2.532

1 2 3



Score 1X2



3 0.403 1.209



2.532

1 2 3



Score 1X2

Accuracy and completeness of data. 5 0.05 0.250 Execution readiness (Availability of land, Completion of studies and all requirements and previous phases).

2 0.403 0.806


2.438

1 2 3



Score 1X2


2 0.403 0.806


2.244

C-17

Rating of Program9 (Infrastructure of Alzahra housing project) regarding to criteria (5)

Rating of Program10 (Environmental Action Program) regarding to criteria (5)

Rating of Program11 (Postal Banks) regarding to criteria (5)

1 2 3



Score 1X2


5 0.403 2.015


4.453

1 2 3



Score 1X2


4 0.403 1.612


3.950

1 2 3



Score 1X2


4 0.403 1.612


4.000

C-18

5. Program Pairwise Comparison with respect to the 5 criteria

Program Pairwise Comparison with respect to criteria 1(Socioeconomical Effects and

Sustainability)

Program P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 Priority Vector

P1 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.105 P2 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.061 P3 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.105 P4 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.099 P5 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.105 P6 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.113 P7 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.099 P8 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.061 P9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.089

P10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.089 P11 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.075

Program Pairwise Comparison with respect to Criteria 2 (Donor’s Preference)


P1 1.00 6.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 5.00 0.169 P2 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.17 0.50 0.17 1.00 0.026 P3 1.00 6.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 6.00 0.190 P4 0.25 2.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.040 P5 0.25 2.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.040 P6 0.25 2.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.040 P7 0.25 2.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.040 P8 1.00 6.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 6.00 0.190 P9 0.25 2.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.040

P10 1.00 6.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 6.00 0.190 P11 0.20 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.035

Program Pairwise Comparison with respect to Criteria 3 (Environmental)


P1 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 3.00 0.136 P2 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 3.00 0.136 P3 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 2.00 0.084 P4 0.33 0.33 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 0.50 0.50 0.17 1.00 0.050 P5 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.50 0.032 P6 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.50 0.032 P7 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.33 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.33 0.022 P8 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 2.00 0.084 P9 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 2.00 0.084

P10 3.00 3.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 5.00 0.290 P11 0.33 0.33 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 0.50 0.50 0.20 1.00 0.051

C-19

Program Pairwise Comparison with respect to Criteria 4 (Availability of Technical Requirements

(3Ms))


P1 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.13 1.00 0.027 P2 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.13 0.50 0.025 P3 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.17 0.20 0.11 0.33 0.021 P4 0.33 0.33 0.50 1.00 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.25 0.014 P5 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.50 4.00 0.127 P6 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.50 4.00 0.127 P7 7.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 6.00 0.202 P8 5.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.33 4.00 0.113 P9 4.00 4.00 3.00 7.00 0.50 0.50 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.25 3.00 0.082

P10 8.00 8.00 9.00 9.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 0.224 P11 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.25 0.25 0.17 0.25 0.33 0.17 1.00 0.038

Program Pairwise Comparison with respect to criteria 5 (Execution, O&M Uncertainty )


P1 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.106 P2 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.124 P3 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.106 P4 0.50 0.33 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 0.33 0.50 0.50 0.060 P5 0.33 0.25 0.33 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.032 P6 0.33 0.25 0.33 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.032 P7 0.33 0.25 0.33 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.032 P8 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.167 0.20 0.20 0.027 P9 2.00 2.00 6.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.210

P10 1.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.136 P11 1.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.136


SES DP EI 3M EU Criteria Priorities 0.52 0.105 0.053 0.161 0.161


Program Program Local Priorities

P1 0.105 0.169 0.136 0.027 0.106 0.101 P2 0.061 0.026 0.136 0.025 0.124 0.065 P3 0.105 0.190 0.084 0.021 0.106 0.100 P4 0.099 0.040 0.050 0.014 0.060 0.070 P5 0.105 0.040 0.032 0.127 0.032 0.086 P6 0.113 0.040 0.032 0.127 0.032 0.090 P7 0.099 0.040 0.022 0.202 0.032 0.094 P8 0.061 0.190 0.084 0.113 0.027 0.078 P9 0.089 0.040 0.084 0.082 0.210 0.102

P10 0.089 0.190 0.290 0.224 0.136 0.139 P11 0.075 0.035 0.051 0.038 0.136 0.073

C-20

Priority Index for Case Study Programs

Program Composite Priority Vector (1)

Score inside sub-sector (2)

Priority Index (1)*(2)

P1 0.101 1.420 0.144 P2 0.065 1.290 0.084 P3 0.100 1.100 0.110 P4 0.070 1.120 0.079 P5 0.086 1.070 0.092 P6 0.090 0.953 0.086 P7 0.094 0.915 0.086 P8 0.078 1.136 0.089 P9 0.102 1.116 0.114

P10 0.139 0.920 0.128 P11 0.073 0.880 0.064

FRAPI Score (NS) = Priority Index (PI) + 0.1 B/C

FRAPI Score and Ranking of programs

Program

(1) Priority Index

(2) Program Budget

Million $

(3) Benefit- Cost

Indicator (1)/(2)

FRAPI Score (1)+0.1*(3)

Ranking of Programs

P1 0.144 9.00 0.016 0.1452 1 P2 0.084 1.43 0.059 0.0902 7 P3 0.110 60.00 0.002 0.1097 4 P4 0.079 3.70 0.021 0.0810 10 P5 0.092 3.25 0.028 0.0950 5 P6 0.086 18.00 0.005 0.0863 9 P7 0.086 1.20 0.072 0.0937 6 P8 0.089 18.70 0.005 0.0896 8 P9 0.114 5.00 0.023 0.1159 3

P10 0.128 1.40 0.092 0.1373 2 P11 0.064 5.90 0.011 0.0655 11

D-1

D. Appendix 4

Financial Resource Allocation Software

FRAS INFRA

The following is a brief description of the Financial Resource Allocation Software (FRAS

INFRA) including both data input and output windows.

1 Data Input Menu:

Input menu includes three icons as illustrated in fig.(D-1). These are model, alternative

and judgement.

1.1 Input of Main Criteria and Sub-criteria

Fig. (D-1) Data Input Menu

Fig. (D-2) Main Criteria of the Model

D-2

1.2 Input of Alternatives (Programs or Projects)

Fig. (D-3) Main Criteria and Sub-criteria of the Model

Fig. (D-4) Alternatives menu

D-3

1.3 Judgement Menu

Judgement menu contains three sub menus which are Comparison Between Criteria,

Comparison Between Sub-criteria and Comparison Between Alternatives

Fig. (D-5) Comparison Between the Main Criteria

Fig. (D-6) Comparison Between Sub-criteria

D-4

2 Output Menu:

Output menu includes six icons as illustrated in fig.(D-8).

Fig. (D-7) Comparison Between Alternatives

Fig. (D-8) Icons of Output Menu

D-5

2.1 Priority Vector for Criteria:

2.2 Sub-Criteria Rating:

Fig. (D-9) Priority Vector Resulted From Criteria Pairwise Copmarison

Fig. (D-10) Priority Vector resulted From Sub-criteria Pairwise Copmarison

D-6

2.3 Alternative Rating:

2.4 Pairwise Alternative Rating:

2.5 Composite Priority Vector:

5

Fig. (D-11) Rating of Programs with Respect to Main Criteria

Fig. (D-13) Composite Priority Vector of Both Programs and Criteria

Fig. (D-12) Pairwise Program Rating Regarding to Each Criterion

D-7

2.6 FRAPI Score:

Fig. (D-14) The Final Output of AHP (FRAPI Score)

Documents

A RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS FOR PLANNING … · Dr. Mohamed Ziara Research Submitted In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for The ... criteria such as availability of technical