-
 
- 

',' -j , 
, ", 
 
,-','-.-:
'

',-,
.,

,,-,

-'

'
,
, '

:

.
--,
,-
-- ---,,
.-
,', .

,
,
.-,
,.
',
-,


,,--


',,,,',,-
,

i,-
,-,
",-


,.'

:
','
,.,---,,,,-'
 -
.,
-,"
,.,
---
,;
 . 
,-

,'
-' 
;
: 
--, : , "' -" --
 ---
,-, - ,,,
 ---
,:-
,,
 _ , '.
I. -,
,,-

 - -,, 
-



,
,-.,
,
 
, 
,'- 

,
!z -. ,, 
 
 

 
i
 , 
 --,,-,
,-,, .-,,L
,` ,., .
,

,, 
, 
t,,
,""'," ,
,
-, , .. .,-
 , ,
 

-,-,
-

-
, 
:_rn

,"'II

 --
-.- 
 -
 -- 7u
-, -- .
,-

:
-r,'-.


:-,,
.,
.
..--,:-
--
,?
;; -
-

- I '' -,--
 
..,-,,, . ,_
- ,,
--- -1--
-., ,,, , ", , -- , ,-

,
i 
,.-,-- - 
 --
-I I 
 

 I II 
-1:

,,
. -.
 


":,-
, -,,
 
 I
 
 
,,,- ` "'"'j- ,'l- 
. 
 -n".
"-', ,'

,
' 

--,
,5-',--,

,:,
 , 
,
i - -.' 

.
 -." 
 -- 
I- -.1-,
-
:-:- - -- 

: ,,_ " 
, ,-,, ,- 
-
- --,"'..-- - 
 
 --

. - ','
, , ,,

 -, L- 
_-. "-, :, - - ", " --
 -"I".- -",

,,"
--- , ,-
- 
 -_, 
, - 
--,,
: . , 
?,,

,- .,; -

-,I,,-, 
-- 

 
 ,,
 "
--, 
 ," - -,,, ", 
 
- 
 - , -

s'
- `
' 
 
- `

., ,", -,, 

,i,'.: ,
:!,
, M, ",'
 ',-
 
, ,
..
,-,-,,,I---,
 I-11 
;: 
,.,
--
,,

- -- ,:,"-,-
.,,': -:--
 -., , .
,,

.--. ,- -

 
"C' :
 
 
 
i 
:- 

:,,.
--
,. ,
 
 
 ,-

,".
 '. . 
 % i
r 
.,', 
 
,,-', '
-
-,, 
 ;,. 
--,
,
-


-

-

 -, 
,
-,, 
,
 -':-
 ,-"
. ,, 


"
,rI, 
- -1 , , 

,.,-, 
'
 ", , ", 
 .. ,- -, , 


..-,-.
-

,,
: 
 -.. 
, -,.-3, -; "
 --"
, " ..
- -- , , -. :' 

, -,
,'
, 
 " 

 -
-
,"'
 ".., ,:
.,, -
 ":`


:; -- 
:- 

,


,- -., -," - ----
". 
, ,z ,
 
 , , " ,, 
 -, --,
-

'-,' 

', - "
,"," -

,--,
,,- 
"r--1- , -
-,",
 -,-,,
 , " -, . 
 ,:,: 
 
 
, ,-'----:`--
--, 
, ,-, .'' ,
,,
-, 
""`i,-," _""'-"--r

.,:

-,
-
 ,
 ,-.
:
,
,,-
 -,.,., 
.n
.
, 
- ,
:,
 ,:- 
,
, 
 "'. -,-

",- ,, -
:

. ". '. 
, --- -, 1- ,--,
-, ,
:
.
-,:,
. -
,', ,
 
 ,
, ,:, 
 -7- 
 
":-
- , 
, 
.

,,
 .I, !

 
t%-, 
,:.-,:, 
,,

.; ,-,- 
.;
:--;

 -,
 "-;
: ,,,--"
-- ,',
`:-,
---
-
 --,I
.1.-, 

 ., -
 

' - , '- ,
,

`
 - -. 

,,
:- :,,-- ".-'. -,
,,"-- ,- "' 1'11
 1-: 
-: I 1. I % 
,,-,.e,'
--', a-,;,-,,;,,-,: -,-,-,,. 


 
-
,
 ': 

,,,
,
,, 

 -
 "j, .-
 
,,
:;-."j,::, 

,-,

. -,,,,,
,-

.
 - -,, ,
 ,, 

 ,- - -,,
-, ,-,
`,,-., 

 ,-, 
 , -
- 

 ',--, -,.,. --,,1;,,
-, 

,--.-, --i 
 

 

,,-,
,--.
,i,-, 
-i
', -t -
--'-, 
-":"",,",
,-"--, -
 ",-',, ,., -

,
 
-'
-:"
,

'--
 11,,,-
-,-

.-
,
,"-- , ,, -: -,.--
,,, ,
- 
,-- -'t
 

---,


-, , ---- ", .
`-,,-
-," , 
,
 ',

,,, 
,,, j
 - " ,,


.
 

-;

,,,,' 
. "

i
,, 
-c,-,
," -,
 .., 
-. ,
:,
,
 --
k,
 !
 , ,
`
i,---, 

 , 

, "
,

-
,
,
";",.,
 -, 

.1-1-
1-- I-'',
" ,
,.
,- 

 
 ,z- -

.- ,-, .,,-, "

,
,
 "-- 
, r

, 
, " "--,,-,-i,
,-
.
,; 
:: , 

i- 
, ,,
-,
,,, ,
 .
;
 
,, ,.
,
" ,-- , -:

,.I 
. 1, - -,-- -, ,
 ,,,, 

 -- - i 
-,
 - 
 
 
-"",:,
 
, 
 .--
, ,", , ,- 
-
 

 ,..,


,.,- ,
",`,"" 
 , ", ,
 --- 

i 'r,", 
 
.

, 
, -. ;,
,
o--- , ,--, - -
-,,- -
,-

-,,,!- '., ",- , :
,,
,,
-- -,-, 
 '
 ,; .
 
 
 
; , : :,
,,. 

%- '. 
- ,
1,
-'
- -,
',
 "-,-.? .-I-, "- '.,-- - ; 
--,
- -
,
 :
 
 -- -.- , 

, , -,I,
,
,,
 , ,,; .: ,
, 
,,

 ,:,;

' ,,, 
- 
 "': , 1". ," L .", -
Z
i,
 
,-,.
,
 - 
 
' 
, , , ,, " 
' -,'

 

, '-, E-
-. -,i-,--,-
 .:
,-
 --, -.', "-"-, " ,"
,r, -,,- ."
I
,---, -
---- ,
--
;:. --; : _-,
- .,


,." ,,,1.7, .,
 :--
- ,-,,--
.-,
.-, -,-
-- -_,,
; 

 ..

,-:
- 
,- 
,-
 tl::,:,
'- ,, - '. ," 
1: 
 -
 : - 
.. ,- 

 '
)' V',* -
 
,,jl ,.:,.!"- --,-'-,
,." -_-:, 
, , 
 
- -, -
 


:.,-:-
,. -- " 
-
 ,

 ,
 

-`,, 
` - 
, -, " " 
,_ - ,--r
.' 
', 
 -
;',: - -.;

 - 
-,,:
 '. -
T,, .":-
;.,
..-.
t? , , - ,1:


--. ---,,
,-:,,,-
-

 
',,, ,: 
,: ,:-, ,f
--
-'-
,
, :
 
 "-,,: :, , -.
 --, 
, -
" -'.: 
'.!:
-,- w

,
, o--,-,_-.`;---, ,&,--;., ,- -,-
,,
".
,1-

,,
-


i ", , 
, 
- 

-, ,,. ,-,-
 -! , :
:
.
, 

 
 .
 

,-,
-,- -... , -." -,
 
,::,- ,
 

,;-
',-- "
-,-:
;:,,;,,-
,

r, " -,,"r,,,- :-`, ,,- -., , 
, ,:--
-.!,-y,
 
, 
,

, 
_ -, ,-,
-. -, 
," ," ,,,.-; ,':-..
-
 : --,, - ` 
-
 , 
z 
.,
-"-,, - 


' ,,-- ,; ,>_1 1- -.,' 

 

_,,, 
;"
 
,
 
,


-
 ,,            --- j,

-- 
'--

 - ---
` 
                     - 
,  - --  -z. 
,
.
-,.
,,: ". ': 
 
 ;',
: ,,- ,- 'Z,
. ",   , -
,-, 

        
- 
 
 , 
 ,',c
-
 
 ,      v "  -   ,  -
   . ',  
, 
'. ": .'. 
 , ,,

 -,t
-   
,
," Z     , 

, . 
-,:,
                                                                                      
     
       ,"
,

` 
 , -_,,- ., ,,-;: - .,-,
 ,j
 -
 - -
,
- ,,

.
 
" ", 
 -
 
 %, 
,
-., , v
:
 ,

,,-

,-
,;, ,
 .- 

', 
 , ,W,,
,, , ": :, , -
,-
,:- % 
.- "v-
,


, ,
,


t , 
,-:-c
 - 
, 
 ,,- 
, ;

,-.'
 ,2--
 
, , , -
 
 
' , . 
-
. ,
 .
 , ,,
 ,--
:

i- -1-
,
 

,
-,
 -, -

--
 ;,
,
Z ,
 ', 
z,: .1
.r
:

-'

,.:'
,
,,

,;



,-,',"
--_','

,!
I I., i

 
-"

:-

i
'-'...--,

n,,,'-,-,
-:. .,--,


,
---
.
 . 
1-7 .. ...
,

 '
 
, 
- ,
.:" '---"
-' -
 - , , 
 ,.
 , 
-
-- ,p 
 I 11 - , I -
 ,,I-", " ,', 
,;-,- ,- 
-,
-, --- 
 

-.,T 


. ,-
 ',
-, - ,-, ,, ,
,
;"

", , ,I", 
, 
' , 
, '
 
 

,
, 

 ... 
 
,-,, , ,1- 
 ,,--.--
,,

'
,,- -

-',
, 
 , "
', 
 
I. 
--
.
:
, -.
-,,
 

 
-

 ,- --.', 
 -,- 
-
,
-- 
, -, -: 
,
,;
 
" , ,,
 -,
 . :,-,
---',-,,i 


7
-: 
-',, ,
 ,
;,
.--, ,ri,--, t,-I-1 -
--r ----.-,, ,,
 t,.,
-, , Z,,- ,-, 
'. ,-
 
--', 

;, ,
 :-'
 - 
",,;,:- ,',
;,
-
; 
-
 -.-


,,",
 -..,., 

,- . - I,,

:
,.,,, 
. 
 - 
----                                                                                                                                                                           , , . 
 
,,                                                                                                                   ,,                                      -l' ,  
, "         
 
'. ," 
 '.   
 1.-,.-
 --,. 
 .: " 


 , ,
  ,
.  ., " 
,
'

".

,
,
,
,.
'
,
,----.:
zi,-,-',,
,-, "", 
, 

 -
;,': "
 ':,",:,
.-

 rz -" 
-1, 
c--,-,-
t
 
r,,.,,,,"
_-:
I .
,,---, 
`-: I,
: 
 I'
 ,-- '
,"ll 
 
 
 
 
',
":-:-,, ': , -
 ,-, , - 
 , ,.,.- 
 

-,, e,
. 

 . ,        -           -.  ,

',--.

       ,:       -',                   -,    ., 
;"T, 
 , 
f : - - ,-
-                                                                                         -
-       ...
.,                     ,.,
 "::,  , -,
 ,' -
,
"-, ,"  ", 
"                                                                                                                                                                                                       "-,, 
-. -I,"--
,
.V 
ll
,-,--.,-, -,---

 
, --
 ,.,,. -
- - 
 -,
I-r-
,
,,, ,

.,--Iz 1
 --- ,`;, ---. -, ,-:


 ,, 
 -
 , ,-.v ,
,, -
 
 ;,
,,-:, ;,,


-
-,,
,,,- 
---",,..


,,4
-

 
- 
, -
,,

,,.. ,'

.,:, -I'i ,,, ,, ...
z


,-Z"-,,
-- 
,i 
, ",i:3-,-,,(
-'
--
 `-, , 
, ,
 

'
_-, 
 
, - I, "-
 :
. 
r -, 
 
 -, '.
 
 -.
, -, :

-.---5--,
,
",P":: ----- ,,-, "., ., -, ,- ... ,si --_
!

 ,-
 ', , 
:!, 
 ;-,- ,,,
" 
,-- 

 .,,,
,,I
,-
' '-:,
 - 
,-'.- 
L,,',
-;-. :
 
4 ,
- , 
' , 
. ,
 I-- ,.-" --
,,-
,!
 ,
,-
 , ,
- 
,,,,-,,
 
,-,.
,4.
.
., 
,
 

,,

,-- -
---, -,I-- .-, 
.., --- -

: ,.--,
-
 :,
:

,- , , ",,- '
.r, 
,;,' 
;,,,
 -,.,- :
-;1:
, ,", -,,-,,

' , ,:
-, 
, , ,-, -
 ;-
,,-,-,
I,,
- , --
 , -,,,--t
z

, , ,
.
-,-
" ;
',
j,
 " , -,
, - 
 - ,_.. 
--,
,,,,,
I-
 . - .-",,:, -,,-
, -, w,,,
, , ,-, ",`--- -
,," 
--,"
 el
.----- 
- I
, 
 --,," " 

, ,-1;4." 
,- ;- 
.,,, ----,,-,,
 - 
,-, ,,, 

",::
 -,-. --. I - ,- 


-, 
..


 " ",
-
-,,.,
,,
--! 
 
-- 
" ,, "-

v,,-:

,,
, ,,-Ill-,: 
I , ,1.... .. :
 'k
, !,,-,
,
, , ,
,. 
II, 
I,
--
,
 -
 
 -,, ,- , 
,
-

 

--",-,
 
 --. , -i r 
I1-,,--
-", ',
, - 
 ,,,-
.- .-t 
 - I -1,,,.,-, -,, 

 : -,:
,--,,-,,,tth", -,
 ,,,,, " !". " - 
, . 
,- ,-, . '11
. , 

-,
,. 
,;
 , ,, .- 
, 
 ,' 
 
-' " ,"
 
 
:" 
 


- -,- 
!
,"

., - ;-
-,,,
t, 
,,,

-, ,,
,
,
 -:u-- ,.--, -, 
.-
, ,,-
.

4

-' Z,,",-

.'
', '
,-", "',,I- " ", 
- 

,,, ,
,
,
. 
 ,
,,
, 
-,
-,
,E
 
- 
` --.r 
-- --, ,-,,
,
I.I I
 .
, , ,,
 -
-

,, --

;,
,.!. :
 " w-,.
 "
 --

:-;

,

 
 ,,
 , " ,, 
, 
 
,,
, 
`
 '. :,,
'P, f
 
,

, ', :
 ,',," 

 ,
 ': 
--] ; :,
- , -, .,"- 

, , ..-,
--

--
 ,-
 ,
 
 , ,Z,,;
 -,'
- 
 -'-.,-,,,Z,-,,"-I.--,I--, 

-o1
 
,:-,`I,:, 
.
1,
-- .
-.-,, -
 -
,.-,-, .--

,
,-
 

- ,
,!

,-.
""

,--
,,
, -
. , 
, ,--

;---" ;'--, , ,

, -3 
,-:-.- 
- 
,,

-,- - 
;,
, ,-- 
 :
,
 
,,

.,
'.,:, .
,
 ,
,::,. 
,. ,,-,
,
,-
 .-,- .,
,, ,"-I 
-: ; 
- - -
:w


,-,
 -'-,
.
,,
`

',."."',,
-,,-, , "-,", , 
 .. I., '.


,", :-,z,

,-"I1. I -,f 
 -1 
 
 ,,,,- --,
 -, 
- ; 
- , 
--
 ,, 
,
 
 ,,, 'j, ,- 
,
 
 , ", -, " :
,-1--,.
,-- . - 
 
` -
, , ,,,,7
,:r,
v, '. -- -
 ; 

-,-,-
- ,,-- 1. .1-,- ,,, ; , " 
 -
 

 
-
, 
 
,:; 
,-- - 

 
, 
, 
-;
 -s-, . ".- - 

 
 
 
 ` '. -,

i
,
,-

, ,

,'

 
 
 " 
,
 ,-
-, - -, , ",
, 

 " 
t ,-,,,,-,.
, .,I ,,-
,


, ,, 

-
 ,-I,-

,,
, 
., .,'..", - ., w,-", -

,'f'
 ,,,,-, -,,, -
`

w,
" ,,
: z, "' 
,;, 
 , ,,- .: " ", 
 ,,, 
 
, , - , 

, , 

'. ,.,
.
-, -v--.- '. -1 w , I
-., ,-

," ., Z

,,, ,-,-
 "", -,', -,
-,-- 
,-,
,'
 
: I 
i" ,1,Ii
-                                                 -                      ,    
I 
f:.

'
, 
'.  


I,,-!z--
-, - -
,-
-
-,-.,-,
 
- ,,,
,,-,
, , Z
 .
,
,-'.,
: 
,--,--, -.
,
- -1---
-; _ 
,:,
 ,
,, ;. 1
 
 -
 , ,;: 1; 
" 
 
; , 
 ': 
: 
 " 

 
 
 -, 
 z' 
 -,:', `,, 
',, " -,',
, 
.,,, -;,,, 

 ,U

.,':v,%

 "

'
.,:- ,,,'
'
' '
 
.,",
--, " , 
-,-
 '

' '. II-
--" 
,.
,

'.-, --- "",,,,
,: ,- , 
 -, 0,,
,-- -
,--',
 
 
, : :
,,-
 -T ,,
 -
-4--
- -,' 
,','n

 '. -, " 
 ,,,
 -
 --;

 
 
;,,; ; "',"
! :_ 


 
, i,-.
.-.-

,

,

m- . ,

" '11,:
, '
 ",% 
.,
 I I

,--,
-, - 
-


 
 t-'% -: ,
 -, - -,, -, 
' 
 -




,:
 : 
,,,--":
 , ".-, 

, -- : - .
,, 
 
, 
 , , -..

", --t, ,.,:,,-: 
-
;,- . :,,- ,---- 



,;q-
,
:--,,-,-
 ., " ,
",ia,.,

,- -, ,
 
 
,--_,:
 ,," ,;
 .; ': - --, --,
 
":, 

,,-

I 11 I 
.,,,


, 

-.
 --.. -: 
- 
:, %,,-
, -
- z-, , "--;
 , -- - , , ,"," -, ,

-,,',
,, , , ;.-
- ",., :,--, ." -
 
 
 ,,:,--,
-- ,
 
 
! , "', ,


,- , ,,1- 

 -.,," 
. , 
,"
 ,,

--


, , - f, ,-, , 
,.,:-r :,,,;
, 
.,
,,, , 
-
:,,- , "
-, ", ,,-, I,-
', ,,

,"-- ----<,
 - -, " 
, 
 , 
,, ,-- ;.,
;
 
 
--,-
,
-
 
,-"
 .1 

;. 
;
 
,I
,, "-,
,-'- -, -:
 
 
' 

 n
p- , " -, -- ----
,
 
 -', ,'. 

 z -I,,,

 , 
 _,; ,-.1 -,z , I
,,,
 I-, " ----
,., -" -,,-, 
_,I I-
,C
',-,' ,- `::-:,
-
 
- 
 --" , 
 -

 

,. ,-,,,,,
- -,--
, 
: '-- -- I--- 
 ,
, ,
 " ,, , 
, "



- -,; -,, --

 , --. -,,
, t': 
 '..",


.I-,'
, 
., ,

,

 .',
,, ,-,,
-"- ,
 " : 
,',-
 ,f, 
,
,_,_:, 'Z. 
 
, -, ,
,

: - "",,, -I. ;

,-


- 
-
. ,
, , 
 
 
 -
` ,..
,-., ,", , ,,
-,- - ,-
 " 
, --- I-1 -- ?I 11 111- 
. -,I.c -, ",,,, ,
 
- 
--- 
 , , , 
-, 
-
 :L, ,.D .., , ,
. . .

 
---
 
 ----' -

 -:
 Z,-

, ,,
 .,-, .. -.- - ,,
-1 -,e. " ,."

,,",
--,I" ,-
 '2- 
 , 
 ,- ".,- 
; ,x,-
`..,-!: , , 
 
 

 
, :-,.. 
,
.,

 11 " 


 :
,,
,,-

,-: 
,-- L
 , ", - ,,-z, i:
 

. I ,-, :
 2
-
1, 
--
 -
 -,
 . : , , '- ,'
 , i

.
,
.' ,,,1- 
, 
 
 -- 
I,-
.ac
I-
,.


; 
 - -v I Z"

- ., 
, 1-1 --,,,, :.-.
---, ...","-, , 
.,
-, .r
,-.
,--,
,-.- 1, , I.. -
-- -r
 , 
. ",--, 

- 


, ,
. .-I
-, w
- -, -,--1 - 7-',
,-
'. -,
 -- ---,

- 
 ,- - .. , --


,,,
:;
i Fi,,
- 
, -, I, .;,, , ," ,,- 'r.-

 
. -::"
,,
,

 -.
 
 - ,, 
,, -, e -
, 

,-

 r, , 

,
 
, -, ,
 :--,-,. ,,,



 , .--,,,-, , - - 
 
 
- 
,`, -
,"I-
Y I -
,::l' 
 1
,
.-,,,4",-I ,:
 -', 
,--::;,-,:
 , , , o:""-" ,,
 -,
, - 

,
,V,l ;-
 
 -
c ':,'
,,.11- -
 
-, " ':-


-,Z
- ,-,", "-i
,
- -

"...... T
 
-
 -, 
', ,--.., ,,iK-'
-,:
 , ,
,-,-

-'-,'-'
 1 7
T& , 
,;
 
 
", :;
;--

 ,
- , -
 -: K- 
, ,
 -- ---
I I,-, -
,'.. -I I - ,-- 


'
-,"
-
,`: ," -
 - , - 
 , -,,-- , 

,"- 
 - : ,

 - zI-I,
-, 
-:
: ,',,-
-
 

',,
..
,- 
 
:- 

,,,, ,,. ,-1 I , 
 


-, -, 
 t, - ,
. ,.:-
 
,,,
; `
:- ,-e
 --
,,, c
'! - ,, 
.
,,-" ,.I'-,,-, -, ;;., 
 
-- 
",,,,': _ ,
,-, , 
-- :- ,,-

 .1. - -
,
-w,---,--,-, , ,-

.
-1 71 

 , `
" 
 11 - 
- , , " ,-
, 

 N 1, ;
,,
 .
 ,
,. , .,
,-
., -, :
 , 
,
 'I :.,
I
 '
-
 , ',
 , , ", , ,-
i

 "5,-r ,
-.,C- - 

,-,;
 --

u , ': , ', ,,,--- 
- -,
 - ,
, 

 ,: 
, 
11 
I ,I ",- ,,. ,.",
"- 
 
 '- 
 -- 
."
'.;-"
-,, . ,
 
-,

 ,-:-

-,
,-, ,." ,;. ,p

- " - I-, 

11,.- ".---,
.- -
,

-"4-.,,,; - 
,.I 
 r, 


-
 ,., , 
 .
,
- -..
- I., - 
I
: ..:
 :,-,I-

-, --
,w, 
 -", 
 
- ,
% ;
. .
,"
, :
,
, " '; 

 ,--
-
 
;-'
-

'-',
- -_,- 
 , 
- -, -,--,
` ,`
 

!--,
,
- I

11 
'ln ,--, , -
I
-, 
,, ` 
 li 
 ,-- 
, , %-, 
, a -- "I 
 
.1 , 
---
 ; -
 
, 
,-,I"' -..:. 
-,-,,,

, 
,, rl , ". 

--, 
. 
 
 
,,,r

1 i... 
 ,- 
,. 
... f.,i-" ,-,- "-,---,- 


,........ .- -

 :
 I , 
,-
"


-
- --,--,
zl 
,, ,

5.,
 : 
 ,
: ;r , ", , ,
-
-- ,"
".- -:
-,-,-- -
z,.- , -
-, 
"
,
"

,, ;
 
,,, ,- ,; ---
,, ,,
, 

., 
,,-.
 ,,
--- Z,,
 , -
--- 
,- , -
Z' - ..: ,,,,-,-

 ;,
-
, j
 
"".F-,
 "
, ,
 
-
.',, , , , ; 
- 
 

 - , , - 
 - --, i ,

',', 
- 
 '. 
 ,'. -, - 
 - 

 
,
 
'. ,. ,
-
 , .. ., - 
 ,,
,,
 ,,
I'
 : 
,,'Yl 
, I, ;.
: zto,

 ,,
'
"
.,

 

 ,z,,-,
,
 iiiik"iik -,
, " ,
 
, zw, " ; 
 
. 

, 
 
I,-, -.


, ... . 
,", ,- 
- -
 ": -,
, ,- .


_"J"
--- ,,11 .
-,- 111-1
,- -, . ,
 , 

 
.',', '
-5,1, 
',,,,;"
 
 ,, ,
,
 ,,,,

i- ,,,, q-
 , -,I,,-.,
,,.
 , 
', i ,
 ,
:_-- 
- -, 2,
 ;
,-
-,-
 c 
, -11---,- ;-, ,- ,- !.:
,, , ,
,-4 .
- ,
7"- ; 

 - --l' -1 . -, ,,,

,,-- 
.
: ',
.-" i
'
- -
 
,
,:,- ,,
- .,-, -;
 
- , 
,- 
 , ",* 
--,
`,-`- 

 
 -,-"; V --,
-
 , 
 
,",


 ",,

--,," --- ,
j,.
,II "... 

 -
--"-, -, " ,"
, 


.1I
'.,-- ,,-

,-;--,':

 7 -,-I..'
 
,-, -

,,

:.:

,,,,
, ,?- 
"'-", ,- ,
 
 .. ,- 

, 
,
." 
:
, 
 
-,"

-:-,
- ,i-" ,
 - -i, - , -", 
 
,;-,- ," -
 
'. ,-:.:l.,z,
v ,


 .

 ,,"",`.

-i
,
-----"-,. j..

 .,., 
 -,- --' -; '
,,,
 '. 
,!.
,

 -
-.-,
' 
,

 ,, , ., .,- -

-,`, ,:

 -
 -,
 I-
j.-"


, , t,, 
 , . ,
.,, 

-, 
, 

 . 
 
 " ., - "-,
,-: , ,,, 
 "

 
 
 
, 

 
- -, 
: 
 
 
', , - 
, -- 
 ,
,,,

 
. -,- - 
, ---,
-

,
-, -,
, 
, ",, -, ".,

 , ,, ,'-
 ,
.-
 
 - ,- 
, , ..-

-,., 
-
 "'l-I "'. -, ;, " ,

 : 
 r 
 
 
, :,-,,.;,-,-, -
 - ,':--,,
--.'-',,;z,
 
 2

 --'-
, 

 I '. 
 .. I 
-,-,,

:- -f , .-: ,. 
--
-,
-,, 

,:

',
e,
:-"-,. --, -, ,--Il 11 
 :,- ,-V , '. 
, 
 
,, ,,
:,:

 
:, ,:, --, ,-
 ,

, 
 - 

,-,--.-:,,",
'
'-,_
 

 --, -, 
 
 -. -- ,: . "v-"-,,--. - ,, ,:,
,".", 
 . -
 "
I 
 , , ,--" 
 .
- ,.:,-, ,-
 ,o
-, -. -. ,:, !- - --
- 1-i 
, . , 
 
 
 " - -; x 
",-"-,. ,,, --I- -
 ,-,Z, ,,,:,-

",.,
 


 
: ,,,
- 
o

,
- ---
 --, ,,
.,- 
-,' , , -'- "-,
,'l:!
,

 ,
-,' i 

L

i.-----,


.'
,-..-,
-,--.,'


:
--, 
,
.
- '' '',
,- ..- ,,
-
-,

,,-',,




:
,-I-:`
 -,,
-, 
;,-",.
,-; '
,

,,-
-. 
-",
,:
 

,: ,
' ; - 
-,
 

,--; ".1-1 -,.'
:- 1:1
,.,
;,:-,
;,
,,,'-' -:- ...-I ,I 
--::

.'
-- ,
,
',"
 - '.-,'

"-,;
l-'-'
,
.,-.;h

',"
,



,;,-,

.

-
,

",'
,'-

,,-
,
'
.
",

.'
 j,",- ':,;-'
'- '',..
-
-.-. , '. . IV 
n, " _,
,
 , e-
-,-
,
 - ,-
 .,--, 
: , 
 J- ,x.,I
I - -.- I-...I, -
 .; 
_, 
,
" 
 ,,A . ,,
 
 ., . Z
., -,,
-,---
1-11-:,,f, ,'-' 
, .. ,- 
 t'. ; -.- -
,,,

,, ,
,


 
,:,-, '' 't - ,-, ," - --;
,, ,- 
: 
 .." , ,
 ,
,," -

,, 
 
n-,;
 -, ":

 -,
,,,, :-
 ", 
 -.', f 
`,' ,".. " , , : - 
 

, ,, - 
-,- ", -I I

--,

,-

.
,
 
,,,
,,,
,
 - , 
.:.
,
 ,
-',-x.,,
:-, ,
,-. 

, c,
 -'. " I-
 -

-1 
': -"
 
Z-:
,

,
i--,'-. 
"


-,- -e. ,, -
 '
 "I, 1
I.7 -. , - -, -
-
--', 
','
-'
,,
- , "

, ---, - ,', --
-, -- 7,;,

A,
,.- , ,
--, -.- I-
 ,- 
, ,,.,,.--I
 " 

 
- .- ",. : - ,, 1. . 

-,, ,
.
-,-,
,---, 1- 
;,
, -::
 ,
',, ". ,,',
 ,, ,- , -," "-
i-,
-

,-,
, I,
 ,- ,,
?-I-1-1 

- "7-,
 ," 
, :,",,"


 



'O,Vl- ,, "'. 11 : 
-,,, 
 -, 
;,-, ,.
,, --.,,
 
7'
,'.. ._
--:-,
,- , _,
,
;
 Z
,

 '-,
.-
 :, 

, 
;
 
 
 
- z-, I ; ," 
 ', ",
, --;.',", ,I-,'-," 
,
,
 -',
z,
 i
r,
-:

,
-,
 

,-,-',
-
 `
. -

,
, 

-

, ,
, 
-
,I
 . :,
.,

, 
 ,4- 
,,'.,
,;,,, 
 -. " 
 , - 
, ,
. -, , ,-" '. --,,
, , , , ,
 
 
 

, _:-,;' 
 " -, l--_,!,1-
-,
,, - - r-,"; . ",I
- 
 
 - - , " ,, "-, -,-,-. -

 , 'C' , 
 -: -", , 

 ,

,, -: ---- 
 -


.

 4 , 
 '.,,- ,
-," 
,

. .-,
 ,,,-1
 I, , 11 ,_,-.
. .
 I r, I -11 ;. - , 

ff'-, 
 
- ,
,, w I I.-F -- :-- --::
,
-,,-

-"- 
-
,.-.-.,
', , 
,- ,-v
,-,
,-, - -,.,---

-:"
 .
:,!--:!
 
, 11'
,
 ',
 e -,. , 
'
 
- "-;;,,-f- ,- 
:, ,:

-,--
;- le " i-,
,',
,
,,,
,, .-;,

-I-

:,:

,,,-1 - " 
,
,

 
-':
-,.--
,
', ,,
, 
 
 , " , - 

-
i` 

 -, 
- Z,,. 
-
 , --', , - '. " -, --',
- --' 
i,
 
 ", 
 
 -, ". 
,,-',,,,." '. , .- i
 .-.,
". ,
. ,"
., ",
I
-;-, - 1, - - " " , 


-1 -,


 ':I- ,-.-

 ,

 -
 -.- 
 - - .1
,
,
.

,,.:-
..-'.'.
,'
,,

"
',
.,
 
,'
;, , ,
,
,--)--.,,,
,
--, -,
 , - !
 ;, - 
 - 
,- ,
,- -
,

', ,,, ., i'

, ,,
 
, - :,,_
,-,,- - 
 -,-I.1 - 
 -, 
.. -,',' - , ,,I ,,;',,
-
.-1
 
 I.- 
..... .1:P .... .Z , ", -, 
z--, --
,
,
 .. 
- --, -
"- , , 
;
,,
,--- -
,
;:
:

 

,:
 
, --, , 2" 
- --,!
 
,
-
e
,,
-
 -
 
 
', 
 - 
 1- -
 -

,
- - ,
-,
 , , 

, -
'gi, - .. 

-I-
,
 ,.
I
j 

4
,-,-,-,.,
, ,

-'
, `,
:.'--

,
-,- 
 
;:

, 
--, "...- I---
, ..6 -,-
-



.,5
 - -', ", -, ",
, ,.
 ---- , I-2,
-,---,,,,.
V, 
,--,-,,--,
-, .," -, 4-"r ,,
.-o,
 
,
 
'I- - ""ArP", 
" -, ,-,
',
.-,
,,,,-

,
-;
,,,-,I

'

'


,- , :1.`
-,-:
',

 ,- 'i -,-j-
".-

'

.,-,;
-
,i 
,:
- -. -i-, , - ", .. 
--,,
 
 :- 
"
,,
 !
Z,,," ,4:
 , ,
-,
 ---, 

I--,,
,",
 

 -,,,
,-"
:
! '
 
,
 ", -:, 
-, 

; - -: 
 ',-- -, 
, 
-,-.,, , k,;-." 
, , 
; : ,i
 ,,,
"", 
. I,-, I 


,,
:,-,
, -
,,,,Y', -
 ',
'
 ,,, ,,
 ,,'
. '
, 
 -,

 ,'--, -
 , " ,-,-,,.-, r - 1
 
 -, 
 
,2"
 
 f.." 
 - 
 

 
 ;
 i ",


, 
, -, 
, 1.
,
---,
 .,

 -"11
. -,
,"',,,.,!
.!,.
, -.
,
, -P,"
 
-'

-
 ,,.z:,
-,,
,
; -,, 
,,,
-, ,-
,-
 
 ,,-' -,, --
., ,:
 --
' ", ,'

,
 
 -
,- -
,, f ,-
, , 
-, -, --,I '.."",,,

-,'

 

-, 
- 

 .
,


 - -
;. -..,
-, -,c .-I , !,', i, ,-,,,,' 4:, ,- -
 ,.,
 ""'.,-,


'r-,
 
 -, -,.
7 ,-'- :'
j,,`--
-,- -;,a,, '. 
 -
 ,- ,f

 - ,

. --I I
., ';

,',:'--
-- ,,

t',",,,-, '.1 ,

v
'I,j
 .
'---
,
, -l .:-'- ,- :'- -, ., ,!., i
, 
,,
!
 -'-,
,-:
I-I .-'I-r,-, 
-
",-.,. 'j, t'. 
 ,",,-
,
 .-


.,,
. ""! -,
,--,,,,,"' -,--,
`- 1, 
, " 
 
 
,
 
 
-, - ,":- --- --
,-
--:

.,,,' 
- 
 ,,
 
, 
,
,,,,

 
 .": .,6 
,,
,, , -
,

 ,
,:9
--, - 
 -,: 
 "
,
_ 7 
,-,',
- , -,-_,
,,,
,-,-".-
,

',.
,
i',--
--,--
-,: ,:",,-
-----,',,-, 01',--,-,

,-

,-,. - ., . ., 

..-
 

'i

, ,
 -","',-,"-,,-,
"%,`
,,-'
,'
',.,J, --, ", 
 '

 ,;. 
:.,- :,
,_; 
,
., ,,
 ,

, ,

 -, 
.... 
 ,
 
, 
-- ",., 
 ,, ,--
, 
-,,- 
 , ,, --
-
--,, ,., 
,-

,',

, 
_., , ," -, 1,
,, . 
": 
 ':
-t-,,

) -,


 Z 

r 
,"
 W- ,, :,

--.4 
, 
 ,
, 
I .-1;1.
.
 , 
-
;-

,;
,,- ,,-- 
,
,-
 ,
-.
 
, ,,
 .
 ;, 

 , - , , ,
`

,--- -,,,,

 
 
 - , 
 a"- 
 ,
--,,
, :
,
,'. --,
. 1- ,--
.
, ,
I '. -- ", . - 
t,

.

 -
 

, ,
-- -

,-
,
,!-
Z
 
,-- -,-

 " , , ,::;
 ",:
', -, 
 

 ; 

' -
' ','
 11
1
 -, .-
, 

-,

,
,1, 
-, ..:,-- --.
,L-
-, , ,.- 1,
'
-.:,
,

--';
--
,, -v

--,,
,.

.,

,

'
,
,,
,,_!,,
,,-,. ,,- ,, --,
 

 
,
,
.,,

,,-- 
 -

, - , 
, ,,, :-: 
 -.-i 
,
.- 
,,-
 ,- 

..
 I - I - 
- ,, 
.1.
 -,
 wll,, , 
 
.
 

 

-.
,.,
, -. . .
, 
,I
..i;

,,- , , , -'. 
, ,, : ,- 
 
 
, 
- 
,j 
.- - - - ,,r
-", 
 ,I,

,
-,- ..,
I-I-, ,', 

 -,, I:j

 
 ,-.',
,
 , 

; 
'
 ,5 : ,
 1
 -
 -
-:,,., -
.1--,---- , , ", ,-;
,
L""

5
,,"1
,
,, ,- ", --_ "," ,--,-
, ', %.: 

,,'
"r, -,,

 ,,
-- 
, ,:-_,r;
; -, --
i
"..'-, 

-,,
. 
, ",, 
:' 
 
,-,
 , ',f,;
 ;,

j
- 
'. _;-

-'Il " -,-- - -,,"--
, , --, ", ,- , 
, " -, 
,- --:"-,;,

 ", , ,--..,
I 
.. 
 ,
 . 
 . "'."',
'r--, -- 

-.
- 
 -
 -

,--,-,

--,Z-i
,
 , iFW 

 -,
--,,I-

--
 
:, ,,,, -, :- -, 11 I -1- .-- 
','-
 , ,- , 
, 11.1 
,; F, ,--,
 
--, 
 
':-- -.

- - 


, -
 Y" 
",%

,
,- ,, -. VI,
-:-
-
:,,---,,,- " -" ,. .,.Z, .Kl:rl,,

;.

-'
' 
'
j 

:,
-- - 
 -,-, 
,,

 , , ,'- -,-
,,
---z:
 


,,
 I, -;.,
:, - '.
-.
 , 
,
,i ,
;
 

, 
 :, ., 

 ,-
',"
 
,-, ,,
,,- 
 
` ; 
 -
- ,-, , 

 
-
-', ,; ,'--- - -1 ,, ,.,,
 
-, I -, , -, - , , -, ,,
-", - 
, ,' ,-I
--
, ,
 --, - -, -, ,- 
,--,
-
--,- :,-, , 
 
 3 
t
.1 
, 'u, 
 ,:',
-, ,
,-. -- -- 

 -,." .,--

-,, 
 

,,,

 _-- -, , - 
,


 
 1, ,.' t-, ", -
 

,
,,-I.-Im A,
I 

:-, " 
::
%" -, - :3. ,
,' ;
.,,, '.
,
, ,,
 ,,
;---i
,,

,-e ,v, ,-

 .
-,,

-,.,,

,''II-
r, V,' ,,"-'',- - ,
,.,,,,-.-
,.
;,,-; , ,
'
 -V,',,
,
---- As.
, -.,, 
 
- ,".%, 
,-, 
 , ': 
- '--
" ,
-

- ,
-,.-'
,

,q
,
-;,',,,, ,
 --V

 , 
-,-,,,' 
,j

,
 

, 
,:
 -],
,'S,
-,

r 
, , ,- -,,,, ,
t
. -,-- 
-- -_-,,'
 , 
 

- -,, ,
,,
,---, ,
 .-:",., 

M"- .,.
 
 

 .",
 I
m', ,,-,'
:, .1 

----
-1--i 
 
-, -_
',
,-,: " 
 
 - 
 - 
,
 ., '.
:

. - 
',,
;
 "' , 
- 
 .1 
 1; --"-, II I ll
-
I



,i
 - 

-.,
 ,-- 
, 
- ,_,


,-
, 
,,;, ,,-,-
 " z,.'-.,
 , 
11 . ,.

t'l. 
 , ,""..-- ----, " -,-,-.I 1-1-- I .- ., 
 ,,, -,-
, -

-. 
.-,,-.
, .
 -
 

 11- 1-
----
, -,-", 
.,r-'L -

: 

 , 
:-

, "I 
` ',
,---
.
 -,
 
-r ... 
, 
 -", -1,.
,-._, 

, " , "'. " ,---,- -, - ,;;. 1: 4
: 
 
`."", -t-,, 
,
2,
 , 
- 
- ,; ,.
 ,,
 1, I I
:,--, : 
: 
 ,
,,',"
-,.:
,r,,, , 
-,:,'
;i-,
-, .
-'
,:
,'-
;.,,
, 
:--z
o : 1 
 . ,',t
_-,:.
 
 .I" ",,
, -,,
Z,4

,
 
 

.I,,
 
-,,
 ,,, ., ,7,
- ,:--- 
, ",-;". I&- ',,-z:,-,-.- - 
 % 
,,, 

,Z
 
:,,%,
--
 -"
`,
,

i ,
'
-, ": ,,,, "- ..-I V, 
, -,,,
 ."'t .,,4,Z-,,. -.;- -
!,,
-- `-,
,- -,-.
'
 

 -,z
 
,:: 
 .,'
 ,,,, , 
,-,I ., :, 
;,
.1
- -,
t_

,,

-, -
 -
 --
,":
; '.,' , '-
-;, 1-1 --.I--, 
 -, ,,--

:'-- ,::" 
- 
 "--,, ", I .-: 
-,,':-
 ,,,,
,. -" ". Z .4
,:-', , -,f gA" 

 ---1w. 
 ,

 
 I 
 " , r
-, I .,,-,- -.,,
v:
 -,, -,
i-,
,-,, ,-
,,,-,--,,_ :-, ,,-,"
 ,,!- ,
t".,
,,, ,", ,
 "'I'll- , .A ,Z -,.,'
 -, 
.,-
--T 4 -
,-, 
 
 -
 

 --. ,,, 
 ,--- -, 
 

,;,,
,
,

' 
;- "
': 
". ,,,,"',,, 
:,--,
-1
 I .. --,-. .. I 1--I jo.
S,:,1-1111, 
 
, , ,,- ': -

 

 

1,
,.-
, 
,



.,.-,-,

-, ---:1,-t., 1-
-, , !.
 :,- : 

i',', 

 .. .
 -,,
-- ..,,


,,, ,,-
 " i
il 
 ""4
 ,
,,,
 10", ,-,', - li,-,
fl
 1--:,
-;, ,,- " 

-, ,.
 ,
 , .

 , - 
-, z -
-
,-' 
- 
,,,. -., 1 
 , ;, ,--,
,-
,,,- , -,
,., 
i`*:, 
,r.,, ",f
--
, -Ov,
-; 
-, 
--: '

.'
 ,,-, --,
,
! ,; , -
 -".,-,-, -:

-" 
 

 -
'!-,--,-I.- -----,-
,-

 ,
;-r F
, . w
'; "- -,

-I

- ,
 -,
-:
:,, , -
1
.

 
 11 I I1. 
r.J



--
,
 
.

,..'-,- , 
, , ,

; 
,,,
 

 - -- 

, -
 
 -
,:;; :n -.,-
,

,
II
, -; -;,',,-
--
 A-, :g-- - 

, !,,
- --
,
-:',
-
.
,-
---
,
, ,,
 Z,--. 
'-:; 'W" 
 , -, p- ,-,-1-1;
 .
- :,-, 4, 
, ,
 :. - ,r, - 

-, .,
, 
.,,", -,;
 
 r'. ,
 1, 
.I
,,:
,:,,.-i:;
 
- - -- -
 -,,
 
, 
.-'t
, 
 

 -

 4
II;,-.I ",--- il.I---

;;:",
 ,,

,
i
:,
,
:,
,,f,
,,,-,jr-r-l-,
-, >,
- - 

--,",-: ',
O
-,,-;
,::- -,

.-_.:
:
-,! ,- , ; ,,

-
,--`,

.- i,--,

,,
 --.'
-,' ,'
-


-,,,-

t'
` `-l'--
,'
- , ,,-
., I -l'. w,
, 3
'. . ,,% 
 1, ll-- 1% 
 - 
Y
 
: 
 -'
 
-, 

:
,
1;1,,,- .!,III,
-:,

 .:, 
 ---
 I' f- - ,
, ",,-

-

--, I ..-"-

7-, 
,-,
,,,-, 
,

 

 I, -
 , 

 , 
- 
,- - 
- --,-, 
, --- 
- 1-i.l., ,I 
, -,
- --,
Z.--, 
7-,-.,

,:-
 1;:,
-
 -9,011.

- -±
,
 ".",
-;
7
: ;. 

O,
!
,"

A;= 
-
r

-
.-,--,. -.1 ,-

-.,, " 
111, - -, _
,.----
-, -, - ,- -

 ,,,
, - --,,,
,
,
.--..
,
-
 
',' 
,,`
,


.'
:- 
I",,- ---, -, 
 
'
-_ 
t
 ,,,
:.-.-, " - , I I -.,,
.V., 
,
 -.1 ,
 
, 
', -, 
.,, , -",, : 
, 
,."
i
,-i 
:, - "z-.., , ,4.,- -- - -""I, -.- 11II,-I- 

::
I'o, ,

 W,-.",- 
,,

,,'
tk ,-, - - 
I.
-, 
1.

!,, -
,':-,',j,. ,, ,- - -

, -. , "
 
I
,' ,
 -- I'.I, 1.
I-w ---. 
l,
 :
,!-.-, 
,
"'
-,
----,'
',
,
-,,
',,"'. '
 
, ",- ift "i 
,,-;
:', ,,,;
: ,-,


', ":.;-.
"W ,4 -- -
,--,Z, -
', , lj 
',,

-
,1

I--, ... . ... 
, -,
,,
 . " -, 
 -, 

-,-
.:,
.- I-
.,;

-
- -
,,_--".,-- :--, 1- - - 

 11-1-
-: :

'

,,,, ', - ,-
--,H,
,
-,,
:,
-,
;r
:
'-,] 

 , -
,,`
-k
----

 .,---- -,- " , , "' . ,,,-, 1-, . '".
j.
-v
Aoilr-'
,
 "-
 - 
.,
- ,'e 
,f ,,I,o

L. 
--
":- -- - I",#' ,
,-
"- ,,,

-;Z_ -, 
, r 
,'-: , - ,
, ,
 ,, :
 , 
 
 
 '.

lo;
,

 -,"--" :'
f 
,-- -

 
;

, 
 ,I!,:1 .-. , .

-I,
I-
-, ., .1 
 
I1
I
!
-
1

,-- ,-- 
-
--,E`'

 I
7' 
 ,,,
.
 

L

,-

,, "-'.,
 ", , ",
I I-
,
" 
, A
A
- ,-1
 , 

iI
"--
,, --,
,' 
 

 
 
 :,
' -, _,
---
,-11, I-
.1,',,
--,--,
- -,
, ;

 ---I," -, ,I11
--, +-)
- Z--,Z, ..--- - -
A- 
 ',
..... ", -
-
4 ---,

, 

', 
. ... .. ;
 , .,",-
'
;" - , ---F zill ,
 , ,---I.,--;- -

-
 ,,, ",- ;
-,
'
-
"              5            P   
ll                   -,                                       ", 
 " 
 ,'
 
 "  ,       , --., ,,,                                                                     ,.
,

,.,-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                -
4-,
i ..., -,,,-

..",.
,.,
'

',-,,-',
,,
,

,
,
,
',,.
"",.
I
 

.Z
'111;"",-",-,,,-

:
,, 
,;
I..1 - -I.Q 4
-,:

 
,,- --;
! , t":,
-,-, 
-,-
Z!'-- 
-.-
-
,
 

 
 

 -2 -:-- , ,--i ,'- 
 
',, Z
-
- 
,- --I--l" ,;.
,,-,---,


-_;,"I
- -.,,
 

,-- -,,
.

,- 
,
.,
- -,, I
, - .
-,--.- -;:-,

,,, 
,.,,
.,
,,C- , -. .--1--.,
.11 11
, -
,-
,
 
, t

 - Z- -"-
 

, -- --
, I, "--,,--, 
: - -
:
,
,r.I
 ;; u, - 1,1 -1 ,I, " 
 " .'.-, " ;,, 
,
-. I, !,7 -t:, o "W,"
--
" ,
,
-11
: 
L, R
I"-V 1
,-,7-i, t t -1K -
,

,-
- I 
 -,,
,
,

 
:"-.--,- -"I
.
 "::fti.
",,. 

 -,",-,,i - , ,,- t 

, IA1
 . , -
 ,,.; , ,- 
, --:,
- 
.,,,

,-,-,-,
, 
:,-, -,, 
,
 1 ":- ,
,- 
. ,111 "I 
,,--.,.
"-.:--- h 
,
, 
 
 :,

-"
,tv- .- ,

-, ,

;
, 
 ,:
', 

-- , -,

,t'?Vl---- 
 : 

! ,---;
 
I
.
;--.1 
..- , 
: 
.'-,T
,
,

,-,,,,,:
 
 "i 
: 1, ,.i, 
f 
,
-.I
-;- I ..-
' "' ". .
,-0 ",,, _-
,,',,
: ,,,
.
" - 4
, -"r, -,-,-
:,,-:
,
--- I 4, ,;;,
 ;,-.
.i,
,
: 
, -
-
,-.--4 I,
, ,
,

: 
-
 -
 -,
'--' 
 --: :: r: i"
"; 

i
-:, --'
' ,,
,I 
n_ .,q 
, ------
 ` 
 

 : 
., '' 
 ,-, 
 - 
 ,'

 "', - 
,
- -,,.I-

,
,-', , - 
,"
-",--;: 

 ----'.-'--

,,
*%,:-, -
,.,-- -
,'_"':

---
"., -.-.:
-
,,--'--_., e
,-'
- -, "--- P,-

:
 , 0

-
'W,'
'Z
- 
, 
'. ; 
: ,.
-i
 
,-t` ". , , 
 ,- ,,
i, 
 i, -, -,,, " ---4- 
- -1 -
' , , 
 " C. -:, 
- ,". 

 ,- , 
-,-, 
,,P lr
,
 
 , 
,,-,:
, - ,
 ; :
 ; ,
 
 -.-,,.

',' -, - 
,


-_ , 

 I 
 . 
 , ,,
 
-
- :-1 
". 
 
:- .,]
-
,r- - -
 ,
, j,
-. 
 ,- ,, " 
 

 

 
 . - , - 
. ,
', 
', I -,-

 , 
,.'
 i - . I

,- ,
-.,', , , " 
: .
--
,- ,,
 -, ," ,---, 
-
,-,I.II.
,
 
.44:,I--,
l-,'i 
,-
 --,,
I-,
-

---
s,-,-:-,t-v-
- , ,,,,I" ,,-- 
.
 
:
 -, itk .1
-i 
 ,- ,,, r'O
-- 
1
1,
8-
 II- - 
, ..-
 11- I ,. -,-,-- - -O', "i ii`.-, r 11 ,--
. ?, I ,,,,




,P, 
.-
--,
-:r-,-,!

..-..
-
-,
-"
-,I
1-1---, -- - 
f-,_

-O""-.
,.--. , - - -t
", - '' ,.,.,-".-I I 
- -,
: 
:
.
. ---
 '
 
- I
, , -, ''
j
&- I-:----
 ..... 1,
,,,
,_,
'-,
,,, -
',,!,, 
_-
,:
, 
i- -
 
i'I
tl
,
,:,:'';
-.'
-, -'',
,,,
 Z-z-z ,',,-,- -,-'. :.

,-
 1,; 1,-
 ,.1 
,-:


-
t,-
 .1, -
-- 47), -, 
',

'
,,,I-,-,- - 

,- -
-_. '-:
,',
,
-,, -, vi
 - ',,-
 " -, -,!

'

 -. -:
--?--." 
,:' :;': ,'4
 -,,-, 

 : ,, -I--
,
 j--

 -, , .I,
 ,--,II
 ,.

 1: -1. , -,
N- 

 V- 4

-
,,,
,
-,
,
,
,,
,
--

 t, I -.',. ", -,`,-:: ,
-,

,.
,, 

,,-,,-"-,.

,--,-,,'--',' --,-,
,-,-1,- ,
,-

,;-i. .::, i 
-,;, ,
'
 " 
 -

-
u?-, :!

., ,
- 
F -
 -l-, o, , "I. .-,
,II
-

---- 
. ';,.,,


 ,
, ; :,j E 
'
 
----

.-. 
': ,
 .-I
-,-
 ,
5-
lI

,-
- '-- ,.",-
, 1
 -

,',-" " ,"; -r, 
 --'?.:,-
.., 
 ,,;,
,:, -1 ",-,-, ---
,






EASTR, the Transport Sector Unit of the East Asia Region of the World Bank, is
responsible for the Bank's work in the transport (highway, railway, waterway) sector of
our 13 active borrowing countries.
The Working Paper series is intended to make available more widely, inside and
outside the World Bank, papers produced in the course of our work that may be of
broader interest - especially to the infrastructure community in our member countries.
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be taken as formal
statements of World Bank policy.
Reactions from readers are always welcome and may best be addressed either to
the named author, c/o World Bank, 1818 H St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, or to the
Director, EASTR  at the samne address.   The Director's E-mail address is:
JBajpai(Worldbank.org.






2
Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Roads Improvement for Poverty Alleviation (RIPA)
1.2. Scope of the Paper
2. Poverty and Transport
2.1. Poverty and Transport
2.2. Transport and Economic Development
2.3. Transport for the Poor or Poor Transport
2.4. Rural Mobility and Accessibility
3. Poverty Alleviation in China
3.1. Poverty in China
3.11. On Defining Poverty
3.12. Increasing Incomes and Increasing Inequality
3.13. Rural/Urban Divide
3.2. Geographic Distribution of Poor Counties
3.3. Poverty Alleviation Pollicies
4. Rural Road Systems in China
4.1. Road Classification
4.2. Bearing the Burden: Who pays for what?
4.3. Vehicle Mix, Traffic Volumes and Road Classification
4.3.1 Vehicle Mix and Traffic Volumes
4.3.2  Road Classification
4.4. Current Design Standards
4.5. Appropriate Design Standards for RIPA Roads
5. RIPA: Methodological Aspects
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Methodological Framework
5.3 Designation of Poor Counties
5.4 RIPA: Screening, Selection and Ranking Process
5.5 RIPA Counties: Economic Ranking System
5.6 RIPA Counties: Social Development Ranking System
5.7 Selection of Counties for RIPA Implementation
5.8 RIPA Priority System: Initial Basket
5.9 Beneficiary Population and Cost Effectiveness
5.10 Inaccessibilty Criteria
5.11 RIPA Implementation Priorities
6. Feasibility Analysis
6.1 Analysis Framework
6.2 Economic Benefits and Rates of Retum: A Tiered System
6.3 Beneficiary Population and Access Benefits
6.4 Social Benefits
6.5 RIPA Implementation Package
6.6 Benefits Monitoring
7. Lessons from Experience
7.1. Balancing Economic and Social Benefits
7.2. Challenge of Appropriate Design Standards
7.3. Institutional Systems and Maintenance Practices
7.4. Replicability to Other Countries
8. References



3
List of Figures
1. Market Maturity and Road Hierarchy
2. Rural and the Urban Poor in China: Income Ranges
3. Poverty Counties in China
4. RIPA: Designation of Poor Counties
5. RIPA: Screening, Selection and Ranking Process
6. RIPA: Economic Ranking
7. RIPA: Social Development Ranking
8. RIPA: Selection of Poor Counties for Implementation
9. RIPA Priority System- Initial Basket
10. RIPA: Cost Effectiveness Ranking
11. RIPA: Inaccessibility Ranking
12. RIPA: Plan Priorities
13. RIPA: Economic and Social Benefit Analysis
14. RIPA: Monitoring Indicators
List of Tables
i. Distribution of 592 State Designated Poverty Counties, 1998
2. Classified Roads in China: 1996
3. County, Village and Town Roads: Road Classification, 1996
4. Townships and Administrative Villages without Roads, 1996
5. County, Village and Town Roads: Road Surface, 1996
6. Investment in County and Town Roads, 1992-96
7. Funding Sources for RIPA, 1998
8. Poverty Alleviation Funds Allocate d for Road Construction and Maintenance in Poor
Counties
9. Province/County Cost Sharing for Road Construction, Shaanxi Province, 1995
10. Passenger Car Unit and Medium Truck Unit Equivalencies for Rural Roads
11. Highway Classification Standards, 1998
12. ADT, PCUE, and MTE for A Typical RIPA Road, 1995
13. Design Guidelines for Roads, Shaanxi province, 1995
14. Proposed Design Standards for RIPA Roads
15. Poor Counties in Henan Province: Overall Economic and Social Ranking for RIPA
16. Poor Counties in Inner Mongolia: System Cost Effectiveness Ranking for RIPA
17. Poor Counties Inner Mongolia: Inaccessibility and Cost Effectiveness Ranking for RIPA
List of Boxes
1. Dimensions of Rural Access
2. Basic Access and Full Access
3. Level of Service Criteria for Rural Roads



4
Abbreviations
ACER        Adjusted Cost Effectiveness Ratio
ADB         Asian Development Bank
CER         Cost Effectiveness Ratio
CIDA        Canadian International Development Agency
GVOAI       Gross Value of Agriculture and Industry
ICT         Institute for Comprehensive Transportation
LGEDPA    Leading Group for the Economic Development of Poor Areas
MoC         Ministry of Communications
MTE         Medium Truck Equivalent
MVs         Motor Vehicles
NMT         Non-Motorized Transport including Pedestrians and Animal Drawn Transport
NMVs        Non-Motorized Vehicles
PCUE        Passenger Car Unit Equivalent
RIPA        Roads Improvement for Poverty Alleviation
RTI         Rural Transport Infrastructure
RTS         Rural Transport Services
SDPC        State Development Planning Commission
SSB         State Statistical Bureau
Acknowledgments
Several people have assisted the authors in providing source documents, in conceptual discussions
and reviews of drafts. The authors are grateful to: Bruce Murray and Charles Melhuish of the Asian
Development Bank, Paul Guitink, Yasuhiro Kawabata, Christina Malmberg Calvo, Thampil Pankaj,
Dieter Schelling, Richard Scurfield, and Jacques Tollie of the World Bank, Yuh-ren Lin of the
University of British Columbia, Krishna Pendakur of Simon Fraser University, Mark Lynch of the
Transportation Financing Authority of British Columbia and the Chinese Authorities, particularly,
the officials of the Ministry of Communications and the Institute for Comprehensive Transportation
of SDPC.






5
1. Introduction
1.1 Roads Improvement for Poverty Alleviation (RIPA)
About 3.0 billion people in the world, live in rural areas, and about 1.3 billion of them exist on less
than 1 US$ per day. In China and India alone, there are about 400 million people who live below
the official poverty lines, of whom about 200 million are in absolute poverty, as defined by their
governments (United Nations, 1996). Many of these people live in either partial or full isolation and
are often required to spend a large portion of their meager resources meeting their basic needs
(Gannon and Liu, 97; Lebo, Schelling and Beusch, 98).
Having to live in isolation requires them to pay more for transport and therefore, restricts their ability
to access basic goods and services. The inevitable impact of this inaccessibility makes it more
difficult for them to harness higher level economic opportunities outside their remote settlements.
These factors contribute to their impoverished condition.
Traditionally, rural road improvements have been adjuncts to other development programs such as
agriculture, irrigation and rural development. However, many countries are beginning to realize that
improvement of access to rural communities can be an effective instrument of poverty alleviation.
As a result, improvement of access to the rural population (roads and related transport infrastructure)
has been included in various development programs. The Bank has completed several studies during
1983-98, on various aspects of rural transport infrastructure (Barwell, 1996. Beenhakker and Lago,
1983., Connerley and Schroeder, 1996., Ellis, 1996., Gannon and Liu, 1997., Kerali et al, 1991.,
Lebo, Schelling and Beusch, 1998., Malmberg Calvo, 1998 and Riverson et al, 1991). The Bank has
also been involved in many projects which include rural roads as part of regional development,
agriculture, irrigation and highways (World Bank, December 86. World Bank, October 92., World
Bank, February 94., World Bank, Apr 94., World Bank, February 96., World Bank, April 96., World
Bank, May 96., World Bank, September 96., World Bank, May 98. and World Bank, July 98b).
In China, rural road improvements have been integrated with major highway projects, implemented
with Bank assistance, during 1995-98. These improvements were called, "Roads Improvement for
Poverty Alleviation", and were linked to on-going poverty alleviation programs. These Bank
assisted projects are in five provinces of China: Gansu, Henan, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia and
Shaanxi (WB, Feb 96. WB, May 96. and WB, May 98). The RIPA concept, as applied in these
projects, is shown in Figure 1. RIPA focuses upon linking those rural villages and townships, which
do not currently have basic all weather access to the existing road networks of a higher order.
This paper focuses, from a conceptual, analytical and methodological view point upon the
RIPA experience in the above mentioned Bank assisted projects in China. It also describes the
background to poverty alleviation programs and the linkages to roads improvement in China.
It reviews current practices and recommends appropriate design standards, and a framework
of monitoring indicators. It is hoped, that the RIPA concepts and the experience in China, with
appropriate modifications, can be applied to similar rural roads improvement situations in other
developing countries, particularly those in Asia.



Figure 1. Market Maturity and Road Hierarchy
Traffic Volume
Market Maturity



7
1.2 Scope of the Paper
This paper focuses on those road systems which provide access to the rural population in designated
poor counties in China. The primary objectives are to:
A. Provide a conceptual framework for RIPA,
B. Describe Chinese poverty alleviation policies linked to roads improvement,
C. Develop a screening methodology for prioritizing the counties for implementation
of RIPA,
D. Develop a screening methodology for RIPA road segments and road systems,
E. Develop an analytical framework for the appraisal of RIPA road systems,
F. Develop appropriate design standards for different classes of RIPA roads,
G. Develop a system of monitoring indicators,
H. Discuss the potential for the replicability of RIPA in other developing countries.



8
2. Poverty and Transport
2.1. Poverty and Transport
The deprivation trap consists of five forces: Isolation, Powerlessness, Vulnerability, Poverty and
Physical Weakness. Lack of adequate transport infrastructure results in partial or full isolation.
Poor accessibility in the rural areas perpetuates the deprivation trap by denying the rural population
adequate access to their most basic needs.
Poverty and isolation are linked together because when people are isolated, they are unable to
harness the economic and social opportunities within a wider geographic region. Isolation, through
poor accessibility, also slows down the diffusion of new technologies, increases marketing and
production costs, and limits access to health, education and other social infrastructure.
A number of studies have shown that a significant portion of the rural population in the developing
countries lack proper access to the road network. They often have very limited mobility beyond their
immediate settlements because of their geographic isolation, difficult mountainous terrain and high
costs associated with improving transport infrastructure. Consequently, they are not able to take
advantage of employment opportunities beyond their settlements.
There are some villages and towns in China which have no road access at all. Many more have
access only during the dry season. Some others have roads which are in a substandard state of
maintenance and repair. For example, in 1984, 70% of the villages in India did not have direct
access to all weather roads while 53% were not connected to any road at all (Carapetis et al. 1984).
Similarly in 1995, 16% of the villages in China had no road access and most others were accessible
by road only in the dry season (World Bank, February 1996b).
Transport directly impacts the personal welfare of all income groups. Lack of access, particularly
affordable access, deprives the poor of their ability to take advantage ofjob opportunities and even
of very basic social services such as health, education, recreation and welfare. These services have
a relatively higher value for the poor.
Obviously, transport improvements provide people with more convenient access to a broad range
of social and economic opportunities. Because these access improvements also have strong income
effects by lowering transport costs of various goods and services, basic transport access is essential
if the poor are to extricate themselves out of their impoverished condition. Also, improvements in
the quality of transport can have far greater welfare implications for the poor than for the rich. As
incomes grow, people are able to gain additional access to more employment opportunities and more
social interaction.
Adequate transport is only one instrument of enhancing the welfare of the poor. It is important as
an enabling tool. Mobility and accessibility are very much linked to the potential opportunity of
poverty alleviation (World Bank, February 1994). If the key objective of development is to reduce
poverty through sustainable economic development, then the most important question within the
transport sector is: How can transport operations best contribute to poverty alleviation?



9
To place the role of transport in indirect and direct approaches to poverty reduction are important
for poverty alleviation. Direct approaches are concerned with enhancing human capital formation,
especially in education and health, and improving access to economic and social opportunities,
including labor and product market, schools and health facilities. Indirect approaches involve
increasing the efficiency of resource allocation, especially the performance of markets, the flexibility
of adjustments, and of fostering economic growth. Typically, direct approaches operate at the level
of improving basic access for the poor and indirect approaches operate at the level of improving
overall mobility (Gannon and Liu, 1997).
The provision of transport infrastructure is an important tool for poverty alleviation. The key issue,
is to establish a proper balance between indirect and direct approaches to poverty alleviation. A Sole
emphasis on the economic criteria can orient decisions away from helping the poor. It may
often benefit the rich more than the poor, and in some cases, may in fact, hurt the poor. For example,
the measurement of costs and benefits based on willingness to pay, tend to favor the higher income
groups. Rights of way are often imposed on the poor communities for high mobility infrastructure
projects which may not benefit the poor of these communities directly. Commercialization in the
transport sector may lead to higher prices for services which were previously affordable to the poor
(Gannon and Liu, 1997).
The role of transport in poverty reduction through direct interventions is important, but requires
careful design. For example, labor-intensive methods in road work, where relatively low wages
make them cost- effective, provide a sustainable source of supplementary employment for the poor,
especially in rural communities.
High-cost transport often indicates geographical, social, and economic isolation. In poor rural areas,
lack of adequate and reliable transport penalizes those pursuing cash crop farming by increasing farm
to market costs. It also penalizes those seeking non-farming employment opportunities by increasing
the transport costs. Transport access must also be complementary to the availability of other basic
"merit" services such as health care, education and other services. The challenge is in recognizing
the needs of the very poor and making use of the transport sector to establish linkages to enhance
economic and social development.
2.2. Transport and Economic Development
The relationship between transportation investments and economic development is complex. The
conventional approach has been to focus on cost savings in goods and services to users and
consumers. Improvements to transportation infrastructure enhance access, reduce travel times and
vehicle operating costs. Many of these savings accrue to local and regional economies in the form
of reduced costs to users and consumers. Cost savings, in excess of costs they impose, lead to
increases in incomes, the essence of economic development.
The surest way to foster economic development through transportation investments is to focus on
cost savings in goods and services to users and consumers, as well as to provide adequate access to
basic social infrastructure and services. Improvements that yield cost savings to users and
consumers are quantifiable despite numerous complexities associated with measurement. However,



10
the value associated with increased access to social and human development services is more
qualitative than quantitative and cannot be measured in absolute terms.
Long term productivity and safety gains resulting from transportation investments are difficult to
quantify. These benefits include the ones derived from the availability of access to social and
economic infrastructure and services in other villages and towns. These may have even broader
impacts on the national economy as a whole.
At a macro level, investments in transportation infrastructure combined with other investments
provide a key boost to local, regional, and national economies. High rates of capital investments
create markets conducive to technological improvements which in turn spur technological advances
and improve productivity. These investments stimulate economic growth which generate higher
standards of living, over the longer term.
The key conceptual question, when evaluating the relationship between transportation investments
and economic development, is how to produce a reasonable balance between these quantifiable and
non-quantifiable benefits (Lynch, 1994).
2.3. Transport for the Poor or Poor Transport?
Transport services for the poor must be comprehensive. Current strategies, which emphasize road
infrastructure exclusively without complimentary transport services, do not necessarily assist the
poor who rely mainly on non-motorized transport. They are more helpful to those who own motor
vehicles, even though non-motorized vehicles also use the roads. A paradigm shift is required here
to focus attention on the appropriate transport needs of the poor fitting their trips and their vehicles
rather than the focus on building roads for motor vehicles only. It is essential that road
improvements be combined with adequate provision of rural transport infrastructure services for the
poor. Thus, poverty alleviation measures through the transport sector, must first consider the
appropriateness of access roads to the prevailing vehicles, trips and income characteristics and allow
for a spectrum of transport services to be provided. Only then, will the mobility of the rural people
be enhanced concurrently with increased accessibility (Howe, 1996).
About half of all rural travel is work-related. This is exclusive of household farming and subsistence
activities which may involve substantial amounts of travel, off the road network. The amount of
work-related rural travel increases with increasing economic development. Personal travel is an
important activity in rural developing areas. Because of the lack of infrastructure, this travel
consumes a substantial amount of time and effort which can otherwise be devoted to more
productive activities.
At present, mobility is by foot, by bicycle, and as incomes increase, with the acquisition of motor
cycles and later the more expensive four wheelers. It can be improved substantially by the provision
of improved access and through the provision of improved transport infrastructure services. In rural
mobility enhancement efforts, non-motorized vehicles play a very important role in providing
significant mobility increases to the rural poor, once accessibility is increased through the provision
of improved access (Howe, 1996).



11
Although a wide variety of vehicles are used in the rural areas, many of the trips on rural road
networks are still by non-motorized vehicles. Therefore, all rural road improvements need not
necessarily be designed for motorized vehicle standards as is the current practice. Often, simple
clearing, improving drainage, spot surfacing, and safety improvements may do as much to enhance
the opportunities for personal travel in areas where foreseeable traffic levels are not likely to justify
more expensive investments.
The process of rural development and the stimulus provided by road improvements may induce a
shift among these vehicle types as their comparative costs and advantages change. An exclusive
focus on four-wheeled motor vehicles may therefore miss much of the change in traffic patterns that
is likely to take place in response to rural road improvements.
There are several dimensions of accessibility: population density, economies of scale, access
improvements and the availability of appropriate rural transport services (Beenhakker, 1987).
These dimensions are seldom uniform in any given region and vary according to incomes, economic
base, proximity to transportation networks, terrain, and the nature of products and services. In
designing rural transport services, it is important to consider all aspects of mobility using all
available modes of transport, including non-motorized transport.
Accessibility is defined as the ability of people to move to and from services or resources (mobility).
Changes which improve the degree of accessibility, in a particular area, are:
-- Improvements in the means of transport (lower-cost transport vehicles and services),
*. Improved transport infrastructure (roads),
*. The reduction in the time or risk associated with travel.
The choice of appropriate intervention for improved access requires careful weighing of the costs
and benefits across alternatives, or sets of alternatives, within these categories. For example, the
siting of water closer to a village can often improve access to water much more cost effectively than
a road or path to a far away water source.
Population Density and Economies of Scale have an impact on costs and benefits of access
improvements. The benefit of improved siting of services is typically most cost effective where
there is no need to exploit economics of scale. For example, because population densities in rural
areas are typically low, services such as secondary schools, hospitals, or larger markets of exchange
are only viable at larger communities where economies of scale efficiencies can be exploited. For
others resources, such as water wells, primary schools, firewood sites, and dispensaries, a smaller
scale operation is possible, and therefore a location closer to the source of demand is usually more
cost effective than transport.
The Availability of Rural Transport Services is key to enhancing personal mobility. Roads,
tracks, paths and the vehicles that move on them are mutually necessary elements of rural
transportation. It is important, therefore, to consider options for improving vehicle access (both
NMT and motorized) when looking at mobility issues which impact quality of life or economic
opportunity. Since the level of vehicle ownership is low in most rural areas, it is the efficiency and



12
availability of transport services on which rural inhabitants nearly fully depend. Rural Transport
Services (RTS) are typically limited to the range of passenger and cargo carrying motor vehicles
operating on roads and tracks. It is, therefore, important to consider those factors impacting price,
availability, and reliability of transport services (Lebo, Schelling and Beusch., 1998).
2.4. Rural Mobility and Accessibility
Rural areas in developing countries lack adequate road systems and prospects are poor for their full
development. Combined with this situation is the inadequacy, and, in some cases, complete lack of
rural transport services. Several rural transport studies by the Bank lead to a number of robust
conclusions (Howe, 1996).
A. Where all-weather roads exist, motor vehicles frequently provide services. Often, these services
are available on seasonal roads, albeit often at premiums of 200 to 400% above those on all-
weather routes. Non-motorized vehicles sometimes fill the gap in services on dry season roads
but at higher unit costs.
B. Limited extent of the effective road system and the poor prospects for its extension. A significant
proportion of the population, in some cases the large majority, has only seasonal access. This
situation could be expected to improve but very slowly. In many of the poorer countries
economic prospects have worsened in recent years.
C. Among those who do have all-weather road access, a significant proportion are not able to afford
those services that are provided.
D. Household travel is domninated by subsistence tasks. Their prime transport requirement is for the
movement of frequent small loads over short distances. Social and welfare needs are the main
motivation for longer-distance travel for which road transport might be appropriate. Few
households possess any motor vehicles, and so walking, cycling and movement by animal drawn
carts dominate.
E. On both on and off the road systems, a wide variety of unconventional and simple vehicles are
used, this being more so in Asia than in other developing countries. Important aspects of these
vehicles are their relatively low cost and modest infrastructure needs.
F. There is an apparent lack of perception of local level transport problems by policy makers. Many
of the real transport problems, faced by the rural population, remain unperceived and neglected.
Existing policy analysis and planning procedures have evolved to deal with the more visible
parts of the economy such as exports, imports, industry, and their major investment and
infrastructure requirements. The procedures and criteria by which investment programs are
determined tend to ignore the non-users of motor vehicle transport services and the local level
mobility needs of rural people. These are likely to be addressed only if the starting point of the
analysis is a local-level perspective.
Dimensions of rural access include both the transport infrastructure (paths, tracks, roads etc) and
transport services. Locational constraints regarding various services for the poor are important



13
considerations in the development of rural access. Locational constraints are sometimes referred to
as 'siting characteristics". It is the combination of all these requirements that will deterrnine what
improvements need to be made to rural transport infrastructure. These are described in Box 1.
There is a substantial difference between basic access and full access. Full access implies an
engineered all weather road with a uniform standard. Basic access is defined as the least-cost
solution for providing access with some constraints and some reductions in service levels.
Basic access implies a lower level, social and economic access for the prevailing motorized
and/or non-motorized vehicles, often tolerating minor delays and interruptions in access.
Exarnples of such situations are heavy floods of short duration when a road may not be passable and
may be closed to traffic for a short duration. This approach allows a system of roads, with a tiered
level of service criteria, to be considered for implementation. This system of roads would depend
upon the type and number vehicles, head loads, and the nature of commodities transported, as
detailed in Box 2.
The level of service criteria for rural roads can be varied, from unimproved tracks and paths, partially
improved tracks and roads, to fully engineered roads consistent with traffic volumes. This tiered
system allows for providing varying access to varying communities and improving the infrastructure
over a longer period of time as traffic and vehicles change. These concepts are detailed in Box 3.



14
Box . Dimensions of "Rural Access"
Access encompasses "the movement of real people and their goods to meet their domei,
economic, and social needs, by any means, along paths, tra, and roads." It is a mulif
concept that seeks to simultaneously consider the level of mobility of indiduals and the siting and
quality of service-providing facilities.
* "Mobility" expresses the ease or difficulty with which rural people move themselves
and/or their goods.
* "Siting" is a measure of the average Jistance or time which the populion served has to
travel in order to avail themselves of the seice provided.
* Ease of "mobility" is affce by transport ifrastructure and means  f transport.
In many cases, the infiastructure of "rural accesst as consisting of the lowest level of gaette roads,
any ungazetted roads that may exist and all paths, tra*s, and trails. The means of transpo
commonly used in rural area range from walking and bicyling and to the use of motorized vehicles
of various types.
The Componnftsiof Rural Acesilit
Mcessbillt
Rra Transport                 Mleans of _Siting and
nfsltur¢   ::Transport:::::                            Qual0 :00  ity of
Community f Tertiaiy  Walkng   Non-Motorized  Mtid    Facilities
Roads, Paths,  Roads  (with and      Traort      Transport
Tracks and             without  I                          j
Trails                    L                   __ _   _______
It is access which is crucial, rather than transpot per se, and that access is multidimensional and can
be improved in different ways. Different types of economnic activities have diffiring pedencies 
on the importance of timely movement of inputs anid otputs. Sometimes storage facilities can serve
as a substitute for some transport needs. Improving local storage may prove to be a lower cost
altemative to attempting to provide all-weather access to extal m . on the other hand some
commodities, eg., unprocessed milk, cannot be stored for log and are likely to require reiable year-
around transport inftructure. thus, rural trasprt planning foi economic activities should not only
consider alteratives to transport, but should also distinguish between :levels of access necessary.
Some routes may require reliable access during particular seasons of the year coincident with
agricultural production schedules, while others may have demands paced on them thoughou the
year.
Source: Connerley and Schroeder, 1996.



15
Box 2. Basic Access and Full Access
A "basic access" approach provides useful guidance for the design and evaluation of rural road
interventions, and can easily be combined with existing engineering and evaluation techniques. For
example, providing fam roads as part of a rural development would likely be consistent with both
"basic access" and "economic efficiency" objectives. Similarly, imprving roads in order to improve
school attendance may be justified on both economic and "basic needs" criteria. Unike other
criteria, however, "basic access' allows for the establishment of simple criteria for detemiining
minimum transport requirements in a variety of circumstances. That is, given the practical
requirements of socio-economic activity, "basic access" criteria suggest that, at a minimum, rural
traport infastructure must be consistent with the following criteria:
ProWdes "socia" access--access to centers of healt, education, and administration (or the local
provision of these services) requires timely all-weathe transport. For example, health services or
schools, whether provided locally or at district centers, are of little effect if medicines, doctors, or
teachers arrive only seasonally. In additon, access to critical care is unlikely if travel time and
unreliability of road infrastructure is high.
* Trafficable by prevaiing rural transport vehicle--motorable roads or tracks and paths should be
designed to a standard which meets the minimum requirements (loadng and dimensions) of the
predominate rural transport vehicle. For example, if locally harvested goods are typically carried
by 4-ton truck, designing roads to a -pick-up truck" standard is not sufficient for providing basic
access. For NMT and JMT, for example, this may imply bullock cart or animal passablity.
* Provde a connecdon to higher kvel road--the integration of ktspoTt system is a prerequisite for
successful interventions. The ultimate benefit of most of what moves in rural areas (cargo or
passengers) is th possibility of travel to higher level of the network (district or urban centers).
Therefore, "basic access" roads should connect in some manner to a bigher level road.
Given these criteria, a "basic access" road, path, or track is defined as the least-cost solution for
providing passability between two points consistent with:
(i) all-year access with certai exceptions during extreme weather (high levelllow duration floods);
(ii) reliable access to the prevailing rural transport vehicles in the area, including non-motorized;
(iii) access from one or several villages to a higher category road in good condition;
Full access, in nearly all cases, implies an engineered gravel road with a uniform standard, which
can usually be justified at traffic levels above 500 AADT. Up to a traffic level of 150 vehicles a day
roads should be one and a half lane wide (carniageway width of 4.5 to 5.5 meters), while above 150
vehicles two lane roads can usually be justified (6 meters carriageway with shoulders). The provision
of a bitminous surfiae (double/triple surface dressing) can usually only be justified at traffic levels
of between 200 to 400 vehicles per day. However, as stated earlier, the above is relevant rather for
provincial/regional roads than for rural roads of which the large majority carry traffic of less than
50 AADT. Therefore, when lookdng at rural access problems, it is important to understand the
relationship between observed activities. Basic access, fill access, design standards and overall
accessibility fbr the rural population.
Source: Lebo, Scheling and Beusch., 1998



16
Box 3. Level of Services Criteria for Rural Roads
Upgrading the rual road has several impacts on          from the perspective of "level of
service." That is, each type of improvement providis for a p i00clar lv  of passability. For
example, an earth road will typlcallypovide seasonal mti     access, Whie aIllwather access
would require drainage/slpe and pemnt gaveling w    . Design and its "functionality impact
alternative investm entsdifferently. Depending oth combiation ofjlocal g  (soil, rainfall,
and terTain), there is a range of invnins     wilri  fionalchaacteitics alling into
one of four categories ofaccess:
* unimproved-the degree of passabit ich wou  exist without any improvements, i.e., the
natural condition and degree of passability of existing tiiracks and pt;
* Partia-level of service which exists with some inprovements to naturally occurTing tracks and
paths (eath work, spot improvements, etc.). allowing   ticals nal, butimproved access;
* basic-minimum investment required to provide simple all-wather access;
*full-consistent standard engineerediroad fo quality (hi  sped       roughness) all-
weather access
Options for improving rural roads begin with some  rm  i    vi6asto a partial access
standard, then to an improved yeao id standard.   he lte,t     teelevels of upge,
seasonal standard (earth road, a minimum standard fraclpasability (wheier
motorized or non-motorized), or a higher engineered stdre.g.,  uualy  inreased wth,
formation, and higher surface inty/travel speed.
Increased standards will expand types of usage,     i bility and reliability, and will
therefore provide a different leve of service to thertion Fore       e, a basic access
road' is defined as the lowest cost means of provdnmoted  aess  (in most areas, an
unarticulated 4-ton truck or pickup). In situations whr rad t  "ab  (low population
density, mountainous or flooded terrain) or where motorie t p services are not available,
perhaps the most cost-effective basic access option will be an all-season standard improved path.
Source: Lebo, Schelling and Beusch, 1998.



17
3. Poverty Alleviation In China
3.1 Poverty in China
3.11 On Defining Poverty:
China's recent achievements in sustained high economic growth have obscured the fact that China
is still a developing country with extreme disparities in incomes and living standards, where millions
of people live close to or below subsistence levels. Depending upon which measure (poverty line
definition) is used, between 70 and 350 million people in China live in poverty (CIDA, 1997).
The above lower estimate of 70 million is based upon the definition of the poverty line for the
absolute poor and the higher estimate of 350 million is based upon the assumption that one needs
an equivalent of 1 US$ per day to survive. This latter base line is used in many intemational
comparisons. However, it is unrealistic to use the higher base line China because it would mean that
any one making less than an annual income of 3,000 RMB would be classified as poor. The incomes
recorded in China are exclusive of substantial social benefits in health, education and housing.
Under these circumstances, it would appear that the number of poor people, in China, is somewhere
between these low and high estimates.
Absolute poverty level, as defined by the state in China, is an annual income of <318 RMB and the
near poor with <454 RMB in 1990 prices. According to official figures, 5.2% of the total population
(62 million) were classified as absolute poor and another 8.8% (106 million) as near poor (World
Bank, 1997). This means some 168 million people, in China, were living in poverty.
3.12 Increasing Incomes and Increasing Inequality
Since 1978, overall incomes have increased considerably. However, income distribution has become
more unequal. The Gini Coefficient (a measure of inequality of income distribution ranging from
0=absolute equality, to 100=absolute inequality) which was 28.8 in 1981 reached 38.8 in 1995.
China was an egalitarian society in 1981, with its income distribution resembling that of Finland and
The Netherlands. Its rapid economic growth has since brought about a dramatic change in its income
inequality pattern. It now resembles the average for the world. However, absolute income levels
remain quite low when compared with other industrialized countries (World Bank, 1997).
3.13 Rural/Urban Divide
Absolute poverty in China is overwhelmingly a rural phenomenon. This is only partly due to the
fact that China's population is still predominantly rural. In 1990, about 95% of China's poor lived
in the rural areas, a much higher proportion than of the rural population as a whole (CIDA, 1997)).
The distribution of the rural and urban poor over various income ranges is shown in Figure 2.
The most notable characteristic of rural poverty is " its regional clustering". Far from being
evenly distributed in the country, rural poverty is concentrated in a nurnber of well-defined regions
with particular physical and social characteristics. The highest incidences of rural poverty are found
in rural areas of inland provinces (rather than coastal provinces) and in remote mountainous areas.






Figure 2. Rural Poor and the Urban Poor in China: Income Ranges
Sln,e oj poplaolion
(percenlt)
Natioziat
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1      AbsotLite poo                          Urban(poo/(tp)%
(5.7 ()%
S(1urlt!: Woritl 1.lank sLai'l e^sliweale-,.
Source World Bank, 1997.
00






19
Rural poverty is less a product of household by household disparities than a byproduct of differences
in conditions such as the economic conditions that provide for the possibility of income
augmentation or the local differences in ecological conditions that provide for basic subsistence.
Since virtually all of China's rural population received land use rights as part of the implementation
of the production responsibility system during the early 1980s (also known as family or farm
responsibility system), there are few, if any, landless laborers. Instead the majority of the rural poor
are, now, concentrated in resource-deficient areas and comprise entire communities located mostly
in the upland sections of the interior provinces of northern, northwestern and southwestern China.
Although these poor have land use rights, in most cases the land itself is of such low quality that it
is not possible to achieve subsistence levels of crop production. The poorest households are further
disadvantaged by social and economic factors such as high dependency ratios, ill health and lack of
education (World Bank, May 1997).
Rural poverty is correlated with extremely low educational and health status, especially among
women. Lack of access to safe drinking water is also a correlate of rural poverty and so is
inadequate housing. Many of these settlements and villages do not have the necessary social
infrastructure to support their health and education needs and rural residents often have to travel long
distances on paths and tracks to receive these services (CIDA, 1997, and World Bank, May 1997).
The rural/urban divide in China is increasing. While rural incomes grew rapidly in the early period
of reforms, they began to trail increases in urban incomes in 1985, a trend which reversed slightly
in 1995. The rural/urban income gaps explained one third of total inequality in 1995.
Internationally, the urban/rural income ratio rarely exceeds 2.0, as it does in China. In most
countries, it is below 1.5.
However, even China's high disparity ratio fails to capture the full extent of disparities in living
standards between city dwellers and rural residents. An elaborate set of publicly provided services
including housing, pensions, health, education, and other entitlements augment urban incomes by
an average of 80%. When official data is adjusted for these factors, rural/urban disparities accounted
for more than half of the inequality in 1995 and explains most of the increase since 1985 (World
Bank, 1997).
3.2 Geographic Distribution of Poor Counties
In 1986, the state designated 327 counties as "national poor counties", or "state designated
poor counties" eligible to receive grants from the Poor Area Development Office (PADO) of the
central government. This designation was based upon rural income and agricultural production in
each county. A county was eligible if its average annual per capita rural income was less than 200
RMB in 1985 or its average annual agricultural production was less than 200 kilograms of grains.
If a county was an early revolutionary base, then it could have a per capita annual rural income of
200-300 RMB.
Also in 1986, the provinces designated another 372 counties as "provincial poor counties",
eligible to benefit from province level assistance. Provincial poverty lines varied from 200-500
RMB annual per capita rural income, depending upon any unique characteristics. There are ten
provinces whose share of poor counties exceeds their total share of counties. These are the provinces



20
with the highest incidence of poverty in descending order: Yunan, Guizo, Shaanxi, Gansu, Inner
Mongolia, Guangxi, Ningxia, Sichuan, Shanxi and Henan. Four of these provinces are in the central
macro region and the other six are in the western region(Cai, 1992).
In 1992, the central government, using the State Statistical Bureau's (SSB) household data, revised
the list of poor counties. A county was considered a "national poor county or state designated
poor county" if its average annual per capita income was less than 400 RMB in 1992 and the county
was not on the 1986 list, or if its average rural per capita income was less than 700 RMB in 1992
and the county was still on the 1986 list. There were 592 "national poor counties" in 1996 (World
Bank, 1997), 28% of all 2,148 counties in China. The geographical distribution of these counties
is shown in Table 1.
The criteria used by the provinces for designating "provincial poor counties" has not changed much
since 1986. However, because of increasing incomes, the number of provincially designated poor
counties has declined from 372 in 1986 to 232 in 1998. For implementing RIPA programs, both
" provincially designated and nationally designated counties " are considered. Figure 3 shows
all the 824 poor counties (592 state designated and 232 provincially designated) in 1998.
3.3 Poverty Alleviation Policies
China's record on reducing poverty is enviable. Since the reforms started in 1978, China has lifted
some 200 million people out of absolute poverty (World Bank, 1997). Most of this progress
occurred during the early years of reform when the introduction of the household responsibility
system transformed the countryside. During 1981-95, over all GDP growth has helped substantially
in reducing poverty.
China's commitment to eradicate poverty remains strong. Repeated policy declarations have been
made to eliminate poverty by the year 2000. These declarations have been backed up by budgetary
allocations, assignment of policy priority in socio-economic planning and the structuring of
significant institutional capacity directed at the goal of poverty reduction. In the mid 1980s,
coinciding with the Seventh Five year Plan (1986-90), the government launched a nationwide
integrated poverty relief campaign to overcome the sluggish economic development in low income
areas.
The Leading Group for the Economic Development of Poor Areas (LGEDPA) was created by (and
reports to) the State Council in 1986, as the central agency responsible for coordination of poverty
alleviation. This is an inter-ministerial task force consisting of representatives from 17 ministries
as well as relevant research organizations, with counterparts at all administrative levels. An increase
in financial allocations was earmarked for poverty alleviation. As the LGEDPA's executive agency,
the Poor Area development Office (PADO), has emerged as the principal advocate of China's rural
poor and is now the key agency responsible for coordinating more than US$ 1 billion in annual
funding for China's poverty reduction programs (CIDA, 1997).
The 8' Five Year Plan (1991-95) confirmed the central role of the LGEDPA in poverty reduction,
including its role as the coordinating body responsible for poverty measurement and research, project
planning, monitoring and management of domestic and international (bilateral and multilateral)



21
assistance for poverty reduction. In 1994, an ambitious seven year program (8-7 Poverty Eradication
Plan, 1994-2000) was launched. This was aimed at solving the problems related to providing
adequate food and clothing for China's (then) remaining 80 million poverty-stricken people in the
rural areas.
The 8-7 Poverty Eradication Plan (1994-2000) outlines a series of detailed targets to be
achieved by the year 2000. Targets include:
*. Net annual per capita income for the majority of the households in 592 targeted poverty
counties must surpass 500 RMB in 1992 prices;
4 Provide assistance to poor households to create conditions to solve the food problem;
*. Provision of adequate drinking water for people and livestock;
* Efforts to strengthen infrastructure facilities linking most "poor townships" to
highway systems, power grids and telecommunications networks in order to connect
them to commodity and other rural product market; and
* Efforts towards improving the backward situation in cultural, educational, and health
fields.
Many central government agencies have special programs in poor areas in the form of partnerships
and twinning with a particular agency or a region. For example, the Ministry of Civil Affairs spent
nearly 2 billion RMB during 1985-90 for promoting employment for 1.1 million rural people.
Another component of the Poverty Alleviation Program is the Food for Work Project (FWP)
Funding, also called the Relief Works Funding. Total expenditures by the Western Regional
Office of the State Planning Commission during 1985-92 reached 10 billion RMB (including
matching funds by provincial and local governments) and have resulted in the construction
of 110,000 km of rural roads (CIDA, 1997 and World Bank, June 1992).
The Ministry of Communications (MoC) has been the lead agency with regard to construction, and
rehabilitation roads to poor areas. MoC has done this by providing funds for RIPA ( construction,
rehabilitation and maintenance). It has provided this ssistance in partnership with the provinces.
MoC provided 506 million RMB in 1992 which increased to 739 million RMB in 1996 (an increase
of 46%). The provinces have also recognized the importance of providing proper access to the poor
and have increased their assistance substantially. During the same period, 1992-96, provincial funds
dedicated to RIPA have increased from 494 million RMB to 2.973 billion RMB, an impressive
increase of 502%.



22
Table 1. Distribution of 592 State Designated Poverty Counties, 1998
Number of Counties    Number of        Poor Counties
Provinces         or Equivalents    Poverty Counties    as % of Total
Counties
National Total                2,148             592        27.56%
Guizhou                         80               48        60.00%
Yunnan                         123               73        59.35%
Gunsu                           75               41        54.67%
Shaanxi                         92               50        54.35%
Ningxia                         18                8        44.44%
Inner Mongolia                  84               31        36.90%
Hubei                           69               25        36.23%
Qinghai                         39               14        35.90%
Shanxi                         100               35        35.00%
Guangxi                         81               28        34.57%
Hainan                          17                5        29.41%
Xinjiang                        85               25        29.41%
Hebei                          139               39        28.06%
Anhui                           68               17        25.00%
Sichuan*                       174               43        24.71%
Henan                          116               28        24.14%
Jiangxi                         84               18        21.43%
Liaoning                        44                9        20.45%
Heilongjiang                    68               11        16.18%
Fujian                          63                8        12.70%
Jilin                           40                5        12.50%
Hunan                           92               10        10.87%
Shandong                        95               10        10.53%
Tibet                           77                5        6.49%
Zhejiang                        64                3        4.69%
Guangdong                       78                3        3.85%
*Including Chongqing
Source: "The Analysis and Evaluation on the Present Situation of Socioeconomic and Rural Roads
in China's Major Poverty-Stricken Areas", The Institute of Comprehensive Transportation,
November 1998, State Development Planning Commission, Beijing, 1998.



Figure 3. Poverty Counties in China
Poverty~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--i Counties.
Th. WoId 8-k Go..p, -oy
o.,yt I.rdO. Or 0~ 
-oh b-od-r,~
/JNTHS (priority route)
/V\ NTHS (longterm route)
(A
Poverty Counties
m State Poverty Counties
3 Provincial Poverty Counties






24
4. Rural Road Systems in China
4.1 Road Classification
In 1996, China had 1.19 million Km of roads. Table 2 shows an inventory of classified roads in
various categories. National roads are the primary responsibility of the national government. The
provinces do the construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance with funding assistance from the
national government. Provincial roads are the responsibility of the provinces. Counties, townships
and villages are responsible for their own road systems and they receive funding assistance from the
provinces and the national government. Industrial roads are the responsibility of various enterprises.
They are built and maintained by these enterprises.
Of the 1.19 million km of existing roads, 9% are national roads, 15% are provincial roads, and the
remaining 76% (847,905 kin) of roads in China are county, township and village roads. These are
the rural roads. A small portion of this rural road network, (5,327 km or 6%) is composed of high-
grade roads, such as Expressways and Class I Roads. Of the remaining 94% of rural roads, 18,793
km were Class II roads (2%) and another 95,780 km (11.5%?) were Class III roads. Class II and III
roads are largely roads for commerce and they serve the rural population also.
Table 3 details data on county, township and village roads. Even within the counties, townships
and villages, there are some higher grade roads. There are 847,905-km of roads under the
jurisdiction of counties, townships and villages. Of these roads, 136,731 Km (16.1%), are Class I,II
& III roads. There are 507,150 km of Class IV Roads (59.8%) and the remaining 204,024-km
(24.1%) are Unclassified Roads. Class IV and Unclassified Roads, which total to 711,174 Km
(83.9%), are of primary importance to the rural population, especially the rural poor.
Table 4 shows the townships and administrative villages in the poor counties, without road
connections. In 1996, there were 2,148 counties in China. Of these, 592 counties were State
Designated Poor Counties (27.6%). There were a total of 49,445 townships. Of these, 1,335
townships (2.7%) did not have road access. There were a total of 747,408 administrative villages,
of which 120,048 villages (16%) did not have road access, not counting provincially designated poor
counties.
Table 5 shows the level of service provided by the county, township and village roads. In general,
they are lower class roads with gravel or cobblestone, and dirt roads. Only 8% of these roads were
high-grade gravel surfaces. 85% of the road length had some level of gravel surfacing, albeit
of lower grade. A substantial number of townships and villages do not have road access and many
more have only seasonal access. For those with road access, the condition of roads vary, but in
general, they are gravel roads of varying quality.



Table 2. Classified Roads in China, 1996
Total Length            Hi gh Grade Roads (k)           Ordinary Roads (km)  Unclassified
Express-    Class   Class     Class      Class      Class       Roads
(km)      %        Way         I        II       II         III       IV          (km)
Classification
Total             1,185,789  100.0%       3,422    11,779   4,130     92,860   216,619   617,608        239,371
National Road       110,375    9.3%       2,316    5,497   2,913      35,778    33,139    23,280          7,450
Provincial Road     178,129   15.0%       1,060    3,873   1,213      37,204    59,033    50,923         24,823
County Road         378,212   31.9%          46    1,352              14,625    76,160   197,680         88,349
Village and Town    469,693   39.6%                  760               4,168    39,620   309,470        115,675
Road              ____
Industrial Road      49,380    4.2%                  297       4       1,085      8,667    36,255         3,072
Source: "The Analysis and Evaluation on the Present Situation of Socioeconomic and Rural Roads in China's Major Poverty-
Stricken Areas," The Institute of Comprehensive Transportation, November 1998, State Development Planning Commission,
Beijing, 1998.
rli



26
Table 3. County, Village and Town Roads: Road Classification, 1996
Road Classification    County Road  Village and Town     Total Length
(km)         Road (km)             (km)
Expressway and Class I           1,398              760               2,158
Percent of Total Roads          0.37%             0.2 1%             0.34%
Class II                       14,625             4,168              18,793
Percent of Total Roads          3.87%             1.18%              2.92%
Class III                      76,160            39,620             115,780
Percent of Total Roads         20.14%            11.19%             17.98%
Class IV                      197,680           309,470             507,150
Percent of Total Roads         52.27%            87.42%             78.76%
All Classified Roads          289,863           354,018             643,881
(km)
Percent of Total Length        76.64%            75.37%             75.94%
All Unclassified Roads         88,349            115,675            204,024
(km)
Percent of Total Length        23.36%            24.63%             24.06%
Total Length of Roads         378,212           469,693             847,905
(Classified and
Unclassified)
Source: "The Analysis and Evaluation on the Present Situation of Socioeconomic and Rural Roads
in China's Major Poverty-Stricken Areas", The Institute of Comprehensive Transportation,
November 1998, State Development Planning Commission, Beijing, 1998.



27
Table 4. Townships and Administrative Villages Without Roads, 1996
Counties, Townships and Villages                 Roads
Total Counties                                                      2,148
Poor Counties (State Designated)                                      592
Poor Counties as % of all Counties                                27.56%
Total Townships                                                    49,445
Townships Without Roads                                             1,335
Percent of Townships without Roads                                  2.70%
Total Administrative Rural Villages                               747,408
Administrative Rural Villages Without Roads                       120,048
Percent of Administrative Rural Villages without Roads             16.06%
Source: "The Analysis and Evaluation on the Present Situation of Socioeconomic and Rural
Roads in China's Major Poverty-Stricken Areas", The Institute of Comprehensive Transportation,
November 1998, State Development Planning Commission, Beijing, 1998.
Table 5. County, Village and Town Roads: Road Surface, 1996
Village and Town
Road Classification    County Roads       Roads         Total Km   Total %
High Grade Roads (km)*           1,398                760        2,158
0.37%              0.16%                 0.25%
Sub-High Grade Roads            14,625               4,168      18,793
(km)**
3.87%              0.89%                 2.22%
Medium Grade Roads              76,160              39,620     115,780
(km)***
20.14%              8.44%                 13.65%
Lower Grade Roads              197,680             309,470     507,150
(km)***
52.27%             65.89%                 59.81%
Paved Roads (km)               289,863             354,018     643,881
%                              76.64%              75.37%                75.94%
Un-Paved Roads (km)             88,349             115,675     204,024
23.36%             24.63%                24.06%
Total Length of Roads          378,212             469,693     847,905  100.00%1
Notes: * Bituminous pavements, ** Majority of these road are paved with cobble stone/gravel,
*** Dirt roads with some gravel/sand pavement.
Source: "The Analysis and Evaluation on the Present Situation of Socioeconomic and Rural
Roads in China's Major Poverty-Stricken Areas", The Institute of Comprehensive Transportation,
State Development Planning Commission, Beijing, 1998.



28
4.2 Bearing the burden: Who pays for what?
Investment in county and township road construction has steadily increased since 1992. This is
particularly so because of the emphasis, in the 8-7 Poverty Eradication Plan (1994-2000), on
providing all weather access roads to the rural people. Poverty Alleviation Funds, from MoC and
the provinces are, generally, used for Class IV and Unclassified roads. Annual investment, in
county and township roads, increased from 1.7 billion RMB in 1992 to 17.6 billion RMB in
1996, a 5 year increase of more than 1000%. Table 6 shows these investment patterns during
1992-96.
Table 6. Investment in County and Township Roads, 1992-96
% of Increase
Investment                   over
Year          (million RMB)              Previous Year
1992                     1,698.20
1993                     5,791.09                      241.01%
1994                     5,258.69                       -9.19%
1995                    10,196.19                       93.89%
1996                    17,556.80                       72.19%
Source: The Research on Funding Sources for Rural Road Construction and
Maintenance in China's Major Poverty Stricken Areas, The Institute for
Comprehensive Transportation, State Development Planning Commission,
Beijing, 1998.
The cost of building China's transportation infrastructure is shared in a variety of ways between
citizens, users, and local and state governments. Sources and extent of contribution are detailed
in Table 7. Rural peasants contribute time or money as "peasant worker construction activity".
This is an established practice of many years emphasizing local responsibility for local roads.
Traditionally it was a strict donation of labor, but now it is assessed at a maximum of 3 days of labor
per adult farmer per year or its equivalent value in RMB on all adult individuals living in the
influence area of the road. This contribution is based on the premise that farmers are the major
beneficiaries of these rural roads which provide year round access to markets. On average, most
farmers provide labor, however, a small number of farmers are now able to pay in cash. The total
contributions, in terms of labor and cash, are estimated at approximately 30% of the total annual
infrastructure investments. It is estimated that 11% of the total funding for RIPA in China is
derived from this fee.
In 1998, the state approved an additional fee of 0.02 RMB per liter on motor fuels, to be levied
in 1999, to replace the road maintenance fee. This is a new additional fuel tax applied to all motor
vehicle fuels in China. It will be collected by the national government and earmarked for road
maintenance. It is expected to be distributed to the provinces in accordance with regulations yet to
be established. Approximately 50% of this new revenue will be used for road repair and
maintenance and the remaining 50% for road construction and renovation. About 20% of tax
revenue derived from this source is expected to be used for rural roads.



29
Table 7. Funding Sources for RIPA, 1998
Funding                      Source and Description                  % of
Total
1.Peasant Worker No more than 3 days per year for workers. No more than two days   30%
Construction    per year for vehicles (excluding bicycles) and vessels.
2. Additional    Enacted in 1998 to replace the Road Maintenance Fee. 50% of the   11%
Fuel Fee       revenue is used for highway maintenance and 50% for
(Replacing the   construction and renovation. About 20% of the total is used for
Road           rural roads. This fee is collected by the provincial
Maintenance Fee) communications authorities.
3. Passenger and The rate is 0.01 to 0.02 RMB per person/km and 0.01 RMB per   2%
Cargo Transport ton/km for cargo.  This fee is levied by the provinces and
Additional Fee   municipalities. An additional fee of 0.01 RMB is in effect in 1998.
About 20% of these revenue is used for passenger transport station
and facilities as well as some road construction
4. Tractor Road  Collected by individual district-level cities and all revenue is used    10%
Maintenance Fee for county and village road construction and maintenance. The fee
is based on standard tonnage and/or engine power (2HP = 1 ton).
5. Work In Place The State authorities provide these funds as materials and supplies    8%
of Relief Fund   in salary equivalents. Local authorities will match the funds at 0.5
to 1.0 RMB for each RMB of State Funds
6. State Poverty  Ministry of Communications allocates some of the revenues, from  4%
Alleviation Funds vehicle purchase taxes collected by them, to subsidize rural road
construction in poor counties.
7. Provincial    The provinces also provide, from their poverty alleviation budget,   17%
Poverty        funds for road construction and maintenance in poor counties.
Alleviation Funds
8. Local (County, This is about 0.5 to 1 % of the local fiscal income.    15%
Town, Village)
Funding
9. Local (County, Enterprises along the roads are required to make contribution  1% 
Town, Village)  either in cash or in materials.
Highway
Beneficiary Fees
10. Loans                                                                  2%
(Domestic and
International)
Total Funds                                                              100%
Source: Adapted from "The Research on Funding Sources for Rural Road Construction and
Maintenance in China's Major Poverty-Stricken Areas", The Institute of Comprehensive
Transportation, November 1998, State Development Planning Commission, Beijing, 1998.



30
The user fees levied on passenger and cargo transport operators are detailed in Table 7. These
user fees generated approximately 2% of the total investment in road infrastructure in China during
1998. Revenues generated by this user fee are used primarily to support the construction and
operation of passenger transport terminals and facilities throughout China. Only a very small portion
of revenues generated by this user fee is used for road construction and maintenance. Tractors are
charged a maintenance fee based upon the size of the tractor. This is also a road user fee based upon
weight and size. These fees are estimated to amount to about 10% of the total RIPA investment.
State authorities provide funds (essentially materials and supplies in salary equivalents) for "work
in place of relief". This assistance is meant to provide paid work for the unemployed persons.
Local authorities match the state funds, varying from 50% to 100%. This is a program which
provides labor for various public works, including rural roads construction and maintenance. The
value of this labor was estimated at 8% of the total investment in RIPA.
The state provides a variety of poverty alleviation assistance funds, some of which are used for
public works in the designated poor counties. The Ministry of Communications, which is
responsible for the highway system, uses some of the revenues from vehicle purchase taxes as
poverty alleviation funds. State funds are supplemented by provincial poverty alleviation funds,
which have been substantially higher than the funds allocated by the state (MoC) in recent years.
Table 7 shows that state and provincial poverty alleviation funds amount to 21% of total funding
requirements. The work in place of relief funds and the state poverty alleviation funds,
together, amount to 12% of RIPA investment in 1998. Fifteen per cent of RIPA funds are
derived from local government (county, township and village level) resources. This is a large
amount in terms of the capacity of local governments to raise revenues. The remaining 3% comes
from a variety of sources including loans.
Table 8. Poverty Alleviation Funds
Allocated for Road Construction and Maintenance in Poor Counties
Year        Total      Funds from Ministry of      From the Provinces
Poverty    Communications
Alleviation
Funds
Allocated to  Million RMB  % of Total    Million RMB  % of Total
Poor
Counties
Million RMB
1992            1,000        506.22       50.61%         493.95     49.39%
1993          339.97          25.52        7.51%         314.45     92.49%
1994              n/a           n/a           n/a           n/a         n/a
1995         2,604.20        888.12       34.10%       1,716.08     65.90%
1996         3,711.34        738.56       19.90%       2,972.78     80.10%
Source: "The Research on Funding Sources for Rural Road Construction and Maintenance in
China's Major Poverty-Stricken Areas," The Institute of Comprehensive Transportation,
November 1998, State Development Planning Commission, Beijing, 1998.



31
Table 8 shows the allocation of poverty alleviation funds (State and Provincial) for RIPA
between 1992 and 1996. In 1992, the poverty alleviation funds allocated for RIPA were 1.0
billion RMB, increasing to 3.7 billion in 1996 (an increase of 371%). State contributions for
RIPA have come from MoC, with 506 million RMB in 1992 increasing to 739 million RMB in
1996 ( an increase of 46%). On the other hand, the provincial funding for RIPA has increased
dramatically from 494 million RMB in 1992 to 2,973 million in 1996, a staggering increase of
502%. In 1992, 51% of these funds came from MoC which has now decreased to 20%, with the
provinces increasing their funding very substantially.
Most of the existing rural roads in the poor counties are unclassified roads. In general, these roads
are the responsibility of the counties for both construction and maintenance. However, the counties
now receive funding assistance as detailed above. When these counties are able to propose
upgrading of the unclassified roads to Class IV standards, they receive funding from the provinces.
The cost sharing arrangement for the construction of RIPA roads vary from province to province.
The arrangement in Shaanxi province is shown in Table 9. Although the proportion of assistance
may vary in various provinces, the principle remains the same: the provinces generally do not
contribute to the construction and maintenance of rural roads of unclassifled standard. Most
of these unclassified roads are primarily in the areas where the rural poor live.
Table 9. Province/County Cost Sharing for Road Construction
Shaanxi Province, 1995
Road Type                 SPTD Share             County Share
New Construction, Class IV   75% of 0.6M RMB per km   The Remaining Portion
Road
Rehabilitation, Class IV Road    75% of 0.3M RMB per km   The Remaining Portion
Upgrade Unclassified Road to   75% of 0.3M RMB per km   The Remaining Portion
Class IV Road
Upgrade Class IV Road to     75% of l.OM RMB per km   The Remaining Portion
Class III Road
New Construction, Unclassified            No Subsidy      All paid by County
Road
(50,000- 100,000 RMB per klm)
Rehabilitation and Maintenance            No Subsidy      All paid by County
of Access Roads
Source: Shaanxi Provincial Transport Department (SPTD), 1995



32
4.3 Vehicle Mix, Traffic Volumes and Road Classification
4.3.1 Vehicle Mix and Traffic Volumes
It is the practice in traffic engineering to convert various types of motor vehicles into a single
common unit such as the Passenger Car Unit Equivalent (PCUE). Generally, only the motor
vehicles are converted into PCUE. Then PCUEs of ADT are used in Road Classification, which,
in turn, are used to determine the appropriate Functional and Structural Design Standards.
These concepts were conceived and developed in western countries during the 1960s and have been
revised many times since. In these countries, the car ownership rates were and are high and non-
motorized traffic has been quite low. The emphasis for highway construction and use was the
"passenger car". All other motor vehicles are considered in terms of their equivalencies of the
average passenger car, based upon the size and weight. These equivalencies became the basis for
functional classification and the design of highways of various classes. Most of the traffic on the
highways of these countries is primarily composed of cars and trucks of various sizes and weights.
Therefore, this method has worked reasonably well in the western countries where passenger car
ownership rates continue to be very high, with practically every family owning and using a car.
However the vehicle mix is quite different in developing countries. In China, there is a
tremendous mix of motorized (MVs) and non-motorized vehicles (NMVs). On rural roads,
passenger cars, including for hire vehicles, range from 5% to 10% of the total traffic volume only.
This reflects the current low personal car ownership rates. In addition, most of the cars and other
lightweight vehicles are owned by various enterprises rather than by individuals. However,
individual ownership rates are becoming common, especially in richer provinces. Other MVs
include buses, trucks and tractors. In China, tractors are used quite extensively for off the farm
transport of persons and goods especially for short distances.
NMVs are used extensively for urban (within the village and township) and short distance
rural travel (outside the towns and villages) in China and other Asian countries (Replogle,
1992; Padeco, 1995; Pendakur, 1996). Bicycles (two and three wheels) are used for both passenger
and goods transport. Bicycle carts (rickshaws) and animal carts are used extensively for goods
transport, especially in rural areas. Much of the travel in poor counties is "on foot", with and
without head loads. Non-motorized Transport (NMT), in China, consists of both the NMVs and
Pedestrians.
For classification and design of roads in China, both the Passenger Car Unit Equivalent (PCUE) and
the Medium Truck Equivalents (MTE) are used. A medium truck is defined as a vehicle whose
gross vehicle weight is more than 2.5 tons and less than 7.0 tons. For rural roads, in general, MTE
is used. Table 10 shows the PCUE and MTE for various vehicles using rural roads in China. The
assumptions underlying these equivalencies introduce various biases into the design practices. For
example, the data presented in Table 10 assumes that 10 bicycles are equivalent to one medium
truck. If the bicycles are primarily used for personal travel, these equivalencies are biased in favor
of the bicycle. If they are used for the transport of goods, they may be still biased in favor of the
bicycle. Table 10 also shows that two bicycle carts are assumed to be equal to one medium truck.
While this is exaggerated, the equivalency of two animal carts to one medium truck, is quite
appropriate.



Table 10. Passenger Car Unit Equivalent (PCUE) and Standard Medium Truck Equivalent (MTE) For Rural Roads
Vehicle Classification       Loading Capacity, House Power, Vehicle Type            PCUE            MTE
Bicycle - 2 wheels        Including motorized bicycles                                        0.20            0.10
Bicycle - 3 wheels        Including motorizcd bicycles                                        0.60            0.30
Motorcycle - 2 wheels                                                                         0.40            0.20
Motorcycle - 3 wheels                                                                         0.60            0.30
Carts/Rickshaw - 2 wheels  Including Manual rickshaw, hand cart etc.                          1.00            0.50
Cart, Drawn by I Horse    Including single animal-powered rickshaw, cart etc.                 2.00            1.00
Cart, Drawn by 2 Horses   Including multi-animal-powered rickshaw, cart etc.                  4.00            2.00
Passenger Car                                                                                 1.00            0.50
Taxi                                                                                          1.00            0.50
Small Tractor              Less than or equal to 12 HP                                        2.00            1.00
Medium & Large Tractor   More than 12 HP                                                      2.00            1.00
Small Bus                  Less than 20 seats, Including cars, jeeps, passenger motorcycles   1.00            0.50
etc.
Large Bus                  Equal to or more than 20 seats                                     2.00            1.00
Van                        Less than 2.5 tons                                                 1.20            0.60
Large Van                  Less than 9 tons                                                   2.00            1.00
Small Truck                Less than 2.5 tons, includes freight motorcycles and rickshaws     1.50            0.75
Medium Truck               Between 2.5 to 7 tons, includes cranes and specialty vehicles      2.00            1.00
Large Truck                Greater than 7 tons, includes cranes and specialty vehicles        3.00            1.50
Tractor Trailer           Includes semi-trailers and trailers                                 3.00            1.50
Sources: 1. "Highway Design Hand Book, 1995", Ministry of Communications, Beijing 1995.
2. "Technical Standards of Highway Engineering, 1998", Ministry of Communications, Beijing 1998.
wA
wA



34
Vehicle equivalencies are very important as they are used in determining the functional classification
of highways and the design standards, which have a direct impact on the cost of access. In case of
roads, which are primarily for basic access and where vehicular traffic volumes are very low ( in
MVs and MTEs), it is necessary to exercise caution in determining the standards. If appropriate
standards are not used, roads may be built to a substantially higher standard than necessary
and hence at a higher cost.
Given the limited resources for RIPA, higher standards than required means that the total length of
roads built will be less than otherwise. Consequently, connecting fewer number of communities will
be connected and therefore, fewer number of people will have their accessibility improved. Higher
costs reduce potential access available to the poorer areas. The key issue is to develop
appropriate standards for the required traffic volumes and vehicle mix, and then improve
these roads to a higher standard as the traffic volumes increase.
4.3.2 Road Classification
Table 11 shows the highway classification standards used for inter-city roads in China. RIPA
roads fall into, essentially, Class IV and Unclassified Roads. Most of these roads are basic
access roads, in the category of Class IV (Single Lane) and Unclassified Roads.
Table 11. Highway Classification Standards, 1998
Types of Highway                   Traffic                   Traffic
Volume                    Volume
(ADT/MTE*)               (ADT/PCUE*)
High Speed Highways
MVs Only
Expressway - 8 Lane                                       60-100,000
Expressway - 6 Lane                                        45-80,000
Expressway - 4 Lane                                        25-55,000
Highways
Class I                                                    15-30,000
Class II                 3,000-7,500
Class III                1,000-4,000
Class IV - Double Lane          200-1,500
Class IV - Single Lane            < 200
Unclassified Roads                  < 200
Source: Socio-Economic Benefit Analysis of Proposed highway System # 41, Baihe County,
August 1995, Shaanxi Provincial Transport Department, 1995.
Their current traffic volumes (ADT) are, generally <200MTE. Unclassified Roads are generally
built with dirt/earth surfacing and in some cases with cobble stone surfacing. Class IV Roads are
built with gravel/sand/cobble stone pavement surfaces. These are primarily low volume roads. The
key issue is that all weather accessibility requires careful design, construction and maintenance of
slopes, grades and drainage structures.



35
As shown in Table 11, the current classification standards allow for low volume roads of ADT less
than 200 MTE to be built as Class IV Single lane or Unclassified roads. Most of the roads linking
towns and villages in poor counties will continue to have traffic volumes (ADT) of less than 200
MTE. Many will have less than 100 MTE.
Table 12 shows the traffic volumes in ADT and converted MTEs for a typical RIPA Road (Len-Hou
Highway in Baihe County) in Shaanxi Province in 1995. About 13% were passenger cars, 12%
buses, 39% goods vehicles, 30% agricultural vehicles, and the remaining 6% NMVs.
Pedestrians with head loads were not counted. This road was upgraded from an Unclassified Road
to a Class IV Road in a recent RIPA program.
4.4 Current Design Standards
Table 13 shows the current functional, geometric and structural design guidelines for rural roads.
These design guidelines are from a recent RIPA project in Shaanxi Province. However, design
standards, for Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV roads in China, are mandated by the Ministry
of Communications. All provincial, prefecture, and county authorities are required to follow these
guidelines. The primary difference between Class IV Roads and Unclassified Roads is in the
required total width and paved width. Class IV roads are paved (sand and gravel with compacted
sub-grade) to a minimum width of 3.5 m. The geometric and functional design standards are the
same for Class IV Roads and Unclassified Roads.
Unclassified roads are a responsibility of the provinces. They delegate this responsibility, to a large
extent, to the counties. They are generally compacted dirt and earth roads, with minimum shoulders.
4.5 Appropriate Design Standards for RIPA Roads
There are three types of accessibility problems which confront the rural population:
A. No Road Access At All
B. Seasonal Roads, with Unreliable Passability
C. All Weather Roads in Poor Condition, Unreliable Passability
Access roads can be considered at three levels as follows:
A. Partial Access Roads, for trip purposes which do not require all weather accessibility.
Examples of these roads are farm access and forestry access roads.
B. Basic Access Roads, the minimum investment required to provide all weather passability
( with some exceptions for extreme but infrequent weather conditions such as high floods
of short duration causing a short duration delay or road closure) consistent with traffic
safety and the functional requirements of prevailing and forecast traffic volumes and
vehicle mix,
C. Full Access Roads which are fully engineered commensurate with prevailing and
forecast traffic volumes and vehicle mix, providing all weather accessibility.
Rural residents are vocal in demanding the same accessibility linkages to the outside world as other
communities who have such access. However, in upgrading the accessibility of these villages and
towns, the level and phasing of upgrading should relate to available resources as well as
prevailing traffic volumes, forecast traffic volumes and the vehicle mix.



Table 12. ADT*, and PCUE* and MTE* for a Typical RIPA Road, 1995
Len-Hou Highway, Baihe County, Shaanxi Province, 1995
Len-Hou Highway
Medium Truck Equivalent (MTE)    Passenger Car Unit Equivalent (PCUE)
Traffic                                 Traffic
Vehicle            Conversion     Volume                   Conversion      Volume
Type                Factor        (ADT)        MTE           Factor        (ADT)      PCUE
Pick-up                                1.0       10.00      10           2.0                 10   20
Medium Size Truck                      1.0       30.00     30            2.0                 30    60
Heavy Truck                            1.0       20.00     20            2.0                 20    40
Car/ Passenger Vehicle                0.5        20.00      10           1.0                 20    20
>20 Seats Bus                          1.0       18.00      18           2.0                 18   36
Freight Hauling Tractor                1.5       10.00      15           3.0                 10   30
Small Tractor <12HP                    1.0       19.00      19           2.0                 19   38
Medium & Large Tractor                 1.0       16.00      16           2.0                 16   32
Manpower Rickshaw                      0.5       14.00      7            1.0                 14    14
Bicycle                               0.1        70.00      7            0.2                 70    14
Total                                    I _               152      _                             304
* ADT = Average Daily Traffic, MTE = Standard Medium Truck Equivalent, PCUE  Passenger Car Unit Equivalent.
Source: "Socio-Economic Benefit Analysis of Proposed Highway System No. 41 in Baihe County, August 1995",
Shaanxi Provincial Transport Department (SPTD), 1995.



Table 13. Design Guidelines for Roads, Shaanxi Province, 1995
Width in Meters
Flat Terrain    Mountain Terrain                             Horizontal    Traffic
Total  Paved  Total Width   Paved    Pavement   Vertical         Curve       Volume
Road Type      Width  Width                  Width      Type*       Grade        Radius    (ADT/MTE)
Unclassified Road       4.5                                   G, E       9-12%**      <15m          <200
Class IV, Single Lane   6.5      3.51                         G, E        <9%         >15m          <200
Class IV, Double Lane   7.0      6.0                          G, E        <9%         >15m        200-1,500
Class III               8.5      7.0     8           6       M, G, E      <8%         >30m       1,000-4,000
Class II               12.0      7.0     9           7        M,G                                3,000-7,500
Notes: *Pavement Type: E = generally dirt/earth combination with some cobble stone surfacing, G = Sand and Gravel Surfacing,
M = Macadam/ bituminous pavements
** In mountain terrain, grades upt 12% are allowed
Sources:
1. Shaanxi Provincial Transport Department (SPTD), 1995
2. "Technical Standards of Highway Engineering Guidelines, 1998", Ministry of Communications, Beijing, 1998.
L1J



38
Accessibility of poor rural villages and towns, and the mobility of this population is quite low in the
poor counties of China. Programs to enhance the accessibility of villages and towns in the poor
counties are hampered by:
A. Lack of adequate resources to undertake improvement programs in all poor counties
B. Design Standards that may be appropriate for upper end low volume roads(ADT of I 00-
200 MTE or 200-400 PCEU) but not appropriate for very low volume roads (ADT of
<100 MTE or <200 PCUE)
If high-end traffic volume design standards are applied to all the lower end traffic volume roads, the
implementation costs will be inappropriately higher. It is, therefore, necessary and important to
devise new classification systems for very low volume roads, followed by the appropriate
revision of design standards to fit these low traffic volumes. Current design standards, shown
in Table 13, are quite high for the very low volume roads(<100 MTE = <200 PCUE).
The primary objective of such a new design standard is to build roads to standards that are
appropriate for existing and forecast traffic volumes. At the same time, this approach would reduce
costs in most cases, thus making it possible for the limited resources to be spent on providing basic
access roads to more communities. However, the question of a lower standard for very low volume
roads is worth examining in the context of basic access. Significant savings can be achieved in
reducing the total width for very low volume roads to say, 3.5m from the current 4.5m.
However, the design would have to allow for carefully selected pass-by sections, wide enough
for passing vehicles. Over time, as traffic volumes increase with increasing economic activity, it
would be necessary to upgrade these very low volume roads..
This has to be tempered by the context of terrain ( mountain terrain, grades, and drainage) and has
to be followed with reasonable flexibility. Key issues are traffic safety, long term maintenance and
rehabilitation costs. The width should be appropriate for vehicles to pass each other safely. The
proposed width of 3.5m allows for safe passing of animal carts, cars, jeeps, tractors, three wheelers
and careful passing of heavy trucks and buses. As the traffic volumes increase over time, it would
be necessary to upgrade these very low volume roads to current Unclassified Road Standards.
The economic growth rates and the consequent motorization rates have been quite high in China
during the period 1989-99. Even though vehicle ownership may continue to grow at high rates, the
net ownership rate will continue to be low. Personal ownership of private cars is very low now and
is expected to continue to be low for some years. Nevertheless, there is likely to be a higher growth
rate as well as the net ownership rate for commercial vehicles and motor cycles (Carruthers, 98 and
Pendakur, 97). Non-motorized transport and off-farm vehicles will continue to be quite important
in the rural areas for some years to come. The vehicle mix and traffic volumes will be dominant
factors in the design of RIPA Roads.
For Chinese rural settlements, where the economic growth and motorization rates have been high,
it is appropriate to provide all weather access, even though these standards may vary depending upon
traffic volumes. Partial access exists for most communities now and is considered by both the
citizens and government as being inadequate and inappropriate.



39
Based upon above factors and the discussion presented in the preceeding chapters, suggested
design standards for RIPA roads have been developed and are shown in Table 14. These
standards should be tempered by the mix of vehicles, type of commodities transported and
especially the terrain. Special attention should be paid to traffic safety and pass-by sections.
It is proposed to divide the RIPA Roads into three categories (detailed in Table 14) as follows:
A. RIPA Road III, Partial Access Road, for ADT of <50 MTE, partially engineered, seasonal
access road, with dirt/earth surfacing, with culverts and bridges designed for a 10 year flood,
allowing for 4-6 hour delays during extreme weather conditions such as high floods of very
short duration,
B. RIPA Road II, Basic Access Road, for ADT of 50-100 MTE, partially engineered, limited
all weather access road, with dirt/earth surfacing, occasionally sand and gravel surfacing
when raw materials are available at low cost, with culverts and bridges designed for a 20 year
flood, allowing for 2-4 hour delays during extreme weather conditions such as high floods
of very short duration,
C. And RIPA Road I, Full Access Road, for ADT of 100-200 MTE, fully engineered, all
weather access road, with sand and gravel surfacing, occasionally cobblestone surfacing
when raw materials are available at low cost, with culverts and bridges designed for a 50 year
flood.



40
Table 14. Proposed Design Standards for RIPA Roads
Design Element           RIPA Road I            RIPA Road II             RIPA Road III
(Full Access)         (Basic Access)           (Basic Access
Reduced Service)
Functional Standard      All Weather Access    All Weather Access,       All Weather Access,
allowing 2-4 hour delays   allowing 4-6 hour
during floods or high    delays during floods or
rainfall                 high rainfall
Traffic Volume            100-200               50-100                   <50
(ADT/MTE)
Total Width               4.5m                  4.Om                     3.5m
Paved Width               3.5m                  3.Om                     3.Om
Pavement Type             Sand and gravel with    Sand and gravel        Compacted Dirt/earth,
cobble stone surfacing                         Sand and gravel if
available at roadside
Shoulder Width, each     0.5m                   0.5m                     0.25m
Shoulder Type            Compacted Dirt/earth,   Compacted Dirt/earth    Dirt/earth
gravel if available at
roadside
Vertical Grade, Flat     <6%                    <6%                      <6%
Terrain
Vertical Grade, Steep     <9%                   <9%                      <12%
Terrain
Horizontal Curves Radius   <15m                 <lOm                     <lOm
Roadside Drainage         Well maintained       Well maintained ditches    Well maintained ditches
ditches
Cross Drainage           Pipe or box Culverts,    Pipe or box culverts,  Pipe or box culverts,
Engineered bridges    Simpler Wood /timber     Simpler Wood /timber
(stone, concrete)     structures               structures
Drainage design Criteria    Uninterrupted, all year  All year access, 2-4 hour   All year access, 4-6 hour
access, 50 year flood    delays for floods, 20 year   delays for floods, 10
design                flood design             year flood design
Side Slopes              <12%                   12-15%                    12-15%
Road Surface Maintenance  Regular maintenance,   Periodic maintenance and   Periodic maintenance
repairs and grading   repair                   and repair
Drainage Maintenance     Regular monitoring     Periodic monitoring and    Periodic monitoring and
and clearing of ditches  clearing of ditches and  clearing of ditches and
and drainage structures  drainage structures   drainage structures



41
5. RIPA Implementation: Methodological Aspects
5.1 Introduction
In developing countries, the accumulated needs of rural access roads improvements, far exceed the
available resources. Some countries, albeit a small number, are able to meet this challenge by
marshalling intemal resources. Most others are struggling to meet the minimum access needs of the
rural poor. In general, rural access and transport services needs do not receive the urgently needed
priority for investments.
As discussed earlier in Chapter 2, a large portion of the rural population, in many countries, still
lacks the basic transport infrastructure and services to enable them to be connected and achieve
better economic standing. Under these circumstances, there is much subjective pressure on the
governments by various groups, such as of political, regional and social interests, to capture the
meager financial resources available for rural access investments for their own counties and districts.
Unless there is an understandable and objective methodology for determining RIPA investment
priorities, these improvements and therefore, the related investments could be distorted. Such
distortions can result in inefficient investments, yielding far less benefits for the investment than
otherwise. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop objective methods for identification,
selection and prioritization of RIPA investments based upon sound economic and social cost-benefit
principles. The methodological framework, discussed below, has been developed, implemented
and refined in RIPA programs in Bank assisted projects in five provinces of China: Gansu,
Henan, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia and Shaanxi and has been time tested over five years.
5.2 Methodological Framework
There are several iterative methodological steps for the identification, selection and prioritization
of RIPA improvements. These steps are:
A. Designation of Poor Counties
B. RIPA: Screening, Selection and Ranking Process
C. RIPA Counties: Economic Ranking
D. RIPA Counties: Social Development Ranking
E. Selection of Counties for RIPA Implementation
F. RIPA: Improvement Priorities-Initial Basket
G. RIPA: Cost Effectiveness Ranking
H. RIPA: Inaccessibility Ranking
I. RIPA Plan Priorities: RIPA Road Systems
These steps will lead to a basket of RIPA Road Systems, prioritized by a systematic ranking score,
for implementation consideration. This initial basket of proposed RIPA systems is further subject
to economic and social cost/benefit analysis to determine both the priorities and whether some
systems will be implemented at all. These analyses are discussed in the Chapter 6.



42
5.3 Designation of Poor Counties
Methods of designating poor counties differ from country to country. It is common to use some
measure of income, income disparity, sometimes combined with social indicators such as literacy
and education. It is not imperative to devise new systems of poor county designation unless there
are serious distortions in the practice in a given country. The most important criteria should be those
related to income, social development and inaccessibility.
The system used to identify and designate poor counties in China was discussed in detail earlier
(Chapter 3.2) and is shown in Figure 4. The income criteria for identifying and designating poor
counties are as follows:
A. For those counties which were not designated a poor county in 1986, per capita annual
income not exceeding 400 RMB in 1992
B. For those counties designated as a poor county in 1986, per capita income not exceeding 700
RMB in 1992
In addition, the provinces use a variety of income and other criteria to designate additional counties
as "poor counties". For the purposes of RIPA, both the nationally designated and provincially
designated poor counties were included.
5.4 RIPA: Screening, Selection and Ranking Process
Because the available resources are very limited in relation to the over all rural road infrastructure
needs, it is necessary to establish priorities for RIPA investments even within the designated poor
counties. The screening process is shown in Figure 5 and consists of a series of steps based on the
status of economic and social development of each county. The screening criteria include economic
conditions and potential, social development, cost effectiveness and the level of inaccessibility. The
detailed steps are discussed below.
5.s RIPA Counties: Economic Ranking System
The first step is to establish economic ranking criteria. They should include indicators of income
and poverty, and the potential for economic development. The indicators, used in China, include
average annual income, level of poverty, agriculture and forestry lands indicating the potential for
further development, value of mineral production also indicating the potential, and food for work
expenditures indicating the level of welfare expenditures as well as the number of impoverished
people. Depending upon the availability of data at the county level in other countries, these
indicators can be substituted by other suitable ones. Economic Ranking is composed of four
criteria, as shown in Figure 6:
A. Income Ranking, the higher the average income in the county, the lower the ranking for
the county, thus assuring the poorest counties receive highest priority
B. Poverty Ranking, the higher the poverty level in the county, the higher the ranking for
the county
C. Agriculture and Forest Land Ranking, the higher the acreage of lands, the higher the
ranking, recognizing the current and potential economic activity



Figure 4. RIPA: Designation of Poor Counties
the Province
Poor Counties(             Other Counties 
{ er Capita Anual       
Income <700 RMB                      _
_Nationally Designated _z    rovincially Designated
r D~esignated 
es~~~~~~~~~



Figure 5. RIPA: Screening, Selection and Ranking Process
All Counties
Designated Poor Counties
Income, Poverty, Economic, and
Social Development Rankings
Selection of RIPA Counties
P and Systems               P
\    ost Effectivenes 
Ranking 
Ranlcin 
3                                              >~~~RP



Figure 6. RIPA Counties: Economic Ranking
<;;esignat
nkn  Syste                              Social Development|
ncome          overty                   ~~~~~~griculture and        Mineral Production
:~~~~~~~~~~~ k
High Income LowRank        Hig Proverty = High Rank        High Lands = High Rank       High Values = High Rank
Low Income = High Rank      Low Proverty = Low Rank  I     Low Lands = Low Rank          Low Values = Low Rank
Lf4:.



46
D. Mineral Production Ranking, the higher the values of production, the higher the
ranking, recognizing an important economic sector
Income and poverty ranking criteria emphasize high priority for the poorer of the designated poor
counties. Agriculture and forestry lands is a surrogate for the value of agricultural and forestry
products. Together with values of mineral production, these criteria emphasize that access should
be improved consistent with existing and potential economic activity. When available, Gross Output
Value of Agriculture and Industry (GVOAI) can be used instead of using forestry, agriculture and
mineral production. The ranking is done on a point basis, 5 points for each of the four criteria listed
above.
5.6 RIPA Counties: Social Development Ranking System
In addition to economic factors, it is important to include social development factors in ranking the
counties for RIPA investments. Social development factors such as availability of education and
health services contribute to poverty and deprivation. Depending upon the availability of data, there
is need to improvise simple indicators of social development which can be used in assessing the
relative handicaps of these counties in solving their problems of access and economic development.
In China, availability of clean drinking water, literacy levels and availability of health care workers
were used as indicators of social development. In China the unemployed persons are provided food
and minimum allowances in return for working on public work projects. It is called "Food for
Work Program". These expenditures were also used as another indicator of social development
as they provide a comparative assessment of the level of unemployment in the counties.
The Social Development Ranking System is shown in Figure 7. This ranking system is composed
of the following four criteria:
A. Availability of Clean Drinking Water: the higher the percentage of the county
population with access to clean drinking water, the lower the ranking
B. Literacy: the higher the percentage of literate population, the lower the ranking
C. Availability of Health Workers: the higher the number of health workers per capita, the
lower the ranking
D. Food for Work Program(FWP) Expenditures, an indicator of unemployment and
poverty, the higher the expenditure, the higher the rank.
This ranking was also done on a point's basis. Clean drinking water, literacy and health worker
availability were given one point each and FWP expenditures are given 2 points. The social
development indicators account for a total of 5 points.



Figure 7. RIPA Counties: Social Development Ranking
Economic RankingI
Social Development Ranking
viaiiyo                                                                            00   r Wo
teac             Aailability o
lean Drinkng                                             Health Workers                Expenditure
High Avail. = Low Rank     High Literacy = Low Rank       High Avail. = Low Rank        High Exp. = High Rank
Low Avail. = High Rank     Low Literacy = High Rank       Low Avail. = High Rank        Low Exp. = Low Rank



48
5.7 Selection of Counties for RIPA Implementation
The economic and social development parameters together account for 25 points, with economic
parameters counting for 20 points and social development parameters counting for 5 points. The
counties are ranked for RIPA implementation in order of points received in the ranking system. The
higher the total score, the higher the ranking for RIPA investments. A sample ranking table
(economic and social development factors) used in Henan province is shown in Table 15.
This priority system is further refined as shown in Figure 8. Counties with good road systems and
good network connections are deleted as well as those counties with economic opportunities to build
roads outside of RIPA. The resulting set of counties is the group of counties considered for
implementing RIPA, in order of priorities indicated by the ranking table.
5.8 RIPA Priority System-Initial Basket
5.8.1 Priorities for Road Investments
Iterative steps performed as shown in Figures 4 to 8, lead to the prioritization of counties for RIPA
investment. The next step is to determine which road segments in these counties need to be
improved and to what extent. A system of policy priorities, for determining RIPA improvements,
is applied in order to develop an initial basket of RIPA Systems, for consideration. This system
is shown in Figure 9. The policy priorities for RIPA improvements are to:
A. Provide new all weather roads to all administrative villages and townships;
B. Improve existing drainage systems and stabilize slopes to assure all weather access;
C. Upgrade existing seasonal roads to all weather roads;
D. Upgrade existing all weather roads to higher class roads, where traffic volumes warrant;
E. Rehabilitate and upgrade, as necessary, connecting links to major market centers.
5.8.2 Road Segments and Systems
The above priorities are applied to determine and select the road segments, which are candidates for
improvement (new roads, upgrading and rehabilitation), in the counties selected for RIPA (Figure
8). Identified RIPA road segments are then grouped into contiguous systems, based upon settlement
patterns and population connectivity. These steps will result in a number of proposed RIPA road
systems with a variety of improvements on various road segments. This then is the RIPA Systems-
Initial Basket, shown in Figure 9,which will be subject to further screening.



49
Table 15. Poor Counties in Henan Province
Economic and Social Development Ranking for RIPA, 1996
ID    County   Income  Poverty  Agricultur   Mineral            Total     Overall
No    Name    Ranking Ranking  e & Forest Production            Social    Ranking
(1 to 5)  (1 to 5)    Land     Ranking   Development
Ranking    (1 to 5)      Ranking
(1 to 5)                (0 to 5)*
I Yichuan     3        1         2           5                        1       12
2Yiyang       2        2          3          3                        2       12
3Louning      2        4         2           1                        3       12
4Luanchuan  2           2         4          5                        0       13
5Songxian    2         4         3           1                        3       13
6Ruyang       5        3          3          1                        3       15
7Xinan        3        2         2           5                        2       14
8Lushi        3        4          1          5                        2       15
9 Mianchi    3         4         2           2                        3       14
10 Lushan      5        5         2           5                        3       20
11 Nanchao     3        3         5           2                        1       14
12 Xichuan     2         1         1          2                        2        8
13 Tongbai     3        3         3           2                        3       14
14 Xinxian     2         1        3           1                        1        8
15 Shangcheng 2          1         1          1                        2        7
16Xinyang    1           1        2           1                        1        6
17|Luoshan     3        2         3           2                        2       12
18Guangshan  2           1        2           2                        2        9
19|Gushi       3        2          1          2                        2       10
20 Huaibin     2         1         3           1                       3       10
21 Huangchuan 2          2         2           1                       1         8
22 Xixian      2         3         3           1                       2        11
23 Pingyu      2         3         4           1                       3        13
24 Xincai      5         4         4           1                       3       17
25 Shangcai    2         1         5           1                       3        12
26 Queshan     3         1         3          2                        2        11
27 Beiyang     2         2         4           1                       1        10
28 Ningling    3         2         5           1                       4        15
29 Suixian     2         1         5           1                       4        13
30 Yucheng    2          2         5           1                       3       13
31 Yongcheng  2          1         4           1                       3       11
32 Taiqian     2         3         4           1                       2        12
33 Puyang       1        1         5           1                       3        11
34 Fanxian     2         1         4           1                       2        10



Figure 8. RIPA: Counties for Implementation
e07  Esabi
Priority Order of 
Counties Based Upon       )
Social & Economic 
Counties with Good
Road Systems and
Counties with Unique >
Situations and Economic       )
xOpportunities Outside of 
Poor Counties Io 
RIPA Implementation:
O~~ntalBse



Figure 9. RIPA: Road Improvement Priorities - Initial Basket
_ -
Ex. Provide All Wa
RoWeather Roads tos
~~ t     Administrative Villages
and Townships
,      ~~2. Improve
..      _   {       ~~~~Existing Drainag
o  ~~~       V ~~ Systems and Stabilize
E 
3                      0     3. Upgrade|\                                                  IP 
_,         ~~~Existing Seasona                                                             X
;  se    _    <  ~~Roads to All Weather       y. /                         <     Sget 
m             <       ~~~~~~4. Upgrad_
U _ ~~~~~Existing All Weatber_i
;                 ~~~~~~Roads to Higher Class                          
o          Roads                                              ~~~~~~~~~~RIPA Systems
_ r 5. Rehabilitate/Upgrade
~ t Connecting Roads to Major 
- ~~Centers 



52
5.9 Beneficiary Population and Cost Effectiveness
Cost is an important factor in enhancing the accessibility and mobility of the rural population. This
cannot be based simply upon the engineering cost or the cost of the road per km. Cost effectiveness
must be based upon comparative costs and benefits derived. Recognizing that each system will be
subject to further economic and social cost-benefit analysis, the purpose of determining cost
effectiveness is to provide a ranking system for the implementation of the proposed road systems.
The cost effectiveness concept is not applied to each segment of road but to each road system. This
is because taken individually, some road segments may be too small or not effective. However,
considered as a part of a system, they have an impact on the influence area. Cost Effectiveness Ratio
(CER) is defined as Cost of the Proposed Road System Per Person in the Influence Area. In other
words, what is the per capita cost of accessibility improvements? This is done on a system by
system basis and not on a segment by segment basis. Cost effectiveness ranking process, as shown
in Figure 10, consists of the following steps:
A. Estimate the cost of the proposed improvements in each system
B. Estimate the population of the influence area of each system
C. Calculate the Cost Effectiveness Ratio (Cost per person in the influence area)
D. Adjust the Cost Effectiveness Ratio for Mountainous Terrain
E. Determine the Cost Effectiveness Ranking



Figure 10. RIPA: Cost Effectiveness Ranking
(Cost per Person in theJ
Influence Area)_
{ Adjusted Cost Ratio 
(For Mountainous Terrain, BridgesJ
C/ost Effectiveness
w~~akn



54
The estimated costs of the proposed improvements include planning, design and construction costs.
The population of the influence area includes the population of all settlements in the influence area
of the proposed road system. The CER is derived by dividing the total cost of the system
improvements by the influence area population.
In mountainous terrain, the cost of road improvements, in general, is substantially higher than in flat
or rolling terrain. Comparing road system costs without making allowances for terrain impact on
costs would be inequitable. Therefore, CER is adjusted downward by a factor of one-third in
mountainous terrain. If there are major bridges in the proposed improvements, they are not included
in comparing system costs. The Adjusted Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ACER) was derived, in
aforementioned RIPA projects in China, by multiplying the estimated system improvement costs by
0.67. Where substantial cost differences exist even within the mountainous terrain, it may be
necessary to stratify these cost adjustment factors.
The proposed RIPA systems are then ranked according the ACER. An example of the ranking table
used in Inner Mongolia is shown in Table 16.
5.10 Inaccessibility Criteria
The procedure for Inaccessibility Ranking is shown in Figure 11. There are villages and towns with
seasonal access and there are some with no roads at all. Inaccessibility is defined, here, as the total
number of days during which a particular road is closed thus affecting the accessibility of the
communities served by this road. The population with no roads means that, for the purpose of this
ranking, the road is closed for 365 days a year, thus giving this population the highest inaccessibility
priority. The higher the number of the days when the road is closed, the higher the inaccessibility.
The rank order is determined by using a 5 point scale.
The cost effectiveness ranking (5 points) shown in Table 16 is combined with inaccessibility ranking
(5 points) to determine the overall ranking for implementation. Table 17 is an example from Inner
Mongolia.
5.11 RIPA Implementation Priorities
Implementation priorities are established by following the procedures discussed earlier and also
detailed in Figure 12. The higher the combined rating, the higher is the priority. Poor counties were
selected for RIPA implementation by using the process detailed in Figures 4 to 8. By applying the
policy priorities shown in Figure 9, road segments in these counties were chosen for consideration
and road systems were developed by using system continuity and the communities served. This
resulted in the RIPA initial basket of priorities.
Then by applying the steps shown in Figures 10, 11 and 12, RIPA systems are prioritized for
implementation. However, all of these systems are further subjected to economic and social cost-
benefit appraisal, as shown in the following chapter.



Table 16. Poor Counties in Inner Mongolia: System Cost Effectiveness Ranking for RIPA
County       County        System  Segment  System   Population System Cost System Cost  Adjusted    System
ID         Name         Number Number    Cost            of     Ratio (Cost Adjustment System Cost    Cost
Number                                        (10,000   Influence  Per Person)    Ratio     Per Person  Effective-
RMB)       Area      (RMB)                     (RMB)        ness
Ranking
(1-5)*
1 Duolun County        I            1      1,530     22,451        681          1.00         681          2
2 Wuchuan County       II           2       900      68,000        132          0.67          89           5
3 Darhan Muminggan    III           3       900      34,143        264          1.00         264          4
Joint Banner
4 Aohan Banner                      4
5 Hexigten Banner                   5      4,950    217,961        227          1.00         227          5
6 Linxi County        IV            6
7 Bairin Right Banner               7
8 Siziwang Banner
9 Qahar Right Wing                  8
Middle Banner
I0 Zhuozi County        V                  4,215    347,027         121          1.00         121          5
11 Huade County                      9
12 Shangdu County
12 Shangdu County                   10
13 Hangjin Banner                   11
14 Ejin Horo Banner    VI           12     2,150    120,391         179          1.00         179          5
15 Uxin Banner                                   _
16 Horqin Right Wing    VII         13      1,100    23,000         478         0.67          320          4
Middle Banner
Note: * County with an adjusted system costs per person (ACPP) of 64-257 RMB = 5 Points, County with an ACPP of 258-450 RMB = 4
Points, County with an ACCP of 451-643 = 3 Points, County with an ACPP of 644 - 836 RMB = 2 Points, County with an ACPP of 837 -
1,028 RMB = 1 Point.
U,



Figure 11. RIPA: Inaccessibility Ranking
rRIPA Systems >                    Population
\  Initial Basket J             t         With
No Road Access
( Inaccessibility                           Wion
\~on~Roa~~ods
G' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
-n
01



Table 17. Poor Counties in Inner Mongolia
Inaccessibility and Cost Effectiveness Ranking
System
Cost
County            County            System  Segment Inaccessibility Effectiveness   Overall    Overall
ID               Name             Number Number   Ranking*         Ranking*    Ranking    Priority
Number
I Duolun County                 I            1          3.00            2        5.00          7
2 Wuchuan County               II            2          3.50            5        8.50          1
3 Darhan Muminggan Joint       III           3          3.00            4        7.00          2
Banner
4 Aohan Banner                               4
5 Hexigten Banner                            5         1.5**            4        5.50          5
6 Linxi County                 IV            6
7 Bairin Right Banner                        7
8 Siziwang Banner
9 Qahar Right Wing Middle                    8
Banner
10 Zhuozi County                 V
11 Huade County                               9        2.00**            5        7.00          2
12 Shangdu County
12 Shangdu County                            10
13 Hangjin Banner                           11
14 Ejin Horo Banner             VI           12        1.50**            5        6.50          4
15 Uxin Banner                                 I _       _
16 Horqin Right Wing Middle     VII          13          1.50            4        5.50          5
Banner
Notes: *Maximum 5 points. **Average of County Inaccessibility Ranking.
U,



Figure 12. RIPA Systems: Plan Priorities
SysmPAImplementation
Initial Baske
RIPA Systems:
_    <   I~~nitial Basket 
(        ~~and)
Plan Priorities
coI



59
6. Feasibility Analysis
6.1 Analysis Framework
There are three sets of benefits which are accrued to the population when road improvements are
made:
A. Economic Benefits
B. Accessibility Benefits
C. Other Social Benefits
These are estimated separately for feasibility analysis. The economic and social benefit analysis
process is outlined in Figure 13.
6.2 Economic Benefits and Rates of Return: A Tiered System
There are three economic criteria which are widely used in making Road Investment Decisions:
A. Net Present Value
B. Benefit-Cost Ratio
C. The Internal Rate of Return.
Net Present Value (NPV) is the present value of all the benefits less the present value of all the
costs. Benefit and cost streams are discounted at the minimum return requirement (opportunity cost)
on resources employed over the useful life of the project, generally a 20 year period. As a rule,
decision criteria require that the NPV be greater than zero to make the investment worthwhile.
The Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) is the present value of all the benefits divided by the present value
of all the costs expressed as a ratio. This again is discounted at the minimum return requirement
(opportunity cost) on resources employed over the useful life of the project, generally a 20 year
period. In analyzing projects to determine whether or not it is worthwhile, acceptability requires that
the BCR be greater than one.
The Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) is the rate of return generated on the outstanding
capital in each year of the life of the project. The EIRR is the rate of discount where the net present
value equals zero. For project investments to be feasible, this EIRR should be at least equal to, or
greater than the discount rate (opportunity cost of money).
The issues related to full access, basic access and partial or seasonal access and their linkages to
poverty and development were discussed in Chapters 2, 3 and 4. The purpose of economic and
social evaluation is to enable decision-makers to make investment decisions and assign priorities for
investments, based upon expected benefits and not other factors. However, the purpose of RIPA is
to increase the accessibility and mobility of the rural poor and to enable them to have access to
markets, employment opportunities and social services in nearby townships, which provide these
opportunities. These communities are in remote areas and often in mountainous terrain, which
further increases the cost of proposed improvements. Their capacity to pay for services or road
improvements is rather limited.



Figure 13. RIPA: Economic and Social Benefit Analysis
RIPA Systems: Plan Priorities
Economic Benefit Analysis
Social Benefit Analysis
RIPA Systems
\   for     /
\   ~Implementation /
\    RIFPA:7
\ M~ulti-Year 
\ Cnstruction/
v                          ~~~~~~~~~~~0s



61
Until their economic condition improves, some of these proposed improvements may not yield high
rates of return. It is important that investment decisions be made by balancing the traditional
economic approach of expecting fixed or high rates of return with the social science approach which
considers access as a basic need, to be provided to every one at the same minimum standard.
Investment decisions and priorities should be based upon a thorough analysis of both the economic
and social benefits arising out of road investnents. In essence, what is the value of "Basic Access"?
Can this be assigned a monetary value in calculating the benefits?
Based upon the RIPA experience in flve provinces of China (Gansu, Inner Mongolia, Henan,
Ningxia and Shaanxi), it is proposed that the expected minimum rates of return be a tiered
system and be related to design standards, detailed in Table 14. These proposed standards are
for RIPA roads with less than 200ADT/MTE, divided into three categories as shown in Table
14 (Full Access Roads of ADT/MTE of 100-200, Basic Access Roads of 50-100 ADT/MTE, and
Basic Access Roads with Reduced Service of <50 ADT/MTE). The design standards are going
to be higher for those RIPA systems serving larger populations and higher traffic volumes. Although
these road systems will cost more, they serve more people and carry more traffic. They should be
expected to yield higher returns than the lower traffic volume RIPA roads.
At the lower end of the scale, the design standards are going to be lower for those RIPA systems
serving remote communities with lower populations with lower traffic volumes. Here we should be
prepared to accept lower rates of return as long as the social benefits of increased accessibility and
social services are of a reasonably high order with reference to the population served.
It was also proposed in Chapter 4 (Table 15) that there should be three separate design standards
for the three tiers of RIPA roads (Full Access, Basic Access and Partial Access). This recognizes
the cost and benefit considerations, and as well allows for building these access roads at a slightly
lower standard now (for lower traffic volumes), without preventing their upgrading at a later date
as economic activity and traffic volumes increase.
Based upon these considerations, it is proposed that the expected rates of return be a tiered
system which specifies high rates of return at the high end and lower rates of return at the low
end of population and traffic volumes.
User cost savings (vehicle operating costs and time savings) are the major economic benefits of road
improvements. It is the general practice to count only the motor vehicle users. This has worked well
in countries where most trips are predominantly by motor vehicles. However, this is inappropriate
for the developing countries because of the different vehicle mix which includes many kinds of non-
motorized vehicles as well as pedestrians with head loads. Under these circumstances, traffic counts
should be made for all modes including NMVs and Pedestrians with head loads. It is important
to include in the computation of benefits vehicle operating costs ( NMVs and MVs), travel time
savings for all modes (MVs, NMVs and Pedestrians with and without head loads).
In Bank assisted RIPA projects in the five provinces of China (Gansu, Inner Mongolia, Henan,
Ningxia and Shaanxi), during 1995-1998, there were only two categories of RIPA roads: Class IV
Roads and Unclassified Roads. Both these classes of roads were all weather, "full access
roads". Class IV roads were further divided into two categories depending upon traffic volumes.



62
Class IV double lane roads were for traffic volumes of 200-1500 ADT/MTE, indicating higher
economic status. Class IV single lane roads were for traffic volumes of <200ADT/MTE, indicating
lower economic activity.
Unclassified roads were also for traffic volumes of <200ADT/MTE, but in areas of much less
economic significance. The general discount rate used in China is 12%. However, recognizing the
value of "Accessibility", the expected minimum EIRR for low traffic volume roads was slightly
reduced. For Class IV Roads, the minimum expected EIRR was reduced to 10% ( from a
discount rate of 12%), and for Unclassified Roads to a minimum of 8%. Both roads were for
traffic volumes of <200 ADT/MTE.
Recognizing the fact that there are many communities where the current traffic volumes are very low
and the populations require basic access to improve their economic condition ( even at reduced
service), the design standards proposed in Table 14 show three categories of RIPA Roads: "Full
Access Road" (RIPA Road I), "Basic Access Road" (RIPA Road II), and "Basic Access Road with
Reduced Service" (RIPA Road III) based upon traffic volumes. This approach enables the provision
of basic access to more communities, albeit with reduced level of service, with same investment
resources. As the economies improve and traffic volumes increase, these roads can be upgraded, at
the appropriate time in the future.
Based upon the above discussion, it is proposed that the expected Economic Internal Rate of Return
(EIRR) on proposed investments be a tiered system as follows:
A. For "Full Access Roads" (RIPA Road I) >10%
This EIRR is the same as the one used in Bank assisted projects in China. The general
discount rate is 12% and the minimum expected EIRR was 10% for Class IV Roads (for
<200 ADT/MTE). In other countries, this rate would be 2% less than the discount rate.
B. For "Partial Access Roads" (RIPA Road II) >8%
This EIRR is the same as the one used in Bank assisted projects in China. The general
discount rate is 12% and the minimum expected EIRR was 8% for Unclassified Roads(for
<200 ADT/MTE). In other countries, this rate would be 4% less than the discount rate.
C. For "Partial Access Roads" (RIPA Road II) >6%
These are very low volume roads with a reduced level of service as shown in Table 14. They
are fundamentally basic access only roads, enabling economic opportunities. In bank
assisted RIPA projects in China, there were no roads in this category. In other countries
where such low traffic volumes exist, the expected minimum EIRR would be 6% lower than
the discount rate.
Alternatively, it is possible to assign a value for basic access if income data sets are available for
comparable communities with and without access within the same area. The differentials in per
capita income could be attributed to basic access, if there are no unique differences between the
communities. These differences in incomes can be counted as benefits over project life time. The
approach proposed above, simplifies the computations and recognizes the problems related to the
availability and accuracy of data in many developing countries.



63
6.3 Benefi'ciary Population and Access Benefits
Accessibility and mobility of the rural population is an important aspect of the economic
development of the rural regions. The number of people benefiting is an important consideration.
Beneficiary population is the total population of the influence area, for each road system being
considered. Access benefits are defined as the number of days when the roads are closed currently
and would be fully open when these roads are built.
6.4 Social Benefits
Social benefits accruing to the populations are primarily:
A. Ability to attend schools without loss of days
B. Ability to access health services without the health risk that goes with reduced access
C. Ability to access economic opportunities in other townships
As long as there is information available on road closures and the beneficiary population in the
influence area, it is possible to estimate the above benefits.
6.5 RIPA Implementation Package
RIPA road systems, which meet the EIRR criteria should be selected for implementation. Those
indicating the highest rates of return ought to receive the highest priority for implementation. At the
same time, it is important that a careful review of the accessibility and social benefits be conducted
for those systems not meeting the minimum rates of return criteria. Where the social benefits are
indicated to be of high order, those systems should also be included for implementation. While it
is difficult to assign priorities based primarily on social benefits criteria, it is suggested that
accessibility benefits should weigh heavily in determining priorities. Design standards, and therefore
the costs should be adjusted according to traffic volumes, economic rates of return and
inaccessibility benefits, as discussed in earlier chapters. After screening and applying the
methodological and analytical steps, outlined above, a RIPA Implementation Plan is prepared.
6.6 Benefits Monitoring
It is necessary to monitor the forecast benefits. This will assist in correcting the forecast
methodologies as well as suggest new approaches in future projects. The Monitoring indicators
shown in Figure 14 are household incomes in the influence area, food for work expenditures (FWP),
number of days when roads are closed and traffic volumes. Household incomes and FWP
Expenditures can be substituted by other equivalent criteria. Any increase in incomes would indicate
that increase in accessibility is contributing to increased economic welfare of the communities.
Similarly a reduction in the FWP expenditures would indicate an increase in employment.
Monitoring of road closures is an indicator of the quality of construction and maintenance as well
as the validity of the design standards. Finally, the traffic data would facilitate the monitoring of the
accuracy of traffic forecasts and enable the refinement of forecasting methods.



64
o
et~~~~~~~~~~~



65
7. Lessons from Experience
7.1 Balancing Economic and Social Benefits
It is comparatively easy to make implementation decisions when economic criteria are met.
However, since it is not possible to assign strict monetary values to social benefits, it is complex
when proposed investments are marginal economically but provide major social benefits. These
social benefits are primarily due to increased accessibility which in turn will result in increased
economic and social opportunities. This paper proposes a rational methodology for quantifying, in
a simple way, the accessibility benefits. Although it can be further refined, it is a simple but
effective tool for including the benefits of accessibility. This methodology was used by the Chinese
to prepare rural road components where foreign financing was involved.
The question of providing basic access, even at a reduced level of service (interrupted service) for
all communities, should be a matter of national policy with regard to basic human needs. The
foregoing discussion implies that access improves the opportunity spectrum, enlarges the area of
economic opportunity and also enhances the social opportunities for education, health and other
interaction. It becomes, therefore, important to give priority to basic access needs as part of poverty
alleviation programs and economic development plans.
7.2 The Challenge of Appropriate Design Standards
It is reasonably easy to establish design standards for those roads with ADT of >200 MTE.
However, it becomes more difficult to balance the conflicting arguments between those of basic
access being a basic need and of getting the expected rates of return for the investments, under low
traffic volume conditions. The conceptual basis for the discussion in Chapters 4.4 and 4.5 regarding
design standards is that for low volume roads, investments can be made on the basis of social need
but the design standards need not be the same as those for higher traffic volume RIPA roads. The
argument here is that it is better to make a start by providing basic access. Design standards
(level of service) can be improved over time as the traffic volumes build up concurrently with
increasing economic activity.
However, this is not easy as citizens demand of their provincial and national governments equal
treatment, often meaning, equal design standards. Even if the level of service is reduced, in terms
of waiting time at water crossings due to occasional and infrequent heavy rainfall or floods, there
should be no compromise on traffic safety. It is necessary and important to prevent accidents and
to protect loss of property and human lives.
7.3 Institutional Systems and Maintenance Practices
It is important to have, if not create, institutional systems and mechanisms for regular maintenance
of rural roads. It is considerably easier, in China, as they have a tradition of good maintenance
practices with regard to rural roads. As detailed in Chapters 3 and 4, the maintenance of rural roads
in China, is the responsibility of the counties. Taxation for maintenance and related maintenance
practices, having evolved over the past 50 years, emphasize village and citizen level participation.
This is not necessarily the case in other Asian countries. It is important, therefore, to devise and
establish institutional systems, and supporting manpower and finances for proper maintenance of



66
rural roads. Otherwise, new roads can deteriorate into a condition where access benefits will revert
back to what they were before the road investments were made.
7.4 Replicability to Other Countries
The RIPA experience in China, detailed in this paper, can be of substantial value to other countries
in devising their programs of access enhancements in rural communities. However, the program
linkages, revenue raising methods, cost sharing methods, role of national, provincial and county
governments, and maintenance practices, discussed in Chapters 2, 3 and 4, have to be adapted to
varying governance systems in different countries.
The screening and investment prioritization methodology, discussed in Chapter 5, has been tested
and used in five provinces of China over the past five years in Bank assisted RIPA projects and has
proven to be effective. This can be adapted in other countries with modifications, dependent upon
what indicator data is available. It should also be possible to use different surrogate values for
various social and economic indicators used in the screening process in China. However, the
principles, underlying the screening process and the methodology described in Chapter 5, remain
intact for application in other countries.
The fundamentals of feasibility analysis described in Chapter 6 are applicable to the provision of
rural roads in poor areas in other countries. It is possible, however, to improve the methodology to
more sophisticated levels by assigning monetary values to all the social benefits. This has to be
tempered by availability of resources to conduct more sophisticated analysis as well as whether such
an analysis would produce any different results. The discussion and the analyses provided in this
paper are of such a fundamental nature that it is quite possible to make changes and adapt them to
various situations in other developing countries, especially those in Asia.



67
8. References
1. Asian Development Bank. Country Operational Strategy Study: People's Republic of China.
Asian Development Bank. Manila, 1996..
2. Ian Barwell. Transport and the Village: Finding from African Village-level Travel and
Transport Surveys and Related Studies. World Bank Discussion Paper # 344, Africa Region.
World Bank, Washington D. C., October 1996.
3. H. L. Beenhakker and A. M. Lago. Economic Appraisal of Rural Roads: Simplified Operational
Procedures for Screening and Appraisal. World Bank Staff Working Paper # 610. World Bank,
Washington D.C., October 1983.
4. H. L. Beenhakker, S. Carapetis L. Crowther and S. Hertel. Rural Transport Services. Westview
Press. Boulder, Co., 1987.
5. Joseph C. H. Cai. " Consumption and Living Standards in China ", The China Quarterly,
September 1992.
6. Wu Cai. " Seeking Common Prosperity ", Beijing Review, August 1996.
7. Canadian International Development Agency. Poverty Profile, People's Republic of China.
CIDA Stakeholders Conference, Canmore, AL, June 1997. CIDA, Ottawa, June 1997.
8. S. Carapetis, H. Beenhakker and J. Howe. 7he Supply and Quality of Rural Transport Services
in Developing Countries. World Bank Staff Working Paper #654. World Bank, Washington D.C.,
1984.
9. C. Carnemark, J. Biderman and D. Bovet. The Economic Analysis of Rural Road Projects.
World Bank Staff Working Paper # 241. World Bank, Washington D. C., August 1976.
10. Robin Carruthers. "Urban Transport and the Environmnent", in China's Environment and
Environmental Policies. Prepared for World Bank-China EPA joint workshop on China's
Environment and Environmental Policies. World Bank, Washington D. C., April, 97.
1 1. Robin Carruthers. China Forward with One Spirit: A Strategy for the Transport Sector. Report
#: 15959-CHA. Transport Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Regional Office, World Bank,
Washington D.C., April 1998.
12. Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi. Village Level Survey: Some Significant
Relationships Andhra Pradesh Economic Restructuring Project. Economic Analysis in
Transport Project Work, TWUTD, World Bank, Washington D.C., July 1998.
13. E. Connerley and L. Schroeder. Rural Transport Planning. Approach Paper, Sub-Saharan Africa



68
Transport Policy Program Working Paper # 19. World Bank, Washington D. C., October 1996.
14. C. Creightney. Road User Taxation in Selected OECD Countries. Sub-Saharan Africa Transport
Policy Program Working Paper # 3. World Bank, Washington D. C., August 1993.
15. G. A. Edmonds. Towards more Rational Rural Road Transport Planning. International Labor
Review, Vol. 121, No. 1, January-February 1982.
16. S. D. Ellis. The Economics of the Provision of Rural Transport Services in Developing
Countries. Ph.D. Thesis, Cranfield University. UK. July 1996.
17. S. Ellis and J. Hine. The Provision of Rural Transport Services. Transport Research Laboratory,
UK. April 1998.
18. Rod Gallagher. Rickshaws ofBangladesh. The University Press. Dhaka, Bangladesh, 1992.
19. C. A. Gannon and Z. Liu. Private and Transport. Discussion Paper, TWU-30, World Bank,
Washington D. C., September 1997.
20. J. Greenstein, L. Berger and H. Bonjack.. "Socioeconomic Methodology for Rural Road
Construction" in Transportation Research Record #1229. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 1989.
21. M. J. Hamilton. Privately Financed Road Infrastructure: A Concession Company's Point of
View. Sub-Saharan Africa Transport Policy Program Working Paper # 26. World Bank,
Washington D. C., May 1996.
22. I. G. Heggie. Management and Financing of Roads: An Agenda for Reform. World Bank
Technical Paper # 275, Africa Technical Series. World Bank, Washington D. C., March 1995.
23. Linda Hershkovitz. " China's 80 Million: Dimensions of Poverty". Eastern Asia Policy Papers.
University of Toronto-York University Joint Center for Asia pacific Studies. Toronto, 1995.
24. J. Howe. Transport for the Poor or Poor Transport? A General Review of Rural Transport
Policy in Developing Countries with Emphasis on Low-Income Areas. IHE Working Paper IP-
12, International Institute for Infrastructure, Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, Delft,
The Netherlands, October 1996.
25. Institute of Comprehensive Transportation (ICT). The Analysis and Evaluation on the Present
Situation of Socioeconomic and Rural Roads in China 's Major Poverty-Stricken Areas. A Study
of Planning and Policy Recommendations for Road Development of Poverty-Stricken Area in
China, First Phase Draft Report. ICT, State Development Planning Commission, Beijing. June
1998.
26. Institute of Comprehensive Transportation (ICT). The Research on Funding Sources for Rural
Roads Construction and Maintenance in China 's Major Poverty-Stricken Areas. A Study of



69
Planning and Policy Recommendations for Road Development of Poverty-Stricken Area in
China, Second Phase Report, July 1998.
27. Todd Johnson, Feng Liu and Richard Newfarmer. China 2020, China 's Environment in the New
Century: Clear Water, Blue Skies. World Bank, Washington D.C., 1997.
28. H. R. Kerali, M. S. Snaith and R.C. Kool. "Economic Viability of Upgrading Low-Volume
Roads" in Transportation Research Record #1291, Transportation Research Board, Washington
D.C., 1991.
29. J. Lebo, D. Schelling and A. Beusch.. Options for the Design and Evaluation of Rural Transport
Infrastructure. TWIUTD, World Bank, Washington D.C., September 1998 (draft).
30. T. R. Leinbach. Small Towns, Rural Linkages, and Employment. International Regional
Science Review. Vol. 14, No. 3, 1992.
31. U. Lele. Office Memorandum, Quality Assurance Group Review of East Asia Rural Poverty
Reduction Projects. Quality Assurance Group, World Bank, Washington D.C., November 1997.
32. Mark Lynch.  A Primer on Transportation Investment and Economic Development.
Transportation Association of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 1994
33. C. Malmberg Calvo. Case Study on the Role of Women in Rural Transport: Access of Women
to Domestic Facilities. Sub-Saharan Africa Transport Policy Program Working Paper # 11.
World Bank, Washington D. C., February 1994(a).
34. C. Malmberg Calvo. Case Study on Intermediate Means of Transport: Bicycles and Rural
Women in Uganda. Sub-Saharan Africa Transport Policy Program Working Paper # 12. World
Bank, Washington D. C., February 1994(b).
35. C. Malmberg Calvo. Options for Managing and Financing Rural Transport Infrastructure.
World Bank Technical Paper # 411. World Bank, Washington D. C., June 1998.
36. Ministry of Communications, China. Technical Standard of Highway Engineering. Document
# JTJ 001-97. Ministry of Communications, Beijing, 1998.
37. Padeco Co. Ltd. Non-motorized Vehicles in Ten Asian Cities. World Bank, Report TW'U 20,
Washington D.C., March 1995.
38. V. Setty Pendakur. Non-Motorized Transport. World Bank, TWJUTD Transport Division and
the Inter-American Development Bank, Washington D.C., August 1996.
39. V. Setty Pendakur. Planning for Non-Motorized Transport in China. Paper prepared for the
Joint Astrade-World bank Seminar on Traffic Management, Shenyang, China, September 1997.
World Bank, Washington D.C., September 1997.



70
40. V. Setty Pendakur. Impacts of Motorization on Skills, Training and Employment. International
Labor Organization, Geneva, December 1997.
41. P.A. Pienaar and A.T. Visser. Management of Tertiary Road Networks in Rural Areas of South
Africa. Sixth International Conference on Low-Volume Roads held at Minneapolis, Minnesota,
June 25-29, 1995. Conference Proceedings 6, Volume 1. National Academic Press, Washington
D.C., 1995.
42. N. Rayner. Rural Road and Economic Development in Ethiopia. The Logistics and
Transportation Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1980.
43. Michael Replogle. Non-motorized Vehicles in Asian Cities. World Bank, Technical Paper #162,
Asia technical Department, Washington D.C., 1992.
44. M. J. Riley and C. R. Bennett. Determining Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program for Low-
Volume Roads Using HDM-I1: Case Study from Nepal. Sixth International Conference on
Low-Volume Roads held at Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 25-29, 1995. Conference Proceedings
6, Volume 1. National Academic Press, Washington D.C., 1995.
45. J. D. N. Riverson and S. Carapetis. Potential of Intermediate Means of Transport in Improving
Rural Travel and Transport in Sub-Saharan Africa. Transportation Research Record #1291,
Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 1991(a).
46. J. D. N. Riverson and S. Carapetis. Intermediate Means of Transport in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Its Potentialfor Improving Rural Travel and Transport. World Bank Technical Paper # 161,
Africa Technical Department Series. World Bank, Washington D. C., December 1991(b).
47. J. Riverson, J. Gaviria, and S. Thriscutt. Rural Roads in Sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons from
World Bank Experience. World Bank Technical Paper # 141, Africa Technical Department
Series. World Bank, Washington D. C., July 1991.
48. Niklas Sieber. An Annotated Bibliography on Rural Transport. International Forum on Rural
Transport, London, 1997.
49. E. A. Stock. The Problems Facing Labor-based Road Programs and What to do About Them.
Evidence from Ghana. Sub-Saharan Africa Transport Policy Program Working Paper # 24.
World Bank, Washington D. C., March 1996.
50. E. A. Stock and J. de Veen. Expanding Labor-based Methods for Road Works in Africa. World
Bank Technical Paper # 347. World Bank, Washington D. C., October 1996.
51. V. K. Tewari. Improving Access to Services and Facilities in Developing Countries.
International Regional Science Review. Vol. 15, No. 1, 1992.
52. T. Triche. Road Policy Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: 1991-1995. Sub-Saharan Africa
Transport Policy Program Working Paper # 25. World Bank, Washington D. C., January 1996.



71
53. I.T. Transport Ltd. Promoting Intermediate Means of Transport, Approach Paper. Sub-Saharan
Africa Transport Policy Program Working Paper # 20. World Bank, Washington D. C., October
1996.
54. I.T. Transport Ltd. Accessibility Planning: State of the Art. September 1998(draft).
55. Transportation Research Board. Transportation and Economic Development. Proceedings of
a Conference, November 5-8, 1989 at Williamsburg, Virginia. Transportation Research Record
# 1274, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 1990.
56. Transportation Research Board. Assessing Worldwide Low-Volume Roads: Problems Needs,
and Impacts. Transportation Research Circular #446, Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C., May 1995.
57. S. Turay and R. Haas. Road Network Investment System for Developing Countries.
Transportation Research Record #1291, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.,
1991.
58. United Nations. An Urbanizing World: Global Settlements 1996. Oxford University Press,
1996.
59. C. G. Vandervoort. On the Optimum Level of Effort for Evaluating Low-Volume Rural Road
Projects in Developing Countries. Transportation Research Record #1055, Transportation
Research Board, Washington D.C., 1986.
60. J. Windle and R. A. Cramb. Remoteness and Rural Development: Economic Impacts of Rural
Roads on Upland Farmers in Sarawak, Malaysia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 38, No. 1, April
1997.
61. Xin Wong. " China Strives to Eradicate Poverty ", Beijing Review, 37:20, May 1995.
62. World Bank. Staff Appraisal Report, Gujarat Rural Roads Project, India. Report #: 5799-IN.
World Bank, Washington D.C., December, 1986.
63. World Bank. China: Strategies for Reducing Poverty in the 1990's. Report #: 10409-CHA.
World Bank, Washington D.C., June 1992.
64. World Bank. Staff Appraisal Report, Agricultural Development Project - Rajasthan, India.
Report #: 1 1001 -IN. World Bank, Washington D.C., October 1992.
65. World Bank. .World Development Report : Infrastructure for Development. World Bank,
Washington D.C., 1994.
66. World Bank. StaffAppraisal Report, Transport Rehabilitation Project, Peru. Report #: 12309-
PE. World Bank, Washington D.C., February 1994.



72
67. World Bank. Staff Appraisal Report, Fifth Kabupaten Roads Project. Report #: 12671-IND.
World Bank, Washington D.C., April 1994.
68. World Bank. Staff Appraisal Report, Southwest Poverty Reduction Project. Report #: 13968-
CHA. World Bank, Washington D.C., May 1995.
69. World Bank. Staff Appraisal Report, Rural Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance Project, Peru.
Report #: 14939-PE. World Bank, Washington D.C., November 1995.
70. World Bank. Staff Appraisal Report, Shaanxi Poverty Alleviation Project, China. Report #:
15079-CHA. World Bank, Washington D.C., February 1996.
71. World Bank. Staff Appraisal Report, Second Shaanxi Provincial Highway Project, China.
Report #: 15160-CHA. World Bank, Washington D.C., February 1996.
72. World Bank. Rural Infrastructure Strategy Study, Bangladesh. World Bank, Washington D.C.,
April 1996.
73. World Bank. StaffAppraisal Report, Second Henan Provincial Highway Project, China. Report
#: 15358-CHA. World Bank, Washington D.C., May 1996.
74. World Bank. Impact Evaluation Report: Socioeconomic Influence of Rural Roads, Fourth
Highway Project (Loan 2254-MOR), Morocco. Report #: 15808-MOR. World Bank,
Washington D.C., June 1996.
75. World Bank. Implementation Completion Report, Gujarat Rural Roads Project (Credit 1757-
IN), India. Report #: 16105-1N. World Bank, Washington D.C., November 1996.
76. World Bank. Staff Appraisal Report, Rural Transport Project, The Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Report 4: 15537-VN. World Bank, Washington D.C., September 1996.
77. World Bank. Sharing Rising Incomes: China 2020. World Bank, Washington D.C., 1997
78. World Bank. Lao PDR Sector Memorandum: Priorities for Rural Infrastructure Development.
Report #: 16047-LA. World Bank, Washington D.C., February 1997.
79. World Bank. Staff Appraisal Report, Village Infrastructure Project, Ghana. Report #: 15942-
GH. World Bank, Washington D.C., April 1997.
80. World Bank. Staff Appraisal Report, Qinba Mountains Poverty Reduction Project, China.
Report #: 16390-CHA. World Bank, Washington D.C., May 1997.
81. World Bank. Project Appraisal Report, Uttar Pradesh Diversified Agricultural Support Project,
India. Report #: 17279-IN. World Bank, Washington D.C., April 1998.



73
82. World Bank. Project Appraisal Report, Uttar Pradesh Diversified Agricultural Support Project,
India. Report #: 17279-IN. World Bank, Washington D.C., April 1998.
83. World Bank. Project Appraisal Document, Tri-Provincial Highway Project, People's Republic
of China. Report #: 17870-CHA. World Bank, Washington D.C., May 1998.
84. World Bank. Economic Analysis of Feeder Road Type B Excerpt from the Bangladesh Second
Rural Roads and Market Improvement and Maintenance Project. Economic Analysis in
Transport Project Work, TWUTD, World Bank, Washington D.C., July 1998(a).
85. World Bank. Economic Analysis for the Rural Road Component Andhra Pradesh Economic
Rehabilitation Project, India. Economic Analysis in Transport Project Work, TWUTD, World
Bank






. WS i iitZa