Upload
pranavp
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
1/16
PPPs and thewater sectorPlugging theinfrastructure hole
March 2009
Deloitte Corporate Finance
Infrastructure & Project Finance
Roger Black
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
2/16
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
3/16
In early 2007 Deloitte released its global research study
of the experience with public-private partnerships
(PPPs) across different sectors of social and economic
infrastructure, including water, wastewater and waste
Titled, Closing the infrastructure gap: the role of public-
private partnerships, it provided a global overview of PPPs
including: how, why and when PPPs should be considered
as a delivery model; which countries have greatest
experience with infrastructure and services delivery viaPPPs; which sectors of infrastructure have seen greatest
deployment of PPPs; and the circumstances under which
different types of PPP delivery models have been used,
and with what success.
The follow up, Closing the infrastructure gap: Part II
to be released Q1 2009 specifically focuses on aiding
the public sector deal with the strategic and operational
issues involved with private sector involvement in the
delivery of infrastructure projects.
Specific questions addressed in the research include:
whataremychoicesintermsoftheroleoftheprivate sector?
howdoIdecidewhatroletheprivatesector
should play?
whataretherisksandconsiderationsinselectingthe
role of the private sector?
whatisbeingdoneinotherjurisdictions?
whatisthecostofinvolvingtheprivatesector?
whatmightadealstructurelooklikeforincorporating
the private sector?
The goal of the research is to provide a frameworkthat helps public officials select the appropriate role
or involvement for the private sector in infrastructure
projects based on:
riskqualification/assessment
thecostsassociatedwithdifferentdeliverymodels
thedesirabilityofretainingcontrolover
the infrastructure.
This paper draws from the findings of both
Deloitte research papers, including leading
examples from around the world, and applies
the research to the provision of infrastructureand services in the water, wastewater and
waste sectors.
Introduction
PPPs in water 3
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
4/16
While traditionally the sole province of state and local
government, water and wastewater management has
become a growing area for the application of PPPs
globally. The drivers for this are many and vary fromcountry to country, although in broad terms typically differ
between the developed and the developing worlds, and
the water-rich and the water-scarce.
In the developed world early entrants into various types
of PPPs included the Netherlands, a number of Canadian
municipal governments and Ireland.
intheNetherlandsa30yearconcession-withatotal
contract value of 1.58 billion - was awarded by the
Water Board of Delft land in 2002 for the design,
construction, and operation of a new wastewater
treatment plant, and the refurbishment and operation
of an existing wastewater treatment plant
inCanada,ageingwaterandwastewatersystems
requiring renewal expenditure of more than $28 billion
prompted the municipalities of Moncton, Hamilton
& Dartmouth to consider and develop PPP financing
mechanisms to deliver water services
inIrelandmorethan100waterandwastewaterPPP
projects - most of them design-build (DB) - are either
operational, or in construction and planning.
In the developing world private participation in the water
sector began to be hailed as a solution to chronic failures
of coverage and services during the 1990s. Between
1990 and 2005 private investors committed over USD 50
billiontomorethan380waterinfrastructureprojectsin
developing countries.
The PPP experience in providing water and wastewater
infrastructure in many ways replicated the PPP experience
in other sectors of social and economic infrastructure.Contracts often reflected excessive optimism by both
private investors and governments, and the socio-political
difficulties of raising tariffs to levels covering costs were
often underestimated. After a number of major water
project contracts proved insufficiently robust to survive
the financial crisis of the 1990s, several international
operators lost much of their appetite for further
investment in developing countries.
More recently, continued necessity combined with the
lessons and experience of earlier ventures is resulting in a
maturing of the PPP market following the initial boom and
subsequent contraction. Stakeholders, public and private,are growing more aware of both the benefits and risks
involved, and are looking for contractual arrangements
best suited to the nature of the inherent risks and the
socio-political context.
So, before dealing with the specific characteristics of
water, wastewater and waste infrastructure including
dams, pipelines, water grids, water treatment plants,
water recycling plants, desalination plants, waste
treatment/sewerageplantsitisworthoutliningthe
range of PPP options and the general learnings, to date,
regarding the conditions which underpin PPP success.
PPPs in the water sectorglobally: current status
4
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
5/16
Table 1: Water PPP projects by region and type (1991-2007)
Region Total
No. of Projects
Concession Divestiture New Projects
ie. DBO/BOO etc
Service & Management
Contracts & Leases
East Asia & Pacific 282 116 8 146 12
Europe & Central Asia 61 8 5 7 41
Latin America & the Caribbean 193 109 12 42 30
Middle East & North Africa 15 0 0 6 9
South Asia 9 1 0 4 4
Sub-Saharan Africa 24 2 0 2 20
584 236 25 207 116
Source: World Bank Group, Private participation in infrastructure database
Table 2: Water PPPs by subsector (1991-2007)
Subsector Segment Project Count
Treatment plant Potable water and sewerage treatment plant 12
Potable water treatment plant 120
Sewerage treatment plant 163
Utility Sewerage collection 1
Sewerage collection and treatment 9
Water utility with sewerage 215
Water utility without sewerage 64
584
Source: World Bank Group, Private participation in infrastructure database
PPPs in water 5
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
6/16
Common forms of PPP where new
infrastructure is required
In general terms a PPP refers to a contractual agreement
formed between a government agency and a private
sector entity that allows for greater private sector
participation in the delivery of public infrastructure
projects. Compared with traditional procurement
models, the private sector assumes a greater role in
the planning, financing, design, construction, operation,and maintenance of public facilities.
Some of the most common PPP models used for
new projects include:
Design-Build (DB)/Build-Transfer (BT): Under
this model the public sector contracts with a private
partner to design, and build, a facility in accordance
with the requirements it sets. Upon completion the
public sector assumes responsibility for operating and
maintaining the facility
Design-Build-Maintain (DBM): This model is similar
to Design-Build except that the private proponentalso maintains the facility. The public sector retains
responsibility for operations
Design-Build-Operate (DBO)/Build-Transfer-
Operate (BTO): Under this model, the private sector
designs and builds a facility. Upon completion, the title
for the new facility is transferred to the public sector,
while the private sector operates the facility for a
specified period
Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM)/Build-
Operate-Transfer (BOT): This model combines the
responsibilities of design-build procurements with the
operations and maintenance of a facility for a specified
period by a private sector partner. At the end of that
period, the operation of the facility is transferred back
to the public sector
Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT): The public
sector grants a franchise to a private partner to
finance, design, build and operate a facility for a
specific period of time. Ownership of the facility is
transferred back to the public sector at the end of
that period
Build-Own-Operate (BOO): The public sector
grants the right to finance, design, build, operate
and maintain a project to a private entity, which
retains ownership of the project. The private entity
is not required to transfer the facility back to the
public sector
Design-Build-Finance-Operate/Maintain (DBFO,
DBFM or DBFO/M): Under this model, the private
sectordesigns,builds,finances,operatesand/or
maintains a new facility under a long-term lease. At
the end of the lease term, the facility is transferred
tothepublicsector.(NBInsomecountries,DBFO/M
covers both BOO and BOOT).
Figure 1: the PPP continuum: degree of public sector responsibility
New projects
Existing services and facilities
Public responsibility Private responsibility
Design-build Design-build-maintain
Design-build-operate
Design-build-operate-maintain
Design-ownoperate-transfer
Design-own-operate
Servicecontracts
Managementcontracts Lease Concession Divestiture
Source: The National Council for Public Private Partnerships
Models of PPP
6
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
7/16
Common forms of PPP involving
existing infrastructure
In addition to delivering new infrastructure, PPPs can also
be used for existing services and facilities. Models include:
service contract: The public sector contracts with
a private entity to provide services the public sector
previously performed
management contract: A management contractdiffers from a service contract in that the private
entity is responsible for all aspects of operations and
maintenance of the facility under contract
lease: The public sector grants a private entity a
leasehold interest in an asset. The private partner
operates and maintains the asset in accordance with
the terms of the lease
concession: The public sector grants a private entity
exclusive rights to operate and maintain an asset
over a long period of time in accordance with set
performance requirements. The public sector retains
ownership of the original asset, while the privateoperator retains ownership over any improvements
made during the concession period
divestiture/privatisation: The public sector transfers
an asset, either in part or in full, to the private sector.
Generally it will include certain conditions with the
sale of the asset to ensure that improvements are
made and the community continues to be served.
Figure 1 (opposite) identifies the differences in the levels
of public and private sector responsibility involved in each
of the models.
Recent developments in PPP models
A number of variations of the PPP model have been
developed in recent years in response to the challenges
faced in specific situations and sectors.
Alliancing. Under this model, the public and private
sector agree to jointly design, develop, and finance the
project. In some cases they also work together to build,
maintain, and operate the facility.
Bundling: Contracting with one partner to provide
several small-scale PPP projects in order to reduce
the length of the procurement process as well as
transaction costs.
Competitive Partnership: Several private partners
are selected, in competition with each other, to deliver
different aspects of a project. The contract allows the
public sector to reallocate projects among partners at
a later date, depending upon performance. The public
partner can also use the cost and quality of other
partners outputs as a benchmark for all partners.
Incremental Partnership: The public sector contractswith a private partner, in which certain elements of
the work can be called off, or stopped, if deemed
unproductive. The public sector can commission work
incrementally, and reserves the right to use alternative
partners if suitable.
Integrator: The public sector appoints a private
sector partner, the integrator, to manage the project
development. The integrator arranges the necessary
delivery functions and is rewarded according to overall
project outcomes wherever possible, with penalties for
lateness, cost overruns, poor quality, and so on. The
integrator has a less direct role in service provision and in
some cases is barred from being involved in direct delivery
at all. In other cases, the integrator is appointed to carry
out the first phase of work, or specified works but is then
barred from carrying out subsequent phases of work
to remove the potential for conflict of interest between
achieving best value for the public sector and maximising
private returns through the supply chain.
Joint Venture: A joint venture company is set up, a
majority of which is owned by a private sector partner.
The public sector selects a strategic partner through a
competitive process that includes a bid to carry out the
first phase of work. The typical contract is for 20 years.
Subsequent phases are commissioned by the public sectorpartner, but carried out by the strategic partner using
the first phase of work as a benchmark to determine the
appropriateness of future costs. The United Kingdom has
used a variant of this model, called local improvement
finance trust (LIFT), for its hospital PPPs.
PPPs in water 7
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
8/16
Lessons for the water sector from the global
PPP experience
Our research of the PPP experience globally - across all
sectors of social and economic infrastructure - holds
useful insights for the development and application of
PPPs in Australia for water, wastewater and waste.
PPPs have proven to be an effective infrastructure delivery
tool under specific conditions! The key to success isthe role of the public sector. Most commonly project
failure has equated to the financial failure of the private
operator. A significant part of designing an enduring
market, and therefore private sector willingness to
fund and undertake risk, entails improving public sector
capacity to execute and manage sustainable partnerships.
Poor PPP outcomes can be seen to have emanated from:
poor setup. The success or failure of PPPs can often
be traced back to the initial design of PPP policies,
legislation, and guidance. A common mistake is
placing so many restrictions and conditions and
expectations of risk transfer on the private sectorsponsor and agencies involved that a financially
feasible deal becomes impossible to structure. Another
is having unrealistic expectations of PPPs thinking
that they provide free money or that theyre the
solution to all problems
lack of clarity about project objectives. Sponsors
sometimes lack consensus about the purpose of, and
expected outcomes for, the project. Public officials
may then try to compensate for this failure by over-
specifying inputs
too much focus on the transaction. Public
sector may mistakenly view PPPs merely as financinginstruments when in fact they represent a very
different way of working. This can lead to a poor
operational focus and service outcomes
inappropriate risk model applied to project.
Much of what differentiates the various PPP models
is the level and nature of risk shifted to the private
sector. A common mistake is the attempt to transfer
demand risk ie the amount of use the infrastructure
will receive - to the private sector, even when the
private contractor has no control over demand factors
Private Sector vs Public Sector
The defence of PPPs generally is not the focus of this
paper. While failures have been headline news and
typically involved the failure of the private operator
and the loss of investor capital rather than the failure
to deliver the contracted infrastructure for public use -
numerous reports support the effectiveness and utility
of PPPs.
Whatever the drivers for involving the private sector in
greater partnership in the provision of much needed
infrastructure and services then and these can range
from the nakedly political to the utterly financial the
ideal PPP should combine the characteristic and arguably
distinctively different skills of the public and private
sectors to maximise the delivery of public good. In short,
the regulatory and economic development expertise
which is typically the preserve and expertise of the public
sector, and the management, innovation, finance raising,
budgeting and on-time and on budget delivery skills
which, at best, are hallmarks of the private sector.
Lessons to date
8
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
9/16
lack of internal capacity. Even when the public
sector is supported by external advisers, many tasks
cannot be outsourced, and often the agency does not
have the skill sets internally to manage complex PPPs
or the dedicated team required to address the time
intensive upfront structuring needs
failure to realise value for money. This failure
occurs when the borrowing and tendering costs
associated with PPPs are not sufficiently offset byefficiency gains or when government officials dont
have a real understanding of how to test value
for money
inadequate planning. Without taking proper
account of the market in the planning phase, the
public sector may come out with more projects than
bidders creating a non-competitive environment. On
the flipside, too few projects can result in industry
moving on to a more active jurisdiction.
Setting up successful PPPs
A step-by-step guide to designing and implementing PPPs
is beyond the scope of this paper (although further detail
can be found in Closing the infrastructure gap Parts 1
& 2). However the lessons learned from water and other
infrastructure projects delivered so far suggest several
strategies for successful execution of these partnerships.
First, the public sector needs a full life-cycle approachor framework that pays adequate attention to all phases
of a PPP - from policy and planning, to the transaction
phase, and then to managing the facility. The goal of
such an approach is to avoid the problems of poor setup,
lack of clarity about outcomes, inadequate internal
capacity, lack of interest from the private sector, and an
overly narrow focus on the transaction.
Second, a strong understanding of the range of possible
PPP models can help the public sector achieve the proper
allocation of risk even in conditions of pronounced
uncertainty about future needs. Proper risk allocation
allows the public sector to better tailor PPP approaches to
specific situations and infrastructure sectors.
PPPs in water 9
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
10/16
It is essential to get the financial terms of the PPP deal
right. Equally critical however is getting stakeholder buy-
in, managing the change process, correctly allocating
risk, developing the legislative and regulatory framework,
and analysing the long-term effects of the project on the
sector as a whole. This means developing a holistic view
of the infrastructure projects entire life cycle from the very
outset.
A life-cycle view helps to get better buy in fromall parties involved. It also provides a framework for
evaluating whether the solution is the most appropriate
for the public over time. Without such a holistic view,
public officials will be unable to plan in advance for key
considerations that if not properly accounted for can
stymie efforts to move beyond the transaction stage.
A life-cycle approach best ensures the interest of the
government agency that retains ownership and ultimate
responsibility for the asset throughout the life-cycle. While
many experts emphasise the transaction phase of PPP
transactions, the success of the project is actually heavily
dependent on a sound policy and legal framework,effective risk allocation, a well-executed procurement
process, strong project management, and close attention
to the concession phase.
A life-cycle perspective helps governments understand
how decisions made during different phases will affect
the long term success of the project. For example, the
way a project is monitored will be determined largely by
how much risk is transferred to the private sector during
the transaction construction and concession phases.
Figure 2 shows the three major phases in the lifecycle of
an infrastructure project and the key tasks and activities
involved in each stage.
Taking a life-cycleapproach
10
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
11/16
Policy and planning phase Transaction phase Construction andconcession phase
1. Condition of infrastructurefinancial situation
2. Legislation/regulation
3. Leadership: policy andproject management
4. Planning: environmentalassessments and projectopportunities
5. Communications: internaland external with major
stakeholder groups
Establish objectives.The objectives a governmentestablishes for the PPP projectform the foundation for evaluating
options and allows it to communicatea consistent message regarding thepurpose of the program. Time spent
fully exploring objectives and corevalues regarding the governments
roles and responsibilities will avoidmissteps later in the process.
Evaluate alternativefinancing structures.This evaluation should start with an
understanding and analysis of theexisting debt alternatives within thestate. By preparing a range of financialalternatives, the agency can articulateto its stakeholders what might be
accomplished with traditionalfinancing and what innovativefinancing structures are availableand perhaps necessary for
project feasibility.
Communicate the benefits.A strategic communications plan thatexplains the benefits of the programcan prevent the discourse from beingdefined by detractors and focus
discussion on economic benefits (suchas congestion relief and improvedmovement of goods) as well as socialbenefits such as faster and morereliable commute times).
Build market interest.There should be an appropriatenumber of projects coming into the
market at the right pace to ensurethat constructors and facilitymanagement firms have the capacityand financial ability to keep pace withthe potential projects.
1. Transaction process2. Shortlist qualified bidders3. Risk transfer and value for money
4. Payment mechanism/performance5. Request for proposal
6. Finalise project agreement7. Preferred bidder selection
and negotiations8. Financial close
Establish a realistic time frame.Project objectives, the budget, marketinterest, the amount of risk shifting,project size, and the structure of the
deal all affect the timeline for theproject delivery.
Secure the best value for money.A fundamental objective in any project
is to secure the best value for money.Creating comprehensive financialmodels that allow you to evaluatevalue for money from both aqualitative and quantitativeperspective is a critical component of
this process.
Establish performance standards.This often entails using penalties andrewards to achieve the desired
behavior. Care must be taken withboth rewards and penalties since theycan drive unintended consequences.Setting performance standards will
also help to develop the best paymentapproach for each project.
Develop a draftproject agreement.These agreements are included withthe request for proposal (RFP) and
help to identify issues bidders mayhave before the selection of thesuccessful bidder.
Establish constructiongovernance.
Large infrastructure constructionprojects should have effectivegovernance and controls in place
before the project begins in order toavoid cost overruns, scheduling delaysand litigation.
1. Transition to construction(e.g. design/build)
2. Construction and monitoring
3. Facility operation (contract andrelationship management)
4. Evaluate whether promisedbenefits materialised
5. Maintenance: hard and softservice provision
6. Asset hand back
Monitor construction.Many entities believe that oncethey have entered into turnkeycontracts with concessionaires their
responsibility for constructionmonitoring and oversight has beentransferred. The public will continue to
hold the public sector accountable forthe successful delivery of the project,
however, so it is critical to establishsound monitoring programsthroughout the constructionphase without creating additionalproject risks.
Monitor the concession.Under traditional procurementapproaches, monitoring substantiallyends at the completion ofconstruction. In the case of a PPP
procurement, the contract monitoringneeds to be far more sophisticatedbecause it is required to address awide range of issues relating to
finance, operations and maintenanceover an extended period of time.
Prepare staff.Most jurisdictions are used toundertaking these projects on theirown. While PPPs may reduce the need
for additional staff to do inhousedesign and engineering work, currentstaff are required to provide projectmanagement and long-term oversight.
Establish the concession
governance model.Its important that effective projectgovernance models are established
and that skilled individuals are in placeduring both the construction andconcession phase.
Key activities
Sequential activities forinfrastructure delivery
Figure 2: Project lifecycle and activities
PPPs in water 11
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
12/16
The following key questions should be asked prior to
choosing the model:
howconfidentareyounowaboutthetypeof
infrastructure and services that are needed over the
next 10, 15, or 20 years?
howlikelyisitthattheneedsofcitizensinthisarea
will change?
howlikelyissignificantpolicychange?
howeasyisittospecifywhatwillbeneeded?
inwhichsectoristhePPPapproachgoingtobe
employed?
howconfidentareyouinthesupplieroftheservice
and how much control do you wish to retain?
canrisksbetransferredorwouldbetteroutcomesbe
achieved through risk sharing?
Figure 3: Certainty classifications
Certainty continuum
LowThe public sector is unsure about the
infrastructure it needs (or even whatis possible), let alone when or how it
wishes to have it delivered.
MediumThe public sector knows the kind of
infrastructure it needs, but is lesscertain about the timing and exact
extent of work in wishes to undertake.
HighThe public sector knows with
confidence either the condition ofthe assets and/or the future asset
and service requirements at adetailed level.
The level of certainty the public sector possesses about
its infrastructure and service requirements should be a
key determinant in the choice of model. This includes
certainty about the external environment, including the
policy environment, as well as the capacity of contract
performance standards and realities and incentives to
higher outputs.
Figure3classifiescertaintyintothreecategories,being
low, medium and high. A high level of certainty suggeststhat the public sector can shift substantial control and
risk to the private sector (the best options are Private
DeveloperScheme,Design-Build-Finance-Operate/
Maintain, or Conventional Procurement). The integrator,
joint venture, or competitive partnership models should
be considered where certainty is more limited. The
alliancing or incremental partnership models would be
more appropriate when a low level of certainty exists.
The decision tree in Figure 4 provides some guidance
regarding the most appropriate model in particular
circumstances. This list of models is by no means
exhaustive; any decision to choose one model overanother should always be derived from a robust appraisal
of the options, based on the specific circumstances in
which the project is being developed.
Choosing theright model
12
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
13/16
Selecting an appropriate model
Do assets have highresidual value?
Private developerscheme
Design-build-finance
operate/maintain
Conventionalprocurement
Integrator
Competitive partnership
Joint venture
Incremental partnership
Alliancing
Is the project size
significant?
Are the elements ofwork heterogeneous?
Is the infrastructurelarge, indivisible,and complex?
Can work easily, beseparated intodiscrete elements?
What is the level ofcertainty about theinfrastructure?
Yes
No
High
Low
No
Medium
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Figure 4: PPP model decision tree
PPPsinwater13
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
14/16
While it shares characteristics with some other sectors of
social and economic infrastructure the water, wastewater
and waste sector has some unique characteristics which
need to be factored into consideration in terms of PPPs.
Challenges
Market Competition. There are a small number of
market participants in the water sector. This is due to
the high market concentration, and over-specification. Substantial procurement costs. High procurement
costs and high uncertainty about the availability of
technology require a contractual framework with
shorter procurement times that fosters innovation.
Uncertainty. The condition of assets in existing facilities
may result in an increase in project costs.
Scale.Thesizeoftheprojectmaynotallowfor
efficient use of private finance. Also, contracts
involvingwatersupplyoflessthan40millionm3suffer
from unrealised economies of scale. Conversely, when
thelevelofwatersupplyexceeds400millionm3,the
operation will suffer from diseconomies of scale.
Politics. Water and wastewater are often seen as
falling squarely under the public sector domain. Public
employees may have deep concerns for their welfare
under the new management.
Because of this, most water projects tend to be leases
or operating contracts as they allow the private operator
to concentrate on improving the utilitys operational
efficiency and viability while leaving the public authority in
charge of raising investment financing. Greenfield projects
are still common in treatment plants however.
Solutions
Applying the analytical assessment of PPP models outlinedin brief in the foregoing (and in more detail in Closing the
infrastructure gap: parts 1 & 2) can help overcome some
of the challenges in the water sector. For example, the
public sector can reduce the length of the procurement
process and attract companies with stronger financial and
operational capacity by using a bundling approach. This
saves procurement time and effort as the public sector
is no longer required to contract with different private
partners in delivering individual small-scale projects.
A key challenge in this sector is that the consumer is
generally not exposed to the full cost of water. Moving to
full cost pricing of water utilities before moving to a PPP
approach can help to avoid rate shocks that may derailthe project.
Table 3: Some current water PPPs by type
Sydney Desalination Plant
(value $1.76 billion)
250megalitre/day DBO Contractawarded22/06/07
Bahrain, Tubli WWTP expansion
(value$133million)
230,000m3to350,000m3 DBO & 5 year operating contract RFPissued31/12/08
Egypt, New Cairo WWTP 250,000m3 BOO 20 years RFPissued01/12/08
Egypt, Abu Rawash WWTP 800,000m3 BOO 20 or 25 years In progress
China, Harbin Qunli WWTP
(value $56.8 million)
150,000m3 DBOM30years Contractawarded30/11/08
China,WenzhouXipian,ZhejiangProvinceWWTP 100,000m3 DBOM 26 years Contractawarded20/11/08
Mexico, Guadalajara, Agua Prieta WWTP
(value $150 million)
734,000m3 DBOM RFPissued01/11/08
Source: Global Water Intelligence, volume 9; issue 12, December 2008.
Implications for PPPsin the water sector
14
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
15/16
PPPs are an effective way of delivering infrastructure
projects, and draw upon the strengths of both the
public and private sectors.
There are a number of different PPP models that can beutilised for the different types of infrastructure required
in the water, wastewater and waste sector. Whether
it be; dams, pipelines, water grids, waste treatment
plants, water recycling plants, desalination plants, or
waste treatment/sewerage plants, sufficient planning
and investigation should be undertaken to ensure the
correct model is implemented.
There is a strong precedent for water infrastructure
projects being delivered via PPPs. Key learnings from
previous projects must be taken on board and thinking
creatively about the delivery model can aid in the
successful procurement of this very much needed sector
of infrastructure.
Conclusion
PPPs in water 15
8/2/2019 Deloitte - PPPs in Water Sector - Getting Best Public Policy Outcomes - 2009
16/16
Contact us
Deloitte
Riverside Centre
Level26,123EagleStreet
Brisbane Qld 4001
Australia
Tel:+61(0)733087000
Fax:+61(0)733087001
www.deloitte.com.au
Acknowledgment
This document was derived from the author guidelines used for all AWA conferences
and events.
References
Allen Consulting Group, November 2007, Performance of PPPs and traditional
procurement in Australia.
Booz&Company,2008,Public-PrivatePartnerships:ANewCatalystfor
Economic Growth.
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, 2006, Closing the Infrastructure Gap: The Role of Public-
Private Partnerships.
Global Water Intelligence, volume 9; issue 12, December 2008.
PhilippeMarinandAdaKarinaIzaguirre,September2006,Gridlinesprivate
participation in water.
The World Bank & PPIAF, Private Participation in Infrastructure Database,
http://ppi.worldbank.org/explore/ppi_exploreSector.aspx?sectorID=4
General information only
This [document describe what is it eg, publication] is provided as general information only and does not consideryourspecificobjectives,situationorneeds.Youshouldnotrelyontheinformationinthis[document/publication]ordisclose it or refer to it in any document . We accept no duty of care or liability to you or anyone else regarding this[document/publication]andwearenotresponsibletoyouoranyoneelseforanylosssufferedinconnectionwiththeuseofthis[document/publication]oranyofitscontent.
About DeloitteDeloitte provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services to public and private clients spanning multipleindustries. With a globally connected network of member firms in 140 countries, Deloitte brings world classcapabilities and deep local expertise to help clients succeed wherever they operate. Deloittes 150,000 professionalsare committed to becoming the standard of excellence.
Deloittes professionals are unified by a collaborative culture that fosters integrity, outstanding value to markets andclients, commitment to each other, and strength from diversity. They enjoy an environment of continuous learning,challenging experiences, and enriching career opportunities. Deloittes professionals are dedicated to strengtheningcorporate responsibility, building public trust, and making a positive impact in their communities.
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Swiss Verein, and its network of member firms, each ofwhichisalegallyseparateandindependententity.Pleaseseewww.deloitte.com/au/aboutforadetaileddescriptionof the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and its member firms.
About Deloitte Australia
In Australia, Deloitte has 12 offices and over 4,500 people and provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisoryservices to public and private clients across the country. Known as an employer of choice for innovative human
resources programs, we are committed to helping our clients and our people excel. Deloittes professionals arededicated to strengthening corporate responsibility, building public trust, and making a positive impact in theircommunities. For more information, please visit Deloittes web site at www.deloitte.com.au.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
DesignedandproducedbyAquaMedia,AM_Syd_01/09_037243
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Janurary 2009. All rights reserved.