Public Private Partnerships Awareness in Ukraineppp-ukraine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/public...Public-Private Partnerships Awareness in Ukraine Baseline Survey Elena Besedina,

Public Private Partnership Development Program 44 Khreschatyk Str, 3

rd Floor,

Kyiv, Ukraine

FHI Development 360 1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20009 United States

Public-Private Partnerships Awareness in Ukraine

Baseline Survey

Elena Besedina, Denys Nizalov, Roman Semko

This work is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency on International

Development..

Cooperative Agreement #121-A-00-10-00708-00

The Author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International

Development or the United States Government

2

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 2

SURVEY DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 5

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 5

BASELINE SURVEY OBJECTIVE ....................................................................................................... 5

STRUCTURE OF THE BASELINE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................ 6

FIELD WORK AND SURVEY COVERAGE ............................................................................................ 6

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SURVEY .................................................................................................. 8

BASELINE SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................................. 9

PART A. AWARENESS .................................................................................................................... 9

Section A.1. General PPP awareness ....................................................................................... 9

Section A.2. Legal and regulatory framework for PPP implementation ................................ 15

Section A.3. PPP readiness ..................................................................................................... 17

Section A.4. PPP implementation ........................................................................................... 19

PART B. QUALITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................... 22

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS ................................................. 26

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................... 27

PART A: AWARENESS ................................................................................................................. 27

Section A.1. General PPP awareness and attitude ................................................................. 27

Section A2. Role of the CENTRAL government in PPP implementation and legal and

regulatory framework for PPP implementation ..................................................................... 28

Section A.3. PPP implementation ........................................................................................... 30

PART B: NEEDS ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................... 31

Section B.1. PPP experience and readiness ........................................................................... 31

Section B.2. PPP-implementation related needs .................................................................... 32

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS ........................................... 34

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 35

APPENDIX: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES ............................................................................ 37

Acknowledgement

This survey could not have been undertaken without the USAID funding and P3DP constant

support. The KEI would like to thank its field work partner Kyiv International Institute of

Sociology for quality of their work, their devotion and professionalism. The list of the NGOs for

the survey was kindly provided by the Creative Center (TCK).

3

Executive summary

Overview of the study

The public-private partnership (PPP) is a new economic development tool that has become

increasingly popular worldwide since the late 90s. The Public-Private Partnership Development

Program (P3DP) financed by the USAID is aimed to improve the conditions for PPP

implementation in Ukraine. In order to assess pre-existing levels of awareness about PPPs and

current condition of the infrastructure and public services provided in the local communities the

baseline survey of the representatives of the local governments, business community and local

NGOs was conducted. Overall, 1761 responses were collected in the nationally representative

telephone survey from 86 cities (including 25 oblast centers, Kyiv and Sevastopol and 59

oblast-subordinated cities) and 90 rayon centers during November-December of 2011.

Along with the baseline survey at the local level, the central government survey was also

conducted. In addition to the objective of assessing the existing levels of awareness, experience

and attitude towards PPPs in Ukraine, this survey was designed to conduct assessment of PPP

implementation related needs of the central government officials.

This report presents the results for both surveys along with some policy recommendations that

stem from the presented results.

Overview of the results

The baseline survey has revealed that overall slightly more than 35 per cent of the respondents

correctly understand the concept of the PPP as a long-term relationship between a public

authorities and a private party for delivery services, which are traditionally delivered by the

public sector. It should be noted that the lowest level of awareness is observed among the

representatives of business communities and the highest among the local government officials.

According the respondents, the most important problems for PPP implementation in Ukraine are

lack of communication between the parties, scarce funding opportunities and regulatory issues

related to inadequate definition of the legal framework.

The baseline survey has also revealed that the majority of PPP-aware respondents (around 20

percent of all respondents) are interested in PPP participation and the interests are

approximately equally spread across all areas/sectors. Moreover, past experience with the PPP

implementation increases willingness to participate in the PPPs in the future.

Most importantly, the respondents think that PPP can improve the quality of public services and

infrastructure. And they are ready to pay more for higher quality unconditionally on whether

this service is provided by a public or a private company.

The respondents in the central government survey feel that their departments and local

governments will largely benefit from specialized training and manuals dedicated to PPP

implementation.

4

Overview of the recommendations

Relatively low level awareness about PPP needs to be addressed when designing public

events within P3DP with a special focus on businesses. Raising awareness about the PPPs can

enhance the dialogue and cooperation between the public and private sectors.

Communication strategy can be a useful tool in planning and increasing the visibility of the

Program activities and achievements.

Since the legal framework is critically important for successful implementation and

functioning of the PPPs the efforts within Objective 1 of the P3DP should be concentrated on

following the recommendations from the Diagnostic Review of the Legal and Regulatory

Framework for PPPs in Ukraine commissioned by P3DP in 2011 to remove ambiguities and

strengthen powers of the local governments.

As exposure to PPP implemented as pilot projects can make the PPP implementation more

sustainable once the Program is phased out, the implementation of the pilot projects should

involve not only local governments but also other stakeholders such as NGOs and local

businesses.

It is also important that the pilot projects achieve improvement in the quality of the local

infrastructure and/or public services in order to strengthen the existing perceptions about the

PPP benefits.

As both central and local governments need information support for PPP implementation a

new set of information support activities could be designed within the Objective 3 dealing

with capacity buildings in addition to the envisaged trainings.

5

Survey Description

Background

The public-private partnership (PPP) is a new economic development tool that has become

increasingly popular worldwide since the late 90s. Despite the tight budgets, the local and

central governments around the world face a raising demand for high quality infrastructure

services. Roads, hospitals, water supply are among the examples. PPPs become instrumental in

attracting private capital and managerial experience to finance infrastructural investment and

maintaining that infrastructure. In addition, PPPs allow sharing business and investment risks

between private firms and the state.

Ukraine has even stronger economic reasons for promoting PPPs given the state of public

finances and low quality of infrastructure. The Public-Private Partnership Development

Program (P3DP) financed by the USAID is aimed to ensure that Ukraine does not remain on the

sideline of this process by improving the environment for PPP implementation.

International experience shows that given complexity of the PPP concept there are often

misconceptions among the government officials and a general public about the PPPs

implementation and functioning. Public acceptance is very important for successful

implementation of the PPPs. As one of the objectives of the P3DP is to raise awareness, it is

important to understand the current state of affairs in Ukraine and highlight the areas which can

be improved by different types of communication. Examples of such activities include

organizing seminars, improving regulations to increase transparency in the decision-making

process, setting up clear procedures for selection of private partners. For this purpose, the

baseline survey on PPP awareness and quality of infrastructure was commissioned to Kyiv

Economics Institute (KEI). The survey was conducted in fall of 2011. The following report

describes the survey objective, structure of the questionnaire, and presents the main results

along with the recommendations.

Baseline Survey Objective

The objective of the baseline study was to assess pre-existing levels of awareness about public-

private partnerships among central, oblast and local governments, business community

members and local NGOs and highlight possible problems in PPP implementation. The baseline

study is representative and can serve as the basis for ‘before and after’ evaluation of P3DP. The

baseline study was conducted to determine pre-exposure conditions and net out the effect of the

Program activities later on. Also, the survey serves as a base for needs assessment with respect

6

to PPP implementation in Ukraine and in terms of current quality of public infrastructure and

services. In particular, the survey includes a block of questions related to the quality of

infrastructure, utilities, etc. The aim of this block of survey was to identify the areas of the most

acute need for the PPP intervention and to evaluate the potential impact of the pilot PPPs.

For the survey purposes the KEI has developed a questionnaire which contains both open-end

and closed questions. The questionnaire was discussed at the meeting with the P3DP

representatives that took place on October 17 2011 at the P3DP premises. The final version of

the questionnaire was approved by the P3DP Chief of Party Mr. Alan Pieper shortly after the

meeting. The final questionnaire was translated into Ukrainian and Russian languages for the

field work.

Structure of the baseline survey questionnaire

The survey questionnaire consists of two blocks of questions (see Appendix I). The first block

is dedicated to the questions on awareness about PPP and the capacity to implement PPP

projects, while in the second block the respondents were asked about the quality of the

infrastructure and public services. The first block includes 25 questions structured in the

following four sections:

1. General questions on PPP implementation

2. Legal and regulatory framework for PPP implementation, including role of the central

PPP Unit

3. PPP readiness

4. PPP implementation

The second block of the questionnaire includes 6 questions related to the quality of the

infrastructure and the public service provision. The questionnaire also includes information

about the respondents: age group, gender and position in the organization/firm/government unit.

Field work and survey coverage

The field work was conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KMIS) in

November-December of 2011. Overall 1,761 respondents were interviewed in a nationally

representative telephone survey. Part of the respondents participated in the Internet form of the

survey. The data was collected from 86 cities (including 25 oblast centers, Kyiv and Sevastopol

and 59 oblast-subordinated cities) and 90 rayon centers (administrative units that have local

government subordinated to oblast). The primary units of the baseline study were individuals

7

representing local government, business community and local NGOs. In each community three

representatives of the government, five representatives of the local business community

according to the size of the establishment (two small, two medium, one large if available) and

three representatives from local NGOs participated in the survey. The sampled communities

included municipalities where pilot projects were to be staged (see Box 1 below), municipalities

with existing PPPs as well as municipalities not affected by P3DP or similar projects directly.

Figure 1 shows regional representativeness of the survey.

Figure 1: Number of respondents by oblast

Box 1

15 potential pilot cities that were included in the survey:

Cherkasy, Yevpatoriia, Ivano-Frankivsk, Kyiv, Lviv, Pavlograd, Poltava, Rivne,

Simferopol, Ternopil, Trostyanets, Vinnytsia, Voznesensk, Zaporizhya, Zhytomyr.

Selected partner cities of the USAID MHR Project that were also included into the

survey:

Alchevsk, Chervonohrad, Chernivtsi, Chernihiv, Chuhuiv, Dzhankoi (ARC),

Dolyna, Yevpatoriia (ARC), Ivano-Frankivsk, Kamianets-Podilskyi, Kherson,

Khmelnytskyi, Kovel, Komsomolsk, Korosten, Kramatorsk, Krasnoperekopsk

(ARC), Kremenchuk, Kupiansk, Kurakhove, Lutsk, Lviv, Mohyliv-Podilskyi,

Myrhorod, Nikopol, Novohrad-Volynskyi, Pavlohrad, Poltava, Romny, Rivne,

Rubizhne, Sevastopol (ARC), Simferopol (ARC), Slavutych, Vinnytsia, Voznesensk.

8

Central Government Survey

In parallel with the survey of local governments, businesses and NGOs, the survey of the central

government officials was conducted. Given the existing administrative procedures, the

representatives of the central government could not participate in the baseline survey of local

communities. Moreover, in addition to the objective of assessing the existing levels of awareness,

experience and attitude towards public-private partnerships in Ukraine, this survey was designed

to conduct assessment of PPP implementation related needs of the central government officials.

The survey was carried out in the form of face-to-face interviews with the selected government

officials. The selection of the relevant ministries and agencies was made based on the current

legislation, in particular a PPP Law passed in July 2010. Overall, fourteen government units

representing ten central government bodies were selected (the list is presented in Appendix).

Before the field work, each ministry or agency received a written request to participate in the

survey. Several units rejected participation in the survey stating the lack of time or irrelevance of

the PPP legislation for their unit. The representatives of the Ministry of Finance could not be

surveyed because of the multiple change of the Minister and Ministry’s structure. Hence, the final

number of the government units participated in the survey is eight. The face-to-face interviews

were based on the questionnaire specifically designed for this survey and were conducted by the

same interviewer in order to avoid interviewer’s bias.

The questionnaire consisted of two blocks: awareness and general perception about PPP and

needs assessment (see Appendix for complete Questionnaire 2). In addition, these blocks were

further subdivided on the following sub-elements:

A. Awareness and general perception about PPP

A.1. General questions about PPP and perception about PPP

A.2. Legal and regulatory framework for PPP implementation and the role of the central

government in PPP implementations

A.3. PPP implementation

B. Needs assessment

B.1. PPP readiness and experience

B.2. PPP-implementation related needs (training, information, etc.)

9

Baseline survey results

Part A. Awareness

Section A.1. General PPP awareness

Due to the survey’s focus on PPP awareness, the first question asks about general understanding

of the PPP concept. This question becomes a separating question. In this semi-opened question

the respondents were asked to select one out of three suggested definitions of PPP1. The three

alternatives were chosen based on the previous experience of misperceptions about PPPs. If a

respondent misperceived the PPP concept, then the answers to the remaining questions in this

block would be misleading and uninformative.

Overall, 643 respondents out of 1761 (around 37%) have correctly defined PPP. More than 50

per cent of the representatives of local government correctly defined PPP, while among

businesses and NGOs these numbers constitute 30 and 32 per cent, respectively (Figure 2).

Interestingly, businessmen were more likely to treat PPP as a government subsidy to private

companies (33 per cent). The share of correct definitions is relatively uniformly distributed

across oblasts with slightly lower numbers in the Western Ukraine, except for Lviv oblast

(Figure 3). Only those 643 respondents who correctly defined a PPP as “a long-term

relationship between a public authorities and a private party for delivery services, which are

traditionally delivered by the public sector” have proceeded with answering question of Part A.

The rest were directed to Part B with questions about the quality of infrastructure.

Figure 2: Definition of PPP

1 As in other semi-opened questions, the respondents could also suggest their own alternative as a possible answer.

10

Figure 3: Share of respondents that correctly defined PPP concept (as a long-term

relationship) by oblast

The next set of questions asks about ongoing or completed PPP projects, areas of

implementation and implementing partners.

Overall, 143 respondents (22%, out of 643) know about successfully implemented PPP

projects in Ukraine. Collectively, they have mentioned 200 PPP projects (not necessarily

different). Representatives of local government mentioned PPP projects most often (30% of

them named at least one successful case), NGOs come second – 23 percent, while the level of

awareness about the projects is the lowest among business community representatives: only 14

percent. However, 78 percent of respondents were not able to name any successful example.

Among those aware of PPP projects, the majority (73%) know only about one example, while

there were cases when respondents from two to five projects (Figure 4).

11

Figure 4: Share of respondents that know successfully introduced projects

Regarding the spatial distribution, more than 30 percent of respondents in Ternopil,

Dnipropetrovsk, Cherkasy and Kharkiv oblasts were aware of implemented PPP projects. In

contrast, less than 20 percent of respondents from Chernigiv and Uzhgorod oblasts were aware

of any PPP (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Awareness of the implemented PPP projects by oblast

78% 22%

104

27

7

41

# of respondents

73%

19%

5%

3%1%

# of projects

45

3

2

1

– do not know any projects

– know ≥1 project(s)

143 respondents

12

The most frequently mentioned area with successful projects is water supply (13%), while the

smallest number of projects was mentioned in tourism. Share of the remaining areas vary from

six to eight percent. Many respondents (37%) mentioned projects in the category “Other”.

Among such “other” areas the most frequently mentioned are social protection, construction and

agriculture.

Among the respondents, who are aware of PPP projects, almost 40 percent do not know

anything about the implementing partners. The most frequently mentioned partner is local

government (13%), while other partners (e.g. mayor office, rayon/oblast administration, NGOs,

international organizations, private companies and commercial banks) participate on average in

five-eight percent of cases (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Awareness of the implemented PPP projects by areas/sectors and partners

Next, the respondents were asked about the projects that were planned/ discussed but not

implemented and the reasons why they thought the projects had failed. Overall, the respondents

have named 81 projects (not necessarily unique)2. The water supply is leading among the

failures as well (10%), followed by solid waste disposal, roads and basic healthcare (each

around 7%). The majority of respondents who knew about the failed PPPs (54%) mentioned

“other areas” with the largest share being in agriculture (Figure 7).

2 The ratio of failure projects (81) to successful ones (200) is 1:2.5 which may be in the line with the worldwide

statistics. However, the uniqueness of the projects is not accounted for. According to the Public Works Financing

2011 projects database (p. 7, http://www.pwfinance.net/document/October_2011_vNov202011.pdf), the number of

planned projects to the number of funded is approximately 1:2 for the last 15 years.

http://www.pwfinance.net/document/October_2011_vNov202011.pdf

13

Figure 7: Awareness of any partnerships between the public and private sectors that were

planned/discussed but did NOT happen

As in the success case, many respondents do not know about the partners involved in the failed

projects. As shown in Figure 8, the three most cited reasons for failure are lack of

communication (26%), regulatory issues and lack of funding (23% each).

Figure 8: The reasons, for which the partnership was not established

One of the challenges that Ukraine faces in PPP development is clear designation of the

responsibilities related to PPP implementation to relevant central government units. Hence, low

awareness about the PPP units is indicative of the current regulatory and legal confusion: only

one third of respondents confirm that they know which central government unit is responsible

for PPP. The answers were distributed in the following way (Figure 9): 26 percent mentioned

the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade; another 15 percent mentioned the State

14

Agency for Investment and National Projects. Surprisingly, 41 percent of the respondents

mentioned other agencies (typically other Ministries).

Figure 9: Do you know, which CENTRAL government unit is responsible for PPP support

and implementation monitoring in Ukraine?

In general, national PPP units differ in structure, functions, mandate and operations. In the

international practice, there is no unique fit-all model of a PPP unit. In some countries PPP units

are responsible for regulation and oversight while in other countries they perform a more

informative role. Respondents were asked what functions the PPP unit should perform in

Ukraine3. A quarter of respondents see the PPP unit primarily as an expert resource center while

regulation and oversight are named in 19 percent of answers (Figure 10).

Figure 10: What should be the functions of PPP Units?

3 Respondents could name several functions.

15

23 percent of respondents are aware of non-government initiatives, e.g. financed by

international donors, aimed at supporting PPP implementation in Ukraine. The most frequently

mentioned agency is the EBRD (11%), followed by IFC (6%), Municipal Heating Reform in

Ukraine (5%), Association of Ukrainian Cities (5%), GIZ (formerly GTZ, Germany) (5%),

Public-Private Partnership Development Program (P3DP) (3%), and others.

Section A.2. Legal and regulatory framework for PPP implementation

Successful implementation of PPP projects requires clear regulations and rules for preparing,

tendering and implementation. Such legal environment will ensure that the contractual rights

and obligations of the private partners and long-term investors are enforced and protected by

law.

In July 2010, Ukrainian parliament adopted a new law on Public-Private Partnerships to serve

as a legal framework for PPP implementation in Ukraine. The survey results indicate that there

is very limited knowledge about this law among the respondents: almost 70 percent of the

respondents know nothing about the new PPP Law. Taking into account that the respondents to

this section represent only 37 percent of the initial representative sample, that means that only

11 percent of the surveyed know anything about this law. Only about 4 percent of the

respondents answering in this section are familiar with this Law in detail. Around 24 percent of

the respondents answering in this section possess some information about the law. This low

level of awareness is typical for each group of respondents. For example, among local

governments the share of the respondents who know nothing about the law is 59 percent.

Among those (28%) who know at least something about the law, many believe that legal

framework is not well-defined (Figure 11).

16

Figure 11: Knowledge about the Law on Public Private Partnerships adopted in July 2010

In the next four questions, the respondents were asked to evaluate on the scale from one to five

(with one corresponding to fully inadequate and five to fully adequate) the powers and

capacity of both, central and local governments, to regulate PPPs (Figure 12). All groups of

respondents believe that the powers of the central government are relatively more adequate to

regulate PPPs than the powers of the local governments, while capacity of the government units

at both levels needs to be strengthened.

Figure 12: Powers and capacity of the central and local government units to regulate PPP

17

Section A.3. PPP readiness

This section analyzes the experience and potential of government units, organizations and

businesses to participate in the PPP design and implementation. 17 percent of the respondents

have been or are involved in planning, and/or running PPP projects in Ukraine. The most active

in this sphere are local governments (23%) and NGOs (19%), while only nine percent of

businesses that aware of PPP have ever participated in the PPP projects, which is about three

percent of all businesses surveyed. Water supply, basic healthcare, education and sport and

culture are the most typical areas mentioned by the respondents, while sewage and roads are the

least frequently mentioned (Figure 13).

Figure 13: Involvement in planning, and/or running PPP projects in Ukraine

More than half of the respondents (52%), who correctly defined the PPP, are interested in being

involved, including financially, in planning and implementation in the PPP projects in the

future. On the other hand, about 27 percent are not interested at all and 21 percent are

undetermined. Logically, the interested respondents more frequently consider themselves ready

for all stages of PPPs implementation (on the scale from one to five): the average score is 3.3

against 2.1 for the uninterested respondents (Figure 14). An interesting finding of the survey is

that respondents who were exposed to PPPs in the past are much more likely to be interested in

the PPPs participation in the future (Box 2).

18

Figure 14: Readiness to participate in PPP

The disaggregation by the respondents’ type shows that the largest share of those interested in

being involved in PPP is among local governments (62%) and the smallest share of the

interested is among businesses (39%). Respondents also differ in terms of readiness for PPP

implementation: the local governments and NGOs feel relatively more ready to participate in

planning and implementing stages while businesses demonstrate more readiness to be involved

in tendering stage (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Readiness to participate in PPP, by type of the respondents

19

As shown in Figure 16, the most attractive area for the respondents to participate in PPPs is

water supply (12% of cases), while the least attractive is tourism (5%).

Figure 16: Respondents’ areas of interest

Section A.4. PPP implementation

The questions in this section were aimed at the highlighting of the respondents’ view on some

practical issues of the PPP implementation in Ukraine.

Box 2

Respondents who participated in PPP have the interest to do it in the future (94% of cases).

This finding has important implication for the pilot projects implementation in the

framework of the P3DP as it allows local communities to gain relevant expertise and skills

to make the PPP development process sustainable.

Table 1. Experience and interest in PPP

Interest in PPP Yes No DS/DNK

Past experience with PPP

Yes 94% 4% 3% No 44% 35% 21% DS/DNK 39% 5% 56%

The interest in pilot and non-pilot regions is not statistically different, while it is statistically

different for MHRP-regions and non-MHRP-regions. The share of interested in PPP

respondents is around by 10 percent larger in MHR-regions than in non-MHR-regions.

20

As achievement of appropriate return on investment represents a fundamental aspect in PPP

implementation the respondents were asked about the best form of payment for the services

provided by PPP. The respondents had to select between three options: payment by the end

users, payment from the budget, and a mix of the two. The results show that the best approach

for achieving a return on the private investment in a PPP project in different sectors is a mix

between the PPP contract paid by the end users and PPP contract paid from the public budget

(58%), while only eight percent of respondents believe that payment by end users is the best

way (Figure 17). Traditional reliance on the state manifests that more than a quarter of the

respondents (26%) think that payment from the public budget is the most appropriate way to

ensure the return. These results do not significantly vary across different areas.

Figure 17: The best approaches for achieving a return on the private investment in a PPP

projects in Ukraine by areas

Almost 2/3 of the respondents think that PPP projects in Ukraine should be implemented at the

sub-national level (either local or regional), while slightly more than 1/3 would rather prefer the

national-scale PPPs (Figure 18). Quite surprisingly, the local governments are less confident

than NGOs in the smaller scale PPPs (65% versus 75%).

21

Figure 18: Target scale of PPP projects in Ukraine in terms of implementation level

Next question asks the respondents to evaluate the attractiveness / appropriateness for PPP

implementation of different areas on the scale from one to five (with one being the least

attractive and five being the most attractive). Despite the popularity of water supply projects in

Ukraine, this sector along with the sewage is considered to be the least attractive by the majority

of the respondents. At the same time, solid waste disposal and roads are ranked the most

attractive by the respondents (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Attractiveness / appropriateness for the implementation of PPP projects by

areas

Overall, the results on awareness about PPPs show that there is a large need for knowledge and

expertise on PPP implementation.

22

Part B. Quality of infrastructure and public services

According to the recent World Competitiveness Report, Ukraine was ranked 71 out of 142

countries in terms of the overall quality of infrastructure4. While in some areas Ukraine

performs quite satisfactory (e.g. quality of railroads and cell phone coverage), the quality of

roads, airports and seaports infrastructure is far below the majority of countries5. The second

part of the survey is designed to evaluate the quality of local infrastructure and public services

by all respondents6.

In line with the World Competitiveness rankings, the respondents point that the road

infrastructure is the most problematic area of public infrastructure in Ukraine. The majority of

respondents are also not satisfied with the level of basic health care services provided in local

communities (Figure 20).

Figure 20: Quality of local infrastructure and public services, by areas

As shown in Figure 21, local governments most positively assess the quality of infrastructure

(average score is 3.3 on the scale from one to five with higher scores associated with better

quality) while businesses and NGOs are more skeptical about the quality (average score for

each group is 2.9). It should be noted that the quality of infrastructure is perceived to be higher

in pilot regions (3.1) in comparison to non-pilot regions (3.0) and this difference is statistically

significant. The difference in MHRP-regions and non-MHRP-regions is even more pronounced

(3.2 vs 3.0).

4 http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-2011-2012/

5 For example, Ukraine has one of the lowest rankings for road quality (ranked 138 out of 142).

6 It should be reminded that the full set of respondents, regardless of their awareness of PPP, answered Part B

questions.

http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-2011-2012/

23

Figure 21: Quality of local infrastructure and public services, by type of respondents

There is also regional variation in terms of perceived quality with two oblasts (Chernivtsi and

Zaporizhzhya) and city of Sevastopol having the highest score and several oblasts (including

Kyiv oblast) having the lowest scores. However, it should be noted that there is clearly no

division along East-West dimension (Figure 22).

Figure 22. Quality of local infrastructure and public services, by oblast

Next question asked respondents about recent renovations in their communities and the

sources of their financing. Interestingly, 64 percent of the representatives of local governments

mention that in their towns/ locations major renovation/repair of the infrastructure and public

services happen in contrast to 41 percent and 44 percent for businesses and NGOs, respectively.

The largest share of renovations was recognized in the road infrastructure (34% of respondents).

Then comes water supply (18%), sewage (12%), and district heating (12%), which is expected

as the survey included cities participating in the MHRP. The least renovated area turns out to be

tourism which is surprising in the light of the upcoming Euro 2012 Championship (only 1% of

all cases). Most typically these renovations were financed from the state or local budgets (35%

and 46%, respectively); only two percent of the cases were implemented as PPP.

24

It is encouraging, that overwhelming majority of the respondents (around 2/3 in each category)

believe that involvement of the private sector under a public-private partnership mechanism

could improve the quality of the public services (Figure 23).

Figure 23: Do you think that involvement of the private sector under a public-private

partnership mechanism could improve quality of the public services?

Since quality upgrade comes at a cost, part of the burden will be borne by the end consumers in

the form of higher fees for services provided. And 61 percent of all respondents are willing to

pay more, should the quality of service be improved, while 34 percent are not ready to pay

more. What is more encouraging is that among those who are ready to pay more, 39 percent

would not change the answer if the service provider was a private company rather than state-

owned or municipal company against 18 percent that would not be willing to pay more to the

private company (Figure 24). The share of people who are indeterminate (or indifferent) is quite

high as well (41%) and can be a target of information activities popularizing PPPs foreseen by

the P3DP objectives.

It should be noted that we do not find statistically significant differences in the willingness to

pay between pilot and non-pilot regions as well as between MHRP and non-MHRP regions.

25

Figure 24: Willingness to pay for better quality.

Since financial issues of PPP implementation are very important, this aspect deserves further

attention. The respondents’ willingness to pay more for higher quality was examined in

connection with the perceived quality of infrastructure and public services. Not unexpectedly, if

respondents evaluate the quality of infrastructure and public services as poor their willingness to

pay is likely to be higher: 62 percent are ready to pay more for better services. In case of good

quality of infrastructure and public services this number falls to 54 percent (Figure 25). On

average this tendency is similar for the majority of infrastructure and public services areas with

the largest differential for sewage (from poor to good: 65 percent versus 48 percent).

Figure 25: Willingness to pay conditional on perceived quality

26

Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents

Among the respondents, 44 percent are men, 56 percent are women. About 12 percent belongs

to the age group of under 31 years, 20 percent – 31-39, 26 percent – 40-49, 30 percent – 50-59,

and 12 percent – above 59 years (Figure 26). The majority of respondents completed tertiary

education (84%). The largest shares of local governments belongs to the financial department

(13%), economic and investment department (9%), utilities department (7%), education and

science department (5%), and other group (47%). The surveyed businesses operate in

manufacturing (28%), trade (13%), construction (12%), agriculture (8%), transport and

communications (6%). NGOs work is related to charity (14%), agriculture (9%), children and

youth assistance (8%), and social protection (8%).

Figure 26: Distribution of respondents by age

The respondents represented top management in their institutions, in particular,

presidents/directors constitute 29 percent, heads of subdivisions – 14 percent and vice-

presidents/ deputy directors account for nine percent.

27

Central Government Survey Results

Following the structure of the questionnaire, the results of the survey are analyzed and presented

in two sections (i) general awareness and (ii) needs assessment.

Part A: Awareness

Block A studies the general awareness and perception of PPP, along with the legal and regulatory

framework for these partnerships.

Section A.1. General PPP awareness and attitude

Five out of eight respondents are aware of partnerships between the public and private sectors that

were introduced in Ukraine. Multiple areas/sectors were mentioned by the respondents: on

average, one PPP per sector, except for basic healthcare, which was mentioned three times

tourism where no PPP were indicated. The only mentioned partners were Ukrainian private

companies (three cases), NGO (one case), local self-government (three cases) and State Agency

for Investment and National Projects mentioned in the category ‘Other ‘(also three times). In four

cases, the respondents did not know the partners involved.

As in the previous case, five out of eight respondents were aware of partnerships between the

public and private sectors that were planned/ discussed, but did not happen, overall mentioned 8

unsuccessful PPPs. Five PPPs were planned but were not implemented in roads, two in sewage

and one in electricity. Ukrainian private company, foreign private company and commercial

banks were expected to be involved as PPP partners (mentioned once or twice each). As shown in

Table 1, the failure of the PPP projects was caused by different reasons.

Table 1: The reasons, for which the partnership was not established

Reason # of cases

Lack of funding 2

Lack of communication between the parties 2

Legal and regulatory issues 3

Lack of private interest 0

Political risk 1

Public non-acceptance (by local communities) 2

Other 1

Difficult to Say 0

Next the respondents were asked to name three factors (from 1 to 3) that hinder PPP

implementation in Ukraine and create unfavorable environment. According to the ranking

28

calculated based on frequency and importance level, the top three factors are: (1) legal and

regulatory issues, (2) lack of communication between the parties and (3) political risk (Table 2).

The least important is public non-acceptance. Option “Other” includes absence of a PPP center

and ‘mentality of people’.

Table 2: Factors that hinder PPP development in Ukraine

Reason Rank # of cases

Legal and regulatory issues 1 7

Lack of communication between the parties 2 4

Political risk 3 4

Lack of private interest 4 3

Lack of funding 5 2

Other 6 2

Public non-acceptance (by local communities) 7 1

Section A2. Role of the central government in PPP implementation and legal and regulatory

framework for PPP implementation

According to the respondents, the main functions of the central government unit responsible for

PPP implementation should be regulation, collection of statistics, training and marketing of PPPs,

as well as expert support (Table 3). None of the respondents mentioned that the ‘Central

government should not be involved’ in the implementation of PPPs in Ukraine.

Table 3: Central government functions

Functions # of cases

Regulatory/Oversight 7

PPP Nationwide Statistics 6

Information/Training on PPP Implementation 5

Promotion/Marketing of potential PPP projects 5

Expert Resource Support 3

Central government should not be involved 0

Implementation of national-level PPPs 4

Other 0

Difficult to Say 0

The representatives of the central government, on average, do not see major problems in legal

framework for PPP (existing laws and regulations, including 2010 PPP law, law on concession,

etc.). On the scale from one (conflicting and confusing) to five (clear and well defined) the

average score is 2.9 with half of the respondents selecting three on the scale.

29

The respondents think that capacity of both central and local government is less adequate than the

powers to regulate PPP: the average mark for powers is 3.5 for both central and local government,

while capacity adequacy is only – 1.9 and 1.6, respectively. Interestingly, five out of eight

respondents think that local governments have rather adequate powers. The assessment of

capacity necessary for adequate regulation of PPP is similar for central and local governments

(Figure 27).

Figure 27: Power and capacity of central and local governments to regulate PPP, # of

answers

Note: Answers are on the scale from 1 (fully inadequate) to 5 (fully adequate). Numbers on the graph show the

number or respondents that answered fully inadequate (1), rather inadequate (2), etc. The total number of answers

may not sum to 8 since some respondents selected difficult to say option.

In general, it was difficult for respondents to say whether changes in PPP legislation in Ukraine

should aim to remove restrictions or to add regulations at both central and local level to protect

the public interest (six and seven respondents selected difficult to say, respectively).

Some of the respondents who selected difficult to say options chose to give comments on this

question. Below the main ideas of the respondents are summarized:

Central level:

No need to change legislation dramatically, no additions/removal are needed.

Existing legislation should be harmonized using the experience of the pilot projects.

Inconsistencies in the legislation should be eliminated using a balancing approach.

Local level:

There are no separate norms for local governments, the nation-wide laws are applicable at

the local level.

1 2 3 4 5

30

There is no need to do anything at the local level, and local governments have enough

powers.

Legislation base is not complete. Until pilot project are implemented, no changes should

be introduced.

No removal or addition is necessary. Harmonization of existing laws and rules is needed.


Half of the respondents think that the target scale of PPP projects in Ukraine should be at sub-

national level, while only one fourth thinks that PPP projects can be at national level.

The most attractive / appropriate for the implementation of PPP projects in Ukraine are the

following sectors: solid waste disposal, district heating, roads, basic healthcare and tourism; while

the least attractive sectors are education and sport and culture (Figure 28).

Figure 28: Attractiveness of areas/sector for PPP implementation

According to the respondents, the best approach for achieving an appropriate return on the private

investment in a PPP project in Ukraine varies depending on the sector where PPP is implemented.

Thus, for PPP in water supply the best approach would be to charge end users (more than 60%)

while in sectors like district heating, tourism, sport and culture a mix of payments by end users

and from the public budget is preferred (Figure 29). Overall, the mix is preferred in 49 percent of

cases.

31

Figure 29: PPP financing

Part B: Needs assessment

The questions in this section were primarily designed to evaluate capacity and needs of the central

government units represented by the respondents’.

Section B.1. PPP experience and readiness

The majority of departments (seven out of eight) are authorized to be involved, including

financially, in the planning and participation in the PPP projects (only for one respondent it was

difficult to say). Among these seven respondents six represent departments that were or are

involved in planning, monitoring and/or running PPP projects in Ukraine. Respondents named

five projects in solid waste disposal, four in roads, three cases in water supply, sewage and district

heating and two in basic healthcare and tourism where their departments were or are involved.

Education and sport and cultural facilities or events were not mentioned. The most typical

partners are foreign (ten cases) and domestic (five cases) private companies. In three cases

respondents do not know about the partners involved.

Overall, the respondents view their respective departments as more prepared than local

governments to plan and implement PPPs at all stages of the process (Figure 30).

32

Figure 30: Readiness to PPP, # of answers

Section B.2. PPP-implementation related needs

According to the respondents, the capacity building for PPP implementation at respondents’

departments requires mainly the following forms of support: training, informational campaign,

guidelines and manuals (each six times), equipment and software (four times).

Seven out of eight respondents feel that their departments’ staff needs specialized training in PPP

implementation. These trainings are important for respondents’ departments at each stage of PPP

implementation (Figure 31). Similarly, seven out of eight respondents think that local officials

also need specialized training in PPP implementation and in six cases training is considered to be

very important at each stage of PPP implementation.

Figure 31: Necessity in trainings for respondents’ governments: by stages of PPP

implementation, # of answers

33

The most frequently required types of trainings for respondents’ departments are seminars and

study tours (Table 4), for local governments – seminars and short courses (Table 5).

Table 4: Necessity in different types of trainings for respondents’ departments, # of answers

Types of training

Planning

and

design

Appraisal

and

approval

Tender

phase

Imple-

mentation

phase

Monito-

ring Total

Seminars 4 3 4 4 2 17

Short courses 2 2 1 1 1 7

Study tours 2 3 3 3 3 14

On-line training 0 0 1 1 1 3

Other 1 2 1 3 3 10

Total 9 10 10 12 10

Table 5: Necessity in different types of trainings for local governments, # of answers

Types of training

Planning

and

design

Appraisal

and

approval

Tender

phase

Imple-

mentation

phase

Monito-

ring Total

Seminars 5 4 5 4 3 21

Short courses 2 2 3 1 2 10

Study tours 1 2 2 2 1 8

On-line training 1 1 0 1 1 4

Other 1 1 1 2 2 7

Total 10 10 11 10 9

All respondents feel that their departments as well as local governments need informational

support in PPP implementation. This informational support is very important at each stage of PPP

implementation. Respondents’ departments and local governments will benefit the most from

informational support via Internet and newspapers and journals (Tables 6 and 7).

Table 6: Necessity in different types of informational support for respondents’ departments,

# of answers

Types of informational

support

Planning

and

design

Appraisal

and

approval

Tender

phase

Imple-

mentation

phase

Monito-

ring Total

TV 2 1 1 3 3 10

Radio 1 0 1 1 1 4

Newspapers and

journals 4 3 3 4 3 17

Internet 5 4 5 5 5 24

Other 2 2 2 1 1 8

Total 14 10 12 14 13

34

Table 7: Necessity in different types of informational support for local governments, # of

answers

Types of informational

support

Planning

and

design

Appraisal

and

approval

Tender

phase

Imple-

mentation

phase

Monito-

ring Total

TV 2 2 1 3 2 10

Radio 1 1 1 1 1 5

Newspapers and

journals 6 6 6 6 6 30

Internet 5 5 5 5 6 26

Other 2 2 2 1 1 8

Total 16 16 15 16 16

All respondents feel that their departments and local governments also need support in the form

of manuals and guidelines for PPP implementation. This support is also very important at all

stages of PPP implementation (the average importance rank is above 4.5 points on the scale from

one (least important) to five (most important).

Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents

In this survey, five respondents were males and three were females. Majority of the respondents

falls in the age group of 31-39. In three cases respondents hold the position of the Head of

Department, one is Deputy Head of Department, and remaining respondents hold other positions.

35

Summary and recommendations

The key findings of the survey and recommendations are summarized below:

Finding 1: More than one third of the respondents (37%) correctly understand the concept of

the PPP as a long-term relationship between business and government. Respondents’ awareness

differs by respondents’ type (with the lowest level of awareness among the business

representatives), while regional heterogeneity is not as pronounced.

Recommendations: Raising awareness about the PPPs can enhance the dialogue and

cooperation between the public and private sectors at national and sub-national levels and

ensure additional public support for the socially important initiatives implemented via PPPs.

Relatively low level awareness about PPP needs to be addressed when designing public events

within P3DP. Developing communication strategy that foresees greater involvement of the mass

media can become a useful tool in increasing the visibility of the Program activities and

achievements. The focus of information campaign and trainings needs to be concentrated on

business community given the existing significant misperceptions about the PPPs among

businesses. The events may be organized in the form of seminars or workshops. Also the

information about PPPs can be disseminated in the form of booklets or posters at the business

community events such as trade fairs.

Finding 2: The most frequently mentioned reasons for PPPs’ failure in Ukraine in the past and

that hinder PPP development are lack of communication between the parties, scarce financing

and legal and regulatory problems. Representatives of the central government also indicate that

political risk is detrimental to PPP development.

Recommendations: Greater involvement of the private parties in the P3DP activities along with

the raising awareness measures mentioned above could facilitate the dialogue between the

parties. Harmonization of the legal framework to remove inconsistencies and contradictions in

the existing laws should follow the recommendations of the Diagnostic Review of the Legal and

Regulatory Framework for PPPs in Ukraine commissioned by P3DP in 2011 (DR).

Finding 3: Overall, the society is not well-informed about the PPP Law adopted in 2010.

Majority of those who are familiar with the legal framework for PPP implementation think that

it is not very well defined. Local governments lack the powers to adequately implement PPPs.

Recommendations: The legal framework is critically important for successful implementation

and functioning of the PPPs and if it is inadequate it may lead to PPP failures already at the

planning stage as the current survey demonstrates (Finding 2). The results of the survey in line

with the conclusions of the Diagnostic Review point to the need for better clarified powers and

responsibilities of the parties involved and in particular the need to strengthen the powers of the

36

local government (Third Priority of the DR). The efforts within Objective 1 of the P3DP should

be concentrated on following the recommendations from the Diagnostic Review to remove

those ambiguities and strengthen powers of the local governments.

Finding 4: Majority of respondents who understand the concept of a PPP are interested in PPP

participation. The interests are approximately equally spread across all areas/sectors. Moreover,

past experience with the PPP implementation increases respondents’ willingness to participate

in the PPPs in the future both at central and local levels.

Recommendations: The above findings highlight the importance of the pilot projects envisaged

by the P3DP. These projects can have an indirect positive effect (positive externalities) on the

local communities in addition to the direct effect (improvement in infrastructure). As exposure

to PPP implemented as pilot projects can make the PPP implementation more sustainable once

the Program is phased out, the implementation of the pilot projects should involve not only

local governments but also other stakeholders such as NGOs and local businesses.

Finding 5: Respondents think that PPP can improve the quality of public services and are ready

to pay more for higher quality unconditionally on whether the service is provided by a public or

a private company.

Recommendations: It is important that the pilot projects implemented within P3DP set an

example of the PPP success. The focus of the pilot PPPs should be on achieving improvement in

the quality of the local infrastructure and/or public services in order to strengthen the existing

perceptions about the PPP benefits.

Finding 6: Representatives of the central government state that their departments and local

governments need external support to successfully implement PPPs. The most required forms

are specialized trainings, manuals and publications, and information support in order to improve

the capacity of their staff.

Recommendations: As both central and local governments need information support for PPP

implementation a new set of information support activities could be designed within the Objective

3 dealing with capacity buildings in addition to the envisaged trainings.

Summing up, the conducted survey has demonstrated that the current level of awareness is rather

low and that the P3DP can have potentially a large impact on the perceptions about PPPs directly

via awareness activities and indirectly by implementing pilot projects. In our view, it will be

important to evaluate the interim and final progress in this direction by conducting the same

surveys at the end of the third and fifth year of the Program.

37

Appendix: Survey Questionnaires

Baseline Survey Questionnaire

Dear respondent!

Kiev International Institute of Sociology, together with the Kyiv Economics Institute7, is conducting a

survey "Public-private partnerships in Ukraine." We would like to know your opinion about the state of

the public-private partnerships in Ukraine, in particular, the possible forms of cooperation between

public and private sectors, as well as about the quality of infrastructure and public services in your

region or town.

We guarantee anonymity of your responses. All the information provided will never be individually

disclosed.

Thank you for finding time to respond to the survey questions!

PART A.

AWARENESS

Section A.1. General PPP awareness

A.1.1. In your view, what is public private partnership? (several answers are possible)

A donation or loan by a private party for a public good 1 → PART B A long-term relationship between a public authorities and a private party for delivery

services, which are traditionally delivered by the public sector. 2 → A.1.2.

A government subsidy to private business 3 → PART B Other___________________________________________________________ 4 → PART B DS 8 → PART B Refused 9 → PART B

A.1.2. Are you aware of any partnerships between the public and private sectors that were

successfully introduced in Ukraine?

A.1.2.1. If yes above, could you specify the area/sector (e.g. roads, district heating, sewage, etc.)

and partners involved?

For interviewer ONLY (Identify area and partners)

Area/sector Partners

Water supply 1 Local self-government 1

Sewage 2 Mayor office 2

Solid waste disposal 3 Rayon/Oblast administration 3

District heating 4 NGO 4

Roads 5 International organization 5

Basic healthcare 6 Ukrainian private firm 6

Education 7 Foreign private firm 7

Access to sport and cultural

facilities or events 8 Commercial bank 8

Access to tourist sites 9 Other________________________ 9

Other______________________ 10 Do not know about the partners 10

7 P3DP is not mentioned in order not to influence the respondents’ responses.

Yes 1 No 2 DS 8 Refused 9

→ A.1.3

38


PLANNED/DISCUSSED, but did NOT happen?

A.1.3.1. Could you specify the area/sector and partners involved?


PPP1, PPP2, etc.













A.1.3.2. Please, indicate the reasons, in your opinion, for which the partnership was not established

(several answers are possible):

PPP1

Lack of funding 1 Lack of communication between the parties 2

Legal and regulatory issues 3 Lack of private interest 4 Political risk 5 Public non-acceptance (by local communities) 6 Other_________________________________ 7 DS 8 Refused 9

A.1.4. Do you know, which CENTRAL government unit is responsible for PPP support and

implementation monitoring in Ukraine?

A.1.4.1. Could you specify the name of the unit?

For interviewer ONLY

State Agency for Investment and National projects 1 Ministry of Economic Development and Trade 2 Ministry of Regional Development, Construction and Housing and Communal

Services 3

Ukrainian State Road Building Administration 4



→ A.1.4

→ A.1.5

39

Other ______________________________________________ 5

A.1.5. What do you think should be the function of any PPP Units established at the central level

dealing with implementation of PPPs in Ukraine? SEVERAL ANSWERS ARE POSSIBLE

Functions Regulatory/Oversight 1 PPP Nationwide Statistics 2 Information/Training on PPP Implementation 3 Promotion/Marketing of potential PPP projects 4 Expert Resource Support 5 Other_________________________________________ 6 DS 8 Refused 9

A.1.6. Are you aware of any non-government initiatives, e.g. financed by international donors,

aimed at supporting PPP implementation in Ukraine?

A.1.6.1. Could you specify the initiatives?

For interviewer ONLY (DO NOT READ):

Municipal Heating Reform in Ukraine (MHRP) 1 Ukrainian Public-Private Partnership Development Support Center 2 Public-Private Partnership Development Program (P3DP) 3 Local Investment and National Competitiveness (LINC) 4 East-Europe Foundation 5 Association of Ukrainian Cities 6 Ukraine Municipal Local Economic Development (UMLED, Canada) 7 Decentralization Support Project in Ukraine (DESPRO, Switzerland) 8 GIZ (formerly GTZ, Germany) 9 World Bank 10 IFC 11 EBRD 12 Other__________________________________________________________ 10

Section A2. Legal and regulatory framework for PPP implementation

And now I am going to ask you some questions about the legal and regulatory basis of public-private

partnership (PPP).

A.2.1. What do you know about the Law on Public Private Partnerships adopted in July 2010

(SHOULD CHOOSE ONE)

A.2.2. In your opinion, is legal framework for PPP is clearly defined? (from 1-5)


We know the law in detail 1 We know some information regarding the law 2 We do not know anything about the law (in terms of the implementation

possibilities for PPP project) 3

DS 8 Refused 9

→ A.2.1

→ A.3.1

40

1 Conflicting and

confusing

2 3 4 5 Clear and well

defined

DS 8 Refused 9

A.2.3.1. In your opinion, are powers of the CENTRAL governments are adequate to regulate PPP

(from 1-5)

1 Fully

inadequate

2 3 4 5 Fully adequate

DS 8 Refused 9

A.2.3.2. In your opinion, is capacity of the CENTRAL governments are adequate to regulate PPP

(from 1-5)

1 Fully

inadequate


DS 8 Refused 9

A.2.3.1. In your opinion, are powers of the LOCAL governments are adequate to regulate PPP

(from 1-5)

1 Fully

inadequate


DS 8 Refused 9

A.2.3.2. In your opinion, is capacity of the LOCAL governments are adequate to regulate PPP

(from 1-5)

1 Fully

inadequate


DS 8 Refused 9

Section A3. PPP readiness

Now I will ask about the experience and potential of your organization to participate in the PPP design

and implementation

A.3.1. Has your organization (business entity, government body, NGO) been or is involved in

planning, and/or running PPP projects in Ukraine?

A.3.1.1. Could you specify the area and partners involved


PPP1, PPP2, etc.




→ A.3.2

41











A.3.2. Is your organization (business entity, government body, NGO) interested to be involved,

incl. financially, in the planning and participation in the PPP projects?

A.3.2.1. If Yes, could you specify the area you are interested in

For interviewer ONLY (Identify area)

Area/sector Water supply 1 Sewage 2 Solid waste disposal 3 District heating 4 Roads 5 Basic healthcare 6 Education 7 Access to sport and cultural facilities or

events 8

Access to tourist sites 9 Other______________________ 10

A.3.3. Do you consider your organization prepared to get involved (including financially) in the

planning and/or implementation of a PPP project? In particular, (from 1 to 5):

Fully

unprepared

Fully

prepared DS

Planning and design 1 2 3 4 5 8 Tender phase 1 2 3 4 5 8 Implementation phase 1 2 3 4 5 8


And now we will talk about some aspects of the PPP implementation in Ukraine

A.4.1. Which is the best approach for achieving a return on the private investment in a PPP

project in Ukraine in different sectors?

PPP

contract

paid by the

end users

PPP

contract

paid from

the public

budget

A mix

between the

two

DS

Water supply 1 2 3 8 Sewage 1 2 3 8 Solid waste disposal 1 2 3 8 District heating 1 2 3 8 Roads 1 2 3 8


→ A.3.3

42

Basic healthcare 1 2 3 8 Education 1 2 3 8 Access to sport and cultural

facilities or events 1 2 3

8

Access to tourist sites 1 2 3 8

A.4.2. What should be, in your opinion, the target scale of PPP projects in Ukraine in terms of

implementation level? (Choose one the most appropriate)

Projects at national level 1 Projects of sub-national importance (local and regional) 2 DS 8 Refused 9

A.4.3. Please, evaluate attractiveness / appropriateness for the implementation of PPP projects of

the following areas/sectors in Ukraine: (from 1 least attractive to 5 most attractive)

Least

attractive Most

attractive DS

Water supply 1 2 3 4 5 8 Sewage 1 2 3 4 5 8 Solid waste disposal 1 2 3 4 5 8 District heating 1 2 3 4 5 8 Roads 1 2 3 4 5 8 Basic healthcare 1 2 3 4 5 8 Education 1 2 3 4 5 8 Access to sport and cultural

facilities or events 1

2 3 4 5 8

Access to tourist sites 1 2 3 4 5 8

PART B

QUALITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES

And finally we will talk about the quality of the infrastructure and public services

B.1. How would you describe the quality of the infrastructure and public services in your

town/location? Scale 1 to 5 (poor, rather poor, acceptable, rather good, good)

Poor Good DTS

Water supply 1 2 3 4 5 8 Sewage 1 2 3 4 5 8 Solid waste disposal 1 2 3 4 5 8 District heating 1 2 3 4 5 8 Roads 1 2 3 4 5 8 Basic healthcare 1 2 3 4 5 8 Education 1 2 3 4 5 8 Access to sport and cultural


2 3 4 5 8


B.2. Has any major renovation/repair of the infrastructure and public services taken place in your

town/location over the last 3 years?

Yes 1 No 2 DS 8

→ B.3

43

B.2.1. Could you specify the area and how it was financed?

For interviewer ONLY (Identify area and type of financing)

Renovation 1, Renovation 2, etc

Area/sector Sources of financing

Water supply 1 As PPP 1

Sewage 2 State budget 2

Solid waste disposal 3 Local budget 3

District heating 4 Commercial loan 4

Roads 5 Grant or loan from an international

organization/project 5

Basic healthcare 6 Charity / Corporate social responsibility 6

Education 7 Other_________________________ 7



Access to tourist sites 9 Other____________________ 10

B.3. Do you think that involvement of the private sector under a public-private partnership

mechanism could improve quality of the public services?

B.4. In order to improve the quality of service provided, some price increase may be necessary.

Would you be willing to pay more, should the quality of service be improved?

Area/sector Yes No DS Refused Water supply 1 2 8 9 Sewage 1 2 8 9 Solid waste disposal 1 2 8 9 District heating 1 2 8 9 Roads 1 2 8 9 Basic healthcare 1 2 8 9 Education 1 2 8 9 Access to sport and cultural facilities or events 1 2 8 9 Access to tourist sites 1 2 8 9

B.5. Would your answer to the previous question (B.4) change if you knew that the service would

be provided by a private company under a PPP agreement (rather than communal/state

enterprise)?

Area/sector Yes No Does

not

matter

DS Refused

Water supply 1 2 3 8 9

Refused 9


→ D.1

44

Sewage 1 2 3 8 9 Solid waste disposal 1 2 3 8 9 District heating 1 2 3 8 9 Roads 1 2 3 8 9 Basic healthcare 1 2 3 8 9 Education 1 2 3 8 9 Access to sport and cultural facilities or events 1 2 3 8 9 Access to tourist sites 1 2 3 8 9

Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondent:

D.1. Gender: Male Female

D.2. Age group:

Below 30 31-39 40-49 50-59 Above 60 □ □ □ □ □

D.3. Education level:

Primary (less than 7 years) 1 Special vocational (technikum) 6

Incomplete secondary (less than 10

years) 2 Incomplete tertiary (3 years and

more of the university) 7

Complete secondary (10-11 years) 4 Compete tertiary 8 DS/Ref... 9

D.4. Respondent’s type:

Central government 1 D5 Local government 2 D5

Business 3 D6

NGO 4 D7

D.5 – D.7

Organizations, by type of activities

D.8. What is your position in the organization?

President/Director 1 Vice President/Deputy Director 2 Head of a Department (Upravlinnya) 3 Head of a Subdivision (Viddil) 4 Leading Specialist 5 Specialist 6 PR manager 7 Other (please, specify?) ______________________________ ___________________________________________________

8

45

Central Government Survey Questionnaire

PART A: AWARENESS

Section A.1. General PPP awareness and attitude


introduced in Ukraine?

A.1.1.1. If yes above, could you specify the area/sector (e.g. roads, district heating, sewage, etc.) and

partners involved?


PPP1, PPP2, etc.









Access to sport and cultural facilities

or events

8 Commercial bank 8

Access to tourist sites 9 Other_________________________ 9



PLANNED/DISCUSSED, but did NOT happen?

A.1.2.1. Could you specify the area/sector and partners involved?


PPP1, PPP2, etc.










or events 8 Commercial bank 8


Yes 1

No 2

Yes 1

No 2

→ A.1.2

→ A.1.3

46


A.1.2.2. Please, indicate the reasons, in your opinion, for which the partnership was not established

(several answers are possible):

Lack of funding 1




Political risk 5


Other_________________________________ 7

Difficult to Say 8

RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

A.1.3. In your opinion, what are the main THREE factors that create unfavorable environment and

hinder PPP implementation in Ukraine?

Lack of funding 1




Political risk 5


Other_________________________________ 7

Difficult to Say 8


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

47

Section A2. Role of the CENTRAL gov’t in PPP implementation and legal and regulatory

framework for PPP implementation

A.2.1. What do you think is the role of the central government in the implementation of PPPs in

Ukraine? SEVERAL ANSWERS ARE POSSIBLE

Functions

Regulatory/Oversight 1

PPP Nationwide Statistics 2

Information/Training on PPP Implementation 3

Promotion/Marketing of potential PPP projects 4

Expert Resource Support 5

Other_________________________________________ 6

Central government should not be involved 7

Implementation of national-level PPPs 8

Difficult to Say 9


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

A.2.2. In your opinion, is legal framework for PPP (existing laws and regulations, including 2010

PPP law, law on concession, etc.) is clearly defined? (from 1-5)

Conflicting and

confusing

Clear and well

defined

1 2 3 4 5

Difficult to Say 8


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

A.2.3.1. In your opinion, are powers of the CENTRAL governments are adequate to regulate PPP

(from 1-5)

1

Fully inadequate

2 3 4 5

Fully adequate

Difficult to Say 8

48


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

A.2.3.2. In your opinion, is capacity of the CENTRAL governments are adequate to regulate PPP

(from 1-5)

1

Fully inadequate

2 3 4 5

Fully adequate

Difficult to Say 8


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

A.2.4.1. In your opinion, are powers of the LOCAL governments are adequate to regulate PPP

(from 1-5)

1

Fully inadequate

2 3 4 5

Fully adequate

Difficult to Say 8


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

A.2.4.2. In your opinion, is capacity of the LOCAL governments are adequate to regulate PPP (from

1-5)

1

Fully inadequate

2 3 4 5

Fully adequate

Difficult to Say 8


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

49

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

A.2.5. In your opinion, should changes in PPP legislation in Ukraine aim to remove

restrictions or to add regulations at the CENTRAL level to protect the public interest?


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

A.2.6. In your opinion, should changes in PPP legislation in Ukraine aim to remove

restrictions – or to add regulations at the LOCAL level to protect the public interest?


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________


A.3.1. What should be, in your opinion, the target scale of PPP projects in Ukraine in terms of

implementation level? (Choose one the most appropriate)

Projects at national level 1

Projects of sub-national importance (local and regional) 2

Difficult to Say 8

Remove 1

Add 2

Difficult to Say 8

Remove 1

Add 2

Difficult to Say 8

→ A.3.1

→ A.3.1

50


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

A.3.2. Please, evaluate attractiveness / appropriateness for the implementation of PPP projects of the

following areas/sectors in Ukraine: (from 1 least attractive to 5 most attractive)

Least

attractive Most

attractiv

e

DS

Water supply 1 2 3 4 5 8

Sewage 1 2 3 4 5 8

Solid waste disposal 1 2 3 4 5 8

District heating 1 2 3 4 5 8

Roads 1 2 3 4 5 8

Basic healthcare 1 2 3 4 5 8

Education 1 2 3 4 5 8


facilities or events

1 2 3 4 5

8



________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

A.3.3. Which is the best approach for achieving a return on the private investment in a PPP project

in Ukraine in different sectors?

PPP contract

paid by the

end users

PPP contract

paid from

the public

budget

A mix between

the two

Difficult to

Say

Water supply 1 2 3 8

Sewage 1 2 3 8

Solid waste disposal 1 2 3 8

District heating 1 2 3 8

Roads 1 2 3 8

Basic healthcare 1 2 3 8

Education 1 2 3 8

Access to sport and cultural 1 2 3 8

51

facilities or events

Access to tourist sites 1 2 3 8


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

PART B: NEEDS ASSESSMENT

This section is devoted to the experience and potential of your department Your evaluation of the potential

of the local government to participate in the PPP design and implementation.

Section B.1. PPP experience and readiness

B.1.1. Is YOUR DEPARTMENT authorized to be involved, incl. financially, in the planning and

participation in the PPP projects?


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

B.1.2. Has your department been or is involved in planning, monitoring and/or running PPP

projects in Ukraine?

B.1.2.1. If yes, could you specify the area and partners involved


PPP1, PPP2, etc.






Yes 1

No 2

DS 8

Yes 1

No 2

Difficult to Say 8 → B.1.3

→ B.1.4.

52





or events

8 Commercial bank 8



B.1.3. Do you consider your department prepared to get involved (including financially) in the

planning and/or implementation of a PPP project? In particular, (from 1 to 5):

Fully

unprepared

Fully

prepared

DS

Planning and design 1 2 3 4 5 8

Appraisal and approval 1 2 3 4 5 8

Tender phase 1 2 3 4 5 8

Implementation phase 1 2 3 4 5 8

Monitoring 1 2 3 4 5 8

B.1.4. Do you consider LOCAL GOVERNMENTS prepared to get involved (including financially)

in the planning and/or implementation of a PPP project? In particular, (from 1 to 5):

Fully

unprepared

Fully

prepared

DS







________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Section B.2. PPP-implementation related needs

B.2.1. What forms of support, in your view, will be beneficial for capacity building for PPP

implementation at YOUR DEPARTMENT? (several answers are possible)

Forms of support

Training 1

Informational campaign 2

Publications: guidelines and manuals 3

53

Equipment and software 4

Other_________________ 10


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

B.2.2. Do you feel that YOUR DEPARTMENT staff needs specialized TRAINING in PPP

implementation?

B.2.2.1. If yes, in your opinion, how important for YOUR DEPARTMENT is this training at each

stage of PPP implementation?

Least

important

Most

important

DS






B.2.2.2. Could you specify what type of training would be the most appropriate for each stage?

(several answers are possible)

Types of training

Planning

and design

Appraisal

and

approval

Tender

phase

Imple-

mentation

phase

Monitoring

Seminars 1 1 1 1 1

Short courses 2 2 2 2 2

Study tours 3 3 3 3 3

On-line training 4 4 4 4 4

Other_________________ 5 5 5 5 5


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Yes 1

No 2

Difficult to Say 8 → B.2.4

54

B.2.3. Do you feel that LOCAL officials (at municipality level) need specialized training in PPP

implementation?

B.2.3.1. If yes, in your opinion, how important for LOCAL officials is this training at each stage of

PPP implementation?

Least

important

Most

important

DS






B.2.3.2. Could you specify what type of training would be the most appropriate for each stage?

(several answers are possible)

Types of training Planning and

design

Tender phase Implementati

on phase

Monitoring

Seminars 1 1 1 1

Short courses 2 2 2 2

Study tours 3 3 3 3

On-line training 4 4 4 4

Other_________________ 5 5 5 5


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

B.2.4. Do you feel that YOUR DEPARTMENT staff needs Informational support in PPP

implementation?

B.2.4.1. If yes, in your opinion, how important for YOUR DEPARTMENT is this informational

support at each stage of PPP implementation?

Least

important

Most

important

DS


Yes 1

No 2

DS 8

Yes 1

No 2

Difficult to Say 8

→ B.3

→ B.2.6

55





B.2.4.2. Could you specify what type of informational support would be the most appropriate for

each stage? (several answers are possible)

Types of training

Planning

and design

Appraisal

and

approval

Tender

phase

Imple-

mentation

phase

Monitoring

TV 1 1 1 1 1

Radio 2 2 2 2 2

Newspapers and journals 3 3 3 3 3

Internet 4 4 4 4 4

Other_________________ 5 5 5 5 5


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

B.2.5. Do you feel that LOCAL officials (at municipality level) need Informational support in PPP

implementation?

B.2.5.1. If yes, in your opinion, how important for LOCAL officials is this informational support at

each stage of PPP implementation?

Least

important

Most

important

DS






B.2.5.2. Could you specify what type of informational support would be the most appropriate for

each stage? (several answers are possible)

Types of training Planning and

design

Tender phase Implementati

on phase

Monitoring

TV 1 1 1 1

Yes 1

No 2

DS 8 → B.3

56

Radio 2 2 2 2

Newspapers and journals 3 3 3 3

Internet 4 4 4 4

Other_________________ 5 5 5 5


________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

B.2.6. Do you feel that YOUR DEPARTMENT staff needs support in the form of manuals and

guidelines in PPP implementation?

B.2.6.1. If yes, in your opinion, how important for YOUR DEPARTMENT is this type of support at

each stage of PPP implementation?

Least

important

Most

important

DS







________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

B.2.7. Do you feel that LOCAL officials (at municipality level) need support in the form of manuals

and guidelines in PPP implementation?

Yes 1

No 2

Difficult to Say 8

Yes 1

No 2

S 8

→ B.2.6

→ B.3

57

B.2.7.1. If yes, in your opinion, how important for LOCAL officials is this type of support at each

stage of PPP implementation?

Least

important

Most

important

DS







________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondent:

D.1. Gender: Male Female

D.2. Age group:

Below 30 31-39 40-49 50-59 Above 60

□ □ □ □ □

58

List of the central government bodies that received the survey request

1. Державне агентство з інвестицій та управління національними проектами України

(State Agency for Investment and National projects)

(1) Департамент національних та інвестиційних проектів

(2) Департамент регіонального розвитку

2. Міністерство економічного розвитку та торгівлі України

(Ministry for Economic Development and Trade)

(3) Департамент інвестиційно-інноваційної політики та державно-приватного партнерства

3. Міністерство регіонального розвитку, будівництва та житлово-комунального господарства

України

(Ministry of Regional Development, Construction and Housing and Communal Services)

(4) Департамент стратегії реформування та розвитку житлово-комунального господарства

4. Міністерство інфраструктури України

(Ministry of infrastructure)

Державне агентство України з туризму та курортів

State Agency for tourism and recreation

(5) Управління розвитку туризму і курортів

Укравтодор

Ukrainian State Road Building Administration

(6) Департамент капітального будівництва та інвестиційної політики

(7) Департамент фінансової та економічної політики

5. Міністерство охорони здоров'я України

(Ministry of Health Care)

(8) Департамент фінансово-ресурсного забезпечення

6. Міністерство освіти і науки, молоді та спорту України

(Ministry of Education and Science, Youth and Sport)

(9) Департамент управління справами

7. Міністерство екології та природних ресурсів України

(Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources)

(10) Державне агентство екологічних інвестицій

8. Міністерство фінансів України

(Ministry of Finance)

(11) Департамент місцевих бюджетів та інвестицій

(12) Департамент боргової та міжнародної фінансової політики

9. Міністерство культури України

(Ministry of Culture)

(13) Департамент формування державної політики у сфері культури, мистецтв та освіти

10. Міністерство енергетики та вугільної промисловості України

(Ministry of Energy and Coal Industry)

(14) Департамент стратегічної політики, інвестицій та ядерно-енергетичного комплексу

Documents

Public Private Partnerships Awareness in Ukraineppp-ukraine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/public...Public-Private Partnerships Awareness in Ukraine Baseline Survey Elena Besedina,