1

PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

QUATERLY REPORT - Y1Q2

JANUARY 1, 2011–MARCH 31, 2011 USAID Cooperative Agreement # 121-A-00-10-00708-00

April 2011

This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It

was prepared by AED under the Public-Private Partnership Development Program in Ukraine.

2

UKRAINE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT (P3DP) PROGRAM

Cooperative Agreement Information

The Ukraine Public Private Partnership Development (P3DP) Program (USAID Associate Award No.

121-A-00-10-00708-00) is funded and managed by the USAID/Ukraine, and is a country program under

the Field-Support Leader with Associates (Leader Award No. EEM-A-00-06-00001-00).

Reporting Period

January 1 – March 31, 2011

Submitted By

Alan Pieper, Chief-of-Party

AED

3

Ukraine Public Private Partnership Development (P3DP) Program

1. Executive Summary

2. Work Plan Tasks During the Reporting Period (focusing on the expected tasks that are explicit

in the Work Plan, including cross-cutting items like the gender report, etc. – the implicit ones “on the

edge” are to be covered in 3 below)

3. Other Activities During the Reporting Period (implicit and “extra” tasks that occur during the

reporting period)

4. Work Plan Tasks for Coming Reporting Period (a “heads up” for the reader as to what to

expect next quarter – essentially, this is where the official Work Plan gets incrementally migrated with

new information, etc.)

5. Attachments

a. Photos and Captions

b. P3DP MindMap of Relationships (updated)

c. Excerpt from summary of IFC and EBRD communications

d. Proposed PPP Pilot Project Selection Criteria

e. Project Identification Brief (PIB) format

4

1. Executive Summary

P3DP registration, approved March 12, 2011 by the Ministry of Economic Development & Trade

(MOEDT), was followed by accreditation on April 13, 2011. Obtaining these legal documents will allow

P3DP to increase the speed of implementation activities going forward.

During the 2nd quarter (January through March 2011), in spite of not having legal status, P3DP efforts

focused on making progress in key areas will limited staffing. The follow list identifies key achievement

during the reporting period:

PPP Consultant Chris Shugart contributed to a greater understanding of PPP regulatory

environment by counseling key members of the Interagency Working Group.

A Terms of Reference (TOR) and Request for Proposals (RfP) was developed for a

comprehensive review of the PPP Legal Structure in Ukraine. Such a panoramic view had not

been conducted previously, resulting in the piecemeal approach to legislation adopted by the

Rada.

Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) were negotiated and signed with six potential P3DP

partners (PPPDSC, ISBER, EEF, AUC, AMDI, and KEI) and follow-on communications are

defining documentation and budget information needed to support the issuance of sub-awards.

P3DP collected information on potential pilot PPPs through the support of EEF, AUC, PPPDSC,

and the MHR project. Further, P3DP staff conducted exploratory meetings with local municipal

officials in Trostianets and Slavutich. A total of 14 cities are targeted, from which a short-list of

high-potential PPP pilots will be presented to USAID.

Presentations by P3DP regarding PPP developments in Ukraine were delivered at two

conferences in Lviv (Investment Projects Inventory Conference and Condominium Association

Consulting Group) that were organized by the Municipal Development Institute (MDI) on behalf

of the Municipal Heating Reform (MHR) project.

P3DP delivered a presentation on program initiatives to energy managers from Vinnytsya,

Chernihiv, and Kororsten at a training program in Kyiv organized by the MHR project.

The first two, of an expected five, Rada-approved drafted PPP laws were translated into English

and reviewed by P3DP.

Three additional P3DP local staff joined the program as Independent Consultants (Andriy

Shkulov, Natasha Boyko and Olena Maslyukivska). They will convert to full time employees

when P3DP receives both registration and accreditation from the MOEDT.

All other professional staff have been interviewed and selected, but will not join the program until

a long-term employment contract can be issued.

Permanent P3DP office space was secured at 44 Khreschatyk at a very competitive price relative

to alternative facilities on the market in Kyiv.

2. Work Plan Tasks During the Reporting Period

Critical to the success of P3DP’s progress is concluding agreements with IPs that can be tasked with

specific initiatives in each of P3DP’s four programmatic objectives. Although actual sub-awards cannot

be concluded until the P3DP program is registered and accredited, P3DP is negotiating the terms of

potential sub-awards so they can be concluded quickly after registration/accreditation is secured. In this

regard, P3DP signed MOUs with the following potential implementing partners:

1. Ukrainian Public Private Partnerships Development Support Center (PPPDSC)

2. Institute for Budgetary and Socio-Economic Research (IBSER)

3. Kyiv Economic Institute (KEI)

5

4. Association of Ukrainian Cities and Communities (AUC)

5. East Europe Foundation (EEF)

6. Agrarian Markets Development Institute (AMDI)

Subsequent to signing the MOUs, P3DP requested and received program participation proposals from

PPPDSC, IBSER, KEI, AUC and EEF. Initially, work plans and budgets are being negotiated with

partners contributing to Objective 1 (legislation), Objective 2 (PPP Unit), and Monitoring and Evaluation.

In that regard, the proposals from PPPDSC, IBSER, and KEI will be initial priorities.

The most important action was the execution of an MOU between P3DP and PPPDSC as they are

designated to be the lead IP for Objectives 1 and 2. This MOU was followed by a request for program

description from PPPDSC in preparation for a sub-award to this NGO. The program description response

was reviewed and consultations initiated to evoke modifications to the program description narrative and

thus alterations to the associated budget so as to align resource needs and availability. In the interim,

P3DP and PPPDSC are jointly planning and coordinating the contemplated execution of work under

Objectives 1 and 2. Similarly, subsequent to the execution of MOUs with each, program descriptions and

associated draft budgets were received from the following potential Implementing Partners: KEI, IBSER,

EEF, and AUC. P3DP is initially pursuing closure with IBSER and KEI, providers of key services in

support of Objective 1 and the core program (monitoring and evaluation), respectively. Once these higher

priority relationships are packaged for finalization by the home office, P3DP will pursue similar efforts

with EEF and AUC, as their roles are primarily in support of Objectives 3 and 4.

Objective 1

A planning meeting with the MOEDT was held on February 8th to define logical steps in supporting PPP

legal reforms. Attendees were: Irina Zapatrina, Victor Mazyarchuk, Irina Kucherenko, Chris Shugart,

Olga Petrenko and Alan Pieper. There was universal agreement among the attendees that the first step

needed to be contracting a firm to conduct a PPP legal diagnostics. Chris Shugart was charged with

developing the Terms of Reference so a firm could be contacted for this review work.

On February 28, 2011, AED released an RFP on its procurement website for international legal technical

assistance to propose a legal review of enabling and related legislation in Ukraine regarding PPPs. This

review will inform the regulatory framework efforts under Objective 1 and support P3DP’s strategy for

assisting municipalities with PPP pilot projects under Objective 4. Questions and clarifications were due

on March 4, 2011, and the proposals were due March 11, 2011. Only one clarification was needed to be

issued to those entities which expressed an interest to bid, and it was with regard to a minor issue

clarifying the pricing mechanism for the translation of the accepted final report into Ukrainian. Three

proposals were received on March 11, 2011.

Upon courtesy engagement of the MOEDT to participate in the review of the proposals, an MOEDT

representative raised some points that continue to be addressed at the end of the reporting period.

However, on the morning of April 1, 2011, Deputy Director Husyev called COP Pieper to set a meeting

on Monday, April 4, 2011, with the intention of resolving all open issues regarding the desired activities

in the MOEDT action plan, the P3DP work plan and the pursuit of the legal review procurement.

During the period, actions of the MOEDT and the IWG resulted in five pieces of PPP-related legislation

being proposed to the Verkovna Rada for approval. Once approved, P3DP began translation of these into

English for a technical review by its experts, per agreed sequence with representative leadership of the

IWG. The initial two Rada-approved documents were received and translation began the week of

February 28, 2011. Mr. Shugart began his review of these translated documents in conjunction with his

STTA trip to Ukraine from March 6 to March 19, 2011.

6

Objective 2

At planning meeting with the MOEDT on February 8th to discuss options for establishing a PPP Unit and

defining the roles and responsibilities of the Unit, it was decided that a study tour to successful PPP Units

operating in neighboring countries would allow Ukrainian Government Officials to better understand PPP

Unit operations and those most appropriate for Ukraine.

On February 15, 2011, Chris Shugart delivered a presentation to representatives of the PPP Interagency

Work Group (IWG) regarding the different roles and functions various “PPP Units” in other countries

have deployed. Extensive discussions clarified various points. Additionally, the pending terms of

reference for legal review, supporting both Objective 1 and Objective 4, were discussed, with agreement

to proceed to focus on the competitive acquisition of a legal team headed by an international law firm

with significant familiarity in the PPP arena. An updated modified presentation was delivered to

representatives of the IWG and MOEDT on Saturday, March 19, 2011, with plans discussed for

presentation to a wider audience once the current ministerial reorganization has been finalized.

In preparation for the initial awareness-raising and capacity-building of the IWG, various potential PPP

Units in other countries were evaluated as to applicability and value for visitation and observation. It was

determined that the initial Study Tour would include PPP Units (and certain of their PPP projects) in St.

Petersburg, Russia and in Zagreb, Croatia. Final conceptual plans were completed by the end of the

period for the targeted trips in mid-June. P3DP has prepared documentation supporting the approval of

this Study Tour initiative and submitted it to the AED home office for further processing.

Objective 3

On March 16, 2011, an independent consulting agreement with Olena Maslyukivska was executed, in

contemplation of her taking the long term position as Manager, Awareness and Capacity Building. Ms.

Maslyukivska is a welcomed addition to the team, as she served on the previous USAID-funded PPP

training initiative under Segura/IP3, as well as, serving on the preliminary design team for what

ultimately became a prime contribution to the P3DP program description.

Initiating program awareness efforts, on March 24th and 25th, Olena represented P3DP in making

awareness-building presentations to two groups in Lviv: the Investment Projects Inventory Conference

and the Training of Trainers for the Condominium Association Consulting Group. These events were

hosted by the Management Development Institute in its role as sub-contractor to the Municipal Heating

Reform project, sponsor of the events. Additionally, on March 30, 2011, Olena delivered an informative

presentation to the Municipal Heating Reform project’s training in Kyiv for energy managers from

Vinnytsya, Chernihiv, and Kororsten.

Support is being planned for an international conference to be held in early July to explore the regional

development of PPP initiatives as may be applicable to Ukraine.

Objective 4

Initial criteria for identification of pilot projects was drafted, reviewed, and agreed within the program

team, and four Implementing/Resource Partners were invited to provide specific leads to municipalities

and/or projects for meetings with P3DP representatives. As a result of the invitations, 14 initial

possibilities were identified for further consideration, and the initial two were scheduled for visits as

follows:

7

Trostianets – March 15 – by direct engagement with the mayor from P3DP’s Olena

Maslyukivska, Manager of Awareness and Capacity-Building (Objective 3)

Slavutich – March 19 – linked and accompanied by a representative from EEF

A unique opportunity in Rovno for the local provision of wastewater treatment has been identified and at

the end of the period, P3DP had initiated formal contact with applicable parties to explore this potential

pilot project. This project is of significance in that it appears to have six very favorable characteristics:

1) there is a significant technical need for the project, 2) the head of the entity providing the current

service supports the project concept, 3) the mayor of Rovno (formerly the head of the entity providing the

current service) supports the project concept, 4) the technology is replicable, 5) the financing and funding

requirements can be determined with a great deal of surety, and 6) it does not appear that there are any

significant regulatory or tariff issues to surmount.

Additional trips to other cities are being planned for Y1Q3, based on inputs requested from LINC, MHR,

and IPs to inform the priorities and validity of potential public partners. When potential pilot projects are

identified for further analysis, Project Identification Briefs (PIBs) will be completed for these “short

listed” projects, with additional data to be gathered in preparation for more detailed analysis and

evaluation. The P3DP proposed selection criteria were submitted to USAID for approval on March 14,

2011. The proposed criteria and the PIB form are to be found in Attachments 7d and 7e, respectively.

See the discussion regarding the needed review of the Ukrainian legal framework as it applies to the

implementation of PPP projects.

3. Other Activities During the Reporting Period

In order to stay current on PPP issues in Ukraine, the P3DP staff attended several important meetings in

the PPP arena. On February 8th, Chris Shugart and Alan Pieper attended a workshop on amendments to

the law of Ukraine on the special rules applicable to lend-lease and concession agreements for water

supply, heat supply and sewage in municipal property, organized in cooperation with the Swiss-Ukrainian

Decentralization Support project and GTZ. On March 31st, Olga Petrenko and Alan Pieper attended the

“Seventh Financial and Economic Forum Strengthening the Financial Capacity for Local Development”

forum sponsored by the Institute for Budgetary and Socio-Economic Research (IBSER). One section of

the forum addressed financing mechanisms and public budget impacts of PPP transactions at the

municipal level. One key concern being legal restrictions imposed on municipalities that limit their

options to access financing for PPP related transactions.

Of primary focus and importance during the reporting period was addressing all requirements of the

Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (MOEDT) through which P3DP will become officially

registered (and ultimately accredited as a legal entity in Ukraine) and for which P3DP will be providing

significant technical assistance, particularly under its Objectives 1 and 2. In a meeting among USAID,

MOEDT and P3DP personnel on Tuesday, March 1, 2011, issues were resolved among the parties with

regards to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to be executed between MOEDT and P3DP. The

MOEDT took the lead in assuring internal reviews and approvals of the MOU, with final execution being

completed on March 11, 2011. The P3DP registration (dated March 12, 2011) was received on March 18,

2011, and on that date P3DP formally submitted its request for assistance with program accreditation from

USAID. Formal P3DP existence facilitates the completion of the Work Plan for Year 1 within the coming

period.

Somewhat obscuring previous planning, the emergence of a new GOU entity, the National Agency for

Investment and National Projects under the chairmanship of MP Natalia Korolevska, was alleged to have

been given responsibilities over the implementation of the PPP Law. However, a quick review of the June

8

30, 2010 Cabinet Resolution No. 570, establishing the Agency for Investment and National Projects,

consistently reinforces that the Agency’s role is with respect to “national” projects, and the attraction of

investment to support such projects. There is no mention of public-private partnerships or the “PPP Law”

in this establishing resolution; and the only references to local issues are in the context of implementing

“national” projects. P3DP will develop a relationship with this Agency so that “national projects” context

will be a consideration in any P3DP efforts affecting the national PPP environment.

Additionally, the recently Verkhovna Rada appointed Committee on Industrial and Regulatory Policy and

Entrepreneurship held a public meeting (roundtable) on March 18, 2011, on PPPs; and we have heard

that the Council of Entrepreneurs (under the Cabinet of Ministries of Ukraine) is planning to establish an

“Inter-agency Commission on PPPs.” On March 22, 2011, USAID and P3DP met to discuss the impacts

the emergence of these several, apparently-conflicting entity responsibilities will have on P3DP work plan

development and collaboration with recipients/beneficiaries of Ukraine. It should be noted that in various

March 2011 communications with MOEDT there appears considerable uncertainty on its part as to its

long-term role, particularly vis-à-vis the PPP Unit and the formal location/lineage of which has yet to be

finalized. Finalization is apparently contingent on completion of GOU’s broader ministerial realignment,

which remained underway at the end of the reporting period.

Meeting with and other communications with the IFIs IFC, and EBRD produced clarifications with

respect to their minimum project valuation involvement. The jest of the parameters is that with the

exception of certain “special” projects, the typical engagement levels of these lenders results in their

being interested in projects no smaller than a total minimum investment value of about US $40 Million.

We will continue to explore other financing structures that could, in effect, lower this minimum. A

summary of these discussions and the resulting parameters may be found as Attachment 7c.

On March 21, Ms. Natalya Boyko joined P3DP under an independent consultancy agreement, in

contemplation of her taking the long term position as Administrative Assistant. Further, an ICT Manager

has been identified and documents supporting his independent consultancy agreement are being processed

at the end of the reporting period.

P3DP continues to seek to standardize its use of certain terms during the period of the Cooperative

Agreement (CA) in order to promote more accurate communications among all parties. To that end, the

following definitions are under use with P3DP and its partners:

a. “Public-Private Partnerships” for purposes of P3DP - Public-Private Partnerships occur when

public sector entities and private sector entities enter into long-term, comprehensive contractual

arrangements for either (a) the development of public infrastructure and its on-going related

public services or (b) the delivery of social services; and for the transfer of significant risks and

provision for performance rewards to the private sector entities. This term will be abbreviated

“PPP” in oral and written communications.

b. “Program” to be used when referring to P3DP – to attempt to avoid confusion when using a

short-form referral to P3DP, the word “program” [rather than “project”] will be used in oral and

written statements.

c. “Project” to be used when referring to a PPP project (contemplated or actual) – similar to the

above reason, the word “project” will be used in oral and written statements when referring to an

initiative which may become or is a PPP project.

d. “Implementing Partner” – with reference to the MindMap included as Attachment 7b, a P3DP

“implementing partner” is an entity with which P3DP will have a standing formal scope of work

defined that will directly contribute to the integrated execution of CA initiatives. This

relationship is characterized by a mutual, long-term commitment between P3DP and the entity.

e. “Resource Partner” – with reference to the MindMap included as Attachment 7b, a P3DP

“resource partner” is an entity with which P3DP may/will call upon from time to time for targeted

9

execution of some service or development of one or more deliverables. This relationship is

characterized by a short-term contract [purchase] between P3DP and the entity.

4. Work Plan Tasks for Coming Reporting Period

P3DP expects to engage and make rapid progress in the following activities during the third quarter

(April-June 2011). However, the degree of progress achieved is contingent upon P3DP obtaining timely

accreditation from the Government of Ukraine. The pace of progress will also be conditional upon timely

approvals from AED Home Office and USAID. AED’s plan for rapid divestiture of projects and

programs could result in some support staff in Washington, DC looking for new employment. If AED

loses key personnel involved in critical areas such as staffing, sub-awards, and funding it could have a

detrimental impact on the pace of implementation at the field level.

Notwithstanding the above, the following work plan tasks are contemplated for the coming period:

a. Subsequent to accreditation, P3DP will finalize and seek approval from USAID on its Work Plan

for Year 1. A draft text, with associate PMP suggestions has been under review by USAID, and it

is expected that completion of all documentation can be achieved in the third quarter, including

the development of the Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) for each of the Program

Objective Indicators (POIs), and the updated budget, per Cooperative Agreement requirements.

b. Certain modifications to the Cooperative Agreement will be suggested.

c. An update to the approved Branding Strategy and Marking Plan for P3DP is expected during the

period in order to comport the evolved use of certain terms.

d. Conclude sub-award terms and sub-agreements with Implementing Partners:

Based on the MOUs previously executed and subsequently proffered program descriptions from

potential Implementing Partners, P3DP will seek to conclude sub-awards with additional

Implementing Partners:

1) Ukrainian Public-Private Partnership Development Support Center (PPPDSC)

2) Association of Ukrainian Cities and Communities (AUC)

3) Institute for Budgetary and Socio-Economic Research (IBSER)

4) East Europe Foundation (EEF)

5) Kyiv Economic Institute (KEI)

During the third quarter, the goal is to have these Implementing Partners begin to do work under

their several sub-contract agreements, whether sub-agreements, sub-grants or purchase orders.

Further, it is expected that MOUs and sub-contracts will be consummated with applicable

Resource Partners.

e. As P3DP staff are formally retained, we will have the appropriate technical personnel complete

the required Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) supporting the indicators in the

finalized Program Monitoring Plan (PMP) assigned to their respective areas of responsibility.

f. Identify and evaluate potential PPP pilot project leads for first two transactions.

g. Conclude detailed planning and execute the first Study Tours, tentatively scheduled for mid-June,

2011.

10

h. Conclude detailed planning and execute the assistance being contemplated for the international

PPP conference being planned for early July, 2011.

i. Initiate baseline gender assessment by developing SOW and identifying institution or

organization to conduct assessment work.

j. Initiate baseline survey development and execution.

k. Continue to conduct stakeholder consultations with various constituencies.

l. Engage appropriate ministry and contracted Implementing Partners personnel in efforts related to

the establishment of a PPP Unit.

m. Prepare and conduct a “market sounding” event for potential PPPs.

n. Develop strategy and implementation plan for communications/awareness initiatives, and seek

USAID approval.

o. Develop initial strategy and implementation plans for municipal capacity-building, and seek

USAID approval.

p. Continue identification of additional potential PPP initiatives.

11

5. Attachments

a. Photos and Captions

Olena Maslyukivska, Manager of Awareness and Capacity-Building, delivers the first two formal P3DP

presentations, to the Investment Projects Inventory Conference and the ToT for the Condominium

Association Consulting Group meetings in Lviv, to initiate P3DP public-private partnership awareness

efforts on March 25, 2011. A similar presentation was delivered in Kyiv on March 30, 2011.

12

Mayor Yuriy Bova of Trostyanets and Chris Shugart (P3DP international PPP expert) discuss possibilities

of PPP pilot projects during a city tour on March 15, 2011.

Mayor Bova believes that combining collection (sorting, recycling, etc.) and disposal in one long-term

contract would be most attractive to private sector. His reasoning was that the disposal side has more

risks to net cash flow and so that risk can be mitigated by pooling it with the more predicable (and

possibly lucrative) collection side of the business. Further, he is also supportive of longer service

contracts in order to provide incentives for the private companies to buy necessary equipment; e.g. trucks.

13

In the following photo, Mr. Vladimir Colovach and Alan Pieper, COP, exchange copies of the executed

lease agreement for P3DP permanent office space at 44 Khreschatyk Street, 3rd

Flr., Kyiv 1001.

The following photo highlights the permanent offices of P3DP at 44 Kreschatyk Street, 3rd

floor. The

entrance from the street level is to the lower right of the offices noted.

14

b. P3DP MindMap of Relationships

The following page includes an updated MindMap of Resource Allocations and Management Plan for

P3DP, noting the implications of the difference between “Implementing Partner” and “Resource Partner”

entities.

15

c. Excerpt from Summary of IFC and EBRD Communications

(typical minimum project financial support thresholds)1

EBRD

For a PPP with “project finance” lending to a special purpose vehicle (SPV), probably €20m total

loan size as a minimum. They might put in 100% of the debt, he thinks. Given that only 70% of

the financing costs would be debt - that means a minimum total financing of €29m or so.

But it’s possible that they might give a loan as low as €8m–€10m if it were, say, structured as

corporate lending to a local company (with other activities) that had signed a PPP contract.

IFC

Minimum loan size cited was about same: $20m or €20m. (I’ll stick with $ for short.) But they

generally finance no more than 50% of total cost. So the minimum total financing would be $40m

(the rest of the needed financing would come from debt from some other lender and equity,

normally from the sponsor).

If it’s a large greenfield project, however, they will lend only 25% of total cost, so the smallest

project would have to be $80m. They could go lower for a small greenfield project. There are some

other rules for other situations. But this gives the general picture for now.

The IFC manages (or co-manages) several special funds that give loans at concessional rates. These

do not affect the figures given above. They would simply mean that co-financing of the debt could

be done at below market interest rates so it would make the project less expensive.

Note

All references to total cost of project or total financing above are to the total amount needing to be

financed: capital costs, development costs, funding various reserves (e.g. working capital, debt

service reserve account), interest during construction, etc. These additional financing needs can

run 30% of the total financing needed in a project finance loan for e.g. a water treatment plant.

1 In initial discussions between P3DP and Nordic Environment Finance Corporation (NEFCO) representatives, it

was revealed that the minimum threshold financing over which NEFCO would consider supporting a PPP pilot

project is $100,000 – thus substantially improving the outlook on potential financing alternatives for smaller PPP

pilot project initiatives, particularly in the area of energy efficiency improvements.

16

d. Proposed PPP Pilot Project Selection Criteria

Criteria for Initial Screening of Possible Pilot PPP Projects

Suitability of the project to be treated as a PPP (i.e. based on a tight long-term contract with a

private company), as opposed to a conventional public-sector project

o The specific service outputs to be provided by the PPP company are known and will be able to

be specified precisely and measured and monitored well

o Service needs are not expected to change in the short or medium term, and it is not envisaged

that there will be a need for much flexibility over the term of the contract

o Technology and other relevant aspects of the sector are fairly stable

o Risks affecting the project are well understood and the contract can include precise mechanisms

that deal with the consequences of these risks materializing

o The arrangement will not be highly complex from a contractual point of view. (It could be

technically complex; that is a different matter and might in fact be an argument in favor of a

PPP)

Clear economic and social justification

Project is on the priority list of the municipality

Mayor is a strong supporter of the PPP idea

Strong commitment by all key stakeholders; no evident strong opposition

It appears that the project will not require any (or many) legislative changes

Classic, well-understood PPP structure

No more than moderate risks

Ideally, the PPP company will be remunerated entirely or mainly from user charges (since requiring

substantial government financial support may complicate the process and arrangements)

Can be implemented fairly quickly

Known and tested technologies

Likely to be replicable in other municipalities

Scale: minimum capital costs of US$20 million if debt financing from IFC or EBRD, etc., is

contemplated

Strong interest from the private sector

Competitive market: there should be at least two active potential private sector partners in the

market

17

e. Project Identification Brief (PIB) format

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION BRIEF (BLANK FORM)

A. Descriptive title of project }

B. Brief description of project

1. Project objectives }

2. Services to be provided }

3. Description of existing facilities (if brownfield project) }

4. Major physical/technical features of project }

5. Estimate of investment costs

Category Cost

Total

Source of this estimate: [……………..]

6. Quantity of services to be provided (if any estimates have been made) }

7. Sources and methods of remunerating the PPP company }

8. If user charges are envisaged, indications of demand, affordability, etc. }

18

C. Envisaged organizational responsibilities for development, procurement, implementation, oversight, etc.

}

D. Origin of request for advice & support for project preparation }

E. History and present status of project

1. Origin of project idea }

2. Indication of any existing concept notes or other descriptions of the project

(give descriptive list, indicating where documents can be found)

3. Indication of any studies already carried out (give descriptive list, indicating

where documents can be found)

4. If a private partner is already involved in some way, describe nature of

involvement (including any informal understandings or binding commitments) }

5. Describe any consultations with, or support from, other government bodies or

stakeholders }

6. Other relevant information }

F. PPP approach(es) envisaged }

G. Funding already acquired, envisaged, or under discussion }

H. Possible risks, problems, or obstacles envisaged (and, if possible, proposed means of dealing with them)

}

I. Further work needed to prepare a Concept Paper (major items only) }

19

J. Reasons why this project would be a good candidate for a pilot project }

K. Attachments (if any) }