challange of ppp in water zawadi

8/11/2019 Challange of PPP in Water Zawadi

1/16

PPPs and thewater sectorPlugging theinfrastructure hole

March 2009

Deloitte Corporate FinanceInfrastructure & Project Finance

Roger Black


2/16


3/16

In early 2007 Deloitte released its global research studyof the experience with public-private partnerships(PPPs) across different sectors of social and economicinfrastructure, including water, wastewater and waste

Titled,Closing the infrastructure gap: the role of public- private partnerships , it provided a global overview of PPPsincluding: how, why and when PPPs should be consideredas a delivery model; which countries have greatestexperience with infrastructure and services delivery viaPPPs; which sectors of infrastructure have seen greatestdeployment of PPPs; and the circumstances under whichdifferent types of PPP delivery models have been used,and with what success.

The follow up, Closing the infrastructure gap: Part II to be released Q1 2009 specifically focuses on aidingthe public sector deal with the strategic and operationalissues involved with private sector involvement in thedelivery of infrastructure projects.

Specific questions addressed in the research include:

what are my choices in terms of the role of theprivate sector?

how do I decide what role the private sectorshould play?

what are the risks and considerations in selecting therole of the private sector?

what is being done in other jurisdictions?

what is the cost of involving the private sector?

what might a deal structure look like for incorporatingthe private sector?

The goal of the research is to provide a frameworkthat helps public officials select the appropriate roleor involvement for the private sector in infrastructureprojects based on:

risk qualification/assessment

the costs associated with different delivery models

the desirability of retaining control overthe infrastructure.

This paper draws from the findings of bothDeloitte research papers, including leadingexamples from around the world, and applies

the research to the provision of infrastructureand services in the water, wastewater andwaste sectors.

Introduction

PPPs in water 3


4/16

While traditionally the sole province of state and localgovernment, water and wastewater management hasbecome a growing area for the application of PPPs

globally. The drivers for this are many and vary fromcountry to country, although in broad terms typically differbetween the developed and the developing worlds, andthe water-rich and the water-scarce.

In the developed world early entrants into various typesof PPPs included the Netherlands, a number of Canadianmunicipal governments and Ireland.

in the Netherlands a 30 year concession - with a totalcontract value of 1.58 billion - was awarded by theWater Board of Delft land in 2002 for the design,construction, and operation of a new wastewatertreatment plant, and the refurbishment and operation

of an existing wastewater treatment plant in Canada, ageing water and wastewater systems

requiring renewal expenditure of more than $28 billionprompted the municipalities of Moncton, Hamilton& Dartmouth to consider and develop PPP financingmechanisms to deliver water services

in Ireland more than 100 water and wastewater PPPprojects - most of them design-build (DB) - are eitheroperational, or in construction and planning.

In the developing world private participation in the watersector began to be hailed as a solution to chronic failuresof coverage and services during the 1990s. Between1990 and 2005 private investors committed over USD 50billion to more than 380 water infrastructure projects indeveloping countries.

The PPP experience in providing water and wastewaterinfrastructure in many ways replicated the PPP experiencein other sectors of social and economic infrastructure.Contracts often reflected excessive optimism by bothprivate investors and governments, and the socio-politicaldifficulties of raising tariffs to levels covering costs wereoften underestimated. After a number of major waterproject contracts proved insufficiently robust to survivethe financial crisis of the 1990s, several internationaloperators lost much of their appetite for furtherinvestment in developing countries.

More recently, continued necessity combined with thelessons and experience of earlier ventures is resulting in amaturing of the PPP market following the initial boom and

subsequent contraction. Stakeholders, public and private,are growing more aware of both the benefits and risksinvolved, and are looking for contractual arrangementsbest suited to the nature of the inherent risks and thesocio-political context.

So, before dealing with the specific characteristics ofwater, wastewater and waste infrastructure includingdams, pipelines, water grids, water treatment plants,water recycling plants, desalination plants, wastetreatment/sewerage plants it is worth outlining therange of PPP options and the general learnings, to date,regarding the conditions which underpin PPP success.

PPPs in the water sectorglobally: current status

4


5/16

Table 1: Water PPP projects by region and type (1991-2007)

Region TotalNo. of Projects

Concession Divestiture New Projectsie. DBO/BOO etc

Service & ManagementContracts & Leases

East Asia & Pacific 282 116 8 146 12

Europe & Central Asia 61 8 5 7 41

Latin America & the Caribbean 193 109 12 42 30

Middle East & North Africa 15 0 0 6 9

South Asia 9 1 0 4 4

Sub-Saharan Africa 24 2 0 2 20

584 236 25 207 116

Source: World Bank Group, Private participation in infrastructure database

Table 2: Water PPPs by subsector (1991-2007)

Subsector Segment Project Count

Treatment plant Potable water and sewerage treatment plant 12

Potable water treatment plant 120

Sewerage treatment plant 163

Utility Sewerage collection 1

Sewerage collection and treatment 9

Water utility with sewerage 215

Water utility without sewerage 64

584

Source: World Bank Group, Private participation in infrastructure database

PPPs in water 5


6/16

Common forms of PPP where newinfrastructure is required

In general terms a PPP refers to a contractual agreementformed between a government agency and a privatesector entity that allows for greater private sectorparticipation in the delivery of public infrastructureprojects. Compared with traditional procurementmodels, the private sector assumes a greater role inthe planning, financing, design, construction, operation,and maintenance of public facilities.

Some of the most common PPP models used fornew projects include:

Design-Build (DB)/Build-Transfer (BT): Underthis model the public sector contracts with a privatepartner to design, and build, a facility in accordancewith the requirements it sets. Upon completion thepublic sector assumes responsibility for operating andmaintaining the facility

Design-Build-Maintain (DBM): This model is similar

to Design-Build except that the private proponentalso maintains the facility. The public sector retainsresponsibility for operations

Design-Build-Operate (DBO)/Build-Transfer-Operate (BTO): Under this model, the private sectordesigns and builds a facility. Upon completion, the titlefor the new facility is transferred to the public sector,while the private sector operates the facility for aspecified period

Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM)/Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT): This model combines theresponsibilities of design-build procurements with theoperations and maintenance of a facility for a specifiedperiod by a private sector partner. At the end of thatperiod, the operation of the facility is transferred backto the public sector

Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT): The publicsector grants a franchise to a private partner tofinance, design, build and operate a facility for aspecific period of time. Ownership of the facility istransferred back to the public sector at the end ofthat period

Build-Own-Operate (BOO): The public sectorgrants the right to finance, design, build, operateand maintain a project to a private entity, whichretains ownership of the project. The private entityis not required to transfer the facility back to thepublic sector

Design-Build-Finance-Operate/Maintain (DBFO,DBFM or DBFO/M): Under this model, the privatesector designs, builds, finances, operates and/ormaintains a new facility under a long-term lease. Atthe end of the lease term, the facility is transferredto the public sector. (NB In some countries, DBFO/Mcovers both BOO and BOOT).

Figure 1: the PPP continuum: degree of public sector responsibility

New projects

Existing services and facilities

Public responsibility Private responsibility

Design-build Design-build-maintain

Design-build-operate

Design-build-operate-maintain

Design-ownoperate-transfer

Design-own-operate

Servicecontracts

Managementcontracts Lease Concession Divestiture

Source: The National Council for Public Private Partnerships

Models of PPP

6


7/16

Common forms of PPP involvingexisting infrastructure

In addition to delivering new infrastructure, PPPs can alsobe used for existing services and facilities. Models include:

service contract: The public sector contracts witha private entity to provide services the public sectorpreviously performed

management contract: A management contractdiffers from a service contract in that the privateentity is responsible for all aspects of operations andmaintenance of the facility under contract

lease: The public sector grants a private entity aleasehold interest in an asset. The private partneroperates and maintains the asset in accordance withthe terms of the lease

concession: The public sector grants a private entityexclusive rights to operate and maintain an assetover a long period of time in accordance with setperformance requirements. The public sector retainsownership of the original asset, while the privateoperator retains ownership over any improvementsmade during the concession period

divestiture/privatisation: The public sector transfersan asset, either in part or in full, to the private sector.Generally it will include certain conditions with thesale of the asset to ensure that improvements aremade and the community continues to be served.

Figure 1 (opposite) identifies the differences in the levelsof public and private sector responsibility involved in eachof the models.

Recent developments in PPP models

A number of variations of the PPP model have beendeveloped in recent years in response to the challengesfaced in specific situations and sectors.

Alliancing. Under this model, the public and privatesector agree to jointly design, develop, and finance theproject. In some cases they also work together to build,maintain, and operate the facility.

Bundling: Contracting with one partner to provideseveral small-scale PPP projects in order to reducethe length of the procurement process as well astransaction costs.

Competitive Partnership: Several private partnersare selected, in competition with each other, to deliverdifferent aspects of a project. The contract allows thepublic sector to reallocate projects among partners ata later date, depending upon performance. The publicpartner can also use the cost and quality of otherpartners outputs as a benchmark for all partners.

Incremental Partnership: The public sector contractswith a private partner, in which certain elements ofthe work can be called off, or stopped, if deemedunproductive. The public sector can commission workincrementally, and reserves the right to use alternativepartners if suitable.

Integrator: The public sector appoints a privatesector partner, the integrator, to manage the projectdevelopment. The integrator arranges the necessarydelivery functions and is rewarded according to overallproject outcomes wherever possible, with penalties forlateness, cost overruns, poor quality, and so on. Theintegrator has a less direct role in service provision and insome cases is barred from being involved in direct deliveryat all. In other cases, the integrator is appointed to carryout the first phase of work, or specified works but is thenbarred from carrying out subsequent phases of workto remove the potential for conflict of interest betweenachieving best value for the public sector and maximisingprivate returns through the supply chain.

Joint Venture: A joint venture company is set up, amajority of which is owned by a private sector partner.The public sector selects a strategic partner through acompetitive process that includes a bid to carry out thefirst phase of work. The typical contract is for 20 years.

Subsequent phases are commissioned by the public sectorpartner, but carried out by the strategic partner usingthe first phase of work as a benchmark to determine theappropriateness of future costs. The United Kingdom hasused a variant of this model, called local improvementfinance trust (LIFT), for its hospital PPPs.

PPPs in water 7


8/16

Lessons for the water sector from the globalPPP experience

Our research of the PPP experience globally - across allsectors of social and economic infrastructure - holdsuseful insights for the development and application ofPPPs in Australia for water, wastewater and waste.

PPPs have proven to be an effective infrastructure delivery

tool under specific conditions! The key to success isthe role of the public sector. Most commonly projectfailure has equated to the financial failure of the privateoperator. A significant part of designing an enduringmarket, and therefore private sector willingness tofund and undertake risk, entails improving public sectorcapacity to execute and manage sustainable partnerships.

Poor PPP outcomes can be seen to have emanated from:

poor setup. The success or failure of PPPs can oftenbe traced back to the initial design of PPP policies,legislation, and guidance. A common mistake isplacing so many restrictions and conditions and

expectations of risk transfer on the private sectorsponsor and agencies involved that a financiallyfeasible deal becomes impossible to structure. Anotheris having unrealistic expectations of PPPs thinkingthat they provide free money or that theyre thesolution to all problems

lack of clarity about project objectives. Sponsorssometimes lack consensus about the purpose of, andexpected outcomes for, the project. Public officialsmay then try to compensate for this failure by over-specifying inputs

too much focus on the transaction. Public

sector may mistakenly view PPPs merely as financinginstruments when in fact they represent a verydifferent way of working. This can lead to a pooroperational focus and service outcomes

inappropriate risk model applied to project. Much of what differentiates the various PPP modelsis the level and nature of risk shifted to the privatesector. A common mistake is the attempt to transferdemand risk ie the amount of use the infrastructurewill receive - to the private sector, even when theprivate contractor has no control over demand factors

Private Sector vs Public Sector

The defence of PPPs generally is not the focus of thispaper. While failures have been headline news andtypically involved the failure of the private operatorand the loss of investor capital rather than the failureto deliver the contracted infrastructure for public use -numerous reports support the effectiveness and utilityof PPPs.

Whatever the drivers for involving the private sector ingreater partnership in the provision of much neededinfrastructure and services then and these can rangefrom the nakedly political to the utterly financial theideal PPP should combine the characteristic and arguablydistinctively different skills of the public and privatesectors to maximise the delivery of public good. In short,the regulatory and economic development expertisewhich is typically the preserve and expertise of the publicsector, and the management, innovation, finance raising,budgeting and on-time and on budget delivery skillswhich, at best, are hallmarks of the private sector.

Lessons to date

8


9/16

lack of internal capacity. Even when the publicsector is supported by external advisers, many taskscannot be outsourced, and often the agency does nothave the skill sets internally to manage complex PPPsor the dedicated team required to address the timeintensive upfront structuring needs

failure to realise value for money. This failureoccurs when the borrowing and tendering costsassociated with PPPs are not sufficiently offset byefficiency gains or when government officials donthave a real understanding of how to test valuefor money

inadequate planning. Without taking properaccount of the market in the planning phase, thepublic sector may come out with more projects thanbidders creating a non-competitive environment. Onthe flipside, too few projects can result in industrymoving on to a more active jurisdiction.

Setting up successful PPPs

A step-by-step guide to designing and implementing PPPsis beyond the scope of this paper (although further detailcan be found in Closing the infrastructure gap Parts 1& 2). However the lessons learned from water and otherinfrastructure projects delivered so far suggest severalstrategies for successful execution of these partnerships.

First, the public sector needs a full life-cycle approach or framework that pays adequate attention to all phasesof a PPP - from policy and planning, to the transactionphase, and then to managing the facility. The goal ofsuch an approach is to avoid the problems of poor setup,lack of clarity about outcomes, inadequate internalcapacity, lack of interest from the private sector, and anoverly narrow focus on the transaction.

Second, a strong understanding of the range of possiblePPP models can help the public sector achieve the properallocation of risk even in conditions of pronounceduncertainty about future needs. Proper risk allocationallows the public sector to better tailor PPP approaches tospecific situations and infrastructure sectors.

PPPs in water 9


10/16

It is essential to get the financial terms of the PPP dealright. Equally critical however is getting stakeholder buy-in, managing the change process, correctly allocatingrisk, developing the legislative and regulatory framework,and analysing the long-term effects of the project on thesector as a whole. This means developing a holistic viewof the infrastructure projects entire life cycle from the veryoutset.

A life-cycle view helps to get better buy in fromall parties involved. It also provides a framework forevaluating whether the solution is the most appropriatefor the public over time. Without such a holistic view,public officials will be unable to plan in advance for keyconsiderations that if not properly accounted for canstymie efforts to move beyond the transaction stage.

A life-cycle approach best ensures the interest of thegovernment agency that retains ownership and ultimateresponsibility for the asset throughout the life-cycle. Whilemany experts emphasise the transaction phase of PPPtransactions, the success of the project is actually heavily

dependent on a sound policy and legal framework,effective risk allocation, a well-executed procurementprocess, strong project management, and close attentionto the concession phase.

A life-cycle perspective helps governments understandhow decisions made during different phases will affectthe long term success of the project. For example, theway a project is monitored will be determined largely byhow much risk is transferred to the private sector duringthe transaction construction and concession phases.

Figure 2 shows the three major phases in the lifecycle ofan infrastructure project and the key tasks and activities

involved in each stage.

Taking a life-cycleapproach

10


11/16

Policy and planning phase Transaction phase Construction andconcession phase

1. Condition of infrastructurenancial situation

2. Legislation/regulation3. Leadership: policy and

project management4. Planning: environmental assessments and project

opportunities5. Communications: internal

and external with majorstakeholder groups

Establish objectives.The objectives a governmentestablishes for the PPP projectform the foundation for evaluatingoptions and allows it to communicatea consistent message regarding thepurpose of the program. Time spent

fully exploring objectives and corevalues regarding the governmentsroles and responsibilities will avoidmissteps later in the process.

Evaluate alternativenancing structures.This evaluation should start with anunderstanding and analysis of theexisting debt alternatives within thestate. By preparing a range of nancialalternatives, the agency can articulateto its stakeholders what might beaccomplished with traditionalnancing and what innovativenancing structures are availableand perhaps necessary forproject feasibility.

Communicate the benets.A strategic communications plan thatexplains the benets of the programcan prevent the discourse from beingdened by detractors and focusdiscussion on economic benets (suchas congestion relief and improvedmovement of goods) as well as socialbenets such as faster and morereliable commute times).

Build market interest.There should be an appropriatenumber of projects coming into the

market at the right pace to ensurethat constructors and facilitymanagement rms have the capacityand nancial ability to keep pace withthe potential projects.

1. Transaction process2. Shortlist qualied bidders3. Risk transfer and value for money4. Payment mechanism/performance5. Request for proposal6. Finalise project agreement7. Preferred bidder selection and negotiations8. Financial close

Establish a realistic time frame.Project objectives, the budget, marketinterest, the amount of risk shifting,project size, and the structure of thedeal all affect the timeline for theproject delivery.

Secure the best value for money.A fundamental objective in any projectis to secure the best value for money.Creating comprehensive nancialmodels that allow you to evaluatevalue for money from both aqualitative and quantitativeperspective is a critical component ofthis process.

Establish performance standards.This often entails using penalties andrewards to achieve the desiredbehavior. Care must be taken withboth rewards and penalties since theycan drive unintended consequences.Setting performance standards willalso help to develop the best paymentapproach for each project.

Develop a draftproject agreement.These agreements are included withthe request for proposal (RFP) andhelp to identify issues bidders mayhave before the selection of thesuccessful bidder.

Establish constructiongovernance.Large infrastructure constructionprojects should have effectivegovernance and controls in place

before the project begins in order toavoid cost overruns, scheduling delaysand litigation.

1. Transition to construction (e.g. design/build)2. Construction and monitoring3. Facility operation (contract and relationship management)4. Evaluate whether promised benets materialised5. Maintenance: hard and soft service provision6. Asset hand back

Monitor construction.Many entities believe that oncethey have entered into turnkeycontracts with concessionaires theirresponsibility for constructionmonitoring and oversight has beentransferred. The public will continue to

hold the public sector accountable forthe successful delivery of the project,however, so it is critical to establishsound monitoring programsthroughout the constructionphase without creating additionalproject risks.

Monitor the concession.Under traditional procurementapproaches, monitoring substantiallyends at the completion ofconstruction. In the case of a PPPprocurement, the contract monitoringneeds to be far more sophisticatedbecause it is required to address awide range of issues relating tonance, operations and maintenanceover an extended period of time.

Prepare staff.Most jurisdictions are used toundertaking these projects on theirown. While PPPs may reduce the needfor additional staff to do inhousedesign and engineering work, currentstaff are required to provide projectmanagement and long-term oversight.

Establish the concessiongovernance model.Its important that effective projectgovernance models are established

and that skilled individuals are in placeduring both the construction andconcession phase.

Key activities

Sequential activities forinfrastructure delivery

Figure 2: Project lifecycle and activities

PPPs in water 11


12/16

The following key questions should be asked prior tochoosing the model:

how confident are you now about the type ofinfrastructure and services that are needed over thenext 10, 15, or 20 years?

how likely is it that the needs of citizens in this areawill change?

how likely is significant policy change?

how easy is it to specify what will be needed?

in which sector is the PPP approach going to beemployed?

how confident are you in the supplier of the serviceand how much control do you wish to retain?

can risks be transferred or would better outcomes beachieved through risk sharing?

Figure 3: Certainty classifications

Certainty continuum

LowThe public sector is unsure about the

infrastructure it needs (or even whatis possible), let alone when or how itwishes to have it delivered.

MediumThe public sector knows the kind of

infrastructure it needs, but is lesscertain about the timing and exactextent of work in wishes to undertake.

HighThe public sector knows with

condence either the condition ofthe assets and/or the future assetand service requirements at adetailed level.

The level of certainty the public sector possesses aboutits infrastructure and service requirements should be akey determinant in the choice of model. This includescertainty about the external environment, including thepolicy environment, as well as the capacity of contractperformance standards and realities and incentives tohigher outputs.

Figure 3 classifies certainty into three categories, beinglow, medium and high. A high level of certainty suggeststhat the public sector can shift substantial control andrisk to the private sector (the best options are PrivateDeveloper Scheme, Design-Build-Finance-Operate/ Maintain, or Conventional Procurement). The integrator,

joint venture, or competitive partnership models shouldbe considered where certainty is more limited. Thealliancing or incremental partnership models would bemore appropriate when a low level of certainty exists.

The decision tree in Figure 4 provides some guidanceregarding the most appropriate model in particularcircumstances. This list of models is by no means

exhaustive; any decision to choose one model overanother should always be derived from a robust appraisalof the options, based on the specific circumstances inwhich the project is being developed.

Choosing theright model

12


13/16

Selecting an appropriate model

Do assets have highresidual value?

Private developerscheme

Design-build-nanceoperate/maintain

Conventionalprocurement

Integrator

Competitive partnership

Joint venture

Incremental partnership

Alliancing

Is the project size

signicant?

Are the elements ofwork heterogeneous?

Is the infrastructurelarge, indivisible,and complex?

Can work easily, beseparated intodiscrete elements?

What is the level ofcertainty about theinfrastructure?

Yes

No

High

Low

No

Medium

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Figure 4: PPP model decision tree

PPPs in water 13


14/16

While it shares characteristics with some other sectors ofsocial and economic infrastructure the water, wastewaterand waste sector has some unique characteristics whichneed to be factored into consideration in terms of PPPs.

Challenges Market Competition. There are a small number of

market participants in the water sector. This is due to

the high market concentration, and over-specification. Substantial procurement costs. High procurement

costs and high uncertainty about the availability oftechnology require a contractual framework withshorter procurement times that fosters innovation.

Uncertainty. The condition of assets in existing facilitiesmay result in an increase in project costs.

Scale. The size of the project may not allow forefficient use of private finance. Also, contractsinvolving water supply of less than 40 million m3 sufferfrom unrealised economies of scale. Conversely, whenthe level of water supply exceeds 400 million m3, theoperation will suffer from diseconomies of scale.

Politics. Water and wastewater are often seen asfalling squarely under the public sector domain. Publicemployees may have deep concerns for their welfareunder the new management.

Because of this, most water projects tend to be leasesor operating contracts as they allow the private operatorto concentrate on improving the utilitys operationalefficiency and viability while leaving the public authority incharge of raising investment financing. Greenfield projectsare still common in treatment plants however.

Solutions

Applying the analytical assessment of PPP models outlinedin brief in the foregoing (and in more detail in Closing theinfrastructure gap: parts 1 & 2 ) can help overcome someof the challenges in the water sector. For example, thepublic sector can reduce the length of the procurementprocess and attract companies with stronger financial andoperational capacity by using a bundling approach. Thissaves procurement time and effort as the public sectoris no longer required to contract with different privatepartners in delivering individual small-scale projects.

A key challenge in this sector is that the consumer isgenerally not exposed to the full cost of water. Moving tofull cost pricing of water utilities before moving to a PPPapproach can help to avoid rate shocks that may derailthe project.

Table 3: Some current water PPPs by type

Sydney Desalination Plant(value $1.76 billion)

250 megalitre/day DBO Contract awarded 22/06/07

Bahrain, Tubli WWTP expansion(value $133 million)

230,000m3 to 350,000m3 DBO & 5 year operating contract RFP issued 31/12/08

Egypt, New Cairo WWTP 250,000m3 BOO 20 years RFP issued 01/12/08

Egypt, Abu Rawash WWTP 800,000m3 BOO 20 or 25 years In progress

China, Harbin Qunli WWTP(value $56.8 million)

150,000m3 DBOM 30 years Contract awarded 30/11/08

China, Wenzhou Xipian, Zhejiang Province WWTP 100,000m3 DBOM 26 years Contract awarded 20/11/08

Mexico, Guadalajara, Agua Prieta WWTP(value $150 million)

734,000m3 DBOM RFP issued 01/11/08

Source: Global Water Intelligence, volume 9; issue 12, December 2008.

Implications for PPPsin the water sector

14


15/16

PPPs are an effective way of delivering infrastructureprojects, and draw upon the strengths of both thepublic and private sectors.

There are a number of different PPP models that can beutilised for the different types of infrastructure requiredin the water, wastewater and waste sector. Whetherit be; dams, pipelines, water grids, waste treatmentplants, water recycling plants, desalination plants, orwaste treatment/sewerage plants, sufficient planningand investigation should be undertaken to ensure thecorrect model is implemented.

There is a strong precedent for water infrastructureprojects being delivered via PPPs. Key learnings fromprevious projects must be taken on board and thinkingcreatively about the delivery model can aid in thesuccessful procurement of this very much needed sectorof infrastructure.

Conclusion

PPPs in water 15


16/16

Contact usDeloitte Riverside CentreLevel 26, 123 Eagle Street Brisbane Qld 4001Australia

Tel: +61 (0) 7 3308 7000 Fax: +61 (0) 7 3308 7001

www.deloitte.com.au

Acknowledgment

This document was derived from the author guidelines used for all AWA conferencesand events.

ReferencesAllen Consulting Group, November 2007, Performance of PPPs and traditionalprocurement in Australia.

Booz & Company, 2008, Public-Private Partnerships: A New Catalyst forEconomic Growth.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, 2006, Closing the Infrastructure Gap: The Role of Public-Private Partnerships.

Global Water Intelligence, volume 9; issue 12, December 2008.

Philippe Marin and Ada Karina Izaguirre, September 2006, Gridlines privateparticipation in water.

The World Bank & PPIAF, Private Participation in Infrastructure Database,http://ppi.worldbank.org/explore/ppi_exploreSector.aspx?sectorID=4

General information only

This [document describe what is it eg, publication] is provided as general information only and does not consideryour specific objectives, situation or needs. You should not rely on the information in this [document/publication] ordisclose it or refer to it in any document . We accept no duty of care or liability to you or anyone else regarding this[document/publication] and we are not responsible to you or anyone else for any loss suffered in connection with theuse of this [document/publication] or any of its content.

About DeloitteDeloitte provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services to public and private clients spanning multipleindustries. With a globally connected network of member firms in 140 countries, Deloitte brings world classcapabilities and deep local expertise to help clients succeed wherever they operate. Deloittes 150,000 professionalsare committed to becoming the standard of excellence.

Deloittes professionals are unified by a collaborative culture that fosters integrity, outstanding value to markets andclients, commitment to each other, and strength from diversity. They enjoy an environment of continuous learning,challenging experiences, and enriching career opportunities. Deloittes professionals are dedicated to strengtheningcorporate responsibility, building public trust, and making a positive impact in their communities.

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Swiss Verein, and its network of member firms, each ofwhich is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/au/about for a detailed descriptionof the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and its member firms.

About Deloitte Australia

In Australia, Deloitte has 12 offices and over 4,500 people and provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisoryservices to public and private clients across the country. Known as an employer of choice for innovative human

resources programs, we are committed to helping our clients and our people excel. Deloittes professionals arededicated to strengthening corporate responsibility, building public trust, and making a positive impact in theircommunities. For more information, please visit Deloittes web site at www.deloitte.com.au.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.Designed and produced by Aqua Media, AM_Syd_01/09_037243

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Janurary 2009. All rights reserved.

challange of ppp in water zawadi

Documents