close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

The Economist Intelligence Unit - Evaluating the environment for public The Infrascope 2017

код для вставкиСкачать
Evaluating the environment for public-private
partnerships in Eastern Europe, Central Asia
and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
An index and study by The Economist Intelligence Unit
Commissioned by
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
About this report
This document is the first edition of an informational tool and benchmarking index that assesses the
capacity of countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean to
carry out sustainable public-private partnerships (PPPs) in infrastructure. The original methodology
for the Infrascope was developed in 2009 and has been applied to assess multiple regions since.
This edition features a new methodology developed in 2016. The analysis and content of this index
covers the period between September 2016 and March 2017. The index was built by The Economist
Intelligence Unit (EIU) and is supported financially by the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD). The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of The Economist
Intelligence Unit and do not necessarily reflect the position of the EBRD.
The index results, as well as country summaries, can be viewed on this website:
Infrascope.eiu.com
Please use the following when citing this report:
The Economist Intelligence Unit. 2017. Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in
Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean: The 2017 Infrascope. The EIU,
London.
For further information, please contact:
Economist Intelligence Unit
Leo Abruzzese, Project Director: leoabruzzese@eiu.com
Camilo Guerrero, Project Manager: camiloguerrero@eiu.com
Jennifer Wells, Marketing Executive: jenniferwells@eiu.com
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Matthew Jordan-Tank, Head of Infrastructure Policy and Project Preparation: jordantm@ebrd.com
Marcos Martinez, Infrastructure Specialist: martinem@ebrd.com
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
1
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
About The Economist Intelligence Unit
The Economist Intelligence Unit is the research arm of The Economist Group, publisher of The
Economist. As the world’s leading provider of country intelligence, we help governments, institutions
and businesses by providing timely, reliable and impartial analysis of economic and development
strategies. Through our public policy practice, The Economist Intelligence Unit provides evidencebased research for policymakers and stakeholders seeking measureable outcomes in fields ranging
from gender and finance to energy and technology. We conduct research through interviews,
regulatory analysis, quantitative modelling and forecasting, and display the results via interactive
data visualisation tools. Through a global network of more than 350 analysts and contributors, The
Economist Intelligence Unit continuously assesses and forecasts political, economic and business
conditions in over 200 countries. For more information, visit www.eiu.com.
About the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development
The EBRD is investing in changing people’s lives from central Europe to Central Asia, the Western
Balkans and the southern and eastern Mediterranean region. With an emphasis on working with the
private sector, we invest in projects, engage in policy dialogue and provide technical advice which
fosters innovation and builds modern economies that are competitive, well governed, green, inclusive,
resilient and integrated.
We provide financing for well-structured, financially robust projects of all sizes (including many small
businesses), both directly and through financial intermediaries such as local banks and investment
funds. The Bank works mainly with private-sector clients but also finances municipal entities and publicly
owned companies. Our principal financing instruments are loans, equity investments and guarantees. We
maintain close policy dialogue with governments, authorities, international financial institutions and
representatives of civil society, and provide targeted technical assistance using funds donated by member
governments and institutions.
2
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Acknowledgments
As part of the research process for this project, 62 in-depth telephone interviews were conducted with
policymakers and country infrastructure experts from multilateral and consulting institutions and from
the private sector. We would like to express our thanks to all the interviewees for their advice and inputs.
The following researchers, country analysts and specialists also contributed to this report. We thank
them for their participation.
Country analysis:
Justin Alexander, David O’Byrne, Benjamin Godwin, Filip Drapak, Nino Evgenidze, Dmitry Kirilenko,
Sladjana Sredojevic, Marina Maluk, Juna Miluka, Razvan Orasanu, Nikola Rogatchev and Matus Samel
Report development:
Adam Green
Model development:
Will Shallcross
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
3
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Contents
4
Introduction
5
Infrascope categories and indicators
7
Key findings
8
Category scores
11
Special: “Facilities management” PPPs in health and education
18
Infrascope country summaries
21
Albania
21
Belarus
23
Bulgaria
25
Egypt
27
Georgia
29
Jordan
31
Kazakhstan
33
Morocco
35
Romania
37
Serbia
39
Slovakia
41
Turkey
43
Ukraine
45
Appendix I: Project background
53
Appendix II: Methodology, sources and detailed indicator definitions
57
Glossary
77
Bibliography
80
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Introduction
T
his report is the latest regional edition of the Infrascope, a research programme begun in 2009 by
The Economist Intelligence Unit to benchmark the capacity of countries around the world to deliver
public-private partnerships (PPPs) in infrastructure sectors. Stretching from Morocco to Kazakhstan,
the regions in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean (EECA-SEMED)
covered in this report comprise a culturally diverse and economically varied group of countries. They
range from Bulgaria and Albania, which are aligning their political and market systems with the
legislation of the European Union, to economies such as Kazakhstan, which are primarily oriented
towards Russia and China. This vast area also includes countries undergoing profound domestic
changes, notably Turkey.
The economic landscape across these regions varies considerably. In Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and
Slovakia real GDP grew by more than 3% in 2016, a respectable rate. But political and economic shocks
have weighed on the economic performance of Ukraine and Turkey, placing their currencies under
pressure. Political and security risk has also weakened investor sentiment in Egypt. Throughout the
broader Eurasian region, growth has been held back by the recession in Russia.
Across most of these countries, infrastructure needs significant improvement, as does the ability
to finance it. The World Economic Forum estimates a worldwide infrastructure financing gap of around
US$1trn per year, representing 1.4% of GDP.1 The challenge is especially acute in emerging markets
and in the newer members of the EU. The European Commission estimates that up to US$220bn in
annual infrastructure investment will be needed in the EU through to 2020, building on the investment
in transport and energy infrastructure that has been channelled in recent years into new EU member
states.2 The Asian Development Bank (ADB) forecasts that countries in Central Asia will require
US$492bn in infrastructure investment between 2016 and 2030, representing almost 7% of GDP.3 The
Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region will need more than US$100bn per year in investment to
close its own infrastructure building and maintenance deficit, according to the World Bank.4
Productive and effective infrastructure programmes can make a powerful contribution to long-term
development, reducing unemployment and inequality and fostering sustainable growth. Transport
assets can spread economic activity to lagging regions, while safe, efficient and affordable energy
and water infrastructure can benefit consumers and businesses alike. Indeed, in recognition of
infrastructure’s beneficial impact on social and economic progress, the UN’s Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) include a pledge, in Goal 9.1, for member states to develop “quality, reliable, sustainable
and resilient infrastructure, including regional and trans-border infrastructure, to support economic
development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.”
A large body of international evidence demonstrates that PPPs can be an effective way of bridging
the infrastructure gap in both emerging and developed economies. PPPs combine the government’s
regulatory oversight and long-term perspective with the capital and expertise of the private sector. PPPs
are also potential instruments in the delivery of public services, such as health and education.
This latest edition of the Infrascope is the first to cover the Eastern European, Central Asia and
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
5
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Southern and Eastern Mediterranean regions in this combination. It examines 13 countries: Albania,
Belarus, Bulgaria, Egypt, Georgia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey and
Ukraine. This group includes countries that have considerable experience with PPPs, such as Turkey and
Jordan, and those that are just beginning to build up their PPP-related institution and regulations.
This is also the first Infrascope to employ a refreshed and expanded methodology. The new indicator
framework was commissioned and financed by the World Bank and developed through a joint process that
included The Economist Intelligence Unit, the ADB, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the World Bank.
Using a combination of 66 qualitative and 12 quantitative sub-indicators and based on research across
legal and policy documents and in-depth interviews with country experts, this report analyses country
performance across the PPP life cycle, including:
l a country’s legal and regulatory framework for private participation in infrastructure;
l the design and responsibilities of institutions that prepare, award and oversee projects;
l experience in implementing PPP projects and the government’s ability to uphold laws and regulations;
l the business, political and social environment for investment; and
l the financial facilities for funding infrastructure.
The new methodology captures current themes and requirements for efficient and sustainable PPPs, such as
sustainability (in alignment with the SDGs), fiscal control/budgeting, transparency and accountability, and
new financing instruments.
This report shows that the majority of the countries in the study are utilising PPPs to deliver investments
in transport, water and energy, and solid waste management, and that there is some appetite to explore
PPP models in health and education facilities management. There is strong political support across most
nations for the PPP model in principle, and there has been significant recent PPP legislation in several
countries, including Belarus, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Morocco and Romania.
Strong performers in this latest Infrascope include Slovakia, which tops the index overall, supported
by a notable lead for its regulatory climate; Kazakhstan, which has constructed a strong institutional
framework; Turkey, which has the highest maturity and financing scores thanks to its active PPP
programme; and Serbia, which has the strongest investment and business climate ranking.
The Infrascope also identifies areas that require attention within specific countries and across the
group. Although all countries in the study have developed enabling regulatory frameworks, overall PPP coordination is lagging in many of them. Moreover, some countries have yet to test their frameworks through
an entire project life cycle. Transparency is also an issue: the majority of countries reviewed here do not
yet require the publication of contracts, for example, and governments do not generally have publicly
accessible PPP registries. Other issues include the limited utilisation of capital markets for PPPs in most
countries. Sustainability factors, including climate change and disaster risk, are not yet fully integrated
into PPP frameworks in any of the countries in this study.
This benchmarking index is intended as a learning and diagnostic tool to help policymakers identify
the challenges that, if overcome, could unlock the power of PPPs and support the broader development
agenda.
6
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Infrascope categories and indicators
T
he Infrascope index comprises 23 indicators and 78 sub-indicators, both qualitative and quantitative
in nature. Data for the quantitative indicators are drawn from The Economist Intelligence Unit and
from the World Bank Public Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) Database. Some gaps in the quantitative
data have been filled by estimates produced by The Economist Intelligence Unit.
The qualitative data come from a range of primary sources (legal texts, government websites, press
reports and interviews) and industry reports.
The 5 categories and 23 indicators of the index are as follows (Appendix II provides detailed
definitions and the full list of sub-indicators):
1) Regulations
1.1.) Conducive regulatory environment
1.2.) PPP selection criteria
1.3.) Fairness/openness of bids and contract changes
1.4.) Conciliation schemes
1.5.) Regulators’ risk-allocation record
1.6.) Co-ordination among government entities
1.7.) Renegotiations
1.8.) Sustainability
2) Institutions
2.1.) PPP institutional framework
2.2.) Stability of PPP dedicated agency
2.3.) Project preparation facilities
2.4.) Transparency and accountability
3) Maturity
3.1.) Experience with infrastructure PPP contracts
3.2.) Expropriation risk
3.3.) Contract termination
4) Investment and business climate
4.1.) Political effectiveness
4.2.) Business environment
4.3.) Political will
4.4.) Competition environment in the local industry
5) Financing
5.1.) Government payment risk
5.2.) Capital market for private infrastructure finance
5.3.) Institutional investors and insurance market
5.4.) Currency risk
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
7
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Key findings
Table 1: Overall scores
Infrascope index overall score / 100
Albania
48
Belarus
46
Bulgaria
45
Egypt
55
Georgia
41
Jordan
63
Kazakhstan
58
Morocco
58
Romania
49
Serbia
60
Slovakia
64
Turkey
61
Ukraine
50
EECA-SEMED average
54
l Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are playing an important role in driving infrastructure
development across Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
region. The majority of the 13 countries in this study are utilising PPPs to deliver on sizeable
investments in transport, water and energy and solid waste management, although there is a
significant gap in experience between more advanced countries, such as Turkey, and the rest. There
is strong political support for PPPs across the majority of countries, with senior officials, including
prime ministers, presidents or ministers, expressing support for PPPs in the media or through policy
actions. There is also strong bipartisan or multi-party backing for PPPs across most countries. Support
for PPP programmes is further evidenced by the passage of new PPP-specific legislation in a number of
countries, including Belarus (2016), Jordan (2014), Kazakhstan (2015), Morocco (2014) and Romania
(2016).
l Governmental co-ordination is strongly correlated with the overall PPP environment. PPPs are
complex, inter-agency endeavours that require significant collaboration across different government
entities, including ministries of finance, sector ministries and PPP units. Roles and responsibilities
should be clearly defined in the country’s legal framework, and manuals to guide implementation are
a useful resource. Furthermore, a country’s PPP programme should ideally be aligned with a national
infrastructure plan. The Infrascope index finds that such co-ordination is one of the most important
determinants of overall country performance: most of the countries with the highest scores for
co-ordination among their government entities also score in the top five for the index as a whole
8
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
(Kazakhstan, Slovakia and Jordan). Ten countries have developed national infrastructure plans, but
only four use these to prioritise PPP projects. Seven countries have co-ordination mechanisms or
guidelines to address overlapping jurisdictions, but only three (Egypt, Jordan and Slovakia) have a
regulatory framework providing clear guidance on the interaction between bodies that award PPPs and
those that regulate tariffs and service standards.
l Greater transparency is needed across the PPP cycle. One cross-cutting theme which emerges
from the Infrascope is the need for increased transparency as countries accelerate their PPP activities.
Transparency spans the full gamut, from open bidding to the publication of contracts and project
evaluations, as well as the creation of accessible public registries. Encouragingly, all countries
require the publication of bidding documents, and eight have procedures for dealing with unsolicited
proposals; all but two countries have had a relatively low ratio of unsolicited bids in the past five
years. However, only two countries (Albania and Slovakia) have a regulatory framework that requires
the publication of full contracts. Only three countries (Bulgaria, Egypt and Serbia) have a publicly
accessible online PPP registry; the absence of a registry greatly limits available knowledge about the
scale and scope of PPPs. Only two countries publish the findings of their public consultations on PPPs
(Georgia and Morocco). No country in the index publishes the results of PPP project evaluations, a
serious omission as a matter of accountability.
l Sustainability criteria are not sufficiently embedded in PPP frameworks. While most countries
require environmental impact assessments as part of the feasibility study, very few include disasterand climate-risk considerations in their laws and protocols. Indeed, no country accounts for
disaster risk management or adaptation in PPP regulations, and none incorporates climate-change
commitments in its criteria for project identification, selection or implementation. Disaster risk is
accounted for partially, through a requirement of project insurance, in only three countries (Bulgaria,
Turkey and Kazakhstan). Gender and social inclusion criteria in project implementation are absent in
all countries.
l Utilisation of capital markets for PPPs is limited. Financing, the fifth pillar of the index, has the
lowest overall performance, with no country scoring higher than 56 out of 100 (where 100 equals
the best possible environment for PPPs). This suggests a somewhat limited development of local
capital markets for infrastructure and a reliance on multilateral financing. Institutional investors, a
major source of funds for infrastructure in some parts of the world, have been active only in Jordan
and Turkey among the countries in this study. Seven countries score in the “Nascent” or “Emerging”
category for government payment risk overall, and eight countries score in the same low categories
for currency risk. Taken together, these risks deter private participation in infrastructure projects
because of the long timelines and large outlays such projects entail. Beneath the sobering overall
scores, though, are bright spots. Two countries, Morocco and Turkey, have utilised “green bonds”,
an innovative financing instrument that is underutilised in emerging markets globally.5 Government
payment risk is very low in Morocco and Serbia, and only minor risks are assessed in a further four
nations (Jordan, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Georgia). Eleven of the 13 countries have had no government
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
9
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
defaults on PPP contracts during the last decade, and eight countries have used government payment
guarantees in PPP projects in the last five years.
l Slovakia and Jordan lead the index. Slovakia tops the overall Infrascope, scoring 64 out of 100.
Its Regulatory framework is ranked first, its Investment and business climate third and it comes fourth
in Institutions. Although it lacks a unified PPP law, Slovakia offers comprehensive public procurement
guidelines that address most steps of the project life cycle, and it has mechanisms in place for strong
co-ordination among government entities. Slovakia has implemented a number of large transport
projects, so its institutional capacity was largely evaluated for this sector.* Two large-scale highway
projects have reached financial closure—one highway was built and is operational, another closed
financially and is under construction. Projects currently under way have followed competitive
procurement and reporting practices. Jordan’s strongest performance in Institutions and Financing,
for which it is ranked second in the index. Jordan has developed a stable PPP unit in the Ministry
of Finance with a clear remit on project preparation, and it is one of only two countries in the index
to have established a project development fund to finance feasibility studies. It is also one of two
countries in the Infrascope regions to have institutional investor engagement with PPPs. However,
at the regulatory level, Jordan’s relatively new PPP-specific legal framework (adopted in 2014) is still
somewhat untested.
l PPP maturity depends not merely on having the right regulations and institutions in
place. The index reveals that countries such as Turkey and Morocco, with a strong record of
project implementation, have not yet fully adopted best practices in terms of regulations and
institutions governing PPPs. At the same time, countries such as Belarus and Kazakhstan, with
adequate regulatory frameworks, have still not implemented full projects. This shows that initiating
a successful PPP programme requires more than adequate regulations, and important factors include
strong political will, long-standing technical experience and capacity, and a favourable market in
terms of size, investments and financing conditions. However, refining and standardising the rules
for PPP preparation and implementation is recognised as essential to improve the efficiency of PPP
transactions across both emerging and mature PPP environments.
* The new Infrascope
methodology evaluates
countries based on their
most developed PPP sectors
in cases where publicsector capacity differs
across sectors. This is to
acknowledge different
development trajectories
and to score countries
consistently based on their
most developed areas.
10
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Category scores
1.
Regulations
Table 2: Regulations
Rank
Score / 100
1
Slovakia
85
2
Serbia
67
=3
Albania
55
=3
Belarus
55
=3
Egypt
55
6
Kazakhstan
54
=7
Bulgaria
51
=7
Morocco
51
9
Turkey
50
10
Jordan
49
11
Ukraine
47
12
Georgia
36
13
Romania
29
Mature (80-100)
Developed (60-79)
Emerging (30-59)
Nascent (0-29)
Countries’ regulatory frameworks are converging with international best practice. All countries
in the Infrascope have developed conducive regulatory frameworks for PPPs, either through
encompassing legislation or through broader public procurement regulations. The diversity of legal
mechanisms used to support PPPs shows that different arrangements can contribute towards a
conducive environment as long as some key principles are present, such as transparency, competition
and appropriate oversight and control. However, in some countries (Georgia, Romania and Turkey) the
rules on PPPs have not been codified in clear manuals for easy interpretation by stakeholders, which
may create inefficiencies and confusion.
Best practices for project selection and procurement are found across countries, but full
transparency is not yet the norm. With regard to project selection, all countries have regulations
requiring competitive bidding, all require cost-benefit analysis by regulatory agencies, and all but two
have a “value for money” requirement in selecting PPPs. Openness, however, does not exist across the
project life cycle. While all countries require the publication of bidding documents, only two mandate
the publication of full contracts, and only three require disclosure of contract changes. Alignment
of the PPP programme with national infrastructure plans is another important best practice that
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
11
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
allows PPPs to be organised in concert with the country’s development needs, but only four countries
(Georgia, Kazakhstan, Slovakia and Turkey) link project identification and selection to these national
plans.
Regulatory gaps remain in risk allocation and renegotiation procedures. On average, the lowest
performance in the Regulations category concerns risk allocation criteria and renegotiations. Only
three countries (Kazakhstan, Serbia and Slovakia) provide clear frameworks to account for contingent
liabilities, and only in Slovakia is there evidence that this is applied in practice. Rules on renegotiations
are becoming increasingly important around the world to prevent opportunistic practices by
private partners in the bidding processes, which may lead to cost overruns. In only seven countries
have transparent systems been established to manage renegotiations, and only four have specific
mechanisms to deter or improve transparency around renegotiations (Georgia, Morocco, Romania and
Turkey). While all countries allow for international arbitration, only seven define technically adequate
conciliation schemes that can lessen the potential for costly and lengthy litigation by the courts.
All countries conduct environmental impact assessments, and half have regulations requiring
public consultations on PPPs. All countries make environmental impact assessments (EIAs) a
required part of PPPs, and seven have legal requirements for consultations with communities affected
by projects. However, only Georgia and Morocco require the publication of consultation findings. In
Morocco, Albania, Georgia, Slovakia and Turkey consultations are conducted as part of the EIA. Public
consultations are vital to ensure the overall public support and sustainability of projects, especially in
countries where there is widespread scepticism about private involvement in infrastructure. Gender
and social inclusion criteria are absent in regulatory frameworks in all countries, which shows that
sustainability has been addressed only from an environmental perspective.
Climate-change and disaster-risk considerations are not yet part of the PPP process. As the world
faces increased frequency of extreme weather events, disaster risk management and climate-change
adaptation should become a more common practice. Climate and disaster risks should be understood
properly to identify and allocate risk between the public and the private parties involved in PPPs, and
infrastructure should be developed in ways that increase resilience and reduce environmental impact.
No country accounts for disaster risk management or adaptation in its PPP regulations, and no country
incorporates climate-change commitments in its criteria for PPP selection or procurement; only three
countries (Bulgaria, Kazakhstan and Turkey) account for disaster risk through insurance requirements.
Incentives may be inadequate for private partners to agree to such provisions, which could impact
project costs, so countries should consider standardising these requirements in the selection and
procurement processes.
12
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
2.
Institutions
Table 3: Institutions
Rank
1
Kazakhstan
Score / 100
88
2
Jordan
78
3
Egypt
68
4
Slovakia
56
=5
Albania
53
=5
Belarus
53
=5
Turkey
53
8
Ukraine
43
9
Morocco
40
10
Serbia
38
11
Romania
33
12
Bulgaria
8
13
Georgia
1
Mature (80-100)
Developed (60-79)
Emerging (30-59)
Nascent (0-29)
PPP agencies exist in most countries, providing technical support and co-ordination, and are
associated with the overall quality of the enabling environment for PPPs. PPP units vary across
countries in terms of their structure and roles, but in general their contribution involves supporting
contracting agencies through knowledge dissemination, policy development, capacity building,
co-ordination and oversight. Encouragingly, all but two countries have a PPP-dedicated agency or
sector-specific PPP agency that reports directly to a line ministry. While some countries have developed
central units located in ministries of finance (for example, Egypt and Jordan), others have created
sector-specific entities based on their needs, such as Slovakia in transport. Indeed, the presence
of a PPP unit plays a significant role in the overall performance of the PPP environment: Bulgaria
and Georgia are the only countries without a PPP unit and are in the bottom three countries in the
overall index.
PPP agencies face a variety of challenges, including a lack of independence, skills and clear
guidelines regulating agency interactions. While PPP agencies exist in most countries, they have
weaknesses. Expanding technical and practical skills is needed in Egypt, Serbia and Romania. Other
challenges include high staff turnover (Slovakia) and too many staff vacancies (Jordan). Morocco,
Romania, Serbia and Ukraine score in the “Emerging” category for the stability of their PPP agencies;
challenges include too few checks and balances to ensure the independence of PPP agencies and a lack
of guidelines outlining interactions between different agencies. Empowering PPP units with the right
technical and human resources, with a clear remit and the independence to fulfil their role, can be
instrumental in improving the quality of the overall PPP process.
Countries lack project preparation facilities and project development funds. Project preparation
facilities typically involve technical assistance, capacity-building and the financing resources to
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
13
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
support the early stages of PPP projects; these are indicative of a sophisticated and standardised
PPP delivery environment. All but four countries (Jordan, Kazakhstan, Egypt and Morocco) lack
such project preparation facilities, and only two countries (Jordan and Kazakhstan) have project
development funds. Jordan, Egypt and Kazakhstan have budgets for project preparation facilities,
administered through their PPP units, which finance feasibility studies and provide project
documentation. In the absence of such institutions, these processes are undertaken and costs are
borne by the contracting agencies, sometimes with assistance from international financial institutions
or regional bodies (such as the EU).
Most countries need to improve institutional transparency. Only Bulgaria, Egypt and Serbia have
publicly available, online PPP registries. This lack of easily accessible information makes it difficult
for potential investors to assess the true level of project experience in the majority of countries in the
Infrascope. Publication of reports on upcoming and ongoing projects is limited, with only Bulgaria
making these accessible online. While there is reporting on project performance by contracting
agencies in some countries, only in three (Kazakhstan, Serbia, Ukraine) is this process managed in a
systematic way by a national, dedicated agency. Meanwhile, only Kazakhstan, Slovakia and Ukraine
have auditing or evaluation processes in place for PPP projects, and no country publishes the results
of PPP evaluations. Needs assessments, which should be the basis for justifying PPP projects, are only
published in Slovakia as part of feasibility studies. Mechanisms for dissemination and transparency,
which are lacking across most countries, are not only important for overall good governance of
these processes, but also to foster knowledge-sharing and achieve continuous improvement in
public-sector practices.
3.
Maturity
Table 4: Maturity
Rank Score / 100
1
Turkey
83
2
Morocco
78
3
Jordan
72
4
Romania
68
5
Serbia
66
=6
Slovakia
63
=6
Ukraine
63
8
Georgia
62
9
Egypt
61
10
Kazakhstan
60
11
Belarus
56
12
Bulgaria
51
13
Albania
33
Mature (80-100)
14
Developed (60-79)
Emerging (30-59)
Nascent (0-29)
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Countries differ markedly in terms of PPP maturity. Turkey, Morocco and Jordan are the most mature
PPP countries, and Turkey and Jordan have the highest PPP “maturity” when combining the number
of projects in the past five years with the size of projects relative to GDP. Based on World Bank data,
Turkey is the most experienced country in terms of national PPP projects reaching financial closure in
2012-2016,* at 60, followed by Jordan and Romania at 17 each, revealing a marked gap between the
leader and the rest. However, Morocco, which has delivered only seven PPPs projects in the past five
years, has decades of experience. Four countries have delivered between one and four PPP projects in
the past five years. Belarus and Kazakhstan, with no projects in this period, have ambitions to increase
their infrastructure development in the future, based on their national infrastructure plans and
projects in the pipeline. It is worth noting that the general absence of public PPP registries and limited
transparency may mean that in some cases project experience is underreported.
The rule of law in infrastructure has had a strong track record over the past five years, with low
rates of expropriation or unilaterally enforced price revisions. All countries perform well for their
overall protection of private property in infrastructure. Only one of the 13 countries studied has had
a PPP project expropriation over the past decade, and even that exceptional case was eventually
settled. Similarly, only two countries show evidence of unilaterally enforced price revisions. In the
vast majority of cases, pricing issues are resolved through mechanisms stipulated in contracts and
regulations. Also, most countries have clarified rules on contract termination and allow flexibility to
negotiate possible grounds of termination in the project agreement, and all countries provide for fair
compensation in the event of early termination by the government.
A successful record of project delivery is not synonymous with a strong regulatory framework.
Some countries have developed considerable experience in PPPs in spite of regulatory limitations,
while others that have strong and unified regulatory and institutional frameworks are still waiting
to test them in the real world. Turkey, for instance, has the highest Maturity ranking in terms of
PPP projects and PPP investment as a share of GDP, yet is middle-ranking for its regulations and
institutions. Kazakhstan, which has an adequate legal framework and tops the index for its PPP
Institutions, is among the least experienced countries in terms of project delivery, albeit with projects
in the pipeline. In Turkey’s case, a large number of active projects has made it difficult to harmonise the
legal framework, so laws have developed based on specific sectoral needs at different times, although
a PPP law has been discussed. These trends show that regulations are only one element in developing
a successful PPP programme. Other drivers include strong political will, long-standing technical
experience and capacity, and a favourable market in terms of size, investments and
financing conditions.
* The World Bank
Private Participation
in Infrastructure (PPI)
Database features project
experience data for the
energy, transport and water
sectors only.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
15
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
4.
Investment and business climate
Table 5: Investment and business climate
Rank
Score / 100
1
Serbia
76
2
Albania
74
=3
Romania
71
=3
Slovakia
71
5
Bulgaria
64
=6
Georgia
62
=6
Kazakhstan
62
8
Morocco
61
9
Jordan
58
=10
Turkey
52
=10
Ukraine
52
12
Egypt
51
13
Belarus
38
Mature (80-100)
Developed (60-79)
Emerging (30-59)
Nascent (0-29)
Political support for PPPs is strong in most countries. In nine countries, PPPs generally receive highlevel, bipartisan/multi-party political support, often from prime ministers, presidents or ministers,
in the media or through policy actions. Although PPPs have engendered opposition in some parts of
the world, the analysis for this report shows that most governments and opposition parties are not
fundamentally opposed to PPPs in principle. Indeed, in Albania the current government is carrying out
projects initiated by the former government, and in Turkey the primary opposition party utilises PPPs
in the municipalities it governs. Morocco, thanks to a long history of PPPs, also has strong support
for the PPP model across the political spectrum. Leaders who have spoken publicly in support of PPPs
include Albania’s prime minister, Kazakhstan’s president and Jordan’s King Abdullah, and in some
countries, such as Belarus, initial scepticism has given way to more support. Where differences of
opinion exist, they often relate to views among some stakeholders that some projects have an undue
cost burden (as has been claimed in Slovakia), rather than underlying objections to PPPs as a model.
High levels of political will, however, contrast with somewhat low levels of political effectiveness—a
combined measure of political stability and government effectiveness—which is ranked as “Emerging”
or “Nascent” in ten out of 13 countries. The business environment rating is highest in Slovakia,
Bulgaria, Jordan and Turkey, which also have substantial project experience.
Opinions on PPPs are not as uniformly favourable in the broader stakeholder community. There are
more differences of opinion about PPPs outside the executive government, such as among advocacy
organisations and political commentators. This is because PPPs are often associated with privatisation,
16
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
or because of troubled past projects involving private participation that may have led to negative
perceptions of the PPP model. There are also ideological differences shaping what kinds of investments
are considered appropriate for private participation. In Bulgaria, activist groups oppose “concessions”
in the water sector. In Egypt, a long history of controversy surrounding privatisations, notably during
the Hosni Mubarak era, has led to more widespread opposition to PPPs from opposition parties and
civil society. In Jordan and Georgia, by contrast, public opposition relates more to the manner (such
as cost or efficiency) in which PPPs are executed, rather than any fundamental scepticism over private
participation in infrastructure. Indeed, Jordan’s PPP unit is planning a communications campaign
to ensure proper understanding of the difference between PPPs and privatisation. This may help to
ensure that the attributes of PPPs are well understood, especially in countries with historical political
and social tensions.
5.
Financing
Table 6: Financing
Rank
Score / 100
1
Turkey
56
=2
Jordan
52
=2
Morocco
52
=2
Serbia
52
=5
Bulgaria
47
=5
Slovakia
47
=7
Egypt
36
=7
Ukraine
36
=9
Georgia
34
=9
Romania
34
11
Albania
33
12
Kazakhstan
28
13
Belarus
21
Mature (80-100)
Developed (60-79)
Emerging (30-59)
Nascent (0-29)
The PPP financing category shows the lowest overall performance in the Infrascope. All countries
earn sub-par scores in this category (Emerging or Nascent), and no country scores higher than 56,
making this the weakest area of the Infrascope. In terms of government payment risk, six countries
(Morocco, Serbia, Jordan, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Georgia) are scored as “Developed” or “Mature”—this
indicator combines sovereign risk, experience of past defaults, presence of government guarantees
and available support for low-income users. There are only two examples of government default on
PPP contracts over the last decade. Government payment guarantees, which provide protection to
investors, are present in eight countries, and in three countries (Morocco, Serbia and Albania) over
70% of PPP projects used these mechanisms in the past five years. However, sovereign risk may still
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
17
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
present a challenge in most countries, with ten of them in the Nascent or Emerging category. Currency
risk is also below the Emerging category in eight countries.
Local capital markets have yet to play a catalysing role in PPPs. Capital markets can make a major
contribution to the financing of PPPs, but all countries are either Emerging or Nascent when measured
by actual capital markets development. An indicator on the development of marketable debt, or debt
that is traded freely, shows a somewhat developed market for long-term government bonds in nine
countries, although there is limited activity for private bonds across all countries, with limited depth
and liquidity overall. Also, there is a high reliance on international institutions for the financing of PPP
projects. The share of PPP projects with financing and loans from international financial institutions is
above 50% in around half of the countries that have implemented a PPP project.
Innovative financing is limited, as is the involvement of institutional investors. Institutional
investors, such as pension funds or insurance companies, are suitable funders of infrastructure in other
global regions, but in this study only Jordan and Turkey have attracted such investments. These include
financing by a pension fund of the As-Samra Wastewater Treatment Plant in Jordan and the presence of
Korean and Turkish investors in a health-sector project in Turkey. Other countries have yet to leverage
institutional investment, owing partly to regulatory restrictions on institutional investor activity and
the limited number of projects. Other sources of investment include regional infrastructure funds such
as InfraMed, which has been active in Egypt. Guarantees from international institutions protecting
against political risk, such as those offered by the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA,
part of the World Bank Group), are only available in Jordan in the sectors studied. There is limited use
of more innovative financing instruments as well. Green bonds, used to finance environmental projects
or those that are environmentally sensitive, have only been issued in Turkey and Morocco. Turkey is also
the only country that has used development impact bonds, with a focus on development targets in the
healthcare sector.
Special: “Facilities management” PPPs
in health and education
Facilities management PPPs refer to
arrangements under which the private sector
manages a public facility under a contract with
the government (specifically, in this report,
education and health facilities), for a mediumto long-term period. This provides a way of
increasing private participation in social sectors
and has been adopted by both high-income and
emerging economies. Prominent adopters of
such models include the UK6 and Australia. India
has also been active in the use of such PPPs for a
18
range of healthcare facilities under a variety of
approaches, some of which include primary-care
facilities and involve infrastructure design and
development as well.7 With ageing populations
in many countries and millions still lacking
access to services in low-income countries,
healthcare in particular is in need of continued
heavy investment that strains public budgets,
which may lead countries to explore such PPP
modalities.
However, while such PPPs can bring muchneeded private investment and know-how to
social services, they are not without challenges.
Governments must balance the need of
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
investors to obtain viable revenue streams while
preserving affordable access for the poor. This is
especially difficult in healthcare, where salaries
and advanced equipment can push up operating
costs.8 Facilities PPPs in social services are thus
sensitive and complex, and countries need to
conduct careful assessments of factors such as
tariffs, expected demand volume and revenue
projections. Restrictions on government
subsidies and regulatory hurdles may also
complicate delivery of these services, and there
is generally more public opposition to private
involvement in health and education than in
economic sectors such as transport or power.
Given that the Infrascope methodology has
a focus on economic infrastructure (such as
transport, power and environment), rather than
social infrastructure, facilities management
transactions in education and healthcare are not
assessed formally as part of the index. However,
recognising the growing importance of this
modality of PPPs, regulations and experiences
were analysed across the index group for health
and education as part of the research process.
Key findings
l Facilities management is only included
under general PPP provisions in some
countries. In Egypt, Morocco, Serbia and
Jordan, facilities management PPPs in health
and education are possible under existing
PPP laws; in Slovakia, they are regulated by
public procurement laws. In other countries,
PPP legislation is geared towards physical
infrastructure construction rather than
facilities management, with a frequent lack
of legislative clarity. This is a challenge in
Morocco, for example, where it is unclear which
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
of many pieces of legislation apply to facilities
management. Similar problems exist in Ukraine,
where the PPP legal environment is complex,
with a range of laws and regulations that could
be applied. In some countries, regulations are
unclear because this type of contract has not
been a focus of PPPs.
l Turkey and Egypt are most active in health
and education facilities PPPs. Turkey is by
far the most active implementer of facilities
PPPs, followed by Albania, Egypt, Georgia and
Kazakhstan, which have each delivered, or are
at the pre-tendering stage of, single projects.
In Turkey, 34 healthcare projects have been
developed, with a typical project term of around
30 years.9 Around ten healthcare projects are
reported to have been approved recently in
Turkey, with tenders anticipated in 2017, while
the Ministry of Youth and Sport has indicated
interest in launching Build-Lease-Transfer (BLT)
tenders for 56 student dormitories. In Egypt,
the first facilities PPPs under the 2010 PPP law
involved the construction and management
of two hospitals at Alexandria University. In
education, Egypt’s first PPP tender—currently
under way—involves the building of 200
schools and operating them for 40 years before
transferring them to the government.
l Other countries, while lacking experience,
have expressed interest in health and
education facilities PPPs. Kazakhstan’s
government is prioritising health and
education, and its 2016-18 plan to develop PPPs
includes adopting standardised documents
for tenders in health and education, including
kindergartens, schools, dormitories, clinics
and hospitals. A tender is being prepared for
19
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
a school in Kyzylorda, and the national PPP
website suggests that hospital construction
projects in Aktau, Ust-Kamenogorsk and Semey
are likely to reach tender stage in 2017. Georgia
is currently selecting private partners for the
redevelopment of three hospitals in the capital,
Tbilisi, and is discussing PPPs in vocational
education. Jordan is exploring healthcare
infrastructure facilities management related to
hospitals in Tafila and Aqaba.
l Challenges affecting facilities PPPs include
lack of experience, lack of guarantees and
regulatory uncertainty. There are several
constraints on facilities PPPs in the Infrascope
countries. The first is a lack of experience, which
is especially challenging given the technical
complexities involved in hospital construction,
for example. In Slovakia there are strong lines of
communication between the transport ministry
and the ministry of finance, as this has been
the country’s main area of PPP activity, but such
linkages (and trained personnel) may not be
present in other government agencies. Similarly,
in Ukraine, local authorities in education and
healthcare are not familiar with investment
finance and remain dependent on state budgets
for investment.
l Health and education are sensitive sectors
for private involvement across the regions.
20
The health and education sectors are sometimes
excluded from PPP or private participation,
especially where there is a past history of
problematic or derailed privatisations, or of
industrial action and strikes related to the
privatisation or commercialisation of public
services more broadly (as has occurred in the
health sector in Romania and Slovakia).10 In
some countries, healthcare and education
are considered fundamentally public-sector
activities. A related challenge, identified
in Serbia for instance, is that the prices of
education and healthcare services might
be too low to generate sufficient profits to
entice the private sector. Regulations are
also tighter in social sectors, which can limit
profitability. In Ukraine, budget legislation
restricts the length of long-term contracts
with private providers, which means support
for a project could be discontinued in future
budgetary cycles. Moreover, state support for
projects in Ukraine can only be approved by
the cabinet of ministers, a further hurdle to
advancing projects that require subsidies or
state guarantees. Bureaucratic challenges, such
as onerous regulations and lack of established
processes, are especially prohibitive to
facilities management projects because of their
relatively small budgets compared with major
infrastructure projects.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Infrascope country summaries
T
he following section provides a brief profile of the PPP environment for each of the 13 countries
in this study and their performance in the index. Countries are listed in alphabetical order. Please
note that the information selected for the country profiles is intended to provide a high-level overview;
it is not intended to provide an outline of the legal environment or represent a comprehensive account
of all recent activity.
Albania
Key market data
GDP at current market prices (US$ bn, 2016)
12.2
Population (m, 2016)
2.9
GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita
(US$, 2016)
EIU Sovereign rating (March 2017)
Total PPP investment in 2012-2016 (US$ m)*
*Based on World Bank PPI Database. Energy,
transport and water and sewerage sectors.
Montenegro
Kosovo
Shkoder
11,710
B
Macedonia
129.3
Durres
Adriatic
Sea
Tirana
Elbasan
Overview of the infrastructure sector and
ALBANIA
PPPs
Vlore
Albania’s government considers PPPs to be
instruments to attract investment, especially
Greece
in strategic sectors such as energy, transport,
information and communications technology
(ICT) and, more recently, health and
education.11 There were 12 active projects, amounting to US$721.5m of investment, between 2009 and
2013.12 The energy sector dominates with ten PPPs, amounting to US$362.16m. The Ashta Hydropower
Plant has been the largest, at more than US$244m, led by two Austrian investors, Energieversorgung
Niederösterreich and Verbund. The second-largest PPPs, with a value of US$359.3m, are in transport,
with projects including Tirana International Airport in 2005 and the Port of Durrës in 2013.
Summary of the enabling environment for PPPs
Albania has improved the enabling environment for PPPs, with a specific law on PPPs and concessions
passed in 2013.13 This established a stable framework for promoting, attracting and facilitating publicprivate concessions and PPPs. The law covers rules on competitive bidding, unsolicited proposals,
selection criteria, award criteria, contracts and modifications, termination of contracts, financial
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
21
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Regulations
Albania
EECA-SEMED
(average)
Institutions
Financing
100
80
Investment &
business climate
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Infrascope results
Category
Score / 100 Rank / 13
1) Regulations
55
=3
2) Institutions
53
=5
3) Maturity
33
13
4) Investment and business climate
74
2
5) Financing
33
11
Maturity
issues and dispute settlements. The legal framework includes bylaws such as the decisions of the
council of ministers with regard to the governing and workings of PPPs/concessions, which set out
the rules for the assessment and granting of PPPs, the electronic conduct of competitive procedures,
the establishment and management of the electronic registry of PPPs, and the organisation and
functioning of the country’s PPP Unit, ATRAKO.14 The 2013 law was amended in 2015 to align it with
Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council relating to the co-ordination
of procedures of procurement for public works, supplies and services contracts. Albania has also
advanced its operational clarity, with manuals available on the website of the Agency of Public
Procurement, explaining the technicalities of the tender procedure.
Main challenges for PPP (infrastructure) development
Despite positive developments in the regulatory framework, there are weaknesses at an institutional
level, with uncertainty among public-sector staff about the required steps and procedures for
pursuing PPPs. Lack of financial and human resources in line ministries is an issue, and better project
identification processes and feasibility studies are needed, supported by appropriate technical
manuals.15 Contract management and performance-monitoring of PPPs have also been inefficient, and
risk-allocation practices are suboptimal. There are no clear provisions in the regulations regarding
accounting of contingent liabilities in PPP projects. The country’s weakest category in the index is
Financing, with weak capital-market development and high reliance on multilateral financing.
22
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Belarus
Key market data
GDP at current market prices (US$ bn, 2016)
47.5
Population (m, 2016)
9.3
GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita
(US$, 2016)
17,970
EIU Sovereign rating (March 2017)
CC
Total PPP investment in 2012-2016 (US$ m)*
*Based on World Bank PPI Database. Energy,
transport and water and sewerage sectors.
0
Latvia
Russia
Lithuania
Russia
Vitebsk
Grodno
Poland
Minsk
BELARUS
Overview of the infrastructure sector and PPPs
Gomel
From 2000 onwards the Belarusian government
has pursued an investment promotion policy.16
Ukraine
The priority PPP sectors have included transport
and customs facilities (28.1% of total financing),
education (11.1%) and healthcare (7.5%).17 Since 2012, owing to deteriorating economic conditions,
the state’s infrastructure policy has focused more on efficiency of investments, with an increased
emphasis on creating a favourable environment for infrastructure PPPs. With the support of
international financial institutions the Belarusian government has initiated a number of PPP projects,
including the reconstruction of the M-10 road, the renovation of a hospital and the building of
kindergartens. At present, these projects are in their initial stages (preparation of feasibility studies,
selection of consultants).
Summary of the enabling environment for PPPs
Belarus has improved its legal and institutional environment for PPPs. At the end of 2015 the
government adopted PPP Law No. 345-Z, describing terms and definitions, eligible sectors and the
obligations and guarantees of involved parties. The law, prepared with the support of international
expert agencies, aligns with international best practices. Supporting regulatory legal acts were
Regulations
Belarus
EECA-SEMED
(average)
Institutions
Financing
100
80
Investment &
business climate
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Infrascope results
Category
Score / 100 Rank / 13
1) Regulations
55
=3
2) Institutions
53
=5
3) Maturity
56
11
4) Investment and business climate
38
13
5) Financing
21
13
Maturity
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
23
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
also approved, describing bidding processes, project selection and feasibility studies, and further
legislative amendments are in development.18 At the institutional level, the National Agency of
Investments and Privatisation (NAIP) houses a subdivision called the PPP Centre, which is responsible
for implementing PPP policy, assisting the Infrastructure Interagency Co-ordinating Council, preassessing projects, developing the country’s National Infrastructure Plan (together with other
government bodies), and preparing methodological materials.
Main challenges for PPP (infrastructure) development
Despite the improving legal and institutional framework, there is room for enhancing implementation
capacity and improving project oversight. The existing PPP framework lacks key elements, such as
national project preparation facilities and project implementation funds, sustainable and mature
financial facilities, and independent oversight. The legal framework does not consider facilitymanagement projects in the social sphere (without an investment component) as PPPs.19,20 The
complexity of PPPs compared with conventional types of procurement and infrastructure project
implementation schemes undermines the benefits of PPPs in the eyes of some decision-makers.
24
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Bulgaria
Key market data
GDP at current market prices (US$ bn, 2016)
52.1
Population (m, 2016)
7.1
Romania
GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita
19,330
(US$, 2016)
EIU Sovereign rating (March 2017)
BBB
Total PPP investment in 2012-2016 (US$ m)*
*Based on World Bank PPI Database. Energy,
transport and water and sewerage sectors.
739.1
Pleven
Serbia
Sofia
Varna
Black
Sea
Burgas
BULGARIA
Plovdiv
Macedonia
Turkey
Overview of the infrastructure sector and PPPs
Greece
In Bulgaria, European structural and investment
funds are currently the preferred source of financing
for new infrastructure, including highways, water
and sanitation, with PPPs deployed mainly for the maintenance of facilities or service delivery. Indeed,
there was a drop in the number of concessions tendered and concluded in 2016. Out of 73 calls for
concessions, just 37 were awarded, with 36 for the delivery of services and one involving construction
work (compared with 97 calls and 73 concession contracts signed in 2015).21 PPP projects with
international investors include those involving Veolia, the operator of Bulgaria’s only water concession
in the capital, Sofia, and Fraport, the operator of Burgas and Varna airports. Procurement for the civil
airport in Sofia has recently been cancelled.22 The tender for the airport of the second-largest city in
Bulgaria, Plovdiv, failed owing to insufficient interest from investors and is expected to be retendered
in 2017.
Summary of the enabling environment for PPPs
PPP projects are implemented under the Concession Act 36/2006, which also defines other modalities
of private participation.23 There is no fully dedicated agency in charge of PPP preparation and
Regulations
Bulgaria
EECA-SEMED
(average)
Infrascope results
Category
1) Regulations
Institutions
Financing
100
80
Investment &
business climate
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Score / 100 Rank / 13
51
=7
2) Institutions
8
12
3) Maturity
51
12
4) Investment and business climate
64
5
5) Financing
47
=5
Maturity
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
25
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
implementation, and no state body to monitor the performance of concessions. As a member of the
EU, Bulgaria is obliged to align its legislation with EU law, but this process is incomplete. A new draft
of the Concession Act, intended to merge the regulatory requirements for PPPs and concessions and
incorporating EU rules on concessions (Directive 2014/23/EU), was passed by the parliament in
January 2017. However, it was vetoed by the newly elected president and is not expected to be passed
in the foreseeable future.24
Main challenges for PPP (infrastructure) development
One challenge to the long-term stability of the PPP programme is posed by the ideological differences
about PPPs in Bulgaria, including public scepticism about engaging private partners in the delivery of
public services. Concessions and privatisations are perceived negatively by some non-governmental
and civil society groups, and attempts to award large contracts have been widely debated. With no
dedicated body to implement PPP infrastructure projects and no project development fund, there is
also a lack of experience in structuring PPPs using international best practices. Political instability,
and elections in 2017, present further challenges for the adoption of the Concession Act and the
tendering of PPPs. European structural and investment funds, coupled with public procurement, will
probably continue to be the main funding source for new infrastructure projects.
26
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Egypt
Key market data
GDP at current market prices (US$ bn, 2016)
268.9
Population (m, 2016)
93.4
GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per
capita (US$, 2016)
Mediterranean Sea
Alexandria
11,370
EIU Sovereign rating (March 2017)
Port Said
Cairo
Jordan
Israel
Suez
Saudi
Arabia
CCC
Total PPP investment in 2012-2016 (US$ m)*
*Based on World Bank PPI Database. Energy,
transport and water and sewerage sectors.
276.0
EGYPT
Red
Sea
Libya
Overview of the infrastructure sector and PPPs
Egypt began implementing transport and power
PPPs in the late 1990s, and in 2006 it established a
PPP Central Unit. In the latter half of the 2000s at
Sudan
least 17 infrastructure projects, valued at around
US$5bn, were executed.25 The tendering process was
disrupted by political instability during 2011-13, and only two hospitals have been built since then,
but 14 projects—worth over US$4bn—are at various stages in the project cycle, including ports, roads,
rail and ferries. The Abu Rawash Wastewater Treatment Plant, awarded in 2015, is no longer classified
as a PPP, as it was converted into an engineering, procurement and construction project in February
2017. Egypt’s precarious public finances, along with an urgent need to upgrade infrastructure to meet
the needs of a large and growing population, mean that privately financed infrastructure projects are a
priority for the government, with a particular focus on the education sector.
Summary of the enabling environment for PPPs
The PPP environment has evolved in the past decade into a more organised and structured framework.
Initially, PPPs were conducted ad hoc by ministries under sector-specific legislation. More coRegulations
Egypt
EECA-SEMED
(average)
Institutions
Financing
100
80
Investment &
business climate
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Infrascope results
Category
Score / 100 Rank / 13
1) Regulations
55
=3
2) Institutions
68
3
3) Maturity
61
9
4) Investment and business climate
51
12
5) Financing
36
=7
Maturity
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
27
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
ordination came after 2006 with the formation of the PPP Central Unit. This led to the passing of
a comprehensive PPP law in 2010, Law No. 67,26 which covers projects tendered by ministries and
government agencies across all sectors, under the overall authority of the PPP Supreme Committee, a
cabinet-level body. However, the law does not cover state-owned companies (SOCs). PPPs implemented
by these SOCs, notably in the electricity sector, fall under sector-specific legislation, with the most
notable recent example being the Renewable Energy Law of 2014,27 which provides a framework for
electricity feed-in tariffs, thus facilitating PPP-financed projects such as solar and wind farms. Egypt
relies heavily on multilateral donors to finance PPP projects and feasibility studies.
Main challenges for PPP (infrastructure) development
Egypt’s PPP environment faces several challenges. One is the lack of adequate community consultation
to guide project selection and secure public support for projects. This is problematic given widespread
opposition to privatisation,28 with which PPPs are often confused, and distrust of foreign investors.
The small number of projects executed so far under the PPP law also indicates limited implementation
experience. Research by the OECD suggests that the PPP Central Unit is understaffed and points to
difficulties in securing PPP buy-in from line ministries.29 There is also an inadequate legal structure
for unsolicited PPP proposals. Political instability and a volatile currency have discouraged private
infrastructure investment in the past. Heavy reliance on donors for PPP funding is a further weakness,
and more private investors are needed if Egypt is to realise the necessary financing to achieve its
infrastructure goals.
28
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Georgia
Key market data
GDP at current market prices (US$ bn, 2016)
13.5
Population (m, 2016)
4.0
GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita
(US$, 2016)
EIU Sovereign rating (March 2017)
9,310
BB
Total PPP investment in 2012-2016 (US$ m)*
417.0
*Based on World Bank PPI Database. Energy, transport
and water and sewerage sectors.
Russia
Sukhumi
Black
Sea
Kutaisi
GEORGIA
Tbilisi
Batumi
Turkey
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Overview of the infrastructure sector and PPPs
A small number of projects in Georgia have reached
financial closure in the past five years, mainly greenfield electricity projects in hydropower, such as
the Anadolu Paravani Hydroelectric Power Plant,30 which reached financial closure in 2011 with a total
investment of US$156.5m. And in 2016 the government and the Anaklia Development Consortium
signed an investment agreement to develop and operate the US$2.5bn Anaklia Deep Sea Port,
which will be the largest project implemented so far.31 The government will invest US$100m in the
construction and development of railway and transport links to connect the port to the region.
Summary of the enabling environment for PPPs
The government of Georgia is developing PPP legislation, and there is strong political support for
private partnerships in providing public services such as healthcare and education. As there is no
designated law on PPPs, projects are governed by the civil code and other relevant legislation. A
concessions law from 1994 provides legal support for projects but lacks clarity on project selection,
planning, implementation and monitoring.32 Two new resolutions (No. 191 and No. 245) were
adopted by the government in 2016 and provide guidelines on feasibility studies and value-for-money
analysis,33 and outline a general policy framework for PPPs.34 PPP implementation is enabled by Article
Regulations
Georgia
EECA-SEMED
(average)
Institutions
Financing
100
80
Investment &
business climate
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Infrascope results
Category
1) Regulations
Score / 100 Rank / 13
36
12
2) Institutions
1
13
3) Maturity
62
8
4) Investment and business climate
62
=6
5) Financing
34
=9
Maturity
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
29
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
21 of the Public Procurement Law. It is expected that legislation will be developed further in 2017.
Key PPP institutions are the Ministry of Regional and Infrastructure Development of Georgia, which
is the main governmental institution responsible for infrastructure development, and the Ministry of
Economy and Sustainable Development, which is the PPP policymaker.
Main challenges for PPP (infrastructure) development
Georgia’s limited regulatory framework means that factors such as dispute-resolution mechanisms
or risk-allocation practices are not sufficiently defined, and most details on project implementation
are laid down in contracts rather than stipulated by law. A further challenge is the limited capacity
of government agencies in planning and monitoring PPP projects.35 Currently, there is no single
governmental agency with information or co-ordination functions.36 In the absence of dedicated PPP
agencies, oversight activities are facilitated by donors.
30
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Jordan
Key market data
Lebanon
GDP at current market prices (US$ bn, 2016)
38.0
Population (m, 2016)
9.8
GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per
capita (US$, 2016)
8,740
EIU Sovereign rating (March 2017)
CCC
Total PPP investment in 2012-2016 (US$ m)*
2,526.0
*Based on World Bank PPI Database. Energy,
transport and water and sewerage sectors.
Syria
Iraq
Irbid
West
Bank
Israel
Zarqa
Amman
JORDAN
Overview of the infrastructure sector and PPPs
Jordan has been implementing PPPs since 1999 in
Saudi Arabia
Aqaba
sectors including rail, wastewater, ports, power
and airports. At least a dozen projects, worth over
US$5bn, had been implemented by 2013,37 the largest
being the US$1bn Disi Water Conveyor Project, which pipes fresh water from a southern aquifer to the
capital, Amman. Around 12 solar power projects were awarded in 2014-16, worth a total of US$700m,
and the country’s international airport is in its second phase of expansion. Given its weak public
finances, PPPs are considered vital to addressing Jordan’s infrastructure needs (such as limited water
supplies and the high cost of energy imports), as indicated by the high level of support from figures such
as the king and the minister of planning, as well as the inclusion of PPPs in the “Jordan 2025” vision
document.38 PPP projects have attracted financing from a wide range of sources, including multilateral
donors and domestic and foreign private investors.
Summary of the enabling environment for PPPs
Jordan passed a comprehensive PPP law in 2014, Law No. 31,39 and established a cabinet-level PPP
Council to provide approvals and a PPP Unit located in the Ministry of Finance to provide technical
Regulations
Jordan
EECA-SEMED
(average)
Financing
Institutions
100
80
Investment &
business climate
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Infrascope results
Category
Score / 100 Rank / 13
1) Regulations
49
10
2) Institutions
78
2
3) Maturity
72
3
4) Investment and business climate
58
9
5) Financing
52
=2
Maturity
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
31
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
support to line ministries. Although the law covers all economic sectors, the cabinet has the power
to choose to exclude certain sectors from its requirements, as it has for water and energy through to
August 2018 in order to facilitate urgent projects.40 These include projects governed by the Renewable
Energy Law41 and the first phase of the Red-Dead project to refill the Dead Sea from the Red Sea, which
is being prepared for tender.
Main challenges for PPP (infrastructure) development
At the regulatory level, the 2014 PPP Law is somewhat untested, with no projects implemented so far
and thus limited expertise on its application. This partly explains why the cabinet excluded urgent
projects from its scope for a two-year period. The PPP framework could be strengthened, for example
through the clearer specification of conciliation schemes, greater transparency, more accounting for
contingent liabilities, the conducting of independent audits, and a requirement for public consultation
on proposed projects. The PPP Unit needs to recruit more staff and develop technical resources, such
as creating a guidebook for project implementation. There is also little information published on the
PPP Unit’s website regarding existing and proposed projects. Companies bidding for PPPs may also be
concerned that the PPP Law provides insufficient clarity on dispute resolution, contract termination
procedures and contract transfer, leaving these to be fleshed out in individual contracts.
32
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Kazakhstan
Key market data
GDP at current market prices (US$ bn, 2016)
Russia
126.5
Population (m, 2016)
17.9
Petropavlovsk
GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita
24,520
(US$, 2016)
EIU Sovereign rating (March 2017)
BB
Total PPP investment in 2012-2016 (US$ m)*
*Based on World Bank PPI Database. Energy,
transport and water and sewerage sectors.
0
Uralsk
Astana
Karaganda
KAZAKHSTAN
Almaty
Caspian
Sea
Uzbekistan
Kyrgyz Rep.
Turkmenistan
China
Overview of the infrastructure sector and PPPs
Tajikistan
Kazakhstan sought to increase investment
in infrastructure PPPs with the adoption of a
concessions law in 2006 that enabled Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) projects. However, subsequent
projects, such as the North Kazakhstan-Aktobe region power line and the Charsk-Ust-Kamenogorsk
railway line faced problems because the law conflicted with other legislation, meaning that risk was
not equally shared between the partners. Both projects also produced less revenue than anticipated,
leading to financial complications. Following these challenges, amendments to the concessions law
and other legislation were made to harmonise the regulatory process. This resulted in the development
of a new generation of concession projects, beginning with the Big Almaty Ring Road (BAKAD). Chinese
investment in the country via its “One Belt, One Road” programme has increased the Kazakhstan
government’s interest in infrastructure development.
Summary of the enabling environment for PPPs
The new PPP law of 2015, which created a legal basis for PPP projects and a more comprehensive
institutional structure, was adopted in the context of a range of strategic reforms and stimulus
programmes, including the Nurly Zhol infrastructure programme and the 100 Concrete Steps, designed
Regulations
Kazakhstan
EECA-SEMED
(average)
Financing
Institutions
100
80
Investment &
business climate
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Infrascope results
Category
Score / 100 Rank / 13
1) Regulations
54
6
2) Institutions
88
1
3) Maturity
60
10
4) Investment and business climate
62
=6
5) Financing
28
12
Maturity
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
33
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
to reform government institutions.42 These set the conditions for projects such as BAKAD (officially
awarded) and the Shymkent ring road and the Almaty rail bypass (in planning stages).
Whereas PPPs had previously played only a limited role via the concessions law, the 2015 law
redefined them as a new method of developing infrastructure via a contractual relationship of
3-30 years with a private partner based on an equal share of risks, rewards, costs, rights and
responsibilities. It was followed by a development plan to further promote PPPs, which assigned
responsibility for the development of regulations and the establishment of projects to the Ministry of
National Economy and the PPP Centre.43 A series of regulations was introduced, covering procurement
processes, bidding documentation and contracts.44,45 In 2016 the Kazakhstan PPP Advisory Centre
became the Kazakhstan Project Preparation Fund, with a new charter expanding its traditional role of
consulting on project documentation to financing, with a new fund of US$6.3m from the Baiterek state
financial holding company. However, despite this progress in legal and institutional development,
projects remain slow to materialise.46,47
Main challenges for PPP (infrastructure) development
One challenge for Kazakhstan is building confidence in PPPs. Previous concessions have faced
difficulties, including the Charsk-Ust-Kamenogorsk railway line, which defaulted on its infrastructure
bonds in 2008 after cargo volumes failed to meet expectation, and the North Kazakhstan-Aktobe
power line, which is still not running at full capacity after key industry actors failed to connect to its
supply. These were also delivered using provisions in the civil code, meaning that the concessions
law has not been fully tested.48,49 While the new legislative environment was welcomed by the legal
community as it is less bureaucratic and distributes risk more evenly, it is untested and questions
remain, including the availability and extent of state subsidies for certain projects, the possibility of
indexation of long-term rates, limits on financing due to legislation on banking, potential limits on
international arbitration, and whether delivery of a PPP with a state-owned enterprise will conflict
with state procurement laws.50,51 One outcome that could stimulate further interest in infrastructure
will be the successful delivery of the Big Almaty Ring Road Project, awarded in late 2016, which was
prepared under the concessions law.52
34
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Morocco
Portugal
Key market data
GDP at current market prices (US$ bn, 2016)
103.8
Population (m, 2016)
34.8
GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per
capita (US$, 2016)
Atlantic Ocean
Casablanca
8,110.0
EIU Sovereign rating (March 2017)
Rabat
MOROCCO
Marrakesh
B
Total PPP investment in 2012-2016 (US$ m)*
*Based on World Bank PPI Database. Energy,
transport and water and sewerage sectors.
Spain
7,942
Algeria
Laâyoune
Western
Overview of the infrastructure sector and PPPs
Sahara
Morocco has seen significant private-sector
Mauritania
Mali
participation in infrastructure, with projects
spanning electricity, ports, water and sewerage,
natural gas and ICT. In the past five years several projects have reached financial closure, primarily
in electricity, notably the Ouarzazate Solar Power Station with a total installed capacity of 160 MW,
built under a BOT scheme.53 Ouarzazate is part of a larger PPP project, the Noor [Arabic for light] Solar
Complex, to be delivered in four phases and intended to help Morocco achieve its renewable energy
targets by 2030.
Summary of the enabling environment for PPPs
Morocco’s regulatory environment for PPPs was enhanced by the enactment of a PPP-specific law at the
end of 2014 (Law No. 86-12),54 accompanied by Decree No. 2-15-45, which provides details on project
evaluation processes, contract clauses, the work of the PPP Commission, and protocols for dealing with
unsolicited bids, among others.55 At the institutional level, project implementation is supported by a
dedicated PPP Unit, which sits within the department for privatisation in the Ministry of Economy and
Regulations
Morocco
EECA-SEMED
(average)
Financing
Institutions
100
80
Investment &
business climate
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Infrascope results
Category
Score / 100 Rank / 13
1) Regulations
51
=7
2) Institutions
40
9
3) Maturity
78
2
4) Investment and business climate
61
8
5) Financing
52
=2
Maturity
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
35
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Finance. There is political will to continue with PPP contracts,56 despite public budgetary constraints,
as evidenced in statements by high-profile officials.57
Main challenges for PPP (infrastructure) development
Despite improving regulations, there is a lack of clarity in some areas, such as contingent liabilities,
rules for the publication of contracts and the auditing of PPP projects.58 The structure, remit and
interaction of the PPP Unit with other agencies need to be defined in more detail.59 A further challenge
is the fact that pre-existing legislation, such as a 2006 law on delegated management of public
services,60 still applies, which creates confusion for investors and agencies in terms of what legislative
framework to follow.61 There is also progress to be made in terms of PPP process transparency, as
project evaluation is not systematic and PPP contracts are not published.62 Furthermore, although
Morocco has gathered experience with PPPs, no projects have yet been contracted under the 2014 PPP
Law, and thus its effectiveness is still to be tested.
36
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Romania
Slovakia
Key market data
GDP at current market prices (US$ bn, 2016)
192.4
Population (m, 2016)
19.4
GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per
capita (US$, 2016)
Moldova
Hungary
Iasi
Oradea
23,970.0
EIU Sovereign rating (March 2017)
Ukraine
ROMANIA
BBB
Galati
Total PPP investment in 2012-2016 (US$ m)*
2,547.8
*Based on World Bank PPI Database. Energy,
transport and water and sewerage sectors.
Ploiesti
Constanta
Bucharest
Serbia
Overview of the infrastructure sector and PPPs
Black
63
Romania has been relatively active in PPPs. Over
Bulgaria
Sea
150 small-scale projects in waste management and
sanitation were delivered between 2007 and 2012,
driven by local administrations, and there have also been larger energy projects in solar, wind and
nuclear power.64,65 By late 2013 a total of 16 national infrastructure projects were designated but have
not been tendered, including the Bucharest-Brasov highway, the Pitesti-Craiova highway, the Macin
bridge, the Siret-Baragan water channel and the Tarnita Hydropower Plant.66,67 Some projects outside
the green energy sector, which has a favourable subsidisation scheme, have stalled or failed, such as
the building of highways and the construction of a nuclear power plant. The market is underdeveloped
overall, and the only champions for large-scale PPPs are international financial institutions and some
government departments.
Summary of the enabling environment for PPPs
The enabling environment for PPPs has been unstable in recent years in legal, institutional, financial
and operational terms. The majority of PPP contracts in place, especially in municipal services, were
implemented as long-term concession agreements within the framework of the old public concession
Regulations
Romania
EECA-SEMED
(average)
Institutions
Financing
100
80
Investment &
business climate
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Infrascope results
Category
Score / 100 Rank / 13
1) Regulations
29
13
2) Institutions
33
11
3) Maturity
68
4
4) Investment and business climate
71
=3
5) Financing
34
=9
Maturity
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
37
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
law No. 34/2006. The new PPP Law, No. 233, was passed in 2016,68 but is awaiting further legislation
for implementation, expected in 2017. Romania has a PPP Unit, but it has changed its remit, reporting
lines and composition at least four times since its inception in 2007 and cannot currently act as a
catalyst for PPP development. Operationally, there have been project problems, such as the ComarnicBrasov concession, which failed in 2004, 2010 and again in 2013, suggesting that the bankability of a
project is not always incorporated into the planning stages.69
Main challenges for PPP (infrastructure) development
The appetite for PPPs is tempered by a lack of government capacity to structure and finance projects
and weak planning processes, reflecting incomplete legislation and the PPP Unit’s lack of operational
stability.70 Lack of technical capacity in the public sector is also a limitation, while risk-allocation
practices need to be improved. There are also risks to contractual stability during implementation
owing to renegotiations initiated by the government. Examples include the difficulties in structuring
the PPP for the Comarnic-Brasov highway and multiple amendments to the Veolia Apa Nova water
concession in Bucharest.71. However, renewed constraints on infrastructure budgets may provide
another impetus for the PPP market, especially in 2018 and 2019.
38
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Serbia
Key market data
Hungary
GDP at current market prices (US$ bn, 2016)
37.8
Population (m, 2016)
7.1
GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per
capita (US$, 2016)
Croatia
14,730.0
EIU Sovereign rating (March 2017)
Romania
Novi Sad
Belgrade
B
Total PPP investment in 2012-2016 (US$ m)*
603.3
*Based on World Bank PPI Database. Energy,
transport and water and sewerage sectors.
SERBIA
Nis
Overview of the infrastructure sector and PPPs
Montenegro
Bulgaria
Pristina
In Serbia, private-sector involvement in
Kosovo
infrastructure was first formalised through a PPP
Albania
and concessions law enacted in 2011, and high-level
Macedonia
political figures have expressed official support for
PPPs in international media and policy statements. Projects have been proposed in public lighting,
public transport, solid waste management, energy (including renewables), telecommunications, water
and sewerage. Of the 43 project proposals approved through the PPP/concession model, 41% have
reached contract signature stage, with ten public contracts signed in 2015 and eight in 2016, although
no data are published about implementation.72 Most proposals have been submitted by public bodies at
the municipal level, with only two at the national level.
Summary of the enabling environment for PPPs
Serbia’s 2011 PPP and concession law and subsequent amendments 88/11, 15/2016 and 104/2016
introduced the concept of PPPs into domestic legislation for the first time, defining PPPs as the
long-term co-operation between public and private partners with the aim to provide financing,
construction, reconstruction, management or maintenance of infrastructure and other objects of
Regulations
Serbia
EECA-SEMED
(average)
Institutions
Financing
100
80
Investment &
business climate
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Infrascope results
Category
Score / 100 Rank / 13
1) Regulations
67
2
2) Institutions
38
10
3) Maturity
66
5
4) Investment and business climate
76
1
5) Financing
52
=2
Maturity
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
39
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
public relevance, as well as public services. Other recent regulatory developments include efforts to
harmonise PPP and procurement laws with EU legislation.73 The 2011 law stipulated the fields in which
PPPs may apply, procedures for implementation and monitoring functions. It also made provisions
for the contents of documents such as PPP project proposals and contracts. PPP implementation is
supported by the Commission for Public-Private Partnership linked to the Ministry of Economy and
Regional Development, which is charged with national co-ordination, accountability and information
related to PPPs and concessions.
Main challenges for PPP (infrastructure) development
Serbia’s PPP environment poses several challenges. Because the Law on Public-Private Partnership
and Concessions is relatively new, there are contradictions with other legislation, such as the Public
Procurement Law.74 This complicates the interpretation of aspects such as rules on project value levels
for subcontracting, foreign-currency payments, rules on budgetary planning, and protocols on the
use of public property. The issuing of more specific guidelines and the further development of the
capacities of public partners are key to improving the PPP environment. Institutionally, Serbia lacks
permanent staff and independence in its PPP agency, as well as guidance for co-ordination with other
agencies involved in PPPs. It also lacks formalised project preparation facilities.
40
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Slovakia
Key market data
GDP at current market prices (US$ bn, 2016)
89.6
Population (m, 2016)
5.4
GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per
capita (US$, 2016)
31,210.0
EIU Sovereign rating (March 2017)
Poland
Czech
Republic
SLOVAKIA
A
Total PPP investment in 2012-2016 (US$ m)*
1,130.0
*Based on World Bank PPI Database. Energy, transport
and water and sewerage sectors.
Austria
Kosice
Ukraine
Bratislava
Hungary
Romania
Overview of the infrastructure sector and PPPs
Slovakia has implemented a limited number of national PPPs in the past decade, but its projects are
large in scale and focused on transport.75 The R1 highway linking Nitra and Banska Bystrica/Zvolen
reached financial closure in January 2009, and construction finished in the summer of 2012. The
project was refinanced through the issuance of project bonds and will be in concession until 2041.76
In 2016 the second PPP infrastructure project, the D4/R7 highway bypass of the capital, Bratislava,
reached financial close.77 Between September and December 2010 two additional PPPs for highway
projects were cancelled as they failed to reach financial close, and the new government opted to
provide funding from other sources (predominantly EU funds). In late 2016 the new government
abandoned plans to construct a new university hospital as a PPP.78
Summary of the enabling environment for PPPs
Although there is no specific PPP law in Slovakia, the comprehensive public procurement legislation
and methodological guidelines establish a conducive PPP environment. For all sectors, the legal and
regulatory framework relies mainly on Law No. 343/2015 (Public Procurement Act), which covers PPPs
but does not define PPPs as a special type of concession. The act incorporates provisions set out in the
Regulations
Slovakia
EECA-SEMED
(average)
Institutions
Financing
100
80
Investment &
business climate
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Infrascope results
Category
Score / 100 Rank / 13
1) Regulations
85
1
2) Institutions
56
4
3) Maturity
63
=6
4) Investment and business climate
71
=3
5) Financing
47
=5
Maturity
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
41
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
EU legal framework for procurement by public authorities and utilities, namely Directive 2014/23/
EU on the award of concession contracts, Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement, and Directive
2014/25/EU on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal
services sectors.
This legislation makes guidance on competitive procurement procedures widely available for
the authorities.79 The Ministry of Finance has recently updated methodological guidelines and
manuals assisting authorities to navigate the PPP process on aspects such as project preparation,
implementation, control, feasibility study and public-sector comparator.80 The government has also
published key documentation on the D4/R7 highway project, including the feasibility study, the
opinion of the finance ministry and the PPP contract itself, showing adherence to best reporting
practices.81
Main challenges for PPP (infrastructure) development
However, despite some successful large-scale projects and the general support of the government,
PPPs are facing challenges. Ease of access to European structural and investment funds ensures
that conventional public procurement remains the main source of funding for new infrastructure
developments. In addition, institutional PPP expertise is concentrated in the relatively small PPP unit
at the Ministry of Transport, with little experience in other ministries and agencies, which struggle
to design and implement complex projects because there is no national project preparation facility or
project development fund. In the absence of a public PPP registry, transparency in the procurement
and management of PPP projects is also suboptimal.
42
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Turkey
Key market data
Ukraine
GDP at current market prices (US$ bn, 2016)
843.0
Population (m, 2016)
79.6
GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per
capita (US$, 2016)
Bulgaria
24,500.0
BB
Total PPP investment in 2012-2016 (US$ m)* 68,514.6
*Based on World Bank PPI Database. Energy,
transport and water and sewerage sectors.
Greece
EIU Sovereign rating (March 2017)
Russia
Black
Sea
Armenia
Istanbul
Bursa
Izmir
Georgia
Ankara
Iran
TURKEY
Konya
Adana
Cyprus
Diyarbakir
Gaziantep
Syria
Iraq
Overview of the infrastructure sector and PPPs
Mediterranean Sea Lebanon
Turkey has been implementing PPPs as the primary
means of developing infrastructure. Between 1986 and 2016 a total of 211 projects were developed,
under construction or subject to signed development contracts, at a total value of around US$121.9bn.
This includes 38 motorways, 22 ports, 18 airports, 14 border gates and one railway line.82 Completed
projects include the Osman Gazi Bridge, the third Bosporus suspension bridge and the Ankara
Esenboga Airport Terminal. 2016 saw the commissioning of a number of major PPPs, including the
Izmit Bay Bridge and the Avrasya Tunnel, which connect Europe and Asia across the Bosporus.
Furthermore, under Turkey’s health PPP programme, 14 hospitals have reached financial close with a
total investment of about US$7.7bn.
Summary of the enabling environment for PPPs
On the regulatory and legal level, Turkey has eight separate laws under which PPP projects may be
developed: the Public Services Concessions Law, the Electricity BOT Law 3096, the Highways BOT
Law 3465, the BOT Law 3996, the Privatisation Law 4046, the BO Law 4283, the Omnibus Bill 5335,
Article 33, and the BLT Law 6428. The most recent addition to the legislative framework came in the
2013 Build-Lease-Transfer (BLT) Law. Primarily designed for healthcare but also used for education,
Regulations
Turkey
EECA-SEMED
(average)
Institutions
Financing
100
80
Investment &
business climate
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Infrascope results
Category
Score / 100 Rank / 13
1) Regulations
50
9
2) Institutions
53
=5
3) Maturity
83
1
4) Investment and business climate
52
=10
5) Financing
56
1
Maturity
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
43
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
the legislation allows private companies to develop facilities and lease them back to the contracting
administration for an agreed period. Numerous large projects in energy and transport projects
have been implemented under the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) model. The implementation decree
(2011/1807) to the general BOT Law 3996 was adopted in 2011 and provides a framework and
procedures for the implementation of a range of projects under the general BOT Law.
Main challenges for PPP (infrastructure) development
Turkey’s main challenge is the patchwork of legislation used to develop projects and the lack of a
single responsible authority which can advise and oversee developments. While there has been
public consultation on developing a single law to cover all PPPs under the auspices of the Ministry for
Development, there is as yet no firm indication that this will happen. Lack of independent and publicly
transparent monitoring and evaluation of ongoing PPP projects has fuelled public criticism and
concerns about the feasibility and sustainability of some of the large-scale projects. Particularly the
level of demand guarantees offered by the government in several mega-projects has raised questions
about their potential impact on public finances. Greater clarity on accounting procedures and the
treatment of contingent liabilities in the budget would be desirable to address these problems.
44
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Ukraine
Key market data
GDP at current market prices (US$ bn, 2016)
87.8
Population (m, 2016)
42.5
GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per
capita (US$, 2016)
Russia
Kiev
Lviv
8,280.0
EIU Sovereign rating (March 2017)
Belarus
Poland
UKRAINE
CC
Total PPP investment in 2012-2016 (US$ m)*
*Based on World Bank PPI Database. Energy,
transport and water and sewerage sectors.
Kharkiv
940.2
Moldova
Donetsk
Odessa
Romania
Black
Overview of the infrastructure sector and PPPs
Sea
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 most
of Ukraine’s infrastructure has remained in state hands, financed from national or local budgets.
Eventually a concessions law was developed in 1999 to increase investment in public infrastructure
and, following the 2008-9 financial crisis—and with Ukraine preparing to host the 2012 European UEFA
football championships—the government turned to PPPs. However, the PPP law of 2010, Law No. 2404VI, failed to attract investment and was overhauled in 2015 by Law No. 817-19.
Summary of the enabling environment for PPPs
The PPP law widened the areas for the application of PPPs to include housing, energy-saving
technology and social services. It gave new rights to private partners through allowing ownership of
PPP infrastructure by the private partner and introduced stabilisation clauses and direct agreements
with step-in rights, which give investors protection against regulatory changes. The amendments
provided security to private partners by allowing international arbitration and potential compensation
of expenses and losses for early termination by the state partner, and called for international
accounting standards for calculating concession fees.83,84,85 The PPP law established a clearer
Regulations
Ukraine
EECA-SEMED
(average)
Institutions
Financing
100
80
Investment &
business climate
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Infrascope results
Category
Score / 100 Rank / 13
1) Regulations
47
11
2) Institutions
43
8
3) Maturity
63
=6
4) Investment and business climate
52
=10
5) Financing
36
=7
Maturity
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
45
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
governance structure for PPPs. Unlike the concession law, which has no co-ordinating governance
structure, the PPP law established a clear, albeit incomplete, institutional framework. The PPP policy
is overseen by a PPP department in the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Projects are
assessed by this department before being passed for approval to either the cabinet of ministers or the
relevant regional government, depending on the scale of the project.
Main challenges for PPP (infrastructure) development
Despite the developing regulatory framework, Ukraine’s PPP sector faces challenges. First is the range
of laws according to which PPPs and concessions can be implemented, each with different regulatory
requirements depending on project and sector. Attempts to create a standard regulatory environment
via the PPP law and its 2015 overhaul have not succeeded, because developing projects under this
legislation is more challenging than with concession laws.86 Project development is a problem for
regional authorities, which lack access to support from an independent local PPP unit.87,88 The current
agency is located within the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade.
Transparency is a further issue. There is no comprehensive central registry of PPPs available to the
public. As such, international financial institutions and donor organisations have found it difficult to
determine accurately the number of PPPs and concessions under way.89 A further issue is that while
central and local authorities can sign long-term agreements under the PPP and concessions laws,
these projects could fall victim to the annual budgetary cycle, which requires project payments to be
approved every year. If the project is structured via the PPP law, investors can receive state guarantees,
but authorities struggle with the complexities of preparing PPP projects and the compensation process
remains untested—and is likely to be time-consuming for investors.90
46
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Endnotes
World Economic Forum (WEF). 2014. “Strategic Infrastructure: Steps to Operate and Maintain Infrastructure Efficiently and
Effectively”. [http://reports.weforum.org/strategic-infrastructure-2014/introduction-the-operations-and-maintenance-omimperative/the-global-infrastructure-gap/]. Accessed March 2017.
1
European Investment Bank (EIB). 2013. “Private Infrastructure Finance and Investment in Europe”. [http://www.eib.org/
attachments/efs/economics_working_paper_2013_02_en.pdf]. Accessed March 2017.
2
Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2017. “Meeting Asia’s Infrastructure Needs”. [https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/
publication/227496/special-report-infrastructure.pdf]. Accessed March 2017.
3
World Bank. 2013. “Infrastructure and Employment Creation in the Middle East and North Africa”. [https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/12237/NonAsciiFileName0.pdf;sequence=1]. Accessed March 2017.
4
Kidney, Sean. 2016. “New Green Bonds for Cities project: Supporting Cities in Accessing Green Infrastructure Finance”. Climate
Bonds Initiative. [https://www.climatebonds.net/2016/09/new-green-bonds-cities-project-supporting-cities-accessinggreen-infrastructure-finance]. Accessed March 2017.
5
World Bank. 2016. “PPP in Health”. [https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/ppp-health]. Accessed
December 2016.
6
World Bank. 2014. “Green Book - Model Concession Agreement for Primary Health Care Facility”. [https://ppp.worldbank.
org/public-private-partnership/library/green-book-model-concession-agreement-primary-health-care-facility]. Accessed
December 2016.
7
PPP Center Philippines. 2013. “Sector Guidelines – Health.” [http://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Final-Draftof-Sector-Guidelines-for-Health.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
8
Facilities management PPPs in Turkey are delivered under Law 6428 on the Restructuring of Public-Private
Business Association Model in the Ministry of Health. Available at: http://mevzuat.basbakanlik.gov.tr/Metin1.
Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.6428&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=&Tur=1&Tertip=5&No=6428.
9
Goudriaan, Jan Willem. 7 April, 2016. “The rising wave of privatisation damages healthcare in Europe”. Euractiv. [http://
www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/opinion/the-rising-wave-of-privatisation-damages-healthcare-in-europe/].
Accessed December 2016.
10
Albanian Radio and Television. 26 January 2016. “Rama Defends PPPs”. [http://rtsh.al/lajme/rama-mbron-koncesionetdhe-partneritetin-publik-privat/]. Accessed December 2016.
11
World Bank PPI Database. [http://ppi.worldbank.org/visualization/ppi.html#sector=&status=Distressed&ppi=
&investment=&region=&ida=&income=&ppp=PPP&mdb=&year=&excel=false&map=AL&header=true]. Accessed December
2016.
12
Government of Albania. 2013. Law No.125 of 2013. “On Concessions and Public Private Partnerships.” Amended by
Law No. 88 of 2014 and Law No. 77 of 2015. [http://atrako.gov.al/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Ligji-Nr.125_2013p%C3%ABrdit%C3%ABsuar.pdf]. Accessed November 2016.
13
Government of Albania. 2007. Decision of the Council of Ministers (No.150) of March 2007. “On the organization and
functioning of ATRAKO – Concessions Treatment Agency, as amended”. [http://172.17.240.61/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/
VKM-150.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
14
15
Personal interview. December 2016.
National Statistic Committee of the Republic of Belarus. “Belarus GDP”. [http://www.belstat.gov.by/ofitsialnayastatistika/makroekonomika-i-okruzhayushchaya-sreda/natsionalnye-scheta/godovye-dannye_11/proizvodstvovalovogo-vnutrennego-produkta/]; “Capital investments”. [http://www.belstat.gov.by/ofitsialnaya-statistika/
16
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
47
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
realny-sector-ekonomiki/investitsii-i-stroitelstvo/osnovnye-pokazateli-za-period-s-__-po-____gody_8/investitsii-vosnovnoi-kapital_3/]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Belarus. “National Infrastructure Plan”. [http://www.economy.gov.by/
dadvfiles/002833_728128_3.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
17
18
Personal interview. December 2016.
19
Ibid.
20
Personal interview. December 2016.
21
National Concession Register. [http://www.nkr.government.bg/]. Accessed December 2016.
Reuters. 5 April, 2017. “Bulgaria cancels tender for Sofia airport”. [http://www.reuters.com/article/bulgaria-airporttender-idUSL5N1HD1TY]. Accessed April 2017.
22
The Concessions Act also defines “service concessions”, a modality referring to a management contract with a private party,
which under the definition of this study does not constitute a PPP.
23
CMS Cameron McKenna. 2017. “President vetoes New Concessions Act”. [http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.
aspx?g=d3b457c7-359b-4e79-a6fa-a5b859a68fd8]. Accessed February 2017.
24
25
World Bank. 2016. “Custom Query - Egypt”. [https://ppi.worldbank.org/customquery]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Egypt. Law 67 of 2010. “Partnership with the Private Sector in Infrastructure Projects, Services and Public
Utilities”. [http://www.pppcentralunit.mof.gov.eg/Content/Legislation/Documents/LawNo67fortheyear2010.pdf].
26
Government of Egypt. Law 203 of 2014. “Regarding the Stimulation of Producing Electricity from Renewable Sources”.
[http://egyptera.org/Downloads/Laws/law2014.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
27
The New Arab. January 2015. “Khaled Ali: Privatisation has stolen Egypt from its people”. [https://www.alaraby.co.uk/
english/features/2015/1/27/khaled-ali-privatisation-has-stolen-egypt-from-its-people]. Accessed December 2016.
28
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2014. “Business Climate Review of Egypt: Investment
Policies and Public-Private Partnerships.” [http://www.oecd.org/mena/competitiveness/BCR%20Egypt_April29_with_
cover.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
29
World Bank PPI Database. “Project Information - Anadolu Paravani HPP”. [http://ppi-re.worldbank.org/data/project/
anadolu-paravani-hpp-7427]. Accessed March 2017.
30
Interpressnews. 2016. “Budget for 2017 majority funds are allocated for healthcare, regional infrastructure and education
sections’ development”. [http://www.interpressnews.ge/ge/sazogadoeba/400262-2017-tslis-biujetis-proeqtith-yvelazemet-dafinansebas-jandacvis-regionuli-ganvitharebis-da-ganathlebis-saministroebi-miigheben.html?ar=A]. Accessed
December 2016.
31
Parliament of Georgia. Law No. 1388 of 20 April 2005. “The Law of Georgia on Public Procurement”. [https://matsne.gov.
ge/ka/document/view/31252]. Accessed December 2016.
32
Government of Georgia. Resolution No. 191 of 22 April 2016. “Resolution on Approval of Investment Project Management
Procedures Guideline”. [https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3265745]. Accessed December 2016.
33
Government of Georgia. Resolution No. 245 of 6 June 2016. “Resolution on Approval of Public-Private Partnership Policy
Document”. [https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3298735]. Accessed December 2016.
34
35
48
Personal Interview. December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
36
Personal Interview. December 2016.
37
World Bank. 2016. “Custom Query - Jordan”. [https://ppi.worldbank.org/customquery]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Jordan. 2015. “Jordan 2025”. [http://inform.gov.jo/Portals/0/Report%20PDFs/0.%20General/
jo2025part1.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
38
Government of Jordan. Law 31 of 2014. “Public-Private Partnership Law”. [http://tinyurl.com/jordanPPP]. Accessed
December 2016.
39
40
Council of Ministers. 31 July 2016. Decision 840 of 2016.
Government of Jordan. Law 13 of 2012. “Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Law”. [http://emrc.gov.jo/images/
renewable_energy_and_energy_efficiency_law.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
41
Astana Times. 2015. “Kazakhstan Unveils 100 Concrete Steps to Implement Institutional Reforms.” [http://astanatimes.
com/2015/05/kazakhstan-unveils-100-concrete-steps-to-implement-institutional-reforms/]. Accessed December 2016.
42
Office of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Order no. 15-p of 9 March 2016. “On confirmation of the plan
for the realisation of PPP in various sectors and regions of 2016-2018 with additional PPP mechanisms”. [http://www.
government.kz/ru/rasporyazheniya-premer-ministra-respubliki-kazakhstan/rasporyazheniya-premer-ministra-rk-za-mart2016-goda/31322-ob-utverzhdenii-plana-meropriyatij-po-realizatsii-proektov-gosudarstvenno-chastnogo-partnerstvapo-otraslyam-i-regionam-na-2016-2018-gody-s-rasshireniem-mekhanizmov-primeneniya-gosudarstvenno-chastnogopartnerstva-i-chastnykh-investitsij.html]. Accessed December 2016.
43
Ministry of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 724 of 25 November 2015. “On the
confirmation of standard tender documentation for PPP projects”. [https://tengrinews.kz/zakon/pravitelstvo_respubliki_
kazahstan_premer_ministr_rk/hozyaystvennaya_deyatelnost/id-V1500012495/]. Accessed December 2016.
44
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Law no. 379-V from 31 October 2015. Article 26. “On Public-Private
Partnerships”. [http://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=37704720]. Accessed December 2016.
45
46
Personal Interview. December 2016.
47
Charter of the KPPF, made available by Aslan Bulatov, Deputy Chairman of the KPPF.
Grata International. 13 April 2016. “PPP in Kazakhstan”. [http://www.gratanet.com/en/publications/details/PPP_
Kazakhstan_march]. Accessed December 2016.
48
49
Personal Interview. December 2016.
Aequitas. 11 December 2015. “New Law on Public-Private Partnerships”. [http://aequitas.kz/upload/files/
Информационный%20меморандум_новый%20Закон%20о%20ГЧП.pdf.] Accessed December 2016.
50
Dentons. 8 December 2015. “Kazakhstan Introduces new PPP Law”. [http://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2015/
december/8/kazakhstan-introduces-public-private-partnership-law]. Accessed December 2016.
51
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). “Construction and Operation
of a motor road ‘Big Almaty Ring Motor Road (BAKAD)’”. [http://www.ebrd.com/cs/
Satellite?c=Content&cid=1395242547330&pagename=EBRD%2FContent%2FContentLayout]. Accessed December 2016.
52
European Commission. International Cooperation and Development. “Ouarzazate Solar Power Plant - Phase I”. [https://
ec.europa.eu/europeaid/blending/ouarzazate-solar-power-plant-phase-i_en]. Accessed March 2017.
53
54
Government of Morocco. Law n° 86-12 of 24 December 2014. “On Public-Private Partnership contracts”. [http://adala.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
49
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
justice.gov.ma/FR/DocumentViewer.aspx?id=188945.htm]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco. Decree n° 2-15-45 of 13 May 2015. “On the application of Law n° 86-12 on PPP contracts”. [http://
adala.justice.gov.ma/production/html/Fr/189771.htm]. Accessed December 2016.
55
56
Personal interview. January 2017.
Government of Morocco. 2015. “The Public Private Partnership (PPP) is not a privatization but an alliance to create a project
to enrich the economy”. [http://www.maroc.ma/fr/actualites/mboussaid-le-ppp-nest-pas-une-privatisation-mais-unealliance-visant-enrichir-leconomie]. Accessed December 2016.
57
58
Government of Morocco. Op cit. Law No. 86-12 of 24 December 2014 and Decree No. 2-15-45 of 13 May 2015.
59
Personal interview. January 2017.
Government of Morocco. Law n° 54-05 “On the delegated management of public services”. [https://goo.gl/uTB1xg].
Accessed February 2017.
60
60
Personal interview. January 2017
62
Personal interview. January 2017.
Barnaure, Mariana. 2017. “Bugetul pe 2017 a fost adoptat de Parlament”. Mediafax News Agency. [http://www.mediafax.
ro/politic/bugetul-pe-2017-a-fost-adoptat-de-parlament-16152808]. Accessed February 2017.
63
Ionescu, Vladimir. 2015. “Documents for Reactors 3 and 4 of Cernavoda Power Plant. The Chinese side will have 51% of the
project company”. Curs de Guvernare.ro. [ http://cursdeguvernare.ro/memorandumul-pentru-reactoarele-3-si-4-de-lacernavoda-partea-chineza-va-detine-51-din-actiunile-companiei-de-proiect.html]. Accessed March 2017.
64
65
World Bank PPI Database. [https://ppi.worldbank.org/snapshots/country/Romania]. Accessed December 2016.
Mediafax. Economic Department. 2016. “Ponta’s list for PPPs: Bucharest-Brasov and Pitesti - Craiova Highway, Cernavoda
Nuclear Energy, Macin Bridge”. [http://www.mediafax.ro/social/lista-lui-ponta-pentru-ppp-autostrazile-bucuresti-brasovsi-pitesti-craiova-cne-podul-macin-10527213]. Accessed December 2016.
66
Sova, Dan. 2013. “Of the 16 public-private partnership projects started none has been finalized”. Obiectiv.info. [http://
www.obiectiv.info/dan-sova-din-16-proiecte-demarate-in-parteneriat-public-privat-nu-a-fost-finalizat-niciunul_13548.
html]. Accessed December 2016.
67
Government of Romania. Law No. 233 of 25 December 2016. “On public-private partnerships”. [http://lege5.ro/Gratuit/
geztmmjwgyya/legea-nr-233-2016-privind-parteneriatul-public-privat]. Accessed December 2016.
68
Neferu, Andreea. 2015. “Concession of the Bucharest - Comarnic Highway fell through for a second time. Who pays
for the most resounding failure of the Romanian road system?” Ziarul Financiar. [http://www.zf.ro/zf-24/concesiuneaautostrazii-comarnic-brasov-a-picat-pentru-a-treia-oara-cine-plateste-pentru-cel-mai-rasunator-esec-al-drumurilorromanesti-14470186]. Accessed January 2017.
69
Government of Romania. Emergency Ordinance No. 11 of 6 April 2016. “On establishing measures to reorganise the
central administration”. [http://dpiis.gov.ro/new_dpiis/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ORDONAN%C5%A2%C4%82-DEURGEN%C5%A2%C4%82-nr.-11-din-6.04.2016.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
70
Apa Nova Bucharest. 2011. “Concession contract”. [http://www.apanovabucuresti.ro/companie/cine-suntem/contractulde-concesiune/]. Accessed December 2016.
71
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2013. Public Private Partnership Commission. [http://www.ppp.gov.rs/]. Accessed
December 2016.
72
73
50
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 88/11, 15/2016 and 104/2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
“Law on Public-Private Partnership and Concessions”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_javno_privatnom_
partnerstvu_i_koncesijama.html] . Accessed January 2017.
Foreign Investors Council. 2016. White Book. [http://www.fic.org.rs/projects/white-book/white-book.html]. Accessed
December 2016.
74
European Commission, 2016. “Country Report Slovakia 2016”. [http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/csr2016/cr2016_
slovakia_en.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
75
Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic. “PPP Projects”. [http://www.
telecom.gov.sk/index/index.php?ids=45691]. Accessed December 2016.
76
PwC. 2017. “Award for the D4/R7 Project PPP Deal of the Year 2016 in Europe”. [http://www.pwc.com/sk/en/tlacovespravy/award-for-the-d4-r7-project-ppp-deal-of-the-year-2016-in-europe.html]. Accessed February 2017.
77
TASR. 2016. “Cabinet Okays Suspension of PPP Project for New Bratislava Hospital”. [https://newsnow.tasr.sk/policy/
cabinet-okays-suspension-of-ppp-project-for-new-bratislava-hospital/]. Accessed December 2016.
78
Government of the Slovak Republic. Act No. 343/2015. “Public Procurement Act”. [https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravnepredpisy/SK/ZZ/2015/343/20160418.html]. Accessed December 2016.
79
Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic. 2015. “Codex for Management of PPP Project”. [http://www.mfsr.sk/Default.
aspx?CatID=6678]. Accessed December 2016.
80
Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic. 2016. “D4/R7 Highway PPP
contract”. [http://www.obchvatbratislavy.sk/sk/dokumenty]. Accessed December 2016.
81
82
Ministry of Development. “Registry of PPP Projects”. [https://koi.kalkinma.gov.tr/Main_EN.aspx]. Accessed January 2017.
Verkhovna Rada. 24 November 2015. “Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopts the Law ‘On Amendments to Some Laws of Ukraine
on elimination of regulatory barriers to the development of public-private partnerships and encourage investment in
Ukraine’”. [http://iportal.rada.gov.ua/ru/news/Novosty/Soobshchenyya/119924.html]. Accessed December 2016
83
Zhabskiy, Vladislav. 5 July 2016. “Public Private Partnerships: The rules change”. Jurliga. [http://jurliga.ligazakon.ua/
news/2016/7/5/147643.htm]. Accessed December 2016.
84
CMS Law. 1 December 2015. “Ukraine amends its law on public-private partnerships to attract investments”. [http://www.
cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2015/12/ukraine-amends-its-law-on-public-private-partnership-to-attract-investments?cc_
lang=en]. Accessed December 2016.
85
World Bank. 1 January 2016. “Public-private partnerships in the context of public investment management in Ukraine: an
assessment”. [http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/103351467993734646/Public-private-partnerships-in-thecontext-of-public-investment-management-in-Ukraine-an-assessment]. Accessed December 2016.
86
USAID. 1 December 2015. “Draft Final Report”. USAID Public Private Partnership Development Programme in Ukraine.
[http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00KTHT.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
87
88
Personal Interview. January 2016.
89
World Bank. “Public-private partnerships in the context of public investment management in Ukraine”. 2016.
USAID. July 2015. “Kyiv Education Facility Management Case Study”. [http://ppp-ukraine.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/12/Kyiv-Education-Facility-Management.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
90
Asian Development Bank. 2008. “Public-Private Partnership Handbook”. [https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/
institutional-document/31484/public-private-partnership.pdf]. Accessed November 2016.
91
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
51
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
USAID. “Project Preparation Facilities Toolbox”. [https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/PPF%20
Toolbox%20REVISED.pdf]. Accessed November 2016.
92
The World Bank. 2016. “Public-Private-Partnership in Infrastructure Resource Center”. [http://ppp.worldbank.org/publicprivate-partnership/]. Accessed November 2016.
93
Public -Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility. 2016. “Rapid Needs Assessment Tool for PPP Identification of Viable Projects”.
[https://ppiaf.org/feature_story/rapid-needs-assessment-tool-ppp-identification-viable-projects]. Accessed November
2016.
94
52
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Appendix I: Project background
Infrascope background
The first version of the Infrascope methodology was created by The Economist Intelligence Unit’s
research team in consultation with the Multilateral Investment Fund at the Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB) and a wider group of sector stakeholders. A first edition of the Infrascope was
published in 2009 for Latin America and the Caribbean. The index results were updated in 2010, 2012
and 2015. The Infrascope methodology subsequently expanded to other regions to cover Asia (2011
and 2014), Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (2012) and Africa (2015).
This current edition of the Infrascope features a new methodology created in 2016 to reflect the
latest industry developments for infrastructure PPPs. With the financial support of the World Bank
Group, The Economist Intelligence Unit designed a research programme focused on identifying
key recent developments in the regulatory, institutional and business environment to enable PPP
implementation. The first step of the process was conducting a literature review of the latest academic
and industry publications to identify key concepts, debates, metrics and sources of evidence on PPP
practices. This research was the foundation for the development of a new Infrascope framework.
The second step was to produce a revised indicator framework and discuss it with a panel of experts.
In September 2016 The Economist Intelligence Unit convened an Advisory Committee of experts on
public-private partnerships (PPPs). Held in Washington, DC, the meeting had the participation of more
than 20 representatives from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Inter-American Development
Bank (IDB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the World Bank,
as well as from the private sector and government agencies. The meeting focused on validating
the principles of the new methodology and on gathering expert advice on the best qualitative and
quantitative indicators for measuring the environment for infrastructure PPPs. After a thorough
analysis of all issues raised The Economist Intelligence Unit developed a revised indicator framework,
involving additional rounds of consultations with the development banks.
In line with the original methodology, the framework is designed to evaluate the capacity of
countries to implement sustainable and efficient public-private partnerships by dividing the PPP
project life cycle into five components:
1) A country’s legal and regulatory framework for private participation in infrastructure;
2) The design and responsibilities of institutions that prepare, award and oversee projects;
3) The experience of implementing PPP projects and governments’ ability to uphold laws and
regulations;
4) The business, political and social environment for investment; and
5) The financial facilities for funding infrastructure.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
53
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
However, given substantial changes in the methodology of the study, the results from past editions of
the Infrascope are not directly comparable with those in this edition.
The revised methodology includes 66 qualitative and 12 quantitative sub-indicators.
For enhanced objectivity of qualitative indicators, the scoring framework is mostly based on binary
or dichotomous indicators (1=yes and 0=no). Scores are based on evidence obtained by researching
local laws and regulations, examining specialised reports and conducting interviews with experts and
key stakeholders. The quantitative indicators rely on available data from sources such as the World
Bank Private Participation in Infrastructure Database and The Economist Intelligence Unit’s own
proprietary business environment and risk indicators.
This new methodology is being applied in 2017 for an assessment of 19 countries in Latin America
and the Caribbean (LAC) and 13 countries across Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Southern and
Eastern Mediterranean (EECA-SEMED).
New themes in the Infrascope framework
The new methodology captures current themes and requirements for efficient and sustainable PPPs. In
addition to an expanded focus on the quality of regulations based on the latest and best practices and
on the adequacy and effectiveness of institutions involved in PPP processes, the study considers these
new areas:
l Sustainability: Reflecting the principles of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the
Regulations category examines new attributes, including requirements to conduct environmental
impact assessments and public consultations, as well as the alignment of regulatory frameworks
with disaster risk management, climate change, social inclusion and gender equality. The study also
considers the overall integration of the PPP programme with national infrastructure plans.
l Fiscal control/budgeting: Acknowledging decreasing public budgets across emerging markets,
the Infrascope includes indicators concerning regulations for adequate financial planning to
avoid excessive fiscal pressure. Indicators in this area include specific questions on accounting for
contingent liabilities and rules on renegotiations.
l Transparency and accountability: Measures of transparency along the whole PPP life cycle are also
a key addition to the framework. The index evaluates the existence of publication requirements for
bidding documents and contracts, PPP registries, and for the systematic monitoring and evaluation of
the project. The study also considers whether information is being made easily available to the public
through websites.
l New financing instruments: The existence of new types of institutional support for PPP programmes
is also considered, including project preparation facilities, project development funds and green
bonds. The index also features new metrics on the investment and business climate, such as level of
concentration of the PPP market and new measures of sophistication of financing facilities, such as
innovative finance and the participation of institutional investors.
54
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Our definition of PPPs
This study distinguishes between PPPs and the many other forms of private participation. For the
purposes of the Infrascope, the term PPP refers to projects that involve a long-term contract between
a public-sector body and a private-sector entity for the design, construction (or upgrading), operation
and maintenance of public infrastructure to deliver quality public services. The private partner has
typically provided finance and assumed significant construction, operation and maintenance risks,
and is responsible for the delivery of the contract. The public sector remains responsible for policy
oversight and regulation, contract execution and supervision and ultimately bears risks of private
partner underperformance, and the infrastructure generally reverts to public-sector control at the end
of the contract term. All countries analysed had legislation in place (whether PPP-specific or general
public procurement laws) enabling projects compatible with this definition of PPPs.
Owing to the specific definition of PPP used in this study, the analysis largely excludes a country’s
capacity and experience regarding divestitures and management and lease contracts. In keeping with
this, project figures taken from the World Bank’s Private Participation in Infrastructure Database for
maturity indicators include only concessions and greenfield projects. A narrow focus is applied because
these more complex PPPs typically fall under different legislation than divestitures, and a separate task
force and more complex interaction between public and private partners are required. For example,
whereas privatisations enable the public sector to receive funds in exchange for selling assets and are
relatively simple to implement, in PPPs the government and/or users pay for the asset or service. This
imposes stronger financial constraints on the public sector, rendering financing more complex, and
also riskier. These elements are further enhanced by the fact that PPP contracts must follow a life-cycle
approach to oversee quality and service standards over a long period of time, after which the asset
returns to the public sector.
This report also analyses PPP facilities management in the education and healthcare sector in a
special chapter. This involves the management of public facilities by the private sector under a longterm contract.
Definitions of sectors covered
Water/sanitation refers to drinking water and sanitation projects. Transport refers to seaports,
airports, roads and highways and rail. Energy refers to energy generation, specifically electricity
generation. Energy extraction is not covered. The key element here is to evaluate the environment for
competitive, private electricity-generation investment via concessions, which could be indefinite or
fixed-term. Competition could be face-to-face or for the right to service the market.
The new methodology expands to consider the solid waste-management sector in the assessment of
regulations and institutions. We refer to treatment and disposal of solid waste, including recycling and
waste to energy.
The study analyses the enabling environment across all sectors with a holistic view. However, the
new methodology also allows for increased flexibility for assessing countries where capacity of the
public sector is located in specific sectors. The assessment considered sector-specific regulations
and institutions in cases where cross-sector structures were lacking. This is intended to acknowledge
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
55
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
that countries may have developed public-sector capacity according to specific sector needs. As an
example, the study awarded a point for the existence of a PPP unit in countries where this was located
only in a specific sector (eg transport).
Types of projects considered
The public-sector body remains responsible for policy oversight and regulation, with complete control
generally reverting to them at the end of the contract term (Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT)). In the
electricity-generation sector, we consider as PPPs either BOT or Build-Own-Operate (BOO) schemes
with long-term contracts or power-purchase agreements (PPAs) with public or private distribution
companies or integrated state electricity companies. Even though the power plant does not revert
to the state and remains private property, we consider both BOO and these long-term contracts
to be PPPs, as they differ from the integrated public utility with rate-of-return regulation. In the
water sector, our analysis includes as PPPs private-sector investments via BOT and BOO schemes
with incentive price regulation. Examples include water treatment and freshwater provision or fully
integrated water utilities, either under a long-term contract or periodic rate-setting, as long as this
rate-setting promotes efficient provision.
Unbundling projects: when is it still a PPP?
Unbundling PPP projects has become increasingly important to generate value for money. Bundling
investment, financing, construction, operation and maintenance has the potential to reduce a
project’s value for money by affecting competition. Such complex projects frequently require firms to
form consortia to complete them, a process that can lead to significant transaction costs. In addition,
private financing can be more expensive than public financing. Our minimum standard for PPPs
requires the private sector to take responsibility for operation and maintenance and to face significant
demand risk. At the other end of the spectrum we exclude fully privatised and integrated utilities
with rate-of-return regulation. With these limits in mind, we consider the following cases to be PPPs:
when the government undertakes a project with minor initial investment and financial requirements
but transfers operation, maintenance and demand risk to the private sector; when the government
builds and finances a project and later transfers operation, maintenance and significant commercial
risk to the private sector; and when the government provides debt financing, while the private sector
contributes equity and constructs, operates and maintains the project, assuming significant demand
risk. However, we exclude lease contracts from our definition of PPPs, because they are essentially
financing operations in which commercial and operational risks remain with the state.
56
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Appendix II: Methodology, sources and
detailed indicator definitions
i.
Methodology
The methodology for this benchmarking study was created by The Economist Intelligence Unit’s
research team in consultation with the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the
World Bank and a wider group of sector stakeholders. The indicator list and research focus were
conceptualised at a workshop attended by international and regional sector experts in September
2016.
ii.
Sources
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s research team gathered data for the index from the following
sources:
l Interviews and/or questionnaires from sector experts, consultants and government officials
l Surveys from national regulators
l Legal and regulatory texts
l The Economist Intelligence Unit country credit risk and operational risk products
l Scholarly studies
l Websites of government authorities
l Local and international news media reports
l The World Bank’s Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) Database
62 in-depth telephone interviews were conducted with policymakers and legal and country
infrastructure experts from multilateral consulting institutions and the private sector.
iii.
Calculating the index
a)
Scoring
All qualitative indicators have been scored on an integer scale. This scale ranges from 0-1 or 0-2 scores
depending on the definitions and scoring scheme formulated for each indicator. Scores are assigned
by The Economist Intelligence Unit’s research managers and a team of country analysts following a
detailed scoring guideline.
b)
Normalisation
Indicator scores are normalised and then aggregated across categories to enable a comparison of
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
57
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
broader concepts. Normalisation rebases the raw indicator data to a common unit so that it can be
aggregated: the integer scores are transformed to a 0-100 score.
The quantitative indicators where a higher value indicates better performance have been
normalised on the basis of:
x = (x - Min(x)) / (Max(x) - Min(x)) where Min(x) and Max(x) are, respectively, the lowest and
highest values in the 13 countries for any given indicator. The normalised value is then transformed to
a 0-100 score to make it directly comparable with other indicators.
This in effect means that the country with the highest raw data value will score 100, while the lowest
will score 0.
c)
Weighting the index
At the conclusion of the indicator scoring and normalisation, The Economist Intelligence Unit selected
a series of default weightings deemed appropriate for the overall index calculation (see table below).
These weightings are not meant to represent a final judgment on relative indicator importance.
Modelling and weighting the indicators and categories in the index results in scores of 0–100 for each
country, where 100 represents the highest quality and performance, and 0 the lowest.
Table 1: Weights
58
Main categories
Weight
1) REGULATIONS
18.2%
2) INSTITUTIONS
18.2%
3) MATURITY
27.3%
4) INVESTMENT AND BUSINESS CLIMATE
18.2%
5) FINANCING
18.2%
Indicator / Sub-indicator
Weight
1.1.) CONDUCIVE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
12.5%
1.1.1.) PPP contracts supported by public procurement
33.3%
1.1.2.) Codification of PPP procurement practices
33.3%
1.1.3.) Length of appeals in contract disputes
33.3%
1.2.) PPP SELECTION CRITERIA
12.5%
1.2.1.) Competitive bidding required by regulations
33.3%
1.2.2.) Selection criteria outlined in regulations
33.3%
1.2.3.) Economic principles for project selection
33.3%
1.3.) FAIRNESS/OPENNESS OF BIDS AND CONTRACT CHANGES
12.5%
1.3.1.) Publication of bidding documents and contracts
33.3%
1.3.2.) Unsolicited bids/proposals
33.3%
1.3.3.) Ratio of unsolicited proposals
33.3%
1.4.) CONCILIATION SCHEMES
12.5%
1.4.1.) Existence of conciliation schemes
50.0%
1.4.2.) Arbitration
50.0%
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Indicator / Sub-indicator
Weight
1.5.) REGULATORS’ RISK-ALLOCATION RECORD
12.5%
1.5.1.) Contingent liabilities
100.0%
1.6.) CO-ORDINATION AMONG GOVERNMENT ENTITIES
12.5%
1.6.1.) National infrastructure plan
50.0%
1.6.2.) Inter-agency co-ordination
50.0%
1.7.) RENEGOTIATIONS
12.5%
1.7.1.) Renegotiation procedures
33.3%
1.7.2.) Transparency: renegotiations disclosed by law
33.3%
1.7.3.) Independent oversight of renegotiations
33.3%
1.8.) SUSTAINABILITY
12.5%
1.8.1.) Environmental impact statement required for PPPs
25.0%
1.8.2.) Consultation
25.0%
1.8.3.) Disaster risk-sensitive investment
25.0%
1.8.4.) Coherence with national sustainability policies
25.0%
2.1.) PPP INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
25.0%
2.1.1.) Existence of a PPP dedicated agency
50.0%
2.1.2.) PPP dedicated agency adequately staffed
50.0%
2.2.) STABILITY OF PPP DEDICATED AGENCY
25.0%
2.2.1.) Reporting lines of PPP dedicated agency
33.3%
2.2.2.) Independence of PPP dedicated agency
33.3%
2.2.3.) PPP procurement process co-ordination guidelines
33.3%
2.3.) PROJECT PREPARATION FACILITIES
25.0%
2.3.1.) Project preparation facilities
50.0%
2.3.2.) Project development fund
50.0%
2.4.) TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
25.0%
2.4.1.) Existence of a public PPP registry
20.0%
2.4.2.) National PPP monitoring and reporting
20.0%
2.4.3.) Monitoring and reporting
20.0%
2.4.4.) Agency for evaluation of PPP project results
20.0%
2.4.5.) Publication of PPP results evaluation
20.0%
3.1.) EXPERIENCE WITH INFRASTRUCTURE PPP CONTRACTS
50.0%
3.1.1.) Number of PPP projects in the past five years
40.0%
3.1.2.) PPP investment size relative to GDP
40.0%
3.1.3.) Distress level – cancellations in the past five years
20.0%
3.2.) EXPROPRIATION RISK
33.3%
3.2.1.) Project expropriations in the past ten years
50.0%
3.2.2.) Unilaterally enforced price revisions
50.0%
3.3.) CONTRACT TERMINATION
16.7%
3.3.1.) Contract termination
100.0%
4.1.) POLITICAL EFFECTIVENESS
29.4%
4.1.1.) Political effectiveness
100.0%
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Appendix
59
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Indicator / Sub-indicator
Weight
4.2.) BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
29.4%
4.2.1.) Business environment
100.0%
4.3.) POLITICAL WILL
29.4%
4.3.1.) Political will for PPPs
50.0%
4.3.2.) Attitudes towards PPPs: opposition to PPPs
50.0%
4.4.) COMPETITION ENVIRONMENT IN THE LOCAL INDUSTRY
11.8%
4.4.1.) Level of concentration in the industry
100.0%
5.1.) GOVERNMENT PAYMENT RISK
25.0%
5.1.1.) Sovereign risk
25.0%
5.1.2.) Government payments: PPP contract defaults
25.0%
5.1.3.) Government guarantees
25.0%
5.1.4.) Government support for low-income users
25.0%
5.2.) CAPITAL MARKET FOR PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE
25.0%
5.2.1.) Marketable debt
33.3%
5.2.2.) Source of financing for PPPs
33.3%
5.2.3.) Availability of sustainable finance
33.3%
5.3.) INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS AND INSURANCE MARKET
25.0%
5.3.1.) Participation of institutional investors in PPPs
76.9%
5.3.2.) Guarantee fund
23.1%
5.4.) CURRENCY RISK
25.0%
5.4.1.) Currency risk
100.0%
iv.
Detailed indicator definitions
1.
Regulations
(1.1.1) Public procurement and PPP contracts: This indicator evaluates whether the existing legal
framework is conducive for PPP implementation under different types of arrangements. Do any of the
below apply?
a) PPP contracts are contemplated as a modality in public procurement.
b) PPP contracts can be undertaken in the country under existing procurement law or policy guidelines.
c) There is a national PPP law or other regulation that fulfils a similar role (eg in civil law jurisdictions).
d) The country has a public procurement law, which is clear on the extent to which the law can be
applied to a PPP.
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.1.2.a) Codification: This indicator assesses whether the rules for PPP implementation have
been addressed comprehensively in a unified code or document—such as regulations, guidelines or
manuals—in a manner that allows for precise interpretation and implementation. Such documents
60
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
would typically include details on carrying out the different PPP stages (such as procurement and
contract management). Has PPP as a procurement modality been codified in manuals or policy
guidelines?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.1.2.b) Codification: Are these manuals available online?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.1.3.a) Length of appeals in contract disputes: This indicator measures whether procedures for
dispute resolution, including appeals, are stipulated by the legal framework to protect investors
from unilateral decisions from the government. Are there clear procedures contained in the relevant
legislation or guidelines for appeals in PPP contract disputes?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.1.3.b) Length of appeals in contract disputes: To avoid lengthy processes, arbitration mechanisms
should be time-bound by the regulations or official guidelines/contract. Are there maximum time
requirements for arbitration rulings dictated by law and/or contracts in order to avoid lengthy
appeals?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.2.1) Competitive bidding: This indicator measures whether the legislative/regulatory framework
requires competitive bidding to take place for PPP procurement. Competitive bidding fosters
transparency in the procurement stage, enabling the selection of the best-value proposal based on
objective criteria. Do regulations require and establish competitive biddings?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.2.2) Selection criteria: Project selection refers to the stage where the government determines
potential projects which are suitable for PPP delivery after they are identified and proposed by
contracting authorities. Project selection typically involves an appraisal based on: alignment with
policy priorities, feasibility and economic viability (including cost-benefit analysis), commercial
viability, value for money and fiscal responsibility, or a “business case” analysis. In some cases,
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
61
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
projects exceeding a certain value would be considered to be implemented as PPPs. Are selection
criteria for project selection clearly outlined by regulatory agencies or other institutions?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.2.3.a) Economic principles for project selection: This indicator measures whether the regulatory
framework requires cost-benefit analysis to take place during project evaluation and selection. Costbenefit analysis is an evaluation of the potential costs and revenue that may be generated if the project
is completed. Is cost-benefit analysis required by regulatory agencies?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.2.3.b) Economic principles for project selection: Value-for-money analysis compares the value
of delivering infrastructure projects through PPPs against the value which could be obtained through
conventional public procurement. Options analysis refers to the analysis of the most appropriate
procurement method for an infrastructure project. Are options analysis and value-for-money
assessment required by regulatory agencies for selecting PPPs?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.3.1.a) Publication: Bidding documents include requests for qualifications and requests for
proposals, produced during the procurement stage of the PPP. Publishing the bidding documents is
best practice for fairness/transparency. Does the regulatory framework require publishing of bidding
documents?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.3.1.b) Publication: This question measures the openness of the procurement process. Does the
regulatory framework require publishing of contracts?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.3.1.c) Publication: Public disclosure and scrutiny of contract changes are instruments to prevent
opportunistic behaviour. Does the regulatory framework require publishing of changes in contracts?
Scoring:
0 = No
62
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
1 = Yes
(1.3.2.a) Unsolicited bids/proposals: Contracting agencies may define different approaches for
dealing with unsolicited proposals (such as prohibition, allowing for subsequent direct negotiation, or
requiring a competitive tendering process to take place), and these rules should be clearly stipulated.
Are there specific policies and procedures for handling unsolicited proposals?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.3.2.b) Unsolicited bids/proposals: Consultations with affected parties/stakeholders (neighbours,
minorities etc) will be an instrument in ensuring buy-in of the project among communities and
improving the chances of sustainability. Unsolicited proposals would have the risk of being perceived
as less transparent. If an unsolicited proposal is received, is there a requirement for consultation with
affected communities?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.3.3) Ratio of unsolicited proposals: This indicator measures the ratio of unsolicited proposals to
total projects in the past five years based on data from the World Bank PPI Database.
Scoring:
The data, expressed as projects initiated as unsolicited proposals as a percentage of all projects in the
past five years, is transformed to a linear, fixed range of 0-100. The country with the lowest data value
scores 100 (signifies fewer unsolicited proposals) and the country with the highest data value scores 0
(signifies more unsolicited proposals). Countries with no evidence of PPP projects in the past five years
also receive a score of 0.
(1.4.1) Existence of conciliation schemes: To avoid costly litigation, alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms (ADR) may be contemplated, including conciliation, consultation, expert mediation or
arbitration before escalating to the courts, with a specified timeline. Does the institutional framework
provide technically adequate and efficient conciliation schemes in PPP contracts?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.4.2.a) Arbitration: This indicator verifies whether project agreements are subject to international
arbitration as per the relevant regulatory framework. Further guidance on international arbitration
may be provided in PPP contracts. It also verifies ratification of the New York Convention on
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) and the Washington Convention on
the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which indicate access to arbitration resources and
enforcement. Does the law permit the contracting authority to enter into a project agreement that is
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
63
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
subject to international arbitration?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.4.2.b) Arbitration: Does the country rely on an independent arbitration tribunal for the settlement
of PPP disputes? As an example, Chile offers an independent (from both PPP parties) Arbitration
Commission for dispute resolution in PPP projects, set out in PPP regulations. Arbitration bodies may
be determined in PPP contracts and the regulations may provide guidelines on their establishment.
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Partially (the institution does not have the final word; for example, it is used as an advisory body
only).
2 = Yes
(1.5.1.a) Contingent liabilities: Contingent liabilities are a potential liability on the balance sheet
which is dependent on the outcome of future events. They may relate, for example, to early contract
termination or to debt and revenue guarantees. Do regulations establish planning frameworks and
accounting of contingent liabilities?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.5.1.b) Contingent liabilities: As proper accounting for contingent liabilities is a complex task,
there is often a gap between guidelines and actual implementation. This indicator measures whether
accounting of contingent liabilities is a consistent and standard practice. Does the Budget Office
measure contingent contractual liabilities and account for delayed investment payments in a way
consistent with public investment accounting?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.6.1.a) National infrastructure plan: Is there an approved national infrastructure plan in
place in the country? An infrastructure plan typically includes key elements such as a timeline for
implementation, objectives and targets. The plan should have validity for the present year (2016).
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.6.1.b) National infrastructure plan: In developed PPP markets, screening and selection of PPP
projects are guided by their alignment with priorities established in national infrastructure plans.
64
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Does the regulatory framework require the prioritisation of PPP projects in the context of the national
infrastructure plan?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.6.2.a) Inter-agency co-ordination: Co-ordination mechanisms refer to functions assigned to a
specific institution (such as an infrastructure agency or PPP unit). Alternatively, detailed guidelines
may exist clarifying roles and responsibilities. Are there mechanisms for co-ordination between state
agencies in the case of overlapping jurisdictions?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.6.2.b) Inter-agency co-ordination: Regulators may exist with the role of monitoring service
standards and tariffs in sectors where PPPs are implemented. This question evaluates whether any
guidance has been developed for harmonisation of sector-specific and PPP regulation, and for the
definition of the roles and responsibilities, so as to avoid any conflict between these two types of
entities. Does the regulatory framework provide clear guidance on aspects of interaction between
bodies that have the power to award PPPs and bodies that regulate tariffs and service standards?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.7.1.a) Renegotiation procedures: This question measures the existence of a strategy to manage
contract changes. Such strategy may be determined in the relevant PPP regulations or addressed in
individual contracts. These are intended to allow unexpected changes to be made in the course of the
project without the need for renegotiation. For example, an approach for regular review of tariffs may
be established in the contract/regulations. Another example is the use of a “financial equilibrium”
model, which provides a framework for changes in the financial terms of the contract. “Transparent”
means that such mechanism is known and agreeable to the relevant parties. Is there a transparent
system to manage variations in the contract?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.7.1.b) Renegotiation procedures: This question measures the flexibility of the legal framework
for allowing grounds for termination to be defined in the most appropriate manner for each project.
Does the PPP regulatory framework or the law that applies to PPPs leave open to the project agreement
negotiations the list of possible grounds for termination?
Scoring:
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
65
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.7.1.c) Renegotiation procedures: Renegotiations imply a change in the terms and conditions of a
contract and they may undermine the advantages of the competitive bidding process. Penalties (or
compensation) for renegotiations may be established in the contract or broadly in the regulatory
framework as a means to discourage opportunistic-driven renegotiations. Are there penalties for
renegotiations, or is there a compensation mechanism?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.7.2) Transparency: Increased transparency raises the political cost of unnecessary renegotiations.
If there are renegotiations, are they required by law to be disclosed publicly?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.7.3) Independent oversight: It is desirable that renegotiations are overseen by a body other
than the contracting authority for enhanced control. Is there a system established for independent
oversight of renegotiation procedures and conditions?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.8.1) Environmental impact statement: An environmental impact study describes the anticipated
environmental impact of the PPP project. Such assessment usually takes place during project
evaluation and selection. Is an environmental impact study and subsequent environmental impact
statement required for PPP contracting?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.8.2.a) Consultation: This question evaluates the existence of a specific requirement to conduct
consultations with communities which are likely to be affected by the PPP projects. This process may
take place once a project has been selected for PPP procurement and ahead of the bidding process to
build support from communities. But it may occur at different stages of the process. Is there a legal
requirement for consultations with communities affected by PPP projects?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
66
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
(1.8.2.b) Consultation: This question verifies whether consultations have been published online
and the frequency of publication in the last five years. Are the findings from the consultation exercise
published online?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.8.3.a) Disaster risk-sensitive investment: This question evaluates whether national PPP
frameworks have incorporated provisions on disaster-risk or climate-change adaptation. Examples
may include the explicit definitions of risk allocation considering climatic events, or the requirement of
contingency plans to deal with the effects of climate change or disaster.
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.8.3.b) Disaster risk-sensitive investment: This question evaluates whether relevant PPP
regulation requires that insurance is taken out by the private party of the PPP for coverage against
disaster risk. Is disaster risk included and accounted for in PPPs in the short term through a
requirement for insurance for projects?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.8.4.a) Coherence with national policies: This question evaluates the inclusion of specific
provisions on climate change (adaptation and risk) in the guidelines for PPP identification, evaluation,
selection or implementation. Examples could be the incorporation of such criteria in environmental
impact assessments or by requiring a special type of assessment, for alignment with national climatechange objectives or commitments. Are climate-change commitments incorporated in criteria for PPP
project identification, selection and development?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(1.8.4.b) Coherence with national policies: This question evaluates the inclusion of specific
provisions on gender goals in the guidelines for PPP identification, evaluation, selection or
implementation. Are gender goals incorporated in criteria for PPP project identification, selection and
development?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
67
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
(1.8.4.c) Coherence with national policies: This question evaluates the inclusion of specific
provisions on social inclusion (for example, minorities or vulnerable or rural populations) in the
guidelines for PPP evaluation, selection or implementation. Are social inclusion goals incorporated in
criteria for PPP projects identification, selection and development?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
2.
Institutions
(2.1.1) PPP dedicated agency (existence): “A PPP unit is established as a point of co-ordination,
quality control, accountability, and information related to PPPs either within a single sector or across
a range of sectors. These units are created as a new agency or within a ministry such as the finance
ministry”.91 PPP units may be clearly labelled as such (PPP unit or PPP agency, or similar), or they could
be specialised units of other departments. Is there a national PPP agency (ie, an agency responsible for
promotion, technical support, oversight or other PPP-specific activity)?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes (“Yes” also implies that the agency is fully operational; the unit is considered fully operational if
it exists and at least one project reached financial closure in the past year.)
(2.1.2) PPP dedicated agency (staffing): Is the national PPP agency adequately staffed?
Scoring:
0 = No, there is either no PPP unit in the country or the unit is not active/staffed
1 = Yes, staff are borrowed ad hoc from other departments; there is no staff with 100% dedication to
the functions of the PPP agency
2 = Yes, there are full-time staff with 100% dedication to the functions of the PPP agency
(2.2.1) PPP dedicated agency (reporting lines): Reporting lines are indicative of the overall strength
of the institutional set-up for PPPs. Sector ministries or other public bodies can be considered in this
assessment. Does the national PPP agency report directly to a line ministry?
Scoring:
0 = No, or there is no PPP unit
1 = Yes
(2.2.2) PPP dedicated agency (independence): Checks and balances refer to mechanisms to prevent
concentration of power, allowing regulation of public bodies. This question evaluates whether
there are mechanisms in place that ensure that the PPP agency does not concentrate too much
power in the PPP process and is not likely to favour the interests of a specific actor (independence).
Measures to achieve this include the requirement of approval from independent or external bodies
68
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
for decision-making. Are there checks and balances to ensure that the PPP dedicated agency operates
independently?
Scoring:
0 = No, or there is no PPP unit
1 = Yes
(2.2.3) PPP dedicated agency procurement process co-ordination: Highly developed PPP markets
provide detailed guidelines for carrying out the different project stages, with roles, responsibilities
and geographical jurisdictions. Are there guidelines outlining the interaction process between the
different agencies in charge of preparing, procuring and management of the PPP contract and delivery
process?
Scoring:
0 = No, or there is no PPP unit
1 = Yes
(2.3.1.a) Project preparation facilities: “Project Preparation Facilities (PPFs) support governments,
investors, and developers of power projects by helping to expedite the technical, financial, legal, and
regulatory processes”.92 PPFs may take the form of entities providing technical or financial support. Are
there established processes in place to guide the preparation, procurement, and implementation of
PPPs?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(2.3.1.b) Project preparation facilities: This question assesses the existence of a specific budget for
this mechanism. Is the public authority in charge of project preparation facilities given a budget to
accomplish its mission?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(2.3.2) Project development fund: A project development fund (PDF) is a mechanism designed to
alleviate the burden of upfront costs for procuring PPP projects. They are “designed to provide funding
to grantors for the cost of advisers and other project development requirements. The PDF may be
involved in the standardization of methodology or documentation, its dissemination and monitoring
of the implementation of good practices. It should provide support for the early phases of project
selection, feasibility studies and design of the financial and commercial structure for the project,
through to financial close and possibly thereafter, to ensure a properly implemented project”.93 Is
there an independent PDF?
Scoring:
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
69
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
0 = No
1 = Yes
(2.4.1) PPP registry: Is there a public registry of PPPs? A local PPP registry would track the execution
of PPP projects, with key information, such as timeline, value and parties involved.
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes, but not online
2 = Yes, online
(2.4.2.a) National monitoring and reporting (projects): This question measures whether there
is up-to-date information on PPP activity in the country in an easily accessible platform. Are there
regularly published reports on ongoing and upcoming concession projects? “Regularly” means that at
least four updates have been published in the past year.
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(2.4.2.b) National monitoring and reporting (projects): Do such reports capture information
of projects across the different project phases? “Phase” refers to the life cycle of a project, such as
identification, selection, feasibility/due diligence, procurement, awarding and management of
contract.
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(2.4.2.c) National monitoring and reporting (projects): Is the government publishing a needs
assessment for each project? A needs assessment is the systematic evaluation of needs or gaps
comparing current conditions with a desired situation. In the context of PPPs, these are tools that
“help governments identify, screen and prioritize PPP projects, ensure that projects tie into national
and regional priorities”.94 Publication of a needs assessment is considered best practice at the stages
of project identification, selection or procurement, proving that the investment is justified.
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes, but not online
2 = Yes, online
(2.4.3) National monitoring and reporting (regulations): Monitoring the performance of PPPs
implies gathering and publishing information on the development of the projects (such as delays or
changes). Does the national PPP dedicated agency or equivalent gather information periodically on the
performance of the PPP contracts? “Periodically” means monthly or quarterly.
70
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(2.4.4) Monitoring of PPP project results (agency): Auditing refers to the independent review of
finances, processes, performance or value for money of the PPP project, which may be conducted
regularly or at certain stages of the process, or as a final evaluation. This may be the responsibility of
a centralised agency or of the individual contracting bodies, as long as this role is clearly specified. Is
there an agency tasked with evaluating or auditing the results of each PPP project?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(2.4.5) Monitoring of PPP project results (transparency): Are PPP project evaluations published?
The emphasis of this question is on transparency and processes in place for continuous learning and
improvement in PPP processes.
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes, but not online
2 = Yes, online
3.
Maturity
(3.1.1) Number of PPP projects in transport, water and energy that reached financial closure in the
past five years: This indicator measures the number of PPP projects in transport, water and energy that
reached financial closure in the past five years based on data from the World Bank PPI Database.
Scoring:
Higher data values produce higher scores.
0 = No evidence of projects in the market;
25 = Evidence of a handful of projects in the market (up to 10)
50 = Between 11 and 99 projects in the market
75 = Between 100 and 250 projects in the market
100 = More than 250 projects in the market
(3.1.2) Average PPP investment size in transport, water and energy as a percentage of GDP in the
past five years: This indicator measures the total PPP investment size in transport, water and energy in
the past five years as a percentage of current GDP. Data are derived from the World Bank PPI Database
and The Economist Intelligence Unit.
Scoring:
The data, measured as a percentage, are transformed to a linear, fixed range of 0-100. The country with
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
71
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
the highest data value scores 100 (signifies higher investment relative to GDP) and the country with
the lowest data value scores 0 (signifies lower investment).
(3.1.3) Distress level—cancellations: This indicator measures the percentage of projects cancelled in
the past five years based on data from the World Bank PPI Database.
Scoring:
The data, measured as a percentage, are transformed to a linear, fixed range of 0-100. The country with
the lowest data value scores 100 (signifies fewer cancellations) and the country with the highest data
value scores 0 (signifies a greater number of cancellations).
(3.2.1) Expropriation risk: Are there examples of expropriations projects over the past ten years?
Scoring:
0 = Yes, one or more
1 = No
(3.2.2) Government—enforced price revisions: Are there documented instances of the government
unilaterally enforcing price revisions for services provided through a PPP? This refers to adjustments to
what is originally stipulated in the contract.
Scoring:
0 = Yes
1 = No
(3.3.1.a) Contract termination: Can investors appeal in case of contract termination by the
government? This question evaluates whether there are frameworks in place that guarantee there is
the option of appeal if facing contract termination by the government in PPPs.
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(3.3.1.b) Contract termination: Contract transfer refers to legal mechanisms designed to facilitate
the continuation of the project, or exit by a company by transferring the PPP contract. Such provisions
are usually indicated in project contracts, and guidance may be provided in the regulatory framework.
Can investors expedite contract transfer for project exit?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(3.3.1.c) Contract termination: Can investors obtain fair compensation for early termination? This
question evaluates whether there are rules about fair compensation to investors in the case of early
termination. Such provisions are usually indicated in project contracts, and guidance may be provided
in the regulatory framework.
Scoring:
72
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
0 = No
1 = Yes
(3.3.1.d) Contract termination: Does the PPP contract show the content of the termination
procedure?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
4.
Investment and business climate
(4.1.1) Political effectiveness: This indicator is a weighted average of The Economist Intelligence
Unit’s Political Stability Risk and Government Effectiveness Risk measurements.
Scoring:
The data are transformed to a linear, fixed range of 0-100. The country with the lowest data value
scores 100 (signifies lower risk) and the country with the highest data value scores 0 (signifies higher
risk).
(4.2.1) Business environment: This indicator is a weighted average of The Economist Intelligence
Unit’s Market Opportunities rating and Macroeconomic Risk measurements.
Scoring:
The data are transformed to a linear, fixed range of 0-100. The country with the highest data value
scores 100 (signifies a better business environment) and the country with the lowest data value scores
0 (signifies a less favourable business environment).
(4.3.1.a) Political will (PPPs): Have high-level political figures (prime minister, president or at the
ministerial level) expressed active support for PPPs in international media or policy statements since
taking office?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Somewhat (not enough statements were found, but at least one was found)
2 = Yes
(4.3.1.b) Political will (PPPs): Is there evidence of strong bipartisan or multi-party support for PPPs,
including by opposition parties?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(4.3.2) Attitudes towards PPPs: Is there vocal opposition to PPPs and to private-sector participation
in infrastructure projects within parliament and/or among influential advocacy organisations or
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
73
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
political commentators?
Scoring:
0 = Yes, there is opposition from multiple sectors (more than one)
1 = Somewhat; there is opposition from one sector only, or not enough statements
2 = No, and it is clearly documented
(4.4.1) Level of concentration in the industry: Is there a high level of concentration in the industry
where a few firms win a bulk share of PPP contracts? As an example, 50% of projects awarded to the
same firm in one year would merit a “yes”.
Scoring:
0 = Yes
1 = No
5.
Financing
(5.1.1) Sovereign risk: This indicator measures the risk of a government failing to make debt
repayments or not honouring a loan agreement. Data are derived from The Economist Intelligence
Unit’s Country Risk Service database.
Scoring:
The data are transformed to a linear, fixed range of 0-100. The country with the lowest data value
scores 100 (signifies lower sovereign risk) and the country with the highest data value scores 0
(signifies higher sovereign risk).
(5.1.2) Government payments: Are there examples of government default on PPP contracts in the
past ten years? This question refers to countries failing to fulfil their obligations with private investors
under PPP contracts.
Scoring:
0 = Yes
1 = No
(5.1.3) Government guarantees: This indicator measures the percentage of PPP projects that received
a government payment guarantee in the past five years based on data from the World Bank PPI
Database.
Scoring:
The data, measured as a percentage, are transformed to a linear, fixed range of 0-100. The country
with the highest data value scores 100 (signifies higher utilisation of government guarantees) and the
country with the lowest data value scores 0 (signifies lower utilisation of government guarantee).
(5.1.4) Government support for low-income users and infrastructure affordability: Are discounts
in place allowing low-income users better access to infrastructure? This question considers currently
valid mechanisms targeted at low-income for the use of infrastructure in the relevant sector.
74
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(5.2.1) Marketable debt: This indicator measures whether there is a liquid, deep, local-currencydenominated, fixed-rate, medium-term (five years +) bond market in marketable debt (that is, debt
that is traded freely). Data are derived from The Economist Intelligence Unit.
Scoring:
The data, measured on a scale of 0-4 where lower is better, are transformed to a linear, fixed range of
0-100. The country with the lowest data value scores 100 and the country with the highest data value
scores 0.
(5.2.2) Source of financing for PPPs: This indicator measures the share of financing coming through
conditional loans from international financial institutions, multilateral and bilateral organisations and
donor grants in the last five years. Data are derived from the World Bank PPI Database.
Scoring:
The data, measured as a percentage, are transformed on a linear, fixed range of 0-100. The country
with the lowest data value scores 100 (signifies fewer conditional loans from IFIs, multilaterals
and bilateral organisations) and the country with the highest data value scores 0 (signifies greater
number of conditional loans from international financial institutions, multilaterals and bilateral
organisations). Countries with no evidence of PPP projects in the past five years receive a score of 0.
(5.2.3.a) Availability of sustainable finance: “A green bond is a debt security that is issued to raise
capital specifically to support climate-related or environmental projects.” “A debt security is a legal
contract for money owed that can be bought and sold between parties.” (World Bank, 2009). Are green
bonds issued in the local capital market?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(5.2.3.b) Availability of sustainable finance: Development Impact Bonds (DIBs) “are a family of
outcomes-based contracts in which private investors pay in advance for interventions needed to
achieve agreed results, and work with delivery organisations to ensure that the results are achieved;
donors and/or governments make payments to investors if the interventions succeed, with returns
linked to progress achieved. If the interventions fail, investors lose some or all of their investment.”
(Centre for Global Development, 2014). Are development impact bonds issued in the local capital
market?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
(5.3.1) Institutional investors: Have institutional investors (pension funds, insurance companies
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
75
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
etc) participated (lending to or holding stocks) in PPP projects in the past five years?
Scoring:
0 = No
1 = Yes
2 = More than two
(5.3.2) Guarantee fund: This indicator measures the percentage of projects with guarantees from
multilateral institutions in the past five years based on data from the World Bank PPI Database.
Scoring:
The data, measured as a percentage, are transformed on a linear, fixed range of 0-100. The country
with the highest data value scores 100 (signifies larger share of guarantees) and the country with the
lowest data value scores 0 (signifies smaller share of guarantees).
(5.4.1) Currency risk: This indicator measures the vulnerability of a country’s currency based on
data from The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Country Risk Service. What is the country’s likelihood of
suffering substantial currency devaluation?
Scoring:
The data, measured as a percentage, are transformed on a linear, fixed range of 0-100. The country
with the lowest data value scores 100 (signifies lower currency risk) and the country with the highest
data value scores 0 (signifies higher currency risk).
76
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Glossary
Act of authority: Unilateral action by the government to change the economic specifications and
terms of a contract.
Appraising: Feasibility analyses of a project, assessment of a project, due diligence (limited to some
feasibility or assessment processes), assessing the project as a PPP (for the assessment of the PPP
option as a procurement alternative for the project, rather than assessing the project itself as a
technical solution), project preparation, business case development (in some countries the business
case is progressively developed throughout the PPP cycle—appraising activities primarily occurs at the
Outline Business Case stage).
Build-Operate-Own (BOO): The granting of ownership rights to the private-sector partner in
perpetuity to develop, finance, build, own, operate and maintain as an asset with no transfer to the
public sector.
Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT): Transfer of responsibility for constructing, financing and operating a
single facility to a private-sector partner for a fixed period of time.
Collusion risk: The risk that private-sector bidders or operators will create agreements among
themselves that do not benefit the sustainability of a project or the government financing portion.
Competitive bidding: The use of objective criteria during the selection process, requiring the
publishing of necessary bidding documents, contracts and changes in contracts.
Concession: A right granted from a government to a private-sector actor.
Concession project: A concession agreement is a negotiated contract between a company and a
government that gives the company the right to operate a specific business within the government’s
jurisdiction, subject to certain conditions.
Contingent liabilities: A potential liability on the balance sheet which is dependent on the outcome
of future events. They may relate, for example, to early contract termination or to debt and revenue
guarantees.
Contract termination: Project facilities are transferred to the government, usually for nil or nominal
consideration and up to conditions predefined in the PPP contract.
Cost-benefit analysis: An evaluation of the potential costs and revenue that may be generated if the
project is completed.
Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO): Private-sector partners are asked to supply resources for
having the project built, and their future revenue streams are usually based on payments made by the
public sector or shadow tolls.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
77
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Divestiture: Full divestiture, also known as privatisation, occurs when all or substantially all the
interests of a government in a utility asset or a sector are transferred to the private sector.
Economic criteria: Criteria for selecting PPP projects based on economic factors, such as the net
present value of a project’s revenue and the amount of subsidies requested by bidders or payments
offered, among others.
Equity arbitration: A more informal arbitration regime, whereby parties attempt to resolve disputes
based on fairness and equity considerations rather than using a strict application of the law.
Expropriations projects: The taking over by the state of a company or project, with compensation
usually being paid. Creeping expropriation occurs when a government gradually takes over an asset by
taxation, regulation, access or change in the law.
Feasibility study: An analysis of the ability to complete a project successfully, taking into account
legal, economic, technological, scheduling and other factors.
Financial or economic equilibrium: An equation that relates costs, revenue and return on investment
for private-sector participants. The equilibrium principle is specified in project contracts and makes
important assumptions about demand levels, proper service levels, a project’s financial stability
(including transfer payments to the government) and project investment costs.
Green bond: A green bond is a debt security that is issued to raise capital specifically to support
climate-related or environmental projects.
Greenfield projects: New construction or the development of new infrastructure.
Hold-up risk: The risk that private-sector actors will lengthen arbitration processes in order to skew
outcomes in their favour.
Lease contract: A contract type in which a public entity delegates management of the public service
to a private operator. The public entity—the owner of the assets—is responsible for new investments,
major repairs, debt service, tariffs and the cost-recovery policy. The private operator is responsible
for operating and maintaining the service, billing and investment needed for the upkeep and renewal
of certain existing assets (electromechanical) and may also be responsible for the renewal of part of
networks. The operator advises the public sector on investments and extensions to achieve. This type
of contract is generally concluded for a period of 10-15 years.
Management contract: A contract type where public authorities transfer the responsibility for
operating and maintaining the service to a private operator for a period of 3-5 years. A team of
managers, seconded by private enterprise, is placed in a leadership position in the public entity to lend
support in managing the service. In this type of contract, the contractor has no legal relationship with
the consumer. In addition, the operator has no investments to make—this remains the responsibility of
public authorities.
Modalities: Refers to the potential type of co-operation between public organisations and private
enterprises, for example, Build-and-Transfer (BT), Build-Lease- Transfer (BLT), Build-Operate- Transfer
78
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
(BOT), Build-Own- Operate (BOO), Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT), Build-Transfer-Operate (BTO),
Contract-Add-and-Operate (CAO), Develop-Operate-Transfer (DOT), Rehabilitate-Operate-and-Transfer
(ROT), Rehabilitate-Own-and-Operate (ROO), Concession Agreement, Management Contract (MC) or
Service Contract (SC), among others.
Public comparator: A method of evaluating PPP projects where the costs of contracting infrastructure
projects through full public provision and financing are used as a benchmark to assess the value-formoney benefits offered by PPP alternatives.
Risk allocation: Distribution of proportional risk to the parties in a contract.
Screening: Pre-assessing the project as a PPP; “pre-feasibility” is used in some countries.
Single-source bidding: A contract awarded by way of soliciting and negotiating with one entity.
Technical criteria: Criteria for selecting PPP projects based on engineering, architectural design and
technological aspects.
Value-for-money (VfM) analysis: An analysis that compares the benefits of contracting infrastructure
projects through a PPP scheme with the benefits of traditional public-sector procurement and
investment.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
79
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
General bibliography
The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), 2017, “Business Environment Ratings”, [www.eiu.com].
__________________. 2017, “Country Data”, [www.eiu.com].
__________________. 2017, “Country Risk Service.” [www.eiu.com].
__________________. 2017, “Risk Briefing.” [www.eiu.com].
The World Bank. 2017. “Private Participation in Infrastructure Database.”
[http://ppi.worldbank.org/].
__________________. 2017. “World Development Indicators.”
[http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators].
World Economic Forum. 2016. “The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017”.
[https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2016-2017-1].
Country-specific bibliography
ALBANIA
Albanian Radio and Television. 26 January 2016. “Rama Defends PPPs”. [http://rtsh.al/lajme/ramambron-koncesionet-dhe-partneritetin-publik-privat/]. Accessed December 2016.
ATRAKO. 2016. “Concessions PPP User’s Guide”. [http://www.atrako.gov.al/wp-content/
uploads/2016/10/Users-Manual.pdf]. Accessed November 2016.
Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States.
Washington. 1965. [https://treaties.un.org/pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=080000028012a925].
Accessed January 2017.
Energjia.al. 2014. “Agreement Reached with CEZ”. [http://energjia.al/2014/06/24/arrihetmarreveshja-e-shumepritur-me-cez/]. Accessed January 2017.
Gazeta Shqiptare. 17 December 2016. “Laboratories Concessions, Rama and Meta Abstain from Vasili’s
Amendment”. [http://www.balkanweb.com/gazetashqiptare/koncesioni-i-laboratoreve-rama-emeta-abstenojne-amendamentin-e-vasilit/]. Accessed December 2016.
Global Trade Alert. 2013. “Albania: De facto expropriation of a Czech-owned electricity distributor”.
[http://www.globaltradealert.org/measure/albania-de-facto-expropriation-czech-owned-electricitydistributor]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of Albania. “Strategy of Tourism Development in Albania 2014-2020”. [http://shtetiweb.
org/2014/06/05/strategjia-kombetare-per-zhvillim-dhe-integrim-2014-2020/]. Accessed December
2016.
80
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Government of Albania. 2002. Law No. 8906 of 2002. “For Protected Zones”. Amended by Law.
No. 9868 of 2008. [http://www.mjedisi.gov.al/files/userfiles/Biodiversiteti/2002_Ligj-Zonat_e_
Mbrojtura_Konsoliduar.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Albania. 2007. Decision of the Council of Ministers (No. 27) of 2007. “On the Approval of
Rules for the Assessment and Granting of Concessions”. Amended by DoCM (No.104/2007), DoCM (No.
87/2008), DoCM (No. 544/2008), DoCM (No. 469/2010), and DoCM (No. 269/2012). [http://app.gov.
al/legislation/concessionsppp/dcm/]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of Albania. 2007. Decision of the Council of Ministers (No.150) of March 2007. “On
the organization and functioning of ATRAKO – Concessions Treatment Agency, as amended”.
[http://172.17.240.61/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/VKM-150.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of Albania. 2013. Decision of the Council of Ministers (No. 575) of July 2013. “On the
approval of rules for the assessment and granting of Concessions/Public Private Partnerships”.
[http://app.gov.al/GetData/DownloadDoc?documentId=b1df7e79-a940-4f36-a826-5dcc3980a9c3].
Accessed January 2017.
Government of Albania. 2013. Law No.125 of 2013. “On Concessions and Public Private Partnerships.”
Amended by Law No. 88 of 2014 and Law No. 77 of 2015. [http://atrako.gov.al/wp-content/
uploads/2015/09/Ligji-Nr.125_2013-p%C3%ABrdit%C3%ABsuar.pdf]. Accessed November 2016.
Government of Albania. 2014. “Business and Investment Strategy 2014-2020”. [http://shtetiweb.
org/2014/06/05/strategjia-kombetare-per-zhvillim-dhe-integrim-2014-2020/]. Accessed December
2016.
Government of Albania. 2014. “Employment and Skills Strategy 2014-2020”. [http://shtetiweb.
org/2014/06/05/strategjia-kombetare-per-zhvillim-dhe-integrim-2014-2020/]. Accessed December
2016.
Government of Albania. 2014. “Intersectoral Strategy for the Environment 2014-2020”. [http://
shtetiweb.org/2014/06/05/strategjia-kombetare-per-zhvillim-dhe-integrim-2014-2020/]. Accessed
December 2016.
Government of Albania. 2014. “National Energy Strategy”. [http://shtetiweb.org/2014/06/05/
strategjia-kombetare-per-zhvillim-dhe-integrim-2014-2020/]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Albania. 2014. “National Strategy for Development and Integration 2014-2020”.
[http://shtetiweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/NSDI_2014-2020_version_JUne-2013.pdf].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of Albania. 2014. “Strategy for Public Finance Management 2014-2020”. [http://
shtetiweb.org/2014/06/05/strategjia-kombetare-per-zhvillim-dhe-integrim-2014-2020/]. Accessed
December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
81
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Government of Albania. 2014. Decision of the Council of Ministers (No.130) of March 2014. “On
the electronic conduct of competitive procedures of Concessions/Public Private Partnerships”.
[http://172.17.240.61/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/vkm-130.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of Albania. 2014. Decision of the Council of Ministers (No. 634) of October 2014. “On the
approval of the rules for the evaluation and granting of Concessions and Public Private Partnerships of
public works and services for the construction, operation and maintenance of national roads”. [http://
www.qbz.gov.al/botime/fletore_zyrtare/2014/PDF-2014/155-2014.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of Albania. 2014. Law No.182 of 2014. “Public Procurement Law”. [https://app.gov.al/ep/
DF_DocumentViewer.aspx?id=3a7cee03-13b1-49ab-b40e-80bba05f3bea]. Accessed November 2016.
Government of Albania. 2016. Decision of the Council of Ministers (No. 211) of March 2016. “On
the establishment and management of the electronic registry for Concessions and Public Private
Partnerships”. [http://www.qbz.gov.al/botime/fletore_zyrtare/2016/PDF-2016/44-2016.pdf].
Accessed January 2017.
Government of Albania. ATRAKO website. [www.atrako.gov.al]. Accessed November 2016.
Klan TV. 26 January 2016. “Rama: PPP in the interest of the public”. [http://fax.al/read/
news/2511437/10972575/rama-partneriteti-publik-privat-ne-interes-te-publikut.] Accessed
December 2016.
New York Convention on the Recognition of and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958).
[http://www.newyorkconvention.org/countries]. Accessed January 2017.
Opinion. 14 March 2016. “Sterilization, where 90 million Euros are allocated”. [http://opinion.al/
koncensioni-i-sterilizimit-ku-shkojne-90-milione-euro/]. Accessed December 2016.
Ora News. 5 December 2016. “Commission debate: Laboratory workers and LSI against laboratories
concession”. [http://www.oranews.tv/vendi/laborantet-dhe-lsi-kunder-msh-per-koncensionin-perlaboratoret/]. Accessed December 2016.
Panorama. June 2015. “Even dialysis goes private, this is the €86 million concession”. [http://www.
panorama.com.al/edhe-dializa-te-privati-ja-koncesioni-86-milione-usd/]. Accessed December 2016.
Public Procurement Agency. [https://www.app.gov.al]. Accessed November 2016.
Shoqata e Gazetareve per Drejetesi. 28 February 2015. “Veil of scandal over the free check-up
concession”. [http://investigim.al/hije-skandali-mbi-koncensionin-e-shendetesise-falas/]. Accessed
December 2016.
Sot News. 17 December 2016. “DP-SP pact on laboratories concessions, the opposition boycott
toppled the SMI proposal”. [http://www.sot.com.al/politike/pd-ps-pakt-p%C3%ABr-koncesionine-laborator%C3%ABve-braktisja-e-sall%C3%ABs-nga-opozita-solli-rr%C3%ABzimin-e]. Accessed
December 2016.
82
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Sot News. 18 December 2016. “Lulzim Basha opposes Ilir Meta, considers him partners with Rama
in the concessions affairs”. [http://www.sot.com.al/politike/lulzim-basha-nis-sulmet-ndajilir-met%C3%ABs-e-konsideron-ortak-t%C3%AB-ram%C3%ABs-n%C3%AB-aferat-e]. Accessed
December 2016.
Sot News. 29 March 2016. “PPP: Ahmetaj, transparency at the heart of everything”. [http://sot.
com.al/politike-ekonomia/partneriteti-publik-privat-ahmetaj-transparenca-n%C3%AB-themelt%C3%AB-gjith%C3%A7kaje]. Accessed December 2016.
Tema. 8 February 2016. “Arben Ahmetaj: PPP increases investments and quality of services”. [http://
www.gazetatema.net/web/2016/02/08/arben-ahmetaj-partneriteti-publik-privat-rrit-investimetdhe-cilesine-e-sherbimeve/]. Accessed December 2016.
World Bank. “Private Participation in Infrastructure Database”. [http://ppi.worldbank.org/
visualization/ppi.html#sector=&status=Distressed&ppi=&investment=&region=&ida=&income=
&ppp=PPP&mdb=&year=&excel=false&map=AL&header=true]. Accessed December 2016.
World Bank. 2013. “Public-Private Impact Stories: Albania ASHTA Hydropower”. [https://www.ifc.
org/wps/wcm/connect/27748785-ef2c-45f4-add0-2bd0094ef342/PPPImpactStories_Albania_
AshtaHydropower.pdf?MOD=AJPERES]. Accessed December 2016.
BELARUS
Anton Usov. 2016. “EBRD to help Belarus prepare first PPP – M10 road”. [http://www.ebrd.com/
news/2016/ebrd-to-help-belarus-prepare-first-ppp-m10-road.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Belarus Sustainable Energy Finance Facility. Official website. [http://www.belseff.by/ru]. Accessed
December 2016.
Belarusian Telegraph Agency. 2015. “Zinovskiy notes significant progress in the implementation of
PPPs in Belarus”. [http://www.belta.by/economics/view/zinovskij-otmechaet-znachitelnyj-progressvo-vnedrenii-mehanizmov-gchp-v-belarusi-3983-2015/]. Accessed December 2016.
Belarusian Telegraph Agency. 2016. “Mjasnikovich: Unified law on investment activities will improve
the investment climate”. [http://www.belta.by/economics/view/mjasnikovich-uluchshenijuinvestklimata-budet-sposobstvovat-edinyj-zakon-ob-investitsionnoj-206967-2016/]. Accessed
December 2016.
Belarusian Telegraph Agency. 2016. “Zaborovskij held several meetings and participated in the
Committee on Competitiveness, Innovation, and Public-Private Partnership”. [http://economy.
gov.by/ru/news/aleksandr-zaborovskij-provel-rjad-vstrech-na-ploschadke-eek-oon-i-prinjaluchastie-v-rabote-komiteta-po-konkurentosposobnosti-innovatsijam-i-gosudarstvenno-chastnomupartnerstvu_i_0000004341.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Belarusian Telegraph Agency. 2016. “Zaborovskij: PPP may become an important mechanism for
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
83
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
the projects with foreign investments”. [http://www.belta.by/economics/view/zaborovskij-gchpmozhet-stat-vazhnoj-modeljju-dlja-proektov-s-inostrannymi-investitsijami-198007-2016/]. Accessed
December 2016.
Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus. Regulation N° 755 of 19 May 2010. “Order on the
procedures for environmental impact assessment”.
Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus. Resolution N° 1296 of 31 December 2014. “On the
approval of the state programme on development and maintenance of roads for the years 2015-2019”.
Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus. Resolution N° 1750 of 29 December 2006. “On the
approval of the procedure for investments and allocation of insurance premiums by insurance
companies”.
Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus. Resolution N° 205 of 17 March 2016. “On the approval
of the state programme on the environmental protection and sustainable use of natural resources for
the years 2016-2020”.
Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus. Resolution N° 248 of 28 March 2016. “On the approval
of the state programme on energy saving for the years 2016-2020”. [http://www.government.by/ru/
solutions/2448]. Accessed December 2016.
Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus. Resolution N° 326 of 21 April 2016. “On the approval
of the state programme on a comfortable living and enabling environment for the years 2016-2020”.
[http://www.government.by/upload/docs/file8c3586a94739667b.PDF]. Accessed December 2016.
Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus. Resolution N° 508 of 27 May 2014. “On the
Infrastructure Interagency Coordinating Council”. [http://www.pravo.by/upload/docs/op/
C21400508_1401829200.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus. Resolution N° 532 of 6 July 2016. “On measures
to implement the Law on public-private partnership”. [http://www.economy.gov.by/
dadvfiles/002831_197860_1.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Belarus and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
10 May 2016. “On participation of the client in funding the consultancy services financed by the
Infrastructure Project Preparation Facility in the framework of M-10 auto-road reconstruction: 109,9
– 195,15 km”. [http://www.pravo.by/upload/docs/op/I01600063_1484686800.pdf]. Accessed
December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Belarus. Code N° 218-Z of 7 December 1998. “Civil Code”. [http://
etalonline.by/?type=text&regnum=HK9800218]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Belarus. Code N° 219-Z of 15 December 1998. “Code on Economic
Procedure”. [http://etalonline.by/?type=text&regnum=HK9800219#load_text_none_1_]. Accessed
December 2016.
84
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Government of the Republic of Belarus. Law N° 399-Z of 18 July 2016. “On state ecological expertise,
strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment”.
Government of the Republic of Belarus. Law N° 63-Z of 12 July 2013. “On concessions”. [http://www.
pravo.by/document/?guid=3871&p0=H11300063]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Belarus. Law N° 345-Z of December 30th, 2015. “On Public-Private
partnership”. [http://www.economy.gov.by/dadvfiles/002803_744144_zakon.pdf]. Accessed
December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Belarus. Presidential Decree N° 10 of 6 August 2009. “On the creation of
additional conditions for investments in the Republic of Belarus”. [http://president.gov.by/uploads/
documents/8dek.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Kirill, Rudyj. 2014. “Role of PPP in settlement of problematic issues of government investments”.
Parliamentary hearings.
Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Belarus. “National Infrastructure Plan”. [http://www.economy.
gov.by/dadvfiles/002833_728128_3.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Belarus. Resolution N° 49 of 27 July 2016. “On PPP projects”.
[http://www.economy.gov.by/dadvfiles/002847_561801_49.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Belarus. Resolution N° 168 of 28 December 2005. “On approval of
the Accounting Instruction ‘Provisions, contingent liabilities, contingent assets’”.
President of the Republic of Belarus. Decree N° 273 of 25 May 2010. “On the creation of the National
Agency of Investments and Privatisation”.
President of the Republic of Belarus. Decree N° 322 of 29 August 2016. “On the granting of non-cash
housing subsidies”.
Republic of Belarus. 1994. “The Constitution of the Republic of Belarus”. [http://pravo.by/pravovayainformatsiya/normativnye-dokumenty/konstitutsiya-respubliki-belarus/]. Accessed December 2016.
BULGARIA
Energy and Water Regulation Commission. [http://www.dker.bg/pageen.php?P=417]. Accessed
January 2017.
European Parliament and Council. Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts. Text with EEA relevance. [http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AJOL_2014_094_R_0001_01]. Accessed December 2016.
Eurostat. 2015. “First time release of data on contingent liabilities and non-performing loans in EU
Member States”. [http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6616449/2-10022015-AP-EN.
pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of Bulgaria. “Bill for revoking the Public Private Partnership Law”. [parliament.bg/
bills/42/402-01-14.rtf]. Accessed December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
85
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Government of Bulgaria. “Bulgarian State Budget Law for 2016”. [http://www.lex.bg/bg/laws/
ldoc/2136700906]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of Bulgaria. “Concession Act 36/2006”. [http://www.lex.bg/laws/ldoc/2135523562].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of Bulgaria. “Draft Concession Act”. [http://www.parliament.bg/bg/bills/ID/42205].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of Bulgaria. “National programme for the development of Bulgaria 2020”. [http://www.
strategy.bg/StrategicDocuments/View.aspx?lang=bg-BG&Id=765]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Bulgaria. “Regulation on the implementation of Concession Act 54/2016”. [http://
www.lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2135531640]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Bulgaria. “Strategy for the development of water and sanitation in Bulgaria 20142023”. [http://www.strategy.bg/StrategicDocuments/View.aspx?lang=bg-BG&Id=897]. Accessed
December 2016.
Government of Bulgaria. “Strategy for the evelopment of road infrastructure 2016-2020”. [http://
www.strategy.bg/StrategicDocuments/View.aspx?lang=bg-BG&Id=1005]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Bulgaria. Law on the Protection of the Environment 91/2002. [http://lex.bg/laws/
ldoc/2135458102]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Bulgaria. Public-Private Partnership Law 45/2012. [http://www.lex.bg/laws/
ldoc/2135798101]. Accessed December 2016
Government of Bulgaria. Underground Natural Resources Act 23/1999. [http://lex.bg/laws/
ldoc/2134650880]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Bulgaria. Water Act 198 and §30. [http://lex.bg/en/laws/ldoc/2134673412].
Accessed February 2017.
International Accounting Standards 37. [https://www.iasplus.com/en/standards/ias/ias37]. Accessed
January 2017.
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Bulgaria. [http://www.minfin.bg/bg/page/523]. Accessed
December 2016.
National Concession Register of Bulgaria. [http://www.nkr.government.bg/]. Accessed December
2016.
Sofia Water Concession Contract. [http://www.sofiyskavoda.bg/SVDocuments/Dogovor_za_Koncesia.
pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Tomov, Lazar and Steeva, Silvia. 2009. “Bulgaria Arbitration”. Tomov and Tomov Law Firm. [https://
www.tomov.com/sites/tomov.com/files/arbitrationen.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
86
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
EGYPT
African Development Bank. 2010. “Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA)”.
[http://www.afdb.org/en/topics-and-sectors/initiatives-partnerships/programme-forinfrastructure-development-in-africa-pida/]. Accessed December 2016.
Al-Ahram. 2010. “PPP law approved”. [http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/archive/2010/998/ec4.htm].
Accessed December 2016.
Al-Ahram. 2016. “Egypt introduces higher electricity tariffs to households, part of subsidy cut plan”.
[http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/238217/Business/Economy/Egypt-introduceshigher-electricity-tariffs-to-hou.aspx]. Accessed December 2016.
Al-Bawaba. 2015. “EEDC succeeded in attracting investments to Egypt: Mostakbal Watan”. [http://
en.albawabhnews.com/51793]. Accessed December 2016.
Arab Finance. 2015. “Finance Minister inaugurates 3rd Annual PPP Investment Summit”. [https://www.
arabfinance.com/2015/pages/news/newsdetails.aspx?Id=326064&lang=en]. Accessed December
2016.
Cambridge International Examinations. 2015. “Nile Egyptian Schools: case study” [http://www.cie.
org.uk/cambridge-for/ministries-and-exam-bodies/case-studies/nileegyptianschools/]. Accessed
December 2016.
Consulate of Egypt, Milan. 2014. “Doing Business In Egypt & Opportunities for Italian Companies”.
[http://www.ispionline.it/it/documents/Nasser_Hamed_Consulate_Egypt_4feb2014.pdf]. Accessed
December 2016.
Dar Al-Handasah. 2015. “The Suez Canal Area Development Project”. [http://www.theebcc.com/cms/
file/download/content_id/151/filename/The+Suez+Canal+Area+Development+Project.pdf]. Accessed
December 2016.
El-Markabi, Mohamed. 2015. “Addressing Egypt’s Electricity Vision”. Ministry of Electricity and
Renewable Energy. [http://www.moee.gov.eg/english_new/Presentations/EEDC.pdf]. Accessed
December 2016.
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (ERBD). 2012. “Commercial Laws of Egypt: An
Assessment by the EBRD”. [http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/sector/legal/egypt.pdf]. Accessed
December 2016.
Financial Times. 2011. “Egyptian PPP outlook positive despite of financing challenges”. [http://www.
ft.com/cms/s/2/5376228a-04b6-11e1-91d9-00144feabdc0.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Egypt. 2011. “Executive regulations for the law regulating Partnerships with the Private
Sector, issued through Prime Ministerial Decree No. 238”. [http://www.pppcentralunit.mof.gov.eg/
SiteCollectionDocuments/PPPCUSite/News/Executive_Regulations_en.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
87
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Government of Egypt. 2014. “Constitution”. [https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/
Egypt_2014.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Egypt. 2015. “Strat_EGY”. [http://www.mof.gov.eg/MOFGallerySource/English/
Strategy.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Egypt. Law 203 of 2014. “Regarding the Stimulation of Producing Electricity from
Renewable Sources”. [http://egyptera.org/Downloads/Laws/law2014.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Egypt. Law 27 of 1994. “ Concerning Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Matters”.
[http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/eg/eg020en.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Egypt. Law 67 of 2010. “Partnership with the Private Sector in Infrastructure Projects,
Services and Public Utilities” [http://www.pppcentralunit.mof.gov.eg/Content/Legislation/
Documents/LawNo67fortheyear2010.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Egypt. Law 8 of 1997. “Investment Guarantees and Incentives Law”.
[http://www.gafi.gov.eg/English/StartaBusiness/Laws-and-Regulations/Documents/
InvestmentGuaranteesandIncentivesLaw.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Hannoura, Atter. 2013. “Public Private Partnership PPP & The Egyptian Experience”. Ministry of
Finance, PPP Central Unit. [http://www.mcit.gov.eg/Upcont/Documents/20134151031MoF-%20
11%20Apr%202013.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
IJ Global. 2016. “Abu Rawash Wastewater Treatment Plant PPP Bridge Facility”. [https://ijglobal.com/
data/transaction/34916/abu-rawash-wastewater-treatment-plant-ppp-bridge-facility]. Accessed
January 2017.
IJ Global. 2016. Database query for Egypt. [https://ijglobal.com/]. Accessed December 2016.
InfraMed. 2012. “InfraMed invests US $100m in ERC, the Egyptian Refining Company”. [http://
inframed.com/inframeds-latest-investment-in-egypt/]. Accessed December 2016.
InfraMed. 2016. “InfraMed joins the Total/BPE consortium on the Egyptian feed-in-tariff programme”.
[http://inframed.com/inframed-joins-the-totalbpe-consortium-on-the-egyptian-feed-in-tariffprogram/]. Accessed December 2016.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). 2016. Database of ICSID Member
States. [https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/about/Database-of-Member-States.aspx]. Accessed
January 2017.
International Finance Corporation (IFC). 2014. “PPPs in the Water and Sanitation Sector”. [http://
www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/ceci/documents/2014/water_and_sanitation_October/Egypt_New_
Cairo_wastewater_project.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Islamic Development Bank. 2013. “Request for Expressions of Interest – Consultancy
Services – Dairut IPP”. [http://www.isdb.org/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/tenderuser.
TenderEndUser?Title=REQUEST%20FOR%20EXPRESSIONS%20OF%20INTEREST_CONSULTANCY%20
SERVICES%20_%20DAIRUT%20IPP]. Accessed December 2016.
88
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
MADA Consultancy. 2016. “Will the private sector save Egypt’s education plea?” [https://www.
madamasr.com/en/2016/11/02/feature/politics/will-the-private-sector-save-egypts-educationplea/]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform. 2016. “Sustainable Development
Strategy: Egypt Vision 2030”. [http://www.mfa.gov.eg/SiteCollectionDocuments/SDS2030_English.
pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Mubasher. 2016. “Egypt’s loan & grant portfolio hits $22.5bn”. [http://english.mubasher.info/
news/2989425/Egypt-s-loan-grant-portfolio-hits-22-5bn-Minister]. Accessed December 2016.
Orascom Construction. 2009. “OCI-Aqualia JV Awarded Wastewater Treatment Plant”. [http://
www.marketwired.com/press-release/oci-aqualia-jv-awarded-wastewater-treatment-plant-lseorsd-1223296.htm]. Accessed December 2016.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2014. “Business Climate Review
of Egypt: Investment Policies and Public-Private Partnerships”. [http://www.oecd.org/mena/
competitiveness/BCR%20Egypt_April29_with_cover.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2014. Public-Private Partnerships
in the Middle East and North Africa: A Handbook for Policy Makers. [https://www.oecd.org/mena/
competitiveness/PPP%20Handbook_EN_with_covers.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Partnerships Bulletin. 2012. “After the Storm”. [http://www.partnershipsbulletin.com/interviews/
view/71]. Accessed December 2016.
PPP Central Unit. 2007. “National Program for Public Private Partnership”. [http://www.
pppcentralunit.mof.gov.eg/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPPCUSite/General/Quarterly%20Booklet%20
English.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
PPP Central Unit. 2009. “Update on the National Program for Public Private Partnership”. [http://www.
pppcentralunit.mof.gov.eg/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPPCUSite/General/PPP%20En%20Book%20
June%20.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
PPP Central Unit. 2010. “A guide for making PPP work successfully in Egypt”. [http://www.
pppcentralunit.mof.gov.eg/Content/ToolKit%20and%20Guide/Guide/Pages/Implementation.aspx].
Accessed January 2017.
PPP Central Unit. 2015. “Standardised Documents”. [http://pppu.gov.jo/en-us/StandardizedDocuments]. Accessed December 2016.
PPP Central Unit. 2016. “National Project for Building & Operation Of Advanced PPP Language
Schools”. [http://www.pppcentralunit.mof.gov.eg/Content/Projects/Pages/National%20Project%20
for%20Building%20and%20operation%20Of%20Advanced%20PPP%20Language%20Schools.aspx].
Accessed December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
89
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Prime Minister’s Office. Decree No. 1115 of 2012, al-Jaridah al-Rasmiyah (Official Gazette), Vol. 44.
Public Private Partnership (PPP) Central Unit. “All Projects”. [http://www.pppcentralunit.mof.gov.eg/
Content/Projects/Pages/AllProjectsEn.aspx?]. Accessed December 2016.
Shahid Law Firm. 2016. “The Egyptian Supreme Council For Investment Holds Its First Meeting Today”.
[http://shahidlaw.com/2016/11/02/the-egyptian-supreme-council-for-investment-holds-its-firstmeeting-today/]. Accessed December 2016.
The New Arab. 2015. “Khaled Ali: Privatisation has stolen Egypt from its people”. [https://www.
alaraby.co.uk/english/features/2015/1/27/khaled-ali-privatisation-has-stolen-egypt-from-itspeople]. Accessed December 2016.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). 2017. “Status: Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958)”. [http://www.uncitral.org/
uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html]. Accessed January 2017.
Water-Technology. 2014. “FCC Aqualia wins €2.4bn contract for Egypt’s Abu Rawash wastewater
treatment plant”. [http://www.water-technology.net/news/newsfcc-aqualia-wins-24bn-contract-foregypts-abu-rawash-wastewater-treatment-plant-4662723]. Accessed December 2016.
World Bank. 2011. “Arab Financing Facility for Infrastructure”. [https://library.pppknowledgelab.
org/attached_files/documents/2398/original/AFFI_Brochure.pdf?1435788732]. Accessed December
2016.
World Bank. 2016. “Custom Query - Egypt”. [https://ppi.worldbank.org/customquery]. Accessed
December 2016.
World Bank. 2017. “Benchmarking Public Procurement - Egypt”. [http://bpp.worldbank.org/data/
exploreeconomies/egypt-arab-rep/2018#bpp_ppp]. Accessed January 2017.
World Bank. April 2012. “Egypt: Alexandria University Hospitals”. [http://documents.worldbank.org/
curated/en/728001468183562652/pdf/96888-P3Briefs-EgyptAlexandriaHospitals-Box391454BPULBIC-Colltitle-PPP-BRIEF.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
World Economic Forum. 2016. The Global Gender Gap Report 2016. [http://reports.weforum.org/globalgender-gap-report-2016/]. Accessed January 2017.
GEORGIA
Adjaristsqali Georgia LLC (AGL). 2016. “Environment”. [http://agl.com.ge/page.php?id=155].
Accessed December 2016.
Adjaristsqali Georgia LLC (AGL). 2016. “Sustainability”. [http://agl.com.ge/index.php]. Accessed
December 2016.
Adjaristsqali Georgia LLC (AGL). 2017. “Public Disclosure”. [http://agl.com.ge/page.php?id=155].
Accessed January 2017.
90
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Asia Development Bank (ADB) and USAID. 2015. “The Georgian Capital Market Diagnostic Study and
Recommendations”. [http://www.economy.ge/uploads/meniu_publikaciebi/ouer/CMWG_Diagnostic_
Report_12_May_2015._GEO.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Asia Development Bank (ADB). 2014. “Land Acquisition and Livelihood Restoration Plan.
Adjaristsqali Hydropower Project (Georgia)”. [https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/projectdocument/80404/47919-014-rp.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Asia Development Bank (ADB). 2015. “Georgia: Development of Public–Private Partnerships”.
[https://www.adb.org/projects/49046-001/main]. Accessed December 2016.
Asia Development Bank (ADB). 2015. “Technical Assistance Project - Georgia: Development of Public–
Private Partnerships”. [https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-document/177836/49046001-tar.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Asia Development Bank (ADB). 2017. “Georgia: GEO: Adjaristsqali Hydropower Project”. [https://www.
adb.org/projects/47919-014/main#project-documents]. Accessed January 2017.
Business Contract. 2016. “Anaklia Port will have a vocational training center for Georgian citizens
free of charge”. [http://businesscontract.ge/ka/article/anakliis-portshi-dasaqmebis-msurvelisaqartvelos-moqalaqeebistvis-ufaso-trening-centri-imoqmedebs/6501]. Accessed December 2016.
Clean Energy Group. 2015. “From conception to completion of large hydro projects. The story of the
400 MW Adjaristsqali cascade”. [http://tekut.no/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Clean-Energy-Group_
Brandtz%C3%A6g.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). 2013. “Shuakhevi HPP”. [http://www.
ebrd.com/work-with-us/projects/esia/shuakhevi-hpp.html]. Accessed December 2016.
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). 2016. “Development of Modern
Concessions and Public Private Partnership (PPP) Legal Framework in Georgia”. [http://www.ebrd.
com/work-with-us/procurement/pn-47859.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Georgia Today. 2015. “Partnership Fund Launches Construction Works for Nenskra HPP”. [http://
georgiatoday.ge/news/1254/Partnership-Fund-Launches-Construction-Works-for-Nenskra-HPP].
Accessed December 2016.
Georgian Co-Investment Fund. 2016. “Overview”. [http://www.gcfund.ge/en/527/overview].
Accessed December 2016.
Georgian Co-Investment Fund. 2017. “Investment Projects”. [http://www.gcfund.ge/en/531/].
Accessed January 2017.
Georgian National Electrosystem. 2016. “About Us”. [http://www.gse.com.ge/new/?page_
id=179&lang=en]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Georgia. 1995. “Constitution of Georgia”. [http://www.parliament.ge/ge/
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
91
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
kanonmdebloba/constitution-of-georgia-68]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Georgia. 2013. “Socio-economic Development Strategy Georgia 2020”. [https://napr.
gov.ge/source/%E1%83%A1%E1%83%A2%E1%83%A0%E1%83%90%E1%83%A2%E1%83%94%E1%
83%92%E1%83%98%E1%83%90/ViewFile.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Georgia. Resolution No. 191 of 22 April 2016. “Resolution on the Approval of
Guidelines for Investment Project Management Procedures”. [https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/
view/3265745]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Georgia. Resolution No. 245 of 6 June 2016. “Resolution on the Approval of PublicPrivate Partnership Policy Document”. [https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3298735].
Accessed December 2016.
Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI). 2016. “A list of organisations having
Environmental Impact Assessment Waiver (2010-2013)”. [https://idfi.ge/ge/organizations-exemptfrom-the-environmental-impact-assessment-2010-2013]. Accessed December 2016.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). 2016. Database of ICSID Member
States. [https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/about/Database-of-Member-States.aspx]. Accessed
December 2016.
International Finance Corporation (IFC). 2016. “IFC in Georgia. Country Factsheet”. [http://www.
ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/f433018043967c2b9649be869243d457/GeorgiaFactSheetJul2016_
DL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES]. Accessed December 2016.
International Financial Reporting Standards. 2016. “IAS 37 – Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and
Contingent Assets”. [http://www.iasplus.com/en/standards/ias/ias37]. Accessed December 2016.
Interpressnews. 2016. “Budget for 2017 majority funds are allocated for healthcare, regional
infrastructure and education sections’ development”. [http://www.interpressnews.ge/ge/
sazogadoeba/400262-2017-tslis-biujetis-proeqtith-yvelaze-met-dafinansebas-jandacvis-regionuliganvitharebis-da-ganathlebis-saministroebi-miigheben.html?ar=A]. Accessed December 2016.
Invest in Georgia. 2016. [http://investingeorgia.org/en/agency/about-the-agency]. Accessed
December 2016.
Irakli Alasania – Free Democrats. 2016. “Irakli Alasania – Free Democrats, Election Programme”.
[http://www.fd.ge/files/final_-_fd_platforma_2016.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Landy, Morgan. 2015. “Hydropower Project and Financial Structuring: What are the new options?”.
International Finance Corporation. [https://www.hydropower.org/sites/default/files/publicationsdocs/Morgan-Landy-IFC-project-and-financial-structuring-World-Hydropower-Congress.pdf].
Accessed January 2017.
Millennium Challenge Corporation. 2016. “Increasing TVET Participation Rates”. [http://iswd.ge/eng/
page/39]. Accessed December 2016.
92
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development of Georgia. 2016. “Request for Expression of
Interest (EOI) for the construction and development of the Anaklia New Deep Water Black Sea Port”.
[http://www.economy.ge/en/request-for-expression-of-interest-eoi-for-the-construction-anddevelopment-of-the-anaklia-new-deep-water-black-sea-port]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development of Georgia. 2016. “Anaklia Development
Consortium Selected to Build a Deep Sea Port in Anaklia”. [http://www.economy.ge/en/media/news/
anaklia-development-consortium-selected-to-build-a-deep-sea-port-in-anaklia]. Accessed December
2016.
Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development of Georgia. December 2016. “Conference on
forms of Public-Private Partnerships”. [http://www.economy.ge/ge/media/news/sajaro-kerzopartniorobis-formis-ganxilvisadmi-mizrvnili-konferencia]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development of Georgia. Individual Legislative Act No. 1-1/563
of 25 October 2016. “Granting the Right for Expropriation of Property for Public Necessity to Georgian
State Electrosystem”. [https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3421832]. Accessed December
2016.
Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia. Decree No. 1215 of 9 June
2016. “Regional Development Programme for Georgia for 2015-2017”. [http://static.mrdi.gov.
ge/53d106840cf23064fe48caad.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia. “Substructures/LEPL”. [http://www.
mrdi.gov.ge/en/news/ssip/527bee31e4b0a0aa29b7cb38]. Accessed January 2017.
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. 2017. “About Political Risk Insurance”. [https://www.miga.
org/Pages/Resources/AboutPoliticalRiskInsurance.aspx]. Accessed January 2017.
Parliament of Georgia. Law No. 1106 of 14 November 1997. “Civil Code of Georgia”. [https://matsne.
gov.ge/ka/document/view/29962]. Accessed January 2017.
Parliament of Georgia. Law No. 1388 of 20 April 2005. “The Law of Georgia on Public Procurement”.
[https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/31252]. Accessed December 2016.
Parliament of Georgia. Law No. 2349 of 23 July 1999. “The Law of Georgia on Rules for Expropriation
of Property for Sine Qua Non Public Necessity”. [https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/
view/16480]. Accessed December 2016.
Parliament of Georgia. Law No. 5386-IIS of 8 June 2016. “The Law of Georgia on Financial Accounting,
Reporting and Audit”. [https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3311504]. Accessed December
2016.
Parliament of Georgia. Law No. 5602 of 14 December 2007. “The Law of Georgia on Environmental
Impact Permits”. [https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/20206?impose=translateEn]. Accessed
December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
93
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Parliament of Georgia. Law No. 616 of 21 December 1994. “The Law of Georgia on the Procedure for
Granting Concessions to Foreign Countries”.[ https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/28438].
Accessed December 2016.
Parliament of Georgia. Law No. 64-IS of 14 December 2016, “Georgia’s State Budget for 2017”.
[https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3495562]. Accessed January 2017.
Parliament of Georgia. Law No. 880 of 26 December 2008. “Law of Georgia on the State Audit Office”.
[https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/17506?impose=translateEn]. Accessed December
2016.
Parliament of Georgia. Law No.1280 of 19 June 2009. “The Law of Georgia on Arbitration”. [https://
matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/89284?impose=translateEn]. Accessed December 2016.
Partnership Fund. 2015. “Public Information Notice”. [http://fund.ge/uploads//PIC.pdf]. Accessed
December 2016.
Partnership Fund. 2016. “About Us”. [http://fund.ge/eng/who_we_are/4/]. Accessed December
2016.
Partnership Fund. 2016. “Our Team”. [http://fund.ge/eng/team/]. Accessed December 2016.
Partnership Fund. 2017. “Investment Portfolio”. [http://fund.ge/eng/projects/]. Accessed January
2017.
Partnership Fund. 2017. “Investor Relations”. [http://fund.ge/eng/annual_reports]. Accessed
January 2017.
Public-Private Partnership Initiative. 2016. “News”. [http://ppp.ge/en/allnews/]. Accessed December
2016.
State Procurement Agency. 2017. “About the Agency”. [http://procurement.gov.ge/AboutAgency.
aspx]. Accessed January 2017.
TAV Airports. 2014. “TAV Airports Holding 2014 Annual Report – a New Chapter Begins Now”. [http://
tavhavalimanlari.com.tr/en-EN/Documents/FaaliyetRaporuEN.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Tbilisi City Hall. 2016. “Utilities Subsidies Programme”. [http://www.tbilisi.gov.ge/page/26?lang=ge].
Accessed December 2016,
Tbilisi Transport Company. 2016. “User Categories Benefiting from Discounts”. [http://ttc.com.ge/
index.php?lang_id=GEO&sec_id=156]. Accessed December 2016.
Transparency International – Georgia. 2012. “Georgian Hospital Sector”. [http://www.transparency.
ge/sites/default/files/post_attachments/TIG%20Hospital%20report%20_5%20Jul_%20final%20
GEO.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). 2016. “Status: Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958)”. [http://www.uncitral.org/
94
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html]. Accessed December 2016.
United National Movement. 2016. “Election Programme”. [http://www.unm.ge/ge/about-us/programa].
Accessed January 2017.
World Bank. 2016. “Private Participation in Infrastructure Database”. [https://ppi.worldbank.org/
snapshots/country/georgia]. Accessed December 2016.
World Bank PPI Database. 2016. “Country Snapshots - Georgia”. [https://ppi.worldbank.org/snapshots/
country/georgia]. Accessed December 2016.
JORDAN
Al Monitor. 2016. “Who are the winners and losers in Jordan’s latest elections?” [http://www.almonitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/09/jordan-legislative-elections-winners-losers.html]. Accessed
December 2016.
Arado. 2015. Conference agenda. [http://www.arado.org/HMC15/timeline/Agenda_3_DEC.docx].
Accessed December 2016.
Council of Ministers. 31 July 2016. Decision 840 of 2016.
Eco Consult. 2009. “Feasibility Studies For Eight Municipal Public Private Partnership (PPP) Projects,
Jordan”. [http://www.ecoconsult.jo/project/feasibility-studies-eight-municipal-public-privatepartnership-ppp-projects-jordan?service_id=25]. Accessed December 2016.
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (ERBD). 2011. “Assessment of the Quality of the
PPP Legislation and of the Effectiveness of Its Implementation”. [www.ebrd.com/downloads/legal/
concessions/jordan.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (ERBD). 2014. “Commercial Laws of Jordan:
An Assessment by the EBRD”. [http://www.ebrd.com/cs/Satellite?c=Content&cid=1395239111880&
pagename=EBRD%2FContent%2FDownloadDocument]. Accessed December 2016.
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (ERBD). 2015. “Pre-Feasibility Study for Jordanian
Airports PPP Project”. [http://www.ebrd.com/work-with-us/procurement/pn-47990.html]. Accessed
December 2016.
Government of Jordan. 1952. “Constitution of Jordan”. [http://cco.gov.jo/Portals/0/constitution_
en.pdf]. Accessed 2016.
Government of Jordan. 2013. “Jordan National ICT Strategy”. [http://inform.gov.jo/Portals/0/
Report%20PDFs/6.%20Infrastructure%20&%20Utilities/ii.%20ICT/2013-2017%20National%20
ICT%20Strategy.pdf] Accessed December 2016.
Government of Jordan. 2015. “Jordan 2025”. [http://inform.gov.jo/Portals/0/Report%20
PDFs/0.%20General/jo2025part1.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
95
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Government of Jordan. Law 13 of 1995. “Telecommunications Law”. [https://ppp.worldbank.org/
public-private-partnership/sites/ppp.worldbank.org/files/documents/Jordan_telecomunication%20
law_1995_EN.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Jordan. Law 13 of 2012. “Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Law”. [http://emrc.
gov.jo/images/renewable_energy_and_energy_efficiency_law.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Jordan. Law 18 of 1988. “Water Authority Law”. [faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/jor1338E.
pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Jordan. Law 25 of 2000. “Privatisation Law”. [https://ppp.worldbank.org/publicprivate-partnership/sites/ppp.worldbank.org/files/documents/Jordan%20Privatization%20Law%20
2000.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Jordan. Law 31 of 2011. “Arbitration Law”. [http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/
ELECTRONIC/63091/95325/F1864661120/JOR63091.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Jordan. Law 31 of 2014. “Public-Private Partnership Law”. [http://pppu.gov.jo/
Portals/0/PDF/FINAL-PPP%20Law%20(English).pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Jordan. Law 64 of 2002. “Public Electricity Law”. [http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
INTINFRANDLAW/Resources/JordanGeneralElectricityLaw2003English.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Jordan. Regulation 80 of 2008. “Regulation for Implementing Privatization
Transactions”. [https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/sites/ppp.worldbank.org/
files/documents/PPP%20Regulation%20in%20Jordan_2008_EN%20(unofficial%20translation).pdf].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of Jordan. Regulation 98 of 2015. “Public Private Partnership Regulation”. [http://pppu.
gov.jo/Portals/0/PDF/PPP%20Regulation.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Inframed. 2015. “Jordan wind power company reaches commercial operations”. [http://inframed.
com/jordan-wind-power-company-reaches-commercial-operations/]. Accessed December 2016.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). [https://icsid.worldbank.org/
apps/icsidweb/cases/pages/advancedsearch.aspx?rntly=ST71]. Accessed December 2016.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). 2016. Database of ICSID Member
States. [https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/about/Database-of-Member-States.aspx]. Accessed
January 2017.
International Resources Group. 2013. “National Strategic Wastewater Master Plan”. [http://inform.
gov.jo/en-us/By-Date/Report-Details/ArticleId/75/National-Strategic-Wastewater-Master-Plan].
Accessed December 2016.
JICA. 2014. “JICA, Jordanian Government to Begin Electricity Sector Master Plan Study”. [https://
www.jica.go.jp/english/news/field/2014/141023_01.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Jordan Times. 2016. “British delegates visit to explore investment opportunities”. [http://www.
96
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
jordantimes.com/news/local/british-delegates-visit-explore-investment-opportunities]. Accessed
December 2016.
Middle East Online. 2008. “Uproar in Jordan over ‘hidden’ privatisation deals”. [http://www.middleeast-online.com/english/?id=25395]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Finance. 14 December 2016. “Partnership projects reflect positively on economic growth
and alleviate the financial burden on the state budget”. [http://www.mof.gov.jo/PressCenter/
News/NewsDetails/tabid/117/ArticleId/148/language/en-US/Minister-of-Finance-Aiding-theestablishment-of-partnership-projects-reflect-positively-on-economic-growth-and-alleviate-thefinancial-burden-on-the-s.aspx]. Accessed January 2017.
NEPCO. 2015. “Electricity tariffs”. [http://www.nepco.com.jo/en/electricity_tariff_en.aspx].
Accessed December 2016.
Partnerships Bulletin. 2013. “EIB to boost Jordan water PPPs”. [http://www.partnershipsbulletin.com/
news/view/61578]
Petra News Agency. 2015. “Zoom In Zoom Out King inaugurates Tafila Wind Farm Project”. [http://
petra.gov.jo/Public_News/Nws_NewsDetails.aspx?Site_Id=1&lang=2&NewsID=228718]. Accessed
December 2016.
PPP Unit. 2015. “Standardised Documents”. [http://pppu.gov.jo/en-us/Standardized-Documents].
Accessed December 2016.
PPP Unit. 2016. “PPP Unit Organisational Chart”. [http://pppu.gov.jo/en-us/The-PPPU/PPPUOrganization-Chart]. Accessed December 2016.
PPP Unit. 2016. “PPP Unit”. [http://pppu.gov.jo]. Accessed December 2016.
PPP Unit. 2016. “Projects”. [http://pppu.gov.jo/en-us/Projects]. Accessed December 2016.
Public Private Partnership (PPP) Unit. Ministry of Finance. 2015. “PPP Program Policy Paper”. [http://
pppu.gov.jo/Portals/0/PDF/PPP%20Policy%20Paper%20(EN%20FINAL)-2.pdf]. Accessed December
2016.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). 2017. “Status: Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958)”. [http://www.uncitral.org/
uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html]. Accessed January 2017.
World Bank. 2011. “Arab Financing Facility for Infrastructure”. [https://library.pppknowledgelab.
org/attached_files/documents/2398/original/AFFI_Brochure.pdf?1435788732]. Accessed December
2016.
World Bank. 2016. “Custom Query - Jordan”. [https://ppi.worldbank.org/customquery]. Accessed
December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
97
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
KAZAKHSTAN
Aequitas. 11 December 2015. “New Law on Public-Private Partnerships”. [http://aequitas.kz/upload/
files/
%20
%203
%20o%20
.pdf.] Accessed
December 2015.
Bassarova, Olessya. 16 November 2016. “Does PPP work in Kazakhstan?”. Kursiv. [http://www.kursiv.
kz/news/vlast1/razgovorov-o-gcp-mnogo-a-tolku-net/]. Accessed December 2016.
Chikanayev, Shaimerden and Kahiani, Marina. “Keeping up with the Kazakhs”. EBRD: Law in Transition
2012. [http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/law/lit12ek.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Chikanayev, Shaimerden. “PPP in Kazakhstan, 2016 review”. Grata International. Report supplied by
Shaimerden Chikanayev, Partner at Grata International.
Chikanayev, Shaimerden. 5 February 2013. “New Law on PPP”. Grata International. [http://www.
gratanet.com/ru/news/details/2327a]. Accessed December 2016.
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Website. [http://www.
newyorkconvention.org]. Accessed December 2016.
Dentons. 8 December 2015. “Kazakhstan Introduces new PPP Law”. [http://www.dentons.com/en/
insights/alerts/2015/december/8/kazakhstan-introduces-public-private-partnership-law]. Accessed
December 2016.
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). “Construction and Operation
of a motor road ‘Big Almaty Ring Motor Road (BAKAD)’”. [http://www.ebrd.com/cs/
Satellite?c=Content&cid=1395242547330&pagename=EBRD%2FContent%2FContentLayout].
Accessed December 2016.
Forbes Kazakhstan. 9 September 2016. “Nazarbayev calls for more active use of PPPs”. [http://forbes.
kz/news/2016/09/09/newsid_120620]. September 2016.
Freedom House. 2016. “Freedom in the World 2016: Kazakhstan”. [https://freedomhouse.org/report/
freedom-world/2016/kazakhstan]. Accessed December 2016.
Frolovskiy, Dmitry. 6 July 2016. “Kazakhstan’s China Choice”. The Diplomat. [http://thediplomat.
com/2016/07/kazakhstans-china-choice/]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Code no. 377-V of 31 October 2015. “Civil Procedural Code
of the Republic of Kazakhstan”. [http://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=34329053#pos=1;-299].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Law no. 131-V of 4 July 2013. “On changes and additions to
several legal acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan regarding the introduction of new types of PPP and the
widening of their use”. [http://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=31416540]. Accessed December
2016.
98
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Law no. 167-III of 7 July 2006. “On Concessions”. [http://
online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=30062571#pos=1;-343]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Law no. 23 of 28 December 2004. “On international commercial arbitration”. [http://www.newyorkconvention.org/national+arbitration+law+-+kazakhstan].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Law no. 234-III of 28 February 2007. “On financial accounting”. [http://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=30092011#pos=1;-307]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Law no. 242 of 16 July 2001. “On architecture, city
planning and construction activity in the Republic of Kazakhstan”. [http://www.adilet.gov.kz/ru/
node/7596]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Law no. 272-I of 9 July 1998. “On natural monopolies”.
[http://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=1009803#pos=1;-343]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Law no. 379-V of 31 October 2015. “On Public-Private
Partnerships”. [http://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=37704720]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Law no. 488-V of 8 April 2016. “On arbitration”. [http://
online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=35110250]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Law no. 95-IV of 4 December 2008. “Budget Code of the
Republic of Kazakhstan”. [http://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=30364477#pos=1;-307].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 1056 of 25 December 2015. “On questions
of the Centre for the Development of PPP”. [https://tengrinews.kz/zakon/pravitelstvo_respubliki_
kazahstan_premer_ministr_rk/hozyaystvennaya_deyatelnost/id-P1500001056/]. Accessed
December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 1057 of 25 December 2015. “On the
appointment of legal entities for the support of national PPP projects”. [https://tengrinews.kz/
zakon/pravitelstvo_respubliki_kazahstan_premer_ministr_rk/hozyaystvennaya_deyatelnost/idP1500001057/]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 109 of 10 March 2015. “On the appointment
of an organisation for the financing of concession projects”. [https://tengrinews.kz/zakon/
pravitelstvo_respubliki_kazahstan_premer_ministr_rk/finansyi/id-P1500000109/]. Accessed
December 2015.
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 1633 of 20 December 2012. “On the
creation of a coordination council for public-private partnerships under the government of
Kazakhstan”. [https://tengrinews.kz/zakon/pravitelstvo_respubliki_kazahstan_premer_ministr_rk/
konstitutsionnyiy_stroy_i_osnovyi_gosudarstvennogo_upravleniya/id-P1200001633/]. Accessed
December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
99
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 428 of 30 April 2014. “On the appointment
of a legal entity for consultative support of concession projects”. [http://economy.gov.kz/ru/
gosudarstvennye-uslugi/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=6541]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 864 of 18 September 2008. “On the
confirmation of the rules of the formation of tariffs (prices, rates and costs) or their limits on
regulated services (goods, work) on natural monopolies as part of concession agreements”. [http://
www.adilet.gov.kz/ru/node/1205]. Accessed December 2016.
Grata International. 1 November 2012. “Laws Governing International Commercial Arbitration in
Kazakhstan and Associated Risks”. [http://www.gratanet.com/en/news/details/2266a]. Accessed
December 2016.
Grata International. 13 April 2016. “PPP in Kazakhstan”. [http://www.gratanet.com/en/publications/
details/PPP_Kazakhstan_march]. Accessed December 2016.
Ivashenko, Nikolay. 18 August 2016. “Ministry of Investment and New Technologies to stop subsidy
of ‘Passenger Transit Services’ losses”. 365.info.kz. [https://365info.kz/2016/08/mir-rk-prekratitsubsidirovanie-ubytkov-passazhirskih-perevozok/]. Accessed December 2015.
Kazakhstan International Arbitration Court. Regulation of the permanently functioning arbitrage of 8
June 2016. [http://kmats.advokat-sko.kz/reglament%20KMATC.doc]. Accessed December 2016.
Kazakhstan Stock Exchange. [http://www.kase.kz/en]. Accessed December 2016.
Kenzhebayeva, Aigoul. 14 October 2016. “A new law on arbitration: key issues undermining the
investment attractiveness of Kazakhstan”. Expert Guides. [https://www.expertguides.com/articles/anew-law-on-arbitration-key-issues-undermining-the-investment-attractiveness-of-kazakhstan/
arruxdra]. Accessed December 2016.
Kul’shmanov, Aisultan. 6 December 2016. “Sagintayev compares the livery of PPPs to a bride without
a groom”. TengriNews. [https://tengrinews.kz/kazakhstan_news/sagintaev-sravnil-realizatsiyuproektov-gchp-nevestoy-jeniha-307600/]. Accessed January 2016.
Kursiv. 15 October 2014. “Kazakhstan defines concession projects of special significance”. [http://
www.kursiv.kz/news/vlast/v_kazakhstane_opredeleny_kontsessionnye_proekty_osoboy_
znachimosti/]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Investment and Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 167 of 24
February 2015. “On the confirmation of the methodology for defining the volume of long-term subsidy
of expenses for passenger rail service providers, delivering rail services on socially significant routes”.
[https://egov.kz/cms/en/law/list/V1500011541]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 724 of 25 November 2015.
“On the confirmation of standard tender documentation for PPP projects”. [https://tengrinews.kz/
zakon/pravitelstvo_respubliki_kazahstan_premer_ministr_rk/hozyaystvennaya_deyatelnost/idV1500012495/]. Accessed December 2016.
100
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Ministry of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 725 of 25 November
2015. “On questions of the planning and implementation of PPP projects”. [https://tengrinews.kz/
zakon/pravitelstvo_respubliki_kazahstan_premer_ministr_rk/hozyaystvennaya_deyatelnost/idV1500012717/]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 743 of 30 November 2015.
“On the confirmation of rules on the formation and approval of tariffs (prices, rates) on regulated
services (goods and labour) delivered by subjects of natural monopoly via PPP contracts, including
concessions”. [https://egov.kz/cms/ru/law/list/V1500012526]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 713 of 25 November
2015. “On the confirmation of the rules of the return of objects of PPP to state ownership”. [https://
tengrinews.kz/zakon/pravitelstvo_respubliki_kazahstan_premer_ministr_rk/gpajdanskoe_pravo/idV1500012487/]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 129 of 5 December 2014.
“On the confirmation of rules for the development, correction and assessment of investment proposals
of state investment projects, and also planning, review, selection, monitoring and assessment of
the realisation of budget investments”. [http://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/V1400009938]. Accessed
December 2016.
Ministry of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 157 of 22 December 2014.
“On several questions of planning and realisation of concession projects”. [http://adilet.zan.kz/rus/
docs/V1400010122]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of the National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Regulation no. 731 of 26 November
2015. “On approval of the Methodology of determining the limits of state obligations to projects of
public-private partnerships, including public concession obligations, the Government of the Republic
of Kazakhstan and local executive bodies”. [http://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/V1500012426]. Accessed
January 2016.
Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, LLP. 15 November 2016. “New Kazakhstan Arbitration Law”. Lexology.
[http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=30dddad1-1805-40ed-919e-8d252ccd42c9].
Accessed December 2016.
Murat, Zhakeyev. 18 August 2016. “Losses of ‘Passenger Transit Services’ grow by 9 times”. KazInform.
[http://www.inform.kz/ru/ubytki-ao-passazhirskie-perevozki-vyrosli-v-9-raz-schetnyy-komitet_
a2938662]. Accessed December 2016.
National Bank of Kazakhstan. [http://www.nationalbank.kz]. Accessed December 2016.
Office of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Order no. 15-p of 9 March 2016. “On
confirmation of the plan for the realisation of PPP in various sectors and regions of 2016-2018 with
additional PPP mechanisms”. [http://www.government.kz/ru/rasporyazheniya-premer-ministrarespubliki-kazakhstan/rasporyazheniya-premer-ministra-rk-za-mart-2016-goda/31322-ob© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
101
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
utverzhdenii-plana-meropriyatij-po-realizatsii-proektov-gosudarstvenno-chastnogo-partnerstvapo-otraslyam-i-regionam-na-2016-2018-gody-s-rasshireniem-mekhanizmov-primeneniyagosudarstvenno-chastnogo-partnerstva-i-chastnykh-investitsij.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Perzadayeva, Saniya. 21 May 2014. “One in the field isn’t a warrior”. AND.KZ. [http://and.kz/site/
article/398]. Accessed December 2016.
President Nursultan Nazarbayev. 30 November 2015. “State of the Nation Address”. [http://www.
akorda.kz/ru/addresses/poslanie-prezidenta-respubliki-kazahstan-nnazarbaeva-narodu-kazahstana30-noyabrya-2015-g]. Accessed December 2016.
President of the Republic of Kazakhstan. “Strategies and Programmes of the Republic of Kazakhstan:
Nur Zholy”. [http://www.akorda.kz/ru/official_documents/strategies_and_programs]. Accessed
December 2016.
President of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Decree no. 1060 of 7 October 2014. “On the confirmation of
the list and criteria ensuring the definition of concession projects as of special status”. [http://www.
government.kz/ru/postanovleniya/postanovleniya-pravitelstva-rk-za-fevral-2015-goda/24537-ovnesenii-izmenenij-v-postanovlenie-pravitelstva-respubliki-kazakhstan-ot-7-oktyabrya-2014-goda1060-ob-utverzhdenii-perechnya-i-kriteriev-otneseniya-kontsessionnykh-proektov-k-kategoriiosoboj-znachimosti.html]. Accessed on December 2016.
President of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Decree no. 172 of 14 January 2016. “On the list of objects not
available for use in PPP projects”. [https://tengrinews.kz/zakon/prezident_respubliki_kazahstan/
gpajdanskoe_pravo/id-U1600000172/]. Accessed December 2016.
President of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Decree no. 294 of 5 March 2007. “On the list of objects not
available for use in concession projects”. [https://tengrinews.kz/zakon/prezident_respubliki_
kazahstan/hozyaystvennaya_deyatelnost/id-U070000294_/]. Accessed December 2016.
President of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Decree no. 917 of 5 August 2002. “Charter of the State
Accounts Committee”. [http://esep.kz/rus/showin/article/1126]. Accessed January 2017.
Zhandagulova, Gulnara. 19 September 2016. “Nazarbayev visits school built using PPP”. Khabar State
News Agency. [http://khabar.kz/ru/news/politika/item/64435-nursultan-nazarbaev-posetil-valmaty-shkolu-postroennuyu-v-ramkakh-gchp]. Accessed December 2016.
MOROCCO
African Legal Support Facility. 2016. “PPP Country Profile - Morocco”. [http://www.aflsf.org/sites/
default/files/2016-10-28-PPPCountryProfile-Maroc-FINALem_0.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Authenticity and Modernity Party (Parti authenticité et modernité - PAM). 2016. “Party Manifesto
for the Legislative Elections of 7 October 2016”. [http://www.pam.ma/WEB%20PROG%20PAM.pdf].
Accessed January 2017.
102
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Bassine, Mar. 18 December 2013. “A framework to institutionalize”. Maghress. [http://www.maghress.
com/fr/challenge/28726]. Accessed January 2017.
Benjamaa, Hicham. 23 November 2016. “IFC to support more green projects in MENA countries”. La
Vie Eco. [http://lavieeco.com/news/cop-22/la-sfi-va-soutenir-davantage-de-projets-verts-dans-lespays-de-la-region-mena.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Challenge Maroc. 1 February 2016. “PPP: Sajid shares his vision”. [http://www.challenge.ma/
partenariat-public-prive-sajid-partage-sa-vision-63625/]. Accessed January 2017.
Conseil du Développement et de la Solidarité (CDS). 2013. Memorandum from the conference on
“Social Impact Finance, a lever for social development”, 10 December 2013, Rabat, Morocco. [http://
cdsmaroc.com/sites/default/files/conferences/MEMORANDUM_Conf%C3%A9rence%20Finance%20
Solidaire_1.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Conseil du Développement et de la Solidarité (CDS). 2016. Website. [http://www.cds-online.org/].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco, Ministry of Energy. “Moroccan Solar Power Programme”. [http://www.mem.
gov.ma/SitePages/GrandsChantiers/DEEREnergieSolaire.aspx]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco, Ministry of Energy. 2015. “The Minister of Energy, Mines, Water, and
Environment, Dr. Abdelkader Amara’s speech at the conference ‘PPP contracts: Public-Private
Alliances for the economic and social development’”. [http://www.mem.gov.ma/SiteAssets/Dicsours/
Discours2015/D11mai15.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco, Ministry of Energy. 2016. “Law project n° 48-15 relative to the regulation of
the electricity sector”. [http://www.mem.gov.ma/SitePages/GrandsChantiers/DEERRegulation.aspx].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco, Ministry of Finance. 2016. Ministry departments. [https://www.finances.gov.
ma/en/Pages/DEPP.aspx?m=THE%20MINISTRY&m2=Departments]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco, Ministry of Finance. Department of Public Enterprises and Privatisation.
[https://www.finances.gov.ma/en/Pages/DEPP.aspx?m=THE%20MINISTRY&m2=Departments].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco, Ministry of Finance. Organisational Chart. [https://www.finances.gov.ma/fr/
SitePages/Organigramme2_FilsV4.aspx?CodeUS=Nz4GvwrR1FA=&lg=fr-FR]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco. 2015. “The Public Private Partnership (PPP) is not a privatization but an
alliance to create a project to enrich the economy”. [http://www.maroc.ma/fr/actualites/mboussaidle-ppp-nest-pas-une-privatisation-mais-une-alliance-visant-enrichir-leconomie]. Accessed December
2016.
Government of Morocco. Dahir n° 1-04-256 of 7 January 2005 enacting Law n° 52-03. “On the
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
103
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
organization, management and operation of the national rail network”. [http://adala.justice.gov.ma/
production/html/Fr/58360.htm]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco. Dahir n° 1-05-146 of 23 November 2005 enacting Law n° 15-02. “Relating
to ports and establishing the National Ports Agency and the Ports Operations Corporation”. [http://
adala.justice.gov.ma/production/html/Fr/69315.htm]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco. Decree n° 2-06-388 of 5 February 2007. “Setting the conditions and forms of
procurement by the State and certain rules relating to their management and control”. [https://www.
marchespublics.gov.ma/pmmp/IMG/pdf/36-2.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco. Decree n° 2-12-349 of 20 March 2013. “On public procurement”. [https://
www.finances.gov.ma/Docs/2014/depp/decret_2_12_349.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco. Decree n° 2-15-45 of 13 May 2015. “On the application of Law n° 86-12 on
PPP contracts”. [http://adala.justice.gov.ma/production/html/Fr/189771.htm]. Accessed December
2016.
Government of Morocco. Law n° 08-05 of 6 December 2007. “On Arbitration and Conventional
Mediation”. [http://www.avocats-france-maroc.com/doc/bulletin-officiel-arbitrage.pdf]. Accessed
January 2017.
Government of Morocco. Law n° 12-03 of 12 May 2003. “Relative to Environmental Impact
Assessments”. [http://www.crifes.ma/docs/122082014004112.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of Morocco. Law n° 7-81 of 6 May 1982 (revised in 2011). “Relating to expropriation for
public utility and temporary occupation”. [http://adala.justice.gov.ma/production/legislation/fr/
Nouveautes/Expropriation.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco. Law n° 86-12 of 24 December 2014. “On Public-Private Partnership
contracts”. [http://adala.justice.gov.ma/FR/DocumentViewer.aspx?id=188945.htm]. Accessed
December 2016.
Government of Morocco. Local authorities portal. “National Waste Disposal Programme”. [http://www.
pncl.gov.ma/fr/grandchantiers/Pages/PNDM.aspx]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco. Ministry of Economy and Finance. Department of Public Enterprises
and Privatisation. [https://www.finances.gov.ma/en/Pages/DEPP.aspx?m=THE%20
MINISTRY&m2=Departments]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of Morocco. Ministry of Energy website. [http://www.mem.gov.ma/sitepages/default.
aspx]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco. Ministry of Equipment and Transport website. [http://www.equipement.gov.
ma/Pages/accueil.aspx]. Accessed December 2016.
104
Government of Morocco. Ministry of Equipment, Transport, and Logistics. “National Motorway
Reinforcement Scheme”. [http://www.mtpnet.gov.ma/routier/Infrastructures-autoroutieres/Pages/
Infrastructures-autoroutieres.aspx]. Accessed December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Government of Morocco. Ministry of Equipment, Transport, and Logistics. “National Programme for
Rural Roads”. [http://www.equipement.gov.ma/routier/Grands-Projets/Pages/Routes-Rurales.aspx].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco. Ministry of Finance website. [https://www.finances.gov.ma/fr/SitePages/
Home.aspx]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco. Ministry of Higher Education. “Public Private Partnership”. [http://www.
enssup.gov.ma/fr/Page/458-partenariat-public-priv%C3%A9]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco. Ministry of the Environment. “National Wastewater Treatment Plan”. [http://
www.environnement.gov.ma/fr/eau?id=207]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Morocco. Public procurement online portal containing the decrees and enforcement
orders. [https://demat.marchespublics.gov.ma/pmmp/spip.php?rubrique6&lang=fr]. Accessed
December 2016.
Government of the UK, British Embassy Rabat. 20 December 2013. “Social Finance - a new area of
Morocco/UK partnership”. [https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/social-finance-anew-area-of-moroccouk-partnership]. Accessed December 2016.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. 2016. Database of ICISD Member States.
[https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/about/Database-of-Member-States.aspx]. Accessed
December 2016.
Kidney, Sean. 6 November 2016. “Moroccan Certified Climate Bond! 1bn Dirham & a flurry of firsts to get
COP22 underway: First Moroccan Green Bond, First African Certified Climate Bond, First Green Bond of
COP22!”. Climate Bonds Initiative. [https://www.climatebonds.net/2016/11/live-moroccan-certifiedclimate-bond-1bn-dirham-flurry-firsts-get-cop22-underway-first]. Accessed December 2016.
Lydec (public services operator for water and electricity in the Region of Grand Casablanca). Tariffs.
[https://client.lydec.ma/site/fr/tranches-de-facturation-et-tarifs]. Accessed February 2017.
New York Arbitration Convention. 2016. Contracting States. [http://www.newyorkconvention.org/
countries]. Accessed December 2016.
Office National de L’Electricité et de l’Eau (ONEE). Tariffs. [http://www.one.org.ma/FR/pages/interne.
asp?esp=1&id1=3&id2=113&t2=1]. Accessed February 2017.
Reegle - The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership. 2016. “Morocco Energy Profile”.
[http://www.reegle.info/countries/morocco-energy-profile/MA#regulatory_framework]. Accessed
December 2016.
Reuters. 7 November 2016. “Solar power agency Masen issues Morocco’s first green bond”. [http://
uk.reuters.com/article/us-morocco-bonds-solar-idUKKBN1321X8]. Accessed December 2016.
Tantaoui, Younes. 29 January 2017. “Controversy on the PPP Law”. La Vie Eco. [http://lavieeco.com/
news/economie/controverse-autour-de-la-loi-sur-le-partenariat-public-prive.html]. Accessed
December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
105
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Taqa Morocco. 2010. “Jorf Lasfar Energy Company 5&6 Environmental Impact Assessment” (in Arabic).
[http://www.jlec.ma/documents/Resume_sur_etude_impact_sur_environnement_ar.pdf]. Accessed
January 2017.
Taqa Morocco. 2010. “Jorf Lasfar Energy Company 5&6 Environmental Impact Assessment”( in French).
[http://www.jlec.ma/documents/Resume_sur_etude_impact_sur_environnement_fr.pdf]. Accessed
January 2017.
Taqa Morocco. 2017. “Jorf Lasfar Energy Company 5&6”. [http://www.jlec.ma/fr/jlec.aspx?m=2&r=8].
Accessed January 2017.
World Bank, PPI Database. “Country Snapshots: Morocco”. [https://ppi.worldbank.org/snapshots/
country/morocco]. Accessed December 2016.
Zaireg, Reda. 2 February 2016. “Mohammed Sajid shares his advice on PPPs”. Al Huffington
Post Maghreb - Maroc. [http://www.huffpostmaghreb.com/2016/02/02/sajid-casablanca-sdl_n_9141646.html]. Accessed January 2017.
Zaireg, Reda. 6 September 2016. “Individual freedom, taxation, diplomacy... The main measures
from the electoral manifesto of the PAM”. Al Huffington Post Maghreb - Maroc. [http://www.
huffpostmaghreb.com/2016/09/06/programme-electoral-pam_n_11873502.html]. Accessed January
2017.
Zejly, Btissam. 11 December 2013. “Morocco looks at social impact finance”. Les Eco Maroc. [http://
www.leseco.ma/finances/16570-le-maroc-se-penche-sur-sa-finance-solidaire.html]. Accessed
December 2016.
ROMANIA
Agerpres. 2013. “Documentar - Contractul cu Bechtel”. [http://www.agerpres.ro/economie/2013/
12/06/documentar-contractul-cu-bechtel-si-autostrada-transilvania-evolutie-11-14-10]. Accessed
January 2017.
Alecu, Bogdan. 2015. “InterParking, the final investment of €3 million in the underground car park at
the National Theatre”. Zf.ro. [http://www.zf.ro/zf-news/interparking-la-final-cu-investitii-de-3-milin-parcarea-subterana-de-la-teatrul-national-13901103]. Accessed December 2016.
Apa Nova Bucharest. 2011. “Concession contract”. [http://www.apanovabucuresti.ro/companie/cinesuntem/contractul-de-concesiune/]. Accessed December 2016.
Barbulescu, Ovidiu. 2016. “The Government wants to reintroduce mayors in the administration
councils of companies arguing that PPP projects cannot be done because of incompatibilities”. Profit.
ro. [http://www.profit.ro/stiri/politic/guvernul-vrea-sa-ii-introduca-din-nou-pe-primari-in-ca-urilecompaniilor-argumentand-ca-din-cauza-incompatibilitatii-romania-nu-are-proiecte-ppp-15426956].
Accessed January 2017.
106
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Barnaure, Mariana. 2017. “Bugetul pe 2017 a fost adoptat de Parlament”. Mediafax News Agency.
[http://www.mediafax.ro/politic/bugetul-pe-2017-a-fost-adoptat-de-parlament-16152808].
Accessed February 2017.
Börzel, Tanja. 2009. Coping with accession to the European Union: new modes of environmental
governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://books.google.ro/books?id=ohvuCwAAQBAJ&pg=
PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=Curtea+de+conturi+a+Romaniei+PPP&source=bl&ots=0AzbzdKfr8&sig=
SYbUgYXe_hH8MjUyP2QhtcmxuFE&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj52OSt7NDRAhXCPRQKHW9DD0o
Q6AEINzAF#v=onepage&q=Curtea%20de%20conturi%20a%20Romaniei%20PPP&f=false]. Accessed
December 2016.
Cernat, Floretina. 2016. “Biris: We don’t have PPPs in Romania because there have been no bankable
projects”. Agerpres. [https://www.agerpres.ro/economie/2016/07/07/biris-nu-avem-parteneriatepublic-private-in-romania-intrucat-nu-au-existat-proiecte-bancabile-13-03-12]. Accessed January
2017.
Cocis, Dorin. 2016. “Vicentiu Stir (ALDE): PPP’s can do wonders”. Dej24.ro. [http://dej24.ro/vicentiustir-alde-parteneriatul-public-privat-poate-sa-faca-minuni-e/]. Accessed December 2016.
Competition Council. Annual Report 2014. [http://www.consiliulconcurentei.ro/uploads/docs/items/
id10061/raport_anual_2014.pdf]. Accessed January 2016.
Contabilul.ro. 2008. “Contingencies liabilities”. [http://contabilul.manager.ro/a/2638/datoriicontingente.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Cozmei, Victor. 2013. “Ministry led by Dan Sova proposes a new law on Public-Private Partnership
(PPP). Competitive dialogue will be the only way of selecting private partners”. Hotnews.ro. [http://
www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-14375475-ministerul-condus-dan-sova-propune-noua-legeparteneriatului-public-privat-ppp-dialogul-competitiv-singura-modalitate-selectare-partenerilorprivati-nu-exista-licitatii.htm] . Accessed December 2016.
Cozmei, Victor. 2015. “What roads and highways will Romania have and how much will they will cost?”
Hotnews.ro. [http://monitorizari.hotnews.ro/stiri-infrastructura_articole-19343352-harta-masterplanul-transport-2-0-drumuri-autostrazi-avea-romania-cat-vor-costa-vezi-modificari-aparut-fatavarianta-initiala.htm]. Accessed December 2016.
Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public
procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC. [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=celex:32014L0024]. Accessed January 2017.
Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on
procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and
repealing Directive 2004/17/EC. [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:
32014L0025]. Accessed January 2017.
Etves, Stefan. 2006. “Bechtel wants to work nonstop on the project of the Transylvannia Highway”.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
107
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Gandul. [http://www.gandul.info/stiri/americanii-de-la-bechtel-vor-sa-lucreze-nonstop-laautostrada-transilvania-261517]. Accessed January 2017.
Eurostat. 2016. “What is the extent of contingent liabilities and non-performing loans in the EU
member states?” [http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7143457/2-27012016-AP-EN.
pdf/60f17285-93bb-4813-9bd8-bb5263703408]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Romania, Ministry of Energy. “Romania’s Strategy Energy for 2016-2030, with outlook
to the year 2050”. [http://energie.gov.ro/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Strategia-Energetica-aRomaniei-2016-2030-versiune-propusa-spre-consult....pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Romania, Ministry of Environment. Government Decision no.870/ 6.11.2013. “On the
National Strategy of Handling Waste 2014-2020”. [http://www.mmediu.ro/img/attachment/37/
strategii-planuri-studii-54786031cda10.pdf]. Accessed February 2017.
Government of Romania. 2013. Romania’s national strategy on climate change (2013-2020). [http://
mmediu.ro/app/webroot/uploads/files/Strategia-Nationala-pe-Schimbari-Climatice-2013-2020.pdf].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of Romania. 2015. Guide to development and implementation of integrated urban
policies. [https://www.google.ro/?gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=Xhh_WNOwIsGC6QSBpZDoBg#q=
Dezvoltare+urbana+Ghid+PPP+2015+]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Romania. Emergency Ordinance No. 11 of 6 April 2016. “On establishing measures
to reorganize the central administration”. [http://dpiis.gov.ro/new_dpiis/wp-content/
uploads/2014/06/ORDONAN%C5%A2%C4%82-DE-URGEN%C5%A2%C4%82-nr.-11-din-6.04.2016.
pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Romania. Emergency Ordinance No. 195 of 22 December 2005. “On environmental
protection”. [http://www.anpm.ro/documents/12220/2178048/Ordonanta+195_2005+.pdf/
cc920cfb-da7f-46e0-80ea-25a6cf0a7558]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Romania. Emergency Ordinance No. 27 of 30 January 2002. “On regulating the
settlement of petitions”. [http://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/33817]. Accessed
December 2016.
Government of Romania. Emergency Ordinance No. 34 of 19 April 2006. “On awarding public
procurement contracts”. [http://www.utcluj.ro/media/documents/2013/OUG_34_din_2006.pdf].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of Romania. Emergency Ordinance No. 88 of 18 September 2013. “On the adoption of fiscal
measures for fulfilling the commitments agreed by international organizations”. [https://static.anaf.
ro/static/10/Anaf/legislatie/OUG_88_2013.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Romania. Government Decision No. 225 of 26 March 2014. “On approving legal norms
108
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
for the prioritization of public investment projects”. [http://lege5.ro/Gratuit/gm4timbqgu/normelemetodologice-privind-prioritizarea-proiectelor-de-investitii-publice-din-26032014?pid=&d=
2017-02-19]. Accessed February 2017.
Government of Romania. Government Decision No. 28 of 9 January 2008. “On approving the content
frame of technical and economic documentation related to public investments”. [http://kpconsulting.
ro/legislatie/constructii/HG_Nr_28_2008.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Romania. Government Decision No. 867 of 7 December 2016. “On approving the rules
for implementing the provisions relating to the award of works concession and service concession”.
[http://legeaz.net/monitorul-oficial-985-2016/hg-867-2016-norme-metodologice-atribuirecontracte-concesiune-legea-100-2016]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Romania. Law No. 100 of 23 May 2016. “On concession of works and public services”.
[http://anap.gov.ro/web/1715-2/]. Accessed February 2016.
Government of Romania. Law No. 184 of 24 July 1961. “On the accession of the Romanian Popular
Republic to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards”. [http://
www.monitoruljuridic.ro/act/decret-nr-186-din-24-iulie-1961-privind-aderarea-republicii-populareromine-la-conventia-pentru-recunoasterea-si-executarea-sentintelor-arbitrale-straine-adoptata-lanew-york-la-10-iunie-1958-146.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Romania. Law No. 233 of 25 December 2016. “On public-private partnerships”. [http://
lege5.ro/Gratuit/geztmmjwgyya/legea-nr-233-2016-privind-parteneriatul-public-privat]. Accessed
December 2016.
Government of Romania. Law No. 52 of 3 December 2013. “On transparency in decision-making in
public administration”. [http://www.dreptonline.ro/legislatie/lege_transparenta_decizionala.php].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of Romania. Law No. 544 of 23 October 2001. “On free access to public interest
information”. [http://legislatie.resurse-pentru-democratie.org/legea/544-2001.php]. Accessed
December 2016.
Government of Romania. Law No. 99 of 19 May 2016. “On sector procurement”. [http://anap.gov.ro/
web/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/L99_2016.pdf]. Accessed December 2016
Government of Romania. Law No.98 of 19 May 2016. “On public tender procedures”. [http://anap.gov.
ro/web/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/L98_2016.pdf]. Accessed February 2016.
Government of Romania. The organizational structure of the department of foreign investment and PPP.
[http://dpiis.gov.ro/new_dpiis/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Organigrama-DISPPP-2015.pdf].
Accessed December 2016.
Gujan,Vlad. 2016. “Which are the first hospitals recommended for PPP investments of €200 million?”
Capital.[http://www.capital.ro/exclusiv-care-sunt-primele-spitale-facute-in-parteneriat-publicprivat-investitii-de-400-de-mil-euro.html]. Accessed December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
109
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). [https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/
Pages/about/MembershipStateDetails.aspx?state=ST112]. Accessed December 2016.
Lupoaie,Catalin. 24 March 2010. “What PPP projects are ongoing in Eastern Europe?” ZF.ro. [http://
www.zf.ro/zf-24/exclusiv-online-ce-proiecte-ppp-sunt-in-derulare-in-europa-de-est-5771751].
Accessed December 2016.
Mayorality of Sector 1, Bucharest. 2012. “Romprest contract (waste management concession)”.
[http://www.primariasector1.ro/download/hotarari-consiliu-2012/hotararea_92_anexa_1.pdf].
Accessed January 2017.
Mediafax. Economic Department. 2016. “Ponta’s list for PPPs: Bucharest-Brasov and Pitesti - Craiova
Highway, Cernavoda Nuclear Energy, Macin Bridge”. [http://www.mediafax.ro/social/lista-lui-pontapentru-ppp-autostrazile-bucuresti-brasov-si-pitesti-craiova-cne-podul-macin-10527213]. Accessed
December 2016.
Mediafax. Social Department. 2014. [http://www.mediafax.ro/social/curtea-de-arbitraj-la-carevlasov-ar-fi-spus-ca-intervine-condusa-de-fiica-lui-si-de-bogdan-olteanu-12291827]. Accessed
December 2016.
Mediation legislation. [http://www.cmediere.ro/legislatie/7/]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Finance. “Central Unit for the Coordination of Public-Private Partnership”. [http://discutii.
mfinante.ro/static/10/Mfp/rof_mfp2009/4_33.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Finance. “PPPs in Romania in 2008”. [http://discutii.mfinante.ro/static/10/Mfp/PPP/
PPPs_Romania2008.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Finance. “Responsibilities of the Central Unit for the Coordination of Public-Private
Partnership”. [http://discutii.mfinante.ro/static/10/Mfp/PPP/responsabilitati_PPP.htm]. Accessed
December 2016.
Ministry of Health. Official Communiqué. December 2016. “Hostpitals to be built in PPP”. [http://www.
ms.ro/2016/12/09/spitale-construite-parteneriat-public-privat/]. Accessed January 2017.
Ministry of Public Finance. 2009. “Implementation of projects of public works and services concession
in Romania - Guide”. [http://discutii.mfinante.ro/static/10/Mfp/PPP/GHID_CONCES_PUBLICE.pdf].
Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Regional Development. “Guidelines for improving PPP in the social domain”. [http://www.
crips.ro/doc/podca_ghid.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Ministry of Regional Development. 2013. “The development of the capacity of NGOs to be actively
involved in improving the public sector.Lobby and advocacy”. [http://www.onespromania.ro/data/_
editor/APD%20PODCA_Manual%20Advocacy_TgNeamt.pdf]. Accesed January 2017.
110
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Neferu, Andreea. 2015. “Concession of the Bucharest - Comarnic Highway fell through for a second
time. Who pays for the most resounding failure of the Romanian road system?” Ziarul Financiar.
[http://www.zf.ro/zf-24/concesiunea-autostrazii-comarnic-brasov-a-picat-pentru-a-treia-oara-cineplateste-pentru-cel-mai-rasunator-esec-al-drumurilor-romanesti-14470186]. Accessed January 2017.
Pantazi, Raluca. “First generation of German short-term professional school from Koronstadt
announces 90% hiring for its students”. Hotnews. [http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-17785983prima-generatie-absolventi-scoala-profesionala-scurta-durata-scoala-profesionala-germanakronstadt-anunta-peste-90-dintre-elevii-sai-sunt-angajati-companiile-care-facut-practica.htm].
Accessed December 2016.
Parvoiu, Claudia. “CP”. Hotnews.ro. [http://economie.hotnews.ro/stiri-energie-20572115nuclearelectrica-semna-astazi-companie-chineza-memorandumul-intelegere-pentru-construireareactoarelor-3-4-cernavoda.htm]. Accessed February 2017.
Prescure, Titus. “About the legal status of the concession contract in contemporary Romanian law”.
[http://revcurentjur.ro/old/arhiva/attachments_200412/recjurid041_24F.pdf]. Accessed December
2016.
Public Communication Office of the Romanian Chamber of Commerce. 2016. “The Public-Private
Partnership, the key to economic development and to consolidate innovation and competitiveness”.
[http://ccir.ro/2016/07/08/the-public-private-partnership-the-key-to-economic-development-andto-consolidate-innovation-and-competitiveness/]. Accessed January 2017.
Radut, Constantin. 2016. “Public-Private Projects with EIB Backing”. Nine O’Clock. [http://www.
nineoclock.ro/public-private-partnership-projects-with-eib-backing/]. Accessed December 2016.
Ratiu, Monica. 2016. “Debating PPP in the context of New Laws on Public Procurement”. Applicable
Law on Public Tenders. Volume I. Title IV, Section 3. Redactia. Universul Juridic. [http://www.
universuljuridic.ro/dezbaterea-parteneriatul-public-privat-in-contextul-noii-legislatii-privindachizitiile-publice/]. Accessed January 2017.
Romanian Academic Society. 2009. “Public money and private interests”. [http://www.sar.org.ro/
files/paper-final.pdf] . Accessed December 2016.
Romanian Chamber of Commerce. “Arbitration”. [http://arbitration.ccir.ro/]. Accessed February 2017.
Romanian PPP Law Review. [http://publicprivatepartnership.ro/ro/revista-romana-de-ppp]. Accessed
December 2016.
Rosca, Olga. 2015. “EBRD’s new strategy for Romania sets out investment priorities”. European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development. [http://www.ebrd.com/news/2015/ebrds-new-strategy-forromania-sets-out-investment-priorities-.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Sector 1 Local Council Decision 92 of 2012. “Additional Contract”. [http://www.primariasector1.ro/
download/hotarari-consiliu-2012/hotararea_92_anex]. Accessed December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
111
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Sova, Dan. 2013. “Of the 16 public-private partnership projects started none has been finalized”.
Obiectiv.info. [http://www.obiectiv.info/dan-sova-din-16-proiecte-demarate-in-parteneriat-publicprivat-nu-a-fost-finalizat-niciunul_13548.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Staicu, Eugen. 2014. “What do we need to know about provisions?” Legestart.ro. [http://legestart.ro/
ce-trebuie-sa-stim-despre-provizioane/]. Accessed December 2016.
Tint, Andreea. 2016. “Romania Moves Closer to Getting Emerging Market Status on the FTSE Index”.
Business Review. [http://www.business-review.eu/featured/romania-moves-closer-to-gettingemerging-market-status-on-ftse-index-101839]. Accessed December 2016.
Vass, Iulia. “Order of ANRMAP President No. 509/2011/2. Blog post. [http://www.avocat-achizitiipublice.ro/legislatie-achizitii-publice/ordin-590-2011/]. Accessed December 2016.
Voiculescu, Loredana. 2012. “Cand ar putea fi demarate lucrarile pe cel mai asteptat santier din
Romania”. Gandul. [http://www.gandul.info//financiar/autostrada-comarnic-brasov-cand-ar-puteafi-demarate-lucrarile-pe-cel-mai-asteptat-santier-din-romania-9955641]. Accessed January 2017.
SERBIA
Biznis & Finanzsije. 23 October 2012. “Erste Bank issues two-years dinar bonds”. [http://bif.
rs/2012/10/erste-banka-izdaje-dvogodisnje-dinarske-obveznice/]. Accessed December 2016.
Blic. 9 October 2014. “Vice President of the Government Zorana Mihajlovic: State is amending the
regulations on partnership and concessions”. [http://www.blic.rs/vesti/politika/mihajlovic-drzavamenja-zakon-o-partnerstvu-i-koncesijama/fwjz2q4]. Accessed December 2016.
City of Belgrade website. 2016. [http://www.beograd.rs/]. Accessed December 2016.
City of Belgrade. 2016. “Nikola Nikodijevic: City of Belgrade Assembly is going to propose the Public
Private Partnership for Sava Centre”. [http://www.beograd.rs/cir/beoinfo/1728143-nikolanikodijevic-skupstina-grada-beograda-predlozice-javno-privatno-partnerstvo-za-sava-centar/].
Accessed December 2016.
Danas. 4 October 2016. “Advertisement billboards to the private sector for 15 years”. [http://www.
danas.rs/beograd.39.html?news_id=329145&title=Reklamni+bilbordi+privatnicima+na+15+godin4].
Accessed January 2017.
Delegation of the EU in Serbia. 12 January 2015. “Sabac and Stara Pazova are the first to issue
municipal bonds”. [http://europa.rs/sabac-i-stara-pazova-prvi-izdaju-municipalne-obveznice/].
Accessed December 2016.
Dosta je bilo Political Party (Enough is enough). 18 November 2016. “Zrenjanin: PPP for heating voted
under low-key procedure”. [http://dostajebilo.rs/zrenjanin-javno-privatno-partnerstvo-za-toplanuizglasano-na-mala-vrata/]. Accessed December 2016.
Energyobserver. 2016. “Finally Serbia is preparing energy cards for poor people”. [http://
112
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
energyobserver.com/vesti.php?lang=1&ID=31581]. Accessed December 2016.
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). 2014. “Infrastructure Project Preparation
Facility: Framework Consultants for the Public Private Partnership Window”. [http://www.ebrd.
com/cs/Satellite?c=Content&cid=1395241861149&d=Mobile&pagename=EBRD%2FContent%
2FContentlayout]. Accessed January 2017.
European Progress. [http://www.europeanprogres.org/kosmo/en/55/About-Programe/]. Accessed
December 2016.
Fiscal Council. 2015. “Public Investments in Serbia – growth incentive in fiscal consolidation”. [http://
www.fiskalnisavet.rs/doc/ocene-i-misljenja/2015/javne_investicije_u%20srbiji_feb_2015.pdf].
Accessed December 2016.
Foreign Investors Council. 2016. White Book. [http://www.fic.org.rs/projects/white-book/whitebook.html]. Accessed December 2016.
GIZ Serbia. 2016. “Development of a Sustainable Bioenergy Market in Serbia”. [http://www.bioenergyserbia.rs/index.php/en/]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. “Strategy of energy development of the Republic of Serbia
until 2025 with projections until 2030”. [http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/dokumenti_sekcija.
php?id=45678mber]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2006. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 46/2006. “Law
on Arbitrage”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_arbitrazi.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2006. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no.125/2003,
12/2006. “Regulation on Budget Accounting”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/uredba_o_
budzetskom_racunovodstvu.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2011. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 88/2011.
“Law on Communal Services”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_komunalnim_delatnostima.
html]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2013. “Methodology for the value-for-money analysis in PPP and
concessions”. [http://www.ppp.gov.rs/dok/38/Metodologija%20za%20analizu%20dobijene%20
vrednosti%20u%20odnosu%20na%20ulo%C5%BEeni%20novac%20u%20javno-privatnom%20
partnerstvu%20i%20koncesijama.pdf ]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2013. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 47/2013.
“Regulation on monitoring of the realization of public contracts under PPP”. [http://www.ttigroup.co.rs/
wp-content/uploads/uredba_o_nadzoru_javnih_ugovora_JPP_071_lat.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2013. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no.13/2012,
108/2012, 44/2013. “Decree on the establishment of the Public Private Partnership Commission”.
[http://www.ppp.gov.rs/doc/Odluka%20o%20obrazovanju%20Komisije%20za%20javno© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
113
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
privatno%20partnerstvo.pdf ]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2013. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no.62/2013.
“Law on Accounting”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_racunovodstvu.html]. Accessed
December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2013. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 53/95,
16/2001 (Constitutional Court Decision), 20/2009 and 55/2013 (Constitutional Court Decision).
“Law on Expropriation”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_eksproprijaciji.html]. Accessed
December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2014. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 55/2014.
“Law on Mediation in Dispute Resolution”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_posredovanju_
u_resavanju_sporova.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2014. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 3/2014.
“Strategy of development of water transport of the Republic of Serbia for the period 2015 to 2025”.
[http://www.mgsi.gov.rs/sites/default/files/STRATEGIJA%20razvoja%20vodnog%20saobracaja%20
Republike%20Srbije%20od%20201.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2015. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 68/15.
“Public-Private Partnership of the City of Belgrade in treatment and waste disposal”. [http://portal.
ujn.gov.rs/Dokumenti/JavnaNabavka.aspx?idd=821092]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2015. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no.124/2012,
14/2015 and 68/2015. “Law on Public Procurement”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_
javnim_nabavkama.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2015. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no.107/2005,
72/2009, 88/2010, 99/2010, 57/2011, 119/2012, 45/2013, 93/2014, 96/2015 and 106/2015).
“Law on Health Protection”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_zdravstvenoj_zastiti.html].
Accessed January 2017.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no.16/2016.
“Rulebook on the Standard Classification Framework and Plan of Accounts for the Budget System”.
[http://www.trezor.gov.rs/uploads/news/3_443_Pravilnik%20o%20standardnom%20
klasifikacionom%20okviru%20i%20kontnom%20planu%20za%20budzetski%20sistem%202016-1.
pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no.16/2016.
“Annex to the Rulebook on the Standard Classification Framework and Plan of Accounts for the Budget
system – Classification System”. [http://www.trezor.gov.rs/uploads/news/3_443_Prilog%201-1.pdf].
Accessed January 2017.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no.16/2016.
“Annex to the Rulebook on the Standard Classification Framework and Plan of Accounts for the Budget
114
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
system - Plan of Accounts”. [http://www.trezor.gov.rs/uploads/news/3_443_Prilog%202-1%20-%20
Kontni%20plan.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia 104/2016. “Law
on Amendments to the Law on Communal Services”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/izmene_i_dopune/
261216_zakon_o_izmenama_i_dopunama_zakona_o_komunalnim_delatnostima.html]. Accessed
January 2017.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 88/11,
15/2016 and 104/2016. “Law on Public-Private Partnership and Concessions”. [http://www.paragraf.
rs/propisi/zakon_o_javno_privatnom_partnerstvu_i_koncesijama.html] . Accessed January 2017.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 72/2011,
88/2013, 105/2014, 104/2016, 108/2016. “Law on Public Property”. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 112/2015.
“Law on Chambers of Commerce”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_privrednim_komorama.
html]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 58/2016.
“Rules of Permanent Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce”. [http://www.pks.rs/SADRZAJ/
Files/Stalna%20arbitraza/Rules%20of%20the%20Permanent%20Arbitration%2C%20in%20
English%3B%20Pravilnik%20o%20Stalnoj%20arbitra%C5%BEi%2C%20prevod%20na%20engleski_1.
pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 76/2005,
100/2007, 97/2008, 44/2010, 93/2012, 89/2013, 99/2014, 45/2015, 68/2015, 87/2016. “Law on
Higher Education”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/propisi_download/zakon_o_visokom_obrazovanju.
pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no.104/2016.
“Law on Amendments to the Law on PPP and Concessions”. [http://www.parlament.rs/upload/
archive/files/cir/pdf/zakoni/2016/3196-16.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 15/2016.
“Law on Public Companies”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_javnim_preduzecima.html].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no.16/2016,
49/2016 and 107/2016. “Rulebook on a Standard Classification Framework and Plan of Accounts
for the Budget System”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/propisi_download/pravilnik_o_standardnom_
klasifikacionom_okviru_i_kontnom_planu_za_budzetski_sistem.pdf ]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 54/2009,
73/2010, 101/2010, 101/2011, 93/2012, 62/2013, 63/2013, 108/2013, 142/2014, 68/2015, 103/2015,
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
115
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
99/2016. “Law on Budget System”. [http://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_budzetskom_sistemu.
html]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no.99/2016. “Law
on Budget 2017”. [http://www.parlament.gov.rs/upload/archive/files/cir/pdf/zakoni/2016/3081-16.
pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no.113/2015.
“Regulation on customers affected by energy poverty”. [http://www.mre.gov.rs/doc/
elektroenergetika/UredbaOEnergetskiUgroKupcu.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Serbia. 2017. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 1/2017.
“Regulation on the method of concession award in phases”. [http://www.slg.bazapropisanet/1-0601-2017/37085-uredba-o-nacinu-davanja-koncesije-u-fazama.html]. Accessed January 2017.
IJ Global. 2016. IJ Global Database. [https://ijglobal.com/]. Accessed December 2016.
Jovanic, T and Sredojevic, S. 2016. “Strengthening the Determinants of the Local Government
Capacities for the Successful PPP Implementation in the Western Balkans”. In Asquer, A, Becchis, F and
Russolillo, D, eds. The Political Economy of Local Regulation-Studies in the Political Economy of Public
Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kurir. 2016. “Only concessions in the future: new method of procurement of the city urban equipment”.
[http://www.kurir.rs/vesti/beograd/ubuduce-samo-koncesijom-novi-nacin-nabvake-mobilijara-iurbane-opreme-clanak-2474283]. Accessed December 2016.
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). “LDP Policy for Vranje”. [http://www.ktjs.org/fajlovi/pdf/politikaldp-za-vranje.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Serbia. 2013. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no.57/
2013. “Rulebook for the guidance and content of the Registry of Public Contracts”. [http://www.
ppp.gov.rs/doc/Pravilnik%20o%20na%C4%8Dinu%20vo%C4%91enja%20i%20sadr%C5%BEini%20
registra%20javnih%20ugovora.pdf ]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Serbia. 2016. “Economic reform programme for the period 2016
to 2018”. [http://www.mfin.gov.rs/pages/article.php?&id=12056&change_lang=LS]. Accessed
January 2017.
Ministry of Mining and Energy of the Republic of Serbia. 2015. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia
no. 41/2015. “Model of the contract for energy providers regarding energy-efficiency improvements
and savings in the operational costs of public lighting”. [http://www.mre.gov.rs/doc/efikasnostizvori/02%20-%20Model%20Ugovora%20JAVNO%20OSVETLJENJE.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
National Alliance for Local Development - NALED. [http://www.naled-serbia.org/]. Accessed December
2016.
National TV broadcast. 15 September 2016. “Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic: Invest in Serbia, we have
the best conditions in the region”. [http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/ci/story/5/ekonomija/2453346/
116
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
vucic-ulazite-u-srbiju-nudimo-bolje-uslove-od-bilo-koje-zemlje.html]. Accessed December 2016.
National TV broadcast. 17 October 2016. “Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic: Kursumlija Terme as a
testament to our deterioration”. [http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/ci/story/124/drustvo/2491949/
vucic-kursumlijska-banja-spomenik-naseg-propadanja.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Politika. 1 August 2016. “What is the motivation of the Airport to buy the Sava centre”. [http://www.
politika.rs/sr/clanak/360323/koji-je-motiv-Aerodroma-da-kupi-sava-centar]. Accessed January
2017.
Politika. 10 May 2014. “Invisible Registry”. [http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/292446/Nevidljiviregistar]. Accessed December 2016.
Politika. 2014. “Plans and priorities – examples of Corridors”. [http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/
282113/Planovi-i-prioriteti-primer-koridora]. Accessed December 2016.
Politika. 22 November 2016. “EBRD issues first ever dinar bonds”. [http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/
368370/EBRD-prvi-put-emituje-dinarske-obveznice]. Accessed December 2016.
Politika. 5 June 2015. “Corridors are bypassing Kragujevac”. [http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/
329538/Koridori-obilaze-Kragujevac]. Accessed December 2016.
Portal Ekapija. 12 August 2009. “Tigar issues corporate bonds worth 95 million dinars”. [http://www.
ekapija.com/website/sr/page/251829/Tigar-emitovao-korporativne-obveznice-vrednost-emisije-95miliona-dinara]. Accessed December 2016.
Portal Naslovi. 4 May 2012. “Société Générale issues first long-term dinar bonds in Serbia”. [http://
www.naslovi.net/2012-05-04/ekapija/societe-generale-banka-emitovala-prve-bankarskedugorocne-dinarske-obveznice-u-srbiji/3421975]. Accessed December 2016.
Public Contract Registry Portal. 2015. Online Registry of Public Contracts. [http://portal.ujn.gov.rs/
JavniUgovori/Ugovori.aspx]. Accessed December 2016.
Public Procurement Office. 2016. [http://www.ujn.gov.rs/]. Accessed December 2016.Republic of
Serbia. Republic Commission for the Protection of Rights in Public Procurement Procedures. 2016.
[http://www.kjn.gov.rs/en.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Public-Private Partnership Commission. 2016. [http://www.ppp.gov.rs/o-nama]. Accessed December
2016.
Public-Private Partnership Commission. 2016. “Opinions of the Commission”. [http://www.ppp.gov.
rs/misljenja-komisije]. Accessed December 2016.
Serbian Radical Party. 2016. “Programme of the Serbian Radical Party”. [http://www.
srpskaradikalnastranka.org.rs/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/SRSprogram.pdf]. Accessed December
2016.
Sredojevic, Sladjana. 2013. Javno-privatno partnerstvo u Jugoistocnoj Evropi: sistemski ili ad-hoc
pristup? [Public-Private Partnership in Southeastern Europe: Systemic or ad-hoc approach?].
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
117
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Ekonomska politika I razvoj [Economic Policy and Development]. Belgrade: Faculty of Economics,
University of Belgrade.
Sredojevic, Sladjana. 2016. Rastuca uloga banaka u realizaciji projekata energetske efikasnosti u
Republici Srbiji [Growing importance of the role of the banks in energy efficiency projects in the
Republic of Serbia]. Bankarstvo 3, 2016. Belgrade: Association of Serbian Banks.
Standing Conference of Cities and Municipalities - SKGO. 2016. [http://www.skgo.org/]. Accessed
December 2016.
Standing Conference of Cities and Municipalities (SKGO) and Swiss Agency for Development
and Cooperation (SDC). 2013. “Handbook for PPP implementation on the level of the local self
government”. [http://www.skgo.org/publications/details/450]. Accessed December 2016.
State Audit Institution. 2016. “About the State Audit Institution.Competences”. [http://www.dri.
rs/%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0.1.html]. Accessed
December 2016.
Tanjug. 30 November 2016. “Deputes over PPP”. [http://www.tanjug.rs/full-view.aspx?izb=288187].
Accessed December 2016.
Transparentnost Srbija [Transparency Serbia]. 2016. “Javni partneri I tajne koncesije”. [http://
www.transparentnost.org.rs/index.php/sr/aktivnosti-2/pod-lupom/8262-javni-partneri-i-tajnekoncesije]. Accessed December 2016.
Vecernje Novosti. 7 April 2012. “Expropriation: there is no negotiation over the corridors”. [http://
www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/ekonomija/aktuelno.239.html:374494-Eksproprijacija-Na-trasamanema-cenkanja]. Accessed December 2016.
Webportal 021. 10 March 2015. “Three teams of the delivery unit system appoint their directors”.
[http://www.021.rs/story/Info/Srbija/103150/Tri-tima-sistema-deliveri-junit-dobila-direktore.html]
. Accessed December 2016.
Western Balkan Infrastructure Facility - WBIF. 2016. [https://www.wbif.eu/]. Accessed December
2016.
World Bank PPI Database. [http://ppi.worldbank.org/visualization/ppi.html#sector=&status=
Distressed&ppi=&investment=&region=&ida=&income=&ppp=PPP&mdb=&year=&excel=false&map=
AL&header=true]. Accessed December 2016.
SLOVAKIA
Aktuality. 2016. “Are we building such expensive highways in Slovakia?” [https://www.aktuality.sk/
clanok/399203/preco-staviame-dialnice-na-slovensku-tak-draho/]. Accessed December 2016.
Center for Global Development. 2014. “Publishing Government Contracts: Addressing Concerns and
118
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Easing Implementation”. [http://www.cgdev.org/publication/ft/publishing-government-contractsaddressing-concerns-and-easing-implementation-brief-0]. Accessed December 2016.
Climate Bonds Initiative. 2016. “Bonds and Climate Change: The State of the Market in 2016”. [https://
www.climatebonds.net/files/files/reports/cbi-hsbc-state-of-the-market-2016.pdf]. Accessed
December 2016.
Devex Impact. 2016. “Have development impact bonds moved beyond the hype?” [https://www.devex.
com/news/have-development-impact-bonds-moved-beyond-the-hype-88372]. Accessed December
2016.
European Commission. 2016. “Study on the potential of green bond finance for resource-efficient
investments”. [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/pdf/potential-green-bond.pdf]. Accessed
December 2016.
European Investment Bank, 2016. “PPPs and Procurement”. [http://www.eib.org/epec/resources/
publications/epec_ppp_and_procurement_en]. Accessed December 2016.
European Parliament. Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts. [http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32014L0023]. Accessed December 2016.
European Parliament. Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/
EC. [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.094.01.0065.01.ENG].
Accessed December 2016.
European Parliament. Directive 2014/25/EU on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy,
transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC. [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32014L0025]. Accessed December 2016.
European PPP Expertise Centre. [http://www.eib.org/epec/about/index.htm]. Accessed December 2016.
Eurostat. “Contingent Liabilities”. [http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/government-financestatistics/contingent-liabilities]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Slovak Republic. 2016. “Draft Decree on D4/R7 highway PPP concession contract”.
[http://www.rokovania.sk/File.aspx/ViewDocumentHtml/Mater-Dokum-197340?prefixFile=m_].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Slovak Republic. Act No. 211/2000. “Freedom of Information Act”. [https://www.
slov-lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2000/211/20160701]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Slovak Republic. Act No. 24/2006 “Environmental Impact Assessment Act”.
[https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2006/24/20170101]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Slovak Republic. Act No. 244/2002 “Arbitration Act”. [https://www.slov-lex.sk/
pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2002/244/]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Slovak Republic. Act No. 343/2015. “Public Procurement Act”. [https://www.slovlex.sk/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2015/343/20160418.html]. Accessed December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
119
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Government of the Slovak Republic. Act No. 50/1976. “Building Act”. [https://www.slov-lex.sk/
pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/1976/50/20160101]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Slovak Republic. Act No. 513/1991. “Commercial Code”. [https://www.slov-lex.sk/
pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/1991/513/20170101]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Slovak Republic. Act No. 523/2004. “On budgetary rules for the public
administration bodies”. [https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2004/523/20160701].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Slovak Republic. Act No. 583/2004. “On budgetary rules for regional selfadministration “. [https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2004/583/20160701]. Accessed
December 2016.
INEKO. 2015. “Responsibly for the new hospital”. [http://www.ineko.sk/clanky/ineko-predstavujeanalyzu-zodpovedne-za-novu-nemocnicu]. Accessed December 2016.
INEKO. 2015. “The Ministry deceiving about the PPP highway again”. [http://www.ineko.sk/clanky/
ministerstvo-o-ppp-dialnici-opaet-zavadza]. Accessed December 2016.
INEKO. 2016. “Highway PPP projects evade national debt ceiling”. [http://ineko.blog.sme.
sk/c/403847/dialnicne-ppp-projekty-obchadzaju-dlhovu-brzdu.html]. Accessed December 2016.
INEKO. 2016. “What the Ministry should consider about the D4/R7 highway PPP project”. [http://
www.ineko.sk/clanky/co-by-malo-ministerstvo-dopravy-zohladnit-pri-rozhodovani-o-projekte-pppd4-r7]. Accessed December 2016.
Instiglio. “SIBs world-wide”. [http://www.instiglio.org/en/sibs-worldwide/]. Accessed December 2016.
International Capital Market Association. 2016. “Green Bond Principals”. [http://www.icmagroup.org/
Regulatory-Policy-and-Market-Practice/green-bonds/membership/]. Accessed December 2016.
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). [https://icsid.worldbank.org/
apps/ICSIDWEB/about/Pages/Database-of-Member-States.bak.aspx?tab=PtoT&rdo=CSO]. Accessed
December 2016.
Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic. 2014. “National Energy Policy”. [http://www.economy.
gov.sk/dolezite-dokumenty-5714/127399s]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic. “PPP projects”. [http://www.mfsr.sk/Default.aspx?CatID=
6678]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic. 2010. “Approach to Management of Risks in PPP Projects”.
[http://www.mfsr.sk/Default.aspx?CatID=6678]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic. 2014. “The Fulfilment of the General Government”. [http://
www.mfsr.sk/en/Default.aspx?CatID=689]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic. 2015. “Codex for Management of PPP Project”. [http://
120
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
www.mfsr.sk/Default.aspx?CatID=6678]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic. 2015. “Process of PPP Project Preparation and
Implementation and Control Process”. [http://www.mfsr.sk/Default.aspx?CatID=6678]. Accessed
December 2016.
Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic. 2016. “Feasibility Study and Public Sector Comparator –
Content and Requirements”. [http://www.mfsr.sk/Default.aspx?CatID=6678]. Accessed December
2016.
Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic. 2016. “Ministry Opinion on D4/R7 Highway Project”.
[http://www.finance.gov.sk/Default.aspx?CatID=10621]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic. “Mediation Centres in Slovakia”. [https://www.justice.gov.
sk/Stranky/Registre/Zoznamy-vedene-MS-SR/MediacneCentrumZoznam.aspx]. Accessed December
2016.
Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic. “Permanent Arbitration Courts”. [https://www.justice.gov.
sk/Stranky/Registre/Dalsie-uzitocne-zoznamy-a-registre/Rozhodcovske-sudy/Zakladne-informacieo-rozhodcovskych-sudoch.aspx]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic. 2014. “D4/R7
Feasibility Study”. [http://www.obchvatbratislavy.sk/sk/dokumenty]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic. 2014.
“Operational Programme Integrated Infrastructure”. [http://www.telecom.gov.sk/index/index.
php?ids=169044]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic. “PPP Projects”.
[http://www.telecom.gov.sk/index/index.php?ids=45691]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic. 2014. “Strategic
Plan for the Development of Transport Infrastructure until 2020”. [http://www.telecom.gov.sk/index/
index.php?ids=160211]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic. 2016. “D4/R7
Highway PPP contract”. [http://www.obchvatbratislavy.sk/sk/dokumenty]. Accessed December 2016.
New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. [http://www.
uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html]. Accessed December
2016.
Pravda. 2015. “PM Fico expects great interest in D4/R7 highway PPP project”. [http://spravy.pravda.
sk/ekonomika/clanok/343072-fico-ocakava-velky-zaujem-o-projekt-ppp-pre-useky-d4-a-r7/].
Accessed December 2016.
Pravda. 2016. “Bratislava highway not necessary according to SaS. As PPP they consider the project to
be too expensive”. [http://spravy.pravda.sk/ekonomika/clanok/392899-obchvat-bratislavy-podla© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
121
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
sas-netreba-cez-ppp-sa-im-zda-drahy/]. Accessed December 2016.
Pravda. 2016. “Legal experts say the government can limit health insurance profits”. [http://spravy.
pravda.sk/domace/clanok/387019-da-sa-to-hovoria-o-obmedzeni-zisku-advokati/]. Accessed
December 2016.
Pravda. 2016. “Minister Ersek: The most expensive highway is one that is not built”. [http://spravy.
pravda.sk/ekonomika/clanok/408117-ersek-najdrahsia-dialnica-je-ta-ktora-nie-je-postavena/].
Accessed December 2016.
Remisova, Veronika. 2015. “Highway PPP projects - in Slovakia 4 billion, in Austria half of it”. SME blog.
[http://veronikaremisova.blog.sme.sk/c/373416/ppp-projekty-pri-stavbe-dialnic-na-slovensku-4miliardy-v-rakusku-polovica.html]. Accessed December 2016.
SITA. 2016. “Slovak Railway changes the conditions for free travel”. [http://www.webnoviny.sk/
ekonomika/clanok/1080716-pozor-na-zmeny-zeleznice-upravili-bezplatne-cestovanie/]. Accessed
December 2016.
Slovakrail. 2016. “Free travel with Slovak Railways”. [http://www.slovakrail.sk/sk/bezplatnapreprava.html]. Accessed December 2016.
SME. 2015. “Free railway travel will become more expensive”. [http://ekonomika.sme.sk/c/8085390/
vlaky-zadarmo-zdrazeju-pozrite-sa-o-kolko.html]. Accessed December 2016.
SME. 2016. “NDS director from Siet Party wants to build highways through a hidden debt”. [http://
ekonomika.sme.sk/c/20228663/riaditel-nds-zo-siete-chce-skryt-dlhy-dialnic.html]. Accessed
December 2016.
Supreme Audit Office of the Slovak Republic. 2016. “Audit of Ministry of Transport’s Preparation of
Large Infrastructure Projects”. [https://www.nku.gov.sk/documents/10157/b731ace0-81ad-40cf8ed6-5d2ebc75ad64]. Accessed December 2016.
TASR. 2016. “Cabinet Okays Suspension of PPP Project for New Bratislava Hospital”. [https://newsnow.
tasr.sk/policy/cabinet-okays-suspension-of-ppp-project-for-new-bratislava-hospital/]. Accessed
December 2016.
US International Trade Administration. 2016. “Slovakia Country Commercial Guide”. [https://www.
export.gov/article?id=Slovakia-Dispute-Settlement]. Accessed December 2016.
TURKEY
Çakmak Avukatlık Bürosu. 2012. “Multi-jurisdictional Guide 2012/13 Construction and Projects”.
Practical Law Company. [http://www.cakmak.av.tr/pdf/turkey_construction.pdf]. Accessed December
2016.
Central Bank of Turkey. 2016. Financial Stability Report. [http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/
TCMB+EN/TCMB+EN/Main+Menu/PUBLICATIONS/Reports/Financial+Stability+Report/2016/
Volume+23/]. Accessed January 2017.
122
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Daily Sabah. 2016. “Osman Gazi Bridge toll discounted before opening”. [http://www.dailysabah.com/
business/2016/06/22/osman-gazi-bridge-toll-discounted-before-opening]. Accessed January 2017.
Daily Sabah. 2016. “Turkey applies 20 pct discount for pass fee in Osman Gazi Bridge”. [http://www.
dailysabah.com/business/2016/12/31/turkey-applies-20-pct-discount-for-pass-fee-in-osman-gazibridge]. Accessed December 2016.
Diken News. 2017. “US court case over Osman Gazi bridge discount”. [http://www.diken.com.tr/
osmangazi-koprusundeki-indirim-abd-yargisinda-gerekce-sozlesmeye-aykirilik/]. Accessed January
2017.
Diren Emek. 2016. “CHP questions working conditions at third Istanbul airport construction”. [http://
direnemek.org/2016/09/10/3-havalimani-iscilerin-sesi-meclise-ulasti-chpden-koordinasyonkurulsun-teklifi/]. Accessed December 2016.
EBRD. 2014. “EBRD Launches Infrastructure Project Preparation Facility”. [http://www.ebrd.com/
news/2014/ebrd-launches-infrastructure-project-preparation-facility.html]. Accessed January 2017.
Emlak Kulisi. 2016. “12 questions on PPPs in Parliament”. [http://emlakkulisi.com/kamu-ozelisbirligiyle-yapilan-sehir-hastanelerine-iliskin-12-sorun-tbmmde/485206]. Accessed December 2016.
Erdem and Erdem law firm. 2014. “Istanbul Arbitration Centre”. [http://www.erdem-erdem.av.tr/
publications/law-post/istanbul-arbitration-center/ ]. Accessed January 2017.
Ergün, Çagdas law firm. 2016. “Çanakkale Bridge Project”. [http://www.cakmak.av.tr/articles/
Construction_Infrustructure/109445638_1.pdf ]. Accessed December 2016.
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). 2011. “Assessment of the Quality of the
PPP Legislation and Effectiveness of Its Implementation”. [http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/legal/
concessions/turkey.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Foreign Economic Relations Board (DEIK). “We want to make Istanbul a centre of PPP Excellence”.
[https://www.deik.org.tr/istanbul-u-ppp-alaninda-bir-mukemmeliyet-merkezi-br-haline-getirmekistiyoruz]. Accessed December 2016.
Girit, Ilker. 2017. “Turkish PM marks mega projects in new year’s message”. Anadolu Agency Energy
News Terminal. [http://aaenergyterminal.com/newsRegion.php?newsid=10554168]. Accessed
December 2016.
Global Anti-Aerotropolis Movement (GAAM). 2016. “Opposition to airport project in Kas”. [https://
antiaero.org/2016/04/05/opposition-to-airport-project-in-kas/]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Turkey. 1983. Environmental Law 2872. [http://mevzuat.basbakanlik.
gov.tr/Metin1.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.2872&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=&Tur=1&Tertip=
5&No=2872]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Turkey. 1984. Electricity BOT Law 3096. [http://mevzuat.basbakanlik.
gov.tr/Metin1.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.3096&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=&Tur=1&Tertip=
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
123
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
5&No=3096]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Turkey. 1988. Highways BOT Law 3465. [http://mevzuat.basbakanlik.
gov.tr/Metin1.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.3465&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=&Tur=1&Tertip=
5&No=3465]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Turkey. 1994. BOT Law 3996. [http://mevzuat.basbakanlik.gov.tr/
Metin1.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.3465&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=&Tur=1&Tertip=5&No=3996].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Turkey. 1994. Privatization Law 4046. [http://mevzuat.basbakanlik.
gov.tr/Metin1.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.3465&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=&Tur=1&Tertip=
5&No=4046]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Turkey. 1997. BOT Law 4283. [http://mevzuat.basbakanlik.gov.tr/
Metin1.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.3465&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=&Tur=1&Tertip=5&No=4283].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Turkey. 2001. International Arbitration Law 4686. [http://www.
mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.4686.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of the Republic of Turkey. 2003. Public Finance Law 5018. [http://www.
internationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/Turkey-PublicFinancialManagementandControlL
aw2003-English.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Government of the Republic of Turkey. 2005. Law 5335 on Amending Certain Laws. [http://www.
mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin1.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.5335&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=&Tur=
1&Tertip=5&No=5335]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Turkey. 2012. Public Procurement Law 4734. [http://mevzuat.
basbakanlik.gov.tr/Metin1.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.3465&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=&Tur=
1&Tertip=5&No=6428]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of the Republic of Turkey. 2013. Law 6428 on the Restructuring of Public-Private
Business Association Model in the Ministry of Health. [http://mevzuat.basbakanlik.gov.tr/Metin1.
Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.3465&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=&Tur=1&Tertip=5&No=6428].
Accessed December 2016.
Greenpeace Turkey. “Opposition to Akkuyu npp”. [http://www.greenpeace.org/turkey/tr/Systemtemplates/Search-results/?all=akkuyu]. Accessed December 2016.
Güner, Ece. 2012. “The PPP Programme and Changing BOT Regulations”. Paper presented at the Fifth
Annual Turkey Energy and Infrastructure Finance Conference, 26 and 27 March 2012, Istanbul. [http://
www.guner.av.tr/Presentation%20by%20Ece%20Guner%20at%20Euromoney%20Conference%20
’The%20PPP%20Programme%20and%20Changing%20BOT%20Regulations’.pdf?ui=2]. Accessed
January 2017.
124
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
Güzeloglu Attorneys at Law. 2016. “A Snapshot of Institutional Arbitration in Turkey”. [http://www.
guzeloglu.legal/en/news-insights/a-snapshot-of-institutional-arbitration-in-turkey-87.html].
Accessed January 2017.
Hergüner Bilgen Özeke. 2016. “Newsletter on Turkish PPP practice”. [http://www.herguner.av.tr/
newsletters/winter-2016]. Accessed December 2016.
Hürriyet Daily News. 2013. “Istanbul’s 3rd airport’s fate depends on Turkey’s growth potential”.
[http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/istanbuls-3rd-airports-fate-depends-on-turkeys-growthpotential.aspx?pageID=238&nID=49836&NewsCatID=344]. Accessed December 2016.
Hürriyet Daily News. 2016. “EBRD, Canada’s EDC and OPIC of US finance zmir hospital in Turkey”.
[http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/ebrd-canadas-edc-and-opic-of-us-finance-izmir-hospital-inturkey-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=105275&NewsCatID=345]. Accessed December 2016.
Hürriyet Daily News. 2016. “World Bank’s unit supports $300-million green, sustainable bond issue
in Turkey”. [http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/world-banks-unit-supports-300-million-greensustainable-bond-issue-in-turkey.aspx?pageID=238&nID=99149&NewsCatID=346]. Accessed
December 2016.
Hürriyet Daily News. 2017. “Turkey sees around 50 percent hike in Bosphorus bridge toll in New Year”.
[http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-sees-around-50-percent-hike-in-bosphorus-bridge-tollin-new-year.aspx?pageID=238&nID=108025&NewsCatID=345]. Accessed January 2017.
International Finance Corporation. 2016. “IFC Supports First Green/Sustainable Bond in Turkey,
Mobilizing Private Sector Funds for Climate-Friendly Investment”. [http://ifcextapps.ifc.org/
IFCExt%5CPressroom%5CIFCPressRoom.nsf%5C0%5C276E6518BAFC78D585257FB200331A7F].
Accessed December 2016.
Istanbul Arbitration Centre (ISTAC). [https://istac.org.tr/en/]. Accessed January 2017.
Karasu Koray. 2013. “PPP Model in Organization of Health Services: Turkey Case”. [http://acikarsiv.
ankara.edu.tr/browse/28839/KARASUppphealth.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Kesli, Ahmet. 2016. PPP Projeleri Nin Hukuki Rejimi (The legal regime for PPP projects). Group Law
Publishing.
Kolcuoglu Demirkan Koçaklı. 2014. “Possibility of Arbitration in Turkish PPP projects”. Turkish Law
Bulletin. [http://www.seelegal.org/upload/documents/Turkey/Possibility%20of%20Arbitration%20
in%20Turkish%20PPP%20Projects.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Milliyet. 2016. “Prime Minister Attends Van Hospital Opening”. [http://www.milliyet.com.tr/
basbakan-davutoglu-van-da-akilli-hastane-van-yerelhaber-1262338/]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Development. “Annual Plans”. [http://www.kalkinma.gov.tr/Pages/YillikProgramlar.aspx].
Accessed December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
125
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Ministry of Development. “Medium-term Programmes”. [http://www.mod.gov.tr/Pages/
MediumTermPrograms.aspx]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Development. “Registry of PPP Projects”. [https://koi.kalkinma.gov.tr/Main_EN.aspx].
Accessed January 2017.
Ministry of Development. “Turkish Experience in Public-Private Partnerships”. [http://documents.tips/
documents/1-turkish-experience-in-public-private-partnerships.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Development. 2015. “Laws used for PPPs and their applications”. [http://www.
kalkinma.gov.tr/Documents/Kamu%20%C3%96zel%20%C4%B0%C5%9Fbirli%C4%9Fi%20
Mevzuat%C4%B1-2015.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Development. 2015. “Policy Document on PPPs: Kamu Özel sbirligi Mevzuatı”. [http://
www.kalkinma.gov.tr/Documents/Kamu%20%C3%96zel%20%C4%B0%C5%9Fbirli%C4%9Fi%20
Mevzuat%C4%B1-2015.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Ministry of Development. 2016. “Medium-term Plan 2017-19”. [http://www.mod.gov.tr/Lists/
MediumTermPrograms/Attachments/13/Medium%20Term%20Programme%20(2017-2019).pdf].
Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Environment and Forestry. 2010. “Turkish EIA Legal Framework – Implementation and
Application”. [https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/documents/Events/Szentendre
Dec10/1.4a_EIA_Turkey.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Ministry of Environment and Urban Affairs. Department of Environmental Impact Assessment. [http://
www.csb.gov.tr/gm/ced/index.php?Sayfa=duyuruliste&Il=1]. Accessed December 2016.
Morolu Arseven law firm. 2016. “The Rise of Arbitration in Turkey”. [http://www.mondaq.com/
turkey/x/524324/Arbitration+Dispute+Resolution/The+Rise+of+Arbitration+in+Turkey https://istac.
org.tr/en/about-us/]. Accessed January 2017.
Official Gazette. 2008. “Regulations Pertaining to EIA Reports and Procedures”. [http://www.
resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2008/07/20080717-3.htm]. Accessed January 2017.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2017. “Effective Public Investment
– Turkey”. [http://www.oecd.org/effective-public-investment-toolkit/turkey.pdf]. Accessed January
2017.
Parliament of the Republic of Turkey. 2003. Parliamentary Report on Kocaeli MP Osman Pepe and
the Izmit Water Project. [https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/donem22/yil01/ss265.pdf]. Accessed
January 2017.
Pekin and Bayer law firm. 2013. “The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation”. [http://www.
pekin.com.tr/publications/the-environmental-impact-assessment-regulation.32.aspx] . Accessed
January 2017.
Public Citizen – Water for All. 2005. “RWE/Thames Water: A Corporate Profile”. [http://www.citizen.
126
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
org/documents/RWEProfile.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Saldinger, Adva. 2016. “Development impact bond looks to boost refugee employment”. Devex.
[https://www.devex.com/news/development-impact-bond-looks-to-boost-refugee-employment88849]. Accessed December 2016.
Sonmez, Mustafa. 2016. “Could megaprojects spell mega trouble for Turkey’s economy?”. Al Monitor.
[http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/11/turkey-megaprojects-threaten-black-holecoffer.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Tekayak, Deniz. 2014. “An Overview of Environmental Impact Assessment in Turkey: Issues and
Recommendations”. Ankara Avrupa Çalısmaları Dergisi. [http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/
16/1979/20684.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
Turk Exim Bank. 2016. “Environmental Review Procedures”. [http://www.eximbank.gov.tr/dosyalar/
genel/Duyurular/duyuru20161027_ENGFinans.pdf ]. Accessed January 2017.
Turkey Energy Regulatory Authority (EPDK). “Turkish electricity market legislation including market law”.
[http://www.emra.org.tr/en/documents/electricitymarket/Legislation]. Accessed December 2016.
Turkey Energy Regulatory Authority (EPDK). “Turkish gas market legislation including market law”.
[http://www.emra.org.tr/EN/Documents/NaturalGasMarket/Legislation]. Accessed December 2016.
Türkiye Sınai Kalkınma Bankası (TSKB). 2016. “TSKB issues the first ever green bond out of Turkey”.
[http://www.tskb.com.tr/web/307-2976-1-1/tskb-site-en/en-hakkimizda/tskbden-haberler-en/
tskb-issues-the-first-ever-green-bond-out-of-turkey]. Accessed December 2016.
Türkmen, Ali Sefa. 2010. “Turkey: An Overview on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures
in Turkey”. Goksu Safi Isik Attorney Partnership. [http://www.mondaq.com/turkey/x/103760/
Environmental+Law/An+Overview+on+Environmental+Impact+Assessment+Procedures+in+Turkey ].
Accessed December 2016.
Unicorn. “Thames Water in Turkey: Contract Irregularities”. [http://www.againstcorruption.org/
briberycase.asp/?id=753]. Accessed December 2016.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2009. “Turkey’s Position in Relation to the Kyoto
Protocol and the post-2012 Framework”. [http://www.undp.org/content/dam/turkey/docs/newsfrom-new-horizons/issue-43/UNDP-TR-11-Kaplina%20June%202009.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
World Bank Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Programme. “Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) – Turkey”. [http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTMETAP/Resources/EIACR-Turkey.
pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
World Bank Private Participation in Infrastructure Database. Turkey Country Snapshots 1990-2015.
[https://ppi.worldbank.org/snapshots/country/turkey]. Accessed December 2016.
Ziraat Bank. “Environmental Review Procedures”. [http://www.ziraat.com.tr/en/SME/Documents/
EnvironmentalReviewProcedures.pdf]. Accessed January 2017.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
127
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
UKRAINE
Charter of International Commercial Arbitration Court under the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce.
[http://arb.ucci.org.ua/icac/ru/rules.html#I2]. Accessed December 2016.
CMS Law. 1 December 2015. “Ukraine amends its law on public-private partnerships to attract
investments”. [http://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2015/12/ukraine-amends-its-law-on-publicprivate-partnership-to-attract-investments?cc_lang=en]. Accessed December 2016.
DLF Attorneys-at-law. 2 December 2016. “Stimulation for the development of PPPs in Ukraine”.
[Attorneys-at-law. http://dlf.ua/ru/stimulirovanie-razvitiya-gosudarstvenno-chastnogopartnerstva-v-ukraine/]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Ukraine. Law no. 1286-XIV of 14 December 2016. “On concessions for the construction
and operation of highways”. [http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1286-14]. Accessed December
2016.
Government of Ukraine. Law no. 1560-XII of 18 September 1991. “On investment activity”. [http://
zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1560-12]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Ukraine. Law no. 2404-VI of 1 July 2010. “On Public-Private Partnership”. [http://
zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2404-17]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Ukraine. Law no. 25 of 24 February 1994. “On international commercial arbitration”.
[http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4002-12]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Ukraine. Law no. 2624-VI of 21 October 2010. “On the peculiarities of renting or
concession facilities in the areas of heating, water and sanitation that are in communal ownership”.
[http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2624-17]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Ukraine. Law no. 3687-VI of 8 July 2011. “On the peculiarities of lease or concession
of state-owned fuel and energy complexes”. [http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/3687-17].
Accessed December 2016.
Government of Ukraine. Law no. 435-IV of 16 January 2003. “The Civil Code of Ukraine”. [http://
zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435-15]. Accessed December 2016.
Government of Ukraine. Law no. 817-19 of 24 November 2015. “On amendments to some laws of
Ukraine to eliminate regulatory barriers to the development of public-private partnerships and
encourage investment in Ukraine”. [http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/817-viii]. Accessed
December 2016.
Government of Ukraine. Law no. 997-XIV of 16 July 1999. “On concessions”. [http://zakon3.rada.gov.
ua/laws/show/997-14]. Accessed December 2016.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Website. [https://icsid.
worldbank.org/en/Pages/about/default.aspx]. Accessed December 2016.
128
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
Appendix
International Commercial Arbitration Court under the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce. [http://arb.
ucci.org.ua/icac/ru/icac.html]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. “Legal Basis for PPPs”. [http://www.me.gov.ua/?lang=
uk-UA]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. “On PPPs: Explanatory note”. Website of the Ministry of
Economic Development and Trade. [http://www.me.gov.ua/Documents/List?lang=uk-UA&tag=docs_
project]. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Regulation no. 697 of 13 June 2012. “On assessment
and approval of investment projects”. [http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1254-12]. Accessed
December 2016.
Ministry of Finance. Website. http://www.minfin.gov.ua/en/. Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Infrastructure. “2020 Transport Strategy of Ukraine”. Document issued by Support to
the Transport Strategy of Ukraine. [http://mtu.gov.ua/files/Zakypivli/transport_strategy_ua.pdf].
Accessed December 2016.
Ministry of Infrastructure. 8 May 2015. “Action plan of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine to
implement the Programme of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the Coalition Agreement 2015”.
[http://mtu.gov.ua/news/85.html]. Accessed December 2016.
New York Arbitration Convention. List of contracting states. [http://www.newyorkconvention.org/
countries]. Accessed 20 December 2016.
Rozwalka, Piotr and Tordengren, Hannes. July 2016. “The Ukrainian residential gas sector: a market
untapped”. The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. [https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/The-Ukrainian-residential-gas-sector-a-market-untapped-NG-109.pdf].
Accessed January 2017.
Ukrainian PPP Centre. [http://www.ukrppp.com/index.php]. Accessed December 2016.
Ukrainian State Agency for Highways. [http://ukravtodor.gov.ua]. Accessed December 2016.
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. “Kyoto Protocol: Status of ratification”. [http://unfccc.
int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php]. Accessed December 2016.
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. “Paris Agreement: Status of ratification”. [http://
unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9444.php]. Accessed December 2016.
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. “Status of ratification”. [http://unfccc.int/essential_
background/convention/status_of_ratification/items/2631.php]. Accessed December 2016.
USAID. 1 December 2015. “Draft Final Report”. USAID Public Private Partnership Development
Programme in Ukraine. [http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00KTHT.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
129
Appendix
Evaluating the environment for public-private partnerships in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
The 2017 Infrascope
USAID. July 2015. “Kyiv Education Facility Management Case Study”. [http://ppp-ukraine.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/12/Kyiv-Education-Facility-Management.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
Verkhovna Rada. 24 November 2015. “Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopts the Law ‘On Amendments
to Some Laws of Ukraine on elimination of regulatory barriers to the development of public-private
partnerships and encourage investment in Ukraine’”. [http://iportal.rada.gov.ua/ru/news/Novosty/
Soobshchenyya/119924.html]. Accessed December 2106.
Verkhovna Rada. Voting record of the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada on the 2015 PPP law. [http://w1.c1.
rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=52471]. Accessed December 2016.
World Bank Green Bonds. 2016. Green Bond Impact Report. [http://treasury.worldbank.org/cmd/pdf/
WorldBankGreenBondImpactReport.pdf]. Accessed December 2016.
World Bank. “Ukraine: Energy Efficiency Project Overview”. [http://projects.worldbank.org/P096586/
ua-energy-efficiency?lang=en]. Accessed December 2016.
World Bank. 1 January 2016. “Public-private partnerships in the context of public investment
management in Ukraine: an assessment”. [http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/
103351467993734646/Public-private-partnerships-in-the-context-of-public-investmentmanagement-in-Ukraine-an-assessment]. Accessed December 2016.
Zhabskiy, Vladislav. 5 July 2016. “Public Private Partnerships: The rules change”. Jurliga. [http://
jurliga.ligazakon.ua/news/2016/7/5/147643.htm]. Accessed December 2016.
Interviews
62 in-depth interviews were conducted. About half of the experts chose to remain anonymous. We are
grateful for the contributions of the following interviewees:
Levan Akhvlediani, Khaled Asfour, Rovena Beqiraj, Agim Bregasi, Klodjana Cankja, Shaimerden
Chikanayev, Elena Daderkina, Saad El Mernissi, Ciprian Gorita, Atter Ezzat Hannoura, Senem smen,
Shkelqim Kerluku, Ahmet Kesli, Svitlana Khyeda, Etleva Kondi, Patrick Larrivé, David Lawrence,
Nikolay Lazarov, Antonia Mavrova, George Toma Mucibabici, Ivan Novikov, Temnitskaya Oksana, Serban
Paslaru, Monica Ratiu, Fatima Zohra Rahmoun, Najat Saher, Vaitekhovski Sergey, Lubomir Tabakov,
Mohamad Talaat, Maria Usik, Stamen Yanev and Iyad Zawaideh.
130
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2017
While every effort has been taken to verify the
accuracy of this information, The Economist
Intelligence Unit Ltd. cannot accept any
responsibility or liability for reliance by any person
on this report or any of the information, opinions
or conclusions set out in this report.
Cover image - © Alexandre Rotenberg/Shutterstock
LONDON
20 Cabot Square
London
E14 4QW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7576 8181
E-mail: london@eiu.com
NEW YORK
750 Third Avenue
5th Floor
New York, NY 10017
United States
Tel: + 1 212 698 9717
E-mail: americas@eiu.com
HONG KONG
1301 Cityplaza Four
12 Taikoo Wan Road
Taikoo Shing
Hong Kong
Tel: + 852 2802 7288
E-mail: asia@eiu.com
Документ
Категория
Журналы и газеты
Просмотров
70
Размер файла
12 713 Кб
Теги
The Economist, journal
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа