Photo: Gordon | Flickr Creative Commons
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) in Brazil have been around since 2004 when federal legislation established the legal framework to make them possible. Since then, approximately 100 PPP contracts have been signed in Brazil, totaling almost 160 billion Brazilian reais ($50 billion) in private investment in numerous sectors, including hospitals, schools, public lighting, sanitation, solid waste management, sport arenas, public buildings, urban transport, and roads. Some notable successes include the Belo Horizonte schools PPP, which supports non-pedagogical services in 51 schools, and the 298-bed Bahia Subúrbio Hospital, which opened in 2010.
Photo: LWYang | Flickr Creative Commons
Since the 1980s, investment in Brazil’s infrastructure has declined from 5% to a little above 2% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), scarcely enough to cover depreciation and far below that of most middle-income countries (see figure below). The result is a substantial infrastructure gap. Over the same period, Brazil has struggled with stagnant productivity growth. The poor status of infrastructure is broadly believed to be a key reason for Brazil’s growth malaise.
Many countries are experiencing urbanization within the context of increased decentralization and fiscal adjustment. This puts sub-national entities (local governments, utilities and state-owned enterprises) in the position of being increasingly responsible for developing and financing infrastructure and providing services to meet the needs of growing populations.
However, decentralization in many situations is still a work in progress. And often there is a mismatch between the ability of sub-nationals to provide services, and the autonomy or authority necessary to make decisions and access financing—often leaving them dependent on national governments. Additionally, they may also contend with inadequate regulatory and policy frameworks and weak domestic financial and capital markets.
- sustainable cities
- municipal governance
- infrastructure financing
- Public private partnership
- Public Private Partnerships
- Urban Development
- Public Sector and Governance
- Private Sector Development
- Europe and Central Asia
- Latin America & Caribbean
Photo: Passarinho/Pref.Olinda | Flickr Creative Commons
A few weeks ago, I delivered the training for the Certified Public-Private Partnership Professional (CP3P) Preparation exam to a group in São Paulo. I was about to commence my closing remarks at the end of the three-day very intensive journey, when a particularly dedicated participant asked: “Why is it that we have never heard of so many of these concepts before?”
It was indeed a very good question.
Photo: Fernando C. Vieira/Grupo CEEE | Flickr Creative Commons
The PPP Professional Certification, the CP3P, is an extraordinary tool that enables professionals in infrastructure segments around the world to have a common language for terms involved in structuring and managing a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) project. Support for standardizing the process of PPP projects, has improved overall understanding and enabled institutional organizations and governments to successfully model projects and mitigate risks.
Photo: paulisson miura | Flickr Creative Commons
It is well-established that the lack of infrastructure is one of the main problems facing developing countries. Good infrastructure is one of the most important drivers for development and competitiveness. The question that follows is straightforward: how can we mobilize private financing for high-quality infrastructure investment in these countries?
Photo Credit: Kathleen Bence via Flickr Creative Commons
I’ve been looking for a good definition of social enterprise. The information overlords at Google and Wikipedia suggested this:
“A social enterprise is an organization that applies commercial strategies to maximize improvements in human and environmental well-being—this may include maximizing social impact alongside profits for external shareholders.”
That’s a pretty broad and somewhat unsatisfying definition. I mean: “What organization in the 21st century wouldn’t put human and environmental development, social impact and profit high on their agenda?” – (He asks naïvely.)
Infrastructure professionals think a lot about social enterprise, but in a slightly different way. There is of course the unrelated term “social infrastructure,” which broadly covers public services such as healthcare, education, leisure and other government services. But really what we think about when it comes to social enterprise is “infrastructure morality.”
Just fourteen projects in energy, transport and water/sanitation. In only eight countries. Totaling $2.7 billion.
There are 56 IDA countries (excluding three “inactive” and a few rich enough to count as “IDA blend”) defined as having per capita income under $1,215. This 2.7 billion in IDA countries compares to total private infrastructure investment commitments of $111.6 billion in all emerging markets in 2015 per the recently released Private Participation in Infrastructure database.
In recent years, the number of projects and investment amounts of private infrastructure in IDA countries hasn’t increased. If people living in the poorest countries are to get better access to energy, transport and water services, and if we believe that the innovation, management capacity and financing of the private sector working together with governments is essential to help make that happen … well, then we need a step change.
We know to make a difference requires dedication and a long term vision. One part of that ambitious change is the Global Infrastructure Facility (GIF). The GIF is a global open platform to help partners prepare and structure complex infrastructure public-private partnerships (PPPs) in emerging markets, and to bring in private sector and institutional investor capital. The GIF platform integrates the efforts of multilateral development banks (who as Technical Partners choose which projects to submit for GIF funding), private sector investors and financiers, and governments to bring infrastructure projects and programs to market. No single institution can achieve these goals alone. The GIF’s Advisory Partners, which include insurers, fund managers, and commercial lenders, and which together have $13 trillion in assets under management, provide feedback to governments on the bankability of projects.
Photo: Inova BH
In English, “Belo Horizonte” means “beautiful horizon,” and this is an apt description of the long-term possibilities for educating the children of Belo Horizonte, the sixth largest city in Brazil and capital of the state of Minas Gerais. As a Brazilian who went through the national school curriculum, I believe that this system should be accessible to all citizens, and so I took a particular interest in the goals of this public-private partnership (PPP).
Greater access to education was a widely-shared ambition among the government team as well. The Municipality of Belo Horizonte already believed that a competitive workforce – and a functioning society – depends on good schools. That’s why it made early education a top priority and sought out advisory services from our Brazil-based team to find out if PPPs could help government make the grade. It seemed like this was a proposal the community could stand behind: Demand for better education was already strong, with over 11,000 children, many underprivileged, on a waiting list to enroll in school.
Translations available in Chinese and Spanish.
Many of you are already familiar with the PPP (Public-Private Partnerships) Group’s Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) Database. As a reminder for those who aren’t, the PPI Database is a comprehensive resource of over 8,000 projects with private participation across 139 low- and middle-income economies from the period of 1990-2015, in the water, energy, transport and telecoms sectors.
We recently released the 2015 full year data showing that global private infrastructure investment remains steady when compared to the previous year (US$111.6 billion compared with US$111.7 the previous year), largely due to a couple of mega-deals in Turkey (including Istanbul’s $35.6 billion IGA Airport (which includes a $29.1 billion concession fee to the government). When compared to the previous five-year average, however, global private infrastructure investment in 2015 was 10 percent lower, mainly due to dwindling commitments in China, Brazil, and India. Brazil in particular saw only $4.5 billion in investments, sharply declining from $47.2 billion in 2014 and reversing a trend of growing investments over the last five years.
- private sector
- Private Sector Development
- Global Economy
- Financial Sector
- The World Region
- South Asia
- Middle East and North Africa
- Latin America & Caribbean
- Europe and Central Asia
- East Asia and Pacific
- El Salvador