Content uploaded by Victor Pavlov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Victor Pavlov on Apr 15, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Use of Public-Private Partnership Funding Instrument in Finland, Norway, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland
Abstract and Figures
This report is published within the Water Asset Renewable Energy Solutions (WARES) project. WARES is a two-year strategic project of the Northern Periphery Programme, which explores the opportunities to generate renewable energy at water utility assets. The project is led by the International Resources and Recycling Institute in Scotland, in partnership with Action Renewables in Northern-Ireland, Mayo County Council and Clár-ICH in Ireland, Narvik Science Park and Northern Research Institute in Norway, and the University of Oulu in Finland.
The aim of WARES is to provide innovative renewable energy solutions to remote areas by finding unused opportunities for renewable energy generation within the activities and property of the water sector. WARES will establish partnerships between the water industry and neighbouring communities and help sourcing the capital investment required to commercialise these opportunities, such as creating Public Private Partnerships.
This report describes the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) funding instrument. The PPP instrument has become of high interest and relevance in many countries. Currently, it is in use mainly in Western Europe, but the concept is increasingly replicated also in Russia, the United States, Australia, Japan, Malaysia, among others.
This report discusses the concept of PPP in more detail; how it works, types of partnerships, major focus areas, pros and cons. In addition, some examples of renewable energy PPP projects within the water
sector in the Northern Periphery are described.
Figures - uploaded by Victor Pavlov
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Victor Pavlov
Content may be subject to copyright.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Before gaining independence in 1990, both Namibia and Lithuania were part of a country ruled by a strong central government. Since independence, both countries have decentralized their administrative structure to a large degree, and local authorities have assumed a vital role as providers of services to citizens. Public water services are among the key responsibilities of local authorities. The conditions under which municipalities provide water services are quite different in these two countries. Lithuania was independent between the two world wars, and water supply was the responsibility of municipalities but transferred to state water companies during the Soviet regime. In Namibia, only a few of the largest towns operated their own water services before independence, and the rest of the country was taken care of by the centrally managed Department of Water Affairs. This article examines how well this worthy principle of decentralization has succeeded and how well local authorities have managed in their task to provide water services to the citizens.
This paper offers an updated description of the macroeconomic and sectoral significance of PPPs in Europe - without assessing PPPs from a normative perspective. Builidng on Blanc-Brude et al. (2007), it looks at the evolution of PPPs in the EU, with a particular focus on the recent financial crisis. In 2009, PPP transactions stood at EUR 15.8 billion; a decrease of almost 50% compared to 2007. The total value of closed deals has declined more than the number of deals. At the same time, the PPP market in Europe continues to diversify across countries and sectors. In 2008, the UK share in the total number of EU-PPPs fell below 50%. In many respects, however, the reduction in the European PPP market observed during the financial crisis can be seen as a reversal of an extraordinary spike in the years preceding the crisis.
Water and wastewater services in Finland are, according to international comparisons, exceptionally well organised. In Finland, as in industrialised countries in general, the public sector and particularly the municipalities have played a central role in the development of these services. Although municipalities are legally responsible for water and wastewater service provision, they do not have to produce these services themselves, and there are several alternatives for the ownership and operational management. There is no single model for how water and wastewater services should be organised—not even within a single country. Water and wastewater services should be looked at as multi-dimensional activities within a wider institutional context considering the roles of all stakeholders.
Two contemporary trends have converged to create new and increasingly urgent opportunities for public-private research collaborations in nutrition science: (1) the emerging consensus that scientific expertise across a range of disciplines may be necessary to address complex food issues like obesity, dietary behavior change, and so on, and (2) the budgetary pressures of recent years. However, new initiatives to broaden research projects to include both public and industry scientists bring new communication challenges. Research involving private-sector participants has over the past 2 decades been critiqued as being potentially conflicted financially and less transparent than other research, skewed toward profit-motivated outcomes, and the like. Consequently, today’s nutrition communicators need to be aware that trust, conflict-of-interest, and other essentially extrascientific issues may require new strategies in getting key messages across to consumers. This article explores those challenges and offers counsel on meeting them in communicating about the work of emerging public-private partnerships (PPPs), such as the recently announced PPP to enhance the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)–managed national nutrient database to include nutrition information on branded food products.
If public-private partnerships are here to stay, how are they brought to use by governments and can we learn anything from the scant experience with such partnerships so far? This article addresses t his question and others by examining the experience with public-private partnersh ips in Scandinavia. Scandinavia has a long tradition of preferring cooperative arrangements and forging consensus between different organizational types. In recent yea rs, reforms have mostly concentrated on reforms within the public sector itself. However, there has been a pressure by the governments to establish more close contact with private sector providers (PPP). One obvious way for Scandinavian governments would then be to pursue establishing PPPs as the main form of cooperation with the private sector.
European Water Management between Regulation and Competition
- Aqualibrium
Aqualibrium. European Water Management between Regulation and Competition. http://www.
wise-rtd.info/sites/default/files/d-2008-07-14-Aqualibrium.pdf
Public Private Partnerships: Norwegian challenges
- K Semlitsch
Semlitsch, K. (2005). Public Private Partnerships: Norwegian challenges. http://www.intosaiksc.org/archives/ 12thmeeting/papers/ppp_norwegian.pdf.
Культура партнерства. Отраслевые игроки ждут принятия федерального закона о ГЧП. (Partnership culture. Sectoral players are waiting for a law on Public-Private Partnership
- E Shmeleba
Shmeleba, E. (2014). Культура партнерства. Отраслевые
игроки ждут принятия федерального закона о
ГЧП. (Partnership culture. Sectoral players are waiting for a law on Public-Private Partnership to be enacted) http://www.rg.ru/2014/01/14/seleznev.html.
Convert British Pound Sterling to Euro | GBP to EUR Available: http:// themoneyconverter
- The Money Converter
The Money Converter. (2014b). Convert British Pound
Sterling to Euro | GBP to EUR. Available: http://
themoneyconverter.com/GBP/EUR.aspx. Last accessed 27th Mar 2014.
Use of the Public-Private Partnership Funding Instrument in Finland
- Wares Projec
- T Publications
WARES PROJEC T PUBLICATIONS
Use of the Public-Private Partnership
Funding Instrument
in Finland, Norway, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland
Victor Pavlov, Niko Hänninen and Eva Pongrácz