PPP International Best Practice and Regional Application

PPP International Best Practice and Regional Application
Tegucigalpa, Honduras April , 2008 Sponsored by the Spanish Trust Fund

Sabino Escobedo - TAG Financial Advisors
Session 5.3 Case Studies by Sector PORT SECTOR Sabino Escobedo - TAG Financial Advisors Materials prepared by: C. Bert Kruk - Lead Port Specialist - The World Bank Sabino Escobedo - TAG Financial Advisors

Session 5.3 Case Study: Ports Readiness of Government Overview of PPP
Day 2 – Session 6 Readiness of Government Day 1: Session 1.1 Overview of PPP Upstream Policy Private Sector View Day 1:Session 1.2 Challenges: Latin America Readiness of Government Capacity Building For PPP Day 1- Session 5 Case Study: Ports Day 1:Session 1.3 Considering Private Participation Day 2:Session 5 Case Studies: (1)Highways (2)Water & Sanitation (3) Ports PPP Approach Elements of the Public Private Partnership Approach (PPP): Over the next two days we will look at the overall approach for establishing Public Private Partnerships relating to international and regional experience: We will establish an overview of the approach taken in developing a PPP arrangement, discuss the key issues related tp providing services, the definition of basic principles and look at tools and options for planning and design of reforms needed to establish a successful PPP Arrangement DAY 1 2 Considering private participation: A review of the key issues that governments can resolve in order to introduce private participation, including resolution of policy problems, effects of privatization, making privatization work, the various private participation models, and how the Toolkit approach works. 3 Planning the process of introducing private participation: A four step process for developing policy, designing details of the arrangement, selecting the operator and managing the arrangements are reviewed. Key elements of the overall design such as stakeholder consultation, government institutions to manage the arrangement and key analytic and advisory work to support the arrangement are discussed. 4 Involving Stakeholders in the design of the arrangement: Discussion on ways of identifying and involving stakeholders in the design of the arrangements and of distributing the benefits and costs of private participation so as to increase support and long term sustainability. Day 2 5 Setting upstream policy: This considers some of the key reform choices for the sector upstream of the design of the private participation arrangement, such as the allocation of responsibilities among different tiers of government, definition of the market structure for the sector (including appropriate scale and scope) and establishing policies and rules governing competition. 6 Setting service standards, tariffs, subsidies, and financial arrangements: A section reviewing the key issues related to setting targets relating to coverage and quality; the implications of those targets for the cost of service; options for supplementing tariff revenue with subsidies; and some implications for design of the arrangement and its financing. 7 Allocating responsibilities and risks: Provides advice on the identification, assessment and allocation of risks and responsibilities among customers, the operator, and the government and how to design tariff-adjustment and other rules to achieve the desired allocation. 8 Institutional Frameworks - Developing institutions to manage the relationship: The choice and design of institutions—including courts, arbitration panels, independent experts, and regulatory agencies—that will interpret and apply the rules over the life of the arrangements. PPP’s in the Transport Sector – with some Case Studies Day 3 Selecting the Operator: This is in two parts as we have a lot of interesting material to cover A review of the key issues to be addressed and steps involved in selecting an operator governments can use to select the operator. This includes detailed discussion on selection methods, selection criteria, managing the bidding process and some key bidding issues. Unsolicited Bids: Some of the key issues in resolving how to address unsolicited bids – how to maximize advantages, whilst ensuring transparency and fairness Day 1:Session 2.1 Planning the Process Day 1:Session 3 Case Study: Transmission Day 2 :Session 4.2 Selecting an Operator Day 2 :Session 4.1 Standards, Tariffs, Subsidy, Financials Day 1:Session 2.3 Involving Stakeholders Day 1:Session 2.2 Regulation & Institutions

Contents Sector background Recent Industry and Sector Trends
Case Studies: EUROPE - Port of Rotterdam, Holland LATIN AMERICA - Port of Valparaiso, Chile MIDDLE EAST - Port of Sohar, Oman AFRICA - Port of Doraleh, Djibouti Conclusions

Sector Background Ports in developing countries represent a key asset for economic development They need to operate efficiently and be properly structured in order to support an increase in trade and GDP by linking countries, both coastal and landlocked, productive hinterlands and consumers to global markets Through their nodal role of facilitating intermodal transport ports have a significant role in contributing toward achievement of the Millennium Development Goals

Industry and Sector Trends

Development of World Maritime Transport
Source: UNCTAD Review of Maritime Transport 2007

World port container traffic (mio TEU)
Source: Containerisation International and other publications

Regional share: World port container traffic (mio TEU)

World Top 10 container ports 2003 – 2007
Source: Yearbook Containerisation International

Private sector involvement
Governments, in particular since the 1990’s, started to invite the private sector both for capital and operational experience To date, developing economy countries entered into 230 projects totalling more than US$ 24.7 billion of investment in 15 years In Africa some 70% of the (container) port operations are still run by the public sector LAC is second, but the process is gaining momentum

Private sector involvement (2)
The WB Port Reform Toolkit (Second Edition 2006) provides extensive details since not one solution fits all The Landlord Port Management Model is the World Bank’s preferred option Private sector involvement will grow but Governments will continue to be the landlord, regulator and provider of basic infrastructure Governments grant a concession (Lease or BOT) for years Investment costs of new facilities may run into billions of US$

Growing involvement of private investors in port projects
Private investors are flocking to the ports industry and so far have been proved right (ING source) Cargo volume increases are outpacing terminal capacity Typically investors were paying multiples times above the port group's earnings level (Source: Lloyds’ List November 2006)

Private participation in seaports: developing countries 1990-2005
(Source: World Bank and PPIAF, PPI Project database)

City - Port relationship
Cities may benefit from ports: employment, tax income, economic development, but Ports may also has a negative influence on cities such traffic congestion, air, noise and light pollution and security issues Port zoning plans may lead to improved co-existence Increasing trend to move ports to Greenfield sites and redevelop the port in real estate (housing, recreation, business), marina, cruise terminal, and / or fishery facilities

City – Port (Valparaiso, Chile)

Public versus private: Port Handling Costs
Source: Economic Commission of Latin America and Caribbean

Increased participation: Private Sector in Ports
Investment Management Operations Maintenance Port services

PORTS REFORM - regulation port functions service port port management
tool port landlord port port management model reasons for change port reform modalities - improvement of the port administration - liberalization - commercialization - corporatization - privatization port reform tools - contracting out - management contract concession lease bot schemes - full privatisation - regulation contract issues - concession documents and contracts - issues to be addressed in a concession agreement - critical items of concessions - table of contents of a concession contract

Port Management Models
Type Infra- structure Super- Stevedoring labor Other functions Public Service Port Public Mainly public Tool Port Private Landlord Port Mainly private Private Service Port

Example: Landlord port model
The Public Port Management: Owns, develops and maintains the infrastructure which is concessioned to private companies Is responsible for Regulation at Port Bylaws level Is responsible for nautical safety and environmental issues Other functions: either private (majority) or public Private (stevedoring) companies: own, operate and maintain their own equipment and employ their own labor

Example: Landlord port model (2)
Examples of private companies: Stevedoring Warehousing and distribution Industry Pilotage Towage Bunkering Mooring and unmooring

port functions service port tool port landlord port port management model reasons for change port reform modalities - improvement of the port administration - liberalization - commercialization - corporatization - privatization port reform tools - contracting out - management contract concession lease bot schemes full privatisation regulation contract issues - concession documents and contracts - issues to be addressed in a concession agreement - critical items of concessions - table of contents of a concession contract

Reasons for change General reasons Administrative/managerial reasons
Financial reasons Employment reasons

Reasons for change: General
Wish to: Increase port efficiency, service attitude and competitiveness Decrease costs Improve market/port user responsiveness Obtain access to new technologies Increase competitive position

Reasons for change: Administrative/managerial
Wish to: Decrease political influence Reduce bureaucracy in port administration Obtain more efficient organisation Utilise foreign managerial experience Improve management skills

Reasons for change: Financial
Wish to: Raise capital Reduce public expenditures Reduce commercial risks (investments) Improved utilisation of existing capacity - less need to invest in new infra- and superstructure Broaden ownership of port assets

Reasons for change: Employment
Wish to: Reduce public labour force (administrative, operational and technical) Reduce/eliminate restrictive labour practices (Unions) Increase private sector employment Introduce ‘hire and fire’ by performance

port functions service port tool port landlord port port management model reasons for change port reform modalities - improvement of the port administration - liberalization - commercialization - corporatization - privatization port reform tools - contracting out - management contract concession lease bot schemes full privatisation regulation contract issues - concession documents and contracts - issues to be addressed in a concession agreement - critical items of concessions - table of contents of a concession contract

Port Reform Tools Contracting out Management contract Lease Concession
BOT schemes Full privatization

Benefits of Port Reform Tools
Better and more efficient port management (especially port operations) performed by the private operator Avoidance of the drawbacks associated with monopolies through the inclusion of detailed concession conditions The application of private capital to socially and economically desirable projects, freeing up government funds for other priority projects

Benefits of Port Reform Tools (2)
The possible creation of new revenue streams for the Government The transfer or sharing of risks (depending on the Tool selected) for construction, finance, and operation of the facility to the private sector The attraction and use of foreign investment, expertise and technology

Leasing Lease systems most used: Flat rate lease Shared revenue lease

Leasing - Flat rate lease
Characteristics Specified sum of money (usually for infrastructure) is to be paid for a specified period of time Lease is a fair return of the value of the property Inflation adjustment of the lease is optional (but recommended!)

Leasing - Shared revenue lease
Characteristics Lease is computed on the basis of a minimum lease plus a compensation (often referred to as ‘Royalty’) per move (preferably) on a decreasing scale A model may be a combination of a fixed and variable Royalty (based on performance) The lessee guarantees a minimum annual compensation Inflation adjustment

Leasing (cont’d) Possible suitable lease partners Shipping lines
Stevedoring companies Importers and exporters Inland transport companies Private investment companies (combined with an operating company or management agreement)

CASE STUDIES The Port of Rotterdam  Flat Rate Lease System (Contract) The Port of Valparaiso, Chile  Concession Sohar Industrial Port, Oman  Joint Venture, Concession and Licenses The Port of Doraleh, Djibouti  Concession

CASE STUDY: 1) The Port of Rotterdam
A Flat Rate Lease System (Contract)

Flat Rate Lease system Rotterdam
Municipality of Rotterdam owns land and water except for the river Rhine Municipality (through the Port Management) leases the infrastructure and provides: Site ready for building Access to site Quay wall Contract depth at quay

Private companies provide Surfacing of site Superstructure (office buildings, workshops, warehouses/sheds, gate, fencing Rail, electricity, water, gas, etc.

Principal clients Stevedoring companies Warehousing companies Transport companies Industrial companies Repair/maintenance/service companies Government agencies (Customs)

Lessee pays for use of land area occupied When site has water front lessee also pays for right of berth(ing) according to quay length and water depth

Contracts/review of lease Formerly Usually 25 years with every 5 years negotiations on lease price Present Usually 25 years with every year inflation correction

Contracts/review of lease (cont’d) After 25 years option for another 25 years Municipality may terminate contract after 50 years Lessee may terminate after 25 years or renew after 50 years

Environment At start of contract soil pollution report At end of contract soil pollution report Pollution removed at expense of lessee

Special items At termination of contract site free of superstructure Buy-out of contract through negotiations Buy-out of superstructure through negotiations

Subjects in lease contract Official names of parties concerned Size, location and status of site Condition of soil at start of contract Pipeline/cable lanes Duration of contract Lease price

Subjects in lease contract (cont’d) Possibilities of lease reduction Negligence in payments Quay dues Use of site Construction and maintenance Railway tracks

Subjects in lease contract (cont’d) Taxes Sub-rental and re-rental Termination through negligence Bankruptcy/temporary suspension of payment/liquidation Clearing of site at termination of lease period

Subjects in lease contract (cont’d) Re-use of site with superstructure Costs and damages Legal rights to third parties Right of termination of contract

Concession Contract: Key Items
Definitions Appointment of the Operator Duration of the Agreement General rights and obligations of the Operator General rights and obligations of the Port Authority Transfer of rights, obligations and assets Performance parameters (Transfer of) Employees Force Majeure (compensation) Lease of facilities Activities performed by the Authority Access to the site Miscellaneous conditions Functional and technical design Design and construction flaws Building conditions Inflation correction Liability for loss or damage of goods Maintenance (infra- and superstructure)

2) The Port of Valparaiso, Chile
CASE STUDY: 2) The Port of Valparaiso, Chile Port Sector Reform in Chile The Port of Valparaiso Concession

City – Port of Valparaiso, Chile

The Port of Valparaiso, Chile
Port Sector Reform: Objective: Encourage investment in better port equipment in the hope that it will lead to more efficient service, in part by attracting larger, more modern ships. The old multi-operator system established in 1981 was replaced by Concessions The first 4 major Concession - integrated terminals - are run exclusively by private companies, which started operations in January 2000

Port Sector Reform (cont.) Before the Reform: EMPORCHI, the state port company, sole handler of cargo on land; Stevedores preformed cargo operations aboard ships; Division of cargo among stevedore companies limited their incentive to invest; Lack of investments and considerable growth of trade in the 1980s and 1990s led to a non-exclusive Concession granted through a tender to a JV of the 3 largest stevedore companies - Concession not profitable; This non-exclusive Concession led to an inefficient multi-operator system; Dissatisfied with the performance of this Concession, the Government of Chile decided to implement the present REFORM.

Port Sector Reform (cont.) During the Reform: Nearly 40 ports in Chile were already owned by the private sector when the Reform was introduced; The Government of Chile introduces the Mono-operator System; An exclusive Concession for each of the main container terminals makes the Concessionaire responsible for the operations, maintenance and all investments in equipment and infrastructure of the port; EMPORCHI, the state port company, still handled the container and general cargo traffic; The private ports handled almost all the dry and liquid bulk cargoes.

Port Sector Reform (cont.) The objective of the new Mono-operator Concession System is: To promote investment in modern transfer equipment and new berths; To bring the management of the terminals up to date; To reduce port costs to clients; To enhance service quality - reducing waiting and service times; To attract larger and more modern ships; and To transfer a reduction of freight charges to final clients.

Port Sector Reform (cont.) The Process: The GoC had to obtain approval by the legislature(one of the conditions: reach agreement with labor unions and stevedore companies); The GoC had to form 10 new state port companies (land lord ports) as successors to EMPORCHI with no service disruptions; The new state port companies had to remain as public corporations but had to operate according to the rules of private stock companies; and The GoV sought to attract international interest to the ports bidding process.

Port Sector Reform (cont.) The new state port companies: Own the port infrastructure; Run maritime and land access; Enforce the Concession Contract; Are not allowed by law to handle cargo or berthing; Share revenues with Concessionaires: - A minimum annual rental payment, and - Some revenue sharing on the upside. The first 4 Concession were awarded in 3 ports in August 1999.

Port Sector Reform (cont.) The Bidding: 1) The Bidders are asked to offer the lowest maximum tariff ( the authority set a floor to discourage: (a) overoptimistic bids and (b) to renegotiate charges after the Concession Contract is awarded); 2) A Bidder offering the floor tariff should also offer an upfront tie-breaking payment; 3) Annual rental payments are determined in advance, to prevent implicit subsidies to Concessionaires (Concession Contracts establish an increasing rent to the state port company as tonnage rises)

Port Sector Reform (cont.) Incentives to invest: Instead of stipulating how much the Concessionaire must invest, the Concessions encourage investment simply by imposing penalties for slow service; The Concessionaire will be compensated for the part of fixed assets not depreciated; The initial Concession period of 15 or 20 years may be extended to 30 years max. if some investments in infrastructure are operative some years before the initial concession period ends; Maximum charges on vessels and cargo transfer are fixed in the Concession contract - the Concessionaire is allowed to charge special tariffs provided they are for additional value added (ex. extra charge for prompt dispatch).

Port Sector Reform (cont.) Reform results: POSITIVE SIGNS in terms of LOWER TARIFFS and MORE EFFICIENT SERVICE; Keeping a high level of competitive tension among prospective Bidders brought lower tariffs to clients and reasonable returns to Chile’s Treasury; Other reforms are needed to complete the modernization of the ports: Tariffs for navigation aid systems are too high Pilotage is monopolistic (reserved to former Navy officers) and charges are too high.

1. Areas for future port developments 2. Espigón: Development of the terminal 2 to double the capacity of the port 3. Area for the project for the opening and development of the waterfront, 'Puerto Barón’ 4. Logistics Support Extension Zone (ZEAL - Zona de Extensión de Apoyo Logístico)

4. Logistics Support Extension Zone (ZEAL - Zona de Extensión de Apoyo Logístico)

Puerto Barón is conceived as a mega urban development project for the city’s waterfront, which aim is to open a new space for integration between the city and the sea and constitute an attractive pole of economic and social development, through the construction of top quality tourism and commercial urban infrastructure. This project consolidates the vision of city-port integration, by earmarking more than 60% of its 20 hectares for the development of public use spaces, in a strategic zone near Valparaiso’s urban and commercial center.

For the construction of the Puerto Barón project’s first phase, which will begin in 2008, US$100 million will be invested and 1,500 temporary jobs created; Once the initiative is inaugurated, it is expected that 2,500 permanent jobs will be generated; Traffic congestions will be solved; In a second phase, the project includes the construction of a hotel, a convention center, a university, a medical center, a marine center, and a housing project of nearly 500 apartments, with lofts for offices and restaurants and commerce with an ocean view.

3) Sohar Industrial Port, Sultanate of Oman
CASE STUDY: 3) Sohar Industrial Port, Sultanate of Oman Project Brief details by: C. Bert Kruk March 11, 2004 Updated March 2008

Sohar Industrial Port Company (SIPC):
SIPC is a 50/50 Joint Venture between the Government of the Sultanate of Oman and the Port of Rotterdam SIPC will manage Sohar along the principles of a Landlord Port Cargo handing, industries and services will be executed by and invested in by the private sector (concessions and licences)

Sohar: Location Sohar

Project Concept Reasons for the Government of Oman (GSO) to initiate the development of a new port in Northern Oman Diversification in non-oil sectors Import / export needs of an expanding domestic market Creation of employment

Sohar as petrochemical cluster: Advantages
Location outside the Gulf Availability of local natural gas In the future the Delphin pipeline (Qatar) Infrastructure Management expertise Competitive rates

Sohar Industrial Port Masterplan
Site selection study (JICA) Masterplan design by Brown and Root (early 2000) Location in northern Oman Industrial Port Area: 2,000 hectares Potential Industrial Development Zone: 8,000 hectares

Technical details (Investments of the Oman Government)
300 km long gas pipeline from local field to deliver 21.5 mio m3 of gas/day 6 km of breakwaters 18 million m3 dredging for the southern part of the port basin (- 16 m) and the entrance channel (- 16.5m) 1,250 m of quaywall for containers and multipurpose cargo 550 m quaywall for dry bulk cargo

Technical details (2) 3 jetties for liquid bulk cargoes
Common utilities, cooling water in- and outlet and service (pipelines, roads and utilities) corridors Seawater intake and outfall station of 334,000 m3/hour Wastewater treatment plant of 100 m3/hour 500 MW power station with 50 million gallons of desalinated water

Aerial view of Sohar - May 2001

Sohar 2007

Planned industries in Sohar
Refinery Input via pipeline from Muscat Refinery Output: 5.4 mio tons liquid bulk/year (2006) Methanol plant Input: Natural Gas (by pipeline) Output: 1.6 mio tons liquid bulk/year (2006)

Planned industries in Sohar 2
Polypropylene plant Input from refinery products Output: 0.3 mio tons containerised cargo/year (2006) Urea plant Input: Natural Gas (by pipeline) Output: 1.1 mio tons dry bulk/year (2006)

Planned industries in Sohar 3
Aluminium smelter Input: Import of alumina Output: 0.5 mio ton multipurpose/container cargo/year (2007) Polyethylene plant Output 0.5 mio tons per annum (2007)

Management principles and project history
1999: visit Omani Government Officials to Rotterdam (RMPM) 2000: Negotiations between GSO and RMPM about in-house consultancy 2001: Acceptance of Partnership March 2002: Signing of MOU

Management principles and project history (2)
July 2002: Signing of Shareholders and Concession contracts (SIPC: Sohar Industrial Port Company) SIPC is a 50/50 Joint Venture between the GSO and RMPM SIPC will manage Sohar along the principles of a Landlord Port Cargo handing, industries and services will be executed by and invested in by the private sector (concessions and licences)

Strategic issues Financially attractive project
Long term trend: Petrochemical industry moves (partly) to the Middle East Sohar project can be used as Active Business Intelligence Source Sohar project offer unique chance for younger RMPM managers to gain experience in the field (HRM)

Milestones July 2002: Signing of Shareholders, Concession and Usufruct Agreements between the Sultanate of Oman and the Port of Rotterdam, based on 50/50 joint venture August 2002: Establishment of Sohar Industrial Port Company – SIPC (SAOC), with a 25 year concession over SIP by Royal Decree (RD 80/2002) to develop and manage a 2,000 hectares industrial area with a word class deep sea port. April 2004: Arrival of the first commercial vessel carrying project cargo

Milestones (2) December 2005: The largest investor, Sohar Aluminium, announces a $ 2.4 billion investment in Sohar June 2006: Arrival of the first liquid bulk tanker September 2006: Refinery in commissioning stage December 2006: Oman International Container Terminal receives the first container vessel December 2006: The Port of Sohar receives the Dubai International Maritime Award for Outstanding Success in Port and Terminal Operations.

Status of the project in 2004
Negotiations with individual clients on lease contracts (so-called Sub-Usufruct Agreements in principle as Flat Lease Rates) Sub-Usufruct agreements signed with Refinery and Stevedoring Company Negotiations with all clients on Port Rules and Regulations PRR (Port Bylaws) Negotiations with all clients on Construction Rules and Regulations (CRR)

Status of the project in 2004 (2)
Hiring of local staff Organization in place but still too much dependency on Dutch expertise New potential clients

Status of the project in 2008
Many internationally established companies have settled in Sohar such as: Air Liquide, Alcan, Hutchison Port Holdings, Larsen & Toubro, LG, Odfjell and Oiltanking Private sector investments are in the range of US$ 12 billion Marine services (towage) are provided by private company International Maritime College Future employment 8,000 direct and 30,000 indirect

4) The Port of Doraleh, Djibouti
CASE STUDY: 4) The Port of Doraleh, Djibouti A Concession Contract

The Port of Doraleh, Djibouti
A 30-year Concession for the development, financing, design, construction, management, operation, and maintenance of a new container terminal in the port of Doraleh Project investment: USD$ 427 million

The Port of Doraleh, Djibouti (cont.)
The port will include a 2,000 meters quay and will be developed in 2 phases; During the construction phase, the port will employ approx. 500 local workers; on completion, the port will employ approx. 670 full-time employees; In addition to direct employment at the port, the project will require other services such as engineering, warehousing, spare parts, information technology and services, catering and cleaning, which will contribute to the local economy; The project will also lead to transfer of management expertise and technology;

The port is strategically located in East Africa along one of the fastest growing East-West international shipping routes; About 85% of imports into Djibouti are destined for the land-locked nation of Ethiopia; The project will increase port traffic and open up new opportunities for investment and growth in the country; The port will attract other African countries to use the port as a gateway too; The port will promote regional integration through trade development.

Financing the Project with modern and innovative products: Financing provided through a Project Finance Facility; MIGA (World Bank Group) issued financial guarantees to the concessionaire and its lenders for their investments in the Doraleh Container Terminal; MIGA provided guarantees to cover: Concessionaire’s USD$5 million equity investment Lenders’ USD$422 million - funds provided by Dubai Islamic Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, WestLB AG, and other participating banks; MIGA issued its first guarantee for an Islamic project finance facility

MIGA provided financial guarantees to the transaction to cover a 10-year period against the risk of: Transfer restriction War and civil disturbance Expropriation, and Breach of Contract MIGA’s participation in the transaction is helping to mitigate perceived political risks for the banks and enabling the project sponsors to raise medium-term, cross-border project financing!

Conclusions Obviously in many ports there is a requirement for a certain level of autonomy The level of autonomy is a critical success factor for port re-organisation Institutional reform is an exceedingly complex issue There is much confusion about the successes of specific experiences with changes Limited solid evidence about the effectiveness of the various strategies Existing situations will not automatically improve when applying any of processes mentioned Port Reform is a very complicated process and requires expert assistance

Recommendations PPP Arrangements do work and are successful
Private operator involvement will continue in the sector Establish clear roles, responsibilities and realistic goals Preferred roles of public sector Public sector continues to own the land and infrastructure Masterplanner Regulator Finance, supply, maintain and own common user infrastructure

THANK YOU! Sabino Escobedo - TAG Financial Advisors
Materials prepared by: C. Bert Kruk - Lead Port Specialist - The World Bank Sabino Escobedo - TAG Financial Advisors

Contacts For comments or further details contact:
Junglim Hahm Richard Cabello Sabino Escobedo David Stiggers There are some supplementary materials that will help you understand this further. The toolkit includes a spreadsheet based financial Policy Simulation model that will assist in balancing tariffs, subsidies and coverage targets as covered by Module 5 [ as well as integrating with some of the other key financial issues covered in other Modules] There are 16 case studies, and some of these have been referred to in this module. The full toolkit can be read or downloaded from the website, and questions or comments made to the task manager.

Sabino Escobedo - TAG Financial Advisors
Session 5.3 Case Studies by Sector PORT SECTOR Sabino Escobedo - TAG Financial Advisors Materials prepared by: C. Bert Kruk - Lead Port Specialist - The World Bank Sabino Escobedo - TAG Financial Advisors

PPP International Best Practice and Regional Application

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "PPP International Best Practice and Regional Application"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

PPP International Best Practice and Regional Application

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "PPP International Best Practice and Regional Application"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback