Partnerships PPPLab Explorations 01: A portfolio scan of the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Making sense

• f Public–Private

Partnerships

PPPLab Explorations 01:

A portfolio scan of the Sustainable Water Fund (FDW)

B3: Portfolio scans of FDW and FDOV

• The “change logic” of PPPs
• FDW
• Analysis: six categories of PPPs
• Overall observations
• Emerging policy issues
• FDOV
• Three categories of PPPs
• First observations

The “change logic” of PPPs

• “Change logic”:
• Developmental issue the PPP seeks to address
• The business drivers/cases/fin. sustainability
• Research methodology:

‘Emergent’ grouping of PPPs based on scan of five elements:

• Type of lead private partner
• Type of other partners
• Core focus or intervention
• Anticipated benefits
• Business case/financial sustainability

A. Water utilities /

• perators

(5) D. Irrigation manage- ment (3) E. Micro- finance for sanitation (1) C. Watershed manage- ment / IWRM (2) F. WASH governance through M&E (1) B. Innovative technology develop- ment (1)

• A. Improving the performance of water

utilities and operators (RWA, VNM, MWI, ETH, TZA)

• A. Improving the performance of water utilities

and operators (5)

• Lead private partner: international cooperation branch of Dutch

drinking water firm. Other partners: mostly public or semi-public water utilities.

• Core focus: improving efficient management of piped water
• systems. Anticipated benefits: increased effectiveness of water

delivery and increased coverage of poor populations.

• Business case/financial sustainability: long-term improvement of

the financial and economic viability of utility operations.

• B. Innovative technology development

for water catchment and storage (ZAF)

8

• B. Innovative technology development for water

catchment and storage (1)

• Lead private partners: four Dutch SMEs. Other partners: a public

water utility, two research institutions, one local company.

• Core focus: testing innovative and affordable water catchment and

storage technology. Anticipated benefits: a) increased efficiency of water catchment and storage; b) increased coverage and delivery; c) reduced costs for water.

• Business case/financial sustainability: for public water utility, a

cheaper alternative water source than water import. For the lead Dutch companies, the export of technology.

• C. Watershed management/IWRM (ETH, COL)

• C. Watershed management/IWRM (2)
• Lead private partner: the international private sector. Other

partners: local sector organisations, (semi-)public actors, research institutions, CSOs, and consultancy firms.

• Core focus: improving integrated water resource management in

large catchment areas. Anticipated benefits: safeguarding the long-term use of water for productive uses.

• Business case/financial sustainability: a) long-term

macroeconomic advantages of good IWRM and b) improved (cost-) efficiency and sustainability of the specific productive uses.

• D. Irrigation, management of irrigation

infrastructure, and improved financial sustainability (GHA, PSE, LKA)

• D. Irrigation, management of irrigation infra-

structure & improved financial sustainability (3)

• Lead private partner: local private actors (one company; two

cooperative user organisations). Other partners: forms of users’

• rganisations, public agencies and CSOs.
• Core focus: improving infrastructure and creating economic drivers

to make the irrigation systems more sustainable. Anticipated benefits: farmer’s access to irrigation water and sustainable management of the infrastructure.

• Business case/financial sustainability: the profitability of irrigated

agriculture for farmers (and improved financial sustainability of the infrastructure).

• E. Microfinance to stimulate sanitation

demand and private services (KEN)

• E. Microfinance to stimulate sanitation demand

and private services (1)

• Lead private partner: a commercial bank. Other partners: local

commercial banks, CSOs and a public actor.

• Core focus: provision of microfinance to consumers and

households to improve sanitation, which in turn triggers private services for sanitation construction and management. Anticipated benefits: access to sanitation and strengthening of the supply chain in sanitation.

• Business case/financial sustainability: the readiness of households

to invest in improved sanitation and the profitability of the support services.

• F. Improving WASH governance through

M&E

(GHA)

• F. Improving WASH governance through M&E (1)
• Lead private partner: private sector consists of an international

cooperation branch of a Dutch company and a local telephone

• provider. Neither can be considered a lead partner. Other partners:

Ghanaian government, a knowledge institution and two CSOs.

• Core focus: gathering data on the status of rural water and

sanitation systems to improve planning and maintenance. Anticipated benefits: improvements in water governance through improved information systems.

• Business case/financial sustainability: no explicit ongoing business

case or model for financial sustainability.

A. Water utilities /

• perators

(5) D. Irrigation manage- ment (3) E. Micro- finance for sanitation (1) C. Watershed manage- ment / IWRM (2) F. WASH governance through M&E (1) B. Innovative technology develop- ment (1)

Overall observations

• The technology development (B), irrigation/infrastructure (D),

and sanitation (E) categories have the most clear-cut private sector leadership and show most real commercial engagement.

• These PPPs have a more immediate case for the self-sustaining

continuation of activities

• In particular, the business cases and financial sustainability of

the PPPs in the operator/utility (A) and watershed management/IWRM (C) PPPs are not always clear.

• Generally, a large part of the budgets consists of a combination of

public and private grants. This raises questions about the sustainability of the present PPPs .

Emerging policy issues

• What types of PPPs and private sector engagements are aimed

for? (To what degree are all segments really PPPs?)

• Which subthemes in the water domain are to be stimulated?

(Delta’s and IWRM? Sanitation? Waste (water) treatment?)

• To what extent are the projects pro-poor? Possible

improvement?

• To what degree is the portfolio promoting Dutch technology,

knowledge, and products? Does it stimulate innovation?

PPPLab Explorations:

A portfolio scan of the Facility for Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Food Security (FDOV)

(30 PPPs, REPORT IN PROGRESS)

Key logics

• Sourcing: lead firm seeks to strengthen supply and increase the

sustainability of farming that produces that supply.

• Services & inputs: lead firm offers its product to farmers (via

intermediaries) serving the improvement of their production volume and system.

• Improved Food Products: lead firms seek to produce improved

food products for relatively poor segments of the consumer market to improve their diet.

First observations

• Different kinds of lead firms in the three segments

(multinationals/Dutch SMEs/local firms).

• Similarities FDW: pro-poorness not always detailed, scaling and

sustainability not always strong.

• However, business cases/financial sustainability more clear and

for relatively more cases than in FDW

• Very different public-private combinations in terms of financing.

In some cases not clear whether private contributions are real commercial capital or CSR money.

• Limited engagement of (semi-)public actors

Making sense

• f Public–Private

Partnerships