POSCH & PARTNERS THE WORLD BANK / OECD CONSULTING ENGINEERS PSP IN MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICES INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA IN THE ECA REGION

4.5 SESSION 5

4.5.1 Presentation of Survey and Interview Results, Part 1

(by Mr Fritz Schwaiger, Posch & Partners Consulting Engineers)

4.5.2 Presentation of Survey and Interview Results, Part 2

(by Mr Fritz Schwaiger, Posch & Partners Consulting Engineers)

72 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

Private Sector Participation (PSP) ™Role of large PS Western European operators, in Municipal Water Services donors and IFIs in municipal water services in ECA region in Central and Eastern Europe ™Role PS is ready to play if existing barriers were and Central Asia (ECA) removed ™Strategies of IFIs and Donors to maximise leverage of PS resources Part 1

4/24/2002 1 4/24/2002 2

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA APPROACH & TIME FRAME SELECTION OF INTERVIEW CANDIDATES

Response to Questionnaires 30

25 • OECD & World Bank guidance

20 • Approached:

15 • 16 Operators 3 IFIs 10 • • 17 Bilateral donors 5

0 19.02.02 23.02.02 27.02.02 03.03.02 07.03.02 11.03.02 15.03.02 19.03.02 23.03.02 27.03.02 31.03.02 04.04.02

4/24/2002 3 4/24/2002 4 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA DATA BASE INTERNET RESEARCH

Questionnaires Interviews • Country Profiles / Internet Research distributed response response • World Bank: fact sheets, country briefs, sector reports Operators 13 11 85% 6 investment profiles IFIs 3 3 100% 2 • EBRD: Donors 17 11 65% 5 • BISNIS: U.S. Department of Commerce

Total 33 25 76% 13 • OECD: International Development Statistics • ADB: country profiles • EU: External relations

4/24/2002 5 4/24/2002 6

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA THE PRIVATE SECTOR´S VIEW

5 CEE EE LV RU 7 Balkan LT 1 Minor Asia PL CZ BY 3 Baltic “THE PRIVATE SECTOR´S VIEW” SK 4 EE&Russia SI • 11 Western European Operators (responded) HU 3 Caucasus HR • France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Austria BA RO MD UA 5 Central Asia KZ YU 28 Total • With mixed long-, medium- & short term operational AL BG experience KG GE UZ TR AM AZ TJ TM

4/24/2002 7 4/24/2002 8 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA COUNTRY CATEGORISATION BY PS (1) COUNTRY CATEGORISATION BY PS (2) IFI for IFI for No IFI regulatory IFI for finance & Too risky, help reform finance regulatory only Country n needed needed needed ref. need. Manag. C. No interest Categories: I II IIIa III-t IV V Central and Eastern Europe • (I) No IFI help needed Czech Republic 9 78% 0% 22% 0% 0% Hungary 9 56% 11% 22% 0% 11% • (II) IFI needed for regulatory reforms Slovenia 9 56% 0% 33% 0% 11% Poland 10 40% 20% 40% 0% 0% • (III) IFI needed for financing Slovakia 9 11% 11% 78% 0% 0% Romania 9 0% 11% 11% 67% 0% 11% • (IIIa) IFI needed for finance & regulatory reforms Balkans Croatia 10 10% 20% 20% 40% 0% 10% • (IV) Too risky, only management contracts Republic of Yugoslavia 10 0% 0% 30% 40% 10% 20% Bulgaria 10 10% 10% 10% 60% 0% 10% • (V) No interest Albania 10 0% 0% 20% 10% 40% 30% Bosnia and Herzegovina 80%0% 0% 75% 25% FYR of Macedonia 80%0% 0% 75% 25% Minor Asia • n = 8 ÷ 11 Turkey 12 17% 8% 33% 33% 0% 8% Colour code: < 25 % 25 - 50 % 50 - 60 % > 60 % 4/24/2002 9 4/24/2002 10

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA COUNTRY CATEGORISATION BY PS (3) RISK ASSESSMENT PER COUNTRY (1) IFI for IFI for No IFI regulatory IFI for finance & Too risky, help reform finance regulatory only Country n needed needed needed ref. need. Manag. C. No interest I II IIIa III-t IV V Risk assessment per country Baltic Estonia 9 11% 33% 22% 0% 33% (why was country put into relevant category) Latvia 9 11% 11% 11% 33% 0% 33% Lithuania 9 11% 11% 11% 33% 0% 33% Risk classification: Eastern Europe and Russia Russian Federation 11 0% 0% 27% 18% 27% 27% • (3) stands for: this is the main reason / risk Moldova 10 0% 0% 10% 40% 50% Belarus 11 0% 0% 9% 9% 45% 36% • (2) stands for: this is a main reason / risk Ukraine 13 0% 0% 15% 23% 46% 15% • (1) stands for: this is a reason / risk to some extent Caucasus Armenia 11 0% 0% 9% 9% 36% 45% • (0) stands for: no significant risk Georgia 11 0% 0% 9% 55% 36% Azerbaijan 9 0% 0% 11% 67% 22% Central Asia Kazakhstan 10 0% 0% 20% 50% 30% Uzbekistan 10 0% 0% 10% 60% 30% Turkmenistan 9 0% 0% 0% 44% 56% Kyrgyz Republic 9 0% 0% 0% 44% 56% Tajikistan 4/24/2002 10 0% 0% 10% 30% 60% 11 4/24/2002 12 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA RISK ASSESSMENT PER COUNTRY (2) RISK ASSESSMENT PER COUNTRY (3)

Low profit Strong War, civil Legislat. Macr o Political Recipient Country Operat- Water expec- compe- Financial disturb- Regula- does not Breach of economic Political inter- not inter- Low profit Strong War, civil Legislat. Macro Political Recipient ion risk tariffs low tations tition risk ance tory risk permit contract risk instability ference ested Other Country Operat- Wat er expec- compe- Financial disturb- Regula- does not Breach of economic Political inter- not inter- Poland 0,81,30,91,11,10,31,30,41,01,3 0,6 1,4 0,8 0,8 ion risk tariffs low tations tition risk ance tory risk permit contract risk instability ference ested Other Czech Republ i c 0,60,91,01,61,00,30,70,30,91,1 0,6 1,4 0,4 0,0 Romania 1,2 2,3 1,6 1,3 2,0 0,8 1,9 0,7 1,3 1,8 1,2 1,8 0,7 1,0 Estonia 1,30,70,71,31,00,31,70,31,02,0 0,7 1,3 0,0 0,0 Bulgaria 1,3 2,3 1,6 0,7 2,0 0,5 1,4 0,7 1,2 2,2 1,0 1,3 0,0 0,8 Latvia 1,30,70,71,31,00,32,00,31,02,0 0,7 1,7 0,3 0,0 Republic of Yugoslavia 1,0 2,3 1,7 0,6 2,3 1,8 2,0 1,0 1,7 2,2 1,8 1,8 0,0 1,5 Lithuania 1,30,70,71,31,00,32,00,31,02,0 0,7 1,7 0,3 0,0 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1,8 2,0 1,5 0,5 2,2 2,4 2,0 1,3 2,0 2,2 2,0 2,0 0,3 0,0 Slovakia 0,72,01,51,11,40,41,60,71,31,3 0,9 1,4 0,4 0,0 FYR of Macedonia 2,0 2,0 1,3 0,3 2,2 2,5 2,0 1,0 2,0 2,3 2,3 2,0 0,3 0,0 Hungary 0,51,81,21,31,30,51,40,51,21,0 0,5 1,7 0,7 0,0 Albania 1,9 2,3 1,8 0,8 2,1 2,0 2,1 1,0 2,2 2,3 2,2 2,0 0,5 1,0 Slovenia 0,70,80,71,01,00,51,20,50,71,5 1,1 1,0 0,0 0,0 Croatia 1,12,01,31,01,71,31,70,91,42,0 1,3 1,4 0,0 0,8 Bel arus 2,0 2,2 1,6 0,8 2,0 1,6 2,2 1,6 1,8 2,3 1,6 2,3 0,8 0,0 Turkey 1,01,30,81,72,10,81,50,31,52,0 1,5 1,8 0,5 0,0 Ukrai ne 1,7 2,3 1,8 0,8 2,2 1,3 2,2 1,2 2,0 2,4 1,5 2,0 0,4 0,8 Russian Federation 1,51,71,21,01,50,81,51,51,71,9 0,8 1,6 0,3 0,8 Moldova 1,8 2,0 1,8 1,0 2,3 1,3 2,0 1,3 2,0 2,6 1,5 2,2 0,7 1,0 Azerbaijan 1,61,81,81,02,01,61,41,61,82,2 1,6 1,7 0,6 1,0 Geor gi a 2,0 1,8 1,7 0,6 2,0 1,8 2,0 1,0 2,0 2,3 1,8 2,2 0,8 1,0 Kazakhstan 1,81,51,50,82,01,52,01,42,02,3 1,6 2,0 0,8 1,3 Armenia 1,8 2,0 2,0 0,8 2,0 1,6 2,0 1,0 2,0 2,6 1,5 2,0 0,8 1,3 Uzbekistan 2,02,01,50,82,31,82,01,41,82,0 1,8 2,3 0,8 1,3 Turkmenistan 2,02,01,50,82,01,82,01,82,01,5 1,6 1,7 0,8 2,0 Kyrgyz Republic 2,02,01,80,82,01,82,01,81,82,3 1,6 2,3 0,8 0,7 Legend: (3) = this is the main reason/risk (2) this is a main reason/risk (1) this is a reason/risk (0) this is no significant reason/risk Tajikistan 2,02,01,50,82,02,32,01,82,02,0 2,0 2,3 0,8 1,3 Colour code: < 0,75 0,75 - 1,5 1,5 - 2,25 > 2,25 Legend: (3) = this is the main reason/risk (2) this is a main reason/risk (1) this is a reason/risk (0) this is no significant reason/risk Colour code: < 0,75 0,75 - 1,5 1,5 - 2,25 > 2,25 4/24/2002 13 4/24/2002 14

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PSP IN EU-ACCESSION COUNTRIES PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA RISK SHARING / MITIGATION INTEREST IN MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS

Interest in Management Contracts Risk sharing

™ Operational risks: PS is ready to take (decreasing 30% consumption, continuous service, compliance with standards …) ™ Political risks: (to be taken by those who can (partly) yes no

influence) 70% n = 10 n = 10 ™ Financial risks: (local finance; to be taken by those who can (partly) influence)

Risk Mitigation ™ National export guarantees (export element small) ™ MIGA (expensive, not much experience by PS) 4/24/2002 15 4/24/2002 16 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA WHY INTERESTED IN MANAGEMENT CONTR. WHEN INTERESTED IN MANAGEMENT CONTR.

7 6 • When risks are in proportion to benefits 6 5 4 reasons for • In currently risky countries with good future PSP 4 33 n = 7 3 potential 2 1 0 • At least short term, if eligible for later PSP steps

ce ce an an • In risky country, if eligible for further PSP steps fin fin al n er too high risk • As market offers; only if direct inv. is too risky xternal int e company policy ck ck la la • Only if direct inv. too risky; is no efficient use of our staff; min. duration 5 a; capex decision power needed; only if eligible for further PSP steps • In secure, stable political & macro-economic environment 4/24/2002 17 4/24/2002 18

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PSP IN EU-ACCESSION COUNTRIES PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA POSSIBLE CONTRACT PHASING DIRECT INV. OPPORTUNITIES REJECTED

8 7 Risk limitation by phased PS contracts n = 21 7 6 main reason / risk ™PSP suggestion: 5 ™ 4 3333 E.g. management contract => concession 3 22 contr. 2 111 1 ™ Not to be disqualified for following phase 0 e h tiv risk ce g ent red ac o long nan sons etition r cal o fi a em p att ti rc offe too hi certainty i o n Better is automatic mechanism e.g.: ol IFI) rs re not P Othe trong com k and enf S red equity too high ™ the “right of first refusal” d too short / tde (bank/ r Political interference mercially io i er shares were not Requi om p outs Local partner u C n of ™ l framewo Achievement of benchmarks triggers next rity of o Unwillingness of local recipient Lack ega cessio L on Maj sset of local partner valued phase C A

4/24/2002 19 4/24/2002 20 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA ROLES IFI / DONORS SHOULD PLAY BARRIERS TO BE REMOVED BY IFIS / DONORS

6,0 First Priority (n = 9) 5,2 5,0 ™ Legislation / legal framework deficiencies (2 answers)

4,0 ™ Lack of understanding of process and funds

3,0 ™ PQ criteria are too high; water sector is a “closed circle” 2,1 2,0 1,6 1,6 1,4 1,4 ™ Availability of grant finance 1,0 1,0 ™ Risk of breach of contract 0,0 ™ Expensive tendering process for small jobs other (legal system; push regulatory provide investment protect against combat corruption do outside training, capacity building) reform guarantees political influence other financing aw areness building at Vodokanals ™ Constraints on tariff evolution (e.g. cost of finance must be included in a “cost + fee contract” n = 2-7 ™ Lack of institutional capacity in central & municipal authorities & water companies 4/24/2002 21 4/24/2002 22

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA BARRIERS TO BE REMOVED BY IFIS / DONORS TWINNING ARRANGEMENT EXPERIENCE

¾ Second Priority (n = 7) Experience on twinning arrangement by PS ™ Lack of finance n = 3 (only) ™ Imbalance of risk and reward - Of little value for WE company with technology and ™ Inertia and protection of vested interests good institutional strength (1 winner only) ™ Susceptibility to macro economic risks - Not thinking in this way ™ Regulatory risks / lack of sound regulation (2 answers) + Can be useful vehicle for utility to gain experience with PS before entering contract with PS; could raise ™ Requirement to achieve Western standards technical and institutional capacity; IFIs should immediately despite lack of affordability support twinning arrangements in countries where long-term PSP is politically not yet possible

4/24/2002 23 4/24/2002 24 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA DIRECT INVESTMENTS BY PS THE IFI´S / DONOR´S VIEW

¾ Past direct investments by operators (n = 3 of 11) ¾ Future direct investments: (n = 10) “THE IFIs / DONOR´S VIEW” • “Will you intensively pursue direct investment projects in future?” - 100% YES • 14 Organisations, • “Do you want to increase/maintain/decrease your direct investments in 3 IFIs + 11 Donors (responded) future?” - 80% increase - 20% maintain level • Reasons for increase: (n = 7) • Just started operation / new business unit / expansion (3 answers) • Market chances • ECA presents potentially good opportunities • Development of pioneer projects • Increase profits

4/24/2002 25 4/24/2002 26

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE BY IFI/DONORS (1) GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE BY IFI/DONORS (2)

14 0 22222 12 33 Categories: 44455555 10 66666666 778 9 • (I) Focus country 8 6 13 • (II) Assistance country 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 4 99988888 7777777766 • (III) No target country 2 5 4 0

ia a ia a n ia e ia a a n n k io nia ey us gi an an a a and a oni av e k ar t • Ongoing activities (yes/no) ol t Latvia ngary lbani hst is kist P lov u Croat lov Tur rmeniak S Es H Bulgaria S Ukrain A Bel MoldovaGeor A a ek aji Lithuania Romania ederat ugosl acedon Republic T Y Azerbaijan z kmenist Herzegovin M Kaz Uzb ur of T Czech Republic nd sian F ic of s YR Kyrgy ia a F n = 4 ÷ 13 (13 – n = “no opinion”) n Ru Republ Bos response no opinion

4/24/2002 27 4/24/2002 28 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE BY IFI/DONORS (3) SECTORAL PREFERENCES (1) 8

7 8

6 6 water 4 5 wastewater 2 4 0 3 and a tvia ni a Pol ki EstoniaLa a thua 2 Li lov ia y S av ia ia rzegovina osl oat e h RepublicRomaniag r gar ne 1 HungarC ai an a zec Bul ni tan Russian Federationand HC acedoniaUkr s a ic of Yu M Alba ublic tan a Azerbaij ep ey 0 eni n c a ia a a a Bosni Uzbeki ov rk ova ia a i io li i ia in i i ry ia e n i e n a n ic s a n n l u d a d ia i ia v a t b n t v a n n k a r in ja n k y ta v a l u ia i a a Republ FYR of S T rg i n n tv n a a u a a o o a a g a a i e r s o t b r g n t t gyz RKazakhs ol eo la o a l r ro g d b v g r a v u is u a r e is is yr M us t a u s e p m e l lo n l k rb o T h ld k p l o k n K G ar o s L o d e o C e c A u u U l k o e e e m ji e rmen an P E th g e R R rz a S H B e S a b e B r a A t i u F e z z M z R G A T m Bel is L h M A a z k Focus country n Y n c H f K U y r Tajikistane f a e d o g u o si z n r T 13 IFIs/Donors km c s C a R y r li u Y K Assistance country u b ia F n=4-13 T u R n p s e o Non-target country R B

4/24/2002 29 4/24/2002 30

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA SECTORAL PREFERENCES (2) BARRIERS & OBSTACLES – IFI/DONORS

Country Technology transfer, Institution building Regulatory reforms Increase PSP Improve billing & Other stimulate trade revenue collection Unfav. Regula- Instit. (a) in (b) in Corrup- Political Ethnic / Low Inability Lack of No Lack of Lack of Other Central and Eastern Europe Country n policy tory weak- project aid tion inter- war risks willingn. to pay intern. geogr. local co- serious- Poland 1,7 1,6 0,6 0,8 1,2 1,5 Czech Republic 1,7 1,6 0,6 1,0 1,2 1,0 defic. ness impl. ag. recipient ference to pay finance focus finance ness Slovakia 1,8 1,3 0,7 0,3 0,5 1,0 Czech Republic 4 0,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,5 1,0 0,0 1,0 0,5 0,0 1,5 0,0 0,0 2,0 Hungary 1,7 1,5 1,0 0,5 1,5 2,0 Slovakia 4 0,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,5 1,0 0,0 1,0 0,5 0,0 1,5 0,0 0,0 2,0 Romania 1,5 1,7 1,0 0,3 1,0 1,0 Latvia 5 0,3 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,5 1,0 0,0 1,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 Baltic Estonia 1,3 1,6 0,8 0,6 1,0 1,0 Uzbekistan 4 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 2,3 3,0 Latvia 1,3 1,6 0,8 0,6 1,0 1,0 Poland 7 0,3 1,0 1,5 1,8 1,3 0,8 1,0 0,0 0,7 0,7 0,8 1,0 0,8 0,7 2,0 Lithuania 1,3 1,6 0,8 0,6 1,0 1,0 Slovenia 4 0,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 2,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 2,0 0,0 0,0 2,0 Balkans Hungary 5 0,0 1,5 1,0 2,0 1,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 1,0 1,5 0,0 0,0 2,0 Bulgaria 1,7 1,3 0,7 0,7 1,0 1,0 Romania 3 0,5 1,5 1,0 2,0 1,5 0,5 1,5 0,0 1,0 0,5 0,0 0,7 0,0 0,5 1,0 Republic of Yugoslavia 1,3 1,7 1,7 2,0 2,0 Republic of Yugoslavia 5 1,3 1,7 1,0 1,5 0,5 0,3 1,3 0,3 1,0 1,0 0,0 1,4 0,0 0,7 Slovenia 1,3 1,5 1,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 Turkey 6 0,7 2,0 1,0 1,0 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,0 1,3 1,0 0,0 1,6 0,7 0,3 1,3 Croatia 1,0 1,0 1,3 1,5 2,0 2,0 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,0 Estonia 5 0,3 1,0 1,5 1,7 1,5 1,0 1,3 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 3,0 FYR of Macedonia 1,5 1,3 1,3 1,0 2,0 Lithuania 5 0,3 1,0 2,0 1,7 1,5 1,0 1,3 0,0 1,0 0,5 0,0 1,5 1,3 1,0 1,5 Albania 2,0 2,0 1,0 2,0 2,0 FYR of Macedonia 4 1,5 2,0 2,0 2,0 1,5 1,5 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 Minor Asia Bulgaria 4 1,7 1,7 3,0 2,0 2,0 1,3 1,5 0,0 1,0 1,0 0,0 1,0 0,5 0,5 1,0 Turkey 1,0 1,3 1,0 0,7 1,0 2,0 Albania 5 1,7 2,3 3,0 2,5 2,5 1,7 1,5 0,3 1,0 1,0 0,0 1,5 1,0 1,0 Eastern Europe and Russia Russian Federation 4 2,3 3,0 2,5 2,7 2,3 1,7 1,0 0,0 1,3 1,0 0,3 3,0 1,7 1,5 1,0 Belarus 1,5 2,0 1,0 1,0 2,0 Georgia 5 2,0 2,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 Ukraine 2,0 1,3 2,0 1,3 1,3 1,0 0,0 0,0 2,3 1,0 1,0 3,0 Moldova 2,0 1,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Armenia 5 2,0 2,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 2,3 1,0 1,0 3,0 Russian Federation 1,6 1,8 1,3 1,0 1,0 2,0 Azerbaijan 3 1,5 2,0 3,0 2,5 2,5 2,0 2,0 0,5 1,5 1,5 1,0 1,8 1,5 1,5 Caucasus Kazakhstan 5 1,0 2,0 2,0 3,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,5 2,0 2,0 3,0 Georgia 0,0 2,0 0,0 1,0 1,0 osnia and Herzegovina 4 2,0 1,0 1,0 2,0 1,5 2,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 Armenia 0,0 2,0 0,0 1,0 1,0 Belarus 5 2,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 Azerbaijan 0,5 2,0 1,5 1,5 1,5 Croatia 4 3,0 Central Asia 2,0 3,0 1,0 3,0 Turkmenistan 4 Kazakhstan 1,0 2,0 2,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 3,0 Uzbekistan 1,0 2,0 2,0 1,0 2,0 Colour code Kyrgyz Republic 3 (0) = no significant reason / risk 3,0 Turkmenistan 0,5 - 1 Tajikistan 3 (1) = this is a reason / risk to some extent 3,0 Kyrgyz Republic 1,0 2,0 1,0 - 1,5 Ukraine 3 (2) = this is a main reason / risk 2,0 3,0 3,0 Tajikistan (2) = this is the priority objective (1) = this is a general objective (0) = currently not an issue > 1,5 Moldova 3 (3) = this is the main reason / risk 3,0 3,0 4/24/2002 31 4/24/2002 32 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK

40 PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA MUNICIPAL & PSP PROJECTS IN ECA ATTITUDE TOWARDS PSP (1) 35

30 9 8 25 7 6 5 20 293 w ater projects 4 90 PSP projects 3 15 2 1 0 10 . ct r nt ra o nt ntract o ontract o C r similar) C C nt (o n t C e o ice n m 5 Privatisation i e OT rv Lease Contract e ag B S n Good, with strong support cess a on M C Good,with support Manageme rf. e O.k.,but no support by us 0 P Less good P L R O LV R U LT UA AL B G C Z EE HU TR S K YU M K S I AZ M D B A HR UZ GE KG KZ AM B Y TJ TM

4/24/2002 33 4/24/2002 34

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA ATTITUDE TOWARDS PSP (2) ATTITUDE TOWARDS PSP (3)

Comments on “Privatisation” (n=7) (6 donors+1 IFI) • there is “concern” about private ownership (donor) Comments on “Concession Contract” • can not give grants to private operators, but privatisation as a (n=1 Donor) goal might be supported (donor) • is one of the best options, but requires • finances public expenditure or equivalent only (donor) appropriate legal & institutional framework and • most countries in FSU are not ready (donor) economic conditions - which is often lacking in • generally not appropriate in infrastructure sector (donor) the region • If this is full transfer of ownership to PS without possibility of easy reversing, then not recommend. If reversible, then financial and political merits to be judged (donor) • this worked in UK, until overtaken by regulatory risk & political decisions (IFI) 4/24/2002 35 4/24/2002 36 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA ATTITUDE TOWARDS PSP (4) ATTITUDE TOWARDS PSP (5)

Comments on “BOT Contract” (n=1 Donor) Comments on “Lease Contract” (n=1 Donor) • BOT is not the main focus in this region. • Is an appealing option, especially when the legal Priority for CEE municipal utilities is usually framework for investment still requires more in rehabilitation of existing infrastructure improvement (property and fiscal issues) and the introduction of improved management practices, than capacity increase

4/24/2002 37 4/24/2002 38

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA ATTITUDE TOWARDS PSP (6) ATTITUDE TOWARDS PSP (7)

Comments on “Management Contract” Comments on “Performance Based (n=2 Donors) Management Contract” (n=2 Donors) • There is concern about cost efficiency • There is concern about cost efficiency • No bad option in the current context of CEE - but • Deserves attention and efforts to develop it draws the question, how to upgrade it to a suitable contractual models (incl. public support stronger commitment (investment financing) issues)

4/24/2002 39 4/24/2002 40 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA ATTITUDE TOWARDS PSP (8) ATTITUDE TOWARDS PSP (9)

Comments on All Contracts (n=3 IFIs) • All types appropriate in certain circumstances, no categorical Comments on “Service Contract” judgement possible. All require considerable “support" (n=2 Donors) • All types are in principle OK, but to decide case by case • There is concern about cost efficiency • PS can play important role in increasing service efficiency and Minimal form of commitment from both sides introducing capital, but introduction of PS has to be approached in • line with situation in the country. Development of political will to bring in the PS needs time to mature. Thus PSP transactions should allow time. All contract options should be considered. A proper regulatory framework must be built for sustained PSP. In many countries, the cost of capital for the PS is too expensive. Then risk sharing between the public and PS should be considered. 4/24/2002 41 4/24/2002 42

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA NEED FOR ALTERNATIVE MODELS KNOWN TWINNING ARRANGEMENTS

• DANCEE project with OECD-EAP-task force 12 • PSP delicate in first years (high investments, low 11 revenues) 10 9 • PSP often costly trials, so approach through 8 MC/PMC recommended n = 5 Good “building blocks” exist, “true commitment” 6 • Total = 26 by stakeholders cannot compensate “innovative 4 methods” • More support to cities needed with PSP intention 2 2 2 1 1 • Large range of models exists, far too little ex- 0 post evaluation done LV EE LT TR SK YU

4/24/2002 43 4/24/2002 44 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA TWINNING ARRANGEMENTS FUTURE ENGAGEMENT BY IFI/DONORS

- Old fashioned approach; is out as not sustainable - Bad experience, no mutual benefit, lack of interest; ¾ Past direct investments by IFIs/donors (n = 4 of 14) abuse for “business trips” o Risk that local agency gets taken away by fancy ¾ Future direct investments: (n = 7 of 14) technology. Sound management structure to be in place beforehand ¾“Will you intensively pursue donation projects in future?” - Can work well, if recipient utility management & 3 YES; (1 will decrease, 2 maintain level in future) staff is competent & motivated – is mostly not ¾“Will you intensively pursue lending projects in future?” Mixed success; mentoring needed; can achieve o 4 YES (1 will increase and 3 maintain level in future) considerable know-how transfer, but not overcome inherent institutional weaknesses, except with a strong commitment

4/24/2002 45 4/24/2002 46

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA SUMMARY OF IFI/DONORS´ VIEW SUMMARY OF PS VIEW

N o in terest , IFI/ don ¾ Barriers & obstacles IFIs/donors face: WestToo ors East risky, - institutional weakness no inter est PS - no geographic focus ¾ Attitude to PS models is + with reservations ¾ If IFIs/donors are not there how to expect the PS to be there ¾ Future lending & donations: ~ remain level ¾ Risks to be carried by those who can influence them ¾ Complex role of IFIs/donors: “enabling PSP” (legal, regulation, guarantees, process understanding …) ¾ Future investment volumes by PS ↑

4/24/2002 47 4/24/2002 48 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA THE MARKET POTENTIAL IN ECA

Private Sector Participation (PSP) Region Population (Mil) GNI Total Urban %of ECA (Bil $) ($ per capita) in Municipal Water Services EU-Accession Countries 104 67 22% 370 37% 3.563 CEE excl. EU-Accession C. 300 218 63% 556 56% 1.853 in Central and Eastern Europe Central Asia & Caucasus 74 34 15% 61 6% 824 and Central Asia (ECA) Total ECA Region 478 319 100% 987 100% 2.065 Netherlands 16 14 400 25.140 European Union 376 300 8.528 22.654 Part 2

4/24/2002 1 4/24/2002 2

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA THE EU-ACCESSION COUNTRIES THE MARKET POTENTIAL IN EU-ACC. C.

Country Population (Mil) GNI The 10 EU-Accession countries Total Urban Urban (Bil $) (% of all) ($ per capita) EE Estonia 1,4 1,0 1% 5,1 1% 3.530 LV Latvia 2,4 1,6 2% 6,9 2% 2.870 •Poland •Slovakia LT Lithuania 3,6 2,5 4% 10,2 3% 2.750 PL Poland 38,6 25,5 38% 162,7 44% 4.210 •Estonia •Hungary CZ Czech Rep. 10,3 7,7 12% 53,9 15% 5.250 •Latvia •Slovenia SK Slovakia 5,4 3,0 5% 20 5% 3.700 HU Hungary 10,1 6,5 10% 41,2 11% 4.710 •Lithuania •Romania SI Slovenia 1,9 1,0 1% 20 5% 10.050 RO Romania 22,4 12,5 19% 37,4 10% 1.670 •Czech Republic •Bulgaria BG Bulgaria 7,7 5,4 8% 12,4 3% 1.520

Total EU-Accession C. 104 67 100% 370 100% 3.563

Total ECA Region 478 319 987 2.065 NL Netherlands 16 14 400 25.140 EU European Union 376 300 8.528 22.654

4/24/2002 3 4/24/2002 4 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA MARKET ENTRY COSTS THE SPECIAL DRIVER: EC-ISPA

ISPA-Instrument for Structural Policy for Pre-Accession Market Entry Cost Very High o Based on EC regulation; 2000-2006; € 7 billion ¾ e.g. Baltic countries considered “too small” o To reduce cost of compliance with EU regulations ¾ Go for the capital city o € 500 mil/a each for environment & transport; fixed ¾ Project development cost > $ 300 000 (inelastic) o Water, wastewater, solid waste, air pollution ¾Cities < 100 000 people “no chance” (also ISPA) ¾ o Grant, max. 75% (85%) of accepted project cost; Packaging (too many voices and signatures) practically 60% o Co-financing by IFIs and national budget o Rules under preparation for ISPA financing with PS involvement 4/24/2002 5 4/24/2002 6

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PSP IN EU-ACCESSION COUNTRIES EC-ISPA ALLOCATIONS 2000/01 MERGING OF GRANTS WITH PS-MONEY

No. Env.Budgets (Mil.€) Country Projects 2000 2001 ¾ Advantages: 5 104 107 10% Bulgaria ¾High leverage effect 670676%Czech Republic ¾Affordable tariff (water bill) levels 928303%Estonia 15 88 91 8% Hungary ¾ Conditions: 847485%Latvia ¾Grant element to be known before bidding 9 52 50 5% Lithuania process 21 307 407 34% Poland ¾Consumers(!) have to benefit 14 239 246 23% Romania ¾ Bidding process to be: 742484%Slovakia ¾Transparent 620162%Slovenia ¾Competitive 100 997 1.109 100% Total ¾Equal 4/24/2002 7 4/24/2002 8 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PSP IN EU-ACCESSION COUNTRIES PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA CZECH REPUBLIC POSSIBLE PSP ORGANISATION MODEL

Most advanced PS involvement in ECA-region IFI Public Company Capital ™1992 Act of Municipalities (authority transfer) ~ 80%publ. ~20% priv. investments ™ strong central government PSP policy Concession contract ™ 795 utilities, but 114 supply 96% of population Commercial ™ > 15 operations with PSP (grouping of utilities) (local) banks Operator Company O&M, small ™ no clear tariff evolvement perspective (cost+fee) Shareholder > 50% private investments ™ rather high acquisition of assets, majority share in loans operating company Revenues

4/24/2002 9 4/24/2002 10

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PSP IN EU-ACCESSION COUNTRIES POLAND FLAG SHIP PROJECTS

Moderate pace in PS involvement ™ Transparently negotiated contract (exceptional) ¾ 1990 transfer of responsibility to municipalities + Permit “flag ship models” (Elbasan, AL) ¾ Significant interest in PSP in early 1990-ies + Which have high multiplier effect ¾ Reserved support and PS policy by central. g. + Reduce bidding cost ¾ first PS project brought clearly visible service + Raise PS reputation improvements + PS “will go further” ¾ were perceptions right? “we still have to invest” + capacity building on recipient side (contract ¾ flag ship effect preparation and negotiation) ¾ “copy” by local management with IFI finance - equal, open, transparent competition

4/24/2002 11 4/24/2002 12 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA BULGARIA MARKET POTENTIAL IN CEE EXC. EU-ACC.C.

Region Population (Mil) GNI Slow Total Urban Urban (Bil $) ($ per capita) CEE-excl. EU-Accession Countries ¾ 1995 / 1997 / 1998 (cc) concession law (revisions) Albania 3,5 1,4 41% 3,8 1% 1.120 ¾ only 1 concession contract (Sofia), Belarus 10,4 7,3 71% 28,7 5% 2.870 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3,9 1,7 43% 4,9 1% 1.260 although 9 cities > 100 000 inhabitants Croatia 4,3 2,5 58% 21,2 3% 4.840 FYR of Macedonia 2,0 1,3 62% 3,3 1% 1.630 ¾ multi government level responsibility: 51% central Moldova 4,4 2,0 46% 1,4 0% 400 government, 49% local government shares of Russian Federation 145,5 113,5 78% 241,6 39% 1.660 Turkey 66,5 49,9 75% 201,1 33% 3.080 utilities Ukraine 48,8 33,2 68% 39,3 6% 790 Yugoslavia 10,7 5,5 52% 10,5 2% 990 All CEE excl. EU-Accession 300 218 73% 556 1.853 ™ with whom to talk? Netherlands 16 14 400 25.140 European Union 376 300 8.528 22.654

4/24/2002 13 4/24/2002 14

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PSP IN EU-ACCESSION COUNTRIES MARKET POTENTIAL IN C. ASIA & CAUCASUS RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Region Population (Mil) GNI Total Urban Urban (Bil $) ($ per capita) Serious legal problem regarding PSP Central Asia and Caucasus Armenia 3,3 2,3 70% 20% 520 ™ respective law exists, but no implementing decree Azerbaijan 7,8 4,4 57% 5,1 1% 630 Georgia 5,0 3,0 61% 3,3 1% 610 ™ currently PSP impossible except management Kazakhstan 16,7 9,4 56% 18,8 3% 1.260 contract and BOT (see St. Petersburg WWTP) Kyrgyz Republic 4,8 1,6 33% 1,3 0% 270 Tajikistan 6,6 1,8 28% 1,1 0% 170 ™ Water / Wastewater Laboratory joint venture with Turkmenistan 4,6 2,1 45% 41% 840 Uzbekistan 25,2 9,3 37% 25,3 4% 620 Movodokanal (Moskow) Central Asia & Caucasus 74 34 46% 61 824 ™ despite of country size only ~ 20 projects named, Netherlands 16 14 400 25.140 ~ 7 PSP projects European Union 376 300 8.528 22.654

4/24/2002 15 4/24/2002 16 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PSP IN EU-ACCESSION COUNTRIES PSP IN EU-ACCESSION COUNTRIES KAZAKHSTAN UKRAINE

™1993 responsibility for water services decentralised ™ Significant opposition to PSP (also management ™1998 law on monopolies provides general regulatory and lease contracts) framework for infrastructure sector, but leaves full ™ Insufficient reforms by central government cost-recovery tariffs to specific sectoral legislation ™ None-payment of water bills by large state ™ transparency of application of laws is weak companies ™ Omnipresent bureaucracy, overregulation ™ ~ 5 projects named, 2 PSP projects negotiated / ™ stifling tax and customs structures under preparation ™ but consumers ready to pay more for better service ™ new (reform) government

4/24/2002 17 4/24/2002 18

OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN ECA WHAT IS THE DRIVER ROLE OF IFIS/DONORS (1)

Drivers for municipalities / utilities ¾ Neutral advisor to municipalities / utilities ¾ Crumbling infrastructure ¾ in PSP conception ¾ Poor supply/disposal ¾ ¾ Signal from central government, “no finance” in negotiations with PS ¾ Major´s thinking is in election terms ¾ development of tariff perspective (at central ¾ Infrastructure terms are 25 – 50 a and local government levels) ¾ PSP only called when “no way out” assets are ¾ “dressing-up the bride” completely run down (too late) ¾ Private Sector proposals ¾IFI / Donors catalytic role, “enabling work”

4/24/2002 19 4/24/2002 20 OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK OECD/OCDE THE WORLD BANK PSP IN EU-ACCESSION COUNTRIES PSP IN EU-ACCESSION COUNTRIES ROLE OF IFIS/DONORS (2) ROLE OF IFIS/DONORS (3)

¾Reduce bidding cost – ¾ Prepare Standard Contracts (Modules) ¾To be able to go below “400,000 people” tenders ¾ e.g. like FIDIC (Federation Internationale des Ingenieurs-Conseils) ¾To enable PSP in smaller cities (without extensive packaging) ¾ Application of European law ¾To enable more operators market access + Reduces bidding & transaction costs ¾ Compensation of (best) bidders + Permits preparation of recipient agency for PSP + More equal chances for bidders ¾ Standard procedures (bidding & contracts) + Improved contract quality ¾ Phased project implementation (management contract ⇒ concession contract) ™ a good contract has to outlive crises (a long term ¾ Reduce transaction cost must) ¾ Procedures to merge PS money with grants / concessional finance (affordable water bills) 4/24/2002 21 4/24/2002 22 POSCH & PARTNERS THE WORLD BANK / OECD CONSULTING ENGINEERS PSP IN MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICES INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA IN THE ECA REGION

4.5.3 Discussion 5

1) There are 3 groups of country based on the questionnaire presentation: i. countries where things work out; (corresponds to approximately the ISPA countries); ii. countries where things are changing from worse to less worse conditions; (corresponds to approximately CEEC); iii. countries where no PS is present (corresponds to approximately the STAN- countries). 2) Why does this happen? What are the reasons for country groupings? IFIs /donors need feedback on individual countries in particular where operators see an important role for IFI/donors. This question will be raised during next the conference (Kiev 2003) to see whether there is a political will to do more funding in the ECA region. Apparently some donors will focus more, in the future, on Africa. 3) A donor confirms the opinion that there is a clear focus on African countries. The STAN countries do not feature on its list of poor countries. 4) EC is putting together an initiative in the water sector and focuses within this initiative, not only on water issues, but also on health-related issues that also include the ECA region. 5) But the STAN and NIS countries will not be on the international agenda from the EC´s perspective. 6) Cost related transactions need political will; there is significantly more response in Africa than in ECA region, suggesting Africa has undergone an ideological change towards PSP, which is not evident in the STAN countries. 7) There are countries which do not appear on the operators’ focus lists because there is competition for operators’ resources and they do deals elsewhere. Operators do not just look at, for example, STAN countries; they are too far down on their lists. If they start appearing on their lists, because there are more deals available and corruption is reduced, they will move in there. 8) The ECA region is composed of former communist countries where privatisation and PSP are only recently becoming accepted. The ECA region did not realize that their standards were so low, in contrast to what they have been being told for decades. And many people still do not accept a comparison with African conditions. 9) It is still unclear how a proper phasing of PSP should look. In a first phase, management and lease contracts are applied, followed by concession contracts – is the idea. But there is no real experience in such phasing so far. 10) Again the issue of some sort of standard contract, or at least standard clauses in the contract, is raised. This should increase the speed of transaction and lead to reduced costs. Further, such a standard would contribute to a greater transparency in the transaction process and a more diversified competition on the bidder’s side. 11) Municipalities and the consumers have to understand the transaction, and that it needs a lot of time. It is also necessary to nurture political support and thus gain sustainability. A successful transaction has a positive demonstration effect in the country. 12) IFI/donors have not yet supported secondary cities in terms of PSP, and this should change.

91 POSCH & PARTNERS THE WORLD BANK / OECD CONSULTING ENGINEERS PSP IN MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICES INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA IN THE ECA REGION

13) There is a general need for better and more intensive co-operation between all parties. IFIs should give more advice and enter more in the role of mediator during transaction. Pure observation status is not enough for many operators. 14) All operators suffer when a PSP operation fails. This creates an environment in which the municipalities might revert back to a public approach. The result of a transaction / PSP has to be essentially a win-win situation. 15) Some operators believe that the EC can kill deals due to its dogmatic approach on specific issues in PSP, and this creates the feeling that the EC might consider PSP as a step backwards. 16) Operators cannot take too many risks in several deals at the same time. They think that from the initial 28 ECA countries some 4 - 5 will offer interesting deals, as was shown recently in South America; when starting with 13 countries, only 3 were left. 17) There is a clear shortage in funding of transaction preparation, although there are Project Preparation Facilities and PIAFF. Transaction cost is an issue and affects the quality of bid. 18) IFIs approach PSP differently. EBRD and EIB go directly to the municipalities, where the deal is actually done, while World Bank lending needs a guarantee from the sovereign governments. However, day to day work takes place at municipality level and sometimes they do not feel responsible as owners of the assets. Mostly, it is the engineers who run the utilities and often they do not want advice on technical matters. It is evident that they need more management experience. 19) The World Bank recently started to work on a facility to be able to lend funds directly to municipalities. 20) Public financing comes at a cost. In Africa the municipalities do not want this debt on their balance sheet, because this is an opportunity cost. It reduces the amount of other debts they have on their balance sheet; the larger debt reduces their credit strengths to do other projects that may not have IFI/donor support. It seems that what African countries want is limited recourse financing to project companies.

92 POSCH & PARTNERS THE WORLD BANK / OECD CONSULTING ENGINEERS PSP IN MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICES INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA IN THE ECA REGION

4.6 BREAK-UP INTO WORKING GROUPS

4.6.1 Working Group 1: Ways to Improve Project Design and the Bid Process

Session Leader: Mr Klaus Giehr, KfW; Rapporteur: Mr Palle Lindgard-Jorgensen, DEPA Denmark

4.6.2 Working Group 2: Methods and Tools to Lever Additional Private Finance

Session Leader: Mr Jose Frade, EIB; Rapporteur: Mr Jan Janssens, The World Bank

4.6.3 Working Group 3: Tools to Mitigate Risks

Session Leaders: Mr Benoit Loutrel, IFC and Chris Shugart, EBRD Rapporteur: Mr Dharman Suryanarayanan, Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry, France

4.6.4 Working Group 4: What are Key Regulatory Reforms and Improvements Needed to Attract Increased Financial Flows into the Water Sector

Session Leaders: Mr Patrick Mousnier-Lompre, Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Housing, France Rapporteur: Mr Peter Borkey, OECD

4.7 PROPOSALS FOR FOLLOW-UP

(by Mr Motoo Konishi; The World Bank)

93 ISSUES ISSUES – Cont..d

• Municipal commitment/capacity • Quality and availability of all • Realistic/achievable targets in background information contracts • Total Transaction Cost • Institutional/Stakeholder capacity • Role of poor/pro-poor • Realistic time scale for project preparation and bidding

RECOMMENDATIONS – RECOMMENDATIONS Cont.. • Increase bid preparation and bidding • Standardized/harmonized formats of time bidding documents • Contract requirements to reflect more • Qualified transaction advisers appropriately the needs (staff (adequate funding) qualifications, performance targets) • Protect against underbidding (more • Improve communication during the emphasis on quality) bidding process Break-Out Session 2 Break-Out Session 2 Methods and Tools to Lever Additional Private Finance Methods and Tools to Lever Additional Private Finance

1. Points of Agreements and Issues Discussed 1. Points of Agreements and Issues Discussed • What are main drivers for PSP: (i) management efficiency, • Municipality is often not financially viable and trustworthy and (ii) attracting private finance. to local commercial banks, why should they be to the • What is in fact ‘private finance’ and what is driving the international PS ? private finance needs ? – contributing to poverty alleviation • PS and donors/IFIs/Grant Funds should not work in and reaching MDGs confrontation with each other. • The longer the PS will be involved, the more he will be • Need for a communication strategy on the why and the how willing to invest. of private finance. • The lack of private finance is not a main constraint for WSS • Need for a correct allocation of risk, in particular the sector development but the lack of efficiency which creates management of the Foreign Exchange Risk. an affordability gap; ‘good’ projects are lacking.

1 2

Break-Out Session 2 Break-Out Session 2 Methods and Tools to Lever Additional Private Finance Methods and Tools to Lever Additional Private Finance

1. Points of Agreements and Issues Discussed 2. Points of Disagreement • Use of private and public finance for appropriate applications: – Private finance mainly for revenue earning investments, • None e.g. water supply; – Public finance for appropriate categories of assets, e.g. with long lifecycle (f.i. transmission mains) - often mismatch between economic life of assets and term of debt financing available

3 4 Break-Out Session 2 Methods and Tools to Lever Additional Private Finance 3. Conclusions and Recommendations • Often the municipalities have not the appropriate institutional framework for allowing private sector finance. • Interesting experience (e.g. Morocco, Poland): borrow from local commercial banks in local currency at medium term (e.g. 7 to 12 years) and involve IFI (e.g. IFC) to extend the maturity of the loan; • New tools to facilitate private finance: Output-based Aid (OBA) and Partial Risk Guarantee (PRG) (to guarantee debt service for specific periods) • Possible tool to be explored: Partial Credit Guarantee to cover risk of failure in refinancing balloon payment a loan maturity

5 Gr 3 : Tools to mitigate risk

• Financial risks (esp forex): – Doable solutions exist for local financing or refinancing (mix local w/ IFI instruments, contingent loan) : but not used because of cost and lack of reward for using them – Additional cost (though affordable), but also additional benefit for end users –Rcd1:award process and contract structures should include incentives/reward to mitigate financial risks – Rcd 2 : hence more prior consultation w/ financiers & risk mitigators

Gr 3 : Tools to mitigate risk

• Political risks : – Issue for equity investor – Breach of contract : lack of claim history, hence some nervousness in ability to recover claims • By the way, one-window stop would be useful • Points of agreement (group 4) – Need for a central agency to provide information function – Benchmarking of utilities – Advisory function – Quality of water and effluent – Minimum level of central regulation • Points of disagreement – Role of a central regulator on tariff setting – Potential for economies of scale for regulation at central level

Recommendations and conclusions • Govtl level where tariff setting essentially political decision • Establishment of a central regulator or agency takes time – before able to assume full role • Phased approach, starting with monitoring of public operators prior to PSP • Need for central regulator less important in initial phase with MCs Proposal for Follow-Up Proposal for Follow-Up

Recording of the Results: Dissemination and Consultation I • Prepare a report on the outcome of the • Invite clients and NGOs and have a real debate on meeting consisting of three parts: (a) the use of PSP (need to select a focus countries) lessons learned from the case studies • Prepare a brief country report for selected set of presented; (b) recommendations on four countries and organize a forum to have consultation with clients (national and local topics; (c) “market” study carried out by governments) – Posch to prepare country reports Posch and Partners. and OECD to organize

Proposal for Follow-Up Proposal for Follow-Up

Dissemination and Consultation II Ways to Improve PSP – Technical Issues 1 • OECD Dissemination – to EAP Task Force Ways to improve project design and bid (Environmental Action Program for Central and process Eastern Europe – coordinated by OECD) September Workshop on models of utility reform • No problem with implementing the recommendation • OECD Dissemination – integration of key results • Will benchmark our on-going operation into the reports for the Environment f or Europe • Explore Output Based Aid in selected Conference in Kiev, May 2003 countries Proposal for Follow-Up Proposal for Follow-Up

Ways to Improve PSP – Technical Issues 2 Ways to Improve PSP – Technical Issues 3 Methods and Tools to Lever Additional Tools to Mitigate Risks Private Finance • Experiment with Partial Risk Guarantee • Misconception also exists in the Bank and covering financial and political risk need to be tackled (Jan Janssens) • One-window stop – • Two projects - Output Based Aid • Partial Risk Guarantee seminar

Proposal for Follow-Up Proposal for Follow-Up

Ways to Improve PSP – Technical Issues 4 Way to Improve PSP–Market Development Regulatory Reforms Needed to Attract Further Financial Flows • Bank Program (2002-2005) – 1.2 billion; 22 • Agree in principle with the recommendations projects; half of them PSP but we will need to adjust our approach depending on the maturity of the client’s legal framework • Must be cultural and process sensitive – must evolve Proposal for Follow-Up Proposal for Follow-Up

A Reunion a year from now? Can a bilateral or another IFI sponsor? Private Operator should be more aggressive in Focus on some topics: asking the IFIs and donors to help them • Approach to small and medium size cities open markets, improving legal and • Municipality involved/invite the client regulatory framework and provide financing • Task manager input Prepare for Johannesburg (with Private Operator POSCH & PARTNERS THE WORLD BANK / OECD CONSULTING ENGINEERS PSP IN MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICES INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA IN THE ECA REGION

5 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

5.1 OPERATORS

ACEA Group - LaboratoRI Roberto Zocchi, Chief Executive Officer Via Vitorchiano, 165 - 00189 Roma, Italy Tel +39 06 57 99 26 64 / 26 68, Fax: +39 06 57 99 26 29, E-mail: [email protected], Web-page: www.laboratorispa.it

AGUAS de BARCELONA Manuel Navarro, Director General, División Agua y Saneamiento, Diputació, 353, 2o, 08009 Barcelona, Spain, Tel: +34 93 247 9708, Fax: +34 93 245 0418, E-mail: [email protected]

Richard Onses, Project Manager, División Agua y Saneamiento, Diputació, 353, 2o, 08009 Barcelona, Spain, Tel: +34 93 247 9864, Fax: +34 93 245 0642, E-mail: [email protected]

AQUAMUNDO Joachim Richter, Managing Director, AquaMundo GmbH, Richard-Wagner- Str. 75, D-68165 Mannheim, Germany Tel.: +49 (0) 621- 40069-330, Fax: +49 (0) 621- 40069-333, E-mail: [email protected]

Véronique bey Czachary, Business Development, AquaMundo GmbH, Richard-Wagner-Str. 75, D-68165 Mannheim, Germany Tel.: +49 (0) 621- 40069-345, Fax: +49 (0) 621- 40069-333, E-mail: [email protected] Web-page: www.aquamundo.com

BERLINWASSER Group Thomas Horvatin, Managing Director, Berlinwasser International GmbH, Neue Jüdenstrasse 2, D 10179 Berlin Tel: +49 30 81468-590/91, Fax: +49 30 81468-596 E-mail: [email protected]

Volkmar Mueller, Executive Director Finance, Berlinwasser International GmbH, Neue Jüdenstrasse 2, D 10179 Berlin Tel: +49 30 81468-563, Fax: +49 30 81468-519 E-mail: [email protected]

ENEL HYDRO Okko Ziegler, Engineering and Procurement Director, 00198 Roma, via G.B. Martini 7, Tél. +39 06 85 09 70 29, Fax +39 06 85 09 72 13, E-mail: [email protected]

Patrick Haillot, Project Finance Director, 00198 Roma, via G.B. Martini 7, Tél. +39 06 85 09 76 08, Fax +39 06 85 09 72 13 E-mail : [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL WATER Scott Derby, Project Finance Manager, New Zealand House, 80 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4TE, United Kingdom, Tel: +44(0) 207766 5153, Fax +44(0)20 7766 5180, Mobile +44(0)7768 603253. E-mail: [email protected], Web-page: www.inwat.com

102 POSCH & PARTNERS THE WORLD BANK / OECD CONSULTING ENGINEERS PSP IN MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICES INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA IN THE ECA REGION

ONDEO Patrick Babin, Director Europe Asia E-mail: [email protected]

Jacques Letondot, Managing Director Central Europe & Central Asia, Tel +33 1 58 18 52 98, E-mail: [email protected]

Eric Moreau, SUEZ IFI Representative Office, 1819 H Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington D.C. 20006, USA Tel: +1 202 293 8836, Fax +1 202 223 8437 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

SAUR INTERNATIONAL Pierre-Louis Petrique, Director General, Development Challenger, 1 av. Eugène Freyssinet, 78064 St-Quentin-Yvelines Cedex, France, Tel. +33 1 30 60 28 21, Fax +33 1 30 60 56 63 E-mail : [email protected]

Brieuc Le Bigre, Representative, 1901 L Street, NW, Sixth Floor, Washington D.C. 20036, Tel. +1 202 659 1525, Fax. +1 202 659 6590, E- mail : [email protected]

SEVERN TRENT Mariana Iteva, Business Development Executive, Severn Trent Water International Ltd., 2308 Coventry Road, Birmingham B26 3JZ, United Kingdom, Tel. +44 121 722 6127 Fax. +44 121 722 6138, Mobile +44 779 8813394, E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] Web-page: www.stwaterinternational.com

Lloyd Martin, Regional Manager for CEE & NIS, Severn Trent Water International Ltd., 2308 Coventry Road, Birmingham B26 3JZ, United Kingdom, Tel. +44 121 722 6126 Fax. +44 121 722 6138, Mobile +44 7785 232705, E-mail: [email protected] Web-page: www.stwaterinternational.com

THAMES WATER Steve Baseby, Tresory Department, Thames Water, Third East Clearwater Court, Vastern Road, Reading Berkshire RG1 8DB, Tel: +44 (0)118 373 8150, Fax: +44 (0)118 373 8199, Mobile: +44 (0)7747 641286, E-mail: [email protected]

Tony Clamp, Head of Project Finance, Thames Water, Third East Clearwater Court, Vastern Road, Reading Berkshire RG1 8DB, Tel: +44 118 373 8385, Mobile: +44 7747 641922, Fax: +44 118 373 8976, E-mail: [email protected] Web-page: www.thames-water.com

VA TECH WABAG GmbH Gerald Leopold, Vice President Operations Siemensstrasse 89, A-1211 Vienna, Austria Tel. +43 1 25105 4278, Fax: +43 1 25105 233 Mobile: +43 664 615 0402 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Web-page: www.vatechwabag.com

103 POSCH & PARTNERS THE WORLD BANK / OECD CONSULTING ENGINEERS PSP IN MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICES INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA IN THE ECA REGION

VIVENDI ENVIRONNEMENT Bernard Poignant, Financements Internationaux, Vivendi Environnement, 52 rue d'Anjou, 75384 Paris Cedex 08, Tel: +33 1 71 75 01 52, Fax +33 1 71 75 10 29, Mobile: +33 6 12 29 20 26 E-mail: [email protected]

VIVENDI WATER Jean-Patrice Poirier, Director for South-Eastern Europe & Central Asia, 52 rue d'Anjou, 75384 Paris Cedex 08, Tel: +33 1 49 24 33 53, Fax +33 1 49 24 61 10, Mobile: +33 6 09019678 E-mail: [email protected]

Blaise Garin, Project Manager Europe, 52 rue d'Anjou, 75384 Paris Cedex 08, Tel +33 1 49 24 39 53, Fax + 33 1 49 24 61 10 E-mail : [email protected]

5.2 IFIS, DONORS INSTITUTIONS

Alexander Astvatsatryan World Bank - Armenia, Republic Sq. 9 V. Sargsyan Str., Yerevan, Energy/Municipal Projects Armenia, Tel No. +374 1 560 346, Fax: +374 1 521787 Procurement Officer E-mail: [email protected] Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Andreas Rohde World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Sr. Sanitary Engineer Tel No. +1 202 473 6672 Infrastructure and Energy E-Mail: [email protected] Sector Unit, ECA Region Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Brian Smith World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Sr. Financial Analyst, Infrastructure Tel No. +1 202 473 2656, Fax: +1 202 477 1386 and EnergySector Unit, ECA E-mail: [email protected] Region Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Claudio Purificato World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Consultant Tel No. +1 202 473-1839, Fax. +1 202 614 1103 Infrastructure Unit, ECA Region E-mail [email protected] Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Doncho Barbalov World Bank - Bulgaria, INTERPRED/World Trade Center, 36, Dragan Operations Officer Tsankov Blvd., 1040 Sofia, Bulgaria, Energy and Infrastructure Officer Tel No. +359 2 918 14 226, Fax.: +359 2 971 2045 Infrastructure and Energy E-mail [email protected] Sector Unit, ECA Region Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Gailius Draugelis World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Operations Officer, Infrastructure Tel No. +1 202 458-7527, Fax. +1 202 614 0901 and Energy Department, ECA E-mail. [email protected] Region Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Jamal Saghir World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Director Energy and Water Tel No.+1 202 473-2789 E-mail. [email protected] Web-page: www.worldbank.org

104 POSCH & PARTNERS THE WORLD BANK / OECD CONSULTING ENGINEERS PSP IN MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICES INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA IN THE ECA REGION

Jan Janssens World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Lead Specialist, Water Supply and Tel No. +1 202 458-7247 Sanitation E-mail. [email protected] Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Jean Jacques Soulacroup World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Urban Management Specialist, Tel No. +1 202 458-5578, Fax. +1 202 614 0901 Infrastructure Sector Unit E-mail. [email protected] Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Jonathan Kamkwalala World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Lead Financial Analyst Tel No. +1 202 458-2556 Infrastructure and Energy E-mail. [email protected] Sector Unit, ECA Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Kari Homanen World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Sr. Water and Sanitation Specialist, Tel No. +1 202 458-9063, Fax. +1 202 614 0902 Infrastructure and Energy E-mail. [email protected] Department, ECA Region Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Kishore Nadkarni World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Sr. Financial Analyst, Infrastructure Tel No. +1 202 473 2698, Fax. +1 202 614 0902 and Energy Services Department, E-mail. [email protected] ECA Region Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Manuel Marino World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Principal Environmental Specialist Tel No. +1 202 473-6692 Infrastructure and Energy Sector E-mail. [email protected] Unit, ECA Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Marie Marguerite Bourbigot World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Sr Water and Sanitation Specialist Tel No. +1 202 458-8003 Infrastructure and Energy Sector E-mail. [email protected] Unit, ECA Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Motoo Konishi World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Sector Manager, Infrastructure and Tel No.+1 202 473-4278 Energy Department, ECA E-mail. [email protected] Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Rinat Iskhakov World Bank - Uzbekistan, 43, Academician Suleymanova Str, Tashkent, Operations Analyst Uzbekistan, Tel: + 998 71 139 4988 / 120 6214, Infrastructure and Energy Sector Fax. +998 71 120 6215 / 133 0551 Unit, ECA [email protected] Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Salmar Zaheer World Bank - Water and Sanitation Program South Asia Lead Utilities Specialist 55 Lodi Estate, P.O. Box 416, New Delhi - 110 003, India Water and Sanitation Program Tel No. + 91 11 469 0488 / 89, Fax + 91 11 462 8250 Department E-mail [email protected] South Asia Web-page: www.wsp.org

Sanyu Lutalo World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Operations Analyst Tel No 473-8623 Infrastructure and Energy Sector E-mail. [email protected] Unit, ECA Web-page: www.worldbank.org

105 POSCH & PARTNERS THE WORLD BANK / OECD CONSULTING ENGINEERS PSP IN MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICES INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA IN THE ECA REGION

Sudipto Sarkar World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Senior Operations Officer Tel No. +1 202 473-6661 Infrastructure and Energy Sector E-mail. [email protected] Unit, ECA Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Takao Ikegami World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. 20433 U.S.A. Sr. Sanitary Engineer, Infrastructure Tel No +1 202 473-2334, Fax.+1 202 614 0902 and Energy Sector Unit, ECA E-mail. [email protected] Region Web-page: www.worldbank.org

Aki Yamaguchi OECD, 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris, France, Urban Water Sector Reform Team, Tel.: +33 1 45 24 19 14, Fax: +33 1 45 24 96 71, Non-Member Countries Branch E-mail: [email protected]

Alexander Danilenko OECD, 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris, France, Urban Water Sector Reform Team, Tel.: +33 1 45 24 13 84, Fax: +33 1 45 24 96 71 Non-Member Countries Branch E-mail: [email protected]

Brendan Gillespie OECD, 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris, France, Finance Team, Non-Member Tel.: +33 1 45 24 93 02, Fax: +33 1 45 24 96 71 Countries Branch E-mail: [email protected]

Olga Savran OECD, 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris, France, Urban Water Sector Reform Team, Tel.: +33 1 45 24 13 81, Fax: +33 1 45 24 96 71 Non-Member Countries Branch E-mail: [email protected]

Peter Borkey OECD, 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris, France, Business and Environment, Non- Tel: +33 1 45 24 13 85, Fax: +33 1 45 24 96 71, Member Countries Branch E-mail: [email protected]

Palle Lindgaard-Jorgensen DEPA - Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Strandgade 29, DK- Head of Division, DANCEE 1401 Copenhagen, Tel. +4532 660100, Fax. +4532 660479 E-mail: [email protected], Web-page: www.mst.dk

Rod Matthews DFID- Department for International Development, 1, Palace Str., London Divisional Engineering Adviser, SW1E 5HE, United Kingdom, Tel. +44 20 7023 0552, Fax. +44 20 7023 Eastern Europe and Western 1098, E-mail: [email protected] Hemisphere Division; Chair, Project Preparation Committee

Chris Shugart EBRD, 1 Exchange Sq., London EC2A 2JN, United Kingdom, Tel.:+44 20 Senior Banker, Municipal and 7338 7825, Fax: +44 20 7338 6964, Environmental Infrastructure E-mail: [email protected]

John Gibbs EBRD delegation, PricewaterhouseCoopers, 1 Embankment Place, Assistant Director, Corporate London WC2N 6RH, Tel. +44 20 7583 5000, 7212 3800, Finance and Recovery Fax. +44 20 7804 5455, E-mail: [email protected]

Simon Gordon-Walker EBRD delegation, WRC plc, Frankland Road, Blagrove, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN5 8YF, United Kingdom, Tel.: +44 1793 865 000, 865 061, Fax: +44 1793 865001, E-mail: [email protected]

José Tomás Frade EIB European Investment Bank, 100 blvd Konrad Adenauer, L-2950 Head of Water and Sewerage Luxembourg, Tel. +352 4379 2727, Fax. +352 4379 2860, Division, Projects Directorate E-mail: [email protected]

106 POSCH & PARTNERS THE WORLD BANK / OECD CONSULTING ENGINEERS PSP IN MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICES INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA IN THE ECA REGION

Andrey Delchev EUROLEX-Bulgaria Ltd., 1, 11 August Str. 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria, Tel./Fax: Managing Partner +3592 9884212, 9867940, E-mail: [email protected] Web-page: www.eurolexbg.com

Wilhelm Hantsch-Linhart FGG - Finanzierungsgarantie - Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, Head, Infrastructure Group Gasometer A, Guglgasse 6, 1110 Vienna, Austria, Tel. +43 1 50175 311, Fax. +43 1 50175 360, E-mail: [email protected], Web-page: www.fgg.at

Eero Kontula Finland, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, P.O. Box 176, Katajanokanlaituri 3, Adviser, Department for 00161 Helsinki, Finland, Tel.+358 9 1341 6106, Fax. +358 9 13416100, E- International Development mail: [email protected] Cooperation

Patrick Mousnier-Lompre France, Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Housing, Arche Sud, Chargé de Mission, Public Private 92055 La Défense, France, Tel. +331 4081 2773, Fax. +331 4081 2770, Partnerships, Economic and E-mail: [email protected] International Affairs Division

Dharman Suryanarayanan France, Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry, Teledoc 542, 139 rue Unit of Public Financing, Economic de Bercy, 75572 Paris Cedex 12, Tel. +331 5318 8298, and Trade Department Fax. +331 5318 9609, E-mail: [email protected]

Denis Levy France, Institut de la Gestion Déléguée, 84 rue de Grenelle, 75007 Paris, International Affairs Advisor France, Mobile +33 6 7388 6961, Fax. +33 1 4439 2707, E-mail: [email protected]

Benoit Loutrel IFC, Paris Office, 66 avenue d’Iena, 16th arr., Tel: +33 1 40 69 33 66, Fax +33 1 47 20 77 71, E.Mail: [email protected]

Denise Leonard IFC, Private Sector Advisory Services Tel: +1 202 473-5696/ 458-7533 Fax: +1 202 522-3462 E.Mail: [email protected]

Augusto Pretner Italy, SGI Spa - Societa Generale di Ingegneria, 35030 Sarmeola di Managing Director Rubano (Padova) Italy, Via della Provvidenza, 15, Tel. +39 049 8976844, Fax: +39 049 8976784, E-mail: [email protected]

Giovanna Agostinelli Italy, Ministry for the Environment and Territory of Italy, Tel. +39 06 57228119, Mobile: +39 338 4529559, Fax +39 06 57228180, E-mail: [email protected]

Annika Frank KfW, Palmengartenstr. 5-9, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Project Manager, Europe Tel. +49 69 7431 4327, Fax. +49 69 7431 3490, E-mail: [email protected]

Doris Koehn KfW, Palmengartenstr. 5-9, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany First Vice President for European Tel. +49 69 7431 2047 (2591 secretary), Fax. +49 69 7431 3490, Countries E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Klaus Gihr KfW, Palmengartenstr. 5-9, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Principal Economist, Sector Policy Tel. +49 69 7431 2581, Fax. +49 69 7431 3746, Department E-mail: [email protected]

107 POSCH & PARTNERS THE WORLD BANK / OECD CONSULTING ENGINEERS PSP IN MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICES INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA IN THE ECA REGION

Sara Brandt-Hansen MIGA, Special Assistant to Director, Europe, Tel: +33 1 40 69 32 78, Fax: +33 1 40 69 32 76, E-mail: [email protected]

Solveig Nordström NEFCO, Nordic Environment Finance Corporation, P.O. Box 249, FIN- Vice President 00171, Helsinki, Finland, Tel. +358 9 180 0342, Fax. +358 9 630 976, E- mail: [email protected]

Thomas Meyer Switzerland, State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), Programme Officer Effingerstrasse 1, CH-3003, Berne, Tel. +41 31 324 0793, Fax. +41 31 324 0965, E-mail: [email protected]

Robert Holländer University of Leipzig, Faculty of Economics, Marschnerstrasse 31, 04109 Professor, Environmental Leipzig, Germany, Tel. +49 341 9733 871, Technologies in Water Fax. +49 341 9733 879, E-mail: [email protected] Management Web-page: www.uni-leipzig.de

Friedrich Schwaiger Posch & Partners Consulting Engineers, A-6020 Innsbruck, Sebastian- Managing Director Kneipp-Weg 17, Tel +43-512-28 28 48, Fax +43-512-28 28 58, Email: [email protected] Web-page: www.pap.co.at

Simon Weyrer Posch & Partners Consulting Engineers, A-6020 Innsbruck, Sebastian- Kneipp-Weg 17, Tel +43-512-28 28 48, Fax +43-512-28 28 58, E-mail: [email protected] Web-page: www.pap.co.at

WB19534 P:\ARMENIA\INFRA\GENERAL\PSP-Conference write-up.doc June 5, 2002 10:25 AM

108