来自:中国PPP知行汇     发表于:2016-07-08 14:18:06     浏览:644次

作者:FelixVillalba-RomeroChampika Liyanage


The UK is a significant market for the delivery of largecapital investment projects through the use of PPPs. Due to currentmacro-economic issues in the UK; the government adopted a policy which utilisesthe PPP model in the creation of large scale infrastructure projects. This isan aid to driving economic growth and connecting industry efficiently, in orderto wider global economic markets, particularly directed to the expansion of theroad networks. Within a reduced spending policy of thegovernment, the involvement of the private sector and alternative financialinstitutions is now regarded as the only real alternative. Thebenefits of creating PPPs (Spackman, 2002) has been acknowledged as lower costsin projects than if carried out wholly by the private sector;and a higher rate of qualitythan if the project was wholly operated by the public sector (Mozoro andGasiorowski, 2008; Rangel and Galende, 2010).Historically, the investmentvehicles employed in a significant number of road infrastructure projects havebeen wholly financed without recourse to public funds. ThePublic partner pays for the service provided by the private sector partner,thus, creating a market which the private sector may find attractive forlong-term investment.The return of the investment on such projects in termsof revenue streams and payment structures have altered due to political andsocial pressures during the last 20 years.


The evolution of design, build, finance and operate(DBFO) contracts for road infrastructure is reflected with the changing methodsof payment employed. Apayment criterion encourages the private sector to participate, however, thereare a number of issues which are critical to private sector participation andvalue to the public sector. A number of payment strategies are employed on PPProad projects including direct tolling, shadow tolling and also performancerelated payment systems. Shadow tolling refers to usage payment based on numberand type of vehicles using the road, made by the Government (usually HighwaysAgency for roads), whilst performance payment is based on theresults achieved in some performance measures (e.g. safety, reliability) inaccordance with targeted objectives. The adoption of direct tolling as paymentmethod associated with PPP roads may have a negative impact since users arereluctant to accept direct charges. In effect, taxation has been historicallyused for funding roads in the UK; and the general public’s understanding isthat the government has to provide and maintain free road network for thepublic interest. This tradition may adversely affect thepotential income that a project may generate and is needed as future revenue streamsin order to finance road projects. For this reason, there is often arisk of optimistic bias in demand estimates on the part of the public sponsor. Asa result, the cost to finance the project may become prohibitive.Notwithstanding these risks, one of the main benefits of using direct tollingis the avoidance of burden upon the public budgets, therefore, ensuring noimpact in government deficit, a result that is very appealing within thepolitical system.


Alternative payment models employed bypass these concernsof the public, as the payment is made by the government rather than by theuser, such as shadow tolling, and performance related techniques. However,shadow tolling reverses the effect of optimistic bias on the government and,therefore, there is a risk that payments may increase beyond anticipated levels,unless payments are capped to a maximum level. The private sector ismore content to operate within contracts that use shadow tolling because oflower traffic volatility and,therefore, higher revenue predictability.


Hybrid shadow tolling methods attempt to overcome thisrisk, incorporating performance criteria into the contract. This, in effect,incentivises the private sector to ensure the road is available and safe touse.There are penalties where there are failures in these key performancemeasures. Performance related payments benefit both the public and privatesectors, by incorporating it into the payment structure.This method of paymentstructure is a preferred option for many in the private sector and thoseinvolved in the financing of these projects. The risk profiles ofprojects using performance measures as payment are lower than those forprojects just as direct or shadow tolling translating into competitivestable interest costs. This though can also lead to apotential benefit to the private sector provider in the event of refinancing.


Refinancing often takes place after project completion,when there is a different risk profile, once design and construction risks areeliminated. This process usually generate a refinancing gain that may becalculated to compare the resulting net present value (NPV) after refinancingwith the original NPV at the initial financial close, which typically isreached after contract is granted in order to finance the required works.Refinancing gain should be shared with the public sector either through alump-sum payment, or by reducing the unitary charge for the users (HM Treasury–Infrastructure, 2002). The market may offer substantially improved ratesduring the restructuring of debt as the risks are reduced, which, in turn,enhances the profitability of the project for the private sector. This can leadto suggestions that the project does not represent VfM to the public finances,as the original agreed costs might have been inflated to incorporate overassumed risk factors (HM Treasury – Infrastructure, 2005).The assessmentwhether PPP projects are implemented well and generate VfM is assessed by theNational Audit Office (NAO) (2006) that follows a defined framework at anyphase of a PPP project’s lifecycle. HM Treasury holds responsibility forsetting PPP Policy for England, and this is devolved in Scotland, Wales andNorthern Ireland, following similar frameworks. For example, Transport Scotland(the Scottish national transport agency) who manages the provision andprocurement of roads in Scotland, seeks to deliver a safe, efficient,cost-effective and sustainable transport system for the benefit of the people.The value assessment of their projects is carried out following ScottishExecutive VfM Assessment Guidance in conjunction with the HM Treasury VfMGuidance (Scottish Futures Trust (SFT), 2011). Other importantprocurement feature, introduced by the Scottish Government, was the competitivedialogue (CD) procedure under the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulation in2006. CD is a procedure usually conducted in successive stages, whereby anInstitution is able to conduct dialogue with bidders directly with the aim ofdeveloping one or more suitable alternative solutions to meet its requirements.Hoezen et al. (2010, 2012) has extensively studied the CD contracting dynamics,forms, framework and processes applied in the Dutch highways, particularly fromthe Coen Tunnel project.


The financial crisis produced a credit crunch whichstrongly affected to privately financed infrastructure projects and roadprojects in particular, shortening the overall financing availability andincreasing the cost of financing.This had a special impact on the fundingarrangements worldwide considering the dependency of PPP funding from capitalmarkets (Regan et al., 2011). According to NAO (2010a), in the UK, interestrate margin increased from 0.79 per cent (2007 pre-crisis) up to 4.50 per cent(April 2009) and final interest cost from 5.9 per cent to up to 8.91 per cent.As a result, financing large projects such as construction of the Olympicsstadium in London was a big challenge. Within this, alternative financingoptions were considered and government plans to ensure lending included thecreation of the Infrastructure Finance Unit, with thepurpose of funding shortfalls in bank finance on privately financedinfrastructure projects.


It is hoped that the above changes will last long toimprove the operation of PPP/PFI schemes within the UK (HM Treasury, 2012).Alan Cook (Chair of the Highways Agency)highlights the need to be more strategic in the approach to financing anddelivering road infrastructure in the UK over a long period of time withimproved relationships with providers (Cook, 2011). The answer to the above wasintroduction of strategies by the government to look at “radical” alternativesto the financing of roads in the future (Transport, 2012).






联系邮箱:[email protected]