Public - Private Partnerships and Solid Waste Management Infrastructure
28
05/15/22 1 PPPs & SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE Antonis Mavropoulos, CEO EPEM SA
-
Upload
antonis-mavropoulos -
Category
Documents
-
view
109 -
download
3
description
The concpets of PPPs in Solid Waste Management are presented and discussed and the consequenses for the preparation and implementation of projects are addressed as well.
Transcript of Public - Private Partnerships and Solid Waste Management Infrastructure
04/08/23 1
PPPs & SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
INFRASTRUCTUREAntonis Mavropoulos, CEO EPEM SA
2
Presentation outline
1. The problem
2. Key factors affecting PPPs in SWM
3. Changes in project preparation (design, risks, feasibility)
4. Case study
5. Conclusions
3
The view
PPPs are long term relations - emphasis at results
Private sector income is linked with specific targets
Payback is gradual, year by year
SWM services have a public character
One option not a necessity
4
The problem
To deliver WM infrastructure To ensure the service for certain years To achieve specific recycling targets To interact with market conditions and
other uncertainties
5
Project cycle
6
PPP as a WM tool
7
Key factors
1. Major EU financial tool
2. SWM treatment requirements: Directive 99/31
Difficulties for countries depended on landfills
Lack of public funds
3. The nature of SWM treatment facilities (technologies, complexity, industry dependence)
8
4. The status of managing bodies
5. Increase in WM costs
6. Legal gaps and problems
7. Need for a new public role: from control of
procedures to control of the results
9
Key factors Effect
1. EU policy Positive
2. Availability of public money Positive
3. SWM treatment requirements Positive
4. SWM treatment facilities nature Positive
5. Managing bodies status Negative
6. Increase in WM costs Negative
7. Legal problems - gaps Negative
8. Public role Negative
10
SWM treatment needs (Greece)
1,95
1,3
1,1
1,9
2,7
0,9
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
2010
2013
2020
Max.BMW to landfilled (mt) Min. BMW to be diverted (mt)
11
A new approach to design
Check the overall feasibility Emphasis to results – not to technical
design Risk Distribution
12
Feasibility
Define the problem
Alternative funding
Affordability
What is the public input?
What is the added value of PPP;
13
Case Study: WMR
300,000 citizens 120,000 tons of mixed MSW Lignite mines and power plants -
Extensive lignite excavations Regional SL at old lignite mine Well established WMA
(DIADYMA S.A) First (and sole) Regional SL in Greece -20 y life expectancy
Separate Collection of Packaging Waste underway
DIADYMA S.A wishes to incorporate waste treatment – preferably a
simple and modular technology
WtE is favoured (energy easily marketable)
14
Project formulationDesign Built Operate Rehab.
9 Transfer stations
1 SW treatment unit
1 landfill
1 closure – rehab.
15
Technologies - results
3 million tons of waste 25 years Residue < 65% by weight Recycling: according EU targets MBT – RDF Anaerobic digestion
16
Cost barrier – landfill dependence
COUNTRY COST (€/TN)
AUSTRIA 50-150
BELGIUM 116
DENMARK 110
FINLAND 30-121
GERMANY 123
GREECE 8-35
IRELAND 120-240
ITALY 90-110
LUXEMBURG 50
NETHERLAND 58
PORTUGAL 26
SPAIN 12
SWEDEN 70-90
UK 21
COUNTRY COST (€/TN
17
WMR case
LANDFILL: 13 Euros/tn
TRANSFER ST.: 15 Euros/tn
GDP / capita: 13.500 Euros/y
18
Total expenses: 267 m. Euros25 YEARS EXPENSES
38,000,000.00
69,632,714.15
159,286,532.17
59.68%
26.09%
14.24%
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
140,000,000
160,000,000
180,000,000
INVESTMENT LANDFILL -TREATMENT
TRANSFER STATIONOPERATION
OPERATION LANDFILL -TREATMENT
EU
RO
S
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
% E
XP
EN
SE
S
0.89%
0.65%
1.67%
1.37%
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
1.20%
1.40%
1.60%
1.80%
ACHAIA WMR
% G
DP
/ C
AP
ITA
CURRENT % GDP PROJECTED % GDP
96
180
88
185
0
50
100
150
200
EU
RO
S/T
N
ACHAIA WMR
TOTAL WM COST EUROS/TN PROJECTED WM COST
19
Final modeling
WESTERN MACEDONIA PPP MODEL
0.00
2,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
6,000,000.00
8,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
12,000,000.00
14,000,000.00
16,000,000.00
YEARS
EU
RO
S
WMA INCOME (euro/year) AVAILABILITY PAYMENTS (euros/year)
GATE FEES COMPOSITION
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
WMR CONTRIBUTION GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION
20
Emphasis to results
21
22
Risk allocationRisk transfer and allocation
Risk
Public Private Shared
1.1 Cost and Timing of planning determination
1.2 Cost of compliance with planning conditions
2.1 Time and cost over-run
2.2 Remedy of defects
2.3 Site conditions
2.4 Compliance with technical specification
2.5 Variations (required by the Council after design fixed)
3.1 Obtaining the necessary licences and consents
3.2 Compliance with environmental regulations, and discharges to air, water and land
3.3 Compliance with and availability to perform service contract
3.4 Lifecycle replacement cost estimation and differential inflation
3.5 Operating cost estimation and differential inflation
4.1 Proposed facilities (or service provider revisions)
4.2 Benefits from pursuing alternative technology on agreement with the Council
23
EU funds and PPP: why EU funds?
24
Why PPP?
25
The concept
26
Key issues for success
• Build local capacity to develop technical specifications and to tender competitively.
• Create a level playing field by means of a regulatory framework.
• Specify worker safety and environmental requirements.
• Provide mechanisms to assure flow control.
• Define sanctions and enforcement mechanisms that discourage non-performance.
27
• Prepare for agreements that are long enough to allow full depreciation of investment.
• Prepare agreements that are large enough in scope to allow economies of scale.
• Include price indexing to allow adequate cash flow and continuous profitability.
• Include public consensus in all key decisions.
28
• Quantify outputs to enable comparative performance monitoring.
• Enlist public cooperation.
• License and control all private sector involvement.
• Monitor performance to compare service providers.
