Development of Policy, Legal, and Insitutional Framework for - ppiaf

Development of Policy, Legal, & Institutional Framework for the PPP Program in Malawi
Final Report
expanding the
mandate of PC by
issuing new PPP
Regulations or a new
PPP Decree.
The PPP program
could be quickly
launched within an
existing legal entity.
Don’t enact PPP Act (4)
Operate a new PPP
program in MOF under
regulations to be issued
under PFMA. Selected
PC staff to MOF.
Don’t enact PPP Act (5)
Issue a Presidential
PPP Decree and
regulations under the
Decree for PPP
Transfer selected PC
staff to MOF.
setup, synergies between
deal flow and skill sets
between PPP and
privatization, time to
improve Privatisation Act
per
PwC
recommendations.
Creates a fresh new start
for PPP without baggage
of PC and divestment.
Principles of PPP
(affordability, risk
allocation, value for
money) are all principles
of public financial
management. PPP
program properly sits in
the ministry responsible
for and where decisions
are made regarding
public finance.
Direct evidence of
highest- level political
support for PPP program.
Relatively quick and easy
to achieve in comparison
with trying to pass a new
Act.
the privatization
program. PPP program
would not be seen as a
fresh start and could by
that perception be
deprived of political
support.
Despite the success of
this model in South
Africa, the PFMA in
Malawi might be less
appropriate for such an
approach. Local Gov’t
Act might add
complexity if it would
require duplicate set of
regulations, as was the
case in South Africa
thereby adding some
complexity.
A Decree does not
require the same level
of consensus building
as an Act, so
stakeholder buy-in
could be less than
adequate and the
Decree might be
ignored. Investor
concerns that if the
President changes,
Decree will not
continue in effect.
Executive Privatization
Commission.
South Africa, U.K.,
Ireland, Australia: PPP
Units in the Treasury
operating under
Treasury
PPP
Regulations.
Indonesia: National
PPP Unit operating
under terms of
Presidential Decree 67
of 2005, with Standards
and Guidelines
prepared by the Unit
for national & regional
government bodies, and
for the National Unit
itself, for developing
PPP projects.
Although the charts above display all the feasible options, the points for and against each
option are not covered by a comprehensive analysis. Such comprehensive analysis is provided
in the sections below, in which we first define the evaluation factors, then we assign a weight to
each of the factors, and then we use the weighted factor options analysis methodology to reduce
the total number of options to the best three.
The highest scoring three options, one from each category to ensure that we maintain coverage
in all three categories rather than skewing results by narrowing down to only one or two
categories, are then evaluated in detail to derive one preferred option. This option is then used
to derive some recommendations regarding next steps that will be required in order to
implement the preferred option.
THE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS 28