Presentation by Jože Jenšterle, General manager of IASLIM Moving Europe - Moving People conference in Ljubljana, 15.11.2016 More info: http://bit.ly/2gngYt0

1. 1Final Review Meeting
Public-private partnerships
opportunities in sport, leisure
and infrastructure
Jože Jenšterle
General manager of IASLIM
Active Voice Conference
Ljubljana, 15 November 2016
MovePlaySportIndustry ©

2. 2Final Review Meeting
• What is PPP?
• Definitions
• System
• Motives
• Impacts
• Main characteristics, objectives and advantages
• Best practices?

3. 3Final Review Meeting
Public-private partnerships is a long-term, contractually
regulated cooperation between the public and private
sector for the efficient fulfilment of public tasks in
combining the necessary resources (e.g. knowhow,
organizational, program, human, technological or financial
sources, operational funds, capital, personnel) of the
partners and distributing existing project risks
appropriately according to the risk management
competence of the project partners. (BMVBW, 2003)

4. 4Final Review Meeting
• Great variety of definitions for PPP worldwide.
• The contents and objectives may vary according to the
country specific background and the specific
interests of the individual author.
• The definitions of PPP are very ambiguous.
• In some cases, the term public-private partnership
describes a wide range of arrangements whereby
government responsibilities are outsourced to
commercial partners, and risks aer shared between
the public and private sectors to bring about desired
outcomes in areas associated with public policy.

5. 5Final Review Meeting
• Development of infrastructure projects with
private capital through Public Private Partnership (PPP)
route has become one of the commonly adopted
procurement strategies in developed and
developing countries.
• All over the world where PPP procurement has been
used in one form or another.
• PPPs is important system in the delivery of public
infrastructure and services across the world.

6. 6Final Review Meeting
• There is no standard method of PPP implementation.
• Each country has its own system as appropriate for
its own culture, economy, political climate and legal
system.
• Partners must have a common understanding of the
principles, processes and structures of PPP and an
appreciation of the key issues from the standpoints
of the private as well as the public sectors.

7. 7Final Review Meeting
The major motives for PPPs are macroeconomic or
budgetary, especially in Germany, France, Slovenia and
Austria, but also microeconomic or improving the
efficiency of public service delivery, especially in the
UK, The Netherlands and Switzerland.

8. 8Final Review Meeting
• Does PPPs genuine and sustainable increases efficiency
and effectiveness compared to the alternatives?
• Will PPPs have a positive impact on future public
resource availability?
• Will PPPs provide short-term financial and political
benefits, but at the cost of constraining future decision
makers and placing greater pressures on public finances
in the longer-term?

9. 9Final Review Meeting
• Efficiency gains through appropriate sharing of risks
and responsibilities; the public sector retains mainly
sovereign tasks and the private bears those for
implementation.
• Lifecycle and private investment as crucial
elements of PPP’s incentive structures.
• Long term contractual relationship.
• Innovation, in particular through output
specification, service levels and payment mechanisms,
as a new way of describing the services to be
supplied..

10. 10Final Review Meeting
One of the major objectives of PPP is to transfer tasks
and responsibility for the provision of infrastructure to
the private sector, in order to gain efficiency, cost
reliability and financial security.

11. 11Final Review Meeting
• to remove the responsibility of funding the investment
from the government’s balance sheet,
• to introduce competition,
• to adopt managerial practices and experience of
the private sector,
• to restructure public sector service by embracing
private sector capital and practices,
• to achieve greater efficiency than traditional
methods of providing public services.

12. 12Final Review Meeting

13. 13Final Review Meeting
Profit and other interests … of the private sector,
corporations, entrepreneurs, investors and … others !
What are the interests of the private subjects?
How are they included in PPPs?

14. 14Final Review Meeting

15. 15Final Review Meeting
• Project objective - State level
• Project partners - State and corporative investors
• Investment US$ 428 million
• BOT project funding (concession, project funding, prices
set by a state, revenues in local currancy)
• Financial sources (shareholders, financial arrangements)
• Motives (Olympics)
• Impact (Sport, events, tourism)

16. 16Final Review Meeting
• Program from 2008 - 2015 (8 years): 15 sport events and 4
concerts
• Tourist visit per day: 20.000 visitors at the price 50 yuan.
• Tourism revenues per year (?) US$ 2 million
• Costs of operations and management per year US$ 11
million
• Investment US$ 428 million and yearly costs of US$ 11 million
in eight years is total US$ 516 million.
• negative long-term economic benefit

17. 17Final Review Meeting

18. 18Final Review Meeting
• Project objective - Regional level
• Project partners - Local communities and Kuwait investors
• Investment 7 million Euros,
• Financial sources (local and foreign investors, financial
arrangements)
• Motives (Sport Tourism)
• Impact (Local and Regional Development)

19. 19Final Review Meeting
• Program from 2008 - 2015 (8 years): 25 international and
national sport events
• Sport(wo)men and tourist groups per year: 10.000 visitors
• Revenues per year (?) 150.000 Euros
• Costs of operations and management per year: 200.000 eur
• Investment and yearly costs in eight years: 8,6 million Euros
• negative long-term economic benefit

20. 20Final Review Meeting

21. 21Final Review Meeting
• Project objective - Local level
• Project partners - Municipality Nova Gorica and private
investor Proaktiv Šport d.o.o.
• Investment 250.000 Euros,
• Financial sources (Municipality Nova Gorica, local investor)
• Motives (School physical education, Recreation, Tourism)
• Impact (Local Development)

22. 22Final Review Meeting
• Program from 2014 - 2015 (2 years): adventure park,
recreational and adrenaline activities, paintball games,
catering, birthdays and fun events
• School, recreational and tourist groups per year: 7.200
visitors
• Revenues per year (?) 150.000 Euros
• Costs of operations and management per year (?): 125.000
Euros
• Investment and yearly costs in two years: 500.000 Euros
• positive long-term economic benefit

23. 23Final Review Meeting
Yes!?