Toward More Accountable PPPs ECOWAS Region Infrastructure Sector Assessment Private Sector Solutions for Regional Connectivity DRAFT December 2020 1 © 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Toward More Accountable PPPs Table of Contents Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Tables ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figures ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 Boxes .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Section 1: PPP Disclosure .............................................................................................................................12 CONTEXT..................................................................................................................................................................... 12 DRIVERS OF PPP DISCLOSURE ......................................................................................................................................... 13 BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES ............................................................................................................................................ 16 WORLD BANK’S FRAMEWORK FOR DISCLOSURE IN PPP PROJECTS ......................................................................................... 17 Section 2: Developing and Implementing Customized National PPP Disclosure Frameworks in Four Pilot Countries ......................................................................................................................................................19 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................................. 19 DISCLOSURE DIAGNOSTIC ............................................................................................................................................... 19 CUSTOMIZED FRAMEWORK FOR PPP DISCLOSURE .............................................................................................................. 22 IMPLEMENTATION AND CHALLENGES ................................................................................................................................ 23 Section 3: Assessing and Improving PPP Disclosure Post-Implementation ................................................27 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................................................................. 27 SURVEY ....................................................................................................................................................................... 28 RESPONSE STRATEGY ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 CHALLENGES IN CARRYING OUT THE STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 31 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................... 31 DETAILED FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 SNAPSHOT OF THE FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................... 68 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 68 NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................................................................. 70 Annex A: Sample Gap Assessment Table (Kenya) .......................................................................................72 Annex B: Sample Comparison Table of the World Bank Framework, Current Disclosure Practice, and the Agreed Framework (Kenya) .........................................................................................................................75 Annex C: Survey Questionnaire ...................................................................................................................83 1 Toward More Accountable PPPs Acronyms CoST Infrastructure Transparency Initiative CSO civil society organization FoI Freedom of Information INGO international nongovernmental organization IT information technology MDAs ministries, departments, and agencies NGO nongovernmental organization PFM public financial management PPI Private Participation in Infrastructure PPP public-private partnership SISOCS Sistema de Información y Seguimiento de Obras y Contratos de Supervisión (Information and Monitoring System for Works and Supervision Contracts) SPV special purpose vehicle 2 Toward More Accountable PPPs Tables Table B1.1.1: Clauses from Freedom of Information Legislation That Impact PPP Disclosure, Selected Pilot Countries .............................................................................................................................................15 Table 1.1: Evolution of the World Bank’s Work on PPP Disclosure .............................................................17 Table 1.2: Elements of the World Bank’s Recommended Framework for PPP Disclosure .........................18 Table 2.1: Rapid Review ...............................................................................................................................20 Table 3.1: Key Dates, by Country .................................................................................................................28 Table 3.2: Response Rate, by Country .........................................................................................................30 Table 3.3: Awareness of Information Disclosed, General Respondents, by Country ..................................31 Table 3.4: Respondent Profile, All Respondents, by Country ......................................................................33 Table 3.5: Profile of General Respondents ..................................................................................................34 Table 3.6: Awareness of the PPP Disclosure Portal, by Country .................................................................36 Table 3.7: Respondents Who Have Visited the Portal, by Country .............................................................37 Table 3.8: Profile of General Respondents Who Were Unaware of or Never Visited the Portal, by Country .....................................................................................................................................................................38 Table 3.9: Awareness of the PPP Disclosure Framework, Admin Respondents, by Country (%) ................39 Table 3.10: Adequacy of the Disclosure Framework to Address Transparency and Accountability of PPPs, by Country (%) .............................................................................................................................................40 Table 3.11: Usefulness of the Portal for Work, by Country (%) ..................................................................42 Table 3.12: Frequency of Finding Information, by Country (%) ..................................................................43 Table 3.13: Adequacy of Information on the Portal, by Country (%) ..........................................................44 Table 3.14: Timeliness of Disclosure, by Country (%) ..................................................................................46 Table 3.15: How Up to Date Is the Portal? Admin Respondents, by Country (%) .......................................47 Table 3.16: Satisfaction with the PPP Disclosure Portal, by Country (%) ....................................................49 Table 3.17: Are Electronic Newsletters Being Sent Out? Admin Respondents, by Country (%) .................50 Table 3.18: Problems in Updating and Managing the Portal, by Country (%) ............................................52 Table 3.19: Problems in Updating and Managing the Portal, by Country (%) ............................................54 Table 3.20: Satisfaction with the Allocation of Disclosure Responsibilities, by Country (%) ......................55 Table 3.21: Challenges in Sustaining and Improving the Portal, by Country (%) ........................................58 3 Toward More Accountable PPPs Table 3.22: Impact of the Portal on PPP Disclosure, by Country (%) ..........................................................60 Table 3.23: Impact of the Portal on PPP Transparency and Accountability, by Country (%) ......................60 Table 3.24: Challenges Addressed by the PPP Disclosure Portal, by Country (%).......................................62 Table 3.25: Impact of PPP Disclosure, Public Employees, by Country (%) ..................................................63 Table 3.26: Contribution of the Portal to Public Trust and Confidence, Public Employees, by Country (%) .....................................................................................................................................................................64 Table 3.27: Contribution of Disclosure to Investor Interest and Confidence, Public Employees, by Country (%) ................................................................................................................................................................65 Table 3.28: Contribution of Disclosure to Investor Interest and Confidence, Private Sector, by Country (%) ................................................................................................................................................................66 Figures Figure 1.1: Total Projects and Investments, Private Participation in Infrastructure, 1990–2020 ...............13 Figure B1.1.1: Number of Countries with Freedom of Information Legislation, 1950–2018 .....................14 Figure 1.2: Challenges in PPP Disclosure .....................................................................................................17 Figure 1.3: World Bank’s Recommended Framework for Disclosure in PPPs .............................................18 Figure 2.1: Carrying Out a Disclosure Diagnostic.........................................................................................20 Figure 2.2: Nigeria PPP Disclosure Portal ....................................................................................................25 Figure 3.1: Survey Landing Page (English) ...................................................................................................29 Figure 3.2: Profile of General Respondents .................................................................................................34 Figure 3.3: Awareness of the PPP Disclosure Portal ....................................................................................35 Figure 3.4: Respondents’ Portal Visits .........................................................................................................36 Figure 3.5: Reasons for Never Visiting the Portal ........................................................................................37 Figure 3.6: Awareness of the PPP Disclosure Framework, General Respondents ......................................39 Figure 3.7: Adequacy of the Disclosure Framework to Address Transparency and Accountability of PPPs .....................................................................................................................................................................40 Figure 3.8: Frequency of Visits to the Portal ...............................................................................................41 Figure 3.9: Usefulness of the Portal for Work .............................................................................................41 Figure 3.10: Reasons to Visit the Portal .......................................................................................................42 Figure 3.11: Frequency of Finding Information ...........................................................................................43 4 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.12: Adequacy of Information on the Portal...................................................................................44 Figure 3.13: Timeliness of Disclosure ..........................................................................................................45 Figure 3.14: How Up to Date Is the Portal? Admin Respondents ...............................................................46 Figure 3.15: Downloaded Contract Documents ..........................................................................................47 Figure 3.16: Problems Faced in Downloading Contract Documents ...........................................................48 Figure 3.17: Satisfaction with the PPP Disclosure Portal.............................................................................48 Figure 3.18: Whether Users Have Subscribed to an Electronic Newsletter, Admin Respondents .............49 Figure 3.19: Subscriptions to Electronic Newsletters ..................................................................................50 Figure 3.20: Reasons for Not Subscribing to Electronic Newsletters ..........................................................51 Figure 3.21: Usefulness of Newsletter Content...........................................................................................51 Figure 3.22: Problems in Updating and Managing the Portal .....................................................................52 Figure 3.23: Specific Problems in Updating and Managing the Portal ........................................................53 Figure 3.24: Allocation of Disclosure Responsibilities .................................................................................55 Figure 3.25: Need for Additional Training for Administrators and Managers of the Portal .......................56 Figure 3.26: Interference in Publication of Information .............................................................................57 Figure 3.27: Legal Action for Publishing Proprietary Information ...............................................................57 Figure 3.28: Challenges in Sustaining and Improving the Portal .................................................................58 Figure 3.29: Impact of the Portal on PPP Disclosure ...................................................................................59 Figure 3.30: Impact of the Portal on PPP Transparency and Accountability...............................................60 Figure 3.31: Challenges Addressed by the PPP Disclosure Portal ...............................................................61 Figure 3.32: Impact of PPP Disclosure, Public Employees ...........................................................................63 Figure 3.33: Contribution of Information Disclosure to Public Trust and Confidence, Public Employees ..64 Figure 3.34: Contribution of Information Disclosure to Investor Interest and Confidence, Public Employees ....................................................................................................................................................65 Figure 3.35: Contribution of Information Disclosure to Investor Interest and Confidence, Private Sector66 Figure 3.36: How Is the Disclosed Information Used, Private Sector ..........................................................67 Figure 3.37: How Is Information from the Disclosure Portal Used? Civil Society Organizations ................67 Figure 3.38: Increase in Public Confidence in PPPs Due to Disclosure of Information, Civil Society Organizations ...............................................................................................................................................68 5 Toward More Accountable PPPs Boxes Box 1.1: Freedom of Information Legislation and PPP Disclosure ..............................................................14 Box 2.1: Key Features of Web-Based Platforms for PPP Disclosure ............................................................24 6 Toward More Accountable PPPs Acknowledgments This report was prepared by a team led by Shyamala Shukla, Task Team Leader and Senior Public-Private Partnerships Specialist, and consisting of Adetoun Adetona, co-Task Team Leader and Public-Private Partnerships Specialist, and Prashant Sharma, Senior Consultant. In-country survey work was supported by Pablo Alvarez (Honduras), Prince Kwarteng (Ghana), Oluwapelumi Oluwatosin (Nigeria), and Turry Ouma (Kenya). The following peer reviewers provided valuable guidance and advice: Evelyn Hernandez, Head of Members and Affiliate Programmes, Infrastructure Transparency Initiative; Soren Jensen, Senior Policy and Research Advisor, Infrastructure Transparency Initiative; Mikel Tejada Ibanez, Public-Private Partnerships Specialist; and Andrew Jones, Consultant. Imad Fakhoury, Director, Infrastructure Finance, Public-Private Partnerships and Guarantees, and Fatouma Toure Ibrahima, Practice Manager, Public-Private Partnerships, provided valuable guidance. The World Bank team thanks the various stakeholders from Kenya, Ghana, Honduras, and Nigeria who participated in the survey that made the study possible. In addition, the team thanks the PPP coordinating agencies of all four countries for their support during the survey administration and follow-up with respondents. The team also thanks Sandra Gain, for editing, and Pablo Armando Alfaro Chavez, for the layout and formatting of the report. 7 Toward More Accountable PPPs Executive Summary In the face of declining fiscal space and the need to build back better after the COVID-19 pandemic, governments are turning to public-private partnerships (PPPs) to deliver infrastructure assets and services. Disclosure of information plays an important role in PPP programs. Several clients of the World Bank Group, including those with well-established PPP programs, currently do not disclose PPP information in a structured way throughout the project life cycle. Although countries are trying to move toward a more systematic approach to disclosure, challenges in developing and implementing systematic disclosure persist. These include limited or unclear legal mandates to disclose, lack of internal guidance and processes, unstructured and irregular disclosure, and lack of clarity in the responsibility to disclose, among others. Responding to these challenges, the World Bank developed a series of knowledge products to understand disclosure in PPPs, as well as to provide tools to governments for improving PPP disclosure. These include the World Bank’s Framework for Disclosure in Public-Private Partnerships, with its companion volumes Disclosure in Public-Private Partnerships: Good Practice Cases and Disclosure in Public-Private Partnerships: Jurisdictional Studies.1 Building on this work, the World Bank Infrastructure Finance, PPPs and Guarantees (IPG) Global Practice is supporting countries to improve transparency and accountability in PPPs through structured disclosure of information throughout the PPP project life cycle. The World Bank initiated technical assistance in this area through pilots in four countries —Ghana, Honduras, Kenya, and Nigeria—over 2017–18. Funded by the World Bank with co-financing from the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility, the pilots were designed to include a diagnostic to assess the status of disclosure in PPPs in the country, followed by the development and implementation (following approval of relevant government authorities) of customized disclosure frameworks. Online platforms for PPP disclosure were launched by governments in each of the four countries as the public interface of their respective national PPP disclosure frameworks. Post implementation of national PPP disclosure frameworks in the pilot countries, it became important to document the process, as well as assess the experience and perceptions related to the changed disclosure environment culminating in the disclosure of information via public-facing web portals. To support this task, a study was carried out over 2019–20 to capture the enhanced disclosure environment, understand the perceptions of stakeholders vis-à-vis structured disclosure, identify what was working well, as well as indicate areas for improvement. This paper is a culmination of this effort to document the process and analyze the experience gained from the four-country pilot carried out in Ghana, Honduras, Kenya, and Nigeria. Section 1 of the paper provides the general background within which PPP disclosure is located, as well as the key elements of the World Bank’s Framework for Disclosure in PPPs. Section 2 documents the process followed in developing and implementing customized national frameworks in the pilot countries. 1 These are available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/publicprivatepartnerships/brief/ppp-tools#T1. 8 Toward More Accountable PPPs Section 3 presents and analyzes the results of a survey carried out post-implementation in the pilot countries to assess stakeholder perceptions of enhanced disclosure. Through documentation of the process, the paper identifies several ways in which the development and implementation of national PPP disclosure frameworks can be strengthened. These include the following: • Establishment of a stable institutional environment for clarity in disclosure-related responsibilities • Involvement of the main regulatory and/or oversight body in the development of the PPP disclosure framework • Importance of the central unit or PPP coordinating entity to have the mandate, as well as take ownership of the framework and its public-facing manifestation, the disclosure portals • Importance of embedding disclosure frameworks within the PPP process • Allocation of dedicated and regular human and financial resources for disclosure • Integration of online PPP disclosure platforms with the existing information technology systems of the government. This paper also presents the detailed findings of a survey to capture the enhanced PPP disclosure environment and identify what has worked and what could be improved, with a focus on the public-facing PPP disclosure portals. The survey was circulated among relevant stakeholders in each pilot country, including national PPP coordinating entities, contracting authorities, special purpose vehicles (SPVs), private investment entities, consulting firms and individuals, civil society organizations, media, and academia. In general, the findings suggest that a large proportion of the respondents cutting across all types of stakeholders find that national PPP disclosure portals and their contents are useful. However, the content in the portals needs to be updated more regularly and made more comprehensive and comprehensible. The perceptions of the respondents also confirm that the disclosure portals have had a positive impact on the accountability and transparency of PPP projects. However, this can be improved by increasing awareness among all stakeholders, as well as improving the institutional processes that impact PPP disclosure. Specific findings emerging from the survey include the following: Overview • Awareness of the information disclosed via public-facing web portals (currently at 50 percent of respondents) can be improved. This lack of awareness cuts across professional affiliations, including contracting authorities and investment entities. • General awareness of the PPP disclosure framework is relatively low (36 percent). It is a matter of concern that some admin users of the portal (20 percent) who are involved in the process of disclosure of information are unaware of the PPP disclosure framework that underpins the entire exercise of disclosure of information. • Current laws, policies, and the disclosure framework are largely adequate to address transparency and accountability of PPPs (71 percent). 9 Toward More Accountable PPPs Content, Usage, and Usability • The information disclosed is overwhelmingly useful for respondents cutting across professional categories (92 percent). • Users access the information for a variety of reasons, but primarily to obtain information on past and existing projects (61 percent), track the progress of ongoing projects (57 percent), and track public spending and PPP performance (50 percent). • Private investment entities primarily use the information to track announcements of new projects (75 percent) and assess their potential engagement in them (63 percent). • Users mostly find the information they are looking for (59 percent), but there is significant scope for improvement in terms of ensuring that complete, meaningful, and exploitable information is available in a timely manner on the portals. • Regular and timely updating of information is a concern among users (26 percent), especially in the context of ongoing projects. Lack of up-to-date information is a major lacuna that is affecting the efficacy of the information disclosed. • Outreach mechanisms (such as regular dissemination of electronic newsletters) have seen limited and weak implementation and need to be strengthened. • Overall, there is a moderate to high level of satisfaction with the portals (90 percent). However, usability, quality, completeness, and freshness of content have been identified as key areas for improvement. Information Management • The most challenging problems in carrying out effective information management are institutional and processual. Getting information from ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs) for publication as well as validation and approvals before publication is a significant problem (45 percent). Human resource constraints (45 percent) are another major challenge to be overcome. • While the disclosure frameworks for each jurisdiction have allocated disclosure responsibilities between PPP coordinating entities, MDAs, SPVs, and other PPP actors, there is a lack of awareness, sensitization, training, and institutionalization of these responsibilities (35 percent). However, these issues were discussed in detail during the stakeholder workshops. • Admin users have faced some technical problems in managing and updating information, primarily due to internet connectivity and website hosting issues (68 percent). • Admin users have not faced any significant political interference or restrictions in carrying out their disclosure-related responsibilities (73 percent). • PPP disclosure has not led to any perceptible increase in operational problems (92 percent). • The main challenge in ensuring sustainability and improvement in disclosure of information is the institutional support provided (65 percent), along with the institutional relationships between the PPP coordinating entities, MDAs, SPVs, and other actors (68 percent). Impact • There has been significant improvement in PPP disclosure in all jurisdictions (70 percent). • There has been significant improvement in transparency and accountability of PPPs (57 percent). • Investor interest and confidence in PPPs has increased perceptibly in each jurisdiction following the disclosure of information (43 percent). 10 Toward More Accountable PPPs • Disclosure of information has also had a positive impact on improving decision making within PPP- related government entities (58 percent) and has reduced information requests from the public (37 percent). • Disclosure of information has significantly improved citizen engagement, public trust, and confidence. Public perception of government efforts for anti-corruption has also improved. As a result, the legitimacy of PPPs to finance infrastructure has increased. Based on the analysis and findings, the study suggests recommendations for governments interested in developing and/or strengthening and implementing PPP disclosure frameworks. These include the following: • Increasing awareness of PPP disclosure among the relevant stakeholders as well as the general public • Improving proactive outreach to stakeholders • Ensuring that information disclosure is regular within established timelines • Establishing and strengthening clear institutional roles and responsibilities for structured PPP disclosure. With a growing number of countries showing interest in developing national frameworks for PPP disclosure, this paper will assist government officials as well as other stakeholders operating in the PPP space to gain a deeper understanding of disclosure in PPPs, how to develop and implement national PPP disclosure frameworks, the challenges in doing so, what to expect from an enhanced PPP disclosure environment, and how to institutionalize structured PPP disclosure in a sustainable manner. 11 Toward More Accountable PPPs Section 1: PPP Disclosure Context Since the beginning of 2020, with the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, existing infrastructure projects have been delayed or canceled due to supply chain disruptions, travel and shipping restrictions, and other obstacles. Drops in demand or required renegotiations have also delayed many projects. In emerging markets and developing economies, governments have redirected funds to the health care and social protection sectors, greatly impacting the financing available for infrastructure. Among private sponsors and financers, increased macroeconomic turbulence and a negative economic outlook have also caused uncertainty in the sector. Concerns about credit quality, the liquidity of borrowers, and the financial robustness of counterparties—especially in developing countries—are likely to linger and hinder investment commitments for the foreseeable future. At the same time, the need for infrastructure is more apparent than ever. Digital connectivity, water treatment, and municipal solid waste management (especially clinical waste) are key to fighting the pandemic and its impacts. More traditional infrastructure, such as energy and transport, is also essential to ensure that necessary supplies reach the areas where they are most required. Longer term concerns such as rapid levels of urbanization and climate change also loom on the horizon. Globally, the need for investment in infrastructure is expected to continue to grow across geographies. Millions still lack access to basic infrastructure services like water and electricity. Estimates suggest that the cost of providing infrastructure between 2016 and 2040 is in the region of US$94 trillion.2 Current investment trends indicate that of this, US$79 trillion will be realized (all sources), leaving a shortfall of US$15 trillion.3 With governments across the world facing severe budgetary constraints in the aftermath of the COVID- 19 pandemic and a persisting gap in the provision of basic infrastructure services, a significant portion of this investment will need to come from the private sector. The World Bank’s Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) database suggests that the number and value of projects with a private investment component continued to grow over the past three decades. At the end of the fiscal year, the total number of the projects in the database stood at 7,341, with a total investment of US$1.76 trillion. However, in the first half of 2020, there has been a large decrease in PPI compared with the first half of 2019 (figure 1.1). 2 “Global Infrastructure Outlook: Infrastructure Investment Needs, 50 Countries, 7 Sectors to 2040,” Oxford Economics and Global Infrastructure Hub (2016), p. 3. If the cost of providing universal provision of clean water, sanitation, and electricity (Sustainable Development Goals 6 and 7) is added, this figure rises to US$97 trillion. See https://www.gihub.org/blog/global-infrastructure-demands/. 3 See https://outlook.gihub.org/. 12 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 1.1: Total Projects and Investments, Private Participation in Infrastructure, 1990 –2020 Source: World Bank Private Participation in Infrastructure Database. Large infrastructure projects are often difficult to get right. Delays, cost overruns, quality and maintenance issues, underperformance, underutilization, and lack of public trust are some of the challenges that infrastructure projects, including public-private partnerships (PPPs), face across the world. One response to this has been an increasing focus on infrastructure governance, with the underlying acknowledgment that the main hurdle in getting appropriate infrastructure in place is not necessarily the want of finance, but the lack of effective mechanisms through which governments can prioritize, plan, budget, deliver, regulate, and evaluate infrastructure investment.4 In the case of PPPs, putting in place such mechanisms can become even more challenging due to the complexity of the processes, long-term and complex contracts, associated risks, and multiplicity of actors involved. In this context, proactive and structured disclosure of information throughout the project life cycle has emerged as an important enabler of accountability in infrastructure delivery, whether publicly procured or through PPPs. Drivers of PPP Disclosure5 PPP disclosure can be influenced by multiple drivers, such as reducing the risk of corruption, mobilizing private capital for investment in infrastructure, increasing public confidence and awareness, and achieving value for money through PPP transactions. These, in turn, are impacted by other factors. For example, factors contributing to improved private investment mobilization include (a) the predictability of the PPP pipeline, (b) a level playing field for all bidders, and (c) objective criteria for evaluating bids, among others. Similarly, important factors contributing to an increase in public confidence are (a) aligning private investments with public interest, and (b) improving the delivery of public services. Each of these elements contributes to the key drivers of disclosure and, to a large extent, determines the elements that should be recommended for disclosure. In addition to these drivers, which tend to induce governments to disclose more, key direct factors underlying and supporting better disclosure practices are the wider government policy on transparency and whether these policies are, in turn, supported by legislation. Typically, legislation supporting 4 See, for example, “A Critical Piece of the Infrastructure Puzzle: Good Governance,” at https://blogs.worldbank.org/ppps/critical-piece-infrastructure-puzzle-good-governance, and the OECD Framework for the Governance of Infrastructure, at http://www.oecd.org/gov/governance-of-infrastructure.htm. 5 A detailed discussion on the drivers of disclosure in PPPs is available in Framework for Disclosure in Public-Private Partnership Projects (2015), pp. 17–19, World Bank. 13 Toward More Accountable PPPs disclosure is identified as freedom of information (FoI) legislation or other supporting legislation, such as PPP, public financial management (PFM), sector-specific, and/or budget transparency–related legislation. Legislation other than FoI or PPP legislation frequently covers limited areas of disclosure (box 1.1). In addition to non-PPP disclosures, legislation may also cover some aspect of PPP, for example, PFM Acts may mandate the disclosure of all fiscal commitments and contingent liabilities of the government, including those arising from PPP projects. Budget transparency legislation mandates disclosing the budgeted amounts for different projects and programs, including the budget for PPP-related payments. Box 1.1: Freedom of Information Legislation and PPP Disclosure In a broad sense, the most important piece of legislation for disclosure of PPP projects is Freedom of Information (FoI) legislation, which guarantees public access to most documents as a principle. Since 1990, around the same time when private participation in infrastructure began to see a relatively higher degree of growth (see figure B1.1.1), countries across the world have been enacting FoI legislation at a rapid pace. In 1990, there were only 14 countries with any type of FoI legislation. In 2018, this number stood at 117. Although several challenges in the implementation of FoI exist, for example, lack of awareness, limitations in record management, and inability of governments to adhere to timelines for disclosure, the rise of such laws in the past three decades indicates a strong global trend in support of disclosure. Figure B1.1.1: Number of Countries with Freedom of Information Legislation, 1950–2018 Source: World Bank, triangulating different sources available on the internet. For an overview, see http://www.freedominfo.org/?p=18223. 14 Toward More Accountable PPPs This steep rise in the number of countries enacting FoI legislation has a direct bearing on PPP disclosure. Where it exists, FoI legislation typically obliges public entities to provide information voluntarily (proactive disclosure) and/or upon request (reactive disclosure). This means that public entities involved in procuring and delivering infrastructure have a direct obligation under FoI legislation to disclose information in accordance with the specifics of the law. Some examples are provided in Table B1.1.1. Table B1.1.1: Clauses from Freedom of Information Legislation That Impact PPP Disclosure, Selected Pilot Countries Country Clauses Implications for PPP disclosure Honduras Transparency and Access to Identifies all entities involved in Information Act 2006, Articles PPPs as public entities with an 3(5), 3(6), 3(9), 4, 13, 21, and 28 obligation to disclose, procedures and forms of disclosure, and sanctions for nondisclosure. Kenya Access to information Act, Identifies contracting 2016, Sections 2, 4(4), (5), and authorities and special purpose (6) vehicles as entities that have an obligation to disclose, presumption of proactive disclosure, definitions of exceptions, and directions on publication of information. Nigeria Freedom of Information Act Specifies the applicability of law 2011, Sections 2(4), 2(7), 12(2), on public institutions and by 14(3), 15(1), 15(2), and 29 extension on PPPs, and disclosure in public interest. In general, freedom of information legislation applies to PPPs, as PPPs involve the provision of a public asset or service and usually involve substantial government support. Such support can include direct support such as land, existing facilities and equipment, government as payer, upfront construction grants, and indirect support in the form of, among other things, guarantees and letters of support. However, the applicability of FoI legislation to PPPs requires a more nuanced approach due to the special circumstances associated with PPP projects, such as the provision of public services by a private entity, long contract periods, performance-based payment mechanisms, risk allocation, complex ownership, governance and management structures, and a multiplicity of stakeholders and their sensitivities. In addition, especially given the importance of commercial, trade, and technology secrets for private entities, it also becomes important to consider how confidentiality of information has been addressed in FoI legislation and other relevant legal and regulatory frameworks that impact PPPs in each country. Although FoI legislation is often a key element in the effective realization of PPP disclosure, the legislative imperative for PPP disclosure does not have to be limited to FoI only. Even in countries where FoI legislation is absent, laws and policies related to PPPs and PFM, public procurement, and sector-specific 15 Toward More Accountable PPPs and/or budget transparency–related legislation may include clauses related to transparency, accountability, and disclosure.6 Within the principle of transparency and disclosure of PPP data, there are legitimate reasons why information should be exempted from publication for reasons of national security, commercial sensitivity, personal privacy, and competitive negotiation. The disclosure principle recognizes these categories of exemptions, which are typically reflected in all FoI legislation as well. However, many FoI laws also have a public interest override clause, which provides for disclosure of information that is normally exempt where a larger public interest is served. Benefits and Challenges Disclosure has several benefits throughout the PPP project cycle. It holds the public sector accountable for expenditure via PPPs. For example, public disclosure of information on capital budgeting relating to PPP projects and on fiscal commitments and contingent liabilities arising from PPPs is likely to lead to greater accountability in government expenditure. This can be further improved when authorities agree to strengthen existing, internal (vertical) accountability mechanisms as well as bring in external (horizontal) accountability mechanisms. Improved PPP disclosure creates a virtuous cycle that has the potential to improve the PPP ecosystem. It establishes confidence in the fairness of the procurement process. Greater public scrutiny has the potential to increase objectivity in procurement and create a level playing field for bidders, leading to a higher level of investor confidence. Improved objectivity, fairness, and transparency in procurement can also lead to better scrutinized contracts, which in turn can lead to a reduction in renegotiations at later stages of the procurement process. Greater confidence in the process has the potential to encourage new bidders, leading to a more competitive tendering process. More competitive tendering is likely to cut economic rents to efficient levels and therefore offer better value for money for taxpayers. Improved disclosure has the potential to boost investor interest through providing greater predictability of the PPP pipeline. As PPP procurement processes become more objective, predictable, transparent, and fair, the risk of litigation and resultant delays are likely to reduce.7 On the public side, more information about PPPs leads to greater awareness about them, including an understanding of the service standards and pricing. When information such as tariffs and key performance indicators is made public, citizens know what to expect from the project. When relevant information is disclosed at each stage of the project life cycle, public trust and ownership in PPPs is likely to increase. Disclosing key performance indicators and annual monitoring reports is also likely to place significant public pressure on the private party to perform in accordance with agreed standards, thereby providing continued value for money. Although there is a trend toward greater disclosure globally, several challenges and constraints continue to impede clear and consistent disclosure of PPP information. These are identified in figure 1.2. 6 For example, PFM Acts may mandate the disclosure of all fiscal commitments and contingent liabilities of the government, including those arising from PPP projects, or budget transparency legislation may mandate the disclosure of budgeted amounts for different projects and programs, including the budget for PPP-related payments. 7 See, for example, “Information Disclosure and the Performance of Public Investment: The Case of Costa Rica” (2020), Inter - American Development Bank, Washington, DC, which is a recent empirical study on the causal impact of information disclosure on the performance of public investment projects. 16 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 1.2: Challenges in PPP Disclosure Challenges Absence of a clear legal mandate to disclose or lack of clarity on legal disclosure requirements Lack of clear policies, internal guidance, and processes Impact Lack of clarity in the roles and responsibilities for disclosure Minimal, unstructured, fragmented, inconsistent and / or irregular disclosure Lack of clarity in the timing and method of disclosure Lack of human and financial resources Limited technical capacity Limited information management systems World Bank’s Framework for Disclosure in PPP Projects Recognizing the importance of PPP disclosure, along with the realization that negligible research existed on the subject, the World Bank began investigating this theme several years ago. The purpose of the effort was to document the state of PPP disclosure, understand its benefits and challenges, and develop tools to support government efforts to improve and institutionalize PPP disclosure. A brief timeline of these efforts is provided in table 1.1. Table 1.1: Evolution of the World Bank’s Work on PPP Disclosure Year Activity/Outcome Highlights 2013 Disclosure of Project and Review of reactive and proactive post-procurement disclosure in 11 Contract Information in jurisdictions. Key findings indicate a high level of reactive disclosure, Public-Private low levels of proactive disclosure, and inconsistent, nonuniform, and Partnerships minimal disclosure on performance. 2015 World Bank’s Framework Hierarchical logical framework for disclosure that moves from a high- (updated for Disclosure in Public- level mandate to disclose, to the basic elements to be disclosed at in 2017) Private Partnership each point in the PPP process. It is generic across sectors and Projects includes standards and tools. 2015 Disclosure in Public- Detailed studies on the disclosure policy and practice in public- Private Partnerships: private partnerships in 13 jurisdictions (national and subnational). Jurisdictional Studies 2015 Disclosure in Public- Analysis of good practices in the following areas: pre-procurement Private Partnerships: Good information disclosure, developing contract summaries, ongoing Practice Cases publication of performance information, disclosure of contingent liabilities, disclosure in unsolicited proposals, statutory audit of projects, strong institutions driving disclosure, publication of post- implementation reviews, disclosure in subnational projects, and post-procurement disclosure. 17 Toward More Accountable PPPs Of these, the key document that forms the basis of the implementation work in the pilot countries is the Framework for Disclosure in Public-Private Partnership Projects. A diagrammatic representation of the framework is provided in figure 1.3. Figure 1.3: World Bank’s Recommended Framework for Disclosure in PPPs As can be observed in the figure, the framework has a hierarchical design that moves from a high-level mandate to disclose, to the details of each element that must be disclosed. Table 1.2 provides further details on each of these elements. Table 1.2: Elements of the World Bank’s Recommended Framework for PPP Disclosure Element What should it include? Freedom of information Legislative mandate for proactive disclosure, including its applicability to private legislation bodies performing public functions, coverage of disclosure relating to contracts, and a generic definition of confidential information. Public-private partnership Mandate for proactive disclosure of information in PPP contracts at various stages (PPP) legislation in the PPP process, definition of any specific information that is to be disclosed or considered confidential, and the responsibility and timelines for disclosure. PPP disclosure guidelines Specific elements of information to be disclosed, timelines, roles and responsibilities, and monitoring mechanisms. Confidential information Guidance on confidential information along with granularity on what elements of information will be considered confidential and for what period. Standard clauses on Should be a part of the disclosure framework of a country. These provide the disclosure specific contractual terms mandating disclosure that can be included in PPP contracts by public authorities. Templates and data Templates help officials in preparing information for disclosure and affect the way standards information is presented and the efficiency with which it can be prepared and accessed. A single platform or connected, multiple platforms can be used for data and information disclosure. The disclosed information should be exploitable. The World Bank recommends that all data be compliant with the Open Data Standards. 18 Toward More Accountable PPPs Section 2: Developing and Implementing Customized National PPP Disclosure Frameworks in Four Pilot Countries Background The World Bank Framework for Disclosure in PPPs has engendered much interest in the subject on the international front, as many governments are attempting to improve transparency and accountability in their PPP programs. Based on demand, the World Bank piloted the implementation of disclosure best practices through technical assistance to client countries. The pilot sought to develop customized versions of the framework, and to implement the resultant national frameworks in four countries—Ghana, Honduras, Kenya, and Nigeria. The project was funded by the World Bank with co-financing from the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility. The project commenced in 2016 with the following government counterparts: • Public Investment Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of Ghana • President’s Office and the Commission for the Promotion of Public -Private Partnership (COALIANZA), Government of Honduras • PPP Unit, National Treasury, Government of Kenya • Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority, with a focus on the Authority’s infrastructure fund, and the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC), Federal Government of Nigeria, covering national PPPs. These client countries have also benefitted from the support of the Open Data Standards. In Honduras, for example, the World Bank built on the existing information disclosure platform for public works (SISOCS), which had been developed with the support of the Infrastructure Transparency Initiative (CoST). Disclosure Diagnostic The technical assistance for disclosure in PPPs included a jurisdiction-specific, customized framework for PPP disclosure and a tool for its implementation. The project commenced by carrying out a disclosure diagnostic in each of the jurisdictions benchmarked against the World Bank’s recommended PPP disclosure framework (figure 2.1).8 8 This exercise was carried out in line with the principles and process defined in the “Framework for Disclosure in Public -Private Partnerships” developed by the World Bank in 2016. See http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/143671469558797229/FrameworkPPPDisclosure-071416.pdf. 19 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 2.1: Carrying Out a Disclosure Diagnostic Rapid Review Next, a rapid review was carried out by collecting and analyzing information for each jurisdiction using the key themes, activities, and sources of information, as detailed in table 2.1. Table 2.1: Rapid Review Theme Action/Sources of Information General • Political context for transparency and accountability transparency and • Constitutional guarantees on access to information openness • Existence of enabling legislation that provides justiciable legal frameworks for the same, such as freedom of information or access to information legislation • Anti-corruption legislation and policies that support government openness and transparency • Sector-specific legislation that supports government openness and transparency, such as disclosure requirements in the financial sector • Membership in regional or global transparency fora such as the Open Government Partnership Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Infrastructure Transparency Initiative, Open Contracting Partnership, and others • Ratification of regional or global treaties on anti-corruption, such as the United Nations Convention against Corruption • Transparency and governance indices, such as the Corruption Perceptions Index and the Rule of Law Index, that benchmark countries relative to others in specific areas such as corruption and transparency • Initiatives in e-governance, e-procurement, and open data as markers of government commitment to openness and transparency • Legislative restrictions on transparency 20 Toward More Accountable PPPs Theme Action/Sources of Information Public-private • Government reports on infrastructure and private participation partnership (PPP) • Government databases experience (to • Project reports assess the evolution of PPPs, • World Bank documents such as the “Benchmarking Infrastructure Development” related laws and report, Country PPP Diagnostics, and Infrastructure Sector Assessments regulations, and • The World Bank Private Participation in Infrastructure Database status by sector) • Private sector reports • Analyses by independent actors such as think tanks and civil society organizations • Media reports Legal and • Identification of laws, policies, and regulations that have a bearing on PPPs institutional throughout their life cycle, including those related to public procurement, public framework for financial management, and fiscal commitments and contingent liabilities, among PPPs others • Mapping all the roles and responsibilities • Mapping the institutional framework or processes by which PPPs were identified, developed, procured, and managed Legal and policy Examination of the laws, policies, and regulations that directly or indirectly impact PPP framework for PPP disclosure, including disclosure • Constitutional guarantees on access to information • Freedom of information legislation • PPP legislation, policies, and regulations • Public procurement legislation and regulations • Anti-corruption legislation • Audit legislation • Public investment and financial management legislation and regulations • Sector-specific legislation • Restrictions on disclosure • Emerging jurisprudence Disclosure in • Website of the PPP coordinating entity practice and key • Websites of contracting authorities challenges • Website of the national planning institution • Parliamentary reports • Annual budget of the government • Annual debt statement • Annual reports of contracting authorities and state-owned enterprises • Audit reports • Annual reports of investors • Annual reports of special purpose vehicles • Press releases • Media reports 21 Toward More Accountable PPPs Gap Assessment The review in each jurisdiction was followed by a gap assessment exercise by mapping the findings of the review against the following five broad themes, based on the template provided in the World Bank’s Framework for Disclosure in PPPs9: • Political economy • Law • Guidance • Data, template, and standard contractual provisions • Resources. The gap assessment exercise was then developed at a highly granular level of detail by identifying each individual element of information that is generated during the PPP life cycle, assessing whether it was being disclosed through current practices, and benchmarking it against the World Bank’s recommended disclosure framework. Annex B provides a sample table from a selected jurisdiction. Customized Framework for PPP Disclosure Building on the rapid review and gap assessment, the next step was to develop customized national frameworks for disclosure for each of the four countries, Ghana, Honduras, Kenya, and Nigeria. The drafting of the disclosure framework was an iterative process carried out in close collaboration with the government counterpart to ensure that the framework was realistic and workable. In each country, the World Bank supported the government in holding several rounds of initial consultations with public and private stakeholders to discuss issues and elements that could form a part of the disclosure standard. This iterative process evolved in close consultation with the client government and resulted in the development of a draft framework. The draft included recommended amendments to the country’s legal and regulatory framework to ensure the legal validity of the process and its enforceability. In addition to these legislative recommendations, the draft contained detailed guidance for disclosure for each jurisdiction. This included: • Specific information to be disclosed • Timing and frequency of disclosure • Entity responsible for disclosure • Confidential information • Standard contractual clauses • Template and data standards. This draft framework was then presented by the government to relevant stakeholders, including contracting authorities, private entities, and investors. In each of the pilot countries, this was done through targeted workshops and smaller meetings with public and private stakeholders. The workshops consisted of a presentation of the draft customized framework with a clause-by-clause discussion with the participants to get their feedback on all aspects of the framework, including every element of information to be disclosed, responsibilities, timing, as well as the process for disclosure. Most of the feedback that was received was related to confidentiality of financial models, evaluation reports, and so 9 A sample gap assessment template is provided at annex A. 22 Toward More Accountable PPPs forth; the time required for processing and publishing information given different capacity and institutional contexts; and the timing of disclosure of certain elements of information (for example, whether feasibility reports should be published in the pre- or post-procurement phase). Different countries and actors had varying perspectives on issues such as these, and a consensus was arrived at through discussions during the workshop. The feedback received during the workshop and meetings was incorporated into the draft to create the final framework, which was then approved by the competent authority with the approving powers derived from the law, regulations, and policy in each country. 10 Although arising from extant laws and regulations, the approved frameworks did not take the form of a decree or an executive order, but as guidance. Once this approval was received, the framework moved to the final stage of implementation. Implementation and Challenges Implementation of the national disclosure framework consisted of several mutually reinforcing steps. While it was recognized that the broader recommendations related to amendments to PPP law and regulations in each jurisdiction would take a significant amount of time to fructify due to the complex nature of such processes, other elements of implementation could commence immediately. First, client governments were encouraged to embed disclosure in the existing PPP process based on the approved disclosure framework. This has seen some success in the embedment of disclosure in project documentation; however, there is a long way to go. In Nigeria, the results have been more encouraging. Disclosure has been embedded in the PPP process so that projects move forward to the next phase only after the disclosure obligations at each milestone are met (in accordance with the framework). This has been possible largely due to the direct involvement of the regulatory body for PPPs, the ICRC, in the development of the framework as well as its implementation. As a regulatory body for PPPs in Nigeria, the ICRC has the mandate and authority to establish, implement, and enforce standardized norms and processes across the PPP life cycle, which has meant that the PPP disclosure framework has been embedded within the PPP process fairly successfully. Second, country governments were urged to incorporate standard contractual clauses in all subsequent draft and final PPP agreements. This has seen limited and nonuniform success across the four countries. However, Nigeria has again been successful in taking several steps to institutionalize this aspect in the PPP process, in large part again due to the involvement of the ICRC and the degree of ownership that it has taken of the PPP disclosure framework. Third, as a culmination of the work, and to enable implementation of the framework in each country, the World Bank supported each of the client governments in designing a web-based platform for PPP disclosure in accordance with the approved framework and subsequently integrating it with their existing information management systems. Each platform was designed to serve as the main public interface of the PPP disclosure framework. These platforms, or PPP disclosure portals, were therefore the public- facing manifestation of the disclosure diagnostic process and the resulting PPP disclosure framework. As such, the establishment of each portal was not an end in itself but the creation of the platform, which 10 The approving authorities in each country were the Public Investment Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of Ghana; the Office of the President, Government of Honduras; the PPP Committee, National Treasury, Government of Kenya; and the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Authority, Government of Nigeria. 23 Toward More Accountable PPPs would be used for disclosing PPP information and continually and publicly manifesting the disclosure framework in a tangible and comprehensible manner (box 2.1). 11 Box 2.1: Key Features of Web-Based Platforms for PPP Disclosure The web-based platform for PPP disclosure for each client country has the following features: • A single place to manage all project information • Collaboration between multiple users, including updating different pieces of information • Ability to connect to existing systems • Import and export of data • Structured project information fields following a data standard enabling a structured, faster workflow and easy comparison • Easy management of project information as text, multimedia, maps, timelines or infographics • Ability to make data public or keep data private with specific access configurations • Flexibility to add more fields to the platform • Automatic configurable reminders to different users to update data • Automatically receive or send notifications on specific dates or events • Pre-populated fields with data • Easy workflow for data management • Users and role management • File management and uploads (specifically built to handle large files on slow connections). Each platform is also designed to be consistent with the Open Contracting Data Standard, which allows for a standardized system of data collection, input, and analysis. The development of the platform went through a rigorous testing process and was modified based on inputs from client governments and other stakeholders. Once the platform had been tested and was stable, in-country, face-to-face trainings were provided to future users, including staff from contracting authorities and the PPP coordinating entity. These trainings helped identify special requirements as well as technical improvements that needed to be made, which were incorporated into the platform immediately after the trainings. Offline training material was also developed to ensure that new staff would easily be able to use and manage the system. In parallel, additional personnel support was assigned to the client countries to support data population on the platform as per the disclosure framework. All relevant information related to existing PPP projects at different stages of development was disclosed for each jurisdiction. This was followed by a high-level launch event to increase public and investor awareness about the disclosure framework for the country, including the disclosure of information via the public-facing portal. The disclosure frameworks (and disclosure of information for the four countries via the web portal) were launched by the Governments of 11 In Honduras, the PPP disclosure framework was developed and implemented as an extension of the existing disclosure system that was in place for general infrastructure procurement, the Sistema de Información y Seguimiento de Obras y Contratos de Supervisión (SISOCS; Information and Monitoring System for Works and Supervision Contracts). The SISOCS website is available at https://sisocs.org/, and the PPP extension to the same is available at https://app.sisocs.org/. 24 Toward More Accountable PPPs Ghana, Honduras, Kenya, and Nigeria over 2017–18.12 A screenshot of the landing page of the Nigeria PPP disclosure portal is provided in figure 2.2. Once the training had been imparted and the online platforms populated with content, these were then handed over to the designated public entity to manage each platform. The handover included the sharing of source codes so that client governments could make changes and improvements to the platform as required. This also meant that each government fully owned and controlled its respective platform and all its contents. It was also agreed that information technology (IT) –related technical support would continue to be provided to the client for six months after the handing over of the platform. The World Bank also continued to provide support in terms of resources for content management and data updating for a specified period after the handover. However, in some of the countries, the portals went offline temporarily after the support ended due to institutional complications as well as resource limitations. The portals were subsequently restored and were live when this study was carried out. Figure 2.2: Nigeria PPP Disclosure Portal Source: http://ppp.icrc.gov.ng/. In identifying the challenges in implementation, it should first be noted that even quite mature PPP markets in highly developed economies do not always have very good practices in place for PPP disclosure (or other infrastructure for that matter).13 Given this reality, the governments’ efforts in these four countries to institutionalize PPP disclosure can be seen as pioneering, if not remarkable steps. However, implementation challenges remain, which are primarily institutional. First, where a stable institutional environment is absent, the responsibility for implementation and oversight tends to become diffused. 12 Two separate PPP disclosure portals were created in Nigeria—first, for regular PPP projects under the purview of the ICRC, and second, for the National Sovereign Investment Authority, which invests in PPP projects. However, the latter has not launched its portal to date due to internal reasons. This study has therefore taken only the first one into account. 13 See “Disclosure in Public-Private Partnerships: Jurisdictional Studies” (2015), World Bank, Washington, DC, http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/910311448299077946/Disclosure-in-PPPs-Jurisdictional-Studies.pdf. 25 Toward More Accountable PPPs Second, the involvement of the main regulatory and/or oversight body in the development of the PPP disclosure framework is essential to ensure its effective implementation. Third, the main implementing entity must take complete ownership of the framework and its public-facing manifestation, the disclosure portals, as well as have the mandate to enforce the framework effectively. On a related note, implementation is likely to be more successful when the implementing entity is empowered enough to embed the disclosure framework in the PPP process itself. With respect to the development, implementation, and sustainability of disclosure of information, the main challenges seen were instability in the institutional environment, as well as the ad-hoc nature of resource allocation for maintaining and updating the information. Although external partners such as the World Bank can support disclosure of information through initial handholding, eventually the responsibility to manage, maintain, and update information, including provision of the required human and financial resources, needs to be completely assumed by the appropriate entity within the PPP institutional framework (typically the PPP coordinating body). However, this requires a clearly defined and stable institutional environment, as well as the allocation of dedicated resources to ensure that information is continuously updated in line with the disclosure framework. The resources required to do so effectively are relatively small. The technical costs of maintaining portals for information disclosure are minimal, and this can be reduced even further through integration into the larger IT architecture of the government. Given at any point in the pre-operational stages or when monitoring performance, most new information on PPPs is produced at known intervals and not on a continuous or daily basis, the human resources required to maintain and update the information is also not large. 26 Toward More Accountable PPPs Section 3: Assessing and Improving PPP Disclosure Post-Implementation Objectives of the Study Embedding the disclosure framework in the PPP process and introducing standard contractual clauses in future PPP agreements to facilitate disclosure of information was an important element of the overall project, along with the actual disclosure of information on all operational and pipeline projects. While institutional embedment succeeded in terms of approval of disclosure guidance by the competent authority in each of the four countries, the embedment of disclosure clauses in PPP contracts has met with moderate success due to the institutional limitations discussed in section 2. In addition, these elements are process oriented, which means they typically have a longer gestation period before they are fully institutionalized. However, the third element of the project, the actual disclosure of information on public-facing portals, was implemented quickly after the development and approval of the framework. This section of the report focuses primarily on assessing this element of the overall PPP disclosure project, although it indirectly touches on some of the questions arising from the other two elements. This study does not seek to assess the customized national frameworks for PPP disclosure, but it has their implementation as its focus. With the implementation of PPP information disclosure by the four countries through the public-facing portals being in place for several months, the World Bank team commenced a study to capture the enhanced PPP disclosure environment, as well as identify what has worked and what could be improved. The study’s specific objectives included the following: • Understanding the profile of users of the information disclosed • Understanding the purposes for which the disclosed information was being used • Feedback from different types of users (contracting authorities, investors, civil society organizations, media, and so forth) on whether the disclosed information was fulfilling their requirements • Satisfaction of administrators, content managers, and contracting authorities with the processes for information management using the public-facing portal • Views of different types of users (including administrators and content managers) on ease of use, technical challenges, and quality of the content • Perspectives of different types of users on specific improvements that could be made in content and structure • Perspectives of users on the impact of structured disclosure on accountability, public trust, increased investor confidence, and so forth. The timelines of the survey in relation to the launch of the portals are presented in table 3.1. 27 Toward More Accountable PPPs Table 3.1: Key Dates, by Country Country Portal launch date Survey launch date Survey closure date Ghana January 26, 2018 July 2, 2019 May 26, 2020 Honduras April 11, 2018 July 9, 2019 May 26, 2020 Kenya June 19, 2018 October 2, 2019 May 26, 2020 Nigeria September 22, 2017 July 9, 2019 May 26, 2020 Surveys were administered to public and private actors in the PPP sectors to capture users’ perceptions on the implementation of public disclosure of information, based on their experience. Through these perceptions, the study also sought to improve the understanding of the perception of benefits accrued and capture any challenges that could inform the next phase of the transparency initiative. Survey A multilingual (English and Spanish) survey was developed and made available online. The survey addressed several broad themes, with users being directed to specific questions depending on their profile (figure 3.1).14 Care was taken to ensure the anonymity of each respondent so that responses would be unbiased and recorded without any fear or favor. The questionnaire contained a total of 60 questions (not all mandatory and not all applicable to all types of users) and was designed to be completed in seven minutes on average by each user. At the beginning of the survey, respondents were asked to self-identify whether they were involved in the administration or management of the disclosure platform or not. Throughout this section, the term “admin” refers to respondents who declared themselves as being involved in the administration and/or management of the portal, while the term “general” refers to all other respondents. The questionnaire was designed to investigate the following themes: • User profile • Awareness of the disclosure framework and the disclosure of information through the public-facing portal • Usage of the information (frequency, usefulness, purpose, usability, and satisfaction levels) • Quality and timely updates of content • Technical robustness of the portal • Outreach to users by the entity managing the information • Impact of the information disclosed on investment, transparency and accountability, public trust, governance, and the larger PPP environment • Suggestions for improvements, including in the content and usability of the disclosed information. Administrators and/or content managers were asked questions on the following: • Content (information collection and timely updating) • Technical issues related to information disclosure • Process issues related to information disclosure • Legal and administrative issues 14 The complete survey questionnaire is available in annex C. 28 Toward More Accountable PPPs • Challenges (technical, that is, related to the portal, and process-related) • Suggestions for improvement (training, processes, and resources). Although most of the questions were designed to elicit objective, quantifiable data, several open-ended questions were included for respondents to provide comments and feedback related to the themes. Figure 3.1: Survey Landing Page (English) Source: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/worldbank-ppp-disclosure. Response Strategy With the PPP market in each of the pilot countries being relatively small, it was expected that the number of potential respondents would be correspondingly limited. With this knowledge, a multipronged strategy was used to ensure substantial participation from different types of users, including individuals associated with PPP coordinating entities, contracting authorities, investment entities, special purpose vehicles (SPVs), civil society organizations (CSOs), media, and academia. A contact list was first drawn up in collaboration with the coordinating entity in each country, as well as other partners (such as CoST). This list included all the individuals who had been interviewed in-country during the review, who had participated in stakeholder consultations during the development of the customized national PPP disclosure frameworks, and those who had attended the trainings for information disclosure and management in each country. In addition, PPP coordinating entities were urged to share the contact details of individuals in their outreach databases. Once these lists were collated, a message was sent from a World Bank team member that provided the background to the survey and sought responses to it. Some emails were undeliverable due to outdated or incorrect email addresses, and the lists were cleaned up accordingly for subsequent efforts to contact potential respondents. The responses that were received were complete, where the respondent had reached the last page of the survey and completed it, or incomplete, where a user had started the survey but did not reach the last page of the survey and therefore their response was recorded as incomplete. 29 Toward More Accountable PPPs This initial message was followed up on the ground by an in-country study team member who individually tracked the responses received and reached out to those who had not responded or had submitted an incomplete response. Where respondents were unable or unwilling to respond using the online link, the team member contacted them over the phone and recorded their observations verbally or fixed an appointment for a face-to-face meeting to receive their feedback (and later entered it into the database).15 In some cases, the PPP coordinating entity also followed up directly with potential respondents to ensure that their feedback was entered into the database. In other cases, a second email was sent out with a request to fill out the online form only to those on the contact lists who had not responded despite previous efforts. Responses were tracked throughout the process and when the number of a specific type of profile in a specific jurisdiction was discovered to be low, special efforts were made by the in-country consultant and/or a World Bank team member to reach out to potential respondents of that profile with a request for a telephone conversation to solicit their feedback. The main challenge faced by any study seeking feedback primarily through an online survey is that of ensuring a robust response rate. Although estimates vary by industry, size of the respondent universe, and prior relationship with potential respondents, on average, the typical response rate for online surveys lies between 20 percent and 30 percent. In the case of this survey, a much higher response rate of 43 percent was achieved due to the strategy that was used (table 3.2). Table 3.2: Response Rate, by Country Emails Total Complete Country Emails sent Response rateb bounced back responsesa responses Ghanac 222 42 123 108 68% Honduras 595 83 122 103 24% Kenya 96 15 41 29 51% Nigeria 401 89 183 150 59% Total 1,314 229 469 390 43% a. Including incomplete responses. b. Total responses as a percentage of non-bouncing email addresses, rounded. c. In Ghana, in addition to the online responses, a significant number of responses (50) were collected offline. In Nigeria, the relatively high number of responses can be attributed largely to the proactive role that the PPP coordination and regulatory entity in the country, the ICRC, played to ensure that key stakeholders were contacted and responded to the survey. ICRC staff followed up with potential respondents using a variety of tools, including WhatsApp, to ensure wide participation in the survey. In Ghana, the number of respondents was largely on par, in part due to strong efforts to collect responses through telephone and face-to-face meetings. The key related finding to emerge was the lack of awareness of the PPP disclosure platform in the country, despite the high-profile launch events that were carried out in each of the countries, which led to a small number of responses of actual users of the disclosed information. 15 This strategy was used the most in Ghana, with 50 responses being collected in this manner. 30 Toward More Accountable PPPs In Kenya, there was a general lack of response from various government entities that had been contacted during the survey. The PPP Unit appeared to be too overwhelmed by its regular activities to be able to provide the support required to ensure a higher level of response from various stakeholders. Challenges in Carrying Out the Study The main challenge faced by the study was that in two of the pilot countries, Ghana and Kenya, the disclosure portals had gone offline due to institutional and technical reasons when the call for responses was to go out. This points to larger concerns. Effectively, this meant that the overall proportion of general respondents from whom feedback on the actual content and impact of the disclosure platform could be gained was 36 percent, with significant variations across countries (table 3.3). Table 3.3: Awareness of Information Disclosed, General Respondents, by Country Aware, but never Complete Unaware of Effective Country accessed the Percentageb responses the portal responsesa disclosed information Ghana 102 65 21 16 16% Honduras 69 30 0 39 57% Kenya 27 7 7 13 48% Nigeria 123 59 15 49 40% Total 321 161 43 117 36% a. This implies respondents who were aware of and had visited the portal. b. All percentage figures throughout this report have been rounded to the nearest whole number. The survey was sent only to a selected universe of respondents, each of whom was directly related to the PPP space in each pilot country. This means that the responses that were collected were only from such individuals whose insights were based on deeper subject matter understanding than that of a non- interested user. This adds a nonquantifiable weight to each response, and therefore even a small number of responses is a source of important insights on PPP disclosure. Summary of the Findings The following is a summary of the key findings from the study on the perceptions of the survey respondents. Overview • Awareness of the information disclosed via public-facing web portals (currently at 50 percent of respondents) can be improved. This lack of awareness cuts across professional affiliations, including contracting authorities and investment entities. • General awareness of the PPP disclosure framework is relatively low (36 percent). It is a matter of concern that some admin users16 of the portal (20 percent) who are involved in the process of disclosure of information are unaware of the PPP disclosure framework that underpins the entire exercise of disclosure of information. 16 Respondents were asked early in the survey, “Are you involved in the administration / management of the PPP disclosure web portal of your country in any way?” to self-identify themselves as an admin user or not. 31 Toward More Accountable PPPs • Current laws, policies, and the disclosure framework are largely adequate to address transparency and accountability of PPPs (71 percent). Content, Usage, and Usability • The information disclosed is overwhelmingly useful for respondents cutting across professional categories (92 percent). • Users access the information for a variety of reasons, but primarily to obtain information on past and existing projects (61 percent), track the progress of ongoing projects (57 percent), and track public spending and PPP performance (50 percent). • Private investment entities primarily use the information to track announcements of new projects (75 percent) and assess their potential engagement in them (63 percent). • Users mostly find the information they are looking for (59 percent), but there is significant scope for improvement in ensuring that complete, meaningful, and exploitable information is available in a timely manner on the portals. • Regular and timely updating of information is a concern among the users (26 percent), especially in the context of ongoing projects. Lack of up-to-date information is a major lacuna that is affecting the efficacy of the information disclosed. • Outreach mechanisms (such as regular dissemination of electronic newsletters) have seen limited and weak implementation and need to be strengthened. • Overall, there is a moderate to high level of satisfaction with the portals (90 percent). However, the usability, quality, completeness, and freshness of content have been identified as key areas for improvement. Information Management • The most challenging problems in carrying out effective information management are institutional and processual. Getting information from ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs) for publication as well as validation and approvals before publication is a significant problem (45 percent). Human resource constraints (45 percent) are another major challenge to be overcome. • While the disclosure frameworks for each jurisdiction have allocated disclosure responsibilities between PPP coordinating entities, MDAs, SPVs, and other PPP actors, there is a lack of awareness, sensitization, training, and institutionalization of these responsibilities (35 percent). However, these issues were discussed in detail during the stakeholder workshops. • Admin users have faced some technical problems in managing and updating the information, primarily due to internet connectivity and website hosting issues (68 percent). • Admin users have not faced any significant political interference or restrictions in carrying out their disclosure-related responsibilities (73 percent). • PPP disclosure has not led to any perceptible increase in operational problems (92 percent). • The main challenge in ensuring sustainability and improvement in disclosure of information is the institutional support provided (65 percent), along with the institutional relationships between the PPP coordinating entities, MDAs, SPVs, and other actors (68 percent). Impact • There has been significant improvement in PPP disclosure in all jurisdictions (70 percent). • There has been significant improvement in transparency and accountability of PPPs (57 percent). 32 Toward More Accountable PPPs • Investor interest and confidence in PPPs has increased perceptibly in each jurisdiction following the disclosure of information (43 percent). • The disclosure of information has also had a positive impact on improving decision making within PPP- related government entities (58 percent), and it has reduced information requests from the public (37 percent). • Disclosure of information has significantly improved citizen engagement, public trust, and confidence. Public perceptions of government efforts for anti-corruption have also improved. As a result, the legitimacy of PPPs to finance infrastructure has increased.17 Detailed Findings18 Respondent Profile The questionnaire was designed such that different sets of questions were presented to admin and general users of the disclosed information. The breakdown of the respondents based on their administrative/content updating role is presented in table 3.4. Table 3.4: Respondent Profile, All Respondents, by Country Complete Country Admin users Percentage General users Percentage responses Ghana 108 6 6% 102 94% Honduras 103 34 33% 69 67% Kenya 29 2 7% 27 93% Nigeria 150 27 18% 123 82% Total 390 69 18% 321 82% All admin respondents were staff of a contracting authority or the PPP coordinating entity. For general respondents, the breakdown by primary professional affiliation was more varied (figure 3.2; table 3.5). 17 Respondents of different types, including admin users, public employees, private sector employees, and CSO representatives, were asked questions related to these themes at different points in the survey. Although there are some variations on these questions depending on type of respondent, the larger trends remain as indicated. The next section provides more granular data on these questions by type of respondent. 18 All the data in this section are based on complete responses only, unless indicated otherwise. All the percentage figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number. In some figures and tables, this has meant that the total percentage figure does not add up to 100 percent. 33 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.2: Profile of General Respondents Note: CSO = civil society organization; INGO = international nongovernmental organization; NGO = nongovernmental organization; PPP = public-private partnership. Table 3.5: Profile of General Respondents Primary professional affiliation Number of Percentage respondents PPP Unit/PPP coordination entity (or similar) 11 9% PPP regulatory body 9 8% Contracting authority/ministry, department, or agency 15 15% Other governmental entity 14 12% International financial institution 2 2% International donor 1 1% Civil society organization/nongovernmental organization/international 15 13% nongovernmental organization Bank/investment entity 3 3% Special purpose vehicle 3 3% Private company/consulting firm 17 20% Individual consultant (public sector) 5 4% Individual consultant (not-for-profit) 2 2% Individual consultant (private sector) 6 5% Media 3 3% Academia 4 3% Other (please specify) 4 3% Total 117a a. This is the total number of general respondents who have visited the PPP disclosure portal at least once. The issue of awareness, or the lack of it, is discussed separately. As the data show, the maximum proportion of responses is from public entities (42 percent). This is not surprising as the PPP markets in these pilot countries are relatively nascent and small, which means that, at this time, public entities are key players in growing these markets. In addition, this may also be due to the involvement of PPP coordinating entities in the dissemination of the survey. Such entities have a 34 Toward More Accountable PPPs greater influence on other government entities (such as contracting authorities) than on the private sector. Overall, the spread of responses across different types of professional affiliations is wide, except there is a relatively low proportion of investment entities (3 percent). However, to some extent, this is mitigated by the relatively large proportion of respondents who belong to a private company/ consulting firm (20 percent), as well as individual consultants in the private sector (5 percent). Within the PPP ecosystem, such entities have deep linkages with investment entities and, as such, their perspectives are likely to have a considerable overlap. Awareness Of the 321 general respondents, the split was more or less half between those who were aware of the disclosure of information via public-facing portals and those who were not (figure 3.3). Figure 3.3: Awareness of the PPP Disclosure Portal The highest level of awareness was in Kenya, followed by Honduras, Nigeria, and Ghana. Although the respondent base in Kenya was smaller than that in the other countries, the level of awareness was the highest, with 74 percent of the respondents knowing about the existence of the portal (table 3.6). 35 Toward More Accountable PPPs Table 3.6: Awareness of the PPP Disclosure Portal, by Country Knew about Country Total responses Percentage the portal Ghana 102 37 36% Honduras 69 39 57% Kenya 27 20 74% Nigeria 123 64 52% Total 321 160 50% Of the respondents who were aware of the portal, 73 percent had visited the portal, while 27 percent had never visited it (figure 3.4). Those who were not aware or had never visited the portal were not asked questions related to the portal, nor were they encouraged to visit the portal and then take the survey again. This was done to get a real understanding of the levels of awareness, as well as why respondents may not be visiting the portal despite knowing about it. Figure 3.4: Respondents’ Portal Visits Among the pilot countries, all the respondents from Honduras who knew about the portal had also visited it, while in Nigeria, more than three-quarters had visited the portal (table 3.7). In general, almost three- quarters of the general respondents who knew about the portal had also visited it. 36 Toward More Accountable PPPs Table 3.7: Respondents Who Have Visited the Portal, by Country Visited the Country Total responses Percentage portal Ghana 37 16 43% Honduras 39 39 100% Kenya 20 13 65% Nigeria 64 49 77% Total 160 117 73% When queried about the reason for not having visited the portal, a large proportion of the respondents (40 percent) expressed an inability to find it or lack of time (21 percent) as the main reason for not having visited the portal (figure 3.5). Lack of interest (2 percent) was the least likely reason not to have visited the portal. Figure 3.5: Reasons for Never Visiting the Portal Note: The total percentage adds up to more than 100 percent as respondents could select multiple reasons. Comments by some users suggested that the portal being offline for a duration of time (in Ghana and Kenya) was a problem they had faced when attempting to visit it. Among the general respondents who were unaware of or had never visited the disclosure portal19, the largest number was associated with government institutions (table 3.8). This is unsurprising because the total number of respondents involved with government institutions is correspondingly high. Lack of awareness of the portal also appeared to be high among private companies and consulting firms, CSOs, and banks, which are important professional categories from the perspective of the PPP space. 19 Respondents who were not aware of the portal or had never visited it exited the survey without having to self-identify their primary professional affiliation. These numbers were calculated by the team by identifying such respondents and allocating each one a primary professional affiliation by analyzing data such as name and/or organization name and/or email address, where available. As these fields were nonmandatory for the respondents, these numbers are not comprehensive. However, these data provide a broad indication of the profile of respondents who were unaware of or had never visited the disclosure portal in their respective jurisdictions. 37 Toward More Accountable PPPs Table 3.8: Profile of General Respondents Who Were Unaware of or Never Visited the Portal, by Country Ghana Honduras Kenya Nigeria Total Unaware of portal Unaware of portal Unaware of portal Unaware of portal Aware but never Aware but never Aware but never Aware but never visited portal visited portal visited portal visited portal professional affiliation Primary PPP coordination entity (or 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 1 7 similar) Contracting authority; 11 7 4 0 3 5 14 5 49 ministry, department, or agency; government entity International financial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 institution or donor Civil society organization, 12 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 21 nongovernmental organization, or international nongovernmental organization Bank, or investment entity 2 1 4 0 3 1 4 1 16 Special purpose vehicle 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 Private company, or 11 4 2 0 0 0 13 3 33 consulting firm Individual consultant 3 0 2 0 0 0 11 2 18 Media 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Academia 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 6 Respondents were also asked about their awareness of the PPP disclosure framework upon which the respective disclosure portals were based. Almost two-thirds of the general respondents (64 percent) did not know about the framework (figure 3.6). 38 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.6: Awareness of the PPP Disclosure Framework, General Respondents At the same time, it was observed that while 80 percent of admin respondents knew about the PPP disclosure framework, 20 percent of them did not (table 3.9). This figure was highest in Ghana, where a third of the admin respondents (33 percent) were not aware of the PPP disclosure framework. This issue may need some attention, as knowledge of the disclosure framework should be a mandatory prerequisite for all individuals involved in the management or updating of the disclosure portal. Table 3.9: Awareness of the PPP Disclosure Framework, Admin Respondents, by Country (%) Country Yes No Ghana 67 33 Honduras 76 24 Kenyaa 100 0 Nigeria 85 15 Total 80 20 a. The responses in Kenya reflected the number of admin respondents, as there were only two. The 100 percent awareness rate among admin users in Kenya should be seen in this context. Of the respondents (all types) who were aware of the PPP disclosure framework, a large majority (71 percent) believed that it adequately addressed the issue of transparency and accountability in their jurisdiction (figure 3.7). 39 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.7: Adequacy of the Disclosure Framework to Address Transparency and Accountability of PPPs At the country level, the respondents in Nigeria (75 percent) and Honduras (74 percent) had the greatest confidence in the framework to deliver on its desired objectives (table 3.10). The respondents in Kenya (61 percent) and Ghana (55 percent) had relatively lower levels of confidence in the same. Table 3.10: Adequacy of the Disclosure Framework to Address Transparency and Accountability of PPPs, by Country (%) Country Yes No Don't know/can't say Ghana 55 18 27 Honduras 74 17 9 Kenya 61 17 22 Nigeria 75 5 20 Total 71 12 18 Note: The total percentage in this table may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Usage of the Portal Frequency of Visits In terms of frequency of visits, 58 percent of the respondents visited the portal once a month or more, with 7 percent visiting the portal more than once a week (figure 3.8). However, 42 percent visited the portal less than once a month. 40 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.8: Frequency of Visits to the Portal Usefulness of the Information Disclosed It was heartening to note that almost all (99 percent) of the respondents found the PPP disclosure portal at least a little useful for their work, 92 percent found it at least somewhat useful, and more than half (52 percent) found it extremely useful or very useful (figure 3.9). The largest proportion of respondents were those who found the portal very useful or somewhat useful for their work (40 percent each). Figure 3.9: Usefulness of the Portal for Work The pattern was largely replicated at the country level, with all the respondents from Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria finding the portal at least a little useful (table 3.11). 41 Toward More Accountable PPPs Table 3.11: Usefulness of the Portal for Work, by Country (%) Extremely Very Not so Country Somewhat useful Not at all useful useful useful useful Ghana 19 38 31 13 0 Honduras 13 18 62 8 0 Kenya 8 23 69 0 0 Nigeria 10 63 18 6 2 Alla 12 40 40 7 1 Note: The total percentage in this table may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. a. The percentage figure for all countries was calculated based on the total entries in the database and is not an average of the percentage figures for each country in the table. Reasons for Visiting the Portal The respondents visited the portal for several reasons. Nearly two-thirds (61 percent) did so to find information on past and existing projects, and more than half for information on new projects (55 percent) and to track the progress of projects (57 percent) (figure 3.10). Finding performance information was another important reason for respondents to visit the portal (50 percent). Finding tender information was relatively the least important (29 percent), although not insignificant, reason for respondents to visit the portal. This was corroborated through telephonic interviews in which several users stated that typically they would access the contracting authority’s website as the primary and most up -to-date source for tender documents. Some users also indicated in the comments that they used the portal to identify best practices in PPP processes, carry out social audits of PPPs, and in some cases verify information appearing in the media about specific projects. Figure 3.10: Reasons to Visit the Portal Content Frequency of Finding the Desired Information The next set of questions related to the quality and adequacy of information available on the portal. Almost half of the respondents (44 percent) usually found the information they were looking for, with an additional 31 percent finding it sometimes (figure 3.11). Overall, almost 90 percent of the respondents found the information they were looking for at least sometimes, with 15 percent always finding it. Only 3 percent never found the information they were looking for, and 9 percent stated that they rarely had any success—a total of 12 percent who mostly did not find the information they were looking for. 42 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.11: Frequency of Finding Information This pattern was broadly repeated at the country level, again with no respondent from Kenya or Nigeria reporting that s/he had never found the information they were looking for (table 3.12). Nigeria was the top performer, with three-quarters of users always or usually finding the information they were looking for. Table 3.12: Frequency of Finding Information, by Country (%) Country Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never Ghana 13 31 31 13 13 Honduras 8 44 38 8 3 Kenya 15 15 54 15 0 Nigeria 20 55 18 6 0 All 15 44 31 9 3 Note: The total percentage in this table may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Adequacy of the Information Available on the Portal In terms of adequacy, almost three-quarters of the respondents (73 percent) stated that the information provided on the portal was adequate (figure 3.12). 43 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.12: Adequacy of Information on the Portal This was largely replicated at the country level, with Kenya being an outlier, where more than half of the respondents (54 percent) stated that the information being provided was not adequate (table 3.13). This was corroborated through phone interviews as well, where several respondents informed study team members that the information on the PPP disclosure portal in Kenya was not being updated in a timely or regular way. Table 3.13: Adequacy of Information on the Portal, by Country (%) Country Yes No Ghana 63 38 Honduras 82 18 Kenya 46 54 Nigeria 76 24 All 73 27 Note: The total percentage in this table may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. The respondents were asked to provide details of the type of information that should be available but was not. While the lack of up-to-date information was a recurring theme, other responses (received through comments) to this question included the following: • More detailed performance information • Incomplete financial information (for example, if a government is making a capital contribution, what percentage of the total project costs does this contribution account for?) • More details on the parties involved, especially once the contract has been signed (otherwise an impression of transparency is created, without it being present in actual practice) • More data in exploitable formats such as Excel • Presentation of information in simpler ways • More images • Timelines for completion • More financial information • Details of transaction advisors 44 Toward More Accountable PPPs • All Outline Business Case documents (Nigeria) • Rationale for the procurement method • More details on agreed service levels • All technical specifications, as well as modifications made to them at any stage • Regulatory body reports and/or any independent reports on existing projects • Tax identification numbers of all parties • Names of technical committee members. Most of these categories of information along with the forms of presentation had been identified in the disclosure framework for each pilot country; therefore, they should have been available on the individual project pages in each portal. However, providing appropriate, complete, and up-to-date information regularly and consistently through the portals is clearly emerging as a key challenge for effective PPP disclosure. Timeliness of Information Disclosure More than a third (38 percent) of the respondents were satisfied with the timeliness of information disclosure (figure 3.13). A similar proportion of the respondents (37 percent) were unable to say definitively if information was being published in a timely manner, as they were unable to identify information that should be public at a given point in time but in fact was not. Figure 3.13: Timeliness of Disclosure At the country level, the variations were larger than normal, with Kenya again being an outlier, with only 8 percent of the respondents reporting that information was being provided in a timely manner (table 3.14). This was corroborated through telephone interviews with respondents from Kenya where the lack of up-to-date information was raised consistently as a matter of concern. By contrast, in Nigeria, more than half of the information-seeking respondents reported being satisfied with the timeliness of disclosure. 45 Toward More Accountable PPPs Table 3.14: Timeliness of Disclosure, by Country (%) Country Yes No Don't know/can't say Ghana 31 13 56 Honduras 33 46 21 Kenya 8 54 38 Nigeria 51 6 43 All 38 26 37 Note: The total percentage in this table may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. To gain the perspective of information providers on the same issue, a similar question was asked of the admin respondents to the survey. A little more than half (51 percent) of the admin respondents were of the view that the portal was up to date with information and documents as per the disclosure framework (figure 3.14). Given that their knowledge of information availability on the portal is bound to be greater than that of regular users, almost a third (30 percent) (compared with 26 percent of the general respondents) stated that the portal was not up to date with documents and information. This again points to the challenge of PPP disclosure portals not being updated as often as they should be, despite specific guidelines on the updating being a part of the framework. Figure 3.14: How Up to Date Is the Portal? Admin Respondents At the country level, again, a similar pattern emerged, with Ghana having the highest percentage of admin respondents (67 percent) saying that the portal was up to date (table 3.15). Kenya was the outlier with all the admin respondents recording that the portal was not up to date. 46 Toward More Accountable PPPs Table 3.15: How Up to Date Is the Portal? Admin Respondents, by Country (%) Country Yes No Don't know/can't say Ghana 67 33 0 Honduras 56 26 18 Kenya 0 100 0 Nigeria 46 29 25 All 51 30 19 Note: The total percentage in this table may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Contract Documents Of all the respondents, a significant proportion (38 percent) had downloaded contract documents through their respective country PPP disclosure portals (figure 3.15). Figure 3.15: Downloaded Contract Documents Of those who had downloaded documents, two-thirds (66 percent) were satisfied with the process. The problems the rest of the respondents faced again overwhelmingly pointed to incomplete or outdated information (87 percent) (figure 3.16). Significantly, no respondent thought that there was too much information on the portal making it difficult to find and download contract documents. 47 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.16: Problems Faced in Downloading Contract Documents Related respondent comments included the following: • The portal often states that “Information will be published as soon as it is available,” for example, on stakeholder engagement, but such information is often not provided. (Nigeria) • Relevant information is hidden. (Honduras) • The information is outdated. (Honduras) Satisfaction with the Portal Among the general respondents, overall satisfaction with the PPP disclosure portal was high, with over half (53 percent) being highly satisfied (a great deal and a lot) (figure 3.17). Only 11 percent of the respondents were quite unsatisfied with the portal. Figure 3.17: Satisfaction with the PPP Disclosure Portal At the country level, the respondents from Ghana, Honduras, and Nigeria were in general satisfied with their respective portals. Kenya was the notable outlier, with 85 percent of the respondents being moderately or less satisfied with the portal (table 3.16). 48 Toward More Accountable PPPs Table 3.16: Satisfaction with the PPP Disclosure Portal, by Country (%) A moderate Country A great deal A lot A little Not at all amount Ghana 19 31 31 13 6 Honduras 13 36 41 10 0 Kenya 8 8 69 8 8 Nigeria 18 49 27 6 0 All 15 38 37 9 2 Note: The total percentage in this table may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Outreach The regular publication and dissemination of electronic newsletters by the PPP coordinating entity had been identified as an important tool to keep stakeholders informed about new developments in the PPP environment. The option to subscribe to such newsletters was provided on each disclosure portal and almost a third of the admin respondents (29 percent) acknowledged that at least some portal users had subscribed to electronic newsletters through the portal, although they were unaware of the total number of subscribers (figure 3.18). A significant percentage of the admin respondents (39 percent) were unable to definitively state whether any users had subscribed to electronic newsletters through the portal. Figure 3.18: Whether Users Have Subscribed to an Electronic Newsletter, Admin Respondents In terms of the publication and dissemination of electronic newsletters, the perspectives among the admin respondents varied at the country level. There appears to be some confusion among the admin respondents on this question—with broadly equal numbers in Honduras and Nigeria saying that newsletters were or were not being sent out (table 3.17). Where respondents stated that an electronic newsletter was being sent out, opinion on its frequency was also divided, with responses ranging from “once a month” to “irregularly.” Importantly, across almost all the jurisdictions, a large proportion of the admin respondents were simply unaware of the current status of outreach through electronic newsletters. 49 Toward More Accountable PPPs Table 3.17: Are Electronic Newsletters Being Sent Out? Admin Respondents, by Country (%) Country Yes No Don't know/can't say Ghana 17 50 33 Honduras 26 24 50 Kenya 0 100 0 Nigeria 21 21 57 All 23 27 50 Note: The total percentage in this table may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. In sum, it was clear that no outreach efforts through electronic newsletters were being made (Kenya), or where some efforts were being made, there was a lack of credible or consistent information about this activity even within the pool of admin respondents. This was corroborated by the general respondents, who are the target audience of such an outreach activity. Very few of the respondents (9 percent) had subscribed to electronic newsletters, of which a majority were in Nigeria (figure 3.19). Figure 3.19: Subscriptions to Electronic Newsletters Note: The total percentage may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Lack of awareness (49 percent) was identified as the primary reason for not subscribing to electronic newsletters through the disclosure portal, with a preference for checking the portal for updates coming as a close second (45 percent) (figure 3.20). 50 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.20: Reasons for Not Subscribing to Electronic Newsletters Note: The total percentage may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. At the same time, among the respondents who had subscribed to and received newsletters, all found the content at least somewhat useful, with most finding it very or extremely useful (54 percent) (figure 3.21). Figure 3.21: Usefulness of Newsletter Content Note: The total percentage may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Portal Management A series of questions were specifically asked of the respondents who were admins of the portal. These were respondents who had self-identified as being involved in the administration or management of the PPP disclosure portal in their respective jurisdictions. Problems Half of the admin respondents stated that they had had no problems in updating or managing the portal (figure 3.22). A fifth of the admin respondents stated that they could not definitively comment on this issue. This was most likely because such respondents may have been a part of the management that oversees the disclosure portal but were not directly involved with it at the operational level. 51 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.22: Problems in Updating and Managing the Portal In Kenya, no respondents had faced any problems in managing the portal, while in Ghana two-thirds (67 percent) had not faced any problems in updating or managing the portal (table 3.18). Table 3.18: Problems in Updating and Managing the Portal, by Country (%) Country Yes No Don't know/can't say Ghana 33 67 0 Honduras 32 47 21 Kenya 0 100 0 Nigeria 32 46 21 All 31 50 19 Note: The total percentage in this table may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Respondents who had faced problems were asked about the types of issues they had faced. The options offered were related to institutional and technical processes. The biggest problems faced by the respondents were technical issues (68 percent) (figure 3.23). Comments from the respondents indicated that these were largely related to website hosting20 and internet connectivity and not the portal per se. The main process-related problem was in getting information from MDAs to publish on the portal (45 percent). Validation of information before publication (45 percent) and human resource constraints (45 percent) were other major problems faced by the admin respondents. 20 This was reflected in the fact that the PPP disclosure portals in Ghana and Kenya had been offline for several weeks after they were handed over to the government. The handover took place well after the handholding period of six months after the launch. 52 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.23: Specific Problems in Updating and Managing the Portal Note: Respondents could choose multiple problems. MDAs = ministries, departments, and agencies; SPVs = special purpose vehicles. In Honduras, getting information from MDAs or SPVs was not a major problem (9 percent); validating information and getting approvals for publication was a bigger challenge (45 percent each) (table 3.19). In Ghana, all the respondents had had problems in getting information from MDAs. This was a major challenge in Nigeria as well (78 percent). 53 Toward More Accountable PPPs Table 3.19: Problems in Updating and Managing the Portal, by Country (%) Problem Ghana Honduras Kenyaa Nigeria All Getting information from ministries, 100 9 0 78 45 departments, and agencies Getting information from special purpose 50 9 0 33 23 vehicles Validating information before publication 50 45 0 44 45 Reformatting information before 0 27 0 44 32 publication Extracting appropriate information before 50 27 0 11 23 publication Identifying confidential information for 50 27 0 33 32 redaction prior to publication Getting approvals for publication 50 45 0 11 32 Poor information storage and retrieval 50 45 0 11 32 systems Time constraints 50 45 0 22 36 Human resource constraints 100 36 0 44 45 Technical issues 100 73 0 56 68 External interference 50 36 0 11 27 a. No admin respondent in Kenya had faced any problems in updating or managing the portal. This may have been because there were only two admin respondents in Kenya. Allocation of Responsibilities To understand the question of information flows between MDAs and the PPP coordinating entities, the admin respondents were also asked whether the responsibility for disclosure had been efficiently allocated between MDAs and other actors in the PPP disclosure process. A little more than one-third of the respondents (35 percent) believed that this was not the case, with 45 percent finding that this was not a problem (figure 3.24). 54 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.24: Allocation of Disclosure Responsibilities In relative terms, the respondents from Nigeria were most satisfied (52 percent) with the way in which the disclosure responsibilities had been allocated between MDAs and other institutions in the PPP ecosystem (table 3.20). Table 3.20: Satisfaction with the Allocation of Disclosure Responsibilities, by Country (%) Country Yes No Don't know/can't say Ghana 33 50 17 Honduras 44 35 21 Kenya 0 50 50 Nigeria 52 30 19 All 45 35 20 Note: The total percentage may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. The respondents also observed that the current problems in getting information from MDAs could be teething troubles, and as the capacity of the MDAs to develop and manage PPPs increases, their participation in and control over information disclosure processes will also improve. At the same time, some respondents pointed out that it was not clear which institution was primarily responsible for disclosure of information on the portal. The respondents provided suggestions to improve the allocation of responsibilities, which included the following: • Setting up a dedicated disclosure unit within the PPP coordinating entity • Setting up special information management and disclosure units in every entity involved in the disclosure process • Fixing specific responsibilities of the staff and units in each institution involved in the process • Improving information storage and management systems • Increasing the frequency and regularity of meetings between MDAs and PPP coordinating entities • Assigning dedicated information and communications technology and IT resources in each MDA • Institutionalizing annual refresher training programs for MDAs. 55 Toward More Accountable PPPs Training This concern was corroborated by the fact that a large majority of the admin respondents (87 percent) indicated that they required additional training in the management and usage of the disclosure portal (figure 3.25). Figure 3.25: Need for Additional Training for Administrators and Managers of the Portal Several respondents stated that with staff turnover, as well as the increase in the number of MDAs and other government entities becoming involved in PPPs, it has become imperative to carry out regular trainings continually on management of the portal. The respondents made additional suggestions for specific areas for training, including the following: • The importance and benefits of PPP disclosure • Understanding the disclosure framework • Managing and presenting data in editable and user-friendly formats such Excel • File conversion and visual design skills • Quality standards in information management and publication • Data collection and dissemination with respect to feasibility studies. Interference The admin respondents were asked whether there had been any interference or public concerns regarding the type of information that had been published on the PPP disclosure portal. A majority (58 percent) had never faced any such challenges, with only 17 percent specifically saying that they had ever faced such a problem (figure 3.26). 56 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.26: Interference in Publication of Information Most of the respondents (71 percent) pointed out that they had never faced any legal actions for publishing any proprietary information on the PPP disclosure portal (figure 3.27). Figure 3.27: Legal Action for Publishing Proprietary Information Challenges The admin respondents were asked to identify the main challenges they foresaw in improving the web portal in the future. More than two-thirds of the respondents (68 percent) saw cooperation between the PPP coordinating entity, MDAs, SPVs, and other institutional actors as the key challenge in sustaining and improving the PPP disclosure portal in the coming years (figure 3.28). This tied in with institutional support (65 percent) to the portal as another key challenge. Human resources (62 percent), technical capacity (61 percent), and financial resources (58 percent) were also seen as important challenges for the future. Most of the respondents saw existing laws and policies to be adequate for effective PPP disclosure through the portal, with only 26 percent seeing this a potential problem. 57 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.28: Challenges in Sustaining and Improving the Portal The relative importance of challenges for the sustainability and improvement of the portal differed across the countries. In Ghana, the main challenge was institutional support (83 percent), while technical limitations were not seen as a problem at all (table 3.21). The respondents from Honduras also pointed out the importance of institutional support to the portal as the primary challenge for the future (76 percent). In Kenya, the primarily challenge for the future of the portal was cooperation between the institutional actors within the PPP ecosystem (100 percent), and in Nigeria financial resources (74 percent) and human resources (74 percent) were identified as the primary challenges in ensuring the sustainability and improvement of the portal. Table 3.21: Challenges in Sustaining and Improving the Portal, by Country (%) Challenge Ghana Honduras Kenya Nigeria All Financial resources 17 56 0 74 58 Human resources 33 59 50 74 62 Technical limitations 0 68 0 70 61 Institutional support 83 76 50 48 65 Limitations in the law and/or policies 17 35 0 19 26 Cooperation between the public-private partnership unit; ministries, departments, 67 68 100 67 68 and agencies; special purpose vehicles; and other entities Note: Respondents could choose more than one option. 58 Toward More Accountable PPPs Impact To assess the impact of PPP disclosure in each jurisdiction, the survey sought the opinions of different types of respondents, with focused questions based on their involvement with the administration of the portals as well as their professional affiliations. The categories of respondents (some of them grouped together) were the following: • General respondents • Public employees, including admin respondents, staff of contracting authorities, PPP coordinating and regulatory entities, staff of international financial institutions, and international donors • CSO employees, including media and academia • Private sector, including banks, investment entities, SPVs, and private companies. General Respondents The general respondents were asked whether the portal had led to significant improvement in PPP disclosure compared with earlier. A large majority (70 percent) responded in the affirmative, with just under a quarter (24 percent) remaining neutral, while a small proportion (7 percent) felt that the portal had not resulted in significant improvement in PPP disclosure (figure 3.29). Figure 3.29: Impact of the Portal on PPP Disclosure There were some variations in responses at the country level, with Honduras (74 percent) and Nigeria (84 percent) largely agreeing (strongly agree and agree) with the assertion of significant improvement in PPP disclosure due to the web portal (table 3.22). Ghana (44 percent) and Kenya (54 percent) returned the highest percentages of neutral responses. This seems to be unsurprising given that in both countries the portal had been offline for some time, and updating of content is not being done regularly. 59 Toward More Accountable PPPs Table 3.22: Impact of the Portal on PPP Disclosure, by Country (%) Strongly Neither agree nor Strongly Country Agree Disagree agree disagree disagree Ghana 13 31 44 0 13 Honduras 18 56 15 10 0 Kenya 8 23 54 15 0 Nigeria 29 55 16 0 0 All 21 49 24 5 2 The general respondents were also specifically asked about the impact of the disclosure portal on the transparency and accountability of PPPs. Of the respondents, 87 percent felt that the disclosure portal has had at least some impact on PPP transparency and accountability (figure 3.30). Only 4 percent of the respondents said that it has had no such impact. Figure 3.30: Impact of the Portal on PPP Transparency and Accountability At the country level, the pattern of previous questions emerged again, with Honduras (54 percent) and Nigeria (72 percent) reporting significant improvement (a lot and a great deal) and Ghana (57 percent) and Kenya (70 percent) finding that the impact of the portal on PPP transparency and accountability was moderate or less (table 3.23). Table 3.23: Impact of the Portal on PPP Transparency and Accountability, by Country (%) A moderate Country A great deal A lot A little None amount Ghana 6 38 19 19 19 Honduras 18 36 36 10 0 Kenya 8 23 54 8 8 Nigeria 27 45 22 4 2 All 19 38 30 9 4 The general respondents were also asked about the governance and infrastructure challenges that the PPP disclosure portal addressed. Almost three-quarters of the respondents (70 percent) identified 60 Toward More Accountable PPPs government accountability as a key challenge that the PPP disclosure portal was helping to address (figure 3.31). Other important challenges that received the endorsement of over half of the respondents included citizen engagement (65 percent), improving public trust (57 percent), improving PPP efficiency (56 percent), improving investor confidence (55 percent), and integrity and anti-corruption (51 percent). Managing public expectations and improving PPP performance were identified as important challenges by half (50 percent) of the respondents. Relatively speaking, the two least selected (but by no means with an insignificant number of responses) were leveling the playing field for investors (31 percent) and reducing conflict and litigation (28 percent). Figure 3.31: Challenges Addressed by the PPP Disclosure Portal At the country level, the pattern was largely repeated, with citizen engagement, government accountability, and integrity and anti-corruption seen as the most important challenges addressed by the respective PPP disclosure portals (table 3.24). Reducing conflict and litigation was seen as the least important one. 61 Toward More Accountable PPPs Table 3.24: Challenges Addressed by the PPP Disclosure Portal, by Country (%) Challenge Ghana Honduras Kenya Nigeria All Citizen engagement 69 67 62 63 65 Government accountability 63 82 69 63 70 Integrity and anti-corruption 50 77 38 35 51 Improving public trust 56 54 38 65 57 Managing public expectations 31 56 46 51 50 Leveling the playing field for investors 13 23 46 39 31 Improving investor confidence 38 51 62 61 55 Reducing conflict and litigation 25 36 8 29 28 Improving PPP efficiency 63 59 38 57 56 Improving PPP performance 50 38 54 51 47 Public Employees The survey also sought the perspectives of all the public employees (including admin respondents, staff of contracting authorities, PPP coordinating and regulatory entities, staff of international financial institutions, and international donors) along similar lines as above, with a focus on the impact that the PPP disclosure portal has had on the functioning of government entities. Almost two-thirds of these respondents stated that the information disclosure had improved citizen engagement (63 percent) and public trust (60 percent) (figure 3.32). A large proportion of the respondents also felt that the impact of the information disclosure extended to improved decision making (58 percent), improved investor confidence (58 percent), and increased legitimacy (51 percent). Significantly, 37 percent of the respondents felt that requests for information had reduced due to the proactive disclosure of information via the public-facing portals. Only a small proportion (8 percent) of the respondents felt that the information disclosure had increased operational problems. However, one respondent pointed out that the national information disclosure framework and its implementation have not had much impact on disclosure of information with respect to PPP projects procured at the subnational level. 62 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.32: Impact of PPP Disclosure, Public Employees At the country level, some variations were seen, with Ghana reporting a very high impact on improved decision making (85 percent) and Kenya a significant reduction in requests for information (55 percent) (table 3.25). Table 3.25: Impact of PPP Disclosure, Public Employees, by Country (%) Impact Ghana Honduras Kenya Nigeria All Improved decision making 85 52 36 62 58 Increased legitimacy 31 58 27 54 51 Improved citizen engagement 46 77 18 62 63 Improved public trust 62 54 36 72 60 Improved investor confidence 62 44 36 76 58 Fewer requests for information 15 25 55 50 37 Increase in operational problems 23 4 0 10 8 The public employees were specifically asked about the contribution of the portal to improving public trust and confidence in PPPs. More than half (55 percent) responded that the portal has made a significant contribution, and 86 percent responded that there had been at least a moderate contribution (figure 3.33). Only a small proportion (5 percent) stated that the portal has made no contribution to improving public trust and confidence in PPPs. 63 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.33: Contribution of Information Disclosure to Public Trust and Confidence, Public Employees At the country level, almost all the responses (98 percent) from Nigeria were that the contribution was at least a moderate amount, with more than three-quarters (78 percent) stating that the contribution had been a lot or more (table 3.26). Kenya reported relatively the lowest contribution, with more than three- quarters of the respondents (82 percent) stating that the contribution had been moderate or less. In Ghana, almost a quarter of the respondents (23 percent) felt that the portal had made no contribution to improving public trust and confidence. Table 3.26: Contribution of the Portal to Public Trust and Confidence, Public Employees, by Country (%) A moderate Country A great deal A lot A little None amount Ghana 8 62 8 0 23 Honduras 25 12 40 17 6 Kenya 0 18 64 18 0 Nigeria 40 38 20 2 0 All 27 28 31 10 5 Public employees were also asked about the contribution of the disclosure portal to improving investor interest and confidence in each jurisdiction. Overall, 86 percent of the respondents stated that there had been at least a moderate contribution, with more than half (55 percent) responding that the contribution had been a lot or more (figure 3.34). Only 5 percent of the respondents observed that there had been no contribution of the disclosure portal to improving investor interest and confidence in the PPP market. 64 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.34: Contribution of Information Disclosure to Investor Interest and Confidence, Public Employees Among the pilot countries, almost all the Nigerian respondents (98 percent) found that the PPP disclosure portal has contributed at least a moderate amount to improving investor interest and confidence, with almost three-quarters (72 percent) stating that the contribution had been a lot or more (table 3.27). Table 3.27: Contribution of Disclosure to Investor Interest and Confidence, Public Employees, by Country (%) A moderate Country A great deal A lot A little None amount Ghana 8 62 8 8 15 Honduras 21 21 35 17 6 Kenya 0 27 64 0 9 Nigeria 32 40 26 2 0 All 22 33 31 9 5 Private Sector The respondents who were affiliated with the private sector (banks and investment entities, SPVs, and private companies involved in PPPs) were asked a similar question. The perspective on this side of the fence, as it were, generally corresponded with the perspective of the public employees on this question. Almost three-quarters of the private sector respondents (74 percent) stated that the disclosure web portal has made at least a moderate contribution to increasing investor confidence and interest in PPPs, with 43 percent stating that the contribution was a lot or more (figure 3.35). However, on the lower end of the spectrum, this figure was higher, with a quarter of the respondents finding that the contribution of the portal was little or less. 65 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.35: Contribution of Information Disclosure to Investor Interest and Confidence, Private Sector At the country level, more than four-fifths (81 percent) of the private sector respondents in Nigeria acknowledged that the contribution of the portal to improved investor interest and confidence was at least moderate, with 43 percent considering the contribution to be a lot or more (table 3.28). At the other end of the spectrum, two-thirds (67 percent) of the respondents in Kenya thought the contribution was only a little. Table 3.28: Contribution of Disclosure to Investor Interest and Confidence, Private Sector, by Country (%) A moderate Country A great deal A lot A little None amount Ghana 0 33 0 33 33 Honduras 0 80 20 0 0 Kenya 0 0 33 67 0 Nigeria 14 29 38 14 5 All 9 34 31 19 6 The respondents affiliated with the private sector were also asked to provide suggestions on how to improve the portal. The main thrust of the suggestions was on ensuring that the information on the portals was up to date and increasing awareness of the portals. The private sector respondents were also asked how they used the information available on the PPP disclosure portals. Three-quarters used the information to track the progress of projects, and almost two- thirds (63 percent) used the information to assess potential engagement in projects (figure 3.36). More than half (53 percent) used the portal to track announcements of new projects. The least common uses of the information were assessing government intent (25 percent) and understanding the evaluation criteria for proposals (25 percent). 66 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.36: How Is the Disclosed Information Used, Private Sector Civil Society Organizations The respondents who were affiliated with CSOs, nongovernmental organizations, media, and academia were asked a similar question on usage of information from the disclosure portal. A large majority (67 percent) of the respondents used the information to track public spending and procurement, with the other reasons for use being at half or more (figure 3.37). Figure 3.37: How Is Information from the Disclosure Portal Used? Civil Society Organizations CSO respondents were asked about the extent to which the disclosure of information had improved public confidence in PPP procurement and monitoring. Three-quarters of the respondents said that information disclosure had achieved this objective at least moderately, with a third stating that disclosure had improved public confidence in procurement and monitoring a lot or more (figure 3.38). Only 4 percent of the respondents felt that this objective had not been met at all. 67 Toward More Accountable PPPs Figure 3.38: Increase in Public Confidence in PPPs Due to Disclosure of Information, Civil Society Organizations CSO respondents were also urged to provide suggestions so that the impact of the disclosure portal on public confidence could be improved. Key suggestions included making the language and content of the information simpler and more accessible and finding ways to inform the direct beneficiaries and affected communities proactively. Snapshot of the Findings To summarize these findings, the study suggests that a large proportion of the respondents, cutting across all types of stakeholders, find the portals and their contents useful. However, the content in the portals needs to be updated more regularly and made more comprehensive and comprehensible. The perceptions of the respondents also confirm that the disclosure portals have had a positive impact on the accountability and transparency of PPP projects. However, this can be improved by increasing awareness among all stakeholders, as well as improving the institutional processes that impact PPP disclosure. Recommendations Awareness Several stakeholder meetings leading up to the finalization of the framework and well-publicized, high- profile portal launch events were carried out in each of the countries. However, a sustained awareness- building strategy needs to be put in place so that the MDAs, investors, CSOs, other institutional actors, and the general public get to know about the PPP disclosure framework and use the disclosure portals. This will have several positive benefits, including the sensitization of MDAs to their responsibilities in information disclosure, a better informed and engaged investor community, as well as public pressure to keep the portals updated with current information. The awareness campaign need not be a one-off activity or restricted only to the PPP coordination entity. All public communication related to PPPs could highlight the disclosure portal consistently, and MDAs could highlight the same on their websites and tender documents. 68 Toward More Accountable PPPs Outreach An effective outreach strategy can support this activity, with a focus on ensuring regular, at least monthly, electronic newsletters sent to key institutional stakeholders as well as individual subscribers who have signed up for updates through the disclosure portal. Currently, only Nigeria appears to be sending out electronic newsletters, which are quarterly. Outreach in general, and developing templates and systems for newsletter dissemination specifically, may be areas where international organizations could provide technical assistance. Content The portals need to be kept up to date with current information. This is critical for the credibility of the portals, as well as for ensuring that the larger transparency and accountability goals are not diluted. When information—especially on new projects, the progress of projects under development, or performance information—is not made public quickly, this may not only create information asymmetries in the procurement process, but also put a question mark on the intention of governments to improve transparency in actual practice, leading to significant reputational risk. PPP coordinating entities must pay attention to the quality, completeness, and usability of information made available on the disclosure portal. This requires human and financial resources to be dedicated to disclosure, public communication, and outreach. As the direct benefits of disclosure include a reduction in requests for information, an increase in public trust, improved decision making, as well as increased investor interest and confidence, there is a clear case for making this investment, which will have a significant, positive impact in growing the PPP market. Technical Issues Adequate resources and attention must be directed to ensure that the portals do not go offline. Although this can be attributed to technical capacity issues at the PPP coordinating entity level, this is not the case at the larger governmental level, with most governments possessing adequate capacity and resources to maintain stable IT infrastructure. Appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the PPP disclosure portals are integrated into the national IT and e-governance systems, while content management should remain the focus of PPP coordinating entities. Institutions and Processes While clear institutional responsibilities were identified in the PPP framework for disclosure, effective implementation of the same has not taken place yet. This is a complex challenge that requires a multipronged strategy. First, MDAs, SPVs, and other institutional actors must be made aware of the framework and their responsibilities in PPP disclosure. Toward this, a comprehensive socialization exercise of the frameworks for PPP disclosure needs to be carried out within each country. Regular training workshops may also be helpful to achieve this. Second, PPP coordination entities must ensure that MDAs and other institutional actors are carrying out their disclosure responsibilities by embedding them in project life cycles. At each milestone in the project life cycle, PPP coordinating entities must insist that MDAs and SPVs deliver on their disclosure responsibilities as per the framework before the project can progress to the subsequent step. The long-term objective must be to embed disclosure as a common practice throughout the project life cycle in accordance with the framework. Where absent, the PPP coordinating entity must develop specific guidelines, for MDAs and SPVs, which would include clear directions on what they must do at what point in the process to ensure effective PPP disclosure. 69 Toward More Accountable PPPs The framework at best represents an upstream code of best practices conducive to the establishment of a corruption-free and accountable environment as in many of these jurisdictions, the framework is expressed in binding rules and without legal safeguards to ensure adherence. Hence, the framework relies on professional discipline and self-policing to ensure compliance at all levels. The lack of enforcement mechanisms for this initiative in many of the countries may contribute indirectly to minimizing the likelihood of achieving the expected outcome. Governments need to accord enforceability of the framework by embodying these rules in the legal framework. In addition, horizontal accountability mechanisms such as third-party external scrutiny of the adherence to the disclosure framework (such as the multi-stakeholder assurance exercises carried out by CoST) could also be institutionalized. Notwithstanding such shortcomings, it should be further stressed that a system of disclosure backed by an increased level of dissemination of information and coupled with effective implementation can of its own create positive outcomes for the jurisdiction. Next Steps This study is but a beginning in developing a better understanding of the impact of structured information disclosure in PPPs. Arising as it does from the development of the World Bank’s framework for disclosure in PPPs, it provides some insights into how this general framework can be improved. As such, an important next step would therefore be to revisit this general framework and develop it further in light of the insights gained from this study. This would ensure a virtuous cycle of continuous improvement of the framework, which in turn will inform national policies as the project is rolled out in other countries. More specifically, follow-up work is required in an ongoing manner to understand how the processes to amend laws and policies as per the recommendations made in the disclosure diagnostic reports are moving in each country, the degree to which the disclosure framework has been embedded in the project life cycle, and the extent to which standard contractual clauses are being included in new PPP agreements. This will give us a better understanding of the level of effort required to implement these aspects of effective PPP disclosure in countries that may join the project in the future. Another area that requires attention is the development and strengthening of partnerships with entities that are carrying out related work. For example, the work being done by CoST, in developing a methodology and implementing a multi-stakeholder, third-party assurance process in making infrastructure development more inclusive and accountable, is a relationship that could be strengthened further, which in turn could also feed into the evolution of the disclosure framework. No research can be complete in itself. While this study has provided some tangible evidence to improve our understanding of the impact of structured disclosure on the PPP ecosystem, the study was carried out in relatively small and young PPP markets and relatively too soon (in the context of PPP process timelines) after the portals were launched. Once these markets grow and mature, it would be useful to conduct a similar longitudinal study after some years, to understand these impacts over a period, as they are likely to be larger markets by then, as well as have more stable institutional environments. Such a longitudinal study will also be helpful for better understanding the impact of disclosure on project performance, as currently there are few, if any, PPP projects that have been operationalized after the implementation of 70 Toward More Accountable PPPs the disclosure framework in any of the four countries. Additionally, this study may be extended to Uganda and Tanzania, where similar frameworks have been implemented with support from the World Bank. Apart from widening the temporal and geographical scope of this research, this study could also be used as a springboard to dive deeper into some of the lines of enquiry initiated in it. For example, while we now have some evidence on the perceptions of potential investors on the impact of disclosure, we do not necessarily have adequate evidence to establish a causal relationship between improved disclosure and higher PPP investment, better value for money, or better project performance in a given market. More focused research work on questions such as these will therefore be a natural progression of this study. 71 Toward More Accountable PPPs Annex A: Sample Gap Assessment Table (Kenya) COMPONENT RAPID REVIEW Y/N GAP ASSESSMENT Clear support from the highest levels of There is internal support. There is government (national and subnational) Y agreement among external to disclosure in general stakeholders as well on the need to disclose, but the pressure on Agreement on PPP disclosure among government to disclose by external internal stakeholders (ministries, Y stakeholders is still developing. agencies, and subnational governments) Private sector support for disclosure POLITICAL is substantial although still evolving. ECONOMY However, there is no approved plan Sufficient agreement on the need to within the government for disclose and pressure to disclose among implementing disclosure important external stakeholders systematically. (political parties, unions, private sector, Y users, media, political commentators, Therefore, the political economy gap think tanks, civil society organizations, is assessed to be between small and and any others) moderate. LAW Are there laws, policies, and procedures in place that include the following? • Proactive disclosure by governments or agencies Y There is coverage of contracts or • Coverage of proactive PPP as well as proactive disclosure in disclosure relating to contracts Y the Freedom of Information, PPP, or PPP and Public Finance Management Acts, including a high-level definition • High-level definition of Y of confidential information. confidential information, and However, there is no systematic protection of sensitive contract structure with timelines for information disclosure. • Timelines for disclosure N Therefore, the legislative gap is assessed to be small. • Are there any significant N legislative or policy impediments or constraints to PPP disclosure? 72 Toward More Accountable PPPs COMPONENT RAPID REVIEW Y/N GAP ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE Clearly established roles and responsibilities on PPP disclosure N Processes and actions clearly established in guidance or internal orders Processes and actions clearly established N in guidance or internal orders Timelines for disclosure clearly N established Clear guidance available for officials on the identification and treatment of This gap is assessed to be wide, given confidential information, including the the absence of guidance for all of timeframe associated with N these features. confidentiality, and factors to be considered as a test of commercial sensitivity or public interest There are penalties associated with N failure to disclose Mechanisms that monitor implementation of disclosure policies, N internal and external Processes for checking the accuracy of information and validation, internal and N external DATA, TEMPLATE, Degree of consistent, structured, and & STANDARD exploitable information disclosed across N CONTRACT projects PROVISIONS Defined common open data model/ N pattern? Guidance on improving data collection N and data quality? Simple and extensible structure? N Summary records for all available data at N various stages and processes? Information on unit and staff managing There are no templates, standard N data standards contract provisions, or data standards. The gap is assessed to be Comprehensive and clear template for high in this area. N disclosure that covers key pieces of pre- and post-procurement information, including financial and performance information: • The template is flexible enough N to cater to different kinds of PPPs and to PPPs in different sectors • The template is dynamic, that N is, suited to ongoing financial and performance disclosure 73 Toward More Accountable PPPs COMPONENT RAPID REVIEW Y/N GAP ASSESSMENT • Instructions for filling the N template are included as required There are standard contract provisions that provide the following: • Specific language for N confidential information • Specified period for which the N information will be confidential • Format for listing the specific N confidentiality clauses of each contract • Clearly stated information that N the private provider is expected to maintain along with timelines for submission • Specified audit mandate with the N extent of disclosure to audit RESOURCES There is a platform, but it does not Budget is available N include all the desired features; skilled labor is available, but the PPP Skilled, trained labor is available Y Unit staff is already stretched. The communications team is currently Technology and web platform/s are maintaining the website and can compatible, with easy upload and N continue to handle disclosure under download of information a new policy, but further training for a more sophisticated web portal would be required. Budget is available but not for this specific purpose, and the government PPP Security systems to prevent data and Unit and the contracting authorities Y might need to provide specifically for information tampering this as the number of projects increases. The gap here is assessed to be moderate. 74 Toward More Accountable PPPs Annex B: Sample Comparison Table of the World Bank Framework, Current Disclosure Practice, and the Agreed Framework (Kenya) CURRENT WORLD BANK FRAMEWORK DISCLOSURE AGREED FRAMEWORK PRACTICE IN KENYA 1 BASIC PROJECT INFORMATION 1.1. Name Y Y 1.2. Location Y Y 1.3. Sector Y Y 1.4. Sponsoring agency/department Y Y 1.5. Estimated project value Y Y Project need: benefits provided, economic and social (including specific 1.6. Y/N Y information on the public interest aspect) 1.7. Stakeholder consultations N Y Reason for selection of PPP mode and 1.8. N Y type in brief Brief description of other modes 1.9. N Y analyzed and reasons for rejecting these Technical description of the physical 1.10. N Y infrastructure 1.11. Dates of various approvals N Y 1.12. High-level description of the services Y Y Estimated demand to be served 1.13. N Y annually 1.14. Project additionality N Y 75 Toward More Accountable PPPs CURRENT WORLD BANK FRAMEWORK DISCLOSURE AGREED FRAMEWORK PRACTICE IN KENYA Name and deliverables of the 1.15. Y Y transaction advisor CONTRACT MILESTONES AND 2 DOCUMENTS Date of execution of project agreement 2.1. N Y (commercial close) 2.2. Date of financial close N Y Date of commencement of construction 2.3. Y/N Y or development Date of completion of construction or 2.4. N Y development 2.5. Date of commissioning N Y 2.6. Date of contract expiry Y Y All contract documents (with 2.7. N Y appropriate redactions) PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT WITH 3 CONTACT DETAILS Public authority: name of authority, 3.1. name of representative, address, Y Y telephone, fax, e-mail Private party: name of company or 3.2. consortium, name of representative, Y Y address, telephone, fax, e-mail Financiers: name of lead financial institution, other financial institutions, 3.3. name of representative of lead financial N Y institution, address, telephone, fax, e- mail 4 PROCUREMENT INFORMATION 4.1. Dates and summary details Y Y 4.2. Final feasibility study N Y Land acquisition, rehabilitation, social- (including information on human rights 4.3. N Y impact assessment) and environmental assessment–related information 76 Toward More Accountable PPPs CURRENT WORLD BANK FRAMEWORK DISCLOSURE AGREED FRAMEWORK PRACTICE IN KENYA Reports of independent procurement 4.4. N NA auditors (if any) 4.5. Procurement documents 4.5.1. Request for Qualifications Y Y 4.5.2. Pre-qualification or short list Y Y 4.5.3. Request for Proposals N Y Evaluation criteria: brief description 4.5.4 Y Y with weightage Brief information on constitution of the 4.5.5 N N evaluation committees Negotiation parameters: brief 4.5.6 description of the parameters for N N negotiation with preferred proponent 4.5.7 Minutes of pre-bid meetings N N 4.5.8. Selection of preferred bidder Y Y 5 RISK Pre-construction risk: all risks up to 5.1. N Y financial close 5.2. Construction/completion N Y 5.3. Cost risk: capital, operating N Y 5.4. Refinancing risk N Y Risk related to change in law, taxes, 5.5. scope, technical standards, regulatory N Y framework 5.6. Exchange rate risk N Y 5.7. Operating risk N Y Commercial risk, market risk, demand 5.8. N Y risk 5.9. Performance risk N Y 5.10. Financial risk N Y 5.11. Force majeure risk N Y 5.12. Environmental risk N Y 77 Toward More Accountable PPPs CURRENT WORLD BANK FRAMEWORK DISCLOSURE AGREED FRAMEWORK PRACTICE IN KENYA 5.13. Social risk N Y EVALUATION OF PPP OPTION (VALUE 6 FOR MONEY OR OTHER APPROACH N Y USED) Evaluation report (value for money or 6.1. N N other) Rationale for doing the project as a PPP, including any qualitative or quantitative value-for-money, final feasibility studies 6.2. (including cost-benefit analysis, if any) N Y or other analysis that might have been used, including nonfinancial benefits that have been quantified or considered Discount rates used along with the risk premium used, if any, and an explanation for the rate of risk premium 6.3. used, referring to guidance, if any, N Y available in this regard or describing project-specific circumstances that justify the risk premium rate used Risk comparison of other financing 6.4. N Y mechanisms 7 FINANCIAL INFORMATION N Y 7.1. Equity-debt ratio N Y 7.2. Share capital N Y Shareholders with proportion held and 7.3. N Y voting rights Details of any provisions related to contracts providing for caps on equity transfer in different stages of the 7.4. N Y contract, especially during the construction stage and for a few years thereafter Commercial lenders, institutional investors, bilateral or multilateral 7.5. N Y lenders, public issue of bonds, supplier credit, other Categorize senior debt, mezzanine debt, 7.6. N Y other 78 Toward More Accountable PPPs CURRENT WORLD BANK FRAMEWORK DISCLOSURE AGREED FRAMEWORK PRACTICE IN KENYA Amount and tenor of each, fixed or 7.7. N Y floating rate 7.8. Security and step-in arrangements N Y 7.9. Forecast internal rate of return N Y 8 GOVERNMENT SUPPORT N Y Guarantees (type and details of the 8.1. guarantees provided—both explicit and N Y contingent guarantees) 8.1.1. Minimum revenue guarantee N Y 8.1.2. Exchange rate guarantee N Y 8.1.3. Debt repayment guarantee N Y 8.1.4. Other guarantees N Y Fiscal commitments and contingent 8.1.5. N Y liability disclosure reports 8.2. Grants N Y 8.2.1. Subsidy as a proportion of project value N Y Capital subsidies paid during 8.2.2. construction with periodicity or N Y milestones Operating subsidies and their 8.2.3. N Y periodicity or milestones Service payments (payments made by the public authority or purchaser to the 8.3. private provider for infrastructure N Y services (applicable in private finance initiative–type projects)) 8.3.1. Total payments and periodicity N Y 8.3.2. Methodology for calculating payments N Y 8.3.3. Indexation used N Y 8.4. Land leases, asset transfers N N Property numbers with the quantum of 8.4.1. N N land transferred 8.4.2. Zoning information of land N N 79 Toward More Accountable PPPs CURRENT WORLD BANK FRAMEWORK DISCLOSURE AGREED FRAMEWORK PRACTICE IN KENYA 8.4.3. Conditions of transfer of land N N Equipment transfers: details of 8.4.4. N N equipment with conditions of transfer Human resources/personnel transfers: 8.4.5. N N details and conditions of transfer 8.5. Other support N N 8.5.1. Non-complete clauses N Y 8.5.2. Provision for revenue shortfall loan N N 8.6. Revenue share, if any N 8.6.1. Revenue share on base case N N 8.6.2. Revenue share on upside N N Graphs: annual concessionaire 8.6.3. N Y payments to government 9 TARIFFS N Tariffs and pricing (where the 9.1. infrastructure is financed partly or fully N Y through the levy of user charges) 9.1.1. Methodology for tariff setting/pricing N Y Scope for reviews of tariff, pricing, 9.1.2. N Y regulatory mechanisms Graphs: tariff increases over time, 9.1.3. N Y consumer price index movement 10 CONTRACT TERMINATION N Concessionaire: events of default, 10.1. termination of payments made, N Y methodology used for total payments Authority: events of default, 10.2. termination of payments made, N Y methodology used for total payments 11 RENEGOTIATIONS N 11.1. Nature of variation N Y 11.2. Rationale for variation N Y 80 Toward More Accountable PPPs CURRENT WORLD BANK FRAMEWORK DISCLOSURE AGREED FRAMEWORK PRACTICE IN KENYA Change in roles and responsibilities of 11.3. N Y the parties due to the variation, if any Change in original risk allocation due to 11.4. N Y the variation, if any Change in original fiscal commitments 11.5. or contingent liabilities of government N Y due to the variation, if any Change in capital or operational costs 11.6. N Y due to the variation, if any Change in tariffs or service levels due to 11.7. N Y the variation, if any 11.8. Date of variation N Y 12 PERFORMANCE INFORMATION N 12.1. Annual demand levels N Y Annual revenues (where revenue share clauses or other related clauses, such as 12.2. N Y minimum revenue guarantees, are present in the contract) Actual internal rate of return (where there is government equity investment 12.3. N Y or other form of government support that is substantial) Performance (actual year-wise 12.4. performance against 10 to 12 identified N Y key performance indicators) 12.5. Performance failures N Y 12.5.1. Year N Y 12.5.2. Category of failure N Y 12.5.3. Number of events N Y Penalty or abatement provided in 12.5.4. N Y contract 12.5.5. Penalty or abatement imposed N Y 12.5.6. Penalty paid or abatement effected N Y 81 Toward More Accountable PPPs CURRENT WORLD BANK FRAMEWORK DISCLOSURE AGREED FRAMEWORK PRACTICE IN KENYA 12.6. Performance assessments N Y 12.6.1. Audit reports N Y Independent performance assessments 12.6.2. N Y of the independent engineer Any other performance reports 12.6.3. N Y available for the project 82 Toward More Accountable PPPs Annex C: Survey Questionnaire Information Disclosure in Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) Respondent Profile Questions marked with an asterisk (*) are required. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. A contact email address will be deeply appreciated for follow-up purposes. 1. Name 2. Organization (if any) 3. Designation (if applicable) 4. Email address 83 Toward More Accountable PPPs * 5. Which of the following World Bank PPP disclosure pilot countries does your work primarily relate to? ☐ Ghana ☐ Honduras ☐ Kenya ☐ Nigeria * 6. Are you involved in the administration / management of the PPP disclosure web portal of your country in any way? ☐ Yes [Go to Q. 30] ☐ No PPP Disclosure Web Portal * 7. Do you know about the PPP disclosure web portal of your country? ☐ Yes ☐ No [Go to Q. 57] * 8. Have you ever visited the PPP disclosure web portal of your country? ☐ Yes [Go to Q. 10] ☐ No 84 Toward More Accountable PPPs * 9. Why not? (Select all that apply) ☐ Did not know it exists ☐ Knew about it, but could not find it ☐ Did not have time ☐ Not interested ☐ Other(s) (please specify) * 10. How often do you visit the PPP disclosure web portal? ☐ A few times a week ☐ About once a week ☐ A few times a month ☐ About once a month ☐ Less than once a month * 11. How useful do you find the PPP disclosure web portal for your work? ☐ Extremely useful ☐ Very useful ☐ Somewhat useful ☐ Not so useful ☐ Not at all useful 85 Toward More Accountable PPPs * 12. Why do you visit the PPP disclosure web portal? (Select all that apply) ☐ For information on past / existing projects ☐ For information on new projects ☐ For information on progress of projects ☐ For information on performance of projects ☐ For information on project tenders ☐ As a part of my job ☐ Other(s) (please specify) * 13. How frequently do you find the information you are looking for? ☐ Always ☐ Usually ☐ Sometimes ☐ Rarely ☐ Never * 14. Is adequate information being provided on the PPP disclosure web portal? ☐ Yes [Go to Q. 16] ☐ No 86 Toward More Accountable PPPs 15. Please provide details of what additional information should be made available. * 16. Is information being provided in a timely manner on the PPP disclosure web portal? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Don't know / Can't say * 17. Have you ever downloaded any contract documents from the PPP disclosure web portal? ☐ Yes ☐ No [Go to Q. 20] * 18. Were you satisfied with the process? ☐ Yes [Go to Q. 20] ☐ No 87 Toward More Accountable PPPs * 19. What problems did you face? (Select all that apply) ☐ Technical difficulties ☐ Large files ☐ Incomplete information / documents ☐ Too much information ☐ Difficult to identify documents ☐ Other(s) (please specify) * 20. Have you / your organization subscribed to receive electronic newsletters from the PPP disclosure web portal? ☐ Yes [Go to Q. 22] ☐ No ☐ Don't know / Can't say [Go to Q. 22] 88 Toward More Accountable PPPs * 21. Why not? ☐ Didn’t know about it ☐ Didn’t have time ☐ Too much email ☐ Prefer to check the PPP disclosure web portal directly for updates ☐ Other(s) (please specify) * 22. Have you / your organization received any electronic newsletters so far? ☐ Yes ☐ No [Go to Q. 24] ☐ Don't know / Can't say [Go to Q. 24] * 23. To what extent is the content of the newsletter useful? ☐ Extremely useful ☐ Very useful ☐ Somewhat useful ☐ Not so useful ☐ Not at all useful ☐ Don't know / Can't say 89 Toward More Accountable PPPs * 24. In your opinion, which governance and infrastructure challenge(s) does the PPP disclosure web portal address? (Select all that apply) ☐ Citizen engagement ☐ Government accountability ☐ Integrity / anti-corruption ☐ Improving public trust ☐ Managing public expectations ☐ Levelling the playing field for investors ☐ Improving investor confidence ☐ Reducing conflict / litigation ☐ Improving PPP efficiency ☐ Improving PPP performance ☐ Other(s) (please specify) * 25. Compared to the past, has the PPP disclosure web portal led to significant improvement in PPP disclosure? ☐ Strongly agree ☐ Agree ☐ Neither agree nor disagree ☐ Disagree ☐ Strongly disagree 90 Toward More Accountable PPPs * 26. To what extent does the PPP disclosure web portal address the question of transparency and accountability of PPPs? ☐ A great deal ☐ A lot ☐ A moderate amount ☐ A little ☐ None at all * 27. How satisfied are you with the PPP disclosure web portal? ☐ A great deal ☐ A lot ☐ A moderate amount ☐ A little ☐ None at all 28. Please provide suggestions for improvement of the PPP disclosure web portal (if any). 91 Toward More Accountable PPPs Primary Professional Affiliation * 29. Please choose your primary professional affiliation. ☐ PPP Unit / PPP Coordination Entity (or similar) [Go to Q. 48] ☐ PPP Regulatory Body [Go to Q. 48] ☐ Contracting Authority / MDA [Go to Q. 48] ☐ Other Government Entity [Go to Q. 48] ☐ International Financial Institution [Go to Q. 48] ☐ International Donor [Go to Q. 48] ☐ Civil Society Organization / NGO / INGO [Go to Q. 51] ☐ Bank / Investment Entity [Go to Q. 54] ☐ SPV [Go to Q. 54] ☐ Private Company / Consulting Firm [Go to Q. 54] ☐ Individual Consultant (Public Sector) [Go to Q. 48] ☐ Individual Consultant (Not-for-profit) [Go to Q. 51] ☐ Individual Consultant (Private Sector) [Go to Q. 54] ☐ Media [Go to Q. 51] ☐ Academia [Go to Q. 51] ☐ Other (please specify) [Go to Q. 57] 92 Toward More Accountable PPPs PPP Disclosure Web Portal (Admin) * 30. Is the PPP disclosure web portal up to date with all information and documents disclosed as per the PPP disclosure framework? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Don't know / Can't say * 31. Have any users subscribed to the newsletter through the PPP disclosure web portal? ☐ Yes ☐ No [Go to Q. 33] ☐ Don't know / Can't say [Go to Q. 33] 32. How many? (approximate figure; leave blank if you do not know) * 33. Is a newsletter being sent regularly to subscribers? ☐ Yes ☐ No [Go to Q. 35] ☐ Don't know / Can't say [Go to Q. 35] 93 Toward More Accountable PPPs * 34. How often is it being sent? ☐ Once a week ☐ Once a fortnight ☐ Once a month ☐ Less than once a month ☐ Irregularly ☐ Don't know * 35. Have you / your organization received any feedback on the PPP disclosure web portal from users? ☐ Yes ☐ No [Go to Q. 37] ☐ Don't know / Can't say [Go to Q. 37] 36. Please provide highlights of the feedback received. * 37. Have you had any problems in updating / managing the PPP disclosure web portal? ☐ Yes ☐ No [Go to Q. 39] ☐ Don't know / Can't say [Go to Q. 39] 94 Toward More Accountable PPPs * 38. What problems have you had in updating and/or managing the PPP disclosure web portal? (Select all that apply) ☐ Getting information from MDAs ☐ Getting information from SPVs ☐ Validating information before publication ☐ Reformatting information before publication ☐ Extracting appropriate information before publication ☐ Identifying confidential information for redaction prior to publication ☐ Getting approvals for publication ☐ Poor information storage and retrieval systems ☐ Time constraints ☐ Human resource constraints ☐ Technical issues ☐ External interference ☐ Other(s) (please specify) * 39. Have the responsibilities for disclosure been efficiently allocated between MDAs and other institutional actors in the management of the PPP disclosure web portal? ☐ Yes [Go to Q. 41] ☐ No ☐ Don't know / Can't say [Go to Q. 41] 95 Toward More Accountable PPPs 40. How can it be improved? * 41. Has there ever been any interference or public concerns expressed regarding the type of information published on the PPP disclosure web portal? ☐ Yes ☐ No [Go to Q. 43] ☐ Don't know / Can't say [Go to Q. 43] 42. Please provide details. * 43. Have there been any legal actions against your agency for publication of “proprietary information” since the launch of the PPP disclosure web portal? ☐ Yes ☐ No [Go to Q. 45] ☐ Don't know / Can't say [Go to Q. 45 96 Toward More Accountable PPPs 44. Please provide details. * 45. What are the main challenges in sustaining and improving the web portal in the coming years? (Select all that apply) ☐ Financial resources ☐ Human resources ☐ Technical limitations ☐ Institutional support ☐ Limitations in the law and / or policies ☐ Cooperation between PPPU, MDAs, SPVs and other entities ☐ Other(s) (please specify) * 46. Do you feel you / your colleagues require additional training in the management / usage of the PPP disclosure web portal? ☐ Yes ☐ No [Go to Q. 48] 97 Toward More Accountable PPPs 47. Please indicate focus areas for additional training. PPP Disclosure Web Portal (Impact) * 48. In your assessment, what has been the impact of PPP disclosure policies in your jurisdiction? (Select all that apply) ☐ Improved decision-making ☐ Increased legitimacy ☐ Improved citizen engagement ☐ Improved public trust ☐ Improved investor confidence ☐ Less requests for information ☐ Increase in operational problems ☐ Other(s) (please specify) 98 Toward More Accountable PPPs * 49. In your assessment, to what extent has the disclosure web portal contributed to improving public trust and confidence in PPPs? ☐ A great deal ☐ A lot ☐ A moderate amount ☐ A little ☐ None at all * 50. In your assessment, to what extent has the disclosure web portal contributed to improving investor interest and confidence in the PPP market? ☐ A great deal ☐ A lot ☐ A moderate amount ☐ A little ☐ None at all [When Q. 50 has been answered, go to Q. 57] 99 Toward More Accountable PPPs * 51. In what ways do you use the information available in the PPP disclosure web portal? (Select all that apply) ☐ Increase public awareness ☐ Track public spending and procurement ☐ Track PPP performance ☐ Hold government accountable ☐ Other(s) (please specify) * 52. In your assessment, to what extent has the disclosure web portal improved public confidence in the PPP procurement and monitoring process? ☐ A great deal ☐ A lot ☐ A moderate amount ☐ A little ☐ None at all 100 Toward More Accountable PPPs 53. How can the disclosure portal be improved to improve public confidence in PPPs? [When Qs. 51-53 have been answered, go to Q. 57] Note that only Q. 51 and Q. 52 are mandatory. Q. 53 can be skipped if respondent so wishes. * 54. In what ways do you use the information available in the PPP disclosure web portal? (Select all that apply) ☐ Understand procurement processes ☐ Understand selection criteria for projects ☐ Understand evaluation criteria for proposals ☐ Track announcements of new projects ☐ Track progress in projects ☐ Assess government intent ☐ Assess worth of potential projects ☐ Assess potential engagement in projects ☐ Other(s) (please specify) 101 Toward More Accountable PPPs * 55. In your assessment, to what extent has the disclosure web portal contributed to increasing investor confidence and interest in PPPs? ☐ A great deal ☐ A lot ☐ A moderate amount ☐ A little ☐ None at all 56. How can the disclosure web portal be improved to further increase investor confidence and interest in PPPs? [When Qs. 54-56 have been answered, go to Q. 57] Note that only Q. 54 and Q. 55 are mandatory. Q. 56 can be skipped if respondent so wishes. 102 Toward More Accountable PPPs PPP Disclosure Framework * 57. Do you know about the PPP disclosure framework adopted by your country? (The PPP disclosure web portal is based on this framework.) ☐ Yes ☐ No [Go to Q. 60] * 58. Do you think the PPP disclosure framework adequately addresses the issue of transparency and accountability of PPPs in your country? ☐ Yes [Go to Q. 60] ☐ No ☐ Don't know / Can't say [Go to Q. 60] 59. How can the PPP disclosure framework be improved? 103 Toward More Accountable PPPs PPP Transparency and Accountability 60. Please provide general comments or suggestions (if any) to improve the transparency and accountability of PPPs in your country. [End of survey] 104 Toward More Accountable PPPs The World Bank Group provides assistance to governments in developing countries to improve access to infrastructure and basic services through public-private partnerships (PPPs). When designed well and implemented in a balanced regulatory environment, PPPs can bring great efficiency and sustainability to the provision of such public services as water, sanitation, energy, transport, telecommunications, healthcare, and education. The World Bank Group’s unique value proposition rests with its capacity to provide support along the entire PPP cycle—upstream policy and regulatory guidance, transaction structuring advice, as well as financing and guarantees to facilitate implementation. 1 03/2021