Fostering Private – Public Partnerships in the Transition Economies: Helcom as a System of Implementation Review

Abstract

Water resources planners, managers, and government leaders in the transition economies face the challenge of determining priorities and environmental protection project implementation against a background of immense economic, social, and institutional demands and problems. Researchers have pointed to the tremendous additional environmental costs that the transition economies face due to the inherited environmental deterioration from the central planning era (Bater, 1996; Komarov, 1994; Potravnyi, 1997). Cities in particular were the industrial, managerial, and economic showcases of the centrally planned economies. From an environmental point of view those urban areas were also the source and recipients of unprecedented levels of both air and water pollution (Goldman, 1972; Pryde, 1991; ZumBrunnen, 1984). Surface waters adjacent to those cities remain heavily polluted. Tap water is still not potable in major cities of the transition economies (Danilov-Danilyan, 1998; Trumbull, 2007; Zhulidov, 2000). During the transition period in Russia and other former Soviet states (1990 to the present), responsibility for implementation of environmental mitigation has fallen both to frequently reorganized federal bodies and to impoverished and institutionally weak local environmental protection agencies. It should come as little surprise that a sufficient transfer of resources, effective implementation, and establishment of appropriate local pollution abatement infrastructure have rarely accompanied environmental protection measures and responsibilities in the transition economies. During the centrally planned economy, underinvestment, a failure to renovate and replace equipment, poor training and management, and a general absence of pricing of water resources led to water pollution and water management problems that had been solved decades earlier in the West. Implementation of international environmental agreements did not improve significantly as the centrally planned economy transitioned to a free market economy. Explanations for low levels of implementation of wastewater treatment and other forms of environmental mitigation in the countries of the former Soviet Union have focused on institutional and financial obstacles that

Environmental Responsibility in a Transition Context: Russian NGO Perception and Response

“…It is widely accepted that Russia's two major cities, Moscow and St Petersburg, are not representative of Russia as a whole (Kuznetsov and Kuznetsova, 2003), as both have been subject to greater forces of economic and social transformation than other areas of Russia (Mansvelt, 2005;Trumbull, 2009). Therefore, with the aim of representing modern Russian society, the data presented in this paper came from three provincial regions in Russia: Samara Oblast', Volgograd Oblast', and Stavropol Krai.…”

“…However, during the early years of transition the environment continued to be largely ignored (Kostin, 2010). As a result of unclear distribution of powers and responsibilities for the environment, inadequate systems for environmental charges and fines, and lack of an appropriate legal system (Hinton, 1995;Kasyanov and Stovpivskaya, 2007;Trumbull, 2009), environmental policy during this period remained deficient. At the same time the corrupt relationship between the Russian government and industry also reduced the transparency of environmental policy.…”

Local and territorial determinants in the realization of public–private–partnerships: an empirical analysis for Italian provinces

“…Therefore, our research objective is to determine the factors that explain the realisation of successful PPP initiatives in Italy, focusing in particular on local management and territorial context characteristics and looking at those initiatives that effectively took place. Overall, as a general outcome, the role of meta-economic and non-traditional locally characterised factors in PPP initiatives is confirmed (Trumbull, 2009). It emerged that the use of such initiatives cannot be linked alone to the need to bridge existing infrastructure gaps, as highlighted by previous literature (Antellini Russo and Zampino, 2012).…”

Evaluation of public–private partnerships: A life-cycle Performance Prism for ensuring value for money

“…Risk allocation/management Wang et al (2000); Grimsey and Lewis (2002); Thomas et al (2003); Jin (2011); Chan et al (2011); and Roberts and Siemiatycki (2015). Effectiveness/efficiency of implementation of PPPs Lemos et al (2002); Edelenbos and Teisman (2008); Trumbull (2009); Beisheim and Campe (2012); Taylor and Harman (2015); Kort et al (2015). Project finance Levy (1996); Ye and Tiong (2000); Zhang (2005b); Devapriya (2006); Regan et al (2011); and Engel et al (2013).…”