Climate change and disaster impact reduction

Based on papers presented at the 'UK - South Asia Young Scientists and Practitioners Seminar on Climate Change and Disaster Impact Reduction' held at Kathmandu, Nepal on 5-6 June, 2008

Risks associated with infrastructure project finance in developing countries: the case of Zambia

Since the enactment of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) Act of 2009, there has not been a single successful PPP transaction entered into between the Government of Zambia and any private sector entity under the PPP Act of 2009 (Zambia Development Agency, 2014: 7). According to the Zambia Development Agency (2014:7), 75% of the PPPs that were entered into by the government of Zambia prior to the promulgation of the PPP Act of 2009 were canceled. These include: the Kasumbalesa Border Post, Mpulungu Harbour and Railways Systems of Zambia with an exception of the 65 year concession of the Luburma Market (popularly known as Kamwala Market). These cancellations of PPP concessions coupled with revelations in the Zambian Parliament that concession documentation for the Luburma market which is the only surviving PPP had since gone missing, this led to the research problem statement with an assertion that risks associated with infrastructure project finance are endemic in Zambia. In seeking to explore the validity of this assertion, three research objectives guided the study, namely: assessing Zambia’s general infrastructure project finance and PPP framework in comparison to theoretical normative criteria and selected country experiences; identifying and rating risks through a questionnaire; and proposing an ideal project finance risk management model which can be used as a reference by sponsors in Zambia as they design and structure infrastructure project finance deals. On a scale of 1-5 which was guided by the overal risk score outlined in the study, the average mean score ranking for all the 40 risks under investigation was found to be 3.25 .This indicates that the sentiments among respondents is that risks associated with infrastructure project finance in Zambia are average and not endemic as was affirmed in the problem statement. Despite this ‘comforting’ statistical result, the little progress in terms of earmarked infrastructure PPP deals coupled with deal cancellations as outlined above may be an indication that even the average risks appear to impede on the development of project finance and PPPs in Zambia. There is therefore an urgent need for Government and other relevant stakeholders to begin paying attention to some of the risks discussed in this study especially those with a mean score ranking in excess of 3.50 (high risk). The study in chapter 9 provides recommendations which are grouped under four key headings: addressing the environment for PPPs; providing capacity to procuring entities; paying attention to critical success factors for project development; as well as exploring a variety of possible credit enhancement mechanisms such as guarantees as a way of wooing project investors and improving the bankability of planned infrastructure deals. The Government of Zambia is further advised to avoid using ‘political feasibility “as the core investment criteria in the infrastructure agenda for the country. The study encourages that conventional benchmarks which are a mix of technical soundness, economic viability, environmental and social sustainability, financial/commercial viability as well as market readiness remain the core guiding principle in the project identification process. This will be the only way to avoid developing “white elephants” that may perpetually be a burden to the treasury and tax payers

Catalog 2000-01

https://openspace.dmacc.edu/catalogs/1024/thumbnail.jp

Karl Timothy Johnson: Public Health Governance to Advance Public Health 3.0: Interrogating the Strategies and Structures of Local Governmental Health Departments to Address the Social Determinants of Health in North Carolina and Across the Country

Background: The Public Health 3.0 (PH3.0) framework emphasizes the role that public health should have in addressing social determinants of health (SDOH). The local health department (LHD), as the principal governmental authority within local public health, has often been identified as the primary agency to address SDOH. However, the local and state governance arrangements within which an LHD operates strongly influence their capacity for strategies aimed at SDOH. Local boards of health (BOH) have a particularly powerful influence on the decision-making capacity of LHDs; different arrangements and functionality of BOHs may in turn influence an LHD’s work to advance PH3.0. Objective: To advance to goals of PH3.0, this dissertation sought to analyze the strategies by which LHDs have addressed SDOH as well as the local governance arrangements that may shape those strategies. Methods: First, I performed latent class analysis with nationally representative data on LHD activity to identify common profiles of LHD involvement with policy development, followed by logistic regression to estimate how local BOH functionality impacts the likelihood of inhabiting different profiles. Second, I reviewed recent Community Health Improvement Plans from LHDs across the country to analyze the characteristics of strategies addressing SDOH described in such plans. Finally, I conducted semi-structured interviews with LHD directors and BOH members from across North Carolina to assess how variations in their governance arrangement impacted their work in the community. Results: I found the BOH is a core though often underutilized institution to enable the LHD to improve and expand its role in addressing SDOH, whether through directly proposing and passing local public health rules or through partnership engagement with other local community organizations. Variations in local governance models substantially impact this ability, however, with appointed BOHs composed of medical professionals who are comfortable exercising oversight and authority being the most likely to aid the LHD in addressing SDOH in the community. Contribution and Significance: To advance community health and eliminate health disparities, local public health departments must address the SDOH. This research may support LHDs to better address SDOH in their community by improving their local governance arrangements and the relationships therein.Doctor of Philosoph