HomeSNAISWGNAKnowledge BaseData Publications
You are here:   ISWGNA >> Updating the SNA >> Towards the 2008 SNA >> 1993 SNA Update Information >> List of Issues

1993 SNA Update Information - Country comments for issue:
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) (including buy-own-operate-transfer (BOOT) schemes)

Issue description
Issue description in [English] | [French] | [Russian] | [Spanish]
Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are complex legal arrangements designed to share the control and the risks and rewards of a set of fixed assets between a private enterprise and a public unit, normally a unit of the general government sector. In most PPPs, the assets are legally owned and used by the private enterprise to produce a specified category of services for several years, and then the government gains operational control and legal ownership of the assets, often without payment. The 1993 SNA treatment of operating and financial leases are not sufficient to derive an appropriate accounting treatment for PPPs and there are no other guidelines given about PPPs There are two major issues to be resolved. The first is to decide whether the private enterprise or the government is the economic owner of the fixed assets. The second is to decide the appropriate recording for transactions between the private enterprise and the public unit during the period covered by the PPP arrangement.
Country comments
Number of country comments for selected issue:30
  Date postedSourceComment
 11/27/2006AustraliaWe agree with the recommendations made by AEG
 10/11/2006ArmeniaThe National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia agrees with the most recent AEG recommendations.
 10/10/2006SwedenFurther clarification/analysis required
 9/29/2006Bank of KoreaWe agree to the recommendations in general. It is, however, necessary to indicate more concrete and detailed accounting criterions, which are the way the government and the private units write down transactions during the contract period; the construction period, the end of construction, the operation period and the end of the contract.
 9/28/2006New ZealandIn New Zealand we have little experience with these types of arrangements and have no comment.
 9/15/2006United KingdomPPPs and BOOT schemes have been in use in many countries for over 15 years - that is before SNA93 was finalised - and their number and scale is often large. Thus it would have been highly desirable to give firm guidance in this revision. However, we recognise the practical difficulties of doing so especially while relevant IPSASs are still under discussion as these will partly deteluiine the information available to compile the national accounts. The recommendation is thus in our view a second best to be used if nothing better is available in time. We consider this issue large and important enough to merit a late set of recommendations if the timetable and production process can accommodate it.
 9/15/2006LatviaAfter deep discussions and expert consultations we basically support the 1993 SNA Update Issues.
 8/21/2006Central Bank of El Salvador m4cbElSalvador24; m4cbElSalvador24-english;
 8/18/2006NetherlandsWe generally support the recommendations made at the Frankfurt Meeting of the AEG.
 8/18/2006USAWe agree with the recommendations of the AEG.
 8/2/2006European Central BankThe ECB generally supports the recommendations made by the AEG.
 8/1/2006National Bank/ National Bureau for Statistics MoldovaNational Bank and National Bureau for Statistics of Moldova agree with the recommendations made at the latest meeting of the AEG.
 8/1/2006Reserve Bank of South AfricaWe carefully worked through all the issues and would like to give our general support to the recommendations made by the AEG.
 7/31/2006IsraelWe find the recommendations of the AEG based on John Pitzer’s work on this issue extremely useful, and hope they will be introduced in statistical frameworks even before the publication of SNA rev. 1. The annex proposed will be important, but it should be general enough to remain relevant in coming years, taking into account that new and innovative forms of public-private partnerships could appear in the future.
 7/31/2006Macao SARStatistics and Census Service of Macao SAR agrees to the AEG recommendations and has no further comments.
 7/31/2006Bosnia and HerzegovinaWe agree with AEG recommendations on the update of the 1993 SNA and do not have any further comments.
 7/28/2006VietnamWe agree with the outcomes of the AEG
 7/28/2006National Bank of SlovakiaConcerning the results of the most recent AEG meeting, we fully support the conclusions and recommendations made by the AEG.
 7/28/2006LithuaniaIn general we support the recommendations.
 7/28/2006Bank of PortugalBanco de Portugal would like to express general support for the recommendations made in the Frankfurt meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts (AEG).
 7/28/2006Bank of PolandPlease find our general support for the AEG recommendations made during its recent meeting in Frankfurt.
 7/27/2006Bank of Sierra LeoneWe agree with the recommendations made by the AEG.
 7/27/2006EgyptThe suggested annex should include extensive elaboration to distinguish between the economic owner and the legal owner of the assets in question. More specific set of guidelines to be mentioned in the revised SNA.
 7/25/2006Central Bank of Costa RicaWe very much welcome the recommendations of the AEG on this issue.  Our experience has shown us the urgent need to have guidance on this matter.  We truly hope the annex proposed to be included on the updated SNA will be as extensive as needed to solve the most common questions of national accounts compilers, although we acknowledge that there is an ample diversity of arrangements under these types of contracts.
 7/25/2006Bank of ItalyWe broadly support the conclusions.
 7/24/2006National Bank of the Republic of AzerbaijanWe have analyzed the “Comment on the recommendations of the most recent Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts (AEG) meeting (January 30 – February 8, 2006) in Frankfurt” within the scope of our responsibilities and I am pleased to inform you that we are in agreement with the AEG recommendations.
 7/12/2006FinlandWe agree with the AEG outcomes. We think at the moment existing criteria mentioned in the Eurostat Manual on government deficit and debt are too narrow and there should be more criteria.
We believe it would be useful to rename the Public Private Partnerships (PPP). It is confusing the have to 2 important concepts with the same abbreviation PPP; Public Private Partnerships and Purchasing Power Parities. We believe the Editor should be entrusted to find another suitable name to the public private partnerships.
 11/28/2005PolandIn the scope of propositions regarding the BOOT schemes we are not able to express our opinion since this phenomenon is a new one in Poland and we do not have any experiences in this area. The Act on Public – Private Partnership dated 28 July 2005 is first law regulation in this area. At the moment executive acts to it are being elaborated.
 5/6/2005VietnamWe agree with the recommendations of the AEG in principle but we find It is difficult to collect information in practice.
Navigation Options
*Back to Issues
*See all issues/subissues with country comments
*See all AEG recommendations for this issue
*See all expert comments for this issue

About  |  Sitemap  |  Contact Us
Copyright © United Nations, 2024