包括交通、電力、電信、水和衛(wèi)生設(shè)施在內(nèi)的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施對(duì)可持續(xù)發(fā)展至關(guān)重要?；A(chǔ)設(shè)施的限制限制限制了生產(chǎn)力和就業(yè)、市場(chǎng)、醫(yī)療和教育的機(jī)會(huì)，而高質(zhì)量的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施推動(dòng)了經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)和社會(huì)福利?？沙掷m(xù)發(fā)展目標(biāo)（SDG）9——“建設(shè)有彈性的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，[重點(diǎn)補(bǔ)充]促進(jìn)包容性和可持續(xù)的工業(yè)化，促進(jìn)創(chuàng)新”——明確承認(rèn)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施是可持續(xù)發(fā)展的關(guān)鍵驅(qū)動(dòng)力（聯(lián)合國(guó)，2017年）。還需要基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施投資，以實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展目標(biāo)11（使城市和人類(lèi)住區(qū)包容、安全、有彈性和可持續(xù)）、13（采取緊急行動(dòng)應(yīng)對(duì)氣候變化及其影響）和其他目標(biāo)（Casier，2015年）。無(wú)論是在減少溫室氣體排放方面，還是在適應(yīng)氣候變化的影響方面，《巴黎氣候變化協(xié)定》的成功在很大程度上取決于基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施投資（Garemo，Hjerpe，Mischke，Palter&Woetzel，2016；New climate Economy[NCE]，2016；Vaughan，2017）。 為了實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展目標(biāo)和氣候變化目標(biāo)，需要升級(jí)和建設(shè)的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施必須是可持續(xù)的，也就是說(shuō)，必須專(zhuān)門(mén)設(shè)計(jì)來(lái)減輕經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會(huì)和環(huán)境風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，并產(chǎn)生經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會(huì)和環(huán)境共同效益。傳統(tǒng)的項(xiàng)目融資評(píng)估方法忽略了這些長(zhǎng)期風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和共同利益。從更高的前期資本成本等因素來(lái)看，它們將可持續(xù)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施描述為比通常的替代方案更不具財(cái)務(wù)吸引力，并導(dǎo)致對(duì)可持續(xù)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的投資不足。然而，現(xiàn)代生命周期評(píng)估方法適當(dāng)?shù)卮_定和定價(jià)了非可持續(xù)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的可持續(xù)性相關(guān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和影響以及可持續(xù)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施更廣泛的長(zhǎng)期共同利益，使人信服地認(rèn)為，可持續(xù)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施不僅對(duì)人和環(huán)境有利，但也有商業(yè)意義（國(guó)際可持續(xù)發(fā)展研究所，2017年；國(guó)際金融公司，2017年；全球基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施巴塞爾基金會(huì)，2017年）。 傳統(tǒng)采購(gòu)和公私伙伴關(guān)系（ppp）是政府可能采用的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項(xiàng)目結(jié)構(gòu)模式之一。在兩者之間作出決定時(shí)，各國(guó)政府應(yīng)定期對(duì)采購(gòu)方案進(jìn)行嚴(yán)格評(píng)估，并選擇為公民創(chuàng)造最高性價(jià)比的方案。這一選擇將產(chǎn)生“一個(gè)政府判斷為數(shù)量、質(zhì)量、特點(diǎn)和價(jià)格（即成本）的最佳組合，在項(xiàng)目的整個(gè)生命周期中都是預(yù)期的（有時(shí)，但并不總是計(jì)算出來(lái)的）”（Burger&Hawkesworth，2011，第2頁(yè)）。 如果采購(gòu)選擇權(quán)測(cè)試表明購(gòu)買(mǎi)力平價(jià)的性價(jià)比最高，公共當(dāng)局和私人實(shí)體通過(guò)分享專(zhuān)業(yè)知識(shí)、財(cái)務(wù)、風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和回報(bào)來(lái)交付基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項(xiàng)目，從而在中長(zhǎng)期關(guān)系中合作（Jomo，Chowdhury，Sharma&Platz，2016）。購(gòu)買(mǎi)力平價(jià)合同是管理這種關(guān)系的規(guī)范框架的重要組成部分，在公共機(jī)構(gòu)和私人實(shí)體之間分配責(zé)任和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。為了使購(gòu)買(mǎi)力平價(jià)能夠促進(jìn)可持續(xù)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的發(fā)展，政府和私營(yíng)部門(mén)必須確?？沙掷m(xù)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)從項(xiàng)目一開(kāi)始就嵌入到項(xiàng)目中，并適當(dāng)反映在購(gòu)買(mǎi)力平價(jià)合同中。 世界銀行集團(tuán)《關(guān)于購(gòu)買(mǎi)力平價(jià)合同條款的指南》（世界銀行集團(tuán)，2017年）2017年版提供了各國(guó)政府可能采用的購(gòu)買(mǎi)力平價(jià)合同語(yǔ)言樣本。然而，正如Foley Hoag LLP（2017年）編寫(xiě)的總結(jié)意見(jiàn)所指出的，該指南經(jīng)常提出建議，限制旨在實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展目標(biāo)的政府措施，并錯(cuò)失了考慮基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項(xiàng)目如何促進(jìn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的機(jī)會(huì)。作為對(duì)Foley Hoag LLP（2017）分析的補(bǔ)充，本文的目標(biāo)是抓住世界銀行集團(tuán)指引錯(cuò)過(guò)的機(jī)會(huì)。 下一節(jié)對(duì)可持續(xù)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施進(jìn)行了定義，并描述了其預(yù)期特征和共同效益，從而概述了應(yīng)予以考慮并有助于確?；A(chǔ)設(shè)施項(xiàng)目可持續(xù)性的要素。第3節(jié)是本文的核心討論，即政府為什么必須以及如何將可持續(xù)性納入基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施合同。第4節(jié)提出最后意見(jiàn)和建議。
Infrastructure—including transportation, electricity, telecommunications, water and sanitation—is essential to sustainable development. Infrastructure constraints limit productivity and access to jobs, markets, healthcare and education, while quality infrastructure propels economic growth and social well-being. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9—“build resilient infrastructure, [emphasis added] promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation”—expressly recognizes infrastructure as a key driver of sustainable development (United Nations, 2017). Infrastructure investment will also be needed to enable the achievement of SDGs 11 (make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable), 13 (take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts) and others (Casier, 2015). Both in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and in adapting to the effects of climate change, the success of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change depends heavily on infrastructure investment (Garemo, Hjerpe, Mischke, Palter & Woetzel, 2016; New Climate Economy [NCE], 2016; Vaughan, 2017). To achieve the SDGs and climate change objectives, the infrastructure to be upgraded and built must be sustainable—that is, it must be specifically designed to mitigate economic, social and environmental risks, and to generate economic, social and environmental co-benefits. Conventional project finance valuation methodologies ignore these long-term risks and co-benefits. Looking at elements such as higher upfront capital costs, they depict sustainable infrastructure as less financially attractive than business-as-usual alternatives and lead to underinvestment in sustainable infrastructure. However, modern life-cycle assessment methodologies—which appropriately identify and price the sustainability-related risks and impacts of non-sustainable infrastructure and the broader long-term co-benefits of sustainable infrastructure—make a convincing case that sustainable infrastructure not only is better for people and the environment, but also makes business sense (International Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD], 2017; International Finance Corporation [IFC], 2017; Global Infrastructure Basel [GIB] Foundation, 2017). Traditional procurement and public–private partnerships (PPPs) are among the modes that government may adopt to structure infrastructure projects. In deciding between them, governments should routinely undertake rigorous assessments of procurement options and choose the option that creates the highest value for money for citizens. This choice would generate “what a government judges to be an optimal combination of quantity, quality, features and price (i.e., cost), expected (sometimes, but not always, calculated) over the whole of the project’s lifetime” (Burger & Hawkesworth, 2011, p. 2). Where the procurement option test suggests that a PPP yields the highest value for money, public authorities and private entities work together in a medium- to long-term relationship by sharing expertise, finance, risks and rewards to deliver infrastructure projects (Jomo, Chowdhury, Sharma & Platz, 2016). The PPP contract forms a significant part of the normative framework governing this relationship, allocating responsibilities and risks between the public authority and the private entities. For PPPs to lead to the development of sustainable infrastructure, governments and private parties must ensure that sustainability criteria are embedded in the project from its inception and appropriately reflected in the PPP contract. The 2017 edition of the World Bank Group’s Guidance on PPP Contractual Provisions (World Bank Group, 2017) presents sample contract language that governments may adopt for PPPs. However, as pointed out by the Summary Comments prepared by Foley Hoag LLP (2017), the guidance frequently offers advice that restrains government measures aimed at achieving the SDGs, and misses an opportunity to consider how infrastructure projects can contribute to sustainable development. Complementing the analysis by Foley Hoag LLP (2017), the goal of this paper is to seize the opportunity missed by the World Bank Group’s guidance. The following section defines sustainable infrastructure and describes its expected characteristics and co-benefits, thus outlining elements that should be considered and can help ensure the sustainability of infrastructure projects. Section 3 reaches the core discussion of this paper—why governments must and how they can integrate sustainability into infrastructure contracts. Section 4 presents final remarks and recommendations.
-
加拿大煤炭開(kāi)采Coal Mining in Canada 2021-09-25
-
年終總結(jié)新年計(jì)劃工作匯報(bào)PPT模板 2021-09-25