Still, we acknowledge that P3s can be a risky game to the taxpayer if not executed correctly. As is the case with any business relationship, there must be synergies in working closely together. And, to the extent that the private and public sector parties have different cultures and attitudes, there may be a leakage in the potential rewards of a P3. Moreover, while agreements lay out the detailed responsibilities of both parties, the private sector - by way of its traditional dominance in the provision of public infrastructure - might attempt to retain significant control. Above all, for P3s to provide value to taxpayers, risk and return have to be properly aligned. However, the public sector has a tendency to underweight or improperly evaluate risk, which can result in excessive private returns at the expense of taxpayers. This roadblock is often attributable to an inadequate level of expertise and resources at the public level, as well as a lack of a cohesive government plan in measuring risk and establishing P3s.
These problems are not unique to Canada. In fact, a major reason why the U.K has achieved success on the P3 front - and why a number of other countries in Europe have followed its lead - is that the central government there took earlier action to address many of these pitfalls. Most importantly, through its Private Finance Initiative (PFI) legislation, it developed a standardized process to assist public-sector employees in comparing risk and rewards across public- and private-sector procurement options. In addition, the U.K.'s National Audit Office has a mandate to review and evaluate the performance of a P3. In fact, many of its recommendations have been incorporated into the government's PFI structure. Lastly, in order to help public-sector employees identify opportunities for P3s and to help bridge the gap in expertise between the public and private sectors, the central government established Partnerships UK - which is a public-private-partnership in itself.