美國(guó)國(guó)家公園PPP模式五大實(shí)務(wù)問(wèn)答

發(fā)布日期：2016-04-14來(lái)源：南京卓遠(yuǎn)資產(chǎn)管理有限公司編輯：宋珍珍

[摘要]

　　 文/吳怡雯

　　 Clearing the air: the 5 most common questions about national park PPPs

　　 云開(kāi)霧散:美國(guó)國(guó)家公園PPP模式五大實(shí)務(wù)問(wèn)答

　　 Big Pine CreekRecreation Area, Inyo National Forest, California.美國(guó)加州因幼國(guó)家森林

　　 If the thought of summer conjures up visions of national parks, you’re not alone – in 2014, nearly 3 million tourists visited forests, mountains, trails, and rivers at U.S. national parks.

　　 If you crossed the gate into one of these treasures, you probably didn’t care whether that particular forest or mountain fell under government or private ownership. But it’s worth noting, because national park concessions fill a vital role helping the National Park Service carry out its mission, and there are benefits to these partnerships that can keep the parks viable — and the visitors happy — for decades to come.

　　 There are also misconceptions about national park PPPs. To clear the air, I’ve answered some of the most common questions below.

　　 如果夏日徜徉在美麗的國(guó)家公園,你并不會(huì)感到孤單-2014年,近三百萬(wàn)游客游覽了美國(guó)國(guó)家公園的森林、山嶺、棧道和河流。

　　 當(dāng)你進(jìn)入大門(mén)觀賞這些珍寶，你應(yīng)該不會(huì)在意哪片森林或哪個(gè)瀑布的所有權(quán)歸屬是政府還是私營(yíng)部門(mén)。但值得一提的是，國(guó)家公園優(yōu)惠政策在國(guó)家公園管理局執(zhí)行工作中起到了至關(guān)重要的作用。公私合作伙伴關(guān)系也讓公園的運(yùn)營(yíng)收益—幾十年來(lái)讓游客感到滿意。

　　 人們長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)對(duì)國(guó)家公園PPP模式抱有一些誤解。下面的解答就將消除這些疑慮。

　　 1How does national park privatization work?

　　 Generally, private operators are more efficient than the government in the park operations. In part, this is because these companies have focused their whole business model on park operations, so they have developed proven processes for park management.

　　 A private work force tends to be less expensive and more flexible than civil servants. Perhaps more importantly, civil servants typically are paid all year long, even when the park is not very busy or is closed. In contrast, concessionaires have identified a large pool of workers who are flexible and actually are looking for seasonal work. Using these efficien­cies, private operators take on public parks that are typically losing money for the government and convert them to a financial asset, generating cash for the government in the form of rent pay­ments while still serving the public.

　　 Perhaps most important, privatizing parks takes them off the government budget, and makes them immune from being pawns in government budget battles. In the 1990s, when a disagree­ment between President Clinton and the Repub­lican Congress shut down the government, the only federal parks open were those operated by private concessionaires.

　　 1.私有化在國(guó)家公園的經(jīng)營(yíng)中可行嗎?

　　 總體上說(shuō)，私人運(yùn)營(yíng)商比政府部門(mén)在公園的運(yùn)營(yíng)管理中更加高效。在某種程度上，這是因?yàn)檫@些公司擁有一整套公園運(yùn)營(yíng)的商業(yè)模型，所以他們的公園管理流程更加成熟。

　　 私人勞動(dòng)力成本較低，往往比公務(wù)員更加便宜，而且機(jī)動(dòng)性也更強(qiáng)。更重要的是，雇傭公務(wù)員通常要支付整年的薪水，盡管公園有時(shí)業(yè)務(wù)并不繁忙甚至淡季時(shí)是停業(yè)的。相比之下，特許經(jīng)營(yíng)則可以在市場(chǎng)上篩選更為靈活的人力資源，比如正在尋求季節(jié)性工作的人員。利用這樣的高效運(yùn)營(yíng)，私營(yíng)企業(yè)從政府手中承接那些處于虧損處境的國(guó)家公園，并轉(zhuǎn)化為金融資產(chǎn)，以租金的形式創(chuàng)造現(xiàn)金，為政府部門(mén)帶來(lái)創(chuàng)收渠道，同時(shí)仍然給公眾提供服務(wù)。

　　 也許最重要的是，私營(yíng)公園可以從政府預(yù)算中全身而退，免于成為政府財(cái)政預(yù)算中的犧牲品。在九十年代，當(dāng)克林頓總統(tǒng)和共和黨控制的國(guó)會(huì)之間出現(xiàn)分歧從而導(dǎo)致政府關(guān)閉時(shí)，唯一開(kāi)放的是由私人特許經(jīng)營(yíng)的聯(lián)邦公園。

　　 2Is a national park operated under a PPP vulnerable to government sequester conditions?

　　 For those of us who love parks, it’s exasperating to see that they are constantly used as a political football in budget debates.One advantage of concession operation of parks, beyond the expense reductions, is that the park budgets become untouchable in these political food fights.

　　 2.在PPP運(yùn)營(yíng)模式下的國(guó)家公園是否會(huì)成為政府財(cái)政預(yù)算縮減情況下攻擊的對(duì)象?

　　 令人氣憤的看到，這些美麗的公園不斷成為政府預(yù)算辯論中的政治足球。擁有私人特許經(jīng)營(yíng)權(quán)的公園，除了縮減開(kāi)支這一大優(yōu)勢(shì)，公園預(yù)算已經(jīng)成為政治斗爭(zhēng)中無(wú)法觸碰的領(lǐng)域。

　　 3How does the private company get paid?

　　 With a few exceptions, most recreation conces­sionaires are paid entirely by user fees — for example, by the fees at the gate, for camping, and from certain retail sales within the park. The concessionaire is not paid by the govern­ment, and receives no subsidy. In our company, 100 percent of the revenues we receive are from visitors.

　　 3。 私營(yíng)企業(yè)如何盈利?

　　 除了少數(shù)例外，多數(shù)旅游特許經(jīng)營(yíng)完全由使用者支付-比如門(mén)票費(fèi)、露營(yíng)費(fèi)、公園內(nèi)的商店零售。政府不支付任何費(fèi)用，也沒(méi)有任何補(bǔ)貼。在我們公司，我們的收入100%來(lái)自游客。

　　 4Won’t private companies just build a McDonald’s in front of Old Faithful?

　　 This is one of my favorite questions, because it is absolutely predictable that it will get asked whenever I discuss park privatization with a group of government officials. Typically I give three answers:

　　 1. It simply is not possible. Under the terms of a typical operating contract, a concessionaire cannot change fees, facilities, operating hours, or even cut down a tree without writ­ten approval from the parks organization.

　　 2. Generally, the parks we take over are popular for their natural or historical attractions. Diluting these attractions in any way is just business suicide for operators.

　　 3. It doesn’t happen. We operate over 100 parks in this manner across the country and you would not be able to tell the difference between the facilities we manage and any other public park.

　　 We aren’t trying to take ownership of the land. We are willing to accept whatever recreation mission or preservation mission the public owner of the park sets and manage the park to that mission.

　　 4.私營(yíng)公司是否會(huì)在黃石國(guó)家公園的忠實(shí)泉前面建個(gè)麥當(dāng)勞?

　　 這是我最喜愛(ài)的問(wèn)題之一，因?yàn)槊慨?dāng)我和一群政府官員討論此話題時(shí)他們都會(huì)問(wèn)到。通常我會(huì)給出三個(gè)答案：

　　 1. 很簡(jiǎn)單這是不可能的。典型的運(yùn)營(yíng)合同條款明確規(guī)定，特許經(jīng)營(yíng)不能改變收費(fèi)、設(shè)施、營(yíng)業(yè)時(shí)間，甚至沒(méi)有公園組織協(xié)會(huì)的批準(zhǔn)不能隨意砍掉一棵樹(shù)。

　　 2. 通常我們會(huì)接管受歡迎的自然和歷史景點(diǎn)較多的公園，任何減少吸引力的作為對(duì)經(jīng)營(yíng)者來(lái)講就是商業(yè)自殺。

　　 3. 絕對(duì)不會(huì)發(fā)生。我們?cè)谌珖?guó)已經(jīng)經(jīng)營(yíng)了100個(gè)公園，你應(yīng)該無(wú)法說(shuō)出我們管理的設(shè)施和任何其他公共公園之間的差異。

　　 我們并不是要取得土地所有權(quán)，而是接受公園政府管理部門(mén)布署的旅游和保護(hù)任務(wù)并進(jìn)行管理。

　　 黃石國(guó)家公園

　　 5Will private companies increase the entrance fees?

　　 Generally not. First, operators cannot raise fees without their government landlord’s approval. Second, public recreation is generally attractive to visitors because it is low-cost and offers real value — raising prices and reducing value would only drive customers away.

　　 Here is a real-world example to underscore this point: California State Parks charges $30 a night for a campsite with no utilities. Our private company operates hundreds of public campsites for other govern­ment agencies in California, and not one of those has a nightly rate greater than $20.

　　 5.私營(yíng)企業(yè)會(huì)不會(huì)提高門(mén)票價(jià)格?

　　 一般不會(huì)。首先，運(yùn)營(yíng)商不能在沒(méi)有政府的批準(zhǔn)下提高收費(fèi)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。其次，公共旅游通常對(duì)于公眾的吸引力在于低價(jià)和提供真正的價(jià)值— 漲價(jià)和減少價(jià)值只會(huì)讓游客離開(kāi)。

　　 舉個(gè)實(shí)例來(lái)佐證：加州州立公園每晚的露營(yíng)位收費(fèi)是30美元，不提供設(shè)施。而我們私營(yíng)公司在加州數(shù)百個(gè)公共營(yíng)地的每晚收費(fèi)沒(méi)有一個(gè)超過(guò)20美元。

　　 小結(jié)

　　 國(guó)家公園的概念來(lái)源于美國(guó)，又稱自然保護(hù)區(qū)。美國(guó)擁有近60個(gè)國(guó)家公園，PPP模式已經(jīng)較為普及。2015年，我國(guó)啟動(dòng)國(guó)家公園體制，選定北京、吉林、黑龍江、浙江、福建、湖北、湖南、云南、青海等9省市開(kāi)展國(guó)家公園體制試點(diǎn)，試點(diǎn)時(shí)間為3年。國(guó)家公園主要是自然生態(tài)和歷史文化保護(hù)區(qū)，基本沒(méi)有也不允許有新建和改擴(kuò)建工程，社會(huì)資本參與國(guó)家公園的方式，集中在管理運(yùn)營(yíng)和保護(hù)。從美國(guó)國(guó)家公園私人運(yùn)營(yíng)商的經(jīng)驗(yàn)可以看到，私營(yíng)企業(yè)有更成熟更靈活的商業(yè)運(yùn)作方式，不但不需要政府補(bǔ)貼還可以創(chuàng)造價(jià)值。

【相關(guān)閱讀】

• PPP模式助力九江治水 總投資達(dá)76.99億元
• PPP模式在養(yǎng)老服務(wù)領(lǐng)域的應(yīng)用——以章貢社區(qū)（村）居
• PPP模式下的項(xiàng)目管理需要造價(jià)控制嗎？
• 一切為了民生—PPP模式“固始樣本”全解讀
• 貴州威寧利用PPP模式推進(jìn)全縣經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展
• 百萬(wàn)平米濕地生態(tài)修復(fù) 創(chuàng)新PPP模式提升改造