As PPPs increasingly involve the use of public land and assets, the proper structuring of usufruct arrangements has become critical to ensuring legality, bankability, and public value.
A usufruct fee is the consideration paid by a private partner for the right to use, enjoy, and derive benefits from government property, such as land, facilities, or infrastructure, without the transfer of ownership.
Rooted in the Civil Code concept of usufruct, it allows the State to retain ownership while enabling private-sector participation in development, operations, or service delivery.
In PPPs, usufruct serves as a resource-sharing mechanism, allowing government assets to function as equity or a contribution to a project.
A central legal concern lies in the characterization of the usufruct fee. It may be viewed as rent (similar to a lease), a revenue-sharing mechanism, or a distinct contractual consideration within a PPP arrangement.
This distinction is significant because it determines the applicable legal framework—whether lease rules, procurement laws, or PPP regulations—and affects audit, accounting, and approval processes.
Development rights, usufructuary rights
Closely linked to usufruct arrangements are development rights and usufructuary rights.
Development rights refer to the authority granted to a private partner to plan, construct, expand, and commercially exploit a project, including vertical or mixed-use developments.
Usufructuary rights, in contrast, refer to the legal entitlement to possess, use, and benefit from the property during the term of the agreement.
In PPPs, these rights are often bundled as Development and Usufructuary Rights (DUR), with the government granting usufructuary rights over land while the private partner exercises development rights to build and monetize improvements.
This bundling enhances project viability and bankability because investors and lenders rely on secure and enforceable rights.
Clear contractual definitions of these rights are essential to avoid disputes over scope, duration, and asset reversion.
Balancing public and private interests
PPP arrangements are guided by the principles of risk allocation and bankability. Usufruct fees may be structured as fixed upfront payments or as variable, performance-based payments, such as a percentage of revenues.
Fixed fees may maximize immediate government income but can strain project viability. Variable fees, on the other hand, align more closely with PPP principles by allowing risks and rewards to be shared between the public and private sectors.
The policy challenge is to balance government revenue generation with the project's long-term financial sustainability and affordability.
Another concern is the potential duplication or distortion of government benefits. Usufruct fees may overlap with other forms of government compensation, such as concession fees, revenue shares, taxes, and regulatory charges.
If not properly structured, this may result in double charging, increasing project costs and discouraging private investment.
Ensuring legality and bankability
A coherent and integrated financial structure is therefore necessary to ensure that each payment has a distinct legal and economic justification.
In sum, usufruct fees, together with Development and Usufructuary Rights, must be carefully structured, clearly authorized, and aligned with PPP principles to ensure legality, bankability, and the delivery of public value.
Contributor
