EUROPEAN PPP REPORT 2009 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Report has been published with particular thanks to: CONTENTS The EPEC Executive and in particular, Livia Dumitrescu, Goetz von Thadden, Mathieu Nemoz and Laura Potten. The Report is in three main sections. The first provides an overview of the current state of the European market and our Those EPEC Members and EIB staff who commented on the country reports. perspectives on future directions. Section 2 contains the country sections. Section 3 contains project lists derived from the Each of the contributors of a ‘View from a Country’. Infra-News database. Line Markert and Mikkel Fritsch from Horten for assistance with the report on Denmark. Andrei Aganimov from Borenius & Kemppinen for assistance with the report on Finland. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SERBIA 96 Maura Capoulas Santos and Alberto Galhardo Simões from Miranda Correia Amendoeira & Associados for VIEW FROM SERBIA 97 SECTION 1 assistance with the report on Portugal. SLOVAKIA 98 THE FUTURE DIRECTION 5 VIEW FROM SLOVAKIA 100 Gustaf Reuterskiöld and Malin Cope from DLA Nordic for assistance with the report on Sweden. SLOVENIA 101 VIEW FROM EIB 9 SPAIN 103 Infra-News for assistance generally and in particular with the project lists. CURRENT LOCATION 13 SWEDEN 107 VIEW FROM SWEDEN 108 All those members of DLA Piper who assisted with the preparation of the country reports and finally, VIEW FROM FRANCE 16 TURKEY 109 Rosemary Bointon, Editor of the Report. VIEW FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM 17 VIEW FROM TURKEY 111 VIEW FROM GERMANY 20 UKRAINE 112 SECTION 2 UNITED KINGDOM 116 COUNTRY SECTIONS SECTION 3 AUSTRIA 25 ProJect Lists BELGIUM 27 AUSTRIA 123 Production of Report and Copyright BULGARIA 29 BELGIUM 127 VIEW FROM BULGARIA 30 BULGARIA 135 This European PPP Report 2009 ( “Report”) has been produced and edited by DLA Piper*. DLA Piper acknowledges the contribution of the European PPP Expertise CROATIA 33 Centre (EPEC)** in the preparation of the Report. CROATIA 136 CYPRUS 35 CYPRUS 137 DLA Piper retains editorial responsibility for the Report. In contributing to the Report neither the European Investment Bank, EPEC, EPEC’s Members, nor any Contributor*** CZECH REPUBLIC 37 CZECH REPUBLIC 138 indicates or implies agreement with, or endorsement of, any part of the Report. DENMARK 39 DENMARK 143 This document is the copyright of DLA Piper and the Contributors. This document is confidential and personal to you. It is provided to you on the understanding that it is not to FINLAND 41 FINLAND 146 be re-used in any way, duplicated or distributed without the written consent of DLA Piper or the relevant Contributor. Any part of this document which is used with either the FRANCE 43 FRANCE 147 consent of DLA Piper or the relevant Contributor must be used accurately and not used in a misleading, defamatory or unlawful context, nor for the creation of a database using the GERMANY 49 GERMANY 168 information in this document. Any part of this document which is used with the consent of DLA Piper or the relevant Contributor must be acknowledged as the copyright of DLA VIEW FROM GERMANY Piper or the relevant Contributor, specifying the title of this document. GREECE 192 Financing social infrastructure HUNGARY 201 Disclaimer: This report is intended as an overview and nothing in this document is intended to provide specific legal advice. DLA Piper does not intend that any person relies on PPP Projects in Germany 51 ITALY 205 the information set out in this report unless otherwise agreed in writing. VIEW FROM INDUSTRY 52 LATVIA 224 DLA Piper has sought to ensure that the details of projects contained in this document have been accurately described at the time of publication. However, neither DLA Piper nor VIEW FROM GERMANY LITHUANIA 224 any of its partners or employees nor any other person acting on behalf of such persons makes any promise, guarantee or representation (express or implied) to any person as to the PPP in Germany – the role of the Bundesländer 54 MALTA 225 accuracy or completeness of the content of this document, or of any other information or materials, whether written or oral, that have been, or may be, prepared or furnished by or GREECE 55 the NETHERLANDS 226 on behalf of DLA Piper in connection with this report, including, without limitation, economic and financial projections and risk evaluation. No responsibility or liability is accepted by VIEW FROM GREECE 56 any person for any errors, misstatements or omissions in this document, negligent or otherwise, or any other such information or materials to the extent permitted by law. Without NORWAY 232 HUNGARY 59 prejudice to the foregoing, neither DLA Piper nor any of its respective employees nor any person acting on behalf of such persons shall be liable for loss or damage (whether direct, POLAND 234 VIEW FROM HUNGARY indirect or consequential) suffered by any person as a result of relying on any statement in or omission in this document to the extent permitted by law. PORTUGAL 238 Hungarian Procurement 59 REPUBLIC OF IRELAND 249 This disclaimer, including any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it, shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with the law of England and Wales. VIEW FROM HUNGARY ROMANIA 261 *”DLA Piper” means the limited liability partnerships, unlimited liability partnerships, limited liability companies and other entities (whether or not incorporated and whether The benefit of the Education Programme 60 RUSSIA 265 or not having legal personality) which form part of the international legal practice known as DLA Piper. Details of the member entities of DLA Piper are available on the ITALY 63 SERBIA 268 website: www.dlapiper.com. LATVIA 68 SLOVAKIA 269 **EPEC is a collaborative initiative of the European Investment Bank, the European Commission and entities from participating EU Member States and Candidate Countries LITHUANIA 71 slovenia 270 (“EPEC Members”). VIEW FROM LITHUANIA SPAIN 271 *** A “Contributor” is an author of a contribution to the Report as identified in the Report. Development of the Lithuanian PPP Process 73 SWEDEN 288 MALTA 74 TURKEY 290 the NETHERLANDS 75 UKRAINE 291 NORWAY 77 UNITED KINGDOM 293 POLAND 79 NORTHERN IRELAND 387 VIEW FROM POLAND 80 SCOTLAND 391 PORTUGAL 83 WALES 396 REPUBLIC OF IRELAND 86 ROMANIA 88 ABBREVIATIONS 397 VIEW FROM ROMANIA 89 CONTACTS 402 RUSSIA 92 2 3 | European PPP Report 2009 | The Future Direction | Section 1 Section 1 | The Future Direction | European PPP Report 2009 | THE FUTURE DIRECTION INTRODUCTION ■ An alternative asset class for pension funds giving them the opportunity to match their long term liabilities with The DLA Piper European PPP Report 2007 was upbeat relatively low risk, index linked revenue streams. and buoyant, reporting on an expanding market with good prospects for sustainable growth. By the end of 2007, Many governments have used spending on infrastructure, the market had changed dramatically, coming close to including on PPPs, as an anti-cyclical method of stopping in its tracks. The spread of the banking crisis stimulating the economy. In addition, the EU Commission’s has brought about a re-evaluation of whether funders can recent Communication on PPP (published in November 2009) provide long term, highly leveraged project finance, given has promoted the use of PPPs as an economic tool. In this the lack of confidence in refinancing options and in capital environment, the majority of European countries are likely markets. Deals have closed, but on significantly higher to significantly step up their PPP programmes or commence margins and more aggressive terms, with general difficulty major PPP programmes for the first time. in reaching financial close in a timely manner on even the best of projects. Equally, the public sector has been THE CURRENT DIFFICULTIES suffering with a reduction in tax revenues and big holes in The current situation has highlighted the following government budgets, together with rising unemployment deficiencies: and social expenditure. Thus, governments have had to look hard at their economic policies and decide whether ■ Liquidity shortages amongst commercial banks and they should use spending on infrastructure as an the closure of capital markets has prevented them from anti-cyclical measure. providing debt financing and meeting commitments. ■ The concept of a long term partnership needs to be able THE BENEFITS OF PPP to accommodate the prospect of change in private sector Broadly, the public sector across Europe is in support partners over the life of the project and seek to reward of involving the private sector in the provision of public and incentivise them throughout the various stages of services through a PPP model. This is because it is generally the concession to meet the public sector expectations accepted that PPPs have provided the following benefits: and requirements for on going change. ■ Significantly increased proportion of large scale ■ Ad hoc measures introduced to deal with the issues infrastructure projects delivered to time and budget. arising from tensions arising from economic prosperity (eg high private sector profits made through refinancing ■ Promotion of the movement from a construction to a gains) need to be systematised into a more coherent service culture which has increased innovation and regulatory system which can also cope with issues competition with better design to minimise life cycle arising from economic downturn (eg compulsory costs, and transfer of life cycle risks. refinancing due to mini-perm structures). ■ Enhanced project evaluation and due diligence skills ■ It is becoming more difficult for projects to be off from independent funding parties to test the robustness balance sheet, either by reason of the different risk of projects. transfers that the economic crisis has brought about or ■ Widespread innovation and higher quality standards because of the evolution of international accounting rules. through the introduction of competitiveness into public The expectations are that many of these problems will sector services, including across borders.