Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Public-Private Partnerships in Trans-European Transport Network projects'
Date: 1998-02-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: private investment, public financing, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network

C 129/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.4.98

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on Public-Private Partnerships in Trans-European Transport
Network projects’

(98/C 129/14)

On 16 September 1997 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
communication.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 February 1998. The rapporteur
was Mr Kritz.

At its 352nd plenary session (meeting of 25 February 1998) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 76 votes for and one vote against.

1. Background

1.1. One of the main conclusions of the Commission’s
White Paper on Growth, competitiveness and employ-
ment, published in December 1993, was that efforts
should be made to involve the private sector in financing
and implementing Trans-European Networks’ (TENs)
projects. This was seen as a way to accelerating this
type of investment and improving its efficiency.

1.2.
At the European Council meeting of December
1994 in Essen, it was decided to give top priority to
14 large TEN transport projects. This followed the
proposals put forward by a High-Level Group of
personal representatives of Heads of State and Govern-
ment, chaired by the Commission’s vice-president, Mr
Henning Christophersen.

1.3.
The total investment costs of the 14 priority
TEN transport projects selected by the Christophersen
Group in 1994 were, at that time, estimated to amount
to ECU 94 billion, of which ECU 40-45 billion had to be
invested in the period 1995-1999. New calculations at
the end of 1995 estimated the total investment costs to
around ECU 99 billion.

The Commission’s 1996 Annual Report on TENs
1.4.
stated that several of
the largest priority projects
(especially in the railway sector) are running behind
schedule, and that
it seems doubtful whether the
expected investment levels of ECU 40-45 billion for the
14 projects by the year 1999 can now be achieved or
even approached.

There are two main reasons why the implemen-
1.5.
tation of several of the priority projects has been
delayed. First, a general decline in public spending for
infrastructure investments has occurred over the last
few years, due to the need to reduce public budget
deficits. Secondly, public-private partnership schemes
(PPPs) as a means of accelerating priority projects, have

been more difficult to realize than foreseen. Furthermore,
administrative, legal or political obstacles have appeared
in some cases, but the main reasons for the delays are
of a financial nature.

2. The high-level group report (May 1997)

The High-Level Group on Public-Private Partner-
2.1.
ship Financing of Trans-European Transport Network
Projects was set up at Commissioner Kinnock’s initiative,
and with the agreement of the Transport Council,
in September 1996. Under the chairmanship of Com-
missioner Kinnock, the Group was composed of personal
representatives of the 15 Transport Ministers of the
European Union, together with representatives from the
construction industry, the banking sector, the transport
equipment industry and transport operators in their
personal capacity. The Group’s Report was published
in May 1997, and included summaries of the reports
from five sub-groups which were appointed by the
Kinnock Group.

2.2.
The aim of the High-Level Group was to see
how Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) can contribute
to achieve the objective of accelerating the implemen-
tation of the Trans-European Transport network, which
is vital for European competitiveness and growth.

2.3.
The report emphasizes that the aim of PPPs is
not simply to mobilize complementary financing sources
in times of constraints on public finances. It is of equal
importance to improve a project’s financial viability by
mixing private- and public-sector skills: the public-sector
experience of infrastructure management, and the entre-
preneurial spirit and commercial and financial skills of
the private sector.

2.4.
A PPP is a partnership between various public
administrations and public bodies on the one hand and
legal persons subject to private law on the other, for the
purpose of designing, planning, constructing, financing

27.4.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 129/59

and/or operating an infrastructure project. It is, however,
inappropriate to impose a rigid definition of what a PPP
is or should be, as each project will lead to a specific
partnership according to project needs and character-
istics, and the way in which public authorities decide to
involve the private sector in the different project phases.

the application of the ‘Public Works’ and ‘Utilities’
directives could greatly facilitate PPP infrastructure
schemes. The Commission should therefore elaborate
specific guidelines which would provide greater clarity
in the procurement procedures to be followed for the
award of transport infrastructure concessions.

2.5.
An economically viable project is one which will
produce socio-economic benefits for the society. A
financially viable project is one which will generate
enough revenues to cover all costs and produce an
adequate rate of return for investors. The report empha-
sizes that the key problem that PPPs address is the
shortage of public funds for subsidies to economically
viable projects which are not financially viable, rather
than a shortage of public or private loan finance for
financially viable projects. PPPs can bring projects closer
to financial viability.

The conclusions and recommendations of the
2.6.
High-Level Group can be summarized under three
headings:

— General conclusions

— An environment that encourages PPPs

— Development of financing instruments.

2.7.

The general conclusions include the following:

a) Public/private collaboration should start as early as
possible in the life cycle of each particular project,
so that private-sector, commercially-orientated input
can be made in the conception and design stages of
a project.

b) The public sector must, at an early stage, clearly
define the aims of a project, and should leave
sufficient flexibility in project design to allow appro-
priate private-sector input.

c) The creation of ad-hoc project companies is often
the best approach — especially for large and cross-
border projects — to provide a stable framework
within which the various partners can establish
a confident working relationship. The European
Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) statute is a good
instrument in the early phases of a project, but it
is not well adapted to the requirements of the
construction and operation phases.

2.9.
The High-Level Group points out that during
the early operational stage of a project, when its debt
burden and debt service obligations are at their highest,
the revenue generated by the project is at its lowest. The
Group therefore recommended the development of
structurally subordinated loans and early operational
stage loans to alleviate risks caused by uncertainties in
early operational stage cash-flow generation.

2.10.
As to the development of financing instruments,
the Group also recommended, as a new activity at
EU-level, equity and, in particular, quasi-equity, where
a targeted application of Community funds could help
the emergence of a European mezzanine fund. This
could play an important role to encourage institutional
investors to become involved in the financing of TENs.

3. The Communication from the Commission

3.1.
Several of the recommendations in the High-
Level Group’s Report are addressed to the Commission
for consideration and action. The communication from
the Commission, published in September 1997, sets out
how it will follow up those recommendations in which
it is directly involved. It also sets out a number of
projects which the Commission has identified as being
suitable for a PPP approach.

3.2. Public procurement

3.2.1.
Private-sector concerns and specific points in
EU procurement rules have been examined by the
Commission in order to favour a regulatory framework
where flexibility, publicity, negotiations and call for
tender would be key issues. The Commission intends to
present soon a communication on public procurement,
forming the framework for guidelines on the application
of the public procurement legislation to infrastructure
projects.

3.2.2.
In this connection the relationship and differ-
ences between the Public Works [93/37/EEC (1)] and

2.8.
As to an environment that encourages PPPs the
High-Level Group’s recommendations deal with public
procurement regulations and procedures, and with the
application of EC competition rules to infrastructure
projects in the railway sector. Clarification especially of

(1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning
the coordination of procedures for the award of public
works contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54); ESC Opinion
on the relevant Commission proposal: OJ C 106, 27.4.1992,
p. 11.

C 129/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.4.98

Utilities [93/38/EEC (1)] directives are of particular
interest, as both directives are potentially relevant for
infrastructure projects. The forth-
larger transport
coming guidelines will clarify which of these directives
applies.

Another main issue of concern for the private
3.2.3.
sector was how to reconcile technical dialogue with the
protection of intellectual property of the bidders in the
conception and planning stages of a project. According
to the Commission, innovative technical solutions in the
conception phase can be protected by current European
law on patents and design, combined with adequate
clauses in tender documents. The same is not the case
in a technical dialogue, which is by nature informal.

3.3. Competition policy

A separate document (2) which tries to clarify
3.3.1.
the existing guidelines to new rail infrastructure projects
has been presented in parallel with the communication
at hand. The Commission, however, emphasizes that
each case has to be considered on its own merits, due to
their complex and often very individual nature. Early
consultation with the services of the Commission on
application of competition rules is therefore advisable.

3.4. Development of financing instruments

3.4.1.
Structurally subordinated loans are loans of
equal priority to usual bank debt, but with extended
maturities (20-30 years) and grace periods. This loan
instrument would alleviate the burden of debt amortiza-
tion by spreading it over a longer period of time. Early
operational stage loans are non-amortising loans or
revolving credits covering the early operational period
of a project. The Commission invites the European
Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment
Fund (EIF), in direct cooperation with commercial bank
debt providers, to increase the volume of structurally
subordinated loans, and to develop early operational
stage loans.

i.e. subordinated debt,
3.4.2. Mezzanine finance,
complements equity and fills the gap between equity
and bank debt. It adds a risk cushion to equity,
which helps the raising of bank debt for projects. The
Commission, in consultation with the EIB and the EIF,
intends to examine the setting up of a mezzanine

(1) Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
the procurement procedures of entities operating in the
water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors
(OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84); ESC Opinion on the relevant
Commission proposal: OJ C 106, 27.4.1992, p. 6.

(2) Clarification of the Commission Recommendations on the
Application of the Competition Rules to New Infrastruc-
ture Projects (OJ C 298, 30.9.1997, p. 5).

fund focused on TENs. The fund should encourage
institutional investors to participate in the financing of
TENs and to contribute the majority of the capital.

3.5. Ways of providing support at EU level

3.5.1.
The Commission points out that the prime
responsibility for infrastructure development lies with
the Member States. The Commission could, however,
in two ways play a more active role: to catalyse the early
involvement of the private sector in project design by
bringing together the key participants, particularly in
cross-border projects, and to ensure that support from
the range of Community financial instruments is pro-
vided in a coordinated way.

3.5.2.
The Commission will consider methodologies
for assessing the network effects associated to TEN
projects. Evaluating project benefits at a European level
is supposed to help assessing the level of TEN funding.
The Commission will also explore possibilities for the
establishment of a European-wide PPP database on
transport infrastructure projects, in order to provide an
analysis of PPP experiences to date.

3.6. Possible projects for PPPs

The Commission has tried to identify some
3.6.1.
known TEN projects that are suitable for the PPP
approach. It should be noted that the aim is not to draw
up a new list of priority projects; potential PPPs are
identified from within the existing priorities.

3.6.2.

The possible projects are the following:

— the HST south: the Madrid-Barcelona section, and

the Figueras-Perpignan section;

— the PBKAL, Dutch section;

— the Brenner tunnel;

— the new Berlin airport;

— the Semmering tunnel;

— the Piraeus-Athens rail connection.

For these projects the Commission intends, together
with the EIB and the EIF, to make special efforts to
support Member States on reaching early agreement on
PPP structures and financing.

4. General comments

The Economic and Social Committee has on
4.1.
several occasions in earlier opinions stressed the impor-

27.4.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 129/61

tance of implementing TENs as a means to ensure that
the internal market functions properly, competitiveness
is strengthened, and economic growth and economic
and social cohesion will be fostered.

mean real costs. In principle, each party should bear the
risks it is best able to control at each stage of a project.
Commercial risks should normally fall to the private
sector, whereas public risks (‘political risks’) should be
borne by the public sector, i.e. the tax payer.

4.2.
The progress that has been made so far on the
development of TENs has been slower than expected,
because of persistent problems of funding, particularly
as a result of constraints on public finances, but also of
less than expected involvement of PPPs in TEN projects.
This is unfortunate, as PPPs since the early 1990s have
been considered an important means of accelerating the
implementation of TENs.

This being the background,

the Committee
4.3.
welcomes both the report from the High-Level Group
and the communication from the Commission. The two
documents form a whole, and should not be seen as
separate parts. The Committee appreciates in particular
that the Commission in such a short time has responded
to the recommendations made by the High-Level Group
for action by the Commission.

4.4. On 9 October 1997, the Transport Council held
a comprehensive debate on the Commission Communi-
cation and adopted a number of conclusions on PPPs in
the context of TEN projects. The Committee notes with
satisfaction the Council’s constructive and realistic
conclusions supporting PPPs.

Traditionally, the state has carried out infrastruc-
4.5.
ture projects when it has seen socio-economic benefits,
and when it has had budgetary resources (i.e. money)
for planning, construction and maintenance of such
projects. The private sector has traditionally been
involved mainly as a contractor, primarily in the
construction phase.

4.6.
Increased involvement of the private sector in
large transport infrastructure projects would mean that
it should act, alongside the public sector, not only as a
contractor, but also as a promoter providing finance
and management
resources, and even operation
responsibilities.

4.7.
The Committee would like to emphasize that the
role of the public sector remains vital, even in projects
where large parts of the implementation of PPPs have
been transferred to the private sector. Large transport
infrastructure projects are not normally financially
viable, unless the public sector shoulders some of the
risks involved, and provides support in the form of
grants and guarantees.

4.8.
The key feature for a successful PPP is the
allocation of a project’s risk between the public and
private sector. Risk allocation is important, as risks

4.9.
It is clear that the lack of sufficient national
budget resources for TEN projects has caused increasing
interest in PPPs. However, the Committee wants to
underline that bringing in complementary financing
should not be the overriding aim of PPPs. It is of equal
importance to utilize the commercial, financial, technical
and management skills of the private sector in order to
improve cost-effectiveness when carrying out TEN
projects.

4.10.
In this connection the Committee cannot refrain
from adding that there is a certain amount of over-
optimism, in both the High-Level Group Report and in
the Commission Communication, as to the potential for
increased involvement of the private sector in TEN
projects. The private sector invests in a project only
when it gives an adequate return on investments.

4.11.
According to the Committee there are some
important prerequisites for successful implementation
of PPPs, namely:

— a firm political commitment on the part of the
Member States to complete the projects and to
for
provide
implementing PPPs;

the necessary financial

resources

— private sector involvement as early as possible in
projects, i.e. in the conception, design and planning
phases;

— creation of dedicated project companies, responsible
for carrying through a project, especially cross-
border projects.

PPPs are usually associated with large TEN
4.12.
priority projects. However, the Committee would like
to emphasize that PPPs could be used also for smaller
and less spectacular projects. In fact, there are many
examples of planned or completed PPP projects of a
relatively modest nature, but of crucial importance in a
local or regional setting (motorway projects, bridges,
tunnels, airports).

4.13.
The financing of transport infrastructure was
one of the subjects dealt with at the Third Pan-European
Transport Conference in Helsinki (June 1997). In the
Declaration adopted by the Conference it was stated
that ‘more efforts should be made in order to increase
public financing by the States and the European Union,

C 129/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.4.98

as well as to increase private financing, e.g. through
public-private partnership’ (paragraph IV.5). This was
fully supported by the delegation of the Economic and
Social Committee to the Conference.

5. Specific comments

5.1. Public procurement

5.1.1.
The Committee strongly supports the High-
Level Group’s recommendation that the Commission
should elaborate specific guidelines which would provide
greater clarity with regards to public procurement
procedures to be followed for the award of transport
infrastructure contracts. Therefore, the Committee is
looking forward to the guidelines which the Commission
has promised to issue in the near future.

5.1.2.
As has sometimes been suggested, an alternative
to guidelines could be a specific directive on public
procurement for transport infrastructure concessions,
providing a legal framework designed especially for
PPPs. According to the Committee, this kind of legislative
change is not to be recommended. A specific PPP
directive would be difficult to formulate and even harder
to apply. Furthermore, it would be necessary to change
the existing directives on public procurement and their
applicability.

5.1.3.
In the view of the Committee, the forthcoming
guidelines from the Commission have to deal with the
following issues:

— the relationship between the ‘Public Works’ and

‘Utilities’ directives when it comes to PPPs;

— ways to improve and facilitate procurement pro-
cedures, especially the pre-tendering phase, and the
use of the negotiated procedure.

In its opinion on the Green Paper on ‘Public
5.1.4.
Procurement in the European Union: exploring the
way forward’ (1), the Committee underlined that it is
necessary to clarify the differences between a concession
and a contract. The two concepts differ when it comes
to the objective, the length of the contract/concession,
terms for financing, and the extent of liability. The
Committee now reiterates that a clarification is needed.

A Public-Private Partnership is a long term
5.1.5.
contract between various public administrations and
public bodies on the one hand, and legal persons subject
to private law on the other, for the purpose of designing,
planning, financing, constructing, and/or operating an
infrastructure project. It differs from public procurement
by requiring investments of the private partner.

5.1.6.
The Works Directive indicates that the con-
cessionnaire can award its public works contracts
to undertakings within the same group (consortium)
(93/37, Article 3 (4). The Utilities Directive does not
include a corresponding provision (cf. 93/38, Article 13).
In the view of the Committee, a consortium which has
obtained a concession should be able to allocate contracts
between its members according to the Public Works
rules, even if it is a question of Public Utilities.

5.1.7.
The Works Directive is applicable to the
construction of roads, bridges, railways, etc. (93/37,
Annex II). In motorway projects, PPPs could include
private sector responsibility also for the operation
phase (using toll roads or shadow tolls). However, the
Committee notes that highway network services are
outside the scope of the Utilities Directive (93/38,
Article 2 (2) c). Therefore, the forthcoming guidelines
should solve this problem of inconsistency.

5.1.8.
Tendering can occur in each phase of a project,
depending on the public authorities’ willingness to
involve the private sector. It can be used for small service
contracts in order to carry out feasibility studies, or for
large concession contracts for building and/or operating
an infrastructure project. The tender procedure is more
flexible in the Utilities Directive than in the Works
Directive, when it comes to the so called negotiated
procedure. Utilities may use this procedure without
restrictions (93/38, Article 20), but public contracting
authorities may use the negotiated procedure only on
certain exceptional grounds (93/37, Article 7). The
Committee recommends that whenever formal bidding
processes are considered, the use of negotiated procedure
should be enlarged, and that legislative changes to 93/37
should be considered.

5.1.9.
The Committee feels that tendering in the
conception and design phases of a project might have
some disadvantages for firms in the private sector. The
protection of intellectual property of a bidder could be
endangered if innovative technical solutions, presented
in the tender document of this phase, are used by the
project authority as criteria in the subsequent tendering
phase. New ideas originating from one private firm
would be of general benefit for all bidders, without
benefiting the inventor.

5.1.10.
As to the procurement process in its entirety,
the Committee would like to use as an example a step
by step guide, published by the Treasury in the UK in
connection with the Private Finance Initiative, which
can be summarized as follows:

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.1997, p. 92.

— prequalification phase against explicit criteria;

27.4.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 129/63

— selection of a limited shortlist of three or four

candidates;

— invitation to submit the tender against a detailed set
of performance specifications and a suggested table
of risk allocations;

— tenders having been received, detailed parallel nego-

tiations with the shortlisted tenderers;

5.3.2. Of these financing instruments the structurally
subordinated loans play a key role by spreading the
burden of debt amortization over a longer period
(20-30 years) than for bank debt (up to 15 years). This
type of loan has already, on a limited scale, been offered
by the EIB in cooperation with the EIF. The Committee
is pleased to note that the EIB will be more active
within this field, and also for the development of early
operational stage loans.

— a preferred tender is chosen.

5.2. Competition policy

The Committee welcomes the recently publish-
5.2.1.
ed (September 1997) clarification on the application of
the competition rules to new transport infrastructure
projects. It deals mainly with rail projects and,
in
particular, with access to new rail infrastructure and the
possibilities of having infrastructure capacity reserved
for some operators.

5.2.2.
It could be argued, on the one hand, that an
infrastructure manager should have the possibility to
reserve at least part of the capacity for operators which
contribute to the financing of the project. On the other
hand, the reservation of capacity over a long period of
time is contrary to the principles of freedom of access
to infrastructure and of competition.

5.2.3.
In order to clarify this issue, the Commission
points out that capacity reservation agreements do not
pose any difficulty under the competition rules as long
as infrastructure is not congested, since no entry barrier
is created. However, if there is congestion, an agreement
reserving capacity that is essential for the effective
operation of transport services may justify the granting
of an exemption pursuant to Article 85 (3), where all
the conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. The
Committee considers this clarification of an important
issue to be a constructive one.

5.2.4.
The Committee recognizes that each transport
infrastructure project has specific features which makes
it more or less unique. Therefore, a case-by-case analysis
is needed when applying the competition rules, and
project promoters should consult the services of the
Commission at an early stage of a project. In the view
of the Committee, guidelines seeking to clarify the
application of the competition rules are a necessary,
but not a sufficient, means of eliminating uncertainty
amongst PPP partners.

5.3. Development of financing instruments

5.3.1.
The Committee agrees with the High-Level
Group and the Commission that large transport infra-
structure projects need balanced financing packages
composed of equity, structurally subordinated loans,
early operational stage loans, and bank debt.

5.3.3.
The Commission intends to examine the setting
up of a mezzanine fund focused on TENs, with the EIB
and institutional investors contributing the majority of
the capital. The Committee is of the opinion that the
market for this kind of financial instrument has to be
developed in Europe, and the Commission should
therefore increase its efforts to help creating a mezzanine
fund.

6. Summary and conclusions

6.1.
The High-Level Group on Public-Private Partner-
ship Financing of Trans-European Transport Network
Projects, chaired by Commissioner Kinnock, published
its report in May 1997. The aim of the Group was
to see how Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) could
contribute to accelerating the implementation of the
Trans-European Transport networks, which is vital for
European competitiveness and growth.

6.2.
Several of the recommendations from the High-
Level Group were addressed to the Commission for
consideration and action. The Commission responded
in a communication, published in September 1997, which
sets out how it will follow up those recommendations in
which it is directly involved.

6.3.
The Committee welcomes both the report from
the High-Level Group and the communication from the
Commission. The two documents form a whole, and
should not be seen as separate parts.

6.4.
The development of TENs has, so far, been
slower than expected, because of persistent problems of
funding, particularly as a result of constraints on public
finances, but also of less than expected involvement of
PPPs in TEN projects.

6.5. When the state has carried out large infrastruc-
ture projects, the private sector has traditionally been
involved mainly as a contractor, primarily in the
construction stage. Increased involvement of the private
sector would mean that it should act, alongside the
public sector, not only as a contractor, but also as a
promoter providing finance and management resources,
and even operation responsibilities.

The key feature for a successful PPP is the
6.6.
allocation of a project’s risk between the public and the

C 129/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.4.98

private sector. In principle, each party should bear the
risks it is best able to control at each stage of a project.
Commercial risks should normally fall to the private
sector, whereas public risks (‘political risks’) should be
borne by the public sector.

It is clear that the lack of sufficient national
6.7.
budget resources for TEN projects has caused increasing
interest in PPPs. The Committee emphasizes that bring-
ing in complementary financing should not be the
overriding aim of PPPs. It is of equal importance to utilize
the commercial, financial, technical and management
skills of the private sector in order to improve cost-
effectiveness when carrying out TEN projects.

As to the possibility of increased involvement of
6.8.
the private sector in TEN projects, there seems to be a
certain amount of overoptimism in both the High-Level
Group report and in the Commission communication.
The private sector invests in a project only when it gives
an adequate return on investments.

6.9.
According to the Committee there are some
important prerequisites for successful implementation
of PPPs, namely:

— a firm political commitment on the part of the

Member States to use a PPP;

— private sector involvement as early as possible in
projects, i.e. in the conception, design and planning
phases;

Brussels, 25 February 1998.

— creation of dedicated project companies, responsible
for carrying through a project, especially cross-
border projects.

6.10.
The Commission intends to issue, in the near
future, specific guidelines providing greater clarity with
regard to public procurement procedures to be followed
for the award of transport infrastructure contracts. The
Committee finds it essential that these guidelines deal
with the following issues:
— the relationship between the ‘Public Works’ and

‘Utilities’ directives when it comes to PPPs;

— ways to improve and facilitate procurement pro-
cedures, especially the pre-tendering phase, and the
use of the negotiated procedure.

6.11.
The Committee welcomes the recently publish-
ed (September 1997) clarification from the Commission
on the application of the competition rules to new
transport infrastructure projects, which deals mainly
with access rights to rail infrastructure and the possibiliti-
es of having rail infrastructure capacity reserved for
some operators. As each project is more or less unique,
the Committee underlines that a case-by-case analysis is
often needed.

Large transport infrastructure projects need
6.12.
balanced financing packages composed of equity, struc-
turally subordinated loans, and bank debt. The Com-
mittee is pleased to note that the EIB will be more active
in developing structurally subordinated loans and early
operational stage loans. It also finds it essential that the
Commission increases its efforts to help creating a
mezzanine fund.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS