M1: PPP- To analyse public private partnership for roads and road transport administration

1. M1: PPP-To analyse public private partnership for roads and road transport administration Expected output • A summary report shall be drafted. This report shall: • list best PPP practice with a special focus on the road sector; • analyse the main mistakes made in this sector in order to learn useful lessons; • analyse the question of balance between partnership and competition raised by the creation of a PPP. Time schedule • The project group will be established in autumn 2005 and will present an analysis in early 2007.

2. M1: PPPComments from Oscar I have been reviewing both the PPP report and the toolkit. • I still find it difficult to see a clear use for the toolkit. Whereas it could illustrate certain aspects of public contracts for a non-expert audience, I can hardly see its relevance for road directors, ministerial advisors or other experts with extensive knowledge in the matter. • I think a description of specific experiences by individual countries using private finance would be far more helpful for road directors in decision making, or when advising ministers. Therefore, and as far as I am concerned, the most relevant product would be an enriched report, rather than the toolkit. The report could include a two to three pages summary about the experience (overall description, legal basis, projects and/or network developed, financial instruments, risk allocation, role of public authorities, lessons learnt) for each of the most experienced European countries in the use of PPP and PFI (which should include, at least, France, Spain, Italy, United Kingdom, Germany, Holland, Portugal, Denmark and Sweden). • I am happy to contribute futher to this approach if the group considers it an adequate option.

3. M1: PPPComments from Kristín • My opinion is that the PPP web based tool can be helpful even though it dosen't cover everything concerning PPP contracts and dosen't help expert in this field. • We can always do everything better and I can agree with you it could be great to have couple of pages about PPP experience in the countries you mentionned but I'm afraid we haven't much time. The group started to work in February 2006 and decided to send out some questionnaire in cooperation with Piarc. We got lot of information but we find out that the questionnaire was not covering everything as espected. We didn't want to start all over because we have limited time and we still have limited time. We are supposed to finish our work in the end of the year or latest in the beginning of next year, i.e. finish four tasks with four reports. I hope as you everyone in the group will read your points and that we can discuss it better on our next meeting next 22 September.

4. M1: PPPComments from Laurent • According to my analysis, the toolkit is not very useful for a country which would start in the field of PPP and which would not have any legislation in that matter. Indeed, to answer "no" to the first questions quickly led to the end of the questionnaire. On the otehr hand, for such a country, the report provides, it seems to me, a series of relevant considerations to embark on such a process. • For a country experienced in terms of PPP, the situation is the opposite: the report does not bring any capital ideas while the toolkit provides information about what is happening elsewhere. The point I emphasize is that this information may not be always well structured. But at this level, the toolkit designers have depended on the quality of answers that they have received. • Nevertheless, it seems to me that both report and toolkit meet some CEDR's requirements, i.e. it is practical, it is not another long report and it helps road managers (or someof them) to take decision.

5. M1: PPPComments from Inger • The report is easly read. • The structure of these reports (also the M4 report, I think) are so that there are a few repetitions. Chapter 1 Executive summary is almost identical to Chapter 5 Conclusions. • Chapter 4.1.2: Disadvantages of PPPs. There is also another disadvantage that is not mentioned. PPPs favoures bigger private companies and consortiums because of the size of the projects and the need for financial strenght. Smaller companies can not compete and are left out of the competition.

6. M1: PPPComments from Inger • Appendix C - Country profiles. It says Greece on page 40 but the text is about Germany. I also think that the appendix should include more countries. I agree with Oscar that the report should be enriched and include a summary about the experience for each of the more experienced countries - more than the ones mentioned in the report. Norway could also be included here. I think the group have asked for this before. • We have been sceptical to the tool before: The questions have a limited number of possible answers. The answers are also subjective, and one doesn't necessarily agree with them. That is a problem and drawback with the tool. I suggest that the group discuss the tool at the next meeting, also based on Laurants and Oscars comments. An annual update by CEDR will be time consuming and will cost. Are they prepared to do that, and who in CEDR should do it. One suggestion could be that the tool should be evaluated after let's say a year. Is it being used etc. After that one could make the descision wether to update it or not.

7. M1: PPPComments from Samira • I tried the toolkit with an expert on PPP for a planned project. We both think that the tool is very interesting. Most of the time the information given are accurate and informative. Unfortunately, the tool is not very useful for expert but we thought it can be of some use for higher level supervisor who need an overall knolewledge on PPP issues in Europe.

8. M1: PPPOverview and what need to be doneKristín • With help from his collegues in Netherlands the task leader Wim Leendertse has finish to work out a web based PPP decision tool and to draft a final report which is lot of work achieved and thanks to them. • Some of us would like to see the report with more meat in the report like description of specific experiences by individual countries using private finance. Action: • We the other attending the meeting have to discuss and be ready to take a very determinate decision how we proceed and have in mind that we have limited time. • If our conclusion will be to add extra work to the report we have to act quickly. Oscar is willing to help and I know he can work very quick. Inger is maybe ready to describe Norways experience. • We have to finish the report before the end of October and send it to EB for discussion on their next meeting in the beginnig of December. • I would like Wim to present the report on the next EB meeting if Hans-Josef agree on that.

9. M1: PPPComments on what need to be doneLaurent • I just can completely agree with Kristin's message. • Concerning tasks M1 and M4, I think that the result is already very good and that the reports are close to publication. During the monday meeting, we have to list the last corrections and improvements to be made. • Another thing, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Commission have launched the European PPP Expertise Centre (EPEC) to enable public authorities in the EU Member and Candidate Countries to become more effective participants in PPP transactions. It could be useful to inform CEDR members of the existence of this new Centre.

10. M1: PPPComments on what need to be doneAnton • M1-PPP: In my opinion the tool is ready for EB-discussion. Of course there is always a possibility to improve the tool, but then voluntaries to contribute for improvements are more valuable than only comments. I fully agree that to finish our work in given timetable is the main goal at this stage.