JESSICA in Operational Mode

Transcription

1 1 JESSICA in Operational Mode Andrea TINAGLI - Gianni CARBONARO European Investment Bank, JESSICA Task Force CONCRETA PORTO 22nd October 2009

2 EU Structural Funds & JESSICA Background Strengthening urban dimension in EU Cohesion Policy : Bristol Accord on Sustainable Communities (UK, Dec 2005) Leipzig Charter (DE, May 2007) JESSICA Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas as innovative financing instrument for integrated urban development EU Commission (DG Regio), supported by EIB, launched JESSICA as a complementary way of financing in the framework of the EU Structural Funds period ( ); applying financial engineering techniques to EU Structural Funds EU SF regulations as legal basis (i.e.1083/2006, 1828/2006, 1080/2006, as amended - 2 COCOF notes). 2

3 3 EU Structural Funds & JESSICA Overall objectives Higher productivity of SF / public funds. Increase efficiency and productivity of Structural Funds by making use of innovative and revolving financing instruments in the urban sector (complementary to grant financing) Leverage effect. Mobilise additional public and private sector resources for the benefit of sustainable and integrated urban development (schemes) Expertise - new partnerships and synergies. Utilise financial, managerial and project implementation expertise from private sector or international financial institutions such as EIB

4 Fund level National / regional level Project level EU level 4 JESSICA key components European Commission ERDF DG Regio Operational Programme ( ) Urban Development Fund («UDF») Projects Equity Loan Guarantee ERDF Managing Authority / OP resources ( ) flexible customisation / tailored structure Holding Fund (option) PPPs SPVs Integrated urban development plan / strategy Other (public or private) investors / partners Grant Grant financing Projects

5 5 EU Structural Funds Project level JESSICA s strategic focus (Seed-/Co-) Financing of urban development projects with clear sustainability and public policy objectives, which are not taken forward by unassisted market processes Grant JESSICA Commercial PUBL ERR High risk, low demand, no or little financial viability External returns rather than internal (financial) returns Project is stimulating socioeconomic development Lacking interest from investors / market actors Unclear risk profile; market demand low or not robust Long-term financing needs (loan / equity); additional securities/guarantees needed Project revenue does not meet requirements of commercial project promoters in the market However both internal and external revenue potential Increasing market viability Clear and understandable risk profile Profound rationale for commercial financing through market players Project revenue corresponds to risk profile and profit expectations of commercial investors PRIV IRR

6 6 EU Structural Funds & JESSICA Project level Key criteria Project to be part of integrated urban development strategy Embedded in holistic long-term development strategy criteria for Integrated urban development plans not defined by COM (Partial) profitability or revenue generation potential Precondition for revolving financing approach - JESSICA UDF financing instruments for profitable project components can be combined with classical grant financing Eligibility criteria in accordance with ERDF regulations / OP: Project cost financed from UDFs ERDF share is subject to COM eligibility criteria; Non-eligible project costs can be financed from UDF resources other than the OP ( separate accounting and audit trails )

7 7 PROJECT EXAMPLES Site remediation and preparation Basic urban infrastructure, street furniture, green spaces Urban public transport or energy networks Urban e-government infrastructure Human capital infrastructure health and education Science parks and business clusters/craft workshops Restoration of historic/listed buildings Cultural complexes and signature/landmark buildings Multi-use recreational complexes Depending on regional development objectives, OP priorities / ERDF eligibility and partners on UDF or project level

8 National/regional /Local Level National /or regional Level Regional /Local Level EU Level 8 The need for tailored JESSICA solutions Developing JESSICA architecture Flexible interpretation of JESSICA (role) in different constituencies. JESSICA operational environment and resulting implementation options varying significantly. Operational Programme European Commission ERDF DG DG Regio Managing Authority Holding Fund («(«HF HF»),»), optional Urban Development Funds («UDFs») Loans, Guarantees, Equity HF Manager HF Other (Public or or Private) Investors Projects PPPs SPVs Integrated Urban Development Plans

9 9 The role of EIB How is EIB contributing to JESSICA? EIB taking a leading role, alongside DGREGIO, in promoting and developing JESSICA in EU MS SF Regulations specifically provide for EIB to act as a Holding Fund (on a not-for-profit basis) Technical assistance and dissemination of best practice, based on established expertise in lending to urban renewal/regenerations projects across the EU Providing complementary loan financing

10 10 State of play Evaluation Studies JESSICA Evaluation Studies Key support instrument in JESSICA initiation & development Main components: ERDF resources / Operational Programme Planning, Policy and Legal Environment Urban regeneration market (gap analysis) & JESSICA potential Existing programmes / structures / vehicles Possible partners / leverage Possible pilot projects Expected outputs: Value-added? JESSICA model & Implementation recommendations? Short to mid-term action plan?

11 11 State of play in EU Member States In summary (September 2009) important years in advancing JESSICA (from a political, legal and technical point of view) Increasing number of thematic co-operations and networks Over 40 Evaluation studies initiated in 18 MS, 23 studies finalised (17 published thus far), additional studies planned MAs in 18 EU Member States working on JESSICA several UDFs under development / in implementation stage (i.e. Brandenburg/Germany, Italy, etc.) 10 HF MoUs signed in 8 Member States; negotiations + 5 HF Funding Agreements signed in 4 Member States First HF/UDF structures being set-up in 2009

12 The purpose of a JESSICA Holding Fund To receive and manage Structural Funds provided by the Managing Authorities to investment in Urban Development Funds ; for invest in urban projects and PPP included in integrated plans... for sustainable urban development.

13 The Portuguese Holding Fund Holding Fund EUR 130m Operational Programmes involved (100m) OP Valorização do Território 30m OP Norte 30m OP Centro 20m OP Lisboa 5m OP Alentejo 10m OP Algarve 5m Direcção-Geral do Tesouro e Finanças EUR 30m

14 Role of the Bank as Holding Fund The assets of the JESSICA HF will be managed by the Bank for the benefit of the MA in legal/operational terms. The JESSICA HF does not need to have a legal personality; EIB receives a mandate to manage the funds. JESSICA Holding Fund will be organised as a separate block of finance within the EIB. JESSICA HF will initially be constituted by contributions received from MAs

15 Governance of JESSICA HFs All investment decisions to be taken by the Investment Board members appointed by the MA who will not be EIB employees. EIB may designate two of its employees to participate in Investment Board as observers. Subject to the approval of the Investment Board: - amendments or revisions of the Investment Strategy; - each call for expression of interest, ToR and amendments Business Plans of the selected UDF promoters; - each proposed Operational Agreement; - approval of UDFs; and - budget and costs for performance of the JESSICA Action.

16 Investment policy Investment policy of JESSICA HFs will be determined by objectives stated in Operational Programme. JESSICA HFs will invest in a portfolio of UDFs. However, given the need to create a new market for UDFs and the effort to be dedicated by EIB and MAs to structure appropriate vehicles, each JESSICA HF is likely to invest in a small number of UDFs. Each JESSICA HF will operate in the geographic territory of one MA. In turn UDFs will invest in a portfolio of individual projects, which may cover a broad range of sectors, such as: office buildings, energy efficiency schemes, industrial parks, public infrastructure, public transport, retail space, etc. Investment products: loans, equity and guarantees

17 17 PRICING The Bank will charge MAs fees on a full cost recovery basis. EIB pricing is expected to be set at levels which are considered on the average for similar infrastructure funds products (up to 2% of the amount under management). A Costs Letter to be signed separately from the Funding Agreement, describes in more detail the cost elements provided for in the Funding Agreement. The cost coverage principle should be applied to the JESSICA HF mandate taking into account its overall implementation period allowing compensation between different years.

18 18 LEGAL FRAMEWORK EIB has been mandated directly by EU Structural Funds Regulations to act as a JESSICA HF if MA so request In the interest of both Parties these Agreements are subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice ( ECJ ) and to EC law and the general principles of law common to Member States Responsibility for the compliance of all JESSICA operations with EU and national legislation, including public procurement and state aid, remain with the MA Liability of the EIB as JESSICA HF has been limited in the Funding Agreement to wilful misconduct and gross negligence.

19 REPORTING SYSTEM Adequate reporting system will be put in place by EIB to ensure appropriate management of the initiative. This system will include preparation of: Annual Progress Reports, relating to JESSICA HF Operations and to a JESSICA HF, necessary in order to allow MA to comply with its reporting obligations in accordance with the regulations; and Semi-Annual Progress Reports including an analysis on the progress with the implementation of the Investment Strategy and Planning and detailed information on the progress of the JESSICA HF Operations. 19

20 20 EIB as BENEFICIARY of SF EUROPEAN COMMISSION EU AUDITS CERTIFYING AUTHORITY AUDIT AUTHORITY MANAGING AUTHORITY BENEFICIARIES JESSICA HF

21 Examples 21

22 Examples 22

23 Examples 23

24 PROJECT ANALYSIS TEMPLATE Type of project Base Case Parking lot Anchor project (hotel, student residence, elderly residence) Buildings rehabilitation (civil w orks, energy efficiency, façades) Green transportation / Mobility solutions Urban infrastructures (w ater, sew ages, heat, gas) Others Equity Partners SRU or/and the Municipality Private entity (construction company) Jessica Others (ow ners or banks) Project KPI's IRR 3,3% Payback 15 Investment period

25 Base Case Description and Assumptions Description of Base case intervention area Due to the degradation of a significant part of the city s historical centre / degradated urban area the municipality/sru have drawn up an integrated urban development plan divided in intervention areas. Base Case project is related with one of these intervention areas. Regarding the risks perceived associated with eventual delays in implementation, construction expenses higher than estimated and a bearish real estate condition, it has not been possible up to now to obtain the required funding for the project. Description of the intervention area project The project consists on the rehabilitation of an intervention area but could be replicated in other areas also, involving financial institutions, public entities, owners and construction companies. The project involves buildings rehabilitation (including energy efficiency and façades) either for sale or to lease, parking lot and public spaces recovery. For the project, it must be noted that no grant was assumed although there is an investment in public spaces regeneration. Type of project Parking lot Anchor project (hotel, student residence, elderly residence) Buildings rehabilitation (civil w orks, energy efficiency, façades) Green transportation / Mobility solutions Urban infrastructures (w ater, sew ages, heat, gas) Others Equity Partners SRU or/and the Municipality Private entity (construction company) Jessica Others (ow ners or banks) Project KPI's Base Case IRR 3,3% Payback 15 Investment period 20 Assumptions Given the previous project description, the following assumptions were defined when constructing the financial model supporting the project: Project has a 2 year investment period and ends after 20 years; Estimated investment amounting to 23M; Rehabilitation of public spaces ( 5M); Buildings to lease ( 5M); Buildings to sell ( 8M); Construction of a Students university ( 2M); Construction of an Hotel ( 3M) 41% of investment amount is considered as eligible; Revenue from: Sale of the rehabilitated buildings (margin of 25%) during four years (year 3 to 6); Rent from the remaining rehabilitated buildings (15% ROI); Operation of the Hotel (10% ROI) Operation of the students residence (12,5% ROI) Tax rate is 26.5%; Funding: Equity (30%): SRU (30%) Private partner (60%) Others (10%) Commercial loan with a 6.5% interest rate; No grant; Dividends to shareholders are only considered after the repayment of the commercial loan and can not exceed, for each year, the amount of retained earnings plus net income for the previous year; During investment period, financial costs related with debt obtained are funded through complementary capital; All partners are paid proportionally and at the same time; In the last year of the Project, all the remaining cash available is distributed to the equity partners and the project is closed

26 JESSICA Performance Indicators Below are presented the results obtained for the project and for each stakeholder. Stakeholders perspective Private Partner JESSICA Municipality / SRU Financial Institution Others Public perspective (Includes SRU + structural funds/jessica) Project Base case Loan JESSICA Equity Equity/ Loan IRR 7.1% 7.1% 18.7% 8.3% Payback Funds used 4,140 4,140 2,430 3,627 IRR n.a 6.5% 1.9% 4.6% Payback n.a Funds used n.a 2,850 2,850 2,850 IRR 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% Payback Funds used 2,070 2,070 1,215 1,813 IRR 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% Payback Funds used 16,100 13,250 16,100 14,105 IRR 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% Payback Funds used IRR 1.9% 3.9% 1.9% 3.3% Payback Funds used 2,070 4,920 4,065 4,663 IRR 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% Payback Base Case: The project has a low IRR and large payback period, due to the public spaces rehabilitation investment that was not compensated by real estate gains and with rents. No grants were considered for this case. Without JESSICA, this project probably would not take place due to the lack of private entities interest and difficulties to assure debt (due to the project s low IRR and lack of guarantees). Base Case Scenario L: The JESSICA loan, which has the same interest rate as the commercial loan, is more flexible (payment period terms and the possibility of dividends before full JESSICA s loan reimbursement), allows the increase of private partner s IRR and reduction of its payback. Due to the project s reduced IRR, there can be difficulties to access commercial loan. To solve this issue, an additional solution besides paying first the commercial loan, could be to establish different levels of seniority between JESSICA loan (lower seniority) and commercial loan. Other solution could be guarantees to be granted. Base Case Scenario E: Due to the higher weight of the construction margin in the total gain, private partner s IRR increase. Due to the low return obtained by the equity partners of the project, JESSICA return is lower than in the previous case and its payback enlarged. Nevertheless, in this scenario, the difficulties in assuring a commercial loan are not solved. Base Case Scenario E/L: The mix of JESSICA s intervention appears to be the best scenario to allow project implementation: financial institution perceives lower risk due to JESSICA loan characteristics and private partner return increased. Base Case Guarantee: In project s perspective, a JESSICA s guarantee will probably not change significantly the financial costs compared with the Base Case. Although the commercial interest rate might suffer a decrease, there will be the fee for the guarantee. With such guarantee, a commercial loan is more suitable to be obtained (the credit risk is transferred to JESSICA at the expense of the commission fee). However, the private partners interest is yet questionable, due to the low IRR and long period payback (assuming that the guarantees cover the debt amount). In terms of JESSICA s Fund perspective, and on a low IRR scenario, without a probability distribution for the possible outcomes of the project is not possible for further study of the comparative advantages of using guarantees instead of debt or equity. Nevertheless, using guarantees, although appearing attractive because the amount of funds used in the beginning is negative (no money is invested and a fee is received), means assuming unquantifiable potential losses that might quickly deteriorate JESSICA funds allocation. Additionally, if JESSICA enters with debt or equity, its involvement in the projects is probably higher, implying a greater risk control and the implementation of adequate mitigation plans

27 Stakeholders perspective Private Partner JESSICA Municipality / SRU Base case Loan JESSICA Equity Equity/ Loan IRR 7.1% 7.1% 18.7% 8.3% Payback Funds used 4,140 4,140 2,430 3,627 IRR n.a 6.5% 1.9% 4.6% Payback n.a Funds used n.a 2,850 2,850 2,850 IRR 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% Payback Funds used 2,070 2,070 1,215 1,813 JESSICA Key Performance Indicators Financial Institution Others Public perspective (Includes SRU + structural funds/jessica) Project IRR 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% Payback Funds used 16,100 13,250 16,100 14,105 IRR 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% Payback Funds used IRR 1.9% 3.9% 1.9% 3.3% Payback Funds used 2,070 4,920 4,065 4,663 IRR 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% Payback

28 Base Case: Grant vs JESSICA Private Partner JESSICA Municipality / SRU Others (Property Ow ners) Financial Institution Public perspective (Includes SRU + structural funds/jessica) Project Base case Grant JESSICA Equity/ Loan IRR 7.1% 11.9% 8.3% Payback Funds used 4,140 3,708 3,627 IRR n.a. n.a. 4.6% Payback n.a. n.a. 12 Funds used n.a. n.a. 2,850 IRR 1.9% 4.4% 1.9% Payback Funds used 2,070 1,854 1,813 IRR 1.9% 4.4% 1.9% Payback Funds used IRR 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% Payback Funds used 16,100 14,420 14,105 IRR 1.9% (2.1)% 3.3% Payback 19 n.a. 16 Funds used 2,070 4,704 4,663 IRR 3.3% 4.9% 3.3% Payback Summary of the results obtained from each stakeholder Project s estimated IRR is 3.3% in base case. Project funding uses, 70% equity and 30% debt, through commercial loan. The main obstacle for the project s implementation is risk perception of the financial institutions, due its low IRR. For them, it is important to create a leverage force, alongside with a risk buffer in order to the project become a more attractive investment. With grant, financial institutions issue is solved but, in most cases, at the expense of public non-reusable monies. The negative IRR presented reflects the expenses of the non repayable funds given. With JESSICA, the inefficiency is solved and more permanent multiplying effect of structural funds can be expected. In this sense, and from a public perspective, for urban regeneration initiatives that have potential to generate revenues that might compensate totally or partially the public investment made, JESSICA initiative is an efficient way of assuring a proper and most effective use of public monies. JESSICA helps creating a risk buffer for the financial institution perspective, and acts as a leverage force. However, it also implicates that the money has to return to the entity that conceives such fund (UDF or even Holding Fund), on a loan basis (with interest rate), in order to have the possibility to have revolving nature (reinvestment on other projects).thus, on the public perspective, it is no longer "giving" money, yet is investing money more efficiently. Regarding the IRR for the Public entities (SRU+ JESSICA), comparing with nonrepayable grant, it is more attractive to apply on (each scenario of JESSICA application is more attractive than the grant for public entities). Acting with JESSICA to leverage urban rehabilitation initiatives can implicate that the same amount can have a multiplier effect, being invested more than once, while the costs of using grant will not generate any return, being only applied once. In this perspective, grant is more expensive and less effective than JESSICA

29 Case Type 1 Description and Assumptions Description of Case 1 The Municipality/SRU elaborated a rehabilitation project for an area in the historical centre / degradated urban area. The project consists on the rehabilitation of degradated buildings for sale and the construction of a parking lot. The proposed model involves a partnership with financial institutions, public entities, owners and construction companies, under a close-ended real estate investment fund. The main differences from the Base Case are the following: There is no investment in public spaces regeneration, neither in real estate assets to lease; In the end of the rehabilitation period, all the assets are sold; Partnership uses the form of a real estate investment fund, being D/E ratio lower than in the other cases; This case could also be seen as the recovery of a contaminated industrial area. Type of project Parking lot Anchor project (hotel, students residence, elderly residence) Buildings rehabilitation (civil w orks, energy efficiency, façades) Green transportation / Mobility solutions Urban infrastructures, sew ages, w ater, heat and gas) Others Equity Partners SRU or/and the Municipality Private entity (construction company) Jessica Others (ow ners or banks) Project KPI's Case 1 IRR 6.7% Payback 5 Investment period 5 Assumptions Given the previous project description, the following assumptions were defined when constructing the financial model supporting the project: Project has a 4 year investment period and ends after 5 years; Estimated investment amounting to 16M; Buildings rehabilitation to sell ( 13M); Construction of a parking lot ( 3M). 25% of investment amount is considered as eligible; Revenue from: Sale of the parking lot (margin of 0%) in the last year ; Sale of the rehabilitated buildings (margin of 10%) in the last year; Management fees ( 150k per year); Tax rate is 26.5%; Funding: Equity (44.44%): SRU (20%) Private partner (30%) Others (50%) No grant; Commercial loan (55.56% of total investment) with a 6.5% interest rate; The projects unused cash does not pay interest; Dividends to shareholders are only considered after the repayment of the commercial loan and can not exceed, for each year, the amount of net income less the dividends already distributed; All partners are paid proportionally and at the same time; In the last year of the Project all the remaining cash available is distributed to the equity partners and the project is closed

30 Type of intervention, projects and partners Description of the Case 2 intervention area The project establishes the regeneration of a city historical centre/degradated urban area, which presents social desertification and social degradation issues, along with buildings deterioration. This Project considers that buildings rehabilitation will be executed by property owners together with third party investors. In this case we assume that SRU or Municipality obliges the owners to make the required rehabilitation. If owners are not interested or does not have the required funds, Municipality / SRU assumes the rehabilitation works and, in the end, recovers the costs incurred either through expenses payment by property owners either through a sale of the property at market prices. Additionally, SRU and Municipality also acquires rehabilitate, and sell some buildings. Type of project Parking lot Anchor project (hotel, students residence, elderly residence) Buildings rehabilitation (civil w orks, energy efficiency, façades) Commercial activity Green transportation / Mobility solutions Urban infrastructures (sew ages, w ater, heat and gas) Others Equity Partners SRU or/and the Municipality Private entity (Construction company) Jessica Others (ow ners or banks) Project KPI's Case 2 IRR 5.7% Payback 10 Investment period 10 Assumptions Given the previous project description, the following assumptions were defined when constructing the financial model supporting the project: Project has a 9 year investment period and ends after 10 years; Estimated investment amounting to 35M; Buildings to lease ( 18.1M); Buildings to sell ( 16.9M); 20% of investment amount is considered as eligible; Revenue from: Agency fee (charged by the SRU to private entities as a result of property value increase in their housing sales amounting to around 5% of the sold amount); Sale of the buildings in the year after construction (with a margin of 20%); Lease rents charged in the same year. the Municipality subsidies and management cost (both canceling out due to the municipality subsidies), the leased buildings are sold back to the municipality at book value; Tax rate is 26.5%; Funding: Equity (30% of total investment): SRU (100%) Private partner (0%) Commercial loan (70% of total investment) with a 6.5% interest rate; Grant of 4.875M (equal to 50% of eligible investment); The projects unused cash does not pay interest; Dividends to shareholders are only considered after the repayment of the commercial loan and can not exceed, for each year, the amount of net income less the dividends already distributed; All partners are paid proportionally and at the same time; In the last year of the Project all the remaining cash available is distributed to the equity partners and the project is closed

31 Type of intervention, projects and partners Description of the Case 3 area Located in an historical center, Case 3 area is characterized by its touristic appeal (historical area) and by the urban deterioration of its residential area. Commercial activity is declining, currently being restricted to a few outdated shops. Accessibilities are a major issue for this area. Description of Urban rehabilitation project The project has as key objective the regeneration of Case 3 area and is focused on providing better life conditions to the population, creating new dynamics and development of the touristic activity. The project contemplates several actions, the most representative and expensive being the construction of a parking lot and a shuttle as a mobility solution around the historical area, in order to prevent other vehicles circulation. Type of project Parking lot Anchor project (Shuttles, students residence, elderly residence) Buildings rehabilitation (civil w orks, energy efficiency, façades) Green transportation / Mobility solutions Urban infrastructures (sew ages, w ater supply, heat, gas) Others Equity Partners SRU or/and the Municipality Private entity (construction company) Jessica Others (ow ners or banks) Project KPI's Case 3 IRR 3.6% Payback 15 Investment period 20 Assumptions Given the previous project description, the following assumptions were defined when constructing the financial model supporting the project: Project has a 2 year investment period and ends after 20 years; Estimated investment amounting to 13M; Rehabilitation of public spaces ( 8M); Parking lot ( 3M); Shuttles ( 2M); 50% of investment amount is considered as eligible; Equity (55%): SRU (31%) Private partner (69%) Commercial loan (55% of total investment) with a 6.50% interest rate; The projects unused cash does not pay interest; Grant of 4.875M (65% of eligible investment); Revenue starting in the second year from: Parking lot exploration (EBITDA margin of 16%) Shuttles exploration (EBITDA margin of 16%) Tax rate is 26.5%; Dividends to shareholders are only considered after the repayment of the commercial loan and can not exceed, for each year, the amount of net income less the dividends already distributed; All partners are paid proportionally and at the same time; In the last year of the Project all the remaining cash available is distributed to the equity partners and the project is closed; 31 31

32 Implementation Plan Below is presented a implementation plan with the phasing necessary to apply JESSICA initiative in the selected area. Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 Month 13 Month 14 Month 15 Signature of the financial agreement between the Managing Authority and the EIB. Appointment of the HFManager. Definition of the HF Investment Strategy, organizational structure and governance, including UDFs regulation and supervision model Publicize JESSICA: presentation of JESSICA initiative to main entities involved in urban regeneration (Municipalities, financial institutions, real estate developers, large urban property owners). Launch JESSICA: preparation and launch of a tender for the UDFs selection Preparation of proposals by interested entities in using JESSICA Selection of UDFs and UDF managers. The first step the definition of HF investment strategy and UDFs supervision model incorporates political priorities to be defined by Managing Authority. The second step is to increase awareness of JESSICA as an urban regeneration instrument, to prepare potential interested parties to the tender and to identify key issues in preparing the tender. Then the selection process giving way to the selection of UDF Managers and UDF establishment and then project development