study on state asset management in the eu · parliament. policies related to the local governments...

Written by KPMG and Bocconi University February 2018

Study on State asset management in the EU

Final study report for Pillar 3 – The Netherlands

Contract: ECFIN/187/2016/740792

2

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs

Directorate Fiscal policy and policy mix and Directorate Investment, growth and structural reforms

European Commission

B-1049 Brussels

3

The Netherlands

This country fiche presents a qualitative overview of the mix of governance models

and investment strategies implemented by the Dutch general government to manage its assets portfolio.

1. MAPPING OF THE GOVERNANCE OF THE PORTFOLIO OF ASSETS

Public administration in the Netherlands has four tiers: central government, the provinces, the municipalities and the water authorities1. Throughout this country fiche,

we re-cluster these four tiers into two categories, i.e. the “central government”, which includes the central government, and the “local governments”, which include both the

provinces, the municipalities and the water authorities.

Within this framework, policies on national and international issues are prepared by

the central government and form the basis for legislation ratified by the Dutch

parliament. Policies related to the local governments are devolved to the relevant governments at these levels.

As far as Financial assets are concerned, the Ministry of Finance is the main body for strategic, investment, and operational decisions related to the central government’s

financial assets. By contrast, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management is the main body responsible for developing policies related to the Non-financial assets in

the national context; the local governments are responsible for translating these guidelines into the local context. The local govrnments have the power and the

financial means to develop and implement local policy on spatial planning and

environment. Therefore, a close cooperation between all levels of government is necessary2.

As reported in the National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial Planning3, the Dutch government has delegated part of the responsibility for the strategic and

investment decisions regarding infrastructures and spatial planning to the relevant local governments. In more detail, the central government is responsible for the

overall planning and defines jointly with the relevant local governments the spatial4 and infrastructure projects that will be carried out. The projects are included in the

Multi-year Programme for Infrastructure and Transport (MIRT), which is presented

every year to the Lower House as an appendix to the budget of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management.

Currently, there is no unique, comprehensive and consolidated National public data source covering all the assets in the government’s portfolio.

1 For more details, please see: https://www.government.nl/topics/public-administration [Accessed 21th

December 2017].

2 For more details, please see: https://www.government.nl/topics/environment/roles-and-responsibilities-

of-provincial-government-municipal-governments-and-water-authorities [Accessed 21th December 2017].

3 Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. Summary National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure

and Spatial Planning. Available at:

https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiKsv

PqoZ3YAhXGE5oKHYWkA84QFgg0MAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.government.nl%2Fbinaries%2Fgovern

ment%2Fdocuments%2Fpublications%2F2013%2F07%2F24%2Fsummary-national-policy-strategy-for-

infrastructure-and-spatial-planning%2Fsummary-national-policy-strategy-for-infrastructure-and-spatial-

planning.pdf&usg=AOvVaw25rsultx1MDNw7Hc_Bm1CI [Accessed 22nd December 2017].

4 Spatial planning has the aim to create a more rational territorial organization of lands and linkages

between them which may balance the demands for development, the need to protect the environment and

the achievement of social and economic objectives.

https://www.government.nl/topics/public-administration

https://www.government.nl/topics/environment/roles-and-responsibilities-of-provincial-government-municipal-governments-and-water-authorities

https://www.government.nl/topics/environment/roles-and-responsibilities-of-provincial-government-municipal-governments-and-water-authorities

https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiKsvPqoZ3YAhXGE5oKHYWkA84QFgg0MAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.government.nl%2Fbinaries%2Fgovernment%2Fdocuments%2Fpublications%2F2013%2F07%2F24%2Fsummary-national-policy-strategy-for-infrastructure-and-spatial-planning%2Fsummary-national-policy-strategy-for-infrastructure-and-spatial-planning.pdf&usg=AOvVaw25rsultx1MDNw7Hc_Bm1CI





Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands

4

1.1. Financial assets

Some financial assets are owned by the central government; others by the local

government. The overall policy set by the Dutch government is that the state holds shares in a company only if this serves the public interest5. For example, in the

following cases:

a company undertakes major infrastructure projects that are of national

interest and require financing. As a matter of example, the government acquired stakes in the Port of Rotterdam in order to facilitate the construction

of the Second Maasvlakte;

a private company is suffering a crisis, for example the nationalisation of ABN AMRO, ASR and SNS Reaal during the financial crisis;

a public service is corporatised.

The government divides the portfolio of state-owned enterprises into three categories:

1. Permanent, these are companies over which the government believes that the state should exercise majority control. Examples include Schiphol Airport, NS

(the Dutch rail operator), the Port of Rotterdam, Gasunie and Tennet;

2. Non-permanent, the government has announced plans to sell some state-

owned enterprises, such as Staatsloterij and Holland Casino;

3. Temporary, these include financial institutions such as ABN AMRO, ASR and SNS Reaal. The aim of the government is to return them to the private sector6.

The Ministry of Finance is the main body for strategic and investment decisions. It is also responsible for operational decision related to the Central government’s financial

assets.

With respect to financial assets in the government’s equity portfolio, the five most

important sectors in terms of Value Added (VA) generated by Public Sector Holdings (PSHs)7 are:

1. H – Transportation and storage;

2. B – Mining and quarrying;

3. D – Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply;

4. N – Administrative and support service activities;

5. E – Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities.

5 For more details, please see: https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/portfolio-of-

state-owned-enterprises [Accessed 20th December 2017]. 6 Ibid. 7 The five most important sectors in terms of VA generated by PSHs have been mapped in Pillar 1. For

industry classification we rely on data provided by Bureau van Dijk (BvD) Orbis, which in turns gets its data

from other service providers and bases industry classification on the NACE codes provided.

https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/portfolio-of-state-owned-enterprises

https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/portfolio-of-state-owned-enterprises


5

Table 1 Governance regimes: Financial assets, The Netherlands

Owners of the

asset

Both the central and the local governments participate

in the companies’ capital.

C1

D1

Most important sectors in terms of VA:

1. Sector H – Transportation: the majority of the

PSHs are owned by the local governments. Only a

few of them are owned directly by the central government (e.g. N.V. Luchthaven Schiphol). It is

worth highlighting that some PSHs operating in the sector are owned by the French public sector,

mainly through the Caisse Des Dépôts Et Consignations

2. Sector B – Mining: as mapped in Pillar 1, there are two big PSHs operating in the sector (i.e. EBN

B.V., Gasterra B.V.), directly owned by the

Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Environment8

3. Sector D – Electricity and gas: as mapped in

Pillar 1, all PSHs are owned by the relevant local governments

4. Sector N – Administrative services: the majority of PSHs are owned by local governments.

Two of the PSHs operating in the sector are owned by the French Caisse Des Dépôts et Consignations

(i.e. Techno Service Nederland N.V., Eurolines

Nederland B.V.)

5. Sector E – Water supply: as mapped in Pillar 1,

all PSHs are owned by the relevant local governments

Bodies

responsible for the strategic

and investment decisions

The Ministry of Finance is the main body for strategic

and investment decisions.

C1

D1

Most important sectors in terms of VA: the relevant local governments and each relevant Ministry are

responsible for strategic decisions on PSHs operating within their jurisdiction in compliance with the strategic

framework outlined by the Ministry of Finance.

Bodies responsible for

the operational decisions

The Ministry of Finance is responsible for operational decisions related to the central government’s financial

assets.

In addition, local governments are responsible for

making decisions regarding the management of their own financial assets.

C1

D1

8 Ministerie Van Economische Zaken.


6

Most important sectors in terms of VA: since the majority of PSHs operating in these sectors are owned

by local governments, then local governments are

responsible for operational decisions.

National public

data sources

The Ministry of Finance is responsible for reporting the

central government’s holdings in various companies as

well as information on the acquisition and disposal of PSHs, and nationalisation of financial institutions9. C1

Source: KPMG elaborations.

The network graphs in the table above highlight the main bodies involved for each role of the (a)

responsibility chain (e.g. the bodies owning the assets, the bodies responsible for operational

decisions), for each asset cluster in the government’s asset portfolio. These models may not apply to all

the individual assets within the cluster.

For some clusters of assets the responsibility for some aspects of the governance regime is spread (b)

between more bodies at different levels of centralisation. Therefore, we represent these cases using two

“network graphs” representing these bodies.

9 For more detail about the list of companies mapped by the Ministry of Finance in the Central government’s

portfolio as well as information on the acquisition and disposal of state-owned enterprises, and

nationalisation of financial institutions, please see https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-

enterprises [Accessed 27th September 2017].

Legend

C3C1 C2= Central government

= Central public authority

= Central company-typestructure

D1 = Local governments

D2 = Local public authorities

D3 = Local company-typestructure

= Private body

PM

https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises

https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises


7

1.2. Non-financial assets

Airports

Table 2 Governance regimes: Airports, The Netherlands

Owners of the asset

The airports considered to be of national importance (i.e. Schiphol Airport, Groningen Airport Eelde, Lelystad

Airport, Maastricht Aachen Airport, Rotterdam The Hague Airport) are owned by the central government,

while the “regional” airports10 are owned by the relevant local governments11.

C1

D1


the strategic


The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management is the main body responsible for setting the overall

strategy related to airport infrastructures. It defines,

jointly with relevant local governments, spatial projects and programs for every region in the Netherlands, in

order to set the MIRT.

In more detail, airports of national importance fall

under the direct responsibility of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, while regional

airports fall under the responsibility of the relevant local government.

C1

D1

Bodies

responsible for the operational

decisions

The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management

grants the airport infrastructures in concession to different airport operators, which are responsible for

operational decisions. A few airport operators are fully

public (i.e. 25%), while the remaining part (i.e. 75%) are jointly owned by public and private investors with a

strong prevalence of public shareholders12. For example, according to the latest account data (31st

December 2016), the Royal Schiphol Group N.V. is owned by the Dutch central government (69.77%), the

municipality of Amsterdam (20.03%), the Municipality of Rotterdam (2.00%), and the French Groupe ADP

(8.00%).

C3

D3

National public data sources

Statistics Netherlands (i.e. the national statistical institute in The Netherlands)13 collects and reports the

key information about the airport traffic (e.g. the

monthly commercial air traffic by airport). With regard to the airport infrastructures, there is currently no

single, definitive, public source of information.

C2

10 The regional airports are defined as the airports that receive virtually no international flights and whose

main role concerns the regional economy. 11 For more details, please see: https://www.government.nl/topics/aviation/airports [Accessed 20th

December 2017]. 12 Airport Council International – ACI (2016). The Ownership of Europe’s Airports. Available at:

file:///C:/Users/cadamo/Downloads/The%20Ownership%20of%20Europes%20Airports%202016%20(3).pdf

[Accessed 20th December 2017]. 13 For more detail about the information mapped by the Statistics Netherlands, please see

https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb [Accessed 13th September 2017].

https://www.government.nl/topics/aviation/airports

https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb


8









Legend







= Private body

PM


9

Ports

Table 3 Governance regimes: Ports, The Netherlands

Owners of the

asset

The prevalent ownership and management model for

ports is the so-called “landlord model”. In this model, the port authorities own the basic port infrastructure14

and retain all regulatory functions. The port operations (e.g. handling, storage and warehousing) are granted

by the port authorities to private operators.

In the last two decades, port authorities have been

transformed from government agencies to public limited companies.

C3

D3

Bodies


and investment

decisions


is the body responsible for setting the overall strategy for port infrastructures.

Jointly with the local governments, it defines the spatial

projects and programs regarding port infrastructures for every region in the Netherlands, in order to set the

MIRT.

C1

D1



Port authorities are in charge of managing, building and using ports infrastructures; therefore, they are

responsible for operational decisions regarding port infrastructures. C3

D3

National public

data sources

The Statistics Netherlands15 collects and reports the

key information about the port traffic (e.g. the estimated value transported goods, the estimated

gross weight transported goods). With regard to the seaport infrastructures, there is currently no single,

definitive, public source of information.

C2









14 The legal entitlement of the land within port areas rests with the municipal government where ports are

located, port authorities were granted (for free) a perpetual lease on these land.

15 For more detail about the information mapped by the Statistics Netherlands, please see


Legend







= Private body

PM



10

Roads

Table 4 Governance regimes: Roads, The Netherlands

Owners of the

asset

Main roads are owned by the central government, while

local roads are owned by the relevant local governments.

C1

D1

Bodies



With regard to the main road network, the Ministry of

Infrastructure and Water Management is responsible for the definition of the investment strategies.

Regarding the local roads, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management defines, jointly with local

governments, spatial projects and programs for every

region in the Netherlands included in the MIRT.

C1

D1

Bodies

responsible for


The Directorate-General for Public Works and Water

Management is responsible for the Dutch main road

network. In more detail, it is responsible for the design, construction, management and maintenance of the

main road network in the Netherlands.

Moreover, local governments are responsible for

operational decisions regarding road infrastructures within their jurisdiction.

C2

D1

National public

data sources

The Statistics Netherlands16 collects and reports the

key information about the road infrastructures (e.g. the length of main roads) and traffic (e.g. the motor

vehicles per hour on main roads).

C2











Legend







= Private body

PM



11

Railways

Table 5 Governance regimes: Railways, The Netherlands

Owners of the

asset

The legal owner of the majority of the rail

infrastructures is Railinfrastrust B.V. 17, a PSH fully owned by the Dutch State.

C3

Bodies




is the body responsible for making strategic and investment decisions regarding the national railway

network. Spatial projects and programs for every region in the Netherlands are included in the MIRT.

C1

Bodies


decisions

The railway network is managed by ProRail B.V. (a PSH

fully owned by Railinfratrust B.V.), which is the holder of the license to manage the Dutch railway network.

The current concession agreement was signed in December 2014 and will last until 2025. As

concessionaire of the infrastructure, ProRail is responsible for operational decisions regarding railway

infrastructures.

C3


ProRail B.V. annually publishes the “Network Statement”18, which outlines the characteristics of the

infrastructure and contains information on the

conditions to access it.

In addition, the Statistics Netherlands19 collects and

reports key information about the railway infrastructure (e.g. the length of the railway network) and traffic (e.g.

the estimated value transported goods, the estimated gross weight transported goods).

C3

C2









17 Railway Act. Available at: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0015007/2017-08-30 [Accessed 20th December

2017].

18 For more detail about the information reported by the Network Statement, please see

http://www.adif.es/en_US/conoceradif/doc/CA_DRedEn_Completo.pdf [Accessed 9th November 2017].



Legend







= Private body

PM

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0015007/2017-08-30

http://www.adif.es/en_US/conoceradif/doc/CA_DRedEn_Completo.pdf



12

Mineral and Energy reserves

Table 6 Governance regimes: Mineral and Energy reserves, The Netherlands

Owners of the

asset

The central government is the owner of Mineral and

Energy reserves20.

C1

Bodies

responsible for

the strategic and investment

decisions

The Ministry of Economic Affairs is responsible for the

strategic decisions regarding Mineral and Energy

reserves within the Dutch territory21. More in detail, it is responsible for granting the concession to explore

and exploit them to private investors.

C1



Companies may be given the rights to exploit Mineral and Energy resources in concession within the Dutch

territory. Those companies are responsible for operational decisions related to Mineral and Energy

reserves. C3

D3

National public data source

The Statistics Netherlands22 collects and reports key information about the Mineral and Energy reserves (the

stock of Mineral and Energy reserves on the Dutch territory).

C2









20 Dutch Mining Act (i.e. Mijnbouwwet)

21 Ibid.



Legend







= Private body

PM



13

Other natural resources

Table 7 Governance regimes: Other natural resources, The Netherlands

Owners of the

asset

Other natural resources in the Netherlands are owned

by both the central government and the local governments.

C1

D1



decisions

The central government, mainly through the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, is responsible

for issues that go beyond provincial or national boundaries (e.g. water resources) and when

international obligations or agreements apply; for

example, on matters of biodiversity, sustainable energy, water system remediation or world heritage.

In the other cases, the relevant Local public body is responsible for the strategic decisions.

C1

D2

Bodies


decisions

The central government is responsible for operational

decisions regarding issues that transcend provincial or national boundaries (e.g. water resources) and when

international obligations or agreements apply.

In the other cases, the relevant Local public body is

responsible for the operational decisions.

C1

D2


The Statistics Netherlands23 collects and reports the key information about the Natural resources in the

Netherlands.

C2











Legend







= Private body

PM



14

Dwellings, Buildings other than dwellings

Table 8 Governance regimes for Buildings cluster, The Netherlands

Owners of the

asset

Assets falling into this cluster can be owned either by

the central government or the local governments.

C1

D1



decisions

The Dutch central government is responsible for the strategic decisions regarding public real estate within

its juridisdiction.

The local governments are also responsible for the

decisions related to the management and disposal of real estate proprieties within their jurisdiction.

C1

D1

Bodies


decisions

The Central Government Real Estate Agency develops,

builds and manages real estate properties of the central government. Its portfolio consists of: prisons,

courts of law, military barracks, airfields, ministries, ports, tax offices, historic properties and palaces.

In addition, local governments are responsible for

operational decisions regarding their own Dwellings and Buildings other than dwellings.

C2

D1

National public

data sources

The Statistics Netherlands has to annually collect some

information about Dwellings and Buildings other than

dwellings24 in the Netherlands (e.g, the changes in the dwelling stock)

C2









24 For more detail about the Buildings information reported by Statistics Netherlands, please see


Legend







= Private body

PM



15

Figure 1 Asset-responsibility chain and ownership matrix for the cluster of assets in government’s portfolio, The Netherlands


Centr. Gov. = Central government; Local Gov. = Local government; Min. Fin = Ministry of Finance; Min.

Infr. = Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management; DG for Pub. Works = Directorate-General for

Public Works and Water Management; Local PB = Local public bodies; Min. Ec. Aff. = Ministry of Economic

Affairs.

For more detail about the clusters of governance regimes, please see Methodological Notes. (a)

The network graphs in the table above highlight the main bodies involved for each role of the (b)




For some clusters of assets the responsibility for some aspects of the governance regime is spread (c)



In light of the analysis presented earlier and summarised in Figure 1, local

governments in the Netherlands are strongly involved in the decision-making process for the management of Financial and Non-financial assets. The central government

keeps the main responsibility for the overall strategy and for policies of national interest. For anything else, local governments are able to make their own policy

decisions.

Asset cluster

Role of the body

Responsible for the operational

decisions

Responsible for the strategic

decisions

Owner of the asset

Financial assets

Airports

Ports

Roads

Railways

Mineral and Energy

reserves

Other naturalresources

Dwellings, Buildings otherthan dwellings

Centr. Gov.

C1

Local Gov.

D1

DG for Pub. Works

C2

Local PB

D2

Centr. Gov.

C1

Centr. Gov.

C1

Local Gov.

D1

Centr. Gov.

C1

Local Gov.

D1

Statistical Institute

C2

ConcessionairePSHs

C3 D3

Min. Ec. Aff.

C1

No

n –

finan

cia

lassets

Centr. Gov.

C1

Local Gov.

D1

Railinfrastrust

C3

ProRail

C3

Local Gov.

D1

Real Estate Agency

C2

Min. Fin.

C1

Local Gov.

D1


C2

Centr. Gov.

C1

Local Gov.

D1

Airport operators

C3 D3


C2

Port authorities

C3 D3

Port authorities

C3 D3


C2

Min. Infr.

C1


C2


C2


C2

Local Gov.

D1

Min. Fin.

C1

Min. Fin.

C1

Min. Infr.

C1

Local Gov.

D1

Min. Infr.

C1

Local Gov.

D1

Min. Infr.

C1

Local Gov.

D1


C2

ProRail

C3

Local PB

D2

Min. Infr.

C1

Local PB

D2

Min. Infr.

C1

Centr. Gov.

C1

Local Gov.

D1


Legend


= Central public body



D2 = Local public body


= Private bodyPM


16

2. MAPPING OF THE INVESTMENT STRATEGY OF THE PORTFOLIO OF ASSETS

Currently, there is no government- or Parliament- approved state asset management

strategy of a global nature. However, in recent years, the Dutch government has

launched and approved many initiatives for each of the assets in its portfolio.

As explained above, local governments are strongly involved in setting investment

strategies.

As it will be described in the following two sections, the Netherlands has launched

initiatives aimed at improving the involvement of local governments in investment decisions.The strategic management style of the portfolio of assets is relatively active.

2.1. Financial assets

The Dutch state has the mandate to hold shares in a company only if this serves the

public interest. To protect the public interest, the Dutch government has the aim of

being an active shareholder, ensuring that state-owned enterprises operate efficiently.

However, in the last three decades the presence of the Dutch government in the

economy has decreased. The privatisation operations in the Netherlands started slowly and have been pursued by different coalitional governments, at different speeds. In

general, the Dutch privatisations have been characterized by a two-stage approach. During the first phase, state enterprises are being heavily restructured to become

market-driven, profit making corporations. In the next stage, the government sells all or part of its shareholdings.

As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the privatisation process has involved several sectors of

the Dutch economy.

Specifically, in the past three decades, two periods can be considered as the most

important ones in terms of value of the deals:

1996 – 2000, when the privatisation process reached its first peak thanks to

the privatisation of public utilities (i.e. “telecommunications”, and “utilities” sectors). As a matter of example, in 1999 and 2000 the relevant local

governments sold shares of local energy companies such as Energieproduktiebedrijf UNA, and EPON;

2006 – 2010, when the privatisation process reached its peak (in terms of

revenues). In 2006, a revamp of local privatisations started (e.g. the municipality of Rotterdam sold the waste management company AVR Bedrijven

BV to three private equity firms for 1.4 Bn Eur), while on the following years the privatisations involved many sectors, including: (i) 25% Rompetrol Group

NV (petroleum industry) was sold for 0.8 Bn Eur; (ii) 49% of Nuon NV (utilities) for 4.2 Bn Eur; (iii) Fortis Bank (which was previously nationalised by the Dutch

government on 3rd October 2008) sold Fortis Corporate Insurance NV and Stamicarbon BV for 384 Mn Eur.

Regarding the actual investment strategy, the government is committed to returning

to the private sector those companies operating in the financial sector which were acquired back in 2008-09, subject to market conditions and the possibility of achieving

value for taxpayers.


17

In August 2013 the government announced that it would eventually sell its shares in ABN AMRO, ASR and SNS REAAL, if three conditions are fulfilled: (i) sufficiently stable

market; (ii) sufficient market interest; (iii) companies are ready for a sale25.

Figure 2 Privatisations across markets by value and by number, 1980–2014, The Netherlands

Sources: KPMG elaborations on data from the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) database, 1980-2014.

The value of privatisations refers to the sum of the values of the transactions agreed between a public (a)

body (seller) and a private entity (bidder) for that period.

The number of privatisations refers to the total number of transactions for that period. (b)

Sectors that are below the 5% threshold in terms of both total value of the transactions and number of (c)

deals have been included in the aggregate cluster “Other”.

25 For more details, please see: https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/sale-of-abn-

amro-asr-and-sns-reaal [Accessed 20th December 2017].

21.4%

2.6%

2.2%

36.3%

2.5%

21.6%

13.3%

Finance & Real Estate Industry

Manufacturing

Transportation Industry

Services Industry

Telecommunications

Other

Utilities

16.4%

20.0%

10.9%

5.5%

14.5%

14.5%

18.2%

By value By number

44.8Eur Bn

55Deals

https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/sale-of-abn-amro-asr-and-sns-reaal

https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/sale-of-abn-amro-asr-and-sns-reaal

18

Figure 3 Privatisations across markets over time by value, 1980–2014, The Netherlands

Sources: KPMG elaborations on data from the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) database, 1980-2014.

The value of privatisations refers to the sum of the values of the transactions agreed between a public body (seller) and a private entity (bidder) for that period. (a)

According to data retrieved from the FEEM database, there were no privatisations during the years 1980 – 1985. (b)

0

13,000

5,000

10,000

15,000

12,000

11,000

8,000

9,000

7,000

3,000

6,000

4,000

1,000

2,000

17,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

53.2%

17.6%

10.2%

42.7%

1980 - 1985

65.6%

38.3%

3.8%

0.9%

39.0%

13.5%

2006 - 2010

94.3%

1.7%4.1%

2011 - 2014

4.7%3.2% 0.6%

1991 - 1995

1.6%

1.8%

2001 - 2005

1.6%

1986 - 1990

4.7%

1996 - 2000

0.8%

28.6%

1.6%

4.9%

93.4%

48.0%

16.8%

2.8%

Eur Mn

Construction

Finance & Real Estate Industry

Manufacturing

Petroleum Industry

Services Industry

Telecommunications

Trade Industry

Transportation Industry

Utilities


19

2.2. Non-financial assets

Each year, the Dutch government adopts the MIRT, which includes all infrastructures

and spatial projects and programmes for each region. It is drafted jointly by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management and the relevant local governments.

Moreover, it is worth highlighting that in 2016 the managers/operators of buildings and infrastructures have jointly adopted a Market Vision containing a number of

unique agreements. The Market Vision was co-produced by the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, ProRail, the Central Government Real Estate

Agency and other sector organisations. In summary, with the Market Vision, clients

and contractors operating in the building/infrastructure industry plan to work more closely to enhance the efficiency and to create maximum added value for society26.

In the following sub-sections more details on the Dutch investment strategy relating to Non-financial assets are provided.

Airports

With regard to airport infrastructures, central and local governments share the

responsibility for setting investment strategies.

In more detail, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, jointly with local

governments, defines projects and programmes included in the MIRT.

Currently, the central government has the intention of expanding air traffic infrastructures of the main airports (including a new runway running parallel to the

Kaagbaan), in order to ensure sufficient capacity and guarantee air safety27.

At the moment, a few airport operators are still fully public (i.e. approximately the

25% of the Dutch airports), while the remaining part (i.e. approximately the 75%) are jointly owned by public and private investors28. Therefore, the private sector is

involved in the airport infrastructure management and investments.

Ports

With regard to the asset management, one of the key strategic decisions regarding

the port sector was the transformation of the main port authorities into limited companies.

This transformation was carried out in order to increase competition and efficiency in the port sector. More in details the main objectives were to:

26 Rijkswaterstaat (2016). Annual report 2015. Available at:

https://staticresources.rijkswaterstaat.nl/binaries/Annual%20Report%20Rijkswaterstaat%202015_tcm21-

84089.pdf [Accessed 22nd December 2017].

27 Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. Summary National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure

and Spatial Planning. Available at:

https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiKsv

PqoZ3YAhXGE5oKHYWkA84QFgg0MAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.government.nl%2Fbinaries%2Fgovern

ment%2Fdocuments%2Fpublications%2F2013%2F07%2F24%2Fsummary-national-policy-strategy-for-

infrastructure-and-spatial-planning%2Fsummary-national-policy-strategy-for-infrastructure-and-spatial-

planning.pdf&usg=AOvVaw25rsultx1MDNw7Hc_Bm1CI [Accessed 22nd December 2017].

28 Airport Council International – ACI (2016). The Ownership Of Europe’s Airports. Available at:

file:///C:/Users/cadamo/Downloads/The%20Ownership%20of%20Europes%20Airports%202016%20(3).pdf

[Accessed 20th December 2017].

https://staticresources.rijkswaterstaat.nl/binaries/Annual%20Report%20Rijkswaterstaat%202015_tcm21-84089.pdf

https://staticresources.rijkswaterstaat.nl/binaries/Annual%20Report%20Rijkswaterstaat%202015_tcm21-84089.pdf







20

emphasise the importance of business principles in port operations;

increase the scope for port authorities to make independent decisions and

improve their competitiveness;

increase the commercial focus of the port authorities.

Moreover, the “landlord model” adopted for the main ports allowed the involvement of private operators in port operations.

The government and the port authorities drew up an action plan aimed at strengthening the seaports' competitive position: the Seaports Programme of Work

2014-201629. The plan contains 10 actions to be taken by the government (mainly

concerned with the improvement of port accessibility) and 10 for the seaports and the business community.

Roads

Similar as for other infrastructure assets, the main road projects and investments are

defined jointly by the central government, agencies, and local governments and are included in the MIRT.

These projects are mainly financed by state budget allocations.

In September 2016, the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management

launched the Strategy 2020, which set the overall strategic framework for the

Directorate in connection also with the road network30.

Railways

The current governance regime adopted by the Dutch government was established in 2002, when the Railways Act31 came into force by incorporating the principles

established at the European level in the directives of the first and second railway packages:

the separation of the activities in the infrastructure administration, within the PSH ProRail B.V. – i.e. the manager of railway infrastructures - and of the

operation of the services, within the PSH NS Groep N.V.;

the progressive opening of the rail transport to competition.

Regarding the current investment strategies for the railway network, the main projects

and investments are decided by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management and are included each year in the MIRT.

29 Work Programme Seaports 2014 – 2016. Available at:

https://www.erim.eur.nl/fileadmin/centre_content/smart_port/Work_programma_seaports.pdf [Accessed

20th December 2017].

30 Rijkswaterstaat (2017). Annual report 2016. Available at:

https://staticresources.rijkswaterstaat.nl/binaries/RWS%20Annual%20Report%202016_tcm21-112648.pdf

[Accessed 21th December 2017].

31 Railway Act. Available at: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0015007/2017-08-30 [Accessed 20th December

2017].

https://www.erim.eur.nl/fileadmin/centre_content/smart_port/Work_programma_seaports.pdf

https://staticresources.rijkswaterstaat.nl/binaries/RWS%20Annual%20Report%202016_tcm21-112648.pdf

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0015007/2017-08-30


21

The current investment strategy is mainly focused on the extension and improvement of the railways network. As reported in the Network Statement 201732, many projects

regarding the railway infrastructures are expected to be completed within 2022.

Dwellings, Buildings other than dwellings

In order to achieve a more efficient management of public buildings, the Dutch government established the Central Government Real Estate Agency. This single

agency encompasses three former government real estate agencies: the Government Buildings Agency, the State Property and Development Agency, and the Defence Real

Estate Agency. The main aim pursued with the establishment of the Central

Government Real Estate Agency was of achieving a more efficient management of public real estate assets and related savings.

The current investment strategy aims to ensure a more efficient management of public buildings, including those managed by municipalities, care and educational

institutions, and other executive organisations.

Mineral and Energy reserves

The current legislative framework concerning the Dutch government’s Mineral and Energy reserve makes it very difficult to infer the rationale for ownership and the

general investment strategy for the Mineral and Energy reserves cluster as a whole.

Other natural resources

The current legislative framework concerning the Dutch government’s Other natural

resources makes it very difficult to infer the rationale for ownership and the general investment strategy for Other natural resource as a whole.

3. PERSPECTIVE ON THE EXECUTION OF THE INVESTMENT STRATEGY

From the mapping of the governance regime (Section 1) and the investment strategies (Section 2) for the state-owned asset portfolio, some key insights about the

perspectives on the execution of the investment strategies can be drawn as follows:

the Dutch government is moving towards a governance regime for all assets

belonging to its portfolio that enhance a close cooperation between all government’s tiers of the Dutch public sector;

the central and local governments define the MIRT, which includes all the

spatial and infrastructure projects and programmes;

for the building/infrastructure sector, the main managers/operators are

committed to enhance their cooperation by 2020 (e.g. Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, ProRail, Central Government Real Estate

Agency).

Currently, there is no publicly available document that defines the destination of the

proceeds from forecasted privatisations.

32 ProRail B.V. Network Statement 2017. Available at:

https://www.prorail.nl/sites/default/files/prorail_network_statement_2017_v1.0.pdf [Accessed 20th

December 2017].

https://www.prorail.nl/sites/default/files/prorail_network_statement_2017_v1.0.pdf


22

Figure 4 Matrix of Governance regimes vs Investment strategy by clusters of assets, broad features, The Netherlands

Source: KPMG elaborations, based on governance regimes and recent observed strategies.

The position of each asset cluster with respect to the “investment strategy” dimension (x-axis) reflects (a)

the general investment strategy adopted by the government for the cluster. The general investment

strategy might not apply to every single asset within the cluster (e.g. the position of the cluster

indicates that the government currently plans to invest/divest, and this does not imply that this applies

to all assets within the cluster).

As Figure 4 shows, the governance regime is mostly “centralised” with regard to those

assets for which the central government is responsible for the bulk of investments (e.g. the railway network through ProRail BV, road network through the Directorate-

General for Public Works and Water Management) (first two quadrants on the left of Figure 4).

By contrast, the governance regime for nodal infrastructures (i.e. ports and airports) appears to be the most decentralised one. In fact, port authorities and airport

operators are responsible for managing facilities within their jurisdiction.

4. SYNTHESIS OF STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS

Financial assets

Strengths/Opportunities:

o there is a unique body, i.e. the Ministry of Finance, responsible for

recording the central government’s holdings in various companies as

well as information on the acquisition and disposal of PSHs, and nationalisation of financial institutions;

Decentralised

InvestmentInvestment with private investors

involvement

Divestment/Fullyprivate investment

Governanceregime

Investmentstrategy

Centralised

Legend

= Financial assets = Airports

Not clearinvestment

strategy pattern

= Ports = Roads = Railways= Mineral and Energy reserves

= Other naturalresources

= Buildings


23

Non-Financial assets

Strengths/Opportunities:

o although there is not a specific, unique document that defines the state asset management strategy for all the public assets, through the MIRT

all national and local infrastructure projects are defined each year;

o there is no unique document or law outlining the government’s general

investment strategy for the assets portfolio as a whole. At the same time, the central and local governments, through the MIRT, each year

define all national and local infrastructure projects. Therefore, there is

scope for developing and communicating a consolidated strategy plan across all assets;

o the Dutch government strongly stimulate a close collaboration between central and local governments, and also between different

infrastructure/building operators (e.g. the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, ProRail BV, the Central Government

Real Estate Agency);

Weaknesses/Risks:

o currently there is no unique and comprehensive National public data

source covering all the assets in the government’s portfolio;

o the governance regime implemented requires cooperation between the

different government tiers. The absence of a strong cooperation could lead to a fragmented policy implementation.

study on state asset management in the eu · parliament. policies related to the local governments...

Documents