study on state asset management in the eu · parliament. policies related to the local governments...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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.
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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
Bodies responsible for
the strategic
and investment decisions
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].
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
8
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.
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
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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
responsible for the strategic
and investment
decisions
The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management
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
Bodies responsible for
the operational decisions
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
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.
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
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb [Accessed 13th 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
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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
responsible for the strategic
and investment decisions
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 operational decisions
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
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.
16 For more detail about the information mapped by the Statistics Netherlands, please see
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb [Accessed 13th 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
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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
responsible for the strategic
and investment decisions
The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management
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
responsible for the operational
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
National public data sources
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
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.
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].
19 For more detail about the information mapped by the Statistics Netherlands, please see
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb [Accessed 13th 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
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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
Bodies responsible for
the operational decisions
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
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.
20 Dutch Mining Act (i.e. Mijnbouwwet)
21 Ibid.
22 For more detail about the information mapped by the Statistics Netherlands, please see
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb [Accessed 13th 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
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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
Bodies responsible for
the strategic and investment
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
responsible for the operational
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
National public data sources
The Statistics Netherlands23 collects and reports the key information about the Natural resources in the
Netherlands.
C2
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.
23 For more detail about the information mapped by the Statistics Netherlands, please see
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb [Accessed 13th 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
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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
Bodies responsible for
the strategic and investment
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
responsible for the operational
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
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.
24 For more detail about the Buildings information reported by Statistics Netherlands, please see
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb [Accessed 13th 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
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
15
Figure 1 Asset-responsibility chain and ownership matrix for the cluster of assets in government’s portfolio, The Netherlands
Source: KPMG elaborations.
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)
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 (c)
between more bodies at different levels of centralisation. Therefore, we represent these cases using two
“network graphs” representing these bodies.
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
Statistical Institute
C2
Centr. Gov.
C1
Local Gov.
D1
Airport operators
C3 D3
Statistical Institute
C2
Port authorities
C3 D3
Port authorities
C3 D3
Statistical Institute
C2
Min. Infr.
C1
Statistical Institute
C2
Statistical Institute
C2
Statistical Institute
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
Statistical Institute
C2
ProRail
C3
Local PB
D2
Min. Infr.
C1
Local PB
D2
Min. Infr.
C1
Centr. Gov.
C1
Local Gov.
D1
National public data sources
Legend
C3C1 C2= Central government
= Central public body
= Central company-typestructure
D1 = Local governments
D2 = Local public body
D3 = Local company-typestructure
= Private bodyPM
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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.
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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
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
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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].
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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].
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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].
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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
Study on State asset management in the EU – Pillar 3 The Netherlands
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.