Supporting Better Decision‑Making in Transport Infrastructure in Spain

2. Evaluation of the Spanish legal framework

Good regulatory design and delivery promotes sustainable and affordable infrastructure over the entire lifespan of an asset and regulatory framework has profound impact on infrastructure investment across all levels of the infrastructure life cycle. Infrastructure projects often involve different levels of government, multiple policy areas, and layers of legislation. Hence why developing regulatory frameworks conducive to good governance of infrastructure is a key task.

A stable institutional and regulatory framework must adopt a whole-of-government approach and should be able to address the different challenges that arise throughout an infrastructure project’s life cycles, therefore creating an enabling environment for the effective management of infrastructure. Nevertheless, even if they are well designed, good outcomes require adequate implementation of the rules and standards contained within frameworks that are aligned with the economic, social and environmental goals set by policy makers.

This chapter reviews the legal framework that supports public infrastructure investment decision-making in Spain. It includes an overview of the Spanish regulation directly linked to transport infrastructure investments and other regulations of a more general nature that have an impact on infrastructure governance, such as public procurement, integrity and transparency, multi-level governance and public-private partnerships (PPPs). The chapter concludes upon recommendations for ensuring a good regulatory framework in transport infrastructure.

A fragmented legal framework with a sectoral approach

Transport infrastructure regulation is highly fragmented, provisions are scattered in different bodies of law and are mostly disconnected between each other. There is no general statute that sets standardised rules for transport infrastructure governance. The Economic Sustainability Law (Law 2 of 2011) includes an isolated chapter with overarching principles for transport infrastructure and sustainable mobility regulation (Box 2.1), although it is not clear how these principles are co-ordinated with, or have been observed by, more recent regulatory frameworks. Furthermore, the Economic Sustainability Law sets objectives and priorities for the preparation of transport infrastructure plans.

Box 2.1. Principles for transport sector regulation in Spain

A sound legal environment is essential to ensure that limited resources are used efficiently, transparently and in a credible, predictable and productive manner. Governments are also responsible for enabling the right country circumstances to attract investors to high-profile projects. Better governance allows for legitimate, coherent, efficient and predictable regulatory frameworks that incentivise investment in public infrastructure. Particularly in the case of Spain, Law 2 of 2011 sets a list of principles and objectives that regulation in the transport sector must observe:

• Guarantee the operators’ and users’ rights, in particular equal access to transport services markets, participation and right to present claims and complaints;

• Foster the adequate conditions that promote competition;

• Promote an efficient management on behalf of transport infrastructure administrators and public entities;

• Ensure the coherence between levels of investment, service quality and users’ preferences and needs;

• Encourage inter-modality and the use of modes of transport with the least environmental and energetic impact.

Source: (Jefatura de Estado, 2011[18])

The siloed institutional approach observed in the MITMA has also permeated the legal setup in Spain. Regulation on transport infrastructure has been developed independently per mode of transport (i.e. road, railway and seaport infrastructure). Furthermore, each sector-based law followed a different formulation process: most recent railway regulation in Spain is a result of the adoption of a number of European directives, seaport regulation is a compilation of norms issued throughout the last two decades and the current road infrastructure legislation was adopted to substitute a law initially issued in the late 1980s.

Regulatory frameworks that are not uniform across sectors make it challenging to adopt an inter-modality approach for infrastructure investments. Since planning, prioritisation, evaluation and execution processes differ from one sector to another, the legal setup does not facilitate the co-ordination between multiple executing agencies. The fragmented nature of the legal framework further reinforces the absence of an independent agency dedicated to transport infrastructure monitoring and oversight. Existing regulation also covers different requirements for preliminary technical studies and project evaluations, hindering the collection of comparable quantitative and qualitative data across sectors to better inform decision-making. Although not a general rule, some OECD countries have adopted transport infrastructure laws that cover all transport sectors (Box 2.2).

Box 2.2. Cross-sectoral infrastructure laws in OECD Countries

Coherence in policy, legislation and regulation, as well as good co-ordination between government authorities in their implementation, simplify project development and implementation by reducing excessive administrative burden. In some OECD countries, like Canada and Australia, cross-sectoral infrastructure laws has been adopted to ensure coherent and consistent provisions for the planning, implementation and monitoring of infrastructure projects across different sectors.

• The Canadian province of Quebec adopted a Public Infrastructure Act in 2013. The law establishes a series of rules for public infrastructure governance, covering topics related to infrastructure investment planning, mandates and competences of infrastructure public bodies and the overall management of infrastructure projects. Provisions are applicable to all investments made for the maintenance, improvement, replacement, addition or demolition of public immovable, facility or civil engineering structures. The Public Infrastructure Act sets forth guidelines such as:

  • The adoption of a 10-year Quebec Infrastructure Plan, including instructions regarding the content of the plan and its link to the budgetary appropriations;

  • A series of mechanisms for the planning and monitoring of infrastructure investment to be adopted by each Quebecois public entity;

  • An Annual Investment Management Plan, to report on the implementation and impact of the infrastructure policies, as well as the execution of the budget allocated to public infrastructure projects;

  • Compliance auditing to be performed to the corresponding public entities; and

  • Correspondences with other statutes or laws related with public infrastructure investment.

• In 1994 the State of Queensland in Australia adopted the Transport Infrastructure Act. This document provides guidelines on planning and efficient management of transport infrastructure systems. The Transport infrastructure Act incorporates provisions for road, rail, port, air, public marine and urban transport infrastructures under one single body of law. Aside from including specific guidelines for each mode of transport, the statute incorporates regulation applicable across sectors, including:

  • The adoption of strategies for the implementation of the transport infrastructure co-ordination plan adopted in 1994. The strategies must be subject to public consultation and detail the prioritisation criteria for infrastructure investment between and within the different transport modes, options for financing prioritised projects, performance indicators and frameworks for co-ordinating the provision of transport services across sectors and across regional transport plans;

  • A Developing Programme for each mode of transport, that should cover the projects, budgets and performance targets to implement the transport infrastructure strategies;

  • Annual reports on the implementation of the Developing Programmes;

  • Annual reports on the reduction of the transport infrastructure adverse environmental impacts.

Source: (National Assembly of Quebec, 2013[19]), (Parliamentary Counsel of Queensland, 1994[20])

Road Infrastructure Regulation

Law 37 of 2015 sets forth the most important regulation for road infrastructure projects, particularly in terms of planning and evaluation. One important addition of this law is the definition of the strategic road infrastructure plan as the main policy for the management and operation of road infrastructure in Spain. The MITMA is the body in charge of preparing this document and the Council of Ministers is responsible for its approval, albeit a strategic road infrastructure plan has not been recently adopted. During the preparation of this report, the Road Infrastructure Strategic Plan (Plan Estratégico de Carreteras del Estado) was under preparation. Additionally, according to Law 37 of 2015, the MITMA is also responsible for preparing implementation programmes that formulate the works to be executed in each section of the National Road Network. However, it should be kept in mind that the National Road Network represents only 16% of the total Road Network (excluding municipal ways, see p. 24 for more details) in terms of length (with the regional network accounting for 43% and the provincial network for 41%).

Some topics however are not properly addressed or developed. In particular, future commitments, contingent liabilities and running costs are not developed in depth in a regulatory decree. Likewise, the regulatory decree could further develop topics such as monitoring of asset performance and ensuring effective maintenance. The regulatory decree that touches on technical aspects, such as preliminary studies, has not been updated after the issuance of the law abovementioned. The Spanish government identified this challenge during the formulation of this report and a new Road Infrastructure regulation is currently under preparation.

Railway Infrastructure Regulation

Law 38 of 2015 regulates the provision of railway infrastructure in Spain and sets the regulation applicable to public administrators of railway infrastructure and operators of rail transport services (i.e. ADIF, ADIF-AV, RENFE Operadora). There are a number of additional regulatory decrees that cover the definition of user fees and tariffs, railway infrastructure safety, operation of the infrastructure and the provision of freight and passenger railway transport services. One of the main features of the railway infrastructure regulation is the adoption of several EU Directives instated for the Single European Railway Area.

Although Law 38 of 2015 states that infrastructure projects can be funded by central sector transfers or by ADIF and ADIF-AV’s own resources, the regulatory decrees are not clear on which projects are part of the scope of the agreement to be executed between the MITMA and ADIF or ADIF-AV. The regulatory decrees do not touch either on the topic of contingent liabilities or running costs in railway infrastructure projects.

Seaport Infrastructure Regulation

The Decree 2 of 2011 regulates the provision of seaport infrastructure in Spain; it is a comprehensive compilation of norms applicable to merchant fleet and port infrastructure. It also establishes the functions and responsibilities of port authorities with respect to ownership, administration and operation of seaport infrastructure and the co-ordination role of Puertos del Estado. In broad terms, seaport regulation is a reflection of the high levels of autonomy that Puertos del Estado and port authorities have from the central government.

The regulation covers topics related to the contractual regime for concession of port infrastructure to private operators and the definition of tariffs and user fees. Several provisions also address the co-ordination between port authorities, Puertos del Estado and subnational governments, particularly in terms of construction of seaport infrastructure. The regulation further incorporates relevant provisions regarding inter-modality with road and railway infrastructure and assigns to Puertos del Estado the responsibility to promote the corresponding agreements with railway administrators for the development of cross-sectoral projects.

Airport infrastructure Regulation

Unlike road, railway and seaport infrastructure, regulation on airport infrastructure is not incorporated in one single law. Law 18 of 2014 regulates the privatisation of AENA and establishes functions and responsibilities with respect to the management of the network of public interest airports. Law 18 of 2014 does not initially intend to incorporate general regulation on airport infrastructure, but rather a wide set of actions to be taken by the Spanish government for the economic reactivation of the country. However, it sets guidelines for the management of airport infrastructure, particularly after the privatisation process. Law 18 of 2014 also incorporates provisions on the formulation of the Airport Regulation Document (Documento de Regulación Aeroportuaria, DORA), which is the instrument that sets the obligations and quality standards that AENA must meet in the provision of airport infrastructure.

Other bodies of law include the Royal Decree 2591 of 1998, which covers the functions and responsibilities of the MITMA and AENA in terms of the formulation of master plans for public interest airports. The decree also includes provisions to ensure co-ordination between different levels of government for the management and exploitation of airports and commercial areas, for instance in terms of land use and integration with local transport systems. Likewise, the Royal Decree 1189 of 2011 includes regulation on planning, design, operation and land use in aerodromes under the management of CCAA. Finally, the Decree 162 of 2019 regulates the calculation of fees and tariffs for the provision of basic airport services to be paid to AENA.

The public procurement and public contracts framework has been recently reformed

Under Law 9 of 2017 Spain adopted two directives at the EU level which constitute the backbone of the public procurement and the award of concession contracts, namely Directives 2014/23/EU and 2014/24/EU. The Directive 2014/24/EU establishes public procurement principles to be observed by all member states to ensure efficiency, integrity, transparency, fiscal stability and sustainability. Furthermore, it regulates in detail provisions for public tenders and specificities for each type of public contract and modes of public service delivery.

With the adoption of the Directive 2014/23/EU on concession agreements, the PPP contract was supressed from the Spanish legal framework. The deletion of this legal form responds to the low usage of this contractual form. Instead, the Law 9 of 2017 adopts the European regulation on infrastructure concession agreements for the delivery of PPPs. The new regulation covers extensively the scope of infrastructure concession agreements and also defines rules to determine their maximum lifespan to ensure a reasonable payback period, which shall in no case exceed 40 years.

Law 9 of 2017 incorporates a series of good practices that are well-aligned with an efficient and effective procurement of infrastructure projects. For instance, provisions on preliminary consultations with suppliers and business associations are included for the pre-tendering phase. These consultations will provide the entity with input for future public tenders and assure a correct understanding of markets capacity. Results from the preliminary consultations must be publicly available in a report and must be observed by the entity during the preparation of the invitation to tender. Should the entity deviate from the results of the preliminary consultation, this decision must be explicitly motivated in the tendering documents.

Regulation on the pre-tendering phase for infrastructure concession agreements also sets strict requirements in terms of market analysis, needs assessment and feasibility of the project. Prior to the decision to award an infrastructure concession agreement, the entity must conduct a rigorous set of analyses and studies to determine whether the concession represents value for money, addresses socio-economic needs and it is overall the right delivery mode based on the project characteristics (OECD, 2020[21]). The pre-tendering process also incorporates a public consultation stage where key stakeholders can provide observations to the preliminary studies aforementioned.

A risk-based approach in the procurement of infrastructure concession agreements was adopted under the recent Law 9 of 2017. Preliminary studies are required to identify and assess operative and technological risks during the construction and execution of the project. Aside from operational and demand risks, which are legally assigned to the private sector and force majeure that is allocated to the public sector, invitations to tender must clearly identify and allocate additional risks between the public entity and the private party. Furthermore, the invitation to tender must provide an accurate estimation of the tariff system, capital and operation costs, internal rate of return and cost recovery via user fees or tariffs.

Existing regulation allows infrastructure concession agreements to be partially funded with public resources by means of availability payments or loans. However, there is no requirement for the contracting agency to jointly assess with the central budget authority the feasibility of budget commitments at a pre-tendering stage. In fact, the public procurement law has no direct linkage to existing budget regulation and fails to assign the central budget authority a more active role (see Chapter 3). Committing budget funds prior to the award of the contract and actively involving the central budget agency in the assessment of the project’s affordability and sustainability is crucial to minimise fiscal risks (OECD, 2009[22]; OECD, 2012[23]).

Law 9 of 2017 co-exists with legal provisions that are also applicable to PPP and infrastructure concession agreements. For instance, Law 8 of 1972 regulates public procurement process for road infrastructure concession agreements and it is still in force. A number of provisions found in Law 8 of 1972 overlap with the provisions incorporated in Law 9 of 2017, for example regulation on expropriation, alteration of the contractual equilibrium, modification and renegotiation of concession agreements, as well as sanctions in the case of breach of contract. The legislation does not specifically state which body of law shall prevail in the case of conflicting provisions. This duality of regimes introduces an unnecessary complexity to the legal setup applicable to PPPs in road infrastructure.

Regulation on multi-level governance for transport infrastructure investment could further strengthen co-ordination

Public investments across OECD countries are often undertaken by subnational governments and typically involve different levels of government at some stage of the investment process (OECD, 2017[24]). It is instrumental that competences related to infrastructure development are clearly allocated and formal co-ordination mechanisms within and across levels of government are put in place to ensure good governance of infrastructure (OECD, 2017[24]).

The Constitution of Spain briefly describes the distribution of responsibilities across levels of government in terms of transport infrastructure. The national government is responsible for all transport sea ports and airport infrastructure development in the country. In terms of railway and road infrastructure, the national government has control exclusively over infrastructure assets that span more than one CCAA. Overall, ample powers are attributed to the national government to intervene in public works that obey to a public interest and impact a plurality of CCAA. On the other hand, CCAA are only in charge of the administration of railway and road infrastructure within their own jurisdictions. The Constitution of Spain also grants municipalities and provinces autonomy to provide public services independently from the CCAA. Particularly Law 7 of 1985 states that municipalities are responsible for the management of road infrastructure and urban transport services within their own jurisdictions, subject to the terms established by national and sub-national regulations.

Sector-based laws in Spain do not address in depth multi-level governance in public infrastructure. Provisions incorporated in sector-based laws regarding co-ordination across subnational governments and different ministries or departments are mostly general mandates and do not set forth specific mechanisms or requirements to be observed by the MITMA. Furthermore, mechanisms covered by existing regulation are limited to public consultations with CCAA and other subnational governments in the preliminary studies phase. Regulation in Spain should provide specific instruments for co-ordinating across national and subnational governments beyond formal consultation, such as other forms of regular inter-governmental dialogue.

Although some co-ordination mechanisms such as the National Transport Conference (Conferencia Nacional de Transporte), Transport Directors-General Commission (Comisión de Directores Generales de Transporte), or the strategic logistics forum (foro de estrategia logística) have been previously used by the MITMA, their regulation is vague and outdated. The National Transport Conference was created in 1987 and its regulation, that dates from 1988, has not been updated ever since. The scope and responsibilities of this collegiate body are broad and the provisions on how regularly the conference should meet are not properly being observed (see p. 61). Likewise, the strategic logistics forum was an ad-hoc mechanism that was only used for the formulation of the Logistics Strategy (Estrategia Logística de España).

Regulation on public procurement also demands the creation of a Co-operation Committee between national and subnational governments, which was formally incorporated and held its first meeting in February 2018. The Co-operation Committee will be led by the MOF and will be made up by five representatives from the central government and a representative from each CCAA and local entity will have seat. The main goal of this committee is to harmonise the interpretation and application of rules covered by the aforesaid law, design shared methodologies for public procurement surveillance and overall address issues of public interest regarding public procurement.

Provisions on the National Railway Network (Red Ferroviaria de Interés General) included in the most recent railway infrastructure law have created a grey area in the development of railway infrastructure projects in metropolitan areas. Under Law 38 of 2015 railways that connect larger cities with the rest of the National Railway Network are also considered to be part of this network and thus are under the administration of the central government. However in practice, the co-ordination between the MITMA and the subnational governments has become complex, especially due to the lack of strong co-ordination mechanisms.

A comprehensive public integrity and transparency regime

Public interests must be prioritised over private interests at every step of the infrastructure project’s life cycle. In order to enhance public integrity and reduce corruption, appropriate legislative and institutional frameworks must be in place (OECD, 2017[25]). Opportunities to derive illicit rents should be mitigated at each stage of the development of public infrastructure projects. As many actors in the public and private sectors can be vulnerable to integrity risk in infrastructure projects, a whole of government approach is essential to effectively address these risks. In addition to a solid regulatory framework, the effective implementation and oversight by independent and credible regulators is also central for the governance of public infrastructure.

Spain has gradually adopted a comprehensive framework for public integrity and anti-corruption in infrastructure projects. In 2013, Spain adopted a new regulation to ensure good public governance, transparency and access to public information. Law 19 of 2013 sets forth good governance pillars that must be observed by public officials and lists a set of disciplinary and budgetary infractions, including infractions for the noncompliance of the Organic Law 2 of 2012 on Budgetary and Financial Sustainability.

Like most OECD countries (Table 2.1), Spain has an explicit policy in place that regulates conflicts of interest. The numerous and diversified actors involved in the infrastructure governance process produce conflicts of interests throughout every stage of the public infrastructure life cycle. Furthermore, opaqueness, corruption and favouritism are often associated with the tendering phase, despite the fact that these may be present in other phases of the infrastructure development cycle. Policy guidelines, laws and regulations are necessary to avoid conflict of interest at all phases of infrastructure projects, which may impede optimal outcomes. In many countries, conflicts of interests are subject to an explicit policy that takes the form of a law or regulation, whereas others give policy guidelines.

Table 2.1. OECD countries with a specific law in place that seeks to minimise the risk of corruption in infrastructure governance (2016)

Is there a specific law in place?	Has the law generated the intended impact?
Belgium	Belgium
Czech Republic	Czech Republic
Denmark	Denmark
France	France
Germany	Germany
Ireland	Ireland
Luxembourg	Luxembourg
Mexico	Norway
Norway	Korea
Korea	Spain
Slovenia	Turkey
Spain	Non-OECD
Turkey	Philippines
Non-OECD
Philippines
South Africa

Note: Total respondents: 27

Source: OECD (2016), OECD Survey of Infrastructure Governance

The Public Procurement and Public Contracts Law (Law 9 of 2017) includes provisions against conflicts of interest, fraud and corruption in public infrastructure in line with the existing European legislation, including a broad list of restrictions to be party to a public contract. Regulation on conflicts of interest for senior positions is also addressed in depth in Law 3 of 2015, including a prior disclosure of personal assets and assessment of assets’ ownership after the period of incumbency, and a limitation to own less than 10% of shares in companies that conduct businesses with the government.

Law 19 of 2013 ensures transparency and access to public information by the creation of an online Transparency Portal. All public entities must furnish their strategic planning, regulatory, statistical and budgetary information to the public through the Portal. Making relevant information publicly available through channels such as websites and newsletters, as well as publishing information and reports regarding long-term national and development plans is critical to ensure that the selection of public investment projects does not favour a particular interest group or individual over the public interest (OECD, 2016[26])

The Good Governance and Transparency Council (Consejo de Transparencia y Buen Gobierno) and the Office for Conflicts of Interest (Oficina de Conflictos de Interés) have been created as independent entities in charge of overseeing the effective compliance of Law 19 of 2013 and Law 3 of 2015, respectively. Under Law 19 of 2013, subnational governments can also enter into a convention with the central sector to grant the Good Governance and Transparency Council ample powers to oversee the compliance of this statute at a subnational level. Currently, eight CCAAs have signed agreements with the Good Governance and Transparency Council while the remaining nine have created their own independent entity and have their own regulation in place (Consejo de Transparencia y Buen Gobierno, 2020[27])Transparency is not enough to ensure public integrity; rendering information publicly available should go hand in hand with effective scrutiny and accountability mechanisms (OECD, 2017[25]).The monitoring and surveillance functions assigned to these entities represent a well-aligned effort to further guarantee transparency and public integrity in Spain.

Conclusions and recommendations

The transport infrastructure regulatory framework in Spain has been developed following the siloed institutional approach observed in the MITMA. Relevant bodies of law have been adopted independently per mode of transport and followed different formulation processes. Some sectors like railway infrastructure and public procurement have recently seen major updates in their legal setup, as a result of the adoption of EU directives. However, there are still some regulatory gaps with respect to strategic planning, project prioritisation, multi-level governance and cross-sectoral co-ordination mechanisms. Transport infrastructure decision-making could be improved by a more coherent legal setup, harmonising rules for infrastructure governance across sectors, and further developing regulation on multi-level governance and co-ordination mechanisms. In Particular, the Spanish government could consider the following recommendations:

Harmonising existing regulation across transport sectors

Identify best practices from sector-based regulation already adopted by Spain that could be extrapolated to all modes of transport

Regulation on planning, prioritisation, evaluation and execution of infrastructure projects greatly differs from one sector to another, which has initially allowed the Spanish government to explore different regulatory approaches. Spain would greatly benefit from lessons learned in recent years by extrapolating effective and innovative practices already put in place in specific sector-based policies and regulations, some of which are analysed and compared across sectors in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report1. In particular the government should:

• Collect information on the impact of regulation on all stakeholders involved in the life cycle of transport infrastructure projects and investigate the effectiveness of regulatory frameworks to meet the objectives already established by the Spanish government;

• Consider the impacts of sector-based policies and regulation on transport sectors’ competitiveness and economic growth; and

• Disseminate best practices, making sure to promote complementarities and synergies across regulations.

Design and adopt cross-sector standardised guidelines for transport infrastructure.

Transport infrastructure regulation is highly fragmented in Spain, provisions are scattered in different bodies of law and mostly disconnected between each other. Standardising guidelines for transport infrastructure in Spain will increase regulatory transparency, reduce possibilities for discretionary decision-making and minimise excessive administrative burden. This can be achieved by adopting common rules in terms of stakeholder consultation, economic, social and environmental impact assessment, evaluation criteria, capital budgeting, performance assessment, and ex-post evaluation. By adopting an integrated approach, Spain can improve the quality of laws, address regulatory gaps, ensure adequate enforcement of regulation and facilitate the monitoring of the impact of regulations and regulatory processes.

Consider harmonising cross-sector regulation, for example, through adopting a general transport infrastructure statute in the long-term.

Spain could consider adopting an overarching transport infrastructure statute that encompasses guidelines for all transport sectors as one of the strategies that are available to harmonise cross-sectoral regulation. Bearing in mind the singularities of each transport sector, the transition in the long-term towards a single transport infrastructure statute could help identifying overlaps and ensuring that all provisions are coherent and consistent. Furthermore, gathering all relevant provisions under one single body of law could also improve transparency and accountability, by facilitating access of interested parties to the most updated transport infrastructure regulation.

Conduct systematic programme reviews of the stock of significant regulation relevant for infrastructure projects, to ensure that regulations remain up to date, cost justified, cost effective and consistent, and that deliver the intended policy objectives

Conducting regular programme reviews would reduce the existence of multiple layers of regulatory requirements that could be perceived as burdensome. It can also help develop and maintain a strategic capacity to ensure that regulatory policy remains relevant and effective and can adjust and respond to emerging challenges (OECD, 2012[28]). These programmes should include an explicit objective to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulations, including better design of regulatory instruments and to lessen regulatory costs for citizens and businesses as part of a policy to promote economic efficiency (OECD, 2012[28]). Further detail on best practices to conduct programme reviews are detailed in the 2012 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance and the European Commission Better Regulation Guidelines (European Commission, 2017[29]).

Strengthen regulation to promote co-ordination between levels of government

Develop existing regulation in order to promote a coherent multi-level governance framework

To foster co-ordination in transport infrastructure investment, Spain could consider developing more comprehensive regulation on competencies and investment strategies across sectors and levels of government. Especially in the development of metropolitan rail infrastructure and other infrastructure projects that, under the Constitution of Spain, can be deemed of public interest to the central government, Spain would greatly benefit from stronger regulation and monitoring of bilateral agreements between the central government, SOEs and local governments.

Update and strengthen existing regulation on co-ordination mechanisms between national and subnational levels of government

Co-ordination is necessary to identify investment opportunities and bottlenecks, to manage joint policy competencies, to minimise the potential for investments to work at cross-purposes, to ensure adequate resources and capacity to undertake investment, and to create trust among actors at different levels of government ( (OECD, 2014[30]). Regulation of co-ordination mechanisms, such as the National Transport Conference or the strategic logistics forum (foro de estrategia logística), is vague and outdated. A more comprehensive regulation can encourage the systematic use of these mechanisms and ensure that they play a relevant part in the policy-making and decision-making processes. Some key aspects that could be included in a more detailed set-up are the following:

• entrust co-ordination bodies with clear mandates and ample powers;

• determine how often these bodies should convene, making sure that meetings are held on a regular basis;

• clearly identify key public and private stakeholders that can participate in such meetings, granting all stakeholders equal and fair opportunities to be consulted and actively engage them in all phases of the infrastructure project life cycle;

• proactively make available clear, complete, timely, reliable and relevant public sector data and information;

• define comparable indicators to monitor and evaluate the adequate implementation of the co-ordination mechanisms.

Note

← 1.  See p.33-34, Box 3.3 and Box 3.13 for more details.