In recent discussions with infrastructure sponsors, investors and financiers, I have been struck by one common theme: people are ready to move on from discussion of the lack of European pipeline.

The tried and tested markets are well known. Everyone loves a northern European availability-based transport project. There are just not enough of them to satisfy demand.

The German roads sector has been the stalwart of the PPP market in Europe over recent years, with notable successes like the A7 Phase 1 (the first capital markets road deal with PBCE credit enhancement in that market); the A94 and the recent, startlingly efficient, A8 refinancing. The latest, and largest, "New Generation" road, the A3 in Bavaria, has launched this week.

The Dutch market has likewise been proficient at turning out a steady stream of projects in the transport and water sectors. In these markets, history repeats itself but with ever greater efficiency, control and understanding of risks and demands on the timetable.

Outside of those, the Norwegian projects, the first of which – the RV3 – is expected now to launch before the end of this year, should answer some of the questions about the structure of the projects, sizing of milestone payments and the prospects for long-term equity participation.

All of these markets have relatively high hurdles to new entrants. Pre-qualification is tough and three or perhaps at most four consortia may be taken through. But looked at from the public sector's perspective, the competitive edge delivered by new entrants is surely to be encouraged.

Projects like the D4/R7 Bratislava Expressway project – ably outlined by the Ministry of Transport's Peter Špalda at the European Infrastructure Finance Summit (EIFS) recently show that a highly competitive process can help to create "pleasantly surprising" results for the public purse. If governments need a reason to launch their projects into the market, sooner rather than later, D4/R7 demonstrates what can be achieved at the moment.

Investors and lenders are willing to shift their attention towards eastern Europe and the Baltics, and countries like Lithuania are tapping into this appetite - with a 3 airport concession to launch by the end of this year, and stadia, motorways and social infrastructure all on the cards.

Whilst there is more government can do to foster the right environment for projects to succeed, a significant amount of private sector innovation has been seen in response to the deal deficit.

At EIFS, Thierry Déau of Meridiam spoke of the private sector's leading role in identifying, proposing and facilitating projects in certain developing economies. To a degree, we are seeing the same happening in European markets. There is no lack of innovation in the thought processes of sponsors and investors who are keeping an open mind about "core plus" and potential new and emerging sub-sectors. These share some of the characteristics of traditional infrastructure: long-term contracted revenue streams; investment grade counterparties; and low-risk solutions that enable the matching of long-term liabilities. Battery storage, decentralised energy, tidal power, transmission, superfast broadband, there is no shortage of ideas. Older projects are also being mined for further value whether through refinancing and restructuring of existing deals or technology refresh.

So, perhaps there has been enough said about the lack of pipeline. It's accepted and people are moving on. This autumn is the time for renewed focus on the possibilities and implementation. The UK is still perceived as a sensible place to invest in infrastructure, encouraged in part by favourable exchange rates with the dollar and other currencies and by our tradition of strong regulation. With the summer's change in leadership there are many moving policy parts to consider, not least the question of devolution of delivery and funding of projects to regional and municipal level. With the autumn statement on 23 November I hope we will see a clear direction emerge on these questions.

One final thought: we have heard about "small and rapidly deliverable" projects and, at the other end of the scale, some of the great national infrastructure debates are moving forward, notably new nuclear and airport capacity. I wonder if we cannot have both?

Author: Lucy Plowright, Partner, Eversheds

© Nabarro