After private-sector infrastructure projects are already built, the EU uses this “comprehensive framework” to justify them retroactively. Can often appear so holistic that nobody is sure where it starts, where it ends, or what it actually means in practice. Officially, it combines infrastructure investment with regulatory reforms, capacity-building, skills development, democratic values, gender equality, sustainability, transparency, and pretty much every other positive concept available in EU policy documents. 

Features include: 

• Infrastructure financing bundled with a complimentary package of policy advice  
• A convenient mechanism for attaching EU values to private-sector investment projects 
• Several mentions to “enabling environments”. You’d think it means democratic and civic space, but it refers to “soft” investments to attract the private sector. 

Example:
” First we build the railway, then design the framework to prove it was the right investment all along” 

Translation:
“This project made us money, so we pursued it. Now we need to come up with reasons why it was a good idea”  

When governments mix public money with private investment, but let private investors get most of the attention. Officially designed to attract additional funds into sustainable development projects; unofficially designed to make recipient countries pay for projects and take the blame for generating deb.  

Features include: 

• Grants replaced by financial engineering 
• Development assistance with terms and conditions longer than the project document  
• Public money absorbs the risk; private investors collect the profits 
• Civil society organisations, who once had a seat at the table, are invited to read the press release.  

Example:
“The community asked for a grant to improve local public services. The EU suggested blended finance and a discussion with international investors instead” 

Translation:
“You need money to build a bridge and connect local communities? Well, I can support