For many, a preference for greenfield projects implies an appetite for construction risk, while a preference for brownfield projects translates to an interest in an existing, fully operational asset. This distinction is too simplistic and masks what investors and funders are really looking for in an opportunity. A recent survey of infrastructure funds found that 50 percent of funds indicated no preference in project phase.1
Why is this important? Every government has different infrastructure priorities, whether the focus is on developing new infrastructure or tackling the renewal, refurbishment, or expansion of existing assets. Governments that want to attract private finance need to know whether the finance is going to be interested in their proposition. If the greenfield vs. brownfield designation is too broad, they must consider other features of asset development that will attract or, more importantly, deter investors and lenders.