There is only one case where the project could not have proceeded without the EIB's participation, or at least not without being substantially revised. Conversely, there was also at least one case where the project would have proceeded with exactly the same funding structure whether the Bank had got involved or not. In between these two positions, the Bank usually had an impact on the affordability of the project, e.g. in one case, the Bank's presence had a significant impact on how the overall project was structured between the public and private sector.
While issues of loan term and repayment profile were important, the most important reason for the EIB being brought into the projects was its lower "all-in" cost of financing. This raises the issue of displacement of commercial lending, especially as this lower cost did not always accrue to the public sector. However, once the EIB was involved, other types of value-added from the Bank's presence could also be identified. This was particularly true in new PPP markets. In most cases it was the fact that the EIB offered a much longer loan maturity than other financing sources, often combined with fixed-rate pricing, which made the difference, although absolute availability of alternative funding, i.e. the ability and willingness of domestic or international banks to fund the project, was probably also a factor in two, or possible three countries.