PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AT THE BRAZILIAN AIRPORTS
ANDRÉ SOUTELINO

Lawyer. Bachelor‟s degree: Law, Universidade Cândido Mendes (2004). Post-graduation in Private Law, Universidade Federal Fluminense (2007). Master‟s Student in Economic Law and Development– research project: Regulation, Competition, Innovation and Development. e-mail address: andrelds@unisys.com.br. ABSTRACT This paper explains the reasons for investments on infrastructure by the private sector. Today, there are prisons, water supply, roads, airports and other activities that request a high investment managed by the private sector. It can be done through concessions, privatization or public-private partnerships (PPP). About the private investments on airports, ICAO has allowed the less interference by the states at the airport administration. So, this paper proposes to demonstrate that the application of public private partnership at Brazilian airports is worthwhile.

KEY WORDS: airport; privatization; public private partnerships

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1506109

INFRASTRUCTURE The definition of infrastructure varies from country to country and in the doctrinal field. As for the countries, governmental policy defines what is basic, essential and crucial for the development of the nation. The doctrine splits infrastructure into economic and social, being subdivided into hard and soft (Grimsey & Lewis, 2004). Economic infrastructure is considered the one providing intermediate services for business and industry, and aims to optimize production and innovation initiatives. Social infrastructure, on the other hand, consists in providing basic services for the families, optimizing quality of life and the wellbeing of the community. The chart below is an example of the classification mentioned (Grimsey & Lewis, 2004):
Table 1. Infrastructure classification

hard roads Economic bridges railroads harbors hospitals water supply sewage system orphanages

highways telecommunications airports electricity schools habitation prisons rest homes

soft career training financial institutions promotion of research development technology transfer export aid social security community services environmental agencies and

Social

According to Hirshhausen apud GRIMSEY and LEWIS (2004:22), infrastructure is the sum of material (transportation, energy, telecommunications), institution (economic regulation, legal system, bureaucracy), and personnel capacity (marketing, management, finances) available for the economic agents. Nowadays, technology advancements have turned infrastructural projects into multibillion-dollar enterprises. In this scenario, Flyvbjerg et al. (2003) compare such projects to the birth of a new animal1(**). Consequently, the appearance of such animals demands the creation of regulatory, or even deregulatory and funding2 regimes to make them viable. LEGAL AND REGULATORY INFRASTRUCTURE PRINCIPLES OF TRANSPORTATION

Transportation does not exist on its own, but to serve social and economic activities. Ergo, the viability or fail of the systems causes impacts on every aspect of economy and society, once its
1

“Wherever we go in the world, we are confronted with a new political and physical animal: the multibillion-dollar mega infrastructure project.”
2

The funders of megaprojects are composed mostly by a mix of national and supranational states, private capital and development banks (Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius, & Rothengatter, 2003).

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1506109

development (project, preparation and building) is slow, sometimes taking decades or even centuries.

The transportation system brings additional challenges, since every mode (air, ground and water) employs logical distinction to what concerns its organization, funding and the delivery of services to the society. Besides, modes compete against each other for traffic and public funding. Another characteristic of transportation is the number of taxes charged to cover certain externalities, such as fuel and insurance/security taxes charged by airports and airlines.3

The transportation sector demands strict regulation to manage the principal agent of the relation, since infrastructure control is seen as a governmental responsibility. Therefore, the creation of any means to provide infrastructure demands legislation to establish good governance practices, even when the State detains total control of infrastructure or when the regulatory functions are apart from control functions (e.g. regulatory agencies).

However, high viability and operational costs made the States delegate responsibilities to private initiative. On the other hand, there is an increase of legal and regulatory instruments to protect public interest, since most of the times private partners (completely or virtually) detain the monopoly of infrastructure. This way, Gaspar Ariño Ortiz (1999) mentions that the delegation must not be discriminated, but redesigned so that the return of private investment is allowed.

At first, the approximation between State and private initiative was characterized by total (first wave) or partial alienation of infrastructures. However, the referred practice has been replaced by concessions (second wave), where the State holds the property of infrastructure, but exploration is sent to private initiative.

The improvement of the concession model has been solidifying the junction of State and private initiative, since the current trend is the joint exploration of infrastructure, that is, public-private partnerships. AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS
3

Fuel tax has been charged by air companies because of excessive increase in the price of the oil barrel since 2000. As for the security tax, ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) imposed an increase in security either for airports or for airlines.

Airports are physical infrastructures that cause impacts on the quality of life and provide intermediate services for business and industry. When it comes to their features, airports are characterized by high costs, decreasing marginal costs and economy of scale. In the United States, for instance, the costs with airport development reach 14 billion dollars – 2006 values – a year (The U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2008).

As for the functioning of airport infrastructure, the airport is divided into two groups: air and ground. The air side is composed by areas where aircraft operation happens (taxi, takeoff and landing), that is, all the facilities - runways, taxiways, approaching system, etc - located in the hard part of the airport made to favor aircraft operation. The ground side, on the other hand, is defined as the group of areas destined to receive passengers and the movement of cargo and support vehicles passenger support, commerce, duty-free shopping, parking and so on.

Another difference between ground and air sides lies in the nature of the services provided. In the latter, services offered are monopolized, that is, prices are not embedded to factors bringing competition, such as the following charges: landing; passenger boarding; use of communication, radio and visual aids inside an air traffic terminal area. However, the airport manager may elaborate contracts with airlines and charge differentiated fees. This kind of agreement is called Service Level Agreement4.

In relation to competition, the air side is characterized by the monopoly of activities while the ground side comprises a variety of competitors. Therefore, passengers and airlines are free to choose which service to use on the ground side. For airlines, the choice is related to the terminal which best serves their operation (e.g. baggage and check-in).

4

Service Level Agreements are agreements realized among air companies and the airport management which determine the levels of operational efficiency and the respective responsibilities. The operation of SLA, at an airport, consists in the application of two elements: i) service (description of the facilities; service viability; service standardization; costs and benefits of the adoption of standard procedures; and the responsibilities of both parts) and ii) management (the description of how to obtain service efficiency; the description of the solution for operational conflicts; and the description of the agreement’s review time. The use of SLA varies from airport to airport. Some airports, for example, operate under the incentive system, that is, any part operating below target will pay a fine (e.g. airports controlled by BAA). On the other hand, the part that reaches or surpasses the agreed target will get a bonus.

It is important to highlight that both sides have facilities and facilitations. Facilities serve the airport target activity while facilitations aim to fulfill the needs of air transportation, that is, passenger, cargo and aircraft control.

As for the elements that constitute airport functions, Anil Kapur (1995) casts them among three categories: i. essential services and facilities; ii. handling: services that aid aircraft operation; and iii. commercial activities; Therefore, this group of activities has an important role in the finding of civil aviation‟s historic fate of being a thrust of national progress and a fundamental factor in international bonding, cooperation and peace (SILVA,1991).

Concerning the risks of airport exploration, the Asian Development Bank (2000) cast the following ones, which may influence the amount of money to be invested by investors:
TABLE 2. External risk factors of airports

VARIABLES

Building duration and costs

Operational costs

Demand/Profit

Financial costs

EXTERNAL RISK FACTORS - planning; - regulatory factors; - safety and security; - behavior of the engaged party; - inflation; and - exchange rate (import of equipment) - change in the insurance scheme; and - inflation - taxes; - macroeconomic factors; - factors related to the commercial aviation industry; and - inflation. - risk perception along with the market; - funding policies.

According to the Brazilian legislation, airports fit into the „public service‟ category since they fill the requirements of Article 175 in the Federal Constitution and the patrimonial area is composed by a wide variety of goods, equivalent federal public goods, as long as their specific destination is kept– Article 38 of law number 7.565/86. Consequently, the remodeling of the Brazilian airport exploration model will adopt the concessions model (regular or special).

It is public and notorious that the Brazilian airport exploration model finds itself exhausted. This way, the National Civil Aviation Policy (Decree n. 6.780/2009) predicts the incentive to private investments in the building and operation of aerodromes, in addition to specific actions for the developing and efficiency of national civil aviation, such as competition aiming better services and smaller fees. Thereby, it is the responsibility of the National Civil Aviation Council (CONAC) and the National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC) to define the new airport exploration model. CONAC will be in charge of the new airport infrastructure exploration model (Article Two, II of Decree number 3.564/00) while ANAC will be responsible for establishing rules and regulations (Article Three, II of Law number 11.082/05) of every model proposed by CONAC. That is, ANAC will establish the regulatory mark for every concession and CONAC will define the type of concession for every airport.

It is probable that CONAC proposes a hybrid model, that is, airports are conceded either under Law number 8.987/95 and under Law number 11.079/04. This way, the model proposed by CONAC must concede profitable airports under Law number 8.975/95 and the ones presenting deficit under Law number 11.079/04, either through sponsored or administrative concession.

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Public-private partnerships constitute the collaboration contract between the State and the private entity through which, under established terms, the private entity takes part in the implantation and the development of constructions, services or public enterprises, as well as in the exploration and management of the resulting activities, being the private sector responsible for contributing with financial, material and human resources, and being paid according to its development in the execution of the activities described in the contract (MINAS GERAIS STATE GOVERNMENT) or a cooperative enterprise of public and private sectors, built on the knowledge of each partner, which best defines public needs through appropriate direction of resources and risks (THE CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS).

The definitions mentioned above are explained by DARRIN GRIMSEY and LEWIS, K. MERVYN (2004). According to the authors, PPPs have both general and specific characteristics. The main

general characteristics are: i) at least one part is the public sector; ii) the relationship must be solid, and management imposes taxes, fines and warranty; iii) each partner must contribute with something that brings value to the partnership (e.g.: knowledge) and transfer resources (e.g.: money, property, authority, reputation) to the partnership agreement; iv) risks and responsibilities are split between parts; and v) the contract must contain „ground rules‟ and provide some guarantees, that is, the continuity runs by the fact that parts must define priorities and political goals.

In relation to specific characteristics, PPPs are innovative, political and economic partnerships, and focused on service and risk allocation. The most distinguishable feature of PPPs, though, is bundling – the junction of all project phases into a single contract, according to Elisabetta Iossa et al (2007).

However, the application of any PPP needs to fulfill some preliminary requirements, such as: i) is separated or total integration of the PPP the most appropriate solution? ii) Are the PPPs entitled to a good value when the States always loan cheaper than the private sector? iii) Which is the basic value to implement the PPP? iv) Is the PPP able to adequately serve public interest? v) Which is the most appropriate model to value infrastructure? vi) In the name of public interest, will the State be allowed to demand safeguards or adopt regulatory measures? And vii) How will the enterprise be delivered to the population?5.

Just as any other enterprise, PPPs also present risks during the validity of the contract. Among the risks, one may highlight: interruptions and delays; price rising; flaws in the performance criteria; political interference; financial interference. However, governance is essential in order to reduce them, that is, partners must work together in an effort to monitor constant quality indicators that ensure the roles and responsibilities of each part are being fulfilled, as well as avoiding disputes. Therefore, formal procedures are the last stage after negotiation; mediation; conciliation; neutral evaluation (expert opinion); contract award; arbitration; and contract breach.
5

There are four usual ways of delivering services to the population: 1) the public sector delivers the service (considered a menace to public service) to the private sector, which provides services related to infrastructure (e.g. public hospital); 2) the public sector delivers several services to the private sector, which provides infrastructure and auxiliary services (e.g. school); 3) the private sector receives, from the public sector, the exploration of infrastructure and auxiliary services, as well as some other community services (e.g. sport facilities); and 4) the private sector delivers a variety of community services to the public sector, including the ones related to infrastructure (e.g.: transportation) (GRIMSEY & LEWIS, 2004)

Besides the analysis of questions concerning the viability of PPPs, there is a series of conditions for the partnership to be effective: i) the PPP must represent the purchase of a service, and not of an asset, by the State; ii) both parts must accept the contract as partners, sharing risks and responsibilities; iii) wide ability to bargain is expected from both parts; iv) interaction; v) diligent preparation of the contract (e.g.: clear rules; identification of rights and responsibilities; allocation of rights over property) (GRIMSEY e LEWIS, K. MERVYN, 2004).

Consequently, the duration of the contract has a very important role in the act of contract creation, since it generates a series of implications when deciding on investments, contract flexibility, competition and transaction costs and incentive performance (IOSSA, SPAGNOLO & VELLEZ, 2007).

In reality, public-private partnerships represent the transfer of risks from public to private sector, since the latter is more efficient when it comes to risk management, while the public sector is responsible for finding the best service prices. It is worthwhile to highlight that risks are connected to the nature of the project. In this context, Elisabetta Iossa, Giancarlo Spagnolo and Mercedes Vellez sorted general risks as follows: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. planning; lack of risk specification; form of contract; construction; operation; demand; changes in public interest; legislative and regulatory; financial; and residual.

This way, the success of a public-private partnership will demand the integration of public sector representatives; funders; outsourcing contracts; counselors; risk management agencies and insurers.

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP NATIONAL LEGISLATION

Law number 11.079/04 represented an innovation and the enhancement of concession contracts involving public and private sectors, and dictated general rules for public-private partnership bidding and contracts.

According to Federal legislation, PPP is the administrative concession contract, (Article Two). So the application of Law number 8.987/95, which concerns the concession and permission for public services, predicted in Article 175 of the Federal Constitution, will be subsidiary or additional. In relation to comparative law, PPPs are not limited to only two varieties. There are several other PPP types, such as: financial; construction; leasing; services; operations and so on. One of the main innovations of Law number 11.1079/04 is the concessionaire‟s obligation to constitute, before contract celebration, one Specific Purpose Partnership (SPP) to start and manage the partnership (Article Nine). Accordingly, this form of partnership will enable the State to follow project development more precisely.

In the sponsored modality (Article Two, Paragraph One), investment amortization is made by using taxes paid by users, and by money from the government, its object being composed by economic public services and broad sense economic activities exclusively owned by the State and subject to exploration (ARAGÃO, 2005).

As for the administrative partnership (Article Two, Paragraph Two), investment amortization is done exclusively by the State, since charging from users is prohibited by constitutional force (education, health) or is viable neither socially nor economically. Concerning the types of administrative concession, Alexandre Santos de Aragão (2005) lists them as follows: (1) economic public services in relation to which the State decides not to charge from users (e.g.: highway built at a very poor region); (2) social public services, such as education, health, culture and leisure in general, which may also be freely provided by private initiative (e.g.: management “outsourcing” in public hospitals); (3) preparatory activities or supportive of police power, which is undelegated to private initiative; and 4) internal Public Administration activities, at which the State, including public workers, is the single allottee of the service (e.g.: building and operation of daycare or restaurants for public workers).

Although the constitution of SPP is a State demand, law does not prohibit the formation of consortia or joint-ventures to manage the object of partnership. On the contrary, law stimulates the formation of an open company and with negotiation of securities on the capital market (Article Nine, Paragraph Two) in an effort to diminish risks and bring more credibility to the partnership.

As for the restrictions, SPP must follow patterns of corporative governance, adopt standardized accounting and financial demonstrations, according to regulation (Article Nine, Paragraph 4). Besides, Public Administration cannot hold the majority of the SPP‟s voting capital (Article Nine, Paragraph 4), except in case of default of funding contracts (Article Nine, Paragraph 5). In this case, the financial institution controlled by public utility may acquire the majority of the SPP‟s voting capital.

Concerning the risks, PPPs assure the investors that public utility will fulfill its financial obligations. When compared to regular concessions, PPPs are distinguishable because investors are safe that their investments will be amortized and paid.

The items of Article Eight of Law number 11.079/04 cast the forms of guaranteeing financial obligations demanded by Public Administration. Among the forms described, one must highlight item V of article Eight which mentions the creation of a warranty fund of private nature (Article 16, Paragraph 1), whose objective is to assure the paying of financial obligations undertaken by federal public partners because of the partnerships described in Law number 11.079/04 (article 16). Besides the warranty fund, investors will also count on a public-private partnership managing agency (article 14 in conjunction with Decree number 5385/05 – institutes the Federal Public-Private Partnership Management Committee – CGP).

APPLICATION OF PPPs AT AIRPORTS

The privatization of airports began in England, 1986, when British Aviation Authority transferred property, rights and responsibilities to the Secretary of State, which was in charge of airport organization, providing regulation of airport use, imposing the economic control of certain airports, and readjusting legislation related to airports. In addition, the Airport Act – the act which dissolved

British Aviation Authority – transferred the concession of city airports with flow over 1 million pounds to BAA plc – public company specialized in airport management.

One year after the creation of BAA plc, the English government spread its stock when offering it at the London Stock Exchange. Privatized, BAA explores several airports around the world, either through buying airport property or being a concessionaire (e.g.: Boston Logan International Airport and Baltimore/Washington International Airport- EUA; Melbourne Airport – Australia).

The initiative from the English State laid the path for other States to start the process of airport privatization. Currently, there are several models of private or mixed management at airports. However, private participation in the exploration of airports does not always translate into control transfer to the private sector. Private participation is, though, important to commercialize the airport, in addition to (LEES, 2008):

i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii.

value public goods; fund infrastructure optimization; enhance airport profits; manage the airport as a commercial investment; depoliticize decisions; introduce professionals and the efficency of the private sector; and assure transparency and competition (DOMENICO, 2008)

In this context, the States have been opting for the use of concessions instead of total alienation of airports due to the fact that this way they hold property, in addition to contractual and strategic interests. However, the concession process is complex and the States must have a clear policy concerning the goals to be reached through airport privatization and encourage private initiative to be in agreement with governmental interests. For all of this to happen, design and implementation of the regulatory framework which assures financial and investment returns are made necessary. (ANDREW & DOCHIA, 2006).

As for the concession process, it has been perfected and turned into the third wave of the airport liberalization movement: public-private partnerships.

Public-private partnerships at airports have been a worldwide trend. However, PPPs are not limited to exploring the airport, but they can also be applied, for instance, at the security system, the

development of the area surrounding the airport and the integration of modes heading for the airport, even when private management takes place at the airport.

The Athens International Airport is considered the first airport to adopt public-private partnerships. In 1996, Athens International Airport S.A., a company formed by a partnership between the Greek State and a private consortium led by the German company named Hochtief Aktiengesellshaft, is now exploring the airport for 30 years. The partnership is operated under the BOOT model - the private partner builds the facility according to the specifications stipulated by public utility and explores the facility for a determined amount of time - and the contract also predicts the expansion of the airport.

Besides Athens, there are many other cases of public-private partnerships at airports all over the world. In Europe, for instance, the German airports of Hamburg and Düsseldorf. In India, Cochin and Hyderabad. In the USA, the Orlando International Airport.

In Sydney and Stockholm, train stations connecting the international airport to the city station have been built. Concerning security, some Canadian airports make use of PPPs to assure passengers are safe - partnership formed between the company named Garda and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA).

At the Frankfurt Airport, local government and other 4 companies (Fraport AG, Groß & Partner Grundstücksentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH, ING Real Estate Development Holding Germany GmbH, OFB Projektentwicklungs-GmbH) instituted a partnership to develop a 350,000 m² area northwestern to the airport, named Gateways Gardens. This area will comprise offices, an international sales center, conference center and hotels.

CASE STUDIES Public-private partnerships at airports have been proved to be effective. However, there is no recipe for their application, once PPPs are characterized by the dynamism of the concession contract.

One pilot project performed at the Warsaw International Airport (Poland) between the German construction company Hochtief Airport AG - as general contractor -, Citybank AG loan - as the

funding bank - and the State - Polish Airports State Enterprise (PPL) - has shown that the expansion of an international airport is possible even with restrict public funding, as long as:

i. the volume of air traffic supports the investment plan and predictions are real; ii. the transfer of know-how on public-private partnerships is accessible; iii. the contract process includes one international bidding open to competition

between pre-qualified consortia; and iv. independent environmental evaluations are developed to aid the mitigation of political conflicts. In the sociopolitical field, the application of PPP may mitigate conflicts during the planning of airport expansion. This way, the partnership realized at the Hamburg Airport (Germany) between Hanseatic City and Flughafen Hamburg GmbH representing the public sector and the consortium composed by Hochtief AirPort AG and Aer Rianta International GmbH representing the private sector has demonstrated that mitigation is possible as long as:

i. there is integration of all parts; ii. an advanced compensation program or a noise share system is established in the contract and financially integrated; iii. passengers and entrepreneurs are able to benefit from a sophisticated contractual instrument (e.g.: price cap); and iv. partners are entitled to vetoing in case of conflicts. The public-private partnership at the San Jose Airport (Costa Rica), though, has not been useful due to the following: problematic concession design; the concessionaire failed at the power of controlling prices; the bidding process was not transparent and ended up being contested; the investment requirements were underevaluated; a resolution was lacking; the private share was forcefully sold.

CONCLUSION

Experience abroad has shown that public-private partnerships in airports are viable, as long as there is a regulatory framework to guarantee judicial security for investors during eventual changes in sectoral policy, as well as the correct choice of funding agents and integration among partners and society.

In the Brazilian case, PPPs are applicable as long as CONAC proposes such a concession model. Once this happens, the application of sponsored partnerships, as well as financial partnerships, is

made possible, since some airports in the Brazilian airport system present economic activities, but generating deficit to the Aerarium and others of an exclusively social nature.

In relation to sponsored partnerships, they tend to be applied at airports which present economic activities, but not enough to generate profit. Administrative partnerships, on the other hand, tend to be applied at airports presenting an exclusively social nature, whose function is to promote development of a region presenting remote access though other modes.

This way, PPP is only applicable after all concession possibilities are exhausted, under Law number 8.987/95, as well as the authorizations due to the principle of economicity expressed in the Federal Constitution.

REFERENCES ARAGÃO, A, As parcerias público-privadas – PPP‟s no direito positivo brasileiro, Editora Atlas, Rio de Janeiro, 2005, Apr./Jun. 2005 : Vol. 240. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK. Developing Best Practices for Promoting Private Sector Investment in Infrastructure Airports and Air Traffic Control. World Bank. Available at: . Access on Jan 21, 2009. BRAZIL. Constitution, 1988. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Senado Federal Brasília. 1988. _____. Decree no. 3.564, August 17, 2000 Regarding the structure and functioning of the National ivial Aviation Council – CONAC, among other provisions. Brasília, DF. Diário oficial (da República Federativa do Brasil), date 08/18/2000. _____. Decree no. 5.385, March 04, 2005. Institutes the Federla Public-Private Partnership Management Committee – CGP, among other provisions. Brasília, DF. Diário oficial (da República Federativa do Brasil), data 07/03/2005. _____. Decree no. 5.731/06. Regarding the installation, organizational structure of the National Civil Aviation Agency and approves its regulation. DOU No. 55, S/1, p.1, 03/21/2006. Available at: . Access on Jan 10, 2009. _____. Decree no. 6.780, February 18, 2009. Approves the National Civial Aviation Policy (PNAC) among other provisions. Brasília, DF. Diário oficial (da República Federativa do Brasil), date 02/19/2009. _____. Law no. 7.565, December 19, 1986. Código Brasileiro de Aeronáutica. (Substitutes the Código Brasileiro do Ar). Brasília, DF. Diário oficial (da República Federativa do Brasil), date 12/20/1986. _____. Law no. 8.987, February 13, 1995. Regarding the scheme for concession and permission of public service predicted in Article 175 of the Federal Constitution, among other provisions. Brasília, DF. Diário oficial (da República Federativa do Brasil), republished 09/28/1998. _____. Law no. 11.079, December 30, 2004. Institutes general rules for bidding and contract creation of public-private partnerships concerning Public Administration. Brasília, DF. Diário oficial (da República Federativa do Brasil), date 12/31/2004 . _____. Law no. 11.182, of 27 de setembro de 2005. Creates the National Civil Aviation Agency ANAC, among other provisions. Brasília, DF. Diário oficial (da República Federativa do Brasil), data 28/09/2005. CASAGNE, J. Derecho Constitucional y Administrativo - Vol. 3 : pp. 107-108. Editorial Juris. Rosario, Argentina. 1999. DOMENICO A. The increasing importance of Regional Airports within Europe: financing the development of Regional Airports. Institute of the Regions of Europe (IRE). 2008. Available at: . Access on Mar 14, 2009. EUROPEAN COMMISSION - DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY. European Comission - Regional Policy Inforegio. June 2004. Available at: . Access on Mar 14, 2009. FLYVBJERG, B; BRUZELIUS, N; ROTHENGATTER, W. Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England. 2003. GARDA. Physical security - Airport security screening. Available at: . Access on Mar 10, 2009.

GOVERNO DO ESTADO DE MINAS GERAIS. Unidade Parceria Público-Privada - MG Unidade PPP. Available at: . Access on Jun 20, 2008. GRAHAM, A. Managing Airports: An international perspective. Butterworth-Heinemann. 2003 Second edition. Oxford, England. GRIMSEY, D; LEWIS, M. Public private partnerships: the worldwide revolution in infrastructure provision. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Cheltenham, England, 2004. IOSSA, E., SPAGNOLO, G.; & VELLEZ,M. Contract Design in Public-Private Partnerships. Available at: < http://www.gianca.org/PapersHomepage/ Contract%20Design.pdf>. Access on Mar 10, 2009. ESPÍRITO SANTO JR, R. Exemplos da importância da individualização da administração dos principais aeroportos no Brasil. Instituto Cepta. Available at: . Access on Jun 12, 2008. KAPUR, A. Airport Infrastructure: The Emerging Role of the Private Sector. The World Bank. Available at: . Access on Jun 11, 2008. LEES, E. Liberalization in global airport development. American Association of Airport Executives. Available at: . Access on Mar 14, 2009. MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Sustainable Infrastructure: A Policy Framework. Appendix B: Definition of Infrastructure. Available at: . Access on jun 27, 2008. ORTIZ, G. Derecho Constitucional y Administrativo - Vol. 3. Editorial Juris. Rosario, Argentina, 1999. PALHARES, G.; ESPÍRITO SANTO JR., R. Impactos Econômicos e os Efeitos Multiplicadores dos Aeroportos. Transporte em Transformação IV - Trabalhos Vencedores do Prêmio CNT Produção Acadêmica. Makron Books Ltda. São Paulo, 2001. SOUTO, M. Direito administrativo regulatório. Lumen Iuris. Rio de Janeiro, 2007. THE CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP. CCPPP - About PPP - Definitions and models. Available at: . Access on Jun 19, 2008.