Know the sequence before the capital moves
A map of the approvals architecture, and the work of getting through it.
Regulatory engagement is the discipline of establishing, in advance and in writing, exactly what a project must obtain, from which body, in what order, and for how long each permission lasts — and then carrying those applications through to grant and beyond.
Depending on where a project sits, the architecture will reach across the national investment authority or the economic zones authority, the PPP Authority where government is the counterparty, a sector regulator such as the civil aviation authority or the mineral development bureau, environmental clearance, land and utility consents, and the central bank for anything touching foreign exchange. No two projects assemble the same list, and very few assemble it correctly on the first attempt.
This is the least glamorous of the four capabilities and the one that most often determines whether a timetable holds. It is also the one where reform helps least: a framework that is improving is a framework that is changing, and yesterday’s precedent is a poor guide to today’s requirement.
Approvals are not a queue, and modelling them as one is expensive.
There is a compounding version of all four. A binding date in a concession agreement, a facility agreement or a construction contract, set against an approvals assumption nobody verified, converts a scheduling problem into a contractual default. The mapping work is cheap. Doing it after signature is not.
Six pieces of work, in sequence.
- 01
Approvals inventory
We build a complete list of every permission the project requires, against the authority responsible for each. Depending on the project this typically reaches across the investment or economic zones authority, the PPP Authority where government is the counterparty, the relevant sector regulator, environmental clearance, land and utility consents, and the foreign exchange dimension administered by the central bank. The inventory is assembled from the published framework and confirmed with each authority rather than inferred from precedent, because precedent in a reforming regulatory environment ages quickly.
- 02
Dependency and sequencing map
Each consent is then placed in relation to the others: what must exist before it can be applied for, what it in turn unlocks, how long it takes in practice, and how long it remains valid once granted. The result is a directed map rather than a list, from which we extract the critical path — the specific chain of approvals that determines the earliest credible date for financial close, and the parallel chains that do not.
- 03
Pre-application engagement
Where a requirement is ambiguous, or where a project does not fit an existing category cleanly, we raise it with the authority before filing rather than after. A question asked in advance is a clarification. The same question raised by a reviewer after submission is a deficiency, and it restarts a clock. Pre-application contact is conducted formally, in the client’s name, and recorded like any other institutional engagement.
- 04
Submission preparation and quality control
We assemble each application against a checklist derived from the authority’s own requirements, coordinate the technical, legal, financial and environmental inputs it depends on, and review the complete pack for internal consistency before it is filed. Most first-round rejections are not substantive — they are incomplete annexes, inconsistent figures between documents, or an unexplained departure from the applicant’s own earlier filings.
- 05
Query and correspondence management
Once filed, an application generates queries, requests for further information and occasional requests for revision. Each is logged, routed to whoever can answer it, and answered in writing within the period allowed. Status is tracked centrally so that the client always knows which consents are outstanding, which are at risk and what the current answer to the timetable question is.
- 06
Conditions, renewals and compliance calendar
When a permission is granted we extract its conditions into a register with dates, owners and evidence requirements, and add every renewal and reporting obligation to a compliance calendar handed to the operating entity. This is the deliverable that most often prevents an avoidable problem two years after close, when the people who obtained the licence are no longer the people administering it.
A register, a critical path and a calendar.
Approvals register
Every permission required, the authority responsible, the published basis for it, the prerequisites, the indicative processing period and the validity period once granted.
Critical path and sequencing map
The dependency structure between consents, the chain that determines the earliest credible date for financial close, and the chains that can be run in parallel without risk.
Pre-application record
A written record of every clarification sought and the response received, so that the basis on which an application was framed is documented rather than remembered.
Submission packs and checklists
Application-ready documents assembled against the authority’s own requirements, with the supporting annexes reconciled against one another before filing.
Live status tracker
A single view of what has been filed, what is outstanding, what has been queried and what is at risk — updated continuously and reported to the client on a fixed cycle.
Conditions and renewals calendar
Post-award obligations with dates, owners and evidence requirements, handed over to the entity that will have to satisfy them after the advisers have gone.
Mining & Natural Resources
Licensing pathways where exploration, extraction, environmental and land consents interlock and each stage conditions the next.
Civil Aviation & Aerospace
Concessions and facilities inside a certified aviation framework, where approval is technical, ongoing and subject to continuing oversight.
Solar & Renewable Energy
Generation licences, land and grid interconnection consents that must be sequenced against tariff approval and the financing timetable.
Government-Backed & PPP Projects
Projects that must clear an approvals architecture and a procurement process at the same time, with each constraining the other.
What this capability does not include.
Not legal advice or technical certification
Regulatory analysis informs a decision; it does not replace an opinion from licensed local counsel, and it does not certify technical, environmental or financial content prepared by others.
Submissions are made by the applicant
Statutory filings are made and signed by the client or its authorised representatives. We prepare, reconcile and coordinate. We do not hold ourselves out as the applicant or certify the truth of its contents.
No informal expediting, no promised outcome
Applications are advanced through published procedure only. We do not pay to accelerate a file and do not permit anyone to do so on a client’s behalf, as set out in the anti-bribery policy. Indicative durations are estimates, not commitments.
No claimed institutional relationship
Authorities are named in our work because they are the relevant bodies. Fratres claims no relationship with, endorsement by, or mandate from any of them, and is not authorised by any financial regulator.
The controls governing how we deal with public authorities are set out in the Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy.
Investment Facilitation
Government Relations
Partnership Development
Test the pathway first
An approvals map costs a fraction of a delayed financial close and frequently changes the structure it was commissioned to support. Enquiries are reviewed by the partnership and answered directly.
Make an enquiry