The following risks impact on the financial viability of a water enhancement
scheme and therefore are risks to both debt and equity providers. The key
difference between debt and equity risk is that debt providers (particularly
under a business finance model) generally have their investment protected with
some form of security while equity investors have their total investment
exposed.
A schemes ability to raise debt and equity finance will be dependent on how
well the following risks can be addressed and mitigated.
|
Risk |
Examples |
Mitigation |
|
Construction risk
|
- Construction overruns add significant cost to the total capital sum
requiring additional funding exposure.
- Time delays in completing and commissioning the scheme add
significant cost to the capital sum and negatively impact on water
users on-farm developments.
|
- Research the background and financial strength of the construction
company. Can they manage a contract of this capacity and absorb cost
overruns if necessary.
- Enter into fixed term, fixed price contracts with construction
companies
- Ensure strong penalty clauses or cost sharing arrangements are
included within contracts for time delays and cost overruns
- Consider risk transfer to DBO or BOOT provider
|
|
Environmental risk
(Supply risk)
|
- New conditions attached to resource consent impacting on access to
long-term water supply putting the scheme in jeopardy.
- Significant additional cost incurred to rectify environmental damage
caused by the scheme.
|
- Ensure the scheme is always operated within the conditions of the
resource consent.
- Obtain insurance where possible to protect against large-scale
environmental damage.
- Consider risk transfer to DBO or BOOT provider
|
|
Take-up risk
|
- Water users are slow to purchase rights to the scheme (waiting to
see if it works first) making the scheme uneconomic for those users
who have committed early.
- Commitment is made but on-farm development is slow (capital
constrained) impacting on a water users ability to meet charges.
|
- Fully investigate the opportunities for staging the development to
meet demand.
- Ensure minimum commitment has been received from water users in the
area prior to approaching a financier.
- Negotiate with local and/or Central Government to secure
revenue-underwriting support for the scheme.
- Structure company in such a way that it is attractive for private
investment lowering the requirement for water user equity.
|
|
Operating risk
|
- Operating costs exceed financial forecasts making water uneconomic
for water users to purchase.
|
- Fix as many operating risks as possible to provide certainty i.e.
fixed funding, electricity hedging environmental damage.
- Consider risk transfer to DBO or BOOT provider.
|
|
Major maintenance risk (including natural disaster)
|
- Scheme requires major unscheduled maintenance, imposing a
significant cost on the scheme to be funded by water users.
|
- Obtain insurance where possible to protect against large-scale
maintenance and damage including loss of profits.
- Consider risk transfer to DBO or BOOT provider
|
|
Climatic risks
|
- Scheme generates no revenue from water users during very dry or very
wet seasons, meaning revenue does not cover fixed costs.
|
- Ensure water-user sign long-term take or pay contracts to cover
fixed operating costs.
|
|
Commodity market risk
|
- Commodity prices fall significantly reducing farm incomes to the
point where users cannot meet water charges.
|
- Provide research on commodity fluctuations and ensure that financial
feasibility of the scheme is still valid given the expected
fluctuations in commodity prices.
|
|
Water trading risk
|
- Uncontrolled water trading forces the price of water rights to
excessive amounts impacting on a new users ability to pay scheme water
charges.
|
- Formal water trading markets allow market forces to dictate the
price for water and help to ensure that water is used most
efficiently.
|
|
Political risk
|
- Changes in legislation or regulation directly impacting on the
scheme viability or on water user economics i.e. conditions imposed
under the Kyoto Protocol
|
- This is normal business risk
|
|
Public liability risk
|
- Scheme pipe or dam bursts flooding houses, damaging property and
crops. Scheme is sued for significant sum for damages
|
- Obtain insurance where possible to protect against large-scale
maintenance and damage including loss of profits.
- Consider risk transfer to DBO or BOOT provider
|
|
Ownership structure risk
|
- Scheme is structured as a Co-operative Company. Certain commodity
prices fall, and therefore these users do not take water for a period.
These users apply under legislation to have the company repurchase
shares to remove any take or pay commitment impacting the financial
viability of the remaining shareholders.
|
- Ensure the ownership structure is the most appropriate for both debt
and equity funding providers, with shares classes protecting investor
objectives.
|
|
Bankruptcy risk
|
- Corporate landowners enter long-term supply agreements, but go
bankrupt when yields are low leaving the scheme limited recourse for
recovery.
|
- This is normal business risk
- Scheme needs to be aware of any concentrations of credit risk with
an individual property and manage these customers appropriately.
|
Each form of assistance has a different risk profile and will depend on the
provider of the assistance whether central or local government. Risks and risk
mitigation related to central and local government financial assistance have
been addressed within studies of their respective roles.