PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
1.
Introduction:
The
growth of a country is depend open the infrastructure facility of the country.
If a country has no proper road network, no proper Railway network how a
country can grow. To grow interest of the private company to establish a
factory, Government should prepare a good transport facility for his staff
& worker and also smooth transportation of raw material and finish goods. Further
to that the arrangements of sufficient electricity also require very much to
attract the entrepreneur. In order to ensure progress of the nation leading to
a bright future, the government must provide these facilities.
But
in India, Every year during budget our major amount of fund evoke by the
military department and also our major foreign Money goes to collect the oil
(Petrol, Diesel, etc.). So after that Government has no such fund for
development of infrastructure of our country. Also our country has large road
& railway network. So for the country like ours, the involvement of Private
Company to build the infrastructure is very much needed. In the joint venture
project, private company also earn a good amount of money by investing a good amount
of money & as well as Government also gets an infrastructure without any
investment. Common people are also happy, as they are the main party who gets
the benefit of the infrastructure by spending of some money. This system i.e.
joint venture with the private company with the government is called as Public Private Partnership or PPP
or 3P or P3.
Public Private Partnership means an arrangement
between a government / statutory entity / government owned entity on one side
and a private sector entity on the other, for the provision of public assets
and/or public services, through investments being made and/or management being
undertaken by the private sector entity, for specified period of time, where
there is well defined allocation of risk between the private sector and the
public entity and the private entity receives performance linked payments that
conform (or are benchmarked) to specified and pre-determined performance
standards, measurable by the public entity or its representative.
Essential conditions in the definition are as under:
Arrangement with private sector entity: The asset and/or service under the contractual
arrangement will be provided by the Private Sector entity to the users. An
entity that has a majority non-governmental ownership, i.e., 51 percent or
more, is construed as a Private Sector entity.
Public asset or service for public benefit: The facilities/ services being provided are
traditionally provided by the Government, as a sovereign function, to the
people. To better reflect this intent, two key concepts are elaborated below:
‘Public Services’ are
those services that the State is obligated to provide to its citizens or where
the State has traditionally provided the services to its citizens.
‘Public Asset’ is that
asset the use of which is inextricably linked to the delivery of Public
Service, or, those assets that utilize or integrate sovereign assets to
deliver Public Services. Ownership by Government need not necessarily imply that
it is a PPP.
Investments being made by and/or management undertaken
by the private sector entity: The
arrangement could provide for financial investment and/or non-financial
investment by the private sector; the intent of the arrangement is to harness the
private sector efficiency in the delivery of quality services to the users.
Operations or management for a specified period: The arrangement cannot be in perpetuity. After a
pre-determined time period, the arrangement with the private sector entity
comes to a closure.
Risk sharing with the private sector: Mere outsourcing contracts are not PPPs.
Performance linked payments: The central focus is on performance and not merely
provision of facility or service.
Conformance to performance standards: The focus is on a strong element of service delivery
aspect and compliance to pre-determined and measurable standards to be
specified by the Sponsoring Authority.
The above definition puts forth only the essential
conditions for an arrangement to be designated as a Public Private Partnerships
(PPP). In addition to these, some ofthe desirable conditions or ‘good
practices’ for a PPP include the following:
Allocation of risks in an optimal manner to the party best suited to manage the risks. Private
sector entity receives cash flows for their investments in and/or management of
the PPP either through a performance linked fee payment structure from the
government entity and/or through user charges from the consumers of the service
provided.
Generally a long term arrangement between the
parties but can be shorter term dependent for instance on the sector or focus
of PPP.
Incentive and penalty based structures in the arrangement so as to ensure that the private
sector is benchmarked against service delivery;
Outcomes of the PPP are normally pre-defined as output
parameters rather than technical
specifications for assets to be built, though minimum technical specifications
might be identified. Such a structure is expected to leave room for innovation
and technology transfer in project execution / implementation by the private
sector entity.
The models where ownership of the underlying asset
remains with the public entity during the contract period and project is
transferred back to the public entity after the termination contract are the
preferred forms of Public Private Partnership models. The final decision on the
form of PPP is a determinant of the Value for Money analysis.
Some of the commonly adopted forms of PPPs include
management contracts, build operate-transfer (BOT) and its variants,
build-lease-transfer (BLT), design-build operate-transfer (DBFOT),
operate-maintain-transfer (OMT), etc.
Build-own-operate (BOO) model is normally not the
supported form of Public Private Partnership in view of the finite resources of
the Government and complexities in imposing penalties in the event of
non-performance and estimation of value of underlying assets in the event of
early termination. Government of India does not recognise service contracts,
Engineering-Procurement-Construction (EPC) contracts and divestiture of assets
as forms of PPP
2.
Different Public Private Participation Schemes:
Build
Operate Transfer (BOT): BOT and similar arrangements are a kind of
specialized concession in which a private firm or consortium finances and
develops a new infrastructure project or a major component according to
performance standards set by the government.
Under
BOTs, the private partner provides the capital required to Build the new
facility, Operate & Maintain (O&M) for the contract period and then
return the facility to Government as per agreed terms.
Importantly,
the private operator now owns the assets for a period set by
contract—sufficient to allow the developer time to recover investment costs
through user charges.
BOTs generally
require complicated financing packages to achieve the large financing amounts
and long repayment periods required. At the end of the contract, the public
sector assumes ownership but can opt to assume operating responsibility,
contract the operation responsibility to the developer, or award a new contract
to a new partner. The main characteristic of BOT and similar arrangements are
given below:-
Design
Build (DB): Where Private sector designs and constructs
at a fixed price and transfers the facility.
Build
Transfer Operate (BTO): Where Private sector designs and builds the
facility. The transfer to the public owner takes place at the conclusion of
construction. Concessionaire is given the right to operate and get the return
on investment.
Build-Own-Operate (BOO): A contractual
arrangement whereby a Developer is authorized to finance, construct, own,
operate and maintain an Infrastructure or Development facility from which the
Developer is allowed to recover his total investment by collecting user levies
from facility users. Under this Project, the Developer owns the assets of the
facility and may choose to assign its operation and maintenance to a facility
operator. The Transfer of the facility to the Government, Government Agency or
the Local Authority is not envisaged in this structure; however, the Government
may terminate its obligations after specified time period.
Design-Build Operate (DBO): Where the
ownership is involved in private hands and a single contract is let out for
design construction and operation of the infrastructure project.
Design Build Finance Operate (DBFO): With the
design–build–finance–operate (DBFO) approach, the responsibilities for
designing, building, financing, and operating & maintaining, are bundled
together and transferred to private sector partners. DBFO arrangements vary
greatly in terms of the degree of financial responsibility that is transferred
to the private partner
Build- Operate- Transfer (BOT): Annuity/Shadow User
Charge: In this BOT Arrangement, private partner does not collect any charges
from the users. His return on total investment is paid to him by public
authority through annual payments (annuity) for which he bids. Other option is
that the private developer gets paid based on the usage of the created
facility.
3.
Parties involved in Public Private Partnership and their roles:
In the Public Private Partnership model project, third
party, for example the public administration, delegates to a private sector
entity to design and build infrastructure and to operate and maintain these
facilities for a certain period. During this period the private party has the
responsibility to raise the finance for the project and is entitled to retain
all revenues generated by the project and is the owner of the regarded
facility. The facility will be then transferred to the public administration at
the end of the concession agreement without any remuneration of the
private entity involved. Some or even all of the following different parties
could be involved in any Public Private Partnership model project:
·
The host government: Normally, the government
is the initiator of the infrastructure project and decides if the Public
Private Partnership model project is appropriate to meet its needs. In
addition, the political and economic circumstances are main factors for this
decision. The government provides normally support for the project in some
form. A government department or statutory authority is a
pivotal party. It will:
1.
grant to the sponsor the "concession",
that is the right to build, own and operate the facility,
2.
grant a long term lease of or sell the site to the
sponsor, and
3.
Often acquire most or all of the service provided
by the facility.
The
government's co-operation is critical in large projects. It may be required to
assist in obtaining the necessary approvals, authorizations and consents for
the construction and operation of the project. It may also be required to
provide comfort that the agency acquiring services from the facility will be in
a position to honor its financial obligations.
The government
agency is normally the primary party. It will initiate the project, conduct the
tendering process and evaluation of tenderers, and will grant the sponsor the
concession, and where necessary, the offtake agreement.
·
The concessionaire / Sponsors: The project
sponsors who act as concessionaire create a special purpose entity which is
capitalised through their financial contributions.The
sponsor is the party, usually a consortium of interested groups (typically
including a construction group, an operator, a financing institution, and other
various groups) which, in response to the invitation by the Government
Department, prepares the proposal to construct, operate, and finance, the
particular project. The sponsor may be a company, partnership, a limited
partnership, a unit trust, an unincorporated joint venture or a combination of
one or more.
·
Construction Contractor: The
construction company may also be one of the sponsors. It will take construction
and completion risks, that is, the risk of completing the project on time,
within budget and to specifications. These can be sizeable risks and the
lenders will wish to see a construction company with a balance sheet of
sufficient size and strength with access to capital that gives real substance
to its completion guarantee.
·
Operation and Maintenance Contractor: The
operator will be expected to sign a long term contract with the sponsor for the
operation and maintenance of the facility. Again the operator may also inject
equity into the project.
·
Lending banks: Most Public Private Partnership model project are funded to a big
extent by commercial debt. The bank will be expected to finance the project on
“non-recourse” basis meaning that it has recourse to the special purpose entity
and all its assets for the repayment of the debt.
·
Other lenders: The special purpose entity
might have other lenders such as national or regional development banks
·
Equity Investors: It is always necessary to ensure
that proposed investors in an infrastructure project have sufficient powers to
enter into the relevant contracts and perform their obligations under those
contracts. Two examples where powers must be carefully reviewed are life
insurance companies and trustees of superannuation funds.
·
Parties to the project contracts: Because the special purpose entity has only limited workforce, it will subcontract a third party to perform its
obligations under the concession agreement. Additionally, it has to assure that
it has adequate supply contracts in place for the supply of raw materials and
other resources necessary for the project
A Public Private Partnership model project is
typically used to develop a discrete asset rather than a whole network and is
generally entirely new or Greenfield in nature (although refurbishment may be
involved). In a BOT Project the project company or operator generally obtains
its revenues through a fee charged to the utility/ government rather than
tariffs charged to consumers. A number of projects are called concessions, such
as toll road projects, which are new build and have a number of similarities to
Public Private Partnership model project.
4. Financial structuring of Public Private Partnership
Projects:
Under
a public–private partnership (P3) for highway projects, a private partner may
participate in some combination of design, construction, financing, operations,
and maintenance, including the collection of toll revenues. With a form of
highway P3 called a concession or a Design – Build – Finance – Operate - Maintain
(DBFOM) contract, a concessionaire invests its own funds (known as equity) and
borrows additional funds to pay for the construction of a highway project. The
concessionaire maintains and operates the project for a specified period and
expects to be repaid for its investment in the project over the period of the
concession. P3s allow public agencies to access private equity capital to
finance projects. P3s can accelerate the delivery of projects by helping public
agencies raise the upfront capital necessary to construct a major
infrastructure project all at once, rather than in stages. In some cases,
private capital can mean the difference between developing a project and having
no project at all. Project Financing Project financing is a specific type of
financing used in P3s, through which an expected future revenue stream
generated from users of a project or committed by a public agency is the
primary means for repaying the upfront investment needed to fund it. Project
financing is also known as nonrecourse financing, because the project’s lenders
have no recourse or only limited recourse on the shareholders of the
concessionaire in case the project runs into difficulties and the concessionaire
is unable to repay them. Private firms often use project financing for large,
high-risk projects because it can help to insulate them from financial risks
associated with the project; however, the transaction costs related to
implementing project finance structures are high, making the use of this type
of financing inappropriate for smaller scale projects. The capital generated
from private finance must be paid back with commitments of a long-term revenue
stream to repay lenders and private investors, who typically demand a higher
rate of return than investors in tax-exempt municipal bonds. Financial
Structure of P3s Figure 1 depicts a common financing structure for P3
concession projects. Although a single company Financial Structuring of
Public–Private Partnerships (P3s) TOOLKIT Lenders Concessionaire (SPV) Equity
Investors Public Sponsor Availability Payment or Subsidy Shared Revenue Bonds,
loans Repayments Equity Investments Dividends Funds to build, maintain, and
operate Toll Revenue Facility.
Initial sponsors supply the initial equity of
the project, and in some cases are required to keep a fraction until the end of
the PPP contract without the possibility of transferring. The objective of this
is to create long-term incentives. This is expensive for the initial sponsor
for two reasons: first, because the cost of capital for the sponsor is high;
and second, because by tying up resources for a long time, they cannot be
deployed to other uses. As the sponsor specializes in the early, building part
of the project, this limits its possibilities for future business. This means
that projects must be very profitable to compensate the sponsors for this cost.
Even though the SPV remains active over
the whole life of the project, until the assets revert to the government, there
is a clear demarcation between financing during the construction phase and
financing in the operational phase (Figure 2). During construction, sponsor
equity (perhaps along with bridge loans and subordinated or mezzanine debt) is
combined with bank loans and, sometimes, government grants in money or kind. In
the case of projects that derive their revenues from user fees, the initial
contribution to investment is sometimes supplemented with subsidies from the
government if the project revenues are not sufficient to pay for the project.
As completion of the construction stage
approaches, bondholders enter the picture and substitute for bank lending. Bond
finance is associated with two additional entities: rating agencies and credit
insurance companies. When the PPP project becomes operational, but only then,
the sponsor’s equity may be bought out by a facilities operator, or even
third-party passive investors, usually pension or mutual funds. Bondholders, of
course, have priority over the cash flow of the project.
The life cycle of PPP finance and the change in financing
source is determined by the different incentive problems faced in the
construction and operational phases. Construction is subject to substantial
uncertainty and major design changes, and costs depend crucially on the
diligence of the sponsor and the building contractor. Thus, there is ample
scope for moral hazard in this stage. Banks perform a monitoring role that is
well suited to mitigate moral hazard, by exercising tight control over changes
to the project’s contract and the behavior of the SPV and its contractors. To
control behavior, banks disburse funds only gradually as project stages are
completed. After completion and ramp-up of the project, risk falls abruptly and
is limited only to events that may affect the cash flows from the project. This
is suitable for bond finance because bondholders only care about events that
significantly affect the security of the cash flows underpinning repayment, but
are not directly involved in management or control of the PPP. This is
appropriate for institutional and other passive investors, who by mandate can
only invest small amounts of their funds in the initial stages of a PPP because
of their high risk.
The project is intended to provide a service to
users, but the fundamental contracting parties are the SPV and the procuring
authority, which enforces the PPP contract and represents users of the project.
Because contracts give at least some discretion to the procuring authority,
cash flows and even the continuation of the concession may depend on its
decisions. Thus, ambiguous service standards and defective conflict resolution
mechanisms increase risk. In addition, user fees will be at risk if the political
authority is tempted to buy support or votes by lowering service fees, either
directly or by postponing inflation adjustments, in so-called regulatory
takings. Similarly, if a substantial fraction of the SPV’s revenues are derived
from payments by the procuring authority, these payments depend on the ability
(or desire) of the government to fulfill its obligations. It follows that the
governance structure of the procuring authority, its degree of independence and
the financial condition of the government affect the level of risk perceived by
debt holders.
Consider
next the relationship of the SPV with construction and O&M
contractors. Many PPP projects involve
complex engineering. In complex projects, unexpected events are more likely and
it becomes harder to replace the building contractor. In these cases, the
experience and reputation of the contractor become an issue. Moreover, the
financial strength of the contractor is relevant because this determines its ability
to credibly bear cost overruns without having to renegotiate the contract.
Similarly, while the operational phase is less complex, revenue flows depend on
whether the contracted service and quality standards are fulfilled, which
depends on the O&M contractor. Again, the experience and, secondarily, the
financial strength of the contractor concern debtholders. Debtholders also care
about the type of risk-sharing agreements negotiated between the SPV and the
contractors. Cost-plus contracts, which shift cost shocks to the SPV, are
riskier than fixed-price contracts from their point of view.
Finally,
debtholders care about the incentives of the sponsor, who provides around 30
per cent of the funding in the typical PPP project. This large chunk of equity
has the lowest priority in the cash-flow cascade, and is theoretically
committed for the length of the PPP contract to provide incentives to minimize
the life-cycle costs of the project. Providers of funds worry about the
financial strength and experience of sponsors, particularly during the
construction and the ramp-up phase of complex transportation projects. They
value previous successful experience in the industry and technical prowess, and
look for evidence that the sponsor is committed to the project, both
financially and in terms of time and reputation.
5.
Ideal Scheme for the Infrastructure Development:
PPP or Public-Private-Partnership is a unique concept
which involves coming together of public and private sector with a purpose to
develop public assets or for provision of public services. It is an elaborate
arrangement between a state body and a privately owned entity which serves to
promote private capital investment in public projects, especially those
connected with infrastructure development. The agreement also includes sharing
of assets and skills between state and privately owned bodies to be able to
achieve the best possible outcome. The private entity receives performance
linked payments based on a specific set of criteria.
A basic feature of any PPP scheme is that the project
under consideration is usually a high priority one and is well-planned by the
government. Another essential aspect is that both the sides assume some amount
of risk and mutual value for the project. Some of the infrastructure projects
usually covered under PPP model include building of highways, ports, airports,
developing railways infrastructure, telecom facilities, power generation
projects, and sanitation, water and waste management projects.
In India, the PPP model was introduced by UPA
Government at the Centre for developing some of the major facilities including
airports and metros. The model worked well in some cases but in some others,
there arose a number of issues which could not be addressed properly.
Considering the infrastructural growth needed to drive the economy further, the
newly formed NDA Government has also come up with a number of proposals in the
current Union Budget in which PPP model would be implemented to help achieve
better and faster results.
Finance Minister laid stress that with more than 900
infrastructure projects are underway in the country, PPP model holds great
potential for us but we must work to remove the inefficiencies in its
implementation and develop a responsive dispute redressal mechanism. To this
end, he announced the setting up of an exclusive institution called 3P India
with a budget allocation of Rest 500 crore which would be responsible for
resolving any disputes and issues arising in the planning and implementation of
Public-Private-Partnership model.
There are several areas in which the government is
looking forward to implement this model including high-end metro projects,
rural and urban development projects. The main issues faced with proper
implementation of this model is that infrastructure projects are usually
long-term ones and a number of factors including cost of materials, policies
and even economic conditions can change while the project is underway. If the
initiative to set up a sophisticated mechanism for resolving such issues in
implementation of PPP model is successful, it can attract big investments from
private sector and lead to fast-paced development of infrastructure.
6. Conclusion:
This PPP are a very useful tools
/ system for the developing country like India. Government should give some
relaxation to modify the rules and the regulation to the private sector as more
company may take interest on this and this leads our company from developing
country to the developed country.
No comments:
Post a Comment