La réforme des systèmes d'approvisionnement et d'assainissement dans l'Union européenne

Ce chapitre s’intéresse à plusieurs pays de l’UE et souligne les principaux aspects de leur cadre institutionnel respectif concernant les activités d’appro-visionnement en eau et d’assainissement. Il fournit également des exemples de cas où la participation du secteur privé dans le domaine de l’eau a posé un pro-blème, et d’autres où le secteur public est en charge du réseau de distribution. Le choix des pays évoqués vise à présenter diverses expériences et divers contextes géopolitiques, de l’Europe méditerranéenne à l’Europe du Nord en passant par les pays d’Europe centrale et orientale. En outre, les pays choisis comptent à la fois d’anciens membres de l’Europe des 15 et des membres plus récents. La dernière partie du chapitre traite de l’infuence de la législation européenne sur la gestion et la fourniture de services de distribution en eau. [Introductory paragraph to paper - see Additional Information].

Water privatisation

The article examines the expansion of private water companies since 1989 the withdrawal from developing countries from 2003 onwards, and the economic impact of privatisation. The analysis is set in the context of the historical development of water services in the north and the south, showing that the role of private water companies since the start of the 20th century has been historically limited and exceptional. The impact of water privatisation is considered in relation to the issues of investment, prices, and efficiency, drawing on empirical evidence from the north and developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Particular attention is given to France and the UK, where private water companies, for different reasons, are most established. The evidence from both north and south shows systematic underinvestment, monopoly pricing, regulatory gaming, and no significant efficiency differences between public and private sector operators. In conclusion, the article identifies institutional policies including fiscal constraints and lending conditionalities as key drivers of privatisation, and questions whether these can sustain privatisation in the water sector where historical experience indicates it is an inappropriate solution.

The private sector in water in 2009

A critical survey of the impact on public water of water multinationals, local private companies, and water-consuming multinationals.

Public-public partnerships (PUPs) in water

A comprehensive global analysis of the use of public-public partnerships in water in over 60 countries.

Water

The Water chapter of the Poor Choices report.

Public-public partnerships (PUPs) in water

Water operators need to be efficient, accountable, honest public institutions providing a universal service. Many water services however lack the institutional strength, the human resources, the technical expertise and equipment, or the financial or managerial capacity to provide these services. They need support to develop these capacities. The vast majority of water operators in the world are in the public sector – 90% of all major cities are served by such bodies. This means that the largest pool of experience and expertise, and the great majority of examples of good practice and sound institutions, are to be found in existing public sector water operators. Because they are public sector, however, they do not have any natural commercial incentive to provide international support. Their incentive stems from solidarity, not profit. Since 1990, however, the policies of donors and development banks have focussed on the private companies and their incentives. The vast resources of the public sector have been overlooked, even blocked by pro-private policies. Out of sight of these global policy-makers, however, a growing number of public sector water companies have been engaged, in a great variety of ways, in helping others develop the capacity to be effective and accountable public services. These supportive arrangements are now called 'public-public partnerships' (PUPs). A public-public partnership (PUP) is simply a collaboration between two or more public authorities or organisations, based on solidarity, to improve the capacity and effectiveness of one partner in providing public water or sanitation services. They have been described as: “a peer relationship forged around common values and objectives, which exclude profit-seeking”.1 Neither partner expects a commercial profit, directly or indirectly. This makes PUPs very different from the public–private partnerships (PPPs) which have been promoted by the international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank. The problems of PPPs have been examined in a number of reports. A great advantage of PUPs is that they avoid the risks of such partnerships: transaction costs, contract failure, renegotiation, the complexities of regulation, commercial opportunism, monopoly pricing, commercial secrecy, currency risk, and lack of public legitimacy.2 PUPs are not merely an abstract concept. The list in the annexe to this paper includes over 130 PUPs in around 70 countries. This means that far more countries have hosted PUPs than host PPPs in water – according to a report from PPIAF in December 2008, there are only 44 countries with private participation in water. These PUPs cover a period of over 20 years, and been used in all regions of the world. The earliest date to the 1980s, when the Yokohama Waterworks Bureau first started partnerships to help train staff in other Asian countries. Many of the PUP projects have been initiated in the last few years, a result of the growing recognition of PUPs as a tool for achieving improvements in public water management. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the typical objectives of PUPs; the different forms of PUPs and partners involved; a series of case studies of actual PUPs; and an examination of the recent WOPs initiative. It then offers recommendations for future development of PUPs.

Thinking inside the box: the World Bank position on the private and public sector

An analysis of how the World Bank has maintained a position supportive of mutlinational strategies for privatisation of water. (Brief version).

Thinking inside the box: why the World Bank is not learning

An analysis of how the World Bank has maintained a position supportive of multinational strategies for privatisation of water.

Controlling the agenda at WWF - the multinationals' network

This paper by CEO, PSIRU and PSI details the continuing influence of water multinationals on the World Water Forum and its agenda.

Profitability and the poor: corporate strategies, innovation and sustainability

Based on empirical evidence, the article looks at the implications of private sector participation (PSP) for the delivery of water supply and sanitation to the urban and peri-urban poor in developing countries, with particular reference to Africa and Latin America. More precisely, the article addresses the impact produced by multinational companies’ (MNCs) strategies, in light of the pursuit of profitability, on the extension of connections to the pipeline network. It does so by questioning the assumptions that greater private sector efficiency and innovation, together with contract design, will enable the sustainable extension of service coverage to low income dwellers. The strategies of the major water MNCs are considered both in relation to the global expansion of their operations and the adjustment of local strategies to commercial considerations. The latter might result in identifying proWtable markets, modifying contractual provisions, attempting to reduce costs and increase income, reducing risks and exiting from non-performing contracts. The evidence reviewed allows for re-assessing the relative roles of the public and private sectors in extending and delivering water services to the poor. First, the most far reaching innovative approaches to extending connections are more likely to come from communities, public authorities and political activity than from MNCs. Secondly, whenever MNCs are liable to exit from non-profitable contracts, the public sector has no other option than to deal with external risks aVecting continuity of provision. Finally, market limitations affecting MNCs’ ability to serve marginal populations and access cheap capital do not apply to well-organised, politically led public sector undertakings