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.

A crisis for public-private partnerships (PPPs)?

The credit squeeze and recession are combining to make PPPs almost impossible to finance, anywhere in the world. Traditional government borrowing and procurement can still be used to implement infrastructure programmes.

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.

Production of lightweight aggregate from industrial waste and carbon dioxide

The concomitant recycling of waste and carbon dioxide emissions is the subject of developing technology designed to close the industrial process loop and facilitate the bulk-re-use of waste in, for example, construction. The present work discusses a treatment step that employs accelerated carbonation to convert gaseous carbon dioxide into solid calcium carbonate through a reaction with industrial thermal residues. Treatment by accelerated carbonation enabled a synthetic aggregate to be made from thermal residues and waste quarry fines. The aggregates produced had a bulk density below 1000 kg/m3 and a high water absorption capacity. Aggregate crushing strengths were between 30% and 90% stronger than the proprietary lightweight expanded clay aggregate available in the UK. Cast concrete blocks containing the carbonated aggregate achieve compressive strengths of 24 MPa, making them suitable for use with concrete exposed to non-aggressive service environments. The energy intensive firing and sintering processes traditionally required to produce lightweight aggregates can now be augmented by a cold-bonding, low energy method that contributes to the reduction of green house gases to the atmosphere.

Accelerated carbonation treatment of industrial wastes

The disposal of industrial waste presents major logistical, financial and environmental issues. Technologies that can reduce the hazardous properties of wastes are urgently required. In the present work, a number of industrial wastes arising from the cement, metallurgical, paper, waste disposal and energy industries were treated with accelerated carbonation. In this process carbonation was effected by exposing the waste to pure carbon dioxide gas. The paper and cement wastes chemically combined with up to 25% by weight of gas. The reactivity of the wastes to carbon dioxide was controlled by their constituent minerals, and not by their elemental composition, as previously postulated. Similarly, microstructural alteration upon carbonation was primarily influenced by mineralogy. Many of the thermal wastes tested were classified as hazardous, based upon regulated metal content and pH. Treatment by accelerated carbonation reduced the leaching of certain metals, aiding the disposal of many as stable non-reactive wastes. Significant volumes of carbon dioxide were sequestrated into the accelerated carbonated treated wastes.