PRIVATE SECTOR

PARTICIPATION IN

WATER SUPPLY

MANAGEMENT FOR: DR. KAREN BAKKER, UBC GEOG 412

TEAM C

OCTOBER 22, 2O18

Tara O'Brien, Quinn Klassen, Matthew Epstein, Qingyang Liu, Kathy Bi,

Siobhan Ward, Nikki Rao, Iris Jiang

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

WHY

PRIVATIZE?

From the words of Adam Smith, capitalism and the resulting

privatization of industries “increases the wealth of nations”. When

markets are left up to the “invisible hand” prices are set based off

supply and demand of a product, so profits can be maximized. When

developing countries need loans, often privatization becomes a loan

condition through structural adjustment policies (Sinha, 1995).

DOES PRIVATIZATION ‘WORK’?

Privatization is efficient when there is competition, clearly defined

property rights and no externalities (Copeland, 2018). Because water is

non-excludable, controlling it within a market will result in the free-

rider problem, tragedy of the commons and diminishing marginal

returns (Keohane & Olmstead, 2016). With water, there is more

competition for the market than there is within the market (Budds &

McGranahan, 2003). This can result in monopolies where a single

provider of a good can take advantage of consumers.

PRIVATIZATION OF WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

This occurs when the structures such as pipes, pumps and the filtration

system are owned and operated by the private sector. The water is free,

but the systems used to deliver it cost money to use. In theory, the

profits gained from the public’s use of the infrastructure can provide

incentives for the private organization to improve the system, making it

less wasteful and more efficient so that even more profits can be earned

(Budds & McGranahan, 2003). When water infrastructure is public and

non-excludable, the free-rider problem can occur if individuals refuse

to contribute to the development and maintenance of the infrastructure

while still experiencing the benefits of sewage systems and clean

water. Farmers who use the Ogalalla Aquifer in the US are charged a

pumping fee but can extract as much water as they want. This results in

tragedy of the commons and diminishing marginal returns because

they have increased incentive to pump more water to improve their

crop yields rather than to conserve the water for others to use (Keohane

& Olmstead, 2016).

PRIVATIZATION OF WATER

When water is privatized, the market places value on it based off

supply and demand. In theory, this should reduce exploitation because

it places limits on the resources availability (UNDP, 2006). Usage is

monitored through expensive and sometimes inaccurate meters. When

this occurs, water is no longer considered a non-excludable good.

Some systems might allocate households a certain amount of water for

free each day and then are charged for any additional uses (Budds &

McGranahan, 2003). In other places, collecting water from streams or

from rain is illegal and can result in fines.

PRIVATIZATION

When the control and ownership of a

business, industry, utility or trade is

transferred from the public sector

(government agencies) to a private

entity to relieve the government of

responsibility and for the private

sector to earn profits

GOODS

The different types of products that can

be bought and sold in a market; in

economic terms there are 4 different

types of goods, classified based off

their level of excludability and rivalry.

Markets fail at providing certain goods

when supply and demand are left up to

market forces

OPEN-ACCESS RESOURCES

Goods that are rivalrous because the

consumption by one person reduces

the availability for others and are

nonexcludable (no property rights)

EXTERNALITIES

FREE-RIDER PROBLEM

When some individuals don’t

contribute to the good and instead rely

on others to do so

TRADGEDY OF THE COMMONS

When individual incentives are

separate from the common good

resulting in overexploitation of a

natural resource for personal gains

DIMINISHING MARGINAL RETURN

As more people use the resource the

individual benefits received increase

more slowly because allocation is

more diffuse

(Piketty, 2014; Keohane & Olmstead,

2016)

KEY TERMS

ECONOMICS OF PRIVATIZATION

Tara O’Brien

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

References

Budds, J. & McGranahan, G. (2003). Are the debates on water privatization missing the point?

Experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America. Environment & Urbanization, 15(2), 87-

113

Copeland, B. (2018). ECON371: Economics of the environment, week 3 notes [PowerPoint

slides]. Retrieved from https://canvas.ubc.ca/

Keohane, N.O. and Olmstead, S.M. (2016). Markets and the environment (2nd ed.). Washington,

DC: Island Press

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of

Harvard University Press

Sinha, R. (1995). Economic reform in developing countries: Some conceptual issues. World

Development, 23(4), 557-575. doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(94)00146-P

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2006). Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty, and

the global water crisis. Human development report. Retrieved from

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/HDR/2006%20Global%20HDR/H

DR-2006-Beyond%20scarcity-Power-poverty-and-the-global-water-crisis.pdf

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

WHAT IS WATER PRIVATIZATION?

• Water privatization is the full or partial shift away from

state run/owned operations in water and sanitation services.

• Functions on a spectrum (rarely are water systems

entirely private, or entirely state run/owned)

HISTORY OF PRIVATIZATION

• 19th Century

• First centralized water systems in industrial age (Europe

and North America)

• privately built and run

• Mid-late century

• Health concerns, corruption and environmental issues

led to most states taking over water sanitation and delivery

(Water goes public)

• Exception - France largely retained a public and private

approach to water services

• 20th Century

• Water services considered a pillar to society health and

growth and remained a public service in developed world for

majority of the century.

• 70s and 80s

• gave rise to neoliberal outlook

• deregulation of public goods and services

• water services were slow to adopt the neoliberal agenda

but, in some cases, began to follow with large scale

privatization schemes

• poster child example

• England and Wales go fully privatized (1989) ~50 million people serviced by roughly 10 major

companies

• relatively high success

• Privatization failures

• not a economically successful as thought in many cases

• tends to favor locations where financial, political, and economic risks are low

• often leaves areas cherry picked and leaves regions who need water services the most under

serviced

• 1997 considered of peak water privatization investment

• Many scholars are calling for re-municipalisation of water in some cases

• (calling for returning of some or all of water and sanitization assets to be returned to state hands)

• local example of municipalisation

• White Rock

• Private services from 1913-2015 until being taking over (bought) by the city

HISTORY OF WATER PRIVATIZATION

Quinn Klassan

ADVOCATES SAY

• privatization leads to

• greater efficiency, less

waste

• faster and a wider range of

access

• lower costs to society and to

customers

• a better quality resource

OPPOSITION SAYS

• Morally/Ethically wrong

• if water is a human right

than why aren’t

governments in full control

of access/

• concerns of corruption,

monopolies & corporate

greed

KEY ARGUMENTS

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

References

Bakker, K. (2003). Liquid assets. Alternatives Journal, 29(2), 17-21.

Bakker, K. J. (2010). Privatizing water: Governance failure and the world's urban water crisis.

Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.

Bakker, K. J. (2003). An Uncooperative Commodity: Privatizing Water in England and Wales.

New York;Oxford;: Oxford University Press.

Budds, J. & McGranahan, G. (2003). Are the debates on water privatization missing the point?

experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America. Environment and Urbanization, 15(2).

Davis, J. (2005). private-sector participation in the water and sanitation sector. Annual Review of

Environment and Resources, 30(1), 145-183.

Prasad, N. (2006). Privatization results: Private sector participation in water services after 15

years. Development Policy Review, 24(6), 669-692.

Prasad, N. (2007). Privatization of water: A historical perspective. Law, 3(2), 217-233.

Whiterockcity.ca. (2018). Water | White Rock, BC. [online] Available at:

https://www.whiterockcity.ca/230/Water [Accessed 16 Oct. 2018].

The City of White Rock (2013). Acquisition of EPCOR White Rock Water Inc.. White Rock:

The City of White Rock. EPCOR White Rock (2014). 2014 Performance Report. White

Rock: EPCOR.

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

VARIOUS FORMS OF PRIVATE SECTOR

PARTICIPATION (PSP) 1. Lease - Is one of the more limited capacities that the

private sector may participate in the management of water

infrastructure. Responsibilities being limited to the operation

upkeep of existing infrastructure and the role of sending and

collecting bills from consumers (Cowen, 1999).

2. Concession - This type of arrangement lets the private

sector take a more active role in managing public utilities. The

participant will assume many of the same responsibilities as in

a lease agreement but additionally with include the expectation

of improving and expanding services (Crampes and Estache,

1996).

3. Build-Operate Transfer - This arrangement allows the

private sector to take a dominant and leading role in both the

creation and management of water infrastructure. With assets

financed and owned by the private sector, along with the role

as operator and management. These agreements will eventually

lead to the transferring of assets over to the public sector after

invests are repaid and adequate profit has been generated for

investors (Kumaraswamy and Zhang, 2001).

4. Various of types Private Sector Participation - There are

various other types of arrangements made between the Public

and Private sector

a. Management Contracts/ Intermediary Management - One

the more limiting ways in which the private sector can

participate. In this arrangement responsibilities would be

limited to operation and maintenance with revenue

received fixed (Chong et al, 2006).

b. Gerance Contract - Extremely similar to management

contracts and Intermediary Contracts but in this agreement

some revenue can be generated based on performance (Chong

et al, 2006).

SELECTION PROCESS

The selection is not same for finding every company, but many similarities exist. Usually existing in at

least two major stages:

1. Firstly, where companies are initially vetted to see if they can handle a project of this magnitude

and importance.

2. Then bids are submitted by companies, selection based on estimated operating costs and price

points they set for providing services (Crampes and Estache, 1996).

TYPES OF WATER PRIVATIZATION

Matthew Epstein

There are Benefits and Risks from

both the Public Sector and Private

Sector Perspectives:

PRIVATE SECTOR

Benefits: Access to a lucrative

monopoly where revenue and profit

are available.

Risks: These systems are extremely

complex and expensive to maintain,

especially regarding BOT’s where

costs and timelines can easily go over.

(Grimsey and Lewis, 2002).

PUBLIC SECTOR

Benefits: The offloading of debt from

the public, increases in efficiency and

coverage.

Risks: The risk of entrusting a public

good to a private party, which can fail

for various reasons. Also, inaccurate

information during the bidding

process for better chances of winning.

BENEFITS & RISKS

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

References

Chong, E., Huet, F., Saussier, S., and Steiner, F. (October, 2006). “ Public-Private Partnerships

and Prices: Evidence from Water Distribution in France”. Review of Industrial Organization,

29(149), 149-169

Cowen, P. (April, 1999). “Lessons from the Guinea Water Lease”. Public Policy for the

Privatesector, 78, 1-4.

Crampes, C and Estache, A. (September, 1996). “Regulating Water Concessions, Lessons from

Buenos Aires concession”. Viewpoint, 91, 1-4.

Davis, J. ( November, 2005). “Private Sector Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector”.

Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 145-183.

Kumaraswamy, M and Zhang, X. (May, 2001) “Governmental role in BOT-led infrastructure

development”. International Journal of Project Management, 19(4), 195-205.

Grimsey, D and Lewis, M. ( February, 2002). “ Evaluating the risks public private partnerships

for infrastructure projects”. International Journal of Project Management 20(2), 107-118.

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

HUMAN RIGHT

Rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race,

sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other

status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty,

freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and

expression, the right to work and education, and many

more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without

discrimination (UN, 2016).

TIMELINE OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

STATING WATER AS A HUMAN RIGHT

Water as a derivative right

● 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

article 25. (Assembly, U. G., 1948)

● 1986, Declaration on the Right to Development

(DRD), Article 8. (Assembly, U. G., 1986)

Water as an explicit right

● 1989, Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

(Unicef, 1989)

● 1992, Dublin Principles (Gorre-Dale, E., 1992)

● 2002, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 15 (UN, 2003)

● 2010, the United Nations General Assembly (UN,

2016)

● 2010, the Human Rights Council (UN, 2016)

WATER AS A HUMAN RIGHT

Qingyang Liu

BENEFITS

● Grounds the priority on the

bedrock of social and

economic rights

● Pay attention to inadequate

states of water management

● Set standards

● Resolve water disputes

● Set priorities for water policy

(Gleick, 2003)

CONCERNS

● Difficult to enforce legally

● States refuse to support water

as a human right

(Snell, 2014; Safe Drinking

Water Foundation, 2018)

BENEFITS & CONCERNS

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

References

Assembly, U. G. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. UN General Assembly.

Assembly, U. G. (1966). International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. United

Nations, Treaty Series, 993(3).

Assembly, U. G. (1986). Declaration on the Right to Development. Resolution, 41(128), 4.

Gleick, P. H. (2003). The human right to water. WaterNepal WaterNepal, 117.

Gorre-Dale, E. (1992). The Dublin statement on water and sustainable development.

Environmental Conservation, 19(2), 181-181.

Safe Drinking Water Foundation. (2018). Human Rights. Retrieved October 13, 2018, from

www.safewater.org/fact-sheets-1/2017/1/23/human-rights.

Snell, K. (2014). Can Water Be a Human Right. Appeal: Rev. Current L. & L. Reform, 19, 131.

UN. (2003). General Comment No. 15: The Right to Water (Arts. 11 and 12 of the Covenant),

E/C.12/2002/11, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4538838d11.html [accessed 20

October 2018]

Unicef. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child.

UN. (2016). Human Rights. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from

http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/.

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

BACKGROUND

• Neoliberal ideas have had a profound influence on international development and policy

debates in the water sector since the 1990s

• recent history policy makers have focussed their attention on the 3 great users of water:

industry, agriculture and households.

• Key issue: centred on how privatization is implemented, to what extent and context

WATER INSTITUTIONS: PROPERTY RIGHTS AND PUBLIC DOMAIN

• Property Rights: define the incentives, rules, rights and duties which guide human

activities and behavior

• Public Domain: water belongs to the public and is held in trust by the government

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

• Indigenous water rights are not considered independently, but rather are treated as though

they are completely assimilated into the state interests

• Canada’s Policies with Indigenous Rights

ABORIGINAL WATER POLICIES AND WATER LAW

• Water Law: centres on rights to surface water

• Water policy: addresses provision, use, disposal and sustainability decisions

• Provision includes identification, access, preparation for use and distribution.

Uses include direct human consumption, agriculture, industry and ecosystem

protection.

• Policy must set the rules for how water is allocated to the different uses

Examples

• Global Water Policy Project

• Canada Water Act

• Federal Water Policy

• BC Utilities Act

POLICIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FOR PRIVATIZATION — CASE STUDY:

CHINA

• China hasn’t enacted specific laws before entering into privatization

• The reform of private participation in the Chinese water sector is conducted under

various governmental policy papers, without specialized legislation

• Lack of regulatory frameworks

WATER RIGHTS & POLICIES

Kathy Bi

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

References

Bakker, K. (2003) ‘Liquid Assets’ Alternatives 29(2): 17–21.

Budds, J. and G. McGranahan. (2003). Are the Debates on Water Privatization Missing the

Point?” Environment and Urbanization 15(2): 87-114.

Davis, J. (2005) Private-Sector Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector. Annual Review

of Environment and Resources 30: 145–163.

Government of Canada (2017). Water governance: federal policy and legislation.

Government of British Columbia. Water Policies.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(1993). Water policies and demand

management. The State of Food and Agriculture 26.

Horbulyk, T. (2005). Markets, Policy and the Allocation of Water Resources Among Sectors:

Constraints and Opportunities. Canadian Water Resources Journal 30(1):55-64.

Prasad, N. (2006). Privatisation Results: Private Sector Participation in Water Services after 15

Years. Development Policy Review 24(6): 669 – 92.

Saxer, S (2010). The Fluid NAture of Property Rights in Water. Duke Environmental Law and

Policy Forum 49-112.

Schulpen, L. and Gibbon, P. (2002). Private Sector Development: Policies, Practices and

Problems. World Development 30(1):1-15.

United Nations Environment (2014). Water Law.

Walkim, A. () Indigenous Peoples Water Rights: Challenges and Opportunities in an Era of

Increased North American Integration. Ontario Native Women’s Association.

Zheng,X. et al. (2016). People’s Republic of China: Do Private Water Utilities Outperform State-

Run Utilities. Asia Development Bank.

Zhong, L. et al. (2008). Public-Private Partnerships in China’s Urban Water Sector.

Environmental Management 41(6): 863-877.

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

THE DUBLIN PRINCIPLES

1. Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and

the environment.

2. Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach,

involving users, planners, and policy makers at all levels.

3. Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water.

4. Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an

economic good. (WMO, 1992).

SOCIAL CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVATIZATION OF WATER

1. Rate Increase

2. The Quality of Water

3. Corruption

4. Effects on Jobs

5. Profit Maximization

KEY ISSUE

Privatizations effects on lower income populations

ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM

A term that refers to socially marginalized and racial minority communities are subjected to

disproportionate exposure of pollutants, the denial of access to sources of ecological benefits

(such as clean air, water, and natural resources), or both.

POSITIVE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF WATER PRIVATIZATION

1. Improve sustainability/environmental impacts

2. Improving Water Quality

THE CASE OF FLINT

A municipal decision to switch from the Detroit Water and Sewage Department (DWSD) which

retrieved water from Lake Huron, to retrieving their own water from Flint river occurred to try to

cut costs and offset city debt. The water was then treated at the Flint Water Service Center

(FWSC), however, officials failed to put corrosive inhibitors in the water which resulted in lead

from the pipes leaking into the water. Furthermore, lack of acknowledgement and response by

city and state officials resulted in over 3 years of contaminated water for Flint, Michigan.

SOCIAL IMPACTS

Siobhan Ward

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

References

Global Water Partnership. 1992. Dublin-Rio Principles. Retrieved from

https://www.gwp.org/contentassets/05190d0c938f47d1b254d6606ec6bb04/dublin-

rioprinciples.pdf

Jacobs, G. 2014. Retrieved from https://www.thesouthafrican.com/drink-up-while-you-cansouth-

africas-drifting-towards-a-full-blown-water-crisis/

Levitan, K. 2015. Retrieved from

https://thesustainabilitychallenge.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/moving-toward-sustainable-

water/

National Research Council. 2002. Privatization of Water Services in the United States: An

Assessment of Issues and Experience. Retrieved from

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10135/privatization-of-water-services-in-the-united-states-

anassessment

Natural Resource Defense Council. The Flint Water Crisis. Retrieved from

https://www.nrdc.org/flint

Natural Standard. 2011. Water Privatization. Retrieved from

https://www.health24.com/Lifestyle/Environmental-health/Faqs/Water-privatization-

20130312

Pacific Standard. 2018. Retrieved from https://psmag.com/environment/flint-is-the-urban-

crisisof-the-century

Palmo, M. The Flint River. Retrieved from http://www.wkar.org/post/flint-water-crisis-

turningpoint-green-movement#stream/0

The Detroit News. 2016. Retrieved from

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2016/01/13/thompson-flint-water-crisis-

snyderkatrina/78770564/

The Halifax Initiative. 2003. Water, Land, Labour: The Impacts of Forced Privatization in

Vulnerable Communities. Retrieved from http://www.halifaxinitiative.org/fr/node/86

The St. Louis American. 2016. Retrieved from

http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/source-says-first-criminal-charges-to-

beannounced-in-flint/article_5073f148-06fa-11e6-9fbd-0795037ff139.html

The Public Citizen. 2018. The 10 Reasons to Oppose Water Privatization. Retrieved from

https://www.citizen.org/article/introduction-water-privatization

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

UN.

un.org

NEGATIVE IMPACTS

• The transfer of polluting industries to developing countries

seen as “pollution havens”

o Most firms’ environmental protection costs are a small

proportion of overall costs.

• The development of previously undisturbed resources (as in

new oil drilling or mining activities)

o Expansion of economic activities could accelerate

environmental pressure

• The cumulative impact of many small-scale polluting

operations (such as in urban transport or fuel distribution and

retail networks)

o Comparing data before and after to identify patterns

• The exceptions from regulatory requirements that are

sometimes part of privatization transactions.” (Lovei et al,

2002)

o Transparency and promise to change

COMMERCIAL PRESSURES

1. Constant evolution: new capital, technology &

management techniques

2. Stringent environmental standards: the EU & NA FTA

3. “Social license to operate”

TWO KEY ISSUES

1. The coverage and quality of the environmental services to

be provided

2. The environmental and public health goals to be met

RECOMMENDATIONS: PRIVATE PROVISION OF

ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

1. Realistic environmental targets: based off ability, goals,

and decisions

2. Don’t separate water and sewerage services: generation of

wastewater is closely linked to water consumption

3. Coordination: the several agencies responsible should

establish consistency in framework

4. Tariffs and affordability: people are willing to pay if the

service satisfies needs

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Nikki Rao

MEXICO CITY

• the aquifer is the main source of

water and is overtaxed

• The installation of water

meters active - important to

discourage overconsumption

• Leak detection programme –

reduce water loss and stress on

aquifers

U.K.

• transferred assets of the regional

water and sewerage authorities

to stand-alone corporations,

Shares sold to private investors

• The 1989 Water Act, enabled the

newly private water and

sewerage companies to run

geographic monopolies as

vertically integrated services

KENYA

• WSRB’s market-driven cost

recovery responsibility is aimed

to “encourage consumers to use

water wisely by basing their

consumption decisions on prices

reflecting the actual value of the

water they use”

(K’Akumu, 2006)

• ‘market conservation’: reducing

the unnecessary consumption of

water, economic pricing would

help reduce the demand for

environmental infrastructure

related to water consumption

like water and wastewater

treatment plants,

sewers etc (K’Akumu, 2006)

CASES STUDIES

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

5. Oversight: passively/actively keeping an eye on processes involved before, during and after

References

K’Akumu, O. A. (2006). Sustainability prospects for water utilities privatization in Kenya.

International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 5(3), 271-

280. doi:10.1386/ijtm.5.3.271/1

Lovei, M., Gentry, B. S., & Open Knowledge Repository. (2002). The environmental

implications of privatization: Lessons for developing countries. Washington: World Bank

Publications.

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

PSP IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

• UK: totally privatized in England and Wales in 1989

• French: a long history of public owned and private operated water management

system

• Other developed countries: more or less transfers from public to private

UK AS A SUCCESSFUL CASE OF PRIVATE SECTOR

• Strict regulation (OFWAT, DWL, EA)

• Improved water quality and ecosystem

• Though the tariff is high

MULTINATIONALS

• Play important role in both domestic and international water supply and sanitation

services

• Private water provision is dominated by several large multinational water companies

(Veolia, Suez)

• Driven by interest

PSP IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

• Poor regions and countries are hard to attract private sectors (Sub-Saharan)

• International fundings and donors

• Investments are mostly on low and middle-income countries (China, Latin America)

TANZANIA AS A FAILED CASE OF PRIVATE SECTOR

• Government had no capability to improve water facilities

• World Bank promised to support fundings when the investor appears

• Biwater-Tanzania

TREND

• Many contracts in developing countries have been broken off like the one in Tanzania

• Even in developed countries people question the high tariffs

• A time to rethink about public-private participation

GLOBAL PATTERNS

Iris Jiang

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

References

Budds, J., & McGranahan, G. (2003). Are the debates on water privatization missing the

point? experiences from africa, asia and latin america. Environment and

Urbanization, 15(2), 87-113. doi:10.1630/095624703101286763

Byatt, I. (2013). The regulation of water services in the UK. Utilities Policy, 24, 3-10.

doi:10.1016/j.jup.2012.07.00

Davis, J. (2005). PRIVATE-SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN THE WATER AND

SANITATION SECTOR. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30,

145-183. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/219848716?acc

ountid=14656

Dore, M. H. I., Kushner, J., & Zumer, K. (2004). Privatization of water in the UK and

France—What can we learn? Utilities Policy, 12(1), 41-50.

doi:10.1016/j.jup.2003.11.002

HUNT, L., & LYNK, E. (1995). privatisation and efficiency in the uk water industry - an

empirical-analysis. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 57(3), 371-388.

Prasad, N. (2006). Privatisation results: Private sector participation in water services after 15

years. Development Policy Review, 24(6), 669-692.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2006.00353.x

Smiley, S. L. (2013). Complexities of water access in dar es salaam, tanzania. Applied

Geography,41, 132-138. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.03.019

Xian, R.(2007) The Water Margin. Chinadialogue. Retrieved from

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1305-The-water-margin