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