Aggregation casestudies 0807
-
Upload
water-helpdesk -
Category
Education
-
view
478 -
download
1
Transcript of Aggregation casestudies 0807
Models of Aggregation for Water Supply and Sanitation Provision
Capacity Building Module
Case Studies
Case studies
France Philippines Hungary Brazil Italy The Netherlands England and Wales
Syndicates in France
Drivers Economies of Scale, regional cooperation and PSP in highly decentralized environment (36,000 (often rural) municipalities)
Constraints Political legitimacy (direct taxation but indirect citizen representation)
Scale Normally 2- 5 municipalities of similar size (< 5,000 pop)
Scope Variable (pick and choose operating functions / often on WS and not sewerage)
Process Usually voluntary –central govt representative at local level (prefect) has right to mandate membership
Model Assets: asset ownership remains with municipalities, syndicate has usage rights Exit: allowed with permission of assembly if joining elsewhereVoting: mixed (max 50% seats for larger municipalities; min one seat per municipality)Harmonization: working towards harmonized tariffs and services
Local Government Units, Philippines
Drivers Economies of scale and to lesser degree access to PSP, Access to government loans, access to water
Constraints Conflicting legal interpretations and political disunity
Scale Varies widely (from Manilla with 10m pop to rural LGUs with 30,000 pop in 3 towns)
Scope Varies (several or all functions; sometimes also other services than WSS)
Process mainly voluntary – pace and route varies widely
Model Assets: in most cases transferred to aggregated entityExit: municipalities can exit / cannot be dispelledVoting: by # of connections or assets (problematic at times)Harmonization: uniform tariffs
Dunavarsany, Hungary
Drivers Political ( compliance with EU standards)
Constraints Lack of legislative clarity
Scale 8 municipalities, total 20,000 pop; one municipality much larger than other seven
Scope Water and wastewater; solid waste being considered
Process Voluntary with financial incentives from national governmentOriginally 4 member municipalities, 4 more joined later
Model Assets: no, not allowed by law Exit: allowed - but on reimbursing loss of additional grant Voting: based on contribution to budgetHarmonization: working towards uniform tariff
Dos Lagos, Brazil
Drivers Economies of scale and access to government finance and to lesser degree access to PSP
Constraints Political disputes between local and state level
Scale 5 municipalities; total 310,000 pop
Scope Water supply and sanitation in some municipalities
Process Strong financial incentives from state government
Model Assets: remain with state (bulk water infra) and municipalities (distribution network)Exit: limited Voting: loose association; no board in placeHarmonization: uniform tariffs
Consortium & Convenzione, Italy
Drivers Efficiency, political ( compliance with EU standards)
Constraints Local political resistance, vested private sector interests
Scale No standard size, 1- 377 municipalities, average total population is 640,000
Scope All functions integrated
Process Mandatory
Model Two models: Consortium (new public entity) and Convenzione (agreement between existing entities)Assets: municipalities keep existing assets; aggregated entity owns new assets Voting: vary but mainly based on population Harmonization: uniform tariffs (some exceptions)
Public water PLCs, The Netherlands
Drivers Economies of scale
Constraints Resistance to aggregation among existing utilities
Scale 1-40 municipalities; 200,000 – 1.600,000 connections
Scope Water supply
Process Initially voluntary, later mandatory threshold size of 100,000 pop
Model Assets: either owned by public water PLC of by member municipalities Exit: no Voting: based on population harmonization: uniform tariffs
Regional Water Authorities, England and Wales
Drivers Water resources, access to financing (for WW treatment)
Constraints Institutional design flaw (regulator and regulatee); lack of accountability
Scale More than 100,000 population
Scope water supply, wastewater and water resource management
Process Mandatory
Model Assets: owned by RWA Exit: no Voting: fixed key, including local and central government appointees (not all municipalities represented)Harmonization: uniform tariffs
Note: RWAs were divested to the private sector in 1989