Water, Time and European Cities

8/11/2019 Water, Time and European Cities

1/255

Petri S. Juuti & Tapio S. Katko (Eds.)

History

mattersfor theFutures

Water, TimeandEuropeanCities


2/255

Preface by

ProfessorMartin V. Melosi,University of Houston, United States

One Europe, Many Cities

Contemplating the Future of Water and Sanitation

Water, time and European cities History matters for the futures is a fascinating study, covering a

vast and rich field of cultural diversity. Te harmonising element is that the editors and co-authors

see cities as part of a single Europe; they also share a concern for the future water. Te reader is

provided a rich array of information gleaned from 29 cities in 13 countries, each with a different

administrative and service supply history and different styles of design strategies and outcomes.Tis study brings out the raw essence of individual historical memories and perspectives of tomor-

row from dusty archives and state-of-the-art computer simulations. Te pastpresentfuture theo-

retical framework that is a spin-off of this approach holds great promise. Te book proposes manage-

ment and planning strategies for the future and gives due recognition to the right of ordinary people

to participate in matters related to the important issues of water supply and sanitation. Tis type of

research could be applied with good effect on the African continent. Tere is a distinct need to focus

on the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial era and to determine how the water-related future of

the African city needs to be understood. Ultimately, it could even lead us to a better understanding of

the past, present and future water needs of global humankind.ProfessorJohann W N Tempelhoff,

School of Basic Sciences, Vaal riangle Faculty

North-West University, South Africa

Tis intriguing book presents chronological accounts of the evolution of water and sanitation

services in 29 European cities. Te cases bring out an immensely rich variation in local arrangements

for the establishment and exploitation of complex water and sanitation systems in fast-changing

urban environments. Tis diversity of local experiences presents a potent antidote to the simplistic

notion that there would be one best way of providing urban water services.rue to its title, Juuti and Katkos compilation of potted histories demonstrates that history does

matter. It shows that there is much to learn from the comparative analysis of local evolutionary

trajectories. Most of all, it deserves credit for placing the evolution of urban water services firmly on

the research agenda.

Professor Okke BraadbaartUrban Environmental Management eam, Environmental Sciences Group

Wageningen University and Research Centre, Te Netherlands


3/255

Water, Time and European CitiesHistory matters for the Futures

Water is the driving force of all natureLeonardo da Vinci (14521519)


4/255

Front cover: From let:Fountain of Fontano di revi in Rome, Italy, constructed in1762 (Photo: . Katko 2005).In the centre: Water tower completed in 1982 in Hervanta suburb,ampere, Finland (Photo: P. Juuti 2005).Below: Viinikanlahti wastewater treatment plant established in 1972,located close to the expanded city (Photo: . Katko 2005).

Back cover: From let: Silhuette of the ampere city center, Finland (Photo: P. Juuti).Below: Presa de El Atazar, water intake reservoir for Madrid, Spain(Photo: Canal de Isabel II).


5/255


Water, Time and European Cities

History matters for the Futures


6/255

THEMATERIAL INTHISBOOKWASPRODUCEDASPARTOFTHEWaterTimePROJECT,FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION. THE EDITORS AND AUTHORS HEREBY

ACKNOWLEDGETHESUPPORTOFTHEEUROPEANCOMMISSION. THEFULLRESULTSOF

THEWATERTIMEPROJECTCANBESEENATwww.watertime.net

WaterTimeUNDERTHEFIFTHFRAMEWORKPROGRAMME(FP5) ANDCONTRIBUTING

TOTHEIMPLEMENTATIONOFTHEKEYACTION4: CITYOFTOMORROWANDCULTURAL

HERITAGE, THEMATICPRIORITY4.1.2: IMPROVINGTHEQUALITYOFURBANLIFE,WITHIN

ENERGY, ENVIRONMENTANDSUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT(EESD).

Contract No: EVK420020095

http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/rtdinf21/en/key/18.html


Covers & Layout: Katri Wallenius

Printed in EU, 2005

Keywords:

Strategic choices, Sustainability, Path dependence, Water Supply and

sanitation, Urban environment , City-service development, Water pollution

control, Public policy, Institutional development, History and futures

research, Europe

WaterTimePARTNERS:

Etvs Jzsef College, Hungary

http://www.ejf.hu/

ERL, Universidad Complutense de Madrid,Spain

http://www.ucm.es/info/femp/

Institute of Environmental Engineering and Biotechnology

(IEEB), Tampere University of Technology (TUT), Finland

http://www.tut.fi/units/ymp/bio/en/ International Water Affairs, Hamburg, Germany

PSIRU, Business School, University of Greenwich, UK

www.psiru.org

Water, Time and European Cities

History matters for the FuturesTampere University Press, ePublications Verkkojulkaisut

ISBN 9514463374

Tampere 2005
http://www.watertime.net/http://www.watertime.net/http://www.watertime.net/http://www.watertime.net/


7/255

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

his document is a collaboration o researchers representing the Waterime

partners: Etvs Jzse College, Hungary ERL, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain Institute o Environmental Engineering and Biotechnology (IEEB),

ampere University o echnology (U), Finland International Water Affairs, Hamburg, Germany PSIRU, Business School, University o Greenwich, UKTe editors wish to thank these Waterime partner institutions and the individual

researchers or their contributions to this work: Andres Caballero Quintana, Jarmo

Hukka, Klaus Lanz, Emanuele Lobina, Robin de la Motte, Judit Pter, Pekka Pietil,Ignacio Rodriguez, Andrs Sanz Mulas, Osmo Seppl and Risto einonen. Wealso express our thanks to Waterime coordinator, David Hall, or his patience andadvice, the steering committee members or their advice, and proessor Martin V.Melosi or writing the preace. Financial support rom EU, FP5 (EVK420020095)is grateully acknowledged as well as the additional resources rom Academy oFinland (210816).

Support and contributions rom all parties and stakeholders who kindly provided datais highly appreciated. Tese include especially all the water and sewage utilities and

related stakeholders in the case cities and countries. Assistance rom Sari Merontausta,Harri Mki, Jorma iainen and Katri Wallenius as well as advice rom John Hassan,Arne Kaijser, Kimmo Kurunmki and Marko Stenroos is also acknowledged.

For the case material and plates we wish to thank Vadim Akselrod, Andrea Barghi,Luca Berti, Lorenzo Caldentey, Epsica Chiru, George A. Crisia, Leszek Drogosz,Richard Duncan, Laszlo Fejer, Laszlo Ferenc, Lszln Fodor, Stuart Fischer, SteanoFolli, Brita Forssberg, Piotr Frankiewicz, Francisco Cubillo Gonzlez, Chris Guillaudin,Nigel Horan, Satu Kaaria, Katarzyna Kacpura, Judit Krolyi, Harry Manninen, ArturoGmez Martnez, Lynda McGinn, Sophie Miquel, Jan van den Noort, Federico Pareja,Paula Schlueter Parrilla, Giuseppe Raimondi, Beate Richter, Karita Sall, David Simister,Michael P. Solic, Klaus Stegmayer, Jacques cheng, and Mihaela Vasilescu.

During the process we have also gained insight and views rom the Waterimeworkshops and other sources like the IWHA Conerence in Alexandria in December2003.

Special thanks go to Bernard Barraqu, Bengt Hedenstrm, Henry Nygrd, Jouni Paa-vola and Robin Simpson or their peer reviews o the manuscript, and Okke Braadbartand Johann empelhoff or their general assessments o the back cover.. We also wishto thank Ludivine Crochet, Outi Lindroos, Sanna-Leena Rautanen, Santiago Velasquez

and Eija Vinnari or their comments and suggestions. Yet, any remaining errors are, ocourse, due to the individual authors.


8/255

We believe and hope that these long-term experiences and lessons will be useul orany current planning and policy development o our utures. Hopeully this book willalso increase interest towards longer-term views concerning water services which, toa large extent, is also required as a basis or any participative decisions and sustain-

ability.

Petri S. Juuti & Tapio S. Katko

ampere, 22ndMarch 2005World Water Day


9/255

CONTENTS

ABLES, FIGURES, PLAES.................................................................................................9ABBREVIAIONS..................................................................................................................11

PREFACE (Martin V. Melosi)......................................................................................................12

INRODUCION (Petri S. Juuti &apio S. Katko)...................................................................13

APPROACH AND MEHODOLOGY (Petri S. Juuti &apio S. Katko)..............................19

HISORICAL DEVELOPMEN OF WAER AND SANIAION SERVICES(Petri S. Juuti &apio S. Katko).......................................................................................................25

D WSS .............................28P- ................................39

LONGERM SRAEGIC DECISIONS IN 13 COUNRIES AND 29 CIIES...51

E (Risto einonen, University of artu, assisted by apio S. Katko, U)........................53allinn.................................................................................................................................55

F (apio S. Katko, U & Petri S. Juuti, University of ampere)......................................60Hmeenlinna......................................................................................................................64ampere..............................................................................................................................68

F (Emanuele Lobina, PSIRU, University of Greenwich)....................................................73Grenoble.............................................................................................................................75

G (Klaus Lanz, International Water Affairs, assisted by apio S. Katko, U................79Berlin...................................................................................................................................83Munich................................................................................................................................88

H (Judit Pter, Etvs Jzsef College)............................................................................92Budapest.............................................................................................................................94Debrecen............................................................................................................................98Szeged...............................................................................................................................102

I (Emanuele Lobina, PSIRU, University of Greenwich)......................................................106Arezzo...............................................................................................................................109Bologna.............................................................................................................................112Milan..................................................................................................................................116Rome.................................................................................................................................119

L (Pekka E. Pietil, U)......................................................................................123Kaunas..............................................................................................................................126Vilnius...............................................................................................................................130


10/255

N (Robin de la Motte, PSIRU, University of Greenwich).....................................134Rotterdam........................................................................................................................138

P (Robin de la Motte, PSIRU, University of Greenwich).................................................146Gdask..............................................................................................................................148d...................................................................................................................................151Warsaw..............................................................................................................................155

R (Andres Sanz Mulas, Andres Caballero Quintana, Ignacio Rodriguez, ERL UniversidadComplutense de Madrid)..........................................................................................................158

Bucharest..........................................................................................................................160imioara.........................................................................................................................166

S (Andres Sanz Mulas, Andres Caballero Quintana, Ignacio Rodriguez, ERL UniversidadComplutense de Madrid)..........................................................................................................171

Crdoba............................................................................................................................173Madrid..............................................................................................................................178Mancomunidad del Sureste de Gran Canaria...........................................................185Palma de Mallorca..........................................................................................................191

S (apio S. Katko, U & Marko Stenroos, University of urku)...................................197Stockholm........................................................................................................................199

U K (Robin de la Motte, PSIRU, University of Greenwich)..............................204Leeds (England)..............................................................................................................207Cardiff (Wales)................................................................................................................211Edinburgh (Scotland) (Emanuele Lobina, PSIRU, University of Greenwich)......................214

COMPARAIVE ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION Petri S. Juuti & apio S. Katko).......219C .................................................................................................220D........................................................................................................................233

CONCLUSIONS HISORY MAERS FOR HE FUURES Petri S. Juuti &apio S. Katko)...............................................................................................................................241

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................244


11/255

9

TABLES, FIGURES& PLATES

Figure 1. Location o case cities...........................................17

Figure 2. An overall ramework or strategic managementin relation to pasts, presents and utures..........................20

Figure 3. Pasts, presents and utures and their analogicalrelationships............................................................................22

Figure 4. Te legal and administrative amilies o Europe...................................................................................................33

Figure 5. Te position o 50 countries and 3 regions on themasculinityemininity and individualismcollectivism axes.............................................................................................37

Figure 6. Te preerred configurations according to HenryMintzberg projected onto a power distance....................38

Figure 7. Evolution o water supply and sewerage inHmeenlinna, 19101998....................................................64

Figure 8. Evolution o water supply and sewerage in am-pere, 19002002.....................................................................68

Figure 9. Rough estimate o the relative shares o publicand private sector...................................................................71

Figure 10. Evolution o local multi-utility services inGermany.............................................................................82

Figure 11. Specific water consumption in Vilnius,19502002.............................................................................131

Figure 12. Evolution o Dutch water undertakings with

major governments involvement, 18542000..............137Figure 13. Factors creating demand or improved WSSservices in the case cities over time.................................223

Figure 14. Key development phases o WSS services, rommid-1800s to 2000...............................................................224

Figure 15. Establishment o modern WSS and introduc-tion o wastewater treatment in the case cities.............226

Figure 16. Forms o public-private cooperation andownership, data compiled or City in ime....................228

Figure 17. Specific water consumption in relation to time inthe case cities.......................................................................230

Figure 18. Specific domestic or billed water consumptionin relation to time in the case cities and countries.......231

Figure 19. Rough classification o water services amilies inthe case countries o Waterime around 2004.............236

able 1. Case countries and cities o Waterime............16

able 2. A rough typology o water institutional............30

able 3. Key long-term decisions on allinn...................56

able 4. Key long-term decisions on Finnish water........63

able 5. Key long-term decisions on Hmeenlinna.......66

able 6. Key long-term decisions on ampere................77

able 7. Key long-term decisions on Grenoble water...73

able 8. Key long-term decisions on Berlin water..........84

able 9. Key long-term decisions on Munich water.......90

able 10. Key long-term decisions on Budapest.............95

able 11. Key long-term decisions on Debrecen.............99

able 12. Key long-term decisions on Szeged water....102

able 13. Key long-term decisions on Arezzo water....110

able 14. Key long-term decisions on Bologna water..112

able 15. Key long-term decisions on Milan water......117

able 16. Key long-term decisions on Rome water......120

able 17. Key long-term decisions on Kaunas water...127

able 18. Key long-term decisions on Vilnius water....132

able 19. Key events o Dutch water history.................136

able 20. Key long-term decisions on Rotterdam........139

able 21. Number o water companies...........................144

able 22. Key long-term decisions on Gdask water...148

able 23. Key long-term decisions on d water.......152

able 24. Coverage o water and sewerage in d......154

able 25. Key long-term decisions on Warsaw water..157

able 26. Key long-term decisions on Bucharest.........162

able 27. Key long-term decisions on imioara.........168

able 28. Key long-term decisions on Crdoba...........174

able 29. Key long-term decisions on Madrid water...180

able 30. Key long-term decisions on Gran Canaria...187

able 31. Key long-term decisions on Palma de Mallorca

water and sewerage services.............................................192able 32. Key long-term decisions on Stockholm........201

able 33. Key long-term events [UK]..............................206

able 34. Key long-term decisions on Leeds water......208

able 35. Key long-term decisions on Cardiff water....212

able 36. Key long-term decisions on Edinburgh........214


12/255

10

Plate 36. Well construction or Vilnius...........................130

Plate 37. Headquarters o Vilnius water company.......133

Plate 38. Draining water rom the polder close to Rotter-dam, the Netherlands........................................................140

Plate 39. Sewerage system plan with three wastewatertreatment plants near Rotterdam rom 1975................145

Plate 40. Wastewater filtration fields built in Gdask,Poland in 1872....................................................................149

Plate 41. A covered ground water well in Gdask.......150

Plate 42. Drilling o a deep well in 1934 in d..........151

Plate 43. Inner view o the potable water tank od......................................................................................154

Plate 44. Underground slow sand filters in Warsaw....155

Plate 45. Wastewater reatment Plant Czajka inWarsaw.................................................................................156

Plate 46a & 46b. Modernising o the water system oBucharest, Romania............................................................161

Plate 47. A new water treatment plant [Bucharest].....165

Plate 48. Te superstructure o the first well used orwater supply in imioara.................................................167

Plate 49. One o the buildings o 1912 wastewater treat-ment plant in imioara....................................................170

Plate 50. Plant based on anaerobic UASB process inCrdoba, Spain....................................................................173

Plate 51. General air view on wastewater treatment plant[Crdoba].............................................................................177

Plate 52. Te historic Sion de Guadalix or water supplyin Madrid..............................................................................182

Plate 53. EAP de orrelaguna, wastewater treatment planto Madrid.............................................................................184

Plate 54. Since the 1960s increasing [Gran Canaria]...186

Plate 55. Surrounded by sea the Canary Islands...........190

Plate 56. Cave o Cuevas Dels Hams, karstic ormationincluding underground gorge [Palma de Mallorca].....194

Plate 57. Embalses raw water reservoir [Palma]...........196

Plate 58. Te Riddarfrden Swimming Contest in thecenter o Stockholm, Sweden...........................................200

Plate 59. Entrance o the Henriksdal wastewater treat-ment plant [Stockholm].....................................................203

Plate 60. Plant or crushing and screening filtering mediashowing saggars [Leeds, England].................................207

Plate 61. Lendel water tower in Leeds...........................210

Plate 62. Sewage pumping station Cardiff, Wales........211

Plate 63. New wastewater treatment plant at Cardiff..213

Plate 64. Steam excavator [Edinburg, Scotland]...........216

Plate 65. Digestors and gas holders o Sealand waste-water treatment plant in Edinbugh.................................216

Plate 66. Archimedes screw pump in ampere............222

Plate 67. Sludge carrying vessel M.V. Gardyloo inEdinburg, Scotland..............................................................222

Plate 1. A wooden pipe installed in Berlin, Germany....27

Plate 2. ransporting water rom Danube........................29

Plate 3. Public well rom the 18thcent. [Stockholm]......40

Plate 4. Illustration o a Dutch dyke..................................48

Plate 5. A public well constructed in Vaasa, Finland......50Plate 6. An old public well called Rataskaev, well withwindlass in allinn, Estonia................................................55

Plate 7. Paljassaare Wastewater reatment Plant, allinn,Estonia.....................................................................................59

Plate 8. Diver installing water intake pipe on the iced LakeKatumajrvi [Hmeenlinna, Finland]...............................65

Plate 9. Artificial recharge in Ahvenisto esker area inHmeenlinna..........................................................................67

Plate 10. Underground high-level water reservoir in thePyynikki eskar in ampere, Finland..................................69

Plate 11. Water tower in esoma [ampere]...................72Plate 12. Construction o a drain collector in the late1800s in Grenoble, France...................................................75

Plate 13. Welding a plastic sewer in 2004 [Grenoble]....76

Plate 14. Fire fighting in Berlin, Germany........................83

Plate 15. Water main burst ater an air raid on 3 January,1945 in Berlin, Germany......................................................86

Plate 16. Sammelstollen, one o the well collectingchutes [Munich, Germany]................................................88

Plate 17. Aerial view o the sludge treatment at the waste-water treatment plant [Munich].........................................89

Plate 18. Water tower on Margaret Island in Budapest,Hungary...................................................................................96

Plate 19. Flooding in the city o Budapest........................97

Plate 20. Dobozi housing estate water tower [Debrecen].................................................................................................100

Plate 21. Water intake plant (Balmazjvrosi str. 3) inDebrecen...............................................................................101

Plate 22. Te water tower o Szent Istvn Square o 1,000m3 in Szeged........................................................................104

Plate 23. Under Szeged, Hungary there lies a several-hundred-kilometre long pipesystem...............................105

Plate 24. Medieval well in Arezzo, Italy..........................109Plate 25. Public ountain [Arezzo]...................................111

Plate 26. Construction o sewers in Bologna.................114

Plate 27. Water treatment plant [Bologna]....................115

Plate 28. Water tower rom around 1500 in Milan.......116

Plate 29. Construction o sewage collector [Milan].....118

Plate 30. Assembling so-called vetroresina [Milan]..118

Plate 31. Cloaca Maxima [Rome]....................................119

Plate 32. Remains o the Aqua Claudia [Rome]............121

Plate 33. Fountain o Fontano di revi in Rome...........122

Plate 34. Laying o a submersible plastic sewer orKaunas, Lithuania................................................................126

Plate 35. Wastewater treatment plant o Kaunas..........128


13/255

11

ABBREVIATIONS

BOT buildoperatetranser

EBRD European Bank or Reconstruction and DevelopmentFR utures research

DWLDrinkwaterleiding Rotterdam

GWground water

HHs households

HR historical research

LMU local multi-utility

MBE municipal budget entity

MNCmultinational companies

mpe million population equivalent

NCRs National Context Reports

NGOnon-governmental organisation

PLC private limited company

PPPpublicprivate partnership

PRINWASS Barriers and conditions or the involvement o private capital andenterprise in water supply and sanitation In Latin America and Arica: Seekingeconomic, social and environmental sustainability.

RWAs regional water authoritiesSSF slow sand filtration

SWC specific water consumption

UWWT urban wastewater treatment plant

WaSN water and sewerage network

WSwater supply

WSS water supply and sanitation

WTP water treatment plant

WW wastewater

WWI World War I

WWIIWorld War II

WWS wastewater service

WWT wastewater treatment

WWTP wastewater treatment plant


14/255


15/255

INTRODUCTION

Water is the only drink for a wise manHenry David Thoreau (18171862)


16/255

14

INRODUCION

Water and sewerage services are part o the visible inrastructure o our citiesand communities and are oten taken or granted. Paradoxically their real importanceor people and communities is remembered only when something goes wrong withthese systems. However, in many cases it has taken a long time several decades inot centuries to develop them into modern systems. And it is also still true in theearly 21st century that some European cities lack appropriate water and/or sanitationservices.

Tis book is based largely on the study City in ime that was to address the histori-cal differences and similarities in cities decision-making over the long run and howthese affect the decision-making o each case city.

City in ime aimed to use futures researchto illustrate the interconnectednesso past, present and uture decision-making. It sought to study the development owater systems in a wide institutional context covering the political, economic, social,technical and environmental dimensions and to identiy long term patterns in deci-sion-making, as well as the underlying driving and constraining actors. City in imewas to study urban water system reorm in 29 cities, in 13 countries originally ineight EU member and five candidate countries, our o which became ull memberson the 1sto May, 2004.

Te major objective o City in ime was to discover the key strategicdecisions that

have affected the overall evolution o water and sewerage services in the city. Someo these strategic decisions may at first have seemed less important while later havingproved to be o great importance. Te study sought specifically to address the ollow-ing research questions:

What were the strategic decisions that have mostly affected the development(binding, limiting, postponing)?;

Who and what actors define and create demand or services?; How does the historical context constrain potential best practices or the

uture?;

What limits do technical choices o the past impose on decision-making?; On what basis have selected strategies been ormulated and decided upon indifferent time periods?;

How has the role o public-private partnership (PPP) changed over the years,and how is it likely to change in the uture?

Te major sourceso data used by City in ime to analyse past and uture decision-making included:

Dates and sequence o key decisions on systems, e.g. special public bodies, respon sibilities o local government or central government, changes in ownership o

systems between private sector, national and local governments;changes in opera tors between sectors; changes in pricing and charging methods; introduction owater rights;


17/255

15

Local and national (and international) past decisions, which constrain and limitpresent choices, e.g. bulk water supply sources; boundaries o administrative units;taxation and borrowing powers o local governments;

Factors and interest groups involved in the past, e.g. emergence o public healthissues; origins o private sector role; environmental issues and local traditions;economic development; restructurings at entry to and exit rom ormer communistregimes in eastern European countries.

Te study used the ollowing main sources:Primary datacollected through case studies; each case study produces a historical

report, which will be provided to the lead contractor o this work package whois responsible or producing an annual synthesis. Standardisation and commu-

nication will be acilitated through a Web-based inormation sharing system andan agreement at the outset on common reporting structures;

Primary datacollected through the interactivenational stakeholder meetings tobe held in conjunction with the Steering Group meetings. Te objective is to makethese working meetings provide useul inputs to the project as well as to undertakevalidation and review unctions;

Secondary data identified through case study interviews: the lead contractorwill be responsible or ollowing up on inormation identified through the casestudies;

Use o existing body o local, national and international historical research onurban water systems research;

Unpublished material and papers; Personal interviews o related stakeholders and experts.City in ime was an essential part o the Waterime project, unded by the Euro-

pean Commission under FP5: Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development.Te Waterime project directly contributed to the overall aims oKey Action, City ofomorrow and Cultural Heritage, by addressing the question o how to maximise theinvolvement o stakeholders in decision-making, and the effectiveness o decisions inensuring effi cient and affordable water and sanitation service or all citizens.

Te general objectives o the Waterime project were:

o analyse decision-making processes or the design and organisation o watersystems in selected European cities; o elaborate a set o recommended best practices or decision makers; o elaborate a decision-making model that will enable comparative evaluation o

various options resulting in more sustainable water systems and improved qualityo urban lie;

o disseminate findings and developed instruments among decision-makers andother stakeholders.


18/255

16

INRODUCION

COUNTRY TYPE CITIES

Estonia Accession Tallinn

Finland North Hmeenlinna, TampereFrance North Grenoble

Germany North Berlin, Munich

Hungary Accession Budapest, Debrecen, Szeged

Italy South Arezzo, Bologna, Milan, Rome

Lithuania Accession Kaunas, Vilnius

Netherlands North Rotterdam

Poland Accession Gdask, Lodz, Warsaw

Romania Accession Bucharest, Timioara

Spain South Crdoba, Madrid, Mancomunidad del Sureste de GranCanaria, Palma de Mallorca

Sweden North Stockholm

UK North Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds

Table 1.Case countries and cities of WaterTime

Te case cities or this study and the original Waterime-project were chosen on

the basis o the: diversity o experience o the cities, including diversity within one country, andthereore the potential or improving understanding, developing good practiceand disseminating relevant lessons;

relevance o experience or todays policy makers; easibility o the case studies in terms o the team members existing level o

knowledge and contacts; geographical representation north and south EU, as well as candidate countries

thus representing the ull range o water requirements and challenges experiencedin Europe;

language capability o the team to work in the cities; partnership expertise and knowledge o the cities and countries.

Te introduction o this report is ollowed by a chapter on early diffusion o waterand sanitation services, and public-private cooperation in historical perspectives.Tereater the key points related to strategic decisions and development episodes inthe 13 case countries and 29 case cities are described as shown in Table 1.Location

o each case city is marked on the Figure 1.Te book is largely based on the materialproduced or the City in ime reports on the case cities, National Context Reports(NCRs) and some related documents (available at: www.watertime.net).


19/255

17

Figure 1.Location of case cities

FINLAND

ESTONIATallinn

TampereHmeenlinna

LITHUANIAKaunas

Vilnius

SWEDEN

Stockholm

FRANCE

Grenoble

GERMANY

Berlin

Munich

HUNGARY

Budapest Debrecen

SzegedITALY

Bologna

Milan

Rome

Arezzo

NETHERLANDS

RotterdamPOLAND

Gdask

d Warsaw

ROMANIA

Bucharest

Timioara

SPAIN

Madrid

Crdoba Palmade Mallorca

Edinburgh

Leeds

Cardiff

UK

Mancomunidad delSureste deGran Canaria


20/255

18

INRODUCION

Rationale of the studyConsidering the original objectives and accessible material and sources o the City inimestudy, it is emphasised that the ocus had to be more on the historical evolution owater and sewerage services in their wider institutional context rather than on strategicdecisions as such. Te main reason or that is that achievable historical documents,books, papers and other material tend to overwhelmingly describe the routine technicalexpansion o systems while they very seldom describe the arguments and reasons orcertain decisions o strategic importance and wider institutional issues. Besides, somedecisions have proved to be o strategic nature later although maybe not recognisedas such initially. Tese limitations and the scope o the study are believed to be justifiedconsidering the time and resources available or the study. Yet, in some cases books,papers and other sources dealing with strategic issues have been identified.

Tis book is based on 29 case cities in 13 European countries. Tus it covers most othe EU member countries and one negotiating about potential membership in 2005.Some other European countries like the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Iceland,Ireland, Malta, Norway, Portugal and Slovakia are not covered and only a ew casecities per country were selected. A larger number o case countries and cities wouldprobably have brought even more diversity which should be kept in mind while readingthe conclusions.

Plans fail for lack of counsel,but with many advisers they succeed

Proverbs: 15:22


21/255

APPROACHANDMETHODOLOGY

History is the witness that testifies to the passingof time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory,

provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidingsof antiquity

Cicero (106 BC43 BC)


22/255

20

APPROACH AND MEHODOLOGY

Approach and theoretical backgroundTis chapter first briefly describes the approach o City in ime the interrelationsoHistory Research(HR) and Futures Research(FR). Tereater, the methodologiestogether with the implementation o the study are explained.

Futures Research (FR), incorporating Historical Research (HR), is a decision-making ramework, which seeks to integrate both historical and uture perspectivesinto todays decision-making processes. In the context o decision-making on waterservices reorm, utures research is innovative in that it seeks to address the nearlyuniversal ailure o (institutions and) decision-makers to retain and use institutional

memory, while at the same time providing or the evaluation o alternative long-termscenariosto achieve the targets set or the uture. It is believed that much could belearnt rom the past mistakes and successes i we would just bother to delve deeperinto past decision.making processes and their impacts. Such a dual perspective ensuresthat the diversities of the pastandpluralities of the futureare taken into account indecision-making (Jenkins and Witzel 1999). Figure 2provides an overall conceptualramework or combining HR and FR.

Figure 2.An overall framework for strategic management in relation to pasts,presents and futures(Kaivo-oja et al. 2004)

FUTURESPRESENT(S)PAST(S)

KNOWN AND ACCEPTED KNOWN AND REJECTED NOT RECOGNISED

RECENT YEARS 0 1 10 50DECADES

CENTURIES

YEARS

OPERATIV

EMANAGEMENT

STRATEG

IC

MANAGEMENT

VISIONARYMANAGEMENT

DEGREE OFPREDETERMINEDISSUES

DEGREE OFUNCERTAINTY

INSTITUTIONALMEMORY(IES)

DEGREE OFUNCERTAINTY


23/255

21

In this context the plural orm is used deliberately to point out that instead o onlyone interpretation we have several interpretations o the pasts as well as presents, andparticularly o alternative utures. Te past is divided into three time blocks: recent

years, decades, and centuries.Te uture in turn is divided into three timescales: short-

time operational management o the system, strategic management, and visionarymanagement. In utures research the degree o uncertainty increases with time, whilein historical research it increases the more distant the past.

Tere seems to be discontinuity between the present, recent past and the nearuture. It could be that due to the tradition o HR, it is more diffi cult to assess the e-ects o strategic decisions on the recent past. I more convergence is wanted, the gapshould be filled somehow. On the other hand, could it be that FR concentrates moreon strategic and visionary horizons while perhaps neglecting the operational horizono the near uture? Tis would mean a paradox since organisations like water utilities

seem to concentrate on operational management instead o longer-term strategic andvisionary perspectives.

It seems another paradox that increasing convergence between history and uturesalso increases diversity. It is also good to remember that each decision should beevaluated against the conditions o its time. As FR might put it what were the weaksignals o the past? FR also points out the need to look in the rear-view mirror whiledriving the car into the uture.

In terms o the Waterime project, Futures Research provides an opportunity touse the lessons o the past to improve the quality o decision-making in the uture.Te aim is to demonstrate to stakeholders the role o past decisions in determining and oten limiting the range o options available in the uture, thus underliningthe importance o maintaining both a retrospective and prospective perspective indecision-making.

In the pasts or past presents we have made decisions that either have bound, limitedor postponed our options (Figure 3). Presents are bound by laws and regulations, theircompliancy and enorcement, and political objectives and decisions that inevitablyare related to utures. Futures can be classified as possible, credible, and preerable.Analogies and path dependencies, or instance, link pasts, presents and utures to

each other.Tere are several theories that are applicable to the study City in ime. Yet, in this

context the so-calledpath dependencetheory seems the most useul. Path dependencecontends that decisions made in the past are likely to have long-term impacts on watersystems by binding, limiting or postponing alternative options. As such, path depend-ence is linked to history and utures research and their interaction. Path dependencehas been offered as an alternative analytical perspective or economics, a revolutionaryreormulation o the neoclassical paradigm.


24/255

22


Figure 3.Pasts, presents and futures and their analogical relationships(Kaivo-oja et al. 2004)

Te argument or path dependence is that aminor or fleeting advantage, or a seem-ingly inconsequential lead, or some technology, product or standard can have impor-

tant and irreversible influenceson the ultimate market allocation o resources, even ina world characterised by voluntary decisions and individuals maximizing behaviour.Path dependence literature is accompanied and motivated by mathematical literatureo non-linear dynamic models, known as chaos or complexity models, where a keyfinding is sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Tere are three degreeso pathdependence (Liebowitz and Margolis 1995). Te first one implies no ineffi ciency; thesecond leads to outcomes that are sub-optimal and costly to change; and the third andstrongest degree leads to an ineffi cient outcome.

According to Redding (2002), path dependence can be explained by distinguishing

between undamental and secondary knowledge. Te economy moves endogenouslybetween periods o drastic and nondrastic innovation. A microeconomic rationaleor path dependence provides our eatures o technological change: endogenous in-novation, uncertainty, a distinction between undamental innovation and secondarydevelopment, and imperect spillovers o secondary knowledge. echnological changeand institutional change are the basic keys to social and economic evolution and bothexhibit the characteristics o path dependence (North 1990).

North (1990, vii), one o the pioneers o New Institutional Economics, points outhow history matters as time and context. Tis understanding o history, however,

is seriously deficient in two closely related aspects. On the one hand, despite theirallowance to path dependence, the models and concepts are ahistorical, asocial, timeless,

FUTURES

PRESENTS

PASTS

POSSIBLE CREDIBLE PREFERABLE

LAWS AND REGULATIONS POLITICAL OBJECTIVES AND DECISIONS

DECISIONS MADE* BINDING

LIMITING POSTPONING

* PESTE = POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, TECHNICAL, ECOLOGICAL

PREHISTORY

OF FUTURES

PAST PRESENTS

ANALOGIES


25/255

23

and universal. History, time and context are confined to the random shocks or whateverleads to one rather than another pre-determined, i stochastic, path to be taken.

Because the present is not wholly derived rom the past, an effective decision

maker must balance history with an assessment o the present and uture. In termso organisational memory (Neustadt and May 1986, cited by Walsh & Ungson 1997,194195):

(i) Decisions that are critically considered in terms o an organisations history asthey bear on the present are likely to be more effective than those made in ahistorical vacuum

(ii) Decision choices ramed within the context o an organisations history are lesslikely to meet with resistance than those not so ramed

(iii) Change efforts that ail to consider the inertial orce o automatic retrievalprocesses are more likely to ail than those that do.

In several connections it has been emphasised that history is a scientific story thatin a sensible way combines the past with the present. However, it is less understoodthat in many respects we do not have a single history or present but there are variousintepretations o pasts and presents. In any case, this current pastpresent dichotomycould and should be expanded to cover also the alternatives utures not just one.

Methodology and implementationTis study has progressed through various phases. Since preparing the project pro-posal, research theories combining history research (HR) and utures research (FR)

have been explored and developed (Kaivo-oja et al. 2004), largely motivated by theneeds o City in ime.

Te first phase o the actual study included a literature survey ocusing on public-private cooperation and private involvement in the historical context which started inthe beginning o the Waterime project. In parallel with the literature survey, collectiono basic background data using a standard ormat guideline was carried out. It coveredsuch long-term data as identification o key long-term development phases in the casecountries as well as actors creating demand or water and sewerage services in theearly phase, establishing modern water works, sewerage systems and wastewater

treatment, public-private cooperation and ownership, and total and specific waterconsumption in the case cities. In addition, a standard table ormat was developed toshow the key strategic decisions and events and their reasons, together with contingentoutcomes and organisational changes and the stakeholders involved.

Each o the partners was in charge o collecting the data on their respective casecountries and cities as well as preparing the City in imesections or their case studies.In some cases, access to all these data proved impossible. In addition, the emphasiso this basic data was on case cities and particularly the evolution and key decisionsconcerning water and sewerage services. Tis part o the study was o qualitative nature.

Te research approach can be also seen as constructive since it was largely based oncumulative data and knowledge.


26/255

24


Te aim was to identiy sources that would describe key strategic changes and deci-sions. It proved that the available literature largely describes routine technical expan-sions o the systems. Tereore, a country-ocussed survey on Finland was carried oututilising experts views on the most important long-term strategic decisions related

to water supply and sewerage services (Table 4) to serve as a basic example o a singlecountry. A similar survey on each o the case countries was, however, not ound pos-sible within the limits o the study. As another example, a survey was carried out onthe Finnish case cities to estimate the relative shares o the public and private sectorin terms o the services, equipment and goods produced by the latter (Figure 9).

Based on the views o external peer reviews, partners and steering committee mem-bers, the City in ime report was finalised. Tis study was urther developed into abook by the editors.


27/255

HISTORICAL

DEVELOPMENT

OFWATERANDSANITATIONSERVICES

History never looks like history

when you are living through it. John W. Gardner


28/255

26

HISORICAL DEVELOPMEN OF WAER AND SANIAION SERVICES

Over the centuries, acquisition o water rom rivers, lakes, wells or springs hasbeen a daily chore or mankind. Te water supply network emerged along with theconstruction o cities and villages. Te Romans developed an organised and centralisedsystem o aqueducts, siphons and collection o used water. In the Middle Ages waterwas distributed largely by human intervention partly by private water carriers. Aterthe empirical methods o the 19thcentury, the first modern societies with regard towater supply were born.

From a historical perspective, the current global situation with water is a product

o social, economic, and ideological developments attending the advent o industrysome two hundred years ago within the time period 18002000 o City in ime. Tecurrent predicament is a result o the ragmentation o management and a marketingethos that regards everything as a commodity, and profit as the ultimate objective(Hassan 2001).

Hassan (2001) urther points out that rom a historical perspective, an integrativeethic o water management is needed. First, it is important to transorm the mode omanagement rom technical fixes to community management. Tis means that peoplemust be inormed and included in decision making. Second, the mode must shit rom

the conventional structural engineering approach to an environmental engineeringapproach which considers the viability o local, regional and global regimes. Tird, inaddition to large, hi-tech projects, also small, community projects must be considered.Fourth, the scope o management must be broadened to include the social dimensiono water systems. Fith, global cooperation must be based on an exchange o benefitsand cost-sharing, and finally, sixth, ethical criteria or established priorities must becreated. Although our study concentrates on cities, these overall water managementprinciples are to be kept in mind. Myllyntaus (2004, 11) points out that technologyhas no autonomous power; it is dependent on human decisions and actions. On the

other hand, science, technology and politicaldecisions can help solve environmentalproblems. In the case o water-related problems, technology is not only a culprit butalso a helping hand in fixing those problems.

Te pioneering thinkers in urban planning o the late 1800s can be divided into twogroups: the Anglo-American group and the Continental European group. In Englandand Wales cities began to spread out ater about 1860: first the middle class, and espe-cially ater WWI, the working class began to move out o the inner rings to single-amilyhomes with individual gardens (Hall 1987, 4243). Te same process occurred in mostAmerican cities though in some cases delayed by the great wave o oreign arrivals.Immigrants moved first to the inner rings and later joined the outward movement. Onthe European Continent things went quite differently. Tere industrialisation happenedlater and most o the middle class, and the entire working class, continued to live at


29/255

27

extraordinarily high densities within walking distance o their work. Te result waslarge slum areas in most big European cities. When Continental Europeans began tothink about urban planning, they took this preerence or high-density apartment-living as a starting point. On the other hand, in Finland industrialisation occurred

mainly in new established locations next to water bodies rather than around the bigcities (e.g., Hietala 1987).

In the last 100 years urban planning seems to have come ull circle. Te early phase18801914/22 was ollowed by the stabilisation and expansion phase rom the 1930s tothe 1950s. Tis planning practice was continued until the 1970s. From the early 1900suntil the 1970s the planning o growing urban areas was based on the satellite paradigm.Te change in the 1970s involved, or instance, lengthy discussions on democracy andparticipative planning, although some public hearings had been conducted also earlier.In the 1980s urban centres started to ollow different development patterns. Te generalmarket orientation started to change traditional urban planning systems (Pakarinen1990). More recently, networked inrastructures and technological mobilities have

been stressed in splintering urbanism (Graham & Marvin 2001).

Plate1.A wooden pipe installed in Berlin, Germany in 1572(Photo: Brthel 1997, 21; with the permission of Berlin Wasser)


30/255

28


D WSS

Tis chapter tries to show that the demand or water and sanitation in various coun-

tries and regions was created by actors which had many common as well as differenteatures. Te start o the industrial revolution and the related growth o cities graduallycreated the need or centralised water and sanitation. In many respects, England wasthe orerunner o modern water supply and sanitation systems, but the innovationssoon spread to Germany, other parts o Europe and the US. As the cities o Europegrew, sanitary and environmental problems overwhelmed city governments to a greaterdegree than beore, and modern technology was oten seen as the solution (Hllstrm2002, 17; Juuti 2001). Melosi (2000) shows how European water technology was trans-erred to, and eventually developed, in America.

One o the main eatures o modern water and sewerage technology was the clearlyhigher capacity primarily due to stream-driven pumping technology and cast ironpipes. Tis was linked to the gradual development o water treatment technology aswell as sel-cleaning sewers. Te role and development o municipal organisations wasanother important eature o this development (Hllstrm 2002, 18).

Te establishment o modern water systems was largely based on private initiatives.Yet, the evidently unsatisactory quality o private company supplies led to a re-evalu-ation o the organisational means (Hassan 1998, 18). From 1861 to 1881 the share omunicipal water supply in larger provincial towns in England grew rom 40 to 80 per

cent, and reached some 90 per cent in 1901.Te growth o the urban inrastructure was the most dynamic element o the British

economy rom the 1870s to the 1930s. I housing is ignored, the investments in publichealth, local transport, water, electricity and gas were by the early 1900s as much asone quarter o all capital ormation in Britain (Millward 2000).

In North America a considerable number o urban water supply systems were builtin 18301880 while it proved more diffi cult to und sewerage systems (Ling 2003).Most US citizens drew their drinking water rom private wells or other water sourcesuntil the last quarter o the 19th century. According to some researchers e.g. Joel

A. arr, Stuart Calishoff and Nelson Blake the needs o businesses and industries,real estate owners, fire fighting companies and health authorities hastened the birth owater works, making public works necessary. New York and Chicago, among others,started water acquisition and distribution with the help o private enterprises (Keating1989).

In Rhenish Prussia the rising income o the middle-class voter and demand by in-dustrial users, rather than public health crises, created demand or improved watersupply (Brown 1988). Brown urther points out that historians credit the sanitationrevolution with the decline in mortality, while the spur sanitary reorm gave to mu-

nicipal intervention in local economy through regulation o housing and land marketsand provision o services such as water and sewerage, is less well known.


31/255

29

DIFFUSION OF WSS SERVICES AND MANAGEMEN RADIIONS

Plate 2. Transporting water from Danube in Pest-Buda, Hungary lithographfrom the 19thcentury(Photo: Hungarian Museum of Water Administration)

Hassan (cited by Brown 1988) argues that the demands o industries, such as clothfinishing and dyeworks, persuaded cities to take an active role in water provisionrather than the concern or public health. On the other hand, Gaspari & Wool (1985)show that in 122 cities in the US sewage systems reduced mortality significantly, whilewater filtration systems had no impact. More recent impact studies rom developingcountries show certain variation depending on conditions. Yet, the overall trend is

that improved water supply results in somewhat reduced mortality and the impactsare bigger when sanitation is introduced. Yet, the best results will be gained i healtheducation is also introduced.

In Finland the first water supply and sewerage systems o urban centres in the 1870sto 1890s were in most cases constructed simultaneously although oten under separateorganisations. Tere was demand mainly or fire-fighting water (Hietala 2002; Juuti1993 & 2001), but drinking water supply and sanitation, and in some cases industrialneeds, also played a role. Tus, it is obvious that the impacts o improved water supplyand sanitation depend on local conditions, as does demand.


32/255

30


Historically, Barraqu (2003) recognises three main time-related paradigms in publicwater supply and sanitation: quantitative and civil engineering, qualitative and chemical/sanitary engineering, and the most recent one environmental engineering andintegrated management.

Inrastructure and the built environment o today are the results o decisions andefforts made decades and even centuries ago (Kaijser 2001). Besides, decisions con-cerning building and rebuilding these systems and structures will shape the materialworld o uture generations. Already or some time historians like Melosi (2000) havebeen interested in the concept o path dependence how made decisions bind ouralternative development paths. Tese decisions may be o binding, limiting or post-poning nature (Kaivo-oja et al. 2004).

ypology of water institutions in selected European countries

It is important to understand the current differences and culturesin water resources andservices management and their historical background. Barraqu (2003) has ormulateda rough typology o water resources management and institutional cultures in Europe.Tis typology is based on Germanic vs. Roman legal origin and, on the other hand,centralised vs. subsidiary (decentralised) tradition (Table 2). Te only three statescovered by river-basin institutions are the ones that have historically been centralisedmonarchies: Spain, England/Wales, and France. Yet, they have evolved differently.Besides, in some countries river basin authorities, like those in the Nordic counties,have been ormed on a voluntary basis.

Table 2.A rough typology of water institutional cultures in Europe(Barraqu 2003, modified by the authors)

(Predominantly) ROMAN ORIGIN GERMANIC ORIGINCENTRALISED Spain England

SUBSIDIARY Portugal, ItalyNetherlands, GermanyNordic countries

In England and Wales water resources policy has been centralised in the postwarperiod, particularly ater the introduction o River Basin Authorities in 1963. Watersupply and sewerage systems became centralised in 1974 with the establishment o tenRegional Water Authorities. Te more recent extreme example o water privatisationduring Prime Minister Tatchers regime (19791990) sets England and Wales clearlyapart rom other European countries.

Spain, Portugal and Italy have systems built on Roman law, while those o England,the Netherlands and Germany are based on Germanic law. In Spain, Portugal andItaly the political history o the 20thcentury explains also largely the ways and empha-

sis o water resources management. Germany has a long tradition o local drainageassociations, while river basin management has not been institutionalised except or


33/255

31


the amous Ruhrgenossenschat. Due to the strong subsidiarity, water policy is in thehands o 16 Lnder (states) rather than with the Bund (ederation). In the Netherlandshistorical development has led to water-user associations, and around 2000 waste-water management is largely based on water boards (Uijterlinde et al. 2003). Te Nordic

countries are perhaps the ones with the strongest subsidiary tradition and do thus allin the same category with the Netherlands and Germany.

According to Barraqu (2003), it is diffi cult to place France in any o these categories.On the one hand, France is clearly a ollower o Roman law and the centralised tradi-tion. Yet, the six water basin authorities have become largely subsidiary institutions.As or water services, the role o municipalities has declined over time. Several CentralEuropean, as well as the Baltic, countries were subject to the highly centralised Soviettradition o state water management ater WWII. It will be interesting to see to whatextent they will go back to the municipal tradition, or whether they will choose the

private company tradition or the short or long term.Although the typology described above applies mainly to water resources manage-

ment, it also explains the differences in subsidiarity tradition, and thus the role o localgovernments. Tis difference is crucial when we take a closer look at the evolutionand strategic decisions concerning the management options or water and sewerageservices.

Water regimes in selected European countriesA comparative survey o regime development in water management in six European

countries Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland was madeby Kuks (2004). Te survey ocused on the main regime transitions in each countryand explains what has actually changed in terms o water rights and water policies.

In the early 19thcentury many countries adopted a new constitution and civil code,which ormed the start o a simple water regime. In the selected countries the period18001900 was identified more or less as one o a simple regime. During the period19001950 these regimes developed into regimes of low complexity. In the period19501985 the complexity increases and the period can be divided into one o me-dium complexity(19501970) and one o high complexity(19701985). From 1985

onwards many attempts at integrationwere seen in the various countries. Tereorethe period 19852000 was characterised as one o attempts at integration, althoughit was a period o high complexity or most countries. Te Netherlands, France andSwitzerland attempted integration relatively early, while Belgium, Spain and Italyare lagging behind in very different ways (Kuks 2004). Although this classificationemphasises water resources management, it also reflects water and sewerage servicesand their development.


34/255

32


European traditions in legal and administrative systemsAn interesting comparison between the European countries by Newman and Tornley(1996) presents five amilies in terms o their legal and administrative traditions.Tey argue that there is general agreement in the literature that European countriesall into five key categories: British, Napoleonic, Germanic, Scandinavian and EastEuropean (Figure 4).

According to Newman and Tornley (1996, 30), the British legal style is largely iso-lated rom the others. Yet, the Scottish legal system maintained its identity becauseScotland was an independent kingdom until the early 18thcentury. In contrast to theisolated development o English law, Scottish law developed into a combination o localcustomary law and Roman law. Tis also partly explains the act that water services inScotland have developed somewhat differently rom those o England and Wales.

TeNapoleonic legal family, originating in France, is the largest in Europe in termso the number o member countries. Tis legal style has the tendency to use abstractlegal norms and enjoy greater theoretical debate than the British style. On the Conti-nent, the great jurists have been proessors while those in England have been judges.Te aim has been to think about matters in advance based on a complete set o rulesdrawn rom abstract principles.

Te enduring nature o the commune as a basic building block o local administrationstill has considerable importance in France, Belgium and Switzerland. Administra-tive systems placing importance on the local commune are likely to have numerousauthorities at the lowest possible level. Te commune originally derived rom the

administrative structures o the Catholic Church. In any case, the historical roots andvarious paths to democracy led to different administrative structures (Benney, citedby Newman & Tornley 1996, 32).

Te Germanic legal family, including Germany, Austria and Switzerland, is regardedby Newman and Tornley (1996, 3334) as a distinctive branch o the Napoleonicone. In Germany there was no central power to impose a unified legal system likethere was in England and France. Tus, the existing law in Germany became moreand more obsolete, and there was no authority to rationalise the various existinglaws. Most continental countries had already developed their codes by the time the

German one was ormulated. Yet, the German code influenced considerably thosein Eastern Europe. Te German Constitution is a ederal one where the central stateshares power with the regions (Lnder) which have their own constitutions that varybetween regions. For historical reasons there are also some ree-standing cities likeHamburg and Bremen.

TeNordic legal family(Nordic is a more accurate term than Scandinavian as usedby Newman & Tornley: authors note) includes Denmark, Finland, Norway and Swe-den. Tis amily is clearly different rom the British one and closer to the other two. Tehistoric dealings between Nordic countries were largely based on conquests by the Dan-

ish and Swedish empires. In medieval times Nordic laws were based on Germanic lawbut were later influenced by the French revolution. owards the end o the 19thcenturycooperation between Scandinavian lawyers increased. Te Nordic region developed


35/255


36/255

34


its own path. Te administrative structure o the amily is regarded a hybrid: the centralgovernment normally has its own agency operating at the regional level. Althoughlocal authorities have gradually been reorganised into larger units over the years,local sel-government has a long history and is seen as one o the cornerstones o

the Scandinavian constitutions (Newman & Tornley 1996, 3435). Nygrd (2004b)suggests that Finnish health legislation was largely based on the English and otherScandinavian countries tradition until 1927, while the municipal legislation ollowedmainly the German (Prussian) tradition.

InEastern Europe, rom the end o WWII to the early 1990s, administrative systemswere highly centralised. Te uniorm idea o state authority gave no room or localpolicies. Although each country wants to and seems to proceed along its own path, acommon past is likely to cause similarities (Newman & Tornley, 3536). As or waterservices, at least the East European countries seem to have selected several paths in

the 1990s ater the collapse o the Soviet Union. Within the Baltic Sea catchment areathe so-called HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) has promoted water pollution controlactivities since 1974 while the actual improvement o the so-called hot-spots startedin the early 1990s. In that connection the Nordic and German governments, amongothers, supported the improvement o water and sewage utilities in the Baltic region.Cities like Stockholm, Helsinki, Hmeenlinna, Oslo and Copenhagen were involved intwinning activities with their counterparts in the Baltic regions, such as the Waterimecase cities o allinn and Kaunas. (HELCOM 2004)

When comparing the trends and developments o local governments in Europe, Bat-

ley (1991, 216) recognised three main types o reorms in terms o service delivery. Oneis the trend to expand the role o local government, and to ree it rom restrictions: ex-amples are the shit to general grants in the Netherlands and Norway; a more dramaticone is the deregulation and ree commune experiments in Scandinavia. Te secondtype relates to the improvement o public service practices including, e.g., the settingo perormance standards, staff training or greater responsiveness, strengthening userinfluence and neighbourhood decentralisation. Te third one is the incorporation obusiness methods and competitive practices into the public sector, such as devolutiono budget responsibilities, contracting out and charging ees or services.

In the early 1990s, according to Batley (1991), a clear distinction was made betweenthe services where contracting out, ranchising and business methods are appropriateand those that should remain under direct administration or the voluntary sector.

At the same time Stoker (1991) pointed out how the establishment o local govern-ment in Eastern Europe is seen as central or establishing and maintaining a democraticprocess. Stoker also reminded how post-war growth in public spending, especially inconnection with the welare state, increased service provision and local governmentactivities. Yet, the more diffi cult economic climate rom the mid-1970s on led to aconcern about public spending. However, as Stoker (1991) mentions, the challenge

o local government is broader than the fiscal crisis a wider economic and socialchange affecting the operational environment o local governments. Te challenge ac-ing local government is to find more responsive and effective organisational orms.


37/255

35


Te European comparison o local governments (Stoker 1991, 4) confirmed thegeneral message that there are alternative routes to making local government moreopen, responsive and effective. Considering the changing nature o centrallocalrelations, three models o relationships were presented. First, the relative autonomymodel, which gives independence to local authorities while not denying the realityo the nation-state. Here local authorities raise most o their revenue through directtaxation. Second, the agency modelwhere mainly local authorities carry out the centralgovernments policies which are ensured by detailed specification in legislation. Tird,the interaction modelwhere the spheres o action o central and local government arediffi cult to define because they involve a complex pattern o relationships emphasisingmutual influence.

In the early 1990s most o Europe was moving down the path o greater decentralisa-tion. Te establishment o viable local democracy was seen vital in Spain and Italy, while

France and Italy had also undertaken decentralisation measures. Te Nordic countrieshave traditionally had a local government ocus. Stoker (1991) argues that Britain incontrast was moving in the opposite direction towards a more centralised systemwhere local government would have more o an agency status. Such power relationsbetween the central and local governments and the clear differences in their traditionsand present status should also be kept in mind when thinking o the key long-termchanges in water services. Globalisation, European integration, and the developmentsin Eastern Europe in the 1990s have also influenced these patterns.

All in all, it is obvious that the different legal and administrative traditions, ami-

lies, related to urban planning, as well as the trends and changes in the roles o localgovernments in different regions and countries, certainly also have implications orthe development o water and sewerage services and thus sustainable decision-makingin the long-term. Historical traditions have obviously also influenced how services,including water and sewerage, have developed and are managed even today.

rends in urban planningUrban plannersoten point out that, in act, water and sanitation have oten been thefirst public inrastructure systems and services in urban areas.

In the last 100 years urban planning seems to have come ull circle. According toPakarinen (1990), so-called modern urban planning covers the period rom the mid-1800s until today, although the history o urban building goes ar back in history. Teearly phase o modern urban planning is placed between 18701914/1922, ollowed bythe expansion phase rom the 1930s to the 1950s. Te practise was continued until the1970s, while criticism was also presented. Te change in the 1970s involved, or instance,lengthy discussions on democracy and participative planning. By the 1980s most agreedthat urban planning was in a crisis. In the early phase urban planning was seen moreas a physical planning exercise which could ignore all social aspects. Te planning o

growing urban centres was or long based on the so-called satellite paradigm. Ten,the participatory planning approach was introduced. In the 1980s, instead o unified


38/255

36


planning approaches, communities set out on different development paths. Tis wasollowed by the introduction o market economics and approaches that were loomingalready at the turn o the 1990s. In the 1980s urban studies started to pay attention tolocal governments and communities.

As or the history o urban planning, Pakarinen (1990) recognises two major tradi-tions: the German and the Anglo-American one. In the German tradition urban plan-ning is seen as an applied science, while the Anglo-American tradition pays more atten-tion to policies and policy changes. Peter Hall (cited by Pakarinen, 1990) calls the latestplanning phase city enterprise. By 1990 the emphasis on reormist regulation startedclearly to give way to the promotion o market economics. According to Kurunmki(2005, 1920) urban planning in recent decades has shited rom town planning tourban development, the latter described by the concepts o policy-implementation,structure-agency, government-governance, and public-private relations.

Cultures and organisationsManagement cultures are described shortly next based on the amous studies oHostede (1994) who has since the 1960s done research on cultural differences theimpact o national cultural differences on the way the people in a country organisethemselves. Hostede has identified our key dimensions and indices o national culture:power distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity and emininity, and uncer-tainty avoidance.Power distanceis defined as the extent to which the less powerulmembers o institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that

power is distributed unequally, while uncertainty avoidancereers to the extent towhich the members o a culture eel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations.Femininity, in this context, stands or a society in which social gender roles overlap:both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender and concerned with thequality o lie.Masculinity, again, reers to a society with clearly distinct roles wheremen are supposed to be assertive, tough and ocused on material success (Hostede1994, 261262).

With the risk o oversimpliying the findings o Hostede, Figure 5 presents thestate o 50 countries and three regions in relation to masculinityemininity and

individualismcollectivism. Te upper hal o the diagram contains the collectivistcountries, and the lower hal the individualist ones. While masculine countries tendto resolve international conflicts by fighting, eminine countries preer compromiseand negotiation. It also shows the remarkable differences between the case countrieso this study.

Hostede (1994) has urther located a number o characteristics known rom or-ganisation literature and projected them onto a power distance-uncertainty avoidancematrix (Figure 6).

Figure 6indicates that mutual adjustment is in line with the market model o or-

ganisations and ad hoc negotiations in the Anglo countries. Standardisation o skillsis typical o countries like Germany and Switzerland, while standardisation o workprocesses fits the French concept o bureaucracy. Direct supervision is applied incountries like China, and standardisation o outputs is preerred in the US. Whatever


39/255

37


Figure 5.The position of 50 countries and 3 regions on themasculinityfemininity and individualismcollectivism axes(From Hofstede G. 1994. Cultures and organisations. Intercultural cooperationand its importance for survival. Software of the mind. Harper Collins Business.pp. 99, reproduced with permission from Geert Hofstede BV.)

the truth, the above studies in any case show remarkable variations in cultures andorganisations. Hostede (1994, 236) points out that the main cultural differencesamong nations lie in values. Research on these values has shown repeatedly that thereis very little evidence of international convergence over time, except for an increase of

individualism for countries that have become richer. Tus, in spite o globalisationand increased contacts, the value differences described a century ago still existed in2000, and, according to Hostede, that cultural diversity will remain or the next ewhundred years.

Water being largely a local issue, it is no wonder that even in a country like Finland,with only five million people, different cultures exist. It proves that the managementmethods ound appropriate in one environment do not necessarily fit others.

Individualismindex

05

10

20

30

CollectivistFeminine

40

50

60

70

90

80

100

IndividualistFeminine

1009080706050403020100

CollectivistMasculine

IndividualistMasculine

Masculinity index

COS

CHL PORYUG

GUAPAN

PAKIDOPER

THATAI

SAL SINHOK

KORWAF

EAF MAL

EQAVEN

COL

MEXPHI

URU TURIRA BRA

GREARA

ARGIND

SPAISR

SAF

JAM

AUT

GERSWI

IRE

ITA

NOR

FIN

SWEDEN

NET

FRABEL

JPN

NZLCAN

GBRAUL

USA


40/255

38


Figure 6The preferredconfigurations according toHenry Mintzberg projected

onto a power distance uncertainty avoidancematrix with a typical countryfor each configuration(From Hofstede G. 1994.Cultures and organisations.Intercultural cooperationand its importance forsurvival. Software of themind. Harper Collins

Business. p. 152, reproducedwith permission from GeertHofstede BV.)

GREATBRITAIN

GERMANY

CHINA

FRANCE

1. Adhocracy2. Mutual adjustment3. Support staff

Low1. Simple struc ture2. Direct superv ision3. Strategic apex

1. Professional bureaucracy2. Standardization of skills3. Operating core

1. Full bureaucracy2. Standardization of work processes3. Technostructure

High

Uncertaintyavoidance

Low HighPower distance

1. Preferred confi guration

3. Key part of organization

2. Preferred coordination mechanism

1. Divisionalized form2. Standardization of outputs3. Middle line

USA

echnological trajectoriesOne example o technological trajectories in water supply and sanitation is the use olead pipes. Te technology needed in manuacturing lead products was quite simple,and consequently lead was widely used already during antiquity. For instance, in theRoman World between about 200 BC and 500 AD roughly 18 million tons o lead wasmined (Nriagu 1983, 205). Te water distribution systems o Roman cities includeda lot o lead pipes although some ancient authors (e.g. Vitruvius, Galen) expressedreservations against their use. Due to the differences in Roman and modern waterdistribution systems, it is probable that lead contamination o water was not a seriousproblem during the Roman Era. Te use o lead in plumbing systems was also popularin Europe during the Middle Ages and later. Concerns about lead exposure rom leaden

plumbing systems have been expressed since the 16thcentury (Nriagu 1985). Despiteseveral reports o waterborne plumbism, especially in the 19thcentury, the use o leadin plumbing systems continued. In the early 2000s there is a growing concern aboutthe use o lead pipes in house connections in many o the pioneering countries o waterservices, in Europe and North America, as well as in ormer colonies. Tis shows thelong-term effects certain strategic decisions may have.

Tis introduction to legal and administrative traditions, trends in urban planning,differences in cultures and organisations, and the example o a technological trajectorybrings us to considering how the roles o the public and private sector have changed

over the years in Europe as well as a wider international context in water servicesdelivery.


41/255

39

PUBLIC-PRIVAE COOPERAION IN HISORICAL PERSPECIVE

P Although public-private cooperation and related issues are not defined as the onlystrategic decisions to be considered in this study, they oten seem to be the only ones

o strategic importance that have been written about.Tere are examples o cities involvement through some level o water services

provision already rom the Middle Ages. It may have occurred in the orm o publicwells or, like in the case o allinn, the services o water carriers that were paid by thetown council in the 1330s. As or disposal, the so-called Lbeck Act was adopted inallinn in 1257. Tis Act stated how toilets and pigsties were to be located in relationto streets and neighbouring bounds (Kaljundi 1997).

In the mid-1800s most western nations, i not all, started to develop urban waterand sewerage services through privately owned companies or private operators. Yet,

in most countries the utilities were airly soon taken over by municipalities. Only inFrance private operators, such as Veolia Water (earlier Vivendi and the CompagnieGnrale des Eaux), have survived and expanded since 1853. Tis is largely due tothe act that in 2000 France still had some 36,000 municipalities. It is very diffi cult toimagine individual municipality-owned utilities managing their water services. Tereare several other policy instruments that have avoured, and still avour, the use oprivate operators. In some places, such as Barcelona and Venice, private companieshave maintained concessions or over a century.

One o the basic tenets o water and sewerage services (WSS) is that the WSS

inrastructure is a natural monopoly a concept introduced by John Stuart Mill(18061873) in 1848 (Sharkey 1982, 14). Accordingly, it is easible to construct onlyone such system per service area.

From early concessions and operators to public utilities, 1800s to theearly 1900s

Te first modern water systems were built on the basis o builder-owner or concessionmodels in many European countries, and particularly in North America. In most cases,however, municipalities soon took over these water and sewerage systems. For exam-

ple, in the early 20th

century, 93 per cent o the systems in German urban centres weremunicipal, as were all the urban WSS systems in Sweden and Finland (Wuolle 1912).During the 19thcentury, the previously private systems came under public ownershipand public provision because o the ineffi ciency, costs and corruption connected tothem. In the late 19thcentury, the emphasis was on municipalisation. Democraticallyelected city councils bought existing utilities and transport systems and set up newones o their own. Tis resulted in more effective control, higher employment, andgreater benefits to the local people. Councils also gained the right to borrow moneyto invest in the development o their own systems (Hall 2003, 7).

In the middle o the 1800s a clear distinction developed between the public/generaland private spheres o society. Te private sphere was considered to consist o privatesocial groupings individuals, amilies and local communities. Local level services


42/255

40


were largely managed by private entrepreneurs because there was hardly any legislationon local governments. Te state could have an impact on these matters only throughlegislation, such as the acts enacted in the 1860s and 1870s (Kilander 1991, cited byNygrd 2004a, 164; Nelson & Rogers 1994, 27).

Nelson & Rogers (1994) point out the background and birth o the First Public HealthLaw in Sweden that came into orce in 1874. Initially it was clearly influenced by theBritish Public Health Act o 1848. Te committee drating the 1874 Act consideredthe promotion o preventive health care o utmost importance. Along with the Act,or instance, public health boards became compulsory in each town. Te Swedish Actalso served as a model or the Health Decree o 1879 in Finland (Nygrd 2004b).

Yet, in historical context it i

Water, Time and European Cities

Documents

Transcript of Water, Time and European Cities