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 elsewhere Voting: mixed (max 50% seats for larger municipalities; min one seat per municipality) Harmonization: working towards harmonized tariffs and services For description see annex C of aggregation report

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 entity Exit: municipalities can exit / cannot be dispelled Voting: by # of connections or assets (problematic at times) Harmonization: uniform tariffs For description see annex C of aggregation report

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 government Originally 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 budget Harmonization: working towards uniform tariff For description see annex C of aggregation report

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 place Harmonization: uniform tariffs For description see annex C of aggregation report

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) For description see annex C of aggregation report

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 For description see annex C of aggregation report

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 For description see annex C of aggregation report Note: RWAs were divested to the private sector in 1989