Consumer participation in water Robin Simpson Consumers International

Consumer participation Formal representation; ongoing and episodic; eg concession agreements campaigns by associations physical participation – self build/self management dispute resolution individual consumer responsibility

Formal participation EU level Amsterdam Treaty: Art 153 (ex Art 129a) “to promote the interests of consumers and to ensure a high level of consumer protection, the Community shall contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers, as well as to promoting their right to information, education and to organise themselves in order to safeguard their interests”.

integration Amsterdam Treaty (continued) Art 153: para 2: “Consumer protection requirements shall be taken into account in defining and implementing other Community policies and activities”. Water Framework Directive

Terms of reference Domestic consumers (small businesses?) Price - including review process (social tariffs) Quality: a) of product: eg, potability; b) of service eg: continuity of supply Coverage; universal service Contract terms: a)individual;b) collective Complaints Other services: (eg district heating)

principles Geographically rational (water specific) independence (conflicts of interest) research capacity freedom of information (access and disclosure; e.g concession terms); EU Transparency Directive 2000/52 right of appeal against regulatory decisions resources for above; funding methods

Representation EU – Water Framework Directive national – inside/outside regulators office Regional – French river basin parliaments Municipal -US/Argentina – local public hearings Macedonia - Skopje municipal consumer protection committee Representation of non-connected

Campaigns At critical decision time; eg metering or privatisation or concession Brazil - model concessions. Brazilian Consumers Institute. Privatisation postponed in Rio; Bulgaria - court challenge to Sofia city to honour terms of concession held by International Water Cochabamba – La Paz Should consumers demand higher prices? Russia – KONFOP (see below)

Russia-KONFOP Accept eventual 100% cost recovery; on condition that: contractual rights for individuals transparency of regulation social guarantees payment for actual service provided

Hungary Low level of consumer involvement Contrasting models of municipal control; 1994 elections; high public profile Szeged – private contract Debrecen – municipal enterprise Results positive in both cases – prices,quality, network, working conditions Explanation – transparency

Physical participation/self build- self management Self build projects for network extension eg:Lima; Villa El Salvador-security of tenure right to tariff discount for labour eg, Colombia Full cost recovery- Karachi, Manila

Asking people nicely Abidjan Tbilisi Drought notices – v - public appeals

Dispute resolution defensor del pueblo - Peru, Salvador regulator - UK consumer court - India conciliation board – Hungary, Consumer Protection office –Latvia; Housing Maintenance Office -Ukraine FSU - collective cut offs for individual non- payment. Macedonian Ombudsman declared illegal.

Responsibilities of individual consumers Low levels of payment – downward spiral Macedonia - 50% Georgia 20-50%;Lima - 50%; Haskovo, Bulgaria – 15% & closure of DH. Non-payment by industry & government danger of collective punishment - Georgia Need to support ‘public ethic’ of consumers through universal payments – reduces need for tariff increases

Future liberalisation WTO - GATS – General Agreement on Trade in Services Confusion over jurisdiction Regulation only ‘to the extent necessary’ Definition of public service Doha ministerial declaration 2001 Global competition policy?

Ownership & representation England – asset sale France – concession, affermage Wales – ‘public interest’; assumption of risk Central/Eastern Europe – district heating/water systems – is unbundling needed?

Summary-levels of participation Global EU National Regional/municipal Local Individual