1. Models of Aggregation for Water Supply and Sanitation Provision
Capacity Building Module
Case Studies

2. Case studies France Philippines Hungary Brazil Italy The Netherlands
England and Wales

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Consortium & Convenzione, Italy
Drivers
Efficiency, political ( compliance with EU standards)
Constraints
Local political resistance, vested private sector interests
Scale
No standard size, 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

8. 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

9. 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