Privatização da água

A privatização da água é a abertura de participações do setor privado no abastecimento de água e saneamento básico.

Essa prática possui uma história prolongada, marcada por variações de popularidade e favorabilidade no mercado e na política. Uma das formas mais usuais de privatização é a parceria público-privada (PPPs). As PPPs permitem uma mistura entre propriedade pública e privada e/ou gestão de fontes e infra-estruturas de água e saneamento. A privatização, como defendem os proponentes, pode não só aumentar a eficiência e a qualidade do serviço, mas também aumentar os benefícios fiscais. Há diferentes formas de regulação em vigor para os atuais sistemas de privatização.

A participação do setor privado no abastecimento de água e saneamento é controversa. Os defensores da participação do setor privado argumentam que esta conduziu a melhorias na eficiência e qualidade de serviço dos serviços de utilidade pública. Argumenta-se que tem aumentado o investimento e contribuído para a expansão do acesso. Citam Manila, Guayaquil no Equador, Bucareste, várias cidades na Colômbia e Marrocos, bem como a Costa do Marfim e o Senegal como histórias de sucesso.

Os críticos, contudo, argumentam que a participação do sector privado levou a aumentos tarifários, e os sistemas de água privatizados são incompatíveis com a garantia do direito humano internacional à água, com a crença de que a água pública deixará de ser pública. As privatizações abortadas em Cochabamba, Bolívia, e Dar es-Salaam, Tanzânia, bem como os sistemas de água geridos pelo setor privado em Jacarta e Berlim, são destacados como fracassos. Descata-se o exemplo da Áustria que proibiu no ano de 2019, a privatização do abastecimento de água em sua constituição.

Números delineando a acessibilidade da água do setor privado também mostram a controvérsia das fontes privadas de água: uma fonte afirma que 909 milhões de pessoas foram atendidas por "atores privados" em 2011 globalmente, acima dos 681 milhões de pessoas em 2007. Este número inclui pessoas atendidas por empresas públicas que apenas terceirizaram o financiamento, construção e operação de parte de seus ativos, tais como água ou estações de tratamento de esgoto, para o setor privado.

O Banco Mundial estimou que a população urbana atendida diretamente por operadores privados de água nos países em desenvolvimento era muito menor, em 170 milhões de pessoas em 2007. Entre eles, apenas cerca de 15 milhões de pessoas, todas vivendo no Chile, são servidas por empresas privadas de serviços públicos. Empresas privadas, mas de propriedade pública, atendem o restante sob contratos de concessão, arrendamento e gestão.

História

Hampton Waterworks em Londres fizeram parte dos ativos vendidos em 1989 como parte da privatização do abastecimento de água na Inglaterra

As concessionárias privadas de água eram comuns na Europa, Estados Unidos e América Latina em meados e fins do século XIX. Sua importância foi se desvanecendo gradualmente até o início do século 20, pois se mostraram incapazes de expandir o acesso e as concessionárias públicas se tornaram mais fortes. Um segundo alvorecer global das concessionárias privadas de água veio no início dos anos 90, após as privatizações de Thatcher na Inglaterra e no País de Gales, a queda do comunismo e a consequente ênfase global nas políticas de mercado livre. O Banco Mundial e o Fundo Monetário Internacional desempenharam um papel importante neste processo através da condicionalidade de seus empréstimos. Na Inglaterra e no País de Gales, o surgimento das primeiras empresas privadas de água remonta ao século XVII. Em 1820, seis empresas privadas de água operavam em Londres. Entretanto, a participação de mercado das empresas privadas de água em Londres diminuiu de 40% em 1860 para 10% em 1900. Na década de 1980, sua participação em toda a Inglaterra e País de Gales era de cerca de 25%. A maré mudou completamente em 1989, quando o governo conservador de Margaret Thatcher privatizou todas as empresas de água e esgoto na Inglaterra e no País de Gales, entretanto na Escócia, o Partido Trabalhista em poder, manteve os sistemas de água em mãos públicas.

O abastecimento de água de Paris foi operado por duas empresas privadas de 1985 a 2010, cada uma servindo a metade da cidade.

Na França sempre foi caracterizado por uma coexistência de gestão pública e privada, com suas respectivas ações flutuando ao longo do tempo. As duas maiores empresas privadas são a Veolia Environnement, e a Suez Environnement. No final do século XIX, os governos municipais, insatisfeitos com as altas tarifas e a falta de expansão das redes para bairros pobres, não renovaram as concessões privadas e criaram, em vez disso, concessionárias municipais. A participação das operadoras privadas de água caiu para 17% em 1936. A participação do setor privado aumentou gradualmente para 32% em 1954, 50% em 1975, e 80% em 2000, utilizando um novo modelo.

Em vez dos contratos de concessão, que davam a responsabilidade de financiar investimentos à empresa privada, os novos contratos de arrendamento (affermages) tornaram o operador privado responsável apenas pela operação e manutenção, enquanto que os grandes investimentos passaram a ser de responsabilidade dos municípios. As empresas francesas de água também escaparam das nacionalizações após a guerra e mais tarde sob o Presidente François Mitterrand, porque o governo central não queria interferir na autonomia dos municípios e não estava disposto a financiar investimentos pesados. O abastecimento de água de Paris foi privatizado em 1985, quando um prefeito conservador concedeu dois contratos de arrendamento, cada um cobrindo metade da cidade. Em 2010, um prefeito socialista remunerou o sistema de abastecimento de água da capital francesa.

O abastecimento de água de Barcelona é administrado por uma empresa privada, a Aguas de Barcelona, desde 1867.

Enquanto isso, o setor de água na Espanha, as empresas privadas de água mantiveram sua posição, iniciando a tendência global no final do século XIX e início do século XX. A maior empresa privada de água da Espanha é a Águas de Barcelona. Inicialmente criada por investidores franceses e belgas, foi vendida a investidores espanhóis em 1920, apenas para voltar gradualmente ao controle francês no início do século 21.

Na Alemanha, uma empresa privada britânica de água tinha instalado o primeiro sistema de água encanada e estação de tratamento em Berlim em 1852, mas a cidade, insatisfeita com a falta de investimento em particular em esgoto, cancelou o contrato em 1873. Em 1887 foi criada a Gelsenwasser AG, que continua sendo um importante fornecedor regional de água no distrito do Ruhr. O setor hídrico alemão sempre foi dominado por empresas municipais. Apesar disso, o sistema de água de Berlim foi parcialmente privatizado em 1999 por razões fiscais.

Nos Estados Unidos, 60% dos sistemas de água encanada eram de propriedade privada em 1850. No entanto, esta participação caiu para 30% em 1924. A partir de 2010, 2000 instalações de água e esgoto nos Estados Unidos foram operadas sob parcerias público-privadas, um esforço conjunto entre o grupo privado e o município em que estava operando.

No Chile, a ditadura de Pinochet estabeleceu a Constituição de 1980, incluindo as leis da água, que é a base dos sistemas hídricos do Chile. Além disso, o governo promulgou o Código da Água de 1981, um regime legal que decide eliminar o envolvimento do governo no controle do sistema hídrico e permitir que os cidadãos possuam direitos de exploração dos recursos hídricos. Ao estabelecer este Código de Águas, o governo do Chile conseguiu a privatização da água, e este regime ainda está em vigor. Hoje, o governo reduziu seu poder na administração dos recursos hídricos; portanto, 90% do abastecimento de água potável do Chile é controlado pelas corporações transnacionais. Entretanto, este sistema de água causa o desequilíbrio da distribuição dos direitos de água no Chile. Por exemplo, como o Código da Água permite que as empresas explorem os recursos hídricos, 71% dos recursos hídricos do Chile são utilizados na irrigação, o que equivale ao consumo anual de 243 milhões de lares. A distribuição desigual dos direitos da água induz à escassez dos recursos hídricos dos cidadãos chilenos, particularmente na seca.

Manifestação em Joanesburgo, contra a privatização da água, dezembro de 2008

Empresas privadas de água européias e locais expandiram-se na América Latina, África e Ásia na segunda metade do século XIX, enquanto sua importância diminuiu na Europa. No Uruguai, o abastecimento de água foi administrado privadamente de 1867 a 1950; em Buenos Aires, Argentina, por um breve período de 1887 a 1891 e novamente de 1993 a 2006; no Cairo e Alexandria, Egito, de 1867 a 1956; em Beirute, Líbano, do século XIX até 1951; em Xangai, China, de 1875 a 1949; em Casablanca, Marrocos, de 1914 a 1962 e novamente após 1997; no Senegal até 1971 e novamente após 1996; e na Costa do Marfim desde a época colonial até hoje sem interrupção.

Na Europa Central e Oriental, após a queda do comunismo, as empresas privadas expandiram-se durante o final dos anos 1990, especialmente na Bulgária, Chéquia, Hungria e Romênia.

No entanto, algumas privatizações da água fracassaram, principalmente em 2000 em Cochabamba, Bolívia, abrindo caminho para um novo pragmatismo e uma ênfase reduzida na privatização, e em 2019, a Áustria proibiu a privatização do fornecimento de água através de sua constituição.

Formas de privatizatição

Em termos gerais, há duas formas de participação do setor privado no abastecimento de água e saneamento. Em uma privatização total, os ativos são permanentemente vendidos a um investidor privado. Em uma parceria público-privada, a propriedade dos ativos permanece pública e apenas certas funções são delegadas a uma empresa privada por um período específico. A privatização total do abastecimento de água e saneamento é hoje uma exceção, estando limitada à Inglaterra, Chile e algumas cidades dos Estados Unidos. As parcerias público-privadas (PPPs) são a forma mais comum de participação do setor privado no abastecimento de água e saneamento atualmente.

As três formas mais comuns de PPPs, na ordem de responsabilidades crescentes para o parceiro privado, são:

• Concessão, sob a qual o operador privado é responsável pelo funcionamento de todo o sistema. O investimento é financiado em sua maioria ou integralmente e realizado pelo operador privado. A duração é normalmente de 20-30 anos.
• Contrato de gestão, sob o qual o operador privado é responsável apenas pelo funcionamento do sistema, em troca de uma taxa que, em certa medida, está relacionada ao desempenho. O investimento é financiado e realizado pelo setor público. A duração é normalmente de 4-7 anos.
• Contrato de arrendamento, sob o qual os ativos são arrendados ao operador privado que recebe uma parte das receitas. Assim, normalmente, ele suporta um risco comercial maior do que sob um contrato de administração. O investimento é total ou majoritariamente financiado e realizado pelo setor público. A duração é tipicamente de 10-15 anos.
• Empresa de economia mista na qual um investidor privado assume uma participação minoritária em uma empresa de água com total responsabilidade gerencial investida no parceiro privado.

As concessões são a forma mais comum de PPPs em abastecimento de água e saneamento. Elas são seguidas por arrendamentos, também chamados affermages, mais comumente usados na França e na África Ocidental francófona. Os contratos de gestão são utilizados na Arábia Saudita, Argélia e Armênia, entre outros. As empresas de propriedade mista são mais comuns na Espanha, Colômbia e México.

Uma concessão para a construção de uma nova fábrica é chamada de contrato de Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT). Sob um contrato BOT, o operador privado assina um acordo com uma concessionária que compra serviços de tratamento de água ou de tratamento de esgoto.

Motivos para a Privatização

Os motivos para a privatização da água variam de um caso para outro, e muitas vezes determinam qual o modo de privatização escolhido: os contratos de gestão e locação são usados para aumentar a eficiência e melhorar a qualidade do serviço, enquanto as vendas de ativos e concessões visam principalmente reduzir a carga financeira ou expandir o acesso. Motivos ideológicos e influências externas também desempenham um papel, com a ideologia liberal de mercado favorecendo a privatização, ideologias de esquerda se opõem, e tanto conservadores como centristas se situam no meio, muitas vezes baseados em considerações locais e comerciais. Normalmente, vários dos motivos acima são combinados.

Incremento da eficiência e melhoria da qualidade do serviço

A privatização da água é vista por alguns como uma solução para melhorar os sistemas públicos de abastecimento de água mal administrados. Os sintomas de má administração podem incluir baixa cobrança de contas de água, altas perdas de água (conhecidas como água sem receita) e fornecimento intermitente de água, às vezes durando apenas algumas horas por dia ou alguns dias por semana. Na Argélia, Arábia Saudita, Colômbia e Cuba, aumentar a eficiência e melhorar a qualidade do serviço foram os principais motivos para a privatização da água. Nesses casos, o argumento para privatizar a água é baseado na crença de que, adotando uma abordagem baseada no mercado para a gestão da água, o prestador de serviços será incentivado pelo lucro para aumentar a eficiência e melhorar a qualidade do serviço.

Alguns críticos argumentam que esta crença é mal orientada porque o setor de abastecimento de água é tipicamente monopolizado por uma empresa privada. Eles alegam que isso contraria muitas das vantagens associadas à economia de mercado, porque sem concorrência entre múltiplas empresas de serviços de água não há nada que faça baixar os preços e aumentar os níveis de eficiência.

Influências Externas

Influências externas, como as do Banco Mundial e do Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI), muitas vezes desempenham um papel na decisão dos governos de privatizar a água, como foi o caso na Bolívia e em vários países africanos. Esta influência pode tomar a forma de programas de ajuste estrutural, nos quais um empréstimo para o desenvolvimento é concedido na condição de que o país receptor privatize seu sistema de abastecimento de água. Outras agências de ajuda também têm apoiado a privatização da água.

Estas incluem o Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento (por exemplo, no Equador, Colômbia e Honduras), o Banco Asiático de Desenvolvimento (por exemplo, na China), o Banco Europeu de Reconstrução e Desenvolvimento na Europa Oriental, a cooperação alemã para o desenvolvimento através do KfW (por exemplo, na Albânia, Armênia, Jordânia e Peru), a cooperação francesa para o desenvolvimento (por exemplo, no Senegal) e a cooperação britânica para o desenvolvimento (por exemplo, na Tanzânia e na Guiana).

Os críticos afirmam que essas influências externas são problemáticas e argumentam que influenciar a privatização da água é parte de um movimento mais amplo das potências ocidentais impondo o neoliberalismo aos países do Sul Global.

Razões Financeiras

Em alguns casos, onde o acesso já é universal e a qualidade do serviço é boa, os motivos financeiros dominam, como foi o caso em Berlim, Alemanha e no Chile. Em Berlim, o governo estadual vendeu em 1999 uma participação de 49,9% de sua concessionária de água por 1,69 bilhões de euros em troca de um lucro garantido para os acionistas privados equivalente à taxa de juros sobre títulos do governo a 10 anos mais 2%, como especificado em um contrato que foi mantido confidencial até que o governo estadual fosse forçado por um referendo a torná-lo público.

Como resultado, as tarifas aumentaram (15% só em 2004) e as receitas do governo estadual da empresa diminuíram em comparação com a situação antes da privatização (168 milhões de euros de lucro para o estado em 1997 comparado a uma perda de 10 milhões de euros em 2003). No Chile, onde não existiam estações de tratamento de esgoto antes da privatização, o desejo do governo de financiar sua construção fora do orçamento levou à privatização em 1998.

Motivos financeiros para a privatização da água também são comuns em países onde o acesso à água e a qualidade do serviço são deficientes. Em cidades com favelas em rápido crescimento, é muito caro para o governo expandir sua infra-estrutura de sistemas de abastecimento de água ao ritmo do crescimento da população. Além disso, a manutenção das boas condições da infra-estrutura antiga também é cara.

Assim, se uma parcela significativa dos fundos públicos não for destinada à manutenção, as tubulações e estações de tratamento de águas residuais podem cair em desuso. Para alguns países, o custo de gerenciamento de um sistema público de abastecimento de água torna-se inacessível. Nestes casos, a privatização pode ser vista como uma solução possível para que os governos atraiam investimentos privados nacionais e internacionais.

Prevalência de parcerias público-privadas

Prague is one of many cities whose water supply is provided by a private company

Há estimativas muito diferentes sobre o número de pessoas atendidas por empresas privadas de água. O Banco Mundial estimou que, em 2007, cerca de 270 milhões de pessoas receberam água de empresas privadas em mais de 40 países, incluindo cerca de 160 milhões em países desenvolvidos e 110 milhões em países em desenvolvimento. Entretanto, o relatório não incluiu estimativas do número de pessoas atendidas por empresas privadas no lado das águas residuais.

O Anuário Pinsent Masons Water usa uma definição mais ampla que inclui também os serviços de águas residuais. Mais importante, ele também inclui casos em que uma estação de tratamento de água ou esgoto é operada por uma empresa privada em nome de uma empresa pública que serve o cliente final. Com base nesta definição mais ampla e levando em conta o crescimento da população e a privatização da água entre 2007 e 2011, estima-se que 909 milhões em 62 países ou 13% da população mundial foram atendidos pelo setor privado de uma forma ou de outra.

Isto inclui 309 milhões de pessoas na China, 61 milhões nos Estados Unidos, 60 milhões no Brasil, 46 milhões na França, 23 milhões na Espanha, 15 milhões na Índia e 14 milhões na Rússia. Na Inglaterra e no País de Gales, toda a população de 55 milhões é servida por empresas privadas. Além disso, no Chile, República Tcheca, Armênia e três países africanos - Costa do Marfim, Gabão e Senegal - empresas privadas prestam serviços de água a toda a população urbana. Na Hungria, elas atendem quase a metade da população. Na Argélia, Colômbia, Alemanha, Itália, Malásia, México, Marrocos, Polônia e África do Sul, menos da metade da população é servida por empresas privadas. Nas Filipinas, Indonésia, Bulgária, Estônia e Cuba, as empresas privadas de água atendem apenas a capital. 24 países, como Argentina, Bolívia e vários países pequenos como Guiana, Gana ou a República Centro-Africana, voltaram à gestão pública a partir de 2009.

Entretanto, 84% dos contratos adjudicados principalmente nos anos 90 ainda estavam ativos. Por outro lado, em muitos países, como no Japão, Canadá, Egito, Paquistão ou Escandinávia, não existem empresas privadas de água. Nicarágua, Holanda e Uruguai até aprovaram leis que proíbem a privatização da água. Na Itália, em junho de 2011, uma lei a favor da privatização da água foi revogada por uma maioria esmagadora de italianos através de um referendo. Em 2019, Baltimore, Maryland tornou-se a primeira grande cidade dos Estados Unidos a proibir a privatização da água.

EM TRADUÇÃO

A World Bank report lists the following examples of successful public-private partnerships in developing countries: the full privatization in Chile; the mixed companies in Colombia; the concessions in Guayaquil in Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Eastern Manila in the Philippines, Morocco, and Gabun; and the lease contracts in Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal, and Yerevan in Armenia.

Small-scale operators: the other private sector

A small scale private operator using a water tanker to distribute water

Beyond water privatization, which involves contractual relationships between a government and formally established large companies, there is also "the other private sector" in water supply consisting of small-scale, often informal local operators. They exist in most cities in the Global South and sometimes provide a large portion of the city's population with water. For example, a study of six Latin American countries showed that they provide water to 25% of the population in seven cities. In Africa, they serve an estimated 50% of the urban population. They mainly operate in slums, serving the people who are not catered to by the city authorities. Many small-scale water operators provide water through tanker trucks or animal-drawn carts. Others operate water distribution networks fed by wells, as it is the case in Asunción, Paraguay, and in Sanaa, Yemen. Small-scale operators can be owned by individual entrepreneurs or can take the form of cooperatives, as it is the case in Honduras. Small-scale operators do not always comply with technical norms and the quality of the water they provide or their tariffs are often not regulated. More often than not, their tariffs are significantly higher than those of public water utilities. This can attributed to either profiteering or simply the high transportation costs expended during the distribution of water. They typically lack capital to further expand their network. However, in a few pilot cases – such as in Kenya, Uganda, Cambodia and Vietnam – international aid agencies have provided them with grants to increase access, often in the form of output-based aid.

Selecting private operators

Private companies are typically selected through international competitive bidding and need to have demonstrated previous experience. Selection is either done through a combination of price and quality, or solely based on price. In the case of a management contract, the price is the management fee (fixed fee plus performance-based fee); in the case of a lease it is the lease fee per unit of water sold; in a concession it is the water tariff; and in an asset sale it is the price paid for the company. In some cases – such as in Casablanca in 1997 and in Jakarta in 1998 – private companies have been selected through direct negotiations without competitive bidding. In other cases – such as in Cartagena (Colombia) in 1995, Cochabamba (Bolivia) in 1999 and Guayaquil (Ecuador) in 2000 – only a single bid was submitted. If development aid agencies are involved in directly financing private sector participation, they systematically require competitive bidding. However, in some cases – such as in Timişoara, Romania – the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has financed parallel investments, while a concession was awarded by the government after direct negotiations.

Forms of regulation

Being monopolies, all water utilities – public or private – need to be regulated concerning tariff approvals, service quality, environmental compliance and other aspects. The awareness for the need to regulate typically increases substantially when profit-oriented private operators become involved: Monitoring the performance of both the private and the public partner, applying sanctions in case of non-compliance and dispute resolution become particularly important. The regulatory tasks depend on the form of private sector participation: Under a management contract the monitoring of the achievement of performance standards, on which the remuneration of the private company depends, is typically carried out by an independent consulting firm. Under a concession contract or in the case of an asset sale, tariff regulation through a regulatory agency or the government is a key regulatory function. Water concessions are frequently renegotiated, often resulting in better terms for the private company. For example, negotiations of concessions in Buenos Aires and Manila resulted in investment requirements being reduced, tariffs being increased and tariffs being indexed to the exchange rate to the US dollar. The quality and strength of regulation is an important factor that influences whether water privatization fails or succeeds. The tasks, form and capacity of the public entities charged with regulation vary greatly between countries.

Globally, regulation of private water companies is being carried out by the following types of public entities or, sometimes, a combination of them.

Type of entity charged with the regulation of private water providers	Examples
Municipality or an association of smaller municipalities	France and Spain
Specialized body at the city level set up to regulate a single contract	Guayaquil, Ecuador; San Pedro Sula, Honduras; Jakarta, Indonesia (with some control by the national government in the latter case); Manila, Philippines; formerly in Buenos Aires, Argentina
Specialized regulatory agency at the supra-municipal sub-national level	Public Utilities Commissions in U.S. states; some Brazilian states
Specialized regulatory agency set up permanently under law at the country level	OFWAT in England; Water Superintendency SISS in Chile; Water Regulatory Commission CRA in Colombia
Specialized unit in a Ministry set up temporarily by decree	Ministry of Water in Jordan
Ministerial department	Ministry of Interior in Morocco

Examples of privatization

The best-known examples of water privatization in the late 20th century are those undertaken in England under Margaret Thatcher, the Manila and Buenos Aires concessions as well as the failed privatization in Cochabamba, Bolivia, which became a symbol of the struggle against globalization. Less well known, but just as relevant, are water privatizations in other countries, such as in Colombia.

France

Ver artigo principal: Water privatization in France

Private water firms have had a dominant role in France for more than a century. Private water firms (Veolia Water, Suez Environnement and smaller peers such as Saur) control 60 percent of France's water market. Veolia and Suez are the world's largest private international water and wastewater firms.

Water privatization in France has been going on from before the 1800s but only recently, around the 1960s, has it grown in size and power. In the 20 years between the 1950s and 1970s it is estimated that the private water sector increased its share of potable water supply by at least 20%, a figure that has increased to around 75% in the current present. The water supply is now owned by three major companies. In the 3600 local municipalities in France each of them has the power to decide whether or not they publicize or privatize drinking water and dictate the terms of the contract.

The funding of French Water Agencies is completely done in by themselves. Meaning that these companies are self-funded. The total revenue is hard to estimate but from 1992 to 1996 around 81 Billion French Francs were held in revenue by these Water Agencies. This large fund is mostly used to expand and maintain public and private water projects. This model, although very profitable, lacks economic regulation due to poor logistics. This is a problem which is in the process of being fixed by implementing a clear and well-defined contract between the Water Agencies and the contractors who build the infrastructure.

England and Wales

Ver artigo principal: Water privatisation in England and Wales

In England and Wales, water tariffs and profits increased substantially after privatization in 1989, but investments also increased and water quality in rivers improved. Tariffs increased by 46% in inflation-adjusted terms during the first nine years after privatization. Operating profits have more than doubled (+142%) in the first eight years. On the other hand, privatization increased investments: In the six years after privatization the companies invested £17 billion, compared to £9.3 billion in the six years before privatization. It also brought about compliance with stringent drinking water standards and led to a higher quality of river water. According to data from OFWAT, the economic regulator of water and sewer companies in England and Wales, from the early 1990s until 2010, network pressure has improved substantially, supply interruptions have become less frequent, the responsiveness to complaints has improved and leakage has been reduced.

In the 1980s the elite largely believed that the state was not building infrastructure for water in a manner that would allow the economy to grow appropriately. For this reason, the economic and political powerful spearhead a shift towards making water a privately owned utility. Recently, the entire privatized water systems have been undergoing a complete restructuring. Small water companies in the UK have also been purchased by multinational companies from the United States, France and Scotland. The privately owned companies have been found to have trouble with water quality, environment pollution, sewage management, leakage and logistical errors.

Manila, the Philippines

Ver artigo principal: Water privatization in the Philippines

The private companies providing water in Manila have expanded access of water supply to the poor living in slums.

Water privatization in Manila began in 1997 with the award of two concession contracts for the Eastern and Western halves of Metro Manila. The concessions represent the largest population served by private operators in the developing world. As of 2010, the concession in Eastern Manila is highly successful and has led to significant improvements in access, service quality and efficiency: the population served more than doubled from 3 in 1997 to 6.1 million in 2009, the share of customers with continuous water supply increased from 26% to more than 98% and non-revenue water declined from 63% to 16%. The concession in Western Manila failed when the company Maynilad went bankrupt in 2003. It was sold to new investors in 2007 and performance has improved since then. The share of the population with access to piped water in Western Manila increased from 67% in 1997 to 86% in 2006 and the share of customers that enjoys 24-hour water supply increased from 32% in 2007 to 71% in early 2011.

Argentina

Ver artigo principal: Water privatization in Argentina

Water privatization in Argentina began in 1992 under the government of Carlos Menem as part of one of the world's largest privatization programs. Concessions were signed in 28% of the country's municipalities covering 60% of the population, including in 1993 for the metropolitan area of Buenos Aires. After the 2001 economic crisis, under the government of Néstor Kirchner, almost all concessions were terminated, including in Buenos Aires in 2006. The impact of the concession remains controversial. The government and critics argue that the concessionaire failed to achieve the targets set under the concession contract in terms of expansion of access, investment and service quality. Proponents concede that targets were not reached, but argue that a freeze in tariffs at the time of the devaluation of the Peso during the Argentinian economic crisis in 2001 violated the contract and thus made it impossible to achieve the original targets. According to the Argentinian economist Sebastian Galiani, the public company OSN had invested only US$25m per year between 1983 and 1993, while the private concessionaire Aguas Argentinas increased investments to around US$200m per year between 1993 and 2000. According to the private concessionnaire Suez, during the 13-year-duration of its concession it extended access to water to 2 million people and access to sanitation to 1 million people, despite the economic crisis. In July 2010 the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) ruled that the Argentinian government unfairly refused to allow the private concessionaires to raise tariffs during the period after the devaluation of the Argentine peso in 2001 and that the private companies are entitled to damages. The private companies announced that they would seek US$1.2bn in damages.

Cochabamba, Bolivia

Ver artigo principal: Cochabamba Water War

Cochabamba was the scene of violent protests against water privatization in 2000.

In the mid-1990s the government of Bolivia, under pressure from the World Bank, decided to privatize water supply in the country's third largest city, Cochabamba. In the previous years, despite encumbered funds made available by the World Bank to support the public utility of Cochabamba, access to piped water in the city had decreased to 40%. Water losses had remained high at 40%, and water was supplied only 4 hours a day. Those not connected to the network paid ten times as much for their water to private vendors as those who were. This contrasted with the situation in Bolivia's second-largest city, Santa Cruz, where a utility run as a cooperative had managed to increase access and improve service quality with the support of the World Bank. In Santa Cruz, privatization had never been considered.

In 1997, a first bid for a water concession in Cochabamba had been declared void at the request of the mayor of Cochabamba, Manfred Reyes Villa. He wanted the construction of a large dam, the Misicuni dam, and a pipeline from the dam to the city to be included in the concession. The World Bank had opposed the dam as unnecessarily expensive and subsequently ended its involvement related to water supply in the city. Despite this, in the view of the public the World Bank remains inseparably linked to the Cochabamba privatization.

The government proceeded to bid out the concession; this time including the Misicuni dam. Only a single company submitted a bid, Aguas del Tunari, a consortium led by Bechtel. The government accepted the bid and signed the concession. The consortium was guaranteed a minimum 15% annual return. In parallel, a law was passed that appeared to give a monopoly to Aguas del Tunari over all water resources, including water used for irrigation, communal water systems and even rainwater collected on roofs. Upon taking control the company raised water tariffs by 35%.

Demonstrations and a general strike erupted in January 2000 in protest against the tariff increase and the perceived privatization of water resources. The government arrested the leader of the protesters, Oscar Olivera. However, the protests spread to the entire country and the government declared a state of emergency in April. Protests still continued and several people were killed. In the midst of the turmoil the employees of Aguas del Tunari fled from Cochabamba. The government finally released Oscar Olivera and signed an agreement with him stating that the concession would be ended. The government then told Aguas del Tunari that by leaving Cochabamba they had abandoned the concession and parliament revoked Law 2029. The Cochabamba protests became a worldwide symbol of struggle against neoliberalism and the Cochabamba privatization is probably, both among activists against globalization and the general public, by far the best known example of the failure of water privatization.

The company, insisting that it had been forced out, filed a $25 million lawsuit in the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. The proceedings, which were held behind closed doors, ended in 2006 with a settlement under which Bechtel dropped its claim. With financing from the Inter-American Development Bank the city expanded its piped water system in the aftermath of the riots. Nevertheless, under public management half of the 600,000 people of Cochabamba remain without piped water and those with it continue to receive intermittent service. Oscar Olivera the leading figure in the protests admitted, "I would have to say we were not ready to build new alternatives."

Colombia

Ver artigo principal: Water privatization in Colombia

Cartagena is one of the Colombian cities whose water supply is provided by a mixed public-private company.

Between 1996 and 2007, public-private partnerships for water and sewer services in more than 40 Colombian cities were entered into, serving more than 20% of the country's urban population. Most of the contracts were awarded in municipalities with highly deteriorated infrastructure, such as Barranquilla and Cartagena. The central government financed most investments through grants, thus reducing the need to increase tariffs. Water privatization in Colombia was largely homegrown, adapting models used elsewhere to the particular circumstances and culture of Colombia. A model introduced from Spain, the mixed company with a majority stake by the municipality and a minority stake by a private operator, was particularly successful. Foreign water companies won some of the early contracts, but quickly sold a majority of their shares to Colombian operators. There was a significant increase in access under private contracts. For example, in Cartagena, water supply coverage increased from 74 percent to almost universal coverage, while sewer coverage went up from 62 percent to 79 percent between 1996 and 2006. Half a million people gained access and 60 percent of the new connections benefited families in the poorest income quintile. To achieve universal coverage, the operator made extensive use of community bulk-supply schemes that provide safe water to the many illegal settlements that were expanding on the city's periphery. However, there is no conclusive evidence showing that access increased more rapidly under private contracts than in the case of publicly managed utilities. In Cartagena, tariffs declined substantially, indicating that the operator passed on efficiency gains to consumers.

Cuba

In January 2000 when the socialist government of Cuba created a mixed public-private company to manage the water, sewer and stormwater drainage system in 8 of the 15 municipalities that make up the country's capital Havana. The government avoids the term privatization, despite the involvement of two foreign private companies as key partners in the mixed company. The company operates under a 25-year renewable concession contract. It serves 1.25 million inhabitants in the municipalities of Old Havana, Central Havana, Cerro, Plaza de la Revolución, 10 Octubre, La Lisa, Playa, and Marianao, which together are home to 60 percent of Havana's population. The company, called Aguas de la Habana, has a capital of 8 million USD and is owned by the Cuban state through the National Institute for Water Resources (INRH), the Spanish private company Aguas de Barcelona (Agbar) and the Spanish family firm Grupo Martinon. The contract foresees that ultimately the entire population of Havana will be served by the company.

The cooperation between the three companies goes back to a project undertaken in the Cuban tourist resort Varadero since 1994, involving Canaragua, the subsidiary of Aguas de Barcelona operating in the Canary Islands, and the firm Martinon whose owners also come from the Canary Islands. After this successful initial experience, Agbar and INRH signed a contract to operate the water services in three municipalities La Lisa, Playa and Marianao in Western Havana in 1997. Following this pilot project, the creation of the mixed company Aguas de la Habana was decided in a framework agreement signed in February 1999 in Barcelona.

Agbar "facilitated" 24.7 million USD of financing through loans. At least some of these loans are soft loans from the Spanish International Cooperation Agency, which financed the first ever major rehabilitation of the more than one century old Albear aqueduct that provides 12% of the capital's water supply. In addition to operating and maintaining the systems, Aguas de La Habana also carries out engineering studies and executes works.

The company's annual billing is US$ 9m for about 115 million cubic meters of water it delivers to its customers. As of 2004, Aguas de Barcelona reported significant progress. According to the company, 95 percent of the city's residents that had to be supplied by tanker trucks before the concession contract relied on tap water as of 2004. The continuity of supply had increased from 7 to 10 hours per day. However, as of 2010 progress was apparently slow, as water distribution losses are still estimated at 50% in 2010 and more than 100,000 inhabitants suffer from intermittent supply.

Impact of privatization

The evidence concerning the impact of water privatization is mixed. Often proponents and opponents of water privatization emphasize those examples, studies, methods and indicators that support their respective point of view. As with any empirical study, results are influenced by the methods used. For example, some studies simply compare the situation before privatization to the situation after privatization. More sophisticated studies try to compare the changes in privately managed utilities to those of publicly managed utilities that operate under similar conditions during the same period. The second group of studies often use econometric techniques. The results also depend on the choice of the indicator used to measure impact: One common indicator is the increase in access to water supply and sewerage. Other indicators are changes in tariffs, investments, water-borne diseases or indicators for service quality (e.g. continuity of supply or drinking water quality) and efficiency (e.g. water losses or labor productivity).

Impact on access

When it comes to impact on access to safe and clean water, it is inevitable to bring up public-private partnerships and tariff into spotlight, as they are one of the main factors determining one's ability to access water. A before after comparative study by World Bank analyzes how access, quality of service, operational efficiency and tariffs have evolved under 65 public-private partnerships for urban water utilities in developing countries. The study estimates that "PPP projects have provided access to piped water for more than 24 million people in developing countries since 1990". Therefore, PPP had been a key significant in helping improved service quality of access to water.

Apart from PPP, tariffs are also another important factor that directly impact one's access to safe and clean water. In some countries, water privatization can hinder the accessibility of water. When for-profit companies invest in the water system, the desire to make returns on the investment can create a top-heavy distribution system. They increase tariffs to earn more profits, which consequently reduces the accessibility of the resource for poor households since the poor are not able to pay high tariffs. In other words, investments are only made to improve accessibility in richer districts where the people can pay the tariffs. In this manner, the water company's need to make adequate returns is met by supplying water only to those who can pay. However, in other countries such as Nigeria and Ghana where the governments fail to distribute access to water to the people, water privatization led to expansion of services to low-income districts.

Impact on health

One of the most effective measurement to analyze the effectiveness of water privatization is child mortality rate since children are more likely to be negatively affected by contaminated waters. Water privatization has historically had mixed impacts on child mortality and the overall health of the people affected by it. A study of water privatization's impact on health finds that, between 1991 and 1997 in Argentina, areas where child mortality was upwards of 26% fell to just under 8% after water was privatized. This occurred due to the regulations private water companies were held to which were more rigorous than their government-controlled counterparts. Along with this, development of water infrastructure in impoverished areas at the hands of private companies also positively affected child mortality rates. Governments are prone to privatize water companies, among other reasons, to better the quality of the water provided to the country's citizens.

In Argentina, water privatization did not fulfill many promises the citizens were expecting. This includes the expansion of sewerage treatment and connections and the reduction of the price of water, which actually increased. Along with this, the private water companies in Argentina needed help from the Argentine government to bypass regulatory agencies after it treated to cancel their contract due to conflicts of interest. It is also worth noting that many worker unions were opposed to privatizing water but their pleads were largely ignored by the Argentine government.

The impact of water privatization on the amount of carcinogenic found in water is highly debated. In some cases, such as the case in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, public water systems are likely to invest more money into making water quality good. Water companies working on a commercial basis might find it too costly to implement systems to better the water quality beyond what is necessary by law. Thus, posing a greater threat of containing harmful cancer-causing substances in the water.

Impact on tariffs

Although the impact on tariffs cannot be fully concluded since each country has different policy on tariffs, water tariffs tend to be increased under privatization. For instance, in Buenos Aires and in Manila, tariffs first declined, but then increased above their initial level; in Cochabamba or in Guyana, tariffs were increased at the time of privatization. However, there are some other cases that tariffs under water privatization did not increase in a long run, typically in Sub-Saharan Africa, where most of investments are funded through development aid. For example, tariffs remained stable in Senegal, while in Gabon they declined by 50% in five years (2001–2006) and by 30% in ten years in Côte d'Ivoire (1990 to 2000).

In addition, initial tariffs have been well below cost recovery levels in almost all cases, sometimes covering only a fraction of the cost of service provision. The magnitude of tariff increases is influenced by the profit margin of private operators, but also to a large extent by the efficiency of utilities in terms of water losses and labor productivity.

However, comparing water expenditure between private and public management in the U.S., a study of household water expenditures in cities under private and public management in the U.S. concludes that "whether water systems are owned by private firms or governments may, on average, simply not matter much."

Impact on efficiency

According to a World Bank study in 2005, the most consistent improvement made by public-private partnerships in water supply was in operational efficiency. The study reviews the impact of private management on the efficiency of water utilities in many countries from many continents including Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Eastern Europe. Most evidences from the study suggests that "there is no statistically significant difference between the efficiency performance of public and private operators in this sector.". In addition, a 2008 literature review by the Asian Development Bank shows that of 20 studies reviewed, only three show concrete evidence on technical efficiency improvements or cost reductions under private management. Therefore, by 2005, private operator, at least, made an indirect contribution to financing by improving efficiency, making it possible for utilities to finance investments internally instead of having to rely on more debt.

Profitability

An empirical study of 34 concessions in nine Latin American countries during the 1990s, including 10 water concessions in 5 countries (3 in Argentina, 1 in Bolivia, 1 in Brazil, 3 in Chile and 2 in Colombia), has estimated the profitability of concessions compared to the cost of capital of private companies. According to the study, contrary to public perception, the financial returns of private infrastructure concessions have been modest. The average annual return on capital employed was 7 percent. For a number of concessions, the returns have been below the cost of capital. On average telecommunications and energy concessions have fared much better than water concessions. Seven out of 10 water concessions had negative rates of return and two concessions had returns that were lower than the cost of capital of the private companies.

Private water operators

Private water operators come in very different forms from multinational corporations to small enterprises. According to the Pinsent Masons Water Yearbook 2010–11, 909 million people (13% of the world population) were served by private operators. The largest private water companies are:

• the French firm Veolia Environnement (Vivendi), serving 125.4 million in 2011;
• the French firm Suez, serving 124.3 million people in 2011 with its US subsidiary United Water and its Spanish subsidiary Aguas de Barcelona;
• the Spanish firm Fomento de Construcciones Y Contratas SA (FCC), serving 28.2 million people in 2011;
• the German firm RWE, serving 18.3 million people in 2011;
• the Italian firm ACEA, serving 18 million people in 2011;
• the British firm Thames Water, indirectly owned by Macquarie Group, an Australian investment bank;
• the French firm SAUR, serving 12.4 million in 2011; and
• the US firm American Water, serving 16.8 million in 2011.

Domestic water operators have a strong presence in Brazil, Colombia, China, Malaysia, and the Philippines.

Public water companies also sometimes participate in bids for private water contracts. For example, the Moroccan state-owned water utility ONEP has won a bid in Cameroon and the Dutch publicly owned water firm Vitens has won a management contract in Ghana.

See also

• Water consumption
• Remunicipalization
• Bottled water
• Nestlé Waters

Countries and cities with private sector participation in water supply as of 2013:

• Water privatization in Algeria
• Water privatization in Armenia
• Water privatization in Brazil
• Water privatization in Bucharest
• Water privatization in Chile
• Water privatization in Colombia
• Water privatization in Cuba
• Water privatization in Ecuador
• Water privatisation in England
• Water privatization in Honduras
• Water privatization in Jakarta
• Water privatization in Metro Manila
• Water privatization in Morocco
• Water privatization in South Africa
• Water privatization in the United States

Countries which had private sector participation in water supply in the past:

• Water privatization in Albania
• Water privatization in Argentina
• Water privatization in Bolivia
• Water privatization in Ghana
• Water privatization in Guinea
• Water privatization in Tanzania

Further reading

• Balanyá, Belén, Brid Brennan, Olivier Hoedeman, Satoko Kishimoto and Philipp Terhorst (eds): Reclaiming Public Water: Achievements, Struggles and Visions from Around the World, Transnational Institute and Corporate Europe Observatory, January 2005. ISBN 90-71007-10-3.
• Schiffler, Manuel: Water, Politics and Money. A Reality Check on Privatization, Springer International Publishing, 2015. ISBN 978-3-319-16690-2.
• Segerfeldt, Fredrik:Water for sale: how business and the market can resolve the world's water crisis, Presentation at the Amigo Society, Brussels, 30 May 2006.
• Sjölander Holland, Ann-Christin:The Water Business: Corporations versus People, Zed Books, 2005, ISBN 1-84277-564-2.
• Kleemeier, Elizabeth L. Private Operators and Rural Water Supplies : A Desk Review of Experience The World Bank, Nov. 2010.
• Marin, Philippe Public-Private Partnerships for Urban Water Utilities: A Review of Experiences in Developing Countries The World Bank, Feb. 2009, ISBN 978-0-8213-7956-1.

External links

• The World Bank's work and publications on water resources

Multimedia

• Flow: For Love of Water, a 2008 documentary film