Regional Trends Private-Public Partnerships Urban Water Supply

469C Bukit Timah Road Oei Tiong Ham Building Singapore 259772 Tel: (65) 6516 6134 Fax:
(65) 6778 1020 Website: www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy

Working Paper Series
Private Public Partnerships in Urban Water Supply Sector: A Study of the Regional Trends
Asanga Gunawansa Assistant Professor, Department of Building, School of Design and Environment National University of Singapore Email: bdgasan@nus.edu.sg Sonia Ferdous Hoque Research Associate Institute of Water Policy, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. Email: sppsfh@nus.edu.sg
Lovleen Bhullar Researcher Environmental Law Research Society New Delhi, India. Email: lovleen.bhullar@gmail.com
Date: 10 January 2012 Paper No.: LKYSPP 12 04 IWP
[This paper is part of the Water Governance: An Evaluation of Alternative Architectures research project] [This paper should be of interest to academics and professionals working in the field of Urban Water Supply Management]
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2004761
PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS IN URBAN WATER SUPPLY SECTOR: A STUDY OF THE REGIONAL TRENDS Asanga Gunawansa, Lovleen Bhullar and Sonia Ferdous Hoque
ABSTRACT Historically, public utilities have been mainly delivered by the public sector. However, as a result of financial and technological constraints faced by public sector entities in developing infrastructure facilities and due to management related inefficiencies in the public sector, various alternative governance mechanisms have been considered by governments in developing public utility infrastructure and providing the related services to the end-users. Consequently, for nearly three decades now countries have relied on the procurement model of public-private partnerships (PPP) to finance, develop and manage infrastructure facilities in the water sector. In order to analyze the viability of PPP as an alternative governance model for water, it is important to examine a sample of PPP projects from around the world and analyze the reasons for their successes and failures. For this purpose, Institute of Water Policy, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, has undertaken a research project to compile a database of PPP projects in the urban water supply sector in different regions (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, Australia and Middle East and North Africa). This paper presents a brief analysis of PPPs as a water governance architecture based on the study of 672 PPP projects from the said database, the selection being made on the basis of availability of data, and presents the preliminary findings on current usage of PPP for water governance.
Keywords: Private Public Partnerships; Urban Water Management; Water Governance; BuildOwn-Operate; Concession.
1. INTRODUCTION Traditionally, a formal public authority or authorities (local, regional or national) has been responsible, partly or fully, for the provision of water services (including infrastructure development and funding, operation of the supply system, billing and collection of tariffs - if they are raised, and system management and maintenance). Such entity also retained full
ownership of the related water infrastructure. In this scenario, private sector involvement was considered inappropriate given the public good and basic need characteristics of water supply, the inherent monopolistic tendency of water systems due to economies of scale in service provision and the externalities involved (Johnstone and Wood 2001). Although there are examples of successful public water utilities, such as Singapore, there are several other cases where public management of urban water supply has not been successful. This can be attributed to a variety of reasons such as the lack of financial capacity, the absence of technology and management skills to develop, maintain and operate urban water facilities, and the inability to cater to the rising demand for new water connections as a result of rapid population growth in urban areas. Especially in developing countries, governments have found it difficult to finance expensive engineering solutions with scarce public funds, and difficult to continue government subsidies offered to water users given the resources required for financing and operating urban water facilities. Further, politicization of personal appointments and
management and other bureaucratic weaknesses in public administration have also rendered many public water facilities unsustainable. As a result, the effectiveness of public management as water governance architecture has been questioned. The reduction in financial assistance from international development agencies for infrastructure development projects, which are totally controlled by public sector entities in developing countries, has also led to the search for alternative water governance architectures. In this context, private sector participation in the water governance process has been considered and promoted in several countries. 2. ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR IN PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE Two alternative mechanisms have been considered for private sector engagement in the provision of urban water supply: total privatization of public facilities and public-private partnerships (PPPs) (Ford and Zussman 1997). Total privatization enables governments to
transfer the total responsibility of developing, managing, and providing public services to the private sector, whereas PPP enables governments to invite private sector entities to finance and develop infrastructure projects without losing state control over the regulatory aspects of service delivery, including the pricing of the services provided by the infrastructure facility (Savas 2000; Gunawansa 2001; Abdul-Aziz 2007). Total privatization of public infrastructure facilities that provide public services at heavily subsidized prices (by the government) was considered politically controversial. Further, governments were hesitant to subject certain facilities to total privatization due to reasons such as national security. Thus, PPPs became the popular option. In Europe, private investment in public infrastructure can be traced back to the 18th century (Kumaraswamy and Morris 2002). However, the increasing adoption of PPPs in the late 1990s was due to the success of PPPs in the United Kingdom (Harris 2004). The development and refinement of private finance initiative (PFI) by the United Kingdom in 1992, as one of a range of government policies designed to increase private sector involvement in the provision of public services, led to the renewed international interest in PPPs. Since then, many countries around the world have either embarked on or considered the adoption of a PPP programme (Harris 2004). PPPs are based on the idea that the private sector is better positioned to generate the capital investment required to undertake network rehabilitation, maintenance and expansion. The
private sectors potential for increased efficiency is also emphasized. In practice, however, there may be other reasons for the introduction of PPPs, including loan conditionalities imposed by international development banks. In short, a PPP is a procurement method which involves private sector supply of infrastructure assets and services that have traditionally been provided by the public sector. According to Khanom (2009), there is no precise and commonly accepted definition of PPP. This is the result of the diverse interests and objectives of the public and private parties in entering into PPPs as well as the different needs of the entities defining PPPs. The following table shows the different interpretations given to PPPs by four different countries.
Table 1: Different Definitions of PPP Country Canada Definition Source
A cooperative venture between the public and private Canadian Council for sectors, built on the expertise of each partner that best Public Private meets clearly defined public needs through the Partnerships appropriate allocation of resources, risks and rewards.
United Kingdom
An arrangement between two or more entities that Her Majestys enables them to do public service work cooperatively Treasury (1998) towards shared or compatible objectives and in which there is some degree of shared authority and responsibility, joint investment of resources, shared risk taking and mutual benefit.
Singapore
PPP refers to long-term partnering relationships MOF (2004) between the public and private sector to deliver services. It is a new approach that Government is adopting to increase private sector involvement in the delivery of public services.
India
The Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Project means a Department of project based on contract or concession agreement Economic Affairs of between a Government or statutory entity on the one the Ministry of side and a private sector company on the other side, for Finance (2005) delivering an infrastructure service on payment of user charges.
The Canadian definition appears to focus on the cooperative venture between the public and private parties and the appropriate allocation of resources and risks. This indicates that PPPs are looked at as partnering arrangements between parties with equal bargaining power. Similarly, the UK definition focuses on compatibility between the parties and sharing of responsibilities, risks, resources, and profits.
The Singapore definition focuses on PPPs as a long term relationship between public and private sectors which enables the public sector to involve the private sector in providing services to the people. This definition does not give any indication as to the real need for the public sector to enter into PPPs. Further, in Singapore, PPPs are viewed as a source of specialist private sector expertise to stimulate an exchange of ideas and to bring more international players into the domestic market (KPMG 2007). According to the Government of Indias definition of PPP, the government grants a concession to the private sector. The public sector has limited engagement in the partnership due to financial constraints and lack of modern technologies and the private sector is required to finance and develop the project and offer services in return for payments. 3. PPPS IN URBAN WATER
Private involvement in water supply has a long history. In the United States, historically, private ownership and provision of water, and not public ownership, was the norm. It was only in the latter half of the 19th century that private water systems in the United States began to be municipalized because private operators were found to be inequitable when providing access and service to all citizens or making necessary infrastructure investments (Wolff and Palaniappan 2004). In its strict sense, privatization implies a full divestiture or the sale of public assets to a private operator, which is rare in the water supply sector (except England and Chile), which represents the furthest point on the private sector engagement spectrum (see section 3.1). Otherwise, privatization is said to have taken place when a specific function is turned over to the private sector and regulatory control remains a public sector responsibility. On the other hand, a
public-private partnership describes an arrangement where the governments and private companies assume shared responsibilities for the provision of water supply. In many countries where total privatization of water, a public good, is considered a sensitive issue, the preferred mode of engaging private sector in water governance has thus become PPP. Based on data published in the Pinsent Masons Water Yearbook 2011 2012, Figure 1 shows the number of new PPP contracts awarded each year for water supply since 1991.
Figure 1: Number of new PPP contracts awarded each year in the last two decades. (Source: Pinsent Masons Water Yearbook 2011 2012) 3.1 Spectrum of PPP Models
There exists a spectrum of PPP models for urban water supply depending on several factors, including the distribution of decision and property rights and risks and incentives between the public and private entities. (i) Service contract: A private entity provides specific services, such as leak detection, meter reading, billing or collecting invoices, and water quality measurements, for a short time period. The fees are fixed per unit of work. The private entity is required to make very limited capital investment, and these are short-term contracts. This form of PPP allocates the least responsibility to the private operator. The government retains ownership, control and responsibility (and risk). (ii) Management contract: A private operator manages and maintains the water facility for the contract period without any investment obligations. A management contract can be used to bring in new management systems, organizations and skills, or as a preliminary step to restructure a dilapidated utility before a concession. The government compensates the private operator (costs-plus-fee). The government retains most of the operational and
commercial risks, though some risk-sharing may be built into the contract using performance bonuses or contingent fees. (iii) Lease contract: The government leases the right to operate and maintain a water system, and to collect user charges to a private operator, and the latter is compensated with an agreed portion of the revenues. The private operator takes on the operational risk but the public authority retains ownership and responsibility for system finance and expansion, and replacement of major assets, and it recovers parts or all of its costs from its own share of user charges. The lease holder may also administer investment funds as agent to the municipality, without taking related risks. In several African countries with substantial French influence, affermage contracts are common. Lease and affermage contracts differ mostly in the way the commercial risk is shared between the operator and the owner of the contract. In a lease, the private
operators fee depends on the amount of tariff collected from customers vis--vis the specified lease fee payable to the public. In an affermage, on the other hand, the private operator and the public authority share the collected revenue and the private operator is paid an agreed-upon affermage fee for each unit of water produced and distributed (Budds & McGranahan, 2003; World Bank, 2006). (iv) Greenfield contract: The private entity finances, designs, constructs, and operates the water infrastructure for a certain period of time to fulfill private economic interests, that is, to pay the capital debt and earn a reasonable rate of return from the operating revenue. This is followed by transfer of ownership to the government at no cost or an agreed upon price. The government usually provides revenue guarantees through long-term take-or-pay contracts for bulk supply facilities or minimum traffic revenue guarantees. The widely used Greenfield contracts in the water sector are: (a) Build, own, operate and transfer (BOOT) or Build, operate and transfer (BOT): The private entity builds and operates a new water facility, for a specified period, at its own risk, and then transfers the facility to the government at the end of the contract period. The private entity may or may not have the ownership of the assets during the contract period.
(b) Build, own, and operate (BOO): The private entity builds a new facility at its own risk, then owns and operates the facility at its own risk. (v) Concession (or reverse BOT): The public authority transfers ownerships and control of the entire water system, which is already constructed, to a private operator for a given period. The private operator assumes responsibilities for operation and maintenance as
well as additional investment and service obligations. The operator bills and retains user charges for the concession period and the government retains ownership of the assets. The following three types of concession agreements are usually agreed between the public and private parties: (a) Rehabilitate, operate, and transfer (ROT): The private entity rehabilitates an existing facility, then operates and maintains the facility at its own risk for the contract period. (b) Rehabilitate, lease or rent, and transfer (RLT): The private entity rehabilitates an
existing facility at its own risk, leases or rents the facility from the government owner, then operates and maintains the facility at its own risk for the contract period. (c) Build, rehabilitate, operate, and transfer (BROT): The private entity builds an add-on to an existing facility or completes a partially built facility and rehabilitates existing assets, then operates and maintains the facility at its own risk for the contract period. (vi) Joint venture: The private company forms a legal entity with the public sector, and both parties share responsibilities and investment obligations. The municipality can share ownership with private shareholders. The joint venture company itself may either own the assets or (most often) be given a franchise by the local government. (vii) Divestiture: A private entity buys an equity stake in a state-owned enterprise through an asset sale, public offering, or mass privatization program. The private stake may or may not imply private management of the facility. There are two types of divestiture: (a) Full divestiture: The government transfers 100 percent of the equity in the state-owned company to private entities. This could thus be interpreted as a total privatization of a state owned facility. For example, ten public water authorities in England and Wales,
which had been created under the 1973 Water Act, became private limited companies with the introduction of the 1989 Water Act (OFWAT 1993). (b) Partial divestiture: The government transfers part of the equity in the state-owned company to private entities. In 1998, five of Chiles 13 regional water companies
originally owned by the public sector were privatized with partial sales to multinational companies (Birtran and Arellano 2005). Another good example comes from the Czech Republic where a total of 11 public sector enterprises that operated water supply and sewage systems were partially privatized following the Czech Government Resolution No. 222 of 3 July 1991, which sought to introduce reforms to the drinking water, sewage and wastewater systems (TI 2009). 3.2 Allocation of Responsibilities between Public-Private Partners
Under a PPP, a public entity would typically specify the outputs or services required from a facility, and a private company or consortium would be responsible for the finance, design, construction, operation and maintenance of a facility. The following table shows the allocation of key responsibilities between the public and private entities, in the above mentioned models of PPPs for urban water supply, and their duration (World Bank, 1997): Table 2: Allocation of Key Responsibilities in PPPs Option Asset Ownership Service Contract Management Contract Lease/ Affermage Build Operate Transfer (BOT) Contract Shared Private Private Private 20-30 years Public Private Public Shared 8-15 years Public Private Public Public 3-5 years Public Operation & Maintenance Shared Capital Investment Public Commercial Risk Public 1-2 years Duration
Concession Joint Venture Divestiture
Public Shared Private or shared
Private Private Private
25-30 years Indefinite Indefinite (may be limited by license)
3.3
Is PPP a Viable Alternative Architecture for Urban Water Governance?
It is argued that PPPs can address the financial constraints faced by the public sector. They provide access to private capital in exchange for giving private companies the right to raise tolls on the water sold (which might also be supplemented by government grants or subsidies). The involvement of a new service provider helps the government to overcome the political barriers of unsustainably low tariff levels. It is also argued that PPPs overcome the capacity constraints by introducing competition (Jooste 2008). However, this competition, where introduced, is limited to the tender stage for concession contracts (in other words, it is competition for the market, rather than competition in the market), and it may or may not increase efficiency, and/ or ensure higher quality service, more sophisticated technology, and greater financial and environmental sustainability. For instance, the private sector lacks sufficient incentive to improve access in poor areas, with higher costs of provision and lower levels of demand, in the absence of regulation. Further, traditionally, private sector participation in urban water supply has been overwhelmingly dominated by large water multinationals, such as Veolia and Suez. The grant of contracts without a competitive tendering process also raises doubts about the ability of PPPs to improve competition in the water sector. The creation of alliances to overcome competition is also not uncommon. Endemic uncertainty and lack of information about the local milieu may also tie the hands of private sector. The success of PPPs for urban water supply is heavily dependent on the presence of effective regulatory mechanisms. This represents a paradox as public mismanagement is one of the justifications for private sector participation. Further, PPPs suffer from several other problems that relate to tariff increases, under-investment, especially towards the ending period of
contracts, risk-averse strategies of private operators so that public authorities tend to bear most of the uncertainties, and the very high rate of renegotiations, which undermine the credibility of the parties involved and involve very high transaction costs. Further, high capital intensity, large initial outlays, long pay-back periods, and the immobility of assets generate high risks. These factors, when combined with poor initial information and a weak investment environment, constitute important constraints on private sector participation in water and sanitation infrastructure. In the circumstances, it would appear that although the private sector participation can help countries to benefit from financial, technological and managerial inputs from the private sector to improve water governance, there are various impediments to private sector participation in the water sector in many countries. This statement is supported by the fact that, despite the interest in private sector participation in water since the 1990s, most of the water and wastewater related services worldwide, nearly 95 percent (according to some estimates), are provided by public sector companies (CPI 2003). Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the number of people served by private companies has grown from 563 million in 2005 to approximately 805 million in 2009 (GWI 2009). This figure is expected to increase further to approximately 1163 million people by the year 2015. 4. DATABASE OF PPPS IN THE URBAN WATER SUPPLY SECTOR The database of PPP projects compiled by the researchers is based on a search of publicly available documents (e.g., newspaper articles, web logs and journal/research papers). The
database also uses information from databases compiled by other organizations, such as the Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) online database managed by the World Bank Group, the database of the Global Water Market 2009 published by Global Water Intelligence and information from Pinsent Masons Water Yearbook 2011 - 2012. However, a review of the available databases revealed a gap in certain number of projects. Further, a large number of the details are either missing or conflicting, although certain records are complementary. In order to meet the requirements of the research, rigorous clarifications and supplements have been made by reviewing relevant articles, reports, project track records, and websites of water companies. For the purpose of this paper, 672 projects have been chosen from the database on the basis of the adequacy of the information available.
The distribution of PPP projects (considered for this paper) in the six regions is as follows:
Figure 2: Distribution of PPP Projects by Region Based on the data collected, it is observed that Europe has the largest number of documented PPP projects, followed by Latin America and Asia. The selected PPP projects from the database, organised according to the regions in a list, is attached as Appendix. It contains information on location, type of contract, period - both planned and actual, main private players, and status/ outcome. Some of these projects have reached financial closure or are operational. Others are distressed or have concluded or
cancelled/ terminated. This may be the result of several factors, including poorly designed contracts, unsuitable regulatory mechanisms, economic and/ or public health problems. The relevant terms are explained below: Financial closure: There is legally binding commitment of private sponsors to mobilize funding or provide services. Operational: Distressed: The project has started providing services to the public. The government or the private operator has either requested contract termination or are in international arbitration.
Expired:
The contract period has expired and it was neither renewed nor extended by either the government or the private operator.
Terminated/ Remunicipalised:
The private sector has exited from the project by: selling or transferring its economic interest back to the government before fulfilling the contract terms;

removing all management and personnel; or ceasing operation, service provision, or construction for an agreed percentage of the license or concession period, following the revocation of the license or repudiation of the contract.
5.
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Based on the literature review and the database, the researchers have developed the following preliminary findings. 5.1 Regional Trends Africa In Africa, a majority of the projects involve management contracts, with no joint ventures or privatized projects. Figure 3 and 4 show the type of PPP projects in Africa and their current status:
Figure 3: Types of PPP Contracts (Africa)
Figure 4: Status of Contracts (Africa) Some lease - affermages have elements of a concession contract, such as in the case of Cote dIvoire and Senegal. In these projects, the government retains asset ownership and assumes the risk of investment. They mostly rely on the private operators for their expertise and efficiency in managing the water supply network. This trend could also be due to pressure from the World Bank to promote privatization in order for the local governments to receive financial aid. By issuing out management contracts and lease/affermages, a greater degree of control could still be
maintained over the public assets while fulfilling their obligations to the World Bank. Local governments in the region could also be wary of these private operators and their cost-recovery practices. This could explain their reluctance to hand over control of their public assets for long periods of time. Latin America In Latin America, a majority of the PPP projects for urban water supply are long term concessions. There are a few management contracts and some partial divestitures in Brazil and Chile. This could be due to the fact that Latin American countries do not have the necessary financial clout to undertake the commercial risk of the partnership. It could also be due to strong influence from the multi-national companies to convince the governments to take up these contracts. Concession contracts would allow the private players more freedom to allocate their resources and provide a steady stream of income. Figure 5 and 6 show the type of PPP projects in Latin America and their current status.
Figure 5: Types of PPP Contracts (Latin America)
Figure 6: Status of Contracts (Latin America) Asia A majority of the PPP projects for urban water supply in Asia are concessions. There are also several projects developed on the basis of BOT and BOOT. Here too, strong influence of multinational agencies could be identified as a reason behind the popularity of long term concessions and BOT/BOOT type of contractual arrangements with private sector entities. Further, the technological and management constraints faced by the public sector entities in Asian countries to develop and operate efficient water facilities may have contributed towards this trend. It is also noted that Asia was one of the last regions to be hit by the privatization wave. This meant that concession contracts would have been better spelt out, and conflicts arising from earlier contracts signed would have been resolved. This would make the Asian governments more willing to commit to these long-term concession contracts. Figure 7 and 8 show the type of PPP projects in Asia and their current status.
Figure 7: Types of PPP Contracts (Asia)
Figure 8: Status of Contracts (Asia) MENA In the Middle East and North Africa, while PPPs have received significant attention for desalination projects, water supply usually falls under public management (Bruch 2007). However, examples of private sector participation are visible. A large majority of the 28 urban water supply projects involving the private sector are management contracts, and the three
concession contracts in the region are all found in Morocco. Several new management contracts are expected to be awarded to the private sector. Countries in MENA are more affluent and can afford to bear the commercial risk of the PPP projects. Private operators were needed to provide the technical know-how and efficient means of management. Figure 9 and 10 show the type of PPP projects in MENA and their current status.
Figure 9: Types of PPP Contracts (MENA)
Figure 10: Status of Contracts (MENA)
Europe The largest percentage of projects in Europe fall into the category of long term concessions whilst 18 percent of the projects have been given to the private sector on management contracts. Europe was the first to be hit by the privatization wave. As a result, private players typically fought for long term concession contracts or, in the alternative for long term leases/ affermages to maximize their profits. The ownership of private water companies in Europe is overwhelmingly dominated by Suez and Veolia, who together with other private water companies are increasingly dependent on their national government and international development banks for capital (Hall and Lobina 2010). There have been cases of termination of privatization, resulting in remunicipalisation and return to public ownership. Examples include Paris (France), Potsdam (Germany) and Kaspovar and Pecs (Hungary). Public resistance to privatization is increasing, for example, in Italy. Figures 11 and 12 show the type of PPP projects in Europe and their current status.
Figure 11: Types of PPP Contracts (Europe)
Figure 12: Status of Contracts (Europe) Australia Of the total 16 PPP projects in Australia and New Zealand, 10 are Greenfield projects and 6 are Management Contracts, with no projects of the other types of models. Except for one project that has expired, all the rest 15 are currently operational. The main private player in this region is United Water of Veolia. 5.2 Countries with no PPPs in the Water Sector In compiling the database, we have observed that in some countries there are no evidences of any PPP projects in the urban water sector. These countries are shown in Table 3. Table 3: Countries with no evidence of any PPP projects in the water sector Region Africa Countries Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe Asia Europe Brunei, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Singapore and South Korea Croatia and Denmark
Pacific
Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu
MENA
Bahrain, Djibouti, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen
5.3 General Observations Figure 13 shows the preferences in each of the six regions for the different types of PPP projects for urban water sector.
Figure 13: Proportions of different types of PPP projects in six regions From the 672 projects that have been considered from the six regions, it is observed that strongest preference for concession contracts is found in Latin America. This comes as a surprise given that less than three decades ago, the Latin American countries had a reputation for expropriating various investment projects, which eventually led to the development of Calvo
doctrine 1 and the subsequent development in international law that investors shall be paid appropriate compensation in accordance with international law, in the event of nationalization 2. The political developments during the post 1980 period in the Latin American countries where principles of open economy have been embraced may have contributed to investor confidence in participating in long term concession contracts in Latin America. Further, the developments in international law, especially in the area of international investments, where the right to adequate compensation in the event of expropriation is now recognised and the development of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration and the recognition of the enforceability of international arbitration awards following the New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958) by most countries, including Latin American nations may have contributed towards this trend. Next to Latin America, Europe and Asia are the two other regions with the largest number of PPP projects in urban water being developed under long term concessions. The legal stability of the countries concerned, the recognition of contractual privity in both civil law and common law jurisdictions in Europe, and the strong influence of European Union laws and harmonization of laws and regulations of EU member nations are the likely reasons behind investor and State confidence in entering into long term concessions. Asia is a rapidly developing region with countries such as China and India during the last decade and the East Asian nations (tiger economies) in the 1980s showing rapid economic growth. Thus, it is not surprising that private and public sector entities in the region have not found it too difficult to agree on long term concessions for developing water infrastructure facilities.
The Calvo doctrine was advanced by the Argentine diplomat and legal scholar Carlos Calvo, in his International Law of Europe and America in Theory and Practice (1868). It affirmed that rules governing the jurisdiction of a country over aliens and the collection of indemnities should apply equally to all nations, regardless of size. Further, it stated that foreigners who held property in Latin American states and who had claims against the governments of such states should apply to the relevant courts within such nations for redress instead of seeking diplomatic intervention.
In 1974, the UN General Assembly decisively adopted the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, which recognises the appropriate compensation standard and provides further that in any case where the question of compensation gives rise to a controversy, it shall be settled under the domestic law of the nationalizing State and by its tribunals
The regions that have preferred models of PPPs other than concessions are MENA and Africa. Interestingly, whilst MENAs reluctance to go into long term concessions and prefer management contracts seems to be motivated by the financial capacity of the public sector to finance and own water infrastructure facilities, whilst engaging the private sector chiefly for technological and management input, the African region may be suffering from lack of investor confidence in investing in water infrastructure in a region stricken with poverty and thus the substantial economic risk involved. Further, the political instability in the region and the lack of appropriate legal and regulatory environments to support long term commercial contracts may have contributed towards this trend. The region that has the largest number of projects falling into the greenfield category is Asia. The key idea behind developing infrastructure projects following this model is that it creates win-win options for all stakeholders. For example, whilst the private investors can enter a sector over which previously there were by state monopolies, the public sector can benefit from private capital, technology and management. Further, it is a concept that could be defended against political criticism on the basis that private sector ownership is limited to an agreed number of years, after which a fully operational project has to be transferred back to the public sector. Technology transfer and training of a local workforce are other key features of this type of PPPs. Thus, from a long term development perspective, the Asian region is in a good position to benefit by having embraced the concept. Whilst the lack of interest in greenfield type of PPPs in the water sector in Europe and MENA could be put down to the fiscal capacity in most of the countries in the region to finance and develop projects on their own or the lack of interest in committing the public sector to take over and run projects developed and managed by the private sector after a long duration of private sector operation and management, it is surprising that the Latin American countries have not shown an interest. The same explanation provided above with regard to long term concessions could be provided for the lack of greenfield PPPs in the African region. As far as joint ventures are concerned, none of the six regions considered in this research project have a significant number of projects developed in the urban water sector. Thus, it could be concluded that there is an overall reluctance in all six regions for active partnering of public and private sectors with financial, technological and management contributions from both sides to
develop urban water projects. The preference seems to be for either engaging the private sector to finance, develop and manage on a long term basis (e.g. concessions, greenfield) or to procure the services of the private sector to manage and operate a project developed with public sector funds (e.g. management contracts, service contracts, leases). As far as divesture is concerned, again, not a significant number of projects have been totally privatized or subjected to majority share control by the private sector in any of the six regions. Whilst Africa has no projects falling into this category, likely for the reasons explained above relating to economic viability and the additional reason of strong political opposition to nationalization, there are no divestures in MENA, probably for the reason that due to lack of water as a natural resource in the region, public sector control is of strategic and political importance. Although there are some divestures in Asia, Latin America and Europe, the number is insignificant. 5.4 Viability of Concessions
As noted above, the general preference in three of the regions, namely, Latin America, Europe and Asia seems to develop urban water projects by granting long term concessions to private sector entities. However, the long duration of concession contracts is an obstacle to competition; it is difficult to cancel these contracts even where performance is unsatisfactory due to legal constraints and the administrative processes involved. Further, concessions require private
operators to assume significant financial and foreign exchange risks and long-term commitments. In the circumstances, in countries suffering from political, economic and/or social instability and uncertainty, long-term concession contracts may not be the most suitable form of private sector engagement in the water sector, as many contractual and other disputes could arise at various points during the long duration of the partnership and parties might find it difficult to resolve such disputes effectively, thus leading to project interruptions, takeovers and terminations. Further, historically, large water multinationals have dominated the urban water supply sector partly owing to colonial structures. However, in recent years, these companies are withdrawing from the water markets in developing countries due to currency devaluations, economic crises, over-optimistic projections, and public resistance to price rises, and the impossibility of making profitable investment in extensions and improvements for poor households who were unable to pay the full cost of water supplied, without substantial public subsidy.
The above aspects are illustrated by the recent exit of large multinational water companies from several developing countries (Hall et al. 2010). Some examples provided in the table below. Table 4: Recent exits of large companies from developing countries Country Project Date of Termination Argentina Tucuman 30-year water concession contract 2004 Multinational involved Vivendi Poor service quality, high tariffs, serious operational failures. Contract disputes, public protests, failure of regulatory body. Bolivia Cochabamba 40year concession contract 2000 Agua de Tunari (consortium of International Water and Bechtel) High water tariffs, Cochabamba water war in 2000. Contract disputes, public protests, failure of regulatory body. South Africa Fort Beaufort 10year concession contract 2001 WSSA (Suez Ondeo) High water tariffs, poor service quality. Contract disputes, public protests. Hungary Pecs 25-year concession contract 2010 Suez High water tariffs, failure to fulfill investment obligations. Contract disputes. Colombia Bogota 30-year Greenfield contract 2004 Suez Overpricing of water by the developer led to take over of the project by the City council. Reasons for Termination
Chile
Calama 20-year Greenfield contract
2006
Biwater
Failure to meet the expected performance standards. Contract disputes.
Turkey
Antalya 10-year management and lease contract
2002
Suez
High water tariffs. Contract disputes.
5.5
Cancellations
Regulation forms an integral function of the public/government in the partnership with the private sector. Unfortunately, in several cases, public authorities are known to have turned their backs once a PPP contract is signed. In the absence of effective and independent regulation mechanisms, some cases of bribery/ corruption have been reported. There are also cases of privatization involving efficient public water utilities. Moreover, confidentiality and secrecy hamper transparency and deny access to the terms and conditions of contracts that hand over the management of a public resource to the private sector. In some countries, community
involvement is relatively unknown. As far as the private sector is concerned, poor financial risk allocation and political and legal instabilities have contributed to early project exits. Overall, all these factors have contributed to the failure of projects. The region with the highest percentage of project cancellations is Africa. Again, the reasons setout above such as economic viability, political instability, and lack of legal and regulatory infrastructure for long term project success can be listed as the key reasons for the large percentage of projects cancelled in Africa. Study of the next two regions with the highest percentage of projects cancellations has shown that public opposition to high prices charged by the private developers and the political opposition to private sector engagements and the developing trend of demand for public takeover of privatized or private operated water facilities are the key contributing factors to project cancellations. Cancellation of projects in Asia and MENA has been rather low compared to the other regions. In Asia, the strong legal contracts and the fear of having to pay heavy compensations to investors in the event of breaching contractual obligations concerning investment guarantees seems to
have contributed to the reluctance to cancel projects. Further, strong investment protection laws and public interest laws, and the early public activism during the stages of project feasibility studies and environmental impact assessments, outcomes of which are generally available in the public domain, seem to filter the project procurement process at an early stage, thus reducing the reasons for post development project cancellations. In MENA, the fact that only a small percentage of projects are procured as totally private sector funded projects may be the key reason behind the low project cancellation. 6. CONCLUSION In recent times, in many cases, management of urban water facilities has reverted to national/ provincial governments or local municipalities. Further, the departure of international water companies has provided a window of opportunity for local private companies, who have emerged as the new owners of the water infrastructure. The domestic private players may be independent, enter into joint ventures with foreign private companies, or act as subsidiaries of foreign private companies. Local industrial conglomerates and domestic private companies, who were already involved in water through construction or consulting / engineering, are also diversifying into PPPs for urban water supply. They have experience of doing business in their home country (and so, they are aware of the political environment and customer needs, and they are able to adapt to social conditions); they tend to adopt a long-term perspective in relation to their business operations, which is useful for volatile political, social and economic environments, and they possess investment capacity as a result of access to local financial markets. Further, they are not affected by foreign exchange rate fluctuations. Thus, many changes can be expected in the development and management architecture for urban water projects. Water has been and will continue to remain a public good. Thus, if PPPs are to be successful in the urban water sector, it is important for both public sector as well as private sector entities to understand the relevant constraints applicable to the partnering agreements. It is unlikely, especially in developing countries, that urban water projects can be developed purely on the basis of profit making. Long term sustainability of such projects would thus depend on provision of water to the people being the foremost obligation and educating the people to understand the scarcity of water and thus the cost of developing infrastructure and the services required for
delivering water to them. If this can be achieved, making a just profit to compensate the investors who develop the relevant technologies and invest in long term projects in partnership with public sector entities would not be unachievable.
References Abdel-Aziz, A.M. 2007. Successful Delivery of Public-Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Development. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 133(12), pp 918-931. Bitran, G. and P. Arellano. 2005. Regulating Water Services, Sending the Right Signals to Utilities in Chile. Public Policy for the Private Sector, World Bank, Note No. 286, March 2005. Accessed June 06, 2011. http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PublicPolicyJournal/286Bitran_Arellano.pdf Bruch, C. et al. 2007. Legal Frameworks Governing Water in the Middle East and North Africa. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 23(4), pp 595-624. Budds, J. and G. McGranahan 2003. Privatisation and the Provision of Urban Water and Sanitation in Africa, Asia and Latin America. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Accessed June 06, 2011. http://www.acquaevita.info/pag/pdf/Water_dp1.pdf Center for Public Integrity. 2003. The water barons: How a few powerful companies are privatizing your water. Center for Public Integrity, Washington, D.C. Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. 2005. Scheme for Support to Public Private Partnership in Infrastructure. Accessed June 08, 2011. http://www.pppinindia.com/pdf/PPPGuidelines.pdf Ford, R. and D. Zussman. 1997. Alternative Service Delivery: Sharing Governance in Canada. Institutes of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC), Toronto. Global Water Intelligence. 2009. 800m now served by private sector. 10(1) Accessed June 06, 2011. http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/10/11/market-insight/800m-now-served-byprivate-sector.html Gunawansa, Asanga. 2000. Legal Implications Concerning Project Financing Initiatives in Developing Countries. Attorney Generals Law Review, July 2000.
Hall, D. and E. Lobina. 2010. Water companies in Europe 2010. PSIRU (Public Services International Research Unit), University of Greenwich. Accessed June 06, 2011. http://www.psiru.org/reports/2010-W-EWCS.doc Hall, D., E. Lobina and V. Corral. 2010. Replacing failed private water contracts. PSIRU. PSIRU, University of Greenwich, London. Harris, S. 2004. Public Private Partnerships: Delivering Better Infrastructure Services. Working Paper, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, D.C. HM Treasury, United Kingdom. 1998. Partnerships for Prosperity: The Private Finance Initiative. HM Treasury, London. Johnstone, N. and L. Wood (eds). (2001). Private Firms and Public Water Realising Social and Environmental Objectives in Developing Countries. Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar. Jooste, Stephan F. 2008. Comparing Institutional Forms for Urban Water Supply. Working Paper #38, Collaboratory for Research on Global Projects, Stanford CA. Accessed June 06, 2011. http://crgp.stanford.edu/publications/working_papers/S_Jooste_Inst_Forms_Urban_Water_WP0 038.pdf Khanom, N.A. 2009. Conceptual Issues in Defining Public Private Partnership. Paper presented at the Asian Business Research Conference 2009, Dhaka, Bangladesh. KPMG. 2007. Building for Prosperity: Exploring the Prospects for Public Private Partnerships in Asia Pacific. Accessed June 08, 2011. www.kpmg.com.sg/publications/Industries_PPPinAsia2007.pdf Kumaraswamy, M.M. and D.A. Morris. 2002. Build-Operate-Transfer-Type Procurement in Asian Megaprojects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 128(2), pp 93-102. Ministry of Finance Singapore. 2009. Government Procurement. Accessed June 06, 2011. http://app.mof.gov.sg/government_procurement.aspx
Ofwat. 1993. Privatisation and History of the Water Industry. Information Note No. 18, February 1993. Pinsent Masons LLP. 2011. Pinsent Masons Water Yearbook 2011 2012. 13th Edition. Accessed November 15, 2011. http://wateryearbook.pinsentmasons.com/historical_editions.aspx ---. 2010. Pinsent Masons Water Yearbook 2010 2010. 12th Edition. Accessed November 15, 2011. http://wateryearbook.pinsentmasons.com/historical_editions.aspx Savas, E. 2000. Privatisation and Public-Private Partnerships. Chatham House Publishers, New York. Transparency International. 2009. Water Industry Privatization in the Czech Republic: money down the drain? Accessed June 06, 2011. http://www.transparency.cz/pdf/TIC_vodarenstvi_en.pdf Wolff, G. H. and M. Palaniappan. 2004. Public or Private Water Management? Cutting the Gordian Knot. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management, 130(1), pp 1-3. World Bank. 2006. Approaches to Private Participation in Water Services A Toolkit. Washington, DC: IBRD/ World Bank.
APPENDIX: DATABASE OF PPP PROJECTS IN THE WATER SECTOR
Keys Type of PPP: Greenfield - BOT (Build Own Transfer), BOO (Build Own Operate), BOOT (Build Own Operate Transfer), BMO (Build Manage Operate), DBO (Design Build Operate), DBFO (Design Build Finance Operate). Concession C (Concesssion), BROT (Build Rehabilitate Operate Transfer), ROT (Rehabilitate Operate Transfer), RLT (Rehabilitate Lease Transfer), TOT (Transfer Operate Transfer). MC (Management Contract), MC/L (Management Contract cum Lease) SC (Service Contract) L (Lease) A (Affermage) JV (Joint Venture) D (Divestiture) Status: O (Operational), E (Expired), T (Termination or Remunicipalisation), D (Distressed)
Note: While every effort has been made to make this database as complete and accurate as possible, lack of availability of data from secondary sources and discrepancies of data between sources may lead to gaps or inaccuracies in certain cases.
Africa
AFRICA
Sl. 1 2 Country Burkina Faso Cameroon Nationwide City Duration 2001 2006 2007 2017 Type of PPP SC MC/L Project name/ Company Private players Veolia Water, Cabinet Mazars and Guerard Office National de lEau Potable (ONEP, 33%), Delta Holding SA (33%), Caisse de Dpt et de Gestion (33%) and Ingema (1%), all Morocco Suez (51%) Status O O
Camerounaise des Eaux
Cameroon
2000 2020
Central African Republic Cote d'Ivoire
Bangui
1991 2006 1959, 1987 2007 1987 2007 2008 2032 1989 2011 1999 2005 1995 1999 2000
MC/L
Societe Nationale des Eaux du Cameroun (SNEC); since 2006, Cameroon Water Utilities Corporation (CAMWATER) Societe de Distribution dEau en Centrafrique (SODECA) Societe Distribution d'Eau de Cote d'Ivoire (SODECI) Societe Distribution d'Eau de Cote d'Ivoire (SODECI) Societe Distribution d'Eau de Cote d'Ivoire (SODECI) Societe de Exploitation des Eaux de Guinee (SEEG) Malindi water utility contract
Saur (51%)
Abidjan
L, then C MC/L MC/L MC/L MC/L SC C
Finagestion (45%), SAUR (47%) and Government (8%) Saur International, France (47%) Bouygues (46%, France) SAUR & Vivendi (51%) H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (100%, Germany) H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (Germany) 60% of EDM - SAUR (65%)/ IPS West Africa (35%) SAUR-EDF- Hydroquebec/CRCCogema Aguas de Portugal (73%) and MaziMozambique (23%)
6 7 8 9 10 11
Cote d'Ivoire Cote d'Ivoire Guinea Kenya Kenya Mali
Nationwide Nationwide Conakry and 16 towns Malindi Malindi Bamako and 16 urban centres [water and electricity]
E O T E E T
Energie de Mali (EDM)
12 13
Mali Mozambique Beira, Quelimane, Nampula, & Pemba
1995 1999 2008
MC MC/L
Energie de Mali (EDM)
T E
Aguas de Mozambique
Africa
14 15 16 Mozambique Mozambique Namibia Maputo Matola Windhoek 1999 2014 1999 2014 2001 2021 2001 2011 2002 2004 1996 2006 2006 2012 1999 2029 2001 2006 MC/L MC/L MC/L Goreangab Water Plant Aguas de Mocambique [5 national organisations included] SAUR (38%) and Aguas de Portugal (32%) SAUR (38%) and Aguas de Portugal (32%) Berlinwasser International AG (33%), Va Tech Wabag (33%) and Veolia Environnement (34%) Veolia Water AMI (51% ) Biwater plc (100%) Bouygues (57.8%) O O O
17 18 19
Niger Republic of Congo Senegal
Nationwide Brazzaville Dakar
MC/L MC/L MC/L
Societe d'exploitation des eaux du Niger (SEEN) Societe Nationale de Distribution d'Eau (SNDE) Sngalaise des Eaux (SdE) [local investors (+30%), employees and Senegal govt.] Sngalaise des Eaux (SdE) [local investors (+30%), employees and Senegal govt.] Siza Water Company Johannesburg Water Company
O E E
20
Senegal
Dakar
MC/L
Bouygues (57.8%)
21 22
South Africa South Africa
Dolphin Coast, iLembe District Municipality Johannesburg
ROT MC/L
23
South Africa
Maluti-a-Phofung
2006 2011 1999 2029
MC/L
Maluti-a-Phofung Water (Pty) Ltd Greater Nelspruit Utility Company (GNUC); later Silulumanzi Water and Sanitation Services South Africa Ltd, (Fort Beaufort) Water and Sanitation Services South Africa Ltd (Queenstown)
24
South Africa
Nelspruit, Mbombela
BROT
25
South Africa
Nkonkobe municipality
1995 2005 1992 2017
MC/L
Biwater (73%) and Metropolitan Life Lrd. (23%) Water and Sanitation Services South Africa (WSSA), a joint venture between Suez (ex-Lyonnaise des Eaux), its subsidiary Northumbrian Water Group and the South African company Group 5 Uzinzo Services (JV of Amanz abantu Services (Eastern Cape) & WSSA) Cascal (Biwater) (40%), operating through Metsi a Sechaba, its JV with a local black empowerment group Suez (50%) and Everite (50%)
O E
26
South Africa
Queenstown
MC/L
Suez (50%) and Everite (50%)
Africa
27 28 29 South Africa Sudan Tanzania Stutterheim (Amahthali) Khartoum Dar-es-Salaam 1993 2003 2008 2021 2003 2013 1998 2001 2002 2004 2001 2005 L DBO MC/L Suez (50%) and Everite (50%) E O Biwater (UK 25.5%), Gauff Engineers (Germany 25.5%) and Superdoll (Tanzania 49%) H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (100%, Germany) Suez (100%) Saur (100%) T
Water and Sanitation Services South Africa Ltd (Stutterheim) Biwater Holdings Limited Dar es Salaam Water Distribution Kampala Revenue Improvement Project Ondeo Services Uganda Limited (OSUL) AHC Mining Municipal Services Limited (AHC-MMS)
30 31 32
Uganda Uganda Zambia
Kampala Kampala Nkana, Konkola, Nchanga, Mufulira, and Luanshya (mine townships)
MC/L MC/L MC/L
E E E
Latin America
LATIN AMERICA
Sl. Country City Duration Type of PPP BROT Project Name/ Company Private Players Status
Argentina
Balcarce, Buenos Aires province Buenos Aires city
19942014 19932023
Aguas de Balcarce, S.A.
Argentina
BROT
Aguas Argentinas S.A. (AASA)
Argentina
4 5 6 7 8 9
Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina
Buenos Aires province (7 municipalities Merlo, Moreno, San Miguel, General Rodriguez, Escobar, Malvinas Argentinas y Jose C P) Campana, Buenos Aires province Clorinda, Formosa province Cordoba Corrientes province Formosa Greater Buenos Aires province (60 municipalities) La Rioja La Rioja Laprida, Buenos Aires province
20002030
BROT
Aguas del Gran Buenos Aires [employees (10%)]
Camuzzi Gazometri SpA, Italy (70%) and Global Water Investments, LLC, Argentina (30%) Lyonnaise des Eaux (Suez Group, 46.3%), Compagnie Generale des Eaux S.A. (Veolia Group), Anglian Water PLC, Aguas de Barcelona S.A. (23%), and local partners Impregilo SpA, Italy (43%), ACS Group (Actividades de Construccion y Servicios) or Dragados, Spain (27%), Aguas de Bilbao Bizkaia, Spain (20%)
19982027 19952025 19972027 19912021 19952025 19992029 20022032 19992002 19962016
BROT ROT BROT BROT ROT ROT
Aguas de Campana, S.A. Aguas de Formosa [province (10%)] Aguas Cordobesas [only for water services] Aguas de Corrientes Aguas de Formosa Azurix Buenos Aires S.A.
Contreras Hermanos SA (51%) and Esuco SA (49%), both Argentinian SAGUA Internacional, S.A. (South Water, 80%; Agbar, 15%; Suez, 5%) consortium of Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux and Agbar (56.5%) consortium led by Thames Water, UK Phoenix, Sagua International SA and Simali, all Argentinian Azurix, a unit of Enron (100%, US)
O O O O O O
10 11 12
Argentina Argentina Argentina
BROT MC BROT
Aguas de la Rioja, SA Aguas de la Rioja SA Aguas de Laprida, SA
Latin Aguas (100%, Argentina) Latin Aguas (100%) Camuzzi Gazometri SpA, Italy = 100%
E E O
Latin America
13 Argentina Mendoza province 1998 ROT Obras Sanitarias de Mendoza (OSM) [The province controls 20% and the employees control 10%] Enron-led consortium Inversores del Aconcagua (50%), which is made up of US firm Enron (57.5 %), the French firm SAUR International (17.5%), Italgas (5%) and Argentine investors (20%); operating company called Aguas de Mendoza, which is fully owned by Saur International owns 20%, now 32% Sudamericana de Aguas, S.A. (80%) Urbaser (27%), Dragados (18%), Urbaser Argentina (45%) and workers (10%); now ACS Group (Actividades de Construccion y Servicios) (90%, Spain) MECON, S.A.; later, Sociedad Prestadora Aguas de Salta, S.A. (JCR SA (45%); Latinaguas (45%), both Argentinian) Aguas del Valle [Proactiva Medio Ambiente (joint subsidiary of Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas (FCC) and Veolia), 50:50] Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux S.A. (51.69%), Aguas de Barcelona S.A. (10.89%), Interagua Servicio Integral de Agua S.A. (14.92%), Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. (12.5%) and Aguas Provinciales de Santa FE's employees (10%). Dipos (Cast TV SA (15%); Curi Hermanos SA (15%); Editorial El Liberal SRL (15%); Sagua International SA (45%), all Argentinian consortium led by Compagnie Gnrale des Eaux (90%) Cascal/ Biwater, UK (45%) and Nuon, Netherlands (45%) consortium of International Water Ltd. (55%) (Bechtel (US) and Edison (Italy)), Riverstar International (25%) and four Bolivian companies (20%) O
14 15
Argentina Argentina
Pilar municipality, Buenos Aires province Posadas and Garupa cities, Misiones province Salta province
19922016 19992029
ROT BROT
Sudamericana de Aguas, S.A. Servicios de Aguas de Misiones SA (SAMSA)
O O
16
Argentina
19982028 20002030
BROT
Aguas de Salta S.A. (ASSA) (later SPASSA) Obras Sanitarias de Catamarca
17
Argentina
18
Argentina
San Fernando del Valle de Catamarca, Valle Viejo, and Fray Mamerto Esquiu, Catamarca province Santa Fe province (15 districts)
ROT
19952025
BROT
Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe
19
Argentina
Santiago del Estero province (4 cities)
19972027
BROT
Aguas de Santiago, SA
20 21 22
Argentina Belize Bolivia
Tucuman province National Cochabamba
19952025 2001 1999
BROT partial D C
Aguas del Aconquija Belize Water Supply Limited Aguas del Tunari
O O O
Latin America
23 24 25 Bolivia Brazil Brazil La Paz-El Alto Alta Floresta Aracoiaba de Serra 1997 20022032 20092039 19982023 C ROT BROT Aguas del Illimani Aguas de Alta Floresta Aguas de Aracoiaba JV including Lyonnaise des Eaux, owned by Suez (35%) [Ondeo] Cab Ambiental (100%, Brazil) Construtora Cowan LTDA, Construtora Queiroz Galvao, Developer SA and Trana Construcoes Ltda Aguas do Brasil or Carioca ChristianiNielsen Engenharia S.A., Construtora Cowan LTDA, Construtora Queiroz Galvao, EIT Empresa Tecnica Industrial and Erco Engenharia Global Engenharia and Planex Consultoria (Brazil) Global Engenharia and Planex Consultoria (Brazil) Aguas de Portugal (93.5% or 100%) O O O
26
Brazil
Araruama, Silva Jardim and Saquarema, State of Rio de Janeiro
BROT
Aguas de Juturnaiba
27 28 29
Brazil Brazil Brazil
30
Brazil
31
Brazil
Araujo, State of Minas Gerais Bom Sucesso, State of Minas Gerais Buzios, Cabo Frio, Sao Pedro da Aldeia, Iguaba and Arraial do Cabo municipalities, state of Rio de Janeiro Cachoeiro de Itapemirim municipality, State of Espirinto Santo Campo Grande, State of Mato Grosso de Sul
20022032 20022027 19982023
ROT BROT BROT
Sanarj - Concession de Saneamento Basico Aguas de Bom Sucess0 Prolagos
O O O
19982018
BROT
Aguas de Cachoeiro SA (Citagua)
Aguia Branca (73.3%) and Cepemar (26.7%), both Brazilian; later, Odebrecht
20002030
BROT
Aguas Guariroba SA
32
Brazil
Campos, State of Rio de Janeiro
19992029
BROT
Aguas do Paraiba
33 34 35
Carlinda municipality, State of Rio de Janeiro Claudia, State of Mato Grosso Coliatina city, state of Espirito Santo
20042034 20042034 1998
ROT ROT C
Aguas de Carlinda Aguas de Claudia
originally Interagua (JV of energy company Endesa Spain and Agbar)); now Equipav S/A Pavimentacao, Engenharia e Comercio, and Herber Participacoes Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A., Construtora Cowan LTDA, Construtora Queiroz Galvao, Developer SA and Trana Construcoes Ltda Perenge Engenharia (100%, Brazil) Perenge Engenharia (100%, Brazil)
O O O
Latin America
36 37 38 39 40 41 Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Colider Comodoro Curitiba, State of Parana Guapimir municipality, State of Rio de Janeiro Guara, State of Sao Paulo Guaranta do Norte municipality, State of Rio de Janeiro Guariroba, Campo Grande, Mato Grosso Itapema, State of Santa Catarina Juturnaiba 20022032 20072037 2001 20042024 20002025 20012031 2000 2030 20042029 1998 BROT BROT C ROT ROT ROT Fontes da Serra Saneamento de Guapimirim Ltda Aguas de Guara Aguas de Guaranta Ltda Emissao Engenharia (Brazil) Hidrogesp (100%, Brazil) Perenge Engenharia (Brazil) Colider Agua e Saneamento Ltda Empresa guas de Comodoro Ltda Cab Ambiental (100%, Brazil) Agrimat Engenharia Industria e Comercio (100%, Brazil) O O O O O O
42
Brazil
BROT
Aguas de Guariroba
43 44
Brazil Brazil
ROT BROT
Aguas de Itapema Aguas de Juturnaiba
45 46
Brazil Brazil
Limeira, State of Sao Paulo Machado & Baguacu
19952025 1996 2021 20002030 1995 2015 20032033 19972017 19972027
ROT C
Aguas de Limeira SA Aguas de SANEAR (Saneamento de Araatuba, S.A.) Aguas de Amazonas or Manaus Saneamento Aguas de Mandaguahy Aguas de Marcelandia Aguas de Marilia Ciagua Concessionaria de Aguas de Mairinque
50% owned by Agbar, 41% by Cobel, and 9% by Mato Grosso state water company Sanesul Construtora Nascimento and Linear Participacoes e Construcoes de Cuiaba Aguas de Juturnaiba (Carioca ChristianiNielsen Engenharia S.A., Brazil; Construtora Cowan LTDA, Brazil; Construtora Queiroz Galvao, Brazil; EIT Empresa Tecnica Industrial; Erco Engenharia) consortium of Odebrecht, Brazil and Suez (50:50) Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (54%) Suez Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (85%) Construtora Nascimento (100%, Brazil) Hidrogesp, Paineira Participacoes, Telar, all Brazilian Villa Nova Engenharia
O O
O O
47 48 49 50 51
Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil
Manaus, State of Amazonas Mandaguahy Marcelandia Marilia, State of Sao Paolo Marinique, State of Sao Paolo
BROT C BROT BROT BROT
O O O O O
Latin America
52 53 54 Brazil Brazil Brazil Matupa municipality, State of Rio de Janeiro Minas Gerais, State of Mineiros do Tiet municipality, State of Sao Paulo Mirassol municipality, State of Sao Paulo Mirassol municipality, State of Sao Paulo Niteroi, State of Rio de Janeiro 20012031 2006 19952015 20082038 20012006 19992029 ROT partial D BROT Aguas de Matupa Companhia de Saneamento de Minas Gerais (Copasa) Saneciste Perenge Engenharia (100%, Brazil) O O Sacyr Vallehermoso SA (SyV) (60%, Spain) O
55 56 57
BROT ROT BROT
Paz Gestao Ambiental Sanessol Aguas de Niteroi
Paz Construcao e Prestacao de Servicoes Publicos Ltda (100%, Brazil) Cab Ambiental (90%, Brazil) Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A., Construtora Cowan LTDA, Construtora Queiroz Galvao and EIT Empresa Tecnica Industrial Encomind Engenharia Comercio e Industria, Brazil Engenharia e Comercio Govic Ltda and Perenge Engenharia (Brazil) Tyco International, USA
O O O
58 59 60
Nobres, State of Mato Gross Nova Canaa do Norte Nova Friburgo, State of Rio de Janeiro Novo Progresso, State of Para Ourinhos municipality Paraguacu, State of Minas Gerais Paranagua state
19992029 20092039 19992024 19942034 19962011 20002030 19972027
BROT BROT BROT
Empresa de Saneamento de Nobres Aguas de Canaa Concessionaria de Aguas e Esgotos de Nova Friburgo Ltda (Caenf) Aguas de Novo Progresso Aguas de Esmeralda Cosagua Aguas de Paranagua S.A.
O O O
61 62 63 64
Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil
ROT BROT BROT BROT
Perenge Engenharia (100%, Brazil) Hidrogesp, Brazil and Tyco International, USA Global Engenharia and Planex Consultoria (Brazil) Cab Ambiental (100%) or Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A., Brazil = 38%; Construtora Castilho de Porto Alegre SA, Brazil = 42% Construtora Nascimento (100%, Brazil) Novacon, Brazil
O O O O
65 66
Brazil Brazil
Peixoto de Azevedo Pereiras municipality, State of Sao Paulo
20002030 19942017
BROT BROT
Aguas de Peixoto de Azevedo Pereiras Water Company
O O
Latin America
67 Brazil Petropolis city, State of Rio de Janeiro 19982028 BROT Aguas do Imperador Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A., Brazil; Construtora Cowan LTDA, Brazil; Construtora Queiroz Galvao, Brazil; EIT Empresa Tecnica Industrial Cab Ambiental (100%, Brazil) Primavera do Leste (100%, Brazil) O
68 69
Brazil Brazil
Pontes e Lacerda Primavera do Leste municipality, State of Rio de Janeiro Resende, State of Rio de Janeiro Ribeirao de Pantano, state of Sao Paulo Sanepar, Parana state
20002031 20002031 20082038 19962016 1998
BROT BROT
Aguas de Pontes e Lacerda Aguas de Primavera
O O
70
Brazil
BROT
Aguas das Agulhas Negras
71 72
Brazil Brazil
BROT partial D
Empresa de Saneamento de Tuiuti Companhia de Saneamento do Paran (SANEPAR)
Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A., Construtora Queiroz Galvao and Trana Construcoes Ltda, all Brazilian Novacon, Brazil 52.5% owned by the Parana state and 34.7% by the consortium Domino Holding, including French water MNC Veolia and the Brazilian Andrade Gutierrez Group Construtora Nascimento (100%, Brazil) Aguas de Santo Antonio (100%)
O O
73 74
Brazil Brazil
Santa Carmem Santo Antonio de Padua municipality, State of Rio de Janeiro Sao Carlos, State of Sao Paulo Sao Paulo state Serrana, State of Sao Paolo Sorriso, State of Mato Grosso Tambau, State of Sao Paulo Tangara da Serra Tocantins state Tucurui municipality, PA
20022032 20042034 19942004 20072037 20002030 20002030 20002030 2001 1999 19992019
BROT ROT
Aguas de Santa Carmem Aguas de Santo Antonio
O O
75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil
ROT BROT BROT ROT BROT C partial D BROT
Sao Carlos Water System - DH Perfuracao de Pocos Aguas de Itu Exploracao de Servicos de Agua e Esgoto SA Bela Fonte Saneamento Ltda Aguas de Sorriso Rio Pardo Operadores
Hidrogesp, Brazil Grupo Equipav (100%, Brazil) Novacon, Brazil Perenge Engenharia (Brazil) Novacon, Brazil
O O O O O O O T
Empresa de Saneamento do Tocantins (Saneatins) Aguas de Tucurui
Empresa Sul-Americana de Montagem S.A., Brazil Hidrogesp, Brazil
Latin America
83 84 85 86 87 88 Brazil Brazil Chile Chile Chile Chile Uniao do Sul Veracruz state Litoral Sur, Region V Lo Barenchea community, Region M Pudahuel district of the Metropolitan Region Region I 20002030 20042034 19932028 199520072023 20042034 20032033 20042034 20042034 BROT BROT BROT BROT BROT ROT Aguas de Uniao do Sul Aguas de Vera Abastecimento e Distribuicao Ltda Aguesquinta, SA Servicions de Agua Potable Barnechea SA Izarra de Lo Aguirre Water Concession Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Tarapac S.A. (ESSAT) or Aguas del Altiplano Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Antofagasta S.A. (ESSAN) or Aguas de Antofagasta Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Atacama S.A. (EMSSAT) or Aguas Chanar Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Coquimbo S.A.(ESSCO) or Aguas del Valle, SPV created by ESVAL Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de La Araucana S.A. (ESSAR) or Aguas Araucania Empresa Metropolitana de Obras Sanitarias S.A. (EMOS); Aguas Andinas, an Agbar subsidiary (replaced EMOS) [Chilean govt.s economic development agency, CORFO (35%), Hedge funds (9%) and the 5% remaining are owned by other shareholders] Construtora Nascimento (100%, Brazil) Construtora Nascimento (100%, Brazil Agbar (70%, Spain) and Chilquinta (30%, Chile) Biwater (100%, UK) Empresa de Agua Potable Izarra de Lo Aguirre SA (100%) Inmobiliaria Punta de Rieles, a subsidiary of Grupo Solari (100%, Chile) Grupo Luksic (65%, Chile) T Consorcio Aguas Norte Grande (Hydrosan, Chile = 45%; Icafal, Chile = 45%; Vecta, Chile = 10%) Consorcio Financiero S.A. - now, Fernandez Hurtado; Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, Canada = 69.4% grupo Solari (100%) O T T T T T
89
Chile
Region II
ROT
90
Chile
Region III
BROT
91
Chile
Region IV
ROT
92
Chile
Region IX
20042034 1999
BROT
93
Chile
Region M: Greater Santiago Metropolitan Region
partial D
consortium of Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux (through Inversiones Aguas Metropolitanas (50.1%) and Agbar (40.8%)
Latin America
94 Chile Region V 1999 partial D partial D BROT Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Valparaso S.A. (ESVAL) or Aguas Puerto Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios del Libertados S.A. (ESSEL) Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios del Maule S.A. (ESSAM) or Aguas Nuevo Sur Maule Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios del Bio-Bo S.A. (ESSBIO) Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Los Lagos S.A. (ESSAL) Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Aysn S.A. (EMSSA) or Aguas Patagonia de Aysen Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Magallanes S.A. (ESSMAG) or Aguas Magallanes Aguas Cordillera Aguas Decima AASSA operation of eight water utility municipalities in Antoquia consortium of Enersis (Chile) and Anglian Water (41%); in 2000, only Anglian Water JV b/w Thames Water and Electricidade de Portugal (45%); RWE Germany (51%) RWE Germany; acquired by Thames Water O
95 96
Chile Chile
Region VI: Tancagua Region VII
1999 20012031 2000
O O
97
Chile
Region VIII: Concepcion Region X: Los Lagos Region Region XI
partial D partial D ROT
98 99
Chile Chile
1999 20022032 20042034 1996 1995 19972012
Southern Cross, a Latin American Investment Fund (US: 55%) Thames Water (51%) Aguas de Barcelona, Spain (51%) Hidrosan Ingenieria SA, Icafal, and Vecta (32.3% each, Chile) Grupo Solari (100%, Chile)
O O
100
Chile
Region XII
BROT
101 102 103
Chile Chile Colombia
104
Colombia
Santiago and 21 periurban localities Valdivia Amalfi, Anori, Armenia, Corregimiento de Bolombolo, Ituango and Puerto del Triunfo municipalities, department of Antoquia Arjona and Turbaco municipalities, Bolivar department
full D full D MC/L
Agbar (42%) and Suez (10%) Agbar (Spain) and Chilquinta (Chile) (50:50) Acueductos y Alcantarillados Sostenibles (AASSA), Colombia = 100%
T O O
20042024
ROT
Social de Acueductos y Alcantarillado de Colombia
Construcciones Insaca Ltda, Ingenieria Sala, Mejilla y Llegas Constructores,and Sicon SA, Colombia
Latin America
105 Colombia Barrancas, Distraccion, El Molino, Villanueva (La Guajira province) Barranquilla 20022014 19962033 1998 2018 20022022 1998 19952021 19972012 ROT Aguas del Sur de la Guajira S.A. (ASOAGUAS) Sociedad de Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Asseo de Barranquilla Grupo Hydros and Ingenieria Total, each 50%, Colombia Interamericana de Aguas y Servicios S.A. (60.4%) Proactive (33.34%) Hidropacifico S.A. Conhydra SA and Hidroestudios de Bogota, Colombia Agbar (45.91%) O
106
Colombia
RLT
107 108 109 110
Colombia Colombia Colombia Colombia
Bogota Buenaventura (Valle de Cauca department) Buga Cartagena de Indias
BOT ROT JV MC/L
T O E O
Aguas de Cartagena (Acuacar) [govt. (50%) + local investors (4.1%)] Aguascol Arbelaez SA
111
Colombia
112
Colombia
113
Colombia
114 115 116 117
Colombia Colombia Colombia Colombia
Caucasia, Taraza, Nechi, and Caceres municipalities, department of Antoquia Cerete, Sahagun, Cienaga de Oro, and San Carlos municipalities, department of Cordoba Chigorodo Santa Fe de Antioquia, Mutata, Sonson, and Marinilla municipalitie, Department of Antoquia City of El Banco, Magdalena department Cucuta, district of Norte de Santander Cumaral municipality, Meta Department Fundacion municipality,
MC/L
Aguascol (100%)
20042024
ROT
Acueducto regional de Medio Sinu
Uniaguas S.A., Colombia = 100%
19972012
MC/L
Conhydra SA (Colombia)
20032019 20062021 20022012 19982018
ROT ROT RLT BROT
Operagua Aguaskpital de Cucuta Aguas del Llano SA Fundacion municipality water utility
Aguas de Valencia, Spain = 100% Aguas Kapital (Nule Group, Cuba, 75%) Aguas del Llano SA Prestadora de Servicios Publicos Dominiciliarios SA (Presea), (100%)
O O T O
Latin America
department of Magdalena Galapa municipality, Atlantico department Itsmina and Tado municipalities, Choco department Maicao, department of Guarija Monteria, Cordoba Department Municipalities of Andes, Segovia, Cuidad Bolivar, Jardin and Salgar, Department of Antoquia Municipalities of Baranoa and Polonuevo, Atlantico Department Municipalities of Girardot and Ricaurte and surrounding areas, Department of Cundinamarca Municipalities of Tacaima and Agua de Dios, Cundinamarca Deparment Municipality of Apartado, Deparment of Antoquia Municipality of Cienaga, Department of Magdalena
118
Colombia
20022022 20022014 20032033 19992020 19972012
BROT
Galapa municipality water utility Itsmina and Tado municipalities water utilities Aguas de la Peninsula Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas S.A. Suroeste Antioqueno water utilities
119
Colombia
MC/L
Sociedad de Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Aseo (Triple A) de Barranquilla, Colombia = 100% Francisco Velasquez Ingenieria Civil y Sanitaria (100%, Colombia) Grupo Hydros, Colombia; Ingenieria Total, Colombia Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas SA (FCC) (50%) and Veolia Environmenta (50%) Ingenieria Total, Colombia (100%)
120 121
Colombia Colombia
BROT RLT
O O
122
Colombia
MC/L
123
Colombia
20032023
BROT
Aguas del Norte SA
Sociedad de Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Aseo (Triple A) de Barranquilla (100%)
124
Colombia
19972012
MC/L
Empresa de Aguas de Girardot, Ricaurte and the region SA
125
Colombia
20032023
BROT
Aguas del Alto Magdalena SA
Grupo Colombo-Cubano (100%)
126
Colombia
19962011 20002015
MC/L
Apartado municipality water utility Operadores de Servicios de la Sierra SA
Prestadora de Servicios Publicos Dominiciliarios SA (Presea) (100%) Aguascol, Colombia = 100%
127
Colombia
BROT
Latin America
128 Colombia Municipality of El Chaco in Deparment of Narino and Guapi municipality in Cauca Municipality of Malambo, Department of Antoquia Municipality of Ocana, Department of Norte de Santander Municipality of Sabanalarga, Department of Atlantico Municipality of San Juan Nepomuceno, Department of Bolivar Municipality of Soledad , Department of Atlantico Nataga, Department of Huila Neiva Ocana Palmira, department of Valle del Cauca Ponedera (Atlantico department) Puerto Berrio municipality, department of Antoquia Puerto Carreno municipality, Vichada Department Puerto Colombia, department of 2002 MC/L Water utilities of El Charco and Guapi municipalities SIE de Colombia = 100% O
129
Colombia
2000
BROT
Operadores de Servicio del Norte SA Ocana municipal water utility first contract Aguas y Servicios de la Sabanalarga SA
Aguascol, Colombia = 100%
130
Colombia
19941999 2001
MC
Empresa de Servicios Publicos de Ocana (50%, Colombia) Sociedad de Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Aseo (Triple A) de Barranquilla (100%)
131
Colombia
BROT
132
Colombia
20012011 20022021 20012011 1996 19992004 19972012 20022012 19982018
MC/L
Aguas de la Costa SA
Aguas de la Costa, Colombia = 100%
133
Colombia
BROT
Soledad municipality water utility Nataga Water Services
Sociedad de Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Aseo (Triple A) de Barranquilla (100%) Consorcio Almafama
134 135 136 137 138 139
Colombia Colombia Colombia Colombia Colombia Colombia
MC/L JV MC/L MC/L MC/L MC/L
O O O O T T
Ocana municipal water utility second contract Acuaviva SA ESP Aguas de la Rivera S.A. Puerto Berrio municipal water utility
Empresa de Servicios Publicos de Ocana, Colombia (50%) Suez (50%) Aguas de la Ribera Conhydra SA, Colombia = 100%
140
Colombia
20022022 19972017
MC/L
Puerto Carreno municipality water utility Puerto Colombia water utility
Ingenieria Sala (100%, Colombia)
141
Colombia
BROT
Latin America
Atlantico 142 143 144 Colombia Colombia Colombia Rio Negro Riohacha Sabanagrande and Santo Tomas (Atlantico department) Sabanagrande and Santo Tomas, department of Atlantico San Andres Island 1998 20002020 20022012 20052024 JV BROT ROT O O O
Aguas de la Guajira Sabanagrande and Santo Tomas water and sewage first concession Sabanagrande and Santo Tomas water and sewage concession
Aguas de la Guajira (100%, Colombia) Acuasasa S.A., Colombia = 100%
145
Colombia
ROT
146
Colombia
20052020 20022017 19972012
BROT
Aguas de San Andres SA
147 148
Colombia Colombia
149
Colombia
150
Colombia
San Marcos (Sucre department) San Pedro de los Milagros, Santa Rosa de Osos, Titiribi, and Venecia municipalities, department of Antoquia Santa Barbara, Fredonia, Valparaiso and Caramanta, Department of Antoquia Santa Marta
ROT MC/L
Aguas de la Mojana SA San Pedro de los Milagros, Santa Rosa de Osos, Titiribi, and Venecia municipalities water utility
Fabrica Nacional de Autopartes (Fanalca) SA (50%, Colombia); Veolia and FCC, Spain (25:25) Acuasasa S.A., Colombia = 100% Acueductos y Alcantarillados Sostenibles (AASSA), Colombia (100%)
O O
19972012
MC/L
Municipal water utilities of Santa Barbara, Fredonia, Valparaiso and Caramanta
Operadores de Servicios SA (100%)
19972017
MC/L
Compania del Acueducto y Alcantarillado Metropolitano de Santa Marta
151
Colombia
Sincelejo and Corozal municipalities, Department of Sucre Tulua, department of Valle del Cauca
20022022 20002020
BROT
Aguas de la Sabana
Empas (Emas and Ingenieria Sala, Colombia); now Grupo Sala Grupo Empresarial Energic, Colombia = 80%
152
Colombia
MC/L
Centroaguas SA ESP
Latin America
153 154 Colombia Colombia Tunja Turbo municipality, department of Antoquia La Habana (12 out of 15 municipalities) Puerto Plata Santiago Santo Domingo (western half) Guayaquil, Guayas province 19962026 19962011 20002025 2007 2027 2004 2021 2001 2021 2001 2031 BROT MC/L Turbo municipality water utility BROT MC MC MC BROT Aguas de la Habana AAA Dominicana SA AAA Dominicana SA AAA Dominicana SA Ecapag Aguas de Barcelona (41%) Technicas Valencianas Del Agua (Tecvasa) (70%) Technicas Valencianas Del Agua (Tecvasa) (70%) Technicas Valencianas Del Agua (Tecvasa) Fabrica Nacional de Autopartes (Fanalca) SA (22%); Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas SA (FCC) (22.3%); Hidalgo and Hidalgo SA (22%), Veolia Environnement (22.3%) Sociedad de Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Aseo (Triple A) de Barranquilla Sociedad de Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Aseo (Triple A) de Barranquilla (100%) Leonardo Armijos Luna (100%) Grupo Seinco (100%, Uruguay) E O O O O Acueducto y Alcantarillado de Tunja or Seraqua Tunja ESP Proactiva - joint subsidiary of Veolia Environment France and FCC (50:50) Conhydra SA, Colombia (100%) T E
155 156 157 158 159
Cuba Dominican Republic Dominican Republic Dominican Republic Ecuador
160 161 162 163
Ecuador Ecuador Ecuador Guatemala
164 165
Guyana Honduras
Machala city, El Oro province Samborondon, Guayas province Tabacunda, State of Pedro Moncayo Izabal (municipalities of Santo Tomas de Castillo and Puerto Barrios) Georgetown San Pedro Sula
2004 2000 20042009 2008 2033
ROT MC/L MC/L BROT
Machala Tripleoro Water Concession Aguas de Samborondon Amagua Pedro Moncayo water supply Aguas de Izabal
O O O O
20022007 2001 2031 19932023
MC/L BROT
Serco Guardian (F.M.) Limited Aguas de San Pedro
Severn Trent Plc (100%) Acea S.p.A., Italy (31%); Agac SpA (30%); Astaldi SpA (15%) and Ghella Sogene CA (15%) Banamex, Mexico = 34%; ICA SA de CV, Mexico = 36%; Veolia Environnement, France = 30%
O O
166
Mexico
Aguascalientes
BROT
Concesionaria de Aguas de Aguas Calientes SA
Latin America
167 Mexico Cancun and Isla Mujeres 1993 2023 C AGUAKAN Desarrollos Hidrulicos de Cancn, a subsidiary of Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, a construction conglomerate (51%); Industrias Penoles, Mexico, a mining company (24.5%); Suez (24.5%); U.S.-based water company Azurix, through its affiliate Azurix Cancn, entered into a partnership with GMD to operate the concession and acquired a 49.9-percent interest from GMD but Azurix sold its share to a subsidiary of Suez des Eaux (Ondeo) in 2001 FCC and Mexicos ICA Azurix (49%) Tribasa S.A. de C.V., Mexico = 100% Tyco International, USA = 100% Businessmen from Monterrey and the British firm Severn Trent Ingenieros Civiles Asociados (ICA), with the Bank Banamex and the French firm Gnrales Des Eaux (Vivendi) Aqualia (26%) Aguas de Barcelona (49%) Bancomer, Bufete Industrial, and the French firm Lyonnaise Des Eaux-Dumex (SUEZOndeo Services) as well as the British firm Anglian Water GUTSA group and the British firm North West Water International O
168 169 170 171 172 173
Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico
El Realito Mexico City Navojoa Nogales, Sonora state North East North West
2009 2034 1994 2014 1996 2016 19972022 1994 2010 1994 2010 2007 2027 20012026 1994 2010
C MC MC/L BROT MC MC Industrias del Agua de la Cuidad de Mexico (IACMEX) Mexicana de Gestion del Agua Servicios de Agua de Nogales Industrias del Agua, SE (France) Servicos de Agua Potable
O O O O O O
174 175 176
Mexico Mexico Mexico
Queretaro Saltillo, Coahuila state South East
C BROT MC Aguas de Saltillo Tecnologia y Servicos del Agua
O O O
177 178 179
Mexico Mexico Peru
South West Xalapa Cono Norte
1994 2010 2003 2023 2000 2027
MC DBFO C
Agua de Mexico, United Utilities (UK) Aguas Tratadas de Xalapa (Earth Tech) Agua Azul SA
O O
ACEA (45%), Impregilo SpA (40%), Fisia Utalimianti SpA (5%) and Castalia & Cosapi SA (10%)
Latin America
180 Peru Northern region of Lima Provinces of Tumbes, Zarumilla and Contralmirante Villar 2000 2027 20052035 C Agua Azul Rome's ACEA, Italian construction company Impregilo and Peru's largest construction company Cosapi LatinAguas (60%, Argentina) and Concyssa (40%, Peru) O
181
Peru
BROT
182 183 184
Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Uruguay
1996 Barra de Maldonado Maldonado Department 1993 2018 2000 2030 1999 2002 19972001 20012004
JV ROT BROT
Empresa Municipal de Frontera de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado (EMFAPA) Aguas de Tumbes Trinidad & Tobago Water Services (TTWS) Aguas de la Costa Uragua
Severn Trent, WASA and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago AgBar (60%) and STA Ingenieros (30%) Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Spain = 20%; Bilbao Bizkaia Kuxta BBK, Spain = 31%; Iberdrola SA, Spain = 49% Aguas de Valencia, Spain = 100% FDS, Spain (100%) AAA Servicios de Venezuela Lassa, subsidiary of Triple A, Colombia (51%); Tecnicas Valencianas del Agua (49%)
O T T
185 186 187
Venezuela Venezuela Venezuela
Lara state Monagas state Zulia state (City of Maracaibo and 20 additional municipalities)
MC/L MC/L MC/L
Hidrolara water utility Aguas de Monagas Hidrolago de Maracaibo, subsidiary of state-owned water company Hidroven
T T T
Europe
EUROPE
Sl. Country City Duration Type of PPP MC/L Project Name Private Players Status
Albania
Durres, Fier, Lezhe and Saranda 20032008
Four-Cities-Project
AquaMundo GmbH (40%), a subsidiary of Berlinwasser International AG (Germany) and Amiantit Group (Saudi Arabia) - 60% Berlinwasser International AG (97.55%, Germany) and Rodeco Consulting GmbH (2.45%) Amiantit Group - 100% ACEA (40%) consortium of MVV Decon, MVV Energie (Germany) and AEG Service (Armenia) Saur International (100%)
Albania
Elbasan
20022032 20032007 2001 2005 20092012 20042011 20002005 2005 2015 20052015 20012011 20002025
ROT
Elber S.p.a.
3 4 5
Albania Albania Armenia
Kavaja Tirana 5 towns and 61 (or 37) rural settlements Armvodokanal (37 towns and 280 rural settlements) Yerevan
MC/L MC MC
U.K. Kavaja Tirana Acque Shirak Water Sewerage CJSC; Lori Water Sewerage CJSC; Nor Akunq CJSC Armenian Water and Sewerage Company (CJSC) or Armvodokanal Yerevan Water and Sewerage Company (CJSC)
E E O
Armenia
MC/L
Armenia
MC/L
consortium of A.Utility ( ACEA s.p.a (55%) with C.Lotti & Associati (Italy) and WRc Companies (UK)) Veolia Eau and dedicated subsidiary, Yerevan Djur Volia Water (100%) Berlinwasser (74.9%, Germany)
8 9 10
Armenia Armenia Azerbaijan
Yerevan Yerevan city and nearby 32 rural settlements Imshli, Gyanja and Sheki cities, and the Nakhchivan republic Sofia
L MC/L L Yerevan Water and Sewerage Company (CJSC)
O O O
11
Bulgaria
BROT
Sofia Water
United Utilities PLC (UK) - 10% and Veolia Environnement (France) 58%
Europe
12 13 14 15 Cyprus Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Limassol Beroun Breclav, Hodonin and Bzenec in Moravia Brno 2009 2031 2000 2005 1994 2024 1999 2018 DBFO partial D MC MC/L Energie-Versorgung Nidersterreich (EVN) Severomoravske Berounske Vodovy (VaK Beroun) VAK Hodonin, a subsidiary of Aquaplus Brno Water and Wastewater Company (BVK) 1.JVS a.s. (First South Bohemia Waterworks) Chevak Cheb a.s. Severoceske Vodovody a Kanalizace, a.s. (SCVaK) (North Bohemia Waterworks) VS Chrudim Vodovbody a Kanalizace Zlin O Anglian Water Group (58.3%) and VAK Plus (61%) City of Brno (51% ), Suez (46%) and about 3% is owned by a few hundred private shareholders. Veolia (50%) Gelsenwasser (30.58%) Earlier Hyder (35.6%); now Veolia (49.6%) O O O
16 17 18
esk Budjovice Cheb Chomutov, Most, Teplice, Usti n. Labem, Decin, Louny, Litomerice and Liberec - North Bohemia Chrudim Eastern part of Moravia (includes 80 districts, of which Zlin is the largest town) Hradec Kralove (Krlovhradeck) region Karlovy Vary and Pilsen regions
C C C
O O O
1999 C C 2004 2034 2005 2035 1994 2019 2004 2024 1999 2009 C C
19 20
Czech Republic Czech Republic
2005
Energie Obersterreich AG (95%) Veolia Voda (47%)
O O
21 22
Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic
23
Kladno - Melnik, Central Bohemia Klatovy
24
Kralovehradecka provozni, a.s. Vodrny a kanalizace Karlovy Vary, a.s.v (VaK Karlovy Vary) Stredoceske vodarny, a.s. and SLAVOS, s.r.o. 1.JVS
Veolia Voda Suez (49.8%)
O O
Veolia Voda (71.5%)
Veolia [In August 2008, VE sold its stake to Energie.In 2010, 1.JVS and VAKJC were merged into a 100% held company, CEVAK.] Energie Obersterreich AG (100% since 2006)
25
Czech Republic
Kolln
2005
VODOS Kolln
Europe
26 27 Czech Republic Czech Republic Kraslice Northern Bohemia 1998 2013 Olomouc Ostrava 2000 2020 1994 2024 1999 2019 1996 2017 20012028 2001 Prostejov region, central Moravia Rychnov & Kneznou Slany (Slnsko), central Bohemia Sokolov 2006 2031 2010 2006 2021 1996 2022 1996 2021 1995 MC C MC Prostejov Water Company (VAK Prostejov, a.s.) Aqua Servis Stredoceske vodarny, a.s. and SLAVOS, s.r.o. Vodohospodarska spolecnost Sokolov, s. r. o. (VOSS Sokolov) Severomoravske VaK Vodovody a Kanalizace Jizny Cechy (VaK JC) C C C C Kraslicka Mestska Spolecnost s.r.o. Severomoravske Vodovy a Kanalizace Ostrava (ScVK) Gelsenwasser (50%)and Municipality (50%) Veolia Environnement (43.17%) and Severoceske Vodarensky Svaz (SVS), formed by the client towns (34.7%) Veolia Voda (50%) and Saur Ondeo CZ, a Suez subsidiary (44.5%) O O
1999
28 29
Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic
30 31 32
Pibram Pilsen Prague
C C C
Stedomoravsk Vodrensk Ostravsk vodrny a kanalizace, a.s. (Ostravske VaK) 1. ScV a.s. Vodarenska and Kanalizanci AS Plzen (VP) Prazske vodovody a kanalizace (PvK, subsidiary of Veolia Water) 1. ScV, spol. s r.o.
O O
Veolia Voda
O O
Anglian Water; then Veolia (100%)
33
Prague
Veolia Environnement (66%) and In 2002, the remaining 34% of shares were acquired from the municipality Veolia (100%) Energie Obersterreich AG (66%) Veolia (100%)
34 35 36
O O O
37
Veolia Voda (50%)
38 39
South Moravia Southern Bohemia (districts of Budweis, Tabor, Jindrichuv Hradec, and Prachensko)
C C
Lyonnaise des Eaux (34%) Anglian Water Group (95.2%)
O O
Europe
40 Czech Republic Czech Republic Sumperk 2001 steck and Libereck region, North Moravia C 1999 2014 D C umpersk provozn a vodohospodsk spolenost, a.s. (SPVS) Severomoravsk Vodovody a Kanalizace Ostrava (SmVaK) (North Moravia Waterworks) South East Water (Water only) Suez Ondeo (82%) O
41
Anglian Water and Suez (50.07%)
42
England
(Eastern region) Ashford, Canterbury, Eastbourne, East Grinstead, Haywards Heath, Maidstone, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Whitstable; (Western region) Aldershot, Basingstoke, Bracknell, Camberley, Maidenhead, Petersfield, Wokingham
UTA/ HDF (Australia)
43
England
(Essex area) Barking, Basildon, Chelmsford, Brentwood, Romford, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock; (Suffolk area) Aldeburgh, Eye, Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Southwold Aldridge, Brownhills, Burton upon Trent, Cannock, Kinver, Lichfield, Rugeley, Sutton Coldfield, Tamworth, Uttoxeter, Walsall, West Bromwich
Essex & Suffolk (Water only)
Suez-Lyonnaise (France)
44
England
South Staffordshire Water (Water only)
Alinda Capital Partners (USA)
Europe
45 England Amersham, Barnet, Beaconsfield, Bishop's Stortford, Harlow, Harrow, Hemel Hempstead, Letchworth, Luton, Saffron Walden, St Albans, Staines, Stevenage, Uxbridge, Watford, Welwyn Garden City, Woking D Veolia Water Central Ltd (Water only) Veolia Environnement O
46
England
Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Surrey, and the London Boroughs of Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon and Enfield Bognor Regis, Chichester, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Hayling Island, Portsmouth Bournemouth & West Hampshire Water Brightlingsea, Clacton-on-Sea, Frinton-on-Sea, Harwich, Manningtree, Wivenhoe Bristol, Burnham-on-Sea, Frome, Tetbury, Wells, Westonsuper-Mare Cambridge and extends to Ramsey in the north, Gamlingay in the west, Balsham in the east and Melbourn in the south Chester, Wrexham
Three Valleys Water
Veolia (100%, France)
1989
47
England
Portsmouth Water (Water only) Bournemouth & West Hampshire Water (BWHW) (Water only) Veolia Water East (Water only)
South Downs Capital (UK)
48
England
D 1989 D
Cadcal (100%)
49
England
Veolia Environnement
50
England
Bristol Water (Water only)
Agbar (Spain)/ Suez (France)
51
England
Cambridge Water Company (Water only)
Cheung Kong Infrastructure (Hong Kong)
52
England
Dee Valley (Water only)
Dee Valley Group
Europe
53 England Cobham, Dorking, Horley, Leatherhead, Oxted, Redhill, Reigate, Sutton Dover, Folkestone, Hythe, Romney Marsh, Dungeness and Lydd East of England and Hartlepool. London 1989 1989 D Sutton & East Surrey Water (Water only) Veolia Water Southeast (Water only) Anglian Water (Water & sewerage) Thames Water (Water & sewerage) Cholderton Water (Water only) Northumbrian Water Ltd. (Water & sewerage) United Utilities (Water & sewerage) Severn Trent Water (Water & sewerage) South West Water (Water & sewerage) Southern Water (Water & sewerage) Wessex Water (Water & sewerage) Yorkshire Water (Water & sewerage) Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW) (Water & sewerage) A.S. Tallinna Vesi (Tallinn Water Ltd.) Aqueduct Capital (Denmark) O
54
England
Veolia Environnement
55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
England England England England England England England England England England England
D D D
AWG (UK) RWE Cholderton Estate (UK) Suez Group
O O O O O
1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989
D D D D D D D D
Severn Trent (UK) Pennon Group (UK) First Aqua Holdings YTL Power International (Malaysia) Kelda Group Glas Cymru (UK)
O O O O O O
66 67
Estonia France
Tallinn Castres, Tarn Department
2001 19912021
C C
International Water UU (Tallinn) BV (50.4%) Lyonnaise des Eaux (Suez)
O T
Europe
68 France Cherbourg Urban Community (CUC), Department of La Manche Durance-Luberon, Vaucluse Department C Compagnie Gnrale des Eaux (Veolia) SDEI, which became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lyonnaise des Eaux (today Suez) in 1992. T
69
France
C 1954 and 1969 2011 1989 C A Veolia Eau d'Ile-de-France
70 71
France France
Greater Paris Grenoble municipality
Compagnie de Gestion des Eaux du Sud-Est (COGESE), a subsidiary of Suez-Lyonnaise SEDIF (Syndicat des eaux d'Ile-de-France) Nantaise des Eaux Compagnie Gnrale des Eaux (Veolia) and the Lyonnaise des Eaux (Suez). 60% held subsidiary of Gelsenwasser since 2007 Eau et Force Parisienne des Eaux (a subsidiary of Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux) Compagnie des Eaux de Paris (then a subsidiary of Veolia) Veolia Water Compagnie Gnrale des Eaux (Veolia). SEERC (Socit des Equipements et dEntretien des Rseaux Communaux - a subsidiary of the Compagnie Lyonnaise des Eaux-Suez).
O T
72
France
Ile-de-France - 144 communes in the Paris suburbs Nantes Paris (left bank of the Seine)
A or C 19232007 1985 L C
73 74
France France
O T
75 76 77 78
France France France France
Paris (right bank of the Seine) Royan Toulouse, Haute Garonne Varages, Var Department
1985 2010 1990
C MC C C
T O D T
1990 2000
79 80
Georgia Georgia
Tblisi Tblisi
2007 2001
D L
Georgian Water and Power AO "Tbilvodokanal"
Multiplex Solutions (100%, Switzerland) Veolia Water
O T
Europe
81 Germany Berlin 1999 JV BerlinWasser Holding AG Berlin City (public - 50.1%) and an international consortium comprising of RWE Aqua GmbH, Allianz Capital Partners GmbH and Veolia Deutshland GmbH (49.9%). consortium of Veolia Water (24.9%) + RWE (24.9%) O
82
Germany
Berlin 19992008
Berliner Wasserbetriebe owned 50.1% by the Land of Berlin, 49.9% by a consortium of Veolia Water/RWE Braunschweiger Versorgungs AG (BVAG) Lausitzer Wasser
83 84
Germany Germany
Braunschweig, Lower Saxony Cottbus
2004 2020 2004 2029 1995 2015 2003 2013 2001 1999 2024 2000 2025
BOT JV
Veolia Wasser Deutschland (74.9%) Eurawasser (Suez) - (28.9%); town of Cottbus (50.1%) and the balance held by local municipalities Oewa (46% held by VE, a JV with Veba Kraftwerk Ruhr AG until 1998) Veolia Water
O O
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany
Dbeln/Oschatz Gera Grlitz (Saxony) Grimma Kriensen Leipzig Mecklenburg Pulheim Rostock Tettau and the Lausitz region of Brandenburg, Wasserverb and Lausitz
MC BOT partial D C C C OEWA Wasser und Abwasser GmbH Stadtwerke Grlitz Saxony-Anhalt
O O O O O O O O O O
Veolia Wasser (74.9%) Oewa Wasser und Abwasser GmbH Eurawasser (Suez) Veolia Water GmbH (25.1%) Eurawasser (Suez)
2000 2025 2009 1993 2018 2007
C C C MC Stadwerke Pulheim Eurawasser Nord GmbH Remondis Aqua
Veolia Water (49%) JV of Suez and Thyssen
Europe
95 96 Germany Hungary Windeck Budapest 2002 2027 1997 2022 2006 2031 19972006 1994 2009 2001 2021 1995 2020 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 Hungary Hungary Ireland Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Pcs Szeged Sligo Abruzzo, Chieti ATO 6 Abruzzo, Pescara ATO 4 Abruzzo, Teramano ATO 5 Bologna Calabria Calabria, Cosenza ATO 1 Calabria, Crotone ATO 3 Campania region, Sarnese Vesuviano ATO 3 1995 2020 1994 2015 2002 2012 MC/L C MC C C C C C C C C Societa Risorce Idriche Calabresi (So Ri Cal) BOOT C Energie-Versorgung Nidersterreich (EVN) Budapest Water Works (Fovarosi Vizmuvek) local authority held 75% shares rd s Trsge Vzikzm Kft Zsigmondy Bla Rt Water Supply and Sewerage Company Eaux de Kaspovar Borsodviz Rt. Pecz Zigmu Zrt (the city owning a 50.05% stake, Suez 48.05% and other cities 1.9%) Pecsi Vizmu Szegedi Vizmu Anglian Water Group O Suez Environnement, Hungary (12.5%) + RWE (12.5%) + Veolia (12.5%) VE and Budapest Water holds 26% of the operating company with the municipalities retaining 74% Berlinwasser (47%) O
97
Hungary
Erd region
98
Hungary
Hodmezvasarhely, Mindszent, and Szekkutas Kaposvar Miskloc, Borsod region Pecs
99 100 101
Hungary Hungary Hungary
C C C
Suez (35%) Gelsenwasser (49%) and Municipality (51%) Suez (48%)
T O T
Suez (48%) and Municipality (52%) Servitec, a subsidiary of Veolia (49%)
T O O O O O O O O O O
20042024 2001 2031
Hera Spa VE and Acquedotto Pugliese (49%)
2005 2035
Campania-Gori SpA
Sarnese Vesuviano Srl (37%), a subsidiary of Acea + Enel
Europe
113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Campania, Calore Irpino ATO 1 Campania, Sele ATO 4 Frosinone ATO 5 Latina province, southern Lazio Piedmont Region, Astigiano ATO 5 Piedmont Region, Biellese, Vercel c, Casal ATO 2 Piedmont Region, Turin ATO 3 Rome ATO2 Sicily, Agrigento ATO 7 Sicily, Caltanissetta ATO 8 2003 2033 2006 2036 2006 2036 1991 2021 C C C C C C C C C C Girgenti Acque SpA Aqualia, a FCC subsidiary (51%) and Italian firms Galva (47%), CCC (1%), Gate (0.5%) and AIEM (0.5%) Acque Toscane, a Suez subsidiary ACEA AcquaLatina SpA O O O O O O O O O O
2003 2033 2001 2031
Acea (Rome) 65% + Crea (a Suez subsidiary) VE (21.8%),Enel (23%) and Acquedotto Pugliese (23%)
123 124 125
Italy Italy Italy
Tuscany region, Fiesole Tuscany, Alto ValdarnoArezzo ATO 4 Tuscany, Arezzo
C C
O O
19992024
Nuove Acque SpA (54% owned by 30 of the 37 municipalities and other public entities, including the provincial government of Arezzo and Coingas)
Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux-led consortium Intesa Aretina (46%); Intesa Aretina was owned by SuezLyonnaise des Eaux (51%); former Genoa municipalised water undertaking AMGA Genoa (35%); Iride, grouping local artisan associations (10%); and local commercial banks BPEL and Monte dei Paschi di Siena (2% each). Suez (45%) and ACEA S.p.A
126
Italy
Tuscany, Basso Valdarno-Pisa ATO 2
2002 2022
Acque SpA
Europe
127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Kazakhstan Kazakhstan Kazakhstan Kosovo Montenegro Tuscany, Florence, ATO-3 Medio Valdarno Tuscany, Medio ValdarnoFlorence ATO 3 Tuscany, Montecatini Terme Tuscany, Ponte Buggianese Tuscany, Siena and Grosseto, ATO-6 Ombrone Almaty Kazalinsk and Novokasalinsk Shymkent, south Kazakhstan province Gjakova, Rahovec, Pritina and Mitrovica Herzeg Novi, Kotor, Tivat, Budva, Bar, Cetinje Oslo Laguna Alta Bielsko Biala municipality 1999 140 Poland Dabrowa Grnicza, Silesia 20022027 2006 19932023 2002 2003 2023 C C 1989 1992 2003 2028 20002030 2005 2006 1999 20022005 20012003 2003 2002 2032 SC BOOT partial D BROT C C C C MC partial D MC MC TOO Vodnye Resursy Marketing Hidrostemi Radoniqi Gjakova (HRG) MonteAqua (municipalities 25.1%) Acque Toscane, a Suez subsidiary Acque Toscane, a Suez subsidiary consortium led by Acea; includes Suez (40%) Veolia (55%) + GKP Vodokanal (45%) Gelsenwasser TOO Vodnye Resursy Marketing Gelsenwasser AquaMundo (Germany, 48%) (consortium of ABB, MVV Energie (regional utility), and Bilfinger & Berger BOT (consultancy) or Amiantit (100%, Saudi Arabia) Veolia Cascal and Sembcorp utilities Anglo-American International Water Ltd. (33.2%) (a Veolia Water/ United Utilites subsidiary) RWE Aqua GmbH (34%, Germany) Publiacqua SpA Suez (40%) + Acea O O O O O T E O E E
Acquedotto del Fiora Almaty Sui
137 138 139
Norway Panama Poland
Aguas de Panama Aqua S.A.
O O O
Przedsibiorsto Wodociagw i Kanalizacji Sp. z o.o. (PwiK) Dabrowa Gornicza ZGKiM Drobin SAUR Neptun Gdansk S.A. PwiK Glogow
141 142 143
Poland Poland Poland
Drobin Gdansk/ Sopot Glogow, Lower Silesia
partial D L partial
Remondis (50%, Germany) SAUR (51%) [now, CDC-SecheAxa] check Gelsenwasser (46%, Germany)
O O O
Europe
D C L
144 145
Poland Poland
Glogowie Tarnowskie Gry and Miasteczko Slaskie, Silesia Toszek, Silesia Wozniky, Upper Silesia Alenquer Barcelos Campo Maior
2002 2022 20012026 2007 20062016 2003 2033 2004 2034 2008 2038
PwiK w Glogowie Sp zoo (PwiK) Palestine Electric Company
Gelsenwasser (46%, Germany) Veolia (33.9%)
O O
146 147 148 149 150
Poland Poland Portugal Portugal Portugal
partial D MC C C C
Remondis Aqua Przedsiebiorsto Wodociagow i Kanalizacji Sp. (PWIK) Aguas de Alenquer Aguas de Barcelos Aqualia New Europe
Remondis (50%, Germany) Veolia (100%) Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (40%) Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (75%) 51/49 JV of Aqualia, subsidiary of Fomento de Construcciones Y Contratas SA (FCC) and European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (75%)
O O O O O
151
Portugal
Carrazeda de Ansiaes 2001 2031
Aguas de Carrazeda
152
Portugal
Cartaxo 2010 2040
Aqualia New Europe
51/49 JV of Aqualia, subsidiary of Fomento de Construcciones Y Contratas SA (FCC) and European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (43%) Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (51%) Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (49%)
153 154 155
Portugal Portugal Portugal
Cascais (Lisboa) Covilha Covilha
2000 2025 2005 2035 2008 2033
C C C
Aguas de Cascais Aguas da Serra Aguas de Covilha
O O O
Europe
156 Portugal Elvas, Alentejo province 2008 2038 157 158 159 160 Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Fafe Faro Figueira da Foz Fundao 1996 2021 2005 2040 -2034 20102040 2001 2026 2006 2046 19942019 2005 2039 2005 2030 1996 2027 2004 2039 20012036 2008 2023 19992034 1998 2023 C C C C Indaqua Industria e Gestao de Aguas SA Faro Aguas da Figueira Aqualia New Europe C Aqualia New Europe 51/49 JV of Aqualia, subsidiary of Fomento de Construcciones Y Contratas SA (FCC) and European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Mota-Engil Ambiente e Servios (30%), Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (51%) Valoriza (40%) 51/49 JV of Aqualia and European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (42.5%) 51/49 JV of Aqualia and European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Veolia Agua Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (51%) Mota-Engil (50.06%), Soares da Costa (28.57%), Hidrante (21.55%) Veolia Agua Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (90%) Aguas de Paredes, a Veolia subsidiary Mota-Engil (49%) Mota-Engil (50.06%), Soares da Costa (28.57%), Hidrante (21.55%) Mota-Engil (50.06%), Soares da Costa (28.57%), Hidrante (21.55%) O
O O O O
161 162
Portugal Portugal
Gondomar Lezria del Tajo, Ribatejo region Mafra Marco do Canaveses Matosnihos Ourem Pacos de Ferreira Paredes S Joao de Maderia Santa Maria de Feira Santo Tirso and Trofa
C C
Aguas de Gondomar Aqualia New Europe
O O
163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171
Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal
C C C C C C C C C
Aguas de Mafra Aguas do Marco Indaqua Aguas de Ourem Aguas Pazos Da Ferreira
O O O O O O O O O
Aguas de Sao Joao EM SA Indaqua Indaqua
Europe
172 173 174 Portugal Portugal Portugal Setubal Taviraverde Vale do Ave (Municipalities of Guimares, Santo Tirso and Vila Nova de Famalico). Valongo Vila do Conde Bucharest Constanta 1997 2022 2005 2026 1998 2023 20002030 2005 2045 20002025 C C BROT JV C C C Aguas do Sado Tavira TRATAVE (Tratamento de guas Residuais do Ave, S.A.) Aguas de Valongo Indaqua Apa Nova Bucuresti SA Constanta Water and Wastewater Project Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (40%) Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (32%) Sacyr Vallehermosos Somague AGS (40%) O O O
175 176 177 178
Portugal Portugal Romania Romania
Aguas de Valongo, a Veolia subsidiary Mota-Engil (50.06%), Soares da Costa (28.57%), Hidrante (21.55%) Apa Nova, a Veolia subsidiary (83.69%) Regia Autonoma Judeteana Apa Constanta (RAJAC), an intermunicipal company wholly owned by Constanta County Council. Veolia Environnement (France) 100% Veolia (73%) Suez (51%) Saudi Arabian Amiantit Company (SAAC) Rosvodokanal (Alfa Group) (90%) New F77Urban Infrastructure (CJSC)
O O O O
179 180 181 182 183 184
Romania Romania Romania Romania Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation
Otopeni Ploiesti Timisoara Zetea Barnaul city, Altai Krai Berezniki
20072023 20002025 20002025 2003 20052029 2005 2030 2003 20052029
MC/L BROT BROT DBOT MC/L L
Otopeni water and sewage system Apa Nova Ploiesti Aquatim Zetea water supply system management project Barnaulsky Vodokanal Novogor-Prikamye (New Urban Infrastructure of Prikamye) Russian Communal Systems (RCS) Kaluga Water Utility
O O O O O O
185 186
Blagoveshchensk Kaluga, Kaluga Oblast
L MC/L
CJSC Integrated Energy Systems (75%) and IES (25%) Rosvodokanal (RVK or Alfa Group) (100%)
O O
Europe
187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation Kirov, NE Russia Krasnodar Krasnokamsk city, Perm province Moscow Naberezhnye Chelny, Tatarstan Omsk City, SE Siberia Orenburg, Orenburg Oblast, Volga District Perm 20032019 20062031 20062004 2017 1995 20042030 20032030 20032052 Petrozavodsk, Republic of Karelia Rostov-on-Don 20052025 20052030 20062005 2010 20012009 20032028 1993 2003 MC/L MC/L Prikamye (Permvodokanal) Rostov water partnership MC/L MC/L MC/L BOOT partial D MC/L MC/L MC/L Kirov Utility Systems Krasnodar Vodokanal Krasnokamsk Water Utility Degrmont ZAO Chelnyvodokanal Omsk Vodokanal Orenburg Vodokanal Permvodokanal RCS or Integrated Energy Systems Holding (IES) Russian Utility Systems (RKS) or Rosvodokanal Group (RVK) (100%) Russian Utility Systems (RKS) 100%Degrmont and WTE KAMAZ Inc (100%) Rosvodokanal (Alfa Group) (67.5%) and EWP (Evraziyskiy) (25%) Rosvodokanal (Alfa Group or RVK) (100%) Novogor, a subsidiary of the Russian conglomerate Interros or Integrated Energy Systems Holding (IES) ntegrated Energy Systems Holding (IES) - 100% Don Vodocanal Yug, a subsidiary of EWP (Evraziyskiy or Eurasian Water Partnership) - 100% Yugvodocanal, a subsidiary of EWP (Evraziyskiy), 100% Veolia Environnement - 51% -100% Integrated Energy Systems Holding (IES) - 100% AvtoVAZ (100%) O O O O O O O O
195 196
Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation
O O
197 198 199 200 201 202
Sochi, Krasnodar region Southern part of the city Syzran city, Samara region Tambov Tolyatti Tomsk
RLT MC/L MC/L MC/L D L
OOO Yugvodokanal Vodokanal Syzranvodokanal Tambov Utility Systems OAO Tevis Tomsk Utility Systems
O E E O O T
Europe
203 204 205 Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation Russian Federation Scotland Tver, Tver Oblast Tyumen 20062030 20062031 2008 20042005 2002 2006 MC/L ROT Rosvodokanal Tyumen Vodokanal Rosvodokanal (RVK or Alfa Group) (74%) Rosvodokanal (RVK or Alfa Group) (100%) Integrated Energy Systems Holding (IES) (37%, Russian Federation), Lukoil (16%, Russian Federation) RCS Scottish Water Authority (public 51%) and the rest split equally between the two consortia: Stirling Water, comprising Thames Water, KBR, Alfred McAlpine and MJ Gleeson and UUGM which is formed by United Utilities, Galliford Try and Morgan Est. Gelsenwasser (100%, Germany) Veolia (100%) Veolia (100%) TVK - the Trencin municipality owned company - and TVS - a privately owned company whose ownership is split between national shareholders and a foreign water company (Lyonnais des Eaux of France) Sacyr (25%) Aguas de Toledo (100%) SUEZ O O
Volgograd Volgograd
MC/L L JV
Volgograd Utility Volgograd Utility Systems Scottish Water Solutions (Water & sewerage)
O T E
206 207
208 209 210 211
Serbia Slovakia Slovakia Slovakia
Gjakova, Rahovec and Lumbhardi Banska Bystrica Poprad Trencin
20022007 2006 2036 2006 2036
MC C C MC/L
Gjakova and Rahovec Water Supply Company Banska Bystrica Water Company (StVS) Poprad Water Company (PVS) Trencianska spolocnost (TVS)
E O O O
1999 2012
212 213 214
Spain Spain Spain
Alcala de Henares Almaden, Ciudad Real Barcelona
1999 2029 2008 2028 2006 2036
C C C
Aquas de Alcala Aguas de Toledo
O O O
Europe
215 216 217 218 219 220 Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Campo Dailas Grand Canaria - Las Palmas, Santa Brgida Guadalajara Muxtamel Santa Cruz de Tenerife Valencia 2007 2024 2003 2043 2003 2033 2007 2012 2001 2031 BOT C C DBO C C EMMASA Aguas de Valencia (AgVal) Emalsa SACYR VALLEHERMOSO Sacyr (33%) Aguas de Toledo (60%) Suez Sacyr (97%) Suez (33%) and Inversiones Financieras AgVal, a Spanish consortium formed by local shareholders (67%). Veolia Vatten AB Antalya Water Operations (ANTSU) Izmit Su AS Berdyansk City Water Utility (Berdyansk Miskvidokanal Public Utility) Water Services, LLC Lugansk Water Company, LLC Infoxvodokanal Uzbek Water Management GmbH & CO KG Enka (50%) and Suez subsidiary (50%) RWE (55%) Chysta Voda (Clean Water) (domestic private operator) Water Services, LLC Rosvodokanal LLC (Alfa Group) (100%) Infox LLC (Ukraine, 100%) Stockholm Water Company and Amiantit Group O O O O O O
221 222 223 224
Sweden Turkey Turkey Ukraine
Norrtlje Antalya Izmit, Kocaeli Province Berdyansk
2001 2011 19962006 1996 2014 2008 2038 2006 2055 20082033 20032052 20042007
C MC/L BOT C
E T O O
225 226 227 228
Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Uzbekistan
Kirovograd Lugansk Oblast Odessa Bukhara and Samarkhand
L ROT MC/L MC/L
T O O E
Asia
ASIA
Sl. 1 2 3 4 5 Country China China China China China City Anhui Province Danshan County Anhui Province Hexian City Anhui Province Huaiyuan County Anhui Province Mingguang City Anhui ProvinceWuhu City Beijing Municipality Chongqing Province Changtu City Fujian Province Fuzhou City Gansu Province Lanzhou City Gansu Province Lianjiang City Guangdong Province Jiangmen City Guangdong Province Jiangmen City Guangdong Province Shenzhen City Guangdong Province Tanzhou City Guangdong Province Zengcheng City Duration 2006 2036 2000 2020 2005 2025 2008 2038 2005 2035 2007 1999 2029 2004 2034 2007 2037 1997 2027 2007 1997 2015 2003 2054 1992 2027 2009 Type of PPP ROT ROT ROT BOT ROT Wuhu Hong Kong and China water Company Limited China Water Affairs Investment Co. Ltd Project Company Dangshan Water Company He Xian Water Company Ltd Bangbu Xinya Water Services Co. Private Players China Water Industry Group Limited (100%) Anglian Water (50%) Asia Water Technology (100%) Hyflux Water Trust (HWT) Hong Kong and China Gas Company (75%) China Water Affairs Group Ltd (19.4%) Sino-French Holdings RWE (Germany, 35%) + Sime Darby Bhd. (Malaysia, 24%) Veolia (45%) Status O O O O O
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
China China China China China China China China China
Partial D BMO ROT ROT MC Partial D ROT ROT BOT
O O O O O
Fuzhou CWC Water Company Limited Lanzhou City Water Supply Group Degrmont Guangdong Xinhui Water Affairs Co., Ltd. Xiejiang Water Treatment Company Shenzhen Water Group Company Ltd. Zhongshan Tanzhou Water Supply Company Limited Zengcheng City Water Supply Company
China Water Affairs Group Ltd (39.9%) Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Ltd (49%) Veolia Environnement (24.6%) SFW + Zhongshan Tanzhou Municipal Economic Development Company Guangdong Nanfeng Group Co. (36%, China)
O O O O
15
China
Partial D
Asia
16 China Guangdong Province Zhongshan City Guangxi Province Liuzhou City Guizhou Province Zunyi City Hainan Province Danzhou City 1998 2020 2006 2036 2004 2039 2007 2037 ROT Zongshang Municipal Dafeng Water Supply Company Ltd. Liuzhou Water Services CGE Zunyi Water Treatment Operation Company Danzhou City Water Distribution Network Project Haikou City No. 1 Water Affairs Company Limited Sanya Sino French Water Supply Company Limited Baoding Sino French Water Supply Company Limited NWS Holdings Limited (33%) and SUEZ (33%) Veolia Environnement (49%) Veolia Environnement (70%) + Citic Pacific (HK) China Water Industry Group Limited (100%, HK) O
17 18
China China
MC ROT
O O
19
China
ROT
20 21 22
China China China
Hainan Province Haikou City No. 1 Hainan Province Sanya City Hebei Province Baoding City
2007 2037 2004 2034 2000 2020
ROT ROT BOT
Veolia (49%) NWS Holdings Limited (25%) and SUEZ (25%) Sino French Water Supply Company (SFW) (JV of Suez/ Ondeo and New World Development Company (Hong Kong, (51:49)
O O O
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
China China China China China China China
Hebei Province Baoding City Hebei Province Changli county Hebei Province Jinzhou City Hebei Province Langfang City Hebei Province Yanjiao City Hebei Province Zunhua City Heilongjiang Province Harbin City
2000 2020 1999 2029 2007 2007 2031 2000 2025 2007 2032 1994 2024
MC BOT Partial D BROT ROT BOT BOT
Baoding Sino French Water Supply Company Ltd. Qing Huang Dao Pacific Water Company Jinzhou Water Affairs Group Co., Ltd. Langfang City Water Treatment Project Sanhe Yanjiao CWC Water Company Limited
O Tyco International (80%, US) China Water Affairs Group Ltd (51%) Hyflux (40.8%) and Ramatex Group (59.2%) RWE and Sime Darby Bhd. Hyflux Water Trust (HWT) O O O O O O
Harbin SAUR Water Supply Company
Saur (50%)
Asia
30 31 32 China China China Heilongjiang Province Qitaihe City Henan Province Yueyang City Henan Province Zhengzhou City Henan Province Zhoukou City Henan Province Zhoukou City Henan Province Zhumadian City Hongqiao District, Tianjin City Hubei Province Jinzhou City Hubei Province Tianmen Kaidi Hubei Province Wuhan City, Huangpi district Hubei Province Xianning City Hunan Province Yueyang City Jiangsu Province Changshu City Jiangsu Province Changzhou City Jiangsu Province Huaian City, Xuyi County Jiangsu Province Nantong City 2001 2026 2009 2034 2001 BOOT BOT BOT China Water Company Qitaihe Yueyang Penyao Water Supply Co Zhengzhou Sino French Water Supply Company Limited Zhiukou Penyao Water Supply Co Zhoukou City Water Affairs Group Ltd. Zhumadian Huijin Water Affairs Co. Ltd. Tianjin Earth Tech Jieyuan Water Co. Ltd Jinzhou Water Affairs Group Co., Ltd. 89% CWC and local partners Asia Environment Holdings (AEH), Singapore - 100% NWS Holdings Limited (45%) and SUEZ (45%) Asia Environment Holdings (AEH), Singapore - 100% China Water Affairs Group Ltd (60%) China Water Group Inc. (51%, China) Tyco International (52%) China Water Affairs Group Ltd. (HK, 51%) Asia Water Technology (AWT), Singapore Asia Water Technology (70%, Singapore) United Water Corporation (100%) Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Ltd (49%) NWS Holdings Limited (24.5%) and SUEZ (24.5%) Veolia and Citic Pacific (Hong Kong) (49%) Golden State Environment (100%, US) Asia Environment Holdings (AEH), Singapore O O O
33 34 35 36 37 38 39
China China China China China China China
2009 2039 2007 2037 2008 2002 2022 2007 2031 2004 2029 2007 2037 2009 2039 1998 2016 2006 2036 2005 2035 2007 2037 2004 2029
BOT ROT Partial D BROT ROT TOT ROT
O O O O O O O
Huangpi Water Supply Facilities Xianning City Water Supply Project Yueyang Kai Yuan Water Supply Company Limited Changshu Sino French Water Supply Co. Ltd. Changzhou Tap Water Group Xuyi Jinzhou Water Affairs Co., Ltd. Nantong Water
40 41 42 43 44
China China China China China
ROT ROT MC/L ROT ROT
O T O O O
45
China
BOT
Asia
46 China Jiangsu Province Pizhou City 2005 2030 BOT AEH (25%), Dayen (50%) and Lionguard (25%, Richfull Holdings of HK, an infrastructure investment company) Hong Kong and China Water Company (80%) China Water Group Inc. (49%, China) Golden State Environment (75%) D
47
China
Jiangsu Province Wujiang City Jiangsu Province Yancheng City Jiangsu Province Yangzhong City
2005 2035 2008 2038 2007 2032
ROT
Wujiang Hong Kong and China Water Company Limited Yancheng City Huijin Water Affairs Co. Ltd. Yangzhong City Water Company
48 49
China China
ROT ROT
O O
50 51
China China
Jiangsu Province Yangzhou City Jiangsu Province Yizheng City Jiangsu Province Zhenjiang City Jiangxi Province Gaoan City Jiangxi Province Xinyu City Jiangxi Province Yichun City Jiangxi Province Yichun City Jiangxi Province Yingtan City Jianxi Province Nanchang City Jilin Province
2007 2037 2009 2039 2003 2053 2007 2037 2006 2036 2003 2033 2007 2037 2008 2038 1996 2023 2000 2030
ROT C
Jiangsu Yangzhou Water Plant Jiangsu Salcon Water & Environmental Development Co Ltd Zhenjiang Golden State Water Supply Co., Ltd. Gaoan City Water Affairs Group Ltd. Xinyu Water Affairs Group Co., Ltd. Pinang Water Ltd.
New World Development Co. Ltd. (24.5%) and SUEZ (24.5%) Salcon Corp. Bhd. (Malaysia)
O O
52 53 54 55
China China China China
ROT ROT ROT BOT
Golden State Environment (100%) China Water Affairs Group Ltd. (60%, HK) China Water Affairs Group Ltd. (HK, 80%) PBA Holdings BHD (26%), Ranhill Utilities (37%) and YLI Holdings Bhd (37%). China Water Industry (51%, HK) China Water Industry (51%, HK) NWS Holdings Limited (25%) and SUEZ (25%) NWS Holdings Limited (25%) and SUEZ (25%)
O O O O
56 57 58 59
China China China China
ROT ROT BROT BROT
Yichun City Water Supply Co. Ltd. Yingtan City Water Supply Co. Ltd. Nanchang Shuanggang Water Supply Company Ltd. Sino-French Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd.
O O O O
Asia
60 61 62 China China China Liaoning Province Panjin City Liaoning Province Wanzhou City Liaoning Province Liaoyang City, Gong Changling District. Liaoning Province Shenyang City Liaoning Province Shenyang City 2002 2032 1999 2029 2008 2038 1997 2017 1999 2002 ROT BMO BOO Panjin Sino French Water Supply Company Ltd. NWS Holdings Limited (30%) and SUEZ (30%) Sino-French Holdings Hyflux Water Trust (HWT) O O T
63 64
China China
ROT Partial D
Shifosi Water Company Shenyang Public Utility
Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Ltd (50%) China Water Company Ltd. (JV of Hong Kong Land Holdings Ltd., AIDC Ltd. of Australia, and Temasek NWS Holdings Limited (35%) and SUEZ (35%) 89% CWC NWS Holdings Limited (19%) ans SUEZ (19%) Beijing Capital Group (BCG) (60%) NWS Holding Limits (Hong Kong) and SUEZ Environment (France) Berlinwasser Wasserbetrieb, Xian Drinking Water Supply company and a financing firm from HK Cathay International Holdings (80%) China Water Industry Group Limited (70%) NWS Holdings Limited (25%) and SUEZ (25%)
O T
65 66 67
China China China
Liaoning Province Tieling City Liaoning Province Xinmin City Lioaning Province Shenyang City Maanshan City Macau (Special Administrative Region of China, together with Hong Kong) Shaanxi Province Xian City
1999 2029 2000 2025 1995
BOT BOOT BROT
68 69
China China
2004 2034 1985 2010
JV C
Changtu Sino French Water Supply Company Ltd. China Water Company Xinmin Shenyang Sino-French Water Supply General Company Maanshan Water Supply Company Macau Water Supply Ltd.
O O T
O E
70
China
1997 2027
BOT
Berlinwasser International
71 72 73
China China China
Shandong Province Binzhou Municipality Shandong Province Jining City Shandong Province Qingdao City
1998 2018 2007 2035 2002 2027
ROT ROT ROT
Binzhou Cathay Water Plant Jining Haiyuan Water Co., Ltd. Qindao Sino French Hairun Water Supply Company Ltd
T O O
Asia
74 China Shandong Province Jinan City Shandong Province Jinan City Shandong Province Linyi City Shandong Province Weifang City, Changle County Shanghai Province Fengxian District Shanghai Province Shanghai municipality, Pudong district Shanxi Province Baoji City Shanxi Province Hanzhong City Sichuan Province Chengdu City Sichuan Province Chongqing municipality Sichuan Province Chongqing municipality Sichuan Province Chongqing municipality, Yuelai district - WD Sichuan Province Chongqing Qiaoli, Yongchuan City 2003 2033 2002 2027 2005 2035 2003-2054 Partial D Jinan Yuqing Water Plant Chengda International Investment Co. Ltd. (25%) and Hong Yuan Ju Co. Ltd. (30%) Hainan Runda Industrial Co. Ltd. (51%) Salcon Bhd. (Malaysia, 60%) Salcon Bhd, Malaysia (100%) O
75 76 77
China China China
ROT ROT ROT
Jinan Quehua Water Treatment Co. Ltd. Linyi Salcon Water Co. Ltd. Shangdong Changle Salcon Water Supply Company Shanghai Fengxian Saur Water Shanghai Pudong Water Supply Corporation
O O O
78 79
China China
2001 2012 2002 2052
ROT BROT
Saur (50%) Vivendi, later Veolia Water Shanghai Corporation (50%) (JV of Veolia Water and Shanghai Municipality) Veolia Environnement (50%) InterChina Holdings (100%, HK)
T O
80 81
China China
2002 2025 2007 2032 1998 2016 2008 2002 2052 2009 2039 2001 2051
ROT ROT
Baoji Chuangwei Water Co. Ltd Hanzhong City Xingyuan Water Supply Company Limited Chengdu Gnrale des Eaux-Marubeni Waterworks (CGDEM) Chongqing Water Affairs Chongqing Sino French Water Supply Company Limited Yuelai Water Supply Plant
O O
82
China
BOT
Consortium of Veolia and Marubeni (Japan) (60:40) NWS Holdings Limited (7.5%) and SUEZ (7.5%) NWS Holdings Limited (30%) and SUEZ (30%) SFW + Chongqing Water Group
83 84
China China
Partial D ROT
O O
85
China
BOT
86
China
MC
Yongchuan Qiaoli
China Water Affairs Group Ltd. (100%)
Asia
87 88 89 China China China Sichuan Province Leshan City Tianjin Municipality Tianjin Province Shibei and Binhai Districts Tianjin Province Bohai Bay in Dagang Tianjin Province Tianjin municipality 2002 2007 2007 2037 2007 2037 1997 2017 Divestiture Partial D ROT Leshan Shawan Water Plant Tianjin Huanke Water Affairs Co. Ltd. Tianjin City North Water Affairs Company Limited Hyflux Ltd CGE Tianjin Waterworks 55% held by a JV which is in turn 70% owned by VE and 45% held by the municipalitys Tianjin Waterworks Co. JV of SFW (50%) + Tianjin Tanggu Veolia (25%) + HK partner Salcon Bhd. (Malaysia, 30%) Zhongyang Construction (100%) Kardan Water International Group Co. Ltd. (88.13%) Veolia Environnement (49%) O O O
90 91
China China
BOT C
O O
92
China
Tianjin ProvinceTanggu City Yunan ProvinceKunming City Yunan ProvinceKunming City, Chenggong County Zhejiang Province Haining City Zhejiang Province Kexia Village, Chengguan Town, Xinchang County Zhejiang ProvinceDeqing county Zhongshan Province Tanzhou City Saint Marc
2005 2040 2005 2035 2005 2035 2006 2036 2002 2032
JV
Tianjin Tanggu Sino French Water Supply Company Limited Kunming Water Supply Company Chenggong Salcon Water Company Ltd. Haining Salcon Water Co. Xinchang Sino French Water Supply Company Ltd.
93 94
China China
ROT BROT
O O
95 96
China China
BROT ROT
Salcon Bhd (60%) NWS Holdings Limited (15%) and SUEZ (35%)
O O
97
China
2002 2027 1994 2029 2009 2024
BOT
Zhejiang Deqing Globe Water Treatment Co Ltd. Zhongshan Tanzhou Water Supply Company Limited Societe des Eaux de Saint Marc (SESAM)
Globe Environmental (70%), a 75% held subsidiary of Darco Water Technologies Pte (DWT) NWS Holdings Limited (29%) and SUEZ (29%) Lysa (France)
98 99
China Haiti
BROT MC/L
O O
Asia
100 India Andra Pradesh Visakhapatnam Karnataka Bangalore City Karnataka Belgaum, Gulbarga & Hubli-Dharwad Karnataka Mysore City Madhya Pradesh Dewas Madhya Pradesh Khandwa 2003 BOOT Vishakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Ltd. (SPV) M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited O
101 102
India India
2010 2019 2005 2010 2008
DBO MC/L Veolia Water India
Japans JICA. Veolia Environnement (100%)
C E
103
India
MC
Jamshedpur Utilities & Supply Company Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tata Steel Ltd MSK Pvt. Ltd., Baroda Vishwa Infrastructure and Services Pvt. Ltd., a Hyderabad based company. Doshion Veolia Water Solutions, an Ahmedabad-based water treatment company Latur Water Supply Management Company Limited Hydro-Comp Enterprises (33.3%), Subhash Projects & Marketing Ltd (33.3%), UPL Enviromental Engineers Ltd (33.3%) Veolia Veolia Suez Chennai Water Desalination Ltd (CWDL) Befasa / IVRCL
104 105
India India
2004 2009 2034
BOT BROT
O C
106
India
Madhya Pradesh Shivpuri Maharastra Latur
2009
BOOT
107
India
2008 2018
RLT
108 109 110 111
India India India India
Maharastra Nagpur Maharastra Nagpur Tamil Nadu Chennai City Tamil Nadu Chennai City, Minjur
2008 2023 2007 2014 2007 2014 2006
DBO MC/L MC DBOOT Veolia Water India
O O O O
Asia
112 113 India India Tamil Nadu Chennai City, Nemmeli Tamil Nadu - Tirupur 2010 1995 DBO BOOT VA Tech Wabag New Tirupur Area Development Corporation (NTADCL) as a special purpose vehicle (SPV). VA Tech - 70% and IDE Technologies (Israel) - 30% 3 partners - Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development (TACID), Tirupur Exporters Association (TEA), Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services (IL&FS). C O
114
India
West Bengal Calcutta City
2007 2037
BOT
Naba Diganta Water Management Ltd.
Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Ltd. (JUSCO) and VOLTAS, subsidiaries of the TATA Group
115
India
West Bengal Haldia Bangka Island Batam Island
2008 2033 2007 2028 1995 2020
BOT
Haldia Water Management Limited (HWML) Pangkalpinang City Water Treatment Plant PT Adhya Tirta Batam (ATB)
JUSCO (60%), Ranhill Utilities (40%) Darco (70%) Cascal and its 50/50 local joint venture partners, Bangun Cipta Kontraktor (BCK) and Syabata Cemerlang PT Thames Pam Jaya (TPJ) (a Thames Water Subsidiary); now, PT Aetra Air Jakarta (Acuatico, 95% and Alberta Utilities, 5%) Suez Environnement, 51%, Astratel, 30% and Citigroup Financial Products Inc., 19% Suez (85%)
116 117
Indonesia Indonesia
BROT C
O O
118
Indonesia
Jakarta (East)
1997 2022
BROT
PT Aetra Air Jakarta
119
Indonesia
Jakarta (West)
1997 2022 1997 2022
PT Pam Lyonnaise Jaya
120
Indonesia
Medan
BOT
Asia
121 122 123 Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Nusa Dua and Kuta Serang Timur Sidoarjo 1997 2012 1997 2022 1997 2022 Greenfield project BOT BOT PT Titra Arta Buana Mulia (TABM) PT Sarana Tirta Rejeki PT Taman Tirta Sidoarjo PT Buana (30%) and PT Dewata Arta Kharsima (15%) Gadang Berhad Veolia holds 95% of the equity, along with Indonesias PT Agumar Nusa and PT Hansa Letsari. PT Enviro Nusantara (28%) and PT Petrosea TBK (48%) Suez (95%) Gadang Holdings Bhd. (95%) Cascal (40%) Puncak Niaga Holdings Berhad (82,5%) SAJ Holdings Shd Bhd (a holding company of Ranhill Utilities, 70%); earlier Veolia Suez (25.5%) Aliran Ihsan Resources Bhd (100%) O O O
124 125 126 127 128 129
Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Malaysia Malaysia
Tangerang, Banten Tangerrang, Java Tanggerang Telang Kepala Hulu Langat Johor State
2004 2019 2001 2026 2002 2032 2008 2031 2007 2034 2000 2029 1993 2013 1994 2024
ROT BROT BROT C ROT ROT
PT Tirta Kencana Cahaya Mandiri Tirta Ciparen Permai Water Hytien Jaya Water Treatment Plant PT Adhya Titra Sriwijaya Sungai Lolo Water Treatment Plant Sempurna Pelita Bhd. (Ranhill Utilities Bhd) Equiventures Sdn. Bhd. Southern Water Corporation
O O O O D O
130 131
Malaysia Malaysia
132
Malaysia
Johor State Johor Barhu Johor State Muar, Batu Pahat, Segamat and Kluang Districts Johor-Bahru/ Sunghai Layang Kedah State - Pulau Langkawi City Kelantan State
BOT ROT
O O
1992 2012 1996 2020 1995 2020 1993 2012
BROT
Equiventures Sdn. Bhd.
Kembangan Dinamik (M) Sdn Bhd (49%), Pilecon Engineering Berhad (25%) and Suez (25%) Taliworks Corp. Bhd. (100%, Malaysia) JV of RWE (Germany) or Thames Water + Yayasan Kelantan Darulnaim (70:30) Suez (35%)
133 134
Malaysia Malaysia
MC/L ROT
Taliworks (Langkawi) Sdn. Bhd. Kelantan Water (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. Jetama Sdn. Bhd (Ondeo Services)
O T
135
Malaysia
Kota Kinabalu, Borneo
BOT
Asia
136 137 138 139 140 141 Malaysia Malaysia Malaysia Malaysia Malaysia Malaysia Negeri Sembilan Penang State Perak (Taiping) Perak, Ipoh City Pewrlis Pulau Pinang State 1999 2003 2012 2002 1989, 1995 - 2015 1989 2009 MC/L Partial D BOT C C Partial D Salcon Engineering Bhd. Perbadanan Bekalan Air Holdings G.S.L. Water Sdn. Bht. Intan Utilities Berhad Taliworks (Langkawi) Sdn. Bhd. Perbadanan Bekalan Air Pulau Pinang Sdn Bhd (PBA), a subsidiary of PBA Holdings BHD Jetama Sdn. Bhd. Timatch Sdn Bhd Salcon Bhd (100%) O O Suez (34.2%) Veolia Water Asia Pacific Pte Ltd's CGE Utilities O O
PBA Holdings Berhad (State government share 55%)
142 143
Malaysia Malaysia
144 145
Malaysia Malaysia
Sabah Province Kota-Kinabalu Sabah State Sandakan and Tawau areas Selangor Selangor and the Federal Territory Selangor and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur Selangor State and federal territories of Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya Sungai Sireh, Tanjung Karang in Kuala Selangor Hohhot Kathmandu metropolitan area
1995 2015 1993 2013 1995 2020 2000 2029 1994 2020 2004 2035
BOT ROT
Suez (35%) Timatch Sdn Bhd (100%)
O O
MC ROT Sungai Selangor Water Supply Phase III Puncak Niaga SB
Veolia is a sub-contractor to Puncak Niaga Gamuda Berhad (40%) and The Sweet Water Alliance Sdn Bhd (30%) Puncak Niaga Holdings Berhad (100%) Puncak Niaga Holdings Berhard (70%)
O D
146
Malaysia
ROT
147
Malaysia
ROT
Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn. Bhd. (SYABAS) Puncak Niaga SB Hohhot Chunhua Water Development Co. Ltd Kathmandu Upatyaka Khanepani Limited (KUKL)
148 149 150
Malaysia Mongolia Nepal
2008 2034 2004 2034 2010 2014
ROT ROT MC/L
Puncak Niaga Holdings Berhad (100%) Veolia Environnement (51%) BerlinWasser (100%)
D O O
Asia
151 152 Philippines Philippines Boracay Island Clark Economic Zone 2009 2035 2000 2025 1998 2023 1999 2014 1997 BROT C Boracay Island Water Company (BIWC) Manila Water (80%) Clark Water Corporation (a Veolia subsidiary JV with local firms) JV b/w Veolia and local firms Bayan Water Services Inc Manila Water Company Benpres Holdings (60%) and Montgomery Watson (40%) Manila Water Company (consortium of United Utilities, IWL, Mitsubishi Corporation and Ayala (Philippines)); now, Manila Water - operated by Ayala-United Utilities DM Consunji Inc. (42%, Philippines), First Pacific (42%, Hong Kong, China) and SUEZ (16%) Benpres Holdings (60%) and SUEZ (31%) O O
153 154 155
Philippines Philippines Philippines
Fort Bonifacio (Manila) Magdalena - Laguna water system Manila (Eastern zone)
C MC/L BROT
O T O
156
Philippines
Manila (Western zone)
2006 2037
BROT
Maynilad Water Services, Inc.
157
Philippines
Manila (Western zone)
1997
BROT
Maynilad Water Services, Inc.
158 159 160 161
Philippines Singapore Singapore Taiwan
Olangapo/Subic Bay Freeport Changi
Kaohsiung
1997 2027 2008 2033 2003 2023 2002 2019 2003 2028
BROT BOT BOT BOT
Subic Bay Water and Sewerage Company, Inc. SembCorp NEWater Pte Ltd Hyflux Ltd
JV (30% Cascal) with local partners 100% SembCorp
O O O
Ondeo Degrmont and Ecotek, a subsidiary of China Steel Bangpakong Waterworks Co. Ltd. Eastern Water Resources Development and Management Public Co. Ltd. (East Water) (100%, Thailand)
162
Thailand
Bangpakong
BROT
Asia
163 Thailand Chachoengsao Muang District, Baan Pho District and Bang Numpreaw Municipality Chonburi Province Jaopraya Surasakmontree Municipality and Borwin Sub District Chonburi Province Koh Samui Chonburi Province Sattahip District and Pattaya City Eastern Seaboard Industrial Zone Lampang 2003 2028 BROT Chachoengsao Waterworks Co. Ltd Eastern Water Resources Development and Management Public Co. Ltd. (East Water) (100%, Thailand) Eastern Water Resources Development and Management Public Co. Ltd. (East Water) (100%, Thailand) East Water Eastern Water Resources Development and Management Public Co. Ltd. (East Water) (100%, Thailand) O
164
Thailand
2005 2030
ROT
Borwin Waterworks
165 166
Thailand Thailand
2005 2020 2000 2025
BOO MC/L
Universal Utilities Company Limited (UUC) Sattahip Water Supply Co. Ltd.
O O
167 168
Thailand Thailand
1997 2023 1999 2024 2005 2034 2003 2028
Partial D BROT
Eastern Water Resources Development Lumpang waterworks
O Electricity Generating Company (EGCO), Thailand and Vivendi, France Ch Karnchang Company Limited (35%, Thailand) + Mitsui (26%, Japan) Eastern Water Resources Development and Management Public Co. Ltd. (East Water) (100%, Thailand) RWE (100%, Germany) Provincial Water Authority (2%) and Thai Tap Water (98%) Ch Karnchang Company Limited (47.7%) and Mitsui (35%) Require Construction Co. Ltd. EGCOMTHARA or Eastern Water T
169
Thailand
Nakhon Pathom and Samut Sakhon provinces Nakhonsawan Province Mung District
BOO
Thai Tap Water
170
Thailand
BROT
Nakhonsawan Waterworks Co. Ltd.
171 172 173 174 175
Thailand Thailand Thailand Thailand Thailand
Northern Bangkok Northern Bangkok Pathum Thani - Rangsit Phuket Ratcharburi Samutsongkram
1999 2004 1995 2020 1995 2003 2000 2010 2001 2031
ROT BOT BOT BROT BOO
Northern Bangkok Water Project Pathum Thani Water Supply Co., Ltd Pathumthani Water Supply Co. Ltd.
E O O E O
Asia
176 Thailand Rayong Muang and Baankai Districts Sichang Municipality 2006 2031 BROT Rayong Waterworks Eastern Water Resources Development and Management Public Co. Ltd. (East Water) (100%, Thailand) Eastern Water Resources Development and Management Public Co. Ltd. (East Water) (100%, Thailand) CH Karnchang (35.3%), Mitsui (25.9%) and Bangkok Expressway PCL (9.2%). Suez (90%) IJM Corporation Berhad (36%), Salcon Bhd (36%) and SouthSouth Corporation (18%) Manila Water Thu Duc BOO Corp General Construction Corporation No1 (20%) and Ho Chi Minh City Infrastructure Investment Joint Stock Company (40%) D
177
Thailand
2004 2029
ROT
Koh Sichang Waterworks
178
Thailand
West Bangkok Nakorn Pathom and Samut Sakhon districts Ho Chi Minh City Ho Chi Minh City, Thuan An District Saigon Thu Duc district
2001 2031 2001 2026 1999 2019 2008 2013 2005
BOT
Thai Tap Water (TTW)
179 180
Vietnam Vietnam
BOT BOT
Lyonnaise Vietnam Water Company Ltd. Binh An Water Corp Ltd.
T O
181 182
Vietnam Vietnam
MC BOO
O O
MENA
MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA (MENA)

Sl. 1 Country Algeria Algiers City Duration 2005 - 2015 Type of PPP MC/L Project Company Socit des Eaux et DAssainissement dAlgers (SEAL) EPEAL Private Players Suez (50%, France) Status O
Algeria
Algiers Ouest
2000-2004
SC
SOMEDEN (SEM), a subsidiary of Socit des Eaux de Marseille (100%, France) Gelsenwasser (100%, Germany)
Algeria
Annaba and El Tarf provinces
2007-2013
MC/L
Socit de lEau et de lAssainissement dEl Tarf et dAnnaba SPA (SEATA SPA) Socit de lEau et de lAssainissement de Constantine (SEACO) Societe des Eaux et de l'Assainissement de Constantine (Seaco)
4 5
Algeria Algeria
Athmania Constantine
2005 - 2010 2005-2008
DBO SC
Suez SOMEDEN (SEM), a subsidiary of Socit des Eaux de Marseille (100%, France) Societe des Eaux de Marseille (100%)
O E
Algeria
Constantine
2008-2013
MC/L
7 8
Algeria Algeria
Oran Oran
2008 - 2033 2007-2013
BOT MC/L Societe des Eaux Oran (SEOR, SPA) [Office National de lAssainissement (ONA) and Algrienne des Eaux (ADE)] Etablissement de Production, de Gestion et de Distribution dEau dOran (EPEOR) VID Investment Lyonnaise Des Eaux, Montgomery WatsonArabtech Jardaneh (LEMA)
MenaSpring Utility Ltd (Hyflux) and Algerian Energy Company Agbar Water (Suez, France: 28.7% & Criteria Caixa Corp SA, Spain: 27.7%)
O O
Algeria
Oran
1999-2004
SC
Saur, France
10 11 12
Algeria Israel Jordan
Taksebt Ashkelon Amman
2005 - 2010 2002 - 2027 1999-2006
DBO BOT MC/L
Degremont (Suez) VE, IDE and Dankner of Israel JV of Suez (75%) and a Jordanian-UK equal JV company (25%)
O O E
MENA
13 Jordan Madaba Governorate - outsourcing of customer service operations Ba'albeck 2006-2009 MC Engicon (local operator) E
14
Lebanon
2003-2006
MC
Council for Development and Reconstruction (CDR)/ Bekaa Water Auhtority (BWA) CDR/ North Lebanon Water Authority (NLWA) Lyonnaise des Eaux de Casablanca (LYDEC) Ondeo-Liban (France) Casablanca Bourse (14%), Suez Environnement (51%) and Moroccan institutions (35%) Elyo and Ondeo Services Veolia, Electricidade de Portugal, Pleiade (Portugal) and Alborada (Morocco) Veolia Environment (51%), Hydro-Quebec International, Canada (17%), ONA, Morocco (16%) and Societe Maroc Emirates Arabs Unis de Developpement (SOMED), MoroccanUAE (15%)
15 16
Lebanon Morocco
Tripoli Casablanca
2002-2006 1997 - 2027
MC/L MC
E O
17 18
Morocco Morocco
Oum Er Rbia Rabat and Sale
2000 - 2030 1999-2029
C C
Redal
O O
19
Morocco
Tangiers & Tetouan
2001-2026
Amendis
20 21 22 23
Oman Oman Palestinian Territories Palestinian Territories Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia
PAEW Sr Bethlehem and Hebron Gaza I
2011-2018 2007 - 2029 1999-2003 1996-2000
MC BOO MC MC
GEKA (Veolia) Lyonnaise des Eaux/Khatib and Alami (LEKA)
Veolia Veolia JV of Veolia Environnement + Khatib + Alami (GEKA) Lyonnaise des Eaux/Khatib and Alami (LEKA) SUEZ Environnement + AcwaPower Development (local partner Suez, GE and Hyundai Heavy Industries (60%) and Saudi Government institutions (40%).
O O T E
24
Jeddah
2008-2015
MC
25
Jubail
2007 - 2030
BOOT
MENA
26 27 28 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia UAE Mecca (or Makkah) and Taif Riyadh Fujairah 2010-2015 2008-2014 2007 - 2019 MC MC MC Saur + Zomco Veolia Water AMI, a subsidiary of Veolia Water Veolia Water O O O
Australia
AUSTRALIA
Sl. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Country Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand Adelaide Adelaide Ballarat Melbourne Noosa Perth Queensland II Sydney Sydney Sydney Franklin Papakura District Council Queenstown Ruapehu district (O&M) Thames-Coromandel district Waitomo City Duration 2011 - 2027 1995-2011 1999, 2003 - 2023 2009 - 2036 1998 - 2013 2005 - 2030 2006 - 2021 1993 - 2018 1996 - 2021 2007 - 2030 2000 1997 - 2027 2002 2002 - 2012 2004 - 2014 Type of PPP BOT MC BOOT DBO DBO DBO DBO BOO BOO DBO MC BOT MC MC MC Project Company Private Players Degremont (50%) and Transfield (50%) United Water (Veolia) United Water (Veolia) United Water (Veolia) Degrmont and Multiplex Engineering Veolia Suez and Lend Lease Pty Veolia Veolia United Water (Veolia) United Water (Veolia) United Water (Veolia) United Water (Veolia) United Water (Veolia) Status O E O O O O O O O O O O O O O
SA Water AquaSure
Australian Water Services (AWS)
16
New Zealand
2002
MC
United Water (Veolia)

Regional Trends Private-Public Partnerships Urban Water Supply

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Trends Private-Public Partnerships Urban Water Supply

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

469C Bukit Timah Road Oei Tiong Ham Building Singapore 259772 Tel: (65) 6516 6134 Fax:

(65) 6778 1020 Website: www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy

Date: 10 January 2012 Paper No.: LKYSPP 12 04 IWP

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2004761

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2004761

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2004761

Table 1: Different Definitions of PPP Country Canada Definition Source

Concession Joint Venture Divestiture

Public Shared Private or shared

Private Private Private

Private Private Private

Private Private Private

25-30 years Indefinite Indefinite (may be limited by license)

Is PPP a Viable Alternative Architecture for Urban Water Governance?

Figure 3: Types of PPP Contracts (Africa)

Figure 5: Types of PPP Contracts (Latin America)

Figure 7: Types of PPP Contracts (Asia)

Figure 9: Types of PPP Contracts (MENA)

Figure 10: Status of Contracts (MENA)

Figure 11: Types of PPP Contracts (Europe)

Calama 20-year Greenfield contract

Failure to meet the expected performance standards. Contract disputes.

Antalya 10-year management and lease contract

High water tariffs. Contract disputes.

APPENDIX: DATABASE OF PPP PROJECTS IN THE WATER SECTOR

Camerounaise des Eaux

Central African Republic Cote d'Ivoire

L, then C MC/L MC/L MC/L MC/L SC C

Cote d'Ivoire Cote d'Ivoire Guinea Kenya Kenya Mali

Energie de Mali (EDM)

Mali Mozambique Beira, Quelimane, Nampula, & Pemba

1995 1999 2008

Energie de Mali (EDM)

Niger Republic of Congo Senegal

Nationwide Brazzaville Dakar

MC/L MC/L MC/L

South Africa South Africa

Dolphin Coast, iLembe District Municipality Johannesburg

2006 2011 1999 2029

1995 2005 1992 2017

Suez (50%) and Everite (50%)

Uganda Uganda Zambia

MC/L MC/L MC/L

Balcarce, Buenos Aires province Buenos Aires city

Aguas de Balcarce, S.A.

Aguas Argentinas S.A. (AASA)

Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina

Aguas del Gran Buenos Aires [employees (10%)]

19982027 19952025 19972027 19912021 19952025 19992029 20022032 19992002 19962016

BROT ROT BROT BROT ROT ROT

Argentina Argentina Argentina

Aguas de la Rioja, SA Aguas de la Rioja SA Aguas de Laprida, SA

Sudamericana de Aguas, S.A. Servicios de Aguas de Misiones SA (SAMSA)

Aguas de Salta S.A. (ASSA) (later SPASSA) Obras Sanitarias de Catamarca

Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe

Santiago del Estero province (4 cities)

Argentina Belize Bolivia

Tucuman province National Cochabamba

19952025 2001 1999

Araruama, Silva Jardim and Saquarema, State of Rio de Janeiro

Brazil Brazil Brazil