Private – Public Partnerships in Urban Water Supply Sector

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

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: [email protected]

Sonia Ferdous Hoque

Research Associate

Institute of Water Policy,

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,

National University of Singapore.


Lovleen Bhullar

Researcher

Environmental Law Research Society

New Delhi, India.


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]

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

mailto:[email protected]�




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; Build-

Own-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

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 sector’s 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.

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).

Table 1: Different Definitions of PPP

Country Definition Source

Canada A cooperative venture between the public and private

sectors, built on the expertise of each partner that best

meets clearly defined public needs through the

appropriate allocation of resources, risks and rewards.

Canadian Council for

Public Private

Partnerships

United

Kingdom

An arrangement between two or more entities that

enables them to do public service work cooperatively

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.

Her Majesty’s

Treasury (1998)

Singapore PPP refers to long-term partnering relationships

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.

MOF (2004)

India The Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Project means a

project based on contract or concession agreement

between a Government or statutory entity on the one

side and a private sector company on the other side, for

delivering an infrastructure service on payment of user

charges.

Department of

Economic Affairs of

the Ministry of

Finance (2005)

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 India’s 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

operator’s fee depends on the amount of tariff collected from customers vis-à-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 Chile’s 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

Operation &

Maintenance

Capital

Investment

Commercial

Risk

Duration

Service

Contract

Public Shared Public Public 1-2 years

Management

Contract

Public Private Public Public 3-5 years

Lease/

Affermage

Public Private Public Shared 8-15 years

Build Operate

Transfer (BOT)

Contract

Shared Private Private Private 20-30 years

Concession Public Private Private Private 25-30 years

Joint Venture Shared Private Private Private Indefinite

Divestiture Private or

shared

Private Private Private 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: The project has started providing services to the public.

Distressed: 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

d’Ivoire 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 Countries

Africa 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 Brunei, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Singapore and South Korea

Europe 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

doctrine1 and the subsequent development in international law that investors “shall be paid

appropriate compensation in accordance with international law”, in the event of nationalization2

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.

.

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.

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.

1 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. 2 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

Multinational

involved

Reasons for Termination

Argentina Tucuman 30-year

water concession

contract

2004 Vivendi Poor service quality, high

tariffs, serious operational

failures.

Contract disputes, public

protests, failure of

regulatory body.

Bolivia Cochabamba 40-

year concession

contract

2000 Agua de Tunari

(consortium of

International

Water and

Bechtel)

High water tariffs,

Cochabamba water war in

2000.


protests, failure of

regulatory body.

South

Africa

Fort Beaufort 10-

year concession

contract

2001 WSSA (Suez –

Ondeo)

High water tariffs, poor

service quality.


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.

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-by-

private-sector.html

Gunawansa, Asanga. 2000. Legal Implications Concerning Project Financing Initiatives in

Developing Countries. Attorney General’s Law Review, July 2000.

http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PublicPolicyJournal/286Bitran_Arellano.pdf�

http://www.acquaevita.info/pag/pdf/Water_dp1.pdf�

http://www.pppinindia.com/pdf/PPPGuidelines.pdf�

http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/10/11/market-insight/800m-now-served-by-private-sector.html�

http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/10/11/market-insight/800m-now-served-by-private-sector.html�

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

http://www.psiru.org/reports/2010-W-EWCS.doc�

http://crgp.stanford.edu/publications/working_papers/S_Jooste_Inst_Forms_Urban_Water_WP0038.pdf�

http://crgp.stanford.edu/publications/working_papers/S_Jooste_Inst_Forms_Urban_Water_WP0038.pdf�

http://www.kpmg.com.sg/publications/Industries_PPPinAsia2007.pdf�

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.

http://wateryearbook.pinsentmasons.com/historical_editions.aspx�

http://wateryearbook.pinsentmasons.com/historical_editions.aspx�

http://www.transparency.cz/pdf/TIC_vodarenstvi_en.pdf�

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. Country City Duration Type

of PPP Project name/ Company Private players Status

1 Burkina Faso 2001 - 2006

SC Veolia Water, Cabinet Mazars and Guerard

O

2 Cameroon Nationwide 2007 - 2017

MC/L Camerounaise des Eaux Office National de l’Eau Potable (ONEP, 33%), Delta Holding SA (33%), Caisse de Dépôt et de Gestion (33%) and Ingema (1%), all Morocco

O

3 Cameroon 2000 - 2020

C Societe Nationale des Eaux du Cameroun (SNEC); since 2006, Cameroon Water Utilities Corporation (CAMWATER)

Suez (51%) O

4 Central African Republic

Bangui 1991 - 2006

MC/L Societe de Distribution d’Eau en Centrafrique (SODECA)

Saur (51%) T

5 Cote d'Ivoire Abidjan 1959, 1987 - 2007

L, then C

Societe Distribution d'Eau de Cote d'Ivoire (SODECI)

Finagestion (45%), SAUR (47%) and Government (8%)

O

6 Cote d'Ivoire Nationwide 1987 - 2007

MC/L Societe Distribution d'Eau de Cote d'Ivoire (SODECI)

Saur International, France (47%) E

7 Cote d'Ivoire Nationwide 2008 - 2032

MC/L Societe Distribution d'Eau de Cote d'Ivoire (SODECI)

Bouygues (46%, France) O

8 Guinea Conakry and 16 towns 1989 - 2011

MC/L Societe de Exploitation des Eaux de Guinee (SEEG)

SAUR & Vivendi (51%) T

9 Kenya Malindi 1999 - 2005

MC/L Malindi water utility contract H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (100%, Germany)

E

10 Kenya Malindi 1995 - 1999

SC H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (Germany) E

11 Mali Bamako and 16 urban centres [water and electricity]

2000 C Energie de Mali (EDM) 60% of EDM - SAUR (65%)/ IPS West Africa (35%)

T

12 Mali 1995 MC Energie de Mali (EDM) SAUR-EDF- Hydroquebec/CRC-Cogema

T

13 Mozambique Beira, Quelimane, Nampula, & Pemba

1999 - 2008

MC/L Aguas de Mozambique

Aguas de Portugal (73%) and Mazi-Mozambique (23%)

E

Africa

14 Mozambique Maputo 1999 - 2014

MC/L Aguas de Mocambique [5 national organisations included]

SAUR (38%) and Aguas de Portugal (32%)

O

15 Mozambique Matola 1999 - 2014

MC/L SAUR (38%) and Aguas de Portugal (32%)

O

16 Namibia Windhoek 2001 - 2021

MC/L Goreangab Water Plant Berlinwasser International AG (33%), Va Tech Wabag (33%) and Veolia Environnement (34%)

O

17 Niger Nationwide 2001 - 2011

MC/L Societe d'exploitation des eaux du Niger (SEEN)

Veolia Water AMI (51% ) O

18 Republic of Congo

Brazzaville 2002 - 2004

MC/L Societe Nationale de Distribution d'Eau (SNDE)

Biwater plc (100%) E

19 Senegal Dakar 1996 - 2006

MC/L Sénégalaise des Eaux (SdE) [local investors (+30%), employees and Senegal govt.]

Bouygues (57.8%) E

20 Senegal Dakar 2006 - 2012

MC/L Sénégalaise des Eaux (SdE) [local investors (+30%), employees and Senegal govt.]

Bouygues (57.8%) O

21 South Africa Dolphin Coast, iLembe District Municipality

1999 - 2029

ROT Siza Water Company Biwater (73%) and Metropolitan Life Lrd. (23%)

O

22 South Africa Johannesburg 2001 - 2006

MC/L Johannesburg Water Company 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

E

23 South Africa Maluti-a-Phofung 2006 - 2011

MC/L Maluti-a-Phofung Water (Pty) Ltd

Uzinzo Services (JV of Amanz’ abantu Services (Eastern Cape) & WSSA)

O

24 South Africa Nelspruit, Mbombela 1999 - 2029

BROT Greater Nelspruit Utility Company (GNUC); later Silulumanzi

Cascal (Biwater) (40%), operating through Metsi a Sechaba, its JV with a local black empowerment group

O

25 South Africa Nkonkobe municipality 1995 - 2005

MC/L Water and Sanitation Services South Africa Ltd, (Fort Beaufort)

Suez (50%) and Everite (50%) T

26 South Africa Queenstown 1992 - 2017

MC/L Water and Sanitation Services South Africa Ltd (Queenstown)

Suez (50%) and Everite (50%) O

Africa

27 South Africa Stutterheim (Amahthali) 1993 - 2003

L Water and Sanitation Services South Africa Ltd (Stutterheim)

Suez (50%) and Everite (50%) E

28 Sudan Khartoum 2008 - 2021

DBO Biwater Holdings Limited O

29 Tanzania Dar-es-Salaam 2003 - 2013

MC/L Dar es Salaam Water Distribution

Biwater (UK 25.5%), Gauff Engineers (Germany 25.5%) and Superdoll (Tanzania 49%)

T

30 Uganda Kampala 1998 - 2001

MC/L Kampala Revenue Improvement Project

H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (100%, Germany)

E

31 Uganda Kampala 2002 - 2004

MC/L Ondeo Services Uganda Limited (OSUL)

Suez (100%) E

32 Zambia Nkana, Konkola, Nchanga, Mufulira, and Luanshya (mine townships)

2001 - 2005

MC/L AHC Mining Municipal Services Limited (AHC-MMS)

Saur (100%) E

Latin America

LATIN AMERICA

Sl. Country City Duration Type of PPP

Project Name/ Company Private Players Status

1 Argentina Balcarce, Buenos Aires province

1994-2014

BROT Aguas de Balcarce, S.A. Camuzzi Gazometri SpA, Italy (70%) and Global Water Investments, LLC, Argentina (30%)

O

2 Argentina Buenos Aires city 1993-2023

BROT Aguas Argentinas S.A. (AASA) 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

O

3 Argentina Buenos Aires province (7 municipalities - Merlo, Moreno, San Miguel, General Rodriguez, Escobar, Malvinas Argentinas y Jose C P)

2000-2030

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

Impregilo SpA, Italy (43%), ACS Group (Actividades de Construccion y Servicios) or Dragados, Spain (27%), Aguas de Bilbao Bizkaia, Spain (20%)

O

4 Argentina Campana, Buenos Aires province

1998-2027

BROT Aguas de Campana, S.A. Contreras Hermanos SA (51%) and Esuco SA (49%), both Argentinian

O

5 Argentina Clorinda, Formosa province

1995-2025

ROT Aguas de Formosa [province (10%)]

SAGUA Internacional, S.A. (South Water, 80%; Agbar, 15%; Suez, 5%)

O

6 Argentina Cordoba 1997-2027

BROT Aguas Cordobesas [only for water services]

consortium of Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux and Agbar (56.5%)

O

7 Argentina Corrientes province 1991-2021

BROT Aguas de Corrientes consortium led by Thames Water, UK O

8 Argentina Formosa 1995-2025

ROT Aguas de Formosa Phoenix, Sagua International SA and Simali, all Argentinian

O

9 Argentina Greater Buenos Aires province (60 municipalities)

1999-2029

ROT Azurix Buenos Aires S.A. Azurix, a unit of Enron (100%, US) O

10 Argentina La Rioja 2002-2032

BROT Aguas de la Rioja, SA Latin Aguas (100%, Argentina) E

11 Argentina La Rioja 1999-2002

MC Aguas de la Rioja SA Latin Aguas (100%) E

12 Argentina Laprida, Buenos Aires province

1996-2016

BROT Aguas de Laprida, SA Camuzzi Gazometri SpA, Italy = 100% 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%

O

14 Argentina Pilar municipality, Buenos Aires province

1992-2016

ROT Sudamericana de Aguas, S.A. Sudamericana de Aguas, S.A. (80%) O

15 Argentina Posadas and Garupa cities, Misiones province

1999-2029

BROT Servicios de Aguas de Misiones SA (SAMSA)

Urbaser (27%), Dragados (18%), Urbaser Argentina (45%) and workers (10%); now ACS Group (Actividades de Construccion y Servicios) (90%, Spain)

O

16 Argentina Salta province 1998-2028

BROT Aguas de Salta S.A. (ASSA) (later SPASSA)

MECON, S.A.; later, Sociedad Prestadora Aguas de Salta, S.A. (JCR SA (45%); Latinaguas (45%), both Argentinian)

O

17 Argentina San Fernando del Valle de Catamarca, Valle Viejo, and Fray Mamerto Esquiu, Catamarca province

2000-2030

ROT Obras Sanitarias de Catamarca Aguas del Valle [Proactiva Medio Ambiente (joint subsidiary of Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas (FCC) and Veolia), 50:50]

O

18 Argentina Santa Fe province (15 districts)

1995-2025

BROT Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe 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%).

O

19 Argentina Santiago del Estero province (4 cities)

1997-2027

BROT Aguas de Santiago, SA Dipos (Cast TV SA (15%); Curi Hermanos SA (15%); Editorial El Liberal SRL (15%); Sagua International SA (45%), all Argentinian

O

20 Argentina Tucuman province 1995-2025

BROT Aguas del Aconquija consortium led by Compagnie Générale des Eaux (90%)

O

21 Belize National 2001 partial D

Belize Water Supply Limited Cascal/ Biwater, UK (45%) and Nuon, Netherlands (45%)

O

22 Bolivia Cochabamba 1999 C Aguas del Tunari consortium of International Water Ltd. (55%) (Bechtel (US) and Edison (Italy)), Riverstar International (25%) and four Bolivian companies (20%)

O

Latin America

23 Bolivia La Paz-El Alto 1997 C Aguas del Illimani JV including Lyonnaise des Eaux, owned by Suez (35%) [Ondeo]

O

24 Brazil Alta Floresta 2002-2032

ROT Aguas de Alta Floresta Cab Ambiental (100%, Brazil) O

25 Brazil Aracoiaba de Serra 2009-2039

BROT Aguas de Aracoiaba Construtora Cowan LTDA, Construtora Queiroz Galvao, Developer SA and Trana Construcoes Ltda

O

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

1998-2023

BROT Aguas de Juturnaiba Aguas do Brasil or Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A., Construtora Cowan LTDA, Construtora Queiroz Galvao, EIT Empresa Tecnica Industrial and Erco Engenharia

O

27 Brazil Araujo, State of Minas Gerais

2002-2032

ROT Sanarj - Concession de Saneamento Basico

Global Engenharia and Planex Consultoria (Brazil)

O

28 Brazil Bom Sucesso, State of Minas Gerais

2002-2027

BROT Aguas de Bom Sucess0 Global Engenharia and Planex Consultoria (Brazil)

O

29 Brazil Buzios, Cabo Frio, Sao Pedro da Aldeia, Iguaba and Arraial do Cabo municipalities, state of Rio de Janeiro

1998-2023

BROT Prolagos Aguas de Portugal (93.5% or 100%) O

30 Brazil Cachoeiro de Itapemirim municipality, State of Espirinto Santo

1998-2018

BROT Aguas de Cachoeiro SA (Citagua)

Aguia Branca (73.3%) and Cepemar (26.7%), both Brazilian; later, Odebrecht

O

31 Brazil Campo Grande, State of Mato Grosso de Sul

2000-2030

BROT Aguas Guariroba SA originally Interagua (JV of energy company Endesa Spain and Agbar)); now Equipav S/A Pavimentacao, Engenharia e Comercio, and Herber Participacoes

O

32 Brazil Campos, State of Rio de Janeiro

1999-2029

BROT Aguas do Paraiba Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A., Construtora Cowan LTDA, Construtora Queiroz Galvao, Developer SA and Trana Construcoes Ltda

O

33 Brazil Carlinda municipality, State of Rio de Janeiro

2004-2034

ROT Aguas de Carlinda Perenge Engenharia (100%, Brazil) O

34 Brazil Claudia, State of Mato Grosso

2004-2034

ROT Aguas de Claudia Perenge Engenharia (100%, Brazil) O

35 Brazil Coliatina city, state of Espirito Santo

1998 C O

Latin America

36 Brazil Colider 2002-2032

BROT Colider Agua e Saneamento Ltda

Cab Ambiental (100%, Brazil) O

37 Brazil Comodoro 2007-2037

BROT Empresa Águas de Comodoro Ltda

Agrimat Engenharia Industria e Comercio (100%, Brazil)

O

38 Brazil Curitiba, State of Parana

2001 C O

39 Brazil Guapimir municipality, State of Rio de Janeiro

2004-2024

ROT Fontes da Serra Saneamento de Guapimirim Ltda

Emissao Engenharia (Brazil) O

40 Brazil Guara, State of Sao Paulo

2000-2025

ROT Aguas de Guara Hidrogesp (100%, Brazil) O

41 Brazil Guaranta do Norte municipality, State of Rio de Janeiro

2001-2031

ROT Aguas de Guaranta Ltda Perenge Engenharia (Brazil) O

42 Brazil Guariroba, Campo Grande, Mato Grosso

2000 - 2030

BROT Aguas de Guariroba 50% owned by Agbar, 41% by Cobel, and 9% by Mato Grosso state water company Sanesul

O

43 Brazil Itapema, State of Santa Catarina

2004-2029

ROT Aguas de Itapema Construtora Nascimento and Linear Participacoes e Construcoes de Cuiaba

O

44 Brazil Juturnaiba 1998 BROT Aguas de Juturnaiba Aguas de Juturnaiba (Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A., Brazil; Construtora Cowan LTDA, Brazil; Construtora Queiroz Galvao, Brazil; EIT Empresa Tecnica Industrial; Erco Engenharia)

O

45 Brazil Limeira, State of Sao Paulo

1995-2025

ROT Aguas de Limeira SA consortium of Odebrecht, Brazil and Suez (50:50)

O

46 Brazil Machado & Baguacu 1996 - 2021

C Aguas de SANEAR (Saneamento de Araçatuba, S.A.)

Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (54%)

O

47 Brazil Manaus, State of Amazonas

2000-2030

BROT Aguas de Amazonas or Manaus Saneamento

Suez O

48 Brazil Mandaguahy 1995 - 2015

C Aguas de Mandaguahy Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (85%)

O

49 Brazil Marcelandia 2003-2033

BROT Aguas de Marcelandia Construtora Nascimento (100%, Brazil) O

50 Brazil Marilia, State of Sao Paolo

1997-2017

BROT Aguas de Marilia Hidrogesp, Paineira Participacoes, Telar, all Brazilian

O

51 Brazil Marinique, State of Sao Paolo

1997-2027

BROT Ciagua Concessionaria de Aguas de Mairinque

Villa Nova Engenharia O

Latin America

52 Brazil Matupa municipality, State of Rio de Janeiro

2001-2031

ROT Aguas de Matupa Perenge Engenharia (100%, Brazil) O

53 Brazil Minas Gerais, State of 2006 partial D

Companhia de Saneamento de Minas Gerais (Copasa)

O

54 Brazil Mineiros do Tietê municipality, State of Sao Paulo

1995-2015

BROT Saneciste Sacyr Vallehermoso SA (SyV) (60%, Spain) O

55 Brazil Mirassol municipality, State of Sao Paulo

2008-2038

BROT Paz Gestao Ambiental Paz Construcao e Prestacao de Servicoes Publicos Ltda (100%, Brazil)

O

56 Brazil Mirassol municipality, State of Sao Paulo

2001-2006

ROT Sanessol Cab Ambiental (90%, Brazil) O

57 Brazil Niteroi, State of Rio de Janeiro

1999-2029

BROT Aguas de Niteroi Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A., Construtora Cowan LTDA, Construtora Queiroz Galvao and EIT Empresa Tecnica Industrial

O

58 Brazil Nobres, State of Mato Gross

1999-2029

BROT Empresa de Saneamento de Nobres

Encomind Engenharia Comercio e Industria, Brazil

O

59 Brazil Nova Canaa do Norte 2009-2039

BROT Aguas de Canaa Engenharia e Comercio Govic Ltda and Perenge Engenharia (Brazil)

O

60 Brazil Nova Friburgo, State of Rio de Janeiro

1999-2024

BROT Concessionaria de Aguas e Esgotos de Nova Friburgo Ltda (Caenf)

Tyco International, USA O

61 Brazil Novo Progresso, State of Para

1994-2034

ROT Aguas de Novo Progresso Perenge Engenharia (100%, Brazil) O

62 Brazil Ourinhos municipality 1996-2011

BROT Aguas de Esmeralda Hidrogesp, Brazil and Tyco International, USA

O

63 Brazil Paraguacu, State of Minas Gerais

2000-2030

BROT Cosagua Global Engenharia and Planex Consultoria (Brazil)

O

64 Brazil Paranagua state 1997-2027

BROT Aguas de Paranagua S.A. Cab Ambiental (100%) or Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A., Brazil = 38%; Construtora Castilho de Porto Alegre SA, Brazil = 42%

O

65 Brazil Peixoto de Azevedo 2000-2030

BROT Aguas de Peixoto de Azevedo Construtora Nascimento (100%, Brazil) O

66 Brazil Pereiras municipality, State of Sao Paulo

1994-2017

BROT Pereiras Water Company Novacon, Brazil O

Latin America

67 Brazil Petropolis city, State of Rio de Janeiro

1998-2028

BROT Aguas do Imperador Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A., Brazil; Construtora Cowan LTDA, Brazil; Construtora Queiroz Galvao, Brazil; EIT Empresa Tecnica Industrial

O

68 Brazil Pontes e Lacerda 2000-2031

BROT Aguas de Pontes e Lacerda Cab Ambiental (100%, Brazil) O

69 Brazil Primavera do Leste municipality, State of Rio de Janeiro

2000-2031

BROT Aguas de Primavera Primavera do Leste (100%, Brazil) O

70 Brazil Resende, State of Rio de Janeiro

2008-2038

BROT Aguas das Agulhas Negras Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A., Construtora Queiroz Galvao and Trana Construcoes Ltda, all Brazilian

O

71 Brazil Ribeirao de Pantano, state of Sao Paulo

1996-2016

BROT Empresa de Saneamento de Tuiuti

Novacon, Brazil O

72 Brazil Sanepar, Parana state 1998 partial D

Companhia de Saneamento do Paraná (SANEPAR)

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

O

73 Brazil Santa Carmem 2002-2032

BROT Aguas de Santa Carmem Construtora Nascimento (100%, Brazil) O

74 Brazil Santo Antonio de Padua municipality, State of Rio de Janeiro

2004-2034

ROT Aguas de Santo Antonio Aguas de Santo Antonio (100%) O

75 Brazil Sao Carlos, State of Sao Paulo

1994-2004

ROT Sao Carlos Water System - DH Perfuracao de Pocos

Hidrogesp, Brazil O

76 Brazil Sao Paulo state 2007-2037

BROT Aguas de Itu Exploracao de Servicos de Agua e Esgoto SA

Grupo Equipav (100%, Brazil) O

77 Brazil Serrana, State of Sao Paolo

2000-2030

BROT Bela Fonte Saneamento Ltda Novacon, Brazil O

78 Brazil Sorriso, State of Mato Grosso

2000-2030

ROT Aguas de Sorriso Perenge Engenharia (Brazil) O

79 Brazil Tambau, State of Sao Paulo

2000-2030

BROT Rio Pardo Operadores Novacon, Brazil O

80 Brazil Tangara da Serra 2001 C O 81 Brazil Tocantins state 1999 partial

D Empresa de Saneamento do Tocantins (Saneatins)

Empresa Sul-Americana de Montagem S.A., Brazil

O

82 Brazil Tucurui municipality, PA

1999-2019

BROT Aguas de Tucurui Hidrogesp, Brazil T

Latin America

83 Brazil Uniao do Sul 2000-2030

BROT Aguas de Uniao do Sul Construtora Nascimento (100%, Brazil) T

84 Brazil Veracruz state 2004-2034

BROT Aguas de Vera Abastecimento e Distribuicao Ltda

Construtora Nascimento (100%, Brazil T

85 Chile Litoral Sur, Region V 1993-2028

BROT Aguesquinta, SA Agbar (70%, Spain) and Chilquinta (30%, Chile)

T

86 Chile Lo Barenchea community, Region M

1995- BROT Servicions de Agua Potable Barnechea SA

Biwater (100%, UK) T

87 Chile Pudahuel district of the Metropolitan Region

2007-2023

BROT Izarra de Lo Aguirre Water Concession

Empresa de Agua Potable Izarra de Lo Aguirre SA (100%)

T

88 Chile Region I 2004-2034

ROT Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Tarapacá S.A. (ESSAT) or Aguas del Altiplano

Inmobiliaria Punta de Rieles, a subsidiary of Grupo Solari (100%, Chile) T

89 Chile Region II 2003-2033

ROT Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Antofagasta S.A. (ESSAN) or Aguas de Antofagasta

Grupo Luksic (65%, Chile) T

90 Chile Region III 2004-2034

BROT Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Atacama S.A. (EMSSAT) or Aguas Chanar

Consorcio Aguas Norte Grande (Hydrosan, Chile = 45%; Icafal, Chile = 45%; Vecta, Chile = 10%)

O

91 Chile Region IV 2004-2034

ROT Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Coquimbo S.A.(ESSCO) or Aguas del Valle, SPV created by ESVAL

Consorcio Financiero S.A. - now, Fernandez Hurtado; Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, Canada = 69.4%

O

92 Chile Region IX 2004-2034

BROT Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de La Araucanía S.A. (ESSAR) or Aguas Araucania

grupo Solari (100%) O

93 Chile Region M: Greater Santiago Metropolitan Region

1999 partial D

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]

consortium of Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux (through Inversiones Aguas Metropolitanas (50.1%) and Agbar (40.8%)

O

Latin America

94 Chile Region V 1999 partial D

Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Valparaíso S.A. (ESVAL) or Aguas Puerto

consortium of Enersis (Chile) and Anglian Water (41%); in 2000, only Anglian Water

O

95 Chile Region VI: Tancagua 1999 partial D

Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios del Libertados S.A. (ESSEL)

JV b/w Thames Water and Electricidade de Portugal (45%); RWE Germany (51%)

O

96 Chile Region VII 2001-2031

BROT Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios del Maule S.A. (ESSAM) or Aguas Nuevo Sur Maule

RWE Germany; acquired by Thames Water O

97 Chile Region VIII: Concepcion

2000 partial D

Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios del Bio-Bío S.A. (ESSBIO)

Southern Cross, a Latin American Investment Fund (US: 55%) Thames Water (51%)

O

98 Chile Region X: Los Lagos Region

1999 partial D

Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Los Lagos S.A. (ESSAL)

Aguas de Barcelona, Spain (51%) O

99 Chile Region XI 2002-2032

ROT Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Aysén S.A. (EMSSA) or Aguas Patagonia de Aysen

Hidrosan Ingenieria SA, Icafal, and Vecta (32.3% each, Chile)

O

100 Chile Region XII 2004-2034

BROT Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios de Magallanes S.A. (ESSMAG) or Aguas Magallanes

Grupo Solari (100%, Chile) T

101 Chile Santiago and 21 peri-urban localities

1996 full D Aguas Cordillera Agbar (42%) and Suez (10%) T

102 Chile Valdivia 1995 full D Aguas Decima Agbar (Spain) and Chilquinta (Chile) (50:50) O 103 Colombia Amalfi, Anori,

Armenia, Corregimiento de Bolombolo, Ituango and Puerto del Triunfo municipalities, department of Antoquia

1997-2012

MC/L AASSA operation of eight water utility municipalities in Antoquia

Acueductos y Alcantarillados Sostenibles (AASSA), Colombia = 100%

O

104 Colombia Arjona and Turbaco municipalities, Bolivar department

2004-2024

ROT Social de Acueductos y Alcantarillado de Colombia

Construcciones Insaca Ltda, Ingenieria Sala, Mejilla y Llegas Constructores,and Sicon SA, Colombia

O

Latin America

105 Colombia Barrancas, Distraccion, El Molino, Villanueva (La Guajira province)

2002-2014

ROT Aguas del Sur de la Guajira S.A. (ASOAGUAS)

Grupo Hydros and Ingenieria Total, each 50%, Colombia

O

106 Colombia Barranquilla 1996-2033

RLT Sociedad de Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Asseo de Barranquilla

Interamericana de Aguas y Servicios S.A. (60.4%)

O

107 Colombia Bogota 1998 - 2018

BOT Proactive (33.34%) T

108 Colombia Buenaventura (Valle de Cauca department)

2002-2022

ROT Hidropacifico S.A. Conhydra SA and Hidroestudios de Bogota, Colombia

O

109 Colombia Buga 1998 JV E 110 Colombia Cartagena de Indias 1995-

2021 MC/L Aguas de Cartagena (Acuacar)

[govt. (50%) + local investors (4.1%)]

Agbar (45.91%) O

111 Colombia Caucasia, Taraza, Nechi, and Caceres municipalities, department of Antoquia

1997-2012

MC/L Aguascol Arbelaez SA Aguascol (100%) O

112 Colombia Cerete, Sahagun, Cienaga de Oro, and San Carlos municipalities, department of Cordoba

2004-2024

ROT Acueducto regional de Medio Sinu

Uniaguas S.A., Colombia = 100% O

113 Colombia Chigorodo Santa Fe de Antioquia, Mutata, Sonson, and Marinilla municipalitie, Department of Antoquia

1997-2012

MC/L Conhydra SA (Colombia) O

114 Colombia City of El Banco, Magdalena department

2003-2019

ROT Operagua Aguas de Valencia, Spain = 100% O

115 Colombia Cucuta, district of Norte de Santander

2006-2021

ROT Aguaskpital de Cucuta Aguas Kapital (Nule Group, Cuba, 75%) O

116 Colombia Cumaral municipality, Meta Department

2002-2012

RLT Aguas del Llano SA Aguas del Llano SA T

117 Colombia Fundacion municipality,

1998-2018

BROT Fundacion municipality water utility

Prestadora de Servicios Publicos Dominiciliarios SA (Presea), (100%)

O

Latin America

department of Magdalena

118 Colombia Galapa municipality, Atlantico department

2002-2022

BROT Galapa municipality water utility

Sociedad de Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Aseo (Triple A) de Barranquilla, Colombia = 100%

O

119 Colombia Itsmina and Tado municipalities, Choco department

2002-2014

MC/L Itsmina and Tado municipalities water utilities

Francisco Velasquez Ingenieria Civil y Sanitaria (100%, Colombia)

O

120 Colombia Maicao, department of Guarija

2003-2033

BROT Aguas de la Peninsula Grupo Hydros, Colombia; Ingenieria Total, Colombia

O

121 Colombia Monteria, Cordoba Department

1999-2020

RLT Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas S.A.

Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas SA (FCC) (50%) and Veolia Environmenta (50%)

O

122 Colombia Municipalities of Andes, Segovia, Cuidad Bolivar, Jardin and Salgar, Department of Antoquia

1997-2012

MC/L Suroeste Antioqueno water utilities

Ingenieria Total, Colombia (100%) O

123 Colombia Municipalities of Baranoa and Polonuevo, Atlantico Department

2003-2023

BROT Aguas del Norte SA Sociedad de Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Aseo (Triple A) de Barranquilla (100%)

O

124 Colombia Municipalities of Girardot and Ricaurte and surrounding areas, Department of Cundinamarca

1997-2012

MC/L Empresa de Aguas de Girardot, Ricaurte and the region SA

O

125 Colombia Municipalities of Tacaima and Agua de Dios, Cundinamarca Deparment

2003-2023

BROT Aguas del Alto Magdalena SA Grupo Colombo-Cubano (100%) O

126 Colombia Municipality of Apartado, Deparment of Antoquia

1996-2011

MC/L Apartado municipality water utility

Prestadora de Servicios Publicos Dominiciliarios SA (Presea) (100%)

O

127 Colombia Municipality of Cienaga, Department of Magdalena

2000-2015

BROT Operadores de Servicios de la Sierra SA

Aguascol, Colombia = 100% O

Latin America

128 Colombia Municipality of El Chaco in Deparment of Narino and Guapi municipality in Cauca

2002 MC/L Water utilities of El Charco and Guapi municipalities

SIE de Colombia = 100% O

129 Colombia Municipality of Malambo, Department of Antoquia

2000 BROT Operadores de Servicio del Norte SA

Aguascol, Colombia = 100% O

130 Colombia Municipality of Ocana, Department of Norte de Santander

1994-1999

MC Ocana municipal water utility first contract

Empresa de Servicios Publicos de Ocana (50%, Colombia)

O

131 Colombia Municipality of Sabanalarga, Department of Atlantico

2001 BROT Aguas y Servicios de la Sabanalarga SA

Sociedad de Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Aseo (Triple A) de Barranquilla (100%)

O

132 Colombia Municipality of San Juan Nepomuceno, Department of Bolivar

2001-2011

MC/L Aguas de la Costa SA Aguas de la Costa, Colombia = 100% O

133 Colombia Municipality of Soledad , Department of Atlantico

2002-2021

BROT Soledad municipality water utility


O

134 Colombia Nataga, Department of Huila

2001-2011

MC/L Nataga Water Services Consorcio Almafama O

135 Colombia Neiva 1996 JV O 136 Colombia Ocana 1999-

2004 MC/L Ocana municipal water utility

second contract Empresa de Servicios Publicos de Ocana, Colombia (50%)

O

137 Colombia Palmira, department of Valle del Cauca

1997-2012

MC/L Acuaviva SA ESP Suez (50%) O

138 Colombia Ponedera (Atlantico department)

2002-2012

MC/L Aguas de la Rivera S.A. Aguas de la Ribera T

139 Colombia Puerto Berrio municipality, department of Antoquia

1998-2018

MC/L Puerto Berrio municipal water utility

Conhydra SA, Colombia = 100% T

140 Colombia Puerto Carreno municipality, Vichada Department

2002-2022

MC/L Puerto Carreno municipality water utility

Ingenieria Sala (100%, Colombia) T

141 Colombia Puerto Colombia, department of

1997-2017

BROT Puerto Colombia water utility Sociedad de Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Aseo (Triple A) de Barranquilla (100%)

T

Latin America

Atlantico

142 Colombia Rio Negro 1998 JV O 143 Colombia Riohacha 2000-

2020 BROT Aguas de la Guajira Aguas de la Guajira (100%, Colombia) O

144 Colombia Sabanagrande and Santo Tomas (Atlantico department)

2002-2012

ROT Sabanagrande and Santo Tomas water and sewage first concession

Acuasasa S.A., Colombia = 100% O

145 Colombia Sabanagrande and Santo Tomas, department of Atlantico

2005-2024

ROT Sabanagrande and Santo Tomas water and sewage concession


O

146 Colombia San Andres Island 2005-2020

BROT Aguas de San Andres SA Fabrica Nacional de Autopartes (Fanalca) SA (50%, Colombia); Veolia and FCC, Spain (25:25)

O

147 Colombia San Marcos (Sucre department)

2002-2017

ROT Aguas de la Mojana SA Acuasasa S.A., Colombia = 100% O

148 Colombia San Pedro de los Milagros, Santa Rosa de Osos, Titiribi, and Venecia municipalities, department of Antoquia

1997-2012

MC/L San Pedro de los Milagros, Santa Rosa de Osos, Titiribi, and Venecia municipalities water utility

Acueductos y Alcantarillados Sostenibles (AASSA), Colombia (100%)

O

149 Colombia Santa Barbara, Fredonia, Valparaiso and Caramanta, Department of Antoquia

1997-2012

MC/L Municipal water utilities of Santa Barbara, Fredonia, Valparaiso and Caramanta

Operadores de Servicios SA (100%) O

150 Colombia Santa Marta 1997-2017

MC/L Compania del Acueducto y Alcantarillado Metropolitano de Santa Marta


O

151 Colombia Sincelejo and Corozal municipalities, Department of Sucre

2002-2022

BROT Aguas de la Sabana Empas (Emas and Ingenieria Sala, Colombia); now Grupo Sala

O

152 Colombia Tulua, department of Valle del Cauca

2000-2020

MC/L Centroaguas SA ESP Grupo Empresarial Energic, Colombia = 80%

O

Latin America

153 Colombia Tunja 1996-2026

BROT Acueducto y Alcantarillado de Tunja or Seraqua Tunja ESP

Proactiva - joint subsidiary of Veolia Environment France and FCC (50:50)

T

154 Colombia Turbo municipality, department of Antoquia

1996-2011

MC/L Turbo municipality water utility

Conhydra SA, Colombia (100%) E

155 Cuba La Habana (12 out of 15 municipalities)

2000- 2025

BROT Aguas de la Habana Aguas de Barcelona (41%) E

156 Dominican Republic

Puerto Plata 2007 - 2027

MC AAA Dominicana SA Technicas Valencianas Del Agua (Tecvasa) (70%)

O


Santiago 2004 - 2021

MC AAA Dominicana SA Technicas Valencianas Del Agua (Tecvasa) (70%)

O


Santo Domingo (western half)

2001 - 2021

MC AAA Dominicana SA Technicas Valencianas Del Agua (Tecvasa) O

159 Ecuador Guayaquil, Guayas province

2001 - 2031

BROT Ecapag 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%)

O

160 Ecuador Machala city, El Oro province

2004 ROT Machala Tripleoro Water Concession

Sociedad de Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Aseo (Triple A) de Barranquilla

O

161 Ecuador Samborondon, Guayas province

2000 MC/L Aguas de Samborondon Amagua


O

162 Ecuador Tabacunda, State of Pedro Moncayo

2004-2009

MC/L Pedro Moncayo water supply Leonardo Armijos Luna (100%) O

163 Guatemala Izabal (municipalities of Santo Tomas de Castillo and Puerto Barrios)

2008 - 2033

BROT Aguas de Izabal Grupo Seinco (100%, Uruguay) O

164 Guyana Georgetown 2002-2007

MC/L Serco Guardian (F.M.) Limited Severn Trent Plc (100%) O

165 Honduras San Pedro Sula 2001 - 2031

BROT Aguas de San Pedro Acea S.p.A., Italy (31%); Agac SpA (30%); Astaldi SpA (15%) and Ghella Sogene CA (15%)

O

166 Mexico Aguascalientes 1993-2023

BROT Concesionaria de Aguas de Aguas Calientes SA

Banamex, Mexico = 34%; ICA SA de CV, Mexico = 36%; Veolia Environnement, France = 30%

O

Latin America

167 Mexico Cancun and Isla Mujeres

1993 - 2023

C AGUAKAN Desarrollos Hidráulicos de Cancún, 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 Cancún, 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

O

168 Mexico El Realito 2009 - 2034

C FCC and Mexico‘s ICA O

169 Mexico Mexico City 1994 - 2014

MC Industrias del Agua de la Cuidad de Mexico (IACMEX)

Azurix (49%) O

170 Mexico Navojoa 1996 - 2016

MC/L Mexicana de Gestion del Agua Tribasa S.A. de C.V., Mexico = 100% O

171 Mexico Nogales, Sonora state 1997-2022

BROT Servicios de Agua de Nogales Tyco International, USA = 100% O

172 Mexico North East 1994 - 2010

MC Industrias del Agua, SE (France) Businessmen from Monterrey and the British firm Severn Trent

O

173 Mexico North West 1994 - 2010

MC Servicos de Agua Potable Ingenieros Civiles Asociados (ICA), with the Bank Banamex and the French firm Générales Des Eaux (Vivendi)

O

174 Mexico Queretaro 2007 - 2027

C Aqualia (26%) O

175 Mexico Saltillo, Coahuila state 2001-2026

BROT Aguas de Saltillo Aguas de Barcelona (49%) O

176 Mexico South East 1994 - 2010

MC Tecnologia y Servicos del Agua Bancomer, Bufete Industrial, and the French firm Lyonnaise Des Eaux-Dumex (SUEZ-Ondeo Services) as well as the British firm Anglian Water

O

177 Mexico South West 1994 - 2010

MC Agua de Mexico, United Utilities (UK)

GUTSA group and the British firm North West Water International

O

178 Mexico Xalapa 2003 - 2023

DBFO Aguas Tratadas de Xalapa (Earth Tech)

O

179 Peru Cono Norte 2000 - 2027

C Agua Azul SA ACEA (45%), Impregilo SpA (40%), Fisia Utalimianti SpA (5%) and Castalia & Cosapi SA (10%)

O

Latin America

180 Peru Northern region of Lima

2000 - 2027

C Agua Azul Rome's ACEA, Italian construction company Impregilo and Peru's largest construction company Cosapi

O

181 Peru Provinces of Tumbes, Zarumilla and Contralmirante Villar

2005-2035

BROT Empresa Municipal de Frontera de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado (EMFAPA) - Aguas de Tumbes

LatinAguas (60%, Argentina) and Concyssa (40%, Peru)

O

182 Trinidad & Tobago

1996 JV Trinidad & Tobago Water Services (TTWS)

Severn Trent, WASA and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago

O

183 Uruguay Barra de Maldonado 1993 - 2018

ROT Aguas de la Costa AgBar (60%) and STA Ingenieros (30%) T

184 Uruguay Maldonado Department 2000 - 2030

BROT Uragua Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Spain = 20%; Bilbao Bizkaia Kuxta BBK, Spain = 31%; Iberdrola SA, Spain = 49%

T

185 Venezuela Lara state 1999 - 2002

MC/L Hidrolara water utility Aguas de Valencia, Spain = 100% T

186 Venezuela Monagas state 1997-2001

MC/L Aguas de Monagas FDS, Spain (100%) T

187 Venezuela Zulia state (City of Maracaibo and 20 additional municipalities)

2001-2004

MC/L Hidrolago de Maracaibo, subsidiary of state-owned water company Hidroven

AAA Servicios de Venezuela Lassa, subsidiary of Triple A, Colombia (51%); Tecnicas Valencianas del Agua (49%)

T

Europe

EUROPE

Sl. Country City Duration Type of

PPP

Project Name Private Players Status

1 Albania Durres, Fier, Lezhe and Saranda

2003-2008

MC/L Four-Cities-Project AquaMundo GmbH (40%), a subsidiary of Berlinwasser International AG (Germany) and Amiantit Group (Saudi Arabia) - 60%

E

2 Albania Elbasan 2002-2032

ROT Elber S.p.a. Berlinwasser International AG (97.55%, Germany) and Rodeco Consulting GmbH (2.45%)

T

3 Albania Kavaja 2003-2007

MC/L U.K. Kavaja Amiantit Group - 100% E

4 Albania Tirana 2001 - 2005

MC Tirana Acque ACEA (40%) E

5 Armenia 5 towns and 61 (or 37) rural settlements 2009-

2012

MC Shirak Water Sewerage CJSC; Lori Water Sewerage CJSC; Nor Akunq CJSC

consortium of MVV Decon, MVV Energie (Germany) and AEG Service (Armenia)

O

6 Armenia Armvodokanal (37 towns and 280 rural settlements) 2004-

2011

MC/L Armenian Water and Sewerage Company (CJSC) or Armvodokanal

Saur International (100%) O

7 Armenia Yerevan 2000-2005

MC/L Yerevan Water and Sewerage Company (CJSC)

consortium of A.Utility ( ACEA s.p.a (55%) with C.Lotti & Associati (Italy) and WRc Companies (UK))

E

8 Armenia Yerevan 2005 - 2015

L Veolia Eau and dedicated subsidiary, Yerevan Djur

O

9 Armenia Yerevan city and nearby 32 rural settlements

2005-2015

MC/L Yerevan Water and Sewerage Company (CJSC)

Véolia Water (100%) O

10 Azerbaijan Imshli, Gyanja and Sheki cities, and the Nakhchivan republic 2001-

2011

L Berlinwasser (74.9%, Germany) O

11 Bulgaria Sofia 2000-2025

BROT Sofia Water United Utilities PLC (UK) - 10% and Veolia Environnement (France) - 58%

O

Europe

12 Cyprus Limassol 2009 - 2031

DBFO Energie-Versorgung Niderösterreich (EVN)

O

13 Czech Republic

Beroun 2000

partial D

Severomoravske Berounske Vodovy (VaK Beroun)

Anglian Water Group (58.3%) and O

14 Czech Republic

Breclav, Hodonin and Bzenec in Moravia 2005 -

MC VAK Hodonin, a subsidiary of Aquaplus

VAK Plus (61%) O

15 Czech Republic

Brno 1994 - 2024

MC/L Brno Water and Wastewater Company (BVK)

City of Brno (51% ), Suez (46%) and about 3% is owned by a few hundred private shareholders.

O

16 Czech Republic

České Budějovice 1999 - 2018

C 1.JVS a.s. (First South Bohemia Waterworks)

Veolia (50%) O

17 Czech Republic

Cheb C Chevak Cheb a.s. Gelsenwasser (30.58%) O

18 Czech Republic

Chomutov, Most, Teplice, Usti n. Labem, Decin, Louny, Litomerice and Liberec - North Bohemia

1999

C Severoceske Vodovody a Kanalizace, a.s. (SCVaK) (North Bohemia Waterworks)

Earlier Hyder (35.6%); now Veolia (49.6%)

O

19 Czech Republic

Chrudim 2005 C VS Chrudim Energie Oberösterreich AG (95%) O

20 Czech Republic

Eastern part of Moravia (includes 80 districts, of which Zlin is the largest town)

2004 - 2034

C Vodovbody a Kanalizace Zlin

Veolia Voda (47%) O

21 Czech Republic

Hradec Kralove (Královéhradeck) region

2005 - 2035

C Kralovehradecka provozni, a.s.

Veolia Voda O

22 Czech Republic

Karlovy Vary and Pilsen regions 1994 - 2019

C Vodárny a kanalizace Karlovy Vary, a.s.v (VaK Karlovy Vary)

Suez (49.8%) O

23 Czech Republic

Kladno - Melnik, Central Bohemia 2004 -

2024

C Stredoceske vodarny, a.s. and SLAVOS, s.r.o.

Veolia Voda (71.5%) O

24 Czech Republic

Klatovy 1999 - 2009

C 1.JVS Veolia [In August 2008, VE sold its stake to Energie.In 2010, 1.JVS and VAKJC were merged into a 100% held company, CEVAK.]

O

25 Czech Republic

Kolln 2005

C VODOS Kolln Energie Oberösterreich AG (100% since 2006)

O

Europe

26 Czech Republic

Kraslice 1999

C Kraslicka Mestska Spolecnost s.r.o.

Gelsenwasser (50%)and Municipality (50%)

O

27 Czech Republic

Northern Bohemia 1998 - 2013

C Severomoravske Vodovy a Kanalizace Ostrava (ScVK)

Veolia Environnement (43.17%) and Severoceske Vodarensky Svaz (SVS), formed by the client towns (34.7%)

O

28 Czech Republic

Olomouc 2000 - 2020

C Středomoravská Vodárenská

Veolia Voda (50%) and Saur O

29 Czech Republic

Ostrava 1994 - 2024

C Ostravské vodárny a kanalizace, a.s. (Ostravske VaK)

Ondeo CZ, a Suez subsidiary (44.5%) O

30 Czech Republic

Pibram 1999 - 2019

C 1. ScV a.s. Veolia Voda O

31 Czech Republic

Pilsen 1996 - 2017

C Vodarenska and Kanalizanci AS Plzen (VP)

O

32 Czech Republic

Prague 2001-2028

C Prazske vodovody a kanalizace (PvK, subsidiary of Veolia Water)

Anglian Water; then Veolia (100%) O

33 Czech Republic

Prague 2001

L 1. ScV, spol. s r.o. Veolia Environnement (66%) and In 2002, the remaining 34% of shares were acquired from the municipality

O

34 Czech Republic

Prostejov region, central Moravia

2006 - 2031

MC Prostejov Water Company (VAK Prostejov, a.s.)

Veolia (100%) O

35 Czech Republic

Rychnov & Kneznou 2010 C Aqua Servis Energie Oberösterreich AG (66%) O

36 Czech Republic

Slany (Slánsko), central Bohemia 2006 -

2021

MC Stredoceske vodarny, a.s. and SLAVOS, s.r.o.

Veolia (100%) O

37 Czech Republic

Sokolov 1996 - 2022

C Vodohospodarska spolecnost Sokolov, s. r. o. (VOSS Sokolov)

Veolia Voda (50%) O

38 Czech Republic

South Moravia 1996 - 2021

C Severomoravske VaK Lyonnaise des Eaux (34%) O

39 Czech Republic

Southern Bohemia (districts of Budweis, Tabor, Jindrichuv Hradec, and Prachensko) 1995

C Vodovody a Kanalizace Jizny Cechy (VaK JC)

Anglian Water Group (95.2%) O

Europe

40 Czech Republic

Sumperk 2001

C Šumperská provozní a vodohospodářská společnost, a.s. (SPVS)

Suez Ondeo (82%) O

41 Czech Republic

Ústecký and Liberecký region, North Moravia 1999 -

2014

C Severomoravské Vodovody a Kanalizace Ostrava (SmVaK) (North Moravia Waterworks)

Anglian Water and Suez (50.07%) O

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

D South East Water (Water only)

UTA/ HDF (Australia) O

43 England (Essex area) Barking, Basildon, Chelmsford, Brentwood, Romford, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock; (Suffolk area) Aldeburgh, Eye, Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Southwold

D Essex & Suffolk (Water only)

Suez-Lyonnaise (France) O

44 England Aldridge, Brownhills, Burton upon Trent, Cannock, Kinver, Lichfield, Rugeley, Sutton Coldfield, Tamworth, Uttoxeter, Walsall, West Bromwich

D South Staffordshire Water (Water only)

Alinda Capital Partners (USA) O

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

1989

D Three Valleys Water Veolia (100%, France) O

47 England Bognor Regis, Chichester, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Hayling Island, Portsmouth

D Portsmouth Water (Water

only) South Downs Capital (UK) O

48 England Bournemouth & West Hampshire Water 1989

D Bournemouth & West Hampshire Water (BWHW) (Water only)

Cadcal (100%) O

49 England Brightlingsea, Clacton-on-Sea, Frinton-on-Sea, Harwich, Manningtree, Wivenhoe

D Veolia Water East (Water only)

Veolia Environnement O

50 England Bristol, Burnham-on-Sea, Frome, Tetbury, Wells, Weston-super-Mare

D Bristol Water (Water only) Agbar (Spain)/ Suez (France) O

51 England Cambridge and extends to Ramsey in the north, Gamlingay in the west, Balsham in the east and Melbourn in the south

D Cambridge Water Company (Water only)

Cheung Kong Infrastructure (Hong Kong)

O

52 England Chester, Wrexham D Dee Valley (Water only) Dee Valley Group O

Europe

53 England Cobham, Dorking, Horley, Leatherhead, Oxted, Redhill, Reigate, Sutton

D Sutton & East Surrey Water

(Water only) Aqueduct Capital (Denmark) O

54 England Dover, Folkestone, Hythe, Romney Marsh, Dungeness and Lydd

D Veolia Water Southeast

(Water only) Veolia Environnement O

55 England East of England and Hartlepool. 1989

D Anglian Water (Water & sewerage)

AWG (UK) O

56 England London 1989

D Thames Water (Water & sewerage)

RWE O

57 England D Cholderton Water (Water only)

Cholderton Estate (UK) O

58 England 1989

D Northumbrian Water Ltd. (Water & sewerage)

Suez Group O

59 England 1989

D United Utilities (Water & sewerage)

O

60 England 1989

D Severn Trent Water (Water & sewerage)

Severn Trent (UK) O

61 England 1989

D South West Water (Water & sewerage)

Pennon Group (UK) O

62 England 1989

D Southern Water (Water & sewerage)

First Aqua Holdings O

63 England 1989

D Wessex Water (Water & sewerage)

YTL Power International (Malaysia) O

64 England 1989

D Yorkshire Water (Water & sewerage)

Kelda Group O

65 England 1989

D Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW) (Water & sewerage)

Glas Cymru (UK) O

66 Estonia Tallinn 2001

C A.S. Tallinna Vesi (Tallinn Water Ltd.)

International Water UU (Tallinn) BV (50.4%)

O

67 France Castres, Tarn Department 1991- 2021

C Lyonnaise des Eaux (Suez) T

Europe

68 France Cherbourg Urban Community (CUC), Department of La Manche

C Compagnie Générale des Eaux

(Veolia) T

69 France Durance-Luberon, Vaucluse Department

1954 and 1969

C SDEI, which became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lyonnaise des Eaux (today Suez) in 1992.

T

70 France Greater Paris 2011 C Veolia Eau d'Ile-de-France O 71 France Grenoble municipality

1989 A Compagnie de Gestion des Eaux du

Sud-Est (COGESE), a subsidiary of Suez-Lyonnaise

T

72 France Ile-de-France - 144 communes in the Paris suburbs 1923-

A or C SEDIF (Syndicat des eaux d'Ile-de-France)

Compagnie Générale des Eaux (Veolia) and the Lyonnaise des Eaux (Suez).

T

73 France Nantes 2007

L Nantaise des Eaux 60% held subsidiary of Gelsenwasser since 2007

O

74 France Paris (left bank of the Seine) 1985

C Eau et Force – Parisienne des Eaux (a subsidiary of Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux)

T

75 France Paris (right bank of the Seine) 1985

C Compagnie des Eaux de Paris (then a subsidiary of Veolia)

T

76 France Royan 2010 MC Veolia Water O 77 France Toulouse, Haute Garonne

1990 C Compagnie Générale des Eaux

(Veolia). D

78 France Varages, Var Department

1990 - 2000

C SEERC (Société des Equipements et d’Entretien des Réseaux Communaux - a subsidiary of the Compagnie Lyonnaise des Eaux-Suez).

T

79 Georgia Tblisi 2007 D Georgian Water and Power Multiplex Solutions (100%, Switzerland)

O

80 Georgia Tblisi 2001 L AO "Tbilvodokanal" Veolia Water 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%).

O

82 Germany Berlin

1999-2008

C Berliner Wasserbetriebe owned 50.1% by the Land of Berlin, 49.9% by a consortium of Veolia Water/RWE

consortium of Veolia Water (24.9%) + RWE (24.9%)

O

83 Germany Braunschweig, Lower Saxony 2004 - 2020

BOT Braunschweiger Versorgungs AG (BVAG)

Veolia Wasser Deutschland (74.9%) O

84 Germany Cottbus 2004 - 2029

JV Lausitzer Wasser Eurawasser (Suez) - (28.9%); town of Cottbus (50.1%) and the balance held by local municipalities

O

85 Germany Döbeln/Oschatz 1995 - 2015

MC Oewa (46% held by VE, a JV with Veba Kraftwerk Ruhr AG until 1998)

O

86 Germany Gera 2003 - 2013

BOT Veolia Water O

87 Germany Görlitz (Saxony) 2001 partial D

Stadtwerke Görlitz Veolia Wasser (74.9%) O

88 Germany Grimma 1999 - 2024

C Saxony-Anhalt Oewa Wasser und Abwasser GmbH O

89 Germany Kriensen 2000 - 2025

C Eurawasser (Suez) O

90 Germany Leipzig

C OEWA Wasser und Abwasser GmbH

Veolia Water GmbH (25.1%) O

91 Germany Mecklenburg 2000 - 2025

C Eurawasser (Suez) O

92 Germany Pulheim 2009 C Stadwerke Pulheim Veolia Water (49%) O 93 Germany Rostock 1993 -

2018 C Eurawasser Nord GmbH JV of Suez and Thyssen O

94 Germany Tettau and the Lausitz region of Brandenburg, Wasserverb and Lausitz

2007 MC Remondis Aqua O

Europe

95 Germany Windeck 2002 - 2027

BOOT Energie-Versorgung Niderösterreich (EVN)

O

96 Hungary Budapest 1997 - 2022

C Budapest Water Works (Fovarosi Vizmuvek) – local authority held 75% shares

Suez Environnement, Hungary (12.5%) + RWE (12.5%) + Veolia (12.5%)

O

97 Hungary Erd region 2006 - 2031

C Érd és Térsége Víziközmû Kft

VE and Budapest Water holds 26% of the operating company with the municipalities retaining 74%

O

98 Hungary Hodmezövasarhely, Mindszent, and Szekkutas 1997-

2006

C Zsigmondy Béla Rt Water Supply and Sewerage Company

Berlinwasser (47%) T

99 Hungary Kaposvar 1994 - 2009

C Eaux de Kaspovar Suez (35%) T

100 Hungary Miskloc, Borsod region 2001 - 2021

C Borsodviz Rt. Gelsenwasser (49%) and Municipality (51%)

O

101 Hungary Pecs 1995 - 2020

C Pecz Zigmu Zrt (the city owning a 50.05% stake, Suez 48.05% and other cities 1.9%)

Suez (48%) T

102 Hungary Pécs 1995 - 2020

MC/L Pecsi Vizmu Suez (48%) and Municipality (52%) T

103 Hungary Szeged 1994 - 2015

C Szegedi Vizmu Servitec, a subsidiary of Veolia (49%)

O

104 Ireland Sligo 2002 - 2012

MC Anglian Water Group O

105 Italy Abruzzo, Chieti ATO 6 C O 106 Italy Abruzzo, Pescara ATO 4 C O 107 Italy Abruzzo, Teramano ATO 5 C O 108 Italy Bologna 2004-

2024 C Hera Spa O

109 Italy Calabria 2001 - 2031

C Societa Risorce Idriche Calabresi (So Ri Cal)

VE and Acquedotto Pugliese (49%) O

110 Italy Calabria, Cosenza ATO 1 C O 111 Italy Calabria, Crotone ATO 3 C O 112 Italy Campania region, Sarnese

Vesuviano ATO 3 2005 2035

C Campania-Gori SpA Sarnese Vesuviano Srl (37%), a subsidiary of Acea + Enel

O

Europe

113 Italy Campania, Calore Irpino ATO 1

C O

114 Italy Campania, Sele ATO 4 C O 115 Italy Frosinone ATO 5 2003 -

2033 C Acea (Rome) 65% + Crea (a Suez

subsidiary) O

116 Italy Latina province, southern Lazio 2001 - 2031

C AcquaLatina SpA VE (21.8%),Enel (23%) and Acquedotto Pugliese (23%)

O

117 Italy Piedmont Region, Astigiano ATO 5

C O

118 Italy Piedmont Region, Biellese, Vercel c, Casal ATO 2

C O

119 Italy Piedmont Region, Turin ATO 3

C O

120 Italy Rome ATO2 2003 - 2033

C ACEA O

121 Italy Sicily, Agrigento ATO 7 2006 - 2036

C Girgenti Acque SpA O

122 Italy Sicily, Caltanissetta ATO 8 2006 - 2036

C Aqualia, a FCC subsidiary (51%) and Italian firms Galva (47%), CCC (1%), Gate (0.5%) and AIEM (0.5%)

O

123 Italy Tuscany region, Fiesole 1991 - 2021

C Acque Toscane, a Suez subsidiary O

124 Italy Tuscany, Alto Valdarno- Arezzo ATO 4

C O

125 Italy Tuscany, Arezzo 1999-2024

C 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 Suez-Lyonnaise 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).

O

126 Italy Tuscany, Basso Valdarno-Pisa ATO 2

2002 - 2022

C Acque SpA Suez (45%) and ACEA S.p.A O

Europe

127 Italy Tuscany, Florence, ATO-3 Medio Valdarno

2003 - 2023

C Publiacqua SpA Suez (40%) + Acea O

128 Italy Tuscany, Medio Valdarno- Florence ATO 3

C O

129 Italy Tuscany, Montecatini Terme 1989

C Acque Toscane, a Suez subsidiary O

130 Italy Tuscany, Ponte Buggianese 1992 C Acque Toscane, a Suez subsidiary O 131 Italy Tuscany, Siena and Grosseto,

ATO-6 Ombrone 2003 - 2028

C Acquedotto del Fiora

consortium led by Acea; includes Suez (40%)

O

132 Kazakhstan Almaty 2000-2030

C Almaty Sui Veolia (55%) + GKP Vodokanal (45%)

T

133 Kazakhstan Kazalinsk and Novokasalinsk 2005 - 2006

MC Gelsenwasser E

134 Kazakhstan Shymkent, south Kazakhstan province 1999

partial D

TOO Vodnye Resursy Marketing

TOO Vodnye Resursy Marketing O

135 Kosovo Gjakova, Rahovec, Priština and Mitrovica

2002-2005

MC Hidrostemi Radoniqi Gjakova (HRG)

Gelsenwasser E

136 Montenegro Herzeg Novi, Kotor, Tivat, Budva, Bar, Cetinje

2001-2003

MC MonteAqua (municipalities – 25.1%)

AquaMundo (Germany, 48%) (consortium of ABB, MVV Energie (regional utility), and Bilfinger & Berger BOT (consultancy) or Amiantit (100%, Saudi Arabia)

E

137 Norway Oslo 2003 SC Veolia O 138 Panama Laguna Alta 2002 -

2032 BOOT Aguas de Panama Cascal and Sembcorp utilities O

139 Poland Bielsko Biala municipality 1999

partial D

Aqua S.A. Anglo-American International Water Ltd. (33.2%) (a Veolia Water/ United Utilites subsidiary)

O

140 Poland Dabrowa Górnicza, Silesia 2002-2027

BROT Przedsiębiorsto Wodociagów i Kanalizacji Sp. z o.o. (PwiK) Dabrowa Gornicza

RWE Aqua GmbH (34%, Germany) O

141 Poland Drobin 2006 partial D

ZGKiM Drobin Remondis (50%, Germany) O

142 Poland Gdansk/ Sopot 1993-2023

L SAUR Neptun Gdansk S.A. SAUR (51%) [now, CDC-Seche-Axa] check

O

143 Poland Glogow, Lower Silesia 2002 partial PwiK Glogow Gelsenwasser (46%, Germany) O

Europe

D 144 Poland Glogowie 2002 -

2022 C PwiK w Glogowie Sp zoo

(PwiK) Gelsenwasser (46%, Germany) O

145 Poland Tarnowskie Góry and Miasteczko Slaskie, Silesia 2001-

2026

L Palestine Electric Company Veolia (33.9%) O

146 Poland Toszek, Silesia 2007 partial D

Remondis Aqua Remondis (50%, Germany) O

147 Poland Wozniky, Upper Silesia 2006-2016

MC Przedsiebiorsto Wodociagow i Kanalizacji Sp. (PWIK)

Veolia (100%) O

148 Portugal Alenquer 2003 - 2033

C Aguas de Alenquer Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (40%)

O

149 Portugal Barcelos 2004 - 2034

C Aguas de Barcelos Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (75%)

O

150 Portugal Campo Maior

2008 - 2038

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)

O

151 Portugal Carrazeda de Ansiaes

2001 - 2031

C Aguas de Carrazeda Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (75%)

O

152 Portugal Cartaxo

2010 - 2040


O

153 Portugal Cascais (Lisboa) 2000 - 2025

C Aguas de Cascais Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (43%)

O

154 Portugal Covilha 2005 - 2035

C Aguas da Serra Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (51%)

O

155 Portugal Covilha 2008 - 2033

C Aguas de Covilha Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (49%)

O

Europe

156 Portugal Elvas, Alentejo province

2008 - 2038


O

157 Portugal Fafe 1996 - 2021

C Indaqua Industria e Gestao de Aguas SA

Mota-Engil Ambiente e Serviços (30%),

O

158 Portugal Faro 2005 - 2040

C Faro Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (51%)

O

159 Portugal Figueira da Foz -2034 C Aguas da Figueira Valoriza (40%) O 160 Portugal Fundao

2010-2040

C Aqualia New Europe 51/49 JV of Aqualia and European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)

O

161 Portugal Gondomar 2001 - 2026

C Aguas de Gondomar Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (42.5%)

O

162 Portugal Lezíria del Tajo, Ribatejo region 2006 -

2046

C Aqualia New Europe 51/49 JV of Aqualia and European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)

O

163 Portugal Mafra 1994-2019

C Aguas de Mafra Veolia Agua O

164 Portugal Marco do Canaveses 2005 - 2039

C Aguas do Marco Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (51%)

O

165 Portugal Matosnihos 2005 - 2030

C Indaqua Mota-Engil (50.06%), Soares da Costa (28.57%), Hidrante (21.55%)

O

166 Portugal Ourem 1996 - 2027

C Aguas de Ourem Veolia Agua O

167 Portugal Pacos de Ferreira 2004 - 2039

C Aguas Pazos Da Ferreira Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (90%)

O

168 Portugal Paredes 2001-2036

C Aguas de Paredes, a Veolia subsidiary

O

169 Portugal S Joao de Maderia 2008 - 2023

C Aguas de Sao Joao EM SA Mota-Engil (49%) O

170 Portugal Santa Maria de Feira 1999-2034


O

171 Portugal Santo Tirso and Trofa 1998 - 2023


O

Europe

172 Portugal Setubal 1997 - 2022

C Aguas do Sado Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (40%)

O

173 Portugal Taviraverde 2005 - 2026

C Tavira Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (32%)

O

174 Portugal Vale do Ave (Municipalities of Guimarães, Santo Tirso and Vila Nova de Famalicão).

1998 - 2023

C TRATAVE (Tratamento de Águas Residuais do Ave, S.A.)

Sacyr Vallehermoso‘s Somague – AGS (40%)

O

175 Portugal Valongo 2000-2030

C Aguas de Valongo Aguas de Valongo, a Veolia subsidiary

O

176 Portugal Vila do Conde 2005 - 2045


O

177 Romania Bucharest 2000-2025

BROT Apa Nova Bucuresti SA Apa Nova, a Veolia subsidiary (83.69%)

O

178 Romania Constanta

JV Constanta Water and Wastewater Project

Regia Autonoma Judeteana Apa Constanta (RAJAC), an intermunicipal company wholly owned by Constanta County Council.

O

179 Romania Otopeni 2007-2023

MC/L Otopeni water and sewage system

Veolia Environnement (France) - 100%

O

180 Romania Ploiesti 2000-2025

BROT Apa Nova Ploiesti Veolia (73%) O

181 Romania Timisoara 2000-2025

BROT Aquatim Suez (51%) O

182 Romania Zetea 2003

DBOT Zetea water supply system management project

Saudi Arabian Amiantit Company (SAAC)

O

183 Russian Federation

Barnaul city, Altai Krai 2005-2029

MC/L Barnaulsky Vodokanal Rosvodokanal (Alfa Group) (90%) O


Berezniki 2005 - 2030

L Novogor-Prikamye (New Urban Infrastructure of Prikamye)

New F77Urban Infrastructure (CJSC) O


Blagoveshchensk 2003

L Russian Communal Systems (RCS)

CJSC Integrated Energy Systems (75%) and IES (25%)

O


Kaluga, Kaluga Oblast 2005-2029

MC/L Kaluga Water Utility Rosvodokanal (RVK or Alfa Group) (100%)

O

Europe


Kirov, NE Russia 2003-2019

MC/L Kirov Utility Systems RCS or Integrated Energy Systems Holding (IES)

O


Krasnodar 2006-2031

MC/L Krasnodar Vodokanal Russian Utility Systems (RKS) or Rosvodokanal Group (RVK) (100%)

O


Krasnokamsk city, Perm province 2006-

MC/L Krasnokamsk Water Utility Russian Utility Systems (RKS) -100%-

O


Moscow 2004 - 2017

BOOT Degrémont Degrémont and WTE O


Naberezhnye Chelny, Tatarstan 1995

partial D

ZAO Chelnyvodokanal KAMAZ Inc (100%) O


Omsk City, SE Siberia 2004-2030

MC/L Omsk Vodokanal Rosvodokanal (Alfa Group) (67.5%) and EWP (Evraziyskiy) (25%)

O


Orenburg, Orenburg Oblast, Volga District

2003-2030

MC/L Orenburg Vodokanal Rosvodokanal (Alfa Group or RVK) (100%)

O


Perm 2003-2052

MC/L Permvodokanal Novogor, a subsidiary of the Russian conglomerate Interros or Integrated Energy Systems Holding (IES)

O


Petrozavodsk, Republic of Karelia

2005-2025

MC/L Prikamye (Permvodokanal) ntegrated Energy Systems Holding (IES) - 100%

O


Rostov-on-Don 2005-2030

MC/L Rostov water partnership Don Vodocanal Yug, a subsidiary of EWP (Evraziyskiy or Eurasian Water Partnership) - 100%

O


Sochi, Krasnodar region 2006-

RLT OOO Yugvodokanal Yugvodocanal, a subsidiary of EWP (Evraziyskiy), 100%

O


Southern part of the city 2005 - 2010

MC/L Vodokanal Veolia Environnement - 51% E


Syzran city, Samara region 2001-2009

MC/L Syzranvodokanal -100% E


Tambov 2003-2028

MC/L Tambov Utility Systems Integrated Energy Systems Holding (IES) - 100%

O


Tolyatti 1993

D OAO Tevis AvtoVAZ (100%) O


Tomsk 2003

L Tomsk Utility Systems T

Europe


Tver, Tver Oblast 2006-2030

MC/L Rosvodokanal Rosvodokanal (RVK or Alfa Group) (74%)

O


Tyumen 2006-2031

ROT Tyumen Vodokanal Rosvodokanal (RVK or Alfa Group) (100%)

O

205 Russian Federation Volgograd 2008 MC/L Volgograd Utility

Integrated Energy Systems Holding (IES) (37%, Russian Federation), Lukoil (16%, Russian Federation)

O


Volgograd 2004-2005

L Volgograd Utility Systems RCS T

207 Scotland 2002 - 2006

JV Scottish Water Solutions (Water & sewerage)

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.

E

208 Serbia Gjakova, Rahovec and Lumbhardi

2002-2007

MC Gjakova and Rahovec Water Supply Company

Gelsenwasser (100%, Germany) E

209 Slovakia Banska Bystrica 2006 - 2036

C Banska Bystrica Water Company (StVS)

Veolia (100%) O

210 Slovakia Poprad 2006 - 2036

C Poprad Water Company (PVS)

Veolia (100%) O

211 Slovakia Trencin

1999 - 2012

MC/L Trencianska spolocnost (TVS)

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)

O

212 Spain Alcala de Henares 1999 - 2029

C Aquas de Alcala Sacyr (25%) O

213 Spain Almaden, Ciudad Real 2008 - 2028

C Aguas de Toledo Aguas de Toledo (100%) O

214 Spain Barcelona 2006 - 2036 C SUEZ O

Europe

215 Spain Campo Dailas 2007 - 2024

BOT O

216 Spain Grand Canaria - Las Palmas,

Santa Brígida 2003 - 2043 C Emalsa Sacyr (33%) O

217 Spain Guadalajara 2003 - 2033

C SACYR VALLEHERMOSO Aguas de Toledo (60%) O

218 Spain Muxtamel 2007 - 2012

DBO Suez O

219 Spain Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2001 - 2031

C EMMASA Sacyr (97%) O

220 Spain Valencia

C Aguas de Valencia (AgVal) Suez (33%) and Inversiones Financieras AgVal, a Spanish consortium formed by local shareholders (67%).

O

221 Sweden Norrtälje 2001 - 2011

C Veolia Vatten AB E

222 Turkey Antalya 1996-2006

MC/L Antalya Water Operations (ANTSU)

Enka (50%) and Suez subsidiary (50%)

T

223 Turkey Izmit, Kocaeli Province 1996 - 2014

BOT Izmit Su AS RWE (55%) O

224 Ukraine Berdyansk 2008 - 2038

C Berdyansk City Water Utility (Berdyansk Miskvidokanal Public Utility)

Chysta Voda (Clean Water) (domestic private operator)

O

225 Ukraine Kirovograd 2006 - 2055

L Water Services, LLC Water Services, LLC T

226 Ukraine Lugansk Oblast 2008-2033

ROT Lugansk Water Company, LLC

Rosvodokanal LLC (Alfa Group) (100%)

O

227 Ukraine Odessa 2003-2052

MC/L Infoxvodokanal Infox LLC (Ukraine, 100%) O

228 Uzbekistan Bukhara and Samarkhand 2004-2007

MC/L Uzbek Water Management GmbH & CO KG

Stockholm Water Company and Amiantit Group

E

Asia

ASIA

Sl. Country City Duration Type of PPP Project Company Private Players Status 1 China Anhui Province -

Danshan County 2006 - 2036

ROT Dangshan Water Company China Water Industry Group Limited (100%)

O

2 China Anhui Province – Hexian City

2000 - 2020

ROT He Xian Water Company Ltd

Anglian Water (50%) O

3 China Anhui Province - Huaiyuan County

2005 - 2025

ROT Bangbu Xinya Water Services Co.

Asia Water Technology (100%) O

4 China Anhui Province - Mingguang City

2008 - 2038

BOT Hyflux Water Trust (HWT) O

5 China Anhui Province- Wuhu City

2005 - 2035

ROT Wuhu Hong Kong and China water Company Limited

Hong Kong and China Gas Company (75%)

O

6 China Beijing Municipality 2007 - Partial D China Water Affairs Investment Co. Ltd

China Water Affairs Group Ltd (19.4%)

O

7 China Chongqing Province – Changtu City

1999 - 2029

BMO Sino-French Holdings O

8 China Fujian Province – Fuzhou City

2004 - 2034

ROT Fuzhou CWC Water Company Limited

RWE (Germany, 35%) + Sime Darby Bhd. (Malaysia, 24%)

O

9 China Gansu Province - Lanzhou City

2007 - 2037

ROT Lanzhou City Water Supply Group

Veolia (45%) O

10 China Gansu Province – Lianjiang City

1997 - 2027

MC Degrémont O

11 China Guangdong Province - Jiangmen City

2007 - Partial D Guangdong Xinhui Water Affairs Co., Ltd.

China Water Affairs Group Ltd (39.9%)

O

12 China Guangdong Province - Jiangmen City

1997 - 2015

ROT Xiejiang Water Treatment Company

Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Ltd (49%)

O

13 China Guangdong Province - Shenzhen City

2003 - 2054

ROT Shenzhen Water Group Company Ltd.

Veolia Environnement (24.6%) O

14 China Guangdong Province - Tanzhou City

1992 - 2027

BOT Zhongshan Tanzhou Water Supply Company Limited

SFW + Zhongshan Tanzhou Municipal Economic Development Company

O

15 China Guangdong Province – Zengcheng City

2009 Partial D Zengcheng City Water Supply Company

Guangdong Nanfeng Group Co. (36%, China)

O

Asia

16 China Guangdong Province – Zhongshan City

1998 - 2020

ROT Zongshang Municipal Dafeng Water Supply Company Ltd.

NWS Holdings Limited (33%) and SUEZ (33%)

O

17 China Guangxi Province - Liuzhou City

2006 - 2036

MC Liuzhou Water Services Veolia Environnement (49%) O

18 China Guizhou Province – Zunyi City

2004 - 2039

ROT CGE Zunyi Water Treatment Operation Company

Veolia Environnement (70%) + Citic Pacific (HK)

O

19 China Hainan Province - Danzhou City

2007 - 2037

ROT Danzhou City Water Distribution Network Project

China Water Industry Group Limited (100%, HK)

O

20 China Hainan Province – Haikou City No. 1

2007 - 2037

ROT Haikou City No. 1 Water Affairs Company Limited

Veolia (49%) O

21 China Hainan Province – Sanya City

2004 - 2034

ROT Sanya Sino French Water Supply Company Limited


O

22 China Hebei Province – Baoding City

2000 - 2020

BOT Baoding Sino French Water Supply Company Limited

Sino French Water Supply Company (SFW) (JV of Suez/ Ondeo and New World Development Company (Hong Kong, (51:49)

O

23 China Hebei Province – Baoding City

2000 - 2020

MC Baoding Sino French Water Supply Company Ltd.

O

24 China Hebei Province – Changli county

1999 - 2029

BOT Qing Huang Dao Pacific Water Company

Tyco International (80%, US) O

25 China Hebei Province – Jinzhou City

2007 - Partial D Jinzhou Water Affairs Group Co., Ltd.

China Water Affairs Group Ltd (51%)

O

26 China Hebei Province - Langfang City

2007 - 2031

BROT Langfang City Water Treatment Project

Hyflux (40.8%) and Ramatex Group (59.2%)

O

27 China Hebei Province – Yanjiao City

2000 - 2025

ROT Sanhe Yanjiao CWC Water Company Limited

RWE and Sime Darby Bhd. O

28 China Hebei Province – Zunhua City

2007 - 2032

BOT Hyflux Water Trust (HWT) O

29 China Heilongjiang Province – Harbin City

1994 - 2024

BOT Harbin SAUR Water Supply Company

Saur (50%) O

Asia

30 China Heilongjiang Province – Qitaihe City

2001 - 2026

BOOT China Water Company Qitaihe

89% CWC and local partners O

31 China Henan Province - Yueyang City

2009 - 2034

BOT Yueyang Penyao Water Supply Co

Asia Environment Holdings (AEH), Singapore - 100%

O

32 China Henan Province - Zhengzhou City

2001 BOT Zhengzhou Sino French Water Supply Company Limited


O

33 China Henan Province - Zhoukou City

2009 - 2039

BOT Zhiukou Penyao Water Supply Co

Asia Environment Holdings (AEH), Singapore - 100%

O

34 China Henan Province - Zhoukou City

2007 - 2037

ROT Zhoukou City Water Affairs Group Ltd.

China Water Affairs Group Ltd (60%)

O

35 China Henan Province - Zhumadian City

2008 Partial D Zhumadian Huijin Water Affairs Co. Ltd.

China Water Group Inc. (51%, China)

O

36 China Hongqiao District, Tianjin City

2002 - 2022

BROT Tianjin Earth Tech Jieyuan Water Co. Ltd

Tyco International (52%) O

37 China Hubei Province – Jinzhou City

2007 - 2031

ROT Jinzhou Water Affairs Group Co., Ltd.

China Water Affairs Group Ltd. (HK, 51%)

O

38 China Hubei Province - Tianmen Kaidi

2004 - 2029

TOT Asia Water Technology (AWT), Singapore

O

39 China Hubei Province – Wuhan City, Huangpi district

2007 - 2037

ROT Huangpi Water Supply Facilities

Asia Water Technology (70%, Singapore)

O

40 China Hubei Province - Xianning City

2009 - 2039

ROT Xianning City Water Supply Project

United Water Corporation (100%)

O

41 China Hunan Province - Yueyang City

1998 - 2016

ROT Yueyang Kai Yuan Water Supply Company Limited

Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Ltd (49%)

T

42 China Jiangsu Province - Changshu City

2006 - 2036

MC/L Changshu Sino French Water Supply Co. Ltd.

NWS Holdings Limited (24.5%) and SUEZ (24.5%)

O

43 China Jiangsu Province - Changzhou City

2005 - 2035

ROT Changzhou Tap Water Group

Veolia and Citic Pacific (Hong Kong) (49%)

O

44 China Jiangsu Province - Huai’an City, Xuyi County

2007 - 2037

ROT Xuyi Jinzhou Water Affairs Co., Ltd.

Golden State Environment (100%, US)

O

45 China Jiangsu Province - Nantong City

2004 - 2029

BOT Nantong Water Asia Environment Holdings (AEH), Singapore

O

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)

D

47 China Jiangsu Province - Wujiang City

2005 - 2035

ROT Wujiang Hong Kong and China Water Company Limited

Hong Kong and China Water Company (80%)

O

48 China Jiangsu Province - Yancheng City

2008 - 2038

ROT Yancheng City Huijin Water Affairs Co. Ltd.

China Water Group Inc. (49%, China)

O

49 China Jiangsu Province - Yangzhong City

2007 - 2032

ROT Yangzhong City Water Company

Golden State Environment (75%) O

50 China Jiangsu Province - Yangzhou City

2007 - 2037

ROT Jiangsu Yangzhou Water Plant

New World Development Co. Ltd. (24.5%) and SUEZ (24.5%)

O

51 China Jiangsu Province - Yizheng City

2009 - 2039

C Jiangsu Salcon Water & Environmental Development Co Ltd

Salcon Corp. Bhd. (Malaysia) O

52 China Jiangsu Province - Zhenjiang City

2003 - 2053

ROT Zhenjiang Golden State Water Supply Co., Ltd.

Golden State Environment (100%)

O

53 China Jiangxi Province – Gaoan City

2007 - 2037

ROT Gaoan City Water Affairs Group Ltd.

China Water Affairs Group Ltd. (60%, HK)

O

54 China Jiangxi Province – Xinyu City

2006 - 2036

ROT Xinyu Water Affairs Group Co., Ltd.

China Water Affairs Group Ltd. (HK, 80%)

O

55 China Jiangxi Province – Yichun City

2003 - 2033

BOT Pinang Water Ltd. PBA Holdings BHD (26%), Ranhill Utilities (37%) and YLI Holdings Bhd (37%).

O

56 China Jiangxi Province – Yichun City

2007 - 2037

ROT Yichun City Water Supply Co. Ltd.

China Water Industry (51%, HK) O

57 China Jiangxi Province - Yingtan City

2008 - 2038

ROT Yingtan City Water Supply Co. Ltd.

China Water Industry (51%, HK) O

58 China Jianxi Province - Nanchang City

1996 - 2023

BROT Nanchang Shuanggang Water Supply Company Ltd.


O

59 China Jilin Province 2000 - 2030

BROT Sino-French Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd.


O

Asia

60 China Liaoning Province - Panjin City

2002 - 2032

ROT Panjin Sino French Water Supply Company Ltd.


O

61 China Liaoning Province - Wanzhou City

1999 - 2029

BMO Sino-French Holdings O

62 China Liaoning Province – Liaoyang City, Gong Changling District.

2008 - 2038

BOO Hyflux Water Trust (HWT) T

63 China Liaoning Province - Shenyang City

1997 - 2017

ROT Shifosi Water Company Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Ltd (50%)

O

64 China Liaoning Province - Shenyang City

1999 - 2002

Partial D Shenyang Public Utility China Water Company Ltd. (JV of Hong Kong Land Holdings Ltd., AIDC Ltd. of Australia, and Temasek

T

65 China Liaoning Province - Tieling City

1999 - 2029

BOT Changtu Sino French Water Supply Company Ltd.


O

66 China Liaoning Province – Xinmin City

2000 - 2025

BOOT China Water Company Xinmin

89% CWC O

67 China Lioaning Province -Shenyang City

1995 BROT Shenyang Sino-French Water Supply General Company

NWS Holdings Limited (19%) ans SUEZ (19%)

T

68 China Maanshan City 2004 - 2034

JV Maanshan Water Supply Company

Beijing Capital Group (BCG) (60%)

O

69 China Macau (Special Administrative Region of China, together with Hong Kong)

1985 - 2010

C Macau Water Supply Ltd. NWS Holding Limits (Hong Kong) and SUEZ Environment (France)

E

70 China Shaanxi Province – Xian City

1997 - 2027

BOT Berlinwasser International Berlinwasser Wasserbetrieb, Xi’an Drinking Water Supply company and a financing firm from HK

T

71 China Shandong Province - Binzhou Municipality

1998 - 2018

ROT Binzhou Cathay Water Plant Cathay International Holdings (80%)

T

72 China Shandong Province - Jining City

2007 - 2035

ROT Jining Haiyuan Water Co., Ltd.

China Water Industry Group Limited (70%)

O

73 China Shandong Province - Qingdao City

2002 - 2027

ROT Qindao Sino French Hairun Water Supply Company Ltd


O

Asia

74 China Shandong Province - Jinan City

2003 - 2033

Partial D Jinan Yuqing Water Plant Chengda International Investment Co. Ltd. (25%) and Hong Yuan Ju Co. Ltd. (30%)

O

75 China Shandong Province - Jinan City

2002 - 2027

ROT Jinan Quehua Water Treatment Co. Ltd.

Hainan Runda Industrial Co. Ltd. (51%)

O

76 China Shandong Province - Linyi City

2005 - 2035

ROT Linyi Salcon Water Co. Ltd. Salcon Bhd. (Malaysia, 60%) O

77 China Shandong Province - Weifang City, Changle County

2003-2054 ROT Shangdong Changle Salcon Water Supply Company

Salcon Bhd, Malaysia (100%) O

78 China Shanghai Province - Fengxian District

2001 - 2012

ROT Shanghai Fengxian Saur Water

Saur (50%) T

79 China Shanghai Province - Shanghai municipality, Pudong district

2002 - 2052

BROT Shanghai Pudong Water Supply Corporation

Vivendi, later Veolia Water Shanghai Corporation (50%) (JV of Veolia Water and Shanghai Municipality)

O

80 China Shanxi Province – Baoji City

2002 - 2025

ROT Baoji Chuangwei Water Co. Ltd

Veolia Environnement (50%) O

81 China Shanxi Province - Hanzhong City

2007 - 2032

ROT Hanzhong City Xingyuan Water Supply Company Limited

InterChina Holdings (100%, HK) O

82 China Sichuan Province - Chengdu City

1998 - 2016

BOT Chengdu Générale des Eaux-Marubeni Waterworks (CGDEM)

Consortium of Veolia and Marubeni (Japan) (60:40)

O

83 China Sichuan Province - Chongqing municipality

2008 Partial D Chongqing Water Affairs NWS Holdings Limited (7.5%) and SUEZ (7.5%)

O

84 China Sichuan Province - Chongqing municipality

2002 - 2052

ROT Chongqing Sino French Water Supply Company Limited


O

85 China Sichuan Province - Chongqing municipality, Yuelai district - WD

2009 - 2039

BOT Yuelai Water Supply Plant SFW + Chongqing Water Group O

86 China Sichuan Province - Chongqing Qiaoli, Yongchuan City

2001 - 2051

MC Yongchuan Qiaoli China Water Affairs Group Ltd. (100%)

O

Asia

87 China Sichuan Province - Leshan City

2002 - Divestiture Leshan Shawan Water Plant Zhongyang Construction (100%) O

88 China Tianjin Municipality 2007 - Partial D Tianjin Huanke Water Affairs Co. Ltd.

Kardan Water International Group Co. Ltd. (88.13%)

O

89 China Tianjin Province - Shibei and Binhai Districts

2007 - 2037

ROT Tianjin City North Water Affairs Company Limited


90 China Tianjin Province – Bohai Bay in Dagang

2007 - 2037

BOT Hyflux Ltd O

91 China Tianjin Province – Tianjin municipality –

1997 - 2017

C CGE Tianjin Waterworks 55% held by a JV which is in turn 70% owned by VE and 45% held by the municipality‘s Tianjin Waterworks Co.

O

92 China Tianjin Province- Tanggu City

2005 - 2040

JV Tianjin Tanggu Sino French Water Supply Company Limited

JV of SFW (50%) + Tianjin Tanggu

O

93 China Yunan Province- Kunming City

2005 - 2035

ROT Kunming Water Supply Company

Veolia (25%) + HK partner O

94 China Yunan Province- Kunming City, Chenggong County

2005 - 2035

BROT Chenggong Salcon Water Company Ltd.

Salcon Bhd. (Malaysia, 30%) O

95 China Zhejiang Province - Haining City

2006 - 2036

BROT Haining Salcon Water Co. Salcon Bhd (60%) O

96 China Zhejiang Province - Kexia Village, Chengguan Town, Xinchang County

2002 - 2032

ROT Xinchang Sino French Water Supply Company Ltd.


O

97 China Zhejiang Province- Deqing county

2002 - 2027

BOT Zhejiang Deqing Globe Water Treatment Co Ltd.

Globe Environmental (70%), a 75% held subsidiary of Darco Water Technologies Pte (DWT)

O

98 China Zhongshan Province - Tanzhou City

1994 -2029

BROT Zhongshan Tanzhou Water Supply Company Limited


O

99 Haiti Saint Marc 2009 - 2024

MC/L Societe des Eaux de Saint Marc (SESAM)

Lysa (France) O

Asia

100 India Andra Pradesh - Visakhapatnam

2003 BOOT Vishakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Ltd. (SPV)

M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited O

101 India Karnataka – Bangalore City

2010 - 2019

DBO Japan‘s JICA. C

102 India Karnataka – Belgaum, Gulbarga & Hubli-Dharwad

2005 - 2010

MC/L Veolia Water India Veolia Environnement (100%) E

103 India Karnataka – Mysore City

2008 MC Jamshedpur Utilities & Supply Company Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tata Steel Ltd

O

104 India Madhya Pradesh – Dewas

2004 BOT MSK Pvt. Ltd., Baroda O

105 India Madhya Pradesh -Khandwa

2009 - 2034

BROT Vishwa Infrastructure and Services Pvt. Ltd., a Hyderabad based company.

C

106 India Madhya Pradesh -Shivpuri

2009 BOOT Doshion Veolia Water Solutions, an Ahmedabad-based water treatment company

C

107 India Maharastra - Latur

2008 - 2018

RLT Latur Water Supply Management Company Limited

Hydro-Comp Enterprises (33.3%), Subhash Projects & Marketing Ltd (33.3%), UPL Enviromental Engineers Ltd (33.3%)

C

108 India Maharastra – Nagpur

2008 - 2023

DBO Veolia O

109 India Maharastra – Nagpur

2007 - 2014

MC/L Veolia Water India Veolia O

110 India Tamil Nadu – Chennai City

2007 - 2014

MC Suez O

111 India Tamil Nadu – Chennai City, Minjur

2006 DBOOT Chennai Water Desalination Ltd (CWDL)

Befasa / IVRCL O

Asia

112 India Tamil Nadu – Chennai City, Nemmeli

2010 DBO VA Tech Wabag VA Tech - 70% and IDE Technologies (Israel) - 30%

C

113 India Tamil Nadu - Tirupur 1995 BOOT New Tirupur Area Development Corporation (NTADCL) as a special purpose vehicle (SPV).

3 partners - Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development (TACID), Tirupur Exporters Association (TEA), Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services (IL&FS).

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

O

115 India West Bengal – Haldia

2008 - 2033

BOT Haldia Water Management Limited (HWML)

JUSCO (60%), Ranhill Utilities (40%)

O

116 Indonesia Bangka Island 2007 - 2028

BROT Pangkalpinang City Water Treatment Plant

Darco (70%) O

117 Indonesia Batam Island 1995 - 2020

C PT Adhya Tirta Batam (ATB)

Cascal and its 50/50 local joint venture partners, Bangun Cipta Kontraktor (BCK) and Syabata Cemerlang

O

118 Indonesia Jakarta (East) 1997 - 2022

BROT PT Aetra Air Jakarta PT Thames Pam Jaya (TPJ) (a Thames Water Subsidiary); now, PT Aetra Air Jakarta (Acuatico, 95% and Alberta Utilities, 5%)

O

119 Indonesia Jakarta (West) 1997 - 2022

C PT Pam Lyonnaise Jaya Suez Environnement, 51%, Astratel, 30% and Citigroup Financial Products Inc., 19%

O

120 Indonesia Medan 1997 - 2022

BOT Suez (85%) O

Asia

121 Indonesia Nusa Dua and Kuta 1997 - 2012

Greenfield project

PT Titra Arta Buana Mulia (TABM)

PT Buana (30%) and PT Dewata Arta Kharsima (15%)

O

122 Indonesia Serang Timur 1997 - 2022

BOT PT Sarana Tirta Rejeki Gadang Berhad O

123 Indonesia Sidoarjo 1997 - 2022

BOT PT Taman Tirta Sidoarjo Veolia holds 95% of the equity, along with Indonesia‘s PT Agumar Nusa and PT Hansa Letsari.

O

124 Indonesia Tangerang, Banten 2004 - 2019

ROT PT Tirta Kencana Cahaya Mandiri

PT Enviro Nusantara (28%) and PT Petrosea TBK (48%)

O

125 Indonesia Tangerrang, Java 2001 - 2026

BROT Tirta Ciparen Permai Water Suez (95%) O

126 Indonesia Tanggerang 2002 - 2032

BROT Hytien Jaya Water Treatment Plant

Gadang Holdings Bhd. (95%) O

127 Indonesia Telang Kepala 2008 - 2031

C PT Adhya Titra Sriwijaya Cascal (40%) O

128 Malaysia Hulu Langat 2007 - 2034

ROT Sungai Lolo Water Treatment Plant

Puncak Niaga Holdings Berhad (82,5%)

D

129 Malaysia Johor State 2000 - 2029

ROT Sempurna Pelita Bhd. (Ranhill Utilities Bhd)

SAJ Holdings Shd Bhd (a holding company of Ranhill Utilities, 70%); earlier Veolia

O

130 Malaysia Johor State – Johor Barhu

1993 - 2013

BOT Equiventures Sdn. Bhd. Suez (25.5%) O

131 Malaysia Johor State – Muar, Batu Pahat, Segamat and Kluang Districts

1994 - 2024

ROT Southern Water Corporation Aliran Ihsan Resources Bhd (100%)

O

132 Malaysia Johor-Bahru/ Sunghai Layang

1992 - 2012

BROT Equiventures Sdn. Bhd. Kembangan Dinamik (M) Sdn Bhd (49%), Pilecon Engineering Berhad (25%) and Suez (25%)

O

133 Malaysia Kedah State - Pulau Langkawi City

1996 - 2020

MC/L Taliworks (Langkawi) Sdn. Bhd.

Taliworks Corp. Bhd. (100%, Malaysia)

O

134 Malaysia Kelantan State 1995 - 2020

ROT Kelantan Water (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.

JV of RWE (Germany) or Thames Water + Yayasan Kelantan Darulnaim (70:30)

T

135 Malaysia Kota Kinabalu, Borneo 1993 - 2012

BOT Jetama Sdn. Bhd (Ondeo Services)

Suez (35%) O

Asia

136 Malaysia Negeri Sembilan 2003 - 2012

MC/L Salcon Engineering Bhd. Salcon Bhd (100%) O

137 Malaysia Penang State 2002 Partial D Perbadanan Bekalan Air Holdings

O

138 Malaysia Perak (Taiping) 1989, 1995 - 2015

BOT G.S.L. Water Sdn. Bht. Suez (34.2%) O

139 Malaysia Perak, Ipoh City 1989 - 2009

C Intan Utilities Berhad Veolia Water Asia Pacific Pte Ltd's CGE Utilities

O

140 Malaysia Pewrlis C Taliworks (Langkawi) Sdn. Bhd.

141 Malaysia Pulau Pinang State 1999 Partial D Perbadanan Bekalan Air Pulau Pinang Sdn Bhd (PBA), a subsidiary of PBA Holdings BHD

PBA Holdings Berhad (State government share 55%)

O

142 Malaysia Sabah Province – Kota-Kinabalu

1995 - 2015

BOT Jetama Sdn. Bhd. Suez (35%) O

143 Malaysia Sabah State – Sandakan and Tawau areas

1993 - 2013

ROT Timatch Sdn Bhd Timatch Sdn Bhd (100%) O

144 Malaysia Selangor 1995 - 2020

MC Veolia is a sub-contractor to Puncak Niaga

O

145 Malaysia Selangor and the Federal Territory

2000 - 2029

ROT Sungai Selangor Water Supply Phase III

Gamuda Berhad (40%) and The Sweet Water Alliance Sdn Bhd (30%)

D

146 Malaysia Selangor and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur

1994 - 2020

ROT Puncak Niaga SB Puncak Niaga Holdings Berhad (100%)

D

147 Malaysia Selangor State and federal territories of Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya

2004 - 2035

ROT Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn. Bhd. (SYABAS)

Puncak Niaga Holdings Berhard (70%)

D

148 Malaysia Sungai Sireh, Tanjung Karang in Kuala Selangor

2008 - 2034

ROT Puncak Niaga SB Puncak Niaga Holdings Berhad (100%)

D

149 Mongolia Hohhot 2004 - 2034

ROT Hohhot Chunhua Water Development Co. Ltd


150 Nepal Kathmandu metropolitan area

2010 - 2014

MC/L Kathmandu Upatyaka Khanepani Limited (KUKL)

BerlinWasser (100%) O

Asia

151 Philippines Boracay Island 2009 - 2035

BROT Boracay Island Water Company (BIWC)

Manila Water (80%) O

152 Philippines Clark Economic Zone 2000 - 2025

C Clark Water Corporation (a Veolia subsidiary – JV with local firms)

O

153 Philippines Fort Bonifacio (Manila) 1998 - 2023

C JV b/w Veolia and local firms O

154 Philippines Magdalena - Laguna water system

1999 - 2014

MC/L Bayan Water Services Inc Benpres Holdings (60%) and Montgomery Watson (40%)

T

155 Philippines Manila (Eastern zone) 1997 BROT Manila Water Company Manila Water Company (consortium of United Utilities, IWL, Mitsubishi Corporation and Ayala (Philippines)); now, Manila Water - operated by Ayala-United Utilities

O

156 Philippines Manila (Western zone) 2006 - 2037

BROT Maynilad Water Services, Inc.

DM Consunji Inc. (42%, Philippines), First Pacific (42%, Hong Kong, China) and SUEZ (16%)

O

157 Philippines Manila (Western zone) 1997 BROT Maynilad Water Services, Inc.

Benpres Holdings (60%) and SUEZ (31%)

T

158 Philippines Olangapo/Subic Bay Freeport

1997 - 2027

BROT Subic Bay Water and Sewerage Company, Inc.

JV (30% Cascal) with local partners

O

159 Singapore Changi 2008 - 2033

BOT SembCorp NEWater Pte Ltd 100% SembCorp O

160 Singapore 2003 - 2023

BOT Hyflux Ltd O

161 Taiwan Kaohsiung 2002 - 2019

BOT Ondeo Degrémont and Ecotek, a subsidiary of China Steel

O

162 Thailand Bangpakong 2003 - 2028

BROT Bangpakong Waterworks Co. Ltd.

Eastern Water Resources Development and Management Public Co. Ltd. (East Water) (100%, Thailand)

O

Asia

163 Thailand Chachoengsao – Muang District, Baan Pho District and Bang Numpreaw Municipality

2003 - 2028

BROT Chachoengsao Waterworks Co. Ltd


O

164 Thailand Chonburi Province - Jaopraya Surasakmontree Municipality and Borwin Sub District

2005 - 2030

ROT Borwin Waterworks Eastern Water Resources Development and Management Public Co. Ltd. (East Water) (100%, Thailand)

O

165 Thailand Chonburi Province – Koh Samui

2005 - 2020

BOO Universal Utilities Company Limited (UUC)

East Water O

166 Thailand Chonburi Province - Sattahip District and Pattaya City

2000 - 2025

MC/L Sattahip Water Supply Co. Ltd.


O

167 Thailand Eastern Seaboard Industrial Zone

1997 - 2023

Partial D Eastern Water Resources Development

O

168 Thailand Lampang 1999 - 2024

BROT Lumpang waterworks Electricity Generating Company (EGCO), Thailand and Vivendi, France

T

169 Thailand Nakhon Pathom and Samut Sakhon provinces

2005 - 2034

BOO Thai Tap Water Ch Karnchang Company Limited (35%, Thailand) + Mitsui (26%, Japan)

O

170 Thailand Nakhonsawan Province - Mung District

2003 - 2028

BROT Nakhonsawan Waterworks Co. Ltd.


O

171 Thailand Northern Bangkok 1999 - 2004

ROT Northern Bangkok Water Project

RWE (100%, Germany) E

172 Thailand Northern Bangkok 1995 - 2020

BOT Pathum Thani Water Supply Co., Ltd

Provincial Water Authority (2%) and Thai Tap Water (98%)

O

173 Thailand Pathum Thani - Rangsit 1995 - 2003

BOT Pathumthani Water Supply Co. Ltd.

Ch Karnchang Company Limited (47.7%) and Mitsui (35%)

O

174 Thailand Phuket 2000 - 2010

BROT Require Construction Co. Ltd. E

175 Thailand Ratcharburi Samutsongkram

2001 - 2031

BOO EGCOMTHARA or Eastern Water

O

Asia

176 Thailand Rayong – Muang and Baankai Districts

2006 - 2031

BROT Rayong Waterworks Eastern Water Resources Development and Management Public Co. Ltd. (East Water) (100%, Thailand)

D

177 Thailand Sichang Municipality 2004 - 2029

ROT Koh Sichang Waterworks Eastern Water Resources Development and Management Public Co. Ltd. (East Water) (100%, Thailand)

O

178 Thailand West Bangkok – Nakorn Pathom and Samut Sakhon districts

2001 - 2031

BOT Thai Tap Water (TTW) CH Karnchang (35.3%), Mitsui (25.9%) and Bangkok Expressway PCL (9.2%).

O

179 Vietnam Ho Chi Minh City 2001 - 2026

BOT Lyonnaise Vietnam Water Company Ltd.

Suez (90%) T

180 Vietnam Ho Chi Minh City, Thuan An District

1999 - 2019

BOT Binh An Water Corp Ltd. IJM Corporation Berhad (36%), Salcon Bhd (36%) and South-South Corporation (18%)

O

181 Vietnam Saigon 2008 - 2013

MC Manila Water O

182 Vietnam Thu Duc district 2005 BOO Thu Duc BOO Corp General Construction Corporation No1 (20%) and Ho Chi Minh City Infrastructure Investment Joint Stock Company (40%)

O

MENA

MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA (MENA)


Project Company Private Players Status

1 Algeria Algiers 2005 - 2015 MC/L Société des Eaux et D’Assainissement d’Algers (SEAL)

Suez (50%, France) O

2 Algeria Algiers Ouest 2000-2004 SC EPEAL SOMEDEN (SEM), a subsidiary of Société des Eaux de Marseille (100%, France)

E

3 Algeria Annaba and El Tarf provinces

2007-2013 MC/L Société de l’Eau et de l’Assainissement d’El Tarf et d’Annaba SPA (SEATA SPA)

Gelsenwasser (100%, Germany) O

4 Algeria Athmania 2005 - 2010 DBO Suez O 5 Algeria Constantine 2005-2008 SC Société de l’Eau et de

l’Assainissement de Constantine (SEACO)

SOMEDEN (SEM), a subsidiary of Société des Eaux de Marseille (100%, France)

E

6 Algeria Constantine 2008-2013 MC/L Societe des Eaux et de l'Assainissement de Constantine (Seaco)

Societe des Eaux de Marseille (100%) O

7 Algeria Oran 2008 - 2033 BOT MenaSpring Utility Ltd (Hyflux) and Algerian Energy Company

O

8 Algeria Oran 2007-2013 MC/L Societe des Eaux Oran (SEOR, SPA) [Office National de l’Assainissement (ONA) and Algérienne des Eaux (ADE)]

Agbar Water (Suez, France: 28.7% & Criteria Caixa Corp SA, Spain: 27.7%)

O

9 Algeria Oran 1999-2004 SC Etablissement de Production, de Gestion et de Distribution d’Eau d’Oran (EPEOR)

Saur, France E

10 Algeria Taksebt 2005 - 2010 DBO Degremont (Suez) O 11 Israel Ashkelon 2002 - 2027 BOT VID Investment VE, IDE and Dankner of Israel O 12 Jordan Amman 1999-2006 MC/L Lyonnaise Des Eaux,

Montgomery Watson-Arabtech Jardaneh (LEMA)

JV of Suez (75%) and a Jordanian-UK equal JV company (25%)

E

MENA

13 Jordan Madaba Governorate - outsourcing of customer service operations

2006-2009 MC Engicon (local operator) E

14 Lebanon Ba'albeck 2003-2006 MC Council for Development and Reconstruction (CDR)/ Bekaa Water Auhtority (BWA)

E

15 Lebanon Tripoli 2002-2006 MC/L CDR/ North Lebanon Water Authority (NLWA)

Ondeo-Liban (France) E

16 Morocco Casablanca 1997 - 2027 MC Lyonnaise des Eaux de Casablanca (LYDEC)

Casablanca Bourse (14%), Suez Environnement (51%) and Moroccan institutions (35%)

O

17 Morocco Oum Er Rbia 2000 - 2030 C Elyo and Ondeo Services O 18 Morocco Rabat and Sale 1999-2029 C Redal Veolia, Electricidade de Portugal, Pleiade

(Portugal) and Alborada (Morocco) O

19 Morocco Tangiers & Tetouan 2001-2026 C Amendis Veolia Environment (51%), Hydro-Quebec International, Canada (17%), ONA, Morocco (16%) and Societe Maroc Emirates Arabs Unis de Developpement (SOMED), Moroccan-UAE (15%)

O

20 Oman PAEW 2011-2018 MC Veolia O 21 Oman Sûr 2007 - 2029 BOO Veolia O 22 Palestinian

Territories Bethlehem and Hebron

1999-2003 MC GEKA (Veolia) JV of Veolia Environnement + Khatib + Alami (GEKA)

T

23 Palestinian Territories

Gaza I 1996-2000 MC Lyonnaise des Eaux/Khatib and Alami (LEKA)

Lyonnaise des Eaux/Khatib and Alami (LEKA)

E

24 Saudi Arabia

Jeddah 2008-2015 MC SUEZ Environnement + AcwaPower Development (local partner

O

25 Saudi Arabia

Jubail 2007 - 2030 BOOT Suez, GE and Hyundai Heavy Industries (60%) and Saudi Government institutions (40%).

O

MENA

26 Saudi Arabia

Mecca (or Makkah) and Taif

2010-2015 MC Saur + Zomco O

27 Saudi Arabia

Riyadh 2008-2014 MC Veolia Water AMI, a subsidiary of Veolia Water

O

28 UAE Fujairah 2007 - 2019 MC Veolia Water O

Australia

AUSTRALIA


Project Company Private Players Status

1 Australia Adelaide 2011 - 2027 BOT Degremont (50%) and Transfield (50%)

O

2 Australia Adelaide 1995-2011 MC SA Water United Water (Veolia) E 3 Australia Ballarat 1999, 2003 - 2023 BOOT United Water (Veolia) O 4 Australia Melbourne 2009 - 2036 DBO AquaSure O 5 Australia Noosa 1998 - 2013 DBO United Water (Veolia) O 6 Australia Perth 2005 - 2030 DBO Degrémont and Multiplex

Engineering O

7 Australia Queensland – II 2006 - 2021 DBO Veolia O 8 Australia Sydney 1993 - 2018 BOO Australian Water Services

(AWS) Suez and Lend Lease Pty O

9 Australia Sydney 1996 - 2021 BOO Veolia O 10 Australia Sydney 2007 - 2030 DBO Veolia O 11 New Zealand Franklin 2000 MC United Water (Veolia) O 12 New Zealand Papakura District

Council 1997 - 2027 BOT United Water (Veolia) O

13 New Zealand Queenstown 2002 MC United Water (Veolia) O 14 New Zealand Ruapehu district (O&M) 2002 - 2012 MC United Water (Veolia) O

15 New Zealand Thames-Coromandel district

2004 - 2014 MC United Water (Veolia) O

16 New Zealand Waitomo 2002 MC United Water (Veolia) O

Private – Public Partnerships in Urban Water Supply Sector

Documents

Transcript of Private – Public Partnerships in Urban Water Supply Sector