Implementing socially and environmentally sustainable systems for the provision of water and sanitation which are also democratically accountable is one the most urgent challenges facing developing countries. According to recent reports released by UNICEF, over 600 million people in the urban areas of the developing world continue to be permanently exposed to deadly risks due to poor living conditions, especially the lack of safe water and sanitation. As a result, water-related diseases are still amongst the main killers, accounting for the deaths of about 2 million children each year. In addition, about 900 million people suffer from water-related diseases each year. In the process, the water cycle is seriously stressed, due to the overexploitation of water resources and to the large-scale degradation caused by the disposal of untreated wastewater (less than 5% of wastewater in developing countries is treated). However, improving WSS is not only crucial due to its health and environmental impacts, but also because of its wider socio-economic effects, for instance through ‘increasing household productivity’ and thus contributing to closing the yawning inequality gap in less developed countries (IDB, 1998: 120-1).

Despite the efforts of the international community over the last few decades, ‘more people lack drinking water today than they did two decades ago’ (Gorbachev, 2000). Given that water is an essential factor in ensuring the universal human right to ‘a standard of living adequate for […] health and well-being’ (Article 25, Universal Declaration of Human Rights), it is evident that governments increasingly face the challenge of social and political conflicts arising from growing citizen demands for adequate and regular amounts of safe water. Although many of these countries face an ‘objective’ deficit of freshwater resources, a closer examination of the problem shows that availability as such is not (and may not be in the foreseeable future) the most important problem. A number of different research efforts carried out recently suggest that, at least in terms of water volumes, there is enough freshwater to satisfy the needs of every human being. On this basis, some authors have rightly stressed that the real ultimate water uncertainty is if we can ensure access to water in adequate quantities and of a suitable quality to everyone on earth (Samson and Charrier, 1997).

The Water Decade. These problems are of longstanding, despite substantial efforts to improve the situation. As long ago as 1977 the UN Water Conference in Mar del Plata, Argentina, which led to the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade (1980-1990) (IDWSSD), helped to place WSS higher up in the international agenda. The different arrangements for improving these services in developing areas evolved considerably during this period, particularly as a result of the role played by international organizations (bilateral and multilateral) providing official development assistance and fostering co-operative approaches. For instance, in preparation for the launch of the (IDWSSD), the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO) implemented a widespread assessment of WSS in more than 100 developing countries, which together with the five-yearly monitoring of WSS coverage carried out by WHO provide the baseline to gauge progress in the sector (WELL, 1998).

However, despite the huge efforts made, the task of improving people’s access to safe water and, particularly, sanitation in developing countries did not achieve the goals set by the international community in 1980, while the needs have continued to grow rapidly as a result of sustained demographic and urban expansion. One of the main criticisms made to the IDWSSD was that it followed the classical public health paradigm based on engineering solutions to tackle the challenge, an approach that is still prevalent in many areas. Despite the fact that the WSS debate has occupied a central stage in international and national debates in recent decades, from a policy perspective, the dominant paradigm for WSS has consistently failed to tackle issues related to institutional problems such as (a) the virtual absence of institutions and private sector in rural areas in the majority of developing countries, (b) the lack of access to finance by the poor, with the result that schemes financed from private sources are not viable or financial risks are perceived to be too high, (c) the problems of basin versus political boundaries, and (d) the virtual lack of rights to water by ordinary people. Moreover, this paradigm virtually neglected the impact of growing inequality and poverty resulting from a constellation of factors on people’s access to WSS. As a consequence of this debate, towards the end of the Decade it became clear that substantial changes had to be made if the goal of WSS ‘for all’ is to be achieved. Among other valuable lessons learnt from the experience, issues like the introduction of low-cost affordable technologies, capacity building, and the realization that community participation is often the key to sustainable projects came to the fore in the debates and were incorporated in the Global Consultation held in New Delhi in 1990 to close the IDWSSD. The New Delhi Statement echoed this development in its banner ‘some for all rather than more for some’, and produced a roadmap for the future. It also fostered the implementation of inter-agency collaboration, which led to the establishment of the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC).

The 1990s. A major milestone in the subsequent development was the Conference on Water and the Environment held in Dublin in January 1992 as a preparation meeting for the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (The Earth Summit), Rio de Janeiro. The Conference produced a set of Guiding Principles, the ‘Dublin Principles’, and a 40-page Action Agenda which have provided guidelines not only for WSS but also for water resources development, management and conservation. The UNCED endorsed Agenda 21, which incorporated the Dublin Principles as part of its Chapter 18, ‘Protection of the Quality and Supply of Water Resources’, and came to constitute the baseline for sustainable development, including water resources. In order to monitor the application of Agenda 21, the UN set up the Commission on Sustainable Development, which holds annual meetings (CSD1, CSD2, etc.), and has received important inputs from government hosted summits dedicated to assess and implement Agenda 21, such as Noordwijk 1994, Harare 1998, and Paris 1998. In particular CSD6 (1998), which sought to build on the Harare and Paris recommendations, produced an urgent call for government action in order to enable the poorest sectors of the population to have access to WSS, placing special emphasis on participatory approaches, gender sensitivity and the integration of water projects into national water programmes (WELL 1998). Likewise, other global meetings such as UNICEF’s World Summit for Children, the 1996 Habitat II Conference in Istanbul, and the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women have given top priority to WSS. It remains the case, however, that much remains to be done to give effect to the principles and policies agreed at the global level and that the difficulty of making progress often lies in designing and implementing workable and politically-acceptable schemes of improvement at the local level.

The 1990s have seen the consolidation and expansion of inter-agency cooperation. In 1996 the World Water Council (WWC) was constituted to cover policy issues in the field of water resources management. A somewhat similar initiative is the Global Water Partnership which was established in parallel under the leadership of international funding agencies. Latterly, these worked together and in particular promoted the World Commission on Water for the 21st Century. The Commission was supported by a high-profile group of advisors and had the sponsorship of six global agencies, including the World Bank, UNESCO, UNEP and UNDP. The Commission’s report was presented to the Second World Water Forum held at the Hague in March 2000 in parallel with a further Ministerial conference on water. Among the key elements of sustainable and holistic WSS policies identified by the Commission, it is worth highlighting: (1) public-private partnership, (2) cost recovery and appropriate services pricing, (3) perceptions and role of the consumers, and (4) visionary utility management. These key issues will surely form the basis of the development of a future model for viable WSS. They echo principles noted in the regular Ministerial statements on the issue in the course of the 1990s. The policies proposed however are not without inconsistencies, which are relevant to the question of how workable schemes are to be devised in practice. Those inconsistencies relate both to the underlying theory and to political practicability, and these are among the questions that this research proposal is intended to explore.

Concerning technical and institutional aspects, although since the 1970s the emphasis on integrated watershed management introduced significant improvements to water management practices at large in a few western countries, in the specific field of WSS progress has been much more modest. In this respect, diverse initiatives have been implemented worldwide during the 1990s. In particular, structural state reform, in which utility management reforms have occupied a central place, and the expansion of different forms of private sector participation in the running of public utilities have become crucial policy initiatives during this period. These initiatives have met with different degrees of success and failure, and have also given way to the emergence of new opportunities and challenges regarding the implementation of policies that may be sustainable not only in environmental and technological terms, but also socio-economic and politically.

On the one hand, the inability of local governments to provide and maintain adequate infrastructure has severely affected the productivity and the living and working environments of their populations, especially of the urban poor. The traditional supply orientation of infrastructure policy has ended to emphasize facilities over services, stress public sector provision (which often requires the coordination of many institutional actors), and excessively politicize decision-making regarding types of investments and pricing of services. These developments, in turn, have resulted in inadequate operations and maintenance, non-sustainability and unreliability of services, constraints to economic productivity, and environmental degradation (Gidman et. al. 1995). On the other hand, however, the particular ways in which the reform of public utilities has been implemented during the last two decades have caused that the roles of the state and of ordinary citizens in defining, protecting and promoting the public interest have been whittled away by the worldwide push towards privatization and public sector commercialization. In many cases, and contrary to the predominant rhetoric, privatization has in practice delivered neither improved services nor greater control by ordinary people over the former public sector. Instead, it has allowed corporate interests to increase their hold on the main levers of economic power (Martin 1996), even re-creating monopoly conditions which favor private interests over those of users and consumers (Solanes, 1999: 45).

Unsurprisingly, in many developing countries privatization of public utilities, and of WSS in particular, has become a hot social and political issue. In Latin America and Africa, for instance, open opposition to privatization policies and non-compliance (e.g. refusal to pay water bills) have become widespread, stymieing privatization processes and even resulting in the cancellation of concessions and the subsequent reversion of responsibility for WSS to the public sector (Savedoff et. al., 1999, Ch. 6; Hardoy et. al., 1999; Bond, 1997).

Therefore, although the involvement of private capital and enterprise may be certainly beneficial, not only in the traditional sectors of planning, design, and construction management tasks, but also in operation and maintenance activities, the lessons learnt suggest that it cannot be uncritically based on globally-uniform and inadequately-controlled liberalization. Experience from past decades confirms that the solution to WSS infrastructure problems is not merely to expand capacity through new investments. The key to reforms in infrastructure policy is the delivery of infrastructure services that meet users’ effective demand (Demand Driven/Responsive Approach). However, the delivery of demand-oriented infrastructure services needs institutions that have the capacity to effectively identify the demands of all user groups and provide services that meet the needs of users and that they are willing and able to pay for. All this requires skilful design of schemes (taking into account not only the needs of global financial markets and prevailing management fashions, but the local socio-economic and socio-political context), management capacity and a certain level of investment, which is often beyond the reach of the government of a developing economy. Urban authorities are increasingly looking to the private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) as a source of investment and improved efficiency for their infrastructure. It is increasingly accepted that services should be provided by the most effective means, whether relying solely on the utility’s own resources or through partnerships with other groups (Well, 1998; Gidman et. al. 1995). In this connection, a new consensus seems to be emerging that strategies leading to private sector participation should be formulated to enhance and develop the public sector so that it can efficiently and democratically carry out its public administrative duties and exercise its judicial power for regulating and guiding the activities of private actors (Solanes, 1999; Franceys, 1997; Martin, 1994). There are questions however as to whether this consensus is being applied in too uniform a manner, and without being sufficiently conscious of the local dimension and of the need to adjust the institutional and technical architecture of schemes to local conditions.

In practice, the increasing involvement of the private sector, whether through outright privatization or other forms including public-private partnerships (PPP), has taken place often in the absence of a proper assessment of the potential benefits to be derived from them. In the developing world, the historical background and nature of the public sector have been significantly different from those of most developed countries, and the models applied in the developed world do not always succeed in developing countries (Franceys, 1997). The latter have significant differences in relation to the role and effectiveness of the public sector, which often is ill-prepared to be not just ‘partner with private organizations’, but even ‘consumer of what private firms can –an cannot offer–, or credible regulators of private activities’ (UNDP-PPPUE, 1998). Improved efficiency in the public sector may in many cases bring more sustainable results than privatization or other forms of private involvement.

The available evidence shows that the last decade has seen a steep increase in private involvement in the provision of infrastructure and services in developing countries. This involvement has taken a variety of forms ranging from straightforward privatization, the contracting out of specific services through time-fixed concessions, to the development of Public-Private Partnerships (PPP). This has been reflected, for instance, in the massive growth in private investment flowing into the water and –to a lesser extent- sanitation sectors (see Table 1).

Table 1


Number of contracts
Increase (%)
Value (€  million)
Increase (%)
All Developing Countries
Breakdown by region (1990-97)
East Asia
Eastern Europe/Central Asia
Latin America/ Caribbean
Middle East/North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: Elaborated from DFID (2000).

This increasing involvement of the private sector in the developing world is happening in the context of a rapid expansion of global markets, which has brought about new opportunities and challenges that are not fully understood and require further investigation. Our proposed research will build on existing knowledge and on the rich experience of the past decade. In addition to the technical and institutional dimensions of WSS management, it will pay attention to the interlinks between socio-economic, cultural and political processes in the implementation of sustainable WSS in the context of structural adjustment policies, increasing private sector involvement, and changing patterns of investment in public infrastructure.

This project intends to develop further this field of research by providing an integrated and robust multi-approach study of WSS management in developing countries with different forms of private involvement.

In particular, we wish to explore

a) The regional inequalities in the private investment flows directed to WSS in developing countries. There has been a high concentration of private water projects in certain regions and countries, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean and in East Asia, while other regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa have received little attention (Table 1). This regional concentration of private investment in the WSS also mirrors the pattern of private investment in energy and transport, which follows a similar trend (Silva et. al., 1998). There is also a strong concentration of private investment in WSS by country, reflecting among other issues that the unevenness of the process is not only between but also within regions (Table 2). In addition, the bulk of private investment has been concentrated in water supply projects, while there has been a much more modest private involvement in the sanitation sector (Silva et. al., 1998). These trends indicate that private involvement in WSS (alongside other sectors) may actually have contributed to worsening regional and local inequalities in the context of increasing market globalization. In this respect, it is worth keeping in mind, for instance, that those regions with the highest level of private investment in WSS like Latin America have also seen their inequality gap widened during the 1990s which, ‘regardless of the measurement used’, makes the subcontinent the most unequal region in the world (IDB, 1998).

Table 2



Value (€  million)
Number of projects

Source: Elaborated from Silva et. al. (1998).

b) The increasing evidence that private involvement in WSS has not necessarily brought about the results anticipated. The expansion of private participation in the provision of urban infrastructure and services, including WSS has been actively promoted as the best strategy ‘to improve the efficiency of infrastructure services, extend their delivery to the poor, and relieve pressure on public budgets’ (World Bank, 1998: 1; Savedoff et. al., 1999) while at the same time improving social equity (IDB, 1998: 120). According to some case-based studies sponsored by the World Bank, there is evidence that ‘private involvement in infrastructure produces net benefits for customers, investors, and countries’, while in the particular case of WSS they would have ‘improved service quality and expanded coverage’ (Rivera, 1996). However, that private involvement in WSS per se increases efficiency in the sector is a highly contested claim. While most official and semi-official reports on the results of private sector involvement (especially privatization) tend to highlight the positive aspects of the process, evidence suggesting either that private involvement has also led to efficiency problems or that other models not involving private sector participation may also be highly efficient while being less controversial in social and political terms is normally played down as rare and exceptional (Floris, 1998) or outright overlooked. Notwithstanding this, there are already well-known examples of private sector failure in the 1990s due to worsening efficiency standards in WSM, not only in developing countries but also in the developed world (Lorrain et. al,.1997; Morgan et. al., 1996; Haughton, 1996). Some authors have even argued that privatization, coupled with the dismantling of the public sector, has prompted an institutional crisis due to the withdrawal of crucial information (e.g. on water management) that was previously in the public domain and has become the property of private corporations (Dourojeanni, 1999). Unfortunately, the consequences of these events for the claims still being made about the pros of private involvement are rarely addressed objectively in the official literature and this proposal seeks to contribute in reversing this situation.

c) The future scenarios for the involvement of the private sector in Latin America and Africa. Current aid and investment programmes directed at improving WSS in developing countries over the next decade are based on the assumption that the private sector has a major role to play in ensuring an effective provision of these services to the majority of the population and, especially, the poor (World Bank-PPIAF; World Bank-BDP; UNDP-PPPUE). However, the involvement of the private sector has become increasingly controversial (Basañes et. al, 1999; World Bank, 1998) and projects are being challenged on technical, social and political grounds in many countries (Bond, 1997; PSIRU, 2002). This has caused the collapse or early abortion of WSS projects with strong private sector involvement in countries like Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Panama, among others. In most cases, the problem has been the lack of political accountability characterizing the forms of involvement of the private sector, especially privatization (Solanes, 1999), the virtual absence of a proper regulatory system to monitor the performance of the private operators (Solanes, 1999; Savedoff, 1999), or simply the ignorance about and indifference towards the local cultural, social and political conditions (Marvin et. al., 1999).

In this connection, we propose to investigate: what can be learnt from the recent experiences of success and failure in the regions under study regarding the challenges and opportunities facing the involvement of the private sector in WSS? What are the critical success conditions and crucial barriers for private participation in WSS in developing countries? How these factors may affect the future implementation and development of WSS systems with private sector involvement that are not only efficient but also socio-economic and environmentally sustainable and democratically accountable?



Anton, D. J. (1993), Thirsty Cities. Urban Environments and Water Supply in Latin America, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre (IDRC).

Basañes, F., E. Uribe, and R. Willig (1999), Can Privatization Deliver? Infrastructure for Latin America, Washington D.C.: Interamerican Development Bank (IDB).

Biondi, A. (1999), O Brasil privatizado, São Paulo: Fundação Perseu Abramo.

Black, M. (1994), Mega-slums: The Coming Sanitary Crisis, London: WaterAid.

Lorrain, D., and G. Stoker (1997), The Privatization of Urban Services in Europe, London: Pinter.

Martin, B. (1994), In the Public Interest? Privatization and Public Sector Reform, London: Zed Books Ltd.

McCarney, P. (ed.) (1996a), Cities and Governance. New Directions in Latin America, Asia and Africa, Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.

____________ (ed.) (1996b), The Changing Nature of Local Government in Developing Countries, Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (1995), Mexico City’s Water Supply. Improving the Outlook for Sustainability, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Savedoff, W. and P. Spiller (1999), Spilled Water. Institutional Commitment in the Provision of Water Services, Washington D. C.: Interamerican Development Bank (IDB).

Taylor, G. (1999), State Regulation & the Politics of Public Service. The Case of the Water Industry, London and New York: Mansell.

Chapters and articles

Alfaro, J. (1999), ‘Private sector participation: water business in Latin America and the Caribbean: a new approach’, in Water Engineering & Management, # 145/6, pp. 39-43.

Blokland, M., O. Braadbaart, and K. Schwartz (eds.) (1999), ‘Private Business, Public Owners. Government Shareholding in Water Enterprises’.

Gorbachev, M. (2000), "The Global Water Crisis", Introductory Article in Civilization, the Magazine of the US Library of Congress, October-November 2000, http://www.gci.ch/GreenCrossPrograms/waterres/waterresource.html.

Haarmeyer, D. (1994), ‘Privatizing infrastructure: options for municipal systems’, Journal AWWA, Vol. 86, #3, pp. 42-55.

Hardoy, A. and R. Schusterman (1999), ‘Las privatizaciones de los servicios de agua potable y saneamiento y los pobres urbanos’, in Medio Ambiente y Urbanización, Vol. 15, # 54, pp. 63-76.

Kraemer, R.A. (1998), ‘Public and private water management in Europe’, in F. N. Correia (ed.), Selected Issues in Water Resources Management in Europe. Vol. 2, Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, pp. 319-352.

Lee, T. R. and A. Jouravlev (1997), ‘Private participation in the provision of water services. Alternative means for private participation in the provision of water services’, (LC/L.1024), Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo # 2, Santiago de Chile, ECLAC.

MacDougall, N. A. (1999), ‘UWASAM establishes water and sanitation companies’, Kenya Engineer, Jan/Feb 1999, pp. 36-39.

Martin, B. (1996), ‘From the many to the few. Privatization and globalization’, in The Ecologist, Vol. 26, # 4, Jul/Aug 1996, pp. 145-155.

Marvin, S. and N. Laurie (1999), ‘An emerging logic of urban water management in Cochabamba, Bolivia’, in Urban Studies Vol. 36, #2.

Myers, C. (1997), ‘Privatization: value for money?’, in World Water and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 89, # 4, pp. 119-123.

Swyngedouw, E. (1997) ‘Power, nature and the city. The conquest of water and the political ecology of urbanization in Guayaquil, Ecuador: 1880-1980’, in Environment and Planning, Vol. 29, #2, pp. 311-332.

______________ (1995), ‘The contradictions of urban water provision’, Third World Review, Vol. 17, #4, pp. 387-405.

Reports, working papers

AWWARF (1999), ‘Balanced evaluation of public-private partnerships’, AWWA Research Foundation Project No. CH2M Hill. 12 p + CD-ROM.

Bond, P. (1997), ‘Privatization, protest and participation: citizen opposition to the World bank in Haiti and South Africa’, paper presented to the World Bank/NGO Dialogue on Privatization, Washington D.C.: Friends of the Earth/World Bank.

Britto, A. L. (2000), ‘Les mutations récentes dans la gestion de l'eau à Rio de Janeiro: nouvelles perspectives pour l'action publique et nouveaux rôles pour le secteur privé’, paper presented on the International Conference Faire parler les réseaux: l'Eau (Europe - Amérique Latine)’, Institut des Hautes Etudes de l'Amérique Latine, Paris, 20th – 21th January 2000.

Collignon, B. and M. Vézina (2000), ‘Independent Water and Sanitation Providers in African Cities. Full Report of a Ten-Country Study’, Washington, DC: UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program.

Dourojeanni, A. (1999), ‘Debate sobre el Código de Aguas de Chile’, (LC/R. 1924 – 30 July 1999), Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.

Floris, V. (1998), ‘Water and sanitation services and utilities privatisation in Latin America’, in ‘Report on the Second Workshop on Private Participation in Water Supply and Sanitation Utilities in the Americas (San José, Costa Rica, 3-6 February, 1998)’ (LC/R.1868 - 9 November 1998), Santiago de Chile: ECLAC, pp. 31-39.

Franceys, R. (1997), ‘Private sector participation in the water and sanitation sector’, WELL Task prepared for DFID, Water Resources Occasional Papers # 3, WEDC/IHE (also: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/occpaps/no3.htm).

Gidman, P., et. al. (1995), ‘Public-private partnerships in urban infrastructure services’, Urban Management Programme, Working Paper Series #4, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Haughton G. (1996) Private Profits — Public Drought: The Creation of a Crisis in Water Management for West Yorkshire, Sustainable Urban Development Working Paper Series 5, CUDEM, Leeds.

Idelovich, E. and K. Ringskog (1995), ‘Private sector participation in water supply and sanitation in Latin America,’ Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) / The World Bank.

IWSA (1997), ‘Public/private partnerships of water supply throughout the world’, IWSA World Congress.

Kerf, M., and W. Smith (1996), ‘Privatising Africa’s Infrastructure. Promise and Challenge’, World Bank Technical Paper 337, Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Lee, T. and A. Jouravlev (1998), ‘Prices, property and markets in water allocation’, (LC/L 1097 – February 1998), Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.

___________________ (1997), ‘Private participation in the provision of water services. Alternative means for private participation in the provision of water services’, Report LC/L.1024, Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.

Lobina, E., Hall, D. and Finger, M. (1999), ‘Alternative policies to water supply and sewerage privatisation: Case studies from Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America’, paper presented at the 9th Stockholm Water Symposium 1999, 9-12 August 1999.

Logan, D. (1995), ‘Private sector participation in the provision of water services for urban areas. Water in East Africa: French technologies’, Nairobi, Kenya.

Morgan, S. P. and J. I. Chapman (1996), ‘Issues Surrounding the Privatization of Public Water Service’, Sacramento: University of Southern California - Association of California Water Agencies.

Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) (2002), PSIRU Reports, Greenwich: University of Greenwich (http://www.psiru.org).

Richard, B., and T. Triche (1994), ‘Reducing regulatory barriers to private sector participation in Latin America’s water and sanitation services’, Policy Research Working Paper 1322, TWUDD Water and Sanitation Division, World Bank.

Ríos B., M. and J. Quiroz C. (1995), ‘The market of water rights in Chile: major issues,’ Santiago de Chile: World Bank, Technical Department for the Latin American and Caribbean Region.

Rivera, D. (1996), Private Sector Participation in the Water Supply and Wastewater Sector: Lessons from Six Developing Countries. A Directions in Development Book, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Samson, P., and B. Charrier (1997), "International freshwater conflict. Issues and prevention strategies", Geneva: Green Cross International.

Silva, G., N. Tyman, and Y. Yumaz (1998), ‘Private participation in the water and sewerage sector – recent trends’, in Public Policy for the Private Sector, Note #147, August 1998, Washington D.C.: The World Bank – Finance, private Sector and Infrastructure Network.

Smout, I. (Ed.) (1996), ‘Water and NGOs’, Loughborough: Water, Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC), Institute of Development Engineering, Loughborough University.

Solanes, M. (1999), ‘Servicios públicos y regulación’ (LC/L 1203 – 10 May 1999), Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.

Thobani, M. (1995), ‘Tradable property rights to water,’ Santiago de Chile: World Bank, Technical Department for the Latin American and Caribbean Region.

van Damme, H. and A. Chatterjee (1999), ‘Vision 21. Building a shared vision for water supply and sanitation. A framework for action’, Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC).

Webb, P. and M. Iskandarani (1998), ‘Water insecurity and the poor’, Discussion Papers on Development Policy, Bonn: Center for Development Research.

Webster, M. & K. Sansom (1999), ‘Public-private partnership and the poor: an initial review’, WELL Study, Task # 164 (also: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/studies/contents.htm).

Official publications

Department for International Development (DFID) (2000), Strategies for Achieving the International Development Targets. Addressing the Water Crisis – Healthier and More Productive Lives for Poor People (Consultation Document), London: DFID.

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) (1999), ‘La dinámica del desarrollo sustentable y sostenible’, (LC/R 1925 – 30 July 1999), Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.

_______ (1999b) ‘Informe de la Primera Sesión Parlamentaria Latinoamericana de Políticas Hídricas’, (LC/R. 1876 – 19 January 1999), Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.

_______ (1997-1999), Network for Cooperation in Integrated Water Resource Management for Sustainable Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Circular (several issues), Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.

_______ (1998), ‘Progress in the privatization of water-related public services: a country-by-country review for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean’, (LC/R.1697/Rev.1 - 5 February 1998), Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.

_______ (1998b) ‘Report on the Second Workshop on Private Participation in Water Supply and Sanitation Utilities in the Americas (San José, Costa Rica, 3-6 February, 1998)’ (LC/R.1868 - 9 November 1998), Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.

_______ (1998c) ‘Informe de la Primera Sesión Parlamentaria Latinoamericana de Políticas Hídricas’, (LC/R. 1876 – 19 January 1999), Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.

_______ (1997), ‘Progress in the privatisation of water related public services: a country by country review for South America’, Report No LC/R 1697/Add. 1., Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.

_______ (1996), ‘Conceptualising, modelling, and operationalising sustainable development: a feasible task?’, Report No LC/R. 1620), Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.

_______ (1994), ‘La crisis de la empresa pública. Las privatizaciones y la equidad social,’ Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.

European Commission (1998), ‘Towards sustainable water resources management: a strategic approach. Guidelines for water resources development co-operation for DGVIII and DGIB’, Brussels: European Commission.

Global Water Partnership (1998), A Strategic Plan for the Global Water Partnership, Semi-Annual Consultative Group Meeting, Marseille, 17-18 March 1998.

Interamerican Development Bank (IDB) (2000), Development Beyond Economics. Economic and Social Progress in Latin America, Washington D.C.: IDB.

________ (1998) Facing up to Inequality in Latin America. Economic and Social Progress in Latin America, Washington D.C.: IDB.

UNCHS/Habitat (1999), ‘Privatization of Municipal Services in East Africa. A Governance Approach to Human Settlements Management’ (http://www.unchs.org/unchs/planning/privat/contents.htm).

____________ (1996), ‘An urbanizing world. Global report on human settlements 1996’, Oxford: Oxford University Press / Habitat.

_____________ (1991) ‘Urbanisation: water supply and sanitation sector challenges’, paper presented at the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council Global Forum, Oslo, 18-20 September 1991.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (1998), ‘Cross-cutting problem areas for public-private collaborations in urban environmental services (water, waste and energy)’, Public-Private

Partnerships for the Urban Environment (PPPUE), New York: UNDP.

______ (1997) Governance for Sustainable Growth and Equity, New York: UNDP.

UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (1999), Water and Sanitation Services for the Poor: Innovating through Field Experience Program Strategy: 1999–2003, Washington: UNDP-World Bank.

Water and Environmental Health at London and Loughborough (WELL) (1998), Guidance Manual on Water Supply and Sanitation Programmes, London and Loughborough: Department for International

Development (DFID), Water, Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC), and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).

World Bank (1998), Facilitating Private Involvement in Infrastructure: an Action Programme, Washington D. C.: World Bank.

__________ (1994), Managing Water Supply and Sanitation: Operation and Maintenance, #5, 5 November 1994, Washington D. C.: World Bank.

Ongoing projects

Business Partners for Development (BPD), International Partnerships between Businesses, Governments, and Civil Society, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Public-Private Partnerships for the Urban Environment (PPPUE), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York: UNDP.

Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF), World Bank – Governments of Japan, Switzerland, United Kingdom – UNDP.

Public-private Partnerships and the Poor in Water and Sanitation (1999-2003), Water, Engineering and Development Centre, Loughborough University – International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London – Halcrow Management Sciences, Swindon.

home | activities | case studies | contact | disclaimer | dissemination | documents | newsletter | objectives | overview | partners | associated institutions | archive | publications

[an error occurred while processing this directive]