Moving forward with the Global Review of PSP World Water Week, Stockholm, 23 rd August 2005.

1. Global Review of PSPMultistakeholder review of private sector participation in water and sanitation Moving forward with the Global Review of PSP World Water Week, Stockholm, 23rd August 2005. Presentation by members of the International Working Group, Global Review of PSP

2. Polarisation and conflict “The interests of the poor are not well served by the debate. Potentially good options are blocked and bad ones are followed.” Developing country water ministry official

3. ASSEMAE (Brazilian association of municipal water and sanitation public operators) Association of Private Water Operators of Uganda (domestic private sector association) Consumers International (International federation of consumer advocacy NGOs) Environmental Monitoring Group (South African NGO) Public Services International (International labour federation) RWE Thames Water (Multinational water services corporation) WaterAid (International development NGO) The PSP Review Working Group

4. Global Water Scoping Process: Participants by Type of Organisation 137 organisations participated; 316 individuals total

5. Participants by Region • AFRICA: Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Uganda • ASIA: India, Indonesia, and the Philippines • EUROPE/NORTH AMERICA: England, France, United States • SOUTH AMERICA: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile

6. Demand for a global review • Large majority thought global multistakeholder review is useful and/or necessary • Less than 10% cautious about review, or preferred to use or strengthen existing institutions for review • Less than 2% thought review not useful or necessary

7. What do we want to achieve? • The primary focus of the Review is on whether and howthe private sector, from SSIPs through to large private companies, can contribute to affordable and sustainable access to WSS, including the MDGs.

8. Major Review Themes • Financing water & sanitation services • Meeting the MDGs • Achieving good governance & accountability • Managing efficiently & effectively • Safeguarding public interests

9. How do we do it? • Locate review activities at national and sub-national levels • Provide neutral space to explore controversial issues • Provide framework questions to guide discussion • Promote a genuine inclusive multistakeholder process • Build implementation mechanisms into review process

11. Brazil country process Background • Huge privatization/concession program (1995-2002) • Failure on WSS: no ownership transfer (for “bulk” concessions) – top-down decision • Public vs private conflict paralysed new investments (including for public sector improvement!)

12. Brazil country process • Pioneering country multistakeholder group established 2003 • 13 national Multistakeholder meetings held • Detailed framework for national PSP review developed • In-country funds will be used

13. Brazil country process Methodology of the review: • Bring together all of the major stakeholders • Leave pre-conceived ideas outside the meeting room • Establish a regular work schedule • Develop ToR, taking into account the questions identified in phase I

14. Brazil country process Methodology of the review (cont.): • Raise funds • Establish the structure to run the Review • Contribute to the National Policy on WSS (currently in the National Congress) regarding the role of the private sector

15. Brazil country process Brazilian Working Group on PSP Review: ABCON (Braz. Assn. of Private Operators); ABDIB (Braz. Assn. of Infrastructure Industries); ABES (Braz. Assn. of WSS and Environmental Engineering); AESBE (Braz. Assn. of State-owned WSS Public Operators); AGUA E VIDA (WSS Research NGO); AIDIS (Interamerican Assn. of WSS and Environmental Engineering); ASFAMAS (Braz. Assn. of WSS Manufacturers); ASSEMAE (Braz. Assn. of Municipal WSS Public Operators); FNU (Natl. Trade Union, Utilities’ Workers); SNSA (Dept. of WSS, Ministry of the Cities) Coordinator: ABES Secretary: ABCON

17. South Africa country process • Range of stakeholders participating in interim multistakeholder Working Group (importance of including all players) • Initial steps: agreeing focus, developing budget, agreeing code of conduct, approach, basic definitions and problem statement • Mix between process/dialogue & evidence-based assessment • Focus on public & private sector delivery

18. South Africa country process (2) • Problem statement: address challenges faced by municipalities in meeting constitutional requirements (right of access to water) • Align with existing policy and institutional reform processes • Develop questions from phase I to guide the review

19. Value of review for South Africa • Increases meaningful participation in policy reform & development • Greater access to information • Greater transparency in decision making, e.g. on choice of water service provider • Learning from experiences to improve WSS delivery • Stronger regulation and governance • Action oriented: Findings feed directly into policy and implementation

21. Other countries • Uganda: First Multistakeholder meeting this week • Indonesia: First Multistakeholder Meeting in July • The Philippines: Initial discussions and first Multistakeholder meeting in November

22. Reasons to support this review • Provides unique process for participation, debate and… agreement • Enables conflict resolution based on common understanding • Identifies practical local solutions for better service delivery • Provides better information to policy makers • Contributes to ongoing local, national and global water reform processes

23. Moving Forward through the Global Review • “There has been a lot of conflicting information and policy makers, decision makers, consumers, and all others in the water sector are at a loss – they don’t know who is telling the truth, or what to learn from.” • - Consumer organisation, Africa

24. Divergent Experiences: PSP examples raised by Stakeholders – NOT assessed by Working Group