WATER JUSTICE TOOLKIT PUBLIC WATER FOR ALL

Remunicipalization: a practical guide for communities and policy makers

Author: Satoko Kishimoto

With contributions from: Meera Karunananthan, Susan Spronk

Over the past 15 years there has been a signifi- cant rise in the number of communities that have taken private water and sanitation services back into public hands – a phenomenon referred to as remunicipalization. This guide is designed to give local activists and decision makers a better under- standing of this growing trend, and provide some strategies about how to move forward with local remunicipalization campaigns. What is remunicipalization? Remunicipalization refers to the return of privatized and sanitation services to public ser- vice delivery. More precisely, remunicipalization is the passage of water services from privatization in any of its various forms – including private owner- ship of assets, outsourcing of services, and public- private partnerships (PPPs) to full public ownership, management and democratic control. Why are cities

Most cases of remunicipalization around the world remunicipalizing? have led to the termination of private contracts be- Remunicipalization is often a collective response to fore they were due to expire. In other cases, local the failures of and PPPs, includ- governments have waited until the expiry date to ing lack of infrastructure investments, tariff hikes end water privatization. and environmental hazards. These failures have persuaded communities and policy makers that the Between March 2000 and March 2015 researchers public sector is better placed to provide affordable, documented: accessible, quality services to citizens. The research found that the factors leading to water remunicipal- • 235 cases of water remunicipalization in 37 ization are similar worldwide, such as: countries, affecting more than 100 million 1 people. • Poor performance (Accra,15 Dar es Salaam,16 Jakarta17). • Locations include Accra2 (Ghana); Almaty3 (Ka- 4 5 zakhstan); Antalya (Turkey); Bamako (Mali), • Under-investment in infrastructure (Berlin,18 6 Bogota (Colombia), Budapest (Hungary), Bue- ,19 Latur20). nos Aires7 (Argentina), Conakry (Guinea), Dar es Salaam8 (Tanzania), Jakarta9 (Indonesia), Jo- • Poor water quality (Rennes,21 Cameron22). hannesburg (South ), Kampala (Uganda), Kuala Lumpur10 (Malaysia), La Paz11 (Bolivia), • Disputes over operational costs and price in- 23 24 25 Maputo12 (Mozambique) and Rabat13 (Moroc- creases (Almaty, Maputo, Santa Fe ). co). • Soaring water bills (Buenos Aires,26 Jakarta,27 28 29 • The number of remunicipalizations in high- La Paz, Kuala Lumpur ). income countries doubled between 2010 and • Environmental hazards (Hamilton30). 2015 (104 cases) compared to between 2005 14 and 2009 (55 cases). • Monitoring difficulties (Atlanta,31 Berlin,32 Par- is,33 Arenys de Munt34). • Public water operators are joining forces with- in countries and across borders to facilitate • Lack of financial transparency (Grenoble,35 the remunicipalization process. Paris,36 Stuttgart37).

• Workforce cuts and poor service levels (Anta- lya,38 Atlanta39).

WATER JUSTICE TOOLKIT PUBLIC WATER FOR ALL Remunicipalization 2 Empirical research based on the experiences of communities around the world within a number of different sectors and services shows PPPs offer no significant efficiency improvements over publicly delivered services.43

A recent World Bank study shows that PPPs have dismal results around the world despite its staunch promotion of privatization. In 2014, the Indepen- dent Evaluation Group (IEG) of the World Bank Privatization and PPPs admitted that “despite the group’s central goal of don’t work fighting poverty, little is recorded on the effects of PPPs on the poor.”44 The World Bank funded 353 A public-private partnership (PPP) is a contract PPP projects from 2002 to 2012 and out of these, between a government and a private company 128 projects were evaluated in the study. Only 10 under which the private company finances, builds projects out of 128 showed results of improved and operates some element of a service that was service quality, eight showed improvements in ef- 40 traditionally considered a government’s domain. ficiency, and only one had improved fiscal results. PPPs and water privatization are one and the same Improved access to services for the poor could only thing: both terms refer to the transfer of manage- be confirmed in about 10 per cent of cases. Further- ment control to the private sector, either in part or more, a report by the European Network on Debt 41 in whole. and Development sharply concludes that “PPPs Privatization and PPPs are often introduced by (lo- are, in most cases, the most expensive method of financing, significantly increasing the cost to the cal) governments hoping to reduce public debt, in- 45 crease service efficiency, and introduce new tech- public purse.” nologies and new investment for infrastructure. Yet growing evidence shows that privatization through Messages for policy the creation of PPPs does not help communities reach these objectives. On the contrary, many ex- makers and local amples show how PPPs turn out to be worse for authorities public budgets in the long term, and lead to poor 1. Do not privatize in the first place services and a loss of democratic transparency. Policy makers and public officials who are consider- The growing list of remunicipalized utilities from ing transferring the management of water services around the world demonstrates that privatization to the private sector should consider the risks and and PPPs are socially and financially unsustainable. learn from the mistakes of other local authorities. The Portuguese Court of Auditors revealed the lack Privatization is often more expensive due tothe of transparency that is intrinsic in PPP contracts be- higher cost of private financing. According to the tween municipalities and private companies makes latest United Nations Conference on Trade and De- it difficult for municipalities to monitor the qual- velopment report, the scale of obligations and lia- ity of investments and to assess financial implica- bilities that governments have incurred through the tions.42 use of PPPs has been surprisingly high.46 The same report also says: “PPPs are generally more costly than traditional procurement or provision of servic- es through the public sector if only because govern- ments can borrow more cheaply than the private sector. A review by the United Kingdom’s National Audit office (2015) found that private finance deals WATER JUSTICE TOOLKIT PUBLIC WATER FOR ALL Remunicipalization 3 were charged an interest rate that was double that and national public water associations, as well as of all government borrowing.47 This trend has been civic organizations are increasingly prepared to consistent over time. In 2010, Infrastructure UK es- provide concrete support for remunicipalization. timated that the cost of capital for public funding See the section on public-public and public-com- was 3.9 per cent, compared with costs of up to 6.9 munity partnerships in this toolkit to learn about per cent for firms operating in regulated markets how solidarity, cooperation and partnerships- be (e.g. privatized water or electricity utilities). States tween public authorities can lead to more demo- can borrow money more cheaply than the private cratic, inclusive, and sustainable water services. sector because of the superior security of tax rev- enues. Private investors not only have to pay higher interest, but also face the risk of being unable to secure long term return on investments.48

For all of these reasons, water privatization and PPPs are far more costly for local communities and their governments in the long run. Unfortunately, terminating unsatisfactory private contracts- be fore their expiry date is not easy to do as states risk paying the private companies millions of dollars in compensation. It is better to avoid privatization in the first place. What have been In Argentina, nine of 18 concession contracts in the results of water and sanitation services were terminated be- tween 1997 and 2008. Six cases were brought by in- remunicipalization? vestors before the World Bank’s International Cen- While each case differs, there is strong evidence tre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). In that remunicipalization brings immediate cost sav- April 2015, the ICSID ordered Argentina to pay $405 ings, operational effectiveness, increased invest- million to the French company Suez for damages re- ment in water systems, and higher levels of trans- lating to the termination of a water and wastewater parency. In many instances, remunicipalization has management concession contract in Buenos Aires offered a chance to make public water services in 2006.49 more accountable and participatory, and to build environmentally sustainable models. 2. Remunicipalization can fix the broken promises of water privatization and PPPs. Specifically, remunicipalization provides:

There is much that can be learned from other pub- • Immediate direct savings for most of the mu- lic authorities and communities about how -to re nicipalities. Remunicipalization allowed the municipalize and promote quality public water city of Houston, Texas in the United States services. Policy makers who are considering termi- to save US $2 million annually (representing nating contracts with private operators due to un- a cost savings of 17 per cent). Paris, France satisfactory results can learn precious lessons from saved €35 million in the first year of remunici- more than 235 cities that have successfully remu- palization. nicipalized their water services. Remunicipalization provides a chance to reinvent public water services • More competitive rates by contracting local and make them more effective and accountable to water service providers, which contributes the local community. Public operators, regional to the regional economy. In comparison, mul- tinational companies tend to use their own subsidiary companies and overcharge for ser-

WATER JUSTICE TOOLKIT PUBLIC WATER FOR ALL Remunicipalization 4 vices. For example, in Arenys de Munt, Spain, the private concessionaire was charging fees What are the risks of nearly four times higher to expand the munici- remunicipalization? pal network. For municipalities seeking to reclaim water • Increased investments in water systems. and sanitation services, there are some risks Without the obligation of generating profits to consider. for shareholders, the public sector typically Litigation: If the contract is terminated before it reinvests revenues to improve the system as expires private operators can obtain compensa- shown in Dar es Salaam50 (Tanzania), Berlin51 tion for the full profits granted under the contract. (Germany) and Medina Sidonia52 (Spain). When municipalities claim a breach of contractual • A long-term vision for infrastructure devel- obligations private operators often contest this in opment. After remunicipalization, cities were court. Castres (France) was forced to pay €30 mil- more likely to plan long-term to reduce pollu- lion to Suez to compensate for investments despite tion in rivers and waterways by building and the fact that the contract had been illegally signed upgrading wastewater plants and expanding by former Mayor Jacques Limouzy without proper 57 sewer networks (in Hamilton, Canada, Santa consultation with the town council. Fe, Gladewater and Reidsville in the U.S. and Investor-state disputes: Investor-state dispute set- in Buenos Aires, Argentina). Investment plans tlement (ISDS) provisions in trade agreements allow are often coordinated and paid for with- re multinational companies to sue states over policies, gional government contributions. laws or regulations that infringe on their profits, • Low income households have better access even if they are in the public interest. ISDS provi- to water. Social benefits accrue from restruc- sions are included in numerous bilateral investment tured tariff systems to guarantee equitable ac- treaties and are likely to be extended in the Trans- cess to water for low-income households. This atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), happened in Arenys de Munt53 (Spain) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Canada-Eu- Buenos Aires54 (Argentina). ropean Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and Trade in Services Agreement • Greater accountability and transparency. In (TiSA). Water multinationals have already used ISDS Paris55 and Grenoble56 (France), the new public provisions to claim significant amounts of public water operators introduced expanded forms money in compensation for cancelled service man- of public participation. agement contracts despite failing to meet their own contractual obligations. Private concessionaires • Better coordination across sectors and juris- sued Tucuman and Buenos Aires (Argentina) to ob- dictions. Remunicipalization provides the abil- tain compensation. ity to engage in coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, which is often essential on Degraded assets. If the remunicipalization process issues such as watershed management and takes place over a long period, private operators of- climate change adaptation more generally. ten let assets degrade, as was the case in Buenos Aires (Argentina).58

Poor access to information. In many cases the pri- vate companies refuse to release critical operation- al information to the new public utility or local gov- ernment. For example, proprietary software used to manage billing, water meter data collection, and monitoring maintenance works was withheld in Paris (France).59 WATER JUSTICE TOOLKIT PUBLIC WATER FOR ALL Remunicipalization 5 Remunicipalization is about building better public Citizen mobilization services – more transparent, more accountable, Many of the successful remunicipalizations more efficient and more focused on people’s needs achieved around the world would not have been over the long term. If citizens are willing to fight for possible without the tireless mobilization of com- remunicipalization and against privatization, it is mitted citizens. because they believe that the public sector is better equipped to meet broader social and environmen- Here are some of the things they did: tal goals. They believe the public sector is in a bet- ter position to address fundamental issues such as Legal challenge: In Jakarta,60 citizens studied the affordability and equity, climate change adaptation, problems of privatization – despite for years- hav water conservation and the protection of ecosys- ing limited access to information – in order to chal- tems, as opposed to private companies, which are lenge the private contracts in court.61 focused on profit. Referenda: Berliners had to organize a referendum to demand that the secret private water privatiza- tion contracts be disclosed.62 A referendum calling for a nation-wide end to privatization was also used in Uruguay,63 eventually leading to the remunicipal- ization of water and sanitation services.

Public pressure on local authorities: Pressure from citizens swayed local authorities’ positions on priva- tization in Hamilton64 (Canada), Stuttgart65 (Germa- ny), Grenoble,66 Rennes,67 Montpellier68 (France), Arenys de Munt69 (Spain), Stockton (U.S.) and Bue- nos Aires70 (Argentina). The role of citizens and so- cial movements illustrates that ultimately more is at stake than just a shift from private to public owner- ship in remunicipalization.

Protests: In many cases, people have exerted pres- sure on decision makers and gained public support by taking to the streets. In 2000, the Bolivian gov- ernment canceled a private contract for water ser- vices in Cochabamba with a subsidiary of Bechtel after a wave of demonstrations where tens of thou- sands of people took to the streets in protest.

Water activists march in San Salvador. Photo by Meera Karunananthan

WATER JUSTICE TOOLKIT PUBLIC WATER FOR ALL Remunicipalization 6 Lessons learned from An example of remunicipalization – Latur, India public-public partnerships India has become one of the main targets of Partnerships with other local authorities and public water multinationals. There are 20 known PPPs operators can generate economies of scale. These in 13 cities in India, but they are encountering public-public partnerships (PuPs) can strengthen significant problems and stiff public resistance. operators’ capacities to solve problems. National and regional public water operators’ associations Latur was the first Indian city to return its wa- (e.g. France Eau Publique, German DWA and Aqua ter service to public hands. In 2008, a 10-year Publica Europea) are also sharing knowledge and management contract was awarded to the providing peer-to-peer support to facilitate remu- Delhi-based firm SPML. SPML took charge of nicipalization. Latur’s water operations, metering and billing, with no substantial contract provision for infra- Remunicipalization is an opportunity for trade structure investments and network expansion unions not only to improve working conditions, but even though these were identified as key prob- also to push for greater worker participation in the lems with the water services in the city. SPML governance of new public companies to rebuild received a fixed management fee, calculated on public service values. Performance must be mea- the basis of an internal rate of return of 19.6%. sured by indicators that enable the articulation of Water rates were increased and heavy meter public service values, and must go beyond current and connection fees were introduced, with- benchmarking systems that are driven by financial out any improvements in the service. This led performance evaluation and account for the “pub- to the widespread non-payment of water bills, lic” character of services.71 protests and even riots. Late in 2011, SPML de- clared it would suspend its operations in Latur From Jakarta to Paris, from Germany to the United because of its inability to operate the service ef- States, remunicipalization offers opportunities for fectively. The public operator, MJP, took over in developing socially desirable, environmentally sus- January 2012. tainable and quality water services that will benefit present and future generations.

WATER JUSTICE TOOLKIT PUBLIC WATER FOR ALL Remunicipalization 7 ü Information systems are essential in service provision (e.g. billing, data collection) and great care has to be given to their transfer to the public utility. Private companies may not cooperate fully in this transfer of information. Arenys de Munt (Spain) was given incomplete, encrypted and illegible information from the previous private owner. A checklist for citizens ü Political will is important for remunicipaliza- and policy makers tion to succeed. Engaged city councils can As you prepare to remunicipalize water, please con- greatly help by seeking information and sup- sider the following: port from other councils that have successfully remunicipalized services. ü Verify the private contract to see if there is a “termination for convenience” clause. This al- ü Wherever feasible, consult and involve work- lows municipalities to exit the arrangement ers and their trade unions from the early stages early for any reason as long as the private op- of remunicipalization. Their knowledge on the erator is given sufficient notice, although mu- day-to-day operations of the water network nicipalities may have to pay termination fees. and service is comprehensive. Social dialogue on how to harmonize wage and conditions for ü In the event of serious contract violations, you all staff is needed to reach mutual agreement. may need to pursue “termination for cause,” which may allow breaking the contract with- ü Social dialogue can be expanded to have a out compensation. However, municipalities broader discussion on what kind of public wa- may have to submit to legal arbitration. ter company to (re)build. It is useful to explore how to better reflect the knowledge, commit- ü Find out if your country has signed a bilateral ment and demands of workers and users in the investment treaty with the country of origin new public model. Public utilities can innovate of the private water operator. If so, extra at- by involving users and workers in strategic de- tention will need to be paid to avoid an ISDS cision making. This process will make the new lawsuit before an international arbitration tri- public company transparent and accountable. bunal. ü Develop indicators to measure the success of ü Prepare well. It may take at least two years to the new public model. In addition to measur- examine the best way to terminate and to (re) ing financial performance and operational -ef establish the new public company. In the case ficiency, consider how to measure the quality of Paris, France the process to remunicipalize of services through the lens of equity and sus- took close to seven years. tainability.

ü Do not waste precious time renegotiating with ü Search for public operator partner(s) to en- the private company. The city of Buenos Ai- hance local capacity, if needed. res spent six years trying to renegotiate and ended up remunicipalizing as a last resort. Ja- karta spent four years in renegotiation without much gain. These years can be better spent on preparing a remunicipalization strategy in- stead.

WATER JUSTICE TOOLKIT PUBLIC WATER FOR ALL Remunicipalization 8 More resources: Endnotes Remunicipalisation: Putting Water Back into 1. Kishimoto S., Lobina E. & Petitjean O. Our Public Water Future: The global experience with remunicipalisation. 2015: Public Hands https://www.tni.org/en/publication/our-public-water-future 5-minute video animation (English, Span- 2. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Ghana” http://www. ish, French, Italian, Portuguese, German, remunicipalisation.org/#case_Ghana (accessed Jan26, 2016) Turkish, Greek): http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=BlSM1TPm_k8 3. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Almaty” http://www. remunicipalisation.org/#case_Almaty (accessed Jan26, 2016)

4. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Antalya” http://www. Our Public Water Future: The global remunicipalisation.org/#case_Antalya (accessed Jan26, 2016) experience with remunicipalisation 5. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Mali” http://www. (English, French, Catalan, Italian) April 2015: remunicipalisation.org/#case_Mali (accessed Jan26, 2016) https://www.tni.org/en/publication/our-public- 6. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Budapest” http:// water-future www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Budapest (accessed Jan26, 2016) Global list of remunicipalisations (March 7. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Buenos Aires” http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Buenos%20Aires 2015) (accessed Jan26, 2016) Available at: https://www.tni.org/files/download/ 8. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Dar es Salaam” ourpublicwaterfuture-02_global_list.pdf http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Dar%20es%20 Salaam (accessed Jan26, 2016) Here to Stay: Remunicipalisation as a global 9. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Jakarta” http://www. trend remunicipalisation.org/#case_Jakarta (accessed Jan26, 2016) (English, French, Japanese, Portuguese, Turkish, 10. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Selangor State” http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_ Selangor%20State Chinese and German) November 2014: https:// (accessed Jan26, 2016) www.tni.org/en/publication/here-to-stay-water- remunicipalisation-as-a-global-trend 11. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “La Paz and El Alto” http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_La%20Paz%20 and%20El%20Alto (accessed Jan26, 2016) http://www.municipalservicesproject.org/publica- tion/remunicipalisation-putting-water-back-public- 12. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Maputo” http://www. hands. remunicipalisation.org/#case_Maputo (accessed Jan26, 2016) 13. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Rabat-Salé region” http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Rabat-Salé%20 region (accessed Jan26, 2016)

14. Kishimoto S., Lobina E. & Petitjean O. Our Public Water Future: The global experience with remunicipalisation. 2015: https://www.tni.org/en/publication/our-public-water-future

15. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Ghana” http://www. remunicipalisation.org/#case_Ghana (accessed Jan26, 2016)

16. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Dar es Salaam” http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Dar%20es%20 Salaam (accessed Jan26, 2016)

17. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Jakarta” http://www. remunicipalisation.org/#case_Jakarta (accessed Jan26, 2016)

18. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Berlin” http://www. remunicipalisation.org/#case_Berlin (accessed Jan26, 2016)

WATER JUSTICE TOOLKIT PUBLIC WATER FOR ALL Remunicipalization 9 19. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Buenos Aires” 37. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Stuttgart” http:// http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Buenos%20Aires www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Stuttgart (accessed Jan26, (accessed Jan26, 2016) 2016)

20. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Latur” http://www. 38. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Antalya” http://www. remunicipalisation.org/#case_Latur (accessed Jan26, 2016) remunicipalisation.org/#case_Antalya (accessed Jan26, 2016)

21. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Rennes” http://www. 39. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Atlanta” http://www. remunicipalisation.org/#case_Rennes (accessed Jan26, 2016) remunicipalisation.org/#case_Atlanta (accessed Jan26, 2016)

22. Jay Ermis. “Cameron settles with Severn Trent.” Temple 40. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Daily Telegram, November 27, 2013 http://www.tdtnews. “Trade and Development Report 2015.” http://unctad.org/en/ com/news/article_3d266ba6-5717-11e3-9840-001a4bcf6878. PublicationsLibrary/tdr2015_en.pdf html 41. Lobina, Emanuele. Our public water future: calling for 23. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Almaty” http://www. progressive water policies. 2015. https://www.tni.org/files/ remunicipalisation.org/#case_Almaty (accessed Jan26, 2016) download/ourpublicwaterfuture-01_introduction.pdf. Page 7

24. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Maputo” http://www. 42. Tribunal de Contas. 2014. Regulação de PPP no Sector remunicipalisation.org/#case_Maputo (accessed Jan26, 2016) das Águas (sistemas em baixa). 27 February. http://www. tcontas.pt/pt/actos/rel_auditoria/2014/2s/audit-dgtc-rel003- 25. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Sante Fe Province” 2014-2s.shtm http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_ Sante%20Fe%20 Province (accessed Jan26, 2016) 43. Public Services & The EU. “Public and Private Sector Efficiency: a briefing for the EPSU congress by PSIRU .” http:// 26. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Buenos Aires” www.epsu.org/IMG/pdf/PSIRU_efficiency.pdf. Page7 http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Buenos%20Aires (accessed Jan26, 2016) 44. World Bank Group. “World Bank Group Support to public-private partnerships.” http://ieg.worldbank.org/ 27. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Jakarta” http://www. evaluations/world-bank-group-support-ppp. Page 66 remunicipalisation.org/#case_Jakarta (accessed Jan26, 2016) 45. Jose Romero, Maria. What Lies Beneath? A critical 28. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “La Paz and El Alto” assessment of PPPs and their impact on sustainable http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_La%20Paz%20 development. N.p.: European Network on Debt and and%20El%20Alto (accessed Jan26, 2016) Development, 2015. http://www.eurodad.org/files/ pdf/55deebe30f047.pdf 29. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Selangor State” http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_ Selangor%20State 46. Trade and Development Report. 2015. Page 164 (accessed Jan26, 2016) 47. National Audit Office. “The Choice of finance for 30. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Hamilton” http:// Capital Investment.” https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/ www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Hamilton (accessed Jan26, uploads/2015/03/The-choice-of-finance-for-capital- 2016) investment.pdf

31. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Atlanta” http://www. 48. Hall, David, and Emanuele Lobina. “Financing Water remunicipalisation.org/#case_Atlanta (accessed Jan26, 2016) and Sanitation: public realities.” Public Services International Research Unit Page 6. http://www.psiru.org/sites/default/ 32. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Berlin” http://www. files/2012-03-W-finance.docx remunicipalisation.org/#case_Berlin (accessed Jan26, 2016) 49. “ICSID: Argentina must pay Suez.” http://www. 33. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Paris” http://www. buenosairesherald.com/article/186366/icsid-argentina-must- remunicipalisation.org/#case_Paris (accessed Jan26, 2016) pay-suez 34. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Arenys de Munt” 50. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Dar es Salaam” http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Arenys%20de%20 http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Dar%20es%20 Munt (accessed Jan26, 2016) Salaam (accessed Jan26, 2016) 35. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Grenoble” http:// 51. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Berlin” http://www. www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Grenoble (accessed remunicipalisation.org/#case_Berlin (accessed Jan26, 2016) Jan26, 2016) 52. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Medina Sidonia” 36. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Paris” http://www. http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_ Medina%20 remunicipalisation.org/#case_Paris (accessed Jan26, 2016) Sidonia (accessed Jan26, 2016)

WATER JUSTICE TOOLKIT PUBLIC WATER FOR ALL Remunicipalization 10 53. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Arenys de Munt” 65. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Stuttgart” http:// http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Arenys%20de%20 www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Stuttgart (accessed Jan26, Munt (accessed Jan26, 2016) 2016)

54. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Buenos Aires“ 66. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Grenoble” http:// http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Buenos%20Aires www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Grenoble (accessed (accessed Jan26, 2016) Jan26, 2016)

55. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Paris” http://www. 67. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Rennes” http://www. remunicipalisation.org/#case_Paris (accessed Jan26, 2016) remunicipalisation.org/#case_Rennes (accessed Jan26, 2016)

56. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Grenoble” http:// 68. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Montpellier” http:// www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Grenoble (accessed www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Montpellier (accessed Jan26, 2016) Jan26, 2016)

57. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Castres” http://www. 69. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Arenys de Munt” remunicipalisation.org/#case_Castres (accessed Jan26, 2016) http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Arenys%20de%20 Munt (accessed Jan26, 2016) 58. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Buenos Aires“ http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Buenos%20Aires 70. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Buenos Aires“ (accessed Jan26, 2016) http://www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Buenos%20Aires (accessed Jan26, 2016) 59. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Paris” http://www. remunicipalisation.org/#case_Paris (accessed Jan26, 2016) 71. Bélanger Dumontier, M., McDonald, D. A., Spronk, S., Baron, C. and Wartchow, D. (2016). Social Efficiency and the 60. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Jakarta” http://www. Future of Water Operators’ Partnerships. MSP Occasional remunicipalisation.org/#case_Jakarta (accessed Jan26, 2016) Paper No. 29. Municipal Services Project. From: http://www. municipalservicesproject.org/publication/social-efficiency- 61. Transnational Institute. “Jakarta Court cancels World’s and-water-operators-partnerships biggest Water Privatisation after 18 year Failure.” March 25, 2015 https://www.tni.org/en/pressrelease/jakarta-court- cancels-worlds-biggest-water-privatisation-after-18-year- failure

62. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Berlin” http://www. remunicipalisation.org/#case_Berlin (accessed Jan26, 2016)

63. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Uruguay” http:// www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Uruguay (accessed Jan26, 2016)

64. Water Remunicipalization Tracker, “Hamilton” http:// www.remunicipalisation.org/#case_Hamilton (accessed Jan26, 2016)

WATER JUSTICE DECEMBER 2016 TOOLKIT PUBLIC WATER FOR ALL Remunicipalization 11