Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Front Envir Sci Eng    0, Vol. Issue () : 620-630    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-012-0425-8
RESEARCH ARTICLE
State versus private sector provision of water services in Armenia
Naira HARUTYUNYAN()
Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University, Nador u. 9, H-1051, Budapest, Hungary
 Download: PDF(316 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Despite increasing advocacy and adaptation of public-private model of water governance worldwide since the 1990s, today only 5% of the world’s population is served by water utilities with private involvement. The present article examines the experience of the water sector in Armenia with private sector participation. The study describes the process of the introduction of public-private partnerships in the water sector and focuses on analyzing the impact of privatization on water utility performance. The analysis employs the partial indicator method for evaluating the impacts in relation to operational, finance, and environmental performance, done by drawing on the database for the five water companies in Armenia. The empirical evidence shows that private participation in general led to improved overall performance. In particular, private involvement resulted in increased operational efficiency in terms of labor productivity, water metering, continuity of service, and revenue collection efficiency. There were mixed improvements in the operating cost coverage ratio. As for environmental performance, there were gains in the reduction of residential water consumption, accompanied, however, by an increase in non-revenue water.

Keywords water governance      water privatization      public-private partnership      operational efficiency      Armenia      transition economy     
Corresponding Author(s): HARUTYUNYAN Naira,Email:Harutyunyan_Naira@ceu-budapest.edu   
Issue Date: 01 October 2012
 Cite this article:   
Naira HARUTYUNYAN. State versus private sector provision of water services in Armenia[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 0, (): 620-630.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-012-0425-8
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y0/V/I/620
utility namecontractual formsoperatorservice areaperiod studied a)
Yerevan Djur1) management contractA.Utility (Italian consortium)Yerevan city and 32 rural settlements2000–2004
2) lease contractGeneral des Eaux, Veolia Water (France)Yerevan city and 32 rural settlements2005–2016
Armenian Water and ??Sewerage Companymanagement contractSaur (France)37 urban and 280 rural settlements2004–2008
Nor Akunqmanagement contractMVV (Germany) & AEG Service (Armenia)12 urban and rural settlements2003–2008
Shirak Water and ??Sewerage Companymanagement contractMVV (Germany) & AEG Service (Armenia)Gyumri city, 38 urban and rural settlements2005–2008
Lori Water and ??Sewerage Companymanagement contractMVV (Germany) & AEG Service (Armenia)17 urban and rural settlements2005–2008
Tab.1  Water utilities, privatization contracts, operators, and periods of data assessed
Fig.1  Water payment collection /%
Fig.2  Water metering level /%
Fig.3  Continuity of water supply service /(h·d)
Fig.4  Number of staff per 1000 connection
Fig.5  Labor costs versus operational costs /%
Fig.6  Total water consumption /(L·person·d)
Fig.7  Residential water consumption /(L·person·d)
Fig.8  Non-revenue water /%
Fig.9  Ratio of operational revenues and operating costs
Fig.10  Tariffs (Armenian dram per cubic meter) in constant 2000 prices
Fig.11  Efficiency gains/losses: (a) Nor Akunq; (b) Yerevan Djur
Fig.12  Overall performance indicator/%
rankbeforeafter
1LoriYerevan Djur
2ShirakNor Akunq
3AWSCLori
4Nor AkunqShirak
5Yerevan DjurAWSC
Tab.2  Water companies ranking
1 Economic Commission for Africa, United Nations Economic and Social Council (UN ECOSOC). Public-Private Partnerships for Service Delivery: Water and Sanitation. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Committee on Human Development and Civil Society , 2005
2 Foster V, Tiongson E R, Ruggeri Laderchi C. Utility Reforms. In: Coudouel A, Patermostro S, ed. Analyzing the Distributional Impact of Reforms: A Practitioner’s Guide to Trade, Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy, Utility Provision, Agricultural Markets, Land Policy and Education . Washington DC: World Bank, 2005, 73–143
3 Medalye J. Water governance. In: Cleveland C J, ed. The Encyclopedia of Earth ,April2008, http://www.eoearth.org/article/Water_governance
4 Marin Ph. Public-Private Partnerships for Urban Water Utilities: a Review of Experiences in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2009
5 Hall D, Lobina E. Water Privatization. London: Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), 2008
6 Davis J. Private-sector participation in the water and sanitation sector. In: Annual Review, ed. Annual Review of Environment and Resources . Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, 2005, 30: 145–183
doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144635
7 Renzetti S, Dupont D. The performance of municipal water utilities: evidence on the role of ownership. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part A: Current Issues , 2004, 67(20–22): 1861–1878
doi: 10.1080/15287390490492340
8 Ruester S, Zschille M. The impact of governance structure on firm performance–an application to the German water distribution sector. Utilities Policy , 2010, 18(3): 154–162
doi: 10.1016/j.jup.2010.03.003
9 Gassner K, Popov A, Pushak N. An Empirical Assessment of Private Sector Participation in Electricity and Water Distribution in Developing and Transitions Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2007
10 Hirschhausen C, Meinhart B. Infrastructure Policies and Liberalization in the East European Transition Countries – Would Less Have Been More? Proposal for the Annual Congress of the European Economic Association. Lausanne , Switzerland: Université de Lausanne, 2001
11 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Evaluating Infrastructure Reforms and Regulation: a Review of Methods. ACCC/AER working paper 2. Melbourne: ACCC/AER working paper series, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission , 2010
12 The World Bank. The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities (IBNET). http://www.ib-net.org/
13 Lampietti J, Kolb A, Gulyani S, Avenesyan V. Utility Pricing and the Poor. Lessons from Armenia . World Bank Technical Paper 497 . Washington, DC: World Bank, 2001
14 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Consumer Protection in Urban Water Sector Reform in Armenia: Ability to Pay and Social Protection of Low Income Households. Final Report , January2004, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/48/35052145.pdf
15 OECD. Promoting the Use of Performance-Based Contracts between Water Utilities and Municipalities in EECCA. Case study no. 2: Armenian Water and Wastewater Company. SAUR Management Contract , 2008, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/20/40572630.pdf
16 Efimova T. EECCA-wide trends of water utility performance. Presentation in OECD EAP Task Force, Helsinki , 2007
17 Corton M. Benchmarking in the Latin American water sector: the case of Peru. Utilities Policy , 2003, 11(3): 133–142
doi: 10.1016/S0957-1787(03)00035-3
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed