Abstract
The social dimension should be addressed in the sustainability of water services provision, but it is less well studied than the economic and environmental ones. The debate between pros and cons of water privatization led the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to publish a seminal paper on social issues in water pricing, back in 2003. Relying on this document and other literature review, we successively present various solutions to support “water-poor” people in the payment of their charges: reducing bills for targeted populations (rebates, increasing blocks), supporting the income of targeted populations, reducing bills for all customers, and reintroducing taxation as a source of income. A general outcome is that social tariff design entails administrative costs that may offset the benefits it is supposed to generate. Lastly, we advocate the development of new software to assess the redistributive effects of ongoing tariffs, and tariff changes between categories of residents and with the water utilities’ capacity to invest.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Water-poor here refers not to countries or regions but to people who experience difficulties in paying their water charges.
- 2.
In France, administrative law distinguishes public services that render a service to some beneficiaries, who then should pay for their use through billing, and other public services, called administrative, the cost of which is borne by citizens through taxation.
- 3.
The European Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban wastewater treatment was adopted on 21 May 1991. Its objective is to protect the environment from the adverse effects of urban wastewater discharges and discharges from certain industrial sectors. See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/index_en.html
- 4.
The 3Ts are tariffs, transfers, and taxes.
- 5.
Caisses d’allocations familiales—family benefits fund (benefits for low-income families with two children or more).
- 6.
American WaterWorks Association, the most important association of drinking water providers.
- 7.
Companhias Estaduais de Saneamento Básico.
- 8.
Typically in Libourne, a condominium with 100 flats would replace the collective meter subscription of 200 €/year and a uniform variable price, by a fixed part of 100 × 15 €/year, and a first block of 100 × 15 m3 at the “essential good” price of 0.1 €/m3, etc.
- 9.
CMU-C means couverture maladie universelle complémentaire: these families get full social security coverage.
- 10.
Within a sustainable cities program, this project dealt with the sustainability of water services in large cities. See http://eau3e.hypotheses.org
- 11.
The project was coordinated by B. Barraqué and involved seven partners, including Marielle Montginoul, and the public water supply utility of Paris.
- 12.
Such a tool is being developed by Ms Marie Tsanga Tabi in the Strasbourg research laboratory GESTE in ENGEES (Ecole Nationale du Génie de l’Eau et de l’Environnement). It is presented in the project’s blog: http://eau3e.hypotheses.org
References
AquaWal. (2009). Etude relative à l’impact sur les usagers des réformes en matière de tarification de l’eau et à l’estimation de l’emploi généré par le cycle anthropique de l’eau en Wallonie. Report for the Walloon region, Belgium. http://www.aquawal.be/servlet/Repository/rapport-final.pdf?ID=1377
AWWA (American Water Works Association). (2004). Thinking outside the bill: A utility manager’s guide to assisting low-income water customers. Denver: AWWA.
Barraqué, B. (2011). Is individual metering socially sustainable? The case of multifamily housing in France. Water Alternatives, 4(2), 223–244.
Boland, J. J., & Whittington, D. (2000). The political economy of water tariff design in developing countries: Increasing block tariffs versus uniform price with rebate. In A. Dinar (Ed.), The political economy of water pricing reforms (pp. 215–235). New York: Oxford University Press.
Britto, A. L. (2015). Políticas tarifárias e promoção do acesso ao saneamento no Brasil. In B. Barraqué & A. Britto (Eds.), Gestão Sustentável das Águas em Áreas Metropolitanas Brasileiras e Francesas: novas questões relacionadas ao acesso universal aos serviços de saneamento.ed. São Paulo: Annablume.
Burger, C., & Jansen, A. (2014). Increasing block tariff structures as a water subsidy mechanism in South Africa: An exploratory analysis. Development Southern Africa, 31(4), 553–562.
Coutard, O. (1999). L’accès des ménages à faible revenu aux services d’eau et d’énergie en France et en Grande-Bretagne. Flux Cahiers scientifiques internationaux Réseaux et territoires, 36–37, 7–15.
Domene, E., & Sauri, D. (2012). Water, public responsibility and equity: The Barcelona “water war” of the 1990s. In B. Barraqué (Ed.), Urban water conflicts (pp. 33–37). Paris: IHP-UNESCO and Taylor & Francis.
Fitch, M., & Price, H. (2002). Water poverty in England and Wales. Published jointly with the Centre for Utility Consumer Law under the auspices of the Public Utilities Access Forum (PUAF).
Komives, K., Foster, V., Halpern, J., Wodon, Q., with support from Roohi Abdullah (2005). Water, electricity and the poor: Who benefits from electricity subsidies? Washington, DC: The World Bank.
OECD. (2003). Social issues in the provision and pricing of water services. Paris: OECD.
Pflieger, G. (2008). Achieving universal access to drinking water and sanitation networks in Santiago de Chile: An historical analysis 1970–1995. Journal of Urban Technology, 15–1, 19–51.
Rajah, N., & Smith, S. (1993). Distributional aspects of household water charges. Fiscal Studies, 14(3), 86–108. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5890.1993.tb00488.x.
Smets, H. (2003). La solidarité pour l’eau potable—Aspects économiques. Paris: Académie de l’eau.
Smith, L. (2012). Conflict vs cooperation between the state and civil society: A water-demand management comparison between Cape Town and Johannesburg, South Africa. In B. Barraqué (Ed.), Urban water conflicts (Urban water, Vol. 8, pp. 147–168). Paris: IHP-UNESCO and Taylor & Francis.
van Humbeeck, P. (2000). The distributive effects of water price reform on households in the Flanders region of Belgium. In A. Dinar (Ed.), The political economy of water pricing reforms (pp. 279–295). New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barraqué, B., Montginoul, M. (2015). How to Integrate Social Objectives into Water Pricing. In: Dinar, A., Pochat, V., Albiac-Murillo, J. (eds) Water Pricing Experiences and Innovations. Global Issues in Water Policy, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16465-6_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16465-6_18
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16464-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16465-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)