Global Water Market 2016 - GWI

What is the water market?
1. WATER MARKET OVERVIEW

1.1 WHAT IS THE WATER MARKET?
1.1.1 Defining the water market
Almost every human activity involves water. In that sense everything we do is part of the water market. This report, however,
aims to focus on the treatment and transport of water by municipal and industrial water users. This is the largest and richest
area of water-specific spending, and there is a strong overlap between companies selling into the municipal market and those
selling into the industrial market. The second largest area of water spending is for bottled water, followed by the point of use
market which includes domestic water softeners and filters, commercial water treatment machines for the food-service industry,
and other water systems which are fitted on the customer side of the water meter. This represents a distinct and separate market
with its own supply chain. The next largest area of spending is within agriculture, on irrigation. This market is fragmented and
with the exception of drip irrigation and hydroponics, generally low-tech. With the exception of pumps, pipes and valves, the
supply chain is very different. Beyond these areas there are a wide range of domestic and industrial cooling, heating, washing,
and transport processes which rely on water but which are more properly categorised in other industry sectors.
1.1.2 By end-user type: utility/industrial/commercial/agricultural

Total capital and operating expenditure on water infrastructure, equipment and services divides up between the main user
categories as follows:
Figure 1.1 The global water market, 2016

Bottled water 13.9%
Utility 67.2%
Agricultural 1.6%
Point of use 1.9%
Global
water market
Industrial 15.4%
$862bn
(2016)
Source: GWI
1.1.3 By spending type: capex/opex

This report divides spending between operating expenditure and capital expenditure, although the division between the two
is less clear cut in practice. On the utility side there are different ways in which maintenance spending is accounted for. For
example, some utilities will record pipe repair as a capital item, whereas others will record it as an operating item. Our approach
to calculating capex and opex is based on grossing up the data reported by utilities rather than attempting to apply a single
global distinction between what represents an operating cost and what represents a capital cost. In the industrial market there
is a grey area between expenditure on water and expenditure on processes which involve water. We focus more narrowly on
expenditures relating to treating and transporting water up until the stage at which it becomes involved in the industrial process,
and thereafter once that use is complete and it becomes wastewater. Some grey areas remain. For example, we would consider
an anti-scalant used to condition boiler feedwater to be an item under water opex, but a polymer used to increase the viscosity of
frac’ water in the unconventional oil and gas market to be a process expenditure.
Figure 1.2 The global water market: opex and capex, 2016
Industrial capex 2.8%
Industrial opex 15.9%
Global water
capex and opex
Utility opex 48.3%
$714bn
(2016)
Utility capex 33.0%

Source: GWI
© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] 1

water market overview
1.1.4 Capital expenditure on water

Within capex the main divisions are between expenditure on water resource development, desalination, water and wastewater
treatment, and water and wastewater networks. The water resource development category includes reservoirs (those built
primarily for the purposes of municipal water supply), and long distance transmission lines, but not dams generating
hydro-electric power (these tend not to be the responsibility of water utilities). The majority of this expenditure goes to local
construction companies, and to some extent local design firms. What makes water an increasingly global industry is technology
and finance.
Figure 1.3 Global water capex, 2016

Desalination 1.1%
Water resources 6.8%
Global water capex

Networks 53.1% Water and wastewater treatment 39.0%
$256bn
(2016)
Source: GWI
1.1.5 Operating expenditure on water

The operating expenditure is somewhat less of a market for private companies than capital expenditure. This is because the
majority of water utilities are publicly owned and are operated by public employees, while on the industrial side operations are
typically undertaken in-house by staff according to trades, and it is difficult to distinguish between water-specific expenditure
and general process expenditure. The main areas of expenditure which can be undertaken by private companies and therefore
constitute a market are chemical supply, consumables and replacement parts, services (such as ion exchange recharge or
laboratory analysis) and operations outsourcing.
Figure 1.4 Global water opex, 2016

Other 22.9%
Labour 35.0%
Global water opex

$458bn Oil & gas water services 6.3%
(2016)
Third party services 13.9%

Energy 11.5%
Chemicals 5.1%
Parts & consumables 5.3%
Source: GWI
1.2 MARKET DRIVERS

1.2.1 Scarcity and global warming
Water scarcity is the mismatch between local demand and local water availability. On a global level there are sufficient water
resources to provide for everyone, but locally the distribution is uneven. Essentially there are four different kinds of scarcity:
• Absolute water scarcity: 7.8% of the world’s population live in areas where the natural renewable water availability
is less than 1,000 m³/per capita per year. This proportion has grown over time for two reasons. First because of the
demographic trend for people to move away from cold wet areas to hot and dry ones (witness for example the growth
of cities such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Dubai); and, second because the availability of natural resources has
attracted populations to areas which would not otherwise be able to support them (for example the Eastern Province
of Saudi Arabia, Western Australia and the Rand in South Africa).
2 © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]

Market drivers
Figure 1.5 Water stress by region
Water stress
Low
High
Source: Adapted from WRI, 2015a
• Urban water scarcity: The growth of cities creates a water resourcing challenge even in regions where in theory there
should be plenty of water. For example Singapore enjoys 2,497 mm of annual rainfall against the global average of
715 mm, yet the population density is such that the natural renewable water resources per capita are just 111 m³/per
capita/year. The city state has two large desalination plants and is planning two more.
• Seasonal water scarcity: Many parts of the world receive all their rainfall within a few months of the year (e.g. India,
the savannah regions of Sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean). This need not be a problem if there is sufficient scope
for water storage (in aquifers, lakes and reservoirs for example), but often there are physical limits to the amount of
water that can be held over during the dry season and additional infrastructure is required.
Figure 1.6 Seasonal variability by region
Seasonal variability
Low
High
Source: Adapted from WRI, 2015b
• Drought-related scarcity: A region may generally have sufficient water resources, but be unable to meet its need in
the event of a drought. The propensity for severe droughts has increased with the on-set of global warming. Both
Australia and California have suffered millennial droughts in the past decade, while the Eastern Mediterranean
has suffered the worst drought in 900 years. The following map illustrates where severe droughts have been most
prevalent since 1900:

Figure 1.7 Drought severity by region
Drought severity
Low
High
Source: Adapted from WRI, 2015b
There are two ways in which a community might respond to scarcity: either to manage demand or to increase supply.
1.2.1.1 Demand management

The scope for demand management is usually defined by the nature of the water usage. Globally around 70% of water is used in
agriculture, 20% in industry and 10% by households. The following chart illustrates Unesco’s view of how these different sectors
of demand will evolve over the years until 2025:
Figure 1.8 The dynamics of water use, 1900–2025

3,500 Agricultural use
Municipal use
Industrial use
3,000
Reservoirs
2,500
Water withdrawal (km³/yr)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025
Source: Unesco
Demand management in agriculture is difficult because in many countries farmers do not expect to pay for water or to have
their right to use it limited in any way. Creating a water rights market is an effective means of addressing this problem, but such
markets only exist in the western United States, the Murray Darling Basin in Australia and in Israel. Most countries which suffer
from absolute water scarcity find it difficult to restrict agricultural water usage because of the fragility of their rural economies.
Demand management in industry tends to be driven primarily by pricing (i.e. water agencies charge significantly more for
water when they are selling to businesses than they do when they are selling to households), although this is often ineffective
because industrial water demand is relatively inelastic. In some countries (such as India) there is a move towards mandatory
water reuse targets as a means of improving water efficiency. Otherwise the main driver for water efficiency within companies is
environmental and social responsibility concerns; many businesses now set internal targets for water usage per unit of product.

Market drivers
Demand management in the domestic sector may involve rationing, restrictions on certain usages or pricing. Rationing and
restrictions are most effective during droughts, but politically difficult to sustain in the long term. Pricing is effective, but
politically unpopular.
1.2.2 Urbanisation and access to water

Urbanisation is a significant driver of demand for utility water services for two main reasons. First because demographic
growth in itself drives demand for water and wastewater services, and secondly because the level of service required in an urban
environment is greater than what is required in a rural environment (it is simply not practical for the population of a city to
collect their water from rivers or hand pumps; while on the wastewater side public health risk associated with under-provision
increases dramatically with population density).
In 1950 around a third of the global population lived in the countryside. Today that figure is just over half and by 2050 the figure
will be two thirds.
1.2.2.1 Water access

The biggest opportunity for water services lies at the bottom of the pyramid. According to the Joint Monitoring Programme for
the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) around 4.3 billion people out of a world population of 7.4 billion currently enjoy a
piped water service. Of the remainder, around 2.4 billion have access to an improved water supply such as a standpipe within
1 km of their household or a protected well. 663 million people are believed to rely on an unimproved water source. This suggests
that there is a 3 billion strong market for water connections, although the need for investment may be far greater than that figure
implies. Within the 4.3 billion people who have piped water connections to their household, only 1.8 billion people enjoy a reliably
potable 24/7 supply. The remaining 2.5 billion have a service which is either intermittent, non-potable or both.
Figure 1.9 Global access to drinking water

Reliable piped water supply Non-reliable piped water supply Other improved Unimproved
1.8 billion 2.5 billion 2.4 billion 0.7 billion
Global access to drinking water (2015)

7.4 billion people
Source: WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme
On the wastewater side there are two separate issues: access to toilets, and the management of wastewater. Most of the available
data on access to sanitation relates to the MDG for sanitation which conflates the two issues. It defines improved sanitation
variously as a flush toilet, a piped sewer system, a septic tank, an improved pit latrine, or a composting toilet. The Joint
Monitoring Programme reported that by 2015, 13% of the world’s population practised open defecation, 10% had unimproved
sanitation, 9% shared sanitation and 68% improved sanitation. GWI has conflated this data with data on sewer connections and
secondary wastewater treatment to estimate the current status of wastewater treatment as follows:
Figure 1.10 Global access to sanitation

Sewerage connection & no treatment 0.7 billion Truck collection & treatment 0.4 billion
Sewerage connection & treatment 2.0 billion Truck collection & no treatment 1.3 billion
Global access to sanitation (2015)

7.4 billion people
Improved & no collection 1.3 billion
Unimproved 0.7 billion
Open defecation 1.0 billion
Source: GWI estimates based on JMP and country data
Although the MDG period to 2015 saw improved sanitation rise from 54% of the world’s population to 68%, the reality is that
much of this progress was through improving access to septic tanks and pit latrines rather than an acceleration in the growth
rate of sewer networks.
The biggest obstacle to expanding access to water and sanitation is finance, both at the household level and at the utility level.
Low income households struggle to raise the money required to pay for connection charges, while utilities struggle to raise the
money to invest in new infrastructure, largely because they feel that it is incumbent on them not to charge cost recovery tariffs
for their services.

1.2.3 Regulation
Water is a highly regulated industry, both on the drinking water side, where public health is the main driver, and on the
wastewater treatment side where environmental protection is the main driver. New regulations drive markets. For example,
after the Milwaukee cryptosporidium outbreak of 1993 which killed more than 100 people, the US Environmental Protection
Agency introduced the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. This entailed a broad overhaul of drinking water
treatment systems across the country, creating opportunities for ultrafiltration (UF) membranes and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection
which had not previously existed.
Regulation on its own rarely drives markets, however. Many countries have extremely stringent drinking water and wastewater
treatment regulations on paper, but in practice there is no enforcement. In China, for example, before 2015 wastewater
regulations were widely ignored by industrial water users, not least because the level of the threatened fines was lower than the
cost of compliance. At the end of 2014 the country introduced a new Environmental Protection Law, and in March and April 2015
the government began to arrest and imprison offenders for the first time. It has sent a strong signal to industrial water users that
this time they need to take the regulations seriously.
Besides public health and environmental regulation, there are two other areas of regulation which create market opportunities.
The first is structural regulations that define the roles and responsibilities of different actors within the water sector. This can be
a market driver because the new structures open the way for additional investment or because they create new opportunities for
private sector participation. The second is economic regulation which determines the financial basis for investment in water and
wastewater infrastructure. This reflects the fact that water is a natural monopoly and, particularly where utilities are owned by
the private sector, there is a need to regulate pricing to balance investment needs and consumer interests. Economic regulation
exists for privately owned utilities in the UK, the US, and Chile. It exists for publicly owned utilities in Australia, Portugal and to
a lesser extent in Germany.
1.2.3.1 Major regulatory changes

The following countries have either recently introduced or are on the verge of introducing new regulations which will drive water-
related markets.
• China – Water Ten Rules: Otherwise known as the Water Pollution Action Plan, the Water Ten Rules outlines policy
and goals for addressing industrial water pollution. It threatens polluting industrial facilities with closure and
imposes stringent pollution control requirements on new facilities. It is expected to be a major driver of expenditure
on industrial wastewater treatment in China.
• India – New Central Pollution Control Board regulations and National River Ganga Basin Management Bill: These
are expected to have a widespread impact on both municipal and industrial wastewater treatment in India and to
be backed by active enforcement (polluters can be jailed for up to three years). Together the regulations are likely to
lead to new municipal wastewater utilities being set up across the country and a dramatic expansion of water reuse
within industry.
• Indonesia – New water law and restructuring of utility sector: Indonesia’s water utility sector has been deeply
indebted for more than two decades, limiting its ability to finance water projects. A 2015 Constitutional Court
decision made the situation worse by striking out the 2003 Water Law which formed the basis for private finance in
the water sector. In 2016, however, the government begun pushing through legislation to restructure the PDAMs
(water utilities) and write off their debts. This, together with a new water law clarifying the position of private
operators, is expected to ensure that the sector moves to a more financially sustainable model.
• Mexico – New water law: This was being debated in parliament as this report goes to press. It aims to strengthen
regulatory compliance in Mexico, and depoliticise the procurement process to be more favourable to public-private
partnerships.

Market drivers
1.2.3.2 European Union water regulation

The European Union is the main source of water and wastewater regulation within its member states. The most significant
pieces of regulation are issued as directives by the EU and transposed into national law. The directives most relevant for the water
sector are:
Figure 1.11 List of water-related EU directives

Regulation Source
The Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1998:330:0032:0054:EN:PDF
The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1991:135:0040:0052:EN:PDF
Commission Directive (98/15/EC) amending Council http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:139:0034:0034:EN:PDF
Directive (91/271/ EEC)
Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1986:181:0006:0012:EN:PDF
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/ EC) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:327:0001:0072:EN:PDF
Nitrates Directive (91/676/EC) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1991:375:0001:0008:EN:PDF
Priority Substance Directive (2008/105/ EC) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:348:0084:0097:EN:PDF
Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:372:0019:0031:EN:PDF
Drinking Water Abstraction Directive (75/440/EEC) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1975:194:0026:0031:EN:PDF
Integrated Pollution and Prevention Directive (2008/1/EC) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:024:0008:0029:EN:PDF
Source: EUR-Lex
The two most significant directives from the point of view of driving current markets are the Urban Wastewater Directive
(UWWD) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The UWWD is aimed at ensuring that all communities in the EU have
adequate arrangements for wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. It was supposed to have been introduced in two
stages, the first in 2000 for communities with populations in excess of 15,000 and the second in 2005 for smaller communities,
although the EU-12 group of recent EU entrants were given extended deadlines for compliance. All these deadlines, with
the exception of the end of 2018 date set for Romania, have now passed, and legal action is likely to follow. Four Southern
European countries – Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece – which missed the original 2005 deadlines have been taken to court
by the European Commission, although the Euro crisis has meant that court action has not led to rapid compliance with the
regulations.
The WFD provides a legislative umbrella for all water-related directives, including the UWWD. The WFD introduces novel tools
and instruments into EU water law: an ecological, holistic approach to water status assessment; river basin planning; a strategy
for elimination of pollution; a greatly increased provision for informing and consulting the public; and economic instruments to
help meet environmental objectives. The WFD requires the establishment of programmes of measures to improve water status.
For surface water, good water is to be defined in terms of ecological quality, which takes into account the water body’s biology,
chemistry and physical features. For groundwater, it includes quantitative status. It was agreed in 2000 and the framework for
delivering it was scheduled to have been rolled out in stages until December 2015, when member states were required to have
met the directive’s environmental objectives. In reality there has been confusion over the interpretation of the directive, which
was compounded by the Euro-crisis and growing political tensions between member states and the EU. This has meant that
enforcement has not been prioritised and many member states have received derogations from compliance. When and if the
EU recovers from its current political and financial weakness the WFD would become a major driver of the market for water
technologies and services in Europe, not least because it enshrines the concepts of cost recovery and polluter pays in legislation,
guaranteeing the financial basis of the water sector within Europe.
1.2.4 Corporate water risk

Over the past five years an important new driver of expenditure has emerged within the water sector. It is growing concerns
about corporate water risk. There are three main areas of concern. The first and most obvious risk is that water will physically
not be available for operations because of growing water scarcity and global warming related drought conditions. For example,
the drought in Brazil during 2014 reduced water availability for power generation. French energy group Engie estimated that this
cost the company $223 million.
The second area of concern is reputational risk. This is a particular issue for companies with consumer brands which are
potentially exposed to activist campaigns should they fail to meet their customers’ expectations of good water stewardship.
For example, in 2002 farmers working near the Hindustan Coca-Cola bottling plant in Plachimada in Kerala state in India
attributed falling groundwater levels to the over-exploitation of the groundwater by the company. Their protests were taken up by
international activists, who turned it into a global campaign to boycott Coca-Cola. The local courts ruled in favour of the farmers
and the bottling plant was closed in 2004 and has yet to reopen. Since then soft drinks companies including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo
and Nestlé have been at the forefront of initiatives to improve water stewardship both within their companies and within the
communities they serve.

The third area of risk applies to heavy water users in industries such as mining, energy, and pulp & paper which rely on the
goodwill of the communities where they work for their licence to operate. This requires them to burnish their reputation for good
water stewardship. An example of the cost of failure is the Tia Maria copper mine in Arequipa, Peru. Southern Copper was given
the go ahead to develop the mine, but it ran into voluble protests from the local community in which three people died. Their
claim was that the mine would deplete and pollute local water systems. In 2014, the government agreed a new environmental
impact assessment with the company which failed to win over the protest movement. The mine, despite containing
641 million tonnes of copper, has yet to begin operations.
These incidents have raised the profile of water on the corporate agenda. In 2015 and 2016 water was rated to be the number one
global risk in the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report. Investors are also expressing concern, backing initiatives such as
the CDP Water Project to ensure better corporate disclosure of water risk.
Figure 1.12 CDP Water Project 2015 survey responses

Evaluate corporate Report water Report water Water integrated into Targets and goals
water risks withdrawals discharge their business strategy in place
Consumer Discretionary 64% 90% 67% 77% 59%
Consumer Staples 71% 94% 78% 87% 62%
Energy 65% 100% 78% 87% 26%
Health Care 64% 98% 88% 76% 43%
Industrials 61% 85% 67% 78% 43%
Information Technology 58% 95% 79% 77% 40%
Materials 74% 94% 78% 86% 49%
Utilities 89% 89% 89% 86% 46%
Total 68% 93% 75% 82% 49%
Source: CDP
Some water technology vendors report that much of the corporate water stewardship activity is essentially greenwash, and
that businesses still expect to apply the same financial metrics to investment in water systems as they would to other areas
of a plant (that is to say an 18-month, two-year payback period is still required regardless of the impact on water usage and
the environment). However, it has definitely become easier for water technology companies to access decision makers in the
corporate sector to discuss water services, and where technology can offer a strong return on investment (for example where
value from waste propositions are available), vendors are enjoying strong market growth.
1.3 MARKET RESTRAINTS

1.3.1 Overview
The water business enjoys strong underlying market drivers in the form of scarcity, urbanisation, the need for environmental
protection and growing interest from the corporate sector. However, it also faces a significant barrier to growth: its need for
capital investment. At the centre of this issue are two difficult facts: firstly that water infrastructure is highly capital intensive;
and secondly, that there is a reluctance among customers to pay for water. Besides the financial restraints on market growth,
there remains the challenge of accessing the market. Water is a highly fragmented market: there are around 300,000 water and
wastewater utilities around the world and possibly ten times that number of industrial water users whose annual water needs
exceed 50,000 m³.
1.3.1.1 Capital intensity

It is possible to get an idea of the capital intensity of the water business by looking at the ratio between the capital employed and
the revenues of water utilities compared with those of power utilities or fixed line telecoms utilities. This is illustrated by the
following figure, which shows that the ratio of assets to revenues in water averages around 6.5, which is more than twice the
average for energy and telecoms utilities. The water utility data shows the population served by the utilities (typically there are
2.5 people served per connection), but the other utility data shows the number of customer connections, which is not a direct
comparison. Furthermore, the range of services offered by other utility companies and the nature of their customers varies
greatly, so the data referring to customers and population served should not be considered scientific. The main reason why it is
included is that it illustrates the general point that water utilities get less money out of their customers than other utilities, even
though they require relatively more capital expenditure.

Market restraints
Figure 1.13 Capital intensity of utility services

Population served Assets/ Assets/ Revenue/
Water utility (million) Assets Revenues revenues population served population served Notes
American Water 15 $17,241m $3,159m 5.5 $1,149 $211 Includes some non-regulated
Aqua America 3 $5,741m $814m 7.1 $1,914 $271
Thames Water 9 $24,487m $3,203m 7.6 $2,721 $356 Water and wastewater
United Utilities 7 $16,747m $2,768m 6.1 $2,392 $395 Water and wastewater
Customers Assets/
Other utility (million) Assets Revenues revenues Assets/customer Revenue/customer Notes
SSE 9 $50,944m $34,515m 1.5 $5,924 $4,013 Multi-utility
PG&E 16 $63,339m $16,833m 3.8 $3,959 $1,052 Gas and electricity
EDF 39 $302,930m $83,209m 3.6 $7,868 $2,161 Electricity
AT&T 167 $402,672m $146,801m 2.7 $2,418 $882 Mobile and broadband
Verizon 125 $244,640m $131,620m 1.9 $1,959 $1,054 Mobile and broadband
Source: Annual Reports
Despite the fact that water utilities require a lot of capex compared to the revenues they generate, there remains strong interest
in water utilities among private investors. Investor-owned utilities trade on price earnings ratios in excess of 20, whereas other
utilities typically trade in the region of 13. This reflects the relative scarcity of investor-owned utilities compared to energy and
telecoms companies, but it also reflects the fact that water utilities enjoy a much lower degree of volatility of earnings than either
energy or telecoms.
This data from investor-owned utilities gives a somewhat distorted view of the sector as a whole. Less than 2% of the world’s
population are served by investor-owned utilities. Most utilities are publicly owned and the vast majority are not expected to
recover a return on their capital employed through tariff revenue. It means that the ratio of assets to revenues is even higher,
although many utilities do not have their own balance sheets separate from their government or municipal owners.
1.3.2 Paying for water

As a natural monopoly and a basic necessity of human life, the pricing of water is highly politicised. It means that with a few
exceptions, water tariffs do not cover the full capital and operating costs of the service. The exceptions are investor-owned utilities
and public utilities in Northern Europe where there is a long tradition of paying for water.
1.3.2.1 Water tariffs

Water bills can be structured in a number of different ways with fixed and variable charges for water and wastewater as well as
additional taxes charged as a percentage on top. The average water tariff based on a 15 m³/month user looks like this:
Figure 1.14 What makes a water tariff?

Water sales tax $0.05/m³ Wastewater sales tax $0.04/m³
Fixed water costs $0.24/m³ Fixed wastewater costs $0.28/m³
Average tariff Variable wastewater costs

Variable water costs $0.75/m³
$1.96/m³ $0.60/m³
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Source:GWI
Over the past decade water tariffs have been increasing steadily ahead of inflation. Globally the price of water rose by 4.3%
between 2014 and 2015, according to the 2015 GWI Global Water Tariff Survey, however there were large regional disparities.
The Latin America and Caribbean region led the way, with average growth of 9.7%, while sub-Saharan Africa and North
America advanced by 6.2% and 4.8%, respectively. By contrast, the Asia-Pacific region showed much slower growth, at just 2.0%,
while the average domestic tariff in the Middle East and North Africa was once again held back by rate cuts in Israel, dropping by
0.8%. Regional trends are shown in the following figure:

Figure 1.15 Evolution of water and wastewater tariffs by region, 2011–2015
4.00 Global
North America
3.50
Latin America & Caribbean
Average combined tariff ($/m3)
3.00 Western Europe

Eastern Europe & Central Asia
2.50 Asia Pacific
2.00 South Asia
Aarhus (Denmark) Middle East(+2.8%)
$8.36 & North Africa
1.50 Abidjan (Cote d’Ivoire ) $0.48 (New Sub-Saharan
city this year) Africa
Abu Dhabi (UAE) $1.62 (New city this year)
1.00 Acapulco (Mexico) $0.77 (+24.9%)
Accra (Ghana) $0.38 (0.0%)
0.50
Adana (Turkey) $1.13 (+2.2%)
0.00 Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) $0.17 (0.0%)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Adelaide (Australia) $4.86 (-2.3%)
Source: GWI Albuquerque (United States) $3.25 (+12.9%)

Alexandria (Egypt) $0.13 (+29.6%)
This chart illustrates the fact that there are very large disparities in the way in which different
Algiers (Algeria) regions
$0.31 (0.0%) of the world price water.
South Asia, for example, has a culture of very low tariffs for water, which seems to have little$0.45
Almaty (Kazakhstan)
link(0.0%)
to affordability. Delhi’s
³
residents have been smarting at a 10% increase in the benchmark tariff to $0.24/m , but
Amadora (Portugal)
their income per capita is more than
$2.08 (-20.1%)
three times that of residents of Kampala in Uganda who face a benchmark tariff of $1.31/m³. The tariff in Kampala – which has
Amman (Jordan) $0.66 (0.0%)
one of the most dynamic utilities in Africa – is incidentally higher than that in Memphis, Tennessee.
Amsterdam (Netherlands) $4.81 (+3.0%)
The results of the 2015 survey are as follows: Ankara (Turkey) $1.80 (+18.4%)
Antalya (Turkey) $1.19 (+5.1%)
Figure 1.16 GWI 2015 Water Tariff Survey Antananarivo (Madagascar) $0.24 (0.0%)
US$/m³ 0 2 4 6 8 10 Antwerp (Belgium) $4.55 (+6.9%)
Aarhus (Denmark) $8.36 (+2.8%) Ashgabat (Turkmenistan) Costs
$0.00 in US$ per cubic metre of water
(0.0%)
Abidjan (Cote d’Ivoire ) $0.48 (New city this year) Astana (Kazakhstan) $0.37 (0.0%)
Water & wastewater fixed costs
Abu Dhabi (UAE) $1.62 (New city this year) Asuncion (Paraguay) $0.40 (0.0%)
Acapulco (Mexico) $0.77 (+24.9%) Athens (Greece) Water
$1.32 variable costs
(-0.5%)
Accra (Ghana) $0.38 (0.0%) Atlanta (United States) $6.25 (0.0%)
Wastewater variable costs*
Adana (Turkey) $1.13 (+2.2%) Auckland (New Zealand) $3.22 (+2.5%)
Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) $0.17 (0.0%) Aurangabad (India) Total sales tax
$0.29 (+10.7%)
Adelaide (Australia) $4.86 (-2.3%) Baku (Azerbaijan) $0.34 (+0.0%) * where charged separately
Albuquerque (United States) $3.25 (+12.9%) Baltimore (United States) $4.09 (+10.0%)
Alexandria (Egypt) $0.13 (+29.6%) US$/m³(Mali)0
Bamako 2
$0.40 (0.0%) 4 6 8 10
Algiers (Algeria) $0.31 (0.0%) Bandung (Indonesia) $0.33 (0.0%)

Almaty (Kazakhstan) $0.45 (0.0%) Bangalore (India) $0.23 (+22.9%)
Amadora (Portugal) $2.08 (-20.1%) Bangkok (Thailand) $0.26 (0.0%)
Amman (Jordan) $0.66 (0.0%) Barcelona (Spain) $2.71 (+2.0%)
Amsterdam (Netherlands) $4.81 (+3.0%) Basel (Switzerland) $4.76 (0.0%)
Ankara (Turkey) $1.80 (+18.4%) Beijing (China) $0.82 (0.0%)
Antalya (Turkey) $1.19 (+5.1%) Beirut (Lebanon) $0.21 (New city this year)
Antananarivo (Madagascar) $0.24 (0.0%) Belfast (United Kingdom) $0.00 (0.0%)
Antwerp (Belgium) $4.55 (+6.9%) Belgrade (Serbia) $0.66 (+5.5%)
Ashgabat (Turkmenistan) $0.00 (0.0%) Belo Horizonte (Brazil) $2.11 (+15.0%)
Astana (Kazakhstan) $0.37 (0.0%) Berlin (Germany) $5.90 (-3.6%)
Asuncion (Paraguay) $0.40 (0.0%) Bhubaneswar (India) $0.08 (0.0%)
Athens (Greece) $1.32 (-0.5%) Bilbao (Spain) $1.76 (0.0%)
Atlanta (United States) $6.25 (0.0%) Billings (United States) $1.88 (+1.9%)
Auckland (New Zealand) $3.22 (+2.5%) Birmingham (United Kingdom) $3.99 (-4.3%)
Aurangabad (India) $0.29 (+10.7%) Birmingham, AL (United States) $5.17 (+6.0%)
Baku (Azerbaijan) $0.34 (+0.0%) Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan) $0.10 (0.0%)
Baltimore (United States) $4.09 (+10.0%) Bogota (Colombia) $1.67 (+1.5%)
Bamako (Mali) $0.40 (0.0%) Boise (United States) $2.38 (0.0%)
Bandung (Indonesia) 0 $0.33 (0.0%)
US$/m³ 2 4 6 8 10 Boston (United
US$/m³States) 0 2 4 $3.97 (+5.1%)
6 8 10
Bangalore (India) $0.23 (+22.9%) Brasilia (Brazil) $2.15 (+16.2%)
Bangkok (Thailand) $0.26 (0.0%) Bratislava (Slovakia) $2.46 (0.0%)
Bremen (Germany) $6.01 (+4.9%)
10 Barcelona (Spain) $2.71 (+2.0%) © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]
Basel (Switzerland) $4.76 (0.0%) Brisbane (Australia) $5.68 (+2.4%)
Beijing (China) $0.82 (0.0%) Bristol (United Kingdom) $5.17 (-10.4%)
Berlin (Germany) $5.90 (-3.6%) Debrecen (Hungary) $1.89 (+3.1%)
Bhubaneswar (India) $0.08 (0.0%) Denver (United States) $2.17 (+2.6%)
Bilbao (Spain) $1.76 (0.0%) Des Moines (United States) $3.98 (+6.3%)
Billings (United States) $1.88 (+1.9%) Detroit (United States) Market restraints
$4.39 (+8.7%)
Birmingham (United Kingdom) $3.99 (-4.3%) Dhaka (Bangladesh) $0.24 (+5.1%)
Birmingham, AL (United States) $5.17 (+6.0%) Distrito Federal (Mexico City) $0.91 (+4.0%)
Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan) $0.10 (0.0%) Diyarbakir (Turkey) $0.98 (+7.0%)
Bogota (Colombia) $1.67 (+1.5%) Dodoma (Tanzania) $0.84 (+22.2%)
US$/m³States) 0
Boise (United 2 4
$2.38 (0.0%) 6 8 10 US$/m³
Doha (Qatar) 0 2 (0.0%) 4
$1.30 6 8 10
Boston (United States) $3.97 (+5.1%) Dongguan (China) $0.39 (+2.3%)
Brasilia (Brazil) $2.15 (+16.2%) Dortmund (Germany) $6.34 (+4.1%)
Bratislava (Slovakia) $2.46 (0.0%) Douala (Cameroon) $0.68 (0.0%)
Bremen (Germany) $6.01 (+4.9%) Dubai (UAE) $2.45 (0.0%)
Brisbane (Australia) $5.68 (+2.4%) Dublin (Ireland) $1.60 (Charges introduced this year)
Bristol (United Kingdom) $5.17 (-10.4%) Durban (South Africa) $1.41 (New city this year)
Brno (Czech Republic) $3.00 (+5.0%) Dushanbe (Tajikistan) $0.08 (+25.0%)
Brussels (Belgium) $4.28 (0.0%) Düsseldorf (Germany) $4.77 (0.0%)
Bucharest (Romania) $1.76 (+1.1%) Edmonton (Canada) $4.50 (+3.8%)
Budapest (Hungary) $2.21 (+0.1%) El Paso (United States) $1.91 (+12.0%)
Buenos Aires (Argentina) $0.34 (0.0%) Espoo (Finland) $4.05 (+2.6%)
Busan (South Korea) $1.07 (+6.5%) Essen (Germany) $7.49 (+2.2%)
Cairo (Egypt) $0.13 (+29.6%) Fargo (United States) $2.19 (-8.4%)
Calgary (Canada) $4.53 (+4.5%) Faridabad (India) $0.07 (0.0%)
Cali (Colombia) $1.51 (New city this year) Fort Worth (United States) $2.87 (+6.5%)
Cape Town (South Africa) $1.17 (+11.0%) Frankfurt (Germany) $4.55 (0.0%)
Caracas (Venezuela) $0.23 (0.0%) Fukuoka (Japan) $2.04 (0.0%)
Cardiff (United Kingdom) $5.41 (-1.3%) Gaborone (Botswana) $0.88 (+30.9%)
Casablanca (Morocco) $0.95 (+0.4%) Gaziantep (Turkey) $1.79 (+10.5%)
Chandigarh (India) $0.05 (0.0%) Gdansk (Poland) $3.05 (0.0%)
Changchun (China) $0.74 (+82.0%) Geneva (Switzerland) $6.08 (+45.6%)
Charleston (United States) $4.58 (+6.2%) Genova (Italy) $2.59 (+6.1%)
Charlotte (United States) $3.63 (+8.4%) Gent (Belgium) $5.75 (+14.0%)
Chengdu (China) $0.48 (+0.7%) George Town (Penang) (Malaysia) $0.11 (New city this year)
Chennai (India) $0.10 (0.0%) Georgetown (Guyana) $0.65 (New city this year)
Chiba (Japan) $1.78 (0.0%) Glasgow (United Kingdom) $6.40 (+1.6%)
Chicago (United States) $2.01 (+19.8%) Gothenburg (Sweden) $4.07 (+2.1%)
Chihuahua (Mexico) $0.64 (0.0%) Graz (Austria) $4.22 (+2.5%)
Chisinau (Moldova) $0.60 (0.0%) Guadalajara (Mexico) $0.79 (+22.6%)
Chongqing (China) $0.57 (0.0%) Guangzhou (China) $0.46 (0.0%)
Ciudad Juarez (Mexico) $1.01 (0.0%) Guayaquil (Ecuador) $0.67 (+1.3%)
Cleveland (United States) $4.19 (+10.5%) Gwalior (India) $0.16 (0.0%)
Colombo (Sri Lanka) $0.22 (-5.6%) Gwangju (South Korea) $0.82 (+2.4%)
Columbus (United States) $3.61 (+2.8%) Hamburg (Germany) $4.92 (+0.8%)
Copenhagen (Denmark) $5.95 (+2.1%) Hangzhou (China) $0.47 (+56.8%)
Cork (Ireland) $1.60 (Charges introduced this year) Hanoi (Vietnam) $0.28 (+20.3%)
Cotonou (Benin) $0.76 (0.0%) Harare (Zimbabwe) $0.85 (New city this year)
Curitiba (Brazil) $1.98 (+12.5%) Harbin (China) $0.52 (0.0%)
Daegu (South Korea) $0.97 (+9.5%) Havana (Cuba) $0.02 (0.0%)
Daejeon (South Korea) $0.79 (0.0%) Helsinki (Finland) $4.05 (+2.6%)
Dakar (Senegal) $0.61 (+6.4%) Hiroshima (Japan) $1.53 (0.0%)
Dalian (China) $0.51 (0.0%) Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam) $0.28 (0.0%)
Dallas (United States) $2.40 (+1.3%) Hong Kong (China) $0.97 (+2.8%)
Damascus (Syria) $0.04 (0.0%) Honolulu (United States) $7.21 (+2.2%)
Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) $0.66 (0.0%) Houston (United States) $3.27 (+4.4%)
Davao (Philippines) $0.24 (0.0%) Hyderabad (India) $0.23 (-4.3%)
Debrecen (Hungary) $1.89 (+3.1%) Incheon (South Korea) $0.90 (0.0%)
Denver (United States) $2.17 (+2.6%) Indianapolis (United States) $4.03 (+3.9%)
Des Moines (United States) $3.98 (+6.3%) Istanbul (Turkey) $2.67 (+9.8%)
Detroit (United States) $4.39 (+8.7%) Izmir (Turkey) $1.39 (0.0%)
Dhaka (Bangladesh) $0.24 (+5.1%) Jackson (United States) $3.21 (0.0%)
Distrito Federal (Mexico City) $0.91 (+4.0%) Jakarta (Indonesia) $0.47 (0.0%)
Diyarbakir (Turkey) $0.98 (+7.0%) Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) $0.03 (0.0%)
Dodoma (Tanzania) $0.84 (+22.2%) Jerusalem (Israel) $2.14 (-9.6%)
Doha (Qatar) $1.30 (0.0%) Jinan (China) $0.73 (+42.2%)
Dongguan (China) 0
US$/m³ $0.39 (+2.3%)
2 4 6 8 10 US$/m³(India) 0 $0.05 (0.0%)
Jodhpur 2 4 6 8 10
Dortmund (Germany) $6.34 (+4.1%) Johannesburg (South Africa) $1.36 (+12.7%)
Douala (Cameroon) $0.68 (0.0%) Johor Bahru (Malaysia) $0.22 (0.0%)
Dubai (UAE) $2.45 (0.0%)
© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] Kampala (Uganda) $1.31 (+8.9%) 11
Dublin (Ireland) $1.60 (Charges introduced this year) Kansas City (United States) $5.80 (+9.3%)
Durban (South Africa) $1.41 (New city this year) Karachi (Pakistan) $0.09 (+8.1%)
Incheon (South Korea) $0.90 (0.0%) Madrid (Spain) $1.78 (-0.1%)
Indianapolis (United States) $4.03 (+3.9%) Malaga (Spain) $1.43 (+3.3%)
Istanbul (Turkey) $2.67 (+9.8%) Malmö (Sweden) $2.71 (0.0%)

Izmir (Turkey) $1.39 (0.0%) Manama (Bahrain) $0.07 (0.0%)
Jackson (United States) $3.21 (0.0%) Manchester (United Kingdom) $5.62 (-1.1%)
Jakarta (Indonesia) $0.47 (0.0%) Manila (Maynilad) (Philippines) $0.46 (+0.5%)
Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) $0.03 (0.0%) Manila Water (Philippines) $0.30 (-8.3%)
Jerusalem (Israel) $2.14 (-9.6%) Maputo (Mozambique) $0.68 (0.0%)
US$/m³
Jinan (China) 0 $0.732(+42.2%) 4 6 8 10 US$/m³
Marseille (France) 0 2 4 $4.05 (+5.5%)
6 8 10
Jodhpur (India) $0.05 (0.0%) Maseru (Lesotho) $1.56 (+6.3%)
Johannesburg (South Africa) $1.36 (+12.7%) Mbabane (Swaziland) $1.29 (+4.4%)
Johor Bahru (Malaysia) $0.22 (0.0%) Medellin (Colombia) $1.30 (+3.6%)
Kampala (Uganda) $1.31 (+8.9%) Melbourne (Australia) $6.13 (+4.8%)
Kansas City (United States) $5.80 (+9.3%) Memphis (United States) $1.16 (0.0%)
Karachi (Pakistan) $0.09 (+8.1%) Merida (Venezuela) $0.68 (+130.3%)
Kathmandu (Nepal) $0.25 (0.0%) Miami (United States) $1.48 (+1.3%)
Kawasaki (Japan) $1.59 (0.0%) Milan (Italy) $0.80 (+3.3%)
Kharkiv (Ukraine) $0.41 (+149.5%) Milwaukee (United States) $2.96 (+5.5%)
Khouribga (Morocco) $0.83 (0.0%) Minneapolis (United States) $3.67 (+2.9%)
Khulna (Bangladesh) $0.04 (0.0%) Minsk (Belarus) $0.16 (+44.3%)
Kiev (Ukraine) $0.40 (+16.4%) Miskolc (Hungary) $2.02 (0.0%)
Kigali (Rwanda) $0.48 (0.0%) Monrovia (Liberia) $1.42 (0.0%)
Kingston (Jamaica) $2.07 (+2.3%) Monterrey (Mexico) $0.77 (+3.5%)
Kinshasa (DR Congo) $0.39 (New city this year) Montevideo (Uruguay) $2.27 (+35.5%)
Kolhapur (India) $0.16 (0.0%) Morelia (Mexico) $0.78 (+1.1%)
Kolkata (India) $0.11 (0.0%) Moscow (Russia) $1.00 (+5.9%)
Köln (Germany) $5.43 (+0.6%) Mumbai (India) $0.23 (+15.4%)
Konya (Turkey) $1.00 (+9.9%) Munich (Germany) $4.87 (+1.8%)
Kosice (Slovakia) $2.93 (0.0%) Muscat (Oman) $1.88 (0.0%)
Krakow (Poland) $2.76 (+2.7%) Nador (Morocco) $0.80 (+14.4%)
Krasnoyarsk (Russia) $0.48 (+6.3%) Nagoya (Japan) $1.50 (0.0%)
Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) $0.21 (0.0%) Nagpur (India) $0.10 (+8.2%)
Kumamoto (Japan) $1.94 (0.0%) Nairobi (Kenya) $0.43 (0.0%)
Kunming (China) $0.70 (0.0%) Nanjing (China) $0.51 (0.0%)
Kyoto (Japan) $1.85 (0.0%) Nantes (France) $3.55 (+2.2%)
La Paz (Bolivia) $0.43 (+5.4%) Naples (Italy) $1.48 (+3.8%)
Lagos (Nigeria) $0.80 (0.0%) Nashik (India) $0.08 (0.0%)
Lahore (Pakistan) $0.05 (0.0%) Nashville (United States) $2.59 (0.0%)
Lanzhou (China) $0.42 (0.0%) Nassau (Bahamas) $4.57 (+7.5%)
Las Palmas (Spain) $2.64 (0.0%) New Delhi (India) $0.24 (+10.0%)
Las Vegas (United States) $2.84 (+3.1%) New Orleans (United States) $3.89 (+7.5%)
León (Mexico) $1.07 (+14.0%) New York City (United States) $3.49 (+3.0%)
Lilongwe (Malawi) $0.53 (New city this year) Newark (United States) $2.49 (+8.9%)
Lima (Peru) $0.72 (+3.2%) Newcastle (United Kingdom) $4.50 (+1.3%)
Lisbon (Portugal) $1.76 (+7.6%) Niamey (Niger) $0.32 (0.0%)
Ljubljana (Slovenia) $1.89 (-5.8%) Nice (France) $4.00 (-0.1%)
Lodz (Poland) $2.31 (0.0%) Novosibirsk (Russia) $0.53 (+12.2%)
London (United Kingdom) $3.91 (-0.2%) Odessa (Ukraine) $0.43 (+2.8%)
Los Angeles (United States) $3.27 (+0.4%) Oklahoma City (United States) $2.64 (0.0%)
Louisville (United States) $3.56 (-6.4%) Omaha (United States) $3.82 (+9.7%)
Luanda (Angola) $0.61 (0.0%) Omsk (Russia) $0.59 (+2.0%)
Lusaka (Zambia) $0.84 (+10.1%) Oranjestad (Aruba) $3.64 (0.0%)
Luxembourg (Luxembourg) $5.13 (0.0%) Osaka (Japan) $1.36 (0.0%)
Lviv (Ukraine) $0.49 (+33.8%) Oslo (Norway) $5.39 (+22.0%)
Lyon (France) $3.26 (-8.3%) Ostrava (Czech Republic) $3.01 (+1.1%)
Madrid (Spain) $1.78 (-0.1%) Ottawa (Canada) $3.00 (+6.0%)
Malaga (Spain) $1.43 (+3.3%) Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) $0.69 (0.0%)
Malmö (Sweden) $2.71 (0.0%) Palermo (Italy) $2.13 (0.0%)
Manama (Bahrain) $0.07 (0.0%) Panama City (Panama) $1.06 (0.0%)
Manchester (United Kingdom) $5.62 (-1.1%) Paris (France) $3.76 (+1.9%)
Manila (Maynilad) (Philippines) $0.46 (+0.5%) Perth (Australia) $6.30 (+2.5%)
Manila Water (Philippines) $0.30 (-8.3%) Philadelphia (United States) $4.18 (0.0%)
Maputo (Mozambique) $0.68 (0.0%) Phnom Penh (Cambodia) $0.18 (0.0%)
Marseille (France) $4.05 (+5.5%) Phoenix (United States) $2.14 (0.0%)
Maseru (Lesotho) 0
US$/m³ $1.56
2 (+6.3%)
4 6 8 10 Piraeus (Greece) 0
US$/m³ $1.32
2 (-0.5%) 4 6 8 10
Mbabane (Swaziland) $1.29 (+4.4%) Pittsburgh (United States) $3.33 (+3.5%)
Medellin (Colombia) $1.30 (+3.6%) Port Moresby (Papua New Guinea) $0.71 (New city this year)
Portland, OR (United States) $7.31 (+4.4%)
12 Melbourne (Australia) $6.13 (+4.8%)
© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]
Memphis (United States) $1.16 (0.0%) Porto (Portugal) $1.79 (-0.7%)
Merida (Venezuela) $0.68 (+130.3%) Poznan (Poland) $4.65 (+4.7%)
Ottawa (Canada) $3.00 (+6.0%) Shenyang (China) $0.39 (0.0%)
Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) $0.69 (0.0%) Shenzhen (China) $0.51 (0.0%)
Palermo (Italy) $2.13 (0.0%) Shijiazhuang (China) $0.59 (0.0%)
Panama City (Panama) $1.06 (0.0%) Singapore (Singapore) $1.58 (0.0%)
Market restraints
Paris (France) $3.76 (+1.9%) Sofia (Bulgaria) $1.00 (0.0%)
Perth (Australia) $6.30 (+2.5%) St Petersburg (Russia) $0.88 (+10.0%)
Philadelphia (United States) $4.18 (0.0%) St. Louis (United States) $3.27 (+7.9%)
Phnom Penh (Cambodia) $0.18 (0.0%) Stockholm (Sweden) $2.07 (0.0%)
US$/m³States) 0
Phoenix (United 2 $2.14 (0.0%)
4 6 8 10 US$/m³
Strasbourg (France) 0 2 4 (-0.4%) 6
$3.30 8 10
Piraeus (Greece) $1.32 (-0.5%) Stuttgart (Germany) $5.35 (+0.3%)
Pittsburgh (United States) $3.33 (+3.5%) Surabaya (Indonesia) $0.10 (New city this year)
Port Moresby (Papua New Guinea) $0.71 (New city this year) Sydney (Australia) $5.21 (+0.3%)
Portland, OR (United States) $7.31 (+4.4%) Taipei (Taiwan) $0.50 (0.0%)
Porto (Portugal) $1.79 (-0.7%) Taiyuan (China) $0.65 (0.0%)
Poznan (Poland) $4.65 (+4.7%) Tallinn (Estonia) $2.29 (0.0%)
Prague (Czech Republic) $3.13 (+2.4%) Tashkent (Uzbekistan) $0.10 (+16.0%)
Puebla (Mexico) $0.72 (+2.5%) Tbilisi (Georgia) $0.12 (0.0%)
Qingdao (China) $0.41 (0.0%) Tegucigalpa (Honduras) $0.12 (0.0%)
Quito (Ecuador) $0.57 (New city this year) Tehran (Iran) $0.17 (0.0%)
Rabat (Morocco) $0.98 (+18.5%) Tel Aviv (Israel) $2.14 (-10.3%)
Rajkot (India) $0.07 (0.0%) The Hague (Netherlands) $5.49 (+4.2%)
Ramallah (Palestine) $1.56 (0.0%) Thessaloniki (Greece) $1.82 (+1.3%)
Ranchi (India) $0.09 (0.0%) Tianjin (China) $0.80 (0.0%)
Recife (Brazil) $2.29 (+12.2%) Tijuana (Mexico) $1.05 (+7.9%)
Reykjavik (Iceland) $3.24 (+8.7%) Tirana (Albania) $0.58 (0.0%)
Richmond (United States) $5.61 (+4.7%) Tokyo (Japan) $1.74 (0.0%)
Riga (Latvia) $1.71 (0.0%) Toronto (Canada) $2.60 (+8.0%)
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) $1.79 (+11.6%) Toulouse (France) $4.18 (+4.5%)
Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) $0.03 (0.0%) Trondheim (Norway) $4.00 (+1.0%)
Rome (Italy) $1.62 (+13.8%) Tucson (United States) $3.56 (+4.4%)
Rostov-on-Don (Russia) $1.22 (+6.3%) Tunis (Tunisia) $0.47 (+2.8%)
Rotterdam (Netherlands) $4.67 (+3.5%) Ufa (Russia) $0.75 (+19.7%)
Sakai (Japan) $2.13 (0.0%) Ulan Bator (Mongolia) $0.41 (0.0%)
Salt Lake City (United States) $2.01 (+1.1%) Ulcinj (Montenegro) $1.37 (New city this year)
Salvador de Bahia (Brazil) $2.15 (+10.0%) Ulsan (South Korea) $1.03 (+3.8%)
Samara (Russia) $0.65 (+12.1%) Utrecht (Netherlands) $4.61 (+4.3%)
San Antonio (United States) $2.83 (+4.7%) Vancouver (Canada) $2.00 (+11.0%)
San Diego (United States) $5.06 (+3.8%) Venice (Italy) $1.67 (+23.6%)
San Francisco (United States) $5.94 (+9.3%) Vienna (Austria) $4.32 (0.0%)
San Jose (United States) $5.25 (+11.3%) Vilnius (Lithuania) $1.91 (+0.2%)
San Jose (Costa Rica) $1.01 (New city this year) Vladivostok (Russia) $0.65 (+4.7%)
San Salvador (El Salvador) $0.26 (0.0%) Volgograd (Russia) $0.57 (+7.3%)
Santa Fe (Argentina) $0.48 (+41.2%) Voronezh (Russia) $0.75 (+13.0%)
Santiago-de-Chile (Chile) $1.32 (+3.5%) Warsaw (Poland) $3.25 (0.0%)
Santo Domingo (Dominican Rep.) $0.23 (0.0%) Washington DC (United States) $4.82 (+11.9%)
São Paulo (Brazil) $1.59 (+22.8%) Windhoek (Namibia) $2.37 (+10.7%)
Sapporo (Japan) $1.93 (0.0%) Wroclaw (Poland) $2.64 (+1.8%)
Sarajevo (Bosnia & Herzegovina) $0.87 (0.0%) Wuhan (China) $0.43 (+12.9%)
Saratov (Russia) $0.54 (+8.5%) Xi'an (China) $0.47 (0.0%)
Seattle (United States) $6.93 (+0.5%) Yekaterinburg (Russia) $0.80 (+2.9%)
Sebastopol (Ukraine) $0.58 (+26.2%) Yerevan (Armenia) $0.36 (0.0%)
Sendai (Japan) $2.09 (0.0%) Yokohama (Japan) $1.74 (0.0%)
Seoul (South Korea) $0.82 (0.0%) Zagreb (Croatia) $2.49 (0.0%)
Seville (Spain) $2.31 (+2.2%) Zhengzhou (China) $0.39 (0.0%)
Shanghai (China) $0.56 (0.0%) Zibo (China) $0.53 (0.0%)
Shenyang (China) $0.39 (0.0%) Zurich (Switzerland) $5.25 (0.0%)
Shenzhen (China) $0.51 (0.0%) US$/m³ 0 2 4 6 8 10
Shijiazhuang (China) $0.59 (0.0%)
Singapore (Singapore) $1.58 (0.0%)
Sofia (Bulgaria) $1.00 (0.0%)
St Petersburg (Russia) $0.88 (+10.0%)
St. Louis (United States) $3.27 (+7.9%)
Stockholm (Sweden) $2.07 (0.0%)
Strasbourg (France) $3.30 (-0.4%)
Stuttgart (Germany) 0
US$/m³ 2 4 $5.35
6 (+0.3%)8 10
Source: GWI Surabaya (Indonesia) $0.10 (New city this year)
Sydney (Australia) $5.21 (+0.3%)
Taipei (Taiwan) $0.50 (0.0%)
Taiyuan (China) $0.65 (0.0%)
Tallinn (Estonia) $2.29 (0.0%)
Besides water tariffs, utilities also charge connection charges to new customers which serve to offset the costs involved. These are
less politically sensitive than tariffs on water usage, largely because they are typically paid for by real estate developers. In many
cases utilities are able to charge more than the direct cost of linking a new household to the mains. They can ask for additional
“capital contributions” from real estate developers which are supposed to cover the broader costs of expanding the water system.
IB-Net records the following data for average connection charges for the regions it covers:
Figure 1.17 Standard connection charges by region

Region Water Sewer
East Asia / Pacific $1,075 $486
Eastern Europe / Central Asia $360 $339
Latin America / Caribbean $88 $80
Middle East / North Africa $78 $54
Southern Asia $20 $1
Sub-Saharan Africa $67 $26
Source: IB-Net
1.3.2.2 Operating expenditure

The following figure uses IB-Net data to illustrate the gap between revenues and operating spending in selected countries. The
countries placed above the pink line do not recover their operating costs through their utility billings. The countries placed below
the pink line do recover their operating costs, but not necessarily their capital costs. Typically a utility would need to bill 30–50%
more than their operating costs in order to recover its capital costs.

Market restraints
Figure 1.18 Revenues versus operating costs in selected countries
$3.00
Australia
Kuwait
$2.50
Czech Republic
Norway
SUBSIDY
$2.00 Portugal
Operating cost/m³ delivered
Bahrain
Poland
$1.50
Colombia Korea
Russia
South Africa Kenya
Turkey
$1.00 Romania
Palestine
Brazil
Jordan
COST RECOVERY
Congo Uganda
Nigeria Chile
Mexico
Kazakhstan
Tunisia
$0.50 Algeria Senegal
Peru Ukraine
Pakistan China
Philippines
India Malaysia
Indonesia Egypt Bolivia
$0.00
$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $5.30
Revenue/m³ sold
Source: IB-Net/GWI
More detailed country-by-country costs and revenues are shown in the following figure. The green column shows the average
revenue per cubic metre of water sold. It is topped by a light green shaded bar representing the cost of non-revenue water (i.e.
water which is produced but not billed). The costs column is divided into different shades of brown/orange representing the cost
breakdown per cubic metre of water sold. Not all utilities in the IB-Net database report the details of each cost element. We have
used what detail is available and where detail is not available, we have simply referred to it as “other” costs. The utilities which
report this data in detail are somewhat self-selecting and therefore the figures possibly show a better picture than is in fact the
case. Furthermore Western Europe, North America and Japan generally do not participate in IB-Net.

Figure 1.19 Utility water and wastewater costs and revenues per cubic metre sold
Cost / Revenue ($/m³) Cost / Revenue ($/m³)
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Afghanistan Labour Malaysia
Albania Electricity Mali
Argentina Contracted services
Mauritania
Other costs
Armenia Mauritius
Average revenue
Azerbaijan Mexico
Cost of NRW
Bahrain Moldova
Bangladesh Mongolia
Belarus Montenegro
Benin Mozambique
Bolivia Namibia
Bosnia Nicaragua
Brazil Niger
Bulgaria Nigeria
Burkina Faso Norway
Burundi Pakistan
Cambodia Panama
Chile
Papua New Guinea
China
Peru
Colombia
Philippines
Costa Rica
Poland
Cote dIvoire
Romania
Croatia
Russia
Czech Republic
Senegal
Ecuador
Serbia
Egypt
Slovakia
El Salvador
South Africa
Ethiopia
Sri Lanka
Gabon
Sudan
Georgia
Swaziland
Guinea
Tajikistan
Honduras
Tanzania
Hungary
India The Gambia
Indonesia Togo
Jordan Tonga
Kazakhstan Tunisia
Kenya Turkey
Kosovo Uganda
Kuwait Ukraine
Kyrgyz Republic United States
Lao PDR Uruguay
Lesotho Uzbekistan
Liberia Venezuela
Lithuania Vietnam
Macau, China West Bank and Gaza
Macedonia, FYR Yemen
Malawi Zambia
$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00
Source: IB-Net/GWI

Market restraints
The following figure shows the information on a regional basis.
Figure 1.20 Operating cost recovery by region

Unit cost of Unit cost of volume Revenue/ Contracted
water sold produced m³ sold Labour Electricity services
East Asia / Pacific $0.28 $0.19 $0.38 30% 17% 26%
Eastern Europe / Central Asia $0.82 $0.57 $0.89 32% 17% 10%
Latin America / Caribbean $1.10 $0.67 $1.46 38% 14% 18%
Middle East / North Africa $0.38 $0.29 $0.27 36% 19% 4%
North America $0.92 $0.80 $1.36 53% 7% 26%
Southern Asia $0.22 $0.14 $0.15 29% 39% 10%
Sub-Saharan Africa $0.91 $0.60 $0.84 33% 17% 12%
Western Europe $2.32 $1.29 $3.30 37% 4% 24%
Source: IB-Net/GWI
Where costs are not met through utility billings they are typically met by government subsidy and other transfers. The lack
of utility control over this support means that utility expenditure needs rarely match the revenues available. In that sense the
institutional structure of the utility sector is an important driver of growth.
1.3.2.3 Utility incorporation

A key issue for utility finance is the extent to which a utility is independent from its public sector parent. There are six main
types of corporate status for utilities:
1. Unincorporated municipal or government departments: Typically these are directly under the control of the mayor
or minister responsible for water. They do not have their own balance sheets or profit and loss accounts, and their
finances are typically difficult to separate from those of the municipal or departmental parent. The combination of
political control and lack of direct access to finance inhibits their development as utilities.
2. Subsidiaries of incorporated public works or multi-utility organisations: In many parts of the world water and
wastewater services are provided by a separate municipal or governmental organisation which also provides other
public works and utility operations. Examples of this might be the German Stadtwerke or the electricity and water
authorities of the GCC region. These organisations have a stronger degree of political and financial autonomy than
unincorporated municipal or governmental departments.
3. Incorporated municipal or government bodies: These are organisations which remain under municipal ownership
and control but which have their own balance sheets and profit and loss accounts. Typically they have a higher
degree of autonomy than unincorporated bodies, and a greater focus on water than multi utilities and public works
organisations.
4. Mixed economy organisations: Some big city utilities are majority owned by the local government, but have private
investors as minority shareholders. Typically they take direct responsibility for their own finances, although they do
not have direct control over tariff setting.
5. Investor-owned utilities: These are privately owned, but regulated by a government appointed body. They have full
operational and financial independence within the framework set by the regulator.
6. Independent not-for-profit organisations: There are a small number of utilities which for historical reasons are
independent of government, but not run on a for-profit basis.
GWI’s estimate of the number and size of utilities falling into each category is shown below:
Figure 1.21 The corporate structure of utilities

Category Estimated no. of utilities Population served Spending
Unincorporated public bodies 290,000 44% 33%
Public works and local multi-utilities 7,000 15% 24%
Incorporated public utilities 9,000 24% 35%
Mixed economy utilities 100 1% 2%
Investor owned utilities 250 2% 5%
Not for profit utilties 20 1% 1%
No utility service – 14% –
Source: GWI estimates

1.3.3 Capital spending

There are three main sources of capital for investment: operating account surpluses, increased borrowing (which will be paid for
through operating account surpluses), and central government or international grant funding.
1.3.3.1 Debt finance

There are six main sources of debt used in the water sector:
1. International concessionary loans: For example from the World Bank and other multi-lateral and bi-lateral lending
institutions.
2. Concessionary loans from federal government bodies: Many governments operate infrastructure banks, development
banks, and funding agencies which provide low cost debt for utilities.
3. Concessionary loans from state/regional government bodies: Some larger countries have state-based concessional
funding bodies.
4. Loans from municipal owner: Typically smaller utilities and unincorporated utilities have difficulty borrowing
money directly. Instead their municipal owners channel funds towards them.
5. Utility bond issuance: Larger utilities (particularly in the US) have credit ratings and are able to issue bonds directly
to investors.
6. Commercial bank loans to utility: Historically commercial debt has not played a large role in the utility sector, in part
because utilities have been able to get cheaper finance elsewhere, and in part because many utilities have not been
considered good credit risks.
The country chapters of this report detail which of these sources are used most regularly in each country profiled.
The central issue for utilities in emerging markets is not so much the lack of sources of finance, but the fact that many emerging
market water utilities are not considered good credit risks, even by development banks. The main obstacles to “bankability” are
as follows:
• Inadequate cashflows to service debt: Many utilities struggle to cover their operational costs on a monthly basis due
to the low level of tariff income that they receive. Lenders are naturally sceptical about the ability of these utilities to
repay loans.
• Inadequate utility leadership: Many utilities are poorly managed. Leaders are appointed for their political connections
or their engineering skills rather than their commitment to the financial disciplines required to give a lender
confidence that their principal will be repaid. Utilities with very poor collection rates, high levels of unaccounted
for water, significant problems with service continuity and facing year-on-year reductions in the number of service
connections, are probably the utilities which most need investment, but they are also likely to be the ones least likely
to attract it because these indicators are also indicators of bad management.
• Lack of structural autonomy: Utilities which are unincorporated departments of municipalities or government
ministries make poor lending prospects because it is difficult to ring-fence finance meant for water infrastructure
within the wider organisation, and it is difficult to introduce the financial disciplines required to guarantee
repayment.
• Lack of political autonomy: Many utilities are used by politicians as a source of social employment for supporters, a
means of controlling potential voters (using the power to determine who gets water and who does not), and a source
of commissions and bribes (typically skimmed from capital budgets). Although politically connected lenders (such
as national infrastructure banks) do not balk at these conditions, third-party lenders prefer to avoid lending in these
conditions.
• Historic indebtedness: Some central and state governments are ambivalent about the way they subsidise their water
utility sector. Instead of treating the cash transfers necessary to support the on-going operations of the utility as
straightforward subsidies, they prefer to account for the transfers as loans. Over the years these utilities accumulate
high levels of unrepayable debt to their public sector parents. These are an obstacle to third-party lenders doing
business with the utility as it is unclear who has first claim on the new funds. Writing off these historic debts – as we
have recently seen happen in Indonesia – is a significant step towards making utilities bankable in future.
Addressing these issues is the number one priority for international financial institutions working in emerging markets, and
there has been a steady improvement in the situation. Specifically, more utilities are being incorporated, giving them greater
autonomy from their corporate parents. There has been greater focus on building the capacity of leadership, and building the
performance of utilities. This structural change in the emerging market utility sector is one of the reasons for the strengthening
of this sector as a market in recent years. It is expected to continue going forward.

Market restraints
1.3.3.2 International financial institutions

Water is an active area of investment for the major international financial institutions. In 2014 the World Bank together with the
various regional development banks approved loans of around $13 billion for water and sanitation projects:
Figure 1.22 Multilateral support to the water sector, 2014

World Bank $4,300m
The European Investment Bank $2,983m
Asian Development Bank $2,880m
Inter-American Development Bank $1,138m
CAF Development Bank of Latin America $1,100m
Islamic Development Bank $638m
African Development Bank $253m
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development $223m
The Caribbean Development Bank $30m
Source: Development Banks
Most of these institutions report increased lending to the water sector over time ahead of inflation. The World Bank, for example,
lent an average of $3.1 billion a year for water, sanitation and flood protection projects between 2006 and 2010, but it lent an
average of $3.9 billion a year to the same category during the 2011–2015 period. This might reflect an annual growth rate of
4.6%.
Besides the main international development finance institutions, there are a number of bilateral agencies active in water. The
most prominent are: the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, which provides concessional finance for water projects where
Japanese companies have some involvement; the Japan International Cooperation Agency which provides overseas development
assistance to developing countries in the form of grants and loans; Germany’s Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) which
acts as a development bank offering concessional loans alongside GIZ which offers technical assistance to developing countries;
Korea’s KEXIM Bank which provides loans to support water projects where Korean companies are involved; and, US AID which
offers loans and grants to support international development. Other bilateral agencies more committed to grant finance in the
water sector include: SIDA (Sweden), DFID (UK), AFD (France), and the Netherland Development Cooperation.
Other significant institutions (both of which are part of the World Bank Group) are the International Finance Corporation which
provides debt, equity and hybrid finance to private companies developing water infrastructure in emerging markets, and the
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency which provides political risk insurance for water projects in developing countries.
The most significant recent development in the development banking sector has been the creation of the Asian Infrastructure
Development Bank by the Chinese government (although supported by other countries in the region and several European
governments). The bank has yet to begin operations in the water sector. Its focus will be Asia and Oceania, but it is expected to
complement China’s One Belt – One Road economic strategy which focuses on countries along the old Silk Road.
1.3.4 Financing trends

The impact of the financial crisis on water finance was initially beneficial for the water sector. Responding to weakening
economic growth governments introduced stimulus packages aimed at stimulating demand by spending on infrastructure
projects. The American Recovering and Reinvestment Act, for example, included $4 billion for water quality and wastewater
infrastructure, and $2 billion for drinking water infrastructure. The Chinese 2009 stimulus package included RMB350 billion
($51 billion) for wastewater infrastructure. The stimulus packages insured that the economies with strong oil and gas and
mineral earnings (like Saudi Arabia and Australia for example) thrived during the period 2010–2014 creating budget surpluses,
which in turn could be recycled into water infrastructure. Growth in those markets somewhat offset the weakness in the
European water market during the same time. The fall of the oil price (and other commodity prices) has meant that there are now
few governments in a position to provide free or subsidised capital for the water utility sector. It means that a greater proportion
of utility capital expenditure is likely to be self-finance. The following figure illustrates GWI’s estimate of the financing trend.

Figure 1.23 Sources of finance for water and wastewater infrastructure 2006–2020
300,000
250,000
200,000
$ million
150,000
100,000
ODA funded
50,000 Tax payer funded
Self funded
0
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Source: GWI
Shrinking government surpluses and increased budget deficits have also had the impact of opening out the market for private
finance in water. Since 2012, governments including the US, Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mexico, and Indonesia
have been looking for ways to encourage private finance in water. In most cases this means looking at ways of attracting private
investors to own and operate water assets on a BOT basis rather than selling water utilities to the private sector. This reflects the
fact that outright water sector privatisation is still politically sensitive, but asset finance is less controversial.
The outlook for private finance in water in discussed in more detail in section 1.5.
1.3.5 Reaching the market

The global water market is driven by growing water scarcity, urbanisation, and regulation. The most significant restraint
on growth is finance, but this issue is steadily being addressed. At a time when the rest of the global economy looks weak,
the prospects for the water sector look good. However, the challenge of accessing the market remains. There are three main
obstacles:
1. The customer basis is highly fragmented: Every country has different regulations, standards and approaches to water
management. A successful sale in one country does not mean that customers in other countries will accept the
sale as a valid reference. Within countries the market is fragmented still further. The utility sector is often divided
up according to local government divisions and lacks a national outlook, while the industrial market is divided by
industry and by company. It means that scaling success can be difficult.
2. Customers tend to be risk averse: Public utilities tend not to be motivated by profit in the way that normal businesses
are. Instead they are primarily concerned with the safety of the public. It means that they have few incentives to take
risks on new ways of doing things, which makes it difficult for new entrants to crack the market. On the industrial
side of the market, customers are responsive to strong value propositions, but water remains a relatively low cost
input for most industrial processes, so it can be difficult to gain the customer’s attention.
3. The supply chain is difficult to penetrate: Selling into the water sector is not straightforward. There are established
local supply chains which are inhospitable to outsiders. This is particularly the case where engineers play a large role
in specifying equipment as they do in the US under the design-bid-build (DBB) model, and in emerging markets
where a lack of expertise on both the client side and the contractor side gives the engineering consultants a strong
role in deciding which equipment is used. These engineers tend to have good local connections both politically and
within the local contractor community, and they have little incentive to promote solutions that benefit outsiders at the
expense of other locals. Furthermore, public sector regulations against sole-source contracts often make it difficult
for companies with new technologies or new business models to bid on projects unless they fit the procurement
template.
Despite these challenges the water market is steadily becoming more global. This reflects the fact that although water resources
and water customers are local, technology and money are fundamentally global, and as the challenge of managing water
becomes more acute, so technology and money are needed more by utilities and industrial water users.
There are two trends in the market that reflect the growing focus on the challenge of reaching the market. In very large
companies we have seen a trend towards regionally focused group structures (rather than group structures arranged by product
line). For example, since 2014 both Veolia and Suez have chosen to restructure themselves along cross-disciplinary regional
lines.

Market restraints
At the other end of the market, among small- and medium-sized enterprises, we have seen greater government assistance for
private businesses in reaching the international market. Around 15 countries and a further 20 or so regions and cities have
internationally focused water sector strategies for economic development. Between them they have six main components, and
two common objectives, but no two strategies and objectives are directly alike.
The main institutional approaches are:
• Water clusters/innovation hubs (e.g. Singapore Hydrohub, Toronto WaterTAP, Milwaukee Water Council)
• Water partnerships (e.g. NWP, German Water Partnership, US Water Partnership)
• Export development agency activity (e.g. US ITC, UKTI, JETO)
• Research commercialisation bodies (Wetsus Institute, Southern Ontario Water Consortium)
The following figure summarises the strategies involved:
Figure 1.24 Water and economic development
SECTOR
COORDINATION
Creating a body which brings

together local companies to
maximise their effectiveness
FINANCIAL overseas
ASSISTANCE TRADE SHOW
Coordinating export credit and Creating a show case which

international aid to create brings together potential
opportunities for domestic customers and partners
water businesses from around the world
OBJECTIVES
1. Accelerated development of
an export-led water industry
UTILITY 2. Develop a soft UNIVERSITY

LEADERSHIP power resource TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER
Encouraging a national Creating a mechanism to
champion utility to engage focus research on water related
internationally and to export issues and to support its
their expertise TECHNOLOGY commercialisation
ACCELERATION
Create an environment that

gives a competitive advantage
to water sector start ups
Source: GWI

1.4 MARKET FORECAST

We have divided our forecast for the global water market by country, sector, project type, treatment technology, and equipment
category. First, we have estimated the total amount of water-related spending for the utility and industrial sectors in each country.
Then we have made assumptions about how this top-level would be divided up between different treatment technologies,
equipment lines, and operating costs. The following figure shows how the calculations flow between different sections of our
forecast.
Figure 1.25 Structure of forecast model in Global Water Market 2017
Utility
capital expenditure
By project type
DesalData forecast
Technology
forecast
Industrial
By industry
capital expenditure Equipment
forecast
Parts & consumables

Utility
operating expenditure
Chemicals
Industrial
operating expenditure
Other
Source: GWI
A global summary of our forecast can be found in section 1.4. Country-level forecasts for each sector, technology, equipment
category, and chemical type can be found at the end of each country chapter, and in the spreadsheets that accompany this report.
In the following sections, we discuss the methodology used for the different areas of our forecast shown in the preceding figure.
1.4.1 Utility capital and operating expenditure

The utility spending forecast is based on our database of utility service indicators and financial information. For each of the
100 countries in this report, we have compiled publicly available data regarding the extent of utility infrastructure, capital
expenditure, operating expenditure and future plans/projects. We began collecting this data for the previous edition of this
report in 2013, and since then we have updated it for the annual Global Water Market updates provided free to subscribers of our
WaterData service. This service compiles all of our knowledge about the water sector in one place, and will be of interest to any
readers interested in more timely updates on the state of the market.
The first step in our calculations was to calculate the baseline level of capital and operating expenditure for water and wastewater
services in the year 2013. Where it exists, we have used centrally-reported country-level data. Otherwise we used data collected
from individual utilities to make estimates of the total level of expenditure. In a handful of countries, typically in Sub-Saharan
Africa, we did not have centrally-reported or utility-level data. In these cases, we have made estimates based on secondary sources
such as reports from aid agencies and NGOs, data on overseas development assistance and expenditure in similar countries.
Where possible, we have used the information in our database to divide the top level of water and wastewater spending by project
type (networks, treatment plants, etc.). Otherwise, we have made estimates based on the breakdown in similar countries.
With a baseline established, we have projected utility spending forwards by drawing on published government and utility plans,
insight from people with experience of the country, and information about projects that we track in Global Water Intelligence.
We have also taken into account general forecasts of economic activity from the World Economic Outlook of the International
Monetary Fund and our own opinions of how likely official plans might turn out in the real world. In countries for which we
were unable to obtain information about future plans or projects, we have looked at historical expenditure trends in the country
and what is happening in countries facing similar challenges and economic circumstances.

Market forecast
1.4.1.1 Changes and corrections

Some of our forecasts differ substantially from those published in Global Water Market 2014. The reasons for these changes
are either due to new data becoming available, where more comprehensive country-level data contradicts estimates previously
made on the basis of utility-level spending; unforeseen world events, such as the effects of the collapse of crude oil prices on
government budgets in the Middle East; and a few rare cases where we have misinterpreted the data which was available. For the
countries in this report with detailed profiles, the ‘Notes on the forecast’ section at the end of each chapter describes the sources
we have used, the assumptions we have made, and the reasons for any changes compared to the previous edition.
1.4.2 Industrial capital expenditure

In our forecasts of industrial spending, we have used the best available dataset for each sector to quantify current production
levels, identify major country markets and future trends. We have combined data on industrial output with water use statistics,
assumptions about typical treatment trains and the cost of treatment technologies to produce an estimate of the value of
water-related spending. It should be noted that unlike the utility forecasts, the industrial capital expenditure forecasts do not
include civil engineering, construction or electrical costs, as it is impossible to distinguish water-specific costs from the rest of
construction at an industrial site.
The datasets and methodology we have used for each industry are described below:
• Upstream oil & gas: The forecast has been informed by a number of datasets which describe the production of
oil and gas from conventional and unconventional sources, including production forecasts from the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) and the International Energy Agency, regulatory data published by U.S. state-level
agencies, and the Worldwide EOR Survey published by the Oil & Gas Journal. To estimate the volumes of produced
water that must be treated we have analysed various datasets describing the water-to-oil ratio for various resources.
• Refining & petrochemicals: The forecast has been informed by data and projections of refining production and
output from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. We have also made use of two datasets from the Oil & Gas
Journal: The Worldwide Refining Survey details refining capacity for different products on a site-by-site basis, and
the World Construction Update surveys current and future refining construction activity.
• Power generation: The forecast has been informed by the UDI World Electric Power Plants (WEPP) database,
published by Platts, a leading provider of energy information. From this database we took particular note of fields
which indicated the level of water treatment present at each plant, including fuel type, boiler type, cooling system
type and the presence of sulphur removal technologies.
• Mining: The forecast has been informed by data sourced from SNL Financial’s Mining and Metals data service,
which includes information about mining production and future projects by country and mineral type, as well as a
breakdown of capital costs.
• Food & beverage: The forecast has been informed by food production data, population data, economic data, the
expansion plans of 50 major F&B companies and the financial statements of nine of the largest multinationals.
• Pulp & paper: The forecast has been informed by the FAO ForesSTAT database, published by the UN Food and
Agriculture Organisation. This gives annual country-level pulp production and paper production, with further
classification by paper/cardboard type.
• Pharmaceuticals: The forecast has been informed by published data from official sources concerning the value of
manufacturing output from the pharmaceutical industry in different countries, and forecasts of pharmaceutical
sales produced by IMS Health.
• Microelectronics: The forecast has been informed by the SEMI World Fab Forecast, which details foundry capital
expenditure, production capacity, technology, geometry and products. The dataset is the de-facto data source for
information about the semiconductor industry. It contains information about existing fabrication plants, plants
starting operation and plants starting construction, together with expected online dates. We have also factored in
solar PV cell manufacturing statistics.
1.4.3 Industrial operating expenditure

In this edition of Global Water Market, we have included a forecast of spending on industrial water and wastewater treatment
operations for the first time. This forecast draws upon analysis and research that we conducted for our report, Industrial Water
Services & Chemicals, published in October 2015.
With this forecast, we have combined a top down estimate of total industrial operating expenditure with bottom up estimates
of individual market segments. To estimate top-level spending in each industry, we have combined data on industrial water
withdrawals with estimates of the overall cost of water treatment and management operations. Our estimates of country-level
spending were based on data and projections of industrial output for each sector.

We have divided our analysis of industrial operating expenditure into seven segments:
• Water purchases and wastewater utility charges: This includes payments to municipal utilities for water supply and
wastewater discharge. To estimate this, we have made assumptions about the percentage of utility revenue from
industrial customers. We have not included this segment in our overall forecast of industrial spending because of the
overlap with operating expenditure in the utility sector.
• Labour: This includes payments to people directly employed by the industrial user. We have made assumptions
about the percentage of total operating costs that go towards labour, as well as the likelihood that this would be
in-house or outsourced.
• Energy: This includes the electricity and fuel costs required for treatment operations and for moving water around
industrial facilities. We have made assumptions about the energy required per unit volume of water, and the typical
cost of energy.
• Parts and consumables: This includes the cost of replacement equipment and consumables such as membranes, ion
exchange resins, and activated carbon. These estimates are also included in our forecast of equipment spending (see
section 1.4.6). For each sector and equipment category, we have considered the typical proportion of sales that come
from replacement parts.
• Chemicals: This includes the cost of chemicals required for process water treatment, wastewater treatment, internal
boiler and cooling system conditioning, and other uses such as dust suppression. For more information, see
section 1.4.7.
• Outsourced operations and services: This includes spending on outsourced operations contracts, payments under
BOT contracts, equipment maintenance contracts, services related to the supply of chemicals and consumables,
mobile water solutions and other specialist services. In this report, we do not break out spending under each type of
contract. For a more detailed forecast, please see our Industrial Water Services & Chemicals report.
• Oil & gas water management services: This includes the cost of water sourcing for hydraulic fracturing, transport
and storage of produced water, treatment of fracturing fluid, flowback water and produced water, and disposal of
produced water in deep wells. Our estimate of spending on these services is based on our forecast of produced water
volumes and demand for water for hydraulic fracturing in North America. We have then considered the typical unit
of cost of such services to estimate the total level of spending in the industry.
1.4.4 Seawater and brackish water desalination

Our forecast covering the global desalination market is based on the capacity of projects that we expect to be contracted up to
2020. The baseline for this forecast is derived from the GWI/IDA Worldwide Desalting Inventory, which aims to be a complete
record of all desalination plants larger than 500 m³/d. The most recent edition of this inventory, published in September 2015, is
available with a subscription to our DesalData service. Our future projections are based on information about proposed plants
that we track in Global Water Intelligence, estimates of anticipated additional capacity for smaller plants, and assumptions about
when these projects are likely to be contracted.
The forecast of contracted capacity is converted into a dollar value of capital expenditure using the cost estimator provided
with our DesalData service. This cost model is based on historically observed EPC costs for desalination plants of varying size,
feedwater type, and technology. The model also takes into account local variations in labour costs, energy costs, permitting
requirements, additional requirements for intakes and outfalls, etc.
It should be noted that this although this forecast includes projects for industrial and utility users, it is presented in this report
as a subset of our utility capital expenditure model. This forecast only includes projects using seawater or brackish water as
feedwater, whereas our DesalData forecasts include projects intended for any feedwater quality. Wherever we present a forecast
for desalination in the introduction or the country chapters, it includes projects for industrial and utility customers using
seawater or brackish water as feedwater.
1.4.5 Technologies forecast

In this edition of Global Water Market, we have divided our market forecast by groups of treatment technologies for the first
time. Adding this level of detail allows us to better represent the market for certain technologies, such as biological wastewater
treatment, which were less well represented in our equipment forecasts.
To estimate the total size of the market for different treatment technologies, we have divided our top-level capital expenditure
estimates for each sector between applications that require different levels of treatment and the technologies that are mostly
commonly used for these applications. We have used a variety of sources to come up with some “rules of thumb” about the choice
of different technologies for different applications in each sector, the factors that influence these choices, and the percentage of
total spending that each technology represents. The sources we have used include interviews with industry experts, published

Market forecast
information about individual projects, and in some cases, references of installations that we have collected from technology
suppliers.
The treatment applications that we have used in our analysis include:
Figure 1.26 Description of application categories

Icon Category Description
Process/drinking water treatment Systems and facilities for the treatment of water for domestic consumption and for use in industrial
processes that do not require a high level of treatment. The most common technologies used are those that
remove suspended solids.
Ultrapure water treatment Systems for the treatment of water to high purity for use in boiler and steam systems, and for production
processes in the pharmaceutical and microelectronics industry. These systems require technologies for the
removal of dissolved solids and for disinfection.
Seawater and brackish water Systems and facilities that produce potable water from saline sources. This application includes projects for
desalination both utility and industrial customers.
Wastewater treatment Utility wastewater treatment plants and systems for treating wastewater at industrial sites, including
systems for wastewater reuse and sludge management. The most significant area of spending for this
application is for biological treatment technologies.
Produced water treatment Systems for separating water from hydrocarbons in the upstream oil and gas industry, and for removing oil
from wastewater in the refining industry. The largest area of spending is for oil-water separators at the well
site.
Source: GWI
The treatment technologies we have considered in our forecast are:
Figure 1.27 Description of treatment technology categories

Icon Category Description
Oil-water separation Technologies used to separate oil, natural gas and water in the upstream oil & gas and refining industries,
such as gravity separators, hydrocyclones, nutshell filters, etc. This category was not included in Global
Water Market 2014. We have added this as a result of our market analysis in our reports Water for Onshore
Oil & Gas and Water for Offshore Oil & Gas.
Suspended solids removal Technologies that remove suspended solids by settling, filtration, and flotation, such as clarifiers, induced/
dissolved air flotation, media filtration, micro/ultrafiltration, etc.
Dissolved solids removal This includes reverse osmosis/nanofiltration systems, thermal desalination equipment, ion exchange,
electrodialysis/deionisation, activated carbon, brine concentration, etc.
Biological treatment Any technology that uses biological methods to reduce organic carbon or nutrient levels. We have included
aerobic, anoxic and anaerobic methods, and both free-film and fixed film technologies.
Disinfection Systems using chlorination, ultraviolet light, ozonation, and advanced oxidation to inhibit the growth of
microorganisms and oxidise organic compounds.
Sludge management Technologies for managing and reducing the volume of sludge that is produced by other treatment
processes, such as gravity thickeners, belt thickeners, filter presses, anaerobic digestion, chemical
stabilisation, composting, etc.
Source: GWI
We have also considered spending on other equipment and areas that do not directly fit into one of these categories. This
includes spending on intake structures and discharge points (in the category ‘intakes/outfalls’), and general water-related
spending at project sites (in the category ‘General construction/other’).

1.4.6 Equipment forecast

Our equipment forecasts include spending on equipment under new projects (which we have classified as capital expenditure),
and on replacement parts (which we have classified as operating expenditure). This differs from previous editions of this report,
where we presented only the equipment spending that was part of capital expenditure.
To estimate the market for different categories of equipment, we have considered the breakdown of spending on typical
projects for network expansion, network rehabilitation, water treatment, wastewater treatment, and desalination plants. In
this breakdown, we have built upon the research and interviews we conducted for Global Water Market 2014 to come up with a
“rule of thumb” estimate of the percentages of a typical project that would be allocated to design engineering, civil engineering
and sitework, regulatory and professional services, and equipment. To break down the equipment segment, we have looked at
examples of project budgets and consulted with experts who have experience of particular markets. For some segments, such
as low pressure membranes, high pressure membranes, and thermal desalination equipment, our estimates were informed by
surveys of major suppliers and references of installations.
Our equipment forecasts should be read in the context that there can be substantial variations in local pricing, technology choice
and plant configuration from project to project. We have tried to make sure that our global and regional forecasts represent a true
picture of the market. However, this variation means that there may be some discrepancy between our estimates and the actual
situation in some countries.
The equipment categories we have considered in our forecast are:
• Pipes: Includes network piping and yard piping within treatment plants, desalination plants, and industrial facilities,
as well as connectors and joints. Does not include channels.
• Pumps: Includes pumps in network pumping stations, treatment plant and desalination plant intakes, process
pumping equipment, and sludge pumps, as well as stormwater pumps related to municipal drainage networks and
sewer overflows. Does not include pumps that are part of chemical feed systems.
• Valves: Includes any valve used to control the flow of water in networks and treatment plants, as well as actuators and
fittings. Does not include valves for controlling the flow of other substances, such as gas valves for chlorine.
• Screens: Includes screens, mechanical equipment/washers for cleaning screens, grinders, hydrocyclones and screw
conveyors for removing larger solids before the main treatment process. Does not include solids handling used to
move material around once it has been removed (hoists, haulers, conveyors, etc.), or equipment like hydrocylones that
are used specifically for oil-water separation in the oil & gas industry.
• Agitation/mixing/settling: Includes any equipment used to enhance clarification and settling processes, such as
mechanical mixing devices, scrapers, skimmers, plate settlers, decanting systems, etc. Does not include basins or
tanks, or chemicals used to enhance clarification.
• Aeration: Includes any equipment that introduces air into biological wastewater treatment systems, such as blowers,
diffusers, etc.
• Gas flotation: Includes dissolved/induced air flotation systems used to remove suspended solids. Does not include
dissolved/induced gas flotation systems used to separate oil from water in the upstream oil & gas industry.
• Oil-water separation: Includes any equipment used to separate water from hydrocarbons in the upstream oil & gas
and refining industries. This includes gravity separators, hydrocyclones, induced/dissolved gas flotation, nutshell
filters, etc. This category was not included in Global Water Market 2014.
• Non-membrane filtration: Includes filtration media, underdrains and backwashing equipment for gravity filtration
systems, and the entire system for pressure filtration systems. Also includes replacement filtration media. Does not
include filtration basins.
• Low pressure (MF/UF) membranes: Includes ultrafiltration and microfiltration membrane elements used for
the removal of suspended solids and in membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems. Does not include modules, control
systems, pumps or valves.
• High pressure (RO/NF) membranes: Includes reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membrane elements for removal
of dissolved solids. Does not include modules, pressure vessels, racks, control systems, pumps or valves.
• Thermal desalination equipment: Includes all equipment for thermal distillation, evaporation and vapour
compression that is used in ultrapure water production, desalination, brine concentration and crystallisation.
• Ion exchange: Includes the cost of ion exchange resins and systems. We have considered the initial system
installation to be a capital expense and the cost of replacement/regenerated resin to be an operating expense.
• ED/EDI: Includes any systems and technologies that use an electrical potential difference to separate dissolved solids
from water streams, such as electrodialysis, electrodialysis reversal, electrodeionisation, etc.

Market forecast
• Activated carbon: Includes any systems and technologies for the removal of trace contaminants by adsorption
processes. We have considered the initial system to be a capital expense and the cost of replacement carbon or
regeneration to be an operating expense.
• Disinfection: Includes all systems and equipment for disinfection and oxidation of water and wastewater, such
as storage, delivery and control for chlorination systems, UV disinfection systems, ozonation systems, advanced
oxidation systems, etc. Does not include contact tanks or bulk delivery facilities.
• Chemical feed systems: Includes all systems and equipment for chemical storage, delivery and control. Does not
include contact tanks, or chlorination/biocide feed systems (which are included in Disinfection).
• Sludge thickening/dewatering: Includes all equipment whose purpose is thickening and dewatering the sludge
produced by other treatment processes, such as gravity thickeners, belt thickeners, rotary drum thickeners, flotation
thickeners, centrifuges, vacuum filtration, filter presses, etc.
• Sludge drying/thermal processes: Includes all equipment and systems for thermal treatment of sludge, such as
incineration, wet air oxidation, supercritical water oxidation, pyrolysis, gasification, pasteurisation, etc. Does not
include facilities for offsite co-incineration of sludge with other solid waste, or similar systems that are used for water
and wastewater.
• Anaerobic digestion: Includes all configurations of anaerobic digestion system, as well as any advanced technology
or pretreatment system that will enhance biogas yield, such as thermal hydrolysis, enzymic hydrolysis, ultrasonic
disintegration, high pressure disintegration, etc. Does not include anaerobic wastewater treatment systems.
• Other sludge stabilisation: Includes any other equipment and systems used to stabilise and reduce the volume of
sludge, such as chemical stabilisation, aerobic digestion, and composting. Does not include equipment for anaerobic
digestion or pasteurisation, or systems for treating wastewater.
• Meters: Includes any device for measuring the flow of water to residential and commercial connections, and
equipment needed at the connection for automated meter reading. Does not include other devices for measuring the
flow of water in networks (these are included in Sensors) or storage and communication systems which use data from
automated meters (these are included in Automation/control)
• Sensors: Includes any device for measuring the flow or quality of water in networks, treatment plants or industrial
facilities, such as flow meters, turbidity sensors, pressure sensors, etc. Does not include meters on customer
connections (which are include in Meters), laboratory equipment (which is included in Testing/analysis) or data
storage and communication equipment (which is included in Automation/control).
• Testing/analysis: Includes laboratory water quality analytical, monitoring and testing systems for use by utilities and
industrial water users. Does not include analytical systems used to test other fluids and solutions in industrial and
research laboratories.
• Automation/control: Includes any system that controls utility and industrial water operations and any system that
collects and processes data. On the operational side this includes SCADA systems, centralised manual control
systems, electrical control panels, PLCs, sensors, and any other non-mechanical elements of the control system. We
have also included systems and software associated with customer service, accounting, enterprise managements,
hydrological modelling, asset management, leak detection, etc. This does not include general electrical work, water
quality testing equipment, customer meters or monitoring devices.
• Other equipment: Includes any water-related equipment that does not fit into one of the above categories, such as
storage tanks, contact tanks, weirs, pressure vessels, racking, etc. plus a contingency allowance. Does not include
non-water specific items such as walkways, stairs, handrails, etc.
We have also considered spending in three areas of non-equipment spending. They are:
• Design and engineering: Includes any costs related to project design and engineering for treatment plant, network
and industrial projects. Does not include engineering costs related to sitework or construction.
• Civil engineering/fabrication: Includes labour, installation costs and generic materials (such as concrete, steel or
cables) involved in treatment plant and network projects. For industrial projects this includes labour, installation
costs and generic materials associated with water and wastewater treatment systems, as wells as custom metal
fabricated industrial process equipment. Does not include water-specific equipment and materials such as pipes
that are listed above. In industrial projects, this does not include general civil engineering and construction costs at
project sites.
• Regulatory and professional costs: Includes the cost of any legal and financial services on a project, as well as services
related to environmental permits for water withdrawals and discharges.

1.4.7 Chemicals forecast

We have estimated the size of the market for water treatment chemicals by considering the volume of chemicals used in different
applications, the type of chemicals used in each application, and the typical unit cost of such chemicals. In our analysis we
have looked at four main applications (internal boiler treatment programs, cooling system treatment programs, drinking/
process water treatment, and wastewater treatment), and five main chemical types (coagulants/flocculants, biocides, pH
control, corrosion inhibitors, and scale inhibitors). To cross-check the output from our forecast model, we have compared it
with our overall forecast of operating expenditure and assumptions about the typical percentage of spending that goes towards
chemical purchases. We have also consulted with experts to get their opinion on the size of the market for different industries,
applications, and chemical types.
We have also divided our forecast between spending on commodity- and specialty type chemicals, and between the revenues
associated with chemical sales and additional services. We have assumed that corrosion and scale inhibitors are predominantly
specialty chemicals sourced through a service company, while pH adjusters and biocides are more likely to be commodity
chemicals sourced directly from the manufacturer or through a distributor. It should be noted that the forecast presented in
this section, at the end of each country chapter, and in the accompanying spreadsheets only include the sale of chemicals. Any
associated services are included in the Third-party services segment of our forecast.
1.4.8 Global market forecast summary

The following figures describe our global forecast of water and wastewater spending. It should be noted that in the market
forecast breakdown chart, the figure for ‘Total equipment sales’ is not the sum of the figures for ‘Total capex by technology’ and
‘Parts & consumables’ above it. This is because the figure for equipment sales does not include spending on non-equipment
categories, including design and engineering, civil engineering/fabrication, and regulatory/professional services.

Market forecast
Figure 1.28 Market forecast, 2013–2020

Utility water capex Utility wastewater capex
150,000 200,000
120,000
150,000
90,000
$ million
$ million
100,000
60,000
50,000
30,000
0 0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Water treatment plants Water distribution networks Wastewater treatment plants Wastewater networks
Water resources (inc. desalination) Sludge management
Equipment capex Utility and industrial opex

350,000 250,000
300,000 225,000
250,000
200,000
200,000
$ million
$ million
175,000
150,000
150,000
100,000
50,000 125,000
0 100,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Utility Industrial Utility water Utility wastewater Industrial
Chemicals opex (utility and industrial) Desalination

30,000 5,000
25,000
4,000
20,000
3,000
$ million
$ million
15,000
2,000
10,000
1,000
5,000
0 0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Seawater Brackish water
Coagulants / flocculants Biocides pH control
Corrosion inhibitors Scale inhibitors Other
Source: GWI

Figure 1.29 Market forecast breakdown, 2016
Total capex 35.8% Total opex 64.2%
Total water market

$713,916m
(2016)
Total capex Total opex

$255,599m $458,317m
(2016) (2016)
Utility capex 92.1% Industrial capex 7.9%

Utility opex 75.3% Industrial opex 24.7%
Utility capex by project (2016) $235,325m Industrial capex by industry (2016) $20,274m
Water resources 7.4% Upstream oil & gas 12.9%
Water networks 24.6% Refining & petrochemicals 3.6%
Water treatment 11.6% Power generation 12.1%
Desalination 1.2% Mining 5.6%
Wastewater networks 33.0% Food & beverage 23.2%
Wastewater treatment 22.2% Pulp & paper 2.7%
Pharmaceuticals 3.9%
Total capex by technology (2016) $255,599m Microelectronics 5.9%
Oil-water separation 0.8% Other 30.1%
Suspended solids 9.8%
Dissolved solids 1.5% Total opex by segment (2016) $458,317m
Biological treatment 7.2% Labour 35.0%
Disinfection 2.1% Energy 11.5%
Sludge management 4.0% Parts & consumables 5.3%
Intakes / outfalls 4.2% Chemicals 5.1%
General construction / other 10.5% Third party services 13.9%
Water resources 6.8% Oil & gas water services 6.3%
Water networks 22.7% Other 22.9%
Wastewater networks 30.4%
Total equipment sales (2016) $143,712m Total chemical sales (2016) $23,350m
Screens 2.4% Coagulants / flocculants 50.5%
Standard process equipment 3.2% Biocides 15.5%
Aeration 2.5% pH control 5.4%
Non-membrane filtration 2.2% Scale inhibitors 13.3%
Disinfection & chem feeds 3.7% Corrosion inhibitors 12.8%
A&C / test / meters 15.2% Other 2.5%
MF / UF 0.3%
RO / NF 0.6%
Sludge 4.2%
Other / specialist 19.9%
Note: Total equipment sales excludes civil engineering,
Pipes, pumps & valves 46.0% design and regulatory costs, which are included in total capex.
Source: GWI

Market forecast
Figure 1.30 Market forecast data, 2013–2020

Capital expenditure by sector ($m) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Utility water capital expenditure 110,996.0 101,798.3 102,313.2 105,391.9 111,028.3 117,906.2 124,424.0 131,305.6
Water networks 55,274.7 53,709.5 55,357.5 57,927.4 61,318.3 64,276.9 67,244.5 70,849.0
Water treatment plants 27,110.5 25,932.9 26,334.6 27,255.3 28,649.1 29,874.7 31,214.7 32,766.8
Water resources (excl. desalination) 24,351.2 18,875.5 17,904.4 17,336.7 18,040.0 19,788.5 21,256.9 22,702.2
Seawater and brackish water desalination 4,259.6 3,280.5 2,716.7 2,872.5 3,021.0 3,966.2 4,707.9 4,987.5
Utility wastewater capital expenditure 117,571.7 120,889.6 124,062.0 129,933.1 136,823.2 144,595.3 151,715.8 160,533.9
Wastewater networks 69,203.5 72,075.0 73,634.4 77,723.9 81,986.3 86,799.2 91,189.2 96,772.2
Wastewater treatment plants 38,785.2 38,861.5 39,786.5 41,026.5 42,962.6 45,175.3 47,381.7 49,902.8
Sludge management 9,583.0 9,953.0 10,641.1 11,182.7 11,874.2 12,620.9 13,144.8 13,858.9
Industrial capital expenditure 20,437.5 21,174.3 19,609.3 20,274.0 21,539.1 23,209.6 25,063.2 27,086.8
Total capital expenditure 249,005.2 243,862.3 245,984.4 255,599.0 269,390.5 285,711.1 301,203.0 318,926.3
Capital expenditure by technology ($m) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Oil-water separation 2,997.8 3,303.0 1,966.5 1,930.5 2,001.1 2,241.3 2,716.6 3,148.0
Suspended solids removal 24,500.9 23,988.6 24,298.9 25,160.8 26,470.4 27,837.3 29,195.2 30,712.2
Dissolved solids removal 4,447.0 4,038.3 3,809.2 3,954.7 4,203.5 4,760.9 5,203.7 5,569.4
Biological treatment 17,332.4 17,368.7 17,811.1 18,364.1 19,205.7 20,238.9 21,291.0 22,466.4
Disinfection 5,263.1 5,083.5 5,168.2 5,336.9 5,605.9 5,863.0 6,135.8 6,437.5
Sludge management 8,864.8 9,217.1 9,828.3 10,337.9 10,978.6 11,687.0 12,212.5 12,912.7
Total technologies 63,405.9 62,999.1 62,882.2 65,084.9 68,465.1 72,628.3 76,754.8 81,246.3
Intakes / outfalls 10,764.6 10,367.0 10,426.1 10,795.5 11,360.8 12,099.7 12,796.3 13,464.8
General construction / other 26,005.1 25,836.2 25,779.9 26,730.6 28,220.0 30,118.6 31,961.3 33,891.8
Networks & resources 148,829.5 144,660.0 146,896.3 152,988.0 161,344.6 170,864.5 179,690.6 190,323.4
Total capital expenditure 249,005.2 243,862.3 245,984.4 255,599.0 269,390.5 285,711.1 301,203.0 318,926.3
Operating expenditure by sector ($m) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Utility water 188,041.2 191,369.9 195,633.7 200,638.6 205,030.8 210,276.4 215,764.1 221,988.9
Utility wastewater 132,493.0 136,278.7 140,026.1 144,481.1 149,814.1 154,063.3 161,228.2 166,002.4
Industrial 109,443.9 113,987.1 112,467.9 113,197.0 114,253.5 117,200.8 121,825.5 127,191.2
Total operating expenditure 429,978.1 441,635.6 448,127.6 458,316.6 469,098.4 481,540.5 498,817.9 515,182.6
Operating expenditure by segment ($m) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Labour (in-house services) 149,007.1 152,367.7 156,116.0 160,396.8 164,733.6 168,903.4 174,231.8 178,952.9
Energy 48,061.1 49,392.8 50,921.2 52,864.1 54,800.3 56,722.8 58,999.9 61,252.8
Parts & consumables 22,629.4 23,189.3 23,784.2 24,446.0 25,113.6 25,733.4 26,551.8 27,256.1
Chemicals 21,642.9 22,187.4 22,746.8 23,350.3 23,962.7 24,553.5 25,249.5 25,908.0
Third party services 58,962.6 60,433.9 61,867.5 63,483.9 65,339.6 67,183.0 69,494.3 71,524.6
Oil & gas water services 32,238.8 34,504.4 30,633.9 28,736.5 27,121.6 27,508.4 29,422.5 32,005.0
Other 97,436.2 99,560.1 102,058.1 105,039.1 108,027.0 110,936.1 114,868.1 118,283.2
Total operating expenditure 429,978.1 441,635.6 448,127.6 458,316.6 469,098.4 481,540.5 498,817.9 515,182.6

Equipment: opex and capex ($m) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Pipes 40,099.3 40,250.5 41,127.6 42,877.8 45,003.0 47,224.3 49,454.8 51,958.6
Pumps 15,435.4 15,093.9 15,238.1 15,747.5 16,512.0 17,430.7 18,327.3 19,291.2
Valves 7,133.9 7,029.3 7,135.8 7,416.5 7,788.7 8,216.7 8,641.6 9,100.4
Screens 3,314.3 3,240.1 3,275.0 3,389.9 3,560.1 3,773.4 3,975.6 4,173.0
Agitation / Mixing / Settling 4,384.1 4,345.4 4,407.9 4,545.6 4,763.4 5,001.1 5,251.5 5,520.8
Aeration 3,280.1 3,331.1 3,456.4 3,583.9 3,756.3 3,951.3 4,157.8 4,383.7
Gas flotation 1,552.1 1,534.9 1,568.8 1,633.4 1,716.2 1,799.6 1,882.7 1,973.5
Oil-water separation 3,838.7 4,168.4 2,850.8 2,828.3 2,908.5 3,150.6 3,630.7 4,067.2
Non-membrane filtration 3,048.1 3,023.3 3,039.1 3,147.0 3,304.9 3,475.0 3,647.4 3,832.4
Low pressure membranes (MF/UF) 373.9 366.1 367.7 395.6 425.9 460.7 486.4 513.2
High pressure membranes (RO/NF) 984.2 927.6 857.7 888.7 976.6 1,086.2 1,174.3 1,254.4
Thermal desalination equipment 379.0 335.6 305.7 357.7 373.8 429.7 439.3 504.7
Ion exchange 573.7 582.9 579.9 587.8 608.2 637.0 659.6 686.8
ED / EDI 117.4 124.4 129.1 134.7 146.2 155.7 165.4 177.2
Activated carbon 257.1 259.4 265.7 273.4 282.3 291.0 301.7 312.0
Disinfection 2,910.8 2,844.5 2,892.7 2,988.5 3,136.1 3,277.6 3,425.7 3,589.4
Chemical feed systems 2,207.0 2,197.9 2,201.8 2,277.0 2,391.0 2,522.4 2,656.4 2,799.4
Sludge thickening / dewatering 2,225.4 2,267.2 2,361.2 2,279.7 2,368.3 2,479.5 2,562.2 2,669.8
Sludge drying / thermal processes 1,312.3 1,367.1 1,457.5 1,541.8 1,628.8 1,722.6 1,806.1 1,906.6
Anaerobic digestion 799.3 850.1 921.3 1,065.7 1,147.3 1,235.5 1,308.4 1,398.3
Other sludge stabilisation 890.7 949.8 1,015.0 1,157.0 1,247.6 1,342.2 1,416.6 1,516.8
Meters 4,021.6 4,071.7 4,281.1 4,597.7 4,789.5 4,957.3 5,121.5 5,322.4
Sensors 3,030.2 2,965.0 2,987.5 3,088.0 3,240.2 3,411.1 3,585.3 3,768.6
Testing / Analysis 2,129.2 2,033.3 2,020.8 2,080.1 2,180.8 2,317.0 2,448.8 2,578.1
Automation / control 10,935.5 10,963.8 11,379.2 12,049.4 12,917.9 13,855.2 14,806.2 15,876.7
Other equipment 22,089.9 21,725.4 21,991.8 22,779.0 23,937.7 25,354.8 26,718.6 28,177.6
Total equipment 137,323.2 136,848.8 138,115.3 143,711.9 151,111.1 159,558.1 168,052.0 177,352.8
Design and engineering 17,571.4 17,174.1 17,360.0 18,045.1 19,051.5 20,248.0 21,381.0 22,669.9
Civil engineering / fabrication 114,057.4 110,843.5 112,186.1 116,211.1 122,174.5 129,280.8 135,800.7 143,477.1
Regulatory & professional costs 2,682.6 2,185.1 2,107.2 2,076.8 2,166.9 2,357.6 2,521.1 2,682.7
Total expenditure 271,634.6 267,051.5 269,768.7 280,045.0 294,504.1 311,444.5 327,754.8 346,182.5
Chemicals: utility and industrial ($m) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Coagulants / flocculants 10,916.7 11,185.2 11,468.2 11,782.8 12,100.7 12,405.7 12,785.4 13,129.9
Biocides 3,369.8 3,448.3 3,533.7 3,628.3 3,721.5 3,814.9 3,923.9 4,029.8
pH Control 1,154.7 1,186.3 1,217.7 1,250.4 1,283.6 1,315.4 1,351.0 1,385.9
Corrosion inhibitors 2,778.1 2,855.1 2,926.7 2,998.9 3,075.6 3,148.9 3,228.0 3,307.4
Scale inhibitors 2,885.4 2,960.4 3,034.6 3,110.3 3,187.7 3,261.7 3,340.5 3,420.3
Other 538.2 552.0 565.9 579.6 593.6 606.8 620.7 634.8
Total 21,642.9 22,187.4 22,746.8 23,350.3 23,962.7 24,553.5 25,249.5 25,908.0
Source: GWI

Global Water Market 2016 - GWI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Water Market 2016 - GWI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Water Market 2016 - GWI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the water market?

1. WATER MARKET OVERVIEW

1.1.2 By end-user type: utility/industrial/commercial/agricultural

Figure 1.1 The global water market, 2016

1.1.3 By spending type: capex/opex

Utility capex 33.0%

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] 1

1.1.4 Capital expenditure on water

Figure 1.3 Global water capex, 2016

Global water capex

1.1.5 Operating expenditure on water

Figure 1.4 Global water opex, 2016

Global water opex

Third party services 13.9%

1.2 MARKET DRIVERS

2 © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]

Figure 1.5 Water stress by region

Source: Adapted from WRI, 2015a

Figure 1.6 Seasonal variability by region

Source: Adapted from WRI, 2015b

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] 3

Figure 1.7 Drought severity by region

Source: Adapted from WRI, 2015b

1.2.1.1 Demand management

Figure 1.8 The dynamics of water use, 1900–2025

4 © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]

1.2.2 Urbanisation and access to water

1.2.2.1 Water access

Figure 1.9 Global access to drinking water

Global access to drinking water (2015)

Source: WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme

Figure 1.10 Global access to sanitation

Global access to sanitation (2015)

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] 5

1.2.3.1 Major regulatory changes

6 © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]

1.2.3.2 European Union water regulation

Figure 1.11 List of water-related EU directives

1.2.4 Corporate water risk

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] 7

Figure 1.12 CDP Water Project 2015 survey responses

1.3 MARKET RESTRAINTS

1.3.1.1 Capital intensity

8 © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]

Figure 1.13 Capital intensity of utility services

1.3.2 Paying for water

1.3.2.1 Water tariffs

Figure 1.14 What makes a water tariff?

Average tariff Variable wastewater costs

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] 9

Figure 1.15 Evolution of water and wastewater tariffs by region, 2011–2015

3.00 Western Europe

Source: GWI Albuquerque (United States) $3.25 (+12.9%)

Algiers (Algeria) $0.31 (0.0%) Bandung (Indonesia) $0.33 (0.0%)

water market overview

Figure 1.17 Standard connection charges by region

1.3.2.2 Operating expenditure

14 © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]

Figure 1.18 Revenues versus operating costs in selected countries