Title page
Contents
Abstract 4
Résumé 5
Acknowledgements 6
Executive summary 9
1. Assessing the enabling environment for investment in water security 11
1.1. Rationale 12
1.2. Definitions 12
1.3. Structure of the Scorecard 12
1.4. The four dimensions are interlinke 15
1.5. Enabling conditions captured in the Scorecard 16
1.6. Methodology 18
2. Pilot test results: Asian countries 22
2.1. Assessment of the enabling environment for investment in water security 22
2.2. Assessment of the policy framework for investment (Dimension 1) 23
2.3. Assessment of the water policy framework for investment (Dimension 2) 28
2.4. Assessment of the framework for projects sustainability and bankability (Dimension 3) 38
2.5. Assessment of how other economic sectors contribute to water security (Dimension 4) 40
2.6. Countries performance in attracting different source of investment evolves through the Scorecard stages 41
Annex A. The Scorecard: questions and sub-questions and data sources 45
Annex B. Indicator definitions 60
Dimension 1 60
Macro-Economic Indicators 64
Dimension 2 66
Dimension 3 68
Annex C. Data collection results from Asian pilot test 69
Annex D. Supplementary analysis for assessing the robustness of the tool 71
References 73
Table 1.1. Scorecard's underlying questions across the four dimensions 17
Table 2.1. D1 A sound policy framework for investment 25
Table 2.2. D2: Channelling investment to water: Authority(ies) in charge of water resources 28
Table 2.3. D2: Channelling investment to water: Drinking water services: urban and rural 29
Figure 1.1. Numerous stakeholders are involved in the enabling environment for investment in water security 19
Figure 1.2. Scoring's banding system: covering the developmental stages of a country 21
Figure 2.1. Three of the seven countries reached the engaged stage 23
Figure 2.2. Most investment policy frameworks are at the capable stage 28
Figure 2.3. D2: Most countries studied are at the engaged stage for the water policy framework 30
Figure 2.4. Uneven water resource management policy framework, with nascent, engaged and capable stages 31
Figure 2.5. An uneven policy framework for investment for urban water supply 33
Figure 2.6. Service providers' financial performance limited regarding debt service ratio 36
Figure 2.7. Challenges relating to operating cost coverage as service providers do not reach the desired levels 37
Figure 2.8. High non-revenue water levels signify important losses in Armenia and Nepal, with no country achieving negligible losses 37
Figure 2.9. Fairly similar - although at a low level - conditions to develop projects that are sustainable and bankable faces challenges 38
Figure 2.10. Countries' cumulative investment in water and sanitation from different financing sources (2015-2021) 42
Figure 2.11. The countries with the lowest D2 score rely significantly more on ODA whereas stronger performing countries attract comparatively more private investment 43
Annex Tables
Table A A.1. D1 A sound policy framework for investment: is the country attractive for investors? 45
Table A A.2. D2. Channelling investment to water: Authority(ies) in charge of water resources 47
Table A A.3. D2 Drinking water services: urban and rural 49
Table A A.4. D2 Sanitation services: urban and rural 52
Table A A.5. D2 Irrigation: Big schemes 54
Table A A.6. D3 A pipeline of good projects: to what extend water projects are bankable and sustainable? 56
Table A A.7. D4 An economy-wide water lens: are economic sectors contributing to a water secure future? 57
Table A B.1. List of indicators name, data source, unit and observed period used in Dimension 1 61
Annex Figures
Figure A C.1. Response rate per country 70
Figure A D.1. For net ODA recipients, the countries which receive the most ODA tend to have lower GNI per capita than the others 71
Figure A D.2. No observed correlation between D1 scoring of ODA recipients and ODA to Water Supply & Sanitation 72