Search

To evaluate and reflect the sustainability of services in the region, an overall sector sustainability assessment was done, taking into account four main dimensions: access to services, quality of services, efficiency of services, and financing of services. Each of these dimensions is measured through three simple and objective indicators. For each indicator, best practice values are established by looking at the best performers in the region, and countries closest to those best performers are deemed to have a more mature sector. A more complete description of the methodology to assess the sector sustainability is included in the Annex of the State of the Sector Regional Report from the Danube Water Program. The outcomes of this assessment for the Moldova water sector are presented, which also shows average and best practices in the Danube region. The Moldova sector sustainability score is 50, which is below the Danube average of 64, and is among the lowest scores in the region. The assessment shows that, on average, the country performs well in terms of collection ratio, nonrevenue water, and continuity of service. The main deficiencies of the Moldova water sector identified through the sector sustainability assessment are access to piped water and flush toilets, affordability, and investment level.

In order to evaluate the sustainability of services in the region, an overall sector maturity assessment was done taking into account four main dimensions: access to services, quality of services, efficiency of services, and financing of services. Each of these dimensions is measured through three simple and objective indicators. For each indicator, best practice values are established by looking at the best performers in the region, and countries closest to those best performers are deemed to have a more mature sector. A more complete description of the methodology to assess sector maturity is included in the annex of the state of the sector Regional Report from the Danube Water Program. The outcomes of this assessment for the Bosnia and Herzegovina water sector are displayed in Figure 10, which also shows average and best practices in the Danube region. The BiH sector maturity score is 57, which is close to the Danube average maturity of 64. The assessment shows that, on average, the country performs well in terms of access to piped water and flush toilets, and customer satisfaction. With regard to the BiH water sector, the main deficiencies identified through the sector maturity assessment are level of investment, staffing level, and wastewater treatment coverage.

To evaluate and reflect the sustainability of services in the region, an overall sector sustainability assessment was done taking into account four main dimensions: access to services, quality of services, efficiency of services, and financing of services. Each of these dimensions is measured through three simple and objective indicators. For each indicator, best practice values are established by looking at the best performers in the region, and countries closest to those best performers are deemed to have a more mature sector. A more complete description of the methodology to assess the sector sustainability is included in the Annex of the State of the Sector Regional Report from the Danube Water Program. The outcomes of this assessment for Bulgaria’s water sector are presented, which also shows average and best practices in the Danube region. The Bulgarian sector sustainability score is 66, which is just above Danube average sustainability of 64. The assessment shows that, on average, the country performs well in terms of access to piped water, staffing level, and nonrevenue water. The main deficiencies of Bulgaria’s water sector identified through the sector sustainability assessment are operating cost coverage, investment level, and customer satisfaction level.

In order to evaluate and reflect the sustainability of services in the region, an overall sector sustainability assessment was done, taking into account four main dimensions: access to services, quality of services, efficiency of services, and financing of services. Each of these dimensions is measured through three simple and objective indicators. For each indicator, best practice values are established by looking at the best performers in the region, and countries closest to those best performers are deemed to have a more mature sector. A more complete description of the methodology to assess sector sustainability is included in the Annex of the State of the Sector Regional Report from the Danube Water Program. The outcomes of this assessment for the Slovak Republic water sector are displayed, which also shows average and best practices in the Danube region. The country sector sustainability score is 82, which is far above the Danube average sustainability score of 64, and among the best practices in the region. The assessment shows that, on average, the country performs well in terms of continuity of service, access to piped water and flush toilets, wastewater compliance, staffing level, nonrevenue water, and collection ratio. The main deficiencies of the Slovak water sector identified through the sector sustainability assessment are the level of investment, the operating cost ratio and the wastewater treatment coverage.

To evaluate the sustainability of services in the region, an overall sector assessment has been done taking into account four main dimensions: access to services, quality of services, efficiency of services, and financing of services. Each of these dimensions is measured through three simple and objective indicators. For each indicator, best practice values are established by looking at the best performers in the region, and the countries closest to those best performers are deemed to have a more mature sector. A more complete description of the methodology to assess sector sustainability is included in the annex of the state of the sector regional report from the Danube Water Program. The outcomes of this assessment for the Serbian water sector are presented, which also shows average and best practices in the Danube region. The Serbian sector sustainability score is 61, which is below the Danube average sustainability of 64. The assessment shows that, on average, the country performs well in terms of access to piped water and flush toilets, nonrevenue water, and affordability. The main deficiencies of the Serbian water sector identified through the sector sustainability assessment are the level of investment, wastewater treatment coverage, and the operating cost ratio. The main sector challenges are: strengthening and clarifying sector governance; ensuring tariff setting according to the cost recovery principle to improve overall performance in preparation for EU accession; and enhancing water utility staff capacity and training.

This report analyzes the progress and challenges of 16 countries in the Danube watershed in delivering sustainable water and wastewater services to all, while meeting the European Union environmental acquis communautaire. After putting the services that are being delivered into context, the report analyzes the organization of services in the region and the level of access to services, that is, how well countries are doing in terms of providing access to water and wastewater services for the entire population. It then looks at the performance of the sector, including the quality of services provided and customer satisfaction with it. It also draws a picture of the efficiency of services, including whether they reflect accepted good practices. Finally, it analyzes the financing of services, looking at whether the financing of operation, maintenance, and investments is secured and affordable. The report draws largely from existing public data sources at the national and regional level, and consolidates them into a coherent, regional narrative, and analysis. The methods of analysis include horizontal comparisons among countries at a given point in time and trends within the countries or the region over a given period of time. Given shortcomings in the availability and comparability of data across 16 countries, the report seeks to encourage and inform a policy dialogue around sector challenges rather than provide a definitive set of policy recommendations.

Infrastructure plays a key role in promoting economic growth and opportunities.In particular, the efficient provision of basic infrastructure services, like water and sanitation, is a key ingredient in fostering a country's social and economic development. Previous studies have found that infrastructure has a positive impact on output, and can improve economic opportunity, including health and education for the poor, particularly in developing countries. In Argentina, a 2005 study, found that child mortality fell by 8 percent in areas that had experienced improved coverage and quality of basic water and sanitation through utility reform, with most of the reduction occurring in low-income areas where the water network expanded the most. More generally, Fay and Morrison found that allowing the poorest quintile in developing countries the same access to basic services as the richest quintile would reduce child mortality by 8 percent and child under development by 14 percent. Calderon and Serven also found a significant positive impact of infrastructure access and quality on overall inequality. Furthermore, the book sheds some light on how to address the main challenge for the future which may be to attract specialized operators to the smaller municipalities which do not currently have them. For that purpose in Colombia, for example, over the last two years, the policy framework has been focused on promoting the sector's development, by using the departments as the intermediate institutional level between the National Government and the municipalities, to formulate programs with regional impact and promote comprehensive investment plans.

In the late 1980s, Chile planned to privatize Santiago's sanitary works enterprise (EMOS) but instead reformed it under public ownership. It did so through a regulatory framework that mimicked the design of a concession with a private utility, setting tariffs that ensured at least a seven percent return on assets, creating a neutral regulator independent of ministry intervention, and giving EMOS the right to appeal the regulator's tariff decisions. This reform of Santiago's water system is often cited as a case of successful reform under public management. Comparing a comprehensive measure of welfare with a counterfactual example, the authors show surprisingly large gains from Santiago's reform, given the relatively good initial conditions. (The gains accrued largely to government and employees, but consumers benefited from improved service and coverage). Why did reform in Santiago improve water system performance, when similar reform attempts under public management in other countries failed? 1) Chile has a long tradition of private water rights, shaped by early recognition that water is a scarce and tradable private good. 2) The reformed regulatory framework was designed to attract private investors to the water system and to motivate them to operate efficiently and expand the system. 3) Chile's unique electoral institutions sustained this framework under state operation after democracy was restored. 4) Chile's strong bureaucratic norms and institutions (permitting little corruption), combined with Santiago's relatively low-cost water system, permitted prices that effectively increased quasi-rents for investing in the system while minimizing the risk of inefficiency or monopoly rents. The authors also address the question of why EMOS was reformed but not privatized, and what the costs of not privatizing were. The system was privatized in 1999, but the changes from privatization are likely to be less significant than those introduced in 1989-90.