目前发展中国家用于新的供水基础设施的支出每年约为750亿美元，其中包括用于供应饮水的投资约130亿美元。无法获得清洁饮水的大多数人居住在农村地区，尤其是在非洲和亚洲，但是，因供应饮水方面投资而获益最大的却是城市地区。20世纪90年代，发展中国家平均每年对城市供水的投资为80亿美元，对农村地区投资则为46亿美元。每年供水和卫生的投资总额为157亿美元（1990～2000年），其中供水占80％，只有20％用于卫生。非洲只有12％。
今后10年中城市人口将急剧增加（占世界人口增长数约87.5％，增长人口绝大多数在发展中国家），这意味着继续需要对城市供水基础设施作大量投资。同时，由于城市覆盖面已经很高，城乡覆盖面差距很大，供水覆盖面和卫生覆盖面存在很大差异，因此，需要将优先事项调整为农村供水以及全面卫生工作，尤其是城市和城市外围非正式居住区的卫生工作。
基于过去10年中发展中国家供应饮水的人均估计费用，并考虑到为了实现饮水方面的千年发展目标，到2015年需要增加为16亿人口供应饮水，因此，在今后11年中每年平均需要大约260亿美元来扩大供水覆盖面（其中包括估计占投资费用15％的年度运营和维持费用）。如果在基本卫生基础设施费用之外加上废水处理费用，实现卫生方面目标的费用就更高。然而，无法确定全球所需投资的估计数，因为这将取决于对所采用的各种技术以及需要服务的人口的地点作出的推断。需要更加重视针对各国提出可靠的估计数。
由于供水定价政策不完备，因此很难调动国内资源来发展灌溉。灌溉用水依然有很高的津贴。但是，人们日益认识到必须从供水价格中至少收回相当一部分系统操作和维持费用。除供水价格之外，其他重要因素是制订分配用水的规则和供水系统进行技术改造，以便农民因价格提高而节约用水。近年来的对灌溉基础设施的商业贷款和私人投资都已减少，而新的灌溉农地的开发费用却大幅度上涨。譬如，菲律宾的费用上涨了50％以上，泰国上涨40％，斯里兰卡几乎增加两倍，因为土地开发和开垦、水的转运、供水分配系统的费用都很高，而且地面水灌溉的抽水费用也很高。
近年来，饮水供应系统的管理和发展方面的一个重大问题是私营部门的作用和公私营部门伙伴关系。对私营部门参与饮水供应可以分为两大类。第一类是大型私营公司——往往是多国公司。大型私营公司的参与又可以分为四种，其投资风险分布情况不同：管理和租约合同（设施掌握在公共部门手中，并由公共部门作出投资决定并承担财务责任），特许权（临时接管公用事业公司的管理权和若干投资承诺），对新设施作出新生产能力投资（基础设施所有权有可能转交给公共部门），资产过户（私营投资者购买国家企业的股权）。第二类是小型供水公司（小公司），它们主要是提供服务，投资数额有限（例如对运水车、水泵和井眼作投资）。
大型私营部门对供水和污水排放的参与主要集中在东亚及太平洋以及拉丁美洲和加勒比，供水项目的地位又在污水排放之上。南非和撒南非洲几乎不存在私人投资。每个区域都有一些国家在吸引私人部门投资方面居领先地位——包括东亚的中国和马来西亚；拉丁美洲的墨西哥、巴西和阿根廷；北非的摩洛哥。这些国家建立了有效的机构，执行法律和管制框架，并且改善了施政机制，为私营部门的参与铺平了道路。各区域不同参与类别的相对比重基本一致，不过东亚及太平洋的新生产能力投资与特许权数目几乎一样多，而欧洲和中亚则是管理合同占主导地位。
私营供水公司的参与引起了种种问题，包括对供水合同投标时串通舞弊，管制者很容易受被管制公司的影响，合同对收入的保障不够灵活，对基础设施享有垄断地位，缺乏透明度。总起来说，人们对于大型私营部门参与供水部门会对供水方面的千年发展目标作出重大贡献的期望是否现实持怀疑态度。目前世界人口中只有一小部分由私营公司提供服务。近几年来，私人投资者对供水部门持更加谨慎的态度，放慢了投资速度，因为他们低估了风险，或过高估计了利润，而且在合同方面遇到各种问题——例如政府看到公众对供水收费表示不满，有时要求重新谈判合同。
许多发展中国家政府和消费者担心让私营公司掌握地方供水的垄断权，特别是担心水费上涨的社会影响，因此不鼓励多国公司参与供水服务。在不同论坛进行的辩论使人们比较清楚地了解私营部门的潜在作用，虽然并未就所有问题达成共识。各国政府日益认识到，私营部门的参与不需要（实际上也并没有）涉及资源的私有制，甚至不需要涉及基础设施的私有制（在涉及私有制的地方，合同条款可以规定这种所有制的临时性质）。比较常见的现象是由私营部门管理公用事业（并在不同程度分担投资风险）。它们还认识到需要有一个强有力的管制框架来确保私人投资者的行为——例如定价——符合公共利益。简而言之，私营部门的参与意味着政府、私营部门和用户代表开展对话，制订在社会、经济和环境健全的办法来解决提供安全和负担得起的用水的问题。
小型供水公司在供水服务方面可以起相当大的作用，但这种作用没有得到充分记载。小型供水公司的类别很多。最近在六个非洲城市、八个亚洲城市和六个拉丁美洲和加勒比城市进行的一次调查中发现下列各种安排：小型供水公司与供水公司建立伙伴关系；小型供水公司利用自己的来源（例如私人水井）向供水公司未涵盖的居民区供水；企业家建立与供水公司总水管相连接的自己的系统；拥有/运营/代理运营公共厕所和沐浴设施、运营供水站和水管，向城市平民供水的大多数是这种运营者。
亚洲开发银行最近的一项研究估计，宿务（菲律宾）、胡志明市、雅加达和马尼拉等城市大约20％～45％的住户依靠小型供水公司的供水服务。特古西加尔巴、危地马拉市和利马30％以上的用水由小型供水公司提供。这些消费者大都没有和主要供水系统相连接。在提供服务方面，小型供水公司的市场普遍具有很强的竞争性。小型供水公司收取的价格比供水公司要高，这可以反映出一系列因素：不具备规模经济，管道供水获得补贴，比较灵活方便（例如不收连接费），在某些情况下在当地对大宗水源拥有垄断。在某些情况下，可能是供水公司在行使这种垄断，将水出卖给小型供水公司比通过管道系统供水可以赚取更高收入——尽管供水量较少。有时候，这种情况会造成滥用权力的现象，例如偶尔中断供水甚至会迫使供水系统的用户从小型供水公司买水。但是，只要公营或私营供水公司绕过大片居住区——主要是城市非正规居住区，小型供水公司就会继续满足这种重要的需求。
在南亚许多国家（包括印度、巴基斯坦和孟加拉国），地方私营部门发挥了重要作用，推广利用手泵打出地下水，以便宜的价格出售手泵，并依照当地需要和喜好来改装手泵。另一方面，大多数非洲国家是通过捐助者推动的方案来推广水泵，国家或地方缺乏自主权，结果是设备和维修过程不能实现标准化。当地私营部门缺乏使这种技术适应当地需要的企业能力和技术能力。
原文如下：
Finance
Current spending on new water infrastructure in developing countries is roughly $75 billion a year, including investments of about $13 billion per year for drinking water supply. While the majority of people without access to improved drinking water live in rural areas, especially in Africa and Asia, it is the urban sector that has benefited most from investment in drinking water supply. In the 1990s, average annual investment in urban water supply in developing countries was $8 billion, compared to $4.6 billion in rural areas. Out of the total annual investments of $15.7 billion in water supply and sanitation (1990-2000), water supply received about 80 per cent with only 20 per cent spent on sanitation, and in Africa, only 12 per cent.
Rapid urban population growth over the coming decade (representing an estimated 87.5 per cent of world population growth, occurring overwhelmingly in developing countries) means that there will be a continued need for sizeable investments in urban water infrastructure. At the same time, given the already high urban coverage rate, the large rural-urban gap in coverage rates, and the wide disparity between water coverage and sanitation coverage, there is a case for rebalancing priorities towards rural water supply and towards sanitation generally and, particularly, in urban and peri-urban informal settlements.
Based on the estimated per capita costs of supplying drinking water in developing countries over the past decade, and considering that an additional 1.6 billion people will need access by 2015 to meet the drinking-water-related Millennium Development Goal, an annual average of roughly $26 billion will be needed to extend water-supply coverage over the next 11 years (including annual operating and maintenance costs assumed to be 15 per cent of investment costs).
Meeting the target for sanitation could cost substantially more if wastewater treatment costs are added to those of basic sanitation infrastructure (see discussion in the report of the Secretary-General on sanitation). Global estimates of investment requirements are uncertain, however, being sensitive to assumptions about technology mix and location of population to be served. More attention needs to be given to generating reliable country-specific estimates.
Domestic resource mobilization for irrigation development has proven difficult owing to inadequate water-pricing policies. Irrigation water remains highly subsidized. However, there is increasing recognition of the need to price water to recover at least a significant proportion of system operation and maintenance costs.
Essential complements to water pricing are water distribution rules and technological improvements in water-delivery systems to enable farmers to conserve water in response to higher prices. Commercial loans and private investment in irrigation infrastructure have both declined in recent years, while development costs for new irrigated land have increased markedly. For instance, costs have increased more than 50 per cent in the Philippines, 40 per cent in Thailand, and have nearly tripled in Sri Lanka owing to high costs associated with land development and reclamation, water transfers, water distribution networks, and high pumping costs in the case of groundwater irrigation.
A major issue in the management and development of drinking water supply systems in recent years has concerned the role of the private sector and publicprivate partnerships. Private sector participation in drinking-water supply can be considered in two broad classes. The first involves large private companies — frequently multinationals. There are four broad types of large-scale private participation involving different distributions of investment risk: management and lease contracts (where the facility remains in public hands and investment decisions and financial responsibilities remain with the public sector), concessions (involving temporary takeover of management of a public utility and some investment commitment), greenfield investment in new facilities (with possible reversion of ownership of infrastructure to the public sector), and divestiture (where the private investor buys an equity stake in the State enterprise).36 The second involves smallscale water providers engaged primarily in the provision of services and making only limited investments (e.g., in water tanker trucks, pumps, boreholes).
Large-scale private sector participation in water and sewerage is heavily concentrated in East Asia and the Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean, and water projects predominate over sewerage. In South Asia and sub- Saharan Africa, private investment is virtually non-existent. In each region, some countries have emerged as leaders in terms of attracting private sector investment — including China and Malaysia in East Asia; Mexico, Brazil and Argentina in Latin America; and Morocco in North Africa. Establishment of effective institutions, implementation of legal and regulatory frameworks, and improved governance mechanisms in those countries have paved the way for private sector participation. Of the 238 projects listed in the table, 40 per cent are concessions and roughly one third greenfield investments; fewer than 10 per cent represent divestitures of publicly owned enterprises. The relative weights of different types of participation are broadly similar across regions, though in East Asia and Pacific Greenfield investments are almost as numerous as concessions and in Europe and Central Asia management contracts dominate
Problems that have arisen with private water companies include collusive bidding on water-supply contracts, regulators who are too readily influenced by regulated companies, inflexible contractual guarantees of returns, monopolization of essential infrastructure, and lack of transparency. More generally, doubts have been raised about the realism of the expectation that large-scale private sector participation in the water sector will make more than a minor contribution towards meeting the water-related Millennium Development Goal.38 Only a small fraction of the world population is currently served by private providers.39 In recent years, private investors have become more cautious and slowed investments in the water sector, having underestimated risks, overestimated profits, and encountered contractual problems — e.g., as Governments have at times sought to renegotiate
contracts in the face of public discontent over water charges.
In view of the apprehension about granting a local monopoly of water supply to a private company and, in particular, concerns over the social impact of increases in water charges, Governments and consumers in many developing countries have not encouraged participation by multinationals in the provision of water services.
The debate in different forums has contributed to a better understanding of the potential role of the private sector, although not to a consensus on all the issues. Governments increasingly recognize that private participation need not (indeed does not) involve private ownership of the resource nor even of infrastructure (and where it does, contractual terms can make such ownership temporary). More commonly, what is involved is private management of a public utility (with varying degrees of investment risk sharing). They also appreciate the need for a strong regulatory framework to ensure that private investor behaviour — e.g., with respect to tariff setting — is consistent with the public interest. In short, private sector participation implies a dialogue between the government, the private sector and user representatives to develop socially, economically and environmentally sound solutions to the problem of extending access to safe and affordable water.
The role of small-scale water providers in supplying water services can be quite substantial but has not been well documented. The small-scale water provider sector covers a wide range of water service provider types. A recent survey40 in six African, eight Asian and six Latin American and Caribbean cities found the following arrangements: small-scale water provider partnership with the water utility; small-scale water providers providing water from their own sources (e.g., private wells) to neighbourhoods not covered by utilities; entrepreneurs who build their own systems connected to the utility mains; owners/operators/franchisers of public toilets and bathing facilities; water kiosk and standpipe operators, who are the most common providers to the urban poor.
A recent study by the Asian Development Bank41 estimated that roughly 20-45 per cent of households in cities such as Cebu (Philippines), Ho Chi Minh City, Jakarta and Manila rely on water-supply services provided by small-scale water providers. In Tegucigalpa, Guatemala City, and Lima, more than 30 per cent of supply is provided by small-scale water providers.42 Most of those consumers are not connected to the main distribution networks. The small-scale water provider market is in general quite competitive in terms of delivering services. The higher prices charged by small-scale water providers than by water utilities can reflect a combination of factors: loss of economies of scale, subsidies for piped water, greater flexibility and convenience (e.g., no connection charges), and in some cases a local monopoly on a bulk water source. In some cases, it may be a public water utility that
exercises that monopoly, earning a higher return — albeit on a smaller volume — from selling water to small-scale water providers than from delivering it through the piped network. On occasion, that can give rise to abuse, e.g., when intermittent service interruptions force even network customers to buy from small-scale water providers. Still, as long as publicly or privately owned water utilities bypass wide swathes of human settlements — notably urban informal settlements, the small-scale water providers will continue to fill an important need.
In many countries of South Asia (including India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), the local private sector plays an important role in promoting the use of hand pumps for extracting groundwater, making the pumps available at affordable prices and adapting them to local needs and preferences. On the other hand, in most African countries, pumps were introduced through donor-driven programmes, lacking national or local ownership, and the result was absence of standardization of equipment and maintenance procedures. The local private sector lacked the entrepreneurial and technical capabilities to tailor that technology to local needs.
