MCCs Support for Public -Private Partnerships and Infrascope - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

MCC’s Support for Public-Private Partnerships and Infrascope

November 22, 2019

Agenda for webinar

2

1. Introduction to MCC and its support for PPPs (Anthony Welcher, MCC) 2. MCC Infrascope 2019 (Leo Abruzzese, EIU) 3. Q&A (Leo Abruzzese, EIU; Stephen Gaull, MCC)

Reduce poverty through economic growth.

The MCC Mission

MCC Investments

• Promote economic growth
• Help people lift themselves out of poverty
• Create more stable, secure countries and

regions

• Open the door for companies to work in new

markets with fewer up-front risks

• Enhance American interests

3

What Makes MCC Unique

• Minimum economic rate
• f return
• Strict 5-year clock
• Focus on results
• Country-led solutions and

implementation

4

Ruling justly Investing in people Economic freedom

We use a data-driven, transparent method to identify the best-governed poor countries where MCC can reduce poverty through economic growth.

How MCC Selects Partner Countries

5

Sectors Where MCC Works

Investments selected based on an assessment of the greatest constraints to inclusive economic growth Investments address policy, institutional and social constraints to growth

6

Country Ownership

MCC partner countries are responsible for the design and implementation of MCC programs—creating sustainability

7

Countries Where MCC Works

8

Over the last 15 years, MCC has signed 37 Compacts with 29 countries worth more than $13 billion. MCC has also signed 27 Threshold Programs with 26 countries worth $631 million

MCC support for PPPs

9

• MCC seeks to strengthen partner

countries’ capacity to develop and manage PPPs that are bankable, affordable, and offer value for money.

• MCC seeks to bring well-structured

PPPs to market in partner countries to support the agency’s mission.

• MCC can provide a full suite of

blended finance solutions across the PPP cycle, covering upstream enabling environment and downstream project preparation and deal facilitation, including support for transaction advisors, viability gap funding, and guarantees.

MCC support for Infrascope

10

MCC commissioned 20 countries in addition to the 16 MCC partner countries commissioned by regional MDBs MCC support of Infrascope constitutes a public good, with benefits for:

• Private sector
• Governments
• Donors
• Public at large

2018: Benin Burkina Faso Kosovo Malawi Senegal Sri Lanka Timor-Leste Togo 2019: Côte d'Ivoire Ethiopia Ghana Lesotho Liberia Nepal Niger Sierra Leone Solomon Islands The Gambia Tunisia Zambia MCC-Commissioned Infrascope Studies

For more information, visit www.mcc.gov.

11

22 November 2019 Leo Abruzzese Senior Global Advisor The Economist Intelligence Unit

Infrascope 2019

Measuring the enabling environment for public-private partnerships in infrastructure in MCC partner countries

13 13

Agenda

Introduction to the Infrascope and MCC

• II. Methodology

Framework and methodology MCC partner country performance Using the Infrascope Policy implications

Introduction to the Infrascope and MCC

15 15

The Infrascope is a policy benchmarking framework that evaluates the capacity of countries to implement sustainable and efficient public-private partnerships (PPPs). The indicator framework focuses on five assessment domains across 69 countries and regions.

What is the Infrascope?

Regulations Institutions Maturity Investment and business climate Financing

Key infrastructure sectors include:

• Transportation
• Water / sanitation
• Electricity
• Solid waste

16 16

.

What is the Infrascope?

The Infrascope was created to fill knowledge and information gaps and to provide cross-country comparisons of the PPP enabling environment to assist in the policy dialogue and to facilitate market-entry decisions for investors. Regional versions of the Infrascope have been produced since 2009. For this edition, 36 MCC partner countries are covered across Asia, Africa, and Europe, of which MCC commissioned 20 country studies.

17 17

EIU definition of PPPs

Long-term contracts with transfer of operational and commercial risk to private sector.

18 18

The EIU’s Infrascope website houses multiple resources that are freely available for stakeholders to explore and gain insight into the enabling environment for PPPs from a global, regional and country-specific perspective at www.infrascope.eiu.com.

The Infrascope knowledge repository

Infrascope digital hub Data representation Comparative visuals Index framework Detailed Excel workbook Knowledge management

Using the Infrascope

20 20

Using the Infrascope Index

Best practices

• Showcases trends towards evolving enabling environments for PPPs in

infrastructure; identifies global best practices

• Highlights how industry, policymakers, the private sector, and civil

society can work together Gaps

• Identifies gaps in policy frameworks and enables country-level and

regional comparisons, allowing for trend identification and analysis

• Leads to concrete policy-based recommendations for action

Advocacy

• Provides a global platform for action around PPPs in infrastructure
• Sparks dialogue within the policy community and the private sector
• Serves as the basis for broader implementation and technical assistance

programs

21 21

Using the Infrascope to develop policy response mechanisms

Development organizations can use the Infrascope to:

• Identify opportunities to improve the enabling environment for PPPs;
• Measure progress in countries’ PPP programs for infrastructure.

Governments can use the Infrascope to understand where gaps lie in policies, resource allocation, and transparency, and to continually update their PPP frameworks. The private sector and investors can use the Infrascope as a PPP policy landscape guidance tool to guide new market entry decisions and facilitate ongoing assessment of investments.

Infrascope framework and methodology

23 23

The Infrascope framework

Infrascope

• 1. Regulations

1.1 Conducive regulatory environment 1.2 PPP selection criteria 1.3 Fairness/openness of bids & contract changes 1.4 Conciliation schemes 1.5 Regulators’ risk-allocation record 1.6 Coordination 1.7 Renegotiations 1.8 Sustainability

• 5. Financing

5.1 Government payment risk 5.2 Capital market for private infrastructure finance 5.3 Institutional investors & insurance market 5.4 Currency risk

• 2. Institutions

2.1 PPP institutional framework 2.2 PPP dedicated agency, stability 2.3 Project preparation facilities 2.4 Transparency and accountability

• 3. Maturity

3.1 Experience with infrastructure PPP contracts 3.2 Expropriation risk 3.3 Contract termination

• 4. Investment and business

climate 4.1 Political effectiveness 4.2 Business environment 4.3 Political will 4.4 Competition environment in the local industry

24 24

The EIU Infrascope indicator framework was developed in collaboration with multilateral development banks, government agencies, and the private sector. It consists of 23 main-indicators, with 66 qualitative and 12 quantitative sub-indicators, respectively.

Overall methodological guidance

Scoring system Qualitative indicators 78 sub-indicators Rigorous examination of local laws and regulations Rankings Aggregated category performance on a scale of 0-100

MCC partner country performance

26 26

MCC countries, typically LICs and LMICs, score 55/100 overall and perform well against the global index (57/100), which includes a larger proportion of upper-middle-income and high-income countries. Overall, top scoring MCC countries include – Cote d’Ivoire (69), Guatemala (69), Honduras (69), El Salvador (68), Senegal (65) and Kosovo (63).

Infrascope findings: global comparisons

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Financing Investment and business climate Maturity Institutions Regulations Overall score MCC countries All countries Sources: The Economist Intelligence Unit; World Bank.

Infrascope scores

* Some MCC countries have graduated to UMIC

27 27

Within their own cohort, many of the 36 MCC partner countries are ranked as either “Mature” (> 80/100) or “Developed” (60-79) across the domains of the Infrascope. Every MCC partner country has at least one PPP.

Infrascope findings: 36 MCC partner countries

MATURE (80-100) DEVELOPED (60-79) EMERGING (30-59) NASCENT (0-29)

Overall 11 Regulations 15 Institutions 21 Maturity 19 Investment & Business Climate 22 Financing 3 Number of countries ranked “Mature” or “Developed”

28 28

Infrascope findings: 36 MCC partner countries ranking

Score 0-100 where 100=best. Rank out of 36 countries in MCC group, 1=best = before the rank indicates a tie.

Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100

1 Peru 76 1 El Salvador 88 1 Philippines 94 1 Ethiopia 81 1 Peru 85 1 Peru 85 2 Philippines 75 2 Philippines 85 2 Guatemala 93 2 Honduras 79 2 Philippines 81 2 Philippines 68 =3 Côte d'Ivoire 69 3 Honduras 84 3 Côte d'Ivoire 87 3 Senegal 75 3 Georgia 74 3 Honduras 63 =3 Guatemala 69 =4 Benin 81 4 Kyrgyz Republic 82 4 Peru 74 =4 Albania 72 4 Ghana 59 =3 Honduras 69 =4 Guatemala 81 5 The Gambia 81 5 Morocco 72 =4 Côte d'Ivoire 72 5 Indonesia 58 6 El Salvador 68 6 Nicaragua 80 =6 El Salvador 78 6 Jordan 68 =4 Ghana 72 6 Côte d'Ivoire 57 7 Senegal 65 7 Indonesia 78 =6 Jordan 78 =7 Guatemala 67 =4 Indonesia 72 =7 Jordan 53 =8 Kosovo 63 8 Niger 76 8 Kosovo 76 =7 Nepal 67 8 Niger 70 =7 Morocco 53 =8 Kyrgyz Republic 63 9 Senegal 72 9 Nepal 75 =9 Côte d'Ivoire 66 =9 Burkina Faso 67 9 Armenia 52 =10 Jordan 61 10 Peru 70 =10 Timor-Leste 73 =9 El Salvador 66 =9 El Salvador 67 10 Kosovo 51 =10 Niger 61 11 Paraguay 68 =10 Tunisia 73 =9 Kosovo 66 =9 Kyrgyz Republic 67 11 Zambia 48 =12 Benin 59 12 Timor-Leste 64 12 Mongolia 71 =9 Kyrgyz Republic 66 =9 Mongolia 67 12 Senegal 45 =12 Indonesia 59 13 Kyrgyz Republic 63 13 Ghana 70 =9 Nicaragua 66 =13 Nepal 66 13 Georgia 43 =12 Nepal 59 =14 Côte d'Ivoire 61 14 Peru 67 14 Zambia 65 =13 Sri Lanka 66 14 Guatemala 41 =12 Nicaragua 59 =14 Kosovo 61 =15 Nicaragua 66 15 Ukraine 63 =13 Tunisia 66 15 El Salvador 40 =12 Zambia 59 16 Georgia 58 =15 Niger 66 =16 Armenia 60 16 Solomon Islands 65 16 Ukraine 39 17 Tunisia 57 17 Tunisia 57 =15 Zambia 66 =16 Benin 60 =17 Benin 64 =17 Burkina Faso 38 =18 Ethiopia 56 =18 Albania 55 =18 Benin 61 =16 Niger 60 =17 Guatemala 64 =17 Ethiopia 38 =18 Ghana 56 =18 Burkina Faso 55 =18 Malawi 61 =16 Tunisia 60 =17 Senegal 64 19 Sri Lanka 37 =18 Morocco 56 20 Mongolia 54 =18 Senegal 61 20 Philippines 58 20 Sierra Leone 63 =20 Kyrgyz Republic 36 21 Burkina Faso 53 =21 Nepal 52 21 Paraguay 60 =21 Paraguay 56 21 Zambia 62 =20 Nicaragua 36 =22 Mongolia 52 =21 Zambia 52 22 Honduras 56 =21 Togo 56 22 Kosovo 59 =22 Nepal 34 =22 Paraguay 52 =23 Armenia 51 23 Burkina Faso 55 23 Sri Lanka 53 23 Morocco 58 =22 Niger 34 24 Ukraine 50 =23 Morocco 51 =24 Albania 53 =24 Burkina Faso 52 24 Ethiopia 57 =24 Albania 33 25 The Gambia 49 25 Jordan 49 =24 Indonesia 53 =24 Lesotho 52 =25 Honduras 56 =24 Mongolia 33 26 Albania 48 26 Malawi 48 26 Liberia 48 =24 Sierra Leone 52 =25 Jordan 56 =26 Benin 32 27 Timor-Leste 46 =27 Ethiopia 47 27 Ethiopia 47 27 Liberia 48 27 The Gambia 55 =26 Paraguay 32 =28 Georgia 45 =27 The Gambia 47 28 Ukraine 43 28 Ghana 44 28 Liberia 54 =26 Togo 32 =28 Sri Lanka 45 =27 Ukraine 47 29 Morocco 40 =29 Georgia 43 29 Ukraine 53 29 Solomon Islands 30 30 Armenia 43 30 Ghana 41 30 Sri Lanka 36 =29 Malawi 43 30 Togo 48 30 Tunisia 29 31 Malawi 42 31 Liberia 40 31 Lesotho 35 =29 Solomon Islands 43 31 Nicaragua 45 31 Timor-Leste 26 =32 Liberia 41 32 Sierra Leone 31 32 Sierra Leone 33 =29 The Gambia 43 =32 Malawi 43 32 Sierra Leone 23 =32 Sierra Leone 41 33 Sri Lanka 30 33 Georgia 8 =33 Indonesia 42 =32 Paraguay 43 =33 Lesotho 21 =34 Lesotho 35 34 Lesotho 29 34 Armenia 5 =33 Mongolia 42 34 Armenia 39 =33 The Gambia 21 =34 Togo 35 35 Togo 28 35 Togo 1 35 Timor-Leste 35 35 Timor-Leste 36 =35 Liberia 15 36 Solomon Islands 30 36 Solomon Islands 6 36 Solomon Islands 36 Albania 33 36 Lesotho 33 =35 Malawi 15

5) FINANCING OVERALL SCORE 1) REGULATIONS 2) INSTITUTIONS 3) MATURITY 4) INVESTMENT & BUSINESS CLIMATE

MATURE (80-100) DEVELOPED (60-79) EMERGING (30-59) NASCENT (0-29)

29 29

With a national development plan that earmarks 70 priority PPP projects for completion by 2020, and a history of successful PPPs dating back to the country’s independence in 1960, Côte d’Ivoire provides a favorable destination for investors seeking public sector contracts. A dedicated PPP unit has existed since 2012.

Star performer: Cote d’Ivoire

30 30

New regulations surrounding PPP development in 2014 have significantly improved the national business environment, which has in turn increased the likelihood of private investment into PPPs in Senegal.

Star performer: Senegal

Policy implications

32 32

Key implications for policy

• Strengthening technical capacity in PPP units and sector ministries will

be crucial for expanding PPP programs.

• Financing environment needs to be improved. Private infrastructure

finance and capital market deepening require particular attention.

• Project preparation facilities are key to developing a pipeline of

bankable PPP projects.

• Strengthening contingent liability management is vital to control of fiscal

risks.

• Transparency should be better embedded in regulatory and institutional

frameworks.

• Sustainability can be improved through better incorporation of

community perspectives and environmental / social impact assessments.

Any questions?

Please type your questions into the webinar question box. A recording of this webinar will be shared with all registered attendees shortly. leoabruzzese@eiu.com The Economist Intelligence Unit Senior Global Advisor

Leo Abruzzese

Scanning this QR code will direct you to the EIU Infrascope website.

Appendix: Key findings of Infrascope assessments in 20 MCC partner countries*

* This analysis does not include 16 MCC partner countries that have been commissioned by other MDBs for Infrascope Benin Burkina Faso Cote d’Ivoire Ethiopia Ghana Kosovo Lesotho Liberia Malawi Nepal Niger Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sri Lanka The Gambia Timor-Leste Togo Tunisia Zambia

35 35

Among the 20 country studies commissioned by MCC, Cote d’Ivoire, Senegal, Kosovo, and Niger are top performers and are classified as “developed” on the Index. The 20 MCC countries score 51/100 overall on the Infrascope index versus a global score of 57/100 for all 69 countries.

Infrascope findings: 20 MCC countries vs. global comparisons

Score 0-100 where 100=best. Rank out of all 69 countries, 1=best = before the rank indicates a tie.

Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100

1 Thailand 80 1 Colombia 95 1 Thailand 97 1 Ethiopia 81 1 Peru 85 1 Peru 85 2 Chile 79 2 Chile 94 2 Sindh province 95 2 China 80 =2 Bahamas 83 =2 Colombia 73 3 China 78 3 El Salvador 88 =3 China 94 3 Honduras 79 =2 Chile 83 =2 India 73 4 Colombia 77 4 Thailand 87 =3 India 94 4 Chile 78 =4 Barbados 82 4 Thailand 72 5 Peru 76 =5 Philippines 85 =3 Philippines 94 5 Turkey 77 =4 Dominican Republic 82 5 Brazil 69 =6 India 75 =5 Slovakia 85 6 Guatemala 93 6 Jamaica 76 =6 India 81 =6 Philippines 68 =6 Philippines 75 =7 Costa Rica 84 =7 Bangladesh 90 =7 Colombia 75 =6 Philippines 81 =6 Uruguay 68 =8 Gujarat state 73 =7 Honduras 84 =7 Jamaica 90 =7 Senegal 75 8 China 78 =8 China 67 =8 Jamaica 73 9 Dominican Republic 82 =9 Brazil 88 9 Peru 74 =9 Jamaica 76 =8 Gujarat state 67 =10 Brazil 71 =10 Benin 81 =9 Pakistan 88 10 Pakistan 73 =9 Thailand 76 10 Mexico 64 =10 Costa Rica 71 =10 Guatemala 81 =11 Côte d'Ivoire 87 =11 Mexico 72 =11 Ecuador 74 =11 Chile 63 =12 Côte d'Ivoire 69 12 Nicaragua 80 =11 Uruguay 87 =11 Morocco 72 =11 Georgia 74 =11 Honduras 63 =12 Guatemala 69 13 Mexico 79 =13 Gujarat state 86 =11 Thailand 72 =11 Serbia 74 13 Costa Rica 60 =12 Honduras 69 =14 Indonesia 78 =13 Kazakhstan 86 =14 Bangladesh 71 14 Gujarat state 73 14 Ghana 59 =12 Uruguay 69 =14 Jamaica 78 15 Vietnam 84 =14 Gujarat state 71 =15 Albania 72 =15 Indonesia 58 16 El Salvador 68 16 India 77 16 Kyrgyz Republic 82 16 Panama 70 =15 Côte d'Ivoire 72 =15 Turkey 58 17 Sindh province 67 =17 Niger 76 17 The Gambia 81 =17 Costa Rica 68 =15 Ghana 72 17 Côte d'Ivoire 57 18 Bangladesh 66 =17 Uruguay 76 =18 Chile 80 =17 Jordan 68 =15 Indonesia 72 18 Panama 54 =19 Mexico 65 =19 Ecuador 74 =18 Colombia 80 =19 Guatemala 67 =15 Kazakhstan 72 =19 Jordan 53 =19 Senegal 65 =19 Sindh province 74 =20 Costa Rica 78 =19 Nepal 67 =20 Panama 71 =19 Morocco 53 21 Vietnam 64 21 Senegal 72 =20 El Salvador 78 =19 Romania 67 =20 Trinidad and Tobago 71 =19 Serbia 53 =22 Kosovo 63 =22 China 70 =20 Jordan 78 =19 Vietnam 67 22 Niger 70 22 Armenia 52 =22 Kyrgyz Republic 63 =22 Gujarat state 70 23 Kosovo 76 =23 Brazil 66 23 Brazil 69 23 Kosovo 51 =22 Slovakia 63 =22 Peru 70 24 Nepal 75 =23 Côte d'Ivoire 66 24 Romania 68 24 Vietnam 50 =25 Jordan 61 25 Paraguay 68 =25 Timor-Leste 73 =23 Ecuador 66 =25 Burkina Faso 67 25 Dominican Republic 49 =25 Niger 61 26 Serbia 67 =25 Tunisia 73 =23 El Salvador 66 =25 Costa Rica 67 26 Zambia 48 =25 Pakistan 61 27 Argentina 66 27 Mongolia 71 =23 Kosovo 66 =25 El Salvador 67 27 Bangladesh 47

5) FINANCING OVERALL SCORE 1) REGULATIONS 2) INSTITUTIONS 3) MATURITY 4) INVESTMENT & BUSINESS CLIMATE

MATURE (80-100) DEVELOPED (60-79) EMERGING (30-59) NASCENT (0-29)

36 36

As a subset, the 20 countries vary in their performance on the five domains of the Infrascope, scoring best on the Institutions (55/100), Maturity (56/100) and Investment & Business Climate (59/100) domains, while lagging on Financing (34/100).

Infrascope findings: 20 MCC partner countries

Score 0-100 where 100=best. Rank out of 20 countries in MCC 20 partners group, 1=best = before the rank indicates a tie.

Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100 Rank Score / 100

1 Côte d'Ivoire 69 1 Benin 81 1 Côte d'Ivoire 87 1 Ethiopia 81 =1 Côte d'Ivoire 72 1 Ghana 59 2 Senegal 65 2 Niger 76 2 The Gambia 81 2 Senegal 75 =1 Ghana 72 2 Côte d'Ivoire 57 3 Kosovo 63 3 Senegal 72 3 Kosovo 76 3 Nepal 67 3 Niger 70 3 Kosovo 51 4 Niger 61 4 Timor-Leste 64 4 Nepal 75 =4 Côte d'Ivoire 66 4 Burkina Faso 67 4 Zambia 48 =5 Benin 59 =5 Côte d'Ivoire 61 =5 Timor-Leste 73 =4 Kosovo 66 =5 Nepal 66 5 Senegal 45 =5 Nepal 59 =5 Kosovo 61 =5 Tunisia 73 6 Zambia 65 =5 Sri Lanka 66 =6 Burkina Faso 38 =5 Zambia 59 7 Tunisia 57 7 Ghana 70 =7 Benin 60 =5 Tunisia 66 =6 Ethiopia 38 8 Tunisia 57 8 Burkina Faso 55 =8 Niger 66 =7 Niger 60 8 Solomon Islands 65 8 Sri Lanka 37 =9 Ethiopia 56 =9 Nepal 52 =8 Zambia 66 =7 Tunisia 60 =9 Benin 64 =9 Nepal 34 =9 Ghana 56 =9 Zambia 52 =10 Benin 61 10 Togo 56 =9 Senegal 64 =9 Niger 34 11 Burkina Faso 53 11 Malawi 48 =10 Malawi 61 11 Sri Lanka 53 11 Sierra Leone 63 =11 Benin 32 12 The Gambia 49 =12 Ethiopia 47 =10 Senegal 61 =12 Burkina Faso 52 12 Zambia 62 =11 Togo 32 13 Timor-Leste 46 =12 The Gambia 47 13 Burkina Faso 55 =12 Lesotho 52 13 Kosovo 59 13 Solomon Islands 30 14 Sri Lanka 45 14 Ghana 41 14 Liberia 48 =12 Sierra Leone 52 14 Ethiopia 57 14 Tunisia 29 15 Malawi 42 15 Liberia 40 15 Ethiopia 47 15 Liberia 48 15 The Gambia 55 15 Timor-Leste 26 =16 Liberia 41 16 Sierra Leone 31 16 Sri Lanka 36 16 Ghana 44 16 Liberia 54 16 Sierra Leone 23 =16 Sierra Leone 41 17 Sri Lanka 30 17 Lesotho 35 =17 Malawi 43 17 Togo 48 =17 Lesotho 21 =18 Lesotho 35 18 Lesotho 29 18 Sierra Leone 33 =17 Solomon Islands 43 18 Malawi 43 =17 The Gambia 21 =18 Togo 35 19 Togo 28 19 Togo 1 =17 The Gambia 43 19 Timor-Leste 36 =19 Liberia 15 20 Solomon Islands 30 20 Solomon Islands 6 20 Solomon Islands 20 Timor-Leste 35 20 Lesotho 33 =19 Malawi 15

5) FINANCING OVERALL SCORE 1) REGULATIONS 2) INSTITUTIONS 3) MATURITY 4) INVESTMENT & BUSINESS CLIMATE

MATURE (80-100) DEVELOPED (60-79) EMERGING (30-59) NASCENT (0-29)

37 37

MCC Infrascope findings: regulations domain

What it measures: This domain includes eight main indicators that assess a country’s legal / regulatory framework for private participation in infrastructure. Findings:

• Seven countries have prioritized PPPs in their infrastructure

plans.

• Contingent liability management is identified as a key area for

strengthening in 12 countries.

• Sustainability metrics (e.g., consultations, disaster risk

preparedness, etc.) require policymaker attention and support. Six of 20 MCC countries record a strong performance in terms of regulatory conduciveness to PPPs, scoring > 60/100.

Rank Score / 100

1 Benin 81 2 Niger 76 3 Senegal 72 4 Timor-Leste 64 =5 Côte d'Ivoire 61 =5 Kosovo 61 7 Tunisia 57 8 Burkina Faso 55 =9 Nepal 52 =9 Zambia 52 11 Malawi 48 =12 Ethiopia 47 =12 The Gambia 47 14 Ghana 41 15 Liberia 40 16 Sierra Leone 31 17 Sri Lanka 30 18 Lesotho 29 19 Togo 28 20 Solomon Islands 6

1) REGULATIONS

38 38

MCC Infrascope findings: institutional capacity and support

What it measures: This category includes four main indicators that examine the design and responsibilities of institutions that prepare/award/oversee PPPs. Findings:

• 17 countries have stable, dedicated PPP agencies.
• 10 countries have an authorised agency that is specifically

tasked with evaluating the results of each PPP project.

• Institutional transparency and accountability is a key area for

strengthening for 16 countries.

• Project preparation facilities are a key area for strengthening

in 12 countries. 12 of 20 MCC countries have “mature” (>80/100) or “developed” institutions (>60/100).

Rank Score / 100

1 Côte d'Ivoire 87 2 The Gambia 81 3 Kosovo 76 4 Nepal 75 =5 Timor-Leste 73 =5 Tunisia 73 7 Ghana 70 =8 Niger 66 =8 Zambia 66 =10 Benin 61 =10 Malawi 61 =10 Senegal 61 13 Burkina Faso 55 14 Liberia 48 15 Ethiopia 47 16 Sri Lanka 36 17 Lesotho 35 18 Sierra Leone 33 19 Togo 1 20 Solomon Islands

2) INSTITUTIONS

39 39

MCC Infrascope findings: maturity in infrastructure PPPs

What it measures: This domain evaluates maturity in delivering infrastructure PPPs through: number of PPPs, expropriation risk, and contract termination. Findings:

• Every MCC country has developed at least one infrastructure

PPP.

• 12 countries have not delivered an infra PPP in the past five

years.

• Cancellation risk is not a significant concern.
• There has been only one case of unilaterally enforced PPP-

service price revision. Nine of the 20 MCC countries have “mature” or “developed” institutions, corresponding to scores > 60 on the Index.

Rank Score / 100

1 Ethiopia 81 2 Senegal 75 3 Nepal 67 =4 Côte d'Ivoire 66 =4 Kosovo 66 6 Zambia 65 =7 Benin 60 =7 Niger 60 =7 Tunisia 60 10 Togo 56 11 Sri Lanka 53 =12 Burkina Faso 52 =12 Lesotho 52 =12 Sierra Leone 52 15 Liberia 48 16 Ghana 44 =17 Malawi 43 =17 Solomon Islands 43 =17 The Gambia 43 20 Timor-Leste 35

3) MATURITY

40 40

Infrascope findings: investment and business climate

What it measures: This domain includes four main indicators that examine political effectiveness, business environment, political will, and the local competition landscape. Findings:

• 12 countries have “developed” business environment rankings,

making those markets attractive to international investors / infra operators.

• 15 countries score highly (≥75/100) on political will for PPPs,

signaling high-level and multi-party support among political parties for PPPs. For the 20 MCC countries, investment and business climate is a relative strength. On average, the MCC countries (59/100) only marginally lag behind the global index (62/100) performance in this dimension.

Rank Score / 100

=1 Côte d'Ivoire 72 =1 Ghana 72 3 Niger 70 4 Burkina Faso 67 =5 Nepal 66 =5 Sri Lanka 66 =5 Tunisia 66 8 Solomon Islands 65 =9 Benin 64 =9 Senegal 64 11 Sierra Leone 63 12 Zambia 62 13 Kosovo 59 14 Ethiopia 57 15 The Gambia 55 16 Liberia 54 17 Togo 48 18 Malawi 43 19 Timor-Leste 36 20 Lesotho 33

4) INVESTMENT & BUSINESS CLIMATE

41 41

Infrascope findings: financing infrastructure development

What it measures: This domain assesses government payment risk, the capital market for private infrastructure finance, institutional investor activity, the insurance market and currency risk. Findings:

• Capital markets for private infrastructure finance are the least

developed aspect of financing across the 20 MCC countries.

• Marketable debt is an area in need of strengthening; deep,

liquid, local currency-denominated bond markets are unavailable to support infra PPPs.

• Five countries have cases of government default on PPP

contracts in the past 10 years, suggesting an exposure to government payments risk. Financing needs improvement, with all countries in “emerging” or “nascent” status. MCC countries (34/100) significantly lag the global average (44/100) performance in this dimension.

Rank Score / 100

1 Ghana 59 2 Côte d'Ivoire 57 3 Kosovo 51 4 Zambia 48 5 Senegal 45 =6 Burkina Faso 38 =6 Ethiopia 38 8 Sri Lanka 37 =9 Nepal 34 =9 Niger 34 =11 Benin 32 =11 Togo 32 13 Solomon Islands 30 14 Tunisia 29 15 Timor-Leste 26 16 Sierra Leone 23 =17 Lesotho 21 =17 The Gambia 21 =19 Liberia 15 =19 Malawi 15

5) FINANCING