58849 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities Databook Caroline van den Berg and Alexander Danilenko The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities Databook Caroline van den Berg and Alexander Danilenko © 2011 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org All rights reserved 1 2 3 4 13 12 11 10 This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Develop- ment / The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundar- ies, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgement on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorse- ment or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Recon- struction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. ISBN: 978-0-8213-8582-1 eISBN: 978-0-8213-8588-3 DOI: 10.1596/978-0-8213-8582-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been requested. Cover photo: Alexander Danilenko Cover design: Naylor Design Contents Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii IBNET Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii 1. IBNET: THE INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKING NETWORK FOR WATER AND SANITATION UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 What Is Benchmarking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 What Is IBNET?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The IBNET Toolkit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 IBNET's Key Organizational Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 What Can IBNET Do for You? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 IBNET Achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. IBNET METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 IBNET's Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 IBNET Data Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Data Quality at the Collection Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The IBNET Team Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Data Verification at the Uploading Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3. STATUS OF THE SECTOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Trends in Sector Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Water Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Wastewater Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Nonrevenue Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Staff Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Operating Cost Coverage Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Collection Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Affordability of Water and Sewerage Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 The Water Utility Apgar Score. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 APPENDIXES APPENDIX 1. FROM BENCHMARKING TO BUSINESS PLANNING: THE CASE OF APA CANAL CHISINAU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Summary of Conceptual Framework for Business Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Demand Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Operating Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 v vi The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Calculation of Revenue Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Summary of Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 APPENDIX 2. COUNTRY DATA TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 IBNET Indicator/Country: Albania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 IBNET Indicator/Country: Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 IBNET Indicator/Country: Armenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 IBNET Indicator/Country: Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 IBNET Indicator/Country: Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 IBNET Indicator/Country: Belarus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 IBNET Indicator/Country: Benin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 IBNET Indicator/Country: Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 IBNET Indicator/Country: Bolivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 IBNET Indicator/Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 IBNET Indicator/Country: Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 IBNET Indicator/Country: Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 IBNET Indicator/Country: Burkina Faso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 IBNET Indicator/Country: Burundi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 IBNET Indicator/Country: Cambodia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 IBNET Indicator/Country: Cape Verde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 IBNET Indicator/Country: Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 IBNET Indicator/Country: China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 IBNET Indicator/Country: Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 IBNET Indicator/Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo . . . . . . . . . 66 IBNET Indicator/Country: Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 IBNET Indicator/Country: Côte d'Ivoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 IBNET Indicator/Country: Croatia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 IBNET Indicator/Country: Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 IBNET Indicator/Country: Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 IBNET Indicator/Country: El Salvador. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 IBNET Indicator/Country: Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 IBNET Indicator/Country: Gabon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 IBNET Indicator/Country: The Gambia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 IBNET Indicator/Country: Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 IBNET Indicator/Country: Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 IBNET Indicator/Country: Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 IBNET Indicator/Country: Honduras. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 IBNET Indicator/Country: Hungary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 IBNET Indicator/Country: India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 IBNET Indicator/Country: Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 IBNET Indicator/Country: Kazakhstan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 IBNET Indicator/Country: Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 IBNET Indicator/Country: Kyrgyz Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 IBNET Indicator/Country: Lao People's Democratic Republic . . . . . . . . . . 86 IBNET Indicator/Country: Lesotho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 IBNET Indicator/Country: Liberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 IBNET Indicator/Country: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 IBNET Indicator/Country: Madagascar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Contents vii IBNET Indicator/Country: Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 IBNET Indicator/Country: Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 IBNET Indicator/Country: Mali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 IBNET Indicator/Country: Mauritania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 IBNET Indicator/Country: Mauritius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 IBNET Indicator/Country: Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 IBNET Indicator/Country: Moldova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 IBNET Indicator/Country: Mozambique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 IBNET Indicator/Country: Namibia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 IBNET Indicator/Country: Netherlands Antilles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 IBNET Indicator/Country: New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 IBNET Indicator/Country: Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 IBNET Indicator/Country: Niger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 IBNET Indicator/Country: Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 IBNET Indicator/Country: Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 IBNET Indicator/Country: Panama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 IBNET Indicator/Country: Paraguay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 IBNET Indicator/Country: Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 IBNET Indicator/Country: Philippines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 IBNET Indicator/Country: Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 IBNET Indicator/Country: Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 IBNET Indicator/Country: Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 IBNET Indicator/Country: Rwanda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 IBNET Indicator/Country: Senegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 IBNET Indicator/Country: Seychelles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 IBNET Indicator/Country: Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 IBNET Indicator/Country: Slovak Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 IBNET Indicator/Country: South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 IBNET Indicator/Country: Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 IBNET Indicator/Country: Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 IBNET Indicator/Country: Swaziland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 IBNET Indicator/Country: Tajikistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 IBNET Indicator/Country: Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 IBNET Indicator/Country: Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 IBNET Indicator/Country: Tunisia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 IBNET Indicator/Country: Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 IBNET Indicator/Country: Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 IBNET Indicator/Country: Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 IBNET Indicator/Country: Uruguay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 IBNET Indicator/Country: Uzbekistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 IBNET Indicator/Country: República Bolivariana de Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 IBNET Indicator/Country: Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 IBNET Indicator/Country: Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 APPENDIX 3. IBNET INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Service Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 viii The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Water Consumption and Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Nonrevenue Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Meters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Network Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Operating Costs and Staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Billings and Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Financial Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Affordability/Purchasing Power Parity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 BOXES 1.1 Brazil: Formalizing Performance Assessment into Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2 Moldova: Using Performance Assessment for Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 Economies of Scale and Scope in Water Supply and Sewerage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 FIGURES 1.1 IBNET Country Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.2 IBNET Water Tariff Coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.3 Median Operating Cost Coverage Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.1 Example of a User-Generated Country Report: Armenia . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.1 Nonrevenue Water (m3/km/day) by Income Level-- Median Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Contents ix 3.2 Nonrevenue Water (m3/km/day) by Band Size of Utility (Measured by Number of People Served with Water Supply)-- Median Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.3 Operating Cost Coverage Ratio--Median Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.4 Operation and Maintenance Costs per Cubic Meter of Water Sold--Median Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.5 Average Revenues per Cubic Meter of Water Sold-- Median Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.6 Median Affordability as Percentage of GNI per Capita by Economic Development Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.7 Utility Apgar Score by Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.8 Apgar Score by Size of Utility (Number of people served by water supply) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 A1.1 Sequence of Analytical Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 A1.2 Trends in Population and Population Receiving Water Supply Services, Chisinau Water, 1994­2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 A1.3 Trends in Population and Population Receiving Wastewater Services, Chisinau Water, 1994­2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 A1.4 Sales by Customer Group, Chisinau Water, 2003­07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 A1.5 Total Water Sales as a Function of Population Served for Five Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 A1.6 Comparison of Water Production and Sales, Chisinau Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 A1.7 Relationship of Total Water Sales to Water Production for Utilities in Five Capital Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 A1.8 Water System Operating Costs, Chisinau Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 A1.9 Operating Cost as a Function of Amount of Water Sold . . . . . . . . . . . 42 A1.10 Water System Total Tariff Revenue and Average Price (US$), Chisinau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 A1.11 Water Revenue Related to Water Sales Volume for Five Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 A1.12 Cost Recovery Ratio for the Water System, Chisinau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 A1.13 Water System Cost Recovery Ratio by Largest Utility in Five Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 TABLES 1.1 IBNET Benefits by Type of User . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2 IBNET Representation as Percentage of Estimated Total Urban Market Size in Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.3 Number of Utilities in IBNET by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1 IBNET Value Categories for Data Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.1 Median Coverage of Water-Supply Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.2 Median Coverage of Wastewater Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.3 Nonrevenue Water (Percentage of Water Production)-- Median Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.4 Nonrevenue Water (m3/km/day)--Median Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.5 Median Staff Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.6 Operating Cost Coverage Ratio--Median Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 x The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book 3.7 Operation and Maintenance Costs per Cubic Meter of Water Sold--Median Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.8 Average Revenues per Cubic Meter of Water Sold-- Median Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.9 Collection Period--Median Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.10 Affordability as Percentage of GNI--Median Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.11 Level of Cross-Subsidies--Median Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.12 Classification of Water Utilities' Apgar Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.13 Average Utility Apgar Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.14 Average Utility Apgar Scores by Level of Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.15 Average Utility Management Apgar Scores by Level of Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 A1.1 Factors Included in Demand Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Foreword The provision of safe and reliable water and sanitation is a cornerstone of munic- ipal services. Yet even as the demand for more and better services grows, the level of financing for these services becomes increasingly constrained. Thus, utilities around the world look ever more urgently for ways to improve their performance and provide better services at the lowest possible cost. One effective means for accomplishing this is by comparing their performance with that of similar utili- ties elsewhere. As a result, water and wastewater utilities require a source of com- prehensive, reliable data as a basis for meeting their constituents' demands for high-quality services. The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utili- ties (IBNET) helps to build the resources for meeting this demand and sug- gests ways of providing improved services. Funded by the U.K. Department for International Development (DFID) and jointly administered by the Water and Sanitation Program and the Water Anchor of the World Bank, IBNET provides the first global benchmarking standard for assessment of the water sector. Its database provides operational, financial, and technical indicators on more than 3,000 utilities in 100 countries that provide services for more than one-quarter of the world's urban population. Through its performance-assessment standards and continually updated database, IBNET serves as a global yardstick with which utilities and national policy makers, as well as the public, governments, munici- palities, utilities, investors, and other users, can compare and evaluate the perfor- mance of water and wastewater utilities throughout the world. Better understanding is the first step toward enhanced performance. This volume is designed to raise awareness of how IBNET and its tools can help gov- ernments to regulate their utilities more effectively and help utilities to improve their services. IBNET tools can also be used for process benchmarking, the nor- mative comparison by one utility of their processes' and procedures' effective- ness against that of selected peers. Process benchmarking is particularly effective in a twinning arrangement involving the formal exchange of ideas and methods between two "sister" utilities; such comparisons, for example, of billing and col- lection systems, will reveal which system performs better. The more effective sys- tem can then be adopted by the underperforming utility. Since its inception in 1997, IBNET has created partnerships with interna- tional donors, water utility associations, and regulators as well as with individual utilities and municipalities throughout the world to expand use of its database and to further strengthen benchmarking practice in the field. IBNET has played a key role in international reporting on the water sector. Since 2004, informa- tion collected by IBNET has served as the basis of more than 150 papers and reports on water sector status, performance, and economics. Such reporting xi xii The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book builds understanding and brings transparency into the sector as well as helping to improve water services for all, including the poor. Most of the utilities that regularly collect and report their performance information to IBNET have con- sistently improved their financial and technical performance. As a tool available to donors and developing agencies, IBNET helps to address water sector issues in poor and developing countries. It is widely used to justify the Bank's strategic involvement in the sector and to monitor sector development: about 10 World Bank projects have used IBNET during project preparation and in support of proposed investment programs. In a few countries, IBNET already serves as a foundation for sector strategy and investment planning. During development of these programs, planners have relied on the fact-based, objective information provided by IBNET and its tools. Global initiatives such as the new Hashimoto Action Plan and DFID Water Action Plan call for increased monitoring and reporting at the global and national levels. IBNET's benchmarking successfully harmonizes existing monitoring and reporting activities in the water-supply and sanitation sectors to improve utili- ties' service delivery. The IBNET Blue Book creates a baseline and, at the same time, offers a global vision of the state of the sector in developing countries. By tracking progress in and quantifying and assessing the water supply and sanitation sectors, IBNET helps meet the goal of providing safe, sustainable, and affordable water and sanitation for all. We invite water and sanitation service providers, munici- palities, government authorities, and all users of water services to join us in this effort. Jae So Water and Sanitation Program Manager The World Bank Julia Bucknall Water Anchor Manager The World Bank Acknowledgments This report, a joint effort of the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) and Water Anchor of the World Bank, was prepared by a World Bank team led by Caroline van den Berg and Alexander Danilenko, and supported by John Bachmann of AECOM International Development. WRc plc developed and tested the original set of water benchmarking tools. A number of Bank staff members provided guidance and contributions at various stages, including Vivien Foster, Joseph Gadek, William Kingdom, Alain Lucassol, Philippe Marin, Abel Mejia, Josses Mugabi, and Dennis Mwanza. Special thanks to all WSP staff for their help in collecting, analyzing, and presenting the information contained here. The inputs from Masroor Ahmad, Mohammad Akhtaruzzaman, Vandana Bhatnagar, Wambui Gichuri, Abdul Motaleb, Hang Diem Nguyen, Lilian Otiego, Farhan Sami, Almud Weitz, and many other WSP and World Bank staff were highly valuable. We also thank Caroline Simmonds for her sector insights and profes- sional editing. Our great appreciation goes to the U.K. Department for International Devel- opment (DFID), which continues to fund and support the major part of the IBNET program. xiii IBNET Partners ADERASA, Association of Water and Sanitation Regulatory Entities of the Americas AfWOP, Africa Water Operators Partnership EAP Task Force, OECD SEAWUN, South East Asia Water Utilities Network Albania: National Regulator of Water and Canalization (DRUK) Belarus: Belcommunproject, Design Institute Brazil: National System of Information of Water and Sanitation of the Ministry of Urbanization, SNIS China: Shandong Provincial Water Association, SWA Croatia: National Association Hrvatske Vode Czech Republic: Institute for Structural Policy, IREAS Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: National Association of Water and Sanitation Utilities Georgia: National Association of Water Utilities, Georgia Tskhalkanali Hungary: National Environment Research Center at the Corvinus University, REKK Kazakhstan: National Association of Water Utilities, Arna Su Kyrgyz Republic: National Association of Communal Services Providers, Kyrgyzzhilcommunsoyuz Moldova: Moldova National Association of Water and Wastewater Utilities, AMAC Philippines: Philippine Water and Wastewater Association, PWWA Romania: National Association of the Potable Water Utilities, ARA Russian Federation: Moscow Institute for Urban Economics, IUE Ukraine: Institute for Municipal Development, MDI Vietnam: Vietnam Water Association, VWA xv Abbreviations ADERASA Association of Water and Sanitation Regulatory Entities of the Americas AMAC Moldova Apa Canal conn connection CRR cost recovery ratio DFID U.K. Department for International Development EU European Union GNI gross national income IBNET International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities I&I inflow and infiltration IWA International Water Association KPI key performance indicators lcd liters per capita per day m3 cubic meter MDG Millennium Development Goals NRW nonrevenue water OCCR operating cost coverage ratio OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development O&M operation and maintenance PPP purchasing power parity SNIS National Sanitation Information System, Brazil W water WSP Water and Sanitation Program WW wastewater WWTP wastewater treatment plant xvii 1 IBNET: THE INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKING NETWORK FOR WATER AND SANITATION UTILITIES Introduction Water--essential to sustain life and livelihoods--is a core sector of the global economy. The water and wastewater utilities of developing countries generate a substantial portion of the sector's estimated annual turnover of US$500 billion (Global Water Intelligence 2009). In urban areas, these utilities play a key role in efforts to attain the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of halving by 2015 the population lacking access to improved water and sanitation. Enhancing the operational and financial performance of these utilities will provide the basis necessary for expanding access and improving quality of service. The need for improved performance is not limited to developing countries. Urban water and wastewater utilities are under increasing pressure to perform. Among the many problems they face are volatile energy prices, a threat to the financial viability of their operations; in many countries, a short supply of capital improvement loans; and the uncertainties of climate change. In addition, regula- tors and citizens demand increasingly higher standards of environmental, social, and economic sustainability. If water and wastewater utilities are to meet these increasing demands and expectations in both developed and developing countries, they must first take stock of their performance over time. Comparisons with similar utilities else- where in the country or region or with standards of international good practice can shed light on how well a utility is performing, identify areas for improve- ment, and help indicate a plan of action. A major challenge for measuring, and eventually benchmarking, water and wastewater utility performance has been the lack of standardized information. In only a few cases has a standard set of indi- cators been applied consistently to measure utilities' financial and operational performance. The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities (IBNET), launched in 1996, provides options for standardized measurement of utilities' operational and financial performance. IBNET has established the 1 2 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book first global benchmarking standard for water and wastewater utilities, providing a global yardstick against which utilities and policy makers can measure their performance and thus gain a better understanding of their strengths and weak- nesses. Building on the achievements of other utility benchmarking efforts, nota- bly those of the International Water Association, IBNET, administered under the Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank and financed by the United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID), has grown from a short-term initiative to the largest publicly available water sector performance mechanism for collecting utility performance data. IBNET provides the tools to analyze these data and provides access to information on the performance of more than 2,500 water and wastewater services providers from 110 countries (although not all utilities report consistently). IBNET's four-language, Internet- based interface registers 3,000 users who download up to 10,000 benchmarking reports a month; IBNET information is widely used by utilities, researchers, con- sultants, investors, and donors. This report serves three purposes. First, it aims to raise awareness of how IBNET can help utilities identify ways to improve urban water and wastewater services. Second, it provides an introduction to benchmarking and to IBNET's objectives, scope, focus, and some recent achievements. Third, it elaborates the methodology and data behind IBNET and presents an overview of IBNET results and country data. By providing comparative information on utilities' costs and performance, IBNET and this study can be used by a wide range of stakeholders, including · Utilities: to identify areas of improvement and set realistic targets · Governments: to monitor and adjust sector policies and programs · Regulators: to ensure that adequate incentives are provided for improved util- ity performance and that consumers obtain value services · Consumers and civil society: to express valid concerns · International agencies and advisers: to perform an evaluation of utilities for lending purposes · Private investors: to identify opportunities and viable markets for investments What Is Benchmarking? Scrutiny of business practices has intensified in recent years, and the need for transparent and standardized information with which to compare utilities' per- formances has gained prominence, leading to increased emphasis on measure- ment of results, on transparency, and on accountability. As a result, the use of benchmarking has increased, and its value is widely recognized. The primary objectives of benchmarking are as follows: 1. To provide a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) related to a utility's managerial, financial, operational, and regulatory activities that can be used to measure internal performance and provide managerial guidance 2. To enable an organization to compare its performance on KPIs with those of other relevant utilities to identify areas needing improvement, with the expec- tation of developing more efficient or effective methods to formulate and attain company goals as set forth in its business plan IBNET: The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities 3 Two types of benchmarking can be distinguished. Metric benchmarking involves systematically comparing the performance of one utility with that of other similar utilities, and even more importantly, tracking one utility's perfor- mance over time. A water or wastewater utility can compare itself to other utilities of a similar size in the same country or in other countries. Similarly, a nation's regulators can compare the performance of the utilities operating there. Metric benchmarking, essentially an analytical tool, can help utilities better understand their performance. Such benchmarking is most powerful when carried out over time, tracking year-to-year changes in performance. Process benchmarking is a normative tool with which one utility can compare the effectiveness of its processes and procedures for carrying out different func- tions to those of selected peers. A utility can compare its billing and collection system, for example, to those used by other utilities to see which system performs better. When the comparison reveals one utility's system to be more effective or efficient than the other's, the underperforming utility can adopt and internalize those processes and procedures as appropriate. The performance indicator con- stitutes the building block of both types of benchmarking. Indicators are quan- titative, comparable measurements of a specific type of activity or output. Often based on ratios and percentages, water sector indicators measure, for instance, the percentage of population served by the piped water-supply network or a util- ity's ratio of total revenues to total costs during a given year. What Is IBNET? IBNET provides a set of tools that allows water and sanitation utilities to measure their performance both against their own past performance and against the per- formance of similar utilities at the national, regional, and global levels. The IBNET Toolkit IBNET consists of three major tools. The first is the IBNET Data Collection Tool- kit, which can be downloaded from the IBNET Web site at http://www.ib-net .org; this Excel spreadsheet indicates a set of data to be completed and offers detailed instructions on the precise data to enter. The second tool is a continu- ously updated database of water and sewerage utilities' performance. This data- base allows utilities and other sector stakeholders to search for data in different formats and provides the means for simple benchmarking of utility data. The benchmarking tool enables the utility to compare itself to other utilities with similar characteristics (for example, size, factors related to location, and manage- ment structure). The third tool provides data on participating agencies. This information helps organizations interested in measuring utility performance to contact neighboring utilities and other organizations to build local networks for performance assessment and benchmarking. IBNET's Key Organizational Aspects IBNET has three key aspects. The first is that participation is voluntary, with the result that organizations contributing to IBNET are very diverse. They include, for example, regulatory associations (such as the Association of Water and Sanitation Regulatory Entities of the Americas [ADERASA]), national water associations, 4 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book government departments and agencies involved in monitoring urban water sup- plies and sewerage utilities, and, more recently, individual utilities. A second feature of IBNET is that it does not itself collect data. Rather, it sets up mechanisms by which many different organizations conduct data collection. From its start, IBNET's strategy has been to use a highly decentralized approach. Those closest to the utilities and most knowledgeable about local conditions are best suited to compile data and assess the utilities' performance. IBNET's role is to provide instruments, such as the IBNET Toolkit, to support this process. IBNET also organizes workshops to assist local agencies in training staff mem- bers in data collection and analysis, and it provides feedback once the data are collected. In its feedback, IBNET checks the quality of the data to ensure internal consistency and helps participants to analyze the data. Experience has shown that after the data collection process has been repeated several times, this technical assistance becomes increasingly redundant, and the organizations can thence- forth undertake data collection on their own. The third key IBNET feature, one fairly rare among agencies involved in util- ity benchmarking, is its focus on developing time-series data. Without time- series data, trends in utility performance and the impact of water and sanitation policies are difficult to detect. Effective development of time-series data requires ensuring that the data remain comparable over time through the rigorous use of a standardized data set and indicators as well as frequent data updating. In IBNET practice, most of the data are updated every two years. As performance assessment and benchmarking gain more prominence in the sector as regulation and monitoring tools, obtaining data on an annual basis has become easier, espe- cially in countries with increasingly institutionalized performance assessment. Currently, more than 50 percent of utilities in IBNET have at least 4 years of data results, and a large percentage of utilities represented in the IBNET database have data series extending between 5 and 10 years. This database allows innovative time-series performance analysis as well as cross-section analysis. What Can IBNET Do for You? IBNET is a broad and versatile tool that offers different benefits to different types of users (see table 1.1). For water and wastewater utilities, IBNET provides a ready- made analytical tool for self-assessment of performance at no cost to the user. By participating in IBNET, utilities can analyze their strengths and weaknesses in rela- tion to those of peer organizations and can track their own performance over time. The results of the IBNET analysis can then be used to inform strategic business planning processes designed to improve management performance. Both utilities and associations can exploit IBNET-based assessments to posi- tion themselves to receive financing for capital improvements. Where national policy makers are interested in making capital financing available, IBNET can be adopted as an analytical tool for assessing needs and allocating resources. Private investors interested in expanding their interests in the water and wastewater sec- tor can also use IBNET to carry out an initial screening of potential target utilities. A broad-brush IBNET analysis will provide a reliable assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of different utilities, pinpointing those with revenue-generating potential using an analysis of financial results, service-delivery efficiency, and customer-relations management. The results of an IBNET assessment can be IBNET: The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities 5 Table 1.1 IBNET Benefits by Type of User User Benefits Utilities and utility associations · Self-assessment of performance · Justification for requests for financial and other assistance (facilitates borrowing money) · Focus on shortcomings, providing strategic business planning baseline · Analytical platform for process benchmarking through twinning arrangements · (For associations) Facilitation of utilities' participation through information exchange · (For associations) Provision of data to inform advocacy for the water and wastewater sector Regulators · Assessment of performance to underpin tariff setting · Comparative analysis of utilities' performance National policy makers and · Evaluation of sector in relation to other cities, regions, or countries international donors · Focus on shortcomings, providing strategic planning baseline Private operators and investors · Comparative analysis of utilities' performance · Focus on strengths and weaknesses, enabling due diligence Researchers and consultants · Comparative analysis of sector performance · Comparative analysis of a utility performance Source: IBNET. Box 1.1 Brazil: Formalizing Performance Assessment into Law Brazil provides an example of how Growth Acceleration Program has been benchmarking can drive water or earmarked for capital improvement in water wastewater sector reform. Starting in 1992, and especially wastewater systems. Funding the World Bank financed Brazil's Water Sector eligibility decisions are made on the basis of Modernization Program, establishing a performance criteria calculated using the national system for measuring the SNIS system. In effect, the focus on performance of water and wastewater results-based management created the need utilities. The National Sanitation Information to measure performance accurately and System (SNIS) began to collect information quantitatively. With the help of a performance- on service quality, financial performance, measurement system similar to IBNET, Brazil institutional efficiency, and other parameters. has launched its national water and SNIS now has data on more than 600 utilities wastewater sector on a transparent course representing more than 4,000 municipalities. toward improved management and better (Many utilities are regional in scope.) The service delivery. Following its success with recently approved national water law water and wastewater utilities, SNIS has upgraded the performance-measurement expanded its benchmarking to companies system and made it the nerve center of a providing solid-waste services. national performance-improvement initiative. Substantial funding under the Source: SNIS, Brazil. used to write the terms of reference for the more detailed due diligence exercises required before final decisions on an investment are made. The cases of Moldova and Brazil, detailed in boxes 1.1 and 1.2, show how IBNET can be used to refine and coordinate national water and wastewater service-improvement programs by introducing results-based management and systematic performance measurements for participating utilities. These 6 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Box 1.2 Moldova: Using Performance Assessment for Advocacy Moldova Apa Canal (AMAC), a nongovern- deteriorated water and wastewater systems. mental association of water and wastewater AMAC recommended to the government service providers, in 2001 teamed up with that World Bank loan funds be used to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation finance replacement of piped networks and and Development (OECD) to test the Water energy-inefficient equipment. The selection Performance Assessment Start-Up Toolkit, the of utilities that would receive loan financing predecessor to IBNET. Data were collected was carried out using IBNET indicators. More from participating utilities retroactively for than US$20 million has been invested since the period 1996 through 2000. The data 2001 in eight water- and wastewater- collection standard was modified in 2004 improvement projects across Moldova. with IBNET's introduction in Moldova. The IBNET data clearly showed that Source: Moldova Apa Canal, National Association investment was required to replace of Water and Wastewater Companies. countries' experiences with the method demonstrate how effective perfor- mance benchmarking can be in facilitating national or regional efforts to reform the water and wastewater sector. First, benchmarking provides a comprehensive, global view of the performance of a nation's utilities. Further, it correlates tech- nical performance with financial performance and calculates some measures of the overall efficiency of an individual utility's operations. Only with such a broad perspective can policy makers reach informed decisions about the best direction in which to take the sector as a whole and how best to steer the sector toward stated goals and objectives. IBNET Achievements The water industry is a core sector of the economy. In 2007, Global Water Intel- ligence estimated the current market for urban water supply and sewerage han- dling to be US$210 billion in 2006, of which the market in developing countries accounts for US$80 billion. The rural market is significantly smaller, at US$15 billion, especially in view of the large populations living in these areas. The IBNET database includes basic performance data for about 2,600 water utilities between 1995 and 2008. The database represents more than US$27 billion in annual revenues in 2006, that is, about 39 percent of the official water market and 32 percent of the total official and gray, or unofficial, water market in developing countries, as calculated by the Global Water Intelligence Unit (see table 1.2). (As IBNET is especially active in middle-income countries, it is likely that the Global Water Intelligence figures may underestimate the real size of the developing countries' water markets.) For 2008, in terms of these countries' total population of urban households with piped-water access, IBNET covered 256 million water-supply users and 157 million users of sewerage or sanita- tion from a total of about 1.7 billion people. That number represents approxi- mately 15 percent of the population, a calculation based on the UNICEF-WHO Joint Monitoring Program 2008 MDG assessment at http://www.wssinfo.org. (IBNET's data collection process has not been finalized; it is still on-going in several parts of the world, so these data may show changes over time.) IBNET: The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities 7 Table 1.2 IBNET Representation as Percentage of Estimated Total Urban Market Size in Developing Countries Estimated urban market size in developing countries in Estimated operating revenues in US$ billion IBNET as % of urban market share Region Official Gray Total Official Total Africa 3.8 2.0 5.8 44 29 East Asia and Pacific 27.8 4.5 32.2 20 18 Europe and Central Asia 16.0 2.4 18.4 37 32 Latin America and Caribbean 15.2 3.5 18.7 82 66 Middle East and North Africa 1.6 0.6 2.2 8 6 South Asia 1.1 1.7 2.8 15 6 Total developing countries 65.9 14.7 80.6 39 32 Source: Global Water Intelligence, Global Water Markets 2007; IBNET. Since its inception, IBNET can lay claim to a number of achievements in the water and wastewater sector. Foremost has been its role as the first global benchmarking standard for the sector. Other accomplishments include the following: · IBNET has contributed to improved knowledge and understanding of bench- marking, including awareness that performance can and should be measured in a comprehensive way, taking into account the utilities' financial, institu- tional, and technical dimensions. · IBNET efforts have helped participating utilities to achieve more thorough understanding of their performance in relation to that of their peers and to improve their managers' strategic focus. Some of these managers have used their improved understanding to formulate plans for future improvement. · Since its inception in the 1990s, IBNET has accumulated the largest public database on water and wastewater utilities and is thus able to provide utilities and others interested in the water and sanitation sector with performance data from nearly 3,000 utilities in 110 countries for the period from 1995 to 2010. · About 63 percent of the utilities represented in the IBNET database have more than four entries regarding performance, making it increasingly possible to examine performance trends at the utility and sector levels. · With funding from DFID, initiated in 2005, IBNET concluded technical assistance agreements with many organizations throughout the world. IBNET has since provided support to numerous organizations seeking to hone their performance assessment and benchmarking skills. The organiza- tions include the national associations of Georgia, Moldova, Romania, the Former Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Serbia, and Vietnam and the Shandong and Liaoning provincial water associations in China. In a number of countries, including Albania, Armenia, Belarus, the Russian Fed- eration, Ukraine, the Kyrgyz Republic, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Repub- lic, and Sudan, IBNET helped inaugurate benchmarking efforts. With the support of the Water and Sanitation Program­South Asia, IBNET bench- marking was recently begun in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. 8 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Table 1.3 Number of Utilities in IBNET by Region Latin America (including Middle East East Asia Europe and United States and North Year Africa and Pacific Central Asia and Canada) Africa South Asia Total 1994 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 1995 4 22 23 0 12 1 62 1996 13 21 64 26 12 5 141 1997 13 83 148 26 12 0 282 1998 14 83 157 27 12 0 293 1999 16 83 157 27 0 0 283 2000 46 83 312 229 4 0 674 2001 45 93 760 267 0 7 1,172 2002 60 116 788 296 0 4 1,264 2003 62 155 841 601 0 4 1,663 2004 95 200 854 650 1 13 1,813 2005 75 148 427 503 1 24 1,178 2006 62 171 428 706 1 18 1,386 2007 50 190 389 605 0 11 1,245 2008 45 63 270 722 0 11 1,111 Source: IBNET. · The number of data observations on the IBNET Web site has grown exponen- tially. Currently, the database contains almost 500,000 data observations, compared with 345 in 1997. These observations form the basis of a much larger set of performance indicators, available to the general public on the IBNET Web site, http://www.ib-net.org (see figure 1.1 and table 1.3). · In 2010, IBNET published a tariff database providing data on water and waste- water tariffs in more than 210 utilities worldwide. The tariff database reports the water price charged to domestic users per cubic meter for the first 15 cubic meters consumed, delivered through a 20-millimeter (5/8-inch) pipe (see figure 1.2). · IBNET plays a key role in international reporting on the status of the water sector. Since 2004, more than 150 papers and reports on water sector status, performance, and economics have been published based on indicators col- lected by IBNET. Yet the ultimate value of utility benchmarking is the extent to which it leads to greater efficiency and delivery of better services. More than one country has made IBNET or similar performance measurement systems the core of its national efforts at utility reform. These efforts demonstrate that, where adopted, performance assessment and benchmarking improve performance. This result holds for all contexts, whether in low-, middle-, or high-income countries. Inter- estingly, not only does performance improve, but the variance in performance across utilities decreases: although the number of utilities in the database has increased rapidly over this period, performance as measured by the operating cost coverage ratio (measuring how many times operating revenues cover opera- tion and maintenance costs) has remained stable--despite the triple impact of fuel, food, and financial crises (see figure 1.3). Figure 1.1 IBNET Country Coverage Greenland (Den) ICELAND NORWAY DENMARK GERMANY SWEDEN FINLAND RUSSIAN FEDERATION IBNET: The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities IBNET: The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities 9 THE NETHERLANDS ESTONIA CANADA UNITED KINGDOM RUSSIAN LATVIA FED. IRELAND GEORGIA BELGIUM LUXEMBOURG AZERBAIJAN LIECHTENSTEIN MONGOLIA FRANCE SWITZERLAND MOLDOVA ANDORRA ITALY KYRGYZ REP. D.P.R. UNITED STATES PORTUGAL SPAIN TURKMENISTAN OF KOREA TAJIKISTAN JAPAN GREECE SYRIAN CHINA A.R. I.R. OF IRAN AFGHANISTAN LEBANON IRAQ KOREA MOROCCO BHUTAN KUWAIT QATAR NEPAL THE BAHAMAS Former ARAB REP. JORDAN BAHRAIN JAMAICA LIBYA MEXICO Spanish OF EGYPT CUBA HAITI Sahara SAUDI U.A.E. BELIZE CAPE VERDE ARABIA Hong Kong SAR, China OMAN Macao SAR, China N. Mariana Islands (US) HONDURAS ERITREA REP. OF YEMEN THAILAND VIETNAM Guam (US) GUATEMALA NICARAGUA THE GAMBIA PHILIPPINES MARSHALL IS. EL SALVADOR GUYANA GUINEA-BISSAU DJIBOUTI CENTRAL SRI LANKA FED. STATES OF MICRONESIA COSTA RICA VENEZUELA SURINAME SIERRA LEONE ETHIOPIA BRUNEI LIBERIA AFRICAN REP. SOMALIA PANAMA French Guiana (Fr) MALAYSIA PALAU GHANA MALDIVES KIRIBATI RWANDA TOGO KIRIBATI CONGO BURUNDI SOLOMON BENIN INDONESIA PAPUA TANZANIA COMOROS NEW GUINEA ISLANDS SÃO TOMÉ AND PRÍNCIPE SAMOA BRAZIL RAZ SEYCHELLES TIMOR-LESTE TUVALU EQUATORIAL GUINEA ANGOLA ZAMBIA MALAWI FIJI VANUATU BOLIVIA FIJI TONGA T NAMIBIA MAURITIUS DOMINICAN POLAND Réunion (Fr) New MOZAMBIQUE Caledonia GERMANY REP. AUSTRALIA (Fr) ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA UKR. SWAZILAND ST. KITTS AND NEVIS AUSTRIA LESOTHO SLOVENIA AFRICA DOMINICA CHILE ARGENTINA NEW ST. LUCIA BARBADOS SERBIA ZEALAND ST. VINCENT & ITALY MONTENEGRO GRENADA BULG. THE GRENADINES KOSOVO TRINIDAD R.B. DE VENEZUELA AND TOBAGO IBNET This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on /www.ib-net.org Source: http:/ this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Source: IBNET. 10 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Figure 1.2 IBNET Water Tariff Coverage Greenland (Den) ICELAND NORWAY DENMARK GERMANY SWEDEN FINLAND THE NETHERLANDS RUSSIAN FEDERATION CANADA UNITED KINGDOM RUSSIAN LATVIA GEORGIA BELGIUM LUXEMBOURG AZERBAIJAN KAZAKHSTAN LIECHTENSTEIN SWITZERLAND MOLDOVA ANDORRA ITALY UZBEKISTAN KYRGYZ REP. D.P.R. UNITED STATES PORTUGAL ARMENIA TURKMENISTAN OF KOREA TAJIKISTAN JAPAN TUNISIA I.R. OF IRAN AFGHANISTAN LEBANON IRAQ CHINA KUWAIT QATAR BHUTAN West Bank and Gaza ALGERIA PAKISTAN THE BAHAMAS Former ARAB REP. JORDAN JAMAICA Spanish LIBYA OF EGYPT BANGLADESH MEXICO CUBA HAITI Sahara INDIA BELIZE CAPE VERDE ARABIA MYANMAR LAO Hong Kong SAR, China OMAN Macao SAR, China MAURITANIA P.D.R. MALI NIGER VIETNAM N. Mariana Islands (US) SENEGAL ERITREA REP. OF YEMEN THAILAND GUATEMALA CHAD SUDAN Guam (US) NICARAGUA THE GAMBIA BURKINA CAMBODIA FASO PHILIPPINES MARSHALL IS. EL SALVADOR GUINEA-BISSAU GUINEA DJIBOUTI R.B. DE GUYANA CÔTE NIGERIA SRI LANKA COSTA RICA SURINAME SIERRA LEONE CENTRAL ETHIOPIA BRUNEI FED. STATES OF MICRONESIA VENEZUELA D'IVOIRE AFRICAN REP. LIBERIA CAMEROON SOMALIA PALAU PANAMA COLOMBIA French Guiana (Fr) MALAYSIA GHANA UGANDA KENYA MALDIVES KIRIBATI ECUADOR GABON RWANDA TOGO D.R. OF KIRIBATI CONGO BURUNDI SOLOMON BENIN CONGO INDONESIA PAPUA TANZANIA COMOROS NEW GUINEA ISLANDS SÃO TOMÉ AND PRÍNCIPE SAMOA PERU BRAZIL SEYCHELLES TIMOR-LESTE TUVALU EQUATORIAL GUINEA ANGOLA ZAMBIA MALAWI FIJI MADAGASCAR VANUATU BOLIVIA FIJI TONGA NAMIBIA ZIMBABWE MAURITIUS DOMINICAN MOZAMBIQUE Réunion (Fr) New REP. PARAGUAY AUSTRALIA Caledonia (Fr) ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA UKR. SWAZILAND ST. KITTS AND NEVIS SOUTH LESOTHO URUGUAY AFRICA DOMINICA CHILE CROATIA ROMANIA ARGENTINA NEW ST. LUCIA BARBADOS BOSNIA & HERZ. SERBIA ZEALAND ST. VINCENT & MONTENEGRO THE GRENADINES GRENADA KOSOVO FYR TRINIDAD ALBANIA AND TOBAGO WORLD TARIFFS This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on Source: http://www.ib-net.org this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Source: IBNET. IBNET: The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities 11 Figure 1.3 Median Operating Cost Coverage Ratio 1.25 start of fuel crisis; 1.20 financial sharp increase in size of IBNET crisis 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: IBNET. Second, benchmarking promotes transparency. When the same data are col- lected from each utility, benchmarking allows direct comparisons between service providers with respect to operational results, system conditions, service quality and coverage, financial condition, customer affordability, and other dimensions of utility performance. For public companies, such reporting is often a statutory requirement, addressing customers' rights to see how their money is used. For private urban utilities or utilities intending to go private, publishing perfor- mance data represents both sound corporate governance and a way to attract private capital. Third, performance benchmarking is an effective tool for rationalizing the use of scarce resources. When, for example, Utility A's water network reaches only half of the households in its jurisdiction, while Utility B's network reaches four- fifths of the households in its jurisdiction, clearly, all other things being equal, Utility A should be given priority in the distribution of public funds for network extension. But if Utility A has a high revenue collection backlog or a low level of operational cost recovery, then more information on its financial management capacity should be gathered before lending decisions are made. As the previous example illustrates, benchmarking is most effective when combined with due diligence. By definition, a broad-brush picture of utility and sector performance, benchmarking is not intended to be the first and only source of input for decisions on investment, policy change, or changes in service level. Rather, benchmarking constitutes a cost-effective tool providing sector managers, including independent regulators, ministries, provincial governments, municipal authorities, and investors, with a bird's-eye view of the utilities' overall perfor- mance that can be used to prioritize needs and establish the main directions for new policies and programs. Ultimate funding decisions usually require probing more deeply using other tools, such as financial and technical audits by potential private investors or, in the case of the allocation of public monies for capital investment, due diligence on data submitted by the utilities. 2 IBNET METHODOLOGY The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities (IBNET) data are collected at the local or national levels. Key sector institutions, such as water and wastewater associations, regulators, or research institutes working with these associations, typically reach out to their members to collect the baseline data needed to calculate indicators. The IBNET program often pro- vides small-scale technical assistance to facilitate data collection. Participants enter data into a standardized Excel spreadsheet under the catego- ries General, Service Area, Water Service, Sewerage Service, Financial, and Tar- iffs. The spreadsheet can be downloaded easily from the IBNET Web site. (See appendix C for a list of the data items and indicators.) Macros in the spreadsheet automatically calculate the more than 27 groups of quantitative indicators that characterize the utility's performance with respect to water and wastewater coverage and quality, water consumption and production, cost recovery, operations, finan- cial status, technical efficiency, billings and collections, and capital investment. Fol- lowing completion of data entry and submission of the spreadsheet to the IBNET program, the World Bank's Water and Sanitation Program performs quality con- trol on the data submitted and then enters the data into the IBNET database. IBNET data can be accessed at no charge at http://www.ib-net.org. The inter- face allows users to create tables and graphs showing indicator values by utility, country, or region. The user can customize the tables and graphs to show only specified indicators, for example, the technical or financial performance of a given utility. From these, more complex tables can be constructed to show a number of utilities' performances on the same indicator. Results can be shown for a specific year or for a number of years. Finally, country reports (see figure 2.1) provide snapshots of national conditions across all utilities represented in the database. For more targeted analysis, filters can be used to select utilities in specific countries or within specific population ranges or to select by indicator or year. Outputs appear in graphic format where time-series data are requested and avail- able, and tables and charts can be copied and saved. In addition to access to the database, the IBNET Web site provides method- ological explanations and instructions on benchmarking and measuring water and wastewater performance. Step-by-step instructions guide users through benchmarking exercises. The site defines different methodologies, and bibliog- raphies listing other methodological documents are provided. Example terms 13 14 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Figure 2.1 Example of a User-Generated Country Report: Armenia Country Report Armenia Indicator 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1.1 Water Coverage (%) 66 68 79 80 80 2.1 Sewerage Coverage (%) 51 46 35 34 35 4.1 Total Water Consumption (l/person/day) 156 126 153 146 151 4.7 Residential Consumption (l/person/day) 119 92 105 92 94 6.1 Non Revenue Water (%) 78 81 84 85 84 6.2 Non Revenue Water (m3/km/day) 107.5 129.1 109.5 108.8 94.7 8.1 % Sold that is Metered (%) 47 57 69 75 78 11.1 Operational Cost W&WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.24 0.33 0.33 0.41 0.44 12.3 Staff W/1000 W pop served (W/1000 W pop served) 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.6 18.1 Average Revenue W&WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.15 0.24 0.29 0.41 0.47 23.1 Collection Period (Days) 633 251 455 236 266 23.2 Collection Ratio (%) 66 64 72 83 87 24.1 Operating Cost Coverage (ratio) 0.64 0.71 0.88 1.00 1.05 Source: IBNET. of reference make it easy for users to set up performance benchmarking at the national or regional level. The IBNET site also facilitates networking within the benchmarking commu- nity by providing contact information for regional and national organizations active in benchmarking and performance measurement in the water and waste- water field. IBNET's Limitations IBNET works best as part of a comprehensive initiative to improve sector perfor- mance. The usefulness of benchmarking is seriously limited when utilities or other organizations neglect other appropriate steps. A simple peer comparison, for example, provides only a static view of performance. The proper approach to benchmarking involves three steps: · Measure the real differences in performance among peers for key goals. This requires knowledge of the peer group adequate to ensure that the comparison is between "apples and apples." · Investigate the reasons for the differences and develop strategies and tactics for improvements if organizations fall significantly below the best-practice standard drawn from analysis of the peer group. · Implement definitive steps and programs to achieve needed improvements and carefully monitor the results. All projects of consequence should be mon- itored for performance to reveal what works and what doesn't. Poor-quality data will also limit the usefulness of benchmarking. The quality of the IBNET database depends on the quality of the data submitted by individ- ual utilities and utilities' associations. Some utilities submit precise, reliable data; IBNET Methodology 15 others do not. IBNET has tools and instruments (described in the section titled "IBNET Data Quality") with which it checks data quality, thus helping utilities to find obvious mistakes in their data submissions. Experience shows that, over time, utilities improve their skills in data collection and analysis. The differences in data quality resulting from this learning curve must be traded off against the benefit to the utilities of gaining the ability to measure results with accountability and transparency. IBNET's data are further limited by the voluntary nature of membership. Some utilities are hesitant to submit their data. Only aggregated data are distrib- uted or downloadable, however, which helps to make participation somewhat more attractive to these reluctant utilities. Publicly owned utilities have no objec- tion to publishing data or, at least, indicators; these utilities are accountable to their governments and customers and, thus, as a matter of governance policy, must disclose basic technical and economic information about their operations. IBNET participation is also largely limited to developing countries. While some Western European and Australian utilities contribute data, many others do not. Data are available for utilities in many developed countries, but with some exceptions no tradition exists even among publicly owned utilities of sharing this information. IBNET's global reach would be expanded considerably with the wider participation of European and North American utilities. IBNET Data Quality As noted above, the quality of the IBNET database depends on the quality of the data submitted by individual utilities and utilities' associations. IBNET therefore invests substantial effort in making sure the data are of the highest possible qual- ity and accurately and adequately reflect the reporter's performance. IBNET data come from a variety of sources, some of which have excellent qual- ity assurance procedures (as in the case of regulatory data) and others of which follow less sound procedures. To correct for this, IBNET continually improves its data-checking procedures and makes users aware of the quality (or lack of quality) of particular data. The need for rigorous quality assurance procedures is always balanced against the need to avoid discouraging potentially valuable data sources from participating. Data Quality at the Collection Level The IBNET data collection tool contains ranges and built-in filters that prevent assembly of obviously wrong information. Among these mechanisms are, for example, that the population served by the utility cannot be more than 30 million, water production and consumption must be within reasonable levels, the volume of billed water cannot be higher than the volume produced, and the service pro- vider's total revenue cannot be greater than the sum of its water and wastewater revenue. The toolkit thus allows the utility to review the consistency of its data immediately as they are collected. This helps prevent data fraud, as the system makes it substantially easier for the data collector to provide accurate data. Every data collection report must be furnished to the IBNET team after the collection exercise and must provide both the sources of the data and the descrip- tions of their origin according to specific criteria for value and quality, as outlined in table 2.1. 16 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Table 2.1 IBNET Value Categories for Data Quality Value Explanation of value 1 Based on sound records, procedures, investigations, or analyses that are properly documented and recognized as the best available 2 Derived generally as for the confidence rating, but with minor shortcomings; for example, some documentation may be missing, an assessment may be out of date, or some data may rely on unconfirmed reports or extrapolation 3 Extrapolated from a limited sample about which the collector is confident 4 Based on the best estimates of the utility staff members, without measurement or documented evidence Source: Authors. The data collector examines the calculated performance levels provided by all the utilities for sense and consistency, noting the following characteristics in particular: · Data are within the ranges to be expected. · Time trends appear to be reasonable. · Confidence ratings assigned are as expected based on experience. The data collector resolves any data quality concerns through discussion with the utility or water utility association and removes any data for which concerns cannot satisfactorily be resolved. The IBNET Team Review The IBNET team receives the data set and submits each datum to thorough review, focusing on outliers, data sources, and consistency. The team examines the calculated performance levels provided by all the utilities for sense and con- sistency to ensure that data are within the expected ranges and that time trends appear reasonable. By calculating averages for the given set of data, the team determines outlier utilities and reviews their performance jointly with the data collector. Data Verification at the Uploading Stage The IBNET team and its experts examine for sense and consistency the calculated performance levels provided at the country level. Once again, IBNET resolves any concerns over data quality through discussion with the data collectors and removes any data for which its concerns cannot be satisfactorily resolved. Not all data are available during the first round of collection. In most cases, the financial data will be better collected and monitored than the technical per- formance data; these come from the utilities' technical departments and often are not readily available. In practice, however, during subsequent and follow-up data collection efforts these issues are usually resolved, and the processing and quality of all data tend to improve with each collection round. 3 STATUS OF THE SECTOR Trends in Sector Status Improving utilities' performance requires time and effort, the results of which can only be seen in the context of past performance. This makes trend analysis central to the improvement process. Trend analysis is somewhat complicated, however, by some significant changes in the economic climate over the past few years. Energy makes up a significant part of the total operation and maintenance costs for many utilities, and between 2003 and 2007, fuel prices increased rapidly. In 2008, the median utility spent 23 percent of its total recurrent costs on energy. The fuel crisis and the consequent higher, more volatile fuel prices have affected many utilities, putting pressure on their ability to cover operation and maintenance costs with operating revenues. The fuel crisis was followed by a food crisis that was in turn followed in 2008 by a financial crisis, all further undermining utility revenues, as many customers suffered reverses and were unable to pay. This chapter focuses on the trends in water and sewerage coverage in many countries, especially in the developing world, where efforts to widen access to a safe water supply and sanitation services have intensified as part of the larger effort to achieve the sector's Millennium Development Goals. These trends will demonstrate the progress that has been made in reforming the water utility sector. We will measure the performance of water utilities based on a set of indicators for operational efficiency, financial sustainability, and customer responsiveness. Operational efficiency assesses the utility's use of inputs in the course of daily management. Operational efficiency, of course, depends not only on current management quality, but also on past management practices and decisions, as well as on earlier investment decisions. At the same time, the utility's social and economic environment plays an important role in the degree of efficiency it can attain, because local prices and regulation (including environmental and labor regulations), among other factors, affect efficiency levels. We will use two indica- tors to measure operational efficiency: nonrevenue water and staff productivity. Our second key performance measure is financial sustainability. A utility that fails to cover at least its operation and maintenance costs from operating revenues is in a precarious position often leading to an inability to maintain infrastructure and to consequent deterioration in service quality. Even when operating revenues 17 18 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book are sufficient to cover operating costs, however, a utility may still experience cash flow problems if customers do not pay their bills or pay them late. Therefore, the two indicators used here to determine financial sustainability are operating cost coverage ratio and collection period (the time it takes the utility to collect from its customers). The utilities' customer responsiveness can be measured in many different ways. The indicator we use is affordability of service, as measured by how much of a household's income goes to water supply and sewerage services. Affordability also provides insight into the long-term sustainability of a utility; if its services are not affordable for its current population of consumers, the system will not be able to expand rapidly to serve larger, and often poorer, populations. Water Coverage Achieving the Millennium Development Goals for water supply and sanitation has been a major driver in the sector in the past decade. Between 2000 and 2007, median water supply coverage expanded from 81 percent in 2000 to 91 percent in 2008, despite rapidly increasing urban populations (table 3.1). (In this analy- sis, we will report median values, because using average values without consider- ing the size of the utility will result in distortions as the performance of a small utility will count as much as that of a very large utility.) IBNET data have fluctu- ated over this period as increasing numbers of new utilities have entered the data- base. Usually, these newer utilities serve smaller and poorer populations than do the utilities that have been participating longer in the IBNET database. It is inter- esting to note the decline in standard deviation that assumes that the differences between utilities are declining over time. Expansion of the IBNET database tends to have an adverse impact on perfor- mance, mostly because the larger the database, the greater the number of smaller utilities included. Smaller utilities tend to operate in smaller towns and, thus, to benefit less from economies of scale than do larger utilities. Water-supply coverage, however, varies with income level. Utilities in low- income countries show lower water-supply coverage rates than do utilities in middle-income countries. In 2008, the median water coverage for households in low-income countries was 73 percent, compared to 91 percent in middle-income countries and 100 percent in high-income countries. Most of the increase in cov- erage has taken place in low-income countries, where median coverage increased by 14 percentage points, from 59 percent in 2000 to 73 percent in 2008, with much of this increase occurring in utilities in Africa. Table 3.1 Median Coverage of Water-Supply Services 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Water coverage (%) 81 82 98 89 90 90 91 91 91 Standard deviation (%) 25 25 60 24 23 23 23 22 22 Number of utilities reporting 637 700 803 1,086 1,242 1,223 1,432 1,296 989 Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. Status of the Sector 19 Wastewater Coverage Median wastewater coverage increased from 54 percent in 2000 to 76 percent in 2008. As can be seen in table 3.2, the number of utilities providing wastewater services has increased rapidly. Nevertheless, wastewater coverage lags water- supply coverage. IBNET participation by wastewater service providers is also lower than participation by water-supply services. Levels of wastewater coverage vary with the level of economic development. Utilities in low-income countries show lower rates of wastewater coverage than do utilities in middle-income countries. In 2008, average water coverage for house- holds in low-income countries was 32 percent (in 2007), compared to 77 percent in middle-income countries and more than 95 percent in high-income countries. Wastewater coverage has increased most in middle-income countries, especially in Eastern Europe, where countries joining the European Union (EU) seek to comply with EU environmental standards. As measured here, wastewater coverage refers to the collection of wastewater, not to the actual treatment or disposal of the wastewater collected. Nevertheless, levels of primary and secondary wastewater treatment increased between 2000 and 2008. In 2000, about 53 percent of utilities providing wastewater collection services also reported undertaking some level of primary treatment, but in 2008, 66 percent did so. Levels of secondary treatment have also increased, albeit less rapidly, with 28 percent of utilities in 2000 reporting some treatment of collected wastewater as compared to 31 percent in 2008. Nonrevenue Water Nonrevenue water (NRW) is calculated as the difference between water pro- duced and water billed per kilometer of water network per day. This measure captures both physical and commercial losses. The latter result from inefficien- cies in billing, illegal connections, and theft. High NRW levels indicate poor management, in the form of either poor commercial practices or poor infra- structure maintenance. We will use several measures of NRW. The percentage of NRW as a share of water produced is a commonly used and easily understood indicator (table 3.3), but because it is very sensitive to changes in either of the two variables, we have found it to be unreliable for benchmarking NRW levels between utilities or even over time. This problem can be eliminated by measuring NRW not as a share, but in terms of absolute losses per kilometer of network or connection per day, as recommended by the International Water Association (IWA). Despite its short- comings, the use of percentage figures to compare levels of NRW nevertheless remains common. Table 3.2 Median Coverage of Wastewater Services 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Wastewater coverage (%) 54 55 69 70 73 71 74 78 76 Standard deviation (%) 32 31 32 32 31 29 29 30 30 Number of utilities reporting 446 478 563 781 853 864 941 861 661 Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. 20 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Table 3.3 Nonrevenue Water (Percentage of Water Production)--Median Values 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Nonrevenue water (%) 32 32 30 30 31 30 33 29 31 Standard deviation (%) 20 21 21 20 21 22 26 22 21 Number of utilities reporting 592 663 780 1,035 1,203 1,185 1,269 1,264 900 Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. The median nonrevenue water (as measured by the volume lost in percentage of water produced) has shown little progress between 2000 and 2008. Yet as can be seen in table 3.4, other measures of NRW show a different development pattern. The median nonrevenue water (as measured by the volume lost in cubic meter per kilometer per day) has decreased from 27 in 2000 to 21 in 2008. But this indicator shows wide variations by year and between number of utilities (as shown in table 3.4). Progress has been made especially since 2004. Interestingly, the decline in NRW was accompanied by a decline in the standard deviation, assuming that the gap between utilities is also decreasing. The data do not suggest a strong correlation between levels of NRW and economic development (see figure 3.1). On average, utilities in middle-income countries do not show any better management of NRW than do utilities in low- income countries. The median NRW in low-income countries was about 18 cubic meters per kilometer per day and about 22 in middle-income countries. In high-income countries (based on a relatively small group of observations), about 8 cubic meters per kilometer per day was lost in 2008. Many interlaced factors help explain NRW, including infrastructure age, network density, sys- tem pressure, and management quality. Although NRW is lower in low-income countries, generally the median hours of supply is also significantly lower than in middle-income countries. In middle- income countries, the median utility offered 24 hours of water supply per day in 2008, compared to 16 hours per day in low-income countries. If 24 hours is considered the supply standard, only 16 percent of utilities in low-income coun- tries complied with that standard in 2008, compared to 86 percent of utilities in middle-income countries. Figure 3.2 shows the NRW in cubic meters per kilometer per day by size of utility. NRW tends to be lower in small utilities than in large utilities. One pos- sible reason for this may be that smaller utilities are often relatively younger in age than larger utilities. Yet the biggest reason for the difference is likely to be that most larger utilities (those providing water-supply services to more than 500,000 people) generally serve more than one town and, hence, compose more than one water supply (and sewerage) system. Staff Productivity Fewer than half of the utilities in the IBNET sample provide information on staff productivity, as measured by the number of staff members per 1,000 connections. Those that have show improvement from 6.50 employees per 1,000 connections in 2000 to 3.26 in 2008 (see table 3.5). Yet, staff productivity varies widely from Status of the Sector 21 Table 3.4 Nonrevenue Water (m3/km/day)--Median Values 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 27 26 29 29 27 24 30 21 21 Standard deviation (m3/km/day) 73 80 84 62 55 51 56 50 50 Number of utilities reporting 605 635 720 962 1,060 1,059 1,096 1,204 869 Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. m3/km/day = cubic meters per kilometer per day. Figure 3.1 Nonrevenue Water (m3/km/day) by Income Level--Median Values 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 median value high-income countries middle-income countries low-income countries Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. m3/km/day = cubic meters per kilometer per day. about 20.0 employees per 1,000 connections in low-income countries to slightly above 3.0 in middle-income countries and about 0.80 in high-income countries. This variance in staff productivity is linked in part to differences in connection practices. In many places, water connections are often shared and, hence, serve multiple households. In Latin America, where most households have individual water connections, staff productivity is less than 3.0 per 1,000 connections, compared to 0.8 in high-income countries. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, many apartment buildings are still fitted with a single connection; in such an environment, staff productivity per 1,000 connections is likely to be very low, and in 2008, median staff productivity was about 12 employees per 1,000 connections. In Africa, staff productivity is low, partly because, as household surveys increasingly show, many households are not connected to the piped network but access the network by using (and often paying) for piped water supplied by neighbors. (Data from Demographic Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys underlie most of the data col- lected by the United Nations Children's Fund­World Health Organization Joint Monitoring Program, which measures progress toward the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals for water supply and sanitation.) Consequently, 22 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Figure 3.2 Nonrevenue Water (m3/km/day) by Band Size of Utility (Measured by Number of People Served with Water Supply)--Median Values 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 median value more than 1 million people 500,000­1,000,000 people 100,000­500,000 people 50,000­100,000 people 10,000­50,000 people less than 10,000 people Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. m3/km/day = cubic meters per kilometer per day. Table 3.5 Median Staff Productivity 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Staff productivity (employees per 1,000 people served) 1.39 1.35 1.47 1.16 1.06 1.06 0.95 1.49 0.97 Standard deviation (employees per 1,000 people served) 2.35 2.38 2.04 1.73 1.66 1.45 1.37 1.71 1.30 Number of utilities reporting 454 495 437 718 792 961 891 479 689 Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. median staff productivity was about 8 employees per 1,000 connections in 2008. But adjusting for the shared-connection effect, median staff productivity per 1,000 people served is much lower. Staff productivity stands at about 0.6 in Africa, 1.9 in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and 0.8 in Latin America, com- pared to 0.2 in high-income countries. Part of the increase in staff productivity may be attributable to outsourcing staff functions. In such cases, increased staff productivity does not necessar- ily translate into lower staff costs. In this respect, we see very divergent trends between regions. In Latin America and East Asia, labor costs decreased between Status of the Sector 23 2000 and 2008, whereas the opposite happened in Africa and in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Few high-income countries in the sample provide disaggre- gated details on their operating costs, leading to the conclusion that median labor cost as a percentage of total operating costs is about 30 percent in developed countries, compared to about 37 percent in developing countries. Labor share has not changed much globally, while staff productivity has increased, with the likely result that wages per employee have increased, providing incentives glob- ally for improved performance by utility staff. Labor costs as a percentage of total operating costs show very different trends in utilities providing water services only as compared to those providing both water and sewerage services. Utilities providing only water-supply services saw their share of labor costs in total operating costs decline from 45 percent in 2000 to 34 percent in 2008. At the same time, utilities providing both services saw their share of labor costs in total operating costs increase. The latter pattern is consis- tent with the increase in sewerage coverage discussed in the section "Wastewater Coverage" above. In 2008, utilities providing both water-supply and sewerage services had a median labor share of 38 percent, suggesting that utilities provid- ing both services benefit from economies of scope. Operating Cost Coverage Ratio A utility's operating cost coverage ratio measures the extent to which revenues cover basic operation and maintenance costs. The median operating cost coverage ratio declined from 1.11 in 2000 to 1.05 in 2008, with most of that decrease taking place after 2003 (see table 3.6). Despite the triple crises in fuel, food, and financial markets, the impact on utilities has been negligible so far. Trends in the operating cost coverage ratio indicate, however, that even in the best of times the median util- ity barely covers its operation and maintenance costs, leaving it without the capacity to replace worn-out assets let alone expand services to larger groups of consumers. The proportion of utilities unable to cover their basic operation and main- tenance costs has increased from 35 percent in 2000 to 43 percent in 2008, with most of that increase occurring since the fuel crisis hit the sector (see figure 3.3). The effect is especially noticeable in low-income countries, where on average the percentage of utilities unable to cover even operation and maintenance costs increased most rapidly. Middle-income countries seem to be less affected, partially because many of these countries' economies continued to grow rapidly after 2004. The operating cost coverage indicator measures both operating revenues and operating costs, but looks only at the basic indicators without providing details on the underlying trends in revenues and costs. The two elements that affect the operating cost coverage ratio are operation and maintenance costs and operating revenues. Each of these is affected by underlying trends in tariffs, Table 3.6 Operating Cost Coverage Ratio--Median Values 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Operating cost coverage ratio 1.11 1.13 1.10 1.11 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.08 1.05 Standard deviation 0.55 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.50 Number of utilities reporting 579 615 723 999 1,151 1,173 1,379 1,229 930 Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. 24 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Figure 3.3 Operating Cost Coverage Ratio--Median Values 120 100 80 percent 60 40 20 0 LIC-2000 LIC-2008 MIC-2000 MIC-2008 OCCR 1.00 OCCR 1.00­1.40 OCCR > 1.40 Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. LIC = low-income countries. MIC = middle-income countries. OCCR = operating cost coverage ratio. water consumption, and costs of inputs and by the efficiency with which they are applied. Operation and Maintenance Costs. Median operation and maintenance (O&M) costs per cubic meter sold (expressed in U.S. dollars) have increased rapidly since 2000 and especially so since 2004 (see table 3.7). The large standard deviations suggest wide divergence between utilities in the cost of water and wastewater produced. The increased divergence between utilities is partially linked to exchange rate fluctuations, as some local currencies appreciated against the U.S. dollar in 2006 and 2007. Operation and maintenance costs per cubic meter of water sold show wide variance between income levels. In low-income countries, operation and main- tenance costs per cubic meter of water sold increased to US$0.23 in 2008, com- pared to US$0.68 in middle-income countries. The large variation in the levels of wastewater collection and treatment in low- and middle-income countries accounts for part of this difference. Other factors play a role as well, including general price levels in the countries. Moreover, public expenditure reviews of the water sector (for example, Tanzania) show that governments commonly fund part of the operation and maintenance costs by paying certain of them outright, thereby artificially depressing the cost of service. As can be seen in figure 3.4, the median O&M cost per cubic meter of water sold has increased, particularly after 2004 when the full impact of the fuel crisis was felt. Interestingly, the variation in O&M cost also increased up until 2008, suggesting that different utilities responded differently to the fuel crisis. (Cur- rency fluctuations can have a large impact on the development of IBNET indica- tors. Water service is paid for in local currency. When large currency fluctuations occur, the effect in U.S. dollar terms can be huge, an effect that can be explained as much or more by currency fluctuations than by cost increases.) Some countries, Status of the Sector 25 Table 3.7 Operation and Maintenance Costs per Cubic Meter of Water Sold--Median Values 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 O&M cost (US$) 0.31 0.27 0.24 0.28 0.33 0.40 0.47 0.59 0.66 Standard deviation (US$) 0.39 0.37 0.34 0.35 0.41 0.46 0.52 0.56 0.46 Number of utilities reporting 541 580 697 949 1,103 1,128 1,188 1,201 872 Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. Figure 3.4 Operation and Maintenance Costs per Cubic Meter of Water Sold--Median Values 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 U.S. dollars 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 200 low-income countries middle-income countries Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. especially emerging market economies, have seen their currencies rise against the U.S. dollar in very recent years; the increase in O&M costs thus dampened as fuel prices increased less rapidly in local currency terms, explaining the higher variance in increases in O&M costs per cubic meter of water sold among the dif- ferent utilities. The data also show that the proportion of energy costs in total operation and maintenance costs increased from 19 percent in 2000 to 23 percent in 2008, crowding out other costs. (The 2008 data are still being collected; as a result, the number of observations is relatively small. Only data with a sufficient number of observations will be reported.) Large differences appear in the figures for low- income and for middle-income countries. In middle-income countries, the proportion of energy costs in total opera- tion and maintenance cost has increased from 21 percent in 2003 to 23 percent in 2008. In low-income countries, however, energy costs as a proportion of total operation and maintenance costs decreased from 25 percent in 2003 to 20 per- cent in 2008. Utilities are clearly starting to consume less energy as energy prices increase. Two operational indicators account for this decline: per capita water 26 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book production and duration of supply. Both indicators show declines in low-income countries. Median per capita water production has declined from 170 liters per capita per day (lcd) in 2003 to 96 lcd in 2008. Duration of supply shows a more gradual decline: the median for hours per day of supply was 16 in 2008. Operating Revenues. Median revenues per cubic meter of water sold (as a proxy for tariffs) increased from US$0.37 in 2000 to US$0.71 in 2008 (see table 3.8). The increase in O&M costs is thus accompanied by an increase in revenues, suggesting that utilities have adjusted their prices to continue covering their O&M costs, albeit a little less rapidly. The increase in average revenues has been relatively limited in low-income countries (see figure 3.5). In general, average revenues per cubic meter of water sold have increased across the board, independent of utility size. Average revenues per cubic meter of water sold, however, tend to be lowest in utilities serving fewer than 10,000 people and highest in utilities serving more than one million people. Obviously, price increases will affect water consumption patterns. Water con- sumption in the past decade saw a sharp decline, especially in low-income coun- tries, where median water consumption declined from 138 to 75 liters per capita per day between 2000 and 2008. In middle-income countries, water consumption Table 3.8 Average Revenues per Cubic Meter of Water Sold--Median Values 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average revenues (US$) 0.37 0.34 0.28 0.32 0.37 0.43 0.50 0.63 0.71 Standard deviation (US$) 0.34 0.34 0.37 0.42 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.59 0.51 Number of utilities reporting 567 632 725 982 1,137 1,154 1,188 1,203 878 Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. Figure 3.5 Average Revenues per Cubic Meter of Water Sold--Median Values 0.80 0.70 0.60 U.S. dollars 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 low-income countries middle-income countries Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. Status of the Sector 27 shows a much more complex picture. Overall, water consumption remained more or less stable, but different regions show very different trends. In East Asia, water consumption increased; in Latin America, it more or less remained stable; and in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, water consumption declined. Higher incomes fueled by economic growth and differences in real tariff increases and metering policies help explain the variations in consumption. Between 2000 and 2008, East Asia benefited from fast economic growth and relatively small increases in water prices. During the same period, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia were faced with much more rapidly increasing water prices. Although metering is widespread globally, it has increased rapidly since 2000 in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Collection Period The median collection period decreased from 156 days in 2000 to 81 days in 2008. This is a rapid improvement and means that the median utility is achieving the 90-day benchmark. The indicator shows large variations between utilities, however. The IBNET database shows that long collection periods are particularly a problem in Asia. In general, collection periods tend to be longer in low-income countries than in middle-income countries, although the gap is declining. Table 3.9 shows that the standard deviation is very high, indicating wide varia- tion between utilities in the efficiency with which they collect billed revenues. Affordability of Water and Sewerage Services In many countries, affordability figures centrally in the discussion on water and sewerage services. Yet in the IBNET sample, the median affordability (measured as average revenues per capita as a percentage of gross national income [GNI] per capita) was 0.91 percent in 2008 (table 3.10). The actual numbers are likely to be smaller, because most utilities are serving urban populations (which tend to have higher average incomes than do rural populations), whereas the GNI per capita is a national average. The indicator varies considerably, however, with some households paying almost 6 percent for water and sewerage services. Between 2000 and 2008, median affordability improved from 1.09 percent to 0.91 percent. In general, as might be expected, water and wastewater services are more costly than water-supply services only. Average affordability in 2008 was 1.16 percent for households using both water and wastewater services and 0.55 percent for those only using water-supply services. Affordability decreases with income lev- els. Utilities in low-income countries show higher rates of affordability than do Table 3.9 Collection Period--Median Values 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Collection period 156 130 125 107 115 109 99 89 81 (number of days) Standard deviation 383 362 321 316 292 349 307 315 420 (number of days) Number of utilities reporting 494 590 665 932 1,042 1,016 1,123 1,014 789 Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. 28 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Table 3.10 Affordability as Percentage of GNI--Median Values 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Affordability (%) 1.09 0.98 0.93 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.94 1.12 0.91 Standard deviation (%) 1.67 4.76 3.98 4.43 1.18 1.14 1.02 0.98 1.00 Number of utilities reporting 613 676 757 1,026 1,184 1,183 1,378 1,255 937 Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. utilities in middle-income countries. In 2008, median affordability for house- holds in low-income countries was 1.31 percent, compared to 0.90 percent in middle-income countries and 1.38 percent in high-income countries. Figure 3.6 shows that affordability is highest in low-income countries, where consumers spent a larger part of their income on water-supply services. Service levels tend to increase with income levels, and households increasingly obtain access to wastewater services. Nevertheless, better service tends not to translate into less affordable service, because households in high-income countries usually spend less of their income on water supply and sewerage services than do house- holds in low-income countries. Households in middle-income countries spend the least for these services. Obviously, access for the poor must be protected, because recent research shows that increasing infrastructure tariffs in combina- tion with reform can increase income inequality (Milanovic and Ersado 2008). Subsidies do not provide an easy solution to the problem of improving afford- ability, however. Most important, subsidies tend to be regressive, as a recent study on water and electricity subsidies amply demonstrated (Komives et al. 2005). The trend differs among countries. In almost all regions for which data are available, users depending on smaller quantities of water pay significantly more per cubic meter than do users of greater quantities. In part, this results from the high fixed costs characteristic of tariffs, which disproportionally affect those consuming smaller quantities of water. The high tariffs being paid in Africa are especially strik- ing, especially because service levels tend to be relatively low there, thus confirming the conclusions of the Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic team that infra- structure in Africa is more expensive than in most other regions of the world. Operating subsidies may also distort incentives for more efficient use of resources, and they tend to continue long after the crisis has subsided. In many water-supply and sewerage systems with far from universal coverage, operating subsidies tend to benefit consumers already connected to the piped-water system, who tend not to be the poor. The Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic stud- ies (Foster 2008) showed that around 90 percent of the population with piped- water access belongs to the richest 60 percent of the population. Subsequently, in such an environment any subsidy to piped-water services is largely captured by better-off households. Subsidies can be provided through social safety nets, direct subsidies to the water sector, or cross-subsidies. In the water sector, social safety nets are gener- ally more effective than consumption or connection subsidies. Direct subsidies to the water sector require fiscal space in the sector budget, which may not neces- sarily be available. Cross-subsidies are easier to implement, and the direct fiscal repercussions are small, but the effectiveness of this instrument depends on the Status of the Sector 29 Figure 3.6 Median Affordability as Percentage of GNI per Capita by Economic Development Status 2.50 2.00 % of GNI per capita 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 low-income countries middle-income countries high-income countries Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. Table 3.11 Level of Cross-Subsidies--Median Values 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Affordability 2.06 2.17 2.00 1.75 1.80 1.73 1.60 1.62 1.35 Standard deviation 9.25 9.84 NA 9.20 9.65 8.98 13.81 9.20 11.75 Number of utilities reporting 351 320 346 389 507 487 503 540 254 Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. existing tariff structure. Maxing out cross-subsidies can be problematic: if the cost of water and wastewater becomes too expensive for nonresidential water users, they may opt out of the piped-water supply system, undermining the utili- ties' revenue base. The IBNET database provides some details on the level of cross-subsidies in utilities, but it is incomplete, because many utilities do not provide this type of data, especially in Latin America. As can be seen in table 3.11, in 2008 the median utility charged nonresidential users up to 1.35 times more per cubic meter of water than it charged residential users. The large standard deviation, interest- ingly, shows that utilities display very different behaviors and that cross-subsidies vary widely between utilities. High levels of cross-subsidies tend to be more com- mon in low-income countries than in middle-income countries. The data also clearly show a direct relation between the level of cross-subsidies and the proportion of nonresidential water consumption in total water consump- tion. The higher the level of cross-subsidies, the higher the proportion of residential consumption and the lower the proportion of nonresidential water consumption in total water consumption. If the level of cross-subsidies is limited to less than 30 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book one, nonresidential water consumption makes up 41 percent of total water con- sumption. If the level of cross-subsidies is between one and two, nonresidential water consumption drops to 27 percent; at a level of cross-subsidies of more than two it drops to 19 percent. High levels of nonresidential water consumption do not automatically translate into more revenues per cubic meter sold, however; an optimal level of relatively modest cross-subsidies (between one and two) optimizes the average revenues per cubic meter of water sold. Conclusions In the past five years, overall utility performance has improved, despite the impact of the triple crisis in fuel, food, and the financial markets. The analysis shows that progress has been made in reforming the water-utility sector: water rates have been increasing, and until the impacts of the fuel crisis were felt, the utilities' abil- ity to cover at least their basic O&M costs had been improving. Other indicators also showed improvements, such as median staff productivity and the median collection periods, whereas median tariffs (in U.S. dollar terms) have increased. According to the Global Economic Monitor database, fuel prices increased by 236 percent between 2003 and 2008, but utilities continued to cover their higher O&M costs with their operating revenues, thus guaranteeing the utility's short- term financial sustainability. (Short-term financial sustainability is defined as the capacity of a utility to cover its basic O&M costs with its operating revenues.) In 2003, the median operating cost coverage ratio for all utilities in the IBNET data- base stood at 1.11, while in 2008, the indicator stood at 1.05. So far, most utilities have been able to pass at least part, if not most, of the higher O&M costs through to consumers. This pass-through and the subsequently higher water tariffs have resulted in a decline in water consumption in many areas. This decline in median water consumption triggered by higher median water tariffs has been accom- panied by a decrease in median water production and a decline in the median number of hours of supply per day. The Water Utility Apgar Score The term Apgar score originated in the system, developed by physician Virginia Apgar, for assessing the health of newborn infants quickly and summarily by assessing them on five simple criteria, giving them a score from zero to two for each, and classifying the totaled results according to a set scale. Our Apgar score for water-supply and sewage utilities does something similar, assessing the utili- ties' operational, financial, and social performance based on five or six indicators, depending on the type of service provided. Most other service analyses focus exclusively on financial and operational performance. But in many countries, utilities are judged not only on these criteria, but also on their effectiveness in delivering services to the population, including the poor. The simple set of criteria used in the utility Apgar score focuses on all three aspects of performance. The criteria are (i) water supply coverage; (ii) sewerage coverage; (iii) nonrevenue water; (iv) collection period; (vi) operating cost coverage ratio; and (vi) afford- ability of water and wastewater services. Each criterion is rated on a scale from zero to two, and the results are totaled. For utilities providing only water, the score is normalized (the maximum score for water utilities is 10; for water and wastewa- ter utilities, 12). As with the original Apgar scores, utilities are then classified using Status of the Sector 31 a scale of overall viability: "critically low" utilities score 3.6 or less, "fairly low" utilities score between 3.6 and 7.2, and "normal" utilities score above 7.2. The Apgar score, more particularly its set of indicators and benchmarks, is based on the characteristics of the IBNET database. Over time, the Apgar score will likely come to consist of different benchmarks and different indicators. As utilities develop, some indicators become less relevant, others more. In many developed countries, for example, service coverage is close to universal, mak- ing it less important as a measure of performance. Benchmarks may also change in value. For a sector showing improvement over time, benchmarks will likely require adjustment as well if the Apgar score is to remain relevant. The average IBNET Apgar score was 7.06 in 2008, a fairly low overall score, but moving toward normal (table 3.12). The number of utilities in the green zone, that is, with Apgar scores classified as normal, has increased rapidly since 2000, and the number of utilities with performances classified as critically low has also decreased rapidly (figure 3.7). Although an improvement in the average utility Apgar score was achieved between 2000 and 2008, the fuel crisis in 2004 resulted in a short-term setback: the IBNET Apgar score dropped, and the standard deviation increased. Since then, however, the score has increased steadily, especially after 2007. The finan- cial crisis will also affect the utilities' performance, but the impact will likely be felt only after a delay, as with any revenue-side effect, given the grace period for bill paying allowed to households before services are cut. Table 3.12 Classification of Water Utilities' Apgar Scores Average value of Apgar score Indicator Value for 2008 1.1 Water coverage 0 if 75% 1.21 1 if between 75 and 90% 2 if > 90% 2.1 Sewerage coverage 0 if 50% 1.17 1 if between 50 and 80% 2 if > 80% 6.2 Nonrevenue water 0 if 40 m3/km/day 0.99 1 if 10 and < 40 m3/km/day 2 if < 10 m3/km/day 19.1 Affordability 0 if > 2.5% 1.47 1 if between 1.0% and 2.5% 2 if 1.0% 23.1 Collection period 0 if 180 days 1.33 1 if between 90 and 180 days 2 if < 90 days 24.1 Operating cost coverage 0 if < 1 0.74 ratio 1 if between 1 and 1.40 2 if 1.40 Overall Apgar score Critically low 3.6 7.06 Fairly low 3.6­7.2 Normal > 7.2 Source: authors. Note: The benchmarks are set on the basis of the database characteristics. The participation of an increasing number of utilities and change in the utilities' performance over time will likely affect the benchmarks; consequently, the benchmarks on which the utility Apgar scores are based will likely adjust over time. 32 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Figure 3.7 Utility Apgar Score by Classification 100 80 60 percent 40 20 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 critically low fairly low normal Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. While the Apgar score improved between 2000 and 2008 (with the exception of the years 2004 and 2005), the variance in performance between utilities has decreased, as measured by a decline in the standard deviation (see table 3.13). This convergence of performance is a global trend. Despite the positive trend showing improvement in utility performance, large differences remain between utilities' Apgar scores and between countries. Utili- ties in low-income countries tend to have lower Apgar scores than do utilities in middle-income countries. Moreover, as table 3.14 shows, utilities in low-income countries as compared to those in middle-income countries tend to be more vul- nerable to external shocks; the fuel crisis, for example, hit them harder. As can be seen in figure 3.8, size also matters. Smaller utilities tend to have lower IBNET Apgar scores than do larger utilities. This only holds up to a point, however, because very large utilities are not necessarily the most efficient. Part of the performance difference arises when utilities serve more than one town. Utilities serving more than one town had an average Apgar score of 7.19 in 2008, compared to 6.54 for utilities serving only one town. Interestingly, smaller utilities have made more progress in improving their performance than have larger utilities. Between 2000 and 2008, the smallest utili- ties, those serving fewer than 10,000 people, improved the most, while utilities serving more than one million people saw the least improvement. One major reason why low-income countries score lower than do middle- income countries is because they tend to have lower levels of water and sewer- age coverage. Yet very few utilities worldwide have been or are able to extend their coverage without public investments. Consequently, improvement in water and sewerage coverage tends to be dictated more by availability of public funding than by the utilities' ability to generate cash internally. This relation- ship becomes clearer when looking at a limited Apgar score measuring direct utility performance only, as expressed by the utility's capacity to control non- revenue water, collection periods, financial performance (as expressed in the Status of the Sector 33 Table 3.13 Average Utility Apgar Score 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 IBNET Apgar 5.88 5.98 6.45 6.40 6.28 6.37 6.47 6.74 7.06 Standard deviation 2.37 2.39 2.31 2.25 2.27 2.29 2.19 2.17 2.09 Number of utilities reporting 437 494 571 783 886 838 830 931 684 Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. Table 3.14 Average Utility Apgar Scores by Level of Economic Development 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Low-income countries 4.55 4.92 4.94 5.13 4.44 4.28 4.41 4.72 5.78 Middle-income countries 6.55 6.76 7.05 6.71 6.60 6.77 6.84 7.04 7.12 Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. Figure 3.8 Apgar Score by Size of Utility (Number of people served by water supply) 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 Apgar score more than 1 million people 500,000­1,000,000 people 100,000­500,000 people 50,000­100,000 people 10,000­50,000 people less than 10,000 people Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. operating cost coverage ratio), and affordability, normalized to obtain a score between 1 and 10. Although the average utility management Apgar score improved between 2000 and 2007, as shown in table 3.15, the gap in management performance decreased. The fuel crisis in 2004 and the food crisis in 2007 constituted setbacks, 34 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Table 3.15 Average Utility Management Apgar Scores by Level of Economic Development 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Low-income countries 4.14 4.71 4.59 5.08 4.49 4.23 4.48 4.63 -- Middle-income countries 5.57 5.71 5.57 5.46 5.43 5.67 5.37 5.82 6.00 Apgar LIC as % of Apgar MIC 74 82 82 93 83 75 83 80 -- Source: IBNET database. Note: The data collection cycle for 2008 is not yet complete. -- = not available. Box 3.1 Economies of Scale and Scope in Water Supply and Sewerage Using panel data from the IBNET database, largest in Moldova (with the smallest utilities the study estimated measures of economies on average), and smallest in Romania. The of scale and scope for four developing study also found that returns to scale countries --Brazil, Moldova, Romania, and decrease with utility size. This result seems to Vietnam--differing significantly in their hold up not only within countries, but also levels of economic development, their piped- across countries. Finally, the study found water and sewerage coverage, and the evidence of economies of scope in the three characteristics of their utilities. The study countries in which utilities provide water and found evidence of economies of scale in sewerage services (Brazil, Moldova, and three of the four countries (Moldova, Romania), showing that integrating provision Romania, and Vietnam), whereas the state of the two services has economic benefits. water companies in Brazil showed constant returns of scale. Economies of scale were Source: Nauges and van den Berg. 2008. but the data seem to suggest that low-income countries are catching up and reducing the gap separating them from middle-income countries. Size also matters when looking into the utility management Apgar scores. The smaller the utility, the higher the score. Whereas in 2008, the smallest utilities had a management Apgar score of 6.57, the largest utilities had scores of 4.93, compared to an average of 5.99. Looking at the impact of multi-systems, utilities serving more than one town had lower utility management Apgar scores than did those serving only one town. It is quite likely that these more complex multi- systems, which serve larger populations, require more management skills. Econ- omies of scale thus play a role, as earlier studies have also shown (see box 3.1). Appendix 1. From Benchmarking to Business Planning: The Case of Apa Canal Chisinau The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities (IBNET) provides water and wastewater utilities with nearly unlimited possibili- ties for comparing their performance to that of other utilities around the world. But to what end? If a participating utility learns it has lower service coverage and cost-recovery rates than do many other utilities, should it conclude it is doing a poor job? Not necessarily, since local factors beyond the utility's control may well have been primarily responsible. Even where the comparison does point to a deficiency, what should the utility do? Benchmarking in itself does not put an organization on the path to improvement: taking action does. But a good benchmarking system can provide a platform for organizational and service improvement. To participate in IBNET, a utility collects substantial amounts of basic current and historical data on its technical and economic per- formance. The data are loaded into the IBNET system, which automatically cal- culates a number of performance indicators. These indicators include many of the main building blocks for business planning, one of the best tools available to water and wastewater utilities for improving performance and achieving objec- tives. How can utilities use IBNET to begin a business planning process? What links IBNET's metric benchmarking to the reform-oriented, process benchmark- ing utilities can conduct in coordination with other water companies? This appendix tries to answer those questions through a case study of Chisinau Apa Canal, the water and wastewater company in Chisinau, capital of Moldova. Chisinau Water was selected for the case study because it has both a long history of high-quality data with IBNET (see "IBNET Achievements" in chapter 1 of this book) and its own separate annual data covering its water and wastewater systems over a five-year period (2003­07). Summary of Conceptual Framework for Business Planning A business plan presents a detailed roadmap that can guide a utility from its cur- rent condition to a desired future state. Business plans often cover five-year peri- ods and are tightly linked to the organization's annual budgeting process. The plan starts by assessing current conditions using existing information provided by the company's technical and economic departments. Next, the organization must define its objectives, answering the question "Where do we want to be in five years?" While all utilities have similar overall missions, development targets vary widely from company to company. The company's long-term mission is to provide all customers with reliable service at the lowest feasible cost while meet- ing quality and safety standards. But specific targets are particular to each institu- tion: achieving 75 percent water-supply coverage may be an ambitious and worthwhile goal for one utility, while another company may already have 90 percent coverage and a goal of 95 percent. Financial targets too will vary: while one company may strive to use tariff revenues to cover only system operation and maintenance costs, another utility may be able to recover capital investment costs from end users, with or without loan financing. To maximize the value of 35 36 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET participation, given the varying needs of individual utilities, we must scale comparisons not to all utilities but to those at similar levels of development and with access to similar levels of financial resources. Determining the best means of achieving objections is the greatest challenge of business planning. How will we finance the new wastewater treatment plant, given our customers' limited ability to pay? Can we cut operational costs to gen- erate more financing for capital investment? What technical innovations might raise service levels? Although the specific challenges and solutions will vary from utility to utility, the analytical steps, shown in figure A1.1, are similar. Within the business planning process, IBNET data and indicators are particu- larly helpful for demand forecasting, operations cost tracking, and calculation of revenue requirements. This case study presents and analyzes the relevant indica- tors for Chisinau Water in each of these areas. It also expands the analysis to the 10 largest water utilities in Moldova (of which Chisinau Water is the largest) and for the 10 largest utilities in four other countries with comparable levels of water- or wastewater-sector development: Ukraine, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Poland. Time-series cross-sectional analysis was used to determine the relation- ships between different variables and to test their statistical validity. Demand Analysis Demand should be the driver of any utility's program. Effective demand from current and future customers is the primary determinant of how much service to provide and when, where, and at what level. Utilities should carry out compre- hensive demand analyses, detailed in table A1.1 below, including demographic analysis, water-use patterns, demand management, and wastewater demand. Although IBNET does not provide all the data needed to complete a demand analysis, it does include many of the basic inputs. For the demographic analysis, for example, IBNET provides historical data on population and population served and calculates coverage levels as an indicator. For water-use patterns, IBNET pro- vides data on water consumption, water sales, and water losses. In this case study, we show how IBNET data facilitate these analyses for Chisinau Water. The population of Chisinau Water's service area has been relatively flat over the past 15 years. After increasing marginally in 2002­03, the population dropped to 700,000 before rising again to its current figure of 750,000. Over the same period, the population served by the water company has increased from 550,000 to more than 650,000. Using these two figures to calculate the percentage of population served, we see a slow but steady rise over the period to nearly 90 percent. Cover- age equals (population served / total population) × 100. Figure A1.2 shows the analysis graphically. This scatter chart is generated from the Excel spreadsheet the utility filled out when joining IBNET. Excel software produces such charts easily and quickly from its standard chart functions. Utility Figure A1.1 Sequence of Analytical Steps develop refine to analyze demand model future technical optimize and costs and alternatives to technical and requirements revenues achieve goals financial results Source: Authors. Appendix 1. From Benchmarking to Business Planning: The Case of Apa Canal Chisinau 37 Table A1.1 Factors Included in Demand Analysis Demand factor Demand subfactor Demographic analysis · Service area by land-use patterns · Total population and population served by area, with cohort analysis · Housing structure, for example, single-family, multi-family, high-rise structures Water-use patterns · Historical water use by customer type: total in cubic meters and liters per capita per day, with trends · Forecasts by customer groups based on trends and land-use patterns · Weather impacts · Price-elasticity analysis Demand management · Conservation · Leak detection and remediation · Recycling · Unauthorized use Wastewater demand · Percentage of water sales entering the sewer system · Inflow and infiltration (I & I) · Influent to wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) · Flow and strengths of plant influent · Discharge quality and methods Source: Authors. Figure A1.2 Trends in Population and Population Receiving Water Supply Services, Chisinau Water, 1994­2008 1,000 100.0 950 90.0 900 80.0 850 population (thousands) % of population served 70.0 800 750 60.0 700 50.0 650 40.0 600 30.0 550 20.0 500 450 10.0 400 0.0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 population served total population population served 2005­07 % of population served Source: IBNET. analysts that do not use Excel can generate the same chart with pencil and paper by simply plotting the different points and then drawing the line best approxi- mating the observed trend. Note that the average increase in population served slowed from 12,000 per year over the period 1996­2004 to only 5,000 per year since then. A slower growth rate is typical as the percentage of population served reaches 90 percent, as is the case in Chisinau. Chisinau's coverage trends for wastewater are similar to those for its water system. Figure A1.3 below compares the population and population receiving 38 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book wastewater services in the capital city. While about 11,600 people on average were added yearly to the wastewater population served, the total wastewater pop- ulation increased by only 2,400 people per year. So the percentage of population served grew at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Establishing the historical population trends in the service area placed Chisinau Water in a better position to project future population. Whether the projection will continue current trends or depart from them, dipping upward or downward, will depend on birth rates, death rates, and migration rates to and from the area. These in turn are influenced by macrolevel socioeconomic factors, such as actual and perceived local economic conditions, employment generation, the public-health system, and so on. The services of a demographer can be useful for refining these projections. Before projecting water demand, we must first look at historical trends in water use. IBNET provides key data and indicators for this analysis. For Chisinau Water, we will examine only three: consumption of water in cubic meters by customer group, liters per capita per day (lcd) per customer group, and the rela- tionship between water sales and water production. Figure A1.4 shows total water sales, sales to residential customers, and sales to nonresidential customers. The latter two lines have different slopes over the period 2003­07: residential sales have been increasing by 1.75 million cubic meters per year, while nonresidential sales are actually decreasing by about 150,000 cubic meters annually. The reasons for lower nonresidential consump- tion could reflect closure of some industries, better demand management in the nonresidential sector, and or increasing access by industries to other sources of water. The trends in lcd are similar to those for total consumption per year for the different customer groups. Average daily water sales for all users is 206 lcd. Figure A1.3 Trends in Population and Population Receiving Wastewater Services, Chisinau Water, 1994­2008 1,200 90 1,100 80 population served (thousands) 1,000 70 900 60 % of coverage 800 50 700 40 600 30 500 400 20 300 10 200 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 WW population served WW total population WW % of coverage Source: IBNET. Note: WW = wastewater. Appendix 1. From Benchmarking to Business Planning: The Case of Apa Canal Chisinau 39 Figure A1.4 Sales by Customer Group, Chisinau Water, 2003­07 60 50 cubic meters (millions) 40 30 20 10 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 total water sales residential sales nonresidential sales Source: IBNET. As the figure demonstrates, Chisinau Water experienced declining nonindus- trial sales, but overall sales still increased with time. This reflects the utility's suc- cess in rapidly expanding its percentage of population served. The rate of growth will slow as the percentage of population served approaches 100 percent. It is useful to measure the relationship between population served and total water sales. One projection might be that cities with heavy industrial water use will have greater water sales per population served. Using IBNET data, we tested this hypothesis for five cities, selecting the largest utility (based on customers served) in each of five countries: Moldova, Romania, Ukraine, the Czech Repub- lic, and Poland. After calculating for each utility the average population served and average total annual sales over the period 2003­07, we carried out a regres- sion analysis of the relationship of population served to water sales. The results are shown in figure A1.5. If all of the cities were heavily residential and consumed about 150 liters per capita per day, we would expect this graph to show a fairly tight linear relationship related solely to population served; however, the rela- tionship is nonlinear, with an upward slope to the curve increasing at the expo- nential rate of × 2. Thus, the larger the population served, the greater the water sales, following an exponential pattern. The reasons for this include, among oth- ers, the percentage residential versus industrial users, population density in large cities, household income, and availability of the water supply. The relative con- tributions of these factors were not evaluated. The relationship is strong, with an R2 of 0.955; that is, 95.5 percent of the change in sales is explained by change in the population served. The strength of the relationship may lend this graph some "predictive" powers: Chisinau Water could get a rough idea of future water sales by locating its future population served along the x-axis and using the regression line to locate the corresponding amount of water sold on the y-axis. This would also be true for utilities in other countries working under similar conditions and with comparable levels of popu- lation served. For identification of the causal factors for the exponential relation- ship, additional analysis would be required. Another input into demand analysis calculable from IBNET data is nonreve- nue water, that is, water lost to leakage, evaporation, unauthorized consumption, 40 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Figure A1.5 Total Water Sales as a Function of Population Served for Five Utilities 700 600 total water system sales 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 population served (millions) Source: IBNET. Notes: Data points from left to right each represent the largest utility in Moldova, Romania, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, and Poland; values are calculated as averages for the period 2003­07 (for the Czech Republic, 2000­05). and faulty metering. For a close approximation of nonrevenue water in Chisinau, we can examine the difference between water production and water sales (see figure A1.6). Water losses dropped from 36.4 million cubic meters (43.8 percent of production) in 2003 to 34.3 million cubic meters (39.0 percent of production) in 2007. Although decreasing, the level of water losses remains large and raises a red flag for the utility, highlighting an area that requires urgent action. Figure A1.7, below, depicts the relationship of water production to sales for the largest utilities in Moldova, Romania, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, and Poland. At a given level of production (x-axis), predicted water sales can be derived by moving up to the regression line and then left to the y-axis (along the dashed line). The example indicates that for a production of about 44.5 million cubic meters, water sales would be about 30.5 million cubic meters, reflecting a water loss of about 14.0 million cubic meters, or 31.5 percent. This method is appropri- ate for evaluating any utility's water losses relative to the losses of its peers. The larger the sample size, the greater the reliability of the conclusions. Operating Cost Analysis When undertaking business planning, knowing the relationship between price and the variable cost of production, often referred to as the variable margin, is essential. The variable margin is the contribution of each additional unit of sales to profit (margin). Variable cost is derived using a simple scatter chart between operation costs (in U.S. dollars) and water sales volume. (Normally, the calcula- tion involves production, not sales volume, but the real operating cost must also include the effects of lost water.) The demand analysis discussed in the previous section allows development of future demand projections over the planning period. To meet future demand, the utility must optimize the operation and management of its existing water and wastewater system as well as make additional capital improvements as required. Both of these actions have cost and revenue implications. IBNET can provide the Appendix 1. From Benchmarking to Business Planning: The Case of Apa Canal Chisinau 41 Figure A1.6 Comparison of Water Production and Sales, Chisinau Water 100 90 cubic meters (millions) 80 70 60 50 40 30 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 water production total water sales Source: IBNET. Figure A1.7 Relationship of Total Water Sales to Water Production for Utilities in Five Capital Cities 45 40 water sales (cubic meters) 35 30 25 y = 0.7478x ­ 2.2764 20 R 2 = 0.8015 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 water production (cubic meters) Source: IBNET. Note: Countries from left to right: Moldova, Romania, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, and Poland. background for this analysis by representing the trends in operating costs and the tariff revenues needed to pay those costs. IBNET does not currently provide data on capital costs or debt financing. Chisinau Water's total operating costs for the 2003­07 period are U-shaped (see figure A1.8). Operating costs fell in 2004, but they have been rising at ever- increasing annual rates since then. The sharp increase in 2007 may reflect rising energy costs. IBNET can also be used to represent trends in operating costs per cubic meter produced or sold. Costs per cubic meter produced are significantly lower, since much more water is produced than is sold. The regression line in figure A1.9 indicates operating costs are nearly flat over the given range in sales volume. (The slight decline must be attributed to the 42 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Figure A1.8 Water System Operating Costs, Chisinau Water 300 40 35 250 local currency (millions) 30 200 US$ (millions) 25 150 20 15 100 10 50 5 0 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 water system operating costs (local currency) water system operating costs (US$) Source: IBNET. Figure A1.9 Operating Cost as a Function of Amount of Water Sold 250 total operating costs (local currency, 200 150 millions) 100 50 0 46 47 48 49 50 51 water sales (millions of cubic meters) Source: IBNET. small size of the sample.) A flat level of cost as the volume increases would indi- cate totally fixed costs. Water system operating costs are often 80 percent fixed, a realistic estimate for Chisinau. Chisinau's average operating cost per cubic meter is MDL 2.95. The average selling price for water is MDL 4.59; consequently, with a variable cost of MDL 0.59 (20 percent of 2.95), each additional unit sold would yield a variable or incremental margin of MDL 4.00 (4.59­0.59). This strongly suggests that, given an adequate water supply, distribution channels should be aggressively pursued to move plants up to near-full capacity utilization to maxi- mize the margin they produce. Other utilities participating in IBNET can create a similar scatter chart in Excel or on graph paper and calculate the extent to which increasing sales volume can improve the profitability of utility operations. Appendix 1. From Benchmarking to Business Planning: The Case of Apa Canal Chisinau 43 Calculation of Revenue Requirements Revenue requirements vary with the utility's stage of development. As a general rule, all utilities should seek to cover operating costs through tariff collections. More mature utilities often try to collect enough tariff revenue to cover both operating and capital costs. While IBNET does not provide data on capital costs or debt financing, it does provide tariff revenue data, which allows revenue analysis in relation to costs and volume of water sold. All monetary values in this section are in U.S. dollars, allowing comparisons with utilities in other countries. As shown in figure A1.10, the unit price for water in Chisinau increased only moderately from 2003 to 2007, rising from US$0.30 per cubic meter to US$0.36, an average annual increase of 4.7 percent. Revenue increased more rapidly than price because of growth in volume (from US$14.00 in 2003 to US$19.10 in 2007, an increase of 8.1 percent per year). Figure A1.11 explores the relationship between water volume and revenue in the five Eastern European countries. The second degree polynomial function yields an almost perfect fit for four of the five countries. One reason for higher revenues at higher volume might be the higher percentage of nonresidential cus- tomers in the larger cities or more developed countries. In many countries, tar- iffs for industrial and commercial (nonresidential) customers are structured to subsidize residential customers as a way to mitigate weak affordability among the general population. This is the case for two of the countries on the regres- sion line. In a test of 2005 tariffs, Moldova and Ukraine have nonresidential tar- iffs that are, respectively, 5.23 and 2.76 times their residential tariff. The Czech Republic, Poland, and Romania have virtually uniform rates for residential and nonresidential customers. Eliminating the data from the two subsidizing coun- tries would yield a virtual straight line for the regression curve. This illustrates that every country's tariff structure development is largely the result of unique Figure A1.10 Water System Total Tariff Revenue and Average Price (US$), Chisinau 25 0.80 0.70 total revenue US$ (millions) price per unit of sale (US$) 20 0.60 15 0.50 0.40 10 0.30 0.20 5 0.10 0 0.00 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 water total revenue water average price per unit Source: IBNET. 44 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Figure A1.11 Water Revenue Related to Water Sales Volume for Five Countries 30 water sales revenue (US$ millions) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 water sales volume (millions of cubic meters) Source: IBNET. Note: Countries from left to right: Moldova, Romania, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, and Poland. policy situation. Some countries seek the simplicity of uniform tariffs, others the fairness of cost-of-service tariffs, and still others the financial assistance provided by cross-subsidies, especially during the early phases of development. In considering water revenues in relation to water costs, we should recall, as noted above, that tariff revenues for start-up utilities should generally be equal to or larger than operating costs, not including debt service or depreciation. This yields a cost recovery ratio (CRR; tariff revenues/operating costs) of 1.0 or higher. For more mature utilities, the denominator should include both operating costs and capital costs (including debt servicing). As shown in figure A1.12, Chisinau Water exceeded the target of 1.0 in three of the five years over the period 2003­07. Operating costs in both down years were significantly higher than in the up years, which led to the lower cost recov- ery ratio. Water volumes were steady. It is not critical that utilities achieve the ratio in every year. It is a target as well as a requirement for some loan covenants, but in start-up companies, achieving the CRR must be balanced with other goals and conditions, including affordable tariffs, the need to accommodate spikes in operating costs to meet urgent service requirements, and the level of subsidy available from government or donor organizations. The average cost recovery ratio of the five regional utilities is given in figure A1.13, compared to a 1.0 performance. Three of the countries are above the tar- geted ratio of 1.0; the other two countries are only slightly below the target. While an important indicator of financial performance, CRR is only one input into financial planning. The financial modeling in the course of business planning must evaluate all spending and revenue sources and work out a bal- ance between them. To make ends meet, capital investments can be downsized, improvements can be pushed back in time, costs can be flattened through bor- rowing, and additional sources of funds can be mobilized. IBNET provides a platform for representing trends in costs and revenues on which utility managers can build a comprehensive financial model that takes these different factors into account. Appendix 1. From Benchmarking to Business Planning: The Case of Apa Canal Chisinau 45 Figure A1.12 Cost Recovery Ratio for the Water System, Chisinau 1.3 1.2 1.1 cost recovery ratio 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Source: IBNET. Note: Dashed line = 1.0 CRR. Figure A1.13 Water System Cost Recovery Ratio by Largest Utility in Five Countries 30 Poland water revenue (US$ millions) 25 Czech Republic 20 15 Romania 10 5 Ukraine Moldova 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 operating costs (US$ millions) Source: IBNET. Note: Dashed line = 1.0 CRR. Summary of Key Points · Benchmarking is a powerful management tool for all water and wastewater utilities. IBNET enables utilities to carry out metric benchmarking (compar- ing themselves to others and to their own performances over time) and pro- vides a bridge between business planning and process benchmarking, using specific business processes that can be upgraded through cooperation with other similar utilities. · IBNET data feed most directly into the business planning process in the areas of demand forecasting, operations cost tracking, and calculation of revenue requirements. The case study of Chisinau Water Company showed how trends 46 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book in population served, water produced, water sold, operating costs, and tariff revenues can be represented graphically and used to provide a platform for comprehensive technical, financial, and economic analysis. · Some of the statistical relationships discussed in this book, and the accompa- nying graphics, may be new to some IBNET program participants. All the statistical or numerical relationships presented, except the time-series, cross- sectional regressions, are basic and can be done using the standard Excel spreadsheet. Working out the numbers and taking them into account when making future plans is an essential part of strong, modern utility manage- ment. Moreover, quantitative analysis can have a major effect on the perfor- mance of a utility, both internally and in terms of the efficiency and quality of the services it provides. Finally, thorough quantitative analysis can be a pow- erful tool for convincing to government agencies and private investors of the need for additional financial resources to meet service delivery goals. · Comparison of Chisinau Water with its counterparts in other Eastern Euro- pean countries puts the utility in the context of others facing similar chal- lenges. This demonstrates the importance of selecting the right peers: for a given utility, comparison with all utilities in the IBNET database would not be useful from the perspective of performance improvement. Rather, a utility should identify (perhaps using IBNET) a small number of utilities operating under similar conditions, with respect, for example, to population served, coverage, availability and quality of water, customers' ability to pay, available subsidies, and managerial and technical capacity. It is always advantageous to partner with a utility occupying a rung a little higher on the development lad- der: we can learn a great deal from capable utilities that are already achieving what we want to achieve. Appendix 2. Country Data Tables IBNET Indicator/Country: Albania Latest year available 2007 2008 2009 Surface area (km2) 28,748 28,748 28,748 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 2,200 2,400 3,950 Total population 3,132,458 3,143,291 3,200,200 Urban population (%) 46 47 47 Total urban population 1,443,437 1,468,546 1,450,000 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 97 97 97 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 98 98 98 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 55 55 56 Population served, water (thousands) 2,483 2,512 2,523 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 3,109 3,112 3,160 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 77 77 79 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 46 45 61 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 25 -- 26 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 69 71 70 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 88.70 91.20 85.20 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- 2.00 2.00 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 9.95 10.27 10.09 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 44 39 42 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 79 83 75 3 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m water sold) 0.39 0.52 0.44 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.62 0.79 0.71 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.63 0.66 0.62 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 303 301 300 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 105 94 97 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 76 74 78 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 0.90 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 4.32 4.62 4.80 Source: All of the following Country Data Tables were compiled by the authors using the IBNET database. Note: GNI = gross national income, km2 = square kilometer, l = liter, m3/km/day = cubic meter per kilometer per day, W = water WW = wastewater, -- = not available. 47 48 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Argentina Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 2 Surface area (km ) 2,780,400 2,780,400 -- GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 3,580 4,300 6,000 Total population -- 38,731,603 39,105,347 Urban population (%) 91 91 92 Total urban population -- 35,400,685 35,820,498 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 97 97 97 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 90 90 90 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 8 8 17 Population served, water (thousands) 11,029 10,617 13,409 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 12,547 12,145 15,784 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 88 87 85 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 68 66 63 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 8 10 12 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 33 31 31 3 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m /km/day) 72.00 69.10 59.90 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.30 0.30 0.50 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 25 21 33 23.1 Collection period (days) 166 141 61 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- 90 73 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.20 0.21 0.24 3 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m water sold) 0.14 0.15 0.16 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.42 1.39 1.49 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 417 369 398 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 362 371 340 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 183 166 62 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- 37.13 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- 2.50 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 49 IBNET Indicator/Country: Armenia Latest year available 2007 2008 2 Surface area (km ) 29,743 29,743 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 1,250 1,300 Total population 3,072,450 3,077,087 Urban population (%) 64 64 Total urban population 1,964,525 1,965,028 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 96 96 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 90 90 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 5 5 Population served, water (thousands) 1,724 1,752 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 2,164 2,177 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 80 80 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 34 35 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 21 21 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 85 84 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 108.80 94.70 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.60 1.60 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 12.00 13.20 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 75 78 23.1 Collection period (days) 236 266 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 83 87 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.41 0.47 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.41 0.44 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.00 1.05 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 606 598 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 146 151 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 92 94 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 2 2 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 28.13 32.10 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.46 1.46 50 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Australia Latest year available 2005 2006 2007 2 Surface area (km ) 7,692,024 7,692,024 7,692,024 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 28,000 29,000 31,000 Total population 20,394,800 20,697,900 21,072,500 Urban population (%) 88 88 89 Total urban population 17,988,214 18,292,804 18,661,806 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 30 53 64 Population served, water (thousands) 18,950 20,374 21,295 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 18,950 20,374 21,295 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 100 100 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 95 95 93 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 6 7 6 3 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m /km/day) 3.90 4.40 3.20 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.96 2.15 2.70 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.84 1.11 1.54 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 2.60 2.04 1.84 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 651 692 612 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 360 335 316 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 218 211 191 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- -- 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 51 IBNET Indicator/Country: Bangladesh Latest year available 2007 2008 2009 2 Surface area (km ) 143,998 143,998 143,998 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 500 550 576 Total population 157,752,512 160,000,128 -- Urban population (%) 27 27 -- Total urban population 42,056,820 43,424,035 -- MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 80 80 80 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 53 53 53 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 11 11 11 Population served, water (thousands) 11,203 12,195 13,135 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 16,295 16,849 17,894 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 69 72 73 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 30 30 30 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 51 38 39 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 35 35 35 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 156.30 166.10 181.50 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.30 0.30 0.30 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 8.68 9.09 9.12 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 72 76 74 23.1 Collection period (days) 351 347 322 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 102 93 107 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.13 0.13 0.14 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.09 0.09 0.10 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.38 1.41 1.36 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 674 733 797 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 107 108 108 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 96 97 97 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 1 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) 7.40 7.42 7.39 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 3.79 3.66 3.89 52 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Belarus Latest year available 2006 2007 2008 2 Surface area (km ) 207,600 207,600 207,600 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 2,300 2,400 2,500 Total population 9,732,500 9,702,000 9,680,850 Urban population (%) 73 73 73 Total urban population 7,067,742 7,086,341 7,111,552 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 93 93 93 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 30 13 13 Population served, water (thousands) 3,335 1,165 1,185 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 3,526 1,265 1,281 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 95 92 93 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 80 79 80 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 22 29 24 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 18 15 18 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 22.00 16.50 16.80 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.50 1.40 1.40 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 23.88 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 83 81 84 23.1 Collection period (days) 84 47 37 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 91 84 87 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.57 0.75 0.92 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.46 0.61 0.80 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.25 1.23 1.16 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 385 400 410 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 259 241 208 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 197 183 156 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 2 3 3 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) 16.66 25.53 34.27 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 14.10 10.34 8.95 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 53 IBNET Indicator/Country: Benin Latest year available 2007 2008 2009 2 Surface area (km ) 112,622 112,622 112,622 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 660 700 750 Total population 8,128,208 8,267,626 8,328,208 Urban population (%) 40 40 40 Total urban population 3,251,000 3,307,050 3,331,000 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 75 75 75 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 12 12 12 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 1,598 1,703 1,860 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 3,070 3,170 3,270 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 58 52 54 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 3 3 3 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 21 15 19 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 28 24 28 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 5.98 5.34 6.38 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.30 0.40 0.50 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 21.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 190 219 199 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 100 93 91 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.17 1.28 1.37 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.74 0.78 0.70 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.58 1.64 1.97 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 58 57 57 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 42 45 41 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 33 35 34 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 3 4 4 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) 44.04 45.50 50.40 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.05 1.11 1.04 54 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Bhutan Latest year available 2002 2003 2004 2 Surface area (km ) 38,394 38,394 38,394 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 590 720 760 Total population -- -- -- Urban population (%) 28 29 30 Total urban population -- -- -- MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 92 92 92 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 65 65 65 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 40 42 43 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 60 60 60 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 67 70 72 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 0 0 0 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 38 47 46 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 47.50 68.80 68.00 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.40 1.30 1.30 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 13.00 13.00 13.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 81 73 88 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.04 0.06 0.06 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.03 0.04 0.04 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.28 1.55 1.55 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 240 241 250 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 156 150 151 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 105 101 102 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 0 0 0 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 0.95 0.83 0.82 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 55 IBNET Indicator/Country: Bolivia Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 2 Surface area (km ) 1,098,581 1,098,581 1,098,581 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 960 1,000 1,020 Total population -- 9,182,062 9,353,826 Urban population (%) 64 64 65 Total urban population -- 5,894,884 6,048,184 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 86 86 86 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 25 25 25 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 2 2 5 Population served, water (thousands) 2,321 2,388 2,155 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 2,355 2,510 2,453 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 99 95 88 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 69 64 66 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- 6 23 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 28 28 35 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 13.10 17.40 24.40 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- 0.20 0.80 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 20.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- 100 92 23.1 Collection period (days) -- 117 72 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- 91 723 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.67 0.45 0.40 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.58 0.44 0.26 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.31 1.02 1.56 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 85 113 100 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 72 93 83 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 94 78 61 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- 2 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- 25.88 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- 3.26 56 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina Latest year available 2005 2006 2007 2 Surface area (km ) 51,209 51,209 51,209 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 2,100 2,200 2,400 Total population 3,781,274 3,781,488 3,778,410 Urban population (%) 46 46 47 Total urban population 1,728,042 1,750,073 1,770,563 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 99 99 99 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 95 95 95 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 21 22 22 Population served, water (thousands) 1,215 1,221 1,266 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 1,337 1,315 1,364 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 91 93 93 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 57 57 56 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 13 13 119 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 61 62 61 3 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m /km/day) 74.30 61.30 58.30 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.40 1.30 1.30 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 23.24 23.33 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 99 98 99 23.1 Collection period (days) 239 257 343 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 79 83 159 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.72 0.77 0.82 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.60 0.80 0.84 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.05 0.94 0.97 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 204 188 189 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 178 159 161 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 134 118 119 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 2 2 2 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 44.86 46.57 53.71 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 2.79 2.86 2.66 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 57 IBNET Indicator/Country: Brazil Latest year available 2006 2007 2008 2 Surface area (km ) 8,514,877 8,514,877 8,514,877 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 3,350 3,800 4,700 Total population 188,158,438 190,119,995 191,971,506 Urban population (%) 85 85 86 Total urban population 159,294,934 161,830,140 164,289,215 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 97 97 97 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 80 80 80 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 592 605 661 Population served, water (thousands) 140,941 141,149 146,392 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 178,069 176,968 182,107 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 79 80 81 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 41 42 43 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 22 29 25 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 41 40 39 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 35.60 34.10 33.50 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.50 -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) -- 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 77 94 76 23.1 Collection period (days) 147 115 112 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 95 92 99 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.17 1.49 1.56 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.82 1.38 1.04 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.43 1.08 1.49 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 200 213 220 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 162 169 167 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 1 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.00 1.00 1.00 58 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Bulgaria Latest year available 2006 2007 2008 Surface area (km2) 110,879 110,879 110,879 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 3,100 3,150 3,200 Total population 7,699,020 7,659,764 7,623,395 Urban population (%) 71 71 71 Total urban population 5,427,809 5,423,113 5,420,234 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 20 20 20 Population served, water (thousands) 5,246 5,398 5,389 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 5,288 5,436 5,422 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 99 99 99 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 59 60 60 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 22 29 24 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 59 57 55 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 31.20 28.60 27.10 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.60 1.60 1.60 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 23.96 23.96 23.96 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 98 98 99 23.1 Collection period (days) 145 136 106 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 129 123 120 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.68 0.78 1.00 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.50 0.58 0.77 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.38 1.35 1.32 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 796 770 751 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 172 170 170 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 152 146 145 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 2 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) 45.04 56.24 72.39 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 0.94 0.92 0.89 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 59 IBNET Indicator/Country: Burkina Faso Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 2 Surface area (km ) 274,222 274,222 274,222 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 350 370 400 Total population -- 13,747,182 14,224,581 Urban population (%) 18 18 19 Total urban population -- 2,515,734 2,662,842 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 76 76 76 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 11 11 11 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 2,300 2,780 2,930 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 2,640 3,047 3,135 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 87 91 93 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 0 0 0 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 13 11 13 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 22 23 24 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 7.00 7.80 7.90 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.30 0.30 0.30 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) -- -- -- Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 105 95 105 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.03 1.04 1.13 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.23 1.30 1.27 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.83 0.80 0.89 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 37 41 45 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 35 31 32 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 31 28 29 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 4 3 3 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) 55.79 55.87 58.94 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 9.78 8.35 7.38 60 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Burundi Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 2 Surface area (km ) 27,834 27,834 27,834 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 90 100 110 Total population -- 7,378,129 7,603,492 Urban population (%) 9 10 10 Total urban population -- 700,922 745,142 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 72 72 72 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 46 46 46 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 650 700 750 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply 6,000 6,500 7,000 (thousands) Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 11 11 11 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 45 40 40 3 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m /km/day) 19.80 17.30 17.20 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.60 0.60 0.70 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 15.00 15.00 15.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) 430 330 250 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 97 100 97 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.21 0.21 0.24 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.09 0.08 0.09 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 2.49 2.60 2.76 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 120 133 130 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 78 77 73 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 38 36 35 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 7 6 6 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.72 1.59 1.66 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 61 IBNET Indicator/Country: Cambodia Latest year available 2005 2006 2007 2 Surface area (km ) 181,035 181,035 181,035 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 357 370 380 Total population 13,866,051 14,091,823 14,323,842 Urban population (%) 20 20 21 Total urban population 2,731,612 2,863,458 2,999,413 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 61 61 61 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 29 29 29 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 830 910 1,068 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply 1,106 1,214 1,335 (thousands) Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 75 75 80 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 35 45 47 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 9 7 6 3 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m /km/day) 11.60 10.30 8.20 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.60 0.60 0.50 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 89 94 67 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.24 0.20 0.28 3 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m water sold) 0.11 0.10 0.12 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 2.24 2.08 2.36 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 261 271 271 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 186 197 172 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 113 118 101 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 5 4 5 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 9.68 9.41 9.69 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.34 1.36 1.32 62 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Cape Verde Latest year available 2003 2004 2005 Surface area (km2) 4,033 4,033 4,033 GNI per Capita, Atlas method (current US$) 1,400 1,720 1,800 Total population -- -- 477,438 Urban population (%) 56 57 57 Total urban population -- -- 274,049 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 84 84 84 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 54 54 54 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 91 101 107 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 215 223 232 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 42 45 46 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 30 30 31 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 10.40 10.70 11.40 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 7.20 6.20 5.90 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) -- -- -- Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 3.07 3.52 3.49 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) -- -- -- 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) -- -- -- Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 124 127 130 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 86 77 75 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- -- 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 63 IBNET Indicator/Country: Chile Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 2 Surface area (km ) 756,102 756,102 756,102 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 5,220 5,400 5,500 Total population -- 16,297,493 16,467,256 Urban population (%) 87 88 88 Total urban population -- 14,276,604 14,471,425 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 96 96 96 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 96 96 96 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 18 18 18 Population served, water (thousands) 12,781 13,123 13,311 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 13,215 13,155 13,340 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 97 100 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 92 24 99 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 11 6 -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 33 33 33 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 35.80 40.90 37.30 12.3 Staff W/1000 W population served(W/1000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 98 98 98 23.1 Collection period (days) 72 80 88 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- 122 88 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.76 0.82 0.86 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.29 0.58 0.62 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 2.57 1.40 1.39 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 357 382 345 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 196 192 198 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 143 145 150 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 2 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.38 1.17 1.52 64 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: China Latest year available 2007 2008 2009 Surface area (km2) 9,640,821 9,640,821 9,640,821 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 1,870 1,700 1,870 Total population 1,317,885,000 1,327,020,000 1,333,885,000 Urban population (%) 42 43 43 Total urban population 556,147,470 541,451,260 556,147,470 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 89 89 89 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 55 55 55 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 37 37 37 Population served, water (thousands) 15,849 16,400 17,000 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 16,627 16,819 17,600 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 95 93 93 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 11 13 14 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 21 22 21 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 54.30 50.30 50.80 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.10 1.00 1.10 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 98 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 92 110 98 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.28 0.29 0.32 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.32 0.33 0.37 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.90 0.98 0.87 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 217 200 197 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 181 167 164 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 74 72 75 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 1 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) 19.86 18.57 19.86 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.63 1.65 1.63 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 65 IBNET Indicator/Country: Colombia Latest year available 2003 2004 2 Surface area (km ) 1,141,748 1,141,748 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 1,850 2,020 Total population -- -- Urban population (%) 73 73 Total urban population -- -- MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 92 92 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 74 74 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 228 228 Population served, water (thousands) 22,707 23,637 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 27,738 28,346 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 88 89 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 82 83 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 29 29 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 45 44 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 91.10 87.60 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.40 0.40 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) -- -- Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 86 92 23.1 Collection period (days) 241 220 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 95 95 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.70 0.81 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.48 0.53 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.43 1.51 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 198 196 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 146 142 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 116 112 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service pop/GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues 2 2 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 40.71 49.62 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.60 1.68 66 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo Latest year available 2003 2004 2005 2 Surface area (km ) 2,344,858 2,344,858 2,344,858 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 100 110 120 Total population -- -- 59,076,752 Urban population (%) 31 32 32 Total urban population -- -- 18,963,637 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 46 46 46 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) -- -- -- IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 5,166 5,325 5,490 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 8,468 8,730 9,000 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 61 61 61 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 24 24 24 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 44 38 35 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 20.20 17.30 15.60 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 11.00 11.00 11.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) 1,327 2,134 1,834 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 3 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m water sold) 0.28 0.34 0.49 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.77 1.04 0.76 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.36 0.33 0.64 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 112 115 110 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 63 69 68 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 6 8 10 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 67 IBNET Indicator/Country: Costa Rica Latest year available 2002 2003 2004 2 Surface area (km ) 51,100 51,100 51,100 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 3,920 4,130 4,470 Total population -- -- -- Urban population (%) 60 61 61 Total urban population -- -- -- MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 97 97 97 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 95 95 95 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 2 Population served, water (thousands) 1,689 1,832 2,242 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 1,800 1,897 2,310 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 94 97 97 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 38 35 31 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) -- 50 50 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) -- 39.50 66.90 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- 90 23 23.1 Collection period (days) 9 22 40 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.32 1.58 0.56 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.29 0.43 0.17 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.02 3.63 3.27 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 380 340 380 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 234 179 209 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- 144 165 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- 3 1 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- 68 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Côte d'Ivoire Latest year available 2002 2003 2004 2 Surface area (km ) 322,463 322,463 322,463 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 570 630 760 Total population -- -- -- Urban population (%) 45 45 46 Total urban population -- -- -- MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 80 80 80 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 23 23 23 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 6,234 6,383 6,590 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 8,180 8,426 8,678 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 76 76 76 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 26 29 26 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 5 4 5 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 19 20 21 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 6.60 7.30 7.70 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.20 0.20 0.20 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 6 2 7 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 95 95 94 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.50 0.51 0.65 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.51 0.51 0.63 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.99 1.00 1.04 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 78 76 80 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 53 53 53 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 40 40 39 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 2 2 2 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) 24.28 29.11 32.03 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.03 1.03 1.04 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 69 IBNET Indicator/Country: Croatia Latest year available 2002 2003 2004 Surface area (km2) 56,594 56,594 56,594 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 4,620 5,380 6,820 Total population -- -- -- Urban population (%) 56 56 56 Total urban population -- -- -- MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 99 99 99 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 99 99 99 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 21 21 21 Population served, water (thousands) 1,747 1,758 1,766 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 1,894 1,899 1,903 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 92 93 93 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 75 76 76 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 10 10 9 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 17 19 19 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 12.70 14.30 13.10 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 82 82 82 23.1 Collection period (days) 114 93 114 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 71 67 60 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.52 0.68 0.86 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.41 0.51 0.58 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.27 1.33 1.47 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 400 390 379 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 357 364 350 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 263 266 261 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 2 2 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 4.00 9.92 4.38 70 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Czech Republic Latest year available 2003 2004 2005 2 Surface area (km ) 78,867 78,867 78,867 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 7,160 9,130 10,000 Total population -- -- 10,235,828 Urban population (%) 74 74 74 Total urban population -- -- 7,523,334 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 98 98 98 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 20 20 20 Population served, water (thousands) 5,195 5,214 5,216 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 5,699 5,732 5,750 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 91 91 91 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 76 77 77 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 6 6 3 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 22 20 20 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 10.50 8.60 8.50 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.00 1.00 0.80 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 99 99 99 23.1 Collection period (days) 121 133 168 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 97 98 98 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.17 1.37 1.54 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.90 1.03 1.06 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.30 1.30 1.33 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 242 239 230 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 201 198 191 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 107 106 102 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 1 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) 48.62 52.02 58.03 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.01 0.96 1.08 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 71 IBNET Indicator/Country: Ecuador Latest year available 2003 2004 2005 Surface area (km2) 256,369 256,369 256,369 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 1,850 2,210 2,200 Total population -- -- 13,062,507 Urban population (%) 62 63 64 Total urban population -- -- 8,307,754 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 94 94 94 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 92 92 92 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 1,366 1,463 1,494 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 2,172 2,164 2,207 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 63 68 68 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 28 32 34 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 36 36 13 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 73 74 71 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 190.30 214.90 205.80 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served ) -- -- 0.20 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 59 83 80 23.1 Collection period (days) 148 111 151 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- 95 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.70 0.74 0.72 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.29 0.26 0.70 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 2.44 2.85 1.04 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 332 338 337 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 183 163 178 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 94 92 101 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 3 2 2 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- 72 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: El Salvador Latest year available 2006 Surface area (km2) 21,041 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 2,680 Total population 6,081,703 Urban population (%) 60 Total urban population 3,655,104 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 87 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 87 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 Population served, water (thousands) 3,951 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 5,382 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 73 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 39 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 34 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 74.70 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.50 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 65 23.1 Collection period (days) 93 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 104 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.04 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.03 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.17 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 348 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 158 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 122 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 73 IBNET Indicator/Country: Ethiopia Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 1,104,300 1,104,300 1,104,300 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 115 120 135 Total population -- 74,660,901 76,627,697 Urban population (%) 16 16 16 Total urban population -- 12,020,405 12,566,942 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 38 38 38 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 12 12 12 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 6 6 6 Population served, water (thousands) 3,313 3,515 3,648 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 3,838 4,006 4,135 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 86 88 88 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 35 35 33 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 32.90 33.30 31.70 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.50 0.50 0.50 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 22.67 22.67 22.67 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 54 61 87 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 27 29 36 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.04 1.02 0.98 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.33 0.27 0.25 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 3.30 3.98 4.18 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 85 93 96 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 48 47 48 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 25 25 26 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- 14 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- 12.93 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- 1.01 74 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Gabon Latest year available 2003 2004 2005 Surface area (km2) 267,668 267,668 267,668 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 3,340 4,080 4,200 Total population -- -- 1,369,229 Urban population (%) 82 83 84 Total urban population -- -- 1,144,675 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 87 87 87 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 33 33 33 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 629 676 728 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 1,065 1,093 1,121 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 59 62 65 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 17 16 18 3 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m /km/day) 17.60 17.30 19.10 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.90 0.80 0.80 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) 97 125 114 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.36 0.40 0.41 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.31 0.37 0.40 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.16 1.09 1.01 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 260 263 267 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 216 214 207 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 75 IBNET Indicator/Country: The Gambia Latest year available 2005 Surface area (km2) 11,295 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 300 Total population 1,526,138 Urban population (%) 54 Total urban population 822,588 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 92 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 67 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 Population served, water (thousands) 626 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 821 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 76 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 5 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 17 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 25.00 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) -- Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- 23.1 Collection period (days) -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 94 3 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m water sold) 0.26 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.33 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.79 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 86 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 57 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- 76 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Georgia Latest year available 2006 2007 2008 Surface area (km2) 69,700 69,700 69,700 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 1,150 1,175 1,200 Total population 4,410,860 4,357,857 4,307,011 Urban population (%) 53 53 53 Total urban population 2,319,230 2,294,847 2,271,518 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 98 98 98 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 95 95 95 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 17 17 16 Population served, water (thousands) 1,230 1,242 1,260 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 1,301 1,303 1,318 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 95 95 96 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 84 83 82 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 14 15 18 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 43 43 43 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 126.10 131.00 128.90 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 2.60 2.50 2.60 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 14.07 14.71 14.71 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 8 8 8 23.1 Collection period (days) 207 152 92 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 105 98 114 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.09 0.13 0.14 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.18 0.14 0.14 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.50 0.95 0.98 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 1,241 1,262 1,362 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 685 702 701 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 603 619 616 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 2 3 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 4.94 7.49 7.77 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 36.38 47.78 45.44 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 77 IBNET Indicator/Country: Ghana Latest year available 2003 2004 2005 Surface area (km2) 238,539 238,539 238,539 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 310 380 400 Total population -- -- 21,915,168 Urban population (%) 46 47 48 Total urban population -- -- 10,475,450 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 82 82 82 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 13 13 13 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 4,974 5,108 5,246 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 8,154 8,374 8,600 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 61 61 61 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 24 24 24 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 57 53 53 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 51.50 46.60 39.50 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 11.00 11.00 11.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.52 0.56 0.60 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.44 0.44 0.53 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.20 1.29 1.13 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 105 108 110 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 49 52 51 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- 78 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Guinea Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 245,857 245,857 245,857 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 410 420 440 Total population -- 9,220,768 9,411,881 Urban population (%) 33 33 33 Total urban population -- 3,042,853 3,151,098 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 71 71 71 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 19 19 19 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 1,800 1,900 2,000 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 2,400 2,500 2,600 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 75 76 77 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 45 50 48 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 24.90 27.90 28.80 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 8.00 8.00 8.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 616 490 484 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 67 60 59 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.40 0.59 0.69 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.82 1.24 1.17 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.49 0.48 0.59 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 50 44 43 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 25 22 23 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 79 IBNET Indicator/Country: Honduras Latest year available 2002 2003 2004 Surface area (km2) 112,492 112,492 112,492 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 920 970 1,040 Total population -- -- -- Urban population (%) 45 46 46 Total urban population -- -- -- MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 86 86 86 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 71 71 71 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 43 44 60 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 54 54 100 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 80 81 60 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 60 65 23 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 458.60 328.40 88.50 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- 100 51 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) -- -- -- 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) -- -- -- 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) -- -- -- Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 319 411 440 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 167 244 389 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- 188 137 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- 80 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Hungary Latest year available 2005 2006 2007 Surface area (km2) 93,028 93,028 93,028 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 8,400 8,500 8,750 Total population 10,087,050 10,071,370 10,055,780 Urban population (%) 66 67 67 Total urban population 6,687,714 6,717,604 6,747,428 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 24 20 20 Population served, water (thousands) 5,379 4,853 4,853 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 5,440 4,902 4,902 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 99 99 99 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 42 70 70 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 9 10 11 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 20 34 32 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 8.00 15.20 14.20 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.10 0.90 0.90 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 23.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 96 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 33 45 49 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 100 94 101 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.20 1.37 1.64 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.93 1.33 1.51 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.18 1.03 1.09 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 436 426 413 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 178 159 158 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 114 109 110 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 73.18 77.95 99.80 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.25 1.32 1.22 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 81 IBNET Indicator/Country: India Latest year available 2005 2009 Surface area (km2) 3,287,240 3,287,240 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 660 1,134 Total population 1,094,583,000 1,180,166,000 Urban population (%) 29 33 Total urban population 314,145,321 389,454,780 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 88 88 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 31 31 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 25 27 Population served, water (thousands) 23,458 57,399 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 26,332 57,398 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 89 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 68 23 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 41 38 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 33 41.00 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 84.20 119 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.60 0.60 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 4.41 5.20 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 58 39 23.1 Collection period (days) 256 200 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 68 82 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.23 0.15 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.28 0.28 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.83 0.55 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 170 193 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 134 114 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- 83 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- 2 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m of water/month (US$/yr) -- 6.09 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- 9.32 82 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Indonesia Latest year available 2002 2003 2004 Surface area (km2) 1,860,360 1,860,360 1,860,360 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 830 940 1,140 Total population -- -- -- Urban population (%) 44 46 47 Total urban population -- -- -- MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 80 80 80 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 52 52 52 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 14 14 7 Population served, water (thousands) 4,729 5,308 1,952 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 10,530 10,874 2,571 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 45 49 76 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 11 12 15 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 17 17 17 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 30 30 30 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 36.20 37.00 27.70 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.10 1.00 1.00 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 19.14 19.79 19.86 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 46 55 56 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 111 110 110 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.14 0.18 0.20 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.12 0.15 0.15 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.22 1.21 1.39 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 373 394 133 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 151 142 130 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 133 123 117 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 83 IBNET Indicator/Country: Kazakhstan Latest year available 2005 2006 2007 Surface area (km2) 2,724,900 2,724,900 2,724,900 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 2,600 2,900 3,000 Total population 15,147,000 15,308,100 15,484,200 Urban population (%) 57 57 58 Total urban population 8,648,937 8,783,788 8,928,190 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 95 95 95 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 97 97 97 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 19 22 24 Population served, water (thousands) 4,382 5,049 5,353 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 5,145 5,947 6,261 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 85 85 86 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 64 64 65 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 20 19 21 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 35 35 32 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 66.10 65.60 59.20 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.20 1.40 1.30 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 60 55 55 23.1 Collection period (days) 82 90 94 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 103 94 95 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.17 0.22 0.24 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.20 0.24 0.27 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.88 0.92 0.87 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 391 413 353 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 281 289 295 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 127 123 122 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 22.84 27.05 27.91 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 0.96 1.02 0.99 84 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Kenya Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 580,367 580,367 580,367 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 480 500 520 Total population -- 35,816,784 36,771,613 Urban population (%) 21 21 21 Total urban population -- 7,414,074 7,722,039 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 59 59 59 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 31 31 31 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 7 7 7 Population served, water (thousands) 3,537 3,736 3,952 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 5,493 5,684 5,947 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 66 67 66 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 15 17 32 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 6 12 12 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 52 36 49 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 23.80 28.60 119.40 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.30 0.50 0.50 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 14.17 14.83 15.83 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- 88 23.1 Collection period (days) 60 41 85 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 176 137 113 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.96 0.32 0.48 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.31 0.22 0.25 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.74 1.45 1.91 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 212 161 149 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 110 96 77 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 2 1 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 85 IBNET Indicator/Country: Kyrgyz Republic Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 199,951 199,951 199,951 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 400 410 400 Total population -- 5,143,500 5,192,100 Urban population (%) 36 36 36 Total urban population -- 1,841,373 1,867,079 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 90 90 90 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 93 93 93 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 9 9 9 Population served, water (thousands) 347 361 376 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 625 656 669 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 55 55 56 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 16 15 15 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 37 37 36 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 70 69 70 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 91.90 86.30 83.20 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.90 1.80 1.80 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 23.33 23.56 23.56 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 11 8 10 23.1 Collection period (days) 299 350 514 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 62 60 58 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.12 0.12 0.11 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.10 0.11 0.11 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.11 1.15 1.03 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 262 264 262 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 147 150 137 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 75 78 64 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 2 2 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 5.16 5.36 6.60 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 2.35 2.16 1.97 86 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Lao People's Democratic Republic Latest year available 2006 2007 2008 Surface area (km2) 236,800 236,800 236,800 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 420 440 460 Total population 5,983,451 6,092,332 6,205,341 Urban population (%) 29 30 31 Total urban population 1,611,087 1,708,874 1,810,641 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 57 57 57 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 53 53 53 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 2 10 2 Population served, water (thousands) 321 596 57 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 658 1,055 66 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 49 56 87 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 15 11 16 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 27 26 21 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 46.90 25.70 45.80 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.60 1.60 2.20 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 77 101 49 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.09 0.13 0.15 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.15 0.24 0.14 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.58 0.54 1.07 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 344 373 371 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 274 249 250 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 223 197 154 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 2 3 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 4.02 3.45 2.12 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 87 IBNET Indicator/Country: Lesotho Latest year available 2006 2007 2008 Surface area (km2) 30,355 30,355 30,355 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 800 810 800 Total population 2,013,620 2,031,676 2,049,429 Urban population (%) 24 25 25 Total urban population 483,672 502,637 521,785 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 85 85 85 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 29 29 29 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 259 300 394 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 550 560 571 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 47 54 69 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 9 13 16 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 28 30 28 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 39.20 42.60 39.50 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) 210 226 234 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.80 0.96 0.88 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.71 0.79 0.85 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.13 1.21 1.04 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 145 160 155 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 116 99 77 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 4 4 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- 88 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Liberia Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 111,369 111,369 111,369 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 120 160 180 Total population -- 3,334,222 3,471,020 Urban population (%) 57 58 59 Total urban population -- 1,937,183 2,040,266 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 68 68 68 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 17 17 17 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 350 350 350 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 1,500 1,500 1,200 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 23 23 29 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 10 10 17 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 27 29 49 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 0.80 4.00 9.70 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.10 0.20 0.20 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 6.00 6.00 12.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- 95 23.1 Collection period (days) 80 133 127 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 57 63 75 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.15 1.15 1.22 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.91 1.17 1.17 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.26 0.98 1.05 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 50 51 51 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 37 26 26 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 1 1 1 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 2 2 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 44.59 45.33 48.00 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 4.15 3.40 2.54 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 89 IBNET Indicator/Country: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Latest year available 2005 2006 2007 Surface area (km2) 25,713 25,713 25,713 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 2,500 2,600 2,700 Total population 2,035,312 2,037,863 2,039,838 Urban population (%) 65 66 66 Total urban population 1,331,094 1,342,952 1,354,452 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 89 89 89 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 15 15 15 Population served, water (thousands) 1,153 1,160 1,164 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 1,209 1,219 1,222 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 95 95 95 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 78 79 79 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 11 10 11 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 59 60 60 3 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m /km/day) 108.40 110.00 105.80 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.10 1.10 1.10 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 22.40 22.40 22.53 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 94 94 94 23.1 Collection period (days) 479 512 486 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 87 85 83 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.49 0.48 0.69 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.29 0.32 0.36 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.69 1.50 1.91 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 284 286 283 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 181 176 171 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 124 122 124 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 2 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 30.27 29.58 34.62 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.80 1.82 1.89 90 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Madagascar Latest year available 2003 2004 2005 Surface area (km2) 587,041 587,041 587,041 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 280 290 330 Total population -- -- 17,614,261 Urban population (%) 28 28 29 Total urban population -- -- 5,020,064 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 41 41 41 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 11 11 11 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 843 895 932 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 961 986 1,032 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 88 91 90 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 20 20 20 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 36 33 34 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 33.50 29.40 30.10 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) -- -- -- Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) -- -- -- 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) -- -- -- 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) -- -- -- Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 294 293 296 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 195 192 187 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 91 IBNET Indicator/Country: Malawi Latest year available 2002 2003 2004 Surface area (km2) 118,484 118,484 118,484 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) -- -- -- Total population -- -- -- Urban population (%) 16 16 17 Total urban population -- -- -- MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 80 80 80 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 56 56 56 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 891 951 1,014 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 1,273 1,358 1,449 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 70 70 70 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 19 16 15 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 15 12 24 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 18.50 12.70 24.70 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.50 0.50 0.40 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 98 128 132 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 90 92 91 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.54 0.35 0.26 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.37 0.18 0.16 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.46 2.00 1.70 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 84 85 80 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 62 63 62 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 57 58 57 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 8 6 4 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 60.44 40.51 30.19 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 8.48 8.46 8.44 92 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Malaysia Latest year available 2007 Surface area (km2) 330,803 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 5,400 Total population 26,555,654 Urban population (%) 69 Total urban population 18,440,246 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 96 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 8 Population served, water (thousands) 17,442 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 18,408 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 95 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 6 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 34 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 41.60 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.50 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 365 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- 3 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m water sold) 0.39 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.34 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.15 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 410 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 344 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 226 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 8.25 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.73 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 93 IBNET Indicator/Country: Mali Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 1,240,192 1,240,192 1,240,192 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 330 350 380 Total population -- 11,832,846 12,118,105 Urban population (%) 30 31 31 Total urban population -- 3,609,018 3,763,883 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 56 56 56 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 36 36 36 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 1,497 1,653 1,682 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 2,134 2,034 2,019 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 70 81 83 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 30 27 25 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 19.80 17.80 17.20 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.30 0.30 0.30 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.51 0.56 0.60 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.32 0.30 0.32 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.62 1.87 1.88 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 104 110 107 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 80 78 82 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 70 66 73 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 5 5 5 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.26 2.65 4.24 94 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Mauritania Latest year available 2006 2007 2008 Surface area (km2) 1,025,520 1,025,520 1,025,520 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 550 570 590 Total population 3,062,283 3,138,922 3,215,043 Urban population (%) 41 41 41 Total urban population 1,243,287 1,280,680 1,318,168 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 49 49 49 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 26 26 26 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 652 551 415 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 973 1,404 1,476 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 67 39 28 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- 22 -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 36 34 38 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 16.20 17.50 21.90 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.50 2.00 2.90 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 6.00 -- -- Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 321 765 -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 116 84 -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.66 0.32 0.36 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.72 0.71 -- 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.91 0.45 -- Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 100 128 161 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 67 92 125 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 34 40 53 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 3 2 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 52.20 27.06 28.51 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.01 0.56 0.70 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 95 IBNET Indicator/Country: Mauritius Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 2,040 2,040 2,040 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 4,640 5,000 5,100 Total population -- 1,243,253 1,252,987 Urban population (%) 42 42 42 Total urban population -- 525,896 530,765 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 99 99 99 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 91 91 91 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 1,159 1,170 1,182 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 1,159 1,171 1,182 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 100 100 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 53 52 54 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 57.60 56.20 62.10 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.90 0.80 0.80 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 101 102 102 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.34 0.33 0.32 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.14 0.13 0.13 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 2.52 2.44 2.48 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 414 437 440 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 205 212 212 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 160 164 164 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 0 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 2.58 2.43 2.51 96 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Mexico Latest year available 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 1,964,375 1,964,375 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 7,000 7,000 Total population 103,089,133 104,221,361 Urban population (%) 76 77 Total urban population 78,657,008 79,833,562 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 94 94 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 85 85 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 35 3 Population served, water (thousands) 12,941 669 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 12,835 669 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 101 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 84 64 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 14 22 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 32 28 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 35.30 22.70 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 21.11 23.10 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 82 62 23.1 Collection period (days) 108 65 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 102 68 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.74 0.73 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.66 0.63 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.14 1.16 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 240 248 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 164 179 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 121 141 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- 52.07 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.99 -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 97 IBNET Indicator/Country: Moldova Latest year available 2006 2007 2008 Surface area (km2) 33,846 33,846 33,846 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 750 770 1,000 Total population 3,708,848 3,667,469 3,633,369 Urban population (%) 42 42 42 Total urban population 1,569,584 1,541,804 1,517,295 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) -- -- -- Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) -- -- -- IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 41 41 39 Population served, water (thousands) 1,123 1,133 1,148 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 1,377 1,409 1,446 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 82 80 80 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 65 63 64 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 26 22 23 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 42 43 42 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 32.80 36.30 33.40 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 2.80 2.60 2.60 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 16.03 17.39 17.78 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 93 91 94 23.1 Collection period (days) 353 304 243 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 102 91 99 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.50 0.63 0.91 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.50 0.66 0.88 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.99 0.95 1.04 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 216 225 245 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 148 158 156 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 110 116 114 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 4 5 5 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 53.66 62.53 88.97 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 6.05 4.52 4.24 98 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Mozambique Latest year available 2005 2006 2007 Surface area (km2) 801,590 801,590 801,590 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 290 300 330 Total population 20,834,379 21,353,466 21,869,362 Urban population (%) 35 35 36 Total urban population 7,187,861 7,533,503 7,886,092 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 47 47 47 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 17 17 17 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 5 5 5 Population served, water (thousands) 956 957 1,201 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 3,166 3,199 3,211 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 30 30 37 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 18 17 -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 58 56 59 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 128.00 120.30 131.20 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.20 1.20 1.00 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 14.40 16.20 19.20 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 56 47 51 23.1 Collection period (days) 296 298 334 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 80 73 85 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.55 0.57 0.69 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.77 0.67 0.85 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.72 0.85 0.82 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 225 221 200 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 103 106 87 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 7 7 7 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 99 IBNET Indicator/Country: Namibia Latest year available 2003 2004 2005 Surface area (km2) 824,116 824,116 824,116 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 1,990 2,380 2,500 Total population -- -- 2,009,029 Urban population (%) 34 35 35 Total urban population -- -- 705,169 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 92 92 92 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 33 33 33 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 3 3 3 Population served, water (thousands) 287 296 304 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 356 370 385 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 81 80 79 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as -- -- -- % of operational expenses) 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 19 11 15 3 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m /km/day) 8.70 4.90 6.20 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 649 641 627 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.38 1.63 1.85 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.09 1.45 2.05 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.24 1.07 0.88 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 247 236 236 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 205 211 200 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- 100 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Netherlands Antilles Latest year available 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 37,354 37,354 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 33,000 33,000 Total population 186,451 189,102 Urban population (%) 92 92 Total urban population 171,348 174,276 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) -- -- Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) -- -- IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 133 134 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 133 134 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 100 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of -- -- operational expenses) 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 30 29 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 4.20 4.00 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 2.70 2.60 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 126 100 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- 3 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m water sold) 7.60 8.10 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 5.09 6.44 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.49 1.26 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 240 242 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 179 179 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 132 128 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 0 0 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 69.72 72.74 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.06 1.02 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 101 IBNET Indicator/Country: New Zealand Latest year available 2005 2006 2007 Surface area (km2) 270,467 270,467 270,467 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 21,000 22,000 24,000 Total population 4,133,900 4,184,600 4,228,300 Urban population (%) 86 86 86 Total urban population 3,563,422 3,612,147 3,654,943 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) -- -- -- IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 419 425 431 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 419 425 431 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 100 100 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 100 102 100 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 18 10 12 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 12.40 1.00 1.40 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.89 1.36 1.90 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.89 1.36 1.90 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 355 385 390 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 294 349 342 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 189 164 168 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- 102 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Nicaragua Latest year available 2003 2004 2005 Surface area (km2) 130,373 130,373 130,373 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 770 830 850 Total population -- -- 5,455,216 Urban population (%) 55 56 56 Total urban population -- -- 3,049,466 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 85 85 85 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 52 52 52 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 2,916 2,998 2,969 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 3,190 3,153 3,153 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 91 95 94 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 35 35 34 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- 40 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 57 -- 40 3 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m /km/day) 88.70 -- 0.00 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 20.00 20.00 20.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- 69 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- 151 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- 82 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.41 -- 0.42 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) -- -- 0.38 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) -- -- 1.11 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 255 0 140 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 103 -- 109 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- 60 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- 2 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 103 IBNET Indicator/Country: Niger Latest year available 2003 2004 2005 Surface area (km2) 1,267,000 1,267,000 1,267,000 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 180 210 220 Total population -- -- 13,101,935 Urban population (%) 16 16 16 Total urban population -- -- 2,135,615 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 48 48 48 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 9 9 9 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 1,253 1,502 1,613 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 2,050 2,143 2,241 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 61 70 72 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 17 17 19 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 8.20 7.70 8.80 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 43 250 193 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.38 0.45 0.54 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.39 0.26 0.42 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.98 1.70 1.30 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 80 79 72 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 66 59 57 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 5 5 5 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- 104 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Nigeria Latest year available 2002 2003 2004 Surface area (km2) 923,768 923,768 923,768 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 320 380 430 Total population -- -- -- Urban population (%) 44 45 45 Total urban population -- -- -- MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 58 58 58 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 32 32 32 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 12 12 12 Population served, water (thousands) 16,674 17,638 4,232 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 29,242 30,709 31,761 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 57 57 48 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 30 27 30 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 31 31 50 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 191.20 193.40 47.50 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.50 0.50 0.80 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 12.00 12.10 8.67 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 5 5 -- 23.1 Collection period (days) 655 705 -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.03 0.03 0.20 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.11 0.12 0.14 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.09 0.95 1.42 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 291 295 287 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 182 174 140 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 69 72 75 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 59.00 55.00 60.00 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 105 IBNET Indicator/Country: Pakistan Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 803,940 803,940 803,940 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 600 660 700 Total population -- 155,772,000 159,144,934 Urban population (%) 35 35 35 Total urban population -- 54,364,428 56,209,991 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 90 90 90 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 45 45 45 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 3 4 5 Population served, water (thousands) 3,033 4,343 8,753 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 5,172 9,346 14,990 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 59 46 58 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 56 55 67 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 40 31 40 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 81.80 63.30 67.90 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 8.33 9.25 10.60 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 3 3 3 23.1 Collection period (days) 721 842 366 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.08 0.07 0.17 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.08 0.08 0.27 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.92 0.85 0.62 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 233 264 213 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 127 115 97 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- 106 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Panama Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 75,517 75,517 75,517 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 4,210 4,300 4,400 Total population -- 3,231,624 3,287,575 Urban population (%) 70 71 72 Total urban population -- 2,287,990 2,353,904 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 93 93 93 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 69 69 69 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 2,037 1,889 2,381 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 2,243 2,303 2,372 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 91 82 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 52 45 48 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 60 38 44 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 44 43 39 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 120.00 111.80 100.00 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- 0.80 0.60 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 20.00 22.00 -- Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 44 46 43 23.1 Collection period (days) 342 152 112 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- 78 111 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.27 0.26 0.25 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.11 0.19 0.18 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 2.38 1.39 1.44 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 463 475 479 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 347 390 335 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 258 151 112 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- 0.35 -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 107 IBNET Indicator/Country: Paraguay Latest year available 2003 2004 2005 Surface area (km2) 406,752 406,752 406,752 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 1,070 1,140 1,200 Total population -- -- 5,904,155 Urban population (%) 57 58 59 Total urban population -- -- 3,453,931 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 86 86 86 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 70 70 70 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 4 4 Population served, water (thousands) 903 770 717 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 1,188 1,421 1,002 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 76 54 72 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 43 39 32 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 19 19 17 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 52 45 44 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 44.70 43.80 41.80 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- 0.50 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- 90 91 23.1 Collection period (days) 54 173 170 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.86 0.37 0.36 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.16 0.17 0.17 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 5.34 2.23 2.15 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 260 374 400 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 130 242 243 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 121 206 205 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- 3 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- 0.10 108 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Peru Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 1,285,216 1,285,216 1,285,216 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 2,360 2,500 2,700 Total population -- 27,835,927 28,175,982 Urban population (%) 71 71 71 Total urban population -- 19,791,344 20,061,299 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 82 82 82 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 68 68 68 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 9 10 50 Population served, water (thousands) 11,452 11,687 14,036 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 13,071 13,658 16,765 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 88 86 84 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 78 79 75 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 41 43 43 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 61.70 61.50 63.10 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- 0.30 -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 16.50 15.78 16.06 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 67 61 60 23.1 Collection period (days) 139 161 87 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.40 0.42 0.45 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.45 0.34 0.34 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.89 1.23 1.34 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 219 201 266 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 130 134 140 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 36 -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 109 IBNET Indicator/Country: Philippines Latest year available 2003 2004 Surface area (km2) 300,000 300,000 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 1,070 1,170 Total population -- -- Urban population (%) 61 62 Total urban population -- -- MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 91 91 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 76 76 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 20 46 Population served, water (thousands) 301 10,608 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 1,123 20,505 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 27 52 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 16 12 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 30 55 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 27.90 207.70 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.40 0.70 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 20.10 20.98 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 42 51 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 101 97 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.22 0.28 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.19 0.21 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.10 1.31 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 159 267 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 123 193 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 108 140 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 2 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 2.09 2.29 110 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Poland Latest year available 2005 2006 2007 Surface area (km2) 312,685 312,685 312,685 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 6,400 6,600 7,000 Total population 38,165,450 38,141,267 38,120,560 Urban population (%) 62 61 61 Total urban population 23,471,752 23,433,994 23,398,400 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 90 90 90 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 36 36 36 Population served, water (thousands) 9,269 9,251 9,247 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 9,846 9,820 9,814 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 94 94 94 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 87 87 87 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 7 8 7 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 18 18 18 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 11.60 11.40 11.00 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.70 0.70 0.70 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 99 99 99 23.1 Collection period (days) 58 62 67 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 97 98 98 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.35 1.39 1.71 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.12 1.16 1.47 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.20 1.20 1.16 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 200 201 203 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 160 160 156 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 117 115 113 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 64.87 66.28 82.82 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.29 1.26 1.26 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 111 IBNET Indicator/Country: Romania Latest year available 2005 2006 2007 Surface area (km2) 238,391 238,391 238,391 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 3,000 3,100 3,150 Total population 21,634,350 21,587,666 21,546,873 Urban population (%) 54 54 54 Total urban population 11,617,646 11,631,434 11,648,240 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) -- -- -- Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 72 72 72 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 24 24 24 Population served, water (thousands) 3,675 3,712 3,889 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 4,218 4,278 4,486 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 87 87 87 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 74 74 74 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 18 16 15 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 44 45 45 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 66.60 66.70 59.90 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 2.10 2.00 2.00 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 23.96 23.96 23.96 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 88 90 93 23.1 Collection period (days) 103 97 85 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 104 106 104 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.64 0.78 1.08 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.53 0.63 0.92 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.20 1.24 1.18 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 313 308 304 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 215 206 194 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 121 116 113 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 2 2 2 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 74.06 75.17 91.31 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.56 1.59 1.48 112 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Russian Federation Latest year available 2006 2007 2008 Surface area (km2) 17,098,242 17,098,242 17,098,242 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 5,780 7,560 5,780 Total population 142,500,000 142,100,000 141,950,000 Urban population (%) 73 73 73 Total urban population 103,854,000 103,534,060 103,396,380 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 96 96 96 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 87 87 87 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 84 84 80 Population served, water (thousands) 49,104 49,262 51,937 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 51,718 51,945 51,937 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 95 95 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 94 94 94 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 16 23 13 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 22 20 20 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 67.10 57.90 56.20 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.50 1.50 1.30 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) 99 84 84 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 101 90 85 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.47 0.57 0.77 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.47 0.36 0.64 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.00 1.57 1.18 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 504 480 451 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 412 403 357 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 247 242 221 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 2 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 25.07 28.35 36.02 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 0.92 0.92 1.03 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 113 IBNET Indicator/Country: Rwanda Latest year available 2003 2004 2005 Surface area (km2) 26,338 26,338 26,338 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 200 210 220 Total population -- -- 8,992,140 Urban population (%) 16 17 18 Total urban population -- -- 1,573,625 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 65 65 65 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 54 54 54 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 2,085 2,232 2,394 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 1,843 1,973 2,010 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 100 100 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 42 31 46 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 51 44 38 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 11.50 8.70 7.10 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.60 0.60 0.60 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 12.00 12.00 12.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) -- 50 438 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 100 100 144 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.62 0.57 0.42 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.19 0.34 0.51 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 3.36 1.65 0.82 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 24 17 16 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 12 11 11 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- 1 -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 33.71 31.54 32.60 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- 114 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Senegal Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 196,722 196,722 196,722 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 630 650 670 Total population -- 11,281,296 11,582,863 Urban population (%) 41 42 42 Total urban population -- 4,693,019 4,848,586 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 69 69 69 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 51 51 51 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 4,191 4,440 4,597 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 4,408 4,518 4,631 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 95 98 99 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 18 19 24 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 20 20 19 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 9.00 9.30 9.10 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.30 0.30 0.20 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 20.00 23.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) 61 57 59 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 98 98 99 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.81 0.81 0.87 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.65 0.63 0.68 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.25 1.28 1.28 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 73 73 72 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 62 62 62 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 41 43 46 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 3 3 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 21.73 21.76 22.08 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.26 1.32 1.42 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 115 IBNET Indicator/Country: Seychelles Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 455 455 455 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 8,190 9,000 9,000 Total population -- 82,900 84,600 Urban population (%) 53 53 53 Total urban population -- 43,854 45,159 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) -- -- -- Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) -- -- -- IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 79 80 80 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 79 80 80 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 100 99 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 15 15 20 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 17 20 14 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 17.70 24.70 15.40 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 5.30 5.20 5.20 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 50 45 45 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 99 100 100 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.06 0.77 0.79 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 2.04 1.69 1.77 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.52 0.45 0.44 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 412 414 433 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 347 379 377 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 2 1 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 86.60 81.96 83.00 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- 116 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Singapore Latest year available 2007 2008 Surface area (km2) 705 705 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 30,000 31,000 Total population 4,588,600 4,839,400 Urban population (%) 100 100 Total urban population 4,401,400 4,588,600 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 4,589 4,840 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 4,589 4,840 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 100 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 100 100 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 4 4 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 10.10 9.30 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.30 0.30 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) -- -- 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) -- -- 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) -- -- Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 290 280 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 272 262 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 158 154 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 90.54 101.74 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 117 IBNET Indicator/Country: Slovak Republic Latest year available 2005 2006 2007 Surface area (km2) 49,035 49,035 49,035 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 7,950 9,870 11,730 Total population 5,387,000 5,391,409 5,397,318 Urban population (%) 56 56 56 Total urban population 3,027,494 3,036,442 3,046,246 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 5 6 7 Population served, water (thousands) 2,732 3,430 3,664 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 3,479 4,209 4,533 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 79 81 81 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 53 57 56 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 32 32 31 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 14.20 15.50 14.40 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- 0.50 0.50 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 72 70 80 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 104 103 102 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.34 1.50 1.81 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.94 1.04 1.28 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.43 1.44 1.42 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 217 231 242 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 144 151 149 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 98 101 102 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 91.13 112.34 133.96 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.32 0.98 0.98 118 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: South Africa Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 1,221,037 1,221,037 1,221,037 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 3,630 4,000 4,863 Total population -- 46,892,428 47,391,025 Urban population (%) 59 59 60 Total urban population -- 27,807,210 28,330,355 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 91 91 91 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 77 77 77 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 15 15 15 Population served, water (thousands) 15,905 16,297 16,633 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 15,346 15,715 16,076 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 100 100 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 74 75 74 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 1 2 -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 35 30 28 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 20.10 21.60 19.50 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- 0.40 0.40 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 187 197 177 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 74 74 79 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.11 1.09 1.07 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.17 1.22 1.19 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.95 0.89 0.89 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 297 288 271 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 180 188 186 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 136 146 145 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- 2.00 1.00 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 119 IBNET Indicator/Country: Sri Lanka Latest year available 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 65,610 65,610 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 1,000 1,050 Total population 19,668,000 19,886,000 Urban population (%) 15 15 Total urban population 2,969,868 3,002,786 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 90 90 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 91 91 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 1,686 1,722 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 4,113 4,200 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 41 41 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 4 4 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 24 25 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 34 34 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 35.50 37.50 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 16.00 20.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 102 98 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.23 0.22 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.21 0.22 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.11 1.00 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 583 598 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 412 416 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 270 275 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- 120 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Sudan Latest year available 2005 Surface area (km2) 2,505,813 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 550 Total population 38,698,472 Urban population (%) 15 Total urban population 3,021,510 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 57 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 34 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 Population served, water (thousands) 3,767 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 9,903 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 38 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 20 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 53 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 111.90 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.00 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 17.33 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- 23.1 Collection period (days) 364 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 14 3 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m water sold) 0.25 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.38 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.68 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 198 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 88 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 6.70 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 121 IBNET Indicator/Country: Swaziland Latest year available 2007 2008 2009 Surface area (km2) 17,364 17,364 17,364 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 2,350 2,400 2,580 Total population 1,018,049 1,050,000 1,185,000 Urban population (%) 25 25 25 Total urban population 254,512 262,500 296,250 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 87 87 87 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 50 50 50 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 270 285 285 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 300 300 300 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 90 95 95 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 32 38 38 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 8 10 14 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 39.00 37.00 40.00 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 28 26 30 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.39 1.25 1.25 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 86 62 65 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 96 99 97 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.53 1.40 1.56 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.66 1.33 1.48 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.92 1.05 1.05 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 183.00 183.00 192.00 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 112.00 115.00 115.00 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 78 77 77 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 2 2 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 79.10 74.75 79.37 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) N/A 3.00 3.02 122 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Tajikistan Latest year available 2003 2004 2005 Surface area (km2) 143,100 143,100 143,100 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 210 280 330 Total population -- -- 6,535,538 Urban population (%) 26 26 26 Total urban population -- -- 1,725,382 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 70 70 70 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 94 94 94 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 9 9 9 Population served, water (thousands) 1,029 1,042 1,090 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 1,112 1,128 1,179 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 93 92 92 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 60 60 59 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 35 35 36 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 198.60 207.60 225.90 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.50 1.40 1.20 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 22.40 21.73 21.29 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 1 2 1 23.1 Collection period (days) 326 263 273 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 52 47 42 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.01 0.02 0.03 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.01 0.01 0.02 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.39 1.40 1.42 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 700 718 744 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 518 542 554 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 313 328 336 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 2 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 0.87 1.66 1.62 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 20.09 22.21 23.56 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 123 IBNET Indicator/Country: Tanzania Latest year available 2006 2007 2008 Surface area (km2) 945,087 945,087 945,087 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 360 400 410 Total population 40,117,243 41,276,209 42,483,923 Urban population (%) 25 25 26 Total urban population 9,884,889 10,352,073 10,841,897 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) -- -- -- Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) -- -- -- IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 19 20 20 Population served, water (thousands) 0 4,749 5,675 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 0 5,977 6,959 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) -- 79 82 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- 5 4 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- 25 -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 41 45 36 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 32.10 52.00 34.80 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- 0.50 0.50 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 18.11 15.00 17.58 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 109 81 95 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 103 88 97 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.28 0.35 0.24 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.28 0.40 0.29 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.98 0.88 0.83 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 100 121 128 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) -- 64 61 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- 43 -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- 2 -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- 1.02 -- 124 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Togo Latest year available 2002 2003 2004 Surface area (km2) 56,785 56,785 56,785 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 240 260 310 Total population 5,500,000 5,775,000 6,063,750 Urban population (%) 35 35 35 Total urban population 1,925,000 2,021,250 2,122,313 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 87 87 87 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 42 42 42 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 1,008 1,022 1,097 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 2,169 2,249 2,332 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 46 45 47 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 6 5 7 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 11 16 12 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 27.00 24.00 28.00 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 8 7 8 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.68 0.64 0.57 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 92 91 91 23.1 Collection period (days) N/A N/A N/A 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 87 72 54 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.65 0.82 0.67 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.77 0.65 0.96 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.85 1.26 0.69 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 56.16 55.26 51.39 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 41.00 42.00 37.00 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 24 24 24 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 4 5 3 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 46.93 57.16 60.46 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 1.82 0.87 2.01 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 125 IBNET Indicator/Country: Tunisia Latest year available 2004 2005 2006 Surface area (km2) 163,610 163,610 163,610 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 2,650 2,800 2,850 Total population -- 10,029,000 10,128,100 Urban population (%) 65 65 66 Total urban population -- 6,548,937 6,654,162 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 94 94 94 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 85 85 85 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 10,000 10,100 10,200 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 10,000 10,100 10,200 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 100 100 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) -- -- -- Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 22 22 23 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 6.10 6.30 6.60 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) 212 222 242 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 100 100 100 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.42 0.41 0.40 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.46 0.52 0.50 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.92 0.79 0.80 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 103 120 139 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 86 88 91 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 59 61 64 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 0 0 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 2.26 2.13 2.13 126 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Turkey Latest year available 2006 2007 2008 Surface area (km2) 783,562 783,562 783,562 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 4,500 4,750 5,000 Total population 72,087,928 73,003,736 73,914,260 Urban population (%) 68 68 69 Total urban population 48,846,780 49,803,149 50,764,314 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 99 99 99 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 90 90 90 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 20 20 20 Population served, water (thousands) 2,398 2,619 905 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 2,328 2,641 990 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 100 99 100 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 94 95 94 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 54 51 41 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 56 62 59 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 43.80 62.60 43.40 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- 0.70 0.50 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 97 96 100 23.1 Collection period (days) -- 139 108 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 96 94 90 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.04 1.36 1.21 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.72 1.09 0.93 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.37 1.25 1.25 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 181 233 192 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 97 92 108 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 72 73 87 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 66.05 79.77 85.00 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 2.31 2.25 1.72 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 127 IBNET Indicator/Country: Uganda Latest year available 2007 2008 2009 Surface area (km2) 241,038 241,038 241,038 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 300 310 350 Total population 30,637,544 31,656,865 -- Urban population (%) 13 13 --/ Total urban population 3,927,733 4,109,061 -- MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 67 67 67 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 48 48 48 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 1,803 1,944 2,137 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 2,540 2,700 2,946 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 71 72 73 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 7 6 6 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- 18 18 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 33 34 36 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 16.90 17.50 14.40 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.70 0.60 0.60 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 23.00 23.00 23.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) 518 525 449 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 92 92 99 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 1.05 1.29 1.10 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.78 1.04 0.82 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.34 1.24 1.34 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 101 104 109 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 62 60 57 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 33 31 30 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 8 9 7 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- 128 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Ukraine Latest year available 2005 2006 2007 Surface area (km2) 603,500 603,500 603,500 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 1,500 1,750 1,900 Total population 47,105,150 46,787,750 46,509,350 Urban population (%) 68 68 68 Total urban population 31,937,292 31,750,167 31,589,151 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 98 98 98 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 95 95 95 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 16 16 16 Population served, water (thousands) 2,703 2,721 2,736 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 3,452 3,432 3,411 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 78 79 80 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 63 64 67 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 30 33 36 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 42 43 44 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 76.50 76.80 75.10 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 2.20 2.10 2.10 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 22.00 22.00 22.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 27 31 36 23.1 Collection period (days) 278 251 225 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 92 84 92 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.25 0.32 0.44 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.30 0.37 0.48 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.84 0.87 0.91 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 530 520 506 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 311 296 283 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 231 224 208 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 2 2 2 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 18.07 29.49 37.32 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 5.30 4.93 3.25 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 129 IBNET Indicator/Country: Uruguay Latest year available 2003 2004 2006 Surface area (km2) 176,215 176,215 176,215 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 3,780 3,900 5,812 Total population -- -- 3,314,466 Urban population (%) 92 92 92 Total urban population -- -- 3,052,623 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 1 1 1 Population served, water (thousands) 3,064 2,834 3,055 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 3,178 3,101 -- Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 96 91 94 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 15 17 22 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 52 54 54 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 34.90 37.10 35.70 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 24.00 24.00 24.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 97 96 97 23.1 Collection period (days) 67 55 45 23.2 Collection ratio (%) -- -- 97 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.98 1.04 1.36 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.61 0.65 0.82 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.61 1.62 1.66 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 275 288 320 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 117 128 133 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 92 100 104 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 1 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- -- -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 2.47 2.39 -- 130 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Uzbekistan Latest year available 2005 2006 2007 Surface area (km2) 447,400 447,400 447,400 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 470 500 520 Total population 26,167,369 26,485,800 26,867,800 Urban population (%) 37 37 37 Total urban population 9,603,424 9,730,883 9,881,977 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 87 87 87 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 100 100 100 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 5 5 3 Population served, water (thousands) 3,101 3,091 2,423 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 4,100 4,097 3,418 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 76 75 71 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 14 15 6 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 18 21 27 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 46 39 29 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 35.20 25.10 7.60 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.20 1.20 1.10 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 20.40 20.00 17.33 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 4 6 8 23.1 Collection period (days) 286 260 255 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 95 102 109 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.06 0.07 0.11 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.09 0.10 0.15 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.75 0.69 0.75 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 255 218 77 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 122 119 61 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 72 67 49 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 1 1 0 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 13.61 13.82 13.97 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 4.72 6.40 5.44 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 131 IBNET Indicator/Country: República Bolivariana de Venezuela Latest year available 2006 Surface area (km2) 912,050 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 6,070 Total population 27,031,000 Urban population (%) 93 Total urban population 25,041,518 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) -- Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) -- IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 17 Population served, water (thousands) 22,677 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 25,149 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 90 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 74 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 41 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 62 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 137.80 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 0.60 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 20.00 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 38 23.1 Collection period (days) 416 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 91 3 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m water sold) 0.25 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.26 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 0.95 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 369 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 178 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 128 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 0 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) -- 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- 132 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book IBNET Indicator/Country: Vietnam Latest year available 2005 2006 2007 Surface area (km2) 331,212 331,212 331,212 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 600 620 650 Total population 83,106,300 84,136,800 85,154,900 Urban population (%) 26 27 27 Total urban population 21,940,063 22,615,972 23,298,381 MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 94 94 94 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 75 75 75 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 68 68 68 Population served, water (thousands) 14,871 16,326 17,806 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 21,650 22,430 24,400 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 65 69 69 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 40 33 33 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) 32 36 35 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 35 34 32 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) 32.60 28.60 26.50 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) 1.30 1.20 1.20 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 21.51 21.58 21.79 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) 100 100 100 23.1 Collection period (days) 355 367 329 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 99 99 99 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.23 0.24 0.24 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.12 0.12 0.13 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.87 1.92 1.88 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 212 256 266 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 140 139 142 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) 93 93 94 Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) 2 2 2 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 1.95 2.33 2.45 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) 3.50 3.48 3.76 Appendix 2. Country Data Tables 133 IBNET Indicator/Country: Zambia Latest year available 2007 2008 2009 Surface area (km2) 752,612 752,612 752,612 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 460 500 510 Total population 12,019,481 12,313,942 12,620,219 Urban population (%) 35 35 -- Total urban population 4,344,359 4,470,082 -- MDGs Access to improved water sources, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 60 60 60 Access to improved sanitation, %, 2008 (WHO and UNICEF 2010) 49 49 49 IBNET sourced data Number of utilities reporting in IBNET sample 10 10 10 Population served, water (thousands) 3,284 3,305 3,612 Size of the sample: total population living in service area, water supply (thousands) 4,640 4,691 4,811 Services coverage 1.1 Water coverage (%) 71 70 75 2.1 Sewerage coverage (%) 34 29 33 Operational efficiency 13.2 Electrical energy costs vs. operating costs (%) (share of energy cost as % of operational expenses) -- -- -- 6.1 Nonrevenue water (%) 46 45 45 6.2 Nonrevenue water (m3/km/day) -- -- -- 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W population served (W/1,000 W population served) -- -- -- 15.1 Continuity of service (hours/day) (duration of water supply, hours) 15.00 15.50 16.20 Financial efficiency 8.1 Water sold that is metered (%) -- -- -- 23.1 Collection period (days) -- -- -- 23.2 Collection ratio (%) 83 91 76 18.1 Average revenue W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.33 0.44 0.33 11.1 Operational cost W & WW (US$/m3 water sold) 0.27 0.38 0.28 24.1 Operating cost coverage (ratio) 1.23 1.15 1.16 Production and consumption 3.1 Water production (l/person/day) 316 318 326 4.1 Total water consumption (l/person/day) 141 144 135 4.7 Residential consumption (l/person/day) -- -- -- Poverty and affordability 19.1 Total revenues/service population GNI (% GNI per capita) (average revenues) -- -- -- 19.2 Annual bill for households consuming 6m3 of water/month (US$/yr) 20.08 23.64 17.21 21.1 Ratio of industrial to residential tariff (level of cross-subsidy) -- -- -- Appendix 3. IBNET Indicators Service Coverage Indicators Indicator Unit Concept 1.1 Water Coverage % Population with easy access to water services (either with direct service connection or within reach of a public water point)/total population under utility's nominal responsibility, expressed in percentage 1.2 Water Coverage--Household % Subset of 1.1 Connections 1.3 Water Coverage--Public Water Points % Subset of 1.1 2.1 Sewerage Coverage % Population with sewerage services (direct service connection)/total population under utility's notional responsibility, expressed in percentage Source: Authors. Discussion Coverage is a key development indicator. All coverage indicators are affected by whether the data on populations and household sizes is up to date and accurate. The need to estimate populations served by public-water points may affect the confidence that can be placed in the water coverage measure. In the Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report (WHO and UNICEF 2000), rea- sonable access was defined as "the availability of at least 20 liters per person per day from a source within one kilometer of the user's dwelling." However, we recommend that the population within 250 meters be used as a rule of thumb. Water Consumption and Production Indicators Indicator Unit Concept 3.1 Water Production liters/person/day Total annual water supplied to the distribution system (including purchased water, if any) expressed by population served per day and by connection per month 3.2 Water Production m3/conn/month 4.1 Total Water Consumption liters/person/day Total annual water sold, expressed by population served per day and by connection per month 4.2 Total Water Consumption m3/conn/month Water consumption split by customer type: % Shows the split of total water consumption into four categories of 4.3 Residential Consumption customer 4.4 Industrial/Commercial Consumption 4.5 Consumption by Institutions and Others 4.6 Bulk Treated Supply 135 136 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Indicator Unit Concept Residential Consumption: 4.7 Residential Consumption liters/person/day Shows the average water consumption of groups of people 4.8 Residential Consumption --Connections to Main Supply 4.9 Residential Consumption --Public Water Points Source: Authors. Note: m3/conn/month = cubic meters per connection per month. Discussion Theoretically, the most accurate water consumption indicator would be expressed in terms of liters/person/day. This indicator presents data problems, however, notably lack of accurate total consumption data (for example, from universal metering) and poor quality or outdated census data. While the accuracy of service population figures may need improvement, utilities are often more confident of the number of connections in their system. In addition, water production figures may be known more reliably than water consumption figures. To draw on these other sources of (potentially) more reliable data, we have included a number of indicators that allow utilities to undertake trending analy- ses. Interutility comparisons are more difficult, however, given the different mix of household sizes and of multiple dwellings served by a single connection. This is especially the case between utilities in different countries. In-country com- parisons will be more accurate due to the homogeneity of household size and of dwellings per connection. Nonrevenue Water Indicators Indicator Unit Concept 6.1 Nonrevenue water % Difference between water supplied and water sold 6.2 Nonrevenue water m3/km/day expressed as a percentage of net water supplied; 3 6.3 Nonrevenue water m /conn/day as volume of water "lost" per kilometer of water- distribution network per day; and volume of water "lost" per water connection per day Source: Authors. Note: m3/conn/day = cubic meter per connection per day, m3/km/day = cubic meters per kilometer per day. Discussion Nonrevenue water represents water that has been produced but is either "lost" before it reaches the customer (through leaks or theft) or used legally but not paid for. Some nonrevenue water can be recovered by appropriate technical or managerial actions and then used to meet currently unsatisfied demand (thus increasing revenues to the utility); such recovery helps defer future capital expen- ditures for the provision of additional supply, thus reducing costs to the utility. The International Water Association (IWA) distinguishes between nonrevenue water (percent) and unaccounted-for water, which does not include legal but unpaid usage and which is usually measured in cubic meters per connection per day. The difference is usually small, and here, only the term nonrevenue water is used. Appendix 3. IBNET Indicators Service Coverage 137 The most appropriate measure for quantifying unaccounted-for water is the subject of ongoing debate. A percentage approach can make utilities with high levels of consumption or compact networks appear to be better performing than those with low levels of consumption or extensive networks. For a capture of these different perspectives, reporting three measures of unaccounted-for water has become the norm. Meters Indicators Indicator Unit Concept 7.1 Metering Level % Total number of connections with operating meter/total number of connections, expressed in percentage 8.1 Water Sold that Is Metered % Volume of water sold that is metered/total volume of water sold, expressed in percentage Source: Authors. Discussion Metering customers' water use is considered good practice. It allows customers the opportunity to influence their water bills, and it provides utilities with tools and information that allow them to better manage their systems. The indicators provide two separate perspectives on the issue, each of which is significant individually as well as in conjunction with the other. Together the indicators provide insight into the effectiveness of a metering installation strat- egy; the ratio of indicator (8)/(7) indicates the extent to which a utility is target- ing large water users as its highest priority. Network Performance Indicators Indicator Unit Concept 9.1 Pipe Breaks breaks/km/yr Total number of pipe breaks per year expressed per kilometer of the water- distribution network. 10.1 Sewer System Blockages blockages/km/yr Total number of blockages per year expressed per kilometer of sewers. Source: Authors. Discussion The number of pipe breaks, relative to the scale of the system, indicates the ability of the pipe network to provide service to customers. The rate of water-pipe breaks can also be seen as a surrogate for the general state of the network, although it reflects operation and maintenance practices as well as physical condition. Highly aggregated reporting, however, can conceal that some sections of the network may fail repeatedly while much of the remainder is in reasonable condition. Break rates itemized by different materials, diameters, or time laid can show if and where breaks are concentrated. 138 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Sewer blockages, likewise, measure the sewer network's ability to provide ser- vice to customers. Blockages can reflect a number of problems, including the effectiveness of routine operations and maintenance activities, the hydraulic per- formance of the network, and the general condition of the pipes. As defined here, water-pipe bursts may occur at one of three places: on mains; in service pipes, which are the utility's responsibility; or at joints or fittings. They may be found through visible signs of water in addition to leak detection by utility staff. Sewer blockages include all blockages or collapses occurring in all sewers or drains for which the utility has responsibility, whatever action is needed to clear them. Operating Costs and Staff Indicators Indicator Unit Concept 11.1 Unit Operational Cost W and WW US$/m3 sold Total annual operational expensesa/total annual volume sold 11.2 Unit Operational Cost W and WW US$/m3 produced Total annual operational expensesa/total annual water produced 11.3 Unit Operational Cost--Water Only US$/m3 sold Annual water service operational expensesa/total annual volume sold 11.4 Operational Cost Split--% Water % Split of the total cost into water and wastewater 11.5 Operational Cost Split--% % Wastewater 11.6 Unit Operational Cost--Wastewater US$/WW pop served Annual wastewater operational expensesa/population served 12.2 Staff W and WW/1,000 W and #/1,000 W and Total number of staff expressed as per thousand WW conn WW conn connections 12.1 Staff W/1,000 W conn #/1,000 W conn 12.5 Staff WW/1,000 WW conn #/1,000 WW conn 12.4 Staff W & WW/1,000 W and #/1,000 W & WW pop Total number of staff expressed as per thousand people WW Pop Served served served 12.3 Staff W/1,000 W Pop Served #/1,000 W pop served 12.6 Staff WW/1,000 WW Pop Served #/1,000 WW pop served 12.7 Staff % Water % 12.8 Staff % Wastewater % 13.1 Labor Costs vs. Operational Costs % Total annual labor costs (including benefits) expressed as a percentage of total annual operational costs 13.2 Electrical Energy Costs vs. % Annual electrical energy costs expressed as a percentage Operational Costs of total annual operational costs 14.1 Contracted-Out service Costs % Total cost of services contracted out to the private sector versus Operational Costs expressed as a percentage of total annual operationala costs Source: Authors. Note: conn = connection, Pop = population, W = water, WW = wastewater, # = number, a: Annual operating expenses exclude depreciation, interest, and debt service. Discussion Unit operational costs provide a bottom-line assessment of the mix of resources used to achieve the outputs required. The preferred denominator related to oper- ational costs is the amount of water sold. This ratio then reflects the cost of pro- viding water at the customer take-off point. Appendix 3. IBNET Indicators Service Coverage 139 Lack of universal metering, the doubtful accuracy of many household meters, and a focus in the past on water production indicates that an alternative mea- sure of operational cost per cubic meter of water produced is also relevant in the short term. Staff costs are traditionally a major component of operating costs. Under- standing staffing levels can often provide a quick indicator of the extent of any overstaffing in a water utility. While allocating staff time to either water or waste- water services is useful, this information is sometimes not available. Comparisons are best made between utilities offering the same scope of service in terms both of total size and of mix of water and sewer services. Staff number comparisons should reflect any extensive use of outside contractors (see indicator 14.1). The number of people served per connection varies from country to country and from utility to utility, depending on the housing stock and the approach taken toward service connection. For facilitation of international comparisons, a denominator of populations served has been included here. The relative importance of staff costs compared to total costs is captured in indicator 13.1. Utilities are often overstaffed, and this measure shows the impact of possible changes in future staff numbers. Electrical power costs are often important (indicator 13.2), as when, for exam- ple, power has been very cheap and used inefficiently. Quality of Service Indicators Indicator Unit Concept 15.1 Continuity of Service hours/day Average hours of service per day for water supply 15.2 Customers with Discontinuous % Percentage of customers with a water supply that is Supply discontinuous during normal operation 15.3 Quality of Water Supplied: % of # required Number of tests carried out on samples taken from the Number of Tests for Residual Chlorine distribution system, as a percentage of the number required by the applicable standard, which may exceed 100 percent Operational samples, or any others not taken to check compliance with the standard, are excluded 15.4 Quality of Water Supplied: % Percentage of samples tested for residual chlorine that pass Samples Passing on Residual Chlorine the relevant standard 16.1 Complaints about W and WW Services % of W and Total number of water and wastewater complaints per year WW conn expressed as a percentage of the total number of water and wastewater connections 17.1 Wastewater--At Least % Proportion of collected sewage that receives at least primary Primary Treatment treatment, that is, involving settlement with the intention of removing solids but not biological treatment. Both lagoon and mechanical treatment can be included, where appropriate. 17.2 Wastewater--Primary % Proportion of collected sewage that receives primary Treatment Only treatment only, that is, involving settlement with the intention of removing solids but not biological treatment. Both lagoon and mechanical treatment can be included, where appropriate. 17.3 Wastewater--Secondary Treatment or % Proportion of collected sewage that receives at least Better secondary treatment, that is, removing oxygen demand as well as solids, usually using biological methods. Both lagoon and mechanical treatment can be included, where appropriate. Source: Authors. Note: W = water, WW = wastewater, # = number. 140 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Discussion Historically, limited attention has been paid to measures that capture the quality of service provided to customers. This, in fact, should be a particular focus of performance measurement. The measures presented above are a limited first step in the process of captur- ing information on quality of service. Complaints, while relatively easy to track, give only a glimpse of actual company performance, since consumers may have become accustomed to poor service and no longer complain about it. In other instances, customers may find it difficult to report complaints. Capturing at least some customer-derived data, however, is considered an important starting point for evaluating quality. Because wastewater is collected does not mean it is fully treated before its dis- charge back to the environment. The wastewater treatment indicators provide an understanding of the amount of effluent being treated before discharge. A more comprehensive set of service-quality indicators could be developed, but in the short term it is unlikely that utility managers will collect the neces- sary data. Expansion of the indicator set is therefore a medium- to long-term objective. Billings and Collections Indicators Indicator Unit Concept 18.1 Average Revenue W & WW US$/m3 water sold Total annual water and wastewater operating revenues expressed by annual amount of water sold 18.2 Average Revenue W & WW US$/W conn/yr and by the number of connections. 18.3 Average Revenue--Water Only US$/m3 water sold Operating revenues (W only) expressed by annual amount of water sold. 18.4 Revenue Split--% Water % of total for W The percentage split of total revenue into water and & WW wastewater. 18.5 Revenue Split--% Wastewater 18.6 Water Revenue--Residential % of total water The percentage split of water revenue by customer revenue type. 18.7 Water Revenue--Industrial/Commercial 18.8 Water Revenue--Institutions & Others 18.9 Water Revenue--Bulk-Treated Supply 18.10 WW Revenue US$/person served Operating revenues (wastewater only) expressed per person served. 19.1 Total Revenues per Service Pop/GNI % GNI per capita Total annual operating revenues per population served/national GNI per capita; expressed in percentage. 19.2 Monthly Water Bill (for a household US$/yr Cost in local currency to a household per month of 6m3 consuming 6m3 of water per month through water/exchange rate with US$ × 12 a household or shared yard tap, but excluding the use of standpipe) 20.1 Residential Fixed Component of Tariff Any fixed component of the residential tariff (total amount). 20.3 Residential Fixed Component of US$/conn/yr Water and wastewater together, separated if possible. Tariff--Water 20.4 Residential Fixed Component of Tariff--Wastewater Appendix 3. IBNET Indicators Service Coverage 141 Indicator Unit Concept 20.2 Residential Fixed Component of Tariff Any fixed component of the residential tariff as a proportion of the average tariff per connection per year 20.5 Residential Fixed Component of % of average bill Water and wastewater together, separated if possible Tariff--Water 20.6 Residential Fixed Component of Tariff--Wastewater 21.1 Ratio of Industrial to Residential Tariff ratio The average charge (per cubic meter) to industrial customers compared to the average charge (per cubic meter) to residential customers 21.2 Ratio of Industrial to Residential Water and wastewater together, separated if possible Tariff--Water 21.3 Ratio of Industrial to Residential Tariff--Wastewater 22.1 Connection Charge--Water US$/conn The cost to make a residential pipe connection to the water system and the sewer system, measured in 22.2 Connection Charge--Water % GNI per capita absolute amount and as a proportion of national GNI 22.3 Connection Charge--Sewerage US$/conn per capita 22.4 Connection Charge--Sewerage % GNI per capita 23.1 Collection Period days (Year-end accounts receivable/total annual operating revenues) × 365 23.2 Collection Ratio % Cash income/billed revenue as a % Source: Authors. Note: conn = connection, GNI = gross national income, m3 = cubic meter, W = water service, WW = wastewater or sewerage service. Discussion Average tariffs must be put in the perspective of affordability. Household income data, however, is not easy to obtain. The indicator selected here, therefore, com- pares average per capita tariffs as a proportion of per capita gross national income (GNI). GNI represents the entire country, without reflecting local variations, but it is the most appropriate and consistent measure available for the majority of countries. Here, the GNI should be that calculated using the Atlas method. Some utilities use fixed-charge components within the residential tariff (that is, not taking account of the amount of water consumed). Such tariffs can adversely affect low-volume water consumers, but they also protect the utility's revenue stream during periods of highly variable consumption. Comparison of the fixed component with the average tariff will indicate the relative weight of the fixed and variable components in a water bill. Cross-subsidies may exist between industrial consumers and residential consum- ers. The ratio of the average charges (per cubic meter) to industrial and residential customers provides some quantification of this subsidy. Subsidies are complex, and this ratio provides only a simplistic assessment of the situation in any given utility. For many, the cost of connecting to the piped-water network can be a signifi- cant financial hurdle. Comparing connection charges provides insight into the level of this hurdle, a point of particular concern when seeking to connect poorer sections of the community. The indicator provides cost of connection as an abso- lute level and as a proportion of national GNI per capita. Billing customers and getting paid are two different things. The effectiveness of the collections process is measured by the amount of outstanding revenues at 142 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book year-end, compared to the total billed revenue for the year, in day equivalents, and to the total amount collected as a percentage of the billed amount. Financial Performance Indicators Indicator Unit Concept 24.1 Operating Cost Coverage ratio Total annual operational revenues/total annual operating costs 25.1 Debt Service Ratio % Cash income/debt service × 100 Source: Authors. Discussion The operating cost coverage ratio and the debt service ratio were selected from a much larger range of financial indicators (including leverage, liquidity, profit- ability, and efficiency ratios) because they help answer two important questions: Do revenues exceed operating costs? Does the utility's income enable it to service its debts? Assets Indicators Indicator Unit Concept 27.1 Gross Fixed Assets--Water US$/W and WW pop Total gross fixed water (W) and & Wastewater served wastewater (WW) assets per water and wastewater populations served 27.2 Gross Fixed Assets--Water US$/W pop served Total gross fixed assets per population served, separately for water (W) and 27.3 Gross Fixed Assets-- US$/WW pop served wastewater (WW) Wastewater Source: Authors. Note: pop = population. Discussion Gross fixed assets are defined to include work in progress. The capital intensity of the utility is indicated by the gross fixed-asset value per capita served. Unfortunately, information about asset values is often limited. Until more emphasis is placed on this item, the values derived must be treated with caution. No investment indicators are included. This reflects the difficulty of making meaningful comparisons at this high level between utilities with widely differing situations and investment needs. At a more detailed level, comparisons of unit costs for particular items of equipment can be very useful; this is beyond the scope of IBNET. Affordability/Purchasing Power Parity Gross national income can be converted from the local currency to U.S. dollars in two ways: by using the official exchange rate or by using purchasing power parity (PPP). Appendix 3. IBNET Indicators Service Coverage 143 PPP takes account of what can be bought locally and should be considered for indicators of what customers pay. These indicators include the following: Indicator Unit 18.1 Average Revenue--W and WW US$/m3 water sold 18.2 Average Revenue--W and WW US$/W conn/yr 18.3 Average Revenue--Water Only US$/m3 water sold 19.1 Total Revenues per Service Pop/GNI % GNI per capita 19.2 Monthly Water Bill (for a household consuming % GNI per capita 6m3 of water per month through a household or shared yard tap but excluding the use of standpipes) 20.1 Residential Fixed Component of Tariff US$/conn/yr 20.3 Residential Fixed Component of Tariff--Water US$/conn/yr 20.4 Residential Fixed Component of Tariff--Wastewater US$/conn/yr 22.1 Connection Charge--Water US$/conn 22.2 Connection Charge--Water % GNI per capita 22.3 Connection Charge--Sewerage US$/conn 22.4 Connection Charge--Sewerage % GNI per capita Source: Authors. Note: conn = connection, m3 = cubic meter, W = water, WW = wastewater, yr = year. References Celine Nauges and Caroline van den Berg. 2008. "Economies of Density, Scale and Scope in the Water Supply and Sewerage Sector: A Study of Four Developing and Transition Economies." Journal of Regulatory Economics 34: 144­63. Foster, Vivien. 2008. "Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic: Overhauling the Engine of Growth--Infrastructure in Africa." Executive Summary, World Bank, Washington, DC. Global Water Intelligence. 2007. Global Water Market 2008: Opportunities in Scarcity and Environmental Regulation. Oxford, UK. ------. 2009. Global Water Market 2010: Opportunities in Scarcity and Environmental Regulation. Oxford, UK. Komives, Kristin, Vivien Foster, Jonathan Halpern, and Quentin Wodon, with support from Roohi Abdullah. 2005. Water, Electricity and the Poor: Who Benefits from Utility Subsidies? Washington, DC: World Bank. Milanovic, Branko, and Lire Ersado. 2008. "Reform and Inequality During the Transition: An Analysis Using Household Panel Data 1990­2005." Policy Research Working Paper 4780, World Bank, Washington, DC. WHO (World Health Organization) and UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund). 2000. Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report. Geneva: WHO; New York: United Nations. ------. 2010. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2010 update. Geneva: WHO; New York: United Nations. 145 Index Boxes, figures, and tables are indicated by b, f, and t, respectively. A B ADERASA (Association of Water and Bangladesh Sanitation Regulatory Entities of the data table, 51t Americas), 3 inauguration of benchmarking efforts affordability of water and sanitation in, 7 services Belarus as performance indicator, 142­143, data table, 52t 143t inauguration of benchmarking efforts trends in, 27­30, 28t, 29f, 29t in, 7 Africa. See Middle East and North benchmarking Africa; Sub-Saharan Africa; specific defined, 2­3 countries IBNET benchmarking tool, 3 Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic metric, 3 studies, 28 process, xi, 3 Albania steps in, 14 data table, 47t Benin, data table for, 53t inauguration of benchmarking efforts Bhutan, data table for, 54t in, 7 billing and collections, 27t, 140­141t, AMAC (Moldova Apa Canal), 6b 141­142 Apgar score for water and sanitation blockages, bursts, and breaks, 137­138, utilities, 30­34, 31t, 32f, 33f, 137t 33t, 34t Bolivia, data table for, 55t Argentina, data table for, 48t Bosnia and Herzegovina, data table for, 56t Armenia Brazil data table, 49t data table, 57t inauguration of benchmarking efforts economies of scale in, 34b in, 7 reform driven by benchmarking in, 5b user-generated country report, 14f breaks, bursts, and blockages, 137­138, Asia. See East Asia and Pacific; Europe 137t and Central Asia; South Asia; specific Bucknall, Julia, xii countries Bulgaria assets, as performance indicator, 142t data table, 58t Association of Water and Sanitation technical assistance agreement with Regulatory Entities of the Americas IBNET, 7 (ADERASA), 3 Burkina Faso, data table for, 59t Atlas method, 141 bursts, blockages, and breaks, Australia 137­138, 137t data table, 50t Burundi, data table for, 60t participation in IBNET, 15 business planning, 35­36, 36f 147 148 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book C data table, 70t calculation of revenue requirements, inauguration of benchmarking 43­44, 43­45f efforts in, 7 Cambodia, data table for, 61t Canada, number of utilities in IBNET D in, 8t data collection Cape Verde, data table for, 62t decentralized approach of IBNET Caribbean. See Latin America and to, 4 Caribbean, and specific countries quality of data at level of, 15­16, 16t Central Asia. See Europe and Central Asia, toolkit for, 3 and specific countries data quality, 14­16, 16t Chile, data table for, 63t data review by IBNET team, 16 China data tables by country, 47­133. See also data table, 64t under specific country technical assistance agreement with data verification, 16 IBNET, 7 debt service ratio, 142t Chisinau Apa Canal, Moldova, 35­46 decentralized approach of IBNET to data business plan, 35­36, 36f collection, 4 countries compared to, 36, 39, 40, 40f, demand analysis, 36­40, 37­41f, 37t 41f, 43, 44f, 45f, 46 Democratic Republic of Congo, data table demand analysis, 36­40, 37­41f, 37t for, 66t operating cost analysis, 40­42, 42f Department for International revenue requirements, calculation of, Development, UK (DFID), xi, 43­44, 43­45f xii, 2, 7 collection of data. See data collection developed countries, lack of data collections and billing, 27t, 140­141t, from, 15 141­142 Colombia, data table for, 65t E Congo, Democratic Republic of, data table East Asia and Pacific. See also specific for, 66t countries consumption of water, 135­136t, 136 number of utilities in IBNET, 8t cost recovery ratio (CRR), 44, 45f representation of IBNET as percentage Costa Rica, data table for, 67t of total developing country urban Côte d'Ivoire, data table for, 68t market size in, 7t country data tables, 47­133. See also under staff productivity in, 22 specific country Eastern Europe. See Europe and Central country reports, 13, 14f Asia, and specific countries coverage economic crises, effects of, 11f, 17 operating cost coverage ratio, 11f, economies of scale, 34b 23­27, 23t, 24­26f, 25t, 26t Ecuador, data table for, 71t as performance indicator, 135t El Salvador, data table for, 72t wastewater, 19t, 23, 24 Ethiopia, data table for, 73t water supply, 18t Europe and Central Asia. See also specific Croatia, data table for, 69t countries cross-subsidies, 28­30, 29t, 141 developed countries, lack of data CRR (cost recovery ratio), 44, 45f from, 15 customer-derived data on quality of number of utilities in IBNET, 8t service, 139­140, 139t operating revenues, 27 customer responsiveness, as performance representation of IBNET as percentage measure, 17­18 of total developing country urban Czech Republic market size in, 7t Chisinau Apa Canal compared to, 36, staff productivity in, 21, 22 39, 40, 40f, 41f, 43, 44f, 45f, 46 wastewater coverage in, 19 Index 149 F achievements of, 6­11 financial crises, effects of, 11f, 17 benchmarking defined for purposes of, financial sustainability, as performance 2­3 measure, 17­18, 142t Chisinau Apa Canal case study, food price crisis of 2008, 17 35­46. See also Chisinau Apa Canal, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Moldova See Macedonia, Former Yugoslav clients' use of, 4­6, 5­6b, 5t Republic of country coverage, 9f fuel crisis of 2003-07, 11f, 17 country reports, 13, 14f funding of IBNET by DFID, xi, 2, 7 decentralized approach of, 4 defined, 3 G funding by DFID, xi, 2, 7 Gabon, data table for, 74t indicators, 2, 17­18, 135­143. See also The Gambia, data table for, 75t performance indicators Georgia limitations of, 14­15 data table, 76t methodology, 13­16, 14f, 16t technical assistance agreement with number of utilities in IBNET by IBNET, 7 region, 8t Ghana, data table for, 77t partners, list of, xv Global Economic Monitor database, 30 quality of data, 14­16, 16t global financial crisis of 2008-09, 11f, 17 representation as percentage of total Global Water Intelligence Unit, 6 developing country urban market gross national income (GNI) size, 6, 7t affordability measured as percentage of, review of data by IBNET team, 16 27, 29f, 142­143, 143t technical assistance agreements, 7 tariffs measured as percentage of, time-series data, development 140­141t, 141­142 of, 4, 36 Guinea, data table for, 78t toolkits, 3 verification of data, 16 H voluntary nature of participation in, Hashimoto Action Plan, xii 3­4, 15 high-income countries, water and International Water Association (IWA), 2, sanitation sector in. See water and 19, 136 sanitation sector Honduras, data table for, 79t K Hungary Kazakhstan data table, 80t data table, 83t inauguration of benchmarking efforts technical assistance agreement with in, 7 IBNET, 7 Kenya, data table for, 84t I Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), 2, IBNET. See International Benchmarking 17­18, 135­143. See also performance Network for Water and Sanitation indicators Utilities Kyrgyz Republic India data table, 85t data table, 81t inauguration of benchmarking efforts inauguration of benchmarking efforts in, 7 in, 7 Indonesia, data table for, 82t L International Benchmarking Network labor costs, 22­23 for Water and Sanitation Utilities Lao People's Democratic Republic, data (IBNET), xi­xii, 1­11. See also water table for, 86t and sanitation sector large versus small utilities, 32, 33f, 34b 150 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book Latin America and Caribbean. See also reform driven by benchmarking specific countries in, 5, 6b cross-subsidies in, 29 technical assistance agreement with number of utilities in IBNET, 8t IBNET, 7 operating revenues, 27 Moldova Apa Canal (AMAC), 6b representation of IBNET as percentage Mozambique, data table for, 98t of total developing country urban market size in, 7t N staff productivity in, 21, 22 Namibia, data table for, 99t Lesotho, data table for, 87t Netherlands Antilles, data table for, 100t Liberia, data table for, 88t network performance, 137­138, 137t limitations of IBNET, 14­15 New Zealand, data table for, 101t low-income countries, water and Nicaragua, data table for, 102t sanitation sector in. See water and Niger, data table for, 103t sanitation sector Nigeria, data table for, 104t nonrevenue water (NRW) M defined, 136 Macedonia, Former Yugoslav as performance indicator, 136­137, 136t Republic of trends in, 19­20, 20t, 21f, 21t, 22f data table, 89t North Africa. See Middle East and North technical assistance agreement with Africa, and specific countries IBNET, 7 Madagascar, data table for, 90t O Malawi, data table for, 91t O&M (operation and maintenance) costs, Malaysia, data table for, 92t 24­26, 25f, 25t, 30 Mali, data table for, 93t OECD (Organisation for Economic Co- Mauritania, data table for, 94t operation and Development), 6b Mauritius, data table for, 95t operating cost analysis, 40­42, 42f MDGs (Millennium Development Goals), operating cost coverage ratio 1, 6, 17, 18, 21 as performance indicator, 142t metering, as performance indicator, 137t stability of, 8, 11f methodology trends in, 23­27, 23t, 24­26f, 25t, 26t IBNET, 13­16, 14f, 16t operating costs, as performance indicator, trend analysis, 17 138­139, 138t metric benchmarking, 3 operating revenues, 26­27, 26f, 26t Mexico, data table for, 96t operating subsidies, 28 Middle East and North Africa operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, number of utilities in IBNET, 8t 24­26, 25f, 25t, 30 representation of IBNET as percentage operational efficiency, as performance of total developing country urban measure, 17 market size in, 7t Organisation for Economic Co-operation middle-income countries, water and and Development (OECD), 6b sanitation sector in. See water and outsourcing, 22 sanitation sector Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), P 1, 6, 17, 18, 21 Pacific Region. See East Asia and Pacific, Moldova. See also Chisinau Apa Canal, and specific countries Moldova Pakistan comparison of Chisinau Apa Canal to data table, 105t other utilities in, 36, 39, 40, 40f, 41f, inauguration of benchmarking efforts 43, 44f, 45f, 46 in, 7 data table, 97t Panama, data table for, 106t economies of scale in, 34b Paraguay, data table for, 107t Index 151 performance database, IBNET, 3 Chisinau Apa Canal compared to, 36, performance improvement, IBNET 39, 40, 40f, 41f, 43, 44f, 45f, 46 promoting, 8 data table, 111t performance indicators, 2, 17­18, 135­143 economies of scale in, 34b affordability, 142­143, 143t technical assistance agreement with assets, 142t IBNET, 7 billing and collections, 140­141t, Russian Federation 141­142 data table, 112t financial sustainability, 17­18, 142t inauguration of benchmarking efforts metering, 137t in, 7 NRW, 136­137, 136t Rwanda, data table for, 113t operating and staff costs, 138­139, 138t pipe breaks, bursts, and blockages, S 137­138, 137t sanitation. See water and sanitation sector quality of service, 139­140, 139t Senegal, data table for, 114t service coverage, 135t Serbia, technical assistance agreement with water consumption and production, IBNET, 7 135­136t, 136 service coverage. See coverage Peru, data table for, 108t sewage treatment. See water and sanitation Philippines, data table for, 109t sector pipe breaks and blockages, 137­138, 137t Seychelles, data table for, 115t Poland Singapore, data table for, 116t Chisinau Apa Canal compared to, 36, size of utility, 32, 33f, 34b 39, 40, 40f, 41f, 43, 44f, 45f, 46 Slovak Republic, data table for, 117t data table, 110t small versus large utilities, 32, 33f, 34b inauguration of benchmarking efforts So, Jae, xii in, 7 South Africa, data table for, 118t population trends and demand analysis, South Asia. See also specific countries 36­40, 37­41f, 37t number of utilities in IBNET, 8t PPP (purchasing power parity), representation of IBNET as percentage 142­143, 143t of total developing country urban process benchmarking, xi, 3 market size in, 7t production of water, 135­136t, 136 Sri Lanka, data table for, 119t productivity of staff, water and sanitation staff costs, as performance indicator, sector, 20­23, 23t 138­139, 138t purchasing power parity (PPP), staff productivity, 20­23, 23t 142­143, 143t status of water and sanitation sector. See water and sanitation sector Q Sub-Saharan Africa. See also specific quality of data, 14­16, 16t countries quality of service, 139­140, 139t affordability of water and sanitation services in, 28 R number of utilities in IBNET, 8t rationalization of resources, IBNET representation of IBNET as percentage promoting, 11f of total developing country urban República Bolivariana de Venezuela, data market size in, 7t table for, 131t staff productivity in, 21­22 revenue subsidies, 28­30, 29t, 141 calculation of revenue requirements, Sudan 43­44, 43­45f data table, 120t operating revenues, 26­27, 26f, 26t inauguration of benchmarking review of data by IBNET team, 16 efforts in, 7 Romania Swaziland, data table for, 121t 152 The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book T technical assistance agreement with Tajikistan, data table for, 122t IBNET, 7 Tanzania voluntary nature of participation in data table, 123t IBNET, 3­4, 15 O&M costs in, 24 tariffs, 8, 10f, 43­44, 43f, 141 W time-series data, development of, 4, 36 wastewater coverage, 19t, 23, 24 Togo, data table for, 124t Water Action Plan, DFID, xii transparency, IBNET promoting, 11 Water and Sanitation Program­South trend analysis, 17 Asia, 7 trends in water and sanitation sector water and sanitation sector, 17­34 status. See water and sanitation affordability, 27­30, 28t, 29f, 29t sector Apgar score for, 30­34, 31t, 32f, 33f, Tunisia, data table for, 125t 33t, 34t Turkey, data table for, 126t collection period, 27t economies of scale in, 34b U IBNET for. See International Uganda, data table for, 127t Benchmarking Network for Water Ukraine and Sanitation Utilities Chisinau Apa Canal compared to, 36, increasing demands on, xi, 1 39, 40, 40f, 41f, 43, 44f, 45f, 46 international reporting on status of, 8 data table, 128t NRW, 19­20, 20t, 21f, 21t, 22f inauguration of benchmarking operating cost coverage ratio, 11f, efforts in, 7 23­27, 23t, 24­26f, 25t, 26t unaccounted-for water, 136­137 performance measures for, 17­18 UNICEF-WHO Joint Monitoring size of utility, 32, 33f, 34b Program 2008 MDG assessment, 6, staff productivity, 20­23, 23t 21, 135 subsidies, 28­30, 29t, 141 unit operational costs, 138­139, 138t trend analysis, 17 United Kingdom Department for wastewater coverage, 19t, 23, 24 International Development (DFID), water supply coverage, 18t xi, xii, 2, 7 water consumption and production, United States, number of utilities in 135­136t, 136 IBNET in, 8t Water Performance Assessment Start-Up Uruguay, data table for, 129t Toolkit, 6b user-generated country reports, 13, 14f water tariffs, 8, 10f, 43­44, 43f, 141 Uzbekistan, data table for, 130t Western Europe. See Europe and Central Asia, and specific countries V World Bank Venezuela, República Bolivariana de, data IBNET administered by, xi, 2 table for, 131t strategic involvement in water and verification of data, 16 sanitation sector, xii Vietnam data table, 132t Z economies of scale in, 34b Zambia, data table for, 133t ECO-AUDIT Environmental Benefits Statement The World Bank is committed to preserving Saved: endangered forests and natural resources. · 5 trees The Office of the Publisher has chosen to · 3 million Btu of print The IBNET Water Supply and Sani- total energy tation Performance Blue Book on recycled · 512 lb. of net paper with 30 percent postconsumer fiber greenhouse gases in accordance with the recommended stan- · 1,678 gal. of dards for paper usage set by the Green Press waste water Initiative, a nonprofit program supporting · 278 lb. of publishers in using fiber that is not sourced solid waste from endangered forests. For more informa- tion, visit www.greenpressinitiative.org. The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities (IBNET) set and implemented the first global benchmarking standard for the water and wastewater sector. Since its establishment in 1996, the IBNET program has grown into the largest publicly available water sector performance mechanism that collects, analyzes, and provides access to the information of more than 2,500 water and wastewater services providers from 110 countries around the world. The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue Book is designed to raise awareness of how benchmarking and specifically IBNET tools can help enhance utility performance and thereby help to improve urban water and wastewater services. By tracking progress in and quantifying and assessing the water supply and sanitation sectors, IBNET helps meet the goal of providing safe, sustainable, and affordable water and sanitation for all. Utilities can use IBNET tools to identify areas in need of improvement and to set realistic targets for future endeavors, while governments can use them to monitor and adjust sector policies and programs. Regulators can use the tools to ensure that adequate incentives are provided to improve utility performance, guaranteeing that consumers get value for their money, while consumers and civil society can use them to exercise, where necessary, valid concerns about service provisions. Moreover, the tools can help international agencies and advisers to evaluate the performance of utilities for lending and client advice, and private investors to identify opportunities and viable markets for investment. ISBN 978-0-8213-8582-1 SKU 18582