50858 Water Operators Partnerships Africa Utility Performance Assessment Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Final Report June 2009 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 2 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Table of Contents Foreword 5 Acknowledgements 7 Executive Summary 8 List of Acronyms 10 . Introduction 2 1.1 Purpose of this Report 12 1.2 The MDGs Challenge Facing Water Utilities in Africa 13 1.3 Responding to the Challenge: The WOP-Africa Program 14 .. The global WOP movement 4 ..2 The Jo-burg action plan for launching WOP Africa 4 .. The three WOP Africa regional workshops 6 1.4 Overview and Scope of the Utility Self-Assessment Exercise 17 .4. Overview 7 .4.2 Scope and limitations 8 1.5 Overview of Participating Water Utilities 19 2. Utility Performance Assessment 27 2.1 Operational Performance and Management Information Systems 29 2.. Technical performance 29 2..2 Financial performance 60 2.1.3Overallefficiencyindicator 77 2..4 Quality of MIS 8 2..5 Summary of operational performance 89 2.2 Human Resources Utilisation and Development 91 2.2. Human resources utilisation 9 2.2.2 Human resource development 97 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 2.2. Summary of performance on human resources utilisation and development 0 2.3 Customer Care 02 2.. Continuity of service 02 2..2 Customer complaints 06 2.. Summary of performance on customer care 0 2.4 Infrastructure Development 110 . Services to the Poor and Informal Settlements 5 3.1 Affordability of domestic water connection charges 115 3.2 Affordability of utility water bills 118 3.3 Summary of performance on affordability indicator 122 4. Potential for Peer-Support Partnerships 26 5. Conclusion 0 References Annex A: List of all participating utilities Annex B: Glossary of Indicators 49 Annex C: Market place results 52 4 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Foreword T he present report provides a synthesis of the self-assessment and benchmarking exercise carried out among about 4 African utilities engaged in water supply and sanitation services. These assessments and the ensuing regional workshops are critical steps in the operationalization of the Water Operators Partnerships program for Africa (WOP-Africa). WOP-Africa is built on the premise that well-performing utilities will step forward and emerge as leaders and that the needs of the less well-performing utilities will be met in a professional and sustainable manner. WOP-Africa is the regional branch of the Global WOP Alliance, a central tenet of the Hashimoto Action Plan launched at the Mexico World Water Forum (2005) and endorsed by the United Nations Secretary-General's Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation (UNSGAB). The basic strategy of WOP is to seek accelerated improvements through more intense and systematic knowledge sharing including support partnerships between operators. The initial step to promote and develop the WOP-Africa initiative was the Nairobi (December 2006) workshop which endorsed the idea and mandated UN Habitat and the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) to pursue its preparation. The next step was the Johannesburg Workshop (April 2007) which brought together about 00 water utility executives representing 70 water utilities in 0 African countries. The Johannesburg WorkshopdefinedtheprinciplesandgovernancestructurefortheWOP-Africaprogram and outlined the action plan for its operationalization including the continent-wide benchmarking exercise which is the object of this report. The present synthesis report confirms that there are African utilities whose operating standards put them among the top 25 percent world-wide. It also shows that a large number of utilities have considerable room for improvement. Consequently, there is high potential for WOPs and progress through peer support and networking as utilities themselves are best placed to show how to move up the performance ladder. Beforethisdocumentwasfinalized,threesub-regionalworkshopswereheldtopresent anddiscussthefindingswithparticipatingutilities,andtofacilitateface-to-facematch- making opportunities. Although efforts have been made to verify the data with utilities, there are still cases of extreme outliers which are difficult to explain. Since the main audience of this report is utilities, the position taken by the authors has been to report these as indicated by the respective utilities rather than eliminate dubious data, which would have required the arbitrary determination of acceptable maximums and minimums. 5 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment This position is consistent with the principle of self-assessment; the regional workshops have made many utilities keenly aware of the gaps and weaknesses of their management information systems. We believe that by working together and sharing the immense utility experience that exists on the continent, WOP-Africa is more likely to realize its vision of an Africa with improved waterandsanitationservicesforall.Thefindingsinthisreportwillhelpustomoveforward in a strategic and focused manner. Mamadou Dia Hamanth Kasan President, African Water Association Chairman, Intertaional Water (AfWA) Association-Eastern and Southern Africa (IWA-ESAR) 6 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Acknowledgements T hisreportwasmadepossiblefirstofallbytheAfricanwaterandsanitationutilitiesthat responded to the benchmarking questionnaires and their membership associations, the Africa Water Association (AfWA) and the East & Southern Africa Region of the International Water Association (ESAR-IWA), which provided leadership to ensure a high rate of participation. The benchmarking process was facilitated by the Water and Sanitation Program in Africa (WSP-AF).TheWSP-AF`WOPteam'benefitedfromthesupportandcontributionsfrom many people, in particular: (i) Caroline van den Berg and Alexander Danilenko leading the IBNET initiative; and (ii) Mr. Dajan Hossana (WSS Sector Consultant) and Aladjin Dieng (Technical Director, Sénégalaise des Eaux) who were instrumental in collecting data from the utilities in West Africa. The WSP-AF `WOP Team' was led by Dennis Mwanza and included Dr. Josses Mugabi, Vivian Castro, Lilian Otiego, Jean Doyen, Alain Morel, Jecinter Hezron, Jane Wachuga, Norah Osoro and Bill Wandera. Special gratitude goes to Dr. Josses Mugabi who was the principal author of the report andVivianCastrowhomanagedthebenchmarkingexerciseandfinalproductionofthis report. The utility self-assessment and benchmarking exercise was undertaken with financial support from the DfID of the UK. Financial contribution in kind was also provided by UN- Habitat's GWOP Alliance. Other partners include the International Water Association. 7 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Executive Summary U rban water utilities in Africa differ greatly in terms of size, organisational culture and operating environments. But they all share one major challenge, that is, expanding access to appropriate levels of services to their growing urban populations. This challenge can be seen clearly in the context of the MDGs where Africa lags far behind other regions. ItisnowwidelyacknowledgedthattheinefficienciesofAfricanwaterutilitiesareamajor cause of poor access to water services. In many systems, as much as a third of production is lost through physical and commercial losses and revenues are insufficient to cover operating costs let alone expand service coverage. Thus, it is becoming clear that the real potentialintheAfricanwatersectorliesinincreasingefficiencyintheexistingsystems-for examplebyreducingwastage,improvingservicequalityandsecuringcashflows. Water operator's partnerships (WOPs) have been proposed by utilities and their partners as a promisingapproachforimprovingtheefficiencyofwaterutilitiesandacceleratingprogress towards the MDG targets for water and sanitation. At the heart of these partnerships is a strategy of intense and systematic knowledge-sharing (including peer-support) between water operators as a way of bridging the capacity gaps that exist in many countries. However, limited availability of reliable performance information across the region presents asignificantchallengetoperformanceimprovementthroughpartnershipsasitisdifficultto tell which operators are doing well and should be emulated and which ones need support from peers. To support the partnering approach, the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) in Africa facilitated a utility self-assessment exercise among selected African water utilities to ascertain their strengths and needs and identify the most promising areas for learning and peer-support under the evolving WOP platform. This report synthesizes the results of the assessment and provides a basis for further development of the WOP program in Africa. Thefindings,despitethemanyproblemsingettingreliabledata,broadlyconfirmtheperilous state of the urban water sector in Africa. On average, utilities provide water to only about 65 percent of the population within their respective areas of jurisdiction while sewerage services coverage is only 6 percent. Sewerage coverage generally lags behind water in all regions but it is one of the areas where there is greatest opportunity for collaboration. The findings also show that Non-Revenue Water (NRW) is a major weakness for most utilities in the sample. In many systems, as much as a third of production is lost due to technical and commercial losses and, on average, utilities in the sample get revenue for only half of the water they produce. 8 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment In addition to the NRW challenge, most utilities in the sample are currently struggling to cover even their operating costs. In all regions less than half of the utilities can be consideredfinanciallyviableand,formany,poorperformanceoncollectionsseemstobe the main problem. Given the renewed focus on achieving the MDG targets for water and sanitation access on the continent, the evolving WOP-Africa program is well placed to connect utilities and facilitate knowledge sharing and capacity building - especially on improving technical efficiencyandimprovingcashflows,areasthatarecriticaltoimprovingservicecoverage. Contrary to the view held by many sector observers, Africa is not entirely short of well- performing utilities. Many countries have improved the institutional framework making it possible for utilities to shift from crisis management to strategic planning and performance improvement, which can be emulated by those still lagging behind. However, improvement by emulation requires that utilities are found which, firstly, exhibit superior performance and, secondly, have objectives or specific strengths which match the weaknesses of those utilities seeking improvement. This assessment provides some indication of who the superiorperformersmightbe,butclearlymoreworkisneededtoconfirmtheirsuperiority and ability to provide peer-support. 9 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment List of Acronyms AfWA African Water Association ESAR-IWA Eastern and Southern Africa Region of the International Water Association GNI Gross National Income HRD Human Resource Development IWA International Water Association Lpd Litres per day m3 Cubic meters M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDGs Millennium Development Goals MIS Management Information Systems NRW Non-revenue water O&M Operation and Maintenance OCCR Operating Cost Coverage OEI OverallEfficiencyIndicator OPEX Operating Expenses PIP Performance Improvement Plans PSP Private Sector Participation SPI Staff Productivity Index UN United Nations UN-DESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs USAQ Utility Self Assessment Questionnaire WSP Water and Sanitation Program WOP Water Operators Partnerships 0 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Introduction C lean drinking water shortages continue to be a significant problem in many parts of Africa. The quality and developing countries through intense and systematic knowledge-sharing including peer support partnerships between public coverage of services from most of the operators. To support this process, WSP- urban water utilities remains poor. The Africa facilitated a utility self-assessment situation is becoming worse with high urban exercise among selected African water population growth rates reported at over utilities to ascertain their strengths and 2-6 percent per year. Keeping pace with needs and identify the most promising the rapid pace of urban population growth areas for learning and peer-support under is a key challenge for urban water utilities in the evolving WOP platform. This report Africa. For a long time, measures taken by synthesizes the results of the assessment governments to address service coverage and provides a basis for further development gaps have concentrated on building new of the WOP program in Africa. infrastructure with little attention given to improving efficiency and productivity of water utilities. However, estimates 1.1 Purpose of this Report of finance requirements for water and sanitation expansion point to large funding The primary aim of this report is to take gaps and prospects of private sector stock of African utilities' performance in a investments appear bleak. These realities few key areas in order to provide a sound have compelled major players in the water basis for further development of the WOP sector to seek alternative approaches to programinAfrica.Specifically,thereport improving water service coverage. aims to assist utilities in identifying their strengths and weaknesses as well as best Alternative approaches include capacity- practices under the WOP-Africa priority building and knowledge sharing through themes in order to uncover potential Water Operators Partnerships (WOPs). partnerships for improving performance. These partnerships have recently been The end is not, therefore, the collection recognized by utilities and their partners of metric data or the calculation of as a promising approach for improving performance indicators, but rather the the performance of water operators identification of performance gaps, and accelerating progress towards the benchmarking against superior performers Millennium Development Goal (MDG) and, ultimately, the implementation of targets for water and sanitation services. performance improvements based on At the most basic level, WOPs seek to quantitative and qualitative data. bridge the capacity gaps that exist in many 2 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment The primary audience of the report urbansettlementsasthemoreaffluentare is the utilities themselves - hence the already connected. stand on publishing the data as received Recent projections show that following the after enquiries and clarifications and `business as usual' trends, Sub-Saharan showing wide discrepancies and possible Africa would only reach the MDG targets abnormalities. Sector professionals and for water services by 2040, and those officials engaged in the MDG challenges for sanitation by 2076 (United Nations for water and sanitation services will also Development Programme, 2006). The find this report useful as it is founded on WOPs initiative recognises the critical the recognition that the drive to accelerate role of WSS utilities in the drive towards progress towards the MDGs for urban HH the MDGs for urban water and sanitation has to focus on increasing the performance services. This presents an enormous of the utility through reform and capacity challenge and an impetus for relevant building. institutions to work together to accelerate progress. It is also becoming clear that the real potential in the African water 1.2 The MDGs Challenge sector lies in increasing the efficiency in Facing Water Utilities in the already existing systems; reducing Africa wastage, improving service quality and The African continent poses the most securingcashflowscanincreasecoverage difficult challenge for achieving the water and revenues in the existing systems. This and sanitation MDG targets. The MDGs performance improvement approach is for water supply and sanitation services consistent with the evolving `soft path' to require a doubling of the pace of expansion water which argues for complementary of coverage in water supply in urban areas investments in efficient technologies and and a tripling for sanitation. Reaching 75 human capital to increase service coverage million urban customers by 205 as required (Wolff and Gleick, 2002). by the MDG target for urban water services The previous Water Utilities Partnership implies an average of approximately 2 to (WUP,1996-2006)contributedsignificantly million new connections per year (5 to 8 to the formulation of policies and practices inhabitants per connection). This in turn through which African utilities could would call for roughly 7,000 to 0,000 improve their performance and, most new connections per day for Africa as a importantly, extend their services to the whole ­more than double the present rate. poor (see Box 1). Most of these new customers will be poor households living in inner city slums or peri- In the same line, two related WUP mantras have been broadly disseminated and are Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 1.3 Responding to the Box 1.1. WUP Vision for Challenge: The WOP- African Utilities Africa Program Efficient,well-managed,accountable 1.3.1 The global WOP movement and responsive utilities which provide equitable, sustainable, quality water The WOP-Africa program is part of the and sanitation in their areas of Global WOP initiative - a key element of operation. the Hashimoto Action Plan announced by the United Nations Secretary-General's Sector policies and institutions Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation providing the right incentives for during the 4th World Water Forum held in utilities to: Mexico (200). The Hashimoto Action Plan · extend services to the poor proposed WOPs as a tool for building the through partnerships with key capacity and improving the performance stakeholders of water operators in order to step up · foster a culture of capacity- progress toward the MDG targets for building, knowledge sharing water and sanitation. The WOP initiative and networking was endorsed by UN-DESA in 2005. UN- Habitat was tasked with the responsibility · ensure a sound environment for operationalising it through separate but and sustainability of water coordinated regional initiatives under the resources Global WOP Alliance. still relevant to the WOP program. Firstly, 1.3.2 The Jo-burg action plan for areasonablyefficientandfinanciallyviable launching WOP Africa utility is a pre-condition for serving the African water utilities through their poor at scale. Second, improved utility membership associations, namely, the performance is not sufficient to serve the African Water Association (AfWA) and the poor as utilities need to work in partnership Eastern and Southern Africa Region of the with local community-based organizations International Water Association (ESAR- and private actors. African policy makers IWA), have taken up the WOP concept and sector planners readily recognized and, with the support of UN-Habitat and the potential and the relevance of utility WSP-Africa, have defined and recently partnerships and have taken steps to launched WOP-Africa as their branch of operationalise a WOP program on the the global WOP movement. continent that builds on WUP. The WOP-Africa program was launched on February 25, 2008 during the AfWA bi-annual congress held in Cotonou, Benin 4 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Theutilitiesandstakeholdersgatheredfirst strategiesthatdefinefinancingand in Nairobi (December 2006) to review and operational mechanisms and tariffs eventually endorse the WOP approach. that ensure equitable provision of They subsequently met in Johannesburg services to all urban residents. (April 2007) to lay down the goals, guiding · WSS/MDGs Roadmap: The aim principles, priority themes and structure of is to support water operators as WOP-Africa. they develop roadmaps and action Participants of the Johannesburg (Jo- plans with a long-term planning and burg) workshop agreed on an action plan financingperspectivetoaccelerate that would be used to develop the initial progress towards the achievement of three-year business plan covering the MDGs. period mid-2009 to mid-202. The Jo- burg Action Plan included self-assessment · Human Resources Development followed by three sub-regional workshops. & Capacity Building: In order to The three workshops allowed participating foster a vibrant water sector, human utilities to (i) review their internal strengths resource development must be a top and weaknesses and (ii) identify priority priority. WOP- Africa will catalyze and areas for mutual support and capacity encourage utility-to-utility exchange of development for accelerated progress know-how and networking on training toward the MDGs with the long term goal and human resource development. of achieving universal access to water and · Infrastructure Development and sanitation services. Asset Management: Utilities have The Jo-burg Workshop prioritized the asked for support in asset planning following five themes to be the focus of and management. WOP-Africa the WOP-Africa action plan for knowledge will support the development and sharing and capacity building: implementation of sound asset management plans with clear · Management Information Systems: separation of operational and The aim is to assist utilities to establish ownership roles and responsibilities. or strengthen management information systems necessary for monitoring and evaluation and for performance These priority themes will guide structured assessments and benchmarking learning under WOP-Africa and therefore aimed at continuous improvement of formed the basis for the design of the services. utility self-assessment exercise and the · Services to the Poor: The focus will subsequent synthesis of results presented be to strengthen pro-poor policies and in this report. In addition to the top five 5 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment themes, the following themes were strong · to share the results of the continent- contenders at the Jo-burg workshop: (i) wide benchmarking exercise communications, (ii) customer relations, (iii) andvalidatethefindingsofthe access to sanitation, and (iv) WSS services benchmarking exercise conducted for small towns. Participants in the sub- after Jo-burg (end-2007 and early regional workshops identified sources of 2008); related expertise and good practice in all · to identify priority themes for exchange of these areas. and learning and related good practices; 1.3.3 The three WOP Africa regional · to test the demand for peer support workshops partnerships and help utilities identify potential `matches'; and The three WOP Africa workshops took place over the period July 2007 to October · to learn from experience the modalities 2008 starting with the Kampala workshop and success factors for such utility-to- (July 2007) organized by Uganda's NWSC utility partnerships (U2U). which gathered utility managers and sector policymakers from Eastern Africa. It was followed by the Dakar workshop The priority themes for exchanges and (September 2008) gathering utilities mutual support emerging from the from Western & Central Africa including workshop cover a wide range of issues a contingent of senior managers from including sector policies as well as six Nigerian utilities. The last workshop technical and managerial approaches and directed at utilities from Southern African practices.Theworkshoplargelyconfirmed as well as at a number of Eastern African the broad themes identified in Jo-burg utilities took place in Maseru (November with the notable addition of customer care and change management. They also 2008). Each workshop gathered about 60 showed the interest of utility managers for to 00 utility managers and representatives practices addressing specific problems - from other sectors and partners. All in all, for example, recovery of illegal and inactive more than 240 utility managers from more connections, metering and billing systems, than 80 utilities have been exposed to the staff redundancy management and WOP concept and have participated in its recovery of water bills from public sector preparation. entities. The three workshops followed similar The workshops confirmed the demand programs meant to sequentially address for utility to utility partnerships (U2U) as the following objectives: participants expressed interest for more 6 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment than 100 specific matches. The self- above; and (ii) assessment of the potential assessments show that U2Us are in fact for peer-support partnerships between alreadytakingplaceonasignificantscale water operators in Africa. The USAQ among African utilities as well as with contained both quantitative and qualitative European partners. The cases of U2U questions relating to: reviewed by the participants showed · Utility profile: type of services that U2U come in many shapes and provided and institutional set-up; forms ranging from relatively short term interventionsfocusedonaspecificthemeto · Technical information: service broader more comprehensive partnerships area/coverage, consumption and involving periodic joint meetings of their production; management teams and their boards as · Operations: billings and collections, well as staff exchanges. As a result of operating expenses (OPEX,) service the discussions and relationships forged continuity, metering, monitoring during the regional workshops, several and evaluation, benchmarking and utilities have initiated U2U partnerships. It performance improvement planning; is fair to say that the workshops have been an effective springboard to kick-start the · Human resources:staffingand training; WOP movement in Africa. · Customer care: customer complaints/ procedures and continuity of services; 1.4 Overview and Scope · Pro-poor service delivery: connection of the Utility Self- fees and tariffs, pro-poor service Assessment Exercise options and strategies; 1.4.1 Overview · Infrastructure and asset management: sources of raw water, Consistent with the Jo-burg Action Plan treatment methods, production for operationalising the WOP-Africa capacity, network information, and program, a number of water utilities in capital investment; Africa completed a self-assessment of their internal strengths and weaknesses using · MDGs roadmap: reforms, long-term a comprehensive utility self-assessment planningandfinancing,andpotential questionnaire (USAQ) adapted from the areas for partnerships; and IB-NET and SEAWUN assessment tools. · Previous experience with utility The assessment covered two dimensions: partnerships: context, areas (i) assessment of performance, strengths covered,financingandcontractual and needs in the priority themes as outlined arrangements. 7 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 1.4.2 Scope and limitations getting utilities to complete the USAQ in time, the research team decided to source The primary objective of the USAQ was to actual performance data from a variety of uncover potential partnerships between existing sources rather than rely entirely utilities by identifying the areas in which ontheUSAQ.Nonetheless,fillingoutthe each operator is performing well (strengths) questionnaire was the entry point for each and areas in which the operator is not utility to participate in the sub-regional performing well as compared to its peers workshop and the WOP-Africa program. (weaknesses). A secondary objective of Out of a total 56 utilities who were given the assessment was to move towards questionnaires, more than half (99 utilities) standardizing the indicators for the sector responded. Table 1.1 shows the number in Africa by starting a dialogue on the most of participating utilities and the sources of appropriate indicators. data. Although the assessment largely utilized Overall, the assessment includes data the USAQ data, actual performance from 4 water operators in 5 countries. data was obtained from multiple sources The majority (99) submitted data through including databases maintained by the the USAQ while data for 5 operators International Benchmarking Network for was obtained from existing databases Water and Sanitation Utilities (IB-NET)2 maintained by IB-NET and national and national regulators. Given the limited regulators. All data was entered into timeframe and the practical difficulty of Table 1.1: Number of participating utilities and sources of data Sub-Region Data Sources USAQ IB-NET Regulator Totals Eastern 2 2 9 4 Western 49 0 50 Southern 8 2 0 4 Totals 99 26 9 134 USAQ Response Total Sent 56 Total Returned 99 Response rate (%) 6 www.ib-net.org 2 8 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment aspreadsheet and checked for accuracy, time, an African water utility dataset will completeness and reliability. Questionable develop allowing for further analysis of values and data gaps were rectified performance (such as trends and drivers) through follow-up communications with which would further inform partnership focal persons within each participating initiatives. utility. In addition, data and findings of Secondly, indicators tend to portray the assessment were presented at three an incomplete picture of a utility's utility sub-regional workshops held in performance as they often exclude other June (Kampala), September (Dakar) and contributing factors such as accountability October (Maseru) of 2008 to validate of institutions and incentives that are not its accuracy and reliability. In these readily quantifiable. Moreover, utilities workshops, the utilities themselves had a facedifferentsocial,politicalandfinancial chance to point out data inconsistencies constraints which need to be taken into and misrepresentations and suggested account when evaluating performance. For ways of improving indicators, data quality these reasons, the indicators presented in and reporting. this assessment should not be interpreted Some limitations of this exercise should be in a rigid fashion. Rather they should be noted. First, the analysis presented in this taken only as indicative of the strength or report is based on data for a single year weakness of a utility relative to its peers. (2006). Thus, the analysis provides only The analysis is meant to provide the initial a snapshot of performance. The limited motivation for utility managers to `pay availability of reliable utility performance eachotheravisit'.Thisfirstvisitcouldbe data across the region presents a the beginning of a long-term and mutually significantchallengetoanybenchmarking beneficial partnership. The next section exercise that seeks to establish trends in provides an overview of the utilities for performance. At present, only a few utilities which performance data was obtained. are able to provide even a limited set of Analysis of performance and inter-utility performance statistics. There is hardly any comparisons are discussed in Chapter 2. comprehensive assessment of performance by which inter-utility comparisons can be made over time. While the USAQ tool 1.5 Overview of Participating itself was comprehensive, many utilities Water Utilities do not have the supporting information systems to easily and accurately respond The self-assessment exercise sought to the questionnaire. Future benchmarking to cover a broad spectrum of water exercises will expectedly improve on the utilities in Africa. Table 1.2 shows the data and experience gained so that, over number of utilities represented by region 9 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment and by country. In total, 5 countries of utilities (Figure 1.2, Tables 1.3 and are represented. A list of all participating 1.4).Small utilities (serving <00,000 utilities (with names and nature of service people) are to be found predominantly area, whethere single city or national) is in the Eastern region while medium size presented in Annex A. A summary of the utilities (serving 00,000-,000,000) are type of services provided by the utilities is common in the South. Most of the large shown in Figure 1.1. utilities (>,000,000) are in the Western region where the urban water sector is Almost all utilities (97 percent) provide largely centralised. Furthermore, of the piped water services. Of these, about 20 4 participating utilities, the majority (68 percent also provide bulk water to other utilities) serve single cities/municipalities; utilities. About half (44 percent) of utilities 9 utilities operate at the regional level provide both water and wastewater (regional utilities); and 25 utilities operate at services while 42 percent provide water the national level (national utilities). Single only. The Southern region has the highest city utilities are to be found predominantly number of utilities (68 percent) providing in the Eastern and Southern regions. wastewater services. Only one utility in the sample (ONAS, Senegal) provides There are no single city utilities in the wastewater services only. Western region. The sample also included two asset holding companies - DAWASA In terms of population served there is (Tanzania) and SPEN (Niger). The a marked regional variation in the size institutional structures of the utilities are Figure 1.1: Type of services provided 20 Region Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility No. of utilities Countries Eastern Performance Assessment Burundi Democratic Rep. of Congo Djibouti Ethiopia 6 Kenya 7 Madagascar Rwanda Seychelles Sudan Tanzania 20 Uganda Total Eastern 11 43 Western Benin Burkina Faso Cape Verde Cote d'Ivoire Gabon Gambia Ghana Liberia Mali Mauritania Niger Nigeria 4 Republique De Guinee Senegal 2 Togo Tunisia Total Western 16 50 Southern Lesotho Malawi 4 Mauritius Mozambique 5 Namibia South Africa 8 Swaziland Zambia 8 Total Southern 8 41 Total Africa 134 2 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 1.2: Regional variation in population served (2006 figures) Table 1.3: List of largest utilities by population 10 Largest Utilities (By population served ­ 2006 data) Rand Water (South Africa) ,000,000 2 Ghana Water Company Limited (Ghana) 9,6,760 Société Nationale d'Exploitation et de Distribution des Eaux (SONEDE, Tunisia) 8,00,000 4 Société de Distribution d'Eau de Cote d'Ivoire (SODECI, Cote d'Ivoire) 6,42,072 5 Lagos Water Corporation (Nigeria) 5,57,855 6 eThekwini Metro (South Africa) 4,4,679 7 Sénégalaise des Eaux (Senegal) ,82,460 8 Johannesburg Water (South Africa) ,692,2 9 Cape Town Metro (South Africa) ,229,50 0 Nairobi Water & Sewerage Company (Kenya) ,000,000 22 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment summarised in Figures 1.3 and 1.4 with sort of private sector involvement in their each type having significant implications operations through service contracts, while on the operator's decision-making only seven utilities (5 percent) have more autonomy. The majority of utilities (49) are elaborate PSP models. Table 1.5 lists the state owned enterprises operating under few utilities with more elaborate forms of commercial law with Eastern utilities being private sector participation. the most represented under this category. On the other hand, although PSP is A sizeable number of utilities (24) operate uncommon in the sample, almost half as statutory organisations following state (4 percent) of the utilities operate under requirements. The sample of utilities performance contracts with central or also includes ring-fenced government/ local governments. This arrangement is municipal departments (5) and a small particularly common among utilities in the number of privately owned companies Eastern region (60 percent of utilities in operating under commercial law (5) as well this region have performance contracts). as a few asset holding companies (). For instance, the National Water and Institutional models involving private sector Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) of participation (PSP) are limited. Out of 4 Uganda engages in annual and multi-year utilities, more than half (7) do not have performance contracts with the central any form of private sector participation. A government. Performance contracts also total of 9 utilities (29 percent) have some exist in all utilities in Zambia, Lesotho and Table 1.4: List of smallest utilities by population served 10 Smallest Utilities (By population served - 2006 data) Welkite Town Water Supply and Sewerage Enterprise (Ethiopia) 0,225 2 Naivasha Water, Sewerage & Sanitation Company (Kenya). 24,000 Lindi Urban and Sewerage Authority (Tanzania) 28,50 4 Oshakati Municipality (Namibia) ,000 5 FIPAG Quilimane (Mozambique) ,598 6 Bukoba Urban Water and Sewerage Authority (Tanzania) 46,270 7 Harar Water Supply & Sewerage Services Authority (Ethiopia) 48,900 8 Municipality of Walvis Bay (Namibia) 54,025 9 Singida Urban Water and Sewerage Authority (Tanzania) 54,65 0 Sumbawanga Urban Water and Sewerage Authority (Tanzania) 55,772 2 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 1.3: Number of participating utilities by institutional set-up Table 1.5: Utilities with more elaborate forms of PSP Utility Name PSP Model Ghana Water Company Limited (Ghana) Management contract National Water & Electricity Company (Gambia) Management contract ELECTRA S.A. - Empresa de Electricidade e Agua (Cape Verde) Lease contract Sénégalaise des Eaux (SDE, Senegal) Lease contract Aguas de Mozambique, S.A.R.L (Mozambique) Lease contract Societe de Distribution d'Eau de Cote d'Ivoire (SODECI, Cote d'lvoire) Lease contract Société d'Energie et d'Eau du Gabon (Gabon) Concession 24 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Swaziland. The contracts have an average As such, their design and implementation durationoffiveyearsandcovertechnical is a promising area for knowledge sharing performance,serviceindicators,efficiency and learning between utilities. andfinancialindicators,aswellashuman Overall, the above comparison of services, resources issues. institutional set-up and size of utilities Third party monitoring and oversight shows that even though the assessment is also present in 58 percent of the exercise may not have been representative utilities, suggesting that serious attention of water utilities in Africa, it certainly does is being paid to enhancing external cover a broad spectrum of water utilities. accountability for results. However,effective The exercise was carried out across many implementation of performance contracts countries and many types of institutions depends on how internal incentive providing tremendous opportunities for mechanisms are established. Utilities such learning. as SDE (Senegal) and NWSC (Uganda) Chapter 2 of this report will compare the have performance-based management 4 water utilities on the basis of selected systems and enforce penalties for poor performance indicators to identify the performance. Given their attractiveness relatively stronger and weaker utilities in as instruments for driving improvements each area, as well as promising areas for in utility performance, performance-based learning and peer-support partnerships. contracts are becoming increasingly popular in the African water sector. 25 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 26 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 2. Utility Performance Assessment B ased on the data provided by This means that if all utilities in the group participating utilities and that performed exceptionally, then even the obtained from other sources, a lowest in the group cannot be said to be broad range of indicators was selected poorly performing. Similarly, if the entire to enable a comparative assessment group performed poorly, then even the top of the different aspects of water utility in the group cannot be said to be a good performance. Consistent with the overall performer. objective of the assessment exercise, In this report, we considered a reasonable indicators were selected on the basis of target for improving utility performance their usefulness in capturing performance as the level of the lowest value within differences in the key priority themes of the the top quartile (i.e. the top 25 percent). WOP-Africa program. As these themes This is the same approach used by Tynan were generally stated, it was necessary and Kingdom (2002) in their paper on to translate them into corresponding setting performance targets for water performance categories and indicators. utilities. Using data from 2 utilities in 44 Table 2.1 shows the list of indicators developing countries, Tynan and Kingdom used under each theme. All quantitative (2002) propose `best practice' targets for indicators are based on standard IB-NET developing countries on the basis of the definitions,andthebasedatausedisfor performance of the top 25 percent of asingleyear(2006).Performanceprofiles developing country utilities in their sample. of utilities on these indicators were derived Thus, for most of the indicators calculated from basic data provided by the utilities in our sample, strong and weak utilities themselves and computations using the wereidentifiedbasedontheperformance formulas given in Annex B. of the top 25 percent of the group. As will be noted later, for most of the indicators, Given the large amount of information this target performance level was fairly that results from any benchmarking consistent with the `best practice' exercise, it is important to be clear on how targets proposed by Tynan and Kingdom comparisons are made between water (2002). Moreover, during the sub-regional utilities. First, the performance of any utility workshops, utility managers discussed in this sample was compared with those of these targets and agreed that they were other participating utilities and not to any reasonable and achievable in the African other objective norm, such as national or context. international standards. Utilities were grouped into geographical sub-regions (Eastern, Western and Southern). The reason for this was to encourage utilities to look within their sub-region for a partner - and only look outside the sub-region if there are no "good performers". This is because of the high cost implications of travel in Africa. 27 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Table 2.1: Selected indicators used for comparative performance assessment WOP-Africa Theme Performance Indicators Category Operational Technical . Service coverage Performance and performance 2. Water production and consumption Management . Non-revenue water Information Systems (MIS) Financial 4. Average tariff and unit operational performance cost 5. Collection ratio 6. Collection period 7. Operating cost coverage Quality of MIS 8. % of USAQ response Human Resource Human resource 9. Total staff per 000 connections Development and utilisation 0. Labour cost as a % of total operating Capacity Building costs Human resource . Staff training participation rate development 2. Total no. of training days Customer Care and Customer . No. of customer complaints per000 Services to the Poor service connections 4. Continuity of supply (hours of service) 5. Average response time to address a complaint Affordability of 6. Average per capita water bill as a % services of GNI per capita 7. Monthly household bill for HH consuming 6m per month as % of monthly GNI per capita 8. Water connection charge as % of GNI per capita Infrastructure Capital 9. Capital expenditure in last 5 years Development investment (per connection) 28 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Also, for each quantitative indicator, we data was available. The presentation calculated the mean value which is usually of results is organised according to the helpful in gauging median performance. themes and performance categories However, since the assessment exercise shown in Table 2.1. A number of graphs did not utilise statistical sampling, are presented with the top quartile (top 25 no inference can be made about the percent) values marked for each indicator, performance of non-participating utilities where appropriate, and also taking into based on the mean value. Individual account the nature of the indicator (e.g. participating utilities can compare their for NRW percent and staff productivity, performance against the group average. the lower quartile is used as lower values But as earlier suggested a better target for indicate good performance). In addition, improving performance would be to move while the top quartile values for most up within the top quartile of the group. We indicators represent the suggested cut- also compared the mean values with those off point for identifying strong and weak from other regions in order to determine performance, this cut-off point may not be how this sample of African utilities is faring appropriate for all indicators. For example, in comparison to other utilities elsewhere the top quartile may not be a relevant in the world. Here, we made use of the IB- target for per capita consumption - as very NET data performance dataset to compute high values may indicate wasteful use of the average values of key indicators for water while very low values may point to utilities from East and Central Asia (ECA), insufficient availability of water for basic Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), public health. andEastAsiaandthePacific(EAP). Another way of ensuring meaningful 2.1 Operational Performance and comparisons between water utilities is by useofanoverallefficiencyindicator(OEI). Management Information This indicator attempts to provide a global Systems measure of utility efficiency by comparing 2.1.1 Technical performance the volume of water for which the utility collects revenue and the total volume Technical performance was assessed of water it produces. The OEI is intuitive, using three key indicators: and although not entirely perfect, provides · coverage -definedasthepercentage a good indication of the overall position of the population with access to water of a utility, allowing us to make overall or sewerage services (either with direct conclusions on performance. service connection or within reach of In the following sections, we present the a public water point) as a percentage summary of results for all the utilities where 29 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment of the total population under a utility's to date and accurate. An estimate of the area of responsibility population with direct service connections is fairly easy to make if a utility has good · water production and consumption customer records. But estimating the - both expressed by population population within reach of a public water served per day ( production included point is problematic. Notwithstanding purchased water, if any) these data problems, a total of 8 utilities · metering level-definedasnumberof provided fairly credible base data for water connections with operating meter as a coverage, while base data for sewerage percentage of total connections was available for only 8 utilities out of the · non-revenue water-definedasthe 59 utilities that provide sewerage services. difference between water supplied and Figure 2.1 shows the regional averages water sold (i.e. volume of water `lost') and the average for all utilities in the expressed as a percentage of net sample. Utilities from Southern region water supplied have on average the highest coverage for both water and sewerage. But sewerage coverage lags behind water in all the Coverage: This is a key indicator for the regions. For the Western region, there is MDGs but its assessment is usually affected limited data on coverage of sewerage by whether the data on population is up services. The mean value shown in Figure Figure 2.1: Regional variation in service coverage 0 Water utilities in the Eastern region Figure 2.2: Water coverage forOperators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Water Operators Western region Figure 2.3: Water coverage for utilities in thePartnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 2 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Figure 2.4: Water coverage for utilities in the Southern region Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.5: SewerageWater Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility coverage for utilities in the Eastern region Performance Assessment Figure 2.6: Sewerage coverage for utilities in the Western region 4 Figure 2.7: Sewerage Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility coverage for utilities in the Southern region Performance Assessment 2.1isbasedondatafromonlyfiveutilities, 2.1 also show that Africa lags behind other i.e. ONAS (Senegal) - the national sanitation world regions (ECA, LAC and EAP) as far agency for Senegal; LWSC (Liberia); as service coverage is concerned. ENSWC (Enugu State, Nigeria); ANWSC Water and sewerage coverage levels for (Anambra State, Nigeria); and SODECI individual utilities are shown in Figures (Cote d'lvoire). Data presented in Figure 5 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 2.2-2.7. Based on the performance of as pit latrines and septic tanks. Future the top 25 percent of all the utilities, a benchmarking exercises should include reasonable cut-off point for identifying questions on the institutional arrangements strong and weak performers is 90 percent for on-site sanitation including whether or for water and 82 percent for sewerage. not the utility has the mandate to empty With these levels, the Southern region on-site facilities, the cost of providing such has the largest number of best performers services and information on partnerships for both water and sewerage coverage - with the private sector. the majority being South African utilities. Water production and consumption: A few utilities from the Eastern region - The production indicator measures total MBUWASA (Mbeya, Tanzania), AAWSA annual water supplied for distribution while (Addis, Ethiopia), TUWASA (Tanga, the consumption indicator represents the Tanzania), PUC (Seychelles), MUWASA average daily consumption per person. (Moshi, Tanzania), MWAUWASA (Mwanza, Both provide an indication of the overall Tanzania) IRUWASA (Iringa, Tanzania), efficiency of water resources use. The and ELECTOGAZ (Rwanda) - are also coverage data presented above focuses part of the best performer group for water on the reach of the distribution network. coverage, while SDE (Senegal), SODECI However, ultimately, the possibility of (Cote d'lvoire), and JSWB (Nigeria) are expanding coverage depends on the the only utilities from the Western region availability of sufficient water production making it to the best performer group for capacity in the service area relative to water coverage. the resident population. Production and None of the utilities in the Eastern and consumption data was available for a Western region can be considered good total of and 94 utilities respectively. performers on sewerage coverage. The Figure 2.8 shows the regional summary. highest sewerage coverage reported in the In Southern utilities, the average volume Eastern region is 44 percent (MUWASA, of water produced is about 222 litres per Moshi Tanzania) and some utilities in the capita per day for each person resident in Western region such as SODECI (Cote the service area. This indicates that there is d'lvoire) and ANWSC (Anambra State, already enough water available to provide Nigeria) report the lowest sewerage a reasonable level of consumption if the coverage levels in the entire sample. distribution networks could be expanded to cover the entire population. It should be noted however that the USAQ focused on water-borne sewerage. It did In contrast, utilities in the Eastern and not capture data regarding on-site sanitation Western regions have respectively only even though the majority of Africa's urban 24 and 90 litres per capita per day residents rely on on-site solutions such available even just for those customers 6 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.8: Regional variation in water production and consumption who are already connected to the system. data should be interpreted with caution as If these utilities were to connect their some utilities provided estimates due to the entire unserved population overnight the absence of universal consumption metering. availability of water would drop to half For utilities where customers are almost suggesting that these utilities will need to 00 percent metered, total consumption invest both in water production capacity can be calculated quite accurately. For and water distribution networks in order to utilities relying on estimates, it can be quite reach universal coverage. difficulttodeterminethesplitbetweentrue consumption and unaccounted for water. While estimates for water consumed are not necessarily very accurate, the evidence Estimates of production and consumption available suggests that end-user water levels for individual utilities in each region consumption in the sample of African are summarised in Figures 2.9 - 2.14. utilities assessed is far from excessive. Almost all utilities in the Southern region The overall average consumption works (except two - NWWSSL, Zambia and out at a fairly modest 87 litres per capita LWB, Malawi) have more than 00 litres per day, compared to an average of 27 per capita per day of water production litres reported in ECA; 20 litres in LAC available for the entire service area if the and 40 litres in EAP. As noted above, this physical infrastructure to distribute the 7 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment water to them were available. At the other per day, compared to an average of 27 end of the spectrum, seven utilities (SWC- litres reported in ECA; 20 litres in LAC Nyala Sudan, DDWSSA-Ethiopia, LWSC- and 40 litres in EAP. As noted above, this Liberia, JTWSSSE -Jimma, Ethiopia, TdE- data should be interpreted with caution Togo, SEG -Guinea and PSWB - Plateau as some utilities provided estimates due State, Nigeria produce less than 50 litres to the absence of universal consumption per capita per day even for their currently metering. For utilities where customers served population. Consumption data are almost 00 percent metered, total seems fairly comparable between utilities, consumption can be calculated quite although there are some utilities (especially accurately. For utilities relying on estimates, South African utilities) reporting relatively it can be quite difficult to determine the high per capita consumption (>200 lpd). split between true consumption and unaccounted for water. While application of the top 25 percent target may not be applicable in this case, Estimates of production and consumption utilities should aim to achieve the middle levels for individual utilities in each region ground where customers have enough are summarised in Figures 2.9 - 2.14. water available to support daily needs Almost all utilities in the Southern region but consumption should not be so high (except two - NWWSSL, Zambia and as to be wasteful. The median value for LWB, Malawi) have more than 00 litres all utilities is 76 lpd. Overall, there is no per capita per day of water production evidence of wasteful over-use of water available for the entire service area if the in the sample of utilities assessed, nor physical infrastructure to distribute the that current, relatively modest levels of water to them were available. At the other consumption could be further reduced end of the spectrum, seven utilities (SWC- by more aggressive use of demand Nyala Sudan, DDWSSA-Ethiopia, LWSC- management tools. However, while water Liberia, JTWSSSE -Jimma, Ethiopia, TdE- use by the end-user can be characterised Togo, SEG -Guinea and PSWB - Plateau as modest, a substantial volume of water State, Nigeria produce less than 50 litres is lost during the distribution process as per capita per day even for their currently we will see later on. served population. Consumption data seems fairly comparable between utilities, While estimates for water consumed are although there are some utilities (especially not necessarily very accurate, the evidence South African utilities) reporting relatively available suggests that end-user water high per capita consumption (>200 lpd). consumption in the sample of African utilities assessed is far from excessive. While application of the top 25 percent The overall average consumption works target may not be applicable in this case, out at a fairly modest 87 litres per capita utilities should aim to achieve the middle 8 Water data for utilities in the Eastern region Figure 2.9: Water productionOperators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 9 Water data for utilities in the Eastern region Figure 2.10: Water consumption Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 40 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Figure 2.11: Water production data for utilities in the Western region Performance Assessment 4 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Figure 2.12: Water consumption data for utilities in the Western region Performance Assessment 42 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Figure 2.13: Water production data for utilities in the Southern region Performance Assessment 4 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Figure 2.14: Water consumption data for utilities in Southern region Utility Performance Assessment 44 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.15: Regional variation in average metering levels ground where customers have enough bills and provides utilities with tools and water available to support daily needs information to allow them to better manage but consumption should not be so high their systems. A total of 75 utilities provided as to be wasteful. The median value for fairly credible data on metering practices. all utilities is 76 lpd. Overall, there is no Figure 2.15 provides a regional summary evidence of wasteful over-use of water of metering levels. Southern and Western in the sample of utilities assessed, nor utilities have slightly higher than average that current, relatively modest levels of levels of metering coverage. consumption could be further reduced Metering levels for individual utilities are by more aggressive use of demand shown in Figures 2.16-2.18. Based on management tools. However, while water the performance of the top 25 percent use by the end-user can be characterised of all the utilities 00 percent metering is as modest, a substantial volume of water a reasonable target for utilities to achieve. is lost during the distribution process as With this level of metering, we can identify we will see later on. a total of 24 best performers - 4 in the Metering level: The metering of Southern region, seven in the Western customers is considered good practice. It region and three in the Eastern region. allows customers to influence their water Lack of universal metering is indeed a big 45 Water utilities in the Eastern region Figure 2.16: Metering levels for Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 46 Water Operators the Southern region Figure 2.17: Metering level for utilities in Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 47 Water Operators Western region Figure 2.18: Metering level for utilities in thePartnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment problem for utilities in the Eastern region. may indicate poor system management Almost half of the Eastern utilities in the and poor commercial practices as well as sample have less than 75 percent meter inadequate network maintenance. coverage, implying that utility managers There is debate as to the most appropriate in the region may not be fully in control of measure of non revenue water. A their systems. On the other hand, metering percentage approach can make utilities is relatively widespread in the Western with high levels of consumption, or and Southern regions with almost half compact networks, appear to be better of utilities in these regions reporting 00 performing than those with low levels of percent coverage. consumption or extensive networks. To Non-revenue water: Non revenue water capture these different perspectives we will (NRW) represents water that has been report three measures - NRW expressed produced and is `lost' before it reaches as a percentage, as volume lost per unit the customer (either through leaks, theft or length of network per day and as volume through legal usage for which no payment lost per connection per day. A total of 98 is made). This indicator captures not utilities had base data for calculating NRW only physical losses but also commercial (percent), 8 had data for calculating NRW losses due to inefficient billing or illegal (m/km/d) and 9 had data for NRW (m/ connections. Thus high levels of NRW conn/day). Figure 2.19 summarises the 48 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.19: Regional variation in NRW levels regional variation in all three measures of to the relatively high levels of consumption NRW. reported by Southern utilities. Data presented in Figure 2.19 shows Nevertheless, the average level of NRW little regional variation in the NRW levels in the entire sample is 6 percent, and expressed as a percentage. There is also well above the good practice levels for little distinction between regions when developing countries considered to be it comes to the volume of water lost per below 2 percent according to Tynan and unit length of network and per connection. Kingdom (2002). This is not to suggest that Southern utilities have slightly high water the NRW problem is an African problem. losses per kilometre of network and per Utilities in other world regions report similar connection compared to the other two levels of NRW (an average of 9 percent regions despite a comparable level of for EAC and LAC and 6 percent for EAP) NRW (percent). This difference may be due 49 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Figure 2.20: NRW levels (percent) for utilities in the Eastern region Utility Performance Assessment 50 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Figure 2.21: NRW levels (m3/km/day) for utilities in the Eastern region Performance Assessment 5 (m3/conn/day)4 for Partnerships-Africa Utility Figure 2.22: NRW levelsWater Operators utilities in the Eastern region Performance Assessment 4 Note:NRWfiguresexpressedinm3perconnectionperdayareprovidedtoillustratetheextentoftheNRWproblem.Butitdoes not mean that we have, say for DAWASCO, m of water hosing out of every connection per day. Leakage is only one component 52 of NRW. Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.23: NRW levels (percent) for utilities in the Western region 5 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.24: NRW levels (m3/km/day) for utilities in the Western region 54 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.25: NRW levels (m3/conn/day) for utilities in the Western region 55 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Figure 2.26: NRW levels (percent) for utilities in the Southern region Utility Performance Assessment 56 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa region Figure 2.27: NRW levels (m3/km/day) for utilities in the SouthernUtility Performance Assessment 57 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Figure 2.28: NRW levels (m3/conn/day) for utilities in the Southern region Performance Assessment 58 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Table 2.2: Best performing utilities in all NRW categories Best Performers in NRW Management Utility name Region NRW NRW NRW (%) (m/km/day) (m/conn/day) Saldanha Bay (South Africa) Southern 5 .29 0.07 2 CWWS (Windhoek, Namibia) Southern 4.26 0.4 Drakenstein (South Africa) Southern 2 8. 0.0 4 Potchefstroom (South Africa) Southern .24 0.8 5 SEEN (Niger) Western 7 7.90 0.22 6 ONEA (Burkina Faso) Western 8 4.80 0.8 7 SDE (Senegal) Western 20 9.0 0.6 8 TdE (Togo) Western 20 5.20 0.9 9 TUWASA (Tanga, TZ) Eastern 2 2 0. 0 SODECI (Cote d'lvoire) Western 2 8.50 0.8 SONEDE (Tunisia) Western 2 6.60 0.4 2 Mogale (South Africa) Southern 25 7.62 0.6 Matjhabeng (South Africa) Southern 25 .8 0.8 suggesting that NRW is indeed a global best performing utilities under the percent problem. NRW sub-category, 22 under the NRW m/km/day sub-category, and under Levels of NRW for individual utilities in the the NRW m/conn/day sub-category. sample are summarised in Figures 2.20- However, only utilities (6 Southern, 6 2.28. Based on the performance of the Western and Eastern) belong to all three top 25 percent of all utilities, reasonable groups (see Table 2.2). These utilities can cut-off points for identifying strong and therefore be regarded as the `pack leaders' weak performers are 25, 2, and 0. for on NRW management as they appear to NRW percent, NRW m/km/day and NRW be doing well in controlling NRW levels m/conn/day respectively. Using these across the board. Utilities in the Eastern values we are able to identify a total 27 59 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment region generally perform poorly on NRW received is excluded as are direct management. revenue subsidies; · unit operating cost per m3 sold - expressed as the ratio of a utility's total 2.1.2 Financial performance annual operating expenses and total annual volume of water sold; Financial performance was assessed using the following key indicators: · operating cost coverage ratio (OCCR) - definedastheratiooftotal · average tariff per m3 sold - expressed annual billed revenues to total annual as the ratio of a utility's total annual operating costs (excluding interest and direct billed revenue to total annual depreciation); water consumption (that is, volume of water sold). Direct revenue is the · collection ratio -definedastheratio actual amount billed for water services. of a utility's actual revenues collected Domestic, commercial and industrial and total billed revenues, expressed as revenue is included but bulk water a percentage; revenue is excluded. Revenue from · collection period - year-end other sales, sundry income or interest Figure 2.29: Regional variation of average tarriff vs. Unit operational costs 60 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment accounts receivables as a share of region, the average tariff per cubic meter annual revenues, expressed in day of water billed ranges from as low as equivalents. US$0.2 (SOUWASA, Songea Tanzania) Average tariff, unit operating costs and to as high as US$.6 (KIWASCO, operating cost coverage: Average tariff Kisumu Kenya). The range for Western measures the notional average tariff of the utilities is US$0.0 (RWSB, Nigeria) to utility. It is not the same as the actual tariff US$.09 (LWSC, Liberia). In general, the charged which may include tariff bands and highest average tariffs are to be found in different tariffs for domestic and industrial the Southern region with a quarter of the customers. Utilities should be aiming to sample reporting average tariffs more than provide a good service to customers while US$.0 per cubic meter of water billed and keeping charges as low as possible. Unit an average of US$ 0.76 compared to only operational costs per cubic metre sold US$0.4 - 0.6 elsewhere in Africa. Utilities in reflect the cost of providing water at the the Eastern region report lower operating customer take off point while operating cost costs compared to the other regions. The coverage ratio (OCCR) is a key measure average for Southern utilities is twice that of the utility's ability to cover its operating of Eastern utilities but the difference largely costs (excluding interest and depreciation) reflectsthehighcostofwaterinNamibia from revenues, without reliance on external and South Africa. subsidies. Taken together, these three Furthermore, individual utility data on indicators give insight into the financial operating cost coverage ratios is presented discipline of a utility, its ability to cover in Figures 2.33 - 2.35. An OCCR value operational costs with revenues from tariffs greater than one means that revenues from and the general commitment to pursue a tariffs cover the operating and maintenance commercial approach to the provision of a (O&M) costs. A value less than one public service. indicates that a utility is not able to cover Base data for the average tariff and unit its O&M costs. An OCCR value equal to operating cost indicators was available one means that a utility barely covers its for 9 utilities in the sample. Figure 2.29 O&M costs. The average OCCR value for summarises the regional variations in the entire sample is just about unity, further average tariff and unit operating costs. indicating that operating costs are covered Data presented in Figure 2.29 shows that with a narrow margin that likely falls well on average all participating utilities are short of what is needed to recoup capital barely able to cover operational costs from expenditures. Based on the performance tariff revenues. This is further illustrated by of the top 25 percent of the sample of individual utility data presented in Figures utilities, a reasonable OCCR target for 2.30, 2.31 and 2.32. In the Eastern identifying best performers is .2 - slightly 6 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment lower than the benchmark level of .5 (Lesotho), Saldanha Bay (S.Africa) and for developing countries as proposed by Stellenbosch (S.Africa) - would meet their Tynan and Kingdom (2002). Based on this operating costs from collected revenues. criterion only 20 utilities (out of the 9) can However, of the eight utilities previously be considered good performers - 8 from considered good performers, only CWA the Southern region, 6 from the Western and Midvaal would maintain their place in and 6 from the Eastern region. the group (Figure 2.38). These results lead to a rather obvious conclusion that without It should be noted that the calculation of improving collections most utilities in the OCCR values above was based on billed samplewouldstruggletostayafloat. revenues rather than actual collections. When actual collections are used in the The results also seem to suggest that calculation the story changes dramatically. utilities do not necessarily need to increase For a start, the average OCCR for the entire tariffstoimprovefinancialviability.Putting sample drops from unity to just about 0.8, more effort in improving collections and suggesting that without improvements in reducing losses can be just as effective collections, utilities will continue to struggle and could be the initial step utilities need to meet their operating costs. Individual totaketowardsfinancialviability.Thenext utility data is even more revealing (see sub-section examines the performance of Figures 2.36-2.38). In the Eastern region, utilities on key collections indicators. with the exception of MWSC (Mombasa, Kenya), NWSCO (Nairobi, Kenya) and DDWSSA (Dire Dawa, Ethiopia), all the Collection ratio and collection period: other utilities would fail to cover their These indicators, along with average operating costs (Figure 2.36). Moreover, if tariff and operating cost coverage ratio, we consider the benchmark OCCR value impact on the financial health of a utility. of .2, all the utilities previously considered Utility managers know very well that good performers would lose their places in billing customers and getting paid are two the group. different things. Poor collection efficiency is mostly blamed on customers but the Similarly, in the Western region, only three utility may also be at fault for delayed utilities - SDE (Senegal), GWCL (Ghana) and faulty billings, inadequate responses and SONEB (Benin) - would be able to meet to consumer queries on billings, poor their O&M costs, but only SDE (Senegal) customer service and a lukewarm effort to and SONEB (Benin) maintain their place collect overdue accounts. in the best performer group (Figure 2.37). IntheSouthernregion,fiveutilities-CWA The effectiveness of the collections process (Mauritius), Midvaal (S.Africa), WASA is measured by the amount of outstanding 62 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa in the Figure 2.30: Average tariff vs. unit operating 1costs for utilities Utility Eastern region Performance Assessment 6 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.31: Average tariff vs. unit operating costs for utilities in the Western region 64 Water unit operating costs for utilities in Utility Figure 2.32: Average tariff vs. Operators Partnerships-Africathe Southern region Performance Assessment 65 Water Operators for utilities in the Eastern region Figure 2.33: Operating cost coverage ratios Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 66 Water coverage ratios for utilities in the Western Figure 2.34: Operating cost Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility region Performance Assessment 67 Figure 2.35: Operating Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility cost coverage ratios for utilities in the Southern region Performance Assessment 68 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa on billings (Eastern region) Figure 2.36: OCCR based on actual revenues vs. OCCR basedUtility Performance Assessment 69 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.37: OCCR based on actual revenues vs. OCCR based on billings (Western region) 70 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.38: OCCR based on actual revenues vs. OCCR based on billings (Southern region) 7 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment revenues at year end compared to the base data for calculating collection ratios total billed revenue for the year, in day but only 68 utilities had data on accounts equivalents and by the total amount receivables. Figure 2.39 shows the regional collected as a percentage of the billed averages for collection ratio and collection amount. A total of 78 utilities had usable period. Figure 2.39: Regional averages for collection ratio and collection period Table 2.3: Examples of Utilities Reporting Collection Ratios >100 % Utility Name Collection ratio (%) Collection period (months) SOUWASA (Songea, TZ) 52 8 LUWASA (Lindi, TZ) 7 7 MUWASA (Musoma, TZ) 07 6 GWCL (Ghana) 0 5 CWSC (Chipata, Zambia) 46 8 SWSC (Swaziland) 04 JTWSSSE (Jimma, Ethiopia) 4 2 72 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment On average, most utilities are only able of 52 percent and a collection period of to collect about 7 percent of their 8 months. KIWASCO (Kisumu) reports a billed amounts, and it takes an average collection ratio of 00 percent, but data on of eight months to collect outstanding collection period suggests that the utility revenues. There is little variation in average takes 7 months to collect its outstanding performance between regions. In addition bills. This implies that the reported good the performance of this sample of African performance may actually be in collection utilities is not substantially different from of arrears rather than actual bills issued in other world regions, such as ECA and a particular period. EAP where utilities report an average For purposes of identifying strong and collection ratio of 88 and 89 percent and weak performers the two indicators - a collection period of seven and eight collection ratio and collection period - months, respectively. should be examined together. Only one Figures 2.40-2.45 show individual utility utility (HWSSSA, Harar Ethiopia) in the performance on collection indicators. Eastern region then emerges as a strong Based on the performance of the top 25 performer on collections (see Figures percent of all utilities, reasonable cut-off 2.40 and 2.41). However, even at this points for identifying strong performers level of performance on collections, the are 9 percent and months for collection utility barely covers its operating costs. In ratio and collection period respectively. such a case, an increase in tariff above the The target for collection period is current level (average US$0.26) might be consistent with the best practice level warranted. Similarly, in the Western region, for developing countries as proposed by only SDE (Senegal) would be considered Tynan and Kingdom (2002). A few utilities a good performer based on collections report collection ratios of over 00 percent indicators as it collects 99 percent of its -whichmaysimplyreflectadrivetocollect billed revenues in under three months. arrears from earlier periods. Table 2.3 lists The good performers on collections in the the utilities that report collection rations Southern region are Bloem water (S.Africa), above 00 percent. Stellenbosch (S.Africa) and NRWB (Mzuzu, Malawi). In the Southern region, CWSC (Chipata, Zambia) reports a collection ratio of 46 Finally, the review undertaken during the percent, but data on collection period regional workshops showed that in many suggests that it takes the utility 8 months countries public sector entities accounted to collect its outstanding revenues. The for a significant part of uncollected bills. same applies to SOUWASA (Songea, This emerged as a systemic issue requiring Tanzania) which reports a collection ratio structural reform related to: (i) who has 7 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Figure 2.40: Bill collection ratios for utilities in the Eastern region Utility Performance Assessment 74 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.41: Collection period for utilities in the Eastern region 75 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.42: Bill collection ratios for utilities in the Western region 76 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.43: Collection periods for utilities in the Western region their water paid for by the State, (ii) how 2.1.3 Overall efficiency indicator payment for water bills is provided for in state budgets, (iii) whether payments are The discussion on financial performance made off the top from treasury or left to takes a partial look at different aspects the discretion of the entities; and (iv) who of operational performance with some has the authority to disconnect delinquent utilities performing well on some indicators accounts. The workshops showed that and worse on others. It is however all successful reformers had tackled these difficult to tell which ones are the most issues and there was significant demand efficientandwecannotreachanyoverall for knowledge exchanges on this subject. conclusions on performance. One way of providing a global indication of utility 77 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.44: Bill collection ratios for utilities in the Southern region 78 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.45: Collection periods for utilities in the Southern region 79 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment efficiency is to compare the volume of Individual utility data presented in Figures water for which the utility collects revenue 2.46-2.48 confirms this picture. In the and the total volume it produces. This Eastern region OEI ranges from as low as comparison leads to a formulation of an 7 percent (KWSC, Khartoum, Sudan) to 8 overall efficiency indicator (OEI) given as: percent (Welkite, Ethiopia). Based on the [(-NRW)* Collection ratio] in percentage. performance of the top quartile of all utilities, A total of 78 utilities had data to enable a reasonable target for OEI for this sample the calculation of OEI. Figure 2.46 shows is 66 percent; utilities should be able to the regional variation. The results clearly get revenue for at least 66 percent of the showtheextentofinefficienciesinAfrican water they produce. This is the efficiency water utilities. On average, all utilities achieved by the top 25 percent of all utilities in the sample get revenue for only half in the sample. Based on this criterion, only (52 percent) of the water they produce. 20 utilities (out of 78) can be considered Eastern utilities perform slightly worse efficientoverall.TheEasternandSouthern than the other two regions, because of the regions are each represented by six utilities generally higher levels of water losses in in this group, while the Western region is the region. represented by eight utilities. These results Figure 2.46: Regional variation in utility overall efficiency 80 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Figure 2.47: Overall efficiency indicator (Western region) Utility Performance Assessment 8 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.48: Overall efficiency indicator (Southern region) 82 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment pointtotheneedforutilitiestosignificantly highly disaggregated format. It is assumed reduce NRW levels and also improve their that only utilities with well functioning collectionefficiency. information systems would be able to provide such data on demand5. However, 2.1.4 Quality of MIS the indicator does not tell us anything Improving the quality of utility management about the quality of information provided information systems is a key priority of the and therefore may not be a reliable WOP- Africa program. Without a strong indicator of a well-functioning MIS. At the MIS, utilities cannot carry out monitoring moment it is the only available indicator for and evaluation (M&E) or performance gauging whether a utility has some sort of assessments, neither can they participate information system for collecting relevant in benchmarking initiatives aimed at operational data and whether that system continuous improvement. A key indicator is responsive. Other indicators used for judging the quality of a utility's MIS is include presence of internal M&E systems the level of response to the questions in and involvement in benchmarking, both of the USAQ tool used in this assessment which assume a functioning MIS. exercise. This is considered a fair indicator The USAQ response rate indicator applies because the USAQ tool required utilities to to only those utilities that provided data provide a huge amount of data and in a through the USAQ tool. We have no way Figure 2.49: Overall efficiency indicator (Southern region) 5 Not all utilities are expected to have data in all the categories. For example, some utilities are not required to collect data on assets since the responsibility may lie with an asset holding company (e.g. in Senegal, Cote d'lvoire and Kenya) 8 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Figure 2.50: Regional variation in mean USAQ response rate Performance Assessment Figure 2.51: USAQ response rate for utilities in the Western region 84 Water rate for utilities in the Eastern region Figure 2.52: USAQ response Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 85 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment of assessing the quality of MIS for those regions may generally be at the same level utilities whose data was obtained from in terms of the quality of management external sources. Figure 2.49 shows information systems. the regional variation in the mean USAQ However, a closer look at individual utility response rate. On average, all utilities response rates provides some rough provided responses to about 85 percent indication of which utilities have relatively of the questions in the USAQ tool. There well-functioning MIS and which ones are no significant differences in response would certainly need help in strengthening rate between regions, suggesting that all Figure 2.53: USAQ response rate for utilities in the Southern region 86 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment their systems. This individual utility data Swaziland) and Bloem water (S.Africa) is presented in Figures 2.50-2.52. In the in the Southern region, as well as Lagos Eastern region (Figure 2.51), utilities such water (Nigeria) in the Western region. as KSWC (Khartoum, Sudan) and ONEAD Zambian utilities have the highest USAQ (Djibouti) have very low response rates response rates (above 95 percent). This compared to the rest. It is likely that this could be due to the presence of a relatively level of performance is a manifestation strong regulatory system whose reporting of inadequate or non-existent utility requirements puts pressure on utilities to management information systems. The strengthen their information systems. same applies to SWSC (Mbabane, Table 2.4: Profile of utilities with high USAQ response rates (above 94 percent) Utility name M&E systems Benchmarking experience In In region Within Membership of benchmarking country utility group KIWASCO (Kisumu, Kenya) Yes Yes No No No KEWASCO (Kericho, Kenya) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IRUWASA (Iringa, TZ) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MWSC (Mombasa, Kenya) No No No No No MUWASA (Moshi, TZ) Yes Yes Yes No Yes MTUWASA (Mtwara, TZ) Yes Yes No No No HWSSA (Harar, Ethiopia) No No No No No NWSC (Uganda) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ONEA (Burkina Faso) Yes No Yes No No GWCL (Ghana) Yes No No Yes No LWSC (Liberia) Yes No No Yes No CWSC (Chipata, Zambia) Yes Yes No No Yes LWSC (Lusaka, Zambia) Yes Yes No Yes No KWSC (Ndola, Zambia) No Yes No Yes Yes NWWSSCL (Solwezi, Zambia) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WASA (Maseru, Lesotho) Yes No No No Yes Midvaal (S. Africa) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 87 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Table 2.4 gives some information on the Figure 2.53 shows the mean response profileofutilitieswithrelativelyhighUSAQ rate for each section of the USAQ. All response rates (above 94 percent). With the data-intensive sections (e.g. technical the exception of MWSC (Mombasa, information, operational performance and Kenya) and HWSSA (Harar, Ethiopia), all customer care) have mean response rates the remaining utilities have functioning slightly above 80 percent. Although this is M&E systems as well as benchmarking not necessarily a poor level of response, experience - which further explains their there is certainly room for improvement. relatively good scores on the quality of MIS Availability of data under these areas is indicator. critical for any benchmarking exercise. The section on infrastructure development Beyond inter-utility comparisons it is also and asset management appears to be the worthwhile examining the level of response most poorly responded to (mean response to each section of the USAQ in order to rate = 79 percent) reflecting a need for identify focus areas for strengthening utility support and capacity building in the area information systems. of utility asset management. Figure 2.54: Mean response rate for USAQ section 88 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 2.1.5 Summary of operational of operational indicators discussed in performance th previous sections. Table 2.5 shows, for each key indicator, the proportion of The comparison of operational utilities making the best performer group performance provides insight not only on from each region. This information gives performance differences between utilities us a rough idea of the areas where utilities but also on regional differences. Moreover, are generally performing well or poorly and based on the proportion of utilities making the regional differences in performance. it to the best performing groups for each Figure 2.54 on the other hand shows box- operational indicator (where applicable), plots for each key operational indicator, we can identify areas where utilities are showing the maximum, upper quartile, doing relatively well and areas where median, lower quartile and minimum there is weakness. Table 2.5 and Figure values. The upper quartile values represent 2.54 summarize the performance outlook the performance targets used in identifying for the entire dataset based on the set best performance within the sample. Table 2.5: Proportion of utilities making the best performer group Indicator Target Valid sample Proportion of utilities making for best the best performer group (%) performance* Eastern Western Southern Eastern Western Southern Water coverage (%) 90 42 6 40 9% 8% 55% Sewerage coverage (%) 82 5 22 0% 0% 50% Metering level (%) 00 27 4 4 % 50% 4% NRW (%) 25 8 24 6 0% 46% % NRW (m/km/day) 2 5 9 26 7% 42% % NRW (m/con/day) 0. 6 2 4 25% 9% 8% OCCR (based on billings) .2 2 24 5 9% 25% 2% OCCR (based on actual revenues) .2 28 2 25 0% 7% 8% Collection ratio (%)/period (month) 9/ 27 25 26 4% 8% 2% Overallefficiencyindicator(%) 66 34 20 24 18% 40% 25% * Target is based on the performance of the top quartile (25 percent) of all utilities in the sample 89 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.55: Box-plot for key technical and financial indicators (all utilities) The spread of each box-plot (that is, the only 9 percent of utilities making it to the distance between the upper and lower best performing group for water and none quartiles) gives us an idea of how much for sewerage. Aabout half of the utilities room or opportunity there is for utility from the Southern region make it to the exchanges between good performers and best performing group for both water poor performers. and sewerage coverage, suggesting that utilities from the region generally perform From the Table 2.5 we note that service better on both these indicators. coverage is a weak area for utilities in the East and Western region. Only eight It is also clear from Table 2.5 that sewerage percent of the utilities from the Western coverage generally lags behind water in all region make it to the best performing group the regions. However, as shown in Figure for water coverage and none for sewerage 2.54 it is one of the areas where there is coverage. Similarly, Eastern utilities have greatest opportunity for collaboration. Given the renewed focus on achieving the 90 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment MDGs targets for water and sanitation Finally, in addition to the NRW challenge, access on the continent, the evolving most utilities in the sample are currently WOP-Africa program is well placed to struggling to cover even their operating connect utilities and facilitate knowledge costs. In all regions less than half of the sharing and capacity building, especially utilities can be considered financially withregardtoimprovingtechnicalefficiency viable, and for many, poor performance on andimprovingcashflows-areasthatare collections seems to be the main problem. critical to improving service coverage. For instance, 2 percent of utilities from the Southern region appear to perform better Utilities in the Western region generally on the OCCR value calculated using billed performbetteronkeytechnicalefficiency revenues. indicators compared to the other regions. Half of the utilities in the Western region But when you consider the OCCR value make it to the best performing groups for based on actual revenues, the proportion both metering and NRW indicators while of financially viable utilities drops to 8 utilities from the Eastern region are among percent. Similarly, none of the utilities in the weakest on these two indicators. the Eastern region can be considered The average level of NRW in the Eastern financiallyviableduetopoorperformance region is around 8 percent while metering on collection. As noted earlier, it appears coverage is only 68 percent on average that the single most important step utilities can take towards financial viability is to The data shows that non-revenue water is improve their collection efficiency. This is a major weakness for most utilities in the one of the areas where collaboration and sample. In many systems as much as a knowledge exchange between utilities can third of production is lost through physical be encouraged. Other operational areas and commercial losses. Part of this `lost' where exchange and collaboration is water can be retrieved by appropriate possible are summarised in Box 2.1. technical and managerial actions. It can thenbeusedtomeetcurrentlyunsatisfied demand (and hence increase coverage 2.2 Human Resources Utilisation and revenues to the utility) or to defer future capital expenditures to provide additional and Development supply (and hence reduce costs to the 2.2.1 Human resources utilisation utility). However, only a few utilities (mainly from the Western region) perform relatively Personnel costs in many water utilities in well on all measures of non-revenue water developing countries constitute a larger (see Table 2.). As such, opportunities for cost factor than usually recognised, knowledge exchange may be limited as draining resources from maintenance and further illustrated in Figure 2.54. other necessary operating expenses and 9 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Box 2.: Possible themes for utility cooperation in the area of operational performance A. Service coverage · How to achieve accelerated progress in increasing access to WSS and to achieve the MDGs · Best practices on monitoring and reporting access levels B. Metering · Best practices on increasing metering coverage · Best practices on meter management and maintenance C. Non-revenue water · Best practices on water loss monitoring, hydraulic balance · Best practices on leak detection and repair · Network maintenance and management, including meter maintenance · Best practices on improving customer databases and dealing with illegal connections/customers D. Collection efficiency · Bestpracticesonimprovingcollectionefficiency · Reduction of arrears/ bad debts (how do get customers to pay their bills on time) · Reducing arrears among public sector/government customers E. Quality of MIS · Best practices on setting up and maintaining a management information system. How do we get there? · Performance monitoring and reporting · Linking a utility's MIS with that of a national regulator (where applicable) imposing costs on customers. Efficient (excluding depreciation and debt utilisation of human resources is therefore service). Depreciation and debt service a critical performance area for utilities. are excluded due to lack of uniformity Two key indicators were used to assess intreatingrevaluationoffixedassets theefficiencyofhumanresourceutilisation and to facilitate comparison of in participating utilities: utilities with and without debt service obligations. · staff productivity index - expressed as number of staff per 000 Staff productivity index (SPI) is an important connections; and measure of the efficient use of human resources in a utility. It relates the number · personnel or labor costs - expressed of staff to the number of connections, with as a ratio to total operating costs good performance manifested by a low 92 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment staff per000 connection ratio while a high company's operations. In addition, utilities ratiomayindicateinefficientuseofhuman from the Southern region have lower SPI resources. However, the SPI ratio alone ratios but a relatively high ratio of labor does not provide a satisfactory picture costs to operating costs. This suggests of the situation. To complete the analysis that utilities in the Southern region may of staff productivity we must examine have higher average salaries and wages personnel/labor costs as well. than one would expect. Data on staff productivity was available for Individual utility performance on staff a total of 05 utilities while only 86 utilities productivity is presented in Figures 2.56- had data on labor costs. Figure 2.55 2.58. A frequently used international shows the regional variation in the mean benchmark for staff productivity is two SPI ratio and labor costs in proportion employees per thousand connections to operating costs. There is little regional but Tynan and Kingdom (2002) propose variation in both the mean SPI ratio and abenchmarkoffiveemployeesper1000 the proportion of labor costs. However, on connections for developing countries. average, utilities from the Western region The SPI ratios achieved by the top 25 have a slightly higher SPI ratio (mainly percent of all utilities in the sample suggest driven by Nigerian utilities) which may that a target of 7 or fewer staff per ,000 reflect loose employment practices, often connections is achievable. Based on this a result of political interference in the water level of performance five utilities from Figure 2.56: Regional variation in staff productivity 9 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.57: Staff productivity indices for utilities in the Eastern region 94 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Figure 2.58: Staff productivity indices for utilities in the Western region Performance Assessment 95 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Figure 2.59: Staff productivity indices for utilities in the Southern region Performance Assessment 96 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment the Eastern region can be said to be staff training programmes. For this reason, performing well. The Southern region a key indicator of utility performance on dominates the best performing group with human resource development is the staff 7 utilities followed by the Western region training participation rate, that proportion with 7 utilities. The data also shows that, of staff that have participated in at least in general, utilities classified in the best one training event. performing group for SPI ratios have lower A total of 7 utilities provided data on labor costs to operating costs ratios. staff participation in training. Figure 2.59 summarises the regional variation in staff training participation rate. On average, 2.2.2 Human resource development utilities in the Eastern region have slightly more of their staff participating in training The WOP-Africa program considers than those in the Western and Southern human resource development a top regions but there is little difference in the priority consistent with the argument that training days per employee across the achieving the MDGs not only requires three regions. building new infrastructure but also complementary investments in human Individual utility performance on staff capital. Investments in human capital training participation rate is presented include strengthening the technical and in Figures 2.60-2.62. The rate achieved management capacity of utilities through by the top 25 percent of all utilities in the Figure 2.60: Regional variation in staff training participation 97 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa region Figure 2.6: Staff training participation rate for utilities in the EasternUtility Performance Assessment 98 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Figure 2.62: Staff training participation rate for utilities in the Western region Performance Assessment 99 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.6: Staff training participation rate for utilities in the Southern region Table 2.6: Proportion of utilities making the best performer group Indicator Target Valid sample Proportion of utilities making for best the best performer group (%) performance* Eastern Western Southern Eastern Western Southern Staff Productivity Index 7 7 7 4% 2% 46% Staff Training Participation Rate (%) 0 27 28 7 26% 25% 24% * Target is based on the performance of the top quartile (25 percent) of all utilities in the sample 00 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Box 2.2: Possible themes for utility cooperation on human resources utilization and development F. Staff productivity · Staff performance management systems · Staff performance contracts · Effective change management (staff work culture) G. Staff training · ImplementinganHRD/staffingtrainingpolicy · Linking training centers (either run by a utility or serving many) into a network · Best practices on in-house training vs. outsourcing of training · Linking a utility's MIS with that of a national regulator (where applicable) sample suggests that a target of 0 percent regions; less than half of the utilities in per year is achievable. Based on this level these regions make it to the best performer of performance a total of 5 utilities can group. Utilities in the Southern region beclassifiedinthebestperforminggroup. perform relatively well with close to half Eastern and Western regions dominate making it to the best performing group on this group with seven utilities each. Only thisindicator.Therefore,efficiencyofstaff four utilities (CWA Mauritius; NWSSCL utilisation is another area where utilities Solwezi, Zambia; Midvaal, S.Africa; and from the Eastern and Western regions can Bloem Water, S.Africa) from the Southern learn from their counterparts in the South. region can be considered good performers on staff training. On the other hand, staff training seems to be weak in all the regions. Less than half of the utilities in all regions make it to the best performing group. This is an important area 2.2.3 Summary of performance on of the proposed WOP-Africa program. In human resources utilisation order to foster a vibrant water sector in and development Africa, the skill levels and number of skilled Table 2.6 shows the proportion of utilities people engaging in the sector needs to making the best performer group from increase dramatically and to be spread each region for both the staff productivity out amongst all the organisations and and training indicators. From Table 2.6 we groups involved in the sector. To this end, note that staff productivity is a weak area WOP-Africa will catalyse and encourage for utilities in the Eastern and Western 0 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment utility-to-utility exchange of know-how have shown that there is interest in sharing and networking on training and human experience on this theme. resource development. Possible themes for exchange are summarised in Box 2.2. 2.3 Customer Care In the face of gross overstaffing and A utility's responsiveness to its customers personnel expenditures out of line as a share is usually indicated by the quality of of total production, many reform drives have services it provides. However, quality of focused on `rightsizing' and upgrading the service has several dimensions - water manpower through manpower reduction availability, water quality, water pressure, programs, such as early pension schemes and customer relations. But the only ones and retrenchment, as well as retraining. for which the sample provides sufficient As utility employees are relatively better data is water availability as captured by off than other public workers and given the continuity of service (hours of service a their generally high degree of unionization, day) - and customer relations - as captured `rightsizing' programs have been one of the by the number of customer complaints most challenging aspects of water utility and response time it takes to address reform. The recent regional workshops complaints. Figure 2.64: Regional variation in continuity of service 02 Water service for utilities in the Eastern region Figure 2.65: Average hours ofOperators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 0 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Figure 2.66: Average hours of service for utilities in the Western region Performance Assessment 04 Water of service for utilities in the Southern region Figure 2.67: Average hoursOperators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 05 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 2.3.1 Continuity of service 2.3.2 Customer complaints This is defined in terms of the average Complaints are commonly used as an hours of service a day. This is an indicator of the quality of interaction with important customer indicator because customers. Data on customer complaints being connected to the network does not was available for a total 5 utilities in necessarily mean a customer is receiving the sample and this showed very clear good quality water when they need it. differences in customer complaint levels, Inefficienciesresultingfromthepoorstate with utilities in the South and Eastern of repair of water infrastructure, institutional regions having generally higher levels weaknessesandalackoffinancialviability, compared to utilities in the Western oftenmakeitdifficulttohavepotablewater region. However, while complaints are flowinginthepipes.Dataonaveragehours relatively easy to track, they do not tell us of service was available for 06 utilities. much about the performance of a utility Figure 2.63 shows the regional averages. on customer relations. Customers may have become accustomed to poor service Individual utility data is presented in Figures and do not complain. In other instances 2.64-2.66. Utilities from the Southern region itmaybedifficultforcustomerstoreport provide on average 2 hours of service to complaints.For these reasons, it is their customers while those in the Eastern sometimesdifficulttoderiveanymeaning and Western regions provide an average from the number of complaints indictor. of 8 and hours of service respectively. The low average for the Western region is A very low number of complaints might heavily skewed by Nigerian utilities many indicate a utility not in touch with its of which provide less than 0 hours of customers, where relatively little interaction service to their customers. occurs between the utility and its customers. Such a situation should raise The average hours of service achieved concern regarding other performance by the top 25 percent of all utilities in the indicators (e.g. hours of service) that sample suggest that a target of 24 hours show performance levels that should be a day is achievable. Based on this level of generating complaints. The other extreme performance, a total of 9 utilities can be is very high levels of complaints where classifiedinthebestperforminggroup.The there is dissatisfaction and customers are Southern region overwhelmingly dominates expressing it. Between these extremes lies the best performing group with 9 utilities an acceptable level of interaction where while Eastern and Western regions each customers are generally satisfied but the have 0 utilities in this group. realities of not being able keep everyone happy, continues to generate interactions. 06 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Utilities should aim for this middle ground year (lower quartile) may possibly be out of which for this dataset, is 5 complaints per touch with their customers while complaint 000 connections. Utilities reporting less levels exceeding 40 (upper quartile) may than 2 complaints per connection per indicate customer dissatisfaction. Figure 2.68: Average time to respond to a complaint (for utilities in the Eastern region) 07 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment We cannot classify utilities into best and the complaint. Out of the 68 utilities that worst performing groups based on these provided data on customer complaints, 57 values because a desirable level of utilities also provided data on the average complaints will ultimately depend on local time it takes to address a complaint. This cultural and social expectations. data is summarised in Figures 2.67- 2.69. The average time achieved by the top 25 It can be urged that a more useful indicator percent of all utilities in the sample suggests for assessing customer service is not the that a target of 24 hours to address a number of complaints per se but rather complaint is achievable. Based on this the time it takes for a utility to address level of performance, a total of 25 utilities Figure 2.69: Average time to respond to a complaint (for utilities in the Western region) 08 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.70: Average time to respond to a complaint (for utilities in the Southern region) Table 2.7: Proportion of utilities making the best performer groups on customer care Indicator Target Valid sample Proportion of utilities making for best the best performer group (%) performance* Eastern Western Southern Eastern Western Southern Continuity of service (hrs) 24 2 4 % 24% 58% Average response time to 24 22 2 2 77% 4% 42% address a complaint (hrs) * Target is based on the performance of the top quartile (25 percent) of all utilities in the sample 09 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment can be classified in the best performing two regions. Again, there seems to be a group. The Eastern region dominates the possible opportunity for exchanges in this best performing group with seventeen area. Examples of customer care issues utilities. The Western region is represented on which to base inter-utility collaboration by 0 utilities while the Southern region has and exchange are summarised in Box 2.3 fiveutilitiesinthegroup. below. 2.3.3 Summary of performance on customer care 2.4 Infrastructure Development Table 2.7 shows the proportion of utilities making the best performer group from each The level of infrastructure development region for both customer care indicators - was assessed using a number of asset continuity of service and average response indicators as well as capital expenditure time to address a complaint. From the levels. The capital intensity of a utility is Table 2.7 we note that Western and indicated by the gross fixed asset value Eastern utilities generally perform poorly on per capita served. Unfortunately, utilities the continuity of service indicator with only provided very limited information about 25 percent and percent making it to the asset values and until more emphasis is best performer group as compared to 58 placed on this item the values derived percent for the Southern regions. However, must be treated with caution. For this on responsiveness to customer complaints reason gross fixed asset values are not the Eastern region has a much higher presented in this report. number (77 percent) of utilities in the best The level of capital investment was assessed performing group compared to the other using the average capital expenditure Box 2.: Possible themes for utility cooperation on customer care issues H. Customer care · Best practices in customer complaints monitoring and response (e.g. the `Cockpit' in SDE Senegal) · Conducting customer satisfaction surveys and using the results to improve the customer experience · Decentralized vs. centralized customer care centers · Call center technology ­ measuring and improving call center performance · Settingupaflexiblebillpaymentsystemsforcustomers · Marketing utility services ­ what utility managers need to know about their customers 0 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.7: Average capital expenditure in the period 200-2006 (for Eastern region utilities) per connection indicator. Since capital from as low as US$0. per connection spendingofutilitiescanchangesignificantly (SEG, Guinea) to as high as US$ 659 per from year to year, this indicator was based connection (ONEA, B.Faso). on the total capital expenditure of the utility Utilities that are spending the most per during the last five years (2001 - 2006), connection per year are Songea (TZ) divided by five to get the annual average and NWSC (Uganda) in the Eastern capital expenditure and then divided by the region; ONEA (Burkina Faso), CRSWBL number of connections in the current year (Nigeria), SPEN (Niger), TdE (Togo) and (2006). A total of 52 utilities provided data PSWB (Nigeria) in the Western region; on capital expenditure during the last five and NWWSSCL (Solwezi, Zambia), years. This data is summarized in Figures LWSC (Lusaka, Zambia) and WASA 2.70-2.72. Capital expenditure ranges Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.72: Average capital expenditure in the period 200-2006 (for Western region utilities) 2 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 2.7: Average capital expenditure in the period 200-2006 (for Southern region utilities) (Lesotho) in the Southern region. It can be capital expenditures per connection, noted that the utilities that are spending suggesting that access to financing may more per connection per year on capital be a major constraint to performance improvements are not necessarily national improvement for smaller utilities. utilities, although they might be expected to have better access to financing than municipal utilities. However, small city or municipal utilities generally have the lowest Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 4 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment . Services to the Poor and Informal Settlements I nadequate water and sanitation service the increase. To capture the differences provision to the urban poor remains in affordability of services provided by the a serious problem in many African utilities, two key indicators were used: countries. Poor households typically · Domestic water connection charge account for the largest share of the - expressed as a percentage of GNI increase in urban population. Most live in per capita; and densely populated inner city slums or in unplanned peri-urban settlements which · Monthly household bill for a are not served or out of the reach of water household consuming 6m3 per utilities. Poor households within a utility's month - expressed as percentage of service area cannot afford traditional piped monthly GNI per capita. service and have come to rely on shared Tariffs and connection charges need to connections (yard taps) or resale (HH to be put in the perspective of affordability. HH or kiosks) or, when they are available, Household income data, however, is public standpipes. Unless they rise to not easy to obtain. These indicators are the challenge of expanding capacity to therefore expressed as a proportion of serve poor urban HH, utilities risk finding per capita Gross National Income (GNI), themselves in a situation where they will which reflects annual income. The GNI reach only a fraction of population of the (Atlas method based) will be for the whole cities which it is their mission to serve. countryandnotreflectlocalvariations,but In most urban settings a pipe network is the most appropriate consistent measure is the cheapest and most effective way currently available for most countries. of supplying water - whether through individual house connections, shared yard connections or kiosks. However, as shown 3.1 Affordability of domestic by the coverage data presented in Section water connection charges 2.1.1, the share of households covered by pipe networks is still unacceptably low, For many households, especially those especially among utilities in the East and in informal settlements, the cost of Western regions. Part of the problem is connecting to a piped network can be a that services are unaffordable to most significant financial hurdle. Comparing urban residents, especially those living in connection charges provides insights into informal settlements where poverty is on the level to which this obstacle has been 5 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure . Domestic water connection charges as a share of per capita GNI (Eastern region utilities) addressed. A total of 70 utilities provided utilities the connection charges are clearly data on connection charges and this unaffordable. In some cases they exceed is summarised in Figures 3.1-3.3. The 0 percent of per capita GNI. data expressed as a percentage of per The lack of trunk infrastructure as well as capita GNI, shows that for some of the the connection fee is often what prevents 6 water connection charges as a share of per Utility Figure .2 Domestic Water Operators Partnerships-Africa capita GNI (Western region utilities) Performance Assessment 7 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment people from obtaining piped water are generally lower among utilities in the supplies - once connected consumers Eastern region. can usually pay their water bills. Based on the performance of the top 25 percent of all utilities in the sample it appears utilities 3.2 Affordability of utility water should charge connection fees equivalent bills to no more than two percent of per capita GNI. With this fee level, only 6 utilities Monthly household bill for a household can be considered to be doing relatively consuming 6m3 per month: A total of well on this indicator. Connection charges 87 utilities provided data on this indicator. Figure .: Domestic water connection charges as share of per capita GNI (Southern region utilities) 8 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure .4: Regional variation in affordability for a consumption level of 6m/month However, a total of 6 South African A look at individual utility data further utilities were excluded from the analysis reveals the differences in affordability levels. because they cannot be fairly compared The data is summarised in Figures 3.5- with other utilities due to the well known 3.7. The data shows that utility customers free basic water policy (FBW) in South in Africa pay an equivalent of 0.4-8 Africa. The FBW policy entitles all people percent of monthly per capita GNI. These to a free lifeline supply of 6m of water per results show the burden on customers household per month. The policy has not and underline the need for utilities to cut been implemented in any other African costs. Based on the performance of the country other than South Africa. For all top 25 percent of all utilities in the sample, other utilities (7 utilities), Figure 3.4 gives it appears households should pay an the regional variation in affordability for equivalent of no more than percent of a consumption level of 6m/month. The per capita GNI for 6m of water per month. data shows the annual cost of consuming With this fee level, only 8 utilities (out of 6m/month as a share of per capita GNI 7) can be considered to be doing relatively is slightly higher in the Eastern region well on this indicator. compared to the other regions. 9 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure .5: Monthly water bill for HH consuming 6m/month as a share of per capita GNI (Eastern) 20 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure .6: Monthly water bill for HH consuming 6m/month as a share of per capita GNI (Western) 2 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure .7: Monthly water bill for HH consuming 6m/mon as a share of per capita GNI (Southern) 3.3 Summary of performance on 20 percent for Eastern and 8 percent for affordability indicators Southern utilities. Table 3.1 shows the proportion of utilities Although Western utilities generally have making the best performing groups on lower connection charges, poor customers key affordability indicators. On connection connecting to their networks are likely to pay charges Western utilities perform slightly a much higher bill. Utilities in the Southern better than utilities from the other two region (even with the exclusion South regions. Twenty six percent of Western Africa) perform much better in keeping the utilities make the best group compared to 22 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment monthly bill for poor households below improve services to the urban poor. For percent. Opportunities therefore exist for instance, 87 percent of utilities reported that collaboration between utilities, especially they were engaged in formal partnerships on strengthening pro-poor policies and with alternative service providers (mainly strategiesthatclearlydefinefinancingand water kiosk operators), while 8 percent operational mechanisms, as well as tariffs have formal partnerships with NGOs and that ensure equitable provision of services other community-based organisations to all urban residents. Priority issues for involved providing services to informal exchange are summarised in Box 3.1 settlements. below. Furthermore, 65 percent of utilities claim It should be noted that most utilities are to have a pro-poor strategy and of these already engaged in some initiatives to 20 percent report service improvements to Table 3.1: Proportion of utilities making the best performer groups on affordability Indicator Target Valid sample Proportion of utilities making for best the best performer group (%) performance* Connection charges as % of GNI 2 20 6 5 20% 26% 8% per capita Monthly bill for a consumption 0 27 7% 26% 46% level of 6m/month as % of monthly GNI per capita * Target is based on the performance of the top quartile (25 percent) of all utilities in the sample Box .: Possible themes for utility cooperation on serving the poor and informal settlements I. Services to the poor and informal settlements · Best practices on serving the poor and informal settlement strategies (e.g. policies, dedicated unit within the utility, service options, social connections, kiosks, delegated management models and partnerships) · Tariff reviews, subsidy targeting, cross subsidies · Adaptation of service levels to suit the urban poor · Partnerships with alternative service providers · Using water and sanitation services as entry points for slum upgrading and coordination with other stakeholders 2 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment the urban poor as a result of implementing the urban poor and informal settlements. their strategies. A sizeable number of Overall, there is potential for inter-utility utilities ( percent) have running social exchange and learning innovative ways of connection programmes but few (22 serving the poor. percent) have a dedicated peri-urban unit to manage the delivery of services to Table 3.2: List of utilities with dedicated units/departments focusing on services to the urban poor Utility full name Short name Country Region Kisumu Water & Sewerage Company KIWASCO Kenya Eastern Naivasha Water , Sewerage & Sanitation Company Ltd. NAIVAWASS Kenya Eastern Shinyanga Urban Water & Sewerage Authority SHUWASA Tanzania Eastern Dar es Salaam Water & Sewerage Authority DAWASA Tanzania Eastern Mwanza Urban Water and Sewerage Authority MWAUWASA Tanzania Eastern Dire Dawa Water Supply & Sewerage Authority DDWSSA Ethiopia Eastern National Water and Sewerage Corporation NWSC Uganda Eastern Plateau State Water Board PSWB Nigeria Western Bauchi State Water Board BSWB Nigeria Western Borno State Water Corporation BSWC Nigeria Western OfficeNationaldel'assainissementduSenegal ONAS Senegal Western Societe Nationale d'Exploitation et de Distribution des Eaux SONEDE Tunisia Western Societe Des Eaux De Guinee SEG Guinea Western Societe d'Energie et d'Eau du Gabon SEEG Gabon Western Malawi Northern Region Water Board NRWB Malawi Southern Mulonga Water and Sewerage Company Limited MWSC Zambia Southern Northern Western Water Supply and Sewerage Company Limited NWWSSCL Zambia Southern Lusaka Water & Sewerage Company Limited LWSC Zambia Southern Kafubu Water and Sewerage Company Limited KWSC Zambia Southern Aguas de Mozambique, S.A.R.L AdeM Mozambique Southern 24 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 25 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 4. Potential for Peer-Support Partnerships T he foregoing performance The majority of utilities (24 percent) identify assessment has helped identify non-revenue water management as their where each participating utility lies major weakness. This is fairly consistent on key performance parameters. Clearly, with the performance data discussed there are utilities that are leading the group earlier in Section 2. It is also observed that on specific indicators and also in terms only a few utilities (8 percent) claim to be of overall performance. There are also strong on non-revenue water management a number of utilities that can do better. - a result that is again fairly consistent with A key assumption of the WOP-Africa the performance data discussed earlier. program is that those participating utilities From these observations it would appear that generally lag behind in performance that African water utilities would be hard- will be motivated to learn from others pressedtofindamongthemselvesanother that are performing relatively well where utility to provide peer-support and share there are any lessons to learn. Although knowledge on this critical performance this assessment exercise did not aim area. In such circumstances, it would be to explain the reasons for any utility's beneficial to look outside the region for performance level, the data provides a proven expertise and experience. However, good starting point for utilities to identify for other areas, there is enormous potential potential learning partners based on the for utilities in Africa to learn from each other. level of performance alone. In particular, there is potential for knowledge and skills transfer through collaborative Moreover, as part of the assessment, arrangements between utilities that show utilities were each asked to identify their superior performance on key indicators top three areas of strength, as well as the and those that lag behind. This potential for top three weaknesses or priority areas for utility-to-utility partnerships (U2U) was also learning from a better performing utility. The revealed during the regional workshops responses were coded into 4 categories in which participants expressed interest with each weakness and each strength for more than 100 specific matches (see being allocated the same code to enable Appendix C). As a result of the discussions matchmaking. The results summarised in and relationships forged during the regional Figure 4.1 are quite revealing, particular workshops, several utilities have already on the potential for African utilities to learn initiated U2U partnerships. from each other. 26 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Figure 4.: Stated strength-weakness matching (all utilities) The self-assessment also revealed that which the exchange took place, as well as utility partnerships of this nature are not funding and contractual arrangements. entirely new in the African water sector. Of a total of 57 valid responses, 49 (86 There is already a rich experience of utility percent) reported having been involved in exchanges of experience and services. an exchange of experiences or services The questionnaire used in the assessment with another utility. The majority of these exercise captured some of these (6 percent) have been through the utility's experiences. Utilities were asked whether own initiatives, while about half (47 percent) they had been involved in any utility where conducted through the former Water exchange in the past, the context under 27 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment Utility Partnership (WUP). The cases of partnerships. Most of the exchanges U2U reviewed by the participants showed have focused on billing and customer that U2U come in many shapes and services; performance improvement plans forms ranging from relatively short term (PIP); training; monitoring and evaluation interventionsfocusedonaspecificthemeto systems. Remarkably, a few of the utilities broader more comprehensive partnerships are already collaborating on ways to involving periodic joint meetings of their improve sanitation coverage - an area that management teams and their boards as was found lacking in many utilities. well as staff exchanges. For instance, As the WOP-Africa funding strategy NWSC (Uganda) has an external services continues to evolve, it is interesting unit within the organisation that provides a to explore how previous or existing wide range of utility management advisory partnerships are being funded. Figure 4.3 services to other utilities in the region. summarises funding arrangements for Collaboration already exists between past and existing U2U partnerships (based NWSC and other water utilities, including on 4 valid responses). The majority of Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), Lusaka (Zambia) utilities(44percent)areself-financingtheir and Nairobi (Kenya). engagements with other utilities, implying Figure 4.2 summarises the main areas that utilities already attach a high value of exchange in previous or existing to such exchanges. This is an important Figure 4.2: Focus areas in previous utility partnerships 28 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment finding to take on board in the evolving There also a number of utilities (26 percent) WOP-Africa funding strategy. that report basing their exchanges on informal agreements between managers. Lastly, on the question of contractual Overall, these results suggest that there arrangements, the majority (47 percent) is a wealthy of experience to build on and of partnerships are formalised through that the WOP - Africa program should seek memoranda of understanding (MoUs). A to enhance rather than undermine these sizeable number (5 percent) have used existing arrangements. formal contracts with specific objectives. Figure 4.: Existing funding arrangements for utility partnerships 29 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 5. Conclusion This report has synthesized the results of a Invariably, indicators tend to portray an incomplete utility performance assessment of selected picture of a utility's performance as they often African utilities and provides a basis for further exclude other contributing factors such as development of the WOP program in Africa. The accountability of institutions and incentives that main conclusions arising from the assessment arenotreadilyquantifiable.Moreover,utilitiesface can be summarized as follows: different social, political and financial constraints · The major challenge facing utilities is which need to be taken into account when expanding coverage; evaluating performance. For these reasons, the indicators presented in this assessment should · Inefficienciesareamajorcauseofpoor not be interpreted rigidly. Rather they should be access to water services; taken as indicative of the strength or weakness of · Africa has a lot of well-performing utilities a utility relative to its peers. and good practices; Lastly, the results show enormous potential for · There are U2U exchanges already taking scaling-up inter-utility partnerships in Africa. place to be scaled up under WOP Africa; Contrary to popular perception, the region is not · Availability and reliability of performance entirely short of well-performing utilities to emulate. data is still a problem as in many cases Many countries have improved their institutional MIS systems are either poorly designed, framework making it possible for utilities to shift incomplete and/or not systematically from crisis management to strategic planning updated. and performance improvement, which can be emulated by those that are lagging behind. From the data presented it is fairly clear where However, improvement by emulation requires that each utility lies on key performance indicators and utilities are found that exhibit superior performance the opportunities that exist for peer-support and andhaveobjectivesorspecificstrengthstomatch learning. The indicators capture a broad range the weaknesses of utilities seeking improvement. of performance areas for utilities but they are not This assessment has provided some indication of comprehensive. More work is needed to provide who the superior performers might bebut more a complete assessment of utility performance, workisneededtoconfirmtheirabilitytoprovide expanding the measures to governance and peer-support. The assessment and the WOP accountability, to capital efficiency and to better Africa regional workshops have also confirmed measures of responsiveness to the needs of the the interest in peer-to-peer support partnerships. poor. There is also need to institutionalise the assessment process, improve MIS at utility level and do more process benchmarking. 0 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment References Tynan, N. and Kingdom, W. (2002). A water scorecard: setting performance targets for water utilities. Public Policy for the Private Sector, Note No. 242, World Bank United Nations Development Programme (2006). Beyond scarcity: power, poverty and global water crisis. Human development report 2006, New York: United Nations Development Programme Wolff, G. and Gleick, P (2002). The soft path for water. In: Gleick, P. (editor). The world's water: 2002-2003. Washington DC: Island Press Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment 2 ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data Abia State Water ASWB Nigeria Western Umuahia Regional utility USAQ Igwe Eme Ogwo, Abia State Water Board, Board PMB 7 Umahia, Abia State , Nigeria, Tel: 08046975, Email:igweogwo@yahoo.com 2 Adamawa State ASWB Nigeria Western Yola Regional utility USAQ Cornellius Hapsa, General Manager, Adamawa Water Board State Water Board, P.M.B.2088, Yola Adamawa State, Nigeria. Tel: +24806560, Email; engrhapsa@yahoo.com Addis Ababa AAWSA Ethiopia Eastern Addis Ababa Urban (single city/ USAQ Getachew Eshete, P.O. Box 505 Addis Water & municiaplity) Ababa , Ethiopia, +25 662902, +25 Sewerage 662924, aawsa.ha@ethionet.et Authority Performance Assessment 4 Aguas de AdeM Mozambique Southern Maputo Urban (single city/ USAQ Manual Thomaz, Av. Eduardo Mondlane, Mozambique, municiaplity) 52, 5 andar CP n 2952, Maputo S.A.R.L Mozambique, +258 2 024/2, + 258 224675,mthomaz@aguamoz.co.mz 5 Akwa Ibom AKWAC Ltd Nigeria Western Uyo, Oron ikt Regional utility USAQ BasseyEfiongAting,AkwaIbomWater Water Company Ekpene, Abak, itu, Company Limited, P.M.B 2 , Uyo, Akwa Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility ikot Abasi, Eket, Ibom State, Nigeria. Tel: 085 2009, fax: Etihan 0852009, Email: basseyating@yahoo.com 6 Anambra ANSWC Nigeria Western Awka Regional utility USAQ GodfreyI.Mgbemena,61IfiteRoadP.M.B State Water 5028, Awka, Tel: 080707675, Email: Corporation vichinel@yahoo.com 7 Arusha Urban ARWASA Tanzania Eastern Arusha Urban (single city/ National Assi A Munisi. P.O Box 600. Tel +255 027 Water and municiaplity) Regulator 25045. Email. auwsa@habari.co.tz Sewerage Authority 8 Bauchi State BSWB Nigeria Western Bauchi Town Regional utility USAQ Abubakar Adamu , 5 Gombe Road, G.R.A Water Board and 9 LGA P.M.B 0055, Bauchi, 2477542457,/808852 Headquaters 6408/8026287, Email: harunaalfa200@ yahoo.com 4 Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data 9 Bayelsa State BYSWB Nigeria Western Yenengoa Regional utility USAQ James C. Ala, Bayelsa State Water Board Water Board P.M.B 8, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Tel: +24 080882884, Fax:089 49028 , Email: alajamescornelius@yahoo.com 0 Benue State BSWB Nigeria Western Markurdi,Otukpo, Regional utility USAQ RA Chenge,Benue State Water Board Water Board Gboko, Kala Headquarters, PMB 02072, Makurdi ,Nigeria, 044 5608, 080254796 Blantyre Water BWB Malawi Southern Blantyre Urban (single city/ USAQ Owen Kankhulungo, Blantyre Water Board, Board municiaplity P.O. Box 069, Chichiri, Blantyre , Malawi, ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities (+265) 0872000, (+265) 0872026, bwb@ bwb.mw or okankhulungo@african-online.net 2 Bloem Water Bloem Water South Africa Southern BloemFontein,Red Regional utility USAQ Nolene Morris, P.o Box 02, Pellissier 822, dersburg, Thaba, +05 400800, +05 4225, nolenem@ Performance Assessment Nchu, Botshelo, bloemwater.co.za Dewetsdorp,Eden burg,Bethulie,Wep ener,Springfontein ,Trompsburg,Philip polis, Gariep Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Borno BSWC Nigeria Western Maidugri Regional utility USAQ Imam Mohamed, Mohammed Monguno State Water Road, P.M.B 88, Maiduguri, Borno State, Corporation +24 76264, +24 76 2 600 4 Bukoba Urban BUWASA Tanzania Eastern Bukoba Urban (single city/ National Chaggaka Kalimbia. P.O Box 8. Tel +255 Water and municipality) Regulator 028 222744. Email. buwasa@bukobaonline. Sewerage com Authority 5 Cape Town Cape Town South Africa Southern Cape Town Urban (single city/ IBNET Mr Mosai. Tel +27 2 400 4859. Email.sipho. Metro municiaplity) mosai@capetown.gov.za Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data 6 Central Region CRWB Malawi Southern 20 Towns, Major Regional utility USAQ Ziddy Medi, Private Bag 59, Lilongwe, Malawi, Water Board Kasungu scheme, + 265 757045, +265 75878, crwb@ HeadOffice malawi.net Lilingwe City 7 Central Water CWA Mauritius Southern Island Wide National utility USAQ Harry Booluck, CWA Headquarters, St. Paul , Authority phoenix, Mauritius, +20 605000/ 2595586, +20 6967, booluck_h@cwa.intnet.mu 8 Chipata Water CWSC Zambia Southern Chipata Urban (single city/ USAQ Bernard Mwewa, Chipata Water and & Sewerage municiaplity) Sewerage Company, P.O. Box 50464, Company Chipata, Zambia, (+260) 97777807, (+260) 62240, cwsc@zamtel.zm 9 City of Windhoek CWWS Namibia Southern Windhoek Urban (single city/ USAQ Piet du Pisani; PO Box 59 Windhoek; Water Services municiaplity) 264.6.29024; pdp@windhoek.org.na Performance Assessment 20 Cross River State CRSWBL Nigeria Western Calabar, Akamkpa, Regional utility USAQ Elemi B. Etowa,Administartive Headquarters, Water Board Ugep/Ediba Ndidem Usang Iso Road, PMB 77, Limited Calabar, Nigeria. 087 2424, 2892, 2806708465, 087 24240, info@ Crswaterboard.com,elemiet@yahoo.com Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility 2 Dar es Salaam DAWASA Tanzania Eastern Dar es Salaam Urban (single city/ USAQ Archard Mutalemwa, P.O. Box 57, Water & municiaplity) Mulanga/Dunga street, Dar es Salaam, Sewerage Tanzania, +255 0 222762479,+22 0 22 Authority 2762480, kasigab@dawasa.co.tz 22 Dar es Salaam DAWASCO Tanzania Eastern Dar es Salaam Urban (single city/ USAQ Alex Kaaya, P.O. Box 540, Dar es salaam Water & municiaplity) Tanzania,+255 22 29,+255 22 Sewerage 29,alex.kaaya@dawasco.com Corporation 2 Delta State DSWB Nigeria Western Asaba Regional utility USAQ Jonathan Omotutu, General Manager, Tel: ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities Urban Water 080228494 Board 5 6 Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data 24 Dire Dawa DDWSSA Ethiopia Eastern Dire Dawa Urban (single city/ USAQ MesfinMiligetaAlemu,P.O.Box Water Supply municiaplity 446 , Dire Dawa , Ethiopis, +25 & Sewerage 25496/9574950, +25 25 Authority 4987/251111072,mesfinmlgt@yahoo.com 25 Dodoma DUWASA Tanzania Eastern Dodoma Urban (single city/ National Peter Mokiwa. P.O Box 4. Tel. +255 026 Urban Water municiaplity) Regulator 22 42 45. Email. duwasatz@yahoo.com and Sewerage Authority 26 Drakenstein Drakenstein South Africa Southern Paarl Urban (single city/ IBNET Mr Blignaut. Tel `+27 2 8074725. Local municiaplity) Email.hanre@drakenstein.gov.za ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities Municipality 27 Edo State Urban ESWB Nigeria Western Benin City Regional utility USAQ Monday Umane, IB, Owobu Way , Off Obasuyi Water Board str. P.O Box 5579, GRA Benin City, Nigeria. Tel: 08028445025, 0705402274 Performance Assessment 28 Ekiti State Water EKSWC Nigeria Western Ado-Ekiti Regional utility USAQ Olutoba Anise , PMB 550 Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria, Corporation Tel: 0805070552, Email: 2008olutoa@yahoo.com 29 Eldoret Water & ELDOWAS Kenya Eastern Eldoret Urban (single city/ USAQ Reuben Arap Tiuei, P.O. Box 848 Eldoret, Sanitation Co. municiaplity Tel: +254 5 20695, +254 5 6556, Ltd. Email:info@eldowas.org Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility 0 ELECTRA S.A. ELECTRA S.A Cape Verde Western National Utility National utility IBNET Dr. Rui Eduardo Ferreira Rodrigues Pena. - Empresa de Tel + 28 20 0 0. Electricidade e Email. comercial@electra.cv Agua Emfuleni Local Emfuleni South Africa Southern Van der Bijl Park Urban (single city/ IBNET Mr Duvenage. Tel.'+27 6 986 8. Municipality municiaplity) Email.hennied@emfuleni.gov.za 2 Energie du Mali EDM S.A. Mali Western Bamako National utility USAQ Sekou Alpha Djieteye; Energie du Mali S.A. S.A. BP 69 Bamako, Mali; 22 222 020; 22222060 fax 22222 840; Email: sdjiteye@edmsa.net Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data Enugu ENSWC Nigeria Western Enugu, Nsukka Regional utility USAQ Obrien Ofordu , Enugu State Water State Water and other towns in Corporation Road, GRA Enugu, Nigeria Corporation Enugu state 4 Etablissement ELECTROGAZ Rwanda Eastern Kigali National utility USAQ Jean Bosco Kanyesheja; BP 57; Kigali; de Production, +250 598 260; de Transport et jbkanyesheja@electrogaz.co.rw de Distribution d'Electricite, d'Eau et de Gaz 5 eThekwini Metro eThekwini South Africa Southern Durban Urban (single city/ IBNET Mr Msweli. Tel +27 . (S.Africa) municiaplity) Email. EdnickMs@dmws.durban.gov.za 6 FIPAG Nampula FIPAG Mozambique Southern Nampula Urban (single city/ IBNET Nampula municiaplity) Performance Assessment 7 FIPAG Beira FIPAG Beira Mozambique Southern Beira Urban (single city/ IBNET municiaplity) 8 FIPAG Pemba FIPAG Pemba Mozambique Southern Pemba Urban (single city/ IBNET municiaplity) 9 FIPAG Quilimane FIPAG Mozambique Southern Quilimane Urban (single city/ IBNET Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Quilimane municiaplity) 40 Ghana Water GWCL Ghana Western National utility National utility USAQ Cobbie Kessie JNR, P.O. Box M Company 94 Accra, Ghana, +2266207, Limited +2266552,gwcl@africaonline.com 4 Gombe State GSWB Nigeria Western Gombe Regional utility USAQ Umar B. Ahmed , Pantami Road, P.B.M 085 Water Board Gombe, Gombe State, +24802722480, 248064897, Fax: 072-22522 Email:umar.bashirahmed@yahoo.com 42 Harar Water HWSSSA Ethiopia Eastern Harar Urban (single city/ USAQ Teweleda Abdoshi Ahmed,P.O Box 98 ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities Supply & municiaplity) Harar, Ethiopia,+252566660, Sewerage +25256666658,teweleda@yahoo.com Services 7 Authority 8 Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data 4 Imo State Water ISWC Nigeria Western Owerri Regional utility USAQ Chima Keke, PMB 46, Okigwe road, Corporation Owerri, imo State,Nigeria.Tel: 0802052, 080092, Email: imowatercorpimostate@yahoo.com 44 Iringa Urban IRUWASA Tanzania Eastern Iringa Urban (single city/ USAQ Marco Mfugale, P.O. Box 570, Uhuru Avenue, Water Supply municiaplity Iringa, +255 26 270007, +255 26 270007, and Sewerage iruwasa200@yahoo.com Authority 45 Jigawa State JSWB Nigeria Western Dutse Regional utility USAQ Abba Hassan,PMB 702 Shuwarin Dutse, Water Board Nigeria, +24 80700570, abbaihassan@ ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities yahoo.com, garungabas@yahoo.com 46 Jimma Town JTWSSSE Ethiopia Eastern Jimma Urban (single city/ USAQ Abdu Mohammed Foggi, imma P.O. Box Water Supply municiaplity) 92, +259755004, +255476509, and Sewerage abdumohammed9@yahoo.com Performance Assessment Services Enterprise 47 Jiro SY Rano JIRAMA Madagascar Eastern Antananarivo National utility USAQ Bernhard Rohman, 49 Rue Malagasy rainandriamampandry Ambohijatovo -0 Antananarivo.Madagascar, +26 20 22200/ 20226745, +26 2022 086, Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility dg@jirama.mg 48 Johannesburg Johannesburg South Africa Southern Johannesburg Urban (single city/ IBNET Mr Eales. Tel +27 274 50. Water Water municiaplity) email. kea@iafrica.com 49 Kaduna State KDSWB Nigeria Western Kaduna Regional utility USAQ Hassan Mohammed, General Manager, Water Board Chief Olesegun Obasanjo house (Secretariat Annex), Yakubu Gowon Way, P.M.B. 2 Kaduna. Nigeria, +24 62 247960,/247959,8 0597, +24 6227958, kdswb@yahoo. com,yarojam@yahoo.com Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data 50 Kafubu Water KWSC Zambia Southern Ndola Urban (single city/ USAQ Ian Banda, Plot B2 , Vitanda street, and Sewerage municiaplity Town Center, P.O. Box 7278, Plot B2 , Company Ndola , Zambia, +26022622425/62268, Limited +2602262277, iannzalibanda@yahoo.com 5 Kano State KnSWB Nigeria Western Kano Metropolis Regional utility USAQ Eng. Yahya Bala Karaye, Managing Director, Water Board Kano State Water Board, Gidan Ruwa, emor's palace road, PMB 50, Kano City, +24 0 6464705, +24 0 646426, knswb@yahoo. com, engryb_karaye@yahoo.co.uk 52 Katsina State KSWB Nigeria Western Katsina Regional utility USAQ Eng. Aliyu Jari, Katsina State Water Board Water Board P.M.B 2027 , Katsina, 246540940, 24654 2575,080592664, Email: aliyujari@yahoo.com Performance Assessment 5 Kebbi State KBSWB Nigeria Western Regional utility USAQ Umar Abubaka Bena, Kebbi State Water Water Board Board, No Muritala MOH Way, Birnin Kebbi, Nigeria. 080092756 54 Kericho Water KEWASCO Kenya Eastern Kericho Urban (single city/ USAQ John Cheruiyot, P. O Box 97-20200 and Sanitation municiaplity Kericho, +254 05220602, Company limited kewascoltd@yahoo.com Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility 55 Khartoum KSWC Sudan Eastern Khartoum Urban (single city/ USAQ Khalid Ali Khalid, +24992922,+24987 State Water municiaplity 77675, kswcop@yahoo.com, Corporation 56 Kigoma Urban KUWASA Tanzania Eastern Kigoma National Regulator National Eng M.J. Magori. P.O Box 82. Tel. +255 028 Water and Regulator 280 62. Email. uwasakigoma@yahoo.com Sewerafe Authority 57 Kisumu Water KIWASCO Kenya Eastern Kisumu Urban (single city/ USAQ David Onyango; PO Box 20-4000; ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities & Sewerage municiaplity Kisumu; 254.057.202400; Company md@kiwasco.co.ke 9 40 Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data 58 Kogi State Water KGSWB Nigeria Western Lokoja Regional utility USAQ Theophilus Olukotun, General Manager, Kogi Board State Water Board , P.M.B 059 ,Lokoja, Kogi State , Nigeria. 080598890, Email: kgwaterboard@yahoo.com 59 Kwara KWWC Nigeria Western Ilorin Regional utility USAQ Tunde omoniyi Yahaya, PMB 58 , ilorin , State Water Kwara State, Tel: 0 22748, 0804468682 Corporation 60 Lagos Water Lagos Water Nigeria Western Lagos Regional utility USAQ Olushayo Holloway,P.O. Box 555, Marina Corporation Lagos, 0 4746040- ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities 6 Lesotho Water WASA Lesotho Southern Maseru National utility USAQ RefiloeTlali,P.O.Box426,Maseru100, & Sewerage Lesotho, +266 2222996, +266 220006, Authority tlalir@wasa.co.ls 62 Liberia Water LWSC Liberia Western Monrovia and 9 National utility USAQ N. Hun-Bu Tulay, King Sao Boso Street Performance Assessment and Sewer other cities Monrovia, 000 Liberia 0 , West Africa, 2 Corporation 77 92082/2 65756, aqualwsc@yahoo. com, nhunbu@yahoo.com 6 Lilongwe Water LWB Malawi Southern Lilongwe Urban (single city/ IBNET Robert Hanjahanja. Tel. +265 075066. Board municiaplity) Email. rhanjahanja@lwb.mw 64 Lindi Urban LUWASA Tanzania Eastern Lindi Urban (single city/ USAQ Daudi majani, P.O. Box 75 Lindi, +02 220 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility and Sewerage municiaplity) 2402,+02 220 27, Authority Luwasa2005@yahoo.com 65 Lusaka Water LWSC Zambia Southern Lusaka Urban (single city/ USAQ George Ndogwe, P.O. 5098, Lusaka , & Sewerage municiaplity) Zambia. 00 26022572, 00260 2 Company 250667,gndogwe@lwsc.com.zm Limited 66 Malawi Northern NRWB Malawi Southern Mzuzu Regional utility USAQ Titus Mtegha, Kawiluwilu house, Private Region Bag 94, Mzuzu,+265 067, +265 Waterboard 0254,+265 0082, chisumbu@nrwb.org.mw Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data 67 Malindi Water MAWASCO Kenya Eastern Malindi Urban (single city/ USAQ Moses Kinya, P.O. Box 40-80200 Malindi, and Sewerage municiaplity) Kenya. +254 042 07/22/092 ; Company Ltd. +254 042206, mawasco@africaonline. co.ke, mkinya@mawasco.com 68 Matjhabeng Matjhabeng South Africa Southern Welkom Urban (single city/ IBNET Mr Faber. Tel +27 57 964028. Local municiaplity) Email.janf@matjhabeng.co.za Municipality 69 Matlosana Local Matlosana South Africa Southern Klerksdorp Urban (single city/ IBNET Mr Els. Tel `+27 8 406 858. Municipality municiaplity) Email.civil@klerksdorp.org 70 Mbeya Urban MBUWASA Tanzania Eastern Mbeya Urban (single city/ USAQ Eng. S.M. Sahuri. P.O Box 292. Water and municiaplity) Tel + 255 025 2504298. Sewerage Email. mbeyauwsa@yahoo.com Authority Performance Assessment 7 Mekelle City MCWSSS Ethiopia Eastern Mekelle Urban (single city/ USAQ Gidena Abebe, Gidena Abbebe, Mekelle, Water Supply municiaplity) Tigray, Ethiopia, P.O Box 266 , 25 04 and Sewerage 44076, 094 0067, 25 04 44000, Service gidab7@yahoo.com 72 Metsimaholo Metsimaholo South Africa Southern Sasolburg Urban (single city/ IBNET Mr Tzonev. Tel +27 6 976 0029. Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Local municiaplity) email.dts@lantic.net Municipality 7 Midvaal Water Midvaal South Africa Southern Klerksdorp, Regional utility USAQ R U Khan, P.O. Box Stilfontein 2550RSA, Company Orkeny, Stilfontein 08 482 24/ 482262, 08 4820, (City of Matlosana) khan@midvaalwater.co.za, ruk@intekom.co.za 74 Mogale Local Mogale South Africa Southern Krugersdorp Urban (single city/ IBNET Mr Viljoen. Tel +27 95 29. Municipality municiaplity Email. orgv@mogalecity.gov.za 75 Mombasa Water MWSC Kenya Eastern Mombasa Urban (single city/ USAQ Anthony Chitavi, P.O Box 00-8000 & Sewerage municiaplity Mombasa,+254 4 222079/2222700, ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities Company +254 42222728, mombasawater@mombasawater.co.ke 4 42 Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data 76 Morogoro MOUWASA Tanzania Eastern Morogoro Urban (single city/ National John Mtaita. P.O Box 5476. Tel +255 02 Urban Water municiaplity) Regulator 260445. Email. uwsamg@raha.com and Sewerage Authority 77 Moshi Urban MUWSA Tanzania Eastern Moshi Urban (single city/ USAQ Anthony Kasonta, P.O. Box 00, Moshi, Water Supply municiaplity) (+255) 27-27564, (+255) 27-2754256, and Sewerage anthonykasonta@yahoo.co.uk Authority 78 Mtwara Urban MTUWASA Tanzania Eastern Mtwara Urban (single city/ USAQ Abdallah I. Matauna. Managing Director, Water and municiaplity) P.O Box 4. Mtwara , Tanzania. Tel +255 02 ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities Sewerage 2079. Fax: +255 0 2 2079 Authority Email. mtuwasa@makondenet.com. amatauna@yahoo.com 79 Mulonga Water MWSC Zambia Southern Chingola, Mufulira Regional utility USAQ Manuel Mutale; PO Box 72 Chingola, Performance Assessment and Sewerage and Chililabombwe Zambia; 260. 22. 299; Company mulonga@zamtel.zm Limited 80 Municipality of WBM Namibia Southern Walvis Bay & Urban (single city/ USAQ Andre Brummer, Private Bag 507, Walvis Walvis Bay Suburbs municiaplity Bay, +264 64 240, +264 64 240, abrummer@walvisbaycc.org.na Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility 8 Musoma MUWASA Tanzania Eastern Musoma Urban (single city/ USAQ Genes Kaduri. P.O Box 2. Musoma Urban Water municiaplity Tanzania Tel,. +255 028 262 2868 / 262040 and Sewerage Fax: +255 28 262072 Authority Email. muwasa@juasun.net 82 Mwanza Urban MWAUWASA Tanzania Eastern Mwanza Urban (single city/ USAQ Justus Rwetabula, Mwauwasa Makongoro Water and municiaplity Road, P.ox Box 7, Mwanza , Tanzania, Sewerage +255 028 2500547/250006/075277247, Authority +255 0282502, mwauwasa@yahoo.com 8 Nairobi Water NWSCO Kenya Eastern Nairobi Urban (single city/ USAQ Francis Mugo, P.O. Box 0656-0000, & Sewerage municiaplity +254 20 55254, 55226, Company Fmugo@nairobiwater.co.ke Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data 84 Naivasha Water NAIVAWASS Kenya Eastern Naivasha Urban (single city/ USAQ Ndiritu Daniel Mbogo, Managing Director, , Sewerage municiaplity) P.O. Box 2 -2007,Naivasha , +254 050 & Sanitation 2020979, 072 45005, naivawass@gmail. Company Ltd. com , danielmndiritu@yahoo.com 85 National Water NAWEC Gambia Western Banjul, greater National utility USAQ Momodou Jallow, P.O.Box 609 , Banjul. and Electricity Banjul Area, Gambia, +2204762/476606/7, Company Provincial towns. +220 475990, nawec@qanet.gm 86 National Water NWSC Uganda Eastern Kampala (Jinja, National utility USAQ William Muhairwe; Plot 29 Jinja Road and Sewerage Entebbe, Mbale, PO Box 705; Kampala; 265 44500/4; Corporation Mbarara., Masaka, william.muhairwe@nwsc.co.ug Tororo, Soroti, Lira, Gulu, Arua, Kasese, Kabale, Bushenyi, Fort Performance Assessment Portal, Lugazi, Mukono Mubende, Masindi and Hoima) 87 Niger State NSWB Nigeria Western Minna Regional utility USAQ Abdulrahaman Baba, PMB 70 Minna, Water Board 0805980745, 080976509 Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility 88 Nkana Water NWSC Zambia Southern Kitwe Urban (single city/ IBNET BERNARD M CHIWALA. +260 222 099. and Sewerage municiaplity Company 89 Northern NWWSSCL Zambia Southern Solwezi Urban (single city/ USAQ Arnott S. Chilwesa, P.O. Box 084, MEME Western Water municiaplity House, Solwezi. Zambia. +260 2 8820, Supply and +260 2 8820, nwwater@zamnet.co.zm, Sewerage arnott@zamnet.co.zm, Company arnottchilwesa@yahoo.co.uk Limited ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities 90 OfficeNatinale ONEAD Djibouti Eastern Djibouti Ville National utility USAQ Youssouf Mirgan Barkath, BP 94 Boelvard DeL'eau et de De la Republique djibouti Republique de 4 L'assainissement Djibouti, 00 25/507, 00 25/5442, de Djibouti oneadinfo@intnet.dj 44 Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data 9 Office ONAS Senegal Western Dakar National utility USAQ Amadou Lamine Dieng; BP 428 Dakar; National de 2285955; onas@onas.sn l'assainissement du Senegal 92 OfficeNational ONEA Burkina Faso Western Ouagadougou National utility USAQ Yamba Harouna ouibiga, 0 BP 70 de l'Eau et de Ouagadougou 0, +226 50 4900/09, l'Assainissement 226 50 49, onea@fasonet.bf 9 Ogun State OGSWC Nigeria Western Abeokuta Regional utility USAQ Cecilia Bukola Olajide, Ogun State Water Water Corporation Oke-Mosan, P.M.B 2074 Sapon, Corporation Abeokuta, Tel: 707055227696, 080978862, ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities Email: ogunwater@yahoo.com, cbolajide@yahoo.com 94 Ondo State ODWC Nigeria Western Regional utility USAQ MAO Falohun, P.O. Box 440, Water Tel: 080 52440 Performance Assessment Corporation 95 Oshakati Oshakati Namibia Southern Oshakati Urban (single city/ IBNET Municipality Municipality municiaplity 96 Osun State OSWC Nigeria Western Osogbo Regional utility USAQ Adepoju Adegbaju, Osun State Water Water Corporation, P.M.B 47, Osogbo, Osun Corporation State, +2480847006, osunwater@yahoo. Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility com, osunwatercorp@hotmail.com 97 Plateau State PSWB Nigeria Western Jos/Bukuru Regional utility USAQ Hossana John Dajan, Plot number, BP 4097, Water Board Anglo Jos Industrial area, PMB 298, +24 0 80644206, hjdajan@yahoo.com 98 Potchefstroom Potchefstroom South Africa Southern Potchefstroom Urban (single city/ IBNET Mr Kleinhans. Tel +27 8 299 5404. Local municiaplity) Email. kleintjiek@potch.co.za Municipality 99 Public Utilities PUC Seychelles Eastern Victoria National utility USAQ Stephen Rousseau, Managing Director Water Corporation and sewerage Division), Maison De Malavois, P.O Box 4, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles, Tel: +248 678208 Fax:+248 2227, Email: srousseau@puc.sc Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data 00 Rand Water Rand Water South Africa Southern Gauteng Urban (single city/ USAQ Zvinaiye Manyere, 522 Impala road, Glenvista. municiaplity) 2058, P.O Box 27, Johannesburg, South Africa., +27 6820292, +27 68202, Manyere@randwater.co.za 0 Regie de REGIDESO- DRC Eastern Kinshasa National utility USAQ Nicolas Manzila Ngwey; BP 2599; Kinshasa; Distribution DRC 24 80 784 80; manzilangwey@yahoo.fr d'Eau 02 Regie de REGIDESO- Burundi Eastern Bujumbura National utility USAQ Celestin Nduwamungu; BP 660 Bujumbura; Production et Burundi 25722222720; dgregie@cbinf.com de Distribution d'eau et d'electricite 0 River State Water RSWB Nigeria Western Port Harcourt Regional utility USAQ Nathan Omeh, River State Water Board, Performance Assessment Board PMB 5274, Rumuola Pumping Station, Port Harcourt , Tel: 080724547 04 Saldanha Saldanha Bay South Africa Southern Saldanha Bay Urban (single city/ IBNET Mr Titus. Tel +'+27 22 70 7047. Email Bay Local municiaplity wilfredt@saldanhabay.co.za Municipality 05 Sedibeng Water SW (Sedibeng, South Africa Southern Welkom Urban (single city/ USAQ Makumu Ubisi, Private Bag X5 , Bothaville Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility S.Africa) municiaplity 9660, +275655009, +2756550259, mubusis@sedibengwater.co.za 06 Senegalaise des SDE Senegal Western Dakar National utility USAQ Mamadou Dia, BP 224 Dakar Senegal, Eaux 0022 89702, 00 22 89 720, mdaa@sde.sn 07 Shinyanga SHUWASA Tanzania Eastern Shinyanga Urban (single city/ USAQ Gullam Mohamed Alli; PO Box Urban Water municiaplity) 298; Shinyanga; 028.276.207; & Sewerage majimamlakashuwasa@yahoo.com Authority 08 Singida Urban SIUWASA Tanzania Eastern Singida Urban (single city/ National Issack Nyakonji. P.O Box 74. Tel. +255 026 ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities Water and municiaplity) Regulator 2502 22. Email. suwasamaji@yahoo.com Sewerage 45 Authority 46 Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data 09 Societe de SODECI Cote d'Ivoire Western National Utility National utility USAQ Basile Ebah; 0 BP 84 Abidjan 0; +225 2 Distribution 2 0; fax +225 2 2 006; d'Eau de Cote bebah@sodeci.ci d'Ivoire 0 Societe de SPEN Niger Western Niamey National utility USAQ Salou Seyni; BP 078; Niamey; Patrimoine des 227.207520; seysalou@yahoo.fr Eaux du Niger Societe SEEG Gabon Western National utility National utility USAQ Francois Ombanda, BP 287 Libreville, d'Energie et Tel: 24 76282, Fax:24 764 d'Eau du Gabon ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities 2 Societe Nationale SNDE Mauritanie Western Nouakchott USAQ Cheik Abdallahi ould houeibib, BP 796 de L'Eau Nouakchott, +222524456, +222 5252, snde@mauritel.mr Societe SONEB Benin Western National utility National utility USAQ Karimou Assoua, 0 BP 26 cotonou Benin, Performance Assessment Nationale des +299 2 6258, +299 2 08 Eaux du Benin 4 Societe Nationale SONEDE Tunisia Western National utility National utility USAQ Mohamed Ali Khouaja; Ave Slimene d'Exploitation et Ben Slimene, El Mana 2, Tunis 2092; de Distribution 26.7.887.000; sonede@sonede.com.tn des Eaux Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility 5 Societe Togolaise TdE Togo Western Lome National utility USAQ Yawo Elihoho Evenya, 05, Avenue de des Eaux la Liberation, 22 22 8277, 22 22 46, tded@togo-imet.com 6 Socociete Des SEG Guinea Western Conakry National utility USAQ Cheik taliby Sylla, B.P 50 Conakry, 00 Eaux De Guinee 224602598, 0022404822 cts@seg.com.gn 7 Sokoto State SSWB Nigeria Western Sokoto Regional utility USAQ Sabo Abubakar Yabo, No Illela Road, Water Board Sokoto , Tel: 060 22785, Email: Sokstawaterbd@yahoo.com Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data 8 Sol Plaatje Local Sol Plaatje South Africa Southern Kimberly Urban (single city/ IBNET Mr Cooper. Tel +27 5 80 600. Municipality municiaplity email. tcooper@solplaatje.org.za 9 Songea SOUWASA Tanzania Eastern Songea Urban (single city/ USAQ Mohamed Gayo, P.O. Box 6, +255 25 Urban Water municiaplity 260226, 2602294, souwasa@yahoo.com & Sewerage Authority 20 South Darfur SWC Sudan Eastern Nyala Urban (single city/ IBNET no response State Water municiaplity Corporation 2 Southern Water SWSC Zambia Southern Choma Urban (single city/ IBNET Alfred Masupha. Tel +260 22000/2204. and Sewerage municiaplity Email. bomunalula@yahoo.co.uk Company Limited Performance Assessment 22 Stellenbosch Stellenbosch South Africa Southern Stellenbosch Urban (single city/ IBNET Mr Fourie. Tel +27 2 808 8205. Local municiaplity Email. kobusf@stellenbosch.org Municipality 2 Sumbawanga SUWASA Tanzania Eastern Sumbawanga Urban (single city/ National Antipas Shirima. P.O Box 92. Tel. +255 025 Urban Water municiaplity Regulator 2802206. Email. suwasa@yahoo.co.uk and Sewerage Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Authority 24 Swaziland SWSC Swaziland Southern Mbabane National utility USAQ Peter Bhembe, P.O. Box 20, +268 46608, Water Services 4667, pnbhembe@swsc.co.sz Corporation 25 Tabora Urban TBUWASA Tanzania Eastern Tabora Urban (single city/ National Ramadhani Kalingoji. P.O Box 47. Tel +255 Water and municiaplity Regulator 026 260459. Emaill. tuwasa@yahoo.com Sewerage Authority 26 Tanga Urban TUWASA Tanzania Eastern Tanga Urban (single city/ National Joshua Mgeyekwa. P.O Box 50. Tel. +255 ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities Water and municiaplity Regulator 027 2644626. Email. tanga@kaributanga.com Sewerage Authority 47 48 Utility full Utility Short Country Region Principal towns/ Nature of service Source of Executive head of the utility name Name Cities area data 27 Taraba State TSWSA Nigeria Western Jalingo Regional utility USAQ Asabe Mai'Angwa, Taraba state water Water Supply supply Agency, P.M.B 028, Jalingo, Tel: Agency +24807080402, Email:asiybras2yahoo.com 28 Tshwane Metro Tshwane South Africa Southern Pretoria Urban (single city/ IBNET Mr Mouton. Tel +2 58 8022. Metro municiaplity) Email.fransm2@tshwane.gov.za 29 Upper Nile UNSWC Sudan Eastern Malakal Urban (single city/ IBNET no response State Water municiaplity) Corporation 0 Water WCOS Nigeria Western Ibadan Regional utility USAQ I.D Oyegade, Water Corporation of Oyo ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities Corporation of State Secretariat, P.M.b 59, Ibadan, Tel: Oyo State 08027995, Email: wcoys@skannet.com Welkite Town WTWSSE Ethiopia Eastern Welkite Urban (single city/ USAQ Petros Teklewold, P.O. Box 79 , Tel: +25 Water Supply municiaplity) 0064, Fax: +250800, and Sewerage Email: petros62@yahoo.com Performance Assessment Enterprise 2 Western Water WWSC Zambia Southern Mongu Urban (single city/ IBNET Akamana Mulemwa. Tel +260 7 22 856. and Sewerage municiaplity) Email. wwsc@yahoo.com Company Yobe State Water YSWC Nigeria Western Damaturu Regional utility USAQ Idi Mamman Daya, Yobe State Wtaer Corporation Corporation, PMB 02, DamAturu Yobe Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility State, Nigeria, 080626897, Email:idimammanD@yahoo.com 4 Zamfara State ZSWB Nigeria Western Gusau and Garea Regional utility USAQ Sani Mustapha Gasau, Zamfara State Water Water Board Board, Dansadau road Gusau. Tel: 08064899, 080560098, Email: Smusty2008@yahoo.com Annex B: Glossary of Indicators No. Indicator Definition Equation Unit 1. Service Coverage Water coverage Population with access to water services (either with direct Served population (connections & water points) ÷ % service connection or within reach of a public water point) total population within service area as a percentage of the total population under a utility's area of responsibility Sewerage coverage Population with water-borne sewerage services (direct Population with direct sewerage connection ÷ total % service connection) as a percentage of the total population population within service area under utility's area of responsibility 2. Production & Consumption Total water produced per Total annual water supplied to the distribution system [(Volume of total system input * 0^9) ÷ (population litres/person/ day person on a daily basis (including purchased water, if any) expressed by population served by piped water * 65)] served per day Performance Assessment Total water produced per Total annual water supplied to the distribution system [(Volume of total system input * 0^9) ÷ (number of m/connection/day connection on a daily basis (including purchased water, if any) expressed by water connections * 65)] connections served on a daily basis Total water consumption per Total annual water sold expressed by population served on [(Volume of total system input * 0^9) ÷ (population litres/person/ day person on a daily basis a daily basis served by piped water supply * 65)] Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Domestic consumption per [(Total billed domestic consumption * 0^9) ÷ litres/person/ day person on a daily basis (population served by piped water supply * 65)] Domestic consumption as % The percentage of total billed consumption that is billed for (Total billed domestic consumption ÷ total billed % of total consumption domestic use. consumption) *00 3. Non revenue water % Non revenue water (NRW) The difference between water supplied and water sold (i.e. (Total system input in m ­ total billed consumption in % volume of water `lost') expressed as a percentage of net m) ÷ total system input in m *00 water supplied NRW per kilometre of network The volume of water `lost' per kilometre of water distribution [(Total system input in m ­ total billed consumption in m/km/day network per day m) *0^6 ÷ (length of distribution network *65)] 49 NRW per connection on a The volume of water `lost' per water connection per day. [(Total system input in m ­ total billed consumption in m/connection/day daily basis m) *0^6 ÷ (number of water connections *65)] 4. Financial Performance 50 Average tariff per m sold The ratio of a utility's total annual direct billed revenues to Total annual direct billed revenue ÷ total annual US$/m sold total annual water consumption (revenue from bulk water, volume of water sold non water sales, subsidies and interest are excluded) Collection ratio The ratio of cash income (i.e. actual revenue) to total billed Cash income ÷ Billed revenue % revenue, expressed as a percentage Collection period Year-end accounts receivables as a share of annual [(Year-end accounts receivable ÷ total annual # days revenues, expressed in number of days. operating revenues) *65] Operating cost coverage ratio A ratio which measures the utility's ability to cover its Total annual billing revenues ÷ total annual operating ratio Annex B: Glossary of Indicators (OCCR) operating and maintenance costs (excluding interest and costs depreciation) from revenues, without reliance on external subsidies. 5. Costs & Staffing Unit operating costs per m The ratio of a utility's total annual operating expenses and Total annual operational expenses ÷ total annual US$/m sold sold total annual volume of water sold. volume sold Performance Assessment Staff productivity index (SPI) Total staff per ,000 connections Total number of employees ÷ number of water # staff/connections connections Labour costs as a percentage The ratio of lab our costs to total operating costs (does not Labour costs ÷ total operating costs % of operating costs include depreciation or debt service) Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Labour costs as a percentage (Number of staff that participated in one training event % of operating costs ÷ total number of employees) *00 Number of training days per Total number of training days ÷ number of staff that # days participating staff participated in one training event 6. Quality of Service Average response time to hours address a complaint 7. Affordability of Services Average per capita tariff as a [(Total water billing in local currency ÷ (population % percentage of GNI per capita served by piped water supply * exchange rate to US$)) ÷ (GNI per capita in US$) * 00] Monthly bill for households Cost in local currency of 6m water ÷ exchange rate US$/month consuming 6 m per month with US$ through a household connection or shared yard tap (does not include use of stand posts) Domestic water connection Total annual billing revenues ÷ total annual operating % charge as a percentage of costs GNI per capita 8. Assets Average capital expenditure Total capital expenditure in the last 5 years ÷ US$/connection Performance Assessment in the last 5 years per (exchange rate to US$ *5* the number of water connection connections) Grosstotalfixedassetsper Total assets in local currency ÷ (exchange rate to US$/capita capita served US$ * population served by piped water supply) Gross water supply assets per Grossfixedwatersupplyassetsinlocalcurrency Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility US$ capita served ÷ (exchange rate to US$ * population served by piped water supply) 9. Metering Practices Metering level The percentage of connections with operating meters Total number of connections with operating meter ÷ % out of the total number of connections. total number of connections Other OverallEfficiencyIndicator The volume of water for which a utility collects [(-NRW)* Collection Ratio]total number of % Annex B: Glossary of Indicators (OEI) revenue, expressed as a percentage of the total connections volume it produces. 5 52 Annex C: Marketplace results The marketplace results are from the three subregional meetings held in 2008. The activity gave utilities the opportunity to prioritize its learning needs (demand) and offer its expertise (supply). MARKETPLACE: SERVICES TO THE POOR Supply & Demand Country Utility/organization Request/offer DEMAND Kenya Naivasha Pro-poor policy Regional NETWAS Lessons from working with CBOs Zambia KWSC Payment methods SUPPLY Kenya NWSCO Lessons from working with CBOs Tanzania Moshi Lessons from working with CBOs Tanzania Tanga Lessons from working with CBOs Zambia Southern Water and Sewerage Co Lessons from working with CBOs Performance Assessment Zambia KWSC Lessons from working with CBOs Sudan Khartoum Payment methods Zambia Lusaka Water and Sewerage Co Alternative models for managing services Regional NETWAS CBOs and informal providers Burkina Faso ONEA CBOs and informal providers Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Uganda NWSC Social connection policy Kenya Kisumu Water and Sewerage Co Delegated management model MARKETPLACE: TECHNICAL Supply & Demand Country Utility/organization Request/offer DEMAND DRC REGIDESO NRW Management Ethiopia Mekelle NRW Management Kenya NWSCO NRW Management Kenya Kisumu Water and Sewerage Co NRW Management Kenya ELDOWAS NRW Management Sudan Khartoum State Water Corporation NRW Management Tanzania Mbeya NRW Management Tanzania Shinyanga NRW Management Tanzania Mtwara NRW Management Tanzania Moshi NRW Management Tanzania IRUWASA NRW Management Tanzania Mwanza NRW Management Performance Assessment Uganda NWSC NRW Management Zambia Southern Water and Sewerage Co NRW Management Zambia Lusaka Water and Sewerage Co NRW Management Zambia KWSC NRW Management Regional NETWAS Demand management/district metering Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Tanzania Lindi Demand management/district metering Uganda NWSC Demand management/district metering Zambia KWSC Demand management/district metering Tanzania DAWASCO Meter Management Uganda NWSC Meter Management Zambia Lusaka Water and Sewerage Co Network Management Ethiopia Mekelle Asset Management Annex C: Marketplace results Tanzania Tanga Asset Management Tanzania Mbeya Operations Management Ethiopia Mekelle Static Plant Maintenance 5 MARKETPLACE: COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 54 Supply & Demand Country Utility/organization Request/offer DEMAND Kenya Kisumu Water and Sewerage Co Static Plant Maintenance Ethiopia Mekelle Block Mapping Kenya Naivasha Water and Sewerage Co Block Mapping Sudan Khartoum State Water Corporation Block Mapping Tanzania IRUWASA Block Mapping Tanzania Zanzibar Project Management Annex C: Marketplace results Ethiopia Mekelle Quality Assurance Kenya Kisumu Water and Sewerage Co Quality Assurance Tanzania Mbeya Quality Assurance Kenya Naivasha Water and Sewerage Co Investment Planning Kenya Malindi Water and Sewerage Company NRW Management Performance Assessment SUPPLY Tanzania Tanga NRW Management Kenya Malindi Water and Sewerage Company Meter Management Uganda NWSC Network Management Uganda NWSC Operations Management Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Uganda NWSC Static Plant Maintenance Uganda NWSC Block Mapping Uganda NWSC Project Management Tanzania DAWASCO Quality Assurance Uganda NWSC Quality Assurance Uganda NWSC Capacity Building & Training Regional NETWAS Capacity Building & Training MARKETPLACE: CUSTOMER CARE Supply & Demand Country Utility/organization Request/offer DEMAND Kenya Malindi Customer satisfaction surveys Tanzania Mbeya Customer satisfaction surveys Regional NETWAS Attachment opportunities for new staff Kenya Kisumu Water and Sewerage Co General customer care Tanzania DAWASCO General customer care Tanzania Mbeya General customer care Tanzania Mtwara General customer care Uganda NWSC General customer care Zambia KWSC General customer care Ethiopia Mekelle Customer management system Kenya Naivawas Customer care policy Performance Assessment Kenya Naivawas Culture change Tanzania Zanzibar Culture change Kenya Eldowas Customer call center Tanzania IRUWASA Staff training on customer care SUPPLY Uganda NWSC Customer satisfaction surveys Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Uganda NWSC Attachment opportunities for new staff Uganda NWSC Customer management system DRC REGIDESO Customer management system Senegal SDE Customer management system Uganda NWSC Customer care policy Uganda NWSC Culture change Uganda NWSC Customer call center Annex C: Marketplace results Uganda NWSC Staff training on customer care 55 MARKETPLACE: COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 56 Supply & Demand Country Utility/organization Request/offer DEMAND Tanzania Mwanza Mobilizing resources Tanzania Tanga Mobilizing resources Tanzania Shinyanga Mobilizing resources Tanzania RUWASA Billing system/database cleanup Tanzania Shinyanga Billing system/database cleanup Zambia KWSC Billing system/database cleanup Annex C: Marketplace results Zambia Lusaka Water & Sewerage Co Billing system/database cleanup Zambia Southern Water and Sewerage Co Billing system/database cleanup Ethiopia Mekele Revenue Collection/Debt management Kenya Malindi Revenue Collection/Debt management Tanzania Lindi Revenue Collection/Debt management Tanzania Moshi Revenue Collection/Debt management Performance Assessment Zambia KWSC Revenue Collection/Debt management Zambia KWSC Outsourcing revenue collection Ethiopia Mekele Financial management Tanzania RUWASA Financial management Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Tanzania Lindi MIS SUPPLY Kenya NWSCO Billing system/database cleanup Tanzania DAWASCO Billing system/database cleanup Uganda NWSC Billing system/database cleanup Uganda NWSC Revenue Collection/Debt management Sudan Khartoum Outsourcing revenue collection Uganda NWSC Financial management Uganda NWSC MIS Uganda NWSC Tariff Policy Analysis MARKETPLACE: SECTOR POLICY & REFORMS Supply & Demand Country Utility/organization Request/offer DEMAND DRC REGIDESO Public-private partnerships Kenya Malindi Performance contracts Kenya Eldowas Performance-based incentives Kenya NWSCO Performance-based incentives Tanzania Lindi Performance-based incentives Zambia Lusaka Water and Sewerage Co Performance-based incentives DRC REGIDESO Capacity building of management Tanzania DAWASCO Change Management Tanzania Mwanza Change Management Zambia Lusaka Water and Sewerage Co Change Management Performance Assessment Uganda NWSC Public-private partnerships SUPPLY Uganda NWSC Performance contracts Uganda NWSC Performance-based incentives Uganda NWSC Development & implementation of PIP Uganda NWSC Change Management Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Kenya Eldowas ISOCertification Annex C: Marketplace results 57 MARKETPLACE: HUMAN RESOURCES 58 Supply & Demand Country Utility/organization Request/offer DEMAND Tanzania Mbeya Recruitment Tanzania Zanzibar Recruitment Tanzania Mbeya On-the-job-training Kenya Naivasha Team building Zambia Lusaka Water and Sewerage Co Performance management Zambia KWSC Performance management Annex C: Marketplace results Tanzania Zanzibar Right sizing Kenya NWSC Right sizing Tanzania Tanga Staff motivation Tanzania Zanzibar Staff motivation Kenya Kisumu Water and Sewerage Co Capacity building Mozambique Capacity building Performance Assessment Sudan Khartoum Capacity building Tanzania DAWASCO Capacity building Tanzania Mtwara Capacity building Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Uganda NWSC Capacity building SUPPLY DRC REGIDESO Networking and collaboration Regional CAP-NET HR management Uganda NWSC HR management Zambia Southern Water and Sewerage Co Working with trade unions August 2009 WSP MISSION The Water and Sanitation Program is an international partnership for improving water and sanitation sector policies, practices, and capacities to serve poor people WSP-AFRICA'S FINANCIAL PARTNERS Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, The World Bank, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Prepared by: Richard Schuen and Jonathan Parkinson Contributions by: Caroline van den Berg and Alexander Danilenko leading the IBNET initiative, Mr. Dajan Hossana and Alhadji Dieng were instrumental in collecting data from the utilities in West Africa, and Lilian Otiego who entered and verified the data The Water and Sanitation Program is an international Water and Sanitation Program-Africa partnership for improving Authors: Dr. Josses Mugabiwater and sanitation sector (principal author), and The World Bank policies, practices, and capacities to serve poor people Vivian Castro who managed the benchmarking exercise Hill Park Building and final production of this report Upper Hill Road P.O. Box 30577 - 00100 Task Team Leader: Dennis Mwanza Nairobi, Kenya Photographs: Courtesy of WSP-Africa Tel: +254-20-322 6334 Financial support to produce this report jointly Fax: +254-20-322 6386 provided by WSP-AF and UN Habitat Email: wspaf@worldbank.org Web site: www.wsp.org Created by: Eric Lugaka