PWWA Benchmarking 2011 Results Overview

1. Pacific Water and Wastes Association PWWA Benchmarking 2011 results

2. OVERVIEW / AGENDA • Approach and Methodology • Key Result Areas (KRA’s) • Overall Performance

3. KEY PLAYERS • UTILITIES • PWWA • PRIF/PIAC and Consultants • SPC SOPAC • ADB

4. WHY BENCHMARKING • Provide basis for improving Utility performance • Collect data on current performance • Compare data with other utilities • Monitor changes over time • Understand data challenges & improve • Improve availability of sector information • Guide PWWA focus areas • Trends and inter-relationships • Areas for priority and further investigation • MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER BASED ON AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE IN THE PACIFIC

5. PREVIOUS BENCHMARKING • ADB Cheatham (2005) • 8 participating countries • Data reliability issues • ADB Castalia (2010) • Focus on water and energy • 12 participating countries • Focus on regulatory frameworks • PWWA 2010 • 8 participating utilities • Limited set of indicators

6. SCOPE • Focus on utilities (WSP’s) • Focus on (mostly urban) service areas • Wastewater not sanitation • Limited attention for water resources • Data refer to the year(s) 2010-2011

7. DATA ISSUES • Used data provided by utilities • Understanding of questionnaire not always clear • 80% primary and 60% secondary data answered • Good response on scheme details, customers and service reliability • Key areas for improving quality of data: • Volumes, service levels, financial data, sewage, water balance

8. KEY RESULT AREAS

9. INDICATORS ADOPTED

10. PARTICIPATING UTILITIES

11. SIZE OF UTILITIES • 6 Small Utilities (<2500 connections) • 7 Medium Utilities (2,500 - 10,000 connections) • 5 Large Utilities (> 10,000 connections)

12. INSTITUTIONAL SETTING 3 1 6 6 1 1 1

13. PSP AND PRICING 5 7 2 2 4 0 6 5 5 1

14. PRODUCTION AND VOLUMES KEY RESULT AREA 1

15. KRA 1 – PRODUCTION AND VOLUMES • Key purpose • Volume of water produced • Adequate water for health and lifestyle • Production volume not excessive • Cost implications – both CAPEX and OPEX • Volume of water consumed • Basis of NRW calculations • Internal property losses • Basis of revenue • Volume of sewage • Overall – is sewerage coverage sufficient? • Ratio to water produced – excessive storm water (or I/I in sewerage networks) – cost and capacity implications

16. KRA 1 – PRODUCTION AND VOLUMES • Key data • Volume of water from sources (untreated) + volume of water treated • Volume of water billed (this is considered a proxy for volume of water consumed) • Volume of sewage generated by customers • Number of ‘customers’ (i.e. connections for both water supply and sewerage)

17. KRA 1 – PRODUCTION AND VOLUMES • Very high unit volumes produced • By comparison low unit volume billed • In absolute terms high unit volume billed (i.e. high household consumption or water loss) • High sewage volume compared with water consumed

18. Volumes produced and billedper connection per day

19. Volumes produced and billed per capita per day

20. Volumes of sewage produced and treated

21. Technical performance KEY RESULT AREA 2

22. KRA 2 – TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE • Key purpose • Coverage • Progress toward MDG’s • Guide investment in expansion and growth • Non Revenue Water (NRW) • Commercial losses – lost revenue • Physical losses – lost water and additional cost • Continuity of supply • Effectiveness of operations • Service delivery to customers

23. KRA 2 – TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE • Key data • Populations within area of responsibility and serviced by the utility • Estimated average hrs of supply per day • Various for NRW – volume of water produced, estimates of free, unbilled, unauthorized, meter error etc.

24. KRA 2 – TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE • Water supply coverage higher than SE Asia and Africa • Average similar to previous year • Sewerage coverage lags significantly • Continuity appears good – accuracy questionable • Very high volumes of NRW

25. Coverage for Water Supply and Sewerage (%)

26. Continuity of Supply (hrs/day)

27. Non Revenue Water (m3/connection/day)

28. Non Revenue Water (%)

29. Health & environment KEY RESULT AREA 3

30. KRA 3 – HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT • Key purpose • Chlorine residual • Preventative for water quality – maintain in network • Micro-biological compliance • Validation of current situation • Reflects generally good water quality • Must be careful – snapshot in time • % sewage treated • Indication of level of treatment – starting point and needs significant refinement

31. KRA 3 – HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT • Key data • No. of residual Cl tests + number passed the min. standard • No. of micro-biological tests + number passed standard • Total volume of sewage produced + volume treated • Of the volume treated, what is the volume which is treated to a primary standard – or better

32. KRA 3 – HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT • Drinking water quality compliance lower than it should be • High range for Cl • Low rate of sewage treatment

33. Drinking Water Quality (E-coli and Residual Chlorine)

34. Sewage Treated (Volume and %)

35. % of sewage treated (compared to water produced)

36. Human resources KEY RESULT AREA 4

37. KRA 4 - HUMAN RESOURCES • Key purpose • Staff Utilization • Labour makes up 40% of OPEX – need to use it efficiently • Training • Development – level of effort invested • Should reflect in development of staff • Average cost of staff • Attractiveness of working for utility

38. KRA 4 - HUMAN RESOURCES • Key data • No. of staff (both full-time + casual) • Number of training days • Estimate of staff turnover • Total cost of labour

39. KRA 4 – HUMAN RESOURCES • Median staff utilization 11 FTE/1000 conn - quite good • Low investment in training (or recording of training figures) • Median staff cost is 2.1 times GNI • Labour is 40% of OPEX - high

40. Staff per 1000 Connections

41. Training days and Budget

42. Average Cost of Staff compared with per capita income

43. Customer service KEY RESULT AREA 5

44. KRA 5 – CUSTOMER SERVICE • Key purpose • Critical to achieving customer satisfaction • Meter coverage important to provide information to improve both technical and financial performance • Levels of customer complaints are generally used as a proxy for the overall performance of the business • Affordability is a key issue for utilities in the pacific region

45. KRA 5 – CUSTOMER SERVICE • Key data • Number of meters which are operational (ie remove relevant error records) • No. of customer complaints • Tariff for new connection, volumetric tariff and revenue from water sales

46. KRA 5 – CUSTOMER SERVICE Key Indicator Results

47. KRA 5 – CUSTOMER SERVICE • Key Observations • Good metering rate 100% although 95% operational – accuracy questionable • Customer complaints similar to SEA • New connections affordable • High average water bills (as % GNI pp) – mostly related to high consumption • Less than 50% of the participating utilities could quote the number of customer complaints?

48. Meter Coverage and Accuracy

49. Customer Complaints / 1000 connections

50. Affordability of new connections