pacific water and wastes association - …€¦ · · 2017-06-19pacific water and wastes...

December

2011

PACIFIC WATER AND WASTES ASSOCIATION

DEVELOPMENT OF A WATER UTILITY

BENCHMARKING SYSTEM

Benchmarking

Report

PREPARED BY THE PACIFIC WATER AND WASTES ASSOCIATION WITH THE TECHNICAL

SUPPORT OF SPC–SOPAC AND PIAC.

Cover image supplied by Luis Ascui for the ADB.

This is a publication of the Pacific Water and Wastes Association (PWWA).

This report was prepared by Sharyn Bow and Ernest Betham as individual consultants under the guidance and with

support of the Pacific Infrastructure Advisory Centre (PIAC) in Sydney, Australia, the PWWA and the Secretariat of the

Pacific Community - Applied Geo-science and Technology Division (SPC–SOPAC). PIAC operates under the co-

ordination of the Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility (PRIF), a partnership for improved infrastructure in the Pacific

Region between the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID),

the European Commission (EC) and the European Investment Bank (EIB), the New Zealand Ministry for Foreign Affairs

and Trade and the World Bank Group.

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of any

of the PRIF Partners, the governments they represent, or their governing bodies. The PRIF Partners do not guarantee

the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accept no responsibility for any consequence of their use.

i

Preface

In 2010 the Pacific Water and Wastes Association (PWWA) decided to establish

benchmarking for its member water utilities to help them in developing common performance

indicators to support their overall management and decision making.

The primary objective of benchmarking is to improve performance of water utilities by

comparing with and learning from each other. Performance monitoring can also contribute

significantly towards improved information and decision making in water utilities, identifying

performance shortfalls and effecting improvements through sharing of information and best

practices. Ultimately the PWWA believes that benchmarking will contribute to better water

services for Pacific Island countries.

In undertaking this Project, the main challenge has been in the availability of reliable

information on water utilities performance. This will continue to be a critical factor in

developing performance improvements and institutional reforms for the water and sanitation

sector in the Pacific region. The PWWA as a regional institution is pleased to take the

initiative through this Project to set up and further develop this critical database for the sector.

The PWWA acknowledges and is appreciative of the support provided by the Pacific Region

Infrastructure Facility (PRIF) and its partners, namely the Asian Development Bank, the

Australian Agency for International Development, the European Union and the European

Investment Bank, the New Zealand Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the World

Bank.

Patrick Amini Latu Kupa

Chairman- Benchmarking Chief Executive Officer

Steering Committee PWWA

ii

Table of Contents

Preface .................................................................................................................................................... i

Report Overview ................................................................................................................................... 1

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 2

PART A: BENCHMARKING DATA AND FINDINGS

1 Objectives of Part A ............................................................................................................................ 9

2 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 10

3 Scope and Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 14

4 Benchmarking Indicators Adopted .................................................................................................... 15

5 Data Received from Participating Utilities ......................................................................................... 17

6 Participating Countries and Utilities .................................................................................................. 23

7 Overview of Schemes and Assets ..................................................................................................... 30

8 Benchmarking Results and Findings ................................................................................................. 35

9 Overall Performance ......................................................................................................................... 77

10 Challenges from the Utility‟s Perspective ........................................................................................ 81

11 Focus Areas for Performance Improvement .................................................................................... 83

12 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................. 84

PART B: BENCHMARKING PROJECT REPORT

1 Objectives of Part B .......................................................................................................................... 85

2 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 86

3 Project Approach ............................................................................................................................... 92

4 Project Methodology and Program ................................................................................................... 99

5 Benchmarking Workshop ................................................................................................................ 107

6 Lessons from Benchmarking Project .............................................................................................. 110

7 Future Benchmarking Directions ..................................................................................................... 119

8 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................. 120

Endnotes ............................................................................................................................................ 122

Appendix A: Utilities and Key Benchmarking Contacts .............................................................. 123

Appendix B: List of Documents Referenced ................................................................................. 125

Appendix C: Blank Questionnaire and Guidance Notes ............................................................. 127

Appendix D: Indicator Definitions .................................................................................................. 165

Appendix E: Data Reliability Definitions ........................................................................................ 167

Appendix F: Profile of IWSA (Community Schemes) .................................................................. 169

Appendix G: Benchmarking Workshop Attendees ...................................................................... 171

Appendix H: Suggested Improvements to Benchmarking Questionnaire ................................. 173

Appendix I: Water Service Provider Report Cards ....................................................................... 177

iii

List of Figures


Figure 5.2.1 Rate of response: data answered by Water Service Providers ....................................... 18

Figure 5.2.2 Data answered by WSPs (by questionnaire section) ....................................................... 19

Figure 5.5.1 Data reliability grades according to Water Service Providers .......................................... 21

Figure 6.1.1 Pacific Water and Wastes Association: geographical area .............................................. 23

Figure 6.1.2 Diarrheal related deaths in the Pacific region ................................................................... 24

Figure 7.1.1 Number and size of water supply schemes ...................................................................... 30

Figure 7.1.2 Typical scheme type: water supply ................................................................................... 31

Figure 7.1.3 Water resource availability constraints ............................................................................. 31

Figure 7.1.4 Water network density (connection/km water main) ......................................................... 32

Figure 7.2.1 Number and size of sewerage schemes .......................................................................... 33

Figure 7.2.2 Type of sewerage schemes .............................................................................................. 33

Figure 7.2.3 Sewerage network density (connection/km water main) .................................................. 34

Figure 8.2.1 V1 and V2: Volume of water produced and billed (kL/connection/day) ............................ 38

Figure 8.2.2 V1 and V2 : Volume of water produced and billed (L/capita/day) .................................... 38

Figure 8.2.3 V3 : Volume of sewage collected and treated (kL/connection/day).................................. 39

Figure 8.2.4a Volume v/s terrain ........................................................................................................... 40

Figure 8.2.4b Volume produced v/s rainfall ........................................................................................... 40

Figure 8.2.4c Volume produced v/s GNI ............................................................................................... 40

Figure 8.2.4d Volume produced v/s NRW ............................................................................................ 40

Figure 8.3.1 O1 and O4: Coverage of water supply and sewerage ...................................................... 43

Figure 8.3.2 O2: Continuity of water supply (hrs/day) .......................................................................... 44

Figure 8.3.3 O3: Non-Revenue Water (kL/connection/day) .................................................................. 44

Figure 8.3.4 O3: Non-Revenue Water (% of total produced) ................................................................. 44

Figure 8.3.5 Non Revenue Water using two measures ........................................................................ 46

Figure 8.3.6 Physical loss (kL/connection/day)..................................................................................... 48

Figure 8.3.7 Physical loss (kL/km main/day) ........................................................................................ 48

Figure 8.3.8 Main breaks and sewer overflows (per 100km of main) ................................................... 48

Figure 8.3.9 Energy usage (kWH/kL) .................................................................................................... 49

Figure 8.4.1 HE1 and HE2: Drinking water quality compliance ............................................................ 52

Figure 8.4.2 HE3: Volume and percentage of sewage treated ............................................................. 53

Figure 8.4.3 HE3: Percentage of sewage treated compared with water produced .............................. 53

Figure 8.4.4 Key water treatment challenges ....................................................................................... 55

Figure 8.5.1 HR1: Staff per 1000 connections ...................................................................................... 59

Figure 8.5.2 HR2: Training days and investment ................................................................................. 59

Figure 8.5.3 HR3: Average cost of staff compared with GNI ................................................................ 59

Figure 8.5.4 Annual staff turnover rates ................................................................................................ 60

Figure 8.6.1 CM1: Meter coverage and accuracy ................................................................................. 64

Figure 8.6.2 CM2: Customer complaints per 1000 connections ............................................................ 65

Figure 8.6.3 CM3: Affordability of new connections ............................................................................. 65

Figure 8.6.4 CM4: Affordability of average water bills .......................................................................... 65

Figure 8.6.5 GNI PPP v/s affordability of average bill ........................................................................... 66

Figure 8.6.6 Customer feedback methods ............................................................................................ 67

Figure 8.6.7 Types of customer complaints recorded ........................................................................... 67

Figure 8.7.1 F1: Operating Cost Recovery Ratio (OCRR) .................................................................... 71

Figure 8.7.2 F2: Collection ratio ............................................................................................................ 72

Figure 8.7.3 F3: Accounts receivable (days) ........................................................................................ 72

Figure 8.7.4 Overall Efficiency Indicator (OEI)...................................................................................... 72

iv

Figure 8.7.5 Components of recurring operating cost .......................................................................... 74

Figure 8.7.6 Average operating cost (USD/kL) ..................................................................................... 75

Figure 9.1.1 Overall performance indicator ranked chart ..................................................................... 78

Figure 9.1.2 Overall performance indicator by institutional arrangement ............................................. 79

Figure 9.1.3 Overall performance indicator by utility size ..................................................................... 79

Figure 10.1.1 Key challenges from the utility‟s perspective .................................................................. 81


Figure 3.1.1 Project role within long-term benchmarking initiative ....................................................... 92

Figure 3.2.1 Process for selection of Preliminary Benchmarking Indicators ........................................ 95

Figure 4.1.1 Overview of proposed methodology ................................................................................. 99

Figure 4.12.1 Project implementation arrangements .......................................................................... 105

v

List of Tables

Table A Summary of Benchmarking Data ............................................................................................... 4


Table 2.1 Previous Pacific benchmarking initiatives ............................................................................. 11

Table 2.2 Summary of existing PWWA performance measures (2009 & 2010) ................................... 11

Table 2.3 List of other benchmarking initiatives for comparison ........................................................... 12

Table 4.1 Summary of benchmarking indicators adopted ..................................................................... 15

Table 5.1 Reliability grades description ................................................................................................. 21

Table 6.1 Participating countries and water service providers ............................................................. 25

Table 6.2 Key water service provider characteristics ........................................................................... 27

Table 8.1 KRA 1 Volumes: key statistics and benchmarks .................................................................. 37

Table 8.2 KRA 2 Technical performance: key statistics and benchmarks ............................................ 42

Table 8.3 KRA 2: O3 Non-Revenue Water using various measures .................................................... 46

Table 8.4 KRA 3 Health and environment: key statistics and benchmarks .......................................... 51

Table 8.5 KRA 3 Health and environment: secondary data findings .................................................... 55

Table 8.6 KRA 4 Human resources: key statistics and benchmarks .................................................... 57

Table 8.7 KRA 5 Customer service: key statistics and benchmarks .................................................... 62

Table 8.8 KRA 6 Financial sustainability: key statistics and benchmarks ............................................. 70

Table 8.9 Summary of indicators and key statistics .............................................................................. 76

Table 11.1 Critical focus areas for utility performance improvement .................................................... 83


Table 2.1 Participating countries and water service providers .............................................................. 87

Table 2.2 Summary of previous and ongoing benchmarking initiatives ............................................... 89

Table 2.3 Summary of existing PWWA performance measures ........................................................... 90

Table 3.1 Typical service objectives of Pacific water service providers ................................................ 93

Table 3.2 Water service provider attributes and scope clarifications ................................................... 94

Table 3.3 Proposed reliability grades for CORE data ........................................................................... 98

Table 5.1 Timetable for benchmarking workshop ................................................................................ 107

Table 6.1 Options for benchmarking system platforms ....................................................................... 113

Table 7.1 Recommended staging approach to future benchmarking .................................................. 119

vi

Abbreviations

ASPA American Samoa Power Authority

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CED Common Efficient Drainage

CUC Commonwealth Utilities Corporation (Saipan)

DERM Department of Environment and Resource Management

DWSP Drinking Water Safety Plan

FSM Federated States of Micronesia

FTE Full Time Equivalent

FTP File Transfer Protocol

GNI PPP Gross National Income (based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)

IWA International Water Association

IWSA Independent Water Schemes of Samoa

kL Kilo-Liter (1,000 liters)

km Kilometer

KRA Key Result Area

kWH Kilo-Watt hours

m3 Cubic meter (1,000 liters)

MDG Millennium Development Goals

ML Mega-liter (1,000,000 liters, or 1,000 m3)

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

NZ New Zealand

NZWA Water New Zealand

NRW Non-Revenue Water

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OEI Overall Efficiency Indicator

OPEX Operational Expenditure

OPI Overall Performance Indicator

PIAC Pacific Infrastructure Advisory Centre

PICTs Pacific Island Countries and Territories

PNG Papua New Guinea

PRIF Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility

PWWA Pacific Water and Wastes Association

QLD

QWD

Queensland

Queensland Water Directorate

RMI Republic of the Marshall Islands

SEA South East Asia

SEAWUN South East Asian Water Utilities Network

SIWA Solomon Islands Water Authority

SOE State Owned Enterprise

SPC–SOPAC Secretariat of the Pacific Community – Applied Geosciences and

Technology Division of SPC

STP

SWA

Sewage Treatment Plant

Samoa Water Authority

TA Technical Assistance

TOR Terms of Reference

TWB Tonga Water Board

UNELCO Electrique du Vanuatu Ltd

USD US Dollar

vii

WAF Water Authority of Fiji

WOP Water Operators Partnership

WSAA Water Services Association of Australia

WSP

WTP

Water Service Provider

Water Treatment Plant

PWWA BENCHMARKING REPORT

1

Report Overview

Introduction

In September 2010 the Pacific Water and Wastes Association (PWWA) on behalf of its member water

utilities, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community–Applied Geo-science and Technology Division

(SPC–SOPAC) and the Pacific Infrastructure Advisory Center (PIAC) signed a Memorandum of

Understanding (MoU), expressing agreement of the three organizations to work together on

establishing a sustainable benchmarking system for water utilities in the Pacific Region. The

benchmarking system is intended to assist water utilities to improve their performance and will

enhance the availability of information on water sector performance in the region. In the MoU, the

partners agreed that the PWWA will have the overall coordination role, SPC–SOPAC will provide

technical support, and PIAC will arrange for technical assistance.

The Technical Assistance for the benchmarking system commenced in February 2011, with collection

of data for all participating utilities occurring between February and August 2011. This Draft

Benchmarking Report presents the findings of the data analysis and is intended to inform the key

stakeholders and participating utilities. The draft report was presented and discussed during a

Benchmarking Workshop associated with the PWWA Conference held in Fiji on the 26th and 27

th of

September 2011.

Project Objectives

This benchmarking project builds on the benchmarking exercise commenced in 2009 by the PWWA

for a limited number of key performance indicators as previously agreed between PWWA members.

The intent of this project is to establish a benchmarking framework for Pacific Water Service Providers

(WSPs), which contributes to the following key objectives:

Key Objectives

Improved service delivery levels and efficiency of participating water utilities.

Improved information and management decision-making with water utilities.

Better understanding of performance gaps in the provision of water infrastructure

across the Pacific.

Enhance the capability and commitment of water utilities to gather and report

information to support a sustained system of performance benchmarking over time.

Report Structure: Part A and B This Report is structured to include the following key parts:

Part A – Benchmarking Data and Findings

Part B – Benchmarking Project Report

Executive Summary

2

Executive Summary

Key Findings and Observations from the Benchmarking

(i) Benchmarking Indicators Adopted

In 2009, PWWA commenced a process of baseline data collection and benchmarking of their

members. Those indicators, agreed to by PWWA members and included within the PWWA‟s own

strategic plan, formed the basis of the core set of indicators adopted in this study.

Those indicators were expanded upon with a particular focus on the international IB-Net

benchmarking framework indicators to enable future inclusion in that program. Indicator definitions are

included in Appendix D.

The indicators calculated under this benchmarking initiative have been compared with the range of

indicators available in other international studies, where deemed appropriate for each indicator.

Comparisons within the Pacific water utilities are complemented by comparisons against results from

previous initiatives from within the Pacific and with other jurisdictions for various purposes.

(ii) Key Statistics

Section 8 of Part A in this report presents the key findings of the Benchmarking Study. Table A below

presents the final benchmarking data.

Notwithstanding data accuracy issues, some key statistics generated from the data collected are as

follows:

Key Statistics

28 per cent of utilities are faced with a lack of water resources and 62 per cent of

utilities have less than 24 hours storage capacity within their water supply networks.

Average coverage within the supply areas is 76 per cent for water supply and 32 per

cent for sewerage.

25 per cent of utilities have zero residual chlorine in their networks and only 52per

cent of sewage produced is treated to primary standard.

One third of utilities are not able to provide 24/7 water supply.

Water production on a per connection basis is high with a median of 1.96

m3/connection/day, around 60 per cent of which is billed to customers.

Water production on a per capita basis exceeds the typical design unit demand used

for infrastructure sizing throughout the Pacific.

The average level of Non-Revenue Water (NRW) is 1.0 m3 per connection per day (or

47 per cent of water produced), which equates to approximately USD 50 Million per

annum in terms of production costs and revenue foregone.


3

The average staff utilization rate is 11 staff per 1000 connections.

New connections in the Pacific are very affordable when compared with other parts of

the world.

Water tariffs in the Pacific are relatively low and the cost of basic water consumption

(at 6 m3 per connection per month) is very affordable. Average water bills are

relatively high due to comparatively higher consumption rates.

The median operating cost recovery ratio (excluding depreciation) is 98 per cent,

which means that the majority of Pacific water utilities break even in their operations

without any budget for renewals or expansion.

The median collection ratio for the Pacific is 89 per cent with a median collection

period of four months before water bills are paid.

The utilities that operate under private sector management or with considerable

private sector involvement demonstrate better technical and financial performance.

(iii) Overall Performance and Critical Issues

Using the data collected, an Overall Performance Indicator (OPI) was developed, in order to facilitate

overall comparison of water utilities. Section 9 of the report presents the basis of the OPI. Section 9

in Part A of the report also presents an Overall Efficiency Indicator (OEI), which is essentially an

overall indicator of financial performance. Key observations relating to overall performance include:

Key Observations: Overall Performance

Utilities with a high Overall Efficiency (i.e. OEI) from a revenue perspective are

more likely to be in the higher overall performance group (i.e. both financial and

technical) and similarly, utilities with good overall performance are more likely to

have good revenue recovery.

Those organizations with private sector participation (i.e. private companies or

private/government joint companies) clearly perform better in terms of OPI and

OEI.

Government departments and statutory organizations were in the lower

performance range, however, in terms of financial performance, the worst were

the State Owned Enterprises (SOEs).

Utility performance, both OPI and OEI, is related to size with the large utilities

performing best, although it should be noted that one small utility (Phonpei)

appears in the top five performers in terms of OPI.

The top five performing utilities are Unelco (Vanuatu), Eda Ranu, WaterPNG, FSM

Pohnpei and the Tonga Water Board.

Executive Summary

4

Table A: Summary of benchmarking data

KRA No. Indicator Units

Pac

ific

Ben

chm

ark

PWWA Previous Average

PWWA (2011) WS AA

NZWA Africa SEA

PW

WA

(20

09)

PW

WA

(20

10)

Ave

rage

25th

per

cent

ile

Med

ian

75th

per

cent

ile

WS

AA

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G1

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G2

Med

ian

WO

P A

fric

a A

vg

WO

P A

fric

a T

arge

t

SE

AW

UN

Med

ian

KR

A1

Pro

du

ctio

n

V1 Volume of water produced kL/conn/day - 2.64 3.33 2.39 0.74 1.96 2.68 0.78 0.92 0.91 0.73 - 0.46

V1b Volume of water produced L/capita/day 250 - - 395 167 306 552 363 385 473 145 - 249

V2 Volume of water sold (i.e. billed)

kL/conn/day - - 1.48 1.40 0.67 1.31 2.11 0.69 0.79 0.73 0.46 - 0.38

V2b Volume of water sold (i.e. billed)

L/capita/day 150 - - 179 56 139 292 328 324 356 91 - 196

V3 Volume of sewage produced kL/conn/day - - - 2.17 1.38 2.19 2.90 0.58 0.87 0.55 - - -

V3b Volume of sewage produced L/capita/day 200 - - 380 232 317 336 216 389 385 - - -

KR

A2

-Tec

hn

ical

Per

form

ance

O1 Water supply coverage % of

population * - 76 76 68 90 95 - - - 73 90 50

O2 Continuity of water supply service (hours available)

Hrs/day 24 - - 20 21 24 24 - - - 17 24 23

O3b Non-revenue water (%) % of water produced

25 - 67 53 31 47 70 10 13 20 36 25 29

O3 Non-revenue water (m3/conn/day)

m3/conn/ day

- - 1.4 0.3 1.0 1.8 - 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4

O3c Non-revenue water (m3/km/day)

m3/km/day

- - 18.5 4.6 10.2 19.6 - 6.6 8.9 32.0 12.0 39.8

O4 Sewerage coverage % of

population * - - 36 20 30 52 - - - 42 82 -

KR

A3

- H

ealt

h &

E

nvi

ron

men

t HE1 Drinking Water quality compliance - residual chlorine

% compliance 100 57 0 85 94 - - - - - 90

HE2 Drinking Water quality compliance - microbiological

% compliance 100 87 79 90 99 100 - - - - -

HE3 % of sewage produced which is treated to at least primary standard

% of sewage 100 52 0 70 100 100 - - - - -

KR

A4

Hu

man

R

eso

urc

es HR1

Water and sewerage business staff/ 1000 connections

#FTE/1000 conn

8 10.2 9.6 11.5 8.6 11.2 14.8 - - - 16.0 7.0 7.5

HR2 Training days (no days/year) days/FTE/year 5 - - 1.02 0.54 1.00 1.15 - - - 9.00 - 1.80

HR3 Average cost of staff (total labour cost / no of staff/GNI)

% of GNI * - - 389 157 214 528 - - - - - 259

KR

A5

Cu

sto

mer

Ser

vice

CM1 Meter coverage rate for water supply customers (for all water meters)

% of customers

100 - - 68 29 98 100 - 45 23 74 100 100

CM2 Customer complaints / 1000 connections

#/1000 conn NA - - 170 56 107 272 10 - - 53 53 168

CM3 Affordability - new connection

% GNI per person

* - - 1.8 0.6 1.4 2.3 - - - 7.0 2.0 -

CM4a Affordability - average bill per person

% GNI per person

* - - 1.7 1.0 1.5 2 0.4 0.3 0.3 - - -

CM4b Affordability - 6m3/month/connection

% GNI per person

* - - 1.6 0.6 1.6 2.2 - - - 7.0 3.0 0.9

KR

A6

Fin

anci

al

Su

stai

nab

ility

F1 Operating cost recovery ratio (excluding dep)

% 120 104 96 102 89 95 150 - - - - 120 140

F2 Collection ratio - actual cash income v/s billed revenue

% 95 - - 83 84 89 98 - - - 73 93 -

F3 Accounts receivable (days) Days 90 - - 143 55 121 220 - - - 243 90 67


5

In order to provide a focus in future years of the benchmarking initiative, the four most critical issues

revealed through this 2011 benchmarking exercise are:

Four Most Critical Issues

1 Levels of NRW are very high which has an impact on service delivery to customers,

water quality and financial sustainability.

2 Drinking water quality compliance is poor which presents significant public health

and economic risks.

3 The extent of effective sewage collection and treatment is limited which presents

significant environmental, public health and economic risks as urbanization

accelerates.

4 Revenue sustainability is low, with reliance on operating subsidies, limited provision

for depreciation or renewals, and lower than desirable collection recovery.

Benchmarking Approach and Methodology

(i) Background In September 2010 the Pacific Water and Wastes Association (PWWA), the Secretariat of the Pacific

Community–Applied Geo-science and Technology Division (SPC–SOPAC) and the Pacific

Infrastructure Advisory Center (PIAC) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to work

together on establishing a sustainable benchmarking system for water utilities in the Pacific Region.

The partners agreed that PWWA will have the overall coordination role, SPC–SOPAC will provide

technical support, and PIAC will arrange for technical assistance.

This Report presents the methodology and findings of the

Technical Assistance for the development of the Water

Utility Benchmarking System for Pacific water utilities. The

benchmarking system is intended to assist water utilities to

improve their performance and will enhance the availability

of information on water sector performance in the region.

(ii) Scope and Limitations

Given time and budget constraints, the scope of this project has been limited to ensure sufficient

focus to yield effective outcomes at this time and enable refinement, expansion and buy-in by the

WSP organizations in the future. The scope and limitations of this Report are further described in

Section 3 of Part A.

Key exclusions are:

Excludes solely rural WSPs.

Excludes members or organizations such as Independent Water Schemes of Samoa (IWSA),

where the schemes are owned and operated by the communities not the member.

Water resources availability and management is often outside of the scope of urban WSPs:

they are simply a stakeholder in their management. Therefore water resources are

The benchmarking system is intended to

assist water utilities to improve their

performance and will enhance the availability

of information on water sector performance in

the region.

Executive Summary

6

Phase 1 (October 2010 – March 2011): inception phase, including development of the

approach and work plan, and presentation of proposed performance indicators. The

proposed methodology was presented in the Inception Report and agreement of the

Steering Committee was obtained.

Phase 2 (March – May 2011): data collection consisted of developing the survey

instrument/questionnaire, developing a database, organizing and implementing data

collection and quality control and assisting water utilities in obtaining the data as required.

Phase 3 (May – November 2011): consisted of data analysis, preparation of a benchmarking

report and submission to the Steering Committee for comments and approval, organizing a

workshop with water utilities to provide feedback and presenting the results and jointly

formulating possible follow up programs and activities on performance improvement.

considerations when developing a „profile‟ of WSPs, however, they are not considered in

performance assessment.

Similar to „rural only‟ WSPs, sanitation requires different types of activities and therefore a

different focus than urban WSPs. Sanitation is a broad ranging topic covering solid waste

management, wastewater management, drainage, environmental health and community

development. Only wastewater management has been included in this study.

(iii) Report Structure

This Report presents the findings of the data analysis in Part A, followed by an overview of the project

and lessons learned regarding the benchmarking project in Part B.

Methodology

(i) Project Phases

The Technical Assistance for the benchmarking system commenced in February 2011, with collection

of data for all participating utilities occurring between February and August 2011. The project involved

three key phases:

(ii) Data Collection and Storage

The questionnaire was designed by the International and Regional Benchmarking Specialists (and

reviewed by the Project Steering Committee) to be as straightforward as possible and was

accompanied by guidance notes to assist benchmarking representatives from each participating

utility. A copy of the blank data questionnaire is included in Appendix C. This questionnaire was for

the 2011 data collection exercise and needs further refinement for a 2012 exercise.

Data has been collected and stored in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet database at this time for ease of

reference and maximum access by all participating utilities. The 2011 Benchmarking database

remains with the PWWA.


7

Data analysis has generally comprised the calculation of various range attributes (e.g. minimum,

maximum, median, 25th percentile and 75

th percentile), the mean and the number of valid samples.

Generally, medians have been used when undertaking this benchmarking and making comparisons.

It is likely that average values are too easily distorted by outliers and erroneous data.

(iii) Benchmarking Workshop

A Benchmarking Workshop was held on the 26th and 27

th of November 2011 to present the findings of

the Draft Benchmarking Report and engage Pacific Water Utilities in the benchmarking process, with

a particular focus on presenting findings and lessons and providing a forum for participating utilities to

provide feedback and consider the implications of the benchmarking results on their own business.

Lessons Learned and Future Directions

Part B of this report discusses in detail the lessons learned through this initial benchmarking activity.

Some of the key lessons include:

Key Lessons

Most utilities found the benchmarking exercise useful and are keen to continue in future

years.

Data quality (both reliability and accuracy) requires ongoing improvement from the

participating utilities, a system of data checking built into the questionnaire and future

auditing of data quality.

At this time there is a genuine need to keep the data questionnaire and analysis simple,

focusing on the technical outcomes rather than higher technology platforms.

If the benchmarking initiative is to continue, participating utilities will require significant

support from the PWWA to ensure that they understand the meaning of indicator

definitions (i.e. ensure that inclusions and exclusions are consistently applied) and

understand the means available to them to collect, store and check the data critical to

the benchmarking study and to their own business management.

Further to the point above, the PWWA requires further support in terms of both

coordination of data collection and technical knowledge to continue this initiative.

Seeking in-kind assistance from Active and Allied members may be a way to spread the

workload; however, it must be stressed that the initiative must be owned by the PWWA

and its members, not by its technical consultants.

If benchmarking data is to be truly useful to utilities in improving their performance over

the coming years, utilities need to understand how their own results and comparisons

with other utilities can drive their business improvements and fit within an overall

business planning context.

Executive Summary

8

Conclusions and Recommendations

In conclusion, this 2011 benchmarking exercise has generated a very good set of base data for the

Pacific water sector across a range of performance indicators relevant to urban water businesses.

While benchmarking data quality requires improvement in the future, through a range of measures

discussed in this report, the four most critical issues facing the Pacific urban water sector at this time,

based on the data collection and analysis, are:


Very high levels of Non-Revenue Water

Poor drinking water quality compliance

Limited sewerage service provision and suitable sewage treatment

Inadequate operating cost recovery

While this is a very good start to understanding some of the critical issues, more detailed investigation

and ongoing attention and investment in the benchmarking initiative is required to better understand

the underlying causes for these performance issues and facilitate improved understanding amongst

PWWA members of how these findings can be incorporated into each utility‟s strategic planning and

budgeting process.

Specifically in relation to future actions towards the

progression of a sustainable benchmarking system for

Pacific utilities, detailed recommendations are presented in

Part B of the Report. The key recommendation moving

forward is that this benchmarking initiative progress in a

logical yet focused way, selecting a key focus area from

the four critical issues identified above in each of the four

years ahead, and harnessing the knowledge and talent

from within its own membership based (e.g. in-kind

contribution) to own and drive the benchmarking initiative

in a cost-effective and meaningful way.

While this is a very good start…ongoing

attention and investment in the benchmarking

initiative is required to better understand the

underlying causes for these performance

issues…


9

PART A:

Benchmarking Data

and Findings

1 Objectives of Part A

Part A of this report is intended to provide an overview of data analysis and findings of the

benchmarking initiative. This information focuses on the findings and outcomes of the benchmarking

initiative to enable the participating utilities to readily review the findings in terms of their respective

performance and the areas for future improvement.

More detailed discussion on organizing the benchmarking data collection and suggestions for

improving the sustainability of the benchmarking initiative are outlined in Part B.

Part A: (2) Background

10

2 Background

2.1 Why Benchmarking?

Benchmarking of service providers is a practical

management and decision-making tool to measure and

compare the performance of utilities through a set of

performance indicators. The objective of benchmarking is

to improve performance by comparing with and learning

from other, similar organizations.

Performance monitoring can play a significant role in the sector as a tool for performance

improvement. Benchmarking can help utilities identify performance gaps and effect improvements

through the sharing of information and best practices, ultimately resulting in better water services in

the Pacific. Furthermore, key trends in performance and crucial areas for performance improvement

requiring focus can be identified for future more detailed investigation.

Limited availability of reliable information on water utilities performance across the region presents a

significant challenge to any performance improvement and institutional reform. There is no national or

regional benchmarking in place and there is no comprehensive assessment of sector performance

through which inter-utility comparisons can be made. At the macro-level, the region lacks the benefit

of having access to water demand and supply data and statistics. Therefore benchmarking and

sharing of data among the partners will greatly improve the availability of information and

transparency in the sector.

2.2 Comparisons with Previous Benchmarking Initiatives In the Pacific region, a number of benchmarking initiatives have been initiated over recent years

which should provide a good historic reference for comparing trends over time. Generally, these

benchmarking initiatives have faced significant challenges in remaining up to date. Limited reference

material documenting these challenges exists; however, discussions with numerous water utility staff

and water industry people from across the Pacific have yielded the following anecdotal key

challenges:

Key Challenges

Lack of suitable resources (e.g. staff) and commitment within the water utilities to

complete the data questionnaires sent to water utilities, as supported by the „Lessons

Learned‟ section of the 2005 ADB Benchmarking Report.

Lack of accurate data or any data within the water utility owing to poor data capture and

storage.

Level of complexity (i.e. too complex and too long) and relevance of questionnaire to

the water utilities.

Inadequate clarity of definition of indicators or data needs which remains an ongoing

challenge considering that visiting all utilities in their own setting is an expensive

exercise.

Benchmarking can help utilities identify

performance gaps and effect improvements

through the sharing of information and best

practices.


11

Lack of continuity or follow-up from an initial survey leaving water utilities wonder what

is next.

„Reinventing the wheel‟ of previous or concurrent benchmarking activities by redefining

generally accepted and commonly used benchmarking indicators.

Key relevant Pacific benchmarking initiatives are outlined in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Previous Pacific benchmarking initiatives

Publisher

and Author

Month

Year Report Title Brief Overview and Relevance to this Study

ADB

Castalia

Dec

2005

Enhancing Effective Regulation of

Water and Energy Infrastructure

and Utility Services (Small Island

Countries Component) - Interim

Pacific Report

8 Participating Utilities (PNG, Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Palau, FSM,

Tonga, Solomon Islands)

Focus generally on regulation not specifically performance

Study was by country, not by WSP as is the case in this Report

Useful information in terms of regulation around the Pacific and also

useful benchmarking information against other small island states

such as those in the Caribbean.

ADB

Cheatham 2005

Performance Benchmarking for

Pacific Power and Water Utilities

8 Participating Utilities (Cook Islands, Fiji, FSM – Yap, FSM –

Kosrae, Papua New Guinea, American Samoa, Western Samoa,

Vanuatu)

Accuracy of data questionable creating concerns regarding

comparison

Study was by country, not by utility as is the case in this study

Limited relevance – has been referenced where relevant

PWWA 2009 &

2010 PWWA preliminary benchmarking

10 Participating Utilities provided data

Many similar indicators

Provides a good source against which to validate some of the core

data from this study

Useful for comparison however only short time elapsed (i.e. cannot

observe long term trend)

Specifically useful to this study is the PWWA‟s own data collection over the past two years. In 2009,

the PWWA commenced a process of baseline data collection and benchmarking of their member

WSPs. A number of members submitted data in July 2009 and July 2010; however, many submitted

incomplete or erroneous data. The PWWA outlined its proposed performance measures against

which to monitor the performance of its members against objectives in the Pacific Water Association‟s

Plan for 2010 to 2015. The key result areas in Table 2.2 generally align with the PWWA‟s own

strategic objectives.

Table 2.2 Summary of existing PWWA performance measures (2009 & 2010)

Result Area Performance / System Measure

Unit Symbol Measure Type

Service Delivery

Nc Total number of customers System No/year

Wtr Proportion of customers on treated water Performance % of customer total

Wp Total water production System ML/year

Wcons Average consumption (treated water only) Performance L/connection/day

Wloss Water losses Performance L/connection/day

Number of water quality tests undertaken System No/year

Part A: (2) Background

12

Wq Proportion of water quality tests passing WHO

guidelines / standards Performance %

Staff Capability Sr Staff / customer ratio Performance Staff/ 1000 connections

Financial

Management

Cr Average Cost recovery annually Performance % of revenue/cost

OCc Average annual operating cost per customer System USD per customer

Rc Average annual revenue per customer System USD per customer

These indicators, agreed to by PWWA members and included within the PWWA‟s own strategic plan,

have formed the basis of the core set of indicators adopted in this study. These indicators have been

expanded upon with a particular focus on the international IB-Net benchmarking framework indicators

to enable future inclusion in that program. Definitions for these indicators have been refined and

aligned with the IB-Net system to enable comparisons to be made with water utilities world-wide, and

potentially enable PWWA data to be hosted on the web based IB-Net system in future.

2.3 Comparisons with Other Parts of the World There are numerous water utility benchmarking activities throughout the world which have been

undertaken as one-off and ongoing programs. Table 2.3 summarizes the most relevant of these

benchmarking initiatives.

Table 2.3 List of other benchmarking initiatives for comparison

Country/ Region

Org. Year Doc type

Document Name

Australia

WSAA 2009-10 Reports National Performance Report 2009-10 Definitions Handbook

Reports National Performance Report 2009-10

Data National Performance Report 2009-10 data

QLD Gov 2008-09 Data Comparative information QLD local government 2008-09

New Zealand

Water NZ 2009-10 Report National Performance Review Report 2009-10

Netherlands 2009 Report Reflections on Performance 2009

USA AWWA 2010 Report 2010 Water and Wastewater Rate Survey

South East Asia

ADB 2004 Report SEAWUN Benchmarking Report 2003

Pacific

ADB/ Castalia

2005 Report Enhancing Effective Regulation of Water and Energy Infrastructure and Utility Services (Small Island Countries Component) - Interim Pacific Report

ADB 2005 Report Performance Benchmarking for Pacific Power and Water Utilities

PWWA 2010 Data PWWA preliminary benchmarking

Africa WSP / WOP

2009 Report Water Operator's Partnership - Africa Utility Performance Assessment


13

To enable comparison with other water utilities worldwide, established and ongoing benchmarking

initiatives (e.g. IB-Net) have been considered in the selection of indicators and preparation of the data

questionnaire. Consistency at this stage, where possible, will enable future inclusion in such

initiatives and the support that such inclusion will bring. Furthermore, comparison against other

regions has also enabled data checking to be undertaken and data anomalies to be identified.

The findings of this benchmarking initiative have been compared with the range of indicators available

in the studies listed in Table 2.3, where deemed appropriate for each indicator. Comparisons within

the Pacific water utilities are complemented by evaluations against results from previous initiatives

from within the Pacific and with other jurisdictions for various purposes. For example, comparisons

against Australian and New Zealand utilities could illustrate best practice for larger WSPs,

comparisons with other small island states or developing country utilities will also provide best

practice comparisons which might provide an interim target for WSPs (refer to Section 8:

Benchmarking Results and Findings).

Part A: (3) Scope and Limitations

14

3 Scope and Limitations

There is significant variation in the ownership, services, geographical focus and function of the WSPs

presented in Section 5: Participating Utilities. Given the time and budget constraints within this

project, it has been necessary to limit the scope. The scope and limitations are intended to ensure

that this project is focused enough and yields sufficiently effective outcomes to support refinement,

expansion and buy-in by the WSP organizations in the future. The following key exclusions in scope

have been agreed:

Key Exclusions

Rural schemes: solely rural WSPs have been omitted from this investigation. The

knowledge of these rural schemes and providers is currently limited and requires

significant investigation in the first instance to determine who and where they are.

Furthermore, appropriate indicators for those WSPs will likely be very different than

the indicators for urban utilities.

Community owned schemes: members or organizations such as Independent

Water Schemes of Samoa (IWSA), where the schemes are owned and operated by

the communities, actually provide a different function than most WSPs. They do not

own or operate assets themselves and therefore have been omitted from this study.

For information and early research for the next year‟s benchmarking exercise,

Appendix F provides a profile overview of IWSA, and Section 6.3 briefly discusses

indicators which may be of relevance to rural and/or community owned schemes. It

is recommended that future benchmarking exercises consider including these

organizations.

Water resources: the availability and management of water resources is often

outside the scope of urban WSPs: they are simply a stakeholder in their

management. Therefore water resources are considerations when developing a

„profile‟ of WSPs; however, they are not considered in performance assessment.

Sanitation: similar to „rural only‟ WSPs, sanitation requires different types of activities

and therefore a different focus than urban WSPs. Sanitation is a broad ranging topic

covering solid waste management, wastewater management, drainage,

environmental health and community development. Only wastewater management

has been included in this study.

These parameters have been put forward based on the following considerations:

As this is a part of a longer term benchmarking initiative, there is a pressing need to make this

first comprehensive benchmarking exercise successful so that confidence is gained and

refinement and expansion in the future is possible.

Notwithstanding the need for success or progress, this initial project needs to be broad

reaching and gather as much „profile‟ information as possible. This profile information may

help guide the refinement of future data collection exercises.

Scope issues which can be managed through the structure of the data questionnaire have not

resulted in exclusions.


15

4 Benchmarking Indicators

Adopted

Table 4.1 below presents the benchmarking indicators adopted across six key result areas (KRAs)

critical to WSP performance world-wide. The first column of Table 4.1 presents the equivalent IB-Net

indicator where one exists. Alongside these adopted indicators, Table 4.1 maps the relevance of

these water utility performance KRAs and indicators against the key result areas of the PWWA, as the

membership organization, as outlined in the PWWA‟s own Strategic Plan (2010-2015). Definitions

are included in Appendix D.

Table 4.1 Summary of benchmarking indicators adopted

IB-

Net

Ref

PWWA

No. Indicator Units

PWWA KRAs 2010-2015

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y

Sta

ff

Cap

abili

ty

Exe

cuti

ve

Mg

mt

Fin

anci

al

Mg

mt

Sta

keh

old

er

Par

tner

ing

KRA1 - Production

3.2 V1 Volume of water produced - total produced from

sources and treatment kL/connection/day

4.2 V2 Volume of water sold (i.e. billed) - through meters

or estimated unmetered kL/connection/day

- V3 Volume of sewage produced - total kL/connection/day

KRA2 - Technical Performance

1.1 O1 Water supply coverage % of population

15.1 O2 Continuity of water supply service (hours

available) Hours/day

6.3 O3 Non-revenue water (%) % of water

produced

2.1 O4 Sewerage coverage % of population

KRA3 - Health and Environment

15.4 HE1 Drinking Water quality compliance - residual

chlorine % compliance

- HE2 Drinking Water quality compliance -

microbiological % compliance

17.1 HE3 % of sewage produced which is treated to at least

primary standard % of sewage

KRA4 - Human Resources

12.2 HR1 Water and sewerage business staff/ 1000

connections

#FTE/1,000

connections

- HR2 Training days (no days/year) Days/FTE/year

- HR3 Average cost of staff (total labor cost / no of

staff/GNI)

Labor $/FTE/GNI

PPP

Part A: (4) Benchmarking Indicators Adopted

16

IB-

Net

Ref

PWWA

No. Indicator Units

PWWA KRAs 2010-2015

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y

Sta

ff

Cap

abili

ty

Exe

cuti

ve

Mg

mt

Fin

anci

al

Mg

mt

Sta

keh

old

er

Par

tner

ing

KRA5 - Customer Service

7.1 CM1 Meter coverage rate for water supply customers

(for all water meters) % of customers

16.1 CM2 Customer complaints / 1000 connections Number/1,000

connections

- CM3 Affordability – new connection % GNI PPP

19.2 CM4 Affordability – average bill % GNI PPP

KRA6 - Financial Sustainability

24.1 F1 Operating cost recovery ratio (excluding

depreciation) %

23.2 F2 Collection ratio - actual cash income v/s billed

revenue %

23.1 F3 Accounts receivable (days) Days


17

5 Data Received from

Participating Utilities

5.1 Overview of Data Questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed to be as straightforward as possible and was accompanied by

guidance notes to assist benchmarking representatives from each utility in completing the data

questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed by the international and regional benchmarking

specialists and reviewed by the Project Steering Committee.

A copy of the blank data questionnaire is included in Appendix C. Some of the data sought was to be

directly used to calculate indicators (i.e. primary data) while some is more contextual information used

to develop a profile of each utility and to help understand the trends/ reasons for the calculated

indicators (i.e. secondary data).

The questionnaire comprised 10 separate sections relevant to the different areas of a water business.

Each worksheet within the questionnaire spreadsheet dealt with one of these key areas and was

divided into two color coded sections to separate out primary and secondary data. Utilities were

requested to focus on completing the primary data if time or resources were limited, however, utilities

were also encouraged to complete the secondary data.

5.2 Summary of Answers to Questionnaire

Data submission was slow and in most instances provided

one or two months later than the due date for submission.

For some utilities, clarification of answers was sought within

the time frames available; however, significant further work

is required over coming years to improve the understanding

of the questions and the accurate completion of

questionnaires.

Figure 5.2.1 below illustrates the rate of answering both primary and secondary questions. It shows

that the primary questions were answered more completely than the secondary questions. The

completion rate for primary questions was 80 per cent (i.e. 80 per cent of respondents), while for the

secondary questions, only 60 per cent of respondents provided valid answers.

…significant further work is required over

coming years to improve the understanding of

the questions and the accurate completion of

questionnaires.

Part A: (5) Data Received from Participating Utilities

18

Figure 5.2.1 Rate of response

Generally, the sections of the questionnaire which were most thoroughly answered were those

relating to straightforward information regarding contacts and utility details, schemes and assets and

data reliability. Sections which had a poor response rate (e.g. <75 per cent of valid answers for

primary data) included questions relating to volumes, service levels, staffing and financials.

This response rate for very critical areas of knowledge necessary for good service delivery to

customers and for commercial sustainability is reason for concern, and illustrates that the level of

understanding of utility operations, financial management and customer focus still is a key weakness

for many utilities.

Further to Figure 5.2.1, Figure 5.2.2 below illustrates the response rate by questionnaire section, in

order to better understand which particular areas of knowledge require improvement. Please note

that this figure presents the rate of valid responses and it should be noted that a response of

„unknown‟ or „to be advised‟ for critical operational data is not considered to be a valid response. Key

observations from Figure 5.2.2 regarding areas where data was poorly answered is as follows:

Key Observations

Sewage data: sewage questions were answered with fewer valid answers than water

supply. Key problem areas include the volume of sewage, level of sewage treatment

and level of sewage or effluent quality compliance. It is apparent that utilities need

assistance with tools to estimate and record some of this critical information.

Financial data: financial information, particularly in relation to operating budgets,

operational subsidies and levels of debt.

Operational data: key service indicators and operational data including main breaks,

sewer overflows, supply interruptions and energy requirement.

Metering data: meter coverage rate and number of operating meters.

Water balance data: undertaking a meaningful water balance (as per IWA and industry

norms) has been difficult given the poor understanding and breakdown of water sold

and not sold to enable water loss calculations.

Attachments: only three utilities provided their financial statements as requested and

only two provided a breakdown of water utility tariffs.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100% %

of

resp

on

den

ts

(va

lid r

esp

on

se)

% Primary Q Answered % Secondary Q Answered

Avg Primary Response Rate Average Secondary Response Rate


19

Figure 5.2.2 Data answered by WSPs (by questionnaire section)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Util

ity n

ame

Cou

ntry

G

eogr

aphi

cal r

egio

n C

EO

nam

e C

EO

con

tact

det

ails

N

ame

of B

ench

mar

king

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

Rep

con

tact

det

ails

N

o of

wat

er s

chem

es

No

of s

ewer

age

sche

mes

T

otal

leng

th w

ater

mai

n T

otal

vol

ume

of w

ater

pro

duce

d W

ater

aud

it pr

epar

ed?

V

olum

e of

sew

age

colle

cted

T

otal

no.

of c

onne

ctio

ns

No.

Cus

tom

er c

ompl

aint

s T

otal

pop

ulat

ion

serv

ed -

wat

er

No.

Sew

erag

e co

nnec

tions

F

inan

cial

yea

r O

ther

wat

er r

even

ue

Vol

ume

prod

uced

rel

iabi

lity

grad

e V

olum

e co

nsum

ed r

elia

bilit

y gr

ade

No.

Con

nect

ions

rel

iabi

lity

grad

e O

ccup

ancy

rat

io

Dur

atio

n of

wat

er s

uppl

y D

rinki

ng w

ater

gui

delin

es

No.

Mic

ro s

ampl

es ta

ken

No.

FT

E

Fin

anci

al r

elia

bilit

y gr

ade

Tot

al p

opul

atio

n se

rved

- s

ewer

age

Env

ironm

enta

l dis

char

ge g

uide

lines

Le

ngth

wat

er m

ain

Pop

ulat

ion

in a

rea

Tot

al r

ecur

rent

ope

ratin

g co

sts

Ann

ual d

epre

ciat

ion

Tot

al o

pera

ting

(bill

ed)

reve

nue

Rev

enue

from

wat

er s

ales

T

otal

Bill

ed A

utho

rised

Con

sum

ptio

n N

o. C

usto

mer

s bi

lled

Act

ual r

even

ue

Acc

ount

s re

ceiv

able

P

opul

atio

n re

liabl

ity g

rade

V

olum

e w

ater

trea

ted

Ene

rgy

cost

N

o. M

icro

sam

ples

pas

sing

F

TE

term

inat

ed

New

con

nect

ion

fee

Avg

ann

ual w

ater

bill

63/

mth

N

o. S

ewag

e sa

mpl

es ta

ken

No.

Con

nect

ions

fun

ctio

nal m

eter

s E

nerg

y us

age

No

sew

age

sam

ples

pas

sing

N

o. R

esid

ual c

hlor

ine

sam

ples

take

n N

o. R

esid

ual c

hlor

ine

sam

ples

pas

sing

V

olum

e se

wag

e tr

eate

d S

enio

r F

TE

term

inat

ed

Sta

ff tr

aini

ng d

ays

Tra

inin

g bu

dget

N

o cu

stom

ers

inte

rmitt

ent

supp

ly

Pre

viou

s ye

ars

finan

cial

sta

tem

ent

Val

ue c

ontr

acte

d ou

t ser

vice

s C

ost o

f ser

vici

ng d

ebt

Rev

enue

from

sew

erag

e se

rvic

es

Vol

ume

of s

ewag

e tr

eate

d se

cond

ary

Vol

ume

unau

thor

ised

con

sum

ptio

n N

o st

andp

osts

O

pera

tiona

l sub

sidi

es

Com

mun

ity s

ervi

ce o

blig

atio

ns

Per

cen

tag

e o

f u

tilit

ies

answ

erin

g t

his

qu

esti

on

1 - Contacts and Utility 2 - Scheme and Assets 3 - Volumes 4 - Customers 5 - Service Levels 6 - Health & Environment 7 - Staffing 8 - Financial 9 - Data Reliability


20

For some utilities, it appears that the time period allocated (i.e. four months) was insufficient to collate

the necessary information, while for others, the information appears to be unavailable. It is also

apparent that some benchmarking representatives were uncertain about where to find accurate

answers to these questions within their own organization.

Other similar benchmarking initiatives experienced higher rates of valid answers. For example, a

similar water benchmarking study in South East Asia (SEAWUN)1 resulted in an average of 80 per

cent valid response rate for primary and secondary questions, compared with 66 per cent in this

study.

5.3 Data Quality Review Following the distribution of the data questionnaires to all participating utilities, the information was

received by the PWWA and benchmarking specialists and collated into a central database (an Excel

spreadsheet). The benchmarking specialists undertook a data quality review for each utility by

calculating some preliminary indicators for comparison before comparing across all utilities and

against earlier year‟s records (e.g. 2009 and 2010 PWWA Benchmarking). Questions were returned

to many utilities for confirmation of what appeared to be erroneous data, errors in units utilized or

miscalculations.

Although efforts have been made to verify the data with utilities to the best extent possible, there are

still cases of data inaccuracy and therefore outliers in the benchmarking indicators which are difficult

to explain. As the key audience of this benchmarking report is the utilities, the intent has been to

report all data and calculated benchmarks based on the data provided by the respective utilities,

rather than eliminate data which may appear dubious to the benchmarking team. Modification of raw

data without verification from each utility would have required the arbitrary determination of

acceptable maximums and minimums and appropriate figures. The results are therefore indicative of

the position as reported by the utilities. This is consistent with the principle of a self-assessment

exercise, which was a key driver for this benchmarking activity.

During the collection of data, no regional workshops were held in order to discuss the benchmarking

data required and it is recognized that this has been a major limitation to receiving high quality and

completed responses. The need for regional workshops to better understand indicator definitions,

data needs and provide assistance is covered in Part B of this Report.

Overall, for a first comprehensive survey, the dataset is a

good starting point to understanding the key industry

challenges. It is recognized that the dataset should be

regarded as preliminary and the calculated results

indicative of performance rather than as an accurate

measure. With an ongoing commitment to benchmarking, it is expected that in future years the quality

of the information will improve and the benefits of participating in benchmarking will become more

apparent and real. The issue of data reliability and accuracy is a critical part of the learning curve as

benchmarking and performance improvement will progress in coming years.

5.4 Data Analysis

Data analysis has generally comprised the calculation of various range attributes (e.g. minimum,

maximum, median, 25th percentile and 75

th percentile), the mean and the number of valid samples.

Where useful, various indicators have been plotted against other factors which influence them and

Overall, for a first comprehensive survey, the

dataset is a good starting point to

understanding the key industry challenges.


21

where data exists. All KRAs also have the calculated results for each utility to enable the

identification of the best performance across each KRA. Generally, medians have been used when

undertaking this benchmarking and making comparisons. It is likely that average values are too

easily distorted by outliers and erroneous data.

5.5 Data Reliability Grades (by participating utilities)

The data questionnaire also required utilities to provide a „reliability grade‟ of five key components of

the primary data, as the primary data forms the basis of calculating the indicators. The purpose of the

reliability grade is to better understand data quality issues and encourage improvements in data

quality with time, in addition to improvements in measured performance.

Due to the desktop nature of this benchmarking exercise, the data accuracy and reliability has not

been audited by the benchmarking team. The data reliability grades presented in Figure 5.5.1 below

therefore represents a self assessment of data reliability.

The general reliability expectations of each grade are presented in Table 5.1, with A representing the

most reliable data and D representing the least reliable data. Detailed definitions for grades A to D for

each key data component in Figure 5.5.1 are presented in Appendix E for information.

Table 5.1 Reliability grades description

Reliability Grade

Reliability Description

A Highly reliable Data is based on sound records, procedures, investigations or analyses that are properly

documented and recognized as the best available assessment methods.

B Reliable

Generally as in category A, but with minor shortcomings e.g. some of the documentation is

missing, the assessment is old or some reliance on unconfirmed reports; or there is some

extrapolation made (e.g. extrapolations from records that cover more than 50 per cent of the

service provider‟s system).

C Unreliable Generally as in categories A or B, but data is based on extrapolations from records that cover

more than 30 per cent (but less than 50 per cent) of the service provider‟s system.

D Highly unreliable Data is based on unconfirmed verbal reports and/or cursory inspections or analysis, including

extrapolations from such reports/inspections/analysis.

Figure 5.5.1 Data reliability grades according to water service providers

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

9.1 - How is the volume of water

produced calculated or derived?

9.2 - How is the volume of water

consumed calculated or derived?

9.3 - How is the number of connections

or customers calculated?

9.4 - How is the population derived?

9.5 - Where is the financial information

sourced from?

Per

cen

tag

e. o

f u

tilit

ies

Grade A Grade B Grade C Grade D


22

Some key observations which can be drawn from Figure 5.5.1 above are:

Key Observations

In terms of volumes produced, the data provided suggests that 60 per cent of utilities

have Grade A data relating to volume of water produced. Given the number of flow

meters which are old, have not been field validated for accuracy in the past five

years, or simply do not exist, the high proportion of utilities having such high quality

estimates of volumes of water produced is questionable.

In terms of volumes consumed or billed, the data suggest that over 60 per cent of

utilities have Grade A data relating to the volume of water sold or billed (i.e.

considered „consumed‟) to residential and non-residential customers. The

calculation of NRW has been difficult for this study; with apparently erroneous and

inconsistent data provided based on the findings and the ease of undertaking the

calculations. It is highly unlikely that 60 per cent of utilities have Grade A data for

this component, however, it is positive that some utilities recognize that their data

quality is quite poor. Significant improvements in this dataset are required in order to

produce more meaningful outputs, comparisons and targets for performance

improvement.

In terms of the number of customers, similar observations can be made as above. It

is questionable that 70 per cent of utilities have Grade A data for the number of

customers, given the observations around inconsistencies provided in a high

proportion of the data questionnaires. Notwithstanding this observation, the trend

that this data is more accurate than any other dataset (in particular populations) is

probably correct, and is the key reason for adopting production rates per connection

rather than per capita.

In terms of population and financial information, the lower reliability grades reflect

the difficulty faced by most utilities in answering these questions.

While the absolute grades are inconsequential to this

exercise at this time, the above observations do highlight

some issues around the utilities‟ own perception of their

data quality. It is apparent that the utilities generally

consider their data to be of higher quality and more reliable

than may actually be the case.

It is apparent that the utilities generally

consider their data to be of higher quality and

more reliable than may actually be the case.


23

6 Participating Countries

and Utilities

6.1 Regional Context

The Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs), shown in Figure 6.1.1, have an estimated

population of 10.0 million people living on 553,519 km2 of land. While one country, Papua New

Guinea (PNG), dominates in terms of population, with over two-thirds of the population and nearly 84

per cent of land area, the largest water utility in terms of customers is the Water Authority of Fiji.

Distances between and within PICTs are often vast – Kiribati, for example, has only 103,000 people

living on 33 widely scattered atolls on 811 km2 of land extending over 4,200 km from east to west, and

2,000 km from north to south. Although this is extreme, it exemplifies the challenges faced by the

PICTs in providing affordable services of reasonable quality, including water supply and wastewater

management, in the region.

Figure 6.1.1 Pacific Water and Wastes Association: Geographical Areaa

a Source: SPC–SOPAC. 2012. Member Countries. http://www.sopac.org/index.php/member-countries.

While significant gains have been made by some Pacific WSPs in recent years in the area of

improving operational, customer service and financial performance, there are significant

improvements which remain to be made across the region.

Part A: (6) Participating Countries and Utilities

24

The achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) across the Pacific is slower than

expected. The small island states with the lowest rates of access are all located in the Pacific, with

access to an improved water source below 70 per cent in Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Vanuatu, Timor-

Leste, Kiribati, and the Solomon Islands.

The picture for sanitation is slightly different. Comprehensive data is only available on urban access to

sanitation, which therefore excludes the majority of households in the Pacific.2 The Pacific nations

that provide urban sanitation services to 60 per cent of the population or less are Kiribati, Micronesia,

Timor-Leste, and Papua New Guinea.3

Based on data from the Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) for Water & Sanitation, this poor progress

towards sanitation improvements is most likely factor contributing to water borne diseases in the

Pacific. Improved water and sanitation facilities and hygiene should be reflected in improved public

health as indicated by the incidence of waterborne diseases. Figure 6.1.2 below presents data on the

estimated number of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants of diarrhea in the Pacific region.4 Most

developed countries experience deaths due to diarrheal disease below 1 per 100,000; however, the

current Pacific average is approximately 15 per 100,000, which indicates that there is still

considerable scope for improvement.

Wide variation exists in the populations,

land areas, per capita GNP and GDP, and

recent economic growth rates per capita.

Similar variation exists in rainfall and its

seasonality, as well as topography. The

ADB identifies the smaller north Pacific

PICs and other atoll countries as

particularly vulnerable to high fuel prices,

which is critical as the cost of fuel

dominates the operating costs of most of

the region‟s utilities.

Similarly, small island states and atoll

countries are vulnerable to climate

variability and changes, impacting on

water availability and seasonal/year to

year changes and rises in sea level.

6.2 Participating WSPs

Table 6.1 provides a summary of the known WSPs in the Pacific region within the scope outlined in

Section 3. The participation of these WSPs in this study is noted in Column B „Response?‟.

Table 6.1 illustrates the cores services (i.e. water supply and/or wastewater services) that they

provide and summarizes the membership and focus of these utilities within various regional

organizations and initiatives.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Est

imat

ed d

eath

s p

er 1

00, 0

00

Median

a World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF. 2009. Joint Monitoring

Program (JMP) for Water & Sanitation. http://www.wssinfo.org/.

6.1.2 Diarrheal related deaths in the Pacific regiona


25

Table 6.1 Participating countries and water service providers

Country Water Utility Name

A

B

C

D

E F

Siz

e ca

tego

ry

Res

pons

e?

Wat

er s

uppl

y

Was

tew

ater

PW

WA

Mem

ber

PIA

C/ P

RIF

Foc

us

American Samoa American Samoa Power Authority (ASPA) - Y

Cook Islands Cook Islands Ministry of Infrastructure & Planning M Y Y - Y Y

Fiji Water Authority of Fiji L Y Y Y Y

Federated States

Micronesia

Yap Northern S Y Y Y

Yap Central S Y Y

Yap Southern S Y Y Y

Kosrae S Y Y Y Y

Pohnpei M Y Y Y Y

Chuuk Public Utility S Y Y Y Y Y

Kiribati Public Utilities Board M Y Y Y Y Y

Marshall Islands Water and Sewerage Company - a Y

Nauru Nauru Utilities Authority - Y Y

Niue Niue Public Works Y Y - Y Y

Palau Palau Bureau of Public Works M Y Y Y Y Y

Papua New Guinea

Eda Ranu L Y Y Y Y

PNG Waterboard L Y Y Y Y

Saipan Commonwealth Utilities Corporation M Y Y Y Y

Samoa

SWA L Y Y Y Y Y

IWSAb Y Y - Y Y

Solomon Islands SIWA M Y Y Y Y Y

Tonga TWB L Y Y - Y Y

Tuvalu Tuvalu Public Works S Y Y - Y Y

Vanuatu UNELCO M Y Y - Y Y

a Marshall Islands is not a current financial member of PWWA but is included in the constitution. b IWSA is unique amongst these WSPs – the groupings have limited relevance due to the services providers.

This study differs from previous benchmarking initiatives in

that performance is measured by utility, not by country,

which enables performance across a range of technical,

financial and customer services areas to be assessed for

each service provider. Comparing on a „utility‟ basis, rather

than simply a country basis, enables the leaders of each

utility to understand and remain accountable for their own

„water business‟.

Comparing on a ‘utility’ basis, rather than

simply a country basis, enables the leaders of

each utility to understand and remain

accountable for their own ‘water business’.


26

6.3 Other WSPs Not Included in Benchmarking

As outlined in Section 3, the scope of this benchmarking initiative in this first year has predominantly

been the urban water and wastewater services providers.

Three other Pacific WSPs which have expressed interest in being part of this benchmarking study but

could not be accommodated due to scope, budget and timing limitations in this first year are:

Three WSPs not included in benchmarking

The Independent Water Schemes of Samoa (IWSA) which is unique amongst the

PWWA membership as they do not own or operate any assets. Appendix F presents a

brief profile of IWSA. Similar to the current funding basis for IWSA through the EU, it is

recommended that similar rural based schemes be sent an alternative questionnaire

which focuses on governance issues rather than technical or quantitative issues, after

such organizations are identified by PWWA or other organizations (e.g. SPC–SOPAC).

Relevant content in such a questionnaire may include:

o Extent and cost of the asset base.

o System reliability measures, which will be less formal and these organizations

may need to be consulted (e.g. IWSA) to better understand reliability measures

which would be of use to them.

o Water production and billing information (similar to V1 to V3 if known).

o Tariffs/billing information and collection success, and extent of subsidy from

other central bodies.

o Staffing information, both in terms of community based volunteers (e.g. doing

site based maintenance) and employees or volunteers of the coordinating

organization.

o Extent of sanitary inspections or catchment management (in lieu of not having

residual chlorine or microbiological testing) and, potentially, health statistics.

o Governance arrangements (e.g. water committee membership, account

management, business plan etc).

o Training and capacity building.

o Community satisfaction with the scheme, service level and cost.

Tuvalu and Nauru are much smaller organizations with limited reticulation assets. As a

result the business of both of these utilities involves desalinating sea water, storing in

storage tanks, and transporting treated water to customers via tankers. The key areas of

interest for these two utilities which can likely be compared with other similar

organizations are:

o Volumes (L/customer/day or per year).

o Power consumption (kWH/kL and $/kL).

o Chemical consumption ($/kL).

o Total unit cost of production ($/kL).

o Total cost of transport ($/kL).

o Overall operating business cost ($/kL).

o Asset utilization (e.g. percentage of desalination plant capacity utilized).

o Staffing levels (i.e. FTE per customer or FTE per ML of water sold/annum).

o System down-time and maintenance requirements.

o Other relevant indicators as developed in conjunction with these utilities.


27

6.4 Overview of Utility Characteristics

(i) General

Table 6.2 presents the key institutional and regulatory characteristics of the participating utilities in

accordance with the IB-Net definitions for these characteristics to maintain consistency with future IB-

Net comparisons.

Table 6.2 Key water service provider characteristics

Country Water Utility Name

Institutional Setting

Price and

Delivery

Oversight

Private Sector Involvement

Gov

ernm

ent

Gov

(S

ep. F

in)

Sta

tuto

ry O

rg

SO

E

Join

t Com

pany

Priv

ate

Com

p.

Not

for

prof

it

Gov

ernm

ent

SH

Boa

rd

Inde

pend

ent R

eg.

Oth

er

Non

e

Ser

vice

Man

agem

ent

Leas

e

Con

cess

ion

BO

OT

Priv

ate

American Samoa American Samoa Power Authority

(ASPA)

Cook Islands Cook Islands Ministry of

Infrastructure & Planning

X X X

Fiji Water Authority of Fiji X X X

Federated States

Micronesia

Yap Northern X X X

Yap Central X X X

Yap Southern X X X

Kosrae X X X

Pohnpei X X X

Chuuk Public Utility X X X X

Kiribati Public Utilities Board X X

Marshall Islands Water and Sewerage Company

Nauru Nauru Utilities Authority

Niue Niue Public Works X X X X

Palau Palau Bureau of Public Works X X X

Papua New

Guinea

Eda Ranu X X X X

PNG Waterboard X X X X

Saipan Commonwealth Utilities

Corporation

X X X

Samoa

SWA X X X

IWSAa X

Solomon Islands SIWA X X

Tonga TWB X X X

Tuvalu Tuvalu Public Works

Vanuatu UNELCO X X X

a Not included in benchmarking study


28

(ii) Size of Organization

In terms of the size of the organization, the participating utilities have been categorized by customers

into small (<2,500), medium (2,500 to 10,000) and large (>10,000) based on the number of customers

(which may be direct connections to the network or customers supplied through other means). The

group of participating utilities represents a good range of small, medium and large customers. In

terms of large utilities, one utility stands out as being much larger than the others – the Water

Authority of Fiji, with approximately 138,000 connections country wide.

The following numbers and proportion of utilities fall within the three size categories:

Three Size Categories

Small (<2,500 connections): 33 per cent or six WSPs.

Medium (2,500 to 10,000 connections): 38 per cent or seven WSPs.

Large (>10,000 connections): 28 per cent or five WSPs.

(iii) Type of Organization: Institutional Setting

The institutional setting of each WSP is shown in Table 6.2 above. Further clarification of the fields in

Table 6.2 is as follows:

Institutional Setting Fields

Government: local or national government water department – not ring fenced (i.e.

finances for water/wastewater function are not reported separately from other

government activities).

Government (Sep. Fin): local or national government water department – ring fenced

(i.e. finances for water/wastewater function are reported separately from other

government activities).

Statutory Org: statutory body following state requirements.

SOE: state owned enterprise, local or national government, wholly owned provider

operating under commercial law.

Joint Company: jointly (government and private) owned provider operating under

commercial law.

Private Comp: privately owned provider operating under commercial law.

Not for profit: not for profit provider operating under commercial law.

Very few WSPs fall into the category of government departments or privately owned companies. Most

fall into the category of statutory organizations following state requirements or SOEs operating under

commercial law. For many WSPs, separate financial reports exist which suggests that reporting of

financial performance should have been possible, although the accuracy and completeness of the

financial component of the questionnaire was poor.

Further to the issue of data quality and completeness, it is evident that some of the benchmarking

representatives did not fully understand the nature of their own business.


29

(iv) Oversight of Pricing and Delivery

The service delivery and pricing oversight of each WSP is presented in Table 6.2 above. Further

clarification of the fields in Table 6.2 is as follows:

Price and Delivery Fields

Government: local, regional or national government department.

SH Board: stakeholder board/independent board of stakeholders.

Independent reg: independent service and price regulator.

Other.

The WSPs represent a range of pricing oversight models. With an increasing trend toward

independent regulation amongst the medium to large WSPs, there is an increasing need for WSPs to

know what assets they have, how they perform and what cost drivers are critical. In many more

stringent water pricing regulatory environments, water tariff modifications need to be supported by a

significant amount of information about cost drivers.

(v) Private Sector Involvement

The private sector involvement of each of the WSP is presented in Table 6.2 above. Further

clarification of the fields in Table 6.2 is as follows:

Private Sector Involvement Fields

None: no private sector involvement.

Service: service contract(s).

Management: management contract(s).

Lease: lease contract(s).

Concession: concession contract(s).

BOOT or BOT: build, (own), operate & transfer contract(s).

Private: fully private asset ownership and operation.

The most common form of private sector involvement is the procurement of various services through

service contracts. A number of service providers have concession contracts and build-own-transfer

(or similar variations) contracts, which will provide some indication of the areas where private sector

involvement may benefit performance improvement.

Part A: (7) Overview of Schemes and Assets

30

Figure 7.1.1 Number and size of water supply schemes

7 Overview of Schemes and

Assets

7.1 Water Schemes and Assets

An overview of water schemes and assets across the Pacific WSPs is presented in the following sub-

sections based on the data collected.

(i) Water Supply Schemes

Figure 7.1.1 presents a summary of the number of schemes categorized by various size ranges (i.e.

based on number of connections). It is evident that there is a large number of schemes which are

<1,000 connections and in the range of 1,000 to 5,000 connections.

For example, Vanuatu (UNELCO) manages only one scheme with 5,000-10,000 connections;

whereas, Water Authority of Fiji (WAF) manages seven schemes with <1000 connections, five

schemes 1,000-5,000 connections, one scheme with 5,000-10,000 connections and two schemes

with >25,000 connections. It is inevitable that there are logistical challenges and inefficiencies in

having numerous small schemes when compared with a single more compact scheme.

Figure 7.1.2 summarizes the typical scheme type. Most schemes across the Pacific are typical

reticulated water supply schemes with only a limited number of constant flow (i.e. drip into buffer tank)

or un-reticulated schemes or services.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

No

of

sch

emes

in c

ateg

ory

> 25,000 connections 10,000-25,000 connections 5,000-10,000 connections

1,000-5,000 connections < 1000 connections


31

Figure 7.1.2 Typical scheme type: water supply

Figure 7.1.3 Water resource availability constraints

17%

28%

17%

24%

14%

Source water quality issues

Natural yield of the source

Existing infrastructure limitation

Cost of infrastructure expansion

Land ownership and access issues

(ii) Water Source Assets Overview

Key statistics and observations relating to water source assets are as follows:

Key Statistics and Observations

67 percent of utilities have a surface water source and associated infrastructure (e.g.

dams, weir, river intakes) while 72 per cent have a groundwater source, illustrating

that both surface water and groundwater are critical sources throughout the Pacific.

There are 148 dams and weirs around the Pacific. The dam safety and/or regulatory

protocols for these assets are not known; however, this represents a significant

investment and also could potentially present a significant risk. Dam safety protocols

should be further investigated.

The median water resources utilization is 69 per cent (i.e. 50 per cent of the utilities

utilize only 69 per cent of their currently developed water resources). Of all utilities

that provided an answer to the question on water resource availability, 27 per cent

have fully utilized their currently developed resources (Pohnpei, Kiribati and Palau).

The main constraint to water resource availability is the natural yield of the source, although

infrastructure limitations, expansion costs, land ownership and source water quality issues are also

important (refer to Figure 7.1.3).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Traditional reticulated water supply systems

Constant flow system (household tanks to fill over the day to buffer peak demand)

Unreticulated system (household or community tanks with water delivered/

tankered to them)

% o

f sc

hem

es p

er c

ateg

ory


32

Figure 7.1.4 Water network density

(iii) Water Treatment Assets Overview

Key statistics and observations relating to water treatment assets are as follows:


Of the 123 water treatment facilities around the Pacific, 66 per cent are chlorination

only facilities while the remaining 34 percent are chlorination coupled with some other

more advanced treatment.

Three utilities claim to have no treatment facilities at all. However, there are also other

utilities that claim that existing water treatment plants (WTP) are not currently

operating so in practice the number of utilities without any operational treatment is

higher than three.

The median water treatment plant utilization is 75 per cent (i.e. on average, 50 per

cent of the utilities utilize only 75 per cent of their currently developed water treatment

capacity). It should be noted, however, that the situation will be significantly different

on a site by site basis.

(iv) Water Network Capacity

In terms of reservoir storage (for those utilities who answered this question – 13 in total), 62 per cent

have less than 24 hours (or one day) of storage within their networks, while 32 per cent have less

than 12 hours (or half a day) of storage within their network. Such limited storage capacity in the

networks creates a restricted capacity to respond to water and power outages. This could have a

significant impact on reliability and continuity of supply.

It should be noted that this assumes that 100 per cent of the installed reservoir capacity, as provided

in the WSPs answers to the questionnaire, is actually currently able to be utilized. However, it is often

the case that reservoir storage is off-line, decommissioned or unable to be filled given water

availability and hydraulic constraints. As a result, actual water storage may be lower than the quoted

figures. The density of the water supply systems across the Pacific is presented in Figure 7.1.4 below.

Generally, system density is in a similar range as the median of Australian WSPs5 providing a

legitimate basis for comparing network related performance indicators.

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

100.0

Co

nn

ecti

on

/km

wat

erm

ain

Water supply system density (Conn/km water main) WSAA 200910 median

Median


33

Figure 7.2.1 Number and size of sewerage schemes

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Traditional reticulated sewerage schemes with gravity sewers, pumping

stations, or rising mains

Common Effluent Drainage Scheme (i.e. septic tank with liquid flowing into low grade shallow gravity pipework)

Pressure system

% o

f sc

hem

es p

er c

ateg

ory

Figure 7.2.2 Type of sewerage schemes

7.2 Sewerage Schemes and Assets

An overview of sewerage schemes and assets across the Pacific WSPs is presented in the following

sub-sections.

(i) Sewerage Schemes and Assets

Figure 7.2.1 below presents a summary of the number of sewerage schemes categorized as small

through to large. Similar to water supply schemes, it is evident that small schemes prevail.

Figure 7.2.2 summarizes the typical sewerage scheme type. Most schemes across the Pacific are

typical reticulated water supply schemes with only a limited number of common effluent drainage

(CED) or pressure systems. With an increasing number of sewerage schemes being developed

across the Pacific, opportunities should be taken to consider alternative schemes such as CED or

pressure systems to minimize construction and O&M costs into the future.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

No

of

sch

emes

in c

ateg

ory

> 25,000 connections 10,000-25,000 connections 5,000-10,000 connections 1,000-5,000 connections < 1000 connections


34

Figure 7.2.3 Sewerage network density

(ii) Sewerage Treatment Overview

Key statistics and observations relating to sewage treatment assets are as follows:


Compared with the 123 water treatment facilities around the Pacific, there are only 29

sewage treatment plants.

Only 10 of the 19 participating utilities have one or more sewage treatment plants (STP).

Two of the participating utilities collect and discharge raw sewage with no treatment (i.e.

Kiribati and the Solomon Islands).

The median sewage treatment plant utilization is 92 percent (i.e. 50 per cent of those

utilities with STPs and which reported volume, utilized 92 per cent of their currently

developed sewage treatment capacity). While it is recognized that this will vary on a site

by site basis, this illustrates that there is limited additional sewage treatment capacity for

many utilities. Considering the trend towards increasing urbanization and improved

environmental protection, the expansion of sewage treatment capacity will require

significant investment in new sanitation and sewage management solutions.

(iii) Sewerage Network

The density of the sewerage systems across the Pacific is presented in Figure 7.2.3 below. Generally

the system density is in the similar range as the median of Australian WSPs presented in WSAA

(2010), providing a legitimate basis for comparing network related performance indicators.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

110.0

120.0

Co

nn

ecti

on

s/ k

m s

ewer

mai

n

Sewerage system density (Conn/km water main) WSAA 200910 median

Median


35

8 Benchmarking Results

and Findings

8.1 Overview of Results

For each Key Result Area (KRA), the data analysis and findings are discussed under the following

headings:

KRA Headings

Key Purpose

Key Observations

Calculated Performance Indicators and Key Statistics

Data Quality Issues for Future Improvement

Results for all Utilities

Factors influencing these Performance Indicators

One area in particular which requires some clarification is the key statistics presented for each KRA.

The key statistics are tabulated and generally include:

KRA number, indicator name and units adopted (note that some indicators may have a sub-

indicator for presenting the data using different units).

A proposed Pacific Benchmark value, which is intended to guide performance improvement.

Generally, this target has been adopted as the score or result for the top 25 per cent of

performers (i.e. the 25th percentile or 75

th percentile), or has been guided by international best

practice. The concept of a Pacific Benchmark was discussed during the benchmarking

workshop, where some concern was expressed regarding the difficulty in setting a regional

target or benchmark value. It was concluded that there was value in providing a Pacific

Benchmarking value to assist utilities by providing a high level, long term goal to work

towards, while recognizing the need to be flexible and allow each utility to adjust to these

„aspirational values‟ to suit local circumstances.

Median results for the past two years of PWWA benchmarking, although caution should be

used in drawing comparisons with the findings of this study as it may not cover the same

range of utilities.

Statistics from this study, including the number of „valid‟ responses, 25th percentile (i.e. the

value which only 25 per cent of values are below), the median (i.e. the value which 50 per

cent of values are below), and the 75th percentile (i.e. the value which 75 per cent of values

are below). This is intended to give the reader an indication of the range of data values

received.

Median and average values from other jurisdictions (as discussed in Section 2.3 –

Comparisons with other parts of the World) for comparison.

Part A: (8) Benchmarking Results and Findings

36

8.2 Key Result Area 1: Volumes

(i) Key Purpose

Knowing the volume of water produced by the utility is

important, firstly to ensure that adequate, albeit not

excessive, supply is provided to customers. Secondly, the

volume of water produced minus the volume of water

„consumed‟ or „billed‟ to the customers is the basis for the

calculation NRW. The volume of sewage collected is

important, particularly when compared with the volume of water produced, to ensure that the sewage

system does not carry an excessively high ratio of water produced, thereby requiring treatment of a

greater volume of sewage than necessary. Excessively high volumes of both water and sewage have

cost implications in terms of capital investment for upgrades when infrastructure capacity is exceeded,

and in terms of operations and maintenance costs required to be funded and recovered annually.

(ii) Key Observations

Key observations which can be drawn from the data analysis are as follows:

Key Observations

The unit volumes per connection and per capita vary widely and illustrate the difficulties

associated with inaccurate data. At this time, it is difficult to determine whether the

number of connections or population is a better denominator for this indicator. This

needs more detailed attention in future years as the population estimates provided by

many utilities appeared to be very inaccurate.

High unit volumes per connection of water are produced by many of the utilities. The

median of Pacific utilities is almost double the WSAA and NZWA medians and almost

four times the SEA median. Benchmarking data from previous years6 also shows high

unit production rates. On a per connection basis these figures appear high; however,

owing to high occupancy rates, they appear reasonable on a per capita basis.

By comparison, a low unit volume of water is billed to customers both on per connection

and per capita basis, meaning that the relative proportion of „revenue‟ water is low

(approximately 60 per cent of water produced). The median proportion of revenue water

of Pacific utilities is considerably lower than the WSAA, NZWA and SEA, and roughly

equivalent to African utilities.

On average, the volume of sewage produced is high in comparison to water produced,

which may suggest that infiltration and to a lesser extent, inflow to sewers, is an

unmanaged problem. It could also be attributable to the high proportion of sewage

customers which are non-residential and so discharge high volumes of sewage. It

should be noted that similar trends exist in other jurisdictions including the major utilities

in NZ.

The volume of water produced per capita and sewage generated per capita exceed the

generally accepted planning figures used when planning and designing infrastructure

across the Pacific. This means that the capacity of new assets will be exceeded prior to

the planning horizon adopted, requiring further infrastructure upgrades.

Knowing the volume of water produced by the

utility is important, firstly to ensure that

adequate, albeit not excessive, supply is

provided to customers and secondly…as the

basis for the calculation of NRW.


37

(iii) Calculated Performance Indicators and Key Statistics

Key statistics from the data analysis are shown in Table 8.1, alongside the median figures from

various other comparable benchmarking initiatives.

Table 8.1 KRA 1 Volumes: key statistics and benchmarks


Pac

ific

Ben

chm

ark


PWWA (2011) WS AA

NZWA Africa SEA

PW

WA

(20

09)

PW

WA

(20

10)

Ave

rage

25th

per

cent

ile

Med

ian

75th

per

cent

ile

WS

AA

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G1

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G2

Med

ian

WO

P A

fric

a A

vg

WO

P A

fric

a T

arge

t

SE

AW

UN

Med

ian

KR

A1

Pro

du

ctio

n




kL/conn/day - - 1.48 1.40 0.67 1.31 2.11 0.69 0.79 0.73 0.46 - 0.38


L/capita/day 150 - - 179 56 139 292 328 324 356 91 - 196



(iv) Data Quality Issues for Future Improvement

Potential sources of error and areas for future improvement relating to KRA 1 include:

Potential Sources of Error

Errors in total volume produced: the presence and accuracy of flow meters (e.g. no

flow meters on rural systems and limited field validation or accuracy checks of flow

meters in urban systems) presents significant uncertainty regarding the accuracy of

production figures.

Errors in water billed: inaccuracies in water billed volumes result from old household

meters (i.e. usually when meters are >5-10 yrs old under-registration of flows occurs), a

high proportion of un-metered connections, and the existence of many flat rate

customers.

Errors in the number of connections: in these calculations, the number of

connections is the denominator, therefore inaccurate estimates of the number of

connections to the system significantly distorts the result. High unit volumes could be

attributable to underestimating the number of system connections (e.g. Eda Ranu‟s

high unit consumption may be a result of underestimating the number of connections

actually serviced – legal and illegal). Furthermore, single „connections‟ recognized by

the WSP may be supplying multiple households, particularly in informal settlements,

which contributes to this inaccuracy regarding number of actual connections or

customers.


38

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Vo

lum

e (k

L)

per

co

nn

ecti

on

/day

Volume of water non revenue (L/conn/day) Volume of water billed (L/conn/day)

WSAA 200910 median SEAWUN median

Figure 8.2.1 V1 and V2: Volume of water produced and billed

(connection)

Figure 8.2.2 V1 and V2: Volume of water produced and billed

(capita)

Total v/s Residential and Non-Residential: ideally, production and billing figures

should be calculated on a residential basis for the purpose of comparison. The variable

and intensive nature of non-residential consumption has the potential to significantly

distort overall figures. In future, data should be collected for both residential and non-

residential volumes, however, the accuracy of this data should be closely scrutinized

(e.g. high unit demand in Eda Ranu may be a result of high non-residential proportion

of use).

Per connection v/s per capita: for the purposes of comparison with other

benchmarking initiatives and understanding the real demand for water, volume should

ideally be calculated on a per capita basis in future (in addition to per connection).

However, the accuracy of data relating to populations served needs to be significantly

improved and should be provided by the utility rather than sourced from other available

regional figures.

(v) Results for all Utilities

Figures 8.2.1 to 8.2.3 below illustrate the results of the data analysis for indicators V1, V2 and V3.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Vo

lum

e p

erca

pit

a/d

ay

Volume of water produced (L/capita/day) Volume of water billed per capita (L/capita/d)

Typical pacific water supply design value


39

Figure 8.2.3 V3: Volume of sewage collected and treated (kL/connections/day)

(vi) Factors Influencing these Performance Indicators

The key factors influencing these indicators include:

Key Influencing Factors

Water resource availability: water resource availability is largely a function of

geography, geology and rainfall. Utilities in countries with larger land masses with

mountainous and varied terrain have an average unit production of approximately 2.5

kL/connection/day, while the utilities in low lying atoll countries have an average unit

production of 1.5 kL/connection/day (see Figure 8.2.4(a)). Furthermore, there is a

strong relationship between high annual rainfall and high volume produced (see Figure

8.2.4(b)).

Affluence: as illustrated in Figure 8.2.4(c), there is a direct relationship between

volume of water produced and affluence. While this is not a factor which can be

managed by utilities, it illustrates that increasing affluence, without improved

management, may result in higher yet unnecessary production rates throughout the

Pacific.

Age and condition of assets: inevitably, the volume of water produced is directly

related to the level of NRW (as indicated n Figure 8.2.4(d)) which partly reflects the age

and condition of water mains. Similarly, a high ratio of sewage collected to water billed

also reflects a poor condition of sewer mains, resulting in high infiltration rates.

Utility commercial focus: those utilities with a strong commercial focus (e.g. dividend

payments) or private sector involvement generally have significantly lower water

production rates. Water efficiency improvements are inevitably a key focus in reducing

NRW and improving operational efficiencies.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0 V

olu

me

per

co

nn

ecti

on

/day

Volume of water produced (kL/conn/day) Sewage collected Sewage treated


40

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Vo

lum

e p

rod

uce

d

(kL

/co

nn

ecti

on

/day

)

Rainfall (average mm per annum)

Unit production vs rainfall Linear (Unit production vs rainfall)

Figure 8.2.4a Volume v/s terrain

Figure 8.2.4b Volume produced v/s rainfall

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Vo

lum

e p

rod

uce

d

(kL

/co

nn

ecti

on

/day

)

GNI PPP

Unit production vs GNI PPP Linear (Unit production vs GNI PPP)

Figure 8.2.4c Volume produced v/s GNI

Figure 8.2.4d Volume produced v/s NRW

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Mountainous Varied Very low atolls

Ave

rag

e vo

lum

e p

rod

uce

d

(kL

/co

nn

ecti

on

/day

)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Vo

lum

e p

rod

cued

(k

L/c

on

nec

tio

n/d

ay)

NRW % Unit production vs NRW Linear (Unit production vs NRW)


41

8.3 Key Result Area 2: Technical Performance

(i) Key Purpose

Technical performance in this benchmarking initiative

addresses issues of coverage, continuity, reliability, NRW

and asset condition. These indicators are important

because they provide guidance about the quality of water

and wastewater services provided to the population. The

adopted indicators focus on infrastructure planning and

operational management using the available valid data

provided, although indicator selection has been influenced

by the availability of accurate data.

Coverage of water supply and wastewater services is important as it gives an indication of how well

the utility provides a service to the population within their area of responsibility. This indicator is useful

in guiding investment in scheme expansion and growth.

Knowing the level of NRW is critical as it is a guide to a utility‟s success in managing physical and

commercial components of water loss. While commercial loss is really a financial indicator and

physical loss is the technical indicator, NRW (in kL/connection/day) has been adopted in this study as

insufficient data is available to calculate physical loss directly for most utilities. For this study, NRW is

generally used as a guide to infrastructure condition. High levels of NRW have a two-fold impact on

the water business: (1) there is an economic cost associated with producing additional water in terms

of infrastructure, energy, labor and chemicals (i.e. physical loss); and, (2) there is significant lost

revenue potential (i.e. commercial loss).

Continuity of supply is an important measure in terms of the effectiveness of operations and the

management and resolution of potential system constraints, including source capacity constraints,

water network capacity constraints, power outages and asset failures. These are critical components

of system planning and operation, and significantly impact upon the customer‟s experience and

satisfaction.



Key Observations

Median water supply coverage (by population) within the area of responsibility is

generally higher than Africa and South East Asia.

The average water supply coverage of 76 per cent under this study (i.e. 19 utilities) is

equivalent to the 2010 PWWA figure of 76 per cent.7 However, caution should be

exercised in comparing these figures as they do not cover the same range of utilities.

Sewerage coverage lags significantly behind water coverage at a median of only 24 per

cent. This is also significantly below sewerage coverage in Africa (average 42 per

cent). These figures lend weight to concern around emerging human health and

environmental issues relating to sanitation in the Pacific.

Technical performance in this benchmarking

initiative addresses issues of coverage,

continuity, reliability, NRW and asset

condition. These indicators are important

because they provide guidance about the

quality of water and wastewater services

provided to the population.


42

Continuity of water supply services (i.e. hours/day) in the Pacific appears to be good

from the data collected. However, the authors question the accuracy of this data. If the

data is accurate, continuity during normal operating conditions in the Pacific is better

than South East Asia and Africa.

An issue of critical concern is the high levels of NRW. The median for the Pacific is 1.0

kL/connection/day and the average is 1.5 kL/connection/day. These figures are almost

double those for Africa and South East Asia, and confirm that NRW is potentially the

most critical issue facing water utilities in the Pacific. Further discussion on NRW and

comparison of various measures is included in the following sub-sections.


The key statistics from the data analysis are shown in Table 8.2, alongside the median figures from


Table 8.2 KRA 2 Technical performance: key statistics and benchmarks


Pac

ific

Ben

chm

ark


PWWA (2011) WS AA

NZWA Africa SEA

PW

WA

(20

09)

PW

WA

(20

10)

Ave

rage

25th

per

cent

ile

Med

ian

75th

per

cent

ile

WS

AA

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G1

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G2

Med

ian

WO

P A

fric

a A

vg

WO

P A

fric

a T

arge

t

SE

AW

UN

Med

ian

KR

A2

-Tec

hn

ical

P

erfo

rman

ce

O1 Water supply coverage % of

population * - 76 76 68 90 95 - - - 73 90 50


Hrs/day 24 - - 20 21 24 24 - - - 17 24 23


m3/conn/ day

- - 1.4 0.3 1.0 1.8 - 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4


population * - - 36 20 30 52 - - - 42 82 -

* „Sewerage coverage‟ Pacific benchmarks should be consistent with Millennium Development Goal Targets and will vary for each country.


Potential sources of error and areas for future improvement relating to KRA 2 include:


Comparison with other sources of information regarding coverage: coverage is a key

MDG though it must be noted that this assessment is by utility, not by country, and therefore

the figures may not be consistent with country reports for the region.

Uncertainty in population served: as discussed under KRA 1, most utilities face significant

challenges in determining the populations they service and within their jurisdiction which has

the potential to create major inaccuracies in the quoted figures. Further clarity is also required

regarding populations served by stand posts.


43

Figure 8.3.1 O1 and O4: Coverage* of water supply and sewerage

* Note: this means coverage within the utility‟s required or mandated service area

Unknown supply duration: it is evident that many utilities do not have a good understanding

of the number of customers receiving rationed supply under normal operating conditions and

the duration of that supply. Continuity should ideally be a weighted average of these figures. It

is also evident that the definition and question was not clearly understood and may require

further clarification.

Limited understanding of water balance methodology: similar to the discussion under

KRA 1, inaccuracies appear in various components of the water balance including volumes of

water produced, volumes authorized and billed (either metered or unmetered), and volumes

authorized and unbilled. These figures are critical to calculating NRW in a consistent manner

to enable comparisons. Alternative methods of expressing NRW (see following sub-sections)

also require improved accuracy of the figures to be used as denominators such as number of

connections and length of main.

It should be noted that a critical issue with these technical indicators is that they change over time.

While these figures are being used as benchmarking indicators, they should essentially be considered

baseline figures upon which to improve.


Figures 8.3.1 to 8.3.4 below illustrate the results of the data analysis for indicators O1, O2, O3 and

O4. Further discussion of secondary data relating to these indicators, particularly in relation to the

physical and real loss levels, is included in the sub-section „Additional Discussion on Secondary Data

Collected‟.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% c

ove

rag

e

Water coverage Sewerage coverage


44

Figure 8.3.2 O2: Continuity of Supply (hrs/day)

Figure 8.3.3 O3: Non-Revenue Water (kL/connection/day)

Figure 8.3.4 O3: Non-Revenue Water (% of total produced)

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

ho

urs

/day

su

pp

ly

hours/day under normal conditions

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

NR

W (

kL/c

on

nec

tio

n/d

ay

NRW Pacific Pacific median Pacific Average

South East Asia Africa NRW NZ

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Per

cen

tag

e o

f w

ater

pro

du

ced

(%)

Estimated apparent loss / NRW (%) Estimated physical loss (%)


45


The key factors influencing these indicators include:


Coverage: Key factors which impact on coverage rates include, but are not limited to:

Relative proportion of urban/rural population.

Extent and effectiveness of system master planning.

Availability of capital funding for expansion and the presence of mechanisms for

cost recovery.

Policy platforms and political commitment to system expansion.

Continuity: key factors which impact on continuity include, but are not limited to:

Water supply system capacity constraints (water availability or source infrastructure

capacity, storage capacity, network hydraulic capacity).

Water supply system condition or performance constraints (pipeline condition and

associated leakage resulting in night time shut down, poor pump condition result in

frequent pump outages, poor switchboard or surge protection resulting in frequent

failure of electrical and mechanical assets).

Maturity of asset management framework and practice.

Effectiveness of system operation (i.e. manual system operations which are not

effective for all customers).

Policy and political decisions around priority areas.

Non-Revenue Water : key factors which impact on NRW include, but are not limited to:

Policy decisions surrounding water tariffs (e.g. decision not to charge customers

yields a figure of 100 per cent NRW).

Accuracy of water data volumes (i.e. water produced, water billed and water

authorized but not billed).

Extent and accuracy of metering.

Location factors relating to the network which influence leakage including soil types

(impacts on movement, expansion and contraction of soils, resulting in premature

pipe and joint failure), topography (i.e. hilly terrain can result in high pressures) and

network density.

Network design and construction, including planned system pressures, location of

household connection point (e.g. long service connections may result in high

losses), type and quality of materials (e.g. types of joints such as welded joints can

result in sudden failure, procuring thin wall pipes from local suppliers).

Maturity of asset management framework and practice, including renewals

planning.

Passive efforts to manage physical loss including visual inspections and flow and

pressure monitoring.

Active efforts to manage physical loss including leakage management, pressure

management.

The measure used to compare (section following sub-section).


46

Figure 8.3.5 Non-Revenue Water using two measures

(vii) Additional Discussion on Secondary Data Collected

Further to the benchmarking indicators presented in Table 8.2 and Figures 8.3.1 to 8.3.4, additional

discussion is included in this sub-section regarding the secondary data collected, particularly in

relation to the issue of NRW and physical loss which is evidently a major issue in technical and

financial performance across the Pacific. Figure 8.3.5 and Table 8.3 below shows the calculation of

NRW using various methods.

The internationally accepted

standard measure is

kL/connection/day (i.e.

m3/connection/day).8 Figure 8.3.5

illustrates that using a percentage

figure, particularly for utilities with

high unit production (e.g. Eda

Ranu, Samoa Water Authority)

significantly distorts the overall

NRW performance. For most

utilities, the unit of

kL/connection/day gives a much

more realistic estimate of NRW

than percentage. Conversely, for

very low consumption utilities

(e.g. Kiribati), a low

kL/connection/day NRW figure

can be misleading as it does not

reflect the fact that NRW may still

be a very high percentage of

water produced.

Generally, however, most utilities in the Pacific have higher, rather than lower, production and

therefore kL/connection/day has been adopted as the key NRW indicator, consistent with international

best practice. The unit of kL/km main/day requires accurate estimates of water main length and can

be distorted by interpretation (e.g. water service connections should not be included and all mains,

not just larger diameter, should be included; additionally, raw water mains should be excluded).

Table 8.3 KRA 2: O3 Non-Revenue Water using various measures


Pac

ific

Ben

chm

ark


PWWA (2011) WS AA

NZWA Africa SEA

PW

WA

(20

09)

PW

WA

(20

10)

Ave

rage

25th

per

cent

ile

Med

ian

75th

per

cent

ile

WS

AA

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G1

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G2

Med

ian

WO

P A

fric

a A

vg

WO

P A

fric

a T

arge

t

SE

AW

UN

Med

ian

KR

A2

-Tec

hn

ical

P

erfo

rman

ce


25 - 67 53 31 47 70 10 13 20 36 25 29


m3/conn/ day

- - 1.4 0.3 1.0 1.8 - 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4


m3/km/day

- - 18.5 4.6 10.2 19.6 - 6.6 8.9 32.0 12.0 39.8

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Coo

k Is

land

s

Eda

Ran

u

Fiji

(W

AF

)

FS

M C

huuk

FS

M K

osra

e

FS

M P

ohnp

ei

FS

M Y

ap -

Nor

th

FS

M Y

ap -

Cen

tral

FS

M Y

ap -

Sou

th

Kiri

bati

Wat

erP

NG

Pal

au

Sai

pan

SW

A

Sol

omon

Isla

nds

Ton

ga

Tuv

alu

Van

uatu

Niu

e

m3/

con

nec

tio

n/d

ay

% w

ater

pro

du

ced

% water produced m3/conn/day


47

The median for this study of 47 per cent NRW (and an average of 53 per cent) is considerably higher

than the average of 35 per cent unaccounted for water quoted in the ADB‟s 2005 Benchmarking

Study.9 However, caution should be exercised when comparing these numbers considering the

potential difference in definitions (i.e. UFW v/s NRW) and the different utilities included. A critical

message when highlighting the underlying issue associated with NRW is that the lost revenue

potential of NRW is approximately USD $300 per connection or in the order of USD $75 Million per

year across the Pacific. This figure is based on the data collected, including:

Average NRW of 1.5 kL/connection/day

Approximately 252,000 connections

Unit revenue from water $0.55US/kL

The true cost of NRW is possibly even higher than this foregone revenue figure, considering that the

cost of system operations is often not recovered through water charges, nor is the capital investment

required to find new sources.

Based on the data provided by utilities, an attempt has been made to makes estimates of physical

loss. In order for readers to better understand the discussion, it is first necessary to introduce the key

definitions. The focus up to this point has been on NRW, which is essentially water which does not

produce revenue. Consistent with the definitions of the International Water Association (IWA), the key

components of NRW are the apparent or commercial loss, and the physical or real loss:

Key Components of NRW

Commercial or Apparent loss includes all types of inaccuracies associated with

customer metering as well as data handling errors (meter reading and billing) plus

unauthorized consumption (theft or illegal use). These losses are referred to as

„Apparent Losses‟ by IWA and „Commercial Losses‟ by the World Bank. In some

countries the misleading term „Non- Technical Losses‟ is used. For ease of

understanding the term „Commercial Losses‟ has been adopted here.

Physical or Real losses involve leakage and overflows at reservoirs, leakage on

service connections up to metering point and leakage on transmission and

distribution mains, up to the point of customer metering point. These components

of loss are referred to as „Real Losses‟ called „Physical Losses‟ by the World Bank.

Figure 8.3.4 introduced the values of commercial and physical loss and helps identify where the key

focus of each utility‟s NRW management strategy should be targeted. For example, from the figures

provided, Eda Ranu has a clear commercial loss problem which, if addressed, could significantly

increase the revenue and provide funding for management of physical loss. On the other hand, it

appears that SWA and Solomon Islands have a larger physical loss problem.

Alongside the Pacific figures, in Figures 8.3.6 and 8.3.7 are the calculated water loss figures based on

the data provided. The key observation to be drawn from these figures is that physical loss in the

Pacific is extremely high. The African and SEA studies did not directly calculate physical loss, only

NRW, so cannot be used in this comparison. Alongside the Pacific figures in Figures 8.3.6 and 8.3.7

is the 95th percentile physical loss figures for all Australian utilities (referred to as real loss by WSAA).

Only the worst performing 5 per cent of utilities have physical losses higher than these numbers. So,

even compared with the worst performers across Australia, physical loss is extremely high.


48

Figure 8.3.6 Physical loss (kL/connection/day)

Figure 8.3.7 Physical loss (kL/main/day)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

1000 1100 1200

even

ts p

er 1

00km

mai

n

No water main breaks No of sewer overflows

Main breaks SEA Sewer overflows QLD

Figure 8.3.8 Main breaks and sewer overflows

In addition to water loss, answers were also received from some utilities regarding water main breaks

and sewer overflows (refer to Figure 8.3.8). In some jurisdictions, these indicators are used as

important measures of performance, particularly in relation to asset condition and effectiveness of

asset management, maintenance and system operational optimization. Within the Pacific, the

accuracy of these indicators is heavily influenced by the rigor around recording mains breaks and

sewer overflows data. It appears that utilities often do not know that this data is being collected by

someone in their organization and therefore do not use it to gauge performance improvements or to

highlight areas of the network requiring priority attention.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Coo

k Is

land

s

Eda

Ran

u

Fiji

(W

AF

)

FS

M C

huuk

FS

M K

osra

e

FS

M P

ohnp

ei

FS

M Y

ap -

Nor

th

FS

M Y

ap -

Cen

tral

FS

M Y

ap -

Sou

th

Kiri

bati

Wat

erP

NG

Pal

au

Sai

pan

SW

A

Sol

omon

Isla

nds

Ton

ga

Tuv

alu

Van

uatu

Niu

e

Rea

l lo

ss (

kL/c

on

nec

tio

n/d

ay

Pacific kL/conn/day Pacific median

WSAA 95 percentile

Median

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Coo

k Is

land

s

Eda

Ran

u

Fiji

(W

AF

)

FS

M C

huuk

FS

M K

osra

e

FS

M P

ohnp

ei

FS

M Y

ap -

Nor

th

FS

M Y

ap -

Cen

tral

FS

M Y

ap -

Sou

th

Kiri

bati

Wat

erP

NG

Pal

au

Sai

pan

SW

A

Sol

omon

Isla

nds

Ton

ga

Tuv

alu

Van

uatu

Niu

e

Rea

l lo

ss (

kL/k

m m

ain

/day

Pacific kL/km main/day

Pacific median

WSAA 95 percentile

Median


49

Figure 8.3.9 Energy usage (kWH/kL)

The key observations which can be drawn from Figure 8.3.7 include:

Key Observations

The median number of water main breaks appears low when compared with the

average of SEAWUN. It is likely because most organizations do not have an

accurate and auditable process for recording main breaks. For example, Eda

Ranu‟s main breaks appear high, however, this is most likely because they are

actually recording the data.

The number of sewer overflows appears very high with a median value of 150 overflow events per

annum per 100km of sewer main. Comparison can be made with the average of NZ utilities (0.5 to 1.0

per 100km main) and utilities in Queensland (QLD) of 25 per 100km main. QLD utilities would seem

to provide a good basis for comparison given the smaller utility size, non-metropolitan nature and the

sub-tropical to tropical setting (i.e. heavy and intense summer rains resulting in overflows).

Figure 8.3.9 below shows the data provided by utilities for energy utilization. Few utilities provided

data on energy utilization. There are limited international benchmarks for energy utilization, as it

varies significantly across systems. The only available benchmark was for Dutch utilities10

where 0.5

kWH was used for every kL of water produced, roughly equivalent to the 0.52 kWH/kL for Pacific

utilities reporting energy data.

Given the relatively flat topography of the Netherlands, where 50% of water supplied comes from

groundwater and 50% from surface water, it is likely that the variability across utilities in the

Netherlands would be more limited than the utilities in the Pacific which operate in much more

geographically diverse lands, impacting on pumping requirements considerably. The data presented

in Figure 8.3.8 for the Pacific should therefore be viewed with caution when comparing across utilities,

given the wide variation in topography. What is likely to be of greater interest in future years is the

change in energy usage per unit with time and should be a focus of future benchmarking initiatives.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

kWH

/kL

Pacific kWH/kL Dutch utilities 2009


50

8.4 Key Result Area 3: Health and Environment

(i) Key Purpose

The key purpose for including indicators for KRA 3 is to

protect public health and the environment. One of the

chief purposes for the development of centralized water

supply and wastewater systems is to protect public health

and the environment. For social and economic

development in the Pacific, the water sector must be

positioned as an engine for public health progress.

Compliance with residual chlorine requirements is important in order to maintain a residual within the

network in the case that some form of contamination is introduced post treatment. Monitoring of

residual chlorine is important because chlorine, which is introduced at the water treatment plant

during the disinfection process, decays as it travels through the water supply network, as a function of

time, temperature and the presence of organic material. An internationally accepted standard for

residual chlorine is 0.2 mg/l throughout the network.11

Compliance with micro-biological requirements (i.e. E. coli) is important because it provides evidence

or verification that water quality risks are being managed through catchment management, adequate

treatment and appropriate operations and maintenance, and that disinfection is effective.

Further to public health, an increasing concern in the Pacific is environmental degradation, in

particular receiving water quality. The provision of water supply generates a requirement to deal with

wastewater. Inadequately treated wastewater has significant adverse impacts on receiving waters,

and subsequently economic activities which rely on these receiving waters including fishing,

aquaculture, agriculture and tourism. Ideally, compliance with effluent standards would be an

appropriate indicator to assess sewage treatment effectiveness, however, a limited number of utilities

monitor effluent quality or provided data. Percentage treatment to a primary standard is therefore a

starting point to assessing sewage management.



Key Observations

Drinking water quality compliance is poor with a median of 84 per cent compliance

for residual chlorine compared with an average compliance of 90 percent for South

East Asian utilities.

Of even greater concern is the 25th percentile figure of zero for residual chlorine,

indicating that 25 per cent of utilities have no residual chlorine in their networks,

most likely because they do not chlorinate or the chlorination system is not currently

operating.

The key purpose for including indicators for

Key Result Area 3 is to protect public health

and the environment. For social and economic

development in the Pacific, the water sector

must be positioned as an engine for public

health progress.


51

Similarly, microbiological compliance is lower than desired, with a median of 86 per

cent, compared with 100 per cent for Australian utilities and 98 per cent for rural

utilities in QLD. Utilities should be targeting a high compliance rate for

microbiological compliance.

An encouraging observation is that the variation of microbiological compliance is not

as large as the residual chlorine. For utilities providing data, the minimum

microbiological compliance was 60 per cent, with 75 per cent of utilities having

compliance greater than 77 per cent. This suggests that, at this time, the poor

disinfection has not resulted in observed high rates of microbiological contamination;

however, the risk remains that it could.

The median rate of sewage treatment to at least a primary standard is 70 per cent.

This figure is currently distorted by utilities not reporting or reporting zero. Caution

should be exercised when considering this number.




Table 8.4 KRA 3 Health and environment: key statistics and benchmarks


Pac

ific

Ben

chm

ark


PWWA (2011) WS AA

NZWA Africa SEA

PW

WA

(20

09)

PW

WA

(20

10)

Ave

rage

25th

per

cent

ile

Med

ian

75th

per

cent

ile

WS

AA

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G1

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G2

Med

ian

WO

P A

fric

a A

vg

WO

P A

fric

a T

arge

t

SE

AW

UN

Med

ian

KR

A3

- H

ealt

h &

E

nvi

ron

men


% compliance 100 - - 57 0 85 94 - - - - - 90


% compliance 100 - - 87 79 90 99 100 - - - - -


% of sewage 100 - - 52 0 70 100 100 - - - - -


The potential sources of error and areas for future improvement relating to KRA 3 include:


Record keeping: some utilities could easily quote the number of water samples

taken and the compliance rate, whilst some could not. It appears that many rely on

other departments or their water quality regulator for this information and could not

provide it within the four months available for data collection. Utilities must have a

more intimate understanding of their own water quality compliance issues if they are

to manage them.


52

Figure 8.4.1 HE1 and HE2: Drinking water quality compliance

Sewage volume monitoring: many utilities could not quote the volume of sewage

treated. Even without flow meters, there are methods for calculating volume treated

based on proportion of capacity utilized, pump station draw down tests (for last

pump station(s) upstream of sewage treatment plant) or by per capita estimates.

More guidance must be given on the potential methods which can be used to

estimate sewage volumes or flow monitoring must occur.

Secondary treatment of sewage: the indicator adopted, due to poor availability of

data, is the percentage of sewage treated to at least a primary standard. As the

median for the Pacific is 70 per cent, a more stringent indicator such as the

percentage treated to a secondary standard should be used. For this study,

however, the rate of answering this question was poor. There may be some

question regarding the definition of secondary treatment. Future benchmarking

requires further guidance for utilities, in person and at their utility, in order to yield

more comparable and useful results.

Sampling, testing and reporting errors: water quality monitoring and reporting

includes inherent errors in the sampling, testing, data storage and reporting. Many

utilities claim to have laboratories which are independently verified, however,

significant effort will be required by utilities and SPC–SOPAC to improve the

accuracy of monitoring.


Figures 8.4.1 to 8.4.3 below illustrate the results of the data analysis for indicators HE1, HE2 and

HE3. Further discussion of secondary data relating to these indicators is included in the sub-section

„Additional Discussion on Secondary Data Collected‟.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% o

f sa

mp

les

com

plia

nt

Microbiological compliance (E. coli) Residual chlorine compliance


53

Figure 8.4.2 HE3: Volume and percentage of sewage treated

Figure 8.4.3 HE3: Percentage of sewage treated compared with water produced


For residual chlorine compliance, key factors influencing these results include, but are not limited to:


Strength of chlorine solution sourced: the type of disinfection adopted (e.g.

chlorine gas or chlorine liquid) is not known, however, the strength of the disinfectant

procured by the utility may have an impact on the residual which remains in the

network.

Appropriate dosing rates at the WTP: this is a design and operational issue. Poor

performing dosing equipment or poor operator skills can result in low dosing rates at

the WTP.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

% s

ewag

e tr

eate

d

Vo

lum

e (k

L)

per

co

nn

ecti

on

/day

Sewage collected Sewage treated % of sewage treated to primary standard

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

per

cen

tag

e

% of water customers with sewer connection sewage treated as % water produced


54

Rapid chlorine decay within the network: residual chlorine in the network decays

as a function of time, temperature and organic material. Long detention times (e.g. in

reservoirs or in dead end pipes) is often the key factor for chlorine decay in

developed countries, however, the more likely contributors to chlorine decay in the

Pacific are high temperatures and presence of organic or ferrous material. Organic

material may occur naturally in the water or ferrous material may come from poor

condition iron mains.

Accuracy and completeness of sampling and monitoring: within the network.

For microbiological compliance, key factors influencing these results include, but are not limited to:


Catchment management and water safety planning including implementation of the

water safety plan.

Pipe network condition and pressure fluctuations, resulting in negative pressures at

times which can draw contaminated groundwater and surface water into the pipes

through the cracks in pipes and valves.

Sanitary surveys and ongoing maintenance in tanks and pipe work.

For sewage treatment, insufficient data was provided to report on effluent compliance or make any

useful observations. Further investigation is required in subsequent years to obtain more accurate

data on volumes of sewage, the level to which it is treated and compliance with effluent standards.

(v) Additional Discussion on Secondary Data Collected

Table 8.5 presents the answers to the secondary data collected. The key water treatment challenges,

according to the participating utilities, are shown in Figure 8.4.4.

While the data collected will be useful to many in understanding water quality challenges across the

region, a number of key messages are apparent:

Key Messages

Most utilities operate in a regulatory regime where water quality compliance is

required by law and most have a water quality monitoring program, however, some

could not provide drinking water quality compliance data and, based on the results,

many would not comply with regulatory requirements.

Many utilities claim to have their own water quality testing laboratories which are

independently certified or checked.

There was some ambiguity in the answers to the questions relating to who

undertakes the compliance monitoring: the utility, the regulator or both. It is possible

that the question requires further clarification.

24 per cent of all schemes have a Drinking Water Safety Plan (DWSP) although only

11 per cent of these plans have been externally verified and audited.


55

In terms of implementation of DWSPs, there does not appear to be any correlation

between DWSP and water quality compliance at this time. It is possible that while

DWSPs have been prepared, they have not been fully implemented so are not yet

yielding the benefits of a risk based approach.

The two most common water treatment challenges facing utilities are raw water physical parameters

and effectiveness of treatment operations (Figure 8.4.4).

Table 8.5 KRA 3 Health and environment: secondary data findings

Question Option No. of

responses

What drinking water quality guidelines do you use?

WHO 7

USEPA 4

National 5

Is water quality compliance required by law? (e.g. Public Health Act) Yes 12

No 1

Who is your health / water quality regulator?

EPA 4

Ministry of Health 5

Water Quality Lab 1

Government 2

Do you have a water quality monitoring program? Yes 12

No 2

What frequency do you do bacteria monitoring (e.g. coliforms)

Daily 1

Weekly 5

Monthly 5

None 2

What frequency do you do physical and chemical monitoring No answers

How many of your supply schemes have a drinking water safety plan? 28 (24% of all

schemes)

How many of the Plans have been externally verified and audited? 3 (11% of all

plans)

Is drinking water quality compliance information publicly available? Yes 8

No 4

Does your water utility own and operate its own water quality testing laboratory?

Yes 8

No 4

32%

14% 24%

11%

19%

Raw water physical parameters

Raw water chemical parameters

Treatment effectiveness

Operator skills

Cost of chemicals/energy etc

Figure 8.4.4 Key water treatment challenges


56

If yes, is your laboratory independently certified or checked for quality of results? And by who (i.e. which organization?)

Yes 7

No

Is your water quality compliance testing done by your utility or your water quality regulator?

Utility 5

Regulator 3

Both 4

What level of surveillance does your water quality regulator undertake? - -

What do you believe are your most critical water quality issues?

Raw water physical parameters 10

Raw water chemical parameters 4

Treatment effectiveness 8

Operator skills 2

Cost of chemicals / energy etc 6

8.5 Key Result Area 4: Human Resources

(i) Key Purpose

Efficient human resource utilization, management and development are critical to Pacific water utilities

in ongoing efforts to improve service levels to customers and commercial performance.

On average throughout the Pacific, labor costs make up 40

per cent of annual operating expenses (based on data

provided). This is a significant cost component and

therefore the human resource utilization rate (staff/1000

connections) is a measure of staffing efficiency. Similarly,

the average cost of labor as a ratio of GNI gives an

indication of the attractiveness of the remuneration paid to employees; which, in theory, is one factor

impacting on employee performance.

Staff development is important to ensure that opportunities for capacity development through donor

funded, twinning exercises and everyday operations are harnessed. Staff development is important

for gaining an understanding of modern water and wastewater system operations and business

management, thereby giving staff the skills to improve and optimize the quality of service.



Key Observations

The median staff utilization rate for all Pacific utilities is 11 FTE/1,000 connections

compared with an average of 7.5 in SEA and 16 in Africa (note: SEA represents water

only utilities (no sewerage)). This result suggest that utilization in the Pacific is quite

efficient compared with other regions, considering the relatively small size and remote

nature of Pacific utilities.

Efficient human resource utilization,

management and development are critical to

Pacific water utilities in ongoing efforts to

improve service levels to customers and

commercial performance.


57

For water only companies in the Pacific, the average staff utilization rate is 8.5

FTE/1,000 connections compared with an average for both water and wastewater

utilities of 11.3 FTE/1,000 connections. This figure for water only utilities is

comparable with the figure of 7.5 FTE/1,000 connections for water only utilities in

South East Asia.

The range of the middle 50 per cent of values for staffing utilizations (i.e. 8.5 to 14.8)

is similar to the range of 3-15 FTE/1,000 connections quoted in the ADB 2005 study.12

Pacific, SEA and African utilities all have high staffing rates when compared with the

internationally recommended staffing targets of 2 FTE/1,000 connections for

developed country utilities and 5 FTE/1,000 connections for developing country

utilities.13

This target of 5 FTE/1,000 connections does not, however, make provision

for economies of scale issues associated with small utilities.

Investment in training is low in the Pacific with only 1.0 days per FTE per year,

compared with 1.8 in South East Asia and 9 in Africa, based on the data provided.

This equates to a median spend on training of 0.75 per cent of OPEX, compared with

2 per cent in South East Asia.

The median staff cost in the Pacific is approximately 2.1 times GNI, roughly

comparable, albeit slightly lower, than the figure of 2.6 times GNI in SEA.

Labor is 40 per cent of OPEX compared with 23 per cent of OPEX in Africa (this may reflect under-

investment in other components of OPEX in the Pacific, rather than labor over spending).




Table 8.6 KRA 4 Human resources: key statistics and benchmarks


Pac

ific

Ben

chm

ark


PWWA (2011) WS AA

NZWA Africa SEA

PW

WA

(20

09)

PW

WA

(20

10)

Ave

rage

25th

per

cent

ile

Med

ian

75th

per

cent

ile

WS

AA

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G1

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G2

Med

ian

WO

P A

fric

a A

vg

WO

P A

fric

a T

arge

t

SE

AW

UN

Med

ian

KR

A4

Hu

man

Res

ou

rces

HR1 Water and sewerage business staff/ 1000 connections

#FTE/1000 conn

8 10.2 9.6 11.5 8.6 11.2 14.8 - - - 16.0 7.0 7.5

HR2 Training days (no days/year)

days/FTE/year 5 - - 1.02 0.54 1.00 1.15 - - - 9.00 - 1.80


% of GNI * - - 389 157 214 528 - - - - - 259

* Indicator used as guidance only and Pacific Benchmark not seen to be appropriate




58


Inclusions within staff accounted for: corporatized or private water

organizations will be more easily able to quote the numbers of all staffing ranging

from field operations staff through to the CEO. Government departments,

however, may have inconsistent approaches to staff included and may not include

all staff such as those providing accounting, legal, shared services (e.g. IT, billing)

or even planning and capital works engineering staff. It is possible that

government departments have only included direct operations staff. Similarly,

those utilities managing other services such as power or drainage may provide

figures which do not clearly reflect only the water and wastewater staff. A clearer

definition of staff to be included is required, and provision must be made to quote

direct and indirect staff numbers.

Water only v/s water and wastewater utilities: where possible, water and

wastewater utilities have been separately assessed. However, future data

collection exercises need to more explicitly provide for water staff and wastewater

staff.

Accuracy of training days and training expenditure: accurate assessment of

training days and training expenditure requires a training register to be kept, which

includes both internal and external training. Given the difficulties experienced by

some utilities in answering these questions, it is recommended that utilities invest

in improving records relating to training.

Usefulness of training days as a measure of development: a key shortcoming

in using number of training days as a measure of staff development is that the

number of days does not necessarily reflect the quality of the training, nor does it

indicate the distribution of training and participation amongst the entire staff. In

future, it is recommended that staff participation also be included. Training

records must be improved to enable staff participation (i.e. number of staffing

having a certain amount of training) to be provided.

Average labor cost: comparing the average cost of labor requires a consistent

approach, as it is possible that some utilities make provision for staff allowances

(e.g. housing allowance, security, staff on-costs) while others do not. In some

countries, staffing allowance may be significant (e.g. these figures are relatively

high in Papua New Guinea).

Equity of labor cost: the simple measure „average cost of labor‟ does not reveal

the variation or equity between field staff, operators and the CEO. However, it is

not easy to obtain a better measure based on the information available. It is

recommended that further, more detailed investigations are required. It is highly

likely, as is the case in many parts of the world, that operators carrying a very high

responsibility to produce drinking quality water are not paid remuneration

commensurate with their responsibility.


Figures 8.5.1 to 8.5.3 below illustrate the results of the data analysis for indicators HR1, HR2 and

HR3. Further discussion of secondary data relating to these indicators is included in the sub-section



59

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Sta

ffin

g p

er 1

000

wat

er

co

nn

ecti

on

s

No FTE per 1000 connections

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Tra

inin

g a

s %

of

OP

EX

No

tra

inin

g d

ays

/ FT

E/ y

ear

Days per FTE Training budget (% of OPEX)

Figure 8.5.1 HR1: Staff per 1000 connections

Figure 8.5.2 HR2: Training days and investment

0%

200%

400%

600%

800%

1000%

1200%

1400%

1600%

Ave

raeg

sta

ff c

ost

(i.e

. lab

ou

r)

as %

of

GN

I

Average labour as % GNI

Figure 8.5.3 HR3: Average cost of staff compared with GNI


60

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Coo

k Is

land

s

Eda

Ran

u

Fiji

(W

AF

)

FS

M C

huuk

FS

M K

osra

e

FS

M P

ohnp

ei

FS

M Y

ap -

Nor

th

FS

M Y

ap -

Cen

tral

FS

M Y

ap -

Sou

th

Kiri

bati

Wat

erP

NG

Pal

au

Sai

pan

SW

A

Sol

omon

Isla

nds

Ton

ga

Tuv

alu

Van

uatu

Niu

e

Sta

ff t

urn

ove

r ra

te p

er a

nn

um

Annual turnover (%/annum)

Figure 8.5.4 HR3: Annual staff turnover rates

(vi) Factors Influencing Performance Indicators

Key factors which likely influence staff utilization rates, aside from political and union based influences

include:


Extent of services including water v/s wastewater, urban v/s rural, operations and/or

system expansion, operations or corporate services, water resources v/s water

supply.

Size of organization (i.e. economies of scale for larger organizations as per Figure

8.5.3).

Degree of outsourced services (e.g. Unelco in Vanuatu), particularly operations and

maintenance activities.

Availability of staff (e.g. Cook Islands).

Training figures should be viewed with caution given the limited records on training kept by utilities.

Training days requires a training register to be kept, which includes both internal and external training.

Variables relating to average cost of labor are generally internal factors. The inclusions for the labor

figure quoted influences the comparison (e.g. housing allowance, security costs). A noteworthy

finding is the general trend of utilities with low staffing rates having higher labor or pay rates. It is

generally an internationally accepted trend that staffing efficiencies go hand in hand with greater

accountabilities and commensurate rewards (i.e. pay levels) for staff.

(vii) Additional Discussion on Secondary Data Collected

Data was collected relating to staff

turnover; however, no clear trends could

be noted from the data provided, as

presented in Figure 8.5.4. Particularly

noteworthy is the high staff turnover rate

for some small utilities (e.g. FSM Kosrae

and FSM Yap – North): turnover of one or

two staff in such small organizations

distorts this figure.

Staff turnover can be a major issue for

water utilities as corporate and technical

knowledge is lost and utilities need to

invest more in training new staff. Utilities

in Australia generally target a staff

turnover rate less than 10 per cent. It is

interesting to note that many of the

utilities with turnover rates below 10 per

cent in Figure 8.5.4 are amongst the best

performing utilities.


61

8.6 Key Result Area 5: Customer Service

(i) Key Purpose

A customer service focus is critical to achieving customer satisfaction. Meter coverage is important in

order to achieve equity amongst customers and assists in providing base information to improve both

technical and financial performance. Billing can be accurately undertaken with good meter coverage.

Understanding customer complaints is important, particularly for monopoly WSPs with regulatory

oversight, in order to protect the customer and illustrate the utility‟s quality of interaction with its

customers. Customer complaints are generally used as proxy for the overall performance of the

business.

Affordability is a key issue in the developing countries

throughout the Pacific in order to guide utilities in setting

appropriate tariff arrangements for new connections and of

an annual bill as a percentage of GNI. Affordable new

connection fees and ongoing water charges are a sensitive

political issue and must be set to enable recovery of costs

and at the same time ensure services to the lower income

sectors of the customer base.



Key Observations

The median metering rate across the Pacific is 100 per cent while only 95 per cent of

these meters are considered to be operational or functional meters.

This high meter coverage rate is consistent with SEA and much higher than Africa.

The median rate of customer complaints is roughly proportional to that in South East

Asia; however, if the average rate is used then customer complaints in the Pacific

are much higher.

Less than 50 per cent of the participating utilities could quote the number of

customer complaints.

New connections across the Pacific are very affordable (median 1.4 per cent GNI

PPP) when compared with Africa (average 7 per cent GNI PPP). No data is available

for comparison with WSAA or NZWA for new connections; however, this average

compares well with an average of 1.5 per cent of GNI PPP for all US utilities.14

Some utilities appear to have no new connection fee, only a connection process,

seemingly in an attempt to minimize the potential for illegal connections.

In terms of the international benchmarking standard of the affordability of the

minimum water allocation (6m3/connection/month), Pacific utilities are significantly

more affordable (i.e. only 1.6 per cent GNI PPP) than African utilities (7 per cent);

however, this is distorted by the high consumption rate in the Pacific (i.e. three times

as much water).

Affordability is a key issue in the developing

countries throughout the Pacific…affordable

new connection fees and ongoing water

charges are a sensitive political issue and

must be set to enable recovery of costs and at

the same time ensure services to the lower

income sectors of the customer base.


62

The average bill per person (CM4a) in the Pacific appears high, largely due to the

high billed volumes (i.e. assumed to be consumption) when compared with other

parts of the world. When the median value for the average annual bill per person (1.5

per cent GNI PPP) is used the figure is lower than the African average.

The average household bill in the Pacific, as a ratio of % GNI PPP remains high at

7.9 per cent when compared with average water bills in Australia (1.1 per cent), NZ

(0.75 per cent), USA (1.1 per cent) and South East Asia (0.9 per cent).

The issues relating to higher water bills than other parts of the world appear to be

related to high consumption rather than an affordability problem and warrants further

more detailed investigation. Even at a per person affordability of 1.5 per cent GNI

PPP for water supply only (and therefore a similar household figure when both

incomes and water rates are multiplied by the occupancy rate), this is well within the

generally accepted maximum of 4–5 per cent of household income for water and

sewerage services (e.g. 1.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent for water supply services only).

This 4–5 per cent is a crude proxy for willingness to pay and is the generally

accepted standard for international organizations.




Table 8.7 KRA 5 Customer service: key statistics and benchmarks


Pac

ific

Ben

chm

ark


PWWA (2011) WS AA

NZWA Africa SEA

PW

WA

(20

09)

PW

WA

(20

10)

Ave

rage

25th

per

cent

ile

Med

ian

75th

per

cent

ile

WS

AA

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G1

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G2

Med

ian

WO

P A

fric

a A

vg

WO

P A

fric

a T

arge

t

SE

AW

UN

Med

ian

KR

A5

Cu

sto

mer

Ser

vice


% of customers

100 - - 68 29 98 100 - 45 23 74 100 100


#/1000 conn NA - - 170 56 107 272 10 - - 53 53 168


% GNI per person

- - 1.8 0.6 1.4 2.3 - - - 7.0 2.0 -

CM4 Affordability – average household bill

% GNI per person

- - 14.1 4.2 7.9 14 1.1 0.8 0.7 - - -


% GNI per person

- - 1.7 1.0 1.5 2 0.4 0.3 0.3 - - -


% GNI per person

- - 1.6 0.6 1.6 2.2 - - - 7.0 3.0 0.9

There is significant potential for confusion relating to the various affordability indicators. Various

indicators are used to compare with other calculations around the world. For this reason, it is

considered appropriate to describe in detail the method of calculation in order to facilitate effective

comparisons of the results:


63

CM3: affordability of new connection = new connection fee (USD) / Gross National Income

per capita at Purchasing Power Parity (GNI PPP). This yields a new connection fee per

person for comparison against the Water Operators Partnership in Africa, where this indicator

is calculated.

CM4: affordability of an average bill = actual revenue water sales (USD/year) / total no.

connections / GNI PPP. This yields an average household bill per person for comparison

against OECD countries, where average household bills are used.

CM4a: affordability of an average bill = actual revenue water sales (USD/year) / total

population serviced (no. people) / GNI PPP. This yields an average per person bill for

comparison against generally accepted principles and IB-Net Indicator 19.1 (Total Revenues

per service population).




Meter and functional meter coverage: the accuracy and ease of interrogation of

meter databases may be a source of data errors. Utilities must invest time and effort in

checking the accuracy of the data.

Functional or operational meters: regarding the accuracy of these meters, it is

surprising that only 5 per cent of the meters installed are non-functioning or non-

operational. Anecdotal experience across the Pacific is that the rate of non-functioning

meters (e.g. not used or inactive, meters stopped or damaged, meters reading zero)

far exceeds 5 per cent. This may illustrate a lack of knowledge of the condition of

meters, and if the condition is not known then a suitable meter replacement program

cannot be developed.

Meter accuracy: these indicators do not give any guidance on meter age or accuracy,

simply indicating whether the meter exists and whether it is functioning or operational.

In due course, PWWA should make provision for an indicator which makes

assessment of meter age or accuracy in order to guide NRW calculations. Meter

accuracy is a critical operational and commercial issue given that system operations

and billing are based on these figures. For example, studies have illustrated that flow

meters which are approximately 5-10 years old or have passed 4 ML can under-

register (or over-register) by 5 –15 per cent, which can contribute to NRW significantly.

Customer complaints: while complaints are relatively easy to track, they do not tell us

much about the performance of a utility in customer relations. Customers may have

become accustomed to poor service and do not complain. In other instances it may be

difficult for customers to report complaints. For these reasons, it is sometimes difficult

to derive any meaning from the number of complaints indictor and, in due course,

PWWA should consider assessing utility responsiveness through a more „procedural‟

assessment. Nevertheless, changes in customer complaints with time will provide

useful guidance to individual utilities.

Customer complaints definition: in order to be able to compare across utilities, the

PWWA must agree on a consistent definition of customer complaints. A phone call or

letter from a customer is not necessarily a complaint unless dissatisfaction is

expressed.


64

Figure 8.6.1 CM1: Meter Coverage and Accuracy

New connection affordability: some utilities did not provide tariffs figures so this

calculation could not be performed for all utilities. For the purpose of comparison,

utilities need to provide the new connection fee for a standard water meter size, as

nominated by PWWA or as the standard or most frequently installed size for each

utility. Similarly, this measure is a function of GNI PPP.

Affordability of water bill / average annual bill: the average annual bill was not

included in the questionnaire but should be included in future years in order to

calculate the affordability in a more accurate and appropriate way. Requesting utilities

to provide the average annual bill ensures that the fixed and variable components of

tariffs and stepped tariffs are incorporated. For the purpose of this study, the average

annual bill for each utility has been calculated based on the actual revenue from water

sales, the total number of connections or population services and the GNI PPP.

Affordability of water bills: the figures calculated in this benchmarking study are

based on low reliability figures and need significant improvement before sound

comparisons can be made. Similarly, the average or median figures adopted do not

address the issue of affordability for low income houses. It is recommended that

affordability of varying sectors of the community be explored in a separate study on

affordability.

Use of GNI PPP: average tariffs and connection charges need to be put in the

perspective of affordability. Household income data is not easy to obtain, nor is the

distribution of household income (e.g. lowest 20th percentile). These indicators are

therefore expressed as a proportion of per capita Gross National Income (GNI), which

reflects annual income. The GNI is for the whole country and does not reflect local

variations, but is the most appropriate consistent measure currently available for most

countries. In due course, PWWA should give consideration to a specific study on water

rates and affordability, where the affordability to lower income sectors serviced by each

utility can be more accurately assessed.


Figures 8.6.1 to 8.6.4 below illustrate the results of the data analysis for indicators CM1 to CM4.

Further discussion of secondary data relating to these indicators is included in the sub-section


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% o

f co

nn

ecti

on

s

% metered % operational meters


65

0

100

200

300

400

500 %

of

con

nec

tio

ns

Complaints per 1000 connections

Figure 8.6.2 CM2: Customer complaints per 1000 connections

Figure 8.6.3 CM3: Affordability of new connections

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

% G

NI P

PP

Affordability new connection Pacific Affordability new connection Africa

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

% G

NI P

PP

Avg water bill per capita Pacific Avg water bill per capita WSAA

WB lower end target water and sewerage World bank Upper end target water and sewerage

*Note: Pacific and WSAA figures relate to water supply only. World Bank targets relate to water and sewerage services.

Figure 8.6.4 CM4: Affordability of average water bills*


66

Figure 8.6.5 GNI PPP v/s affordability of average bill

(vi) Factors Influencing Performance Indicators

For meter coverage, the key factors influencing these results are institutional and political decisions

regarding water metering, and the availability of funds for purchasing and installing meters. Where

utilities manage both urban and rural schemes, a high proportion of urban schemes are metered while

rural schemes are generally not metered (e.g. WAF, SWA, Palau). For customer complaints, there are

a wide range of factors which will influence the results presented in Figure 8.6.2, and caution should

be exercised in comparing these results. Aside from the quality of service provided by the utility,

some key factors include, but are not limited to:


Cultural norms regarding making a complaint.

Definition of a complaint.

Accuracy of systems for receiving, logging and recording complaints.

Previous and ongoing experiences with the water utility (e.g. after long term service

issues customer can get tired of complaining).

Utility‟s approach to seeking complaints including advertising and ensuring that

customers know where to complain.

For affordability, there are similarly a wide range of factors which will influence the results presented

in Figure 8.6.3 and 8.6.4, and caution should be exercised in comparing these results. Some key

factors include, but are not limited to:


Production and consumption rates: it appears that water utilities with relatively high

production and consumption rates have higher water bills (bills as % of GNI are much

higher). This is essentially an excessive production and consumption problem than an

affordability issue: if production and demand were managed then the average bill

would be more affordable.

Policies around new connections: including the provision of free new connections

by some utilities compared (e.g. Water PNG) through to truly cost reflective new

connections (e.g. WAF).

GNI (see Figure 8.6.5): utilities in countries with high GNI have considerably more

affordable water bills (i.e. much lower water bills as % of GNI PPP).

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0%

GN

I PP

P

Affordability (as % of GNI PPP)

GNI PPP vs affordability 6m3/month


67

Figure 8.6.6 Customer feedback methods

Figure 8.6.7 Types of customer complaints recorded

(vi) Additional Discussion on Secondary Data Collected

Further to the quantitative data presented and discussed in the results, a number of qualitative

questions around customer service were also included in the questionnaire. Key observations from

this secondary data are as follows:

Key Observations

Customer feedback: most utilities accept customer feedback and complaints

through letters and telephone calls from customers, with very few utilities engaging

their customers through public forums such as television, radio etc, or other means

(e.g. village meetings) (see Figure 8.6.6).

Types of complaints: technical complaints (i.e. particularly related to faults and

leaks) are the most common complaints recorded while complaints dealing with

financial hardship are recorded by only 50 per cent of the utilities (see Figure

8.6.7). Given the potential affordability issues for lower income groups, engaging

with customers on financial hardship is critical to getting these customers to pay.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lette

rs, t

elep

hone

cal

ls e

tc fr

om

cust

omer

s

Invi

ting

cust

omer

s‟ v

iew

s th

roug

h ra

dio,

TV

or

othe

r pu

blic

ity

Que

stio

nnai

re s

urve

y

Oth

er (

plea

se s

tate

)

% o

f u

tilit

ies

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fau

lts /

outa

ges

Leak

s

Wat

er q

ualit

y pr

oble

ms

Con

nect

ion,

bill

ing,

met

erin

g is

sues

Fin

anci

al h

ards

hip

Oth

er (

plea

se s

tate

)

% o

f u

tilit

ies


68

8.7 Key Result Area 7: Financial Sustainability

(i) Key Purpose

Financial sustainability factors are critical to ensure that WSPs are able to collect sufficient revenues

in order to meet its costs and to continue the delivery of reliable and high quality water services to its

customers. The operating cost recovery ratio is probably one of the most important financial indicators

which measures whether the water utility is generating sufficient revenues in order to meet its

operational costs. Operating cost recovery ratios in most instances exclude depreciation from the

calculation. However, depreciation is an indicator of the annual cost of the investment required in the

water utility‟s assets and is therefore also presented as a separate indicator as part of the operating

cost recovery ratio.

The ability to collect cash from revenues billed is also an

important factor that determines the ability of the WSP to

meet its immediate obligations and commitments. A

relatively high number of days for accounts receivable

suggest that collection efforts are poor and/or customers are

having difficulties in meeting the required payments. A

relatively low number of days for accounts receivable means

that cash is collected more frequently, allowing the water

utility to meet its immediate obligations and commitments.

These financial issues have an impact on how utilities generate sufficient revenues to meet ongoing

costs or, reduce costs and risk compromising service delivery. Alternatively, utilities can increase

tariffs which make it unaffordable for the average consumer, or go about seeking subsidies and

grants, and managing NRW.



Key Observations

The median operating cost recovery ratio (excluding depreciation) across the Pacific

is 98 per cent and is lower than the South East Asian median of 140 per cent and the

African target of 120 per cent. It is a concern because it indicates that the Pacific

water utilities are operating at almost a breakeven point which leaves no profits to

fund future needs.

It is only at the 75th percentile (i.e. only the top 25 per cent of Pacific utilities) that the

operating cost recovery ratio sits at 153 per cent, which exceeds the SEA median of

140 per cent and the African target of 120 per cent.

When depreciation is included in the operating cost recovery ratio the indicators from

the 25th percentile to the 75

th percentile, all sit below the target of 100 per cent. It

suggests that funding for capital investment and future expansion cannot be delivered

from internal sources of funding.

Financial sustainability factors are critical to

ensure that WSPs are able to collect sufficient

revenues to meet its costs and to continue

delivery of reliable and high quality water

services to its customers.


69

The operating cost recovery ratio fell below 100 per cent to 90 per cent in some

utilities when operating subsidies were excluded from the total income calculation. In

only a few utilities, removing the subsidy had no effect on the operating cost recovery

ratio.

The collection ratios across the Pacific are better than the African average of 73 per

cent. However, they fall below the target set for PWWA utilities of 95 per cent.

The collection ratio median of 89 per cent for the Pacific is below the target of 95 per

cent for PWWA and only the 75th percentile have exceeded the target at 98 per cent.

The median „accounts receivable days‟ for the Pacific is 121 days, which is much

higher than the SEA median of 67 days and suggests poor management of accounts

receivable (i.e. takes a long time to be paid money owed by customers). However the

Pacific median of 121 days was much better compared to the African average of 243

days.

The median accounts receivable days of 121 means that it takes on average four

months to collect cash from accounts receivable. A PWWA accounts receivable target

of 90 days has been set which is equivalent to three months. However, three months

is still considered a lengthy amount of time considering that standard business

vendor, or trade terms, is 30 days with interest accruing after 30 days.

The OEI median of 54 per cent is similar to the African average of 52 per cent.

However at 54 per cent the OEI median is still quite low confirming the observations

from Section 8.3 regarding high NRW and collection issues as discussed above.

(iii) Overall Analysis and Challenges

The OEI for Pacific utilities shows a median of 54 per cent, which is slightly higher than the African

average of 52 per cent. The low OEI is an indicator of high NRW and a collection ratio of less than

one at a median of 89 per cent. Controlling NRW

and improving collection efforts are the challenges that Pacific utilities constantly face. Improving

collection efforts are always a challenge in the Pacific evidenced by the high median accounts

receivable turnover of 121 days. The South East Asian median is 67 days.

In some of the Pacific utilities the high accounts receivable turnover is a result of historical debtor

balances inherited from government ministries at the time of transfer into a SOE or corporation. The

median operating cost recovery ratios excluding depreciation (98 per cent) and including depreciation

(86 per cent) all fall below 100 per cent. Some Pacific utilities are limited in their ability to charge a

commercial tariff rate either by government regulation or the willingness and ability of the consumer to

pay. In these circumstances, utilities may approach the government with a business case setting out

the justification for subsidies or operational grants to ensure that operating costs including

depreciation are covered.

Therefore, the key messages from the results of the benchmarking from a financial sustainability

perspective are to control NRW and improve collection and debtor turnover. Presenting a business

case to governments may also assist in securing much needed operation grants or subsidies.


70

(iv) Calculated Performance Indicators and Key Statistics



Table 8.8 KRA 6 Financial sustainability: key statistics and benchmarks


Pac

ific

Ben

chm

ark


PWWA (2011) WS AA

NZWA Africa SEA

PW

WA

(20

09)

PW

WA

(20

10)

Ave

rage

25th

per

cent

ile

Med

ian

75th

per

cent

ile

WS

AA

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G1

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G2

Med

ian

WO

P A

fric

a A

vg

WO

P A

fric

a T

arge

t

SE

AW

UN

Med

ian

KR

A6

Fin

anci

al

Su

stai

nab

ility


% 120 104 96 102 89 95 150 - - - - 120 140


% 95 - - 83 84 89 98 - - - 73 93 -


Oth

er F

inan

cial

In

dic

ato

rs

F1b

Operating cost recovery ratio (including dep and excluding operational subsidy)

% 100 - - 68 32 85 92 - - - - - -

OV1 Overall Efficiency Indicator ([1-NRW]* collection ratio)

% 70 - - 47 24 54 69 - - - 52 66 -

(v) Data Quality Issues for Future Improvement



No financial data submitted: one utility that submitted the completed questionnaire

did not submit any financial data. The financial data for this particular utility was

maintained centrally by the government finance or treasury department. It appears

that it was difficult for this utility to extract or obtain the financial data.

Incomplete data submitted: some utilities did not complete all the areas for the

primary data section and follow up emails and discussions had to be sent.

Attaching financial statements: the majority of utilities in the Federated States of

Micronesia provided a full set of independent audited financial statements which

allowed data to be cross checked and verified. Other utilities did not provide any

financial statements or only provided limited financial information (without any notes

etc.).

Separate provision for doubtful debt: in most cases clarification was necessary to

determine whether the accounts receivable amount provided was net or gross of the

provision for doubtful debts. Future benchmarking questionnaires should separate the

provision for doubtful debts and ask for the gross accounts receivable data.


71

Figure 8.7.1 F1: Operating Cost Recovery Ratio (OCRR)

Average annual water bill: most utilities were not able to provide this data which was

requested for an average consumption of 6m3 per month. The question will need to be

considered for future benchmarking studies as to whether a simpler calculation is

preferable.

Misinterpreting the year required for secondary data: there was some confusion

over the data required for the section on secondary data as a couple of utilities

actually included previous year information for all of the secondary data. As a result,

the data for the primary section contained current year financial information whilst the

data in the secondary section contained prior year financial information. Clarification

of the data required for this section will need to be much clearer for future

benchmarking studies.

Exclusions: depreciation and debt service are excluded due to lack of uniformity in

treating revaluation of fixed assets and to facilitate comparison of utilities with and

without debt service obligations.

(vi) Results for all Utilities

Figures 8.7.1 to 8.7.3 below illustrate the results of the data analysis for indicators F1, F2 and F3.

Furthermore, an OEI is also included in Figure 8.7.4.

Particularly in relation to Figure 8.7.1, showing operating cost recovery ratio, it should be noted that

operating costs are often artificially low due to insufficient budgets available. The operations and

maintenance effort and associated operating cost level is often adapted to match the available budget

rather than being worked up from a recognition of the actual O&M activities required to be

undertaken.

The OEI is essentially an overall indicator of financial performance based on the following calculation:

[(1-NRW)* Collection ratio]. This is an attempt to determine the financial and billing efficiency by

comparing the volume of water for which the utility collects revenue and the total volume it produces.

This OEI was first introduced during the benchmarking exercise for the African utilities.15

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Rat

io (

reve

nu

e/ c

ost

)

Excluding depreciation, inc subsidy Including depreciation, exc subsidy


72

Figure 8.7.2 F2: Collection ratio

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0 R

atio

(co

llect

ed/b

illed

)

Collection ratio

Figure 8.7.3 F3: Accounts receivable (days)

Figure 8.7.4 Overall Efficiency Indicator (OEI)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

No

day

s

Accounts receivable (days)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

% o

f an

nu

al o

per

atin

g e

xpen

se

Overall Efficiency Indicator


73

(vii) Factors Influencing Performance Indicators

The main factors that influence these performance indicators can be broadly categorized as follows:


Privately operated versus government operated water utilities: privately operated

water utilities (Vanuatu, Eda Ranu), have a specific commercial focus compared to

some government owned utilities (whether state owned corporations or government

ministry run utilities) and appear to be much more efficient in conducting business.

Privately operated utilities had more favorable operating cost recovery ratios and

collection ratios compared to government owned water utilities.

Even when subsidies were removed and depreciation included in the calculation, the

privately operated water utilities continued to show better performance indicators.

Some government owned utilities had very high accounts receivable days and their

operating cost recovery ratios were significantly affected when depreciation was

included and the subsidy removed.

Separation of financial management from water utility management: a couple of

utilities operate as a component of government ministries. As such, their financial

management activities are centralized as part of the government finance or treasury

ministry. Therefore management of the water utility operations are segregated from the

financial management aspects. One utility was not able to provide any financial data

whilst another utility took a significant amount of time in obtaining the financial data.

Water resource availability: water utilities that operate in smaller island states and

lower lying atoll countries tended to have more favorable indicators compared to

utilities that operate in countries that have larger land masses with mountainous

terrain. The scarcity of water in some of the smaller island states and lower lying atolls

appears to have necessitated efficiencies that result in relatively higher financial

sustainability indicators.

Subsidies and grants: some water utilities rely to varying degrees on subsidies and

grants. Figure 8.7.1 above shows for some utilities that when the subsidy is excluded

and depreciation included, the operating cost recovery ratio decreases significantly. In

other utilities the decrease is not that significant. Where the decrease in the operating

cost recovery ratio is significant, Figure 8.7.1 shows that for these particular utilities the

accounts receivable days are relatively higher compared to other utilities.

GNI per capita: it might appear obvious that utilities that operate in relatively higher

GNI per capita countries would have more favorable collection ratios and accounts

receivable days. However, the opposite was observed for utilities that operated in

relatively lower GNI per capita areas, which had better financial sustainability

indicators compared to utilities that operated in relatively higher GNI per capita

countries. Whilst anecdotal at best, this observation seems to suggest that other

factors such as a more commercial oriented focus and water resource availability

factors primarily drive efficiencies that result in better financial sustainability

performance indicators.


74

Figure 8.7.5 Components of recurring operating cost

(viii) Additional Discussion on Secondary Data

Figure 8.7.5 shows that for approximately half of the utilities, energy is a significant part of recurring

operating costs. A good proportion of these particular utilities are the smaller island states where

energy is primarily diesel generator driven with little or no renewable such as hydro. FSM Phonpei did

not provide any data for its energy costs and Eda Ranu has a significantly small percentage of energy

compared to Water PNG.

While limited data was provided for maintenance, another key conclusion which can be drawn from

Figure 8.7.5 is that collectively, labor and energy make up a high proportion of the recurring operating

costs, suggesting that only a small proportion of this budget is provided for maintenance, materials

and consumables. It is recommended that future benchmarking activities further explore maintenance

effort and costs.

Figure 8.7.6 shows the average operating costs calculated from the figures provided by participants.

Vanuatu, Tonga, Water PNG, Palau and FSM Yap North, Central and South have a similar average

operating cost per kL between $0.50 to just over $0.60 US/kL. The FSM Yap utilities show a

consistent average operating cost./kL. Eda Ranu (PNG) on the other hand, has a relatively lower

average operating cost at just over $0.20 per US/kL compared to Water PNG with an average

operating cost of just over $0.60 US/kL. One possible explanation for the significant divergence in the

average cost between the two PNG utilities is shown in Figure 8.3.7 which illustrates that Eda Ranu

has a lower percentage of physical loss compared to Water PNG.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% o

f an

nu

al o

per

atin

g e

xpen

se

Labour Energy


75

Figure 8.7.6 Average operating cost (USD/kL)

Niue, Saipan and Kiribati have relatively higher average operating costs per kL at around $0.90 to

$0.95 US/kL. The energy costs in Saipan and Palau are significant at around 60 per cent of total

operating costs which drives up the average operating cost per kL. Figure 8.7.6 demonstrates that the

lowest average operating cost per kL is in FSM Phonpei at just under $0.25 US/kL.

8.8 Summary of Benchmarking Results

Table 8.9 summarizes the key statistics for the core benchmarking indicators. Individual results have

not been included here given the desire by many utilities for confidentiality.

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

$0.90

$1.00 A

vera

ge

op

erat

ing

co

st (

$/kL

)

$/kL water only $/kL water and sewage


76

Table 8.9 Summary of indicators and key statistics


Pac

ific

Ben

chm

ark


PWWA (2011) WS AA

NZWA Africa SEA

PW

WA

(20

09)

PW

WA

(20

10)

Ave

rage

25th

per

cent

ile

Med

ian

75th

per

cent

ile

WS

AA

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G1

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G2

Med

ian

WO

P A

fric

a A

vg

WO

P A

fric

a T

arge

t

SE

AW

UN

Med

ian

KR

A1

Pro

du

ctio

n




kL/conn/day - - 1.48 1.40 0.67 1.31 2.11 0.69 0.79 0.73 0.46 - 0.38


L/capita/day 150 - - 179 56 139 292 328 324 356 91 - 196



KR

A2

-Tec

hn

ical

Per

form

ance

O1 Water supply coverage % of population

* - 76 76 68 90 95 - - - 73 90 50


Hrs/day 24 - - 20 21 24 24 - - - 17 24 23


25 - 67 53 31 47 70 10 13 20 36 25 29


m3/conn/ day

- - 1.4 0.3 1.0 1.8 - 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4


m3/km/day

- - 18.5 4.6 10.2 19.6 - 6.6 8.9 32.0 12.0 39.8

O4 Sewerage coverage % of population

* - - 36 20 30 52 - - - 42 82 -

KR

A3

- H

ealt

h &

E

nvi

ron

men


% compliance 100 57 0 85 94 - - - - - 90


% compliance 100 87 79 90 99 100 - - - - -


% of sewage 100 52 0 70 100 100 - - - - -

KR

A4

Hu

man

R

eso

urc

es HR1

Water and sewerage business staff/ 1000 connections

#FTE/1000 conn

8 10.2 9.6 11.5 8.6 11.2 14.8 - - - 16.0 7.0 7.5

HR2 Training days (no days/year) days/FTE/year 5 - - 1.02 0.54 1.00 1.15 - - - 9.00 - 1.80


% of GNI * - - 389 157 214 528 - - - - - 259

KR

A5

Cu

sto

mer

Ser

vice


% of customers

100 - - 68 29 98 100 - 45 23 74 100 100


#/1000 conn NA - - 170 56 107 272 10 - - 53 53 168


% GNI per person

* - - 1.8 0.6 1.4 2.3 - - - 7.0 2.0 -


% GNI per person

* - - 1.7 1.0 1.5 2 0.4 0.3 0.3 - - -


% GNI per person

* - - 1.6 0.6 1.6 2.2 - - - 7.0 3.0 0.9

KR

A6

Fin

anci

al

Su

stai

nab

ility


% 120 104 96 102 89 95 150 - - - - 120 140


% 95 - - 83 84 89 98 - - - 73 93 -



77

9 Overall Performance

9.1 Overall Performance Indicator

Using the data collected, an Overall Performance Indicator

(OPI) was developed in order to facilitate overall

comparison of water utilities. The OPI is essentially an

average score based on a range of key performance

indicators, which is then standardized using the standard

normal distribution to create a dataset with a mean of zero and standard deviation of one. Each

indicator used for the calculation is given equivalent weighting. This method for calculating and

ranking utilities has been used in other similar benchmarking exercises such as the SEAWUN.

For the purpose of this preliminary calculation of the OPI, it has been necessary to select a number of

key KPI for inclusion. The selection of indicators for inclusion in calculating the OPI has been based

on:

OPI Selection Criteria

The ability of utilities to manage that indicator (e.g. volumes have been omitted as

there are so many variables which influence water production and consumption

beyond the utilities control).

The completeness of the dataset for that indicator (i.e. indicators which have been

able to be calculated for the majority of utilities have been included).

Ensuring the full range of key result areas are represented in the OPI.

Ensuring that indicators reflect similar services, which has essentially meant removing

wastewater services from the calculation.

The key eight indicators currently used to calculate the OPI are:

Key Eight Indicators

Continuity of water supply (hours/day)

Non-revenue water (kL/connection/day)

Water supply coverage (% of population)

Residual chlorine compliance (% of test passing)

Staff utilization (FTE/1,000 connections)

Meter coverage rate (% connections)

Operating cost recovery ratio (% - excluding depreciation)

Collection ratio (%)

…an Overall Performance Indicator (OPI)

was developed in order to facilitate overall

comparison of water utilities.

Part A: (9) Overall Performance

78

Figure 9.1.1 Overall performance indicator ranked chart

The authors recognize that the methodology is not perfect: decisions regarding which indicators to

include have had to been made; some utilities have not provided data for some indicators; and, some

data appears erroneous but has not been adjusted in order to keep the dataset consistent with what

was provided by the utilities. However, the OPI does provide a means for illustrating relative

performance, and in particular highlighting the leaders amongst the pack. The rank position itself is

not of critical importance, more so whether a utility is placed amongst the top, middle or bottom thirds.

The top third should ideally present an opportunity for future case studies focusing on the reasons for

this good performance and should provide a good example for other utilities to follow. The most

constructive way to approach this OPI ranking is to consider the reasons for the position of various

utilities – for example, seeking to better understand the utility‟s strength or weakness and which

„leaders‟ could that utility learn from.

Figure 9.1.1 presents a ranked chart of OPI, and also includes an OEI. The OEI is essentially an

overall indicator of financial performance, and based on the following calculation: [(1-NRW)*

Collection ratio]. This is an attempt to determine financial and billing efficiency by comparing the

volume of water for which the utility collects revenue and the total volume it produces. This OEI was

first introduced during the benchmarking exercise for the African utilities.

Observations which can be drawn from Figure 9.1.1 are as follows:

Observations

Utilities with a high Overall Efficiency (i.e. OEI) from a revenue perspective are

more likely to be in the higher overall performance group (i.e. both financial and

technical).

Similarly, utilities with good overall performance are more likely to have good

revenue recovery.

The top five performing utilities are Unelco (Vanuatu), Eda Ranu, WaterPNG, FSM

Pohnpei and the Tonga Water Board.

-1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Sta

nd

ard

ised

Sco

re (

OP

I an

d O

EI)

Normalised Overall Performance Indicator Overall Efficiency Indicator

High OEI

Low OEI


79

Figure 9.1.2 Overall performance indicator by institutional arrangement

Figure 9.1.3 Overall performance indicator by utility size

In order to explore how size and institutional arrangements impact on overall performance, Figures

9.1.2 and 9.1.3 show average overall performance by organization type and by size. Key

observations from these figures include:

Key Observations

Those organizations with private sector participation (i.e. private companies or

private government joint companies) clearly perform better in terms of OPI and OEI.

In terms of overall performance, government departments and statutory

organizations were the worst performers. However in terms of financial performance,

the worst were the SOEs. It would seem that, on average, the SOEs should be

performing better than they currently are.

It is also clear that utility performance, both OPI and OEI, are related to size, with the

large utilities performing best, although it should be noted that one small utility

(Phonpei) appears within the top five in terms of OPI.

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Gov

ernm

ent d

epar

tmen

t -

no

sepa

rate

fina

ncia

l rep

ortin

g

Gov

ernm

ent d

epar

tmen

t -

sepa

rate

fina

ncia

l rep

ortin

g

Sta

tuto

ry o

rgan

isat

ion

follo

win

g st

ate

requ

irem

ents

Sta

te O

wne

d E

nter

pris

e un

der

com

mer

cial

law

Join

tly o

wne

d co

mpa

ny

(com

mer

cial

law

)

Priv

atel

y ow

ned

com

pany

op

erat

ing

unde

r co

mm

erci

al la

w

Not

-for

-pro

fit o

rgan

isat

ion

oper

atin

g un

der

com

mer

cial

law

Ave

rag

e In

dic

ato

r p

er g

rou

p

Overall Efficiency Indicator (OEI) Overall Performance Indicator

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Sm

all (

<2,

500

conn

ectio

ns o

r cu

stom

ers)

Med

ium

(2,

500

to 1

0,00

0 co

nnec

tions

or

cust

omer

s)

Larg

e (>

10,0

00 c

onne

ctio

ns o

r cu

stom

ers)

Ave

rag

e In

dic

ato

r p

er g

rou

p

Overall Efficiency Indicator (OEI) Overall Performance Indicator

Part A: (9) Overall Performance

80

9.2 Factors Affecting Performance

A range of factors which impact on overall performance have been explored. Key observations

regarding factors impacting on overall performance include:

Key Observations

While there may be some exceptions on a case by case basis, utilities with

higher overall performance are more likely to have lower levels of NRW.

Utilities with a higher billing rate are generally the better performing utilities.

Utilities with lower staffing rates generally have better overall performance

.


81

Figure 10.1.1 Key challenges from the utility’s perspective

10 Challenges from the

Utility’s Perspective

In addition to collection of data for calculation of benchmarking indicators and comparison with other

benchmarking initiatives, the questionnaire also requested utilities to provide an indication of what

they believed to be their top five challenges in improving their performance. The answers provided by

utilities were grouped to the best extent possible and the frequency of the top ten challenges is

presented in Figure 10.1.1.

Key observations regarding the challenges facing utilities from their own perspective include:

Key Observations

The most frequently occurring challenge quoted by utilities was the need to plan for

growth by extending and upgrading the capacity of infrastructure. Parallel to the need for

planning and delivering infrastructure for growth, particularly in urban areas, was the

need to find a sustainable means for funding this growth (Figure 10.1.1). This growth

issue was in particular a challenge faced by medium and large utilities, as urban centers

grow. While this may not be the most critical factor in improving performance to existing

customers, it is evident that the issue of how to cater for growth is at the forefront of the

minds of utility managers.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Gro

wth

- in

fast

ruct

ure

Wat

er r

esou

rce

avai

labi

lity

HR

issu

es -

labo

ur a

vaila

blity

NR

W -

com

mer

cial

NR

W -

Phy

sica

l los

s

WQ

- G

ener

al

Bus

ines

s m

gmt

Con

ditio

n -

asse

t mgm

t

Gro

wth

- fu

ndin

g

Equ

ipm

ent,

com

ms,

tran

spor

t

Per

cen

tag

e. o

f u

tilit

ies

Small utilities Medium utilities Large utilitilies

Part A: (10) Challenge‟s from the Utility‟s Perspective

82

Water resource availability is the second greatest challenge facing the Pacific,

particularly for the small and large utilities. For small utilities, it is most likely the small

island or atoll setting which creates water resource limitations and this situation will only

be exacerbated in the face of climate change. For large utilities, the real pressure on

water resources may not be the availability of the resource itself, but the current capacity

of the water resource and bulk water infrastructure and the high cost of infrastructure

improvements (see Figure 7.1.3). Augmenting the capacity of bulk infrastructure is a

costly exercise and is again heavily linked to mechanisms for funding large scheme

water availability improvements.

Equal second of the challenges faced by utilities is the issue of human resource

development and the availability of suitably qualified and skilled staff, which is equally of

concern to all sizes of utilities. Section 8.5 of this report presented the findings of the

analysis of the human resources key result area, which are generally consistent with this

challenge faced by the utilities. While staff utilization rates are generally consistent with

other parts of the world, there is a high turnover rate for some utilities and low

investment in training to improve the skills of existing staff.

Third amongst the challenges faced by utilities is the issue of NRW management,

including both commercial and physical loss components. Section 8.3 of this report

presents findings and observations regarding NRW and highlights NRW as one of the

most critical performance issues facing utilities, with potential flow on impacts on

continuity and reliability of supply, water quality, and commercial sustainability. There is

no doubt that utilities are already aware of NRW as a critical issue; however, it is of

interest to note that the larger utilities generally perceive the commercial component of

NRW to be a greater challenge, while the medium sized utilities perceive physical loss to

be a greater challenge. Assistance by donor agencies and by the PWWA to its members

must ensure both components are addressed.

Equal third amongst the challenges faced by utilities is the issue of water quality

management. As presented in Section 8.4 of this report, water quality compliance

requires significant improvement across the Pacific, and the concern experienced by

utilities flags this as being a critical issue.

Similarly, equal third amongst the challenges faced by utilities is the issue of business

management which is of most concern to the medium sized utilities, although clearly of

concern to all. The financial performance outlined in Section 8.7 of this report illustrates

the need for improved commercial outcomes.

Asset condition and asset management is also a major challenge faced by utilities. It

should also be noted that while this appears as the fourth highest challenge quoted by

utilities, the concept of asset management is critical to the key issues of NRW

management, capital growth and water quality.

One of the greatest challenges faced by small utilities is the availability and reliability of

equipment, communications and transport.

It must be highlighted that many of these challenges, while appearing as different problem areas or

drivers for improvement from the utilities perspective, are intrinsically part of the same problem. For

example, improved business management practices and commercial focus are closely related to

improved management of the commercial component of NRW; improved asset management is a key

principle underlying improvement in the physical component of NRW and the sourcing of key spares

and equipment; and the improvement in physical loss would relieve pressures on water resources and

infrastructure capacity constraints due to ongoing rapid growth.


83

11 Focus Areas for

Performance Improvement

This 2011 benchmarking exercise is intended to be the beginning of an annual benchmarking initiative

to be undertaken by the PWWA on behalf of its members and with the support from the parties to the

Benchmarking MoU, in particular SPC–SOPAC, and the partners represented in the PRIF.

This section of the report focuses on key lessons regarding performance which have been gleaned

from the 2011 exercise. Further discussion regarding the difficulties faced in data collection, future

platforms for storing benchmarking data and issues regarding the overall sustainability of the

benchmarking exercise will be included in Part B: Benchmarking Project Report. The focus here is to

highlight the key focus areas for future performance improvement in order to guide investment

programs and further more detailed investigations by the PWWA.

Based on the findings presented in Section 8 of this report, the top three priority areas have been

identified and are considered key focus areas for targeting future performance improvement. These

top three key focus areas are outlined in Table 11.1, and have been identified initially by the

benchmarking consultants.

The benchmarking consultants believe that these focus areas should be further explored with the

PWWA and other key stakeholders, and existing and proposed programs for these focus areas further

explored. Other issues which require a greater focus and more detailed investigation include

wastewater management, affordability and staff utilisation and development.

Table 11.1 Critical focus areas for utility performance improvement

Critical Issue Details Proposed Direction

1. Non Revenue

Water

Management

Extremely High NRW, both in

terms of percentage (47%

median) and per connection

(1.0 kL/connection/day

median).

Investigate success or otherwise of previous country and regional

programs (e.g. SPC–SOPAC Demand Management Program).

Case studies for good performing utilities: 1 x large (e.g. UNELCO or

Tonga) and 1 x small utility (e.g. FSM Pohnpei or FSM Yap – Central),

although must ensure that it is a system with 24/7 water.

Where possible, resurrection of current or past programs focused on

NRW (e.g. SPC–SOPAC) with an expanded focus on commercial

loss.

Investigate options for improving household water loss (i.e. not

technically NRW but could be the cheapest means of dealing with

excessive production rates).

2 .Drinking Water

Quality

Compliance

Low chlorine residual

compliance presents significant

public health risks

Investigate underlying causes for poor residual chlorine compliance or

not undertaking chlorination and understand limitations.

Closer investigation between drinking water safety plan and drinking

water compliance.

3. Revenue

Sustainability

Inadequate operating cost

recovery and billing collections

impacts adversely on financial

sustainability

More detailed questions regarding utility operating costs in 2012

questionnaire (e.g. maintenance effort).

Case study for a good and poor performing utility to better understand

the process and reporting for revenue recovery.

Part A: (12) Conclusions and Recommendations

84

12 Conclusions and

Recommendations



While benchmarking data quality requires improvement in future, through a range of measures

discussed in Part B of this report, based on analysis of the data by the team of consultants, the four

most critical issues facing the Pacific urban water sector at this time, based on the data collection and

analysis, are:


Very high levels of NRW exist, which impacts on service delivery to customers,

water quality and financial sustainability.

Poor drinking water quality compliance occurs, which presents significant public

health and economic risks.

The extent of effective sewage collection and treatment is limited, which presents

significant environmental, public health and economic risks as urbanization

accelerates.

Revenue sustainability is low, with reliance on operating subsidies, limited

provision for depreciation or renewals, and lower than desirable collection

recovery.

While this is a very good start to understanding some of the critical issues, further more detailed

investigation and ongoing attention and investment in the benchmarking initiative is required to better

understand the underlying causes for these performance issues and facilitate improved understanding

amongst PWWA members of how these findings can be incorporated into each utility‟s strategic

planning and budgeting process.


85

PART B:

Benchmarking

Project Report

1 Objectives of Part B

Part B of this report provides an overview of the project process of organizing the benchmarking data

collection, and suggestions for improving the sustainability of the benchmarking initiative. This

information is intended to focus on the lessons learned from this first benchmarking initiative in order

to guide future years.

More detailed discussion on the data analysis and benchmarking results is provided in Part A.

Part B: (2) Background

86

2 Background

2.1 Project Objectives

This benchmarking project builds on the benchmarking exercise initiated in 2009 by the PWWA for a

limited number of key performance indicators previously agreed between PWWA members. The

intent of this project has been to establish a benchmarking framework for Pacific WSPs, which

contributes to the following key objectives:

Key Objectives

Improved service delivery levels and efficiency of participating water utilities.

Improved information and management decision-making with water utilities.

Better understanding of performance gaps in the provision of water infrastructure

across the Pacific.

Enhance the capability and commitment of water utilities to gather and report

information to support a sustained system of performance benchmarking over

time.

2.2 Participating Countries and Utilities

The focus of this study has been on the performance of WSPs throughout the Pacific region. These

WSPs can be categorized in a number of ways depending on their inclusion in various regional

programs, their membership in the PWWA and their involvement in previous water utility programs

implemented by SPC–SOPAC.

Table 2.1 below lists all the Pacific WSPs which are members of the PWWA and selected other

Pacific WSPs which the PWWA is currently aware of. In the final column, the known WSPs are

categorized into three groups, which guided the data collection effort. In terms of liaising with and

providing assistance in the data collection exercise, priority has been extended to countries or WSPs

which are members of the PWWA and fall within Groups 1-3:

Groups 1-3

Group 1: PWWA members that are also PIAC countries but have not previously

responded (or responded poorly) to previous benchmarking efforts.

Group 2: PWWA members that are also PIAC countries and have previously

responded to benchmarking efforts well.

Group 3: PWWA members that are not PIAC countries.


87

Table 2.1 Participating countries and water service providers

Country PIAC/ PRIF

Water Utility Name PWWA Member

PWWA Benchmarking

response

Previous involvement in relevant SPC–SOPAC programs

PRIORITY FOR THIS

STUDY Water Safety

Planning Water Quality

Program

Demand Management

Program HYCOS

American Samoa

American Samoa Power Authority (ASPA) Y Good

Group 3

Cook Islands Y Cook Islands Ministry of Infrastructure & Planning Y Good Y Y Y Y Group 2

Fiji

Water Authority of Fiji Y Good Y

Y Group 3

French Polynesia

Unknown

No response

Group 5

FSM Yap Public Service Y No response

Group 3

Chuuk Public Utility Y No response

Group 3

Kiribati Y Public Utilities Board Y Poor response

Y Group 1 (H)

Marshall Islands Y Water and Sewerage Company Y No response Y

Y Y Group 1 (H)

Nauru Y Nauru Utilities Authority Y Good

Y Group 2

New Caledonia

Unknown

No response

Group 5

Niue Y Niue Public Works Y Poor response Y Y Y Y Group 1 (H)

Palau Y Palau Bureau of Public Works Y Poor response Y

Y Group 1 (H)

Papua New Guinea

Eda Ranu Y Good

Group 3

PNG Waterboard Y Good

Group 3

Saipan

Commonwealth Utilities Corporation Y Good

Y Group 3

Samoa

Y SWA Y Good Y

Y Group 2

Y IWSA * Y Poor response Y

Y Group 2

Solomon Islands Y SIWA Y Poor response

Y Group 1 (H)

Tonga Y TWB Y Good Y

Group 2

Tuvalu Y Tuvalu Public Works Y Poor response

Y Group 1 (H)

Vanuatu

Y UNELCO Y Good Y

Group 2

Y Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources

Y Y

Y Group 4

Y Public Works Department

Y

Y

Group 4

* IWSA is unique amongst these WSPs – the groupings have limited relevance due to the services providers


88

2.3 Past and Ongoing Water Utility Benchmarking

Initiatives

There are numerous water utility benchmarking activities throughout the world which have been

undertaken as one-off and ongoing programs. Table 2.2 summarizes the most relevant of these

benchmarking initiatives.

In developing countries and more specifically in the Pacific region, water utility benchmarking has

been a common performance improvement tool and while some initiatives have been very successful,

others have faced significant challenges. Limited reference material documenting these challenges

exists; however, discussions with numerous water utility staff and water industry personnel from

across the Pacific have yielded the following anecdotal key challenges:

Key Challenges

Lack of suitable resources (e.g. staff) and commitment within the water utilities to

complete the data questionnaires sent to water utilities, as supported by the

„Lessons Learned‟ section of the 2005 ADB Benchmarking Report.16

Lack of accurate data or any data within the water utility, owing to poor data capture

and storage.

Level of complexity (i.e. too complex and too long) and relevance of questionnaire to

the water utilities.

Inadequate clarity of definition of indicators or data needs.

Lack of continuity or follow-up from an initial survey leaving water utilities wonder

what is next.

„Reinventing the wheel‟ of previous or concurrent benchmarking activities by

redefining generally accepted and commonly used benchmarking indicators.

As Table 2.2 illustrates, benchmarking activities have often been undertaken with different purposes

in mind. These previous and ongoing benchmarking activities are proposed to be adopted in the

following ways to support and inform this project:

Lessons from the experiences of previous benchmarking projects (e.g. complexity of data

questionnaire, definitions) have been considered in designing the project methodology,

selection of indicators and definitions.

Where possible, opportunities for inclusion in large scale, established, ongoing benchmarking

initiatives (e.g. IB-Net) have been considered in preparing the data questionnaire and

indicator definitions. Consistency at this stage enables future inclusion in such initiatives and

the support that such inclusion will bring.

Data checking against other benchmarking data has enabled the project team to identify data

anomalies.

Following analysis of data collected under this project, comparisons amongst the Pacific

water utilities have been supplemented with comparisons against results from previous

initiatives from within the Pacific and with other jurisdictions for various purposes. For

example, comparisons with Australian and New Zealand utilities illustrate best practice for

larger WSPs, while comparisons within Pacific utilities are also useful.


89

Table 2.2 Summary of previous and ongoing benchmarking initiatives

Study Jurisdiction Year Focus areas Purpose Comments

Pacific Benchmarking Activities

Pacific Countries only

PWWA Pacific utilities July 2009 and July

2010 Pacific Water Utilities (i.e. PWWA members)

Commence benchmarking Good start but indicators need a clearer definition and refinement

ADB Pacific December 2005 Pacific Water and Power Utilities Regional Comparisons and

guidance to regional programs and donors

Provides some good data for the purpose of data checking. Some good lessons learned on data collection.

Castalia Pacific & Caribbean January 2010 Pacific Water and Power Utilities

& Caribbean Water and Power Utilities

Improved understand of regulation

Useful information in terms of regulation around the pacific and also useful benchmarking information against other small island states such as those in the Caribbean.

Australia / New Zealand

DERM/ QWD QLD, Australia Required annually Levels of service / utility

performance. Regulatory reporting and performance improvement

Level of detail too high for this study (more suitable for developed country utilities). Concepts of auditing, reviewing and data quality/confidence are useful.

WSAA / NWI Australia & NZ Annually since

2000 Large urban water utilities National comparison &

transparency to customers Too detailed and complex – suitable only for large utilities. Data requirements much higher than those able to be supported by small utilities. But presentation style might be useful and best practice benchmarks for large utilities might be useful.

NZWA New Zealand Recently

commenced Larger urban utilities in one group with smaller rural utilities in another

National comparison & transparency to customers

Very similar to WSAA initiative however less detailed as the initiative is in its infancy

World-wide Benchmarking Activities

World Bank (IBNet Data Collection)

World Wide 2004 (+ updates in 2010)

All indicators all across the world World-wide comparisons & consistency of indicators

Very detailed – too many indicators for our purpose but some may are useful. Propose to use a limited number of these as the basis and remain consistent with definitions to enable future inclusion in this initiative.

SEAWUN South East Asia 2005 South East Asian Water Utilities Regional comparison, self

assessment and to guide policy direction

Very good comparative data, particularly in terms of best practice for developing country water utilities.

WOP Africa Africa 2009 African Water Utilities Regional comparisons; self-

assessment Very good comparative data, particularly in terms of best practice for developing country water utilities

Netherlands Netherlands 2010 Dutch Water Utilities National comparison &

transparency to customers Too detailed and complex – suitable only for large utilities. Data requirements much higher than those able to be supported by small utilities. But presentation style might be useful and best practice benchmarks for large utilities might be useful.


90

2.4 PWWA’s Previous Benchmarking Initiative

In 2009, PWWA commenced a process of baseline data collection and benchmarking of their member

WSPs. A number of members submitted data in July 2009 and July 2010; however, many submitted

incomplete or erroneous data.

The PWWA outlined a set of proposed performance measures against which the performance of its

members would be monitored and then evaluated against objectives in the Pacific Water

Association‟s Plan for 2010 to 2015. The key result areas in Table 2.3 align with the PWWA‟s own

strategic objectives.

Table 2.3 Summary of existing PWWA performance measures

Result Area Performance / System Measure

Unit Symbol Measure Type

Service Delivery

Nc Total number of customers System No/year

Wtr Proportion of customers on treated water Performance % of customer total

Wp Total water production System ML/year

Wcons Average consumption (treated water only) Performance L/connection/day

Wloss Water losses Performance L/connection/day

Number of water quality tests undertaken System No/year

Wq Proportion of water quality tests passing WHO guidelines / standards

Performance %

Staff Capability Sr Staff / customer ratio Performance Staff/ 1000 connections

Financial Management

Cr Average Cost recovery annually Performance % of revenue/cost

OCc Average annual operating cost per customer System USD per customer

Rc Average annual revenue per customer System USD per customer

Source: PWWA Plan 2010 to 2015

Some key observations from this previous performance reporting/benchmarking activity include:

Key Observations

The initial set of indicators enabled the PWWA to commence the benchmarking

exercise and help foster experience and confidence among members in reporting this

data. The PWWA correctly began with a short set of data requirements to keep the

process simple.

The initial data reporting provided a basis for understanding the core data for the

utilities.

Previously, only two data submissions were made. The initial intention to submit data

on a quarterly basis may be ambitious and a six monthly data submission,

accompanied by a more detailed annual data collection exercise, may be more

realistic. Further to the likely frequency of data submission by WSPs, some of the data

required to calculate these indicators is unlikely to be available on a quarterly basis

and may only be collated on a half yearly or annual basis.

When comparing some of the data received, it is evident that some WSPs

interpretation of what is meant by a term differs. This prompts the need for further

clarity around definitions and scope of a particular data set (e.g. inclusions and

exclusions).


91

Further to interpretations of an indicator or data definition, it is also evident from some

of the results that the data requires some quality control or data reliability assessment.

There were significant challenges in getting responses from some members.

Notwithstanding these observations, it is important that the indicators agreed to by PWWA members

and included within the PWWA‟s own strategic plan remain key indicators for comparing utility

performance. This exercise builds on these previously agreed indicators and refines their definitions

and data required to accurately or reliably calculate these indicators and enable realistic comparisons.

Part B: (3) Project Approach

92

3 Project Approach

3.1 Long Term Strategy for Utility Performance

Improvement

At the outset, it is important to highlight that this benchmarking exercise is intended to be the initial

step in a longer term initiative to improve utility performance and outcomes for customers of water and

wastewater services throughout the Pacific, and build upon the benchmarking work done by the

PWWA to date.

The International Water Association (IWA) briefly defines

benchmarking as “a tool for performance improvement

through systematic search and adaptation of leading

practices”17

and is therefore not a single action but a

continuous, cyclical process. The adaptation phase of this

improvement cycle will take some time beyond the

completion of this initial benchmarking study.

This exercise is therefore intended to be the first step in a sustained exercise in performance

monitoring and improvement over time. This first step in the longer term initiative will therefore be

undertaken with a view to future refinement, expansion and development. The PWWA have a

commitment to a five year (and beyond) benchmarking and performance improvement initiative. The

PWWA members clearly recognize the benefits of benchmarking as a key tool in performance

improvement and have committed to continuing a benchmarking initiative even beyond this initial five

year period.

Figure 3.1.1 Project role within long-term benchmarking initiative

• Measure results • Decide on new actions

• Implement improvement measures

• Performance assessment

• Looking for improvements

Plan Do

Check Act

Activities under

this project

…this benchmarking exercise is intended to

be the initial step in a longer term initiative

to improve utility performance and outcomes

for customers of water and wastewater

services throughout the Pacific…


93

3.2 Benchmarking Framework and Criteria Adopted

(i) Benchmarking Focus Areas

Benchmarking is essential for those developing and implementing water policy. If decision-makers (at

both the national and regional level) do not know where they have been or where they are, it would

seem to be impossible to set reasonable targets for future performance.

There is no generally agreed set of „core business‟ requirements for urban water utilities, as the focus

areas of urban (and rural) water businesses are often influenced by the regulatory or legal mandate,

the strategic direction and the expectations of customers. There are, however, a core set of common

objectives for urban WSPs, as presented in Table 3.1. These are particularly important for service

providers across the Pacific region.

Table 3.1 Typical service objectives of Pacific water service providers

1 Increase service coverage

2 Improve the service continuity (to 24/7)

3 Improve the water quality and public health outcomes

4 Protect the natural environment

5 Meet the per capita demand target now and into the future - minimum for all (i.e. equity is important)

6 Maintain the financial sustainability of the schemes and utilities, to minimize the subsidy required from government

7 Maximize the efficiency of the schemes and business

Operational efficiency

Financial efficiency

8 Maintain a customer focused organization and respond promptly, effectively and to the customer‟s satisfaction

9 Provide affordable services to customers

10 Provision of efficient improvement and expansion through capital works

In order to deliver the core functions typically required of service providers, as outlined in Table 3.1

above, benchmarking indicators in the following key focus areas were selected and calculated under

this project and supported by a range of „profile‟ information:

Key Focus Areas

Water Production and Sewage Generation

Health and Environment

Asset and Operational Performance

Customers and Metering

Cost Efficiency

Financial Sustainability


94

Infrastructure Development (note – data response in this section is poor and requires improvement in future).

(ii) WSP Attributes and Project Scope

There is significant variation in the ownership, services, geographical focus and function of the WSPs

in this study. Given time and budget constraints in this project, it has been necessary to limit the

scope. The parameters of this research process are intended to ensure that this project is focused

enough and yields sufficiently effective outcomes to support refinement, expansion and buy-in by the

proposed participants and other WSP organizations in the future. Table 3.2 below presents some of

the scope issues clarified during the inception phase.

Table 3.2 Water service provider attributes and scope clarifications

Scope issue Variations Proposed Scope Key considerations in determining scope

Geographical scope

WSPs covering numerous islands, cities and towns; WSPs covering single cities; WSPs covering rural areas;

Exclude solely rural service providers which do not have an urban water supply function.

Key performance issues and benchmarking indicators for rural only WSPs will be different. The knowledge of and sample size for these rural WSPs is limited and therefore difficult to include in this study. For future investigation.

WSP size WSPs ranging from 1,400 connections or customers through to 140,000 customers.

No size limitations. Proposed size categories: SMALL 0-5,000 connections MEDIUM 5,000-15,000 connections LARGE >15,000 connections

Size should only form the basis of comparison not exclusion.

Scope of services – water

Reticulated v/s tankered services Treated v/s untreated Water resources v/s water supply only

All services included at this stage. Limited focus on water resources.

Water resources availability and management is often outside of the scope of urban WSPs – they are simply a stakeholder in their management. Therefore water resources are considerations when developing a „profile‟ of WSPs however should not be a performance indicator as WSP cannot control water resources.

Scope of services – sanitation

Reticulated (of various types) On-site sanitation (e.g. septic tanks) including pump out

Include reticulated services only (ie pipelines and pumping stations). Exclude on-site sanitation services.

Similar to rural water supply schemes, rural sanitation will require a different focus than urban and should be the focus of future exercises.

Organizational function

Service provision (i.e. operation of assets) v/s co-ordination of community operated systems v/s regulators (asset management or health)

Focus on WSPs. Send questionnaire to independent water schemes. Exclude financial, health and asset management regulators.

Members like of the Independent Water Schemes of Samoa actually provide a different function than most WSPs. The co-ordinate other community based service provision. Recommend another separate discussion is held with IWSS.

These limitations in scope were agreed upon based on the following considerations:

Scope Considerations

There is a pressing need to make this first benchmarking project successful in order

to gain confidence and ensure that refinement and expansion in the future is

possible, as it is part of a longer term benchmarking initiative.

Notwithstanding the need for success or progress, this initial project needs to be


95

broad reaching and gather as much „profile‟ information as possible. This profile

information may help guide the refinement of future data collection exercises.

Scope issues which can be managed through the structure of the data questionnaire

have not resulted in exclusions.

(iii) Selection of Preliminary Benchmarking Indicators

The selection of the original benchmarking indicators put forward in the PWWA Plan for 2010 to 2015

(presented in Table 2.3) encouraged significant discussion amongst the PWWA members present at

the time. At the time, the PWWA members were satisfied with set of indicators selected as a starting

point.

During the inception phase of this project, it was critical to consider the criteria and process for

selecting indicators. Figure 3.2.1 below illustrates the logic behind developing the preliminary

indicators and subsequent data requests. The process involved working backwards from identifying

the key service objectives of WSPs, what indicators would be used to measure performance against

these objectives, what data would be required to calculate these indicators and identifying causes,

contributing factors and differentiating attributes. The intention of this approach was to collect only

data which is useful for the purpose of calculating the indicators or providing contextual analysis to

assist in assessing trends.

3.2.1 Process for selection of Preliminary Benchmarking Indicators

WHAT ARE THE KEY SERVICE OBJECTIVES OF WATER SERVICE PROVIDERS IN THE PACIFIC (See Table xx)?

Are external benchmarking

comparisons available?

WHICH PERFORMANCE OR KEY RESULT AREAS SHOULD BE THE FOCUS OF A BENCHMARKING STUDY (See Figure xx)?

Which areas are known to suffer from poor

performance?

Which areas can be controlled by the

WSP?

WHAT INDICATORS WOULD EFFECTIVELY ILLUSTRATE PERFORMANCE ACROSS THE RANGE OF AREAS?

WHAT DATA IS REQUIRED TO CALCULATE THESE INDICATORS AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE CONTEXT TO IDENTIFY TRENDS?

WHAT DATA IS AVAILABLE OR CAN BE COLLECTED EASILY, AT LIMITED COST, AND WITHIN THE TIME CONSTRAINTS?

PREPARE DATA QUESTIONNAIRE AND COLLECT DATA

WHAT DATA IS SUBMITTED? ARE

CRITICAL QUESIONS ANSWERED? DO

INDICATORS NEED TO BE MODIFIED?

MODIFY PRELIMINARY INDICATORS

DO THE MODIFIED INDICATORS

ADEQUATELY ILLUSTRATE

PERFORMANCE IN THE KEY AREAS AND SERVICE OBJECTIVES

OF PACIFIC UTLILTIES?

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

DOES DATA AVAILABILITY INFLUENCE

INDICATORS?


96

Steps C through to E are the key steps in selecting the preliminary indicators. The key criteria for

considering preliminary criteria (as per Step C) were as follows:

Key Criteria

Existing availability of accurate data.

Potential cost and time constraints of collecting additional data.

Usefulness of the indicator to guide performance improvement at two levels:

o To enable comparison across the region and identify priority areas for

attention (i.e. Strategic Purpose).

o To provide a tool that can be used by water utility managers to improve their

own performance (i.e. Tactical Purpose). This includes the potential to

aggregate and disaggregate indicators at divisional, geographical or regional

levels within the WSP.

Place of indicators in the broader mix (i.e. to avoid having one indicator in one focus

area and 10 in another).

Relevance to the range of WSPs within the participating utilities. This criterion is

particularly difficult given the wide variety of WSPs within the participating utilities. It is

therefore possible that some indicators will not be entirely relevant to all utilities.

Availability of similar benchmarking indicators calculated and reported by other WSPs

throughout the world.

Consistency with indicators and definitions in other benchmarking jurisdictions to

enable future comparison within those jurisdictions.

3.3 Adopted Indicators

The Inception Report presented the preliminary indicators as per Step C in Figure 3.2.1 above, while

Part A presents the final indicators adopted.

As highlighted in the previous sub-section, it is important to understand that the preliminary indicators

put forward in the Inception Report were a starting point to developing a suitable data questionnaire.

During the data analysis phase, when these indicators were calculated, the suitability of these

indicators was reviewed and the list was refined. In addition, the adopted indicators are consistent

with the World Bank benchmarking definitions in IB-Net to enable future inclusion in that program.

3.4 Data Required to Calculate Indicators

(i) Data Questionnaire

The data questionnaire is presented in Appendix C. Also included in Appendix C are the Guidance

notes which accompanied the questionnaire, which were intended to guide the WSP staff in

completing the questionnaire.


97

(ii) Reporting Period

All data was reported using a consistent reporting period for each WSP. Since financial data is

reported every financial year, and much of the planning around utility operations occurs in parallel

with budgeting, the benchmarking exercise adopted a financial year as the standard reporting period.

WSPs were required to state the start and end months of their financial years and to report all other

data (e.g. volumes, water quality sampling, connections etc) using this standard financial year for their

own WSP as the reporting period.

(iii) Utility v/s Scheme Data

Some of the data was required to be generated by WSPs initially at a scheme or zone level while

some other data (e.g. financial) was collated at the “whole of organization” or utility level. Options for

completing the questionnaire to provide the best comparison for benchmarking were:

Options

For financial and customer related questions: at the overall organization scale

(WSPs should use only the total column).

For profile and technical questions: by segregating urban and rural where relevant,

and using the total column for utility wide issues.

Most WSPs submitted data at the utility level or data of urban/rural water supply schemes. The

benchmarking team did not analyze scheme level data for the entire Pacific region.

(iv) Profile v/s CORE Data

Some of the data collected was directly used to calculate indicators (i.e. CORE DATA) while more

contextual information was used to develop a profile of each utility and to help understand the trends/

reasons for the calculated indicators. Alongside each question in the data questionnaire, a column

highlights if the data is CORE data. WSPs were encouraged to place greater effort on completing the

CORE data.

(v) Data Accuracy and Reliability Grades for CORE Data

WSPs were requested to include a reliability grade for the CORE data as per Table 3.3. The key

purpose for including reliability grades is to illustrate the importance of reliability or accuracy of

information when reporting figures in a benchmarking exercise. During this first benchmarking

exercise, reliability grades are included for the CORE data types only, used to calculate the proposed

indicators.


98

Table 3.3 Proposed reliability grades for CORE data

Grade Typical data sources / accuracy

A Data is based on sound records, procedures, investigations or analyses that are properly documented and recognized as

the best available assessment methods.

B Generally as in “A”, but with minor shortcomings e.g. some of the documentation is missing, the assessment is old, or

some reliance on unconfirmed reports; or there is some extrapolation made (e.g. extrapolations from records that cover

more than 50% of the WSPs system)

C Generally as in “A” or “B”, but data is based on extrapolations from records that cover more than 30% (but less than 50%)

of the service provider‟s system

D Data is based on unconfirmed verbal reports and/or cursory inspections or analysis, including extrapolations from such

reports/ inspections/ analysis


99

4 Project Methodology and

Program

4.1 Overview of Methodology

This benchmarking project consisted of three key phases of work, as presented in Figure 4.1.1 below.

4.1.1 Overview of proposed methodology

These three key phases are outlined as follows:

Three Key Phases

Phase 1 (February – March 2011): included the development of the approach and

work plan. Activities included formulating an Inception Report presenting the

approach and methodology, the proposed performance indicators and period which

the collected data cover, proposals for collection, quality control and storing of the

data, a method for data analysis and reporting, a work plan and approach for

obtaining buy-in from participants and; agreement of the Steering Committee.

Phase 2 (March – July 2011): consisted of developing the survey

instrument/questionnaire, developing a database, organizing and implementing

data collection and quality control and assisting water utilities in obtaining the data

as required. If necessary, the consultants made visits to selected utilities in order to

explain and support in the data collection and conduct quality checks and data

verifications.

WSP VISITS (SELECTED

WSPs)DATA

QUESTIONNAIRE

DATA STORAGE &

QUALITY CONTROL

BENCHMARKING WORKSHOP

WSP LIAISON & ASSISTANCE

(REMOTE)DATA ANALYSIS

INCEPTION & QUESTIONNAIRE

DESIGN

WSPs SUBMIT DATA DRAFT REPORT

PHASE 1

Inception

PHASE 2

Data Collection

PHASE 3

Data Analysis and Reporting

SUPPORT TO WSPs

CO-ORDINATION WITH

PWWA AND STEERING

COMMITTEE

ONGOING PROJECT SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES

PH

AS

E

AC

TIV

IT

IE

SS

UP

PO

RT

IN

G

AC

TIV

IT

IE

S

FINAL REPORT

KNOWLEDGE

TRANSFER

END APRIL

MAY

JUNE/ JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBEREND MARCH

Part B: (4) Project Methodology and Program

100

Phase 3 (May – November 2011): consisted of data analysis, preparation of a

benchmarking report and submission to the Steering Committee for comments and

approval, organizing a workshop with water utilities to present the results, provide

feedback and jointly formulate possible follow up programs and activities on

performance improvement.

4.2 Data Collection and Storage

Data collection and storage has been a critical component in this project. Effective, accurate and

comprehensive collection of data has been crucial to this benchmarking exercise.

Figure 4.1.1 above illustrates the basic steps in the data collection phase. During the inception

phase, consideration was given to alternative mechanisms for data collection and storage. These

alternative mechanisms and the key reasons for not adopting them at this time are outlined as follows:

Online data entry: deemed not suitable at this time owing to poor and intermittent internet

access and speed, computer literacy, time limitations in designing an online data entry portal

for this project (possible future option).

File Transfer Protocol: similar issues with internet access and speed and computer literacy,

and also the potential cost associated with hosting an FTP facility.

Direct Upload or Google Documents: may provide an option for uploading and sharing

documents online. This would only work if it were done by the regional specialist in Samoa

(i.e. a single control point).

The potential of these alternative platforms is further discussed in Section 6.

4.3 Communication and Assistance to Participating

Utilities

Another critical aspect to the success of this benchmarking

initiative has been communication with the key

stakeholders (i.e. the PWWA, SPC–SOPAC, PIAC, and

Pacific Water utilities), in particular the WSP participants.

Communication with and buy-in from participants has been critical to collecting a complete and

comprehensive dataset which can be utilized for this benchmarking activity and as a future baseline

data set.

The mechanisms for obtaining this buy-in and assisting the WSPs to submit the necessary data

included:

Continued support from the PWWA: the PWWA has been extremely pro-active in

developing the benchmarking project in a collaborative way amongst the member utilities. The

earlier benchmarking initiatives (in 2009 and 2010) have provided the momentum to expand

benchmarking to a new level. It was imperative, particularly at the outset of the project, that

Communication with and buy-in from

participants has been critical to collecting a

complete and comprehensive dataset…


101

the PWWA continue to support and encourage the participating utilities to respond to the data

request and seek assistance ask required. Ultimately, this is a project by the PWWA for its

members and must be communicated to them as such.

Nomination of a key benchmarking person within each WSP by the CEO: while the Chief

Executive Officers of each utility served as the key contact point with the PWWA, there was a

real risk that relying on these CEOs to collate and submit the data may result in delays, given

their workload and high priorities on a day-to-day basis. It was proposed that CEOs nominate

a benchmarking contact person within their organization to be responsible for collating the

necessary information and liaising with the international and regional benchmarking

specialists. It was considered critical that the CEOs nominate this person rather than have the

benchmarking specialists use current contacts within the industry to obtain this information, in

order to limit further potential conflicts.

Regular liaison: between the benchmarking team or the PWWA Project Co-coordinator and

the WSPs during the data collection phase, as outlined in Section 4.2 above.

During the inception phase, consideration was given to the potential to host a regional workshop at

the outset of the data collection exercise to share with participating WSPs the background, definitions

and potential data sources to answer the data questionnaire. This proposed regional workshop was

not included within the regional budget of the benchmarking project as it was evident that there was

insufficient funding under this project to enable such a regional workshop to occur.

4.4 Quality Assurance and Data Checking

Checking data consistency and reliability is not an easy task and is extremely time consuming.

Essentially, the benchmarking specialist had to understand how water supply and wastewater

businesses should work from its many different aspects (technically, financially, customer issues and

utilization of resources including human resources) and to know what to look for in the data. A

„common sense‟ approach to data checking was proposed for adoption with the benefit of the overall

expertise of the international and regional benchmarking specialist.

Most of the data checking undertaken included:

Initial broad review of data, looking for omissions, gaps and unusual values (very high, very

low or negative).

Investigate indicators that use a combination of base data and check if these provide sensible

results (i.e. by undertaking arithmetic operations on base data, any anomalies in base data

are often distorted and easier to note).

Using simple bar charts occasionally augmented by other techniques such as sorted results,

stacked bar charts, multiple parameter bar charts and some pie charts.

Cross checking against other sources of relevant information (e.g. previous benchmarking by

the PWWA, comparison with other benchmarking reports, and comparison with other data

available from regional programs such as the SPC–SOPAC).

Further to these data checking efforts, the data questionnaire was accompanied by guidance notes in

an attempt to limit the ambiguity in the data requested. Raw data was intentionally requested from

WSPs rather than asking utilities to calculate and submit indicators in order to make data checking

easier.


102

4.5 Data Analysis

The data analysis included:

Collation of profile information for each WSP and the region as a snapshot of key base

attributes.

Calculation of the indicators based on the raw data provided.

Charts comparing each indicator for all WSPs and within size group or other categories (e.g.

institutional setting).

Comparison of WSPs for each indicator against other benchmarking jurisdictions including the

SEAWUN (for comparison against other developing country utilities) and against Australian

and New Zealand utilities (WSAA) to provide a guide to best practice. Consideration was also

given to other benchmarking jurisdictions including small island states in the Caribbean.

Calculation of overall performance (basis of overall performance was agreed with the Steering

Committee).

Relationships between various indicators and overall performance to understand the factors

impacting overall performance.

Analysis of other data provided which provides context for indicators (e.g. profile data &

process information).

Analysis of data submission (i.e. parts of the questionnaire which could not be completed)

and analysis of data quality (each indicator should have data reliability score).

It is recognized that these data analysis tasks are only a partial metric method of benchmarking and

as such these „yardstick‟ measures must be viewed with caution when comparing performance, as the

input variables, output variables, environmental variables and „structure‟ variables (i.e. governance

related) will vary significantly. The aim of this exercise has been to start with a simple benchmarking

model and add complexity in future years. This „incremental‟ approach, requiring a long-term view,

will enable future studies to include:

Future Studies Inclusions

Production or cost estimates (i.e. models linking inputs and outputs).

Model company methods (i.e. using an engineering approach to specify a best

practice utility).

Process benchmarking (i.e. encouraging utilities to rely on following a suitable

process to achieve good outcomes rather than just measuring the outcomes.

Note that the data questionnaire included in this study included some process

benchmarking questions to improve the understanding of performance issues).

Customer survey benchmarking.

4.6 Reporting

The benchmarking project produced the following reports:

Inception Report.

Draft Benchmarking Report in August 2011.

Final Benchmarking Report in December 2011.


103

Regular project progress reporting by the international benchmarking specialist to the PWWA

Coordinator and PIAC, in writing and through regular phone call updates.

4.7 Confidentiality

The MoU between the parties of the Benchmarking initiative (i.e. the PWWA, Pacific Island water

utilities, SPC and PIAC) outlines data management and confidentiality protocols. The benchmarking

project team has, at all times, been guided by the project Steering Committee and the PWWA

Coordinator in the sharing of information.

As stated in the MoU, participation in the benchmarking initiative requires that all parties to the MoU

acknowledge that the results of the benchmarking are accessible to all partners, who may use the

data within the framework of regular activities related to their water service provision role. The MoU

states that the final benchmarking report will be shared with all partners.

The benchmarking project team sought clarification from the PWWA Coordinator and Steering

Committee regarding the sharing of raw data results. Based on feedback from the Steering

Committee, raw data has not been released with this benchmarking report and the database of raw

data is now located with the PWWA Secretariat. Only calculated indicators have been presented for

each WSP and appropriate sensitivities have been taken into account in presenting the data in the

benchmarking report and at the benchmarking workshop.

4.8 Organization of Benchmarking Workshop

The Benchmarking Workshop was held on the 26th-27

th September in conjunction with the PWWA

annual conference. A detailed discussion on the Benchmarking Workshop is included in Section 5.

4.9 Follow-up Activities

In finalizing the Benchmarking Report, following the Benchmarking Workshop, the following issues

have been incorporated into this part of the Benchmarking Report:

Lessons from this benchmarking exercise in terms of data availability, data collection and

benchmarking indicators.

Strategic advice on performance improvement target areas or programs.

Options for future benchmarking and performance indicators.

4.10 Project Hand-Over and Training/Support

Throughout this project, the following opportunities for training and support have been utilized:


104

Ongoing liaison with and support to the benchmarking representative from each WSP/

participating utility.

Ongoing technical support to the PWWA and to the regional benchmarking specialist.

For a selected number of participating utilities, collection of data through site visits and

support to the utility staff, particularly in providing assistance in understanding the importance

of data collection/storage, sources of data and causes behind poor performance.

In terms of hand-over, the database now falls under the responsibility of the PWWA and the SPC–

SOPAC. The key handover task was to ensure that a representative of the PWWA is familiar with the

database developed and to ensure that lessons learned were incorporated into this final report.

4.11 Work Schedule

When the TA was originally designed in October 2011, the implementation phase was intended to be

10 months, with consultant services rendered intermittently to commence in December 2010. The

international specialist commenced services in mid-February 2011 and the regional benchmarking

specialist was commissioned in March 2011.

The project commenced later than originally anticipated and this compressed the time available for

data collection, analysis and reporting. The data collection exercise was therefore the most critical

component in ensuring that the deadline of the benchmarking workshop in late September was met.

The project has generally adopted the following key dates:

Key Dates

Inception Period: February with Inception Report submitted 21st March 2011.

Data Analysis and Draft Report: July – August 2011 with Draft Report

submitted late August.

Benchmarking Workshop: 26th and 27th September 2011.

Report Finalization: October – November 2011 with Final Report submitted

18th November 2011.

4.12 Project Organization and Implementation

Arrangements

The outline of the arrangements and the overall responsibilities of the partners in the program are

described in the MoU that was prepared for the program and signed by PWWA, SPC–SOPAC and

PIAC in September to October 2010. Figure 4.12.1 below illustrates the agreed implementation

arrangements graphically.

The PWWA maintained overall coordination and management responsibility of the program and the

Executive Director of PWWA (Mr Latu Kupa) acted as the Program Coordinator for the benchmarking

program. The PWWA was responsible for facilitating the collaboration and support of the participating

water utilities, relevant government agencies, and other stakeholders, during the program. The SPC–


105

SOPAC supported the team of experts and assigned a project officer (Mr Tasleem Hasan) for the

project, who remained the focal point for technical assistance.

4.12.1 Project implementation arrangements

A Steering Committee was established to provide guidance in the design and implementation of the

benchmarking program and to approve the Inception Report and the Benchmarking Report.

Both the international and regional benchmarking consultants reported to the PWWA Program

Coordinator and worked from the PWWA office in Apia during the data analysis phase, with

intermittent home inputs for the international specialist (Brisbane based), particularly for finalizing

reports and ongoing liaison during the data collection phase.

PIAC was responsible for the contracting and administration of the benchmarking specialists in the TA

and monitoring the overall implementation of this TA. During implementation, PIAC closely

coordinated its activities with the PWWA and SPC–SOPAC.

4.13 Logistics and Budget for Project Delivery

The project has been based on the professional inputs of two key benchmarking specialists:

International: 2.5 months in Samoa and 1 month of home input, plus visits to other utilities

(undertaken within the 3.5 month input).

Regional: 3.5 months in Samoa (i.e. home base) plus 0.5 months input for visits to other

utilities.

Variations throughout the project period were required in order to adapt to changing logistics and

maximize the value of the information and reporting under the project. This resulted in a minor change

PWA Project Co-ordinatorLatu Kupa

International Consultant

Regional Consultant

Pacific Water

Utilities

Contractual

B

C

D

E

PWWA Project Steering Committee

Pacific Infrastructure Advisory Committee

SPC Tasleem

Project Delivery


106

for the international specialist where savings in reimbursable components were taken up to

supplement the professional services component, resulting in 75 person days rather than 70 person

days.

Furthermore, additional funding was sought during the project to fund further attendees at the

workshop, increasing the workshop budget from $10,000 to $20,000, with $5,000 of this additional

funding sourced through savings in the International Specialist‟s contract, and an additional $5,000

provided by PIAC.


107

5 Benchmarking Workshop

5.1 Overview of Benchmarking Workshop

A Benchmarking Workshop was held on the 26th and 27

th of November to present the findings of the

Draft Benchmarking Report and engage Pacific Water utilities in the value of benchmarking.

Attendees from 18 utilities were present, complemented by representatives of the PRIF, PWWA and

the benchmarking consultants. A complete list of workshop attendees is included in Appendix G. The

workshop timetable is presented in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1 Timetable for benchmarking workshop

Day Session Start time End time Details By

26th Nov

1 9:00:00 AM 9:15:00 AM Welcome Chairman

9:15:00 AM 9:30:00 AM Why benchmarking & indicators Int. Specialist

9:30:00 AM 10:00:00 AM Overall performance & data issues Int. Specialist

10:00:00 AM 10:30:00 AM KRA1 - Production Int. Specialist

10:30:00 AM 10:45:00 AM Morning tea

10:45:00 AM 11:30:00 AM KRA2 - Technical Performance Int. Specialist

11:30:00 AM 11:50:00 AM NRW exercise Int. Specialist

11:50:00 AM 12:30:00 PM KRA5 - Customer Service Regional Specialist

12:30:00 PM 12:45:00 PM Utility Presentation Samoa Water Authority

12:45:00 PM 1:45:00 AM LUNCH

2 1:45:00 AM 2:15:00 AM KRA4 - Human resources Int. Specialist

2:15:00 AM 2:45:00 AM KRA3 - Health & Environment

Int. Specialist & SPC –

SOPAC

2:45:00 AM 3:00:00 AM Utility Presentation Yap Water Authority

3:00:00 AM 3:20:00 AM Afternoon tea

3:20:00 AM 4:15:00 AM KRA6 - Financial sustainability Regional Specialist

4:15:00 AM 4:45:00 AM Finance exercise + presentation Regional Specialist

4:45:00 AM 5:00:00 AM Recap PWWA

27th Nov

3 9:00:00 AM 9:10:00 AM Recap - overall performance PWWA

9:10:00 AM 9:25:00 AM PWWA - key messages PWWA

9:25:00 AM 9:45:00 AM Utility Presentation Water PNG

9:45:00 AM 10:15:00 AM Group session

10:30:00 AM 10:45:00 AM Morning tea

10:45:00 AM 11:45:00 AM Individual Utilities action plan All participants

11:30:00 AM 12:45:00 PM Panel discussion Panel

12:45:00 PM 1:00:00 AM Wrap up PWWA

1:00:00 AM 2:00:00 AM LUNCH

Part B: (5) Benchmarking Workshop

108

The benchmarking workshop was conducted over one and a half days and led by the International

Benchmarking Specialist and supported by the Regional Specialist.

The sessions during the first day of the benchmarking workshop on 26th November comprised mostly

of feedback sessions, presenting the findings of the benchmarking activity and highlighting critical

common areas for improvement as identified by the consultants. A limited number of short

presentations by selected utilities supplemented the findings sessions in key relevant areas.

The sessions of the second day of the workshop were intended to be interactive, with key people from

the WSPs working collaboratively to better understand the underlying causes of certain performance

observations and some practical means for performance improvement.

5.2 Lessons from the Benchmarking Workshop

The one and a half day workshop was generally considered a short time frame to deliver all the

necessary information from the benchmarking analysis, as well as engage utilities on underlying

causes of performance issues and develop improvement strategies. While the second half day of the

workshop required utilities to prepare an „Action Plan‟, in the Consultant‟s opinion this session did not

achieve the desired outcomes. The Action Plan outputs generated by the workshop participants were

collated and the analysis of these outputs revealed:

Action Plan Key Lessons

The top four indicators which the utilities believed should be the focus of future

efforts were consistent with the Consultant‟s priority areas:

o Non-Revenue Water.

o Staff development and retention, including training.

o Drinking water quality compliance.

o Operating cost recovery.

The completed Action Plans are currently with the PWWA Secretariat and should be

further analyzed to provide feedback on future directions, potential twinning

arrangements and improvement opportunities.

The WSPs noted by participants as being those which they could learn the most

from included international utilities in Australia, NZ, USA and South East Asia,

possibly through twinning arrangements. Participants also noted that Pacific utilities

could learn lessons from each other. Amongst the Pacific utilities that could provide

valuable learning, the most commonly mentioned utilities included Water PNG, Eda

Ranu, Vanuatu, the WAF, Kosrae, and Pohnpei.

Some of the key challenges in identifying the underlying causes of performance issues and

performance improvements, sufficient to develop an Action Plan during this forum include:

Key Challenges

On the first day, a vast amount of information was presented, and it is possible that

utilities had insufficient time to thoroughly digest the information presented.


109

To facilitate a meaningful discussion, utilities really needed the opportunity to review

the findings in relation to their own utility, which would have required a report card

for their utility to be provided on the day and additional time to digest results.

Further to understanding the critical areas from the benchmarking, utilities needed

time to grasp how these fit within their own business and what their strategic drivers

were etc.

In the Consultant‟s opinion, any expectation that this first year of benchmarking would develop a clear

understanding of the underlying causes, without having a specific activity within the Consultant‟s brief

or the time allocation to achieve this was overly ambitious.

Following on from the collection, analysis and presentation of benchmarking data, the PWWA needs a

more concerted forum to engage utilities over a longer time period on how the benchmarking findings

relate to their own business, and more importantly, whether their own Strategic Plan or Annual Budget

accommodates the activities which help address the utility‟s problems as identified in the

Benchmarking Study. Section 7 further discusses the required additional stage of the benchmarking.

Part B: (6) Lessons from Benchmarking Project

110

6 Lessons from

Benchmarking Project

6.1 Value of Benchmarking to the Utilities

Prior to delving into the lessons relating to specific aspects of the benchmarking initiative, a key

question which needs to be answered in the first instance is “did the utilities find the benchmarking

exercise useful and is it worth continuing in future years?”

The overwhelming response was unanimous from the attendees of the workshop and from the

PWWA conference participants during the PWWA benchmarking session of the conference: the

benchmarking exercise was of value to the participants and that the 2010/11 exercise formed a sound

basis upon which to build the benchmarking over time.

Some of the smaller utilities did not find this year‟s exercise particularly useful for their own situation,

as the nature of their business was different from the focus of the benchmarking study. In particular,

IWSA, Tuvalu and Nauru were not included in the benchmarking as they are not urban water utilities

with reticulated systems. As outlined throughout the benchmarking report, the focus of this first year‟s

study has been to deal initially with urban water businesses, with other types of businesses to be

addressed in future years. It is recommended in the next year, that additional effort is made to assess

the performance of the smaller utilities, be it through a form of benchmarking (e.g. on indicators

specific to those utilities) or helping them in assessing their own performance in a more informal way.

In conclusion, it is clear that the benchmarking initiative is

worthwhile to most utilities and can become worthwhile for

all with some refinement. This will require a concerted effort

in future years to continue, refine and analyze the key data

and to understand the underlying causes of both good and

poor performance.

6.2 Data Collection and Quality

While recognizing that this benchmarking activity has yielded a very good and comprehensive data

set for benchmarking and as a baseline for moving forward, data collection challenges and data

quality issues (i.e. reliability and accuracy) remain the critical challenge.

While guidance notes were provided with the questionnaire, feedback from the participating utilities

suggests that very few benchmarking representatives referred to the guidance notes. The usefulness

of guidance notes in future must be questioned: it would appear that any guidance notes/information

built into the questionnaire template must be included as comments or a notes section within the

spreadsheet.

…it is clear that the benchmarking initiative

is worthwhile to most utilities and can

become worthwhile for all with some

refinement.


111

Questions have been raised regarding why the responses from utilities have been less complete, less

accurate and less considered than desirable. Some of the key reasons why responses have been

poorer than anticipated include:

Key Reasons

In many utilities key data about for example, quantities of water produced,

distributed and consumed or about water quality are either not available or

unreliable.

An individual benchmarking representative in each utility may not know where to

obtain the most up to date information. Therefore, the data submitted may not have

originated from the most relevant part of the business. Data collation needs to be

the responsibility of a team, steered by one person, to ensure that data checking is

easier.

Utilities are tired of being asked for data. Hopefully these questionnaires will

become the „ultimate truth‟ for utilities regarding the data they provide to

consultants and donor agencies.

For some utilities, the importance of data accuracy may have been unknown and

they may not have realized that calculated benchmarking data for all utilities would

be presented in an open forum. The process of having most utilities present at the

benchmarking workshop has hopefully encouraged all participating utilities to better

appreciate the importance of accurate data.

Most critically, many utilities do not know the answers to some of the questions

asked in the questionnaire, nor do they know where or how to find these answers.

As intimated above, guidance notes can only go so far towards resolving this issue

as many of the utilities do not appear to have read the guidance notes. Genuine

guidance on how to better monitor this information in the setting of each utility

needs to be provided. For example, lessons from some of the utility meetings/field

visits undertaken for this first year of benchmarking.

Depending on the platform adopted (refer to Section 6.3) for the ongoing benchmarking initiatives, the

following key lessons regarding data collection and quality must be considered when moving forward

in subsequent years:

Key Lessons

Build data checks into the questionnaire (e.g. to check the validity of units, orders of

magnitude, comparison with previous years data, comparison with median for group

etc) to minimize the potential for incorrect data to be entered.

Having a PWWA resource/person available for coordination of the data collection. The

PWWA should seek to actively involve its members, in particular younger members

who are the future of the PWWA. A younger PWWA benchmarking representative

could serve as the person responsible for coordinating the data, under the guidance

of a regional or international benchmarking specialist. The ongoing employment of an

international or regional benchmarking consultant would prove to be expensive for

PWWA. Furthermore, a representative from within one of the participating utilities

would provide continuity in the data collection process which may not be achieved

through the ongoing employment of consultants or volunteers from external

organizations.


112

Potential for a meeting of benchmarking representatives from each utility to discuss

the exact scope of the benchmarking and provide a detailed definition of the data

requirements and indicators. During the inception phase, consideration was given to

the potential to host a regional workshop at the outset of the data collection exercise

to share with participating WSPs the background, definitions and potential data

sources to answer the data questionnaire. This proposed regional workshop was not

included within the regional budget of the benchmarking project and it is evident that

there is insufficient funding under this project to enable such a regional workshop to

occur. In future, as new stages of benchmarking are initiated, consideration should be

given to how regional initiatives can be better used to collect the data.

As discussed in Section 6.1, it is recommended that two questionnaires are prepared

in 2012: one simplified for the typical urban water utilities and another specifically

designed for use by alternative WSPs (e.g. Tuvalu and Nauru) and rural service

providers (e.g. IWSA).

Further to building in checks to the data template/questionnaire, an audit of data

reliability (i.e. the processes used to establish a number/estimate) and accuracy

needs to be built into the system. In more mature benchmarking or performance

reporting jurisdictions, the process of auditing data presented by utilities not only

assists the overall benchmarking initiative by improving the reliability of data for

comparison, it also assists each utility as there are often many lessons learned and

suggested improvements in knowledge management and performance improvement

during an audit. For example, any new participant in WSAA‟s National Performance

Report in Australia must have critical data audited by a suitably qualified person prior

to being able to publish data in the national report. Similarly, all reporting utilities must

have data audited every three years. A key challenge in moving towards an „audited‟

framework will be the availability of suitably qualified auditor(s) across the Pacific and

the cost associated with training these staff and having them on the ground in various

countries. As mentioned in Section 6.6, the PWWA therefore needs to harness any

opportunities for „in-kind‟ contributions (rather than cash contributions) from either its

active or allied members to undertake such activities or use their own staff to

undertake such audits.

Finally, building in checks to the template and having external parties audit the data

submitted, are both externally driven approaches to data quality improvement. The

issue of data quality needs to be continually reinforced to the participating utilities.

Ultimately, data quality improvement is not just about the data itself, but the improved

understanding that each utility gains of its own operations by going through the

process of recognizing data accuracy issues and driving improvements.

6.3 Suitable Platforms for Pacific Benchmarking

During the project inception phase, a range of alternative platforms or mechanisms were considered.

Table 6.1 below summarises these available platforms.

Option A (Refinement of the existing template) was seen to be the easiest way forward and quite

possibly the lowest cost. A staged approach was proposed by the Benchmarking Consultants.


113

Table 6.1 Options for benchmarking system platforms

Option Key Issues Likely costs

A

Refinement

of existing

template

This remains the most viable and simplest option at this time, during the

development of the benchmarking initiative. Once the content requirements are

clear and stable from one year to the next, then this can be advanced to an

online data entry portal. In the interim, however, it is recommended that this

excel based template with some refinements (in conjunction with the Steering

Committee) should form the basis of the data collection.

Costs associated with

consultant refining the

template and building in

data checks (based on

advice of Steering

committee).

B IB-Net Data

Template or

IB-Net maintain a toolkit which has a data entry spreadsheet, a indicator

calculation spreadsheet and the option for uploading the data to the IB-Net

portal, and sharing with other utilities. Prior to going down this path, the

Benchmarking Steering Committee must discuss and agree on the

confidentiality issues (i.e. do all participating utilities want data uploaded to this

portal) and the ease of use of the IB-Net portal (www.ib-net.org). May be helpful

to trial the IB-Net format for two more advanced utilities in 2011/12.

Contact person Alexander Danilenko ([email protected])

Minimal cost to PWWA

(i.e. IB-Net system

already exists); however,

concerns of ease of use

and collation of Pacific

focused findings.

C FTP Similar issues with internet access and speed and computer literacy, and also

the potential cost associated with hosting an FTP facility; Similar costs to A

D

You send it

or Google

Documents

May provide an option for uploading and sharing documents online. This would

only work if it were done by the regional specialist in Samoa (i.e. a single control

point). For further consideration.

Similar costs to A

E Online Data

Entry

At the project outset, this was not considered a viable option given the poor and

intermittent internet access and speed, computer literacy, time limitations in

designing an online data entry portal for this project. This does, however,

remain a future potential option, with the potential for Option D as a back-up for

utilities with poor internet access. The Benchmarking Steering Committee /

Consultant do, however, need to be very clear regarding the content, format and

data checks required for this online data entry portal.

SWIM in QLD. Costs

associated with

designing the online data

entry portal and

underlying database.

Also requires back-up

using Option A.

6.4 Frequency and Timing of Data Collection and Analysis

In terms of frequency, various participants had mentioned an interest in collecting data more regularly

than annually, however, the consultant believed that the costs or effort of more frequent data

collection outweigh the benefits.

Given the difficulties in data collection in this annual activity and the lag in receiving a response from

participating utilities, anything less than annual data collection will be difficult to achieve and not

particularly useful as much of the data (e.g. volumes, financial) requires a full year of data in order to

deal with reporting timeframes and cater for seasonal fluctuations.

Further to the benchmarking data, however, it is important

that utilities endeavor to undertake their own interim

operational performance monitoring which may or may not

be guided by the benchmarking indicators adopted in this

study. Operational indicators adopted by participating

utilities may be at a much more detailed level.

In terms of the best timing throughout the year, the benchmarking study reveals that 44 per cent of

participating utilities begin their financial year in September/October, 33 per cent in January and 22

…it is important that utilities endeavor to

undertake their own interim operational

performance monitoring which may or may

not be guided by the benchmarking indicators

adopted in this study.


114

per cent in July. Based on this information, the most appropriate time to undertake the benchmarking

data collection is around April to May each year, when the financial results (preferably audited) for the

previous calendar and/or financial year would be available.

6.5 Questionnaire Design and Future Improvements Some general comments relating to the required improvements for the data questionnaire include:

Questionnaire Improvements

Depending on the preferred platform adopted by the PWWA Steering Committee, it is

recommended that the data questionnaire be updated to include built in data checks,

including some form of comparison with the previous year‟s data, calculated

indicators, and realistic ranges to enable checks on units to be undertaken (e.g. kL v/s

ML etc).

Much of the baseline information regarding assets can be dropped in the next year.

While some was useful in the first year, it does make the questionnaire long winded

and is not necessarily relevant to calculating the indicators.

In the first three years, the questionnaire refinement should focus on collecting only

the data needed for calculating the benchmarks accurately.

Some updates and clarifications to definitions are required in the spreadsheet as it

was recognised that few organisations used the guidance notes.

In due course, process related questions should be incorporated, but not in the next

year so as to keep the questionnaire simple.

Utilities must be required to submit financial statements if their data is to be accepted.

There is no way to check financial data and ensure that the utility‟s own interpretation

of the question is correct.

A selected number of additional questions should be incorporated into the

questionnaire update, particularly focused on better understanding the recurrent

operating cost of utilities if possible (e.g. power, chemicals, labour, maintenance), and

better understanding of staffing inclusions (e.g. is maintenance effort outsourced and

therefore not included in the staffing numbers?).

More specific suggestions to improve the data questionnaire are included in Appendix H.

6.6 Project Implementation, Coordination and Ownership

While this first stage of the Benchmarking initiative has been successful and the participating utilities

have assisted in developing the most extensive set of data available in the Pacific to date, the project

implementation arrangements have created some limitations to solid ownership and effective

transition of the benchmarking knowledge to its ultimate home, the PWWA. Some key challenges

recognised under the current project implementation arrangements include:


115

Key Challenges

Two consultants were appointed (one International and one Regional) to work on the

development of the benchmarking system which was to be steered by PWWA‟s own

project coordinator. In the early stages of the project, the roles and responsibilities of

all key participants in the projects were not made sufficiently clear and as a result, the

resource and task allocation for the project was not efficient, particularly in relation to

the coordination effort.

Coordination of the inputs of the two consultants and the participating utilities is crucial

to the effectiveness and ongoing ownership of the initiative by the PWWA. It is

recognised that the current PWWA secretariat and CEO already invest significant

amounts of time on PWWA business (e.g. conference organisation, strategic planning,

and membership management) and this therefore limits the available time for allocating

to specific projects. Active or allied members must provide some form of in-kind

contribution to the PWWA to assist with project coordination in future.

Further to the coordination issues discussed, there is a clear issue of the technical

capacity of the PWWA to continue to steer this benchmarking initiative in the future.

Without some ongoing technical involvement beyond the PWWA‟s CEO, it will be

increasingly difficult and expensive for the PWWA to maintain the expertise and

knowledge of the benchmarking systems and data through the use of consulting

services. If this benchmarking initiative is to continue and remain successful, beyond

the involvement of the PWWA CEO, the PWWA must seek to appoint a benchmarking

coordinator from within the Steering Committee and possibly from a participating water

utility (as an in-kind contribution to PWWA) to ensure that the technical knowledge

associated with the benchmarking remains within the PWWA‟s membership and

continues to benefit members.

In terms of the procurement of the consulting services, if effective coordination cannot

be provided by the PWWA, including the relevant project administration and

management leadership and support, and some form of technical ownership, then a

more effective means of procuring the necessary technical services to deliver updates

to the benchmarking and analysis of benchmarking data is through a consulting firm.

This makes the consulting firm responsible for the output and resourcing effective

project management and coordination.

Ultimately, the consultant‟s real concern with the current implementation arrangements was the lack

of technical ownership by the PWWA and need for better coordination. Benchmarking as a concept

and an initiative of the PWWA needs a champion from within the PWWA membership if it is to be truly

sustainable in future years.

6.7 Benchmarking Within the Water Business Planning

Context

Ultimately, the real benefit of benchmarking to Pacific water utilities is in how it might guide utilities

toward better decision-making for their respective businesses based on an understanding of what

good performance is, what is possible within the Pacific and the required key focus areas for their

particular business. The benchmarking data itself is only part of the information of use to the


116

participating utilities. The missing link between this first stage of the benchmarking initiative and the

development of performance improvement plans by participating utilities is an analysis of the

underlying causes of poor performance in a range of key result areas, an understanding of the

general business planning framework of various utilities and how the benchmarking data and findings

may guide the business planning framework and decision-making process.

The operating environment for the participating utilities of this benchmarking initiative is significantly

different to the operating environment of some of the comparative benchmarking jurisdictions. For

example, the WSAA and NZWSA data represents comparisons of utilities operating under similar

regulatory and legal jurisdictions, similar cultural conditions, similar political pressures and the like. By

comparison, the countries, and therefore the WSPs, of the Pacific all operate in different regulatory

regimes, political situations, economic situations, and cultural environments. The utilities represent a

range of utilities from mature utilities with private sector involvement through to recently formed SOEs

and government departments. As a result, the variables impacting on performance across the Pacific

are extensive.

This first year of the benchmarking initiative has been heavily focused on quantitative data collection,

as prescribed in the brief to the consultants, which has provided an excellent baseline of data. It is

noted, however, that an omission from the benchmarking has been benchmarking of „process‟ or

„procedures‟ which is more interested in how utilities go about their business rather than just the

outcomes, assuming that the „how‟ is just as important.

Future years of benchmarking must also start to consider how WSPs go about their business,

including critical questions to gain an improved understanding of:

Areas Requiring Improved Understanding

A water utility‟s own understanding of their operating regime, compliance

requirements and core business. Do utilities understand their own core business

objectives? Have these been documented and signed off by the board, CEO or

leadership team into a vision statement, set of core principles and business plan

suitable to that setting? Do all employees understand these core objectives? Do

internal performance indicators and targets align to these core business objectives?

Have utilities established their own desired levels of service to their customers? Have

they consulted customers regarding these desired levels of service? Have they

considered risk when determining desired levels of service (e.g. power outages and

access issues when determining response times or reservoir storage requirements)?

How do utilities incorporate performance or benchmarking data into their annual

reporting? For example, a number of the annual reports viewed for Pacific water

utilities simply listed the projects undertaken and financial statements. Very few

included any real performance data in Annual Reports so as to compare actual

performance to planned or targeted performance and illustrate the effectiveness of

funding in those areas. Without this understanding it is difficult to plan performance

improvements in future years.

Do utilities have a process for operations and maintenance planning and capital

works planning, and are these processes sound? Can improved planning and

procurement processes produce improved project outcomes? Do utilities think about

the least cost solutions for achieving performance improvements? For example, in

attempting to manage physical water loss, do utilities purely focus on their own

network/asset or do they understand the benefits of spending small amounts of

money undertaking household water audits and improving water use efficiency within


117

homes and business?

Do utilities have processes for reviewing information relating to cost drivers to

understand where the opportunities for operational improvements exist?

These are just a few of the more procedural areas which future benchmarking should seek to explore

and provide guidance on. In coming years (e.g. years two and three), an early glimpse of utility

process could be gained through case studies on a number of utilities.

Business process or strategic planning mapping should ideally be an initial component of any twinning

arrangement signed, so that both partners in the twinning exercise have confidence that the focus

areas selected are suitable.

As discussed in Section 5.2, the Benchmarking Workshop aimed to have participating utilities develop

„Action Plans‟ or „Performance Improvement Plans‟. As also outlined in Section 5.2, the time available

in the workshop was insufficient to digest the benchmarking findings, consider a utility‟s performance

within that context and consider how knowledge gained at the benchmarking workshop might play a

part in influencing strategic direction of each water business. The hand written Action Plans

developed by utilities at the workshop have been returned to the respective utilities.

It is recommended that a more structured way of developing a business plan be facilitated by the

PWWA, using the benchmarking data to guide Performance Improvement Plans.

6.8 Useful Case Studies

As discussed in the previous sub-sections, the scope of work in the benchmarking study focused

mostly on data collection and analysis. Part A of this report presented the data and observations

relating to underlying causes and contributing factors; however, the task of undertaking necessary

investigations to understand the underlying causes of both good and poor performance is a much

more detailed exercise that cannot be achieved in this study.

Based on this early baseline data, the PWWA can now select water utilities which could be the

subject of case studies in future years. Such case studies should cover the overall business process

as discussed in Section 6.7, and other focus areas as discussed in section 6.9.

The task of understanding the underlying causes of performance issues should not be

underestimated. Using the baseline data to guide the exercise, it is anticipated that the next two

years of the initiative should be focused on gaining a closer understanding of the critical underlying

causes, with a focus on some of the specific areas as presented in Section 6.9.

6.9 Specific Areas Requiring More Focused Investigation

The three key priority areas identified by the consultant in Part A Section 11 were reiterated by the

utilities in their responses to the questionnaires and at the workshop. The PWWA has indicated that it

intends to address one of the key priority areas in the coming year.


118

Further to these identified priority areas, there are other key result areas where further investigation of

the key issues is required as the benchmarking data is too high level or cannot adequately describe

the variations in data. These areas include:

Key Result Areas

NRW and water demand management: while some effort has been invested during

this benchmarking study to better understand the components of NRW, such an

investigation should be a study in its own right. From the baseline data, NRW appears

to be one of the key issues impacting the technical, customer and financial

management of many utilities.

Rural water or alternative urban service provision: as outlined in Section 6.1, rural

water (e.g. IWSA) and alternative service provisions (e.g. Tuvalu and Nauru) have not

been a focus for this first year of data collection, but should be a priority in future years.

As discussed in Section 6.1, it is suggested that these alternative water services

providers be issued an alternative, simplified questionnaire. The questionnaire should

focus on the issues critical to those service providers.

Staffing, human resource management and capacity building: the staffing

utilisation figures appear to be inaccurate and do not adequately reflect the way in

which work is delivered within the participating utilities. Also the utilization figures and

training budgets do not effectively communicate the quality of capacity building, staff

training, and staff alignment with corporate goals or the rewards system for good staff

performance. Additional questions would need to be included in the questionnaire to

clarify these issues.

Affordability/tariffs: the information provided regarding tariffs, upon which affordability

calculations were based, was generally poorly completed, incomplete, or not supported

by any rates or tariffs schedule. Furthermore, the adopted indicators for the purpose of

comparison do not really reflect affordability to various sectors of the community. It is

recommended that a more complete and detailed investigation of affordability be

undertaken.

Components of recurrent operating cost, and potential for efficiency gains or

improved asset management: while the Benchmarking Report includes information

regarding the unit operating cost of providing water and wastewater services, unit

operating cost has been omitted from the final list of benchmarking indicators. In an

attempt to keep the benchmarking activity simple in this first year, the focus of the

commercial or financial side of the water utility business has been on cost recovery (i.e.

covering operating costs using revenue from water sales and sewerage services),

rather than on the unit cost of service provision. The cost of service delivery has such a

wide range of variables across the Pacific that it should not be considered a

„performance indicator‟ or core benchmark in its own right. It does, however, warrant

more detailed investigation in future to better understand the components of cost, key

cost drivers (e.g. compliance, growth, improvement, maintenance) and ensure that all

utilities are reporting these figures in a similar way (i.e. similar scope).


119

7 Future Benchmarking

Directions

Based on the lessons learned presented in Section 6 of Part B, the consultant recommends that the

PWWA progress the benchmarking in a slow and steady manner, with a focus on content and how it

will benefit its member utilities rather than on advanced technology platforms.

As a suggested pathway, the benchmarking initiative could be planned with an initial five year horizon

in view, with the possibility of adopting a staged approach as outlined in Table 7.1 below.

Table 7.1 Recommended staging approach to future benchmarking

Year Key Focus Suggested Actions Required

Year 1

(2011)

Baseline data and

understanding

Benchmarking Workshop

Final Report Complete

Benchmarking Database handed to PWWA for data storage

PWWA Benchmarking Steering Committee appointed to guide future efforts

Year 2

(2012)

Simplify questionnaire and

select 1 x focus area

Test IB-Net questionnaire with 2 x utilities (check ease of use) and seek comments

from utilities regarding updates to questionnaire

Decide on format/method for 2012 year

Refine data questionnaire & create simplified data questionnaire for alternative service

providers. Depending on agreed format, build data checks and guidance into

questionnaire.

Recommend focus on NRW in 2012, including gaining a better understanding of

underlying causes (possibly 2 x case studies as part of 2012). Need to review in

conjunction with lessons from previous SPC–SOPAC Demand Mgmt Program.

Recommend building a team of 3 x data collectors from across the region, guided by

an experienced person to visit utilities and work with them in collecting and reporting

the data.

Year 3

(2013)

Refine questionnaire and

focus on link between data

and business planning

Further questionnaire refinement

Including a „process‟ component into the questionnaire so that the links between the

results and the business planning process can be identified.

Consider providing assistance (through PRIF) to utilities in preparing strategic plans.

Using case studies of more mature utilities would be useful.

Year 4

(2014)

Refine questionnaire and

focus on data quality /

auditing

Further questionnaire refinement

Including an audit process, training of effective audit team (Pacific based) and

undertake audit of data

Year 5

(2015)

Review of benchmarking

initiative Five year review of benchmarking initiative.

*Note: needs to be reviewed for consistency with PWWA strategic objectives

Part B: (8) Conclusions and Recommendations

120

8 Conclusions and

Recommendations



While benchmarking data quality requires improvement in future, through a range of measures

discussed in this report, the four most critical issues facing the Pacific urban water sector at this time,

based on data collection and analysis, are:


Very high levels of NRW

Poor drinking water quality compliance

Limited sewerage service provision and suitable sewage treatment

Insufficient cost recovery

While this is a very good start to understanding some of the critical issues, more detailed investigation

and ongoing attention and investment in the benchmarking initiative is required to better understand

the underlying causes for these performance issues and facilitate improved understanding amongst

PWWA members in regards to how these findings can be incorporated into each utility‟s strategic

planning and budgeting process.

Specifically in relation to future actions towards the progression of a sustainable benchmarking

system for Pacific utilities, detailed recommendations were presented in Section 7 of Part B. The key

recommendation moving forward is that this benchmarking initiative progresses in a logical yet

focused way, selecting a key focus area from the four critical issues identified above in each of the

four years ahead, and harnessing the knowledge and talent from PWWA within its own membership

(e.g. in-kind contribution) to own and drive the benchmarking initiative in a cost-effective and

meaningful way. Refinements to be considered in future benchmarking exercises should include the

following:

Future Refinements

Development of an audit and data reliability mechanism /program to improve the

quality of data.

Refinement of the data questionnaire used in this study based on lessons from this

benchmarking exercise.

Expansion of the data questionnaire with improvements in data collection and

storage.

Refinement of the data storage mechanisms for the benchmarking study and

potential for future online data entry or collaboration with international benchmarking

networks.


121

In terms of immediate actions, it is recommended that:

Immediate Recommendations

The PWWA, and in particular the Benchmarking Steering Committee, review and

consider the findings of this report and the future benchmarking direction presented in

Section 7 of this Part B.

The Benchmarking Steering Committee seek feedback from participating utilities (e.g.

via a feedback form) asking for their opinions on how to progress, what format should

be used, and how they think the benchmarking can be more useful to them. The

PWWA needs to own the benchmarking activity as it moves forward.

The Benchmarking Steering Committee should select four utilities to trial the existing

questionnaire and the IB-Net questionnaire. The intention is to gauge the ease of use

in using the IB-Net questionnaire.

Following on from this „trial run‟ the Benchmarking Steering Committee should decide

if they want to adopt the IB-Net questionnaire or further refine the PWWA

questionnaire.

Endnotes

122

Endnotes

1 McLay G. 2005. SEAWUN Benchmarking Survey for 2003: Data Book of Data and Results. South East Asian Water

Utilities Network: Hanoi, p.15. 2 World Health Organization (WHO). 2010. Western Pacific Region, Achieving the Health-Related MDGs in the Western

Pacific Region: 2010 Progress Report. 3 See; World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF. 2008. Progress on Drinking–Water and Sanitation: Special

Focus on Sanitation. WHO: Geneva and UNICEF: New York; World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF. 2010.

Progress on Sanitation and Drinking–Water: 2010 Update Report. WHO: Geneva. 4 World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF. 2009. Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) for Water & Sanitation.

http://www.wssinfo.org/. 5 See: Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA). 2010. National Performance Framework: 2009-10 Urban Water

Performance Report Indicators and Definitions Handbook. Australian Government National Water Commission:

Canberra. 6 Pacific Water Association. 2010. PWWA Plan 2010 to 2015; Pacific Water Association. 2010. Results of

Benchmarking – Spreadsheet. 7 Pacific Water Association, Results of Benchmarking– Spreadsheet. 8 Lambert, A., and McKenzie, R. 2004. The IWA Water Loss Task Force Water 21 - Article No. 8, Best Practice

Performance Indicators for Non-Revenue Water and Water Loss Components: A Practical Approach. 9 Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2005. Performance Benchmarking for Pacific Power and Water Utilities. 10 Accenture. 2010. Reflections on Performance 2009: Benchmarking in the Dutch Drinking Water Industry. 11 See: Darlington, Ramona., Chen, Abraham., and Wang, Lili. 2010. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by

Oxidation/Filtration and Adsorptive Media. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), p. 16. 12 ADB, Performance Benchmarking for Pacific Power and Water Utilities. 13 See: Tynan, Nicola., and Kingdom, William. 2002. A Water Scorecard. World Bank: Washington, D.C. 14 See: American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2010. 2010 Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. 15 Mugabi J., and Castro, V. 2009. Water Operators Partnership – Africa Utility Performance Assessment. WSP-AF and

UN Habitat, p. 29. 16 ADB, Performance Benchmarking for Pacific Power and Water Utilities. 17 Cabrera, Enrique., Dane, Peter., and Theuretzbacher-Fritz, Heimo. 2011. Manual of Best Practice. Benchmarking

Water Services: Guiding Water Utilities to Excellence. International Water Association (IWA) Publishing: London, p. 2.


123

AppendixAppendixAppendixAppendix

APPENDIX A: Utilities and Key Benchmarking Contacts

Country/ Region

Utility name Role Name of Key Contact Email address

Cook Islands

Ministry of Infrastructure & Planning

CEO Acting Secretary of Ministry of Infrastructure & Planning

Ms Donye Numa [email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

Acting Director of Water Works Division

Mr Adrian Teotahi [email protected]

Eda Ranu

NATIONAL CAPITAL DISTRICT WATER & SEWERAGE LIMITIED, trading as EDA RANU

CEO CEO Mr Billy Imar [email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

Mr Tony Kuiau and Mrs Geam Feekings

[email protected] [email protected]

Fiji (WAF) Water Authority of Fiji

CEO Acting CEO Mr Opetaia Ravai [email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

As above

FSM Chuuk Chuuk Public Utility Corporation

CEO CEO Mr Mark Waite [email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

As above

FSM Kosrae Dept. of Transportation & Infrastructure

CEO CEO Mr Weston Luckymis [email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

Supervisor Mr Soloman Talley None

FSM Pohnpei

Pohnpei Utilities Corporation

CEO General Manager/CEO Mr Feliciano M. Perman

[email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

Assistant General Manager

Mr Robert M. Hadley [email protected]

FSM Yap - North

Gagil Tomil Water Authority

CEO CEO Mr Manikam Razakrisnan

[email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

As above

FSM Yap - Central

Yap State Public Service Corporation (YSPSC)

CEO CEO Mr Faustion Yanmog

Benchmarking Rep

Mr Charles Falmeyog [email protected]

FSM Yap - South

Southern Yap Water Authority

CEO CEO Mr John Guswel

Benchmarking Rep

As above

Kiribati Kiribati Public Utilities Board

CEO Acting CEO Mr Takirua Rameka [email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

Water Engineering Manager

Mr Timona Itienang [email protected]

WaterPNG WATERPNG CEO CEO

Mr (OBE) Patrick Amini

[email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

Planning Manager Mr Sibona Vavia [email protected]

Appendix A: Utilities and Key Benchmarking Contacts

124

Palau Bureau of Public Works

CEO Director - Bureau of Public Works

Mr Techur Rengulbai [email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

As above

Saipan Commonwealth Utilities Corporation

CEO Executive Director Mr Utu Abe Malae [email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

Division Manager for Water & Wastewater

Mariano R. Iglecias [email protected]

SWA SAMOA WATER AUTHORITY

CEO CEO Mr Tainau Moefaauo [email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

Project Coordinator Ms Ruth Ueselani [email protected]

Solomon Islands

Solomon Islands Water Authority

CEO General Manager Mr Richard Austin [email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

Technical Officer Marista Kapini [email protected]

Tonga Tonga Water Board

CEO CEO Mr Saimone Pita Helu [email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

Mr Pita Moala [email protected] or [email protected]

Tuvalu Ministry of Works, Water and Energy

CEO Director of Works Mr Ampelosa Tehulu [email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

Deputy Director of Works

Mr Uatea Maimoaga Salesa

[email protected]

Vanuatu UNELCO GDF SUEZ

CEO GENERAL MANAGER Mr Philippe Mehrenberger

[email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

WATER OPERATION Mr Ghislain Kaltack [email protected]

Niue Water Supply Division, PWD

CEO Director, PWD Mr Deve Talagi [email protected]

Benchmarking Rep

Operation Adviser Mr Clinton Chapman [email protected]


125

APPENDIX B: List of Documents Referenced Accenture. 2010. Reflections on Performance 2009: Benchmarking in the Dutch Drinking Water Industry. American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2010. 2010 Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2010. Basic Statistics. Economics Research Department: Manila. Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2005. Performance Benchmarking for Pacific Power and Water Utilities. Berg, S.V. 2010. Water Utility Benchmarking; Measurement, Methodologies and Performance Indicators. International Water Association. Cabrera, Enrique., Dane, Peter., and Theuretzbacher-Fritz, Heimo. 2011. Manual of Best Practice. Benchmarking Water Services: Guiding Water Utilities to Excellence. International Water Association (IWA) Publishing: London. Castalia. 2010. Enhancing Effective Regulation of Water and Energy Infrastructure and Utility Services (Small Island Countries Component) - Interim Pacific Report. Asian Development Bank: Manila. Department of Natural Resources and Mines. 2005. Annual Reporting of SAMP and CSS Guidelines for Service Providers. Queensland Government. Department of Natural Resources and Mines. 2002. Guidelines for Preparing Strategic Asset Management Plans. Queensland Government. Lambert, A., and McKenzie, R. 2004. The IWA Water Loss Task Force Water 21 - Article No. 8, Best Practice Performance Indicators for Non-Revenue Water and Water Loss Components: A Practical Approach. McLay G. 2005. SEAWUN Benchmarking Survey for 2003: Data Book of Data and Results. South East Asian Water Utilities Network: Hanoi. Mugabi J., and Castro, V. 2009. Water Operators Partnership – Africa Utility Performance Assessment. WSP-AF and UN Habitat. Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS). 2007.The Pacific Plan for Strengthening Regional Co-operation and Integration. Pacific Water Association. 2010. PWWA Plan 2010 to 2015. Pacific Water Association. 2010. Results of Benchmarking – Spreadsheet. Queensland Water Directorate (QWD). 2010. Summary 2008-09 SWIM Comparative Data Report. Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). Pacific Regional Information System. http://www.spc.int/prism/. Tynan, Nicola., and Kingdom, William. 2002. A Water Scorecard. World Bank: Washington, D.C.

Appendix B: List of Documents Referenced

126

Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA). 2010. National Performance Framework: 2009-10 Urban Water Performance Report Indicators and Definitions Handbook. Australian Government National Water Commission: Canberra. World Bank. 2010. IB-Net Water Benchmarking. World Bank. 2004. IB-Net Input Data Definitions. World Bank. 2004. IB-Net Indicator Definitions. World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF. 2009. Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) for Water & Sanitation. http://www.wssinfo.org/. World Health Organization (WHO). 2010. Western Pacific Region, Achieving the Health-Related MDGs in the Western Pacific Region: 2010 Progress Report. World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF. 2008. Progress on Drinking–Water and Sanitation: Special Focus on Sanitation. WHO: Geneva and UNICEF: New York. World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF. 2010. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking–Water: 2010 Update Report. WHO: Geneva.


127

APPENDIX C: Blank Questionnaire and Guidance Notes

(i) Blank Questionnaire

PWWA BENCHMARKING PROJECT

DATA QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENTS

The data questionnaire is segregated into the following sections

or the following worksheet tabs:

1 Contacts and Utility

2 Scheme and Assets

3 Volumes

4 Customers

5 Service Levels

6 Health & Environment

7 Staffing

8 Financial

9 Data Reliability

10 Utility Comments

Appendix C: Blank Questionnaire and Guidance Notes

128

SECTION 1 - UTILITY DETAILS AND

CONTACTS

PRIMARY DATA (REQUIRED) Utility Response

1.1 Utility name -

1.2 Country -

1.3 Geographical region within the

country (i.e. province, division, city)

-

1.4 Name of Chief Executive Officer NA

CEO First Name NA

CEO Last Name NA

CEO Title NA

1.5 CEO contact details NA

Mailing Address NA

Telephone (including country and

region code)

NA

Fax (including country and region

code)

NA

Email address NA

1.6 Name of Benchmarking

Representative

NA

Rep First Name NA

Rep Last Name NA

Rep Title NA

1.7 Rep contact details NA

Mailing Address NA

Telephone (including country and

region code)

NA

Fax (including country and region

code)

NA

Email address NA

SECONDARY DATA (TO SUPPORT DATA

ANALYSIS)

1.8 Services Provided (PLEASE STATE YES

OR NO)

-

Do you provide urban water services? Yes/

No

Do you have a reticulated water

system (i.e. pipelines?)

Yes/

No

If so, do you aim to provide 24/7

water supply to your customers?

-

Do you provide rural water services? Yes/

No

Do you provide urban sewerage

services?

Yes/

No


129

Do you provide rural or urban

sanitation services? (i.e. not

connected to sewerage network)

Yes/

No

Do you provide other water related

services (e.g. irrigation, drainage,

electricity)?

Yes/

No

1.9 What type of water utility are you

(PLEASE PLACE A CROSS ALONGSIDE

THE MOST CORRECT DESCRIPTION)?

-

Government department with no

separate financial reporting for water

& sewerage

-

Government department with

separate financial reporting for water

& sewerage

-

Statutory organisation following state

requirements

-

State Owned Enterprise operating

under commercial law

-

Jointly (Government and private)

owned company operating under

commercial law

-

Privately owned company operating

under commercial law

-

Not-for-profit organisation (e.g. Co-

operative) operating under

commercial law

-

1.10 What is the extent of private sector involvement in your utility (PLEASE PLACE A CROSS

ALONGSIDE THE MOST CORRECT DESCRIPTION)?

None -

Service contract(s) -

Management contract(s) -

Lease contract(s) -

Concession contract(s) -

Build, (own,) operate & transfer

(BOOT, BOT) contract(s)

-

Full private asset ownership and

operation

-

1.11 Who has general oversight of the utility’s services and prices? (PLEASE PLACE A CROSS

ALONGSIDE THE MOST CORRECT DESCRIPTION)?

Local, regional or national

government department

-

Independent board of stakeholders -

Independent service & price regulator -

Other (Describe....) -


130

SECTION 2 - SCHEMES AND ASSETS

PRIMARY DATA (REQUIRED)

Water supply Total /

Overall

Urban

Only

Rural

Only

2.1 No. Of water supply schemes in total

(both urban + rural) under your

responsibility

No.

2.2 Length of treated / potable water (all

diameters)

km

Sewerage

2.3 No. of sewerage schemes - total No.

2.4 Total length of sewer main (all diameters) km


ANALYSIS)

Water Supply Schemes

2.5 No of water supply schemes classified (by

you) as urban (PLEASE DESCRIBE IN THE

FAR COLUMN HOW YOUR UTILITY

DEFINES 'URBAN')

No.

No. of schemes with less than 1,000

connections

No.

No. of schemes with 1,000 to 5,000

connections

No.


connections

No.


connections

No.

No. of schemes with > 25,000 connections No.

2.6 No. of towns supplied with water No.

2.70 What best describes the types of water supply systems you

operate (i.e. how was it designed to operate)

Traditional reticulated water supply

systems

-

Constant flow system (household tanks to

fill over the day to buffer peak demand)

-

Unreticulated system (household or

community tanks with water delivered/

tankered to them)

-

Water Supply - Assets and System

Components

2.80 Number of dams and weirs No.

2.90 Number of river and / or spring intakes No.

2.10 Number of groundwater intakes (i.e.

borefields)

No.


131

2.11 Number of bores / wells (i.e. all individual

wells within bore fields)

No.

2.12 Number of water treatment plants -

chlorination + other processes

No.

2.13 Number of water treatment plants -

chlorination only

No.

2.14 Number of reservoirs & tanks within your

network

No.

2.15 Volume of reservoir and tank storage

(including clear water storage at WTP)

ML

2.16 Total length of water main (all diameters) km

Length of raw water mains (km) km

Length of treated / potable water (km) km

2.17 Total number of property meters (i.e.

domestic and non-domestic)

No.

Number of domestic property meters (i.e.

domestic)

No.

Number of non-domestic property meters

(i.e. domestic)

No.

Number of operating property meters (i.e.

not reading errors)

No.

2.18 Estimated % of houses with household

tank (PLEASE ESTIMATE TO THE BEST

EXTENT POSSIBLE)

%

Sewerage Schemes

2.19 No. of sewerage schemes - total No.

No. of schemes with less than 1000

connections

No.


connections

No.


connections

No.


connections

No.

No. of schemes with > 25,000 connections No.

2.20 No. of towns supplied with sewerage No.

2.21 Number of sewage treatment plants No.

2.22 Number of sewage pumping stations or

lift stations

No.

2.23 Total length of sewer main (all diameters) km

Length of pressure sewer km

Length of gravity sewer km

2.24 What best describes the types of

sewerage schemes you operate (i.e. how

was it designed to operate) (PLEASE

ANSWER YES / NO)

-

Traditional reticulated sewerage schemes

with gravity sewers, pumping stations, or

rising mains

-


132

Common Effluent Drainage Scheme (i.e.

septic tank with liquid flowing into low

grade shallow gravity pipe work)

-

Pressure system -

Service Area Features

2.25 Topography of area of coverage

Minimum elevation m

(above

SL)

Average elevation m

(above

SL)

Maximum elevation m

(above

SL)

2.26 Annual Rainfall (average) mm


133

SECTION 3 - VOLUMES PRODUCED



Overall

Urban

Only

Rural

Only

3.1 Total volume of water produced - total

(Includes volume of water sourced from all

sources or volume of water produced at

treatment facilities.)

ML/annum

3.2 Volume of water treated (please define

what is meant by 'treatment' in the far

column)

ML/annum

3.3 Has a water audit been prepared for your

utility in accordance with the IWA method?

(PLEASE ANSWER YES / NO AND PROVIDE

DETAILS IN RIGHT HAND COLUMN)

YES / NO

3.4 Total Billed Authorised Consumption ML/annum

3.5 What is the volume of unauthorised

consumption? Previous studies of illegal or

unknown connections in pilot areas may

provide some guidance.

ML/annum

Sewerage

3.6 Estimated volume of sewage collected by

your authority (i.e. transported in your

sewerage network of pipes and pumps)

ML/annum

3.7 Total volume of sewage treated by your

authority

ML/annum

3.8 Volume of sewage treated to secondary

standard or above

ML/annum

For water supply, treated means at least chlorination or other

form of disinfection (e.g. Ozone, UV)

For sewage, secondary treatment or above means anything more than

screening, clarification and grease removal.

SECONDARY DATA (TO SUPPORT DATA ANALYSIS)

3.9 Total volume of water produced - total

(Includes volume of water sourced from all

sources or volume of water produced at

treatment facilities.)

ML/annum

Volume of water produced - treated (please

define what is meant by 'treatment' in the

far column)

ML/annum

Volume of water produced - untreated bore

water

ML/annum

Volume of water produced - untreated raw

surface water

ML/annum

3.10 Capacity of all currently developed water ML/annum


134

sources (i.e. yield)

Basis of yield assessment (e.g. HNFY, 1 in

100 year, estimate based on operator

experience through varying seasons)

(PLEASE STATE IN RIGHT HAND COLUMN)

-

3.11 Water source utilisation (Water production

as % of yield)

%

3.12 What is the major water resource constraint

for you? (PLEASE SELECT THE MOST

APPROPRIATE REASONS FROM THE LIST

BELOW)

-

Natural yield of the source (e.g. Low volume

groundwater resources with inadequate

recharge from rainfall)

-

Existing infrastructure limitation (e.g.

Capacity of pumps, capacity of dams /

pipelines, power outages that limit

pumping)

-

Cost of infrastructure expansion (e.g. Cost

for new dams or pumps)

-

Land ownership and access issues (e.g.

Private or village ownership of land in areas

which could benefit the broader community)

-

Source water quality issues (e.g. Saline

intrusion to aquifers, sanitary issues with

surface water)

-

3.13 Capacity of all water treatment facilities

(rated capacity)

ML/day

3.14 Water treatment utilisation (% of treatment

capacity currently utilised)

%

3.15 Does your utility have the authority to

charge customers for untreated / raw

water?

-

Water Supply - Consumed and lost

3.16 Total Billed Authorised Consumption ML/annum

What is the volume of water billed to your

customers through operating meters

(irrespective of whether the bill is paid or

not)? (See 'Billed Metered' in the water

balance)

ML/annum

What is the volume of water billed to your

customers through other means - i.e. not

metered (this may be estimated by using the

assumed household consumption

assumption in your tariff policy multiplied by

the number of unmetered households) (See

'billed unmetered in the water balance')

ML/annum

3.17 Unbilled authorised consumption

Is all authorised consumption billed to your

customers? If not, then what is the

ML/annum


135

estimated volume of this metered

consumption which is 'free water'? (see

unbilled authorised in the water balance)

3.18 What is the volume of unauthorised

consumption? Previous studies of illegal

connections or unknown in pilot areas may

provide some guidance.

ML/annum

3.19 What is the volume which can be attributed

to meter errors (e.g. have studies been done

in comparing the average volume billed

through operating meters vs. the volume

billed to customers with faulty meters.

Often a figure of 2% of the metered flow is

adopted)

ML/annum

3.20 Have you made any previous estimates of

the real losses (i.e. leakage) in transmission

or distribution mains?

ML/annum


the volume of overtopping or leakage at

storage tanks and elevated tanks?

ML/annum


the volume of real losses in the service

connection to the meter? (as a volume, or

below as a %)

ML/annum

3.23 Has a water audit been prepared for your

utility in accordance with the IWA method?

(PLEASE ANSWER YES / NO AND PROVIDE

DETAILS IN RIGHT HAND COLUMN)

-

Sewage - collected and treated

3.24 Estimated volume of sewage collected by

your authority (i.e. transported in your

sewerage network of pipes and pumps)

ML/annum

3.25 Total volume of sewage treated by your

authority

ML/annum

Volume of sewage treated (to primary

standard only)

ML/annum

Volume of sewage treated (to secondary

standard or above)

ML/annum

3.26 Capacity of all sewage treatment facilities ML/day

3.27 Typical flows during dry and wet weather

Typical dry weather flow in previous year ML/day

Typical wet weather flow in previous year ML/day

Ratio of peak wet weather to dry weather

flow

Ratio


136

SECTION 4 - CUSTOMER INFORMATION



Overall

Urban

Only

Rural

Only

4.1 Total number of direct water

connections (total) (i.e. physical

connection to a network)

No.

4.2 Total number of public stand posts

(total) (i.e. those currently in use - not

those abandoned)

No.

4.3 Total number of water 'customers'

billed by your utility

4.4 Total number of service connections

with functional meters (i.e. only

meters that are functional) - both

direct connections and standpipes

No.

4.5 Total population served with water

services by the water utility

Persons

Sewerage

4.6 Number of sewerage connections

(total)

No.

4.7 Total population served with sewerage

services by the water utility

Persons

Overall

4.8 Total population within jurisdiction of

water utility

Persons

4.9 Average occupancy ratio within water

utility's area (e.g. From Census record

- number of people per household)

Persons/

Household

4.10 How many customer complaints did

you receive in the previous financial

year?

No.


ANALYSIS)

Water Supply - Connections/

Customers

4.11 Total number of direct water

connections (total) (i.e. physical

connections to a network)

No.

Number of residential connections No.

Number of non-residential

connections (i.e. industrial,

commercial, community, institutional,

government)

No.


137

4.12 Total number of public stand posts

(total) (i.e. those currently in use - not

those abandoned)

No.

4.13 If you do not have a reticulated water

network, how many 'customers' do

you have? (this can be measured by

the number of entities billed by you)

No.

Water Supply - Metering

4.14 Total number of water meters within

network (i.e. both functional and non-

functional)

No.

4.15 Total number of service connections

with functional meters (i.e. only

meters that are functional)

No.

Number of residential functional

meters

No.

Number of non-residential functional

meters

No.

Number of metered public stand posts No.

Water Supply - Population served

4.16 Total population within jurisdiction of

water utility

Persons

4.17 Average occupancy ratio within water

utility's area (e.g. From Census record

- number of people per household)

Persons/

Household

4.18 Total population served by the water

utility

Current population served with water

supply - direct connection

Persons

Current population served with water

supply - within 200m of standpipe

Persons

Current population served with a

tankered supply under normal

operating conditions (i.e. not

emergency or back-up supply)

Persons

Sewerage

4.19 Number of sewerage connections

(total)

No.

4.20 Number of residential connections No.

Number of non-residential

connections (i.e. industrial,

commercial, community, institutional,

government)

No.

4.21 Total population within jurisdiction for

sewerage services of utility

Persons

4.22 Current population served with

sewerage connection

Persons

Customer Complaints

4.23 Do you have a customer charter which

specifies your proposed service levels

-


138

and response commitment?

4.24 Is that customer charter

communicated to your customers? If

so, how?

-

4.25 How does do you proactively find out

the views of your customers?

-

Letters, telephone calls etc from

customers

-

Inviting customers’ views through

radio, TV or other publicity

-

Questionnaire survey -

Other (please state) -

4.26 Are the following types of complaints

recorded? (PLEASE ANSWER YES OR

NO)

-

Faults / outages -

Leaks -

Water quality problems -

Connection, billing, metering issues -

Financial hardship -


4.27 What is the most common legitimate

complaint to your utility? (i.e. of those

listed in question xx above)

-

4.28 Do you have a system for logging and

managing customer complaints?

-

4.31 Does your customer complaints

system provide for the tracking of

complaints from the time of making

the complaint through to rectifying the

situation to the customer's satisfaction

(i.e. redressal?)

-

4.32 What is the average time to rectify a

supply outage / fault resulting from a

complaint?

Days

4.33 What is the time taken by your utility

to rectify supply outages for 90% of

the interruptions experienced?

Days

4.34 How does this compare to your commitment to your customers? (e.g. you rectify 90%

within 2 days however your customer charter is to deal with 90% within 1 day)


139

SECTION 5 - SERVICE LEVELS



Overall

Urban

Only

Rural

Only

5.1 How many customers received

intermittent supply under normal

operating conditions?

No.

Customers

5.2 What is the average or typical

duration of supply in hours / day

Hrs/day

Sewerage

Energy

5.3 Total energy usage (kWH) kWH

5.4 Total energy cost ($/annum) $/annum


ANALYSIS)

Water Supply system performance

5.5 Coverage (percentage of population

with access to water)

%

5.6 What is your minimum desired water

pressure at the customer's property

boundary?

m

5.7 Total number of main breaks for the

previous year

No.

Sewerage system performance

5.8 Coverage (percentage of population

with access to sewerage)

%

5.9 Do you have uncontrolled overflows

from your sewer network?

5.10 If yes, how many times per year do

you have uncontrolled overflows?

No.

Energy efficiency

5.11 Total energy usage (kWH) kWH

a Energy usage (kWH) in water

production and delivery

kWH

b Energy usage (kWH) in sewage

collection and treatment

kWH

5.12 Total energy cost ($/annum) $/annum

a Energy cost for water production and

delivery

$/annum

b Energy cost for sewage collection and

treatment

$/annum

5.13 Energy source (please consult your energy provider) (For example, hydro

power, diesel generation, wind power, solar)


140

Hydropower

Diesel generation

Natural gas (LNG)

Wind power

Solar power

Coal based power


141

SECTION 6 - HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT



Overall

Urban

Only

Rural

Only

6.1 What drinking water quality guidelines do

you use?

-

6.2 Total number of microbiological indicator

samples taken and tested

No./year

6.3 Number of microbiological tests passing

minimum standard quoted above

No./year

6.4 Number of residual chlorine water samples

required to be taken per annum according

to adopted guidelines or water quality law

No./year

6.5 Number of residual chlorine tests passing


No./year

Sewerage

6.6 What environmental discharge guidelines

do you use? (e.g. SPREP guidelines or local

guidelines)

-

6.7 Total number of treated sewage samples No.

6.8 Number of treated sewage samples

passing standard

No.


ANALYSIS)

Drinking Water Quality -Management

6.9 Is water quality compliance required by

law? (e.g. Public Health Act)

-

6.10 Who is your health / water quality

regulator?

-

6.11 Do you have a water quality monitoring

program?

-

6.12 What frequency do you do bacteria

monitoring (e.g. coliforms)

-

6.13 What frequency do you do chemical

monitoring? (turbidity)

-

6.14 How many of your supply schemes have a

drinking water safety plan?

-

6.15 How many of the Plans have been

externally verified and audited?

-

6.16 Is drinking water quality compliance

information publicly available?

-

6.17 Does your water utility own and operate

its own water quality testing laboratory?

-

6.18 If yes, is your laboratory independently -


142

certified or checked for quality of results?

6.19 Is your water quality compliance testing

done by your utility or your water quality

regulator?

-

6.20 What level of surveillance does your water

quality regulator undertake?

-

6.21 What do you believe are your most critical

water quality issues? (please place a cross)

-

Raw water physical parameters - e.g.

turbidity, total suspended solids, colour

-

Raw water chemical parameters - e.g. high

salinity, low do, iron / manganese

-

Treatment effectiveness - appropriate

technology, operations

-

Operator skills -

Cost of chemicals / energy etc -

Drinking Water Quality - Compliance

6.22 Number of microbiological indicator water

samples required to be taken per annum

according to adopted guidelines or water

quality law

No/year

6.23 Total number of microbiological indicator

samples taken and tested

No/year

6.24 Target compliance rate for microbiological

quality (zero counts 90% of the time)

%

6.25 Number of water samples passing

standard - biological

No/year

% of samples passing the standard

requirement

%

6.26 Number of residual chlorine water samples

required to be taken per annum according

to adopted guidelines or water quality law

No/year

6.27 Total number of residual chlorine tests

taken

No./year

6.28 Standard minimum residual chlorine

required within the distribution system

(mg/l)

mg/l

6.29 Number of residual chlorine tests passing


No./year

% compliance for residual chlorine %

Environmental discharges - Compliance

6.30 Is water quality compliance required by

law? (e.g. Public Health Act)

-

6.31 Who is your environmental / effluent

regulator?

-

6.32 Do you have a sewage effluent quality

monitoring program?

-

6.33 Total number of treated sewage samples No.

6.34 Number of treated sewage samples

passing standard

No.


143

SECTION 7 - HUMAN RESOURCE UTILISATION

AND DEVELOPMENT


Staffing Numbers and Turnover Utility Response

7.1 Total number of full-time equivalent

staff

No.

7.2 How many of your full-time staff

terminated their employment in the

previous year (i.e. retirement,

resignation, termination for poor

performance)?

Persons/

year

7.3 Of these terminated staff, how many

would you consider to be in the category

of senior (in terms of responsibility) or

management?

Persons/

year

Training

7.4 Total number of staff training days

throughout the year

days/year

7.5 What was your (i.e. your utility's) total

training budget for the year?

$/annum


ANALYSIS)

Staffing numbers

7.6 Total number of full-time equivalent

staff

No.

a Total number of full-time staff at year

end

No.

b Total Full Time Equivalents of casual staff

at year end

No.

c Peak number of full-time equivalent staff

throughout the year

No.

7.7 Staff per 1000 connections (or per

population served)

No./1000

conn

7.8 Total number of technical staff with at

least a diploma in engineering or science

No.

7.9 Total number of staff with a business

qualification (e.g. Diploma or higher in

accounting, commerce, economics,

business, MBA)

No.

7.10 Total number of engineering staff (i.e.

with 4 year engineering degree)

No.

7.11 % of total staff as engineering staff %

7.12 Do you have a system for assessing

employee satisfaction?


144

Training

7.13 Do you keep a training register which

shows the training attended by each

staff member?

-

7.14 Do you have a training or learning and

development strategy?

-

7.15 Do you assess the effectiveness of

training delivered?

-

7.16 What was your (i.e. your utility's) total

training budget for the year?

$/annum

Training budget for internal training (e.g.

the cost of employing trainers internally)

$/annum

Training budget for external training (i.e.

to external training institutes,

universities, colleges etc)

$/annum

7.17 In addition to your own internal training

budget, can you estimate what value of

training was delivered by external

sources of funding (e.g. under Tas, donor

funded projects etc)

$/annum

7.18 Similarly, what number of training days

was provided by externally funded

sources?

days/year

7.19 Training cost as a % of labour cost %

Staff Turnover

7.20 How many of your full-time staff

terminated their employment in the

previous year (i.e. retirement,

resignation, termination for poor

performance)?

Persons/

year

7.21 Of these terminated staff, how many

would you consider to be in the category

of senior (in terms of responsibility) or

management?

Persons/

year


145

SECTION 8 - FINANCIAL


Financial Year and Statements Total /

Overall

8.1 In which month does your financial year begin? (e.g. July

each year)

-

8.2 Please attach your previous year's financial statements

(preferably audited but unaudited ok)

-

Total Operating Cost

8.3 Total Operating (recurrent) costs excluding depreciation $/annum

Operating cost - energy (for all assets including buildings,

transport, power for water and wastewater assets)

$/annum

Operating cost - labour (direct and indirect such as

corporate)

$/annum

8.4 Annual depreciation $/annum

8.5 Can you estimate the total value of contracted out

services?

$/annum

8.6 What is the cost of servicing your debt per year (i.e. how

much do you pay in interest and capital repayment on

loans)

$/annum

Total Operating Revenue

8.7 Total operating (billed) revenue $/annum

8.8 Actual revenue from water sales (i.e. consumption + fixed

charge)

$/annum

8.9 Revenue from sewerage services $/annum

8.10 Other water related revenue (e.g. New connections,

materials, sales)

$/annum

8.11 Subsidies and grants (for operating expenses only) $/annum

8.12 Community service obligations $/annum

Collection Rates

8.13 Cash income (i.e.. actual revenue) $/annum

8.14 End of year accounts receivable (not including arrears

from previous)

$

Affordability

8.15 New connection fee (typical domestic connection fee) $/

connection

8.16 Average annual water bill for average consumption of

6m3 per month (PLEASE CALCULATE)

$/annum


Costs (actual for previous financial year)

8.17 Total Operating (recurrent) costs excluding depreciation $/annum

Operating cost - energy (for all assets including buildings,

transport, power for water and wastewater assets)

$/annum

Operating cost - labour (direct and indirect such as $/annum


146

corporate)

Operating cost - chemicals and other materials $/annum

Operating cost - other (please describe, e.g.

concessionaire costs, major contracts for maintenance)

$/annum

8.18 Annual depreciation

a Previous year depreciation for water and wastewater

assets (excluded from 8.17 above)

$/annum

b Do you fully fund depreciation? -

8.19 Can you estimate what proportion of these operating

expenses are indirect (e.g. overhead labour not directly

related to water production or wastewater processing)

$/annum

8.20 Can you estimate the total value of contracted out

services?

$/annum

To contractors (i.e. physical implementation of works) $/annum

To consultants for planning, design, legal, HR etc $/annum

8.21 What is the cost of servicing your debt per year (i.e. how

much do you pay in interest and capital repayment on

loans)

$/annum

Revenue

8.22 Total operating (billed) revenue $/annum

Actual revenue from water sales (i.e. consumption + fixed

charge)

$/annum

Revenue from sewerage services $/annum

Other water related revenue (e.g. New connections,

materials, sales)

$/annum

Subsidies and grants (for operating expenses only) $/annum

Community service obligations $/annum

Collection rates

8.24 Cash income (i.e. actual revenue) $/annum

8.25 Collection ratio (ratio of actual revenues to total billed

revenues)

%

8.26 End of year accounts receivable (not including arrears

from previous)

$

Affordability

8.28 GNI (Best source is external to the government = e.g. ADB

stats)

$/annum

8.29 New connection fee (typical domestic connection fee) $/

connection

8.30 Average tariff per m3 (billed revenue / water consumed)

(PLEASE ATTACH A SEPARATE SHEET WITH YOUR TARIFF

POLICY)

$/m3

8.31 Average annual water bill for average consumption of 6

m3 per month (PLEASE CALCULATE)

$/annum

CAPEX planning

8.32 Capital expenditure in the last 5 years (water) - Actual $

8.33 Capital expenditure planned for the next 10 years (water) $

8.34 Capital expenditure in the last 5 years (sewerage) $

8.35 Capital expenditure planned for the next 10 years

(sewerage)

$


147

8.36 What is the source of funding for your CAPEX program

(please insert % for the next 10 years)

-

Own internal source of funding -

Grant from government -

Grant from overseas development assistance -

Loan from Government -

Loan from overseas development assistance -

Loan from commercial bank -

Private sector involvement/ equity -


Asset Values -

8.37 Are your assets valued? If Yes then please answer

questions 8.38 to 8.45.

Yes/No

8.38 What year was your latest asset valuation undertaken? Year

8.39 How often are your assets valued e.g.: ever year or once every three years or any

other frequency.

8.40 On what basis is your asset value undertaken? (Current

replacement cost, fair value, economic value)

-

8.41 Current replacement cost (value) of water supply assets $

8.42 Average age of water supply assets Years

8.43 Current replacement cost (value) of sewerage assets $

8.44 Average age of sewerage assets Years

8.45 Do you have a headworks policy or infrastructure

charging mechanism to recover capital expenditure from

urban development?

-


148

SECTION 9 - DATA RELIABILITY


9.1 How is the volume of water produced calculated or derived?

(PLEASE PLACE A CROSS AGAINST THE MOST APPROPRIATE

ANSWER)

a The quantity of water produced is computed on the basis of

measurement by bulk flow meters at the outlet of the treatment

plant and/or at all bulk production points, which are calibrated /

verified for accuracy at least every 2 years. The volume of losses

and bulk industrial consumption are periodically monitored.

b The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of

measurement of period sample surveys of production flows at all

bulk production points (i.e. short term monitoring, not continuous

monitoring). Reliable estimates of transmission losses and

industrial water consumption are available.

c The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of

assumed pump capacities and efficiencies, and pump run hours.

d The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of

operator judgement or turnover of reservoirs (e.g. Use 50% of the

volume of a 10ML reservoir every day).

9.2 How is the volume of water consumed calculated or derived?

a Metering is undertaken at all key distribution nodes (entry to

DMAs) and at the consumer’s end for all categories of consumers.

Billing records and databases clearly reveal regular reading of

meters and, therefore, the total quantum of water billed to

consumers in the given time period (month/bi-monthly).

b The quantum of water sold is based on the metered quantity for

bulk and commercial consumers. For households, ferrule size (the

size of the distribution pipe outlet at the consumer end) of each

consumer connection as well as the hours of supply is known, to

compute the quantum of water sold.

c Meters are installed for a select category of consumers, such as

commercial and bulk consumers. For other categories of

consumers, such as domestic consumers, the number of such

consumers and the average consumption per consumer are

considered, to arrive at the quantum of water sold.

d Very few meters have been installed in the distribution system and

at the consumer end. The quantity of water sold to the category of

consumers to whom bills are raised is estimated on the basis of

assumed average consumption in that category and the number of

consumers in that category.

9.3 How is the number of connections or customers calculated?

a Billing records and databases clearly identify consumers with

metres (against a specific meter serial number). Billing processes

reveal regular reading of meters and meter readings are the basis

for charging consumers. Records on stand posts are available.

Databases of water connections and meters are complete and

spatially referenced with a GIS database. There is a mechanism to


149

identify faulty meters and repair meters. Processes for installation

of new water connections, installation of meters and generation of

water bills based on this are interlinked, and the data systems

enable such continuity of data flow regarding these.

b Database/ records reveal the list of consumers that have meters

installed in their water connections. However, there are no clear

data on functioning of metres, and no linkage with the billing

system that may or may not use metered quantity as the basis for

billing.

c Meters are installed for only certain categories of consumers. It is

assumed all consumers of these categories have meters installed

which are functional and used as the basis for billing. Records do

not reveal the exact number of connections which are metered.

Water is charged on the basis of average readings for the consumer

category (e.g. kL/connection/year) or on the basis of past trends in

most cases.

d A few meters have been installed. All installed meters are assumed

to be functional and used as the basis for billing water charges.

9.4 How is the population derived?

a The population served is known with reasonable accuracy. Any

expansion of municipal limits and other significant factors are

measured and factored into the current population computation.

The floating and/or seasonal population is estimated with

reasonable accuracy.

b The population served is calculated on the basis of census figures

less than 5 years old, extrapolated to current levels. Reliable

estimates of the floating population are not available.

c The population served is calculated on the basis of past census

figures more than 5 years old, extrapolated to current levels.

Reliable estimates of the floating population are not available.

9.5 Where is the financial information sourced from?

a Highest/preferred level in case of multi-function agencies such as

municipal corporations, reliability (A) budget heads related to water

and sanitation are clearly separated. Cost allocation standards for

common costs are in place. An accrual based double entry

accounting system is practiced. Accounting standards are

comparable to commercial accounting standards with clear

guidelines for recognition of income and expenditure. Accounting

and budgeting manuals are in place and are adhered to. Financial

statements have full disclosure and are audited regularly and on

time.

b Budget heads related to water and sanitation is segregated. Key

costs related to water and sanitation are identifiable, although

complete segregation is not practiced (for example, electricity costs

for water supply services are not segregated from overall electricity

costs of the ULB). Key income and expenditure are recognised

based on accrual principles. Disclosures are complete and are

timely.


150

c There is no segregation of budget heads related to water supply

services and sanitation from the rest of the functions of the agency.

A cash-based accounting system is practiced. There are no clear

systems for reporting unpaid expenditure or revenues that are due.

Disclosures and reporting are not timely. Audits have a time lag and

are not regular.


151

SECTION 10 - UTILITY COMMENTS


10.1 Please list your top 5 problems areas in the foreseeable future

a

b

c

d

e

10.2 Please list the top 5 areas where you believe PWWA can assist you in addressing

these problem areas

a

b

c

d

e


152

(ii) Guidance Notes to Accompany Data Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION / INSTRUCTIONS

This document provides guidance on how to complete the attached questionnaire.

DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

The questionnaire has been emailed to you as an electronic Microsoft excel file. At this stage you have three

(3) options for completing it (Kindly note that OPTION A is the preferred option):

• OPTION A – Complete the electronic version (in excel) and email to the Regional Benchmarking Consultant

based in Apia, Samoa - Mr Ernest Betham [email protected]. Please copy Mr Latu Kupa

[email protected] (Executive Director of the PWWA) and Ms Sharyn Bow [email protected]

(International Benchmarking Consultant) in to ensure effective data back up and prompt responses; OR

• OPTION B – Complete by hard copy and scan and email as per option A above.

• OPTION C – Complete by hard copy and fax (or mail) to Latu Kupa, the Executive Director of Pacific Water

& Wastes Association at the following contact details: Fax : +685 28885 or By Mail to PWWA, PO Box 848,

Apia, SAMOA.

PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE BY FRIDAY MAY 13TH

2011. IF YOU ARE HAVING DIFFICULTIES OR

HAVE QUESTIONS, OR SIMPLY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS, PLEASE CONTACT ERNEST BETHAM IN THE FIRST

INSTANCE AND WE WILL ENDEAVOUR TO ASSIST YOU TO COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE WITH THE

MOST ACCURATE DATA AS POSSIBLE. EMAIL: [email protected] PHONE: work+(685)24337 or

mobile +(685)7773501 or mobile +685(7523501). ALTERNATIVELY, CONTACT SHARYN BOW ON

+61730296725 OR EMAIL [email protected]

PLEASE ENSURE YOU COMPLETE THE CHECKLIST ON THE FINAL PAGE AND RETURN IT WITH YOUR

QUESTIONNAIRE

Contents of data questionnaire

The data questionnaire comprises 10 separate questionnaire worksheets for each category of data that is

required. The categories of questions are: 1. Contacts & Utility; 2. Schemes and Assets; 3. Volumes; 4.

Customers; 5. Service Levels; 6. Health & Environment; 7. Staffing; 8. Financial; 9. Data Reliability and 10.

Utility Comments.

Primary Data vs. Secondary Data

Some of the data collected is directly used to calculate indicators (i.e. PRIMARY DATA) while some is more

contextual information used to develop a profile of your utility and to help understand the trends/ reasons for

the calculated indicators (i.e. Secondary Data). Each questionnaire worksheet is divided into two colour coded

sections. The first section which is a GREEN colour coded section contains PRIMARY data questions. The

WHITE colour section contains the SECONDARY data questions. Greater effort should be focussed on

completing the PRIMARY data if time or resources are limiting. However it is expected that the Secondary

Data questions will also be answered once the Primary Data questions have been completed.

Reliability grades for Key Data

The PRIMARY data highlighted above will form the basis of calculating the indicators and therefore requires a

‘reliability grade’ to be assigned to it. The purpose of the reliability grade is to better understand data quality

issues and make improvements in data quality as well as the performance indicators themselves. Worksheet

Questionnaire No. 9 Data Reliability contains some indicators to assist you in assessing the reliability of the

Data used to complete the Questionnaires. Please tick the appropriate data source for each data reliability

indicator on worksheet No. 9 for each section.


153

Reporting Period

All data needs to be reported using a consistent reporting period for your utility. Because financial data is

reported in a financial year, and much of the planning around utility operations occurs in parallel with

budgeting, this benchmarking exercise will adopt a financial year as a standard reporting period. You will be

asked in section 8 (FINANCIAL) to state the start months of your financial year. When reporting all other data

(e.g. volumes, water quality sampling, connections etc), please ensure you adopt this standard financial year as

your reporting period.

Urban / Rural vs. Total

When you start completing the questionnaire you will realise that some of the data will likely be generated at

a scheme or zone level while some other data (e.g. financial) will be at the whole of organisation level.

Options for completing the questionnaire to give the best comparison for benchmarking are:

• For the overall organisation – use only the total column; or

• By segregating urban and rural where relevant, and using the total column for utility wide issues.

If you wish, you can do some of the calculations by scheme and then roll them up to an overall utility level. To

avoid data analysis problems at this end, please try to roll up the calculations yourself. Feel free to provide the

scheme data if you wish.

GUIDANCE ON SECTIONS AND KEY QUESTIONS

Section 1 – Utility Contact Details and Utility Information

This section should be quite self explanatory. Please provide details of CEO and of nominated Benchmarking

Contact person within your organisation. Please answer some simple questions to give an understanding of the

type of water business you manage and the type of water and sewerage services you provide.

Section 2 – Schemes and Assets

Please answer some simple questions to give an understanding of the range of assets that fall under your

jurisdiction.

Section 3 – Information on Volumes of Water and Sewage

Please answer the questions relating to water and sewage volumes to the best of your ability. These questions

are amongst the most critical questions as they will form the basis of many of the performance indicator

calculations. Making some attempt at answering these questions to the best of your ability and providing

comments in the far right hand column will provide us with the information to calculate various indicators at a

later stage.

Some guidance on the most critical data is provided below:

Question 3.1 – Volume of water produced (Note – Question 3.9 is similar and includes sub-questions which

equate to the total in this Question 3.1)

The volume of water produced can be calculated using the following methods (in decreased order of

reliability):

• Records from bulk flow meters on the outlets of water treatment plants, bores and/or reservoirs

where available (depending the reliability of the flow meters ;

• Flow records through weirs/ flumes at water treatment plants;

• Sale of bulk water to your utility (from another utility)


154

• Bore pump run hrs x flow capacity (e.g. you know the pump capacity is 10 L/s and the pump usually

operates for 12 hours per day, which equates to 10 L/s x 3600 seconds/hour x 12 hours = 432,000 L or

0.43 ML/day or 158 ML/annum)

• Rate of filling of reservoirs (e.g. you know the volume of a reservoir such as 10 ML, and you know that

it takes around 12 hours to fill it, that equates to 230 L/s).

Similar methods can be used for volume of treated water and volume of untreated water. Question 3.9a to

3.9c requires you to break down the total volume to treated and untreated water.

Question 3.16 – Billed Authorised Consumption

The volume of water ‘consumed’ (in accordance with international definitions) can be calculated using the

following methods (in decreased order of reliability):

• For utilities with 100% metering (e.g. PNG WaterBoard, Eda Ranu, Tonga, ASPA) – The billed

authorised consumption will be the sum of the metered volume (for operating meters) (i.e. 4.6a) plus

estimates of non-operating meter flows (e.g. errors/broken/not read) (i.e. 4.6b).

• For utilities with partial metering – The billed authorised consumption will be the addition of:

o Sum of metered volume (for operating meters) (i.e. 4.6a); and

o An estimate of all others based on unit consumption from billed meters (e.g. If typical

metered household consumption is 0.5kL/day and you have 1,000 connections which are not

metered or the meter is not functioning, then the unbilled unmetered consumption will be

0.5 kL/connection/day x 1,000 connections = 500 kL/day)

• For utilities with no or limited metering – The metered component of the billed authorised

consumption will be close to zero. The larger part of this will be the billed unmetered consumption.

Means of calculating this will include:

o Adopting unit or household rates from previous donor funded studies (ADB? JICA? WB?

Other?) or pilot studies;

o Adopting the assumed household rate from your tariff policy.

Question 3.17 – Unbilled authorised consumption

Please make an estimate of any authorised consumption (i.e. the customer has authorisation from the utility

to take the water) which is not billed to customers. In some countries, this is ‘free water’ and can include:

• Free water for villages / communities where negotiated at some time in the past

• Other public activities such as fire fighting and training, flushing of mains and sewers (including for

water quality sampling), street cleaning, watering of municipal gardens, public fountains, building

water, etc.

Question 3.18 – Unauthorised consumption

Unauthorised consumption is undoubtedly difficult to estimate. Many utilities will have made pilot estimates

of illegal and unknown connections in some parts of their networks. Please use your best endeavours to

estimate how much water you think is being illegally drawn from your system and provide some comments on

how this is calculated.


155

Question 3.19 – Metering and system errors.

Customer metering errors include not only systematic under-registration or over-registration of meters (due to

type, age and throughput) but also systematic errors in the data handling of meter readings (including

methods of dealing with stopped meters, allowances for poor quality water etc). Some utilities will have to

undertake sample analyses of comparing metered records vs. estimated records.

Based on all of this information provided, we will attempt to undertake a water balance calculation consistent

with the IWA Water Balance methodology. The purpose is to better understand the components of non-

revenue water in order to guide strategy direction. For example, are the predominant issues in ph7sical losses

or commercial losses?

Question 3.24 – Volume of sewage collected

Similar to Question 3.1 (Volume of water produced), there are a number of methods for calculating the flow

rate of sewage collected, which include:

• Records from bulk flow meters on the inlet to sewage treatment plants outlets and obviously depends

on the age and the reliability of the flow meters ;

• Pump runs hours x flow capacity of major sewage pumping stations transferring flow to the STP;

• Number of sewage connections x an assumed unit loading rate;

• Ratio of sewage to household water consumption in areas where this ratio can be calculated, then

applied across the board to all connections.

Question 3.25 – Volume of sewage treated (to varying standards)

Further to knowing the volume of sewage collected, it is also useful to know the volume of sewage treated to

varying standards. Similar methods and reliability grades will apply to this question; however, please note the

definition for primary treatment below to guide your calculation.

Typical primary sewage treatment processes may include clarification (with or without chemical treatment, to

accomplish solid-liquid separation), grease removal. Any sand filtration, disinfection, polishing steps, activated

sludge processes, anaerobic + aerobic processes, biological filters and lagoons (aerated, facultative, maturation

or polishing) are considered secondary processes and should be included in the category ‘secondary or better’.

Question 3.26 – Capacity of sewage treatment facilities

This should relate to the rated design capacity of sewage treatment plants during typical operating conditions

(not wet weather). Lower reliability grades will relate to facilities for which the capacity is not known.

Question 3.27 – Dry and wet weather flows

Similar to other volume estimates in the previous questions, flows can be calculated in a number of ways and

the reliability grade should reflect this. It is likely that the reliability grade for wet weather flows will be lower

due to the low frequency of such events and records.


156

Section 4 – Customer Information

Similar to Section 3, these questions will be critical to the benchmarking exercise and will provide a basis for

many of the comparisons. Some guidance is provided below:

Question 4.1– Total Number of Connections to the network (Note – Question 4.11 is similar and includes sub-

questions which equate to the total in this Question 4.1)

This refers to the number of active direct water connections at year-end. All active connections should be

counted – residential, non-residential, but inactive connections to vacant buildings should be excluded if

possible. This will include household which receive municipal water supply at one common point, from where

it is stored and distributed (e.g. apartment blocks)

In this question, we are talking about direct connections to the water network – not stand posts, or customers

who ordinarily receive a tankered supply.

Question 4.2– Public stand posts

Public stand post connections, omitted from Question 4.2, should be included here.

Question 4.3 – Total Number of water customers

For utilities with a reticulated network, the total number of water customers is the sum of the direct

connections (Question 4.1) and public stand posts (Question 4.2).

For utilities without a reticulated water supply network, a connection should be considered as a ‘customer’

which is essentially an entity (household or business) which receives an approved water service from the water

utility (either through reticulation or regular tankered supply – note that emergency or short-term tankered

supply should not be included).

Question 4.4– Number of meters (Note – Question 4.14 is similar and includes sub-questions which equate to

the total in this Question 4.4)

Question 4.13 question relates to the total number of meters installed within the network (both those that are

operating and those that are not).

Question 4.14 relates purely to the number of operational meters (i.e. those that are functional) on active

properties (i.e. inactive connections to vacant buildings should be excluded if possible). Ideally, the

information on the number of these meters should come from a billing database, customer database or

metering database.

Question 4.16 to 4.18 – Population served by water supply

Question 4.15 relates to the number of people who live within the area of the water utilities jurisdiction.

Question 4.16 relates to the typical or average occupancy ratio for a typical dwelling within that jurisdiction

area. For example, 5.5 people per household. Typically, these figures should be extracted from the latest

census.


157

Question 4.17 relates to the population actually served by the water utility and can be derived in a number of

ways, which are left to your jurisdiction to adopt the method you think is most accurate for your supply area.

Population under the responsibility of the utility with access to water through house connections, yard taps

and public water points (either with a direct service connection or within 200m of a stand post). Any

population outside the utility’s area of responsibility who are served (e.g. people who come from outside to

the utility’s water points) should be excluded. Population figures can be derived from:

• Census data

• Statistics office

• Previous Planning or Demographics Studies

• GIS – billing / water supply zones laid over census data

Question 4.18 to 4.21 – Connections and populations for sewerage

Similar to the previous questions on connections and populations for water, these two questions relate to

sewerage and similar methods can be used to derive these numbers.

Question 4.22 to 4.31 – Numbers of Customer Complaints and Redressal of customer complaints

Questions 4.23 to 4.28 are qualitative and intended to guide our understanding of your focus on customer

service. Please answer them to the best of your ability.

Question 4.29 and 4.31 focus on redressal of customer complaints, essentially how long it takes your utility to

redress complaints, in comparison with your own targets (in 4.31)

Redressal of customer complaints is a very difficult topic to standardise on, as expectations around redressing

customer complaints vary with each utility based on their customer’s expectations, the resources available to

the utility and the geographical challenges facing the utilities (e.g. servicing 1 compact city vs. servicing

dispersed schemes on 5 separate islands). In understanding the significant variability in customer service

constraints and expectations, it is not considered a particularly good benchmarking indicator at this time.

Redressal is assumed to mean the complaint has been satisfactorily redressed or resolved to the customer’s

satisfaction.

Instead, the focus of these questions is to measure your rate of redressing customer complaints against your

own utility’s service level objectives and to share ideas on customer service process.

Section 5 – Service Levels

Question 5.1 to 5.2 – Intermittent supply

Question 5.1 requires an estimate of the number of customers which receive intermittent supply under normal

operating conditions. This means that we are not talking about customers who receive intermittent supply

during specific failure or emergency periods.

Question 5.2 relates to the average hours of pressurised supply per day. Ideally this should be done at a water

supply zone level. This should exclude hours of supply where the pressure is less than the minimum standards

for pipe water supply.


158

Question 5.3 – Total Energy Usage in kWh (Note – Question 5.11 is similar and includes sub-questions which

equate to the total in this Question 5.3)

If possible, please state the total energy consumed by your utility for the reporting period in producing and

transmitting water and collecting and treating sewage. If possible, please break this down to water (5.11a)

and sewerage (5.11b) as separate categories. Typically, this information should be available on energy bills or

invoices and may be collated to an overall utility level.

Question 5.4 – Total Energy Cost (Note – Question 5.12 is similar and includes sub-questions which equate to

the total in this Question 5.4)

Please state the total cost of energy consumed by your utility for the reporting period in producing and

transmitting water and collecting and treating sewage. If possible, please break this down to water (5.14a)

and sewerage (5.14b) as separate categories. Similar as noted above, this info should be available on energy

bills and may be easier to access than the energy usage figures.

Question 5.7 – Main breaks

Not all utilities will be able to report this number. The purpose is to report the number of breaks in potable

and non-potable water mains, as a proportion of the total length of such mains serviced by the water utility. It

is a partial indicator of customer service and the condition of the water main network.

The quoted number should be the number of main breaks, bursts and leaks in all diameter water distribution

and reticulation mains for the reporting period. Breaks exclude those in the property service (i.e. mains to

meter connection) and weeps or seepages associated with above ground mains that can be fixed without

shutting down the main.

Question 5.9 and 5.10 – Sewer Overflows

The number of overflows may be used as a partial indicator of the capacity and condition of the sewerage

network, as an indication of how effectively the network is being managed and may also be used to compare

customer service.

You should include the number of occurrences in the reporting year when untreated sewage spills or

discharges and escapes from the sewerage system (i.e. pumping stations, pipes, maintenance holes or

designed overflow structures) to the external environment, regardless of whether they are reported to an

environmental regulator or not. Overflows are those caused by system faults originating in the system under

the water utility’s responsibility.

Question 5.18 – Energy source

This question aims to understand the predominant energy types provided by pacific energy service providers

and used by water utilities. It is unlikely that your energy bill will have this type of information; instead it is

more likely to be general information available for your country. Please answer this question to the best of

your ability. Typical centralised energy sources throughout the pacific may include:

• Solar power

• Hydropower

• Wind power

• Natural gas (LNG)


159

• Diesel-fired generation

• Bio-fuels

• Coal based power

Section 6 – Health and Environment

This section provides a unique focus on a critical objective of water and wastewater management – to improve

health and environmental outcomes. Please answer the questions relating to water and sewage volumes to

the best of your ability. These questions are amongst the most critical questions as they will form the basis of

many of the benchmarking calculations. Making some attempt at answering these questions to the best of

your ability and providing comments in the far right hand column will provide us with the information to

calculate various indicators at a later stage and to design future indicators.

Some guidance on the most critical data is provided below:

Question 6.1 to 6.5 (Primary Data) and Questions 6.9 to 6.21 (Secondary Data) – Water Quality Management

These questions are intended to gather information to help better understand the compliance results and

areas for future focus.

Question 6.21 in particular is your opportunity to provide feedback on your greater water quality challenges.

Question 6.22 to 6.29 – Water Quality Compliance – Microbiological Monitoring

Questions 6.22 to 6.29 focus on microbiological monitoring. The key purpose of this focus is the fact the

pathogens are by far the most common and widespread health risk associated with drinking water and

therefore should be our early focus. Chemical parameters will be the focus of future benchmarking exercises.

What is meant by microbiological monitoring is E. coli or Thermotolerant coliform monitoring of water

delivered to customers. Ideally, this should be monitoring across the network, not only at the outlet of a

treatment facility.

It is recognised that operational monitoring at the WTP will be more frequent than the surveillance monitoring

undertaken in the network. Please focus your answers on the surveillance monitoring undertaken by the

water service provider at the WTP and throughout the network; not the monitoring undertaken by your

regulator.

It is recognised that E Coli monitoring will likely occur across a number of schemes regardless of whether

treatment, in particular chlorination, occurs or not. This section will therefore be relevant to both treated and

untreated schemes.

Question 6.22 focuses on how many water samples are required to be taken in accordance with your own

water quality management plan or water quality law (e.g. if monthly testing is required at 10 locations

throughout the system then the number of samples required is 120 samples). Question 6.23 then focuses on

the number of microbiological samples ACTUALLY taken (the purpose of this is to assess the adherence to the

required sampling regime – regardless of the results of the samples.

Question 6.24 focuses on target or desired compliance. Typically, the microbiological tests undertaken will be

plate counts for total or faecal coliforms. Typical targets for coliform counts should be zero per 100ml;

however, in setting a target ‘pass rate’, your utility may make provision for sampling error and time to testing


160

(e.g. expect 0 counts per 100ml 90% of the time). Question 6.24 requires you to state your own target

compliance rate for microbiological monitoring. Please provide comments in the right hand column to clarify.

Question 6.25 then focuses on how many of the microbiological samples taken pass the minimum requirement

(e.g. where zero coliforms were counted). This will be compared against your target compliance rate

presented in Questions 6.24.

Question 6.26 to 6.29 – Water Quality Compliance – Residual Chlorine

Following on from the previous questions, questions 6.26 to 6.29 focus on the effectiveness of the chlorination

at the treatment facility and its longevity within the network. The answers to this question will obviously relate

to those schemes with chlorination so there will be some overlap between these answers and those in 6.22 to

6.25 relating to microbiological quality.

Similar to the microbiological questions, question 6.26 requires you to state how many residual chlorine

samples are required to be taken in accordance with you own sampling regime. Question 6.28 then requires

you to state what the ‘pass mark’ is (e.g. minimum 0.2mg/l residual chlorine within the network.

Ideally, the data required should be stored in a water quality sampling and results database. Data reliability

will be impacted upon by:

• Sampling only at treatment plant outlet v/s sampling at random locations throughout the network

• Flushing of sampling points

• Recording of results in a centralised database

• Accreditation and independence of the laboratory where sampling is undertaken

It is recognised that operational monitoring of residual chlorine at the WTP will be more frequent than the

surveillance monitoring undertaken in the network. Please focus your answers on the surveillance monitoring

undertaken by the water service provider at the WTP and throughout the network; not the monitoring

undertaken by your regulator.

Question 6.30 to 6.34 – Environmental discharges – Compliance

Similar to the previous questions on drinking water quality compliance, these questions relate to sewage

treatment compliance. The previous guidance for drinking water quality also relates to these questions

.

Section 7 – Human Resource Utilisation and Development

This section focuses on the utilisation and development of human resources.

Please answer the questions relating to human resources utilisation and development to the best of your

ability. Making some attempt at answering these questions to the best of your ability and providing comments

in the far right hand column will provide us with the information to calculate various indicators at a later stage

and to design future indicators. It should be noted however that this is not intended to be a detailed HR

analysis. A number of other factors, including job satisfaction, training effectiveness, motivation will all

influence human resource development. Some guidance on the most critical data is provided below:


161

Question 7.1 – Total number of full-time equivalent staff (Note – Question 7.6 is similar and includes sub-

questions which equate to the total in this Question 7.1)

This refers to the total number of staff working at the utility on water and wastewater services. Report in

terms of Full Time Equivalent staff numbers (FTEs) which will include full-time staff plus long term casuals at

year end (i.e. at the end of the reporting period). In recognition of the need to expand the staff levels at

certain times of the year (depending on projects and programs), Question 7.6c asks you to note the peak

number of staff at any time during the year.

Please note the following guidance when including casuals: if you have 1 casual worker who works an average

of 20 hours per week and your standard week is 40 hours per week, then that person is a 0.5 FTE. These

‘casual’ FTEs should be added to the full-time staff to calculate the total FTE.

Question 7.2 and 7.3 – Staff turnover

The total of the number of employees who resign for whatever reason, or retire, plus the number of

employees terminated for performance reasons. Employees lost due to Reductions in Force (RIF) will not be

included in this calculation (e.g. Change in retirement age which causes large groups of people to return,

corporatisation activities which make staff redundant).

Section 8 – Financial

Question 8.1 – Reporting Period / Financial Year

Please state the start month of your financial year. THE PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR MUST FORM THE BASIS OF

ALL YOUR DATA REPORTING.

Question 8.2 – Financial statements

Please separately attach a copy of your financial statements. If your organisation has separate financial

reporting, please provide the entire statements. If your organisation does not have separate financial

statements (e.g. if you are a government department), please do your best to provide a summary of the

previous year’s actual expenses and revenues.

Question 8.3 – Total Operating (recurrent) costs (Note – Question 8.17 is similar and includes sub-questions)

This question is a critical question for a number of the financial indicators and therefore it is critical that the

definition is well understood. This figure should include all operational expenses but exclude depreciation and

financing charges (interest and capital repayments). It is important to understand that in this context, that by

operational we mean “OPERATING YOUR BUSINESS”, not “OPERATING YOUR ASSETS”. The distinction is that

the cost of operating your business must include labour, overheads and indirect costs. These recurrent

operating costs (operation, maintenance and administration – OMA) should include (but not be limited to) the

following:

• Water resource access charge, land charges or resource rent tax

• Purchases of raw, treated or recycled water

• Charges for bulk treatment/transfer of sewerage to other treatment utilities

• Salaries and wages (including direct operating staff, and indirect staff including management and

corporate)


162

• Overheads on salaries and wages

• Materials/chemicals/energy

• Contracts

• Accommodation

• Items expensed from work in progress (capitalized expense items) and CSO expenses. (CSOs are likely

to have an equivalent inclusion in revenue).

• Other government charges which may include but not be limited to, land tax, debits tax, stamp duties

and council rates.

• Indirect costs should be apportioned to water and sewerage services

Operating costs should EXCLUDE the following: (see note below)

• All non-core business operating costs

• Depreciation

• Interest and financing costs – interest repayments, principal repayments

• Any write-downs of assets to recoverable amounts.

• Write-offs retired or scrapped assets.

• The written down value of assets sold

• Any other ‘capital’ expenses.

NOTE – THE FIGURE INSERTED HERE SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LINE ITEM FOR “RECURRENT

OPERATING EXPENDITURE”, OR “TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE” MINUS THE ANNUAL DEPRECIATION.

Question 8.4 – Previous year depreciation (Note – Question 8.18 is similar and includes sub-questions)

In addition to the total operating expenses (excluding depreciation) we wish to know the annual depreciation

accounted for. Please confirm if you fund depreciation.

Question 8.5 – Contracted out services (Note – Question 8.20 is similar and includes sub-questions)

Similarly, each utility will have varying capacity to answer this question accurately. Please make your best

estimate and be sure to include a reliability grade. Please ensure you differentiate between contracted out

services for physical works (i.e. maintenance, construction, security, capital works, and operations) and

consulting or professional services (planning, design, legal, HR etc).

Question 8.7 – Total Operating Revenue (Note – Question 8.22 is similar and includes sub-questions)

The question requires you to provide the total operating revenue and then itemise this revenue in terms of

billing of water and wastewater services, other operational revenues (connection fees, well abstraction fees,

and reconnection fees), subsidies and community service obligations. For subsidies and grants, please only

include operational revenue, not capital income adjustments such as grants and loans. This should be the

‘accounting’ revenue – regardless of whether the bill was actually paid or not.

Question 8.13 – Cash Income

The cash income is the revenue collected for bills raised during the year. This should ideally exclude collection

of arrears as inclusion of arrears will skew the performance reflected.


163

Question 8.15 and 8.16 (and 8.25) – Affordability issues

At Question 8.15, please insert the charge for a standard new domestic connection. We will collect GNI/ GDP

data from centralised sources (i.e. World Bank) and calculate the ratio.

At Question 8.16, you are required to calculate what a typical household bill for a volume of 6m3 per month

would be.

At Question 8.25, the average tariff will be calculated based on the billed revenue divided by the total water

consumed – you do not need to enter anything here; however, please attach a copy of your tariff policy

outlining residential and non-residential tariff structure (including any steps).

Question 8.19 – Estimated Indirect Operating Expenses

Different utilities will have varying capacity to answer this question accurately. Ideally, your chart of accounts

or cost codes should enable direct and indirect costs to be determined. If not, then please make your best

estimate.

Question 8.26 to 30 – Capital Expenditure planning (CAPEX)

This section requires you to provide dollar values of the actual capital expenditure in the last 5 years as well as

planned capital expenditure for the next 10 years (for both water and sewerage). This information should be

available from your business strategy or your Governments planned capital expenditure for the Water sector.

In Question 8.30 kindly indicate how the CAPEX program is going to be funded. A range of funding sources is

provided ranging from internal funding to external funding sources through Government sources or external

Loan sources. Kindly allocate the percentage that is provided by one or a combination of different funding

sources.

Question 8.31 to 8.39 – Asset values

The first question in this section begins by asking the question whether you value your assets. If the answer is

NO then there is no need to respond to the rest of the questions in this section. However, if you answer YES

then complete the rest of the questions in this section. Where assets are not valued then it is assumed that

your assets are recorded at historical cost.

Where your assets are valued on a regular basis please indicate at Question 8.33 the frequency of the asset

valuation exercise i.e.: once every year or once every three years or any other frequency. At Question 8.34

three different asset valuation methods are provided (current replacement cost, fair value and economic

value. However kindly indicate the valuation method adopted if it does not fall within these three different

methods.

CHECKLIST FOR DATA QUESTIONNAIRE COMPLETION

Comments / areas requiring assistance

1. Have you nominated a key contact for benchmarking

in the Questionnaire in Section 1 - Contacts and Utility

and provided contact details?

2. Have you answered the questions in Sections 1


164

through to 10 which are relevant to your business to

the best of your ability? Please be sure to make notes

in the column provided to clarify your answers or

request assistance.

3. Have you answered all questions in Section 9 – Data

Reliability regarding sources of data and data

reliability?

4. Have you included a copy of your latest audited

financial statements, or if no such information is

available, the previous year’s actual vs. budget costs

and revenues?

5. Have you completed the final Questionnaire 10 giving

a summary of the key challenges for your organisation

from your own perspective?


165

APPENDIX D: Indicator Definitions

IB-Net Ref

PWWA No.

Indicator Units Definition

KRA1 - Production

3.21 V1 Volume of water produced - total produced from sources and treatment

kL/connection/day Total annual water supplied to the distribution system (including purchased water, if any) expressed in kL/connection/day.

4.22 V2 Volume of water sold (i.e. billed) - through meters or estimated unmetered

kL/connection/day Total annual water sold (both metered and unmetered) expressed in kL/connection/day.

- V3 Volume of sewage produced - total kL/connection/day Total annual sewage collected (treated and untreated) expressed in kL/connection/day.

KRA2 - Technical Performance

1.1 O1 Water supply coverage % of population Population with access to water services (either with direct service connection or within reach of a public water point) as a percentage of the total population under utility’s nominal responsibility.

15.1 O2 Continuity of water supply service (hours available)

Hours/day Average hours of service per day for water supply, under normal operating conditions.

6.3 O3 Non-revenue water (kL/connection/day) kL/connection/day The difference between the volume of water produced and the volume of water for which customers are actually billed (i.e. annual figures for V1 minus V2).

2.1 O4 Sewerage coverage % of population Population with sewerage services (direct service connection) as a percentage of the total population under utility’s notional responsibility.

KRA3 - Health and Environment

15.4 HE1 Drinking Water quality compliance - residual chlorine

% compliance The percentage of samples tested for residual chlorine that passes the relevant standard.

- HE2 Drinking Water quality compliance - microbiological

% compliance The percentage of samples tested for E. coli that passes the relevant standard.

17.1 HE3 % of sewage produced which is treated to at least primary standard

% of sewage Proportion of collected sewage that receives at least primary treatment, i.e. involving settlement with the intention of removing solids, but not biological treatment. Both lagoon and mechanical treatment can be included, where appropriate.

KRA4 - Human Resources

12.2 HR1 Water and sewerage business staff/ 1000 connections

#FTE/1000 conn Total number of full time equivalent staff expressed as per thousand connections.

1 IB-Net uses m3/connection/month, although this unit can be easily converted to kL/connection/day. The unit adopted of kL/connection/day is considered more tangible to most utility operators. 2 Similar to footnote 1, IB-Net uses m3/connection/month and calls this indicator ‘water consumption’, although it is the same indicator. Water sold is a more accurate indicator name than water consumed.

Appendix D: Indicator Definitions

166

IB-Net Ref

PWWA No.

Indicator Units Definition

- HR2 Training days (no days/year) days/FTE/year Total number of training days (both internal and externally provided) per full time equivalent staff member per year.

- HR3 Average cost of staff (total labour cost / no of staff/GNI)

$/FTE/GNI PPP Total labour cost divided by number of full time equivalent staff, a percentage of Gross National Income (based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)) per capita.

KRA5 - Customer Service

7.1 CM1 Meter coverage rate for water supply customers (for all water meters)

% of customers Total number of connections with operating meter/ total number of connections, expressed in percentage

16.13 CM2 Customer complaints / 1000 connections #/1000 conn Total number of complaints received (regardless of whether they were addressed) per 1,000 connections.

- CM3 Affordability - new connection % GNI PPP per capita

Affordability of a typical new residential connection (size to be agreed) as a percentage of Gross National Income (based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)) per capita.

19.24 CM4 Affordability – average bill % GNI PPP per capita

Affordability of an average annual water bill per person (excluding wastewater) as a percentage of Gross National Income (based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)) per capita.

KRA6 - Financial Sustainability

24.15 F1 Operating cost recovery ratio (excluding depreciation)

% Ratio of Total annual operational revenues to Total annual operating costs

23.2 F2 Collection ratio - actual cash income vs. billed revenue

% Cash income / Billed revenue as a %

23.1 F3 Accounts receivable (days) Days (Year-end accounts receivable/Total annual operating revenues) * 365

3 IB-Net uses total number of complaints per year expressed as a percentage of the total number of connections. Where number of connections are known this can be easily converted. Complaints per 1,000 connections is a measure more readily used in the water sector in developed countries. 4 IB-Net uses the affordability of monthly water bill for a household consuming 6m3 of water per month (Section 8.6 clarifies the reason for adopting an average bill instead of 6m3/month). 5 Depreciation is excluded due to the inconsistencies in approaches and accuracy of calculated depreciation.


167

APPENDIX E: Data Reliability Definitions

Grade Definition

How is the volume of water produced calculated or derived?

A

The quantity of water produced is computed on the basis of measurement by bulk flow meters at the outlet of the treatment plant

and/or at all bulk production points, which are calibrated / verified for accuracy at least every 2 years. The volume of losses and

bulk industrial consumption are periodically monitored.

B

The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of measurement of period sample surveys of production flows at all bulk

production points (i.e. short term monitoring, not continuous monitoring). Reliable estimates of transmission losses and industrial

water consumption are available.

C The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of assumed pump capacities and efficiencies, and pump run hours.

D The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of operator judgement or turnover of reservoirs (e.g. Use 50% of the

volume of a 10ML reservoir every day).

How is the volume of water consumed calculated or derived?

A

Metering is undertaken at all key distribution nodes (entry to DMAs) and at the consumer’s end for all categories of consumers.

Billing records and databases clearly reveal regular reading of meters and, therefore, the total quantum of water billed to

consumers in the given time period (month/bi-monthly).

B

The quantum of water sold is based on the metered quantity for bulk and commercial consumers. For households, ferrule size

(the size of the distribution pipe outlet at the consumer end) of each consumer connection as well as the hours of supply is known,

to compute the quantum of water sold.

C

Meters are installed for a select category of consumers, such as commercial and bulk consumers. For other categories of

consumers, such as domestic consumers, the number of such consumers and the average consumption per consumer are

considered, to arrive at the quantum of water sold.

D

Very few meters have been installed in the distribution system and at the consumer end. The quantity of water sold to the category

of consumers to whom bills are raised is estimated on the basis of assumed average consumption in that category and the number

of consumers in that category.

How is the number of connections or customers calculated?

A

Billing records and databases clearly identify consumers with metres (against a specific meter serial number). Billing processes

reveal regular reading of meters and meter readings are the basis for charging consumers. Records on stand-posts are available.

Databases of water connections and meters are complete and spatially referenced with a GIS database. There is a mechanism to

identify faulty meters and repair meters. Processes for installation of new water connections, installation of meters and generation

of water bills based on this are interlinked, and the data systems enable such continuity of data flow regarding these.

B

Database/ records reveal the list of consumers that have meters installed in their water connections. However, there are no clear

data on functioning of metres, and no linkage with the billing system that may or may not use metered quantity as the basis for

billing.

C

Meters are installed for only certain categories of consumers. It is assumed all consumers of these categories have meters

installed which are functional and used as the basis for billing. Records do not reveal the exact number of connections which are

metered. Water is charged on the basis of average readings for the consumer category (e.g. kL/connection/year) or on the basis

of past trends in most cases.

D A few meters have been installed. All installed meters are assumed to be functional and used as the basis for billing water

charges.

How is the population derived?

A

The population served is known with reasonable accuracy. Any expansion of municipal limits and other significant factors are

measured and factored into the current population computation. The floating and/or seasonal population is estimated with

reasonable accuracy.

B The population served is calculated on the basis of census figures less than 5 years old, extrapolated to current levels. Reliable

estimates of the floating population are not available.

C The population served is calculated on the basis of past census figures more than 5 years old, extrapolated to current levels.

Reliable estimates of the floating population are not available.

Appendix E: Data Reliability Definitions

168

Where is the financial information sourced from?

A

Highest/preferred level In case of multi-function agencies such as municipal corporations, reliability (A) budget heads related to

water and sanitation are clearly separated. Cost allocation standards for common costs are in place. An accrual based double

entry accounting system is practiced. Accounting standards are comparable to commercial accounting standards with clear

guidelines for recognition of income and expenditure. Accounting and budgeting manuals are in place and are adhered to.

Financial statements have full disclosure and are audited regularly and on time.

B

Budget heads related to water and sanitation is segregated. Key costs related to water and sanitation are identifiable, although

complete segregation is not practiced (for example, electricity costs for water supply services are not segregated from overall

electricity costs of the ULB). Key income and expenditure are recognised based on accrual principles. Disclosures are complete

and are timely.

C

There is no segregation of budget heads related to water supply services and sanitation from the rest of the functions of the

agency. A cash-based accounting system is practiced. There are no clear systems for reporting unpaid expenditure or revenues

that are due. Disclosures and reporting are not timely. Audits have a time lag and are not regular.


169

APPENDIX F: Profile of IWSA (Community Schemes) General Information Provision of water supply services in Samoa is provided either by the Samoa Water Authority (SWA), a State Owned Enterprise, or through 35 independent water schemes (IWS), which provide 18 per cent of the population with water. These schemes vary in size, providing water to a small village of 100 up to district-wide schemes providing water to multiple villages with several thousand connections (size of water schemes vary between 30–300 household connections). The IWS are managed by the local community through Water Committees. The schemes are all gravity-fed utilizing water from streams and springs on the hillside with piping systems to households running down to the coastal area. In the past, users have not generally been required to pay regular fees for water and as a result there is no regular maintenance system with repairs only being undertaken when absolutely necessary. The schemes are extremely old (most schemes were already built in the beginning of the 1900s during the colonial times or later immediately after independence by the Public Works department) and it is impressive that the communities have been able to keep them operating. The traditional community institutions in Samoa are well organised and are able to raise funds quickly when it is really necessary. However, these schemes are mostly very old and are now in need of major rehabilitation and upgrade. IWSA History The Independent Water Scheme Association Incorporated (IWSA) was established in 2006, and supported by the Ministry of Women, Community & Social Development (MWCSD) under the EU Water Sector Support Programme. The independent water schemes are owned by the village communities themselves. As some communities operate independent water schemes that deliver water to several households, it is important for these schemes to be formally recognised under the law, hence the emergence of the Independent Water Schemes Association. This will provide a legal basis for the government to provide them with technical support and subsidies. Its primary objectives are supporting the IWS for improving water system management, training community members and IWS committees, promoting improved standard of service, including higher standards for water quality and quality control, and facilitating IWS member access to funding for water systems rehabilitation, extension and improvement. Currently, there are 35 Independent Water schemes in Samoa, which provide services to some 18 per cent of Samoan households. Members of the Association are represented by members of the Independent Non-Government Water Schemes in Samoa. IWSA’s Vision CLEAN, SAFE AND AFFORDABLE WATER AT ALL TIMES IWSA’s Mandate The IWS mandate derives from its Constitution, with the aims and objectives listed below:

� To establish and be recognised as the umbrella organisation Independent Water Schemes for Samoa.

Appendix F: Profile of IWSA (Community Schemes)

170

� To develop appropriate policies and guidelines for the effective and efficient operations of its members' schemes.

� To enter into partnerships with other national and international organisations to facilitate assistance for its members.

� To liaise and advocate with government and other agencies policies and any issues affecting the organisation.

� To increase capacity building of the organisation to achieve its objectives. � To establish partnerships with its stakeholders and to create a develop networks and group

structures to achieve its objectives. � To develop, share and advocate good water management practice and information. � To establish a database-system for collection research and dissemination of information for

the development of the organisation and its members. � To ensure adequate good-quality water to be accessible to all. � To seek, receive and manage funding for the development and benefit of the organisation. � To protect co-operate and advocate the interests of its members.

Governance Requirements (to be reported to EU)

� Village water committee exists � Selection process for water committee � Number of members in water committee and representation (e.g. number of women, number

chiefs, number untitled) � Who does village water committee report to � Regular committee meetings held � Meeting records kept � Water rules exist � Water committee seeking village feedback � Fees paid � Level of fees � How often fees are paid � How are fees collected � Are fees paid willingly � Process to change fees � Fees records kept � Fees only spent on water supply � Fees enough to maintain supply � Treasurer who manages finance � Bank account for funds � Budget to link fees and costs � Regular financial reporting

Financial Situation In previous year approximately Samoan Tala 283.00 collected directly from 3,564 households – equating to $40 USD/household/year (compared with approximately $300 USD/household/year for typical.


171

APPENDIX G: Benchmarking Workshop Attendees

Title

First Name

Last Name Organization Job Title Address Country Phone Fax Email

1 Mr Travis Spaeth Commonwealth Utilities Corporation

Acting Water & Wastewater Division Manager

P O Box 10001 PMB 276, Saipan, MP

Saipan +670 2856114 [email protected]

2 Mr Utu Abe Malae Commonwealth Utilities Corporation

Executive Director P O Box 10001 PMB 276, Saipan, MP

Saipan +670 2856114 [email protected]

3 Ms Apisake Soakai Nauru Utilities Corporation Chief Executive Officer P O Box 210 Republic of Nauru +674 5574000 [email protected]

4 Mr Saimone Helu Tonga Water Board Chief Executive Officer P O Box 92, Nukualofa Tonga +676 23299 [email protected]

5 Mr Pita Moala Tonga Water Board Manager P O Box 92, Nukualofa Tonga +676 23299 [email protected]

6 Mr Ta'inau Tapatoa

Titimaea Samoa Water Authority Chief Executive Officer P O Box 245, Apia Samoa +685 20409 +685 21298 [email protected]

7 Ms Nonye Numa Ministry of Infrastructure and Planning

Chief Executive Officer P O Box 102 Rarotonga

Cook Islands +682 20321 +682 24321 [email protected] and [email protected]

8 Mr Patrick Amini Water PNG Chief Executive Officer P O Box 2779, Boroko, NCD

Papua New Guinea +675 3235700 +675 3236317 [email protected]

9 Mr Techur Rengulbai Bureau of Public Works Chief Executive Officer P O Box 100, Ngerulmud 96940

Palau +680 7672701 +680 7672111 [email protected]

10 Mr Rameka Takirua Public Utilities Board Acting Chief Executive Officer P O Box 443, Betio, Tarawa

Kiribati +686 26794 +686 26106 [email protected]

11 Mr Ghislain Kaltac Unelco Manager P O Box 26, Port Vila Vanuatu +678 22211 +678 25011 [email protected]

12 Mr Billy Imar Eda Ranu Chief Executive Officer Private Mail Bag, NCD Waigani

Papua New Guinea +675 3122100 +675 3122194 [email protected]

13 Mr Richard Austin Solomon Island Water Authority

Chief Executive Officer P O Box 1407 Solomon Islands +677 28161 +677 20723 [email protected]

14 Mr Ampelosa Tehulu Public Works Dept Director of Works Private Mail Bag, Vaiaku

Tuvalu +688 20303 [email protected]

15 Mr Sakaio Malo Public Works Dept Chief Plumber Private Mail Bag, Vaiaku


16 Mr Mark Waite Chuuk Utilities Corporation General Manager P O Box 910, Weno, Chuuk

Chuuk +691 9312678 [email protected]

17 Mr Faustino Yangmong Yap State Public Service Corporation (Central)

General Manager P O Box 667, Colonia Yap Federated States of Micronesia

[email protected] & [email protected]

18 Mr Charles Falmeyog Yap State Public Service Corporation (Central)

Manager P O Box 667, Colonia Yap Federated States of Micronesia

[email protected]

19 Mr Sulutumu Milo Independent Water Scheme Association (Samoa)

Chief Executive Officer P O Box 848, Apia Samoa +685 30326 +685 28885 [email protected]

20 Mr Fred Skilling Kosrae Utility Authority General Manager P O Box KUA Kosrae Federated States of Micronesia

+691 3703344 +691 3703798 [email protected]

Appendix G: Benchmarking Workshop Attendees

172

21 Mr Deve Talagi Public Works Dept Director P O Box 38, Fonuakula

Niue +683 4297 [email protected]

22 Ms Andra Samoa American Samoa Power Authority

Chief Executive Officer P O Box PPB Postcode 96799

American Samoa +684 6995282 [email protected]

23 Mr Feliciano Perman Pohnpei Utility Corporation Chief Executive Officer P O Box C Pohnpei State

Federated States of Micronesia 96941

+691 3203274 +691 3202422 [email protected]

24 Mr John Guswel Southern Yap Water Authority

Chief Executive Officer P O Box 721, Colonia, YAP

Federated States of Micronesia

+691 3502711 +691 3506112 [email protected]

25 Mr Opetaia Ravai Water Authority Fiji Water Authority of Fiji P O Box 1272, Suva FIJI +679 3346777 +679 3343283 [email protected]

26 Mr Elekana Tofinga Public Works Dept Acting Director of Works Private Mail Bag, Funafuti


27 Mr Itienang Timona Public Utilities Board Water Engineering Manager P O Box 443, Betio, Tarawa


28 Mr Ray Andresen Solomon Island Water Authority

Operations Manager P O Box 1407 Solomon Islands +677 28161 +677 20723 [email protected]

29 Mr Paul Howell Chuuk Public Utilities Corporation

Water and Sewerage Operations Manager

P O Box 910, Weno, Chuuk


30 Mr Sebastian Moses Chuuk Public Utilities Corporation

Network Services Manager P O Box 910, Weno, Chuuk


31 Mr Adrian Teotahi Ministry of Infrastructure and Planning

Manager Water Works Division P O Box 102 Rarotonga

Cook Islands +682 20321 +682 24321 [email protected]

32 Mr Bradley Henry Pohnpei Utility Corporation Manager-Sewerage P O Box C Pohnpei State

Federated States of Micronesia 96941

+691 3203274 +691 3202422 [email protected]

33 Mr Kevin Rouatu Public Utilities Board Chief Executive Officer P O Box 443, Betio, Tarawa


34 Mr Geoffrey Thoma Nauru Utilities Corporation Water Despatch Supervisor P O Box 210 Republic of Nauru +674 5574020 [email protected]


173

APPENDIX H: Suggested Improvements to Benchmarking Questionnaire

It should be noted that these are the observations and suggested improvements of the consultants. It is re-iterated that this is a project of the PWWA and must be owned by the PWWA. Future improvements to the questionnaire must also be driven by feedback from the participating utilities and from the observations of members of the Benchmarking Steering Committee. The notes below are intended as a starting point for future improvements to the questionnaire. Such future improvements require focused work on updating the questionnaire, which is beyond the scope of this first year of the benchmarking initiative. General comments relating to the questionnaire

• Primary versus secondary data o The PWWA might need to rethink whether having the primary versus secondary data

should be repeated in the next years benchmarking survey. o Some of the questions which were in the primary data section were also repeated in

the secondary data section so these may need to be removed. o Some utilities only provided answers to the primary data when it was provided as an

option. o Some utilities had the information mixed up between the primary and secondary data

sections for the same questions. o Only one section on data might need to be considered.

� Data checks: update data questionnaire to build in data checks, including some form of

comparison with the previous year’s data, calculated indicators, and realistic ranges to enable checks on units to be undertaken (e.g. kL vs. ML etc).

� The questionnaire refinement should focus, in the first three years, on collecting only the data for calculating the benchmarks accurately.

� Some updates and clarifications of definitions is required in the spreadsheet as it was

recognised that few organisations used the guidance notes. � In due course, process related questions should be incorporated, but not in the next year so

as to keep the questionnaire simple. � Suggest that a selected number of utilities test the IB-Net questionnaire and compare with the

PWWA questionnaire for ease of use. After this comparison, a decision should be taken whether the questionnaire should be refined or the IB-Net questionnaire adopted.

Comments relating to specific sections of the quest ionnaire

� Schemes and assets:

o Much of the baseline information regarding assets can be dropped in the next year. While some was useful in the first year, it does make the questionnaire long winded and is not necessarily relevant to calculating the indicators. Recommend that the only critical assets data relates to number of connections, volume of reservoir storage, length of mains and number of meters.

o Question 2.17 is an important question for better understanding the accuracy of water meters. Suggest that greater focus be placed on meters which are actually operating.

Appendix H: Suggested Improvements to Benchmarking Questionnaire

174

Perhaps the question should be re-worded to ask how many meters read errors or were allocated an error code.

o Definition of ‘length of main’ needs to be clarified (although provided in guidance notes in 2011) to ensure service connections are omitted.

� Volumes produced

o If Non-Revenue Water is to become a focus area in the coming year, further clarification of the meaning of some of the terms should be provided. Utilities need assistance in calculating this. Recommend that water balance calculations be built into the spreadsheet so that utilities can see the results from the numbers they enter.

o Suggest that volumes for residential and non-residential consumption be included to enable unit residential demand to be collected.

� Customer information

o Similar to volumes, some cross checks of calculations should be built into the spreadsheet.

o Suggest that a question is added relating to number of households serviced by common connections or standpipes (i.e. called ‘indirect’ in the questionnaire but this needs to be simpler to understand).

o Suggest that the questions relating to rectifying supply outages be removed at this time: an insufficient number of utilities collect this data

� Service Levels

o Guidance ought to be provided on how to calculate weighted average duration of supply to enable numbers to be compared (i.e. based on populations).

o Suggest that sewage overflows be included as primary data.

� Health and Environment o Check consistency between primary and secondary data. o Ask sufficient questions to be able to calculate compliance for both residual chlorine

and microbiological quality. o Most of the secondary data is probably not required for the next year, suggest that

the focus is on getting primary data right.

� Financial o Utilities must be required to submit financial statements if their data is to be accepted.

There is no way to check financial data and ensure that the utility’s own interpretation of the question is correct.

o Latest financial statements should be attached to the data questionnaire � To double check the accuracy of the numbers as well as understand the

different methods of how the utilities report their financial information, all utilities must present their latest financial information for the latest available year that has been completed.

� Audited financial statements are preferred, however, unaudited financial statements are also acceptable if the audit is ongoing at the time of responding to the data questionnaire or has not yet been completed.

o A selected number of additional questions should be incorporated into the questionnaire particularly focused on better understanding the recurrent operating cost of utilities if possible (e.g. power, chemicals, labour, maintenance), and better understanding of staffing inclusions (e.g. is maintenance effort outsourced and therefore not included in the staffing numbers). Question 8.17 in particular should be a core question and attempts should be made to try and make all utilities answer all


175

components of this question. This is the only realistic way to get an estimate of maintenance. In future, maintenance effort in terms of % of Current Replacement Cost or $/ML water might be useful.

o Based on the financial information obtained for the 2011 benchmarking survey, decisions should be made on specific financial indicators that are considered appropriate and relevant and the data questionnaire should be tailored accordingly. For example, some questions on capital expenditure and assets included in the 2011 survey were not really reported or used due to insufficient information provided by some of the utilities.

o For calculating affordability, it is critical that utilities provide tariff data (very few did). It may also be worth asking questions about an average bill for the lower quartile or quintile to get a better understanding of affordability for lower income groups. However, this really starts to become the basis for a more detailed affordability study, not a benchmarking study.

• Data reliability

o A suggested pathway is that a limited number of water utilities (say 30 per cent) are subject to a ‘phone’ audit by an experienced person in order to understand the basis of the data provided and confirm the reliability adopted by the utility

Additional Questions for WSP not included in the fi rst year benchmarking As outlined in Section 3, the scope of this benchmarking initiative in this first year has predominantly been the urban water and wastewater services providers. Three other Pacific water service providers which have expressed interest in being part of this benchmarking study but could not be accommodated due to scope, budget and timing limitations in this first year are:

� Independent Water Schemes of Samoa (IWSA): which is unique amongst the PWWA membership as they do not own or operate any assets. Appendix F above presents a brief profile of the IWSA. Similar to the current funding basis for IWSA through the EU, it is recommended that similar rural based schemes are sent through an alternative questionnaire which focuses on governance issues rather than technical or quantitative issues, after such organisations are identified by PWWA or other organisations (e.g. SPC SOPAC). Relevant content of such a questionnaire may include:

o Extent and cost of the asset base. o System reliability measures, which will be less formal and these organisations may

need to be consulted (e.g. IWSA) to better understand reliability measures which would be of use to them.

o Water production and billing information (similar to V1 to V3 if known). o Tariffs/billing information and collection success, and extent of subsidy from other

central bodies. o Staffing information, both in terms of community based volunteers (e.g. doing site

based maintenance) and employees or volunteers of the coordinating organisation. o Extent of sanitary inspections or catchment management (in lieu of not having

residual chlorine or microbiological testing), and potentially health statistics. o Governance arrangements (e.g. water committee membership, account

management, business plan etc).

Appendix H: Suggested Improvements to Benchmarking Questionnaire

176

o Training and capacity building. o Community satisfaction with the scheme, service level and cost.

� Tuvalu and Nauru: these are much smaller organisations with limited reticulation assets. As a

result, the business of both of these utilities involves desalinating sea water, storing in storage tanks, and transporting that treated water to customers via tankers. The key areas of interest for these two utilities which can likely be compared with other similar organisations are:

o Volumes (L/customer/day or per year). o Power consumption (kWH/kL and $/kL). o Chemical consumption ($/kL). o Total unit cost of production ($/kL). o Total cost of transport ($/kL). o Overall operating business cost ($/kL). o Asset utilisation (e.g. % of desalination plant capacity utilised). o Staffing levels (i.e. FTE per customer or FTE per ML of water sold/annum). o System down-time and maintenance requirements. o Other relevant indicators as developed in conjunction with these utilities.


177

APPENDIX I: Water Service Provider Report Cards


Nu

mb

er o

f va

lid

resp

on

ses

Pac

ific

Ben

chm

ark


PWWA (2011) WS AA

NZWA Africa SEA

Pacific Water Service Providers

PW

WA

(200

9)

PW

WA

(201

0)

Ave

rage

25th

per

cent

ile

Med

ian

75th

per

cent

ile

WS

AA

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G1

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G2

Med

ian

WO

P A

frica

Avg

WO

P A

frica

Tar

get

SE

AW

UN

Med

ian

Co

ok

Isla

nd

s

Ed

a R

anu

Fiji

(W

AF

)

FS

< C

hu

uk

FS

M K

osr

ae

FS

M P

oh

np

ei

FS

M Y

ap –

No

rth

FS

M Y

ap –

Cen

tral

FS

M Y

ap –

So

uth

Kir

ibat

i

Wat

erP

NG

Pal

au

Sai

pan

SW

A

So

lom

on

Isla

nd

s

To

ng

a

Tu

valu

Van

uat

u

Niu

e

KR

A1

Pro

du

ctio

n

V1 Volume of water produced

kL/conn/day 18 - 2.64 3.33 2.39 0.74 1.96 2.68 0.78 0.92 0.91 0.73 - 0.46

2.51 3.21 2.12 1.01 0.02 2.52 0.68 1.79 0.61 0.43 2.59 3.80 4.36 7.18 2.71 0.32 0.04 1.66 1.30

V1b Volume of water produced

L/capita/day 250 - - 395 167 306 552 363 385 473 145 - 249

897 322 490 189 2 420 136 572 196 54 226 1176 712 857 387 159 6 290 416


kL/conn/day 15 - - 1.48 1.40 0.67 1.31 2.11 0.69 0.79 0.73 0.46 - 0.38

0.00 3.88 1.31 0.00 0.00 2.06 0.68 0.96 0.61 0.30 1.62 2.23 2.29 2.15 0.91 0.66 0.04 1.33 0.00


L/capita/day 150 - - 179 56 139 292 328 324 356 91 - 196

0 136 303 0 0 343 0.68 305 195 0.30 142 689 373 257 129 113 6 233 0

V3 Volume of sewage produced

kL/conn/day 8 - - - 2.17 1.38 2.19 2.90 0.58 0.87 0.55 - - -

0.00 3.37 303 2.48 0.00 1.90 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 2.74 3.97 1.27 0.21 1.42 NA NA NA NA

V3b Volume of sewage produced

L/capita/day 200 - - 380 232 317 336 216 389 385 - - -

0 163 0 0 0 317 0 0 0 0 342 935 316 0 203 0 0 0 0

KR

A2

-Tec

hn

ical

Per

form

ance

O1 Water supply coverage

% of population

17 * - 76 76 68 90 95 - - - 73 90 50

99 95 70 20 90 61 95 95 80 65 90 82 96 94 90 100 20 80 20


Hrs/day 17 24 - - 20 21 24 24 - - - 17 24 23

24.00 24.00 16.00 3.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 4.00 24.00 24.00 21.00 24.00 8.00 23.00 NA 24.00 24.00

O3b Non-revenue water (%)

% of water produced

16 25 - 67 53 31 47 70 10 13 20 36 25 29

100 58 38 100 100 18 0 47 1 31 38 41 48 70 67 29 0 20 100


m3/conn/ day

- - 1.4 0.3 1.0 1.8 - 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4

2.51 5.34 0.81 1.01 0.02 0.46 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.13 0.97 1.58 2.07 5.03 1.80 0.27 0.00 0.33 1.30


m3/km/day

- - 18.5 4.6 10.2 19.6 - 6.6 8.9 32.0 12.0 39.8

0.00 102.20 12.29 6.70 0.00 8.03 0.00 6.82 0.01 1.58 19.38 16.12 25.59 19.71 33.61 0.00 0.00 3.90 2.41


population 11 * - - 36 20 30 52 - - - 42 82 -

85 49 14 60 22 - 25 - 35 20 36 62 0 20 - - - -

KR

A3

- H

ealt

h &

En

viro

nm

ent

HE1 Drinking Water quality compliance - residual chlorine

% compliance 12 100 57 0 85 94 - - - - - 90

0 100 92 0 0 90 0 90 0 58 100 86 100 35 84 95 0 100 0


% compliance 14 100 87 79 90 99 100 - - - - -

0 100 86 0 0 75 95 90 70 60 100 82 99 70 84 95 0 100 99

HE3

% of sewage produced which is treated to at least primary standard

% of sewage 6 100 52 0 70 100 100 - - - - -

0 70 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0

KR

A4

Hu

man

R

eso

urc

es

HR1 Water and sewerage business staff/ 1000 connections

#FTE/1000 connections

17 8 10.2 9.6 11.5 8.6 11.2 14.8 - - - 16.0 7.0 7.5

2.00 11.44 8.62 20.28 6.67 0.00 8.57 14.93 13.84 11.11 14.39 21.93 16.04 11.28 10.57 10.04 8.00 1.30 15.54

HR2 Training days (no days/year)

days/FTE/year 9 5 - - 1.02 0.54 1.00 1.15 - - - 9.00 - 1.80

2.50 0.69 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.23 0.49 1.00 2.03 0.00 1.00 1.11

HR3 Average cost of staff (total labor cost / no of staff/GNI)

% of GNI 14 * - - 389 157 214 528 - - - - - 259

0 862 161 299 0 0 214 160 117 202 774 111 231 226 757 153 0 1493 76

Appendix I: Water Service Provider Report Cards

178


Nu

mb

er o

f va

lid r

esp

on

ses

Pac

ific

Ben

chm

ark


PWWA (2011) WS AA

NZWA Africa SEA

Pacific Water Service Providers

PW

WA

(20

09)

PW

WA

(20

10)

Ave

rag

e

25th

per

cen

tile

Med

ian

75th

per

cen

tile

WS

AA

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G1

Med

ian

NZ

WA

G2

Med

ian

WO

P A

fric

a A

vg

WO

P A

fric

a T

arg

et

SE

AW

UN

Med

ian

Co

ok

Isla

nd

s

Ed

a R

anu

Fiji

(W

AF

)

FS

< C

hu

uk

FS

M K

osr

ae

FS

M P

oh

np

ei

FS

M Y

ap –

No

rth

FS

M Y

ap –

Cen

tral

FS

M Y

ap –

So

uth

Kir

ibat

i

Wat

erP

NG

Pal

au

Sai

pan

SW

A

So

lom

on

Isla

nd

s

To

ng

a

Tu

valu

Van

uat

u

Niu

e

KR

A5

Cu

sto

mer

Ser

vice

CM1

Meter coverage rate for water supply customers (for all water meters)

% of customers

14 100 - - 68 29 98 100 - 45 23 74 100 100

0 100 97 29 0 100 100 0 100 1 100 75 100 50 100 100 0 98 9

CM2 Customer complaints /1000 connections

#/1000 conn

10 NA - - 170 56 107 272 10 - - 53 53 168

0.00 63.55 338.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.57 47.76 0.00 106.69 2.28 0.00 446.92 205.61 413.89 171.37 0.00 0.00 0.00


% GNI per

person 13 * - - 1.8 0.6 1.4 2.3 - - - 7.0 2.0 -

0.00 0.00 4.13 1.54 0.00 0.15 0.77 1.39 1.39 0.61 0.00 0.19 0.60 2.14 6.24 2.41 0.00 3.83 0.24


% GNI per

person - * - - 1.7 1.0 1.5 2 0.4 0.3 0.3 - - -

- - 5.65 0.02 - 10.71 4.52 14.49 3.08 3.87 29.93 1.26 12.55 7.94 17.68 6.01 - 10.41 -

CM4b Affordability - 6m3/month/ connection

% GNI per

person - * - - 1.6 0.6 1.6 2.2 - - - 7.0 3.0 0.9

- - 2.47 0.59 - 0.83 2.22 - 1.47 4.42 2.07 0.20 1.65 0.35 1.73 2.57 - 1.10 0.29

KR

A6

Fin

anci

al

Su

stai

nab

ility


% 16 120 104 96 102 89 95 150 - - - - 120 140

0 242 57 0 0 160 95 127 92 178 138 22 101 93 95 192 89 150 1


% 15 95 - - 83 84 89 98 - - - 73 93 -

0 98 100 100 0 84 90 89 89 13 87 99 83 79 57 100 0 95 60

F3 Accounts receivable (days)

Days 14 90 - - 143 55 121 220 - - - 243 90 67

0 92 314 0 0 73 187 40 63 177 231 14 44 271 287 53 0 151 0

Oth

er F

inan

cial

Ind

icat

ors

F1b

Operating cost recovery ratio (including dep and excluding operational subsidy)

% - 100 - - 68 32 85 92 - - - - - -

0 221 -22 0 0 85 89 92 87 91 114 -33 72 61 85 125 32 111 1

OV1

Overall Efficiency Indicator ([1-NRW]* collection ratio)

% - 70 - - 47 24 54 69 - - - 52 66 -

0.00 41.23 61.90 0.00 0.00 68.92 0.00 0.00 88.54 9.27 54.32 57.67 43.68 23.58 19.18 70.88 0.00 76.37 0.00

Percentage of customers on treated water or % of water treated

% water produced

- 33 100 - - 15 81 100 - - - - - -

0 100 100 77 0 67 0 100 0 100 94 100 100 61 84 71 0 100 0