WOP-Africa Benchmarking Exercise: Overview & Link to GRUBS

Vivian Castro, WSP-AF

Nairobi, Kenya – 24 November, 2008

2

Outline

WOP-AfricaOverview of the benchmarking exercise

Rationale MethodologyResults (emphasis on framework & types of findings)Summary and Conclusions

Link to GRUBS

3

Water Operators Partnerships

WOP is a joint, regional program of AFWA and IWA-ESAR

Goal is to accelerate improvements in the performance of WSS operators through more intense and systematic knowledge exchange (including support partnerships between operators)

Assumption is that there are many examples on the continent worth learning from

Secretariat will be hosted by RAND Water

4

Rationale for the benchmarking activity

Assist utilities to identify their strengths and weaknesses

Identify best practices under the WOP-Africa priority themes (MIS, services to the poor, HR Development, etc..)

Shift the conversation from ‘what is wrong’ to ‘how to improve’

Uncover potential and strategic partnerships for improving utility performance

5

Methodology…

Utility Self-Assessment Questionnaire (USAQ), adapted from IB-Net and SEAWUN assessment tools

Two dimensions: (i) assessment of performance, strengths and needs in the WOP priority themes; (ii) assessment of the potential for peer-support partnerships

Sources: Actual performance data obtained from multiple sources, including IB-Net and National Regulators

6

….Methodology

Design phase —consulted select utilities and asked for feedback on the questionnaire’s design

Data collection--unclear or suspect data verified with the utility

•data reported as received from the utilities unless suspicious (i.e. 0% NRW); IBNET assisted with data cleanup

Data verification-- 3 sub-regional workshops to share and verify the data [Kampala (June), Dakar (Sept), Maseru (Oct)]

7

Sub-Region Data sources Totals

USAQ IB-Net Regulator

Eastern 31 2 9 42

Western/Northern 50 1 0 51

Southern 19 23 0 42

Totals 100 26 9 135

USAQ Response Overall, the assessment exercise gathered data from 135 water

operators in 35 countries. Total sent 156

Total returned 100

Response rate 64%

No of Utilities & Sources of Data

8

Dataset - 2004,2005,2006

quantitative & qualitative information in 7 areas

1. financial2. technical3. human resources4. infrastructure development5. customer care6. services to the poor7. experience with peer support partnerships

9

Analytical Framework

Ranking shows where each utility lies in relation to its peers

Lowest value within the top quartile (25%) of all utilities taken as best practice target

Overall efficiency indicator (OEI) – compares volume of water for which the utility collects revenue to the total volume it produces

Identification of potential learning areas

10

Presentation of findings (i)

(1) Sub regional comparisons

11

Indicator

Target for best performance Valid sample

Proportion of utilities making the best performer group

(%)

   East West South East West South

Water coverage(%) 91 31 37 37 10% 3% 51%

Sewer coverage(%) 83 11 4 22 0% 0% 41%

Metering level(%) 100 24 17 29 4% 29% 34%

NRW (%) 25 36 27 36 8% 37% 33%

NRW (m3/km/day) 12 32 24 26 16% 50% 27%

NRW (m3/con/day) 0.3 36 16 3827% 48% 35%

Presentation of Findings (ii): Proportion of Utilities In “Best Performer” Groups

12

Best Performers in NRW Management

Utility Name Region

NRW (%)

NRW (m3/km/d)

NRW (m3/conn/d)

Saldanha Bay (S.Africa) Southern 5 1.29 0.07

CWWS (Windhoek, Namibia) Southern 11 4.26 0.14

Drakenstein (S.Africa) Southern 12 8.13 0.10

Potchefstroom (S Africa) Southern 13 11.24 0.18

Walvis Bay (Namibia) Southern 16 5.11 0.17

SEEN (Niger) Western 17 7.90 0.22

ONEA (Burkina Faso) Western 18 4.80 0.18

SDE (Senegal) Western 20 9.30 0.16

TdE (Togo) Western 20 5.20 0.19

SODECI (Cote d’lvoire) Western 23 8.50 0.18

SONEDE (Tunisia) Western 23 6.60 0.14

Mogale (S.Africa) Southern 25 7.62 0.16

Matjhabeng (S.Africa) Southern 25 11.80 0.18

SONEB (Benin) Western 27 5.74 0.19

Presentation of findings (iii)

13

Presentation of findings (iv)

Operating cost coverage ratio (OCCR)- defined as the ratio of total annual billed revenues to total annual operating expenses

14

15

Summary & Conclusions

Major challenge facing utilities is expanding coverage

Inefficiencies a major cause of poor access to water services

Real potential lies in increasing efficiency in the already existing systems (i.e. reducing losses and improving revenue collection)

The good news is that Africa is not entirely short of well-performing utilities to be emulated by those still lagging behind

16

Challenges

• Limited availability of reliable performance data across the region presents a significant challenge to any performance improvement through partnerships and benchmarking

• Indicators tend to portray an incomplete picture of a utility’s performance

• How to do this on a regular and systematic basis

17

Geo-referencing: questions for discussion

Define the audience(s): Utilities? Governments? Consumers? Researchers? Donors?

Define the goal(s): Better informed consumers? Sharing of best practices? Helping donors target their assistance? Providing governments with a planning tool?

How do we make the data vibrant (not static) and really add value?

Connect existing data with maps but also add search engine – ‘national hygiene policies in Asia’ or ‘examples of performance contracts in water sector’?

What other existing data sources do we want to utilize? (e.g. spatial data from utilities on network coverage)