Transcript Document

WOP-Africa
Benchmarking Exercise:
Overview & Link to GRUBS
Vivian Castro, WSP-AF
Nairobi, Kenya – 24 November, 2008
Outline
WOP-Africa
Overview of the benchmarking exercise
 Rationale
 Methodology
 Results (emphasis on framework & types of findings)
 Summary and Conclusions
Link to GRUBS
2
Water Operators Partnerships
 WOP is a joint, regional program of AFWA and IWAESAR
 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
3
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
4
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
5
….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)]
6
No of Utilities & Sources of Data
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
100
26
9
135
Totals
USAQ Response
Total sent
156
Total returned
100
Response rate
64%
Overall, the assessment exercise
gathered data from 135 water
operators in 35 countries.
7
Dataset - 2004,2005,2006
quantitative & qualitative information in 7 areas
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
financial
technical
human resources
infrastructure development
customer care
services to the poor
experience with peer support partnerships
8
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
9
Presentation of findings (i)
(1) Sub regional comparisons
10
Presentation of Findings (ii): Proportion of
Utilities In “Best Performer” Groups
Indicator
Target for best
performance
Proportion of utilities making
the best performer group
(%)
Valid sample
East
West
South
East
West
South
Water coverage(%)
91
31
37
37
10%
3%
51%
Sewer coverage(%)
83
11
4
22
0%
0%
41%
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
38
27%
48%
35%
Metering level(%)
11
Presentation of findings (iii)
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
12
Presentation of findings (iv)
Operating cost
coverage ratio
(OCCR)- defined as
the ratio of total
annual billed
revenues to total
annual operating
expenses
13
14
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 wellperforming utilities to be emulated by those still lagging behind
15
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
16
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)
17