1. PWWA Six years of Benchmarking
Alexander Danilenko and
Misileti Masoe-Satuala
PWWA Six years of Benchmarking
PWWA.ws; PWWA2.ib-net.org

2. Key objectives
Make PWWA and utilities known; put them on the world map
Help to improve performance, find common issues and help to resolve them together
Correct and upgrade tariffs
Learn from each other, and seek for help in knowledge and training
Justify investment projects, search for financial resources

3. Members and participation
29 water companies
From very small (Niue – 1000 people)
To large (FWA, Fiji – 1 million people)
Three million of people living of the utilities territory
Serving 2.6 million with water services and 1.4 million with wastewater services
Water market size: nearly US$250 million billed annually on average in

4. Three groups of utilities. Group 1
Utilities from high income countries (GNI per capita >US$20,000)
Established water and wastewater systems
Highly developed water networks
No or little issues with charging adequate tariffs for services
GWA
Guam
Large
ASPA
American Samoa
Medium
Commonwealth Utilities
Northern Marianas
Polynesian Water
Tahiti
Caledonian Water
New Caledonia

5. Three groups of utilities. Group 2
Utilities from the countries with annual GNI between 10,000-20,000
Developing water systems; introducing wastewater collection and treatment
Significant issues with coverage and expansion to new customer of many of them
Issues with affordability
SWA
Samoa
Medium
Eda Ranu
PNG
Large
Water PNG
WAF
Fiji
UNELCO
Vanuatu
CYSPS
FSM-Central Yap
Small
SYWA
FSM-Southern Yap
NYGTA
FSM-Northern Yap
CPUC
FSM-Chuuk
DTI
FSM-Kosrae
Pohnpei Utilities
FSM-Pohnpei
PPUC
Palau
SIWA
Solomon Islands
MUI
Tuvalu
TWB
Tonga

6. Three groups of utilities. Group 3
Utilities from the countries just started forming water services for all
Significant issues with development of water systems
Almost no wastewater collection, except cleaning latrines
Very high cost of services; issues with water availability and climate change
On the way to become a member of the Group 2
KAJUR
Marshall Islands
Small
MAJURO
Medium
NUC
Nauru
PWD
Niue
ICI
Cook Islands
IWSA
Samoa
GoT
Tokelau
PUB
Kiribati
Dept of Water Res
Vanuatu

7. Participation in benchmarking
True leaders in benchmarking work; participated in all rounds of benchmarking in : great kudos for all of you!
ASPA, American Samoa
Eda Ranu, Papua-New Guinea
Water-PNG, Papua-New Guinea
WAF, Fiji
Samoa Water Authority, Samoa
SIWA, Solomon Islands
TWB, Tonga
Majuro, Marshall Islands
Chuuk, FSM
PUB, Kiribati

8. Recently joined and 5 years of benchmarking
Thank you – please keep up and share your data!
New Caledonia
French Polynesia
GWA, Guam
UNELCO, Vanuatu
Central Yap State Public Service (CYSPS), FSM
Tuvalu
Kajur, Marshall Islands
Cook Islands
Niue
IWSA, Samoa
Palau Public Utilities Corporation (PPUC), Palau

9. We are waiting for you, dear colleagues!
Pohnpei Utilities, FSM
Northern Yap Gagil Tomil Authority (NYGTA), FSM
Southern Yap Water Authority (SYWA), FSM
Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Kosrae, FSM
Saipan, Northern Marianna Islands
and all others!

10. Improvements recorded
Two companies connected almost 170,000 new customers

11. Development in Eda Ranu and SWA, Samoa

12. Cost recovery

13. Benchmarking brings attention from donors:
New projects started in:
Water-PNG – World Bank (2016)
Kiribati – jointly ADB and World Bank (2017)
WAF – ADB (2016)
TWB – ADB (2016)
Micronesia – ADB ( )
Prospective projects SIWA – Solomon Islands (jointly ADB and World Bank)
Tariff corrections – in almost every utility
PWWA got funding from AusAID to continue benchmarking

14. PWWA Tariff database

15. Example from Samoa, SWA

16. Example from Samoa, SWA

17. Tariff Comparison (consumption 15 m3/conn a month)

18. Information from two databases for tariff efficiency
Revenues
Billing amount
Volume billed
Number of connections
Tariff structure
To know efficiency of tariffs

19. Tariff Structure for Utilities
We selected four utilities for which the data reporting was accurate, up-to-date, and communication with the data owners was simple. The second criterion was having variety in the size of both tariff blocks and prices.

20. Estimated Probability Density Function for Utilities
American Samoa
Eda Ranu
PNG Water
CAESB
These are the 4 curves associated with the tariff structure in the 4 utilities - in the case od CAESB, Brasilia it is more of an inverted J shape, than a U-shape.
Probability of consumption per connection per month in a given block estimated by evaluation the associated area under each curve.

21. Findings: Majority of Users Consume in 1st block
Water utility
Tariff Blocks
American Samoa
Tariff Block 1 : 67%
Tariff Block 2 : 20%
Tariff Block 3 : 10%
Tariff Block 4 : 3%
Eda Ranu
Tariff Block 1 : 83%
Tariff Block 2 : 11%
Tariff Block 3 : 6%
PNG Water
Tariff Block 1 : 61%
Tariff Block 2 : 21%
Tariff Block 3 : 17%
Tariff Block 4 : 1%
CAESB
Tariff Block 1 : 98.56%
Tariff Block 2 : 0.004%
Tariff Block 3 : 0.006%
Tariff Block 4 : 0.004%
Tariff Block 5 : 0.004%
Tariff Block 6 : 1.423%
poor 6%
poor 30%
poor 40%
poor 11%

22. Conclusions Targeting the poor
Pricing below cost recovery in the 1st block is risky
Consumers of the last block generally tend to be more price-elastic
Depending on one set of consumer class (the high-end consumers) to recover costs is risky
In most cases, if the first block of tariff is the main source of revenue, pricing below cost recovery is dangerous for financial sustainability.
This “boutique’ approach can be dangerous in the medium- and long-run as such customers can develop their own water sources, if they consider their payment as excessive, or simply stop using such large quantity of water.

23. Next steps Data collection 2017 – by December 2017
Tariffs collection 2017 – by November 2017
Training on benchmarking – as per PWWA plan
Tariff efficiency assessment – by March 2017
Bi-annual PWWA report draft circulated – June 2017
Bi-annual PWWA report (by the meeting in Noumea) – August 2018

24. Let us work together!