1. The Institute for Urban Economics
Trends in the Performance Indicators of the WSS Utilities in the Russian Federation
Dmitriy Khomchenko
The Institute for Urban Economics
Helsinki, Finland, May 2007

2. Objectives of Work Carried Out:
Collection and processing of technical and financial data on performance of the WSS utilities in the RF in
Capacity building in the collection of technical and financial data by transferring the World Bank methodology (IBNET)
Information Sources:
Sample of 48 WSS utilities in Perm and Krasnodar Krays of the RF
Official statistics (forms 1-water supply, 1-sanitation and 22-housing and community amenities (consolidated))

3. Analysis of WSS Utilities’ Operational and Technical Indicators (1)
Out of total water sales, more than 60 percent is supplied by municipal utilities; about 25 percent, by state-owned utilities; and the rest, by private utilities and those with mixed ownership
Average water production and consumption in Russia reduced by almost one third to 402 l/day and 328 lcd, respectively, in
In 2005, useful life of 35 percent of the water networks and 29 percent of the sanitation networks was over and they had to be replaced; in the capital cities of the Russian regions, 41 percent of the water networks had to be replaced.

4. Water Service Coverage
72%
76%
73%
75%
84%
74%
78%
91%
79%
80%
81%
93% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
90%
100%
Russia
Krasnodar Kray
Perm Kray
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
[sample]
98%
83%
22%
99%
93%
28%
29%
94%
100%
97%
38% 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
120%
Cities
Urban villages
Rural localities
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2005
[statements]

5. Non-Revenue Water: Share in Total Water Supply to the Network [Sample]
29%
30%
27%
28%
31%
25%
33%
24%
32%
23%
37% 0% 5%
10%
15%
20%
35%
40%
Entire sample
Krasnodar Kray
Perm Kray
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
15.3%
20.5%
7.6%
16.1%
22.2%
7.3%
16.7%
23.0%
13.6%
17.7%
26.5%
18.1%
18.4%
27.5%
19.8%
18.5%
28.3%
19.7% 0% 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Russia
Krasnodar Kray
Perm Kray
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Non-Revenue Water [Statistical Statements]

6. Analysis of WSS Utilities’ Operational and Technical Indicators (2)
Water losses in the water supply networks went up from 15.3 percent to 18.5 percent of the total water supply to the network in
High accident rate
Prevalence of water meters increased (61 percent of connections)

7. Share of Networks in Need of Replacement in Total Length of Water Lines and Street Water Supply Networks [Statements]
29%
33%
28%
31%
35%
34%
32%
38%
40%
47% 0%
10%
20%
30%
50%
Russia
Krasnodar Kray
Perm Kray
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

8. Analysis of Financial Indicators (1)
While in 2000 average household tariff in Russia accounted for more than 50 percent of the economically sound tariff (EST), in 2005 the household tariff went up to 87 percent of the EST
Commercial-user-tariff-to-household-tariff-ratio went down from 3.9 to 1.7
WSS utilities’ costs increased 3-fold from $0.16 to $0.44 per cub. m of water sold and from $0.11 to $0.32 per cub. m of water produced in

9. Average Water Tariff in Russia [Statements]
0.26
0.19
0.14
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.29
0.24
0.15
0.11
0.09
0.41
0.38
0.34
0.31
0.23
0.18
0.00
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Household tariff
Economically justified tariff
Tariff for other consumers

10. Analysis of Financial Indicators (2)
Length of collection of payments for provided services in Russia as a whole went down from 151 days in 2000 to 89 days in 2005
Collection rate in the Perm and Krasnodar Krays has steadily accounted for percent of the bills issued over the past three years.

11. Conclusions
During the analyzed period both negative and positive developments were identified in the WSS in Russia, including:
Degradation of fixed assets, network deterioration, chronic lack of investment
Stabilization of utilities’ financial position, improved payment discipline