1. WOP-Africa Benchmarking Exercise: Overview & Link to GRUBS Vivian Castro, WSP-AF Nairobi, Kenya – 24 November, 2008

2. 2 Outline  WOP-Africa  Overview of the benchmarking exercise  Rationale  Methodology  Results (emphasis on framework & types of findings)  Summary and Conclusions  Link to GRUBS

3. 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. 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. 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. 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. 7 Sub-RegionData sourcesTotals USAQIB-NetRegulator Eastern312942 Western/Northern501051 Southern1923042 Totals100269135 USAQ Response Overall, the assessment exercise gathered data from 135 water operators in 35 countries. Total sent156 Total returned100 Response rate64% No of Utilities & Sources of Data

8. 8 Dataset - 2004,2005,2006 quantitative & qualitative information in 7 areas 1. financial 2. technical 3. human resources 4. infrastructure development 5. customer care 6. services to the poor 7. experience with peer support partnerships

9. 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. 10 Presentation of findings (i) (1) Sub regional comparisons

11. 11 Indicator Target for best performance Valid sample Proportion of utilities making the best performer group (%) EastWestSouthEastWestSouth Water coverage(%) 913137 10%3%51% Sewer coverage(%) 83114220% 41% Metering level(%) 1002417294%29%34% NRW (%) 253627368%37%33% NRW (m3/km/day) 1232242616%50%27% NRW ( m3/con/day ) 0.3361638 27%48%35% Presentation of Findings (ii): Proportion of Utilities In “Best Performer” Groups

12. 12 Best Performers in NRW Management Utility NameRegion NRW (%) NRW (m 3 /km/d) NRW (m 3 /conn/d) Saldanha Bay (S.Africa)Southern51.290.07 CWWS (Windhoek, Namibia)Southern114.260.14 Drakenstein (S.Africa)Southern128.130.10 Potchefstroom (S Africa)Southern1311.240.18 Walvis Bay (Namibia)Southern165.110.17 SEEN (Niger)Western177.900.22 ONEA (Burkina Faso)Western184.800.18 SDE (Senegal)Western209.300.16 TdE (Togo)Western205.200.19 SODECI (Cote d’lvoire)Western238.500.18 SONEDE (Tunisia)Western236.600.14 Mogale (S.Africa)Southern257.620.16 Matjhabeng (S.Africa)Southern2511.800.18 SONEB (Benin)Western275.740.19 Presentation of findings (iii)

13. 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. 14

15. 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. 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. 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)