1. WM-OFMP ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING OF SEVEN REGIONAL WATER COMPANIES Presented by: vera muhaxhiri

2. WM-OFMP CONTENT  Introduction  Absolute performance of water sector  Relative performance of water sector  Relative individual performance  Relative comparative performance  Conclusion  Steps forward

3. WM-OFMP Water is essential, indeed: without it, there will be no existence…and as such it shall be used carefully. The best for this is that water should be treated almost as all other businesses. Water treatment and distribution are businesses which are faced with high costs.

4. WM-OFMP INTRODUCTION -Performance of water companies were evaluated by taking into consideration key performance indicators -! Performance indicators for 2007 were estimated by reliable data -Absolute performance ensures achieved level -Relative individual performance justifies development trends within the company -Relative comparative performance provides activity results from the best to the worst, as well -It determines position of each company in relation with sector average -(Non) development trends necessarily requires explanations -Relevant stakeholders has contributed in trends development

5. WM-OFMP Absolute performance how sector stands in 2007?

6. WM-OFMP KEY FACTS OF PERFORMANCE IN 2007 (I)  According to the evaluations, coverage with water services is 72%, and with wastewater services is 50%.  58% of water produced is not billed.  78,348,252m3 water were subject to losses and abuse  in average from overall 217l water produced, only 91l are billed  €7,834,825 are expenses on behalf of non revenue water  the water sector would benefit an amount of €595,230 if NRW would have been decreased for only 8% = with grants provided by government!

7. WM-OFMP KEY FACTS OF PERFORMANCE IN 2007 (II)  Billing percentage has remained the same to 92%  Metered consumption has dropped to 81% due to reduction in proportion of customers with meters to 2%.  Operating costs per m3 of water produced has increased to €0.10  Average tariff is €0.35, where the difference of €0.25 is supposed to cover inevitable amount of water losses; necessary capital costs, risk of non-collection; and minimal reserve fund

8. WM-OFMP KEY FACTS OF PERFORMANCE IN 2007 (III)  As operating costs per 1 billing point are €5.14,incomes are €7.94  Revenue collection is increased to 61%  Operating cost has been covered by cash (WCR=1.03)  Debtors requirements has reached to €63,888,776; and obligations toward creditors are €11,301,052

9. WM-OFMP KEY FACTS OF PERFORMANCE IN 2007 (IV)  Staff performed more efficiently although indicator of 7.35 is still high.  Water quality is 2%  In average, water supply is …..(?)  Average customer complaints are….(?)  In general, companies has been very responsible toward reporting to WWRO

10. WM-OFMP Relative performance were sector development trends progressive or regressive in 2007 compared to 2006 ?

11. WM-OFMP PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENTS 2007 / 2006 (I) Indicator20062007prog/reg Non-revenue water % 59%58% ♫ Billing percentage 92% - Proportion of customers with meters 77%75%  Metered consumption % 83%81%  Collection rate % 57%61% ♫

12. WM-OFMP PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENTS 2007 / 2006 (II) Indicator20062007prog/reg Working coverage rate 1.03 - Working rate 1.721.63  Staff efficiency (‘000 customers) 7.577.35 ♫ Average tariffs per m3 0.340.35 ♫

13. WM-OFMP PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENTS 2007 / 2006 (III) Indicator20062007prog/reg Complaints per '000 customers 0.62/ - Failure of water quality tests % 3%2% ♫ Average water disconnections per customer/d 2h/ - Reporting delays 12 d7 d ♫

14. WM-OFMP Relative individual performance what are development trends within a company in 2007 compared to 2006?

15. WM-OFMP PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENTS 2007/2006 RWC Prishtina, SH.A. Indicator20062007prog/reg Non-revenue water % 54%51% ♫ Billing percentage 94%89%  Prop. of customers with water meters 82%69%  Collection rate % 59%62% ♫ Working coverage rate 1.071.08 ♫ Staff efficiency 6.776.36 ♫

16. WM-OFMP PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENTS 2007/2006 RWC Hidroregjioni Jugor, SH.A. Indicator20062007prog/reg Non-revenue water % 46%39% ♫ Billing percentage 92%91%  Prop. of customers with water meters 83%86% ♫ Collection rate % 58%65% ♫ Working coverage rate 0.911.01 ♫ Staff efficiency 5.995.93 ♫

17. WM-OFMP PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENTS 2007/2006 RWC Hidrodrini, SH.A. Indicator20062007prog/reg Non-revenue water % 75%77%  Billing percentage 92% - Prop. of customers with water meters 84%87% ♫ Collection rate % 49%53% ♫ Working coverage rate 0.98 - Staff efficiency 6.766.48 ♫

18. WM-OFMP PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENTS 2007/2006 RWC Ujesjellesi Regjional, SH.A. Indicator20062007prog/reg Non-revenue water % 47%48%  Billing percentage 92% ♫ Prop. i kons. me ujemates 41%45% ♫ Collection rate % 45%50% ♫ Working coverage rate 1.130.95  Staff efficiency 11.4811.03 ♫

19. WM-OFMP PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENTS 2007/2006 RWC Radoniqi, SH.A. Indicator20062007prog/reg Non-revenue water % 67%62% ♫ Billing percentage 100% - Prop. of customers with water meters 92%94% ♫ Collection rate % 66%70% ♫ Working coverage rate 1.031.10 ♫ Staff efficiency 8.788.66 ♫

20. WM-OFMP PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENTS 2007/2006 RWC Bifurkacioni, SH.A. Indicator20062007prog/reg Non-revenue water % 61%54% ♫ Billing percentage 75%84% ♫ Prop. of customers with water meters 49%58% ♫ Collection rate % 50%57% ♫ Working coverage rate 0.981.05 ♫ Staff efficiency 7.428.19 

21. WM-OFMP PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENTS 2007/2006 RWC Hidromorava, SH.A. Indicator20062007prog/reg Non-revenue water % 57%46% ♫ Billing percentage 91%97% ♫ Prop. of customers with water meters 78%80% ♫ Collection rate % 65%71% ♫ Working coverage rate 0.91 - Staff efficiency 8.899.10 

22. WM-OFMP Relative comparative performance who is the best performing company?!

23. WM-OFMP Non-revenue water %

24. WM-OFMP Billing percentage

25. WM-OFMP Metered consumption %

26. WM-OFMP Staff efficiency %

27. WM-OFMP Customer complaints

28. WM-OFMP Working rate

29. WM-OFMP Working coverage rate

30. WM-OFMP Operating cost per m3 of water produced

31. WM-OFMP Collection rate %

32. WM-OFMP Water quality

33. WM-OFMP Water supply

34. WM-OFMP Water service coverage

35. WM-OFMP Wastewater service coverage

36. WM-OFMP CONCLUSION -In 2007 compared to 2006, water sector has performed much better in relation to key performance indicators -All companies has shown progress in 2007 compared to 2006 in relative individual performance this may be a result of -Serious engagement of companies’ management staff -Establishment of Boards of Directors -Contribution given by Donors and Consultants -WWRO role

37. WM-OFMP STEPS FORWARD -Preparation of Performance Report for 2007 -Publication of the Performance Report -Regional benchmarking of water companies

38. WM-OFMP THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!