You are on page 1of 225

SECOND WATER UTILITIES DATA BOOK

Asian and Pacific Region

Edited By:

Arthur C. McIntosh Cesar E. Yñiguez

Asian Development Bank October 1997

© 1997 by the Asian Development Bank October 1997

This publication was prepared under the Asian Development Bank’s Regional Technical Assistance No. 5694: Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region by the Bank’s Water Supply, Urban Development and Housing Division (West) of the Agriculture and Social Sector Department (West). The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the Bank or those of its member countries.

National Library of the Philippines ISBN 971-561-125-7 Publication Stock No. 080197

In this publication, the term ‘country’ does not imply on the part of the Asian Development Bank any judgement as to the legal or other status of any territorial entity.

Please address inquiries for copies of this publication to the Chief, Information Office, Asian Development Bank, P. O. Box 789,0980 Manila, Philippines.

FOREWORD
The Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region was first published by the Asian Development Bank in November 1993. It provided information from 38 utilities in 23 of the Bank’s developing member countries (DMCs) and was based mainly on 1990 and 1991 data. The Data Book was well received by stakeholders and has served as a useful reference document. There was need, however, to update it and to expand coverage and analysis.

The Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region builds on our experience from the first Data Book. It provides information from 50 water utilities in 31 DMCs and is based largely on 1995 data. Additional features include the results of consumer surveys, a section on private sector participation, comparisons with information in the first Data Book, and greater analytical depth. It is expected that the Data Book will provide a broad perspective of water utility services and institutions in the Asian and Pacific region to the stakeholders. Utilities should also find it useful as a benchmark against which to measure their own performance.

The preparation of the Data Book was made possible through a technical assistance grant of the Asian Development Bank. Much effort has gone into confirming the accuracy and consistency of information provided by a host of utilities. While some discrepancies might seem apparent, these have been minimized by explanatory footnotes. The range and volume of data collected has made analysis more varied and meaningful; the views and conclusions, however, should not be taken as being the official positions of the Bank.

Arthur C. McIntosh, Senior Project Engineer (Water Supply) in the Bank’s Water Supply, Urban Development and Housing Division (West) was responsible for the overall production of the Data Book, and directly prepared Part I. He was ably supported by Cesar E. Yñiguez (Consultant), who prepared Parts II and III. Elizabeth V. C. Crisostomo provided invaluable secretarial assistance.

The provision of adequate, safe, and reliable water supplies in the context of an increasing population and rapid urban growth in the Asian and Pacific region will be a major challenge in the 21st century. We hope that this Data Book will contribute in understanding that challenge better, and in helping stakeholders define the best ways of meeting it.

Yang Weimin Director Agriculture & Social Sectors Dept. (East)

Eustace A. Nonis Director Agriculture & Social Sectors Dept. (West)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Bank wishes to thank the following water utilities of the DMCs for their cooperation in providing the information that made the publication of this Second Water Utilities Data Book possible. The efforts made by the domestic consultants and individuals in guiding and assisting the water utilities in the completion of the water utilities questionnaires and in conducting the consumer surveys and answering clarifications were greatly appreciated.

Country
Bangladesh

Utility
Chittagong Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Thimphu City Corporation (Water Supply Unit) Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority Beijing Municipal Waterworks Company Shanghai Municipal Waterworks Company Tianjin Waterworks Group Company, Ltd. Water Supply Division (Rarotonga) Fiji Public Works Department (Suva) Water Supplies Department Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Water Supply Department) Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Drainage Board Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (Hydraulic Engineer’s Department) PDAM Kodya Dati II Bandung PDAM DKI Jakarta PDAM Tirtanadi Medan Industrial Enterprise Almaty Vodocanal Seoul Metropolitan Government (Office of Waterworks) Ulsan City Water and Sewerage Board Industrial Enterprise Bishkek Vodocanal Nam Papa Lao (Vientiane) Johor Water Company Selangor Waterworks Department (Kuala Lumpur) Penang Water Authority Malé Water and Sewerage Company, Ltd. Water Supply and Sewerage System Company (Ulaanbaatar) Mandalay City Development Committee (Water and Sanitation Department) Yangon City Development Committee (Engineering Department) Nepal Water Supply Corporation (Kathmandu)

Bhutan Cambodia China, People’s Republic of

Cook Islands Fiji Hong Kong, China India

Indonesia

Kazakstan Korea, Republic of

Kyrgyz Republic Lao, PDR Malaysia

Maldives Mongolia Myanmar

Nepal

special thanks are due to Mr. and the Suggested Evaluation Criteria. Jeffry Stubbs. Ms. Rep. Messrs. Ortega of AWWU. under the supervision of Mr. Desktop publishing assistance was provided by Ms. AWWU) for his support and advice. Elisabetta Capannelli and Mr. Xiaoyan Ye for helping the utilities in Ulaanbaatar and Phnom Penh. Warren Evans and Wouter Lincklaen-Arriens provided advice regarding the sections on the Bank’s Strategy. . Bhutan. Ms. for their assistance in initiating communications with the water utilities in these cities. The Bank wishes to thank the Resident Project Officer of UNICEF Bishkek for his assistance in recruiting and communicating with the local domestic consultant for Almaty. Yñiguez and Ms. The communications assistance provided by the Pakistan Resident Mission for Faisalabad and the Bangladesh Resident Mission for Chittagong are also appreciated. Preben Nielsen (Manager. Maestro of the Printing Unit.China Thailand Tonga Uzbekistan Vanuatu Viet Nam. Malé.Country Pakistan Utility Faisalabad Development Authority (Water and Sanitation Agency) Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Lahore Development Authority (Water and Sanitation Agency) The Water Board (Lae District Office) Metropolitan Cebu Water District Davao City Water District Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (Metro Manila) Public Utilities Board (Water Department) Solomon Islands Water Authority (Honiara) National Water Supply and Drainage Board (Colombo) Taipei Water Department Metropolitan Waterworks Authority (Bangkok) Provincial Waterworks Authority (Chiangmai) Provincial Waterworks Authority (Chonburi) Tonga Water Board (Nuku’alofa) Tashkent Vodocanal Union Electrique du Vanuatu. Among the Bank staff who assisted. Ma. J. Hanoi. Arjun Thapan. and Phnom Penh. Lourdes J. respectively. Soc. of Western Samoa The section on Private Sector Participation was prepared by Malcolm Jeffery of Northumbrian Water Services Limited. Best Practice in the Sector. Bishkek and Tashkent. Judy T. Charoen Bunchandranon. in collecting and gathering the utility data. Raveendranath Rajan. Special acknowledgment is due to the UNICEF field offices in Almaty. (Port Vila) Hanoi Water Business Company Ho Chi Minh City Water Supply Company Western Samoa Water Authority (Apia) Papua New Guinea Philippines Singapore Solomon Islands Sri Lanka Taipei. Marites M. Ltd.

546 liters 4. Environment and Physical Planning Metropolitan Waterworks Authority Malé Water and Sewerage Company Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System .ABBREVIATIONS Measurement Units and Symbols gal km km2 l/c/d or lpcd m m2 m3 m3/d m3/d/c mm NA sq ft sq km sq yd % < > “ gallon kilometer square kilometer liters per capita per day meter square meter cubic meter cubic meter per day cubic meter per day per capita millimeter not available or not applicable square feet square kilometer square yard per cent less than greater than inch Unit Conversion 1 gallon 1.546 cubic meters Abbreviations and Acronyms ADB ARV BMC BMWC CMC CMWSSB CWASA DCWD DMC DMC DWASA DWSSDU FDA GIS GNP HC HWBC JWC KWSB LDA MCWD MIS MOWEPP MWA MWSC MWSS Asian Development Bank Annual Rental Value Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Beijing Municipal Waterworks Company Calcutta Municipal Corporation Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Chittagong Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Davao City Water District Delhi Municipal Corporation Developing Member Country of the Bank Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking Faisalabad Development Authority Geographic Information System Gross National Product House Connection Hanoi Water Business Company Johor Water Company Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Lahore Development Authority Metropolitan Cebu Water District Management Information System Ministry of Works.000 gallons 4.

Ltd. Ltd.. United States Dollar Water Supply and Sewerage System Company (Ulaanbaatar) Water and Sanitation Agency Water Supply Company Western Samoa Water Authority Water Treatment Plant . Unaccounted For Water Union Electrique du Vanuatu.NARV NDMC NPL NRW NWSC NWSDB O&M OR PDAM PDR PPWSA PSP PT PUB PWA PWD SCADA SIWA SMWC SP SWD TA TWB TWD TWWC UFW UNELCO US$ USAG WASA WSC WSWA WTP Net Annual Rental Value New Delhi Municipal Corporation Nam Papa Lao Non-Revenue Water Nepal Water Supply Corporation National Water Supply and Drainage Board Operation and Maintenance Operating Ratio Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum People’s Democratic Republic Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority Private Sector Participation Public Tap Public Utilities Board Provincial Waterworks Authority Public Works Department Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition Solomon Islands Water Authority Shanghai Municipal Waterworks Company Stand Pipe Selangor Waterworks Department Technical Assistance Tonga Water Board Taipei Water Department Tianjin Waterworks Group Co.

Nevertheless.METHODOLOGY In July 1996. may be used to measure overall utility performance with time and to compare with other utilities. The regional profiles include additional information on capital expenditure. This.000 connections and those with more than 150. 50 utilities from 31 countries provided data and their names and locations are shown on the map. . in the questionnaire and in the presentation of data to differentiate between performance indicators for the utility and performance indicators for the city water supply. production metering. the Bank is conscious that not all the data is 100 percent reliable. In all. a summary of the consumer survey findings and the major changes between the figures reported in the first and second Data Books. or a modified version to suit a particular utility. it would be best to communicate directly with the utility in question for verification of the data. For those who wish to do more detailed analysis of the collected data. the Bank approved technical assistance to prepare the Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region. Of the original 38 utilities included in the first Data Book. ratio of professional staff to total staff. readers should be careful about quoting a specific figure from one utility. so that the data finally presented is the best that could be obtained in the circumstances. However. Thus. the full consumer survey data is also available for further analysis. Computer files were developed comprising detailed tables showing the derivation of the performance indicators. Many clarifications have been sought on the data provided. a more comprehensive sector profile is included. A workshop was held in Manila attended by 12 representatives of utilities. since there is such a range of small and large utilities. Domestic consultants were (in most cases) also recruited to assist the utility in completing the questionnaire. In other cases they have been converted into graphs and histograms. as well as to carry out the consumer survey. The utility profiles have been improved by inclusion of a mission statement. private sector participation. to design the utility and consumer survey questionnaires. Generally. Also. Performance indicators were derived using basic data from the questionnaires and following various computations. the formulae for which are presented on the next page. A consultant and a secretary were recruited to implement the technical assistance. it was necessary. the questionnaires have been amended to reflect all the clarifications sought and all of these are available in printed hard copy or in electronic form. A suggested evaluation criteria is provided as an appendix. Only a limited number of these tables have been presented directly in the Data Book. If in doubt. methods of payment collection. non-revenue water. only Guangzhou was unable to participate in the Second Data Book. data was provided for 1995 or 1995/96 fiscal years. Likewise. Mostly. which were then sent to 51 utilities in 31 developing member countries. Many of the water utilities associated with a city water supply also provide services to nearby towns and some are national water authorities. the same format as for the first Data Book has been retained. annual maintenance expenses and automation of operations. instead of having an executive summary.000 connections. it was decided for presentation purposes to break down the cities into two groups: those with less than 150. For that reason. as well as interested Bank staff. The city profiles have been improved by inclusion of information on both unaccounted water and non-revenue water.

11. Monthly household income (based on per capita GNP). Storage capacity (hours): = [storage capacity (m3)] / [daily production (m3/d)] x 24 10. 30. Unit production cost (US$/m3): = [annual O&M cost (US$)] / [total annual production (m3)] 8.000 connections: = [number of utility staff for city] / [number of city connections/1.000/365] / [number of HC x persons per HC] 3.total annual consumption (m3)] x 100/[total annual production (m3)] 5. from the consumer surveys.The information presented in this Second Water Utilities Data Book was either taken from a water utility questionnaire completed by each utility. = [(per capita GNP)/12] x [average number of persons per household] 13.000] 7. 20.7 m3 domestic water in a month] x 12 months 12. the cost corresponding to each of the above consumption levels is the area under the curve from 0 to the amount consumed plus other monthly charges. Cost of water for domestic use (10. Unaccounted for water (%): = [total annual production (m3) .use the corresponding tariff structure or tariff rate curves (Figure 31a to 31l) for each water utility. Average tariff (US$/m3): = [total annual billing (US$)] / [total annual consumption (m3)] 4. 1. or was based on computations using data from the questionnaires. Operating ratio: = [annual O&M cost] / [annual billing] 6. Cost of water for domestic use (200 m3/year): = [cost of 16. Per capita consumption (l/c/d): = [annual water consumption (m3) for HC x 1. Service coverage (%): = [(number of HC x persons per HC) + (number of PT x persons per PT)] x 100/[total city population] 2. Nominal collection efficiency (%): = [total annual collections (US$) / total annual billings (US$)] x 100 . and 50 m3 per month) . People served (persons): = [(number of HC x persons per HC) + (number of PT x persons per PT)] 9. if any. The formulae for the computations are shown below. Staff/1.

The utilities provided information on non-revenue water (NRW) which was defined as the total production volume (ex treatment plant) minus the total consumption volume which produces revenue divided by the total production volume calculated as a percentage. .

TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword Acknowledgments Abbreviations Methodology Map Table of Contents Tables and Figures Currency Conversions PART I .SECTOR PROFILE Summary of Results for 50 Utilities Comment and Analysis by City Comment and Analysis by Parameter Trends for 37 Water Utilities From First to Second Data Book The Consumer Survey Private Sector Participation Findings of Bank’s Study Tour on PSP Best Practice in Water Utilities Towards Effective Water Policy PART II .REGIONAL PROFILES (FIGURES AND TABLES) Institutions Names and Locations of Utilities Size of Utility Type of Water Utility Operations Subsidy for Utility Grant Element of Capital Investment Capital Expenditure Per Connection Water Production Production Volume Storage Capacity Main Water Treatment Process Chlorination Methods Production Metering Service City Connections Domestic Water Supply Services Water Availability Water Use Per Capita Consumption Drinking Water Quality Bottled Water Usage .

Management Unaccounted For Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Average Tariff Operating Ratios for City Water Supplies Staff per 1.Group 5 (Honiara. Hanoi. Medan. Penang) Domestic Tariff Structures . Taipei. Seoul. Davao. Colombo. Phnom Penh) Domestic Tariff Structures . Thimphu) Ratio of Industrial/Domestic Tariff for 30 Cubic Meters per Month Water Revenue Components Cost of Water for Domestic Use (House Connections) Cost of Domestic Water at 200 Cubic Meters per Year Affordability of Domestic Water Connection Fee for House Connection Accounts Receivables Collection Efficiency Sewerage Surcharge Water Vending Operation and Maintenance Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs O&M Cost Components Meters Repaired or Replaced Annually Leaks Repaired Annually Annual Maintenance Expenses Automation of Operations . Bangkok.Group 4 (Dhaka. Singapore) Domestic Tariff Structures . Apia. Lae. Mumbai. Malé) Domestic Tariff Structures . Jakarta. Chonburi.Group 2 (Manila. Tashkent.Group 9 (Vientiane. Nuku’alofa. Chiangmai.Group 12 (Chennai.Group 7 (Bandung.Group 1 (Hong Kong. Delhi) Domestic Tariff Structures . Lahore. Ho Chi Minh City. Kathmandu. Ulaanbaatar) Domestic Tariff Structures . Bishkek. Port Vila) Domestic Tariff Structures .Group 8 (Karachi.Group 3 (Beijing. Chittagong) Domestic Tariff Structures . Kuala Lumpur) Domestic Tariff Structures .000 Connections (Cities) Professional Staff Type of Annual Report Average Salaries of Top Five Management Positions Priority Needs of Utilities Private Sector Participation Tariffs Methods of Payment for Water Through House Connections Methods of Payment for Water Through Public Taps and Stand Pipes Methods of Payment for Water Through Industrial & Commercial Connections Consumer Metering Methods of Payment Collection Domestic Tariff Structures . Faisalabad.Group 6 (Cebu.Group 11 (Johor Bahru. Tianjin) Domestic Tariff Structures . Shanghai.Group 10 (Almaty. Suva. Ulsan) Domestic Tariff Structures .

People’s Republic of Beijing Municipal Waterworks Company Beijing Water Supply Shanghai Municipal Waterworks Company Shanghai Water Supply Tianjin Waterworks Group Company Tianjin Water Supply Cook Islands Rarotonga Water Supply Division Rarotonga Water Supply Fiji Fiji Public Works Department Suva Water Supply Hong Kong.PART III .WATER UTILITY AND CITY PROFILES Bangladesh Chittagong Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Chittagong Water Supply Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Dhaka Water Supply Bhutan Thimphu City Corporation (Water Supply Unit) Thimphu Water Supply Cambodia Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority Phnom Penh Water Supply China. China Water Supplies Department Hong Kong Water Supply India Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Water Supply Department) Calcutta Water Supply Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Chennai Water Supply Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking Delhi Water Supply Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (Hydraulic Engineer’s Department) Mumbai Water Supply .

Malé Water Supply Mongolia Water Supply and Sewerage System Company (USAG) Ulaanbaatar Water Supply Myanmar Mandalay City Development Committee (Water and Sanitation Department) Mandalay Water Supply Yangon City Development Committee (Water and Sanitation Department) Yangon Water Supply ..Indonesia PDAM Kodya Dati II Bandung Bandung Water Supply PDAM DKI Jakarta Jakarta Water Supply PDAM Tirtanadi Medan Medan Water Supply Kazakstan Industrial Enterprise Almaty Vodocanal Almaty Water Supply Korea. (Johor Water Company) Johor Bahru Water Supply Selangor Waterworks Department Kuala Lumpur Water Supply Pihak Berkuasa Air Pulau Pinang (Penang Water Authority) Penang Island Water Supply Maldives Malé Water and Sewerage Company. Republic of Seoul Metropolitan Government (Office of Waterworks) Seoul Water Supply Ulsan City Water and Sewerage Board Ulsan Water Supply Kyrgyz Republic Industrial Enterprise Bishkek Vodocanal Bishkek Water Supply Lao. Ltd. PDR Nam Papa Lao Vientiane Water Supply Malaysia Syarikat Air Johor Sdn. Bhd.

1) Chonburi Water Supply .Nepal Nepal Water Supply Corporation Kathmandu Water Supply Pakistan Faisalabad Development Authority (Water and Sanitation Agency) Faisalabad Water Supply Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Karachi Water Supply Lahore Development Authority (Water and Sanitation Agency) Lahore Water Supply Papua New Guinea The Waterboard (Lae Distirct Office) Lae Water Supply Philippines Metropolitan Cebu Water District Cebu Water Supply Davao City Water District Davao Water Supply Metropolitan Waterworks Sewerage System Manila Water Supply Singapore Public Utilities Board (Water Department) Singapore Water Supply Solomon Islands Solomon Islands Water Authority Honiara Water Supply Sri Lanka National Water Supply and Drainage Board Colombo Water Supply Taipei.9) Chiangmai Water Supply Provincial Waterworks Authority (Regional Office No.China Taipei Water Department Taipei Water Supply Thailand Metropolitan Waterworks Authority Bangkok Water Supply Provincial Waterworks Authority (Regional Office No.

Port Vila Water Supply Viet Nam. . Ltd. The information was received too late to amend this publication.Tonga Tonga Water Board Nuku’alofa Water Supply Uzbekistan Tashkent Vodocanal Tashkent Water Supply Vanuatu Union Electrique du Vanuatu. the name of the country was changed from Western Samoa to Samoa. 2) 1997. under Constitutional Amendment Act (No. Socialist Republic of Hanoi Water Business Company Hanoi Water Supply Ho Chi Minh City Water Supply Company Ho Chi Minh City Water Supply Western Samoa* Western Samoa Water Authority Apia Water Supply APPENDIXES Appendix 1: Water Utility Questionnaire Appendix 2: Consumer Survey Questionnaire Appendix 3: Suggested Evaluation Criteria for Utilities * Editor’s Note: From 4 July 1997.

000 Connections (Cities) Professional Staff Type of Annual Report Average Salaries of Top Five Management Positions Private Sector Participation Methods of Payment for Water Through House Connections Methods of Payment for Water Through Public Taps and Stand Pipes Methods of Payment for Water Through Industrial & Commercial Connections Consumer Metering Methods of Payment Collection Domestic Tariff Structures .Group 1 (Hong Kong. Taipei.TABLES Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Title Summary of Results for 50 Utilities Selected Unit Costs of Water from Consumer Survey Summary of Consumer Survey Results Options for Private Sector Participation Private Sector Participation Considerations Private Sector Participation Case Study Comparison Names and Locations of Utilities Size of Utility Operating Ratios for City Water Supplies Priority Needs of Utilities Cost of Water for Domestic Use (House Connections) Connection Fee for House Connection Accounts Receivables Water Vending Page FIGURES Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31a Title Type of Water Utility Operations Subsidy for Utility Grant Capital of Capital Investment Capital Expenditure Per Connection Production Volume Storage Capacity Water Treatment Process Chlorination Methods Production Metering City Connections Domestic Water Supply Services Water Availability Water Use Per Capita Consumption Drinking Water Quality Bottled Water Usage Unaccounted For Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Average Tariff Staff per 1. Seoul. Singapore) Page .

Kuala Lumpur) Domestic Tariff Structures .Group 6 (Cebu. Phnom Penh) Domestic Tariff Structures .Group 7 (Bandung.Group 4 (Dhaka. Malé) Domestic Tariff Structures .Group 5 (Honiara. Ulaanbaatar) Domestic Tariff Structures . Lahore. Suva.Group 11 (Johor Bahru. Lae. Hanoi.Group 12 (Chennai.Group 8 (Karachi. Medan. Tianjin) Domestic Tariff Structures . Thimphu) Ratio of Industrial/Domestic Tariff for 30 Cubic Meters per Month Water Revenue Components Cost of Domestic Water at 200 Cubic Meters per Year Affordability of Domestic Water Collection Efficiency Sewerage Surcharge Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs O&M Cost Components Meters Repaired or Replaced Annually Leaks Repaired Annually Annual Maintenance Expenses Automation of Operations .Group 10 (Almaty. Chittagong) Domestic Tariff Structures . Kathmandu. Shanghai. Mumbai. Jakarta. Delhi) Domestic Tariff Structures .Group 9 (Vientiane.31b 31c 31d 31e 31f 31g 31h 31i 31j 31k 31l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Domestic Tariff Structures . Apia. Ho Chi Minh City. Penang) Domestic Tariff Structures . Colombo.Group 3 (Beijing. Bishkek.Group 2 (Manila. Nuku’alofa. Chonburi. Chiangmai. Port Vila) Domestic Tariff Structures . Bangkok. Ulsan) Domestic Tariff Structures . Davao. Faisalabad. Tashkent.

5 886 17.65 35. . People’s Rep.4 27. Rep.4743 1.479 75.114 2. the country’s Central Bank or book rates provided by the International Monetary Fund and are officially used by the Bank.65 11. of Western Samoa Currency Unit Bangladesh taka Bhutanese ngultrum Cambodian riel Chinese yuan New Zealand dollar Fiji dollar Hong Kong dollar Indian rupee Indonesian rupiah Tenge Korean won Som Lao kip Malaysian ringgit Maldivian rufiyaa Mongolian tugrik Myanmar kyat Nepalese rupee Pakistan rupee Papua New Guinea kina Philippine peso Singapore dollar Solomon Islands dollar Sri Lanka rupee New Taiwan dollar Thai baht Tongan pa’anga Uzbek sum Vanuatu vatu Vietnamese dong Western Samoa tala Symbol Tk Nu KR Y NZ$ F$ HK$ Rs Rp T W Som KN M$ Rf Tug MK NRs PRs K P S$ SI$ SLRs NT$ B T$ Sum Vt D WS$ Rate of Exchange (to US$) 43.737 8.5199 Note: Rates are market rates sourced from the New York Foreign Exchange.6711 58.7468 35.3869 26.CURRENCY CONVERSIONS (As of 1 July 1997) Country Bangladesh Bhutan Cambodia China.775 2.81 114.5245 11.52 6.1806 57. Rep.2907 1.384 1.4292 3.025 40.4215 7.022 2.795 2. China India Indonesia Kazakstan Korea.3325 1.65 1. of Cook Islands Fiji Hong Kong.6623 1. of Kyrgyz Republic Lao PDR Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Myanmar Nepal Pakistan Papua New Guinea Philippines Singapore Solomon Islands Sri Lanka Taipei. Soc.8 24.77 796.China Thailand Tonga Uzbekistan Vanuatu Viet Nam.2405 60.

94 25.5 100 24 337 50 0.09 Bangkok Production Beijing – Bishkek Rehab Calcutta – Cebu Source/ Pipe 0.37 13.0 283 2.470 27.28 40 of 50 * excluding Ulaanbaatar TS GC IF Meter Leaks = = = = = Type Script Glossy Covered Report Intermediate Format Meter reading Leak repairs ( ) refers to number of utilities = = = = = Production Management Rehabilitation Source development Pipe rehabilitation B&C MC Dist = = = Billing and Collection Management Contract Distribution Prod Mgmt Rehab Source Pipe Summary of Results for 50 Utilities 3 .36 10 4.31 10 3.390 3.26 0.1 115 7.30 27.000 Connections ratio Management Salary (US$) New Connection (US$) Accounts Receivable (months) Grant Financing (%) Commercial Financing (%) Local Bond Financing (%) Capital Expenditure/ Connection (US$) Annual Report 54 0.9 1.9 0 5.6 100 1.220 17.0 31 of 50 83 1.05 14 2.89 4.1 98 24 112 42/47 0.5 80/12 mo.5 82 24 265 38 0.53 0.0 21 1 – 100 – – Nil – – Nil 30 – 26 – – 28 – – Nil – – Nil – – 1 11 – 26 7 25 35 (31) (15) (4) 10 TS 40 None 74 TS 327 GC 298 TS 2 TS 14 TS 66 GC 71 GC 138 GC 90.07 99 24 186 13/32 0.01 5 1.6 Nil 42 6 120 43/51 0.25 17.400 15.30 5 3.9 100 0.2 23 18 173 38 0.940 6.570 13.72 0.06 1 1.000 1.25 3 6.900 1.Table 1: SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR 50 UTILITIES Almaty Private Sector Participation Production/Population (m3/d/c) Coverage (%) Water Availability (hours) Consumption (l/c/d) UFW (%)/NRW (%) Average Tariff (US$/m3) Water Bill (US$/month) Power/Water Bill ratio Public Taps – Apia – Bandung Meter/ Leaks 0.05 1 6.37 8 1.73 15.8 83 1.67 0.34 0.0 100 0.05 11.8 100 0.32 0.3 1 0.5 97 4 65 20 135 81 19 157 35/40 0.7 Nil Metering (%) Operating Ratio Staff/1.24 Average (50) 24 of 50 0.810 4.2 1 0.7 66 10 202 50 0.790 36.55 9.05 1 2.9 41 5.010 66 5.96 7.6 Nil 100 24 96 8 0.2 190 4.1 100 0.9 3 7.49 2.7 100 0.08 Chennai Pumping Chiangmai Prod/ Other 0.7 40 1.4 28 – 78 1. 1.66 15 1.66 0.5 35/38 0.89 6.8* 20 0.

63 2.83 6.000 Connections ratio Management Salary (US$) New Connection (US$) Accounts Receivable (months) Grant Financing (%) Commercial Financing (%) Local Bond Financing (%) Capital Expenditure/ Connection (US$) Annual Report 100 0.15 0.140 14.8 52 24 145 31 0.5 29 11.5 5 1.96 6.6 92 3.36 0.8 83 1.4 147 4.7 Nil 58 22 165 35/51 0.03 1 18.800 5.56 31 1.24 0.2 89 16 145 37 0.0 83 1.4 Nil 86 4 209 26/44 0.53 7.4 74 1.11 1 5.0 52 24 136 34 0.400 3.3 100 0.32 0.40 60 15 139 35 0.09 0.09 0.0 31 of 50 Metering (%) Operating Ratio Staff/1.01 18.4 60 7 170 30/78 0.1 100 24 112 36 0.28 None GC GC GC TS GC None IF TS TS 40 of 50 * excluding Ulaanbaatar TS GC IF Meter Leaks = = = = = Type Script Glossy Covered Report Intermediate Format Meter reading Leak repairs ( ) refers to number of utilities = = = = = Production Management Rehabilitation Source development Pipe rehabilitation B&C MC Dist = = = Billing and Collection Management Contract Distribution Prod Mgmt Rehab Source Pipe 4 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .8* 6.13 6 3.56 27.0 190 4.Table 1: SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR 50 UTILITIES (cont'd.22 0.12 9 2.5 15 4.480 1.7 42 17 95 51 0.14 0.0 25 0.4 100 1.79 13. 0.2 73 1.48 21.36 10 4.290 27.980 41.7 100 0.14 1 8.13 0.46 7 3.03 2 7.2 81 19 157 35/40 0.950 1.34 2.09 11 3.41 25.150 15.3 100 0.0 34 12.020 2.05 11.1 45 3.18 0.) Chittagong Private Sector Participation Production/Population (m3/d/c) Coverage (%) Water Availability (hours) Consumption (l/c/d) UFW (%)/NRW (%) Average Tariff (US$/m3) Water Bill (US$/month) Power/Water Bill ratio Public Taps – Chonburi Prod/Other Colombo Proposed Davao B&C Delhi – Dhaka B&C Faisalabad – Hanoi – Ho Chi Minh Production Hong Kong – Average (50) 24 of 50 0.2 42/12 mo.5 76 18 45 63/71 0.0 Nil – – 5 26 7 25 138 50 – – 142 Nil – – 13 2 1 – 30 100 – – 145 Nil – – 31 70 – – 2 90 – – 21 100 – – 95 35 (31) (15) (4) 90.010 69 10.6 94 0.27 7 2.030 8.0 76 0.

60 7.60 1.790 19.39 17.370 33.22 6.09 5 12.5 2 16.0 100 24 193 21 0.36 10 4.1 Nil 70 1-4 157 30/40 0.6 81 19 157 35/40 0.420 13.670 3.14 2 7.7 81 6 91 40 0.6 100 0.0 7 7.0 100 0.86 25 3.28 TS GC TS Basic Facts TS GC IF None None None 40 of 50 * excluding Ulaanbaatar TS GC IF Meter Leaks = = = = = Type Script Glossy Covered Report Intermediate Format Meter reading Leak repairs ( ) refers to number of utilities = = = = = Production Management Rehabilitation Source development Pipe rehabilitation B&C MC Dist = Billing and Collection = Management Contract = Distribution Prod Mgmt Rehab Source Pipe Summary of Results for 50 Utilities 5 .8 100 24 200 36 0.100 4.7 100 0.0 50 2.4 10 1.34 14 2.1 100 0.9 100 0.11 0.14 Kathmandu MC/Dist Kuala Lumpur Prod/B&C Lae – Lahore – Malé Concession Mandalay – Average (50) 24 of 50 0.37 Karachi Major Proposal 0.Table 1: SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR 50 UTILITIES (cont'd.20 51 1.05 11.8 27 18 135 53 0.0 31 of 50 Metering (%) Operating Ratio Staff/1.0 1.0 100 – – 5 8 – – 180 Nil 6 – 93 99 – – 52 72 – – 38 Nil 20 – 126 100 – – 45 23 – – 4 Nil – – 165 Nil – – 299 35 (31) (15) (4) 90.32 0.010 95 5.64 52 1.650 4.98 5.61 18 1.15 12 1.3 83 1.7 100 0.000 connections ratio Management Salary (US$) New Connection (US$) Accounts Receivable (months) Grant Financing (%) Commercial Financing (%) Local Bond Financing (%) Capital Expenditure/ Connection (US$) Annual Report 100 1.2 1 0.5 72 3.20 6 4.8* 6.35 0.030 30.72 15.9 100 24 16 10 4.5 4 0.270 2.950 6.3 Nil 84 17 213 40 0.8 49 4.1 24 0.0 485 0.14 100 23 251 38 0.11 0.61 1.2 190 4.33 0.38 0.58 Jakarta B&C Johor Bahru Prod/ Leaks 0.) Honiara Private Sector Participation Production/Population (m3/d/c) Coverage (%) Water Availability (hours) Consumption (l/c/d) UFW (%) Average Tariff (US$/m3) Water Bill (US$/month) Power/Water Bill ratio Public Taps Prod/ Mgmt 0.3 Nil 80 24 110 60 1.4 83 0.71 5.130 15.0 Nil 62 24 146 61 0.26 10.39 7 2.77 8.03 0.

90 0.15 0.440 5.27 15 1.58 67 17 202 44/58 0.) Manila Private Sector Participation Production/Population (m3/d/c) Coverage (%) Water Availability (hours) Consumption (l/c/d) UFW (%)/NRW (%) Average Tariff (US$/m3) Water Bill (US$/month) Power/Water Bill ratio Public Taps Concessions Medan Mumbai B&C – Nuku’alofa Penang – – Phnom Penh – Port Vila Concession Rarotonga – Seoul Meter Reading 0.63 14 3.28 GC TS IF GC GC TS IF None TS IF 40 of 50 * excluding Ulaanbaatar TS GC IF Meter Leaks = = = = = Type Script Glossy Covered Report Intermediate Format Meter reading Leak repairs ( ) refers to number of utilities = = = = = Production Management Rehabilitation Source development Pipe rehabilitation B&C MC Dist = = = Billing and Collection Management Contract Distribution Prod Mgmt Rehab Source Pipe 6 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .010 95/12 mo.8 100 1.2 63 24 131 27/29 0.Table 1: SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR 50 UTILITIES (cont'd.1 8 19.61 13.1 190 4.32 0.36 0.3 Nil 98 24 273 26 0.0 164 0.350 15.3 Nil 100 24 143 14 0.410 4.36 10 4.13 0.20 4.3 Nil 100 21 78 42/45 0.06 1 7.9 67 1.9 151 Nil 136 NA 1.0 23 34 18 61 15 – – 64 Nil – – 79 Nil 17 – 18 Nil – – 43 92 2 – 274 Nil – – 102 28 72 – 57 Nil 11 – 155 100 – – 38 35 (31) (15) (4) 90.65 9.5 – 11.3 100 5 178 18 0.05 11.07 2 4.49 22 2.25 0.47 Shanghai – Average (50) 24 of 50 0.80 16.5 100 1.8* 12.000 Connections ratio Management Salary (US$) New Connection (US$) Accounts Receivable (months) Grant Financing (%) Commercial Financing (%) Local Bond Financing (%) Capital Expenditure/ Connection (US$) Annual Report 98 0.84 2.210 250 – 13.0 81 0.970 19.1 99 24 244 20 0.570 40.3 100 1.28 8 3.010 3.51 0.977 1.3 83 12 32 61 0.4 88 0.1 81 19 157 35/40 0.0 31 of 50 Metering (%) Operating Ratio Staff/1.5 100 0.0 13 NA 3.08 33.21 8 4.74 4.0 Nil 100 24 267 70 NA NA NA Nil 100 24 209 34/35 0.23 13 3.7 28 1.0 100 0.15 5 2.26 0.500 13.3 100 0.12 0.1 83 1.5 59 2.19 6. 6.12 5.

079 1.8* 145.95 16.22 0.750 600 34.330 1.7 164 6.60 25.3 70 4.0 1.13 7 1.5 88 3.Table 1: SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR 50 UTILITIES (cont'd.7 60 12 67 60 0.60 2.2 93 12 93 37/53 0.36 10 4.05 3 1.010 350 1.71 0.28 0.22 11 2.40 16 2.7 Nil 98 24 135 43 0.55 12 3.0 31 of 50 Metering (%) Operating Ratio Staff/1.270 15.540 1.9 100 0.210 4.27 12.9 14 0.1 7 0.1 2 0.760 2.1 11 6.8 Nil 54 24 172 33/39 0.34 0.72 1.9 99 0.960 1.05 11.2 100 0.69 1.0 Nil – – 59 100 – – 70 Nil 71 – 62 Nil – – 1 100 – – 28 27 – 27 244 100 – – 62 7 – – 191 2 10 – 56 100 – – 182 36 (31) (15) (4) 90.1 Nil 2.) Singapore Suva Private Sector Participation Production/Population (m3/d/c) Coverage (%) Water Availability (hours) Consumption (l/c/d) UFW (%)/NRW (%) Average Tariff (US$/m3) Water Bill (US$/month) Power/Water Bill ratio Public Taps B&C – Taipei B&C/Leaks Tashkent – Thimphu – Tianjin – Ulaanbaatar – Ulsan – Vientiane – Yangon – Average (50) 24 of 50 0.9 81 19 157 35/40 0.32 0.0 362 0.12 100 24 183 6/7 0.0 902 0.39 8 5.04 8.5 Nil 98 24 109 14/63 0.8 100 21 177 49 0.000 connections ratio Management Salary (US$) New Connection (US$) Accounts Receivable (months) Grant Financing (%) Commercial Financing (%) Local Bond Financing (%) Capital Expenditure/ Connection (US$) Annual Report 100 0.8 100 0.46 19 1.85 17.5 100 1.0 100 1.28 GC TS GC TS None TS IF TS TS None 40 of 50 * excluding Ulaanbaatar TS GC IF Meter Leaks = = = = = Type Script Glossy Covered Report Intermediate Format Meter reading Leak repairs ( ) refers to number of utilities = = = = = Production Management Rehabilitation Source development Pipe rehabilitation B&C MC Dist = Billing and Collection = Management Contract = Distribution Prod Mgmt Rehab Source Pipe Summary of Results for 50 Utilities 7 .10 1 4.06 1 3.74 579.7 Nil 99 24 262 26/37 0.26 0.3 906 – 190 4.05 49.02 1 9.23 0.0 83 1.010 26.46 0.030 53.33 0.9 Nil 100 24 101 11 0.3 84 24 157 33 0.29 0.

but is weak in water resources management (UFW of 42%. To the utility’s credit there is apparently no grant financing. Human resource management (6. except for accounts receivable at 7. unless it goes hand in hand with autonomy on key management matters. water availability and consumption.000 connections is very high at 25. production/population is 0. UFW is probably more than that indicated (8%) (if average tariff is compared with the tariff structure). grant financing is almost eliminated and limited commercial financing has been introduced. are the principal issues to be addressed. UFW is high at 50% and not helped by many public taps and little metering.25 can only be offset by municipal revenues as the average tariff of US$0.7%) and very high operating ratio (7.4 months) but is weak in water resources management (production/population is 0.a.000 p. the condition of this utility needs improvement.72 m3/day/ person). Uses commercial financing and no grant financing.30) is too high. Calcutta The 202 l/c/d consumption contrasts with the low coverage of 66% and low water availability of 10 hours per day. Coverage (82%) could be improved as well as UFW (38%). Beijing Consumer satisfaction is provided in terms of coverage. On the plus side.7 and there is no grant financing. due to use of public taps and little metering.2) needs improvement. accounts receivable is 1. with many public taps still in use.0 month.73) reflecting low tariffs.96. Tariffs are too low (power/water bill ratio is 6. Apia Although consumer satisfaction is high.66/m3) are offset by high UFW (38%) and low water availability (18 hours). Financial management is sound. Human resource management (staff/1.8 months. An attempt should be made to reduce use of public taps. The major constraint is availability of water resources.000 connections ratio is 7. High average tariffs (US$0.66 m3/day/person) due to little metering and heavy use of public taps. many public taps and little metering. A comparison of average tariff with the tariff structure indicates UFW is much higher than the 13% recorded.COMMENT AND ANALYSIS BY CITY Almaty This utility provides consumer satisfaction and sound financial management (except for accounts receivable of 5. Consumption (265 l/c/d) on the high side. Water availability is 6 hours/day. coverage is only 42% and UFW 43%. The totally inadequate metering (2.1) and operating ratio (1. The very poor operating ratio of 5. but financial management is strong (operating ratio of 0. Chittagong Consumer satisfaction is low in terms of coverage (60%) and water availability (15 hours).000 connections ratio is 27.7 months. The situation demonstrates that external technical assistance in operations is in itself no guarantee of improved performance. staff/1.01/ m3 is extremely low. Bandung For a city which has had considerable development funding for water supplies over the last 15 years. 8 Bishkek This utility provides consumer satisfaction. operating ratio is 0.9 staff/1. On the plus side. Bangkok A generally well managed large utility. Chiangmai Low coverage (65%) and water availability (20 hours) plus UFW (35%) all need improvement. reflecting good management salaries (US$36. Cebu Very low coverage (23%) is the main feature of this utility. financial and water resources.).9 and accounts receivable weak at 5.49) with access to local bond financing.000 connections ratio) is satisfactory. this utility has weak management in human. Staff/ 1. Incomplete Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region . Chennai A very weak utility with only 4 hours water availability per day.

the utility has reasonably good performance parameters. Honiara General consumer satisfaction is weakened by use of public taps. Note the relatively high management salaries. financial and water resources management.000 connections (27. Davao A well managed utility with good performance parameters all round. Otherwise. reflecting use of public taps and need for major improvements in metering. High UFW of 53% may reflect the unserved urban poor. Nevertheless. A high average tariff (US$0. Hong Kong Of the larger utilities.7) and accounts receivable (10 months) show management deficiencies. Colombo Management weaknesses (note low management salaries) are reflected in low coverage (58%). 25 staff/1.56) is low and no grant financing is utilized. less than 24-hour water supply. although small.03/m3 contributes to this (compare the power/water bill ratio of 7. very little metering.03/m3 (power/water bill ratio is 18. Coverage at 86% still requires improvement.0 months). Financial improvements in accounts receivable (4. Coverage (89%) and water availability (16 hours) need improvement as does UFW (37%). Operating ratio (0. too low domestic water bill (power/water bill ratio of 8.61/m3 contributes to the relatively low consumption figure of 135 l/c/d. High staff/1. operating ratio (1.56/m 3) is reflected in low consumption (112 l/c/d). human resource management is not good. Decision to seek PSP in management augurs well for the future. many public taps. high consumption (251 l/c/d) and high operating ratio (1. The very low average tariff of US$0. the operating ratio (0. Accounts receivable (11 months) must be addressed.5).40 m3/day/person). UFW is also very high (63%). Accounts receivable at 5.8). With 21. Metering must be greatly improved and public taps should be reduced. Comment and Analysis by City Faisalabad A very weak utility characterized by 60% coverage.26). incomplete metering and high dependence on government financing (50% grants). continued use of public taps. The high average tariff of US$ 0.41. should be eliminated and this can be done by improving the operating ratio from a high 1. an average tariff of only US$0. The many public taps and the very deficient metering need addressing. Financial management is sound. Water availability is also low at 18 hours/day.4 staff/1. average consumption is high at 209 l/c/d. Jakarta The very low coverage of 27% reflects severe constraints on water resources.production metering and heavy use of public taps need attention. Financial management is especially strong (operating ratio is 0.63) and 100% grant financing are necessary. Chonburi Local bond financing through PWA is utilized.7). Hanoi Consumer satisfaction is low with coverage (76%). Dhaka Consumer satisfaction improvements in coverage (42%) and water availability (17 hours) are needed. Public taps may also be progressively eliminated. as well as many public taps. 7 hours/day water availability. Delhi Despite only 4 hours/day water availability. accounts receivable of 12 months and NRW of 78%. water availability (18 hours) and consumption (45 l/ c/d).000 connections. an operating ratio of 1. it shows the most efficient use of water resources (0. with discipline in human. Grant financing (100%) should be eliminated altogether. high NRW (51%). The only redeeming factor is there is no grant financing.34).4 months is too high.53) is good however. Ho Chi Minh City Weaknesses include low coverage (52%) and 90% grant financing.000 connections. Recently agreed PSP (concessions) should help. Grant financing.48. Only area for special attention is the low coverage of 52%. 9 . It is difficult to believe that a major city utility like PAM Jaya needs grant financing.

60). staff/ 1. with this very low consumption.4 and UFW nominally 30%. It is disturbing to see 63% coverage. Mandalay Low management salaries are reflected in low coverage (80%). UFW at 10% is also very low. Kathmandu Recent PSP involvement in a management contract for the distribution is significant. high UFW (61%) and high average tariff (US$0. incomplete metering and high accounts receivable (6 months). Production/population is exceedingly low at 0. water availability (17 hours). staff/1.a.9. it is still not strong on coverage (84%). Lahore Somewhat better than the other two Pakistan utilities. Mumbai Water is available for only 5 hours/day. Many public taps and very little metering helps neither accountability nor financial independence.000 connections ratio is 1.8 months and 99% grant financing. Staff/1. Manila Two major private sector concessionaires for the distribution of water is the main recent feature of this utility. The utility relies on 72% grant financing despite an operating ratio of 0. water availability: 14 hours every other day. UFW is quite low at 27%.a.86/m3) with extremes of demand management (consumption is 16 l/c/d).700 p. Lae Features are low coverage (62%).420 p.27/ m3) and elimination of public taps. a higher average tariff (US$0. UFW (44%). UFW is 40% and the many public taps and low level of metering contribute to this. although an operating ratio of 0. Average tariff is very low at US$0. However. power/water bill ratio: 12.20) and new connection fee (US$485). operating ratio is 0. Medan PSP in billing and collection helps to keep staff/1.000 connections (17. Karachi Major private sector participation is proposed.1) needs attention.77. in light of the low consumer satisfaction and management indicators. Malé The private sector concession to produce and distribute desalinated water has brought exceptionally high tariffs (US$4.0 months).64/m3).2).) are reflected in good consumer satisfaction and good performance parameters in management (staff/1. the very low tariff agreed with the concessionaires will not accomplish much in terms of demand management (consumption is already 202 l/c/d). the operating ratio is 0.2.7.06/m3. However. No grant financing. The need for this is reflected in the following indicators of insufficient consumer satisfaction and resource management: Coverage: 70%. strong financial management is indicated with very high average tariff (US$1.000 connections is a reasonable 8. UFW is 21%.000 connections ratio is 1. UFW (40%) and accounts 10 receivable (7. 100% metering and 0. yet consumption is relatively high at 178 l/c/d. Coverage is only 81% and water availability averages 6 hours/day. many public taps. low power/water bill ratio (1.000 connections to a relatively low 4. accounts receivable: 16. Improvements could be made in the operating ratio which stands at 1.61.1. On the plus side. The complementary use of rainwater.6) and no grant financing. but encouraging to see 24-hour water availability.5 month accounts receivable. No grant financing.Johor Bahru Involvement of PSP and high management salaries (US$33. including low coverage (67%). very little metering. Kuala Lumpur Involvement of PSP and high management salaries (US$30.03 m3/day/person. It is expected that a number of deficiencies will be corrected. shows that tropical countries can get by on very low use of water.72. Note no public taps. water availability (17 hours). contributing to the Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region . while consumption is low at 91 l/c/d. high use of public taps.71 gives some hope for the future. high UFW (60%) and continued use of public taps.) are reflected in good consumer satisfaction and good performance parameters in management (operating ratio is 0.

7 months of accounts receivable. Human resource management is very weak with 33. However. the highest of all the large utilities except Taipei).04).28 m3/day/person reflects a very large industrial/commercial consumption of water. (Note the relatively high management salaries). Financial management is sound (operating ratio is 0. Improvements can still be made in UFW (42%) and 24-hour water supply (21 hours average). water availability (12 hours) and consumption (32 l/ c/d). allowing a high average tariff (US$0.90 m3/day/person. Relies 100% on grant financing. a. Tariffs are.1 months accounts receivable. but on the plus side there are no public taps. but otherwise quite a successful utility in terms of management.08 operating ratio.61). Shanghai Although consumer satisfaction is high. but UFW (61%) and metering (incomplete). Consumer satisfaction is good.58 m3/day/ person. Note the nil grant financing. Taipei High management salaries are reflected in consumer satisfaction and good human and financial management.19) and 100% grant financing need improvement.). Very low UFW (6%). The high management salaries reflect the correlation between reward and performance. Suva Consumer satisfaction is low with coverage (83%).000 connections. Penang An efficiently managed water utility which could do better in terms of demand management (consumption of 244 l/c/d and average tariff only US$0. 11 Comment and Analysis by City . high and high fees for new connections also contribute to the incomplete coverage (which may be lower than the 98% recorded). showing a very high "cross-subsidization". as does the 11. Phnom Penh Seoul A well performed utility. it has effective autonomy. however. Consumption at 273 l/c/d is still too high. Port Vila The private sector concession is reflected in generally good management and consumer satisfaction. Nuku’alofa This utility can serve as an example to other island nation utilities. reflecting the high management salaries (US$145.72 m 3 /day/person) and consumption (262 l/c/d) show room for improvement in water resources management.21/m3). water and financial resources. Singapore Probably the best managed utility in the region. Rarotonga No tariffs and little metering reflect the lack of autonomy and management in this utility.3 staff/1. but there is no reliance on grant financing. the high production per population figure (0. need improvement.63/ m3) to restrict consumption (78 l/c/d) and show that demand management does work. Financial management is also weak with 19. water resources management could do with some improvement (production/population is 0. Unusually. May consider elimination of public taps. A comparison of average tariff with the tariff structure indicates UFW is much higher than the 14% recorded. The limited metering is a major handicap.1. UFW is probably higher than the figure of 14% given (if average tariff is compared with the tariff structure). which is also reflected in the very high production/population ratio of 0.010 p. 72% commercial financing was accepted. Could improve on UFW (43%) and operating ratio (1. Although a public utility. Operating ratio (1. Tashkent Production/population of 1. Very large use of public taps should be reduced and 100% metering introduced. All its capital requirements now come from its own sources revenue. Only 6% of the revenues are derived from domestic use. Low UFW (20%) is excellent. Very high UFW (70%) and high consumption (267 l/c/d) are the result of poor management of water resources. which has consumer satisfaction as well as good management of human.

12 month) is good.1). although operating ratio (1.000 connections ratio is 49. Ulaanbaatar A weak utility in terms of human resources and water management. Ulsan A well managed utility (note high management salaries). very high staff/1. On the plus side.Thimphu A very small utility which needs to improve water availability (12 hours) and UFW (37%). financial management with local bond financing and low accounts receivable (0. continued use of public taps. which needs to be reduced. and non-24-hour supply. as well as metering (incomplete).5%).27). Elimination of public taps is also needed. as well as elimination of grant financing. financial management is sound. UFW is high (60%) reflecting use of public taps. water availability (12 hours) and consumption (67 l/ c/d).5 staff/1. Apart from the 100% grant financing.60).05) could be improved. but could improve on coverage (84%) and reduction in UFW (33%). all need addressing.9) and water resources (UFW near 40% based on average tariff and tariff structure). Human resource management is weak (25. Financial management is strong (operating ratio of 0. needs major improvement in metering. little metering.000 connections ratio.000 connections). Yangon Low consumer satisfaction with coverage (60%). Coverage (54%) needs improvement as does the high staff/ 1.000 connections ratio (16. but financial management is sound (operating ratio of 0. Tianjin Consumer satisfaction is good but there is poor management of human resources (staff/1. Vientiane The strong points about this utility are its 24-hour supply and low grant financing (1. High UFW (49%). 12 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .

01/m 3 (Calcutta). Jakarta (27%) and Cebu (23%) have the lowest coverage. Nuku’alofa (78 l/c/d). High figures such as Tashkent (1. Malé (10%).05/m3 (Beijing and Apia) to highs of US$4. Dhaka (0. Bandung (6 hours). that four out of six of these are island water supplies.12) reflect a shortage of available water resources.67). leak repairs and meter reading.72). Kathmandu (6 hours) and Faisalabad (7 hours). Bangkok (265 l/c/d). but also affects metering and reduction of unaccounted for water. Shanghai (0. 100% metering of production and consumption.66).53). Dhaka (95 l/c/d) and Beijing (96 l/c/d). coverages from 97%-99%. Rarotonga (267 l/c/d). As mentioned elsewhere. US$0. reflect either high UFW.03/m3 (Delhi and Faisalabad) and US$0. Manila (202 l/c/d). Coverage (Average – 81%) Out of the 50 utilities. Taipei (262 l/c/d) and Honiara (251 l/c/d).03). Thimphu (93 l/c/d). Yangon (67 l/c/d). Unaccounted for Water (UFW)/ Non-Revenue Water (NRW) (Average – 35%/40%) The worst examples of UFW are Rarotonga (70%). Major private sector management is either underway or proposed in Karachi.09). Chennai (0.58) and Bangkok (0. Bandung (0.28). Apart from development of water resources. Be that as it may. elimination of public taps. Port Vila (273 l/c/d). Chennai (4 hours).COMMENT AND ANALYSIS BY PARAMETER Private Sector Participation Twenty-four of the fifty utilities have some form of private sector participation in operations and this trend can be expected to increase in the next few years. Given the shortage of water resources. because it is not only a risk to health. production. Singapore (183 l/ c/d). Jakarta (135 l/c/d) and Hong Kong (112 l/c/d) get by on much less.32 m3/d/person) This parameter measures overall efficiency of water resource use. Water Availability (Average – 19 hours/day) Only 26 out of 50 utilities provide a 24-hour water supply.90). Almaty (0. the average tariff ranges from lows of zero (Rarotonga) and US$0.72). 15 indicate 100% coverage and another 8. Penang (20%) and Johor Bahru (21%). Thus very low figures of Malé (0. Delhi (4 hours). Faisalabad (0. Hanoi (45 l/c/d). Note. This is of some concern. Kathmandu (0.09).86/m3 (Malé).07). Hanoi (63%). people make do on much much less. Consumption (Average – 157 l/c/d) There has been considerable debate over the amount of water people need for domestic purposes and the amount they use. Honiara (0. low coverage and low water availability. when water is in short supply. Port Vila. In order of priority this must be . of necessity. It is of some concern that more than half the utilities studied show a strong need to improve coverage. Some of the other low consumption uses are Phnom Penh (32 l/c/d). elimination of illegal connections and identification and repair of invisible leaks. source development. US$0.11) and Phnom Penh (0. there are a number of high consumption uses such as Apia (337 l/c/d). Bandung (42%). By contrast. such as Malé on 16 l/c/d plus rainwater.08). US$0. more effort needs to be put into advocacy for the sector and public awareness to also increase willingness to pay for new services. A number of city utilities are in a very bad way and these include Karachi (4 hours). due to shortage of water resources for development. One can reflect that Seoul (209 l/c/d).66/m 3 (Cebu). The best examples are Singapore (6%). 100% Comment and Analysis by Parameter metering combined with high tariffs can help achieve 100% coverage with 24-hour water supply. Apia (0. Kathmandu. US$1. Taipei (0. Other types of private sector participation noted include billing and collection. people in hot tropical countries need to bathe several times a day and they are not wasting water. Often it has been stated that for religious or other reasons.20/m 3 (Mandalay). Dhaka (42%). Production Per Person (Average – 0. 13 . pumping.11). repair of visible leaks. or an abundance of water resources for nondomestic purposes.58).09).36/m3) It is noteable that among the 50 utilities.02/m3 (Tashkent). Jakarta (0. Kathmandu (91 l/c/d). Strong leadership and disciplined management is essential. Rarotonga (0. Phnom Penh (61%) Lae (61%) and Mandalay (60%). Cebu (0. Average Tariff (Average – US$0. Bishkek (0. more must be done by most utilities to reduce UFW. Manila. Malé and Colombo.

Hong Kong (1. About 82% of house connections.8) This varies from lows of 0. Hong Kong. ten very little metering and one (Calcutta) no metering at all.0) This figure can be a useful proxy for the affordability of water on the one hand. The average tariff is a good measure of the financial discipline of a utility and its autonomy to cover operational costs with revenues from tariffs.5). Bangkok and Port Vila. Cebu (1. Kuala Lumpur. indicate the tariff is reasonably high.3) all have too low a water tariff. also contract out a number of their services. Low ratios of 2:1 or less.2 is exceptionally high due to the mainly bulk supplies. is that a US$100 million per year operation cannot. In all.25).5). then water utility management will continue to be weak. (Taipei and Kuala Lumpur). What governments must recognize. Eight have incomplete metering. Chonburi (0.6) and Vientiane (1. but also reduces water accountability and potential revenue. Hanoi. Seoul. so it is not always fair to compare two utilities on this parameter.63) and Delhi (1.000 Connections Ratio (Average – 11. By contrast.010 p. Almaty (0. An exception is Calcutta (1.3). Karachi (12. Bishkek. Lae (1. Almaty.a. Tianjin. High staff numbers indicate low efficiency.5). Management Salaries (Average – US$15. 33. Half the utilities do not have 100% metering of production and consumption (let alone regular replacement of meters). 27. Almaty (1. Faisalabad and Mumbai to over US$20. If one assumes only 60% of meters are functioning correctly. Beijing.2). Malé (US$25/month) and Port Vila (US$22/month). 1.5 (Thimphu). 97% of industrial connections. and increases water losses (by wastage).3 (Mumbai). 17% of public taps. Ulaanbaatar. Mandalay (1.05) A low operating ratio means revenues from tariffs cover the O&M costs comfortably.) to a high of around US$145.0).8 (Ulsan). Operating Ratio (Average – 1. So long as utility staff salaries are tied to government rates.000 p.2 (Johor Bahru). Almost 2/3 of the 50 utilities still have public tap service.0 (Singapore) to highs of 49. Tashkent (9.2 (Beijing). Public Taps Extensive use of public taps represents not only a lower level of service. It is encouraging that 35 of the 50 utilities meet O&M costs. Kathmandu (7. Mandalay (US$51/month). and 88% of institutional connections are 14 metered. 83% of all connections are metered. Colombo. There is great room for improvement here.63/m3 (Nuku’alofa).7).7) all have relatively high water tariffs. and should not. Metering (Average – 83%) This is perhaps the single most important area requiring improvement among water utilities. Staff/1. Noticeably. such as billing and collection and leak repairs. Ulaanbaatar at 579. Water Bill (Average – US$10/month) This varies from less than or close to US$1. Davao.3). 1.1. inexperienced and underpaid staff. 25. Nevertheless.64/m3 (Lae) and US$0. It is not difficult to see a strong correlation between high management salaries and good management.7) and Mumbai (7. 80% of commercial connections. Tashkent. Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur. some utilities include depreciation and debt service in the O&M costs and others do not.22). Good examples of this are Singapore. and the appropriate level of water tariff on the other. a. The average tariff must be the main tool in imposing demand management on the consumer public.37) and Lae (0. six some metering.00 per month for Rarotonga.a. to Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region . Hong Kong (US$31/month). do not have public taps.2) which also has an exceptionally low electricity tariff. Jakarta (1.9 (Chennai) and 25.48).8). those utilities which have low figures. little appears to have been done to assist lower income people in financial terms.) These range from a low of less than US$1. (an optimistic assumption) then only 50% of all connections are adequately metered.2).73).US$0. It is very noticeable that the better utilities such as Singapore.000 per annum (p.39). A ratio above one means they do not cover O&M costs. Medan (1. Hong Kong (1. while the best are Mandalay (0. 27. New Connection Fee (Average – US$190) Despite much talk. be managed by unqualified. Bandung (1.00 per month for Lae (US$52/month). The worst performers are Apia (7. Power/Water Bill Ratio (Average – 4.9 (Tianjin).7 (Chittagong). which exclude hiring of highly qualified and experienced professionals. Delhi (7. Faisalabad (18. 2.34). Taipei. Calcutta (5.5). Thus. High ratios of greater than 4:1 indicate both affordability and too low a water tariff.

The report should be closely scrutinized by a regulatory authority. (iv) 100 percent metering.977. Taipei. any utility serving a city of more than one million people should not have to rely on any grant financing. (ii) 24-hour water supply. instead of utilities always playing catch-up to try to satisfy demand. is a measure of the extent to which the utility is a drain on the government in terms of subsidies. Manila and Kuala Lumpur have resorted to commercial financing. donors. (xi) Installments for payment of connection fees. Phnom Penh. finance from own sources. combined with the affordability of the connection fees. If it is not produced in a timely manner. it becomes nothing more than an historical record. but still have a way to go in terms of consumer satisfaction (coverage and hours of water availability) and human and water resources management. the Ministry of Finance. Vientiane. (xii) Higher domestic tariffs and improved collection efficiency. But when it has risen to 6 or more months. but this is certainly an area in which much improvement is needed. significantly more funds are needed for capital development. useful annual reports.0 months) and Chittagong (10. Tianjin and Manila are the only examples of the use of local authority bonds. 15 . PWA in Thailand (Chonburi and Chiangmai). Capital Expenditure Per Connection (Average – US$90. (vii) Reduction of staffing levels. commercial loans or local authority bonds. whereas it should be used as a monitoring device so that improvements can continually be made in operations. Annual Report A responsible water utility will publish a glossy covered annual report on its operations within 6-9 months of the end of the reported year. (vi) Reduction of UFW/NRW. government loans. Karachi. Ho Chi Minh City. (ix) Higher management salaries. Shanghai and Dhaka. Seoul. (viii) Reduction of grant financing. Examples of the latter include Mumbai (19.0 months). One hundred percent grant financing is utilized by 10 utilities and no grant financing by 19 utilities.7 months). Shanghai (11. (v) Phasing out of public taps. Taipei-US$1. but instead. Accounts Receivable (Average – 4. Faisalabad (12.0 months). Nuku’alofa. Generally. if accounts receivable are less than the equivalent of 3 months of sales. Chennai.079. Attention needs to be focused on the following twelve points: (i) Advocacy for more investment in the sector and greater coverage. it has got out of hand.28) It is certainly significant that 16 of the 50 utilities are spending more than US$100/connection per year on capital improvements. Given that coverage is Comment and Analysis by Parameter generally inadequate. Bangkok. The others have varying portions of grant financing. Kathmandu.facilitate taking up a direct connection to their households. Dhaka (11. Greater advocacy for the sector must be combined with more public awareness. Grant Financing (Average – 35%) The percentage of capital investments for a utility. Bangkok and Singapore have good examples of timely.0 months) This parameter is a good measure of the efficiency of a utility in financial management. which are financed by grants. General Conclusions The analysis of data indicates that utilities are improving in terms of financial management.8 months). Rarotonga. (x) Appropriate and timely annual reports. Some house connection fees (Seoul-US$1. (iii) Demand management by pricing and public awareness. Only a handful of utilities (mostly those in the Philippines) have introduced payment of the connection fee with a small deposit and the balance in installments with the water consumption charges over a period of 12 or more months. Colombo. The utilities which should be weaned off grant financing are Hong Kong. the management of the utility. are certainly significant reasons for the low coverage rates in many utilities. Yangon-US$906 and Ulsan-US$902) are extraordinarily high. the public and even the news media. Karachi (16. The attention must initially be directed at ensuring quick and accurate auditing of the financial statements. In general.1 months). then it is manageable. The continued use of public taps.

The increase in level of services provided by water utilities is indicated with the decrease in use of public taps. Also the decrease in total staff against an increase in connections is a good trend. The fall in per capita consumption may reflect higher tariff levels and some demand management.5 hours to 19.TRENDS FOR 37 UTILITIES FROM FIRST TO SECOND DATA BOOK (1991 to 1995 Data) Parameter Change in Average Water Production (m3/day) Groundwater Connections Public Taps Coverage of Population Water Availability Consumption (Domestic) Average Tariff Grant Financing Staff Numbers UFW Operating Ratio (O&M Cost/Billings) Accounts Receivable +4% 1 From 12. lower accounts receivable and higher average tariffs are a feature of the results. It is encouraging that all parameters (except UFW) show an improvement. reduced operating ratios.3 months of sales to 3. is the rapid increase in private sector participation which has occurred in the last five years.97 to 0. However. Financial management in terms of lower amounts of grant financing. but of considerable significance.0 hours From 182 l/c/d to 159 l/c/d +8% 8 -13% -2. The increase in water production and new connections represents an annual growth of about 3 percent per annum. increased hours of water availability and increased coverage of population.2 months Comment.8% +6% 1 .5% of Production to 10.5% Unchanged at 35% of Production From 0. Not shown here. as few new groundwater developments are possible. The decrease in groundwater use as a percentage of total production can be expected. much more attention needs to be given to reducing UFW. or may also be due to serving 16 more people with the same amount of water production.29% From 75% to 79% 18.89 From 3. where no real progress has been made in the last four to five years. Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .

the consumer survey shows matters a little worse than that depicted by the utilities. J karta. are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The average water bill of US$ 0 1 compares favorably with the average power bill of US$6.20 5.96 – – 0. a Strangely.6 days to respond to the repair of leaks.58 – 0.38 0. Also.02 0.50 0. Mumbai and Tashkent. Kthmandu.08 0.94 – 19. Unit costs vary greatly.96 8.01 0. In general.02 0. then these costs and the health implications should be accurately determined by research.18 2.14 2.77 21. Bangkok. because an average of 84% of consumers are satisfied with the water utility performance. In fact.10 0. Bottled water use averages only 9%but 2 .84 – 1.42 0. Also. Thimphu.61 – 11.04 – 0. which obtained data from 10 0 randomly selected consumers in each city. Chennai and u a V ientiane bottled water is commonly used.05 Water Vendor 3.20 2. This finding 0 can also be translated into the average percentage of people who drink water directly from the tap (a low 33% despite 80 saying the water quality is ). but obviously domestic tariffs need to increase in Colombo. On average.25 0. % satisfactory. especially in regard to the provision of 24-hour supply.4.44 0. 0 In conclusion.15 0.07 0. Bandung and Shanghai. it seems that consumers are used to poor service. only two-thirds of those interviewed in the consumer surveys receive a 24-hour supply and the average number of hours of water supplied per day is only 11.29 0.13 0. only in four of the fifty cities do consumers confirm a 10percent 24-hour supply. Kala u Lmpur. unit cost of water from public taps is much higher than from house connections in some cities such as Hanoi. especially in the cities of Taipei. Another area for improvement is the average number of 3.06 0.32 – – – The Consumer Survey 17 .09 0.33 – 0.08 0.26 – 0.08 0.THE CONSUMER SURVEY average consumption of 36 m3/month is partly the result of many households having as many as 10 persons. The high Table 2: SELECTED UNIT COSTS OF WATER FROM CONSUMER SURVEY (US$/m3) City Name Bandung Bangkok Chennai Chonburi Colombo Dhaka Hanoi Karachi Kathmandu Lae Malé Manila Mumbai Phnom Penh Port Vila Seoul Shanghai Tashkent Thimphu House Connections 0.60 28. Krachi.38 0. Chennai.86 14. Krachi and a a Port ila.07 – 0.30 0. transparent and representative consumer survey each year. but much lower than from house connections V in cities such as Colombo. but also does reflect the need for higher tariffs to manage demand better.03 Public Tap 0. if most people boil and/or filter their water.55 1. Chiangmai. The consumer survey confirmed that the unit price of water from water vendors can range from 10to 10times the unit price from house connections. The results of the consumer survey. water utilities could learn a lot about areas for improvement by having an independent.30 0.24 5.13 0. Chonburi.

0 – 11.51 26.01 2.59 15.0 6.93 16.16 18.49 14.89 – 21.1 – 10.93 Water Quality OK (%) 1 91 71 85 89 100 96 78 92 92 45 64 55 99 89 91 67 79 85 81 71 57 90 99 71 70 84 75 77 76 97 91 100 85 52 76 57 54 64 71 84 100 96 91 97 87 93 96 35 87 83 80 Good or satisfactory combined.77 31.81 14.0 14.57 64.73 41.87 6.67 13.03 30.90 2.05 1.61 37.83 18.68 5.89 81.98 26.6 15.73 12.Table 3: SUMMARY OF CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS 24-hr (%) 61 64 70 80 96 69 7 79 70 74 4 47 85 77 16 41 8 43 71 98 48 70 100 3 13 83 94 6 86 83 73 100 14 57 97 21 76 80 99 97 100 84 100 56 33 96 57 93 87 66 65 City Almaty Apia Bandung Bangkok Beijing Bishkek Calcutta Cebu Chennai Chiangmai Chittagong Chonburi Colombo Davao Delhi Dhaka Faisalabad Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Hong Kong Honiara Jakarta Johor Bahru Karachi Kathmandu Kuala Lumpur Lae Lahore Malé Mandalay Manila Medan Mumbai Nuku'alofá Penang Phnom Penh Port Vila Rarotonga Seoul Shanghai Singapore Suva Taipei Tashkent Thimphu Tianjin Ulaanbaatar Ulsan Vientiane Yangon Average Notes: 1 Ave.25 2.26 Power Bill (US$) 2.62 0.9 9.78 7.7 3.4 4.67 7.8 – 3.77 18.0 14.23 10.62 44. (m3) 24 – 22 35 12 12 – 30 10 26 90 19 20 33 – 139 5 12 39 – 61 55 32 51 11 50 23 58 5 41 44 45 19 22 50 39 53 – 32 20 28 48 26 25 75 10 – 26 47 41 36 Water Bill (US$) 1.5 – 9.79 7.39 5.52 12.29 0.11 1.3 11.20 1.16 – 26.54 24.0 4.5 15.31 42.54 10.76 11.77 4.62 1.19 7.15 51.0 8.82 28.98 22.04 14.94 25.05 12.24 45.87 4.31 2.48 50.61 44.8 3.4 HC Cons.59 20.12 5.72 12.6 10.22 35.0 8.84 19.54 8.8 6.20 4.0 12.16 1.30 4.76 0.30 10.45 0.0 – 5.20 37.65 0.41 12.0 10.91 5.4 13.99 3.48 8.51 11.86 1.87 36.1 19.55 5.69 – 14.63 17.0 13.83 6.9 9.9 – – 24.63 37.61 42.0 – 15.42 79.0 7.0 7. 18 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .37 8.79 22.0 17.84 1.0 20.4 18.44 18.0 6.97 15.84 17.24 11.42 13.78 68.6 13.29 – 8.06 15.0 17.52 19. Hours 19.47 35.35 7.0 24.0 – – 13.0 10.0 4.

4 6. HC = House Connection.4 2.1 1.0 5.7 3.9 1.1 7.5 1.1 1.9 1.9 6.8 1.3 4. Good or fair combined.6 6.0 – 10.0 5.1 4. No Interruption Last Month(%) 72 40 78 57 98 63 72 56 89 88 16 67 69 45 71 77 44 99 79 81 20 84 90 44 85 47 55 93 94 95 74 100 83 63 92 79 85 45 92 93 96 72 96 49 83 87 43 71 73 64 72 Repair (days) 1.0 1.9 3.4 2.) HC Drink Tap (%) 47 47 0 3 34 78 52 88 34 4 40 8 45 84 62 6 79 0 7 1 57 3 59 21 22 10 81 77 71 7 47 0 58 70 5 6 61 35 0 1 17 77 0 54 34 7 26 0 15 30 33 3 City Almaty Apia Bandung Bangkok Beijing Bishkek Calcutta Cebu Chennai Chiangmai Chittagong Chonburi Colombo Davao Delhi Dhaka Faisalabad Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Hong Kong Honiara Jakarta Johor Bahru Karachi Kathmandu Kuala Lumpur Lae Lahore Malé Mandalay Manila Medan Mumbai Nuku'alofá Penang Phnom Penh Port Vila Rarotonga Seoul Shanghai Singapore Suva Taipei Tashkent Thimphu Tianjin Ulaanbaatar Ulsan Vientiane Yangon Average Notes: 2 Bottled Water (%) – 19 10 43 – – – – 19 73 7 33 – 1 9 – – – 1 2 7 20 – 5 3 23 – – 7 – 4 4 – – 6 14 2 23 4 18 – 1 25 – – 2 – – 67 – 9 Pressure OK (%) 2 79 76 57 42 93 64 56 99 90 50 18 47 76 88 64 40 45 45 63 94 70 92 93 20 21 86 90 100 81 96 73 95 84 58 93 39 69 73 91 79 98 87 86 30 96 84 75 93 67 70 72 WU = Water Utility.7 4. The Consumer Survey 19 .5 0.1 4.1 2.0 3.3 3.1 3.5 1.0 13.Table 3: SUMMARY OF CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS (cont'd.8 4.6 WU Rating OK (%) 3 88 77 78 89 100 84 82 96 97 85 25 76 95 90 90 59 88 75 85 94 75 94 100 56 68 93 83 95 82 100 90 97 86 81 97 59 60 69 84 99 100 91 85 88 95 96 92 85 93 76 84 High or adequate combined.8 3.7 2.7 2.1 4.4 1.5 1.2 – 4.5 9.3 2.0 1.6 9.1 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.1 4.7 1.5 0.

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION

INTRODUCTION The international water sector has recently become a more dynamic area of economic activity. Governments, particularly in developing countries, have been under pressure to make sustainable improvements in service standards, without increasing public investment and borrowing. Private sector participation (PSP) in the provision of water services is helping to meet that need. This report identifies the available PSP options, the principal considerations to be taken into account, and how a government or utility should go about entering into PSP arrangements. It illustrates the main features of PSP through an analysis of recent privatization activity involving case studies relating to: Adelaide, Australia Buenos Aires, Argentina Gdansk, Poland Jakarta, Indonesia Johor, Malaysia Macau Manila, Philippines Northumbrian Water, United Kingdom Port Vila, Vanuatu Santiago, Chile. BACKGROUND Water services have traditionally been provided within the public sector, in virtually all parts of the world, for social, economic and political reasons. They may be provided at a variety of levels within government, depending on a country’s pattern of service development and the local legislation. Some agencies have an honorable record, with significant technical advances being made and long experience of the provision of safe drinking water. Public sector provision can also be cost effective, but this is increasingly rare. In many areas, public services are not highly regarded and suffer from underinvestment, overstaffing, low levels of pay, limited availability of technical equipment and consequent low morale and productivity. A study of municipal projects in developing countries found that revenues covered only 35 percent of the cost of water, and that unaccounted for water was in the range 40 percent to 60 percent. Staffing levels tend to be in the range 10 to 20 per 1,000 connections, compared with 2 to 3 per
20

1,000 in an efficient undertaking. This mainly results from: • • • avoiding unpopular tariff increases increasing employment in public services for social reasons giving investment priority to other services such as national defense, social services and support to strategic industries failure to enforce quality standards.

In order to correct resultant deficiencies, governments frequently turn to the private sector. They do so to introduce higher levels of management and technical skills, to increase efficiency, and to realize the investment financing capability which private sector companies can bring to the service. Experience has shown that the benefit of major improvement initiatives can be short lived, if the existing utility and its financial framework remain unchanged. Governments therefore also turn to the private sector because improvements, once made, can be more easily sustained. Government and the community benefit from a better structure for service provision, with more focus on delivering defined standards of service to the customer, a more efficient service, lower tariffs (in most cases), and increased certainty that service improvements can be financed, through the easing of capital constraints. These benefits have to be balanced against the social costs associated with reducing the number of employees, and with increased tariffs where these are unavoidable. PSP can also have adverse effects on the balance of trade and currency flows, where international contractors and financiers are involved, as profits and financing charges are exported. The private sector is attracted to participate in water supply to achieve growth and profit objectives. Governments and other stakeholders in the community need to be reconciled to profits being earned from water services. Companies have to provide a reasonable return for their shareholders, and will also be cautious about profitable projects which are cash negative in the early years. They will look for stable government, stable economic conditions, and fiscal and regulatory regimes which prevent future changes adversely affecting profitability. Costs of bidding for projects are over US$1 million for the larger contracts, and companies
Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region

will wish to ensure that projects are soundly based before committing such large sums of money, as there will be other projects competing for their attention. The better PSP projects will refocus the sector on the service standards to be achieved, and will establish a financial and regulatory framework to ensure sustainable delivery of those standards. Given the increased formality involved, and the need for subsequent regulatory or contract management activity, PSP should not be regarded as an easy option, as it requires a significant discipline on the part of government and utility to establish the arrangements. Once set up, however, it does introduce the ability to consistently deliver higher levels of performance and customer satisfaction. OPTIONS FOR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION There are a number of ways in which the resources and capabilities of the private sector can be mobilized in support of the water sector: • • • • • • contracts for services management contracts leasing contracts (affermage) operating concessions build, operate, transfer (BOT) full privatization.

These are summarized in Table 4: Options for Private Sector Participation, which shows the different scope of private sector activity for each alternative. They may be considered as individual options, or as a continuing path through which operational responsibility and risk are progressively transferred to the private sector, at a pace which matches the increased knowledge and supervisory expertise of the utility. The process is not irreversible, and provision may be made for services to be returned to the public sector in the future. There are a number of features common to the PSP options, which are more significant as the level of private sector involvement increases: • • government must state its aspirations for service standards and service development a more realistic view is taken of cost, and therefore the phasing of investment and achievement of service improvements consumers expect private sector standards of service, often without considering the potential impact on charges the private sector can apply its experience, skills and ingenuity to the problems faced by government a realistic approach is taken to risk identification and sharing.

• •

Risks are discussed below in relation to each of the PSP options identified, and fall into the following categories:

Table 4: OPTIONS FOR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION
OPERATION UNDER CONTRACT

OPTION

EXAMPLE

SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

MAINTENANCE planning tasks public sector private financing public sector public sector private

INVESTMENT planning public sector public sector private financing public sector public sector public sector private

ASSET OWNERSHIP

DURATION (years)

Contract for services Management contract Leasing contract BOT

Santiago

private

public sector

public sector private

Public sector

1 to 3

Adelaide

private

private

Public sector

3 to 5

Gdansk

private

private

private

private

Public sector

10 to 20

Johor

private

public sector

private

private

private

private

Company (time limited) Company/ public sector

20 to 30

Concession

Buenos Aires, Jakarta, Macau, Port Vila Northumbrian Water

private

private

private

private

private

private

private

>10

Full privatization

private

private

private

private

private

private

private

Company

Perpetuity

Private Sector Participation

21

• • • •

political, relating to legislative, fiscal and regulatory change construction, relating to delays in completion or performance failings operational, relating to failure to achieve service standards and reliability revenue, relating to income falling below expectations.

• •

avoid public sector employment rules introduce efficiency savings (maximized by competitive tendering).

The utility will need to consider: • • whether to retain an in house capability for strategic or comparison purposes the competence and capacity of the contracting sector how to ensure value for money (e.g. through competition) how to supervise the contract (e.g. through performance measures) how to remunerate the contractor what redress is available in the event of non or inadequate performance what happens at the end of the contract how to ensure a fair allocation of risk between the contracting parties what transitional arrangements are needed relating to existing employees whose jobs may be affected how to integrate contractual commitment and budgetary provision to ensure continuity of service at renewal dates.

Risks need to be managed, and assigned to those parties most able to control them. There is a relationship between risk and reward, and if the private sector is asked to take on risks that are outside its operational control it will expect higher returns. Financing parties will expect not only their own risks to be covered (which helps to reduce borrowing costs), but also those elements which would otherwise threaten the stability of returns. The scope and nature of PSP will vary from one country to another according to cultural and legal requirements, the status of the utility, and the particular problems being addressed. The way in which PSP is approached by government will have significant implications for the success of the venture in meeting the legitimate aspirations of all parties. PSP is a matter of finding the right balance between varying, and sometimes conflicting objectives.

• • • • • • •

Contracts for Services
Public sector bodies can contract out services, subject to any prevailing rules or legislation on procurement practices, and subject to the local availability of a sufficiently strong and experienced commercial sector. This outsourcing may be for consultancy and professional support (for capital projects this could relate to design, feasibility studies, and site supervision) or for specific tasks involving administrative or operational activities (for example: mains repair, billing and collection, meter reading, computing and laboratory services, vehicle and plant maintenance). Contracts are likely to be for a limited purpose or a limited period (often subject to annual renewal), and payment could be based on inputs (time and materials), a bid price, or on outputs (volume of work carried out). Ownership of assets, and overall control of the activity remain the responsibility of the utility. The main reasons for contracting out are to:

Entering into such arrangements is relatively straightforward, involving: • • • • • • identification of need specification of service required, with related performance criteria and budgetary or input limits advertisement of services required in relevant and appropriate media analysis of response selection and award of contract monitoring of performance and budgetary control.

In contracting out operational and administrative activities, it is important to identify performance standards that are realistic and that can be monitored. Examples are: • billing system operation: – the percentage of bills sent out within 7 days of meter reading – the proportion of bills containing errors laboratory services: – the number of samples routinely analyzed maintenance activity: – number of maintenance visits

• • • •
22

acquire independent advice access technical skills which are not available from existing staff introduce private sector management expertise

Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region

– completion of specified tasks – number of unscheduled stoppages of equipment. The arrangement provides flexibility for the utility without long term commitment, and provides an opportunity to establish pilot studies before embarking on more significant outsourcing contracts. The scope and the success of such outsourcing depend on the capacity and expertise of the local business sectors. For smaller utilities, such as Port Vila, Vanuatu there will be little external experience of main laying, or mains refurbishment (for example), and this may well be true in utilities whose populations range up to 500,000. By contrast, in England there is a large and competent contracting sector which organizations such as Northumbrian Water can access on a competitive basis. The public sector utility in Santiago makes extensive use of outsourcing as a method of improving and maintaining high efficiency levels. In Jakarta and Manila, the utilities have used contractors to undertake specific aspects of revenue billing and collection for reasons of efficiency and security.

capability of the existing State utility to carry out work in the rest of the Asian and Pacific region, and partly for this reason the contract is for a rather longer duration than is customary (15 years). Management contracts have also been used in Puerto Rico to deal with water shortages, failing environmental standards and the continuing subsidy requirements of the utility. Similar progress is being made in such places as Trinidad and Tobago, and Chennai, India. Because of the nature of management contracts, only operational risk is normally transferred to the private sector. This option is therefore appropriate for those utilities who wish to retain, or who are unable to transfer, responsibility for investment finance to the private sector. It is unlikely that such contracts will require change in national legislation before implementation, and they may therefore enable relatively speedy access to the management and technical expertise of the private sector. The main reasons for entering into management contracts are to: • • • • • access technical skills which are not available from existing staff introduce private sector management expertise avoid public sector employment rules introduce efficiency improvements (maximized by competitive tendering) increase the focus on service standards.

Management Contracts
Such contracts further extend the principles of contracts for services, involving the private company in delivering a complete and relatively self-contained service. This could range from managing a particular works to a complete service for the whole of the water supply and distribution activity. Consequently the contracts are likely to be subject to formal bidding procedures, and for a somewhat longer duration (3 to 5 years is typical for smaller contracts, but they can range up to 25 years for large projects and those involving revenue collection). The contractor is not required to finance investment to extend or improve facilities. Remuneration is normally by way of a management fee, which could have fixed and variable components. Many of the larger contracts also include revenue collection to improve efficiency, but money is collected on behalf of the utility and revenue risk is not transferred to the private sector. Puerto Rico, Cartegena, Colombia and Kelantan, Malaysia feature this type of arrangement. The contractor has a greater opportunity and motivation to use its expertise to achieve significant efficiency improvements and technological progress. Such arrangements have recently been successfully implemented in Adelaide, Australia and are introducing additional technical expertise, improved efficiency and additional capital program management skills to the sector. Unusually, the private company is also required to develop the
Private Sector Participation

The considerations and the process for entering into such contracts are very similar to that for contracts for services. More detailed definition will be needed in the areas of: • • • • relative responsibilities of the contracting parties performance standards and supervision arrangements tendering and contract letting procedures basis of remuneration, including tariff policy in those cases where the contractor collects revenue in their own right approach to leakage control in distribution contracts approach to asset maintenance procedures to be followed in the event of a contractual dispute or poor performance regulatory authority arrangements for investment financing.

• • • • •

Leasing Contracts (Affermage)
Leasing contracts involve a private sector company taking responsibility for managing, operating
23

up to two years is not unusual. It will not normally involve financing investment in refurbishing or extending the network or the provision of new facilities. The concessionaires are responsible for introducing the necessary capital financing. The degree of operational risk is therefore limited. In this way. either through lack of technical expertise. particularly in relation to the extension of service coverage. notably in France. while reducing tariffs in the early period of the concession. Operating Concessions (Franchising) Operationally. Contracts are normally let through competitive tender. Consequently. and more easily controlled by the lessee. Contracts are likely to be for a longer period (up to 30 years) particularly where the concessionaire is required to finance a large capital investment program.and maintaining an existing infrastructure (normally at a small annual “rent”). recognizing that these are key risk areas for the lessee. In Thailand. to ensure that risks are comprehensively identified and addressed. Jakarta is the subject of two negotiated contracts. The main reasons for entering into leasing contracts are to: • • • • • • access technical skills which are not available from existing staff introduce private sector management expertise avoid public sector employment rules introduce efficiency improvements (maximized by competitive tendering) increase the focus on service standards increase the financial input of the private sector. Africa. there can be a significant lead time to the introduction of concessions. Water sold has increased from 24 million cubic meters in 1993 to around 46 million. but among the case studies Gdansk is an example of a contract that did not fully reflect the aspirations of both parties. There are plans for East Water to become a full private company in the future. as well as revenue risk. such as those in Jakarta. In Buenos Aires. although there are some examples of negotiated contracts. A similar division exists in Manila. it is delivering improved performance. but profits may be reinvested for further improvements. but is dependent on the municipality organizing the finance to facilitate further service improvements. and this period typically involves significant activity in documenting existing service facilities and arrangements. East Water was set up in 1994 as a subsidiary of the Provincial Waterworks Authority to increase efficiency in water management and to expand raw water coverage quickly without creating a financial burden for government. The contract ensures that local labor is trained and deployed on construction works. construction. Contracts will typically be of 10 to 20 years duration. but differ in that the concessionaire is also responsible for financing new investment. improvements in efficiency and service standards. Leasing contracts are extensively used in France and Spain. with concessionaires being remunerated for volumes of water supplied. The considerations and the process for entering into such contracts is very similar to that for management contracts. but has more autonomy in carrying out operational activities. to cover working capital. but not where the existing utility finds it difficult to deliver services effectively. Similarly. concessions are similar to lease contracts. as regulation is through a new single purpose body. and the relative responsibilities of the utility and the lessee must be well documented. utilities will recognize asset maintenance and customer relations as requiring more specific control provisions. and it provides further incentives on the concessionaire to improve overall efficiency. is passed to the private sector. a modified concession is being used. and this may be a more attractive model for those countries where legislation restricts the ability of concessionaires to collect income for themselves. North Bohemia. or through the constraints of public sector employment and procurement practices. Czech Republic and Antalya. adding community benefits to service benefits. and also exist in Guinea. The balance between risk and opportunity needs to be carefully addressed in the establishment of leasing contracts. with the area being divided on a geographical basis. There are many instances of successful lease contracts. The lessee assumes responsibility for customer relations and tariff collection (and therefore revenue risk). the companies in Manila are also Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region 24 . Water shortages had previously been a major obstacle to economic development in the region. In Jakarta. Turkey. but provisions relating to unaccounted for water and remuneration of the lessee are likely to be rather more complex. The incentives are maintained through separate non-revenue water targets. Some initial difficulties were encountered in regulating the concessionaire. where competitively bid contracts were awarded in early 1997. For technical and legal reasons. to safeguard their own interests. After some early contractual difficulties. and nonrevenue water is now down to 5 per cent. the concession introduced additional financing. This arrangement works well where service provision is established and relatively stable.

Typically. reservoirs and treatment works. More attention is now being given to initiatives which address all of a utility’s difficulties. Lease. and the long term nature of the contract. to control leakage) can negate the effect of improved quantity and quality of the water supplied by the project. continued access to loans from international lending agencies. government decision on PSP strategy. Own. Transfer. to Operate it under license. with the realization that failure to properly manage downstream facilities (and in particular. to cover working capital and investment costs related to maintaining and improving the system. Operate The considerations and the process for entering into such contracts are more extensive. BOT Schemes Major investment in new facilities. Their early popularity has declined somewhat. and it is important that the regulatory system. and phasing • technical and financial impact of new standards. and (iii) preparation by the utility of: • documentation for interested parties (including relevant data) • contract documentation • procedures for (neutral) support to potential bidders’ feasibility studies • invitations for expressions of interest • invitations for pre-qualification of bidders • tender documents (including draft contracts) • management of the selection and award process by government and utility (preferably involving independent third parties in a monitoring role). the BOT structure still works well. has often proved problematic for utilities and governments. including legislative constraints • utility finances • existing infrastructure • future service standards required. and the performance objectives on which it is based. the potential vulnerability on both sides. the duration will normally be in excess of 10 years. because of the potential risks to the concessionaire. where this is appropriate and available • range of acceptable tariffs • legal and financial commitments by government itself (ii) Finance is normally arranged through the BOT contractor. are clearly identified in the concession contract. bilateral loans. including: • nature of concession arrangements • allocation of residual debt costs • extent of government financial support and guarantees • in some cases. The system of regulation is particularly important in these larger concession arrangements. BOT schemes evolved to meet this need.responsible for a joint venture company managing shared resources. The involvement of financiers in the detail of the contract leads to more formal measures for dealing with risks. particularly those political risks which are outside the control of the concessionaire. and a number of guarantees are normally included in the legal arrangements. providing for a company to Build a treatment works. The main reasons for entering into concession contracts are to: • • • • • • access technical skills which are not available from existing staff introduce private sector management expertise avoid public sector employment rules introduce efficiency improvements (maximized by competitive tendering) increase the focus on service standards increase the financial input of the private sector. and to subsequently Transfer it to the ownership of the utility at the end of a specified period. These include: 25 Private Sector Participation . In addition. • • process for bidding and award of contracts (including any requirement for separate technical submissions and rate bids) arrangements for subsequent contract supervision and regulation. Variants of this approach include: • • • BOO – Build. For ad hoc projects. reflecting the more complex relationships involved. the process will include: (i) government review of: • institutional framework. Transfer BTO – Build. Because of the capital intensive nature of the contract. and their structure has been heavily influenced by the financial institutions. such as dams. and in some cases. The residuary utility still manages some upstream facilities. Operate BLT – Build. using commercial lenders. certain risks would normally be identified and dealt with in the contract.

is a company set up as a subsidiary of the Provincial Waterworks Authority.(i) by • • • • by • • • the Concession company: a project completion certificate performance guarantees construction guarantees on standards physical condition on transfer the Utility: availability of land exclusive rights to operate the concession payments to the concession company of financing the investment. environmental neglect. (iv) The main reasons for entering into BOT contracts are to: • access the technical skills of the private sector in creating an asset with defined performance characteristics use private sector management skills to ensure that the asset is operated efficiently and to defined standards ensure that the asset is handed over in good condition at the end of the contract access private sector finance. for example. Systems of comparative competition can also act as a powerful incentive to outperform target levels of service. Their prices are controlled and standards are strictly monitored. with assets passing out of public ownership. It requires: • • • the creation of a new Company the transfer into that Company of all assets and liabilities of the former public body the sale of the Company as a going concern. East Water in Thailand. through increasing tariffs. Historically. relieving the utility of tasks for which specialist skills may be in short supply (e. It plans to fully privatize by public share offer in two stages. there is a significant preliminary effort in specifying the terms of the BOT scheme and in letting the main contract. Legal and financial penalties are available as a remedy for transgressions and can act as a powerful deterrent. and by other parties: • partial guarantees for project and credit risk. Medium term price cap control allows the company Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .g. This recognizes that the provision of water services normally remains a monopoly. government sources. The BOT arrangements in Johor came about mainly through the absence of funding from traditional. Companies are therefore subject to quality. companies will have all of the rights and responsibilities of normal commercial entities. most expensive and has the longest lead time of any option (potentially in excess of 2 years). rate of return control has been the main method. Because of the nature of the contract. Once the contract has been let. the prime responsibility for service provision rests with the contracting company or consortium. particularly in the United States. but will have additional constraints identified in the legislation which established them. but this can remove incentives for efficiency in capital investment. Full Privatization This option is essentially a sale of the business by the State. It is also virtually permanent. For these reasons. There are different systems of price control available. enjoying a leasing contract for the provision of water services. Again. environmental and economic regulation. and others. it is unlikely that other countries will follow the United Kingdom model and move straight to full privatization without passing through one of the other PSP options first. and the pursuit of short term profits at the expense of long term service requirements. Where full privatization has been achieved. and the guarantees associated with it. via placement or by public share subscription (ii) · (iii) by the State: • income guarantees • limitation of liability arising from political risk • limitation of liability arising from exchange rate risk. in the United Kingdom. all significant risks will have been identified and allocated to the party most able to influence them. effectively rewarding spending. wastewater treatment facility design. Consequently. as in the sale of Northumbrian Water. the consumer needs protection from potential abuse of monopoly power. except that the rate bids are likely to be based on output volumes rather than tariffs. to cover working capital and the costs of building the asset and maintaining it increase the focus on service standards • • • • The process for entering into such contracts is likely to be very similar to that for operating concessions. falling service standards. commissioning ) and of the undoubted burden 26 The main features of full privatization are that it is the most complex.

Significant improvements in efficiency and service standards have been delivered since that time. The subsidiary criteria most frequently observed include: • • • transparency – ensuring clear and objective relationships competition – used to help avoid overpricing independent regulation – to avoid political and commercial pressures. and for failing to ensure a reasonable balance between the interests of customer and shareholder. Private Sector Participation • • • • • • technology/skills transfer – ensuring long term sustainability access to funds from multilateral lending agencies access to public subsidy access to private sector financing time – length of time needed before improvements are achieved ownership – retaining assets in the public sector. The main reason for full privatization is to: • • remove public sector practices relating to employment and procurement provide maximum incentives for efficiency gains. • • • • • • • • (ii) (iii) Northumbrian Water was privatized in 1989. economic and social factors which vary from one country to another. and therefore a greater degree of certainty over its ability to deliver planned service improvements. The regulatory framework does provide for imbalances to be corrected through price reviews. revolving loan facility to finance its investment program. Table 5: Private Sector Participation Considerations. which are heavily influenced by the ownership of assets increase the focus on service standards transfer to the private sector the responsibility for financing working capital and investment costs related to maintaining and improving the system provide maximum autonomy to the company in improving overall business performance provide competition through share price and potential take over activity. when prices are re-set to return efficiency gains to the customers. The choice will depend on political. Table 6: Private Sector Participation Case Study Comparison compares ten water utilities' involvement in different areas of PSP. In addition the certainty of the financial framework.to keep efficiency savings until the next price review. and to protect customer’s interests (price and service standards) risks – allocating individual risks to the party most able to control them autonomy – ensuring that the service provider can develop independent solutions to problems and has freedom from political interference opportunities – obtaining supplementary benefits such as capacity building: (i) by stimulating the ability of the country’s financial institutions to lend to the water sector. This maximizes the incentives for efficiency. and identifies the key factors which influence a decision on which PSP option is appropriate for individual circumstances.400 million pounds sterling multicurrency. as part of the privatization of the water industry of England and Wales. A number of PSP options are likely to meet this objective. is whether it will deliver the service requirements at an affordable price (at least cost). shows the main features of each option. This has been achieved by providing economic incentives through price formula (medium term price cap control) along with maximum management autonomy. enabled Northumbrian Water to negotiate a 1. and by involving local communities in the provision of services to the contractor. as a further stimulus to efficiency ensure that the PSP process is permanent. by using local companies to provide more extensive services to the sector. and governments and agencies may wish to specify subsidiary criteria against which options should be evaluated. The UK government has subsequently been criticized for selling the businesses too cheaply. and has proved extremely potent in the United Kingdom. CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED OPTION The main criterion for selecting a particular option. CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL PSP Experience has shown that the most successful PSP arrangements are those which feature: • whole-hearted government political and financial commitment including: (i) endorsement of the tariff policy 27 .

Jakarta. or require a higher return appropriate provisions to ensure continuity of service in the event of major dispute. according to formula Concessionaire Government Company. but could be benchmarked Yes. but may be negotiated after ranking proposals Government Yes Yes Yes Responsibility for customer tariffs Responsibility for investment funding Remuneration method Breadth of management freedom Performance criteria needed Complexity of supervision/ regulation Concessionary finance available Capacity building potential Examples of successful initiatives Government Concessionaire. and efficiency improvements MANAGEMENT CONTRACT Access to management skills and efficiency improvement Not essential LEASE CONTRACT Access to management skills and efficiency improvement Desirable CONCESSION Efficiency improvement and access to private finance Desirable BOT CONTRACT Access to private finance and technical skills FULL PRIVATIZATION Efficiency improvement and access to private finance Essential Sector strategy required Competition advisable No Desirable/Essential Yes. Port Vila Johor Northumbrian Water (ii) endorsement of the personnel policies arising from the change to private sector status • ensuring access to reliable sources of water to permit improvement in service standards • (iii) • • • • a sound legal system which facilitates the involvement of the private sector in all aspects of service provision a clear and unambiguous contract an appropriate regulatory framework to ensure achievement of required performance remuneration arrangements which make it possible for the contractor to finance their activities in the long term. Jakarta. or where there are significant programs of lending to ongoing projects potential for growth in numbers of service connections 28 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region . Manila and others Adelaide Gdansk Buenos Aires.Table 5: PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION CONSIDERATIONS TYPE OF PSP FEATURE Objective of PSP CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES Access to specific skills. particularly in relation to debt • • servicing and the required rate of return on investment the identification and allocation of risks which might otherwise deter the private sector entrant. but may be negotiated after ranking proposals Government Yes. subject to regulatory constraint Company Government Government Government Company Agreed fee. Manila. and for the resolution of such disputes the support of international lending agencies in cases where access to such sources of finance are still needed. Macau. could be volume based Low Fee plus variable component Medium Tariff revenue Rates as per bid tariff Volume related fee Tariff based Medium to high High High High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Low Medium Medium Medium to high (according to size) Medium to high High Not applicable Possible Possible Under specific circumstances only Medium Under specific circumstances only Low No Low Medium Medium Medium Santiago.

Table 6: PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION CASE STUDY COMPARISON Feature Former body Adelaide Corporatised state department Buenos Aires Public company Gdansk Regional water utility (municipality controlled) Jakarta Government owned and controlled company Johor Not yet privatised Nature of PSP Outsourced management and operations Concession Lease contract to public/ private partnership Two. Guidebook on Private Sector Participation in Water Supply and Sanitation (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific) 5. area based. not annual Financial incentives for PSP None – Early retirement of 1.000 96% 1998 (planned) Jakarta region 1992 Johor Bahru Population served (water) Water service coverage before PSP Performance targets (water) 1. and Waterfacts. United Kingdom statistics of: Drinking Water 1994. November 1996 (Asian Development Bank) 2. adjusted after year one: currently lower by 17%.00/94/012 for the Indonesian Government) 7. 1996 (The World Bank) 3. No clear mechanism for adjustment Government controlled State controlled. Privatisation: An Economic Analysis (Vickers and Yarrow.000 None None None Regulation By State. some difficulties over investment 7. then $4 million per annum Municipality $500 million in first 5 years RM800 million to 1996 Investment Financing State Concessionaire with IDB & IFC support Concession companies Concession company Tariff regime Determined by State.6 million 70% 1993 Cities of Gdansk and Sopot 500. Private Participation in Water Supply.600 employees – assets free Ad hoc body. complex and unclear By residual utility State body for JWC which supervised concession Employee arrangements 450 employee surplus left with utility Allocated to municipality or to JV No reductions. produced by the Water Services Association. Private Sector Participation in Water Supply and Sanitation in Latin America (The World Bank) 4. Private Sector Participation in the Water Supply and Wastewater Sector. Study Tour Report. Private Participation in Urban Services. May 1997 6. 105.2 million 100% 10 million 40% 2. 5 year reviews Annual negotiation. Private Sector Participation 29 . a report by the Chief Drinking Water Inspector. Draft Consultant's Report on the World Bank/Government of India Workshop on Urban Water Supply and Sanitation. The MIT Press) 8.4 million n/a – water quality standards – management of capital programme – inward investment – coverage 100% – UFW from 43% to 25% (over life of concession) – water quality standards – network rehabilitation – coverage 70% after 5 years – local water standards – UFW reductions – national quality standards Investment $500 million (including wastewater) $4 billion (including wastewater) $100 million over 5 years. Case Study Training Material (PURSE Project Report No. 80% of staff to be former utility staff Government controls on reductions List of References: 1.600 reduced to 4. modified concessions Coporatised body. Prospectus: The Water Share Offers issued on Behalf of the UK Government 9. no problems evident Municipality. supervises concession contract Bulk supply of treated water Fixed and volumetric charges 20 years Functions Water and wastewater Water and wastewater Water and wastewater Water Remuneration mechanism Annual fee Tariff income Tariff income with rate of return limit 30 years Volumes of water delivered 25 years Period of contract 15 years 30 years Date of transfer Service area 1996 Adelaide and hinterland 1993 Buenos Aires and 14 districts 8. income collected by State Set by bid.

under pressure – 98% for water – uninterrupted 24 hour supply – 16 psi minimum pressure – effluent standards $5-7 billion (water and wastewater) – EU water quality standards – national effluent standards – range of customer standards $900 million (water and wastewater) – water quality – interruption to supply – programme of works Improved quality of services and standards Investment $60 million over last 11 years Vatu 1. non contentious Separate unit.000 67% – – – – 100% coverage UFW reduction EU quality standards 24 hour supply. minimum rate of return 40 years Fees subject to bid rates Period of contract 25 years 25 years In perpetuity according to license conditions 1989 Regional catchment 2 years for service contracts Not applicable Greater Santiago and surrounding area 5 million 99% Date of transfer Service area 1985 Macau area 1997 Greater Manila 1993 Port Vila area Population served (water) Water service coverage before PSP Performance targets (water) 450. no reductions – Some redundancy – Provision for further redundancy by companies 130 local staff retained Company discretion 30 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region . 5 yearly review Financial incentives for PSP Some tax breaks – some debt write off and cash injection – tax breaks Independent water. EMOS is a government controlled shareholder company Service contracts Nature of PSP Concession Concession (2 areas) Full privatisation Concession Functions Water Water and wastewater Water and wastewater Water Ad hoc service activities Remuneration mechanism Tariff income Tariff income Tariff income Tariff income.Table 6: PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION CASE STUDY COMPARISON (cont'd.8 billion in first 20 years $600 million for wastewater over 15 years Investment Financing Concession company Concession company and ADB for ongoing projects Private sector Soft bilateral loans Cash flow and $55 million loan ex World Bank Government controlled Tariff regime Initial financing included soft bilateral loan Annual negotiation Tariffs have reduced in real terms None As bid Price cap regulation Government controlled. based on benchmark performance Employee arrangements Inherited from predecessor company. environment and economic regulation At discretion of company None Subsidy to low income and rural consumers Regulation Government.000 Unclear 6 million 67% 2. via residuary utility Government query over expertise Government.6 million 98% 30.) Feature Former body Various Macau Manila Government owned and controlled corporation Northumbrian Regional water authority Port Vila Public works department Santiago None.

The spirit of the contract is often more important than the legal words. In most cases. such as the public sector in Singapore. The major shareholder should preferably be local. The top down approach needs good public relations. Design of PSP is an art not a science. including a mechanism for tariff adjustment is essential. There is no blueprint solution — every utility must be assessed on its own merits. if the enabling environment is already appropriate. public awareness and public conditioning to succeed. such as Port Vila in Vanuatu. There is a need for more competition in PSP. A defined tariff policy. PSP leads to improved performance. but care should be taken that some incentives do not adversely effect others. are two key factors looked for by the private sector in considering PSP. it is better to refer to it as private sector participation (PSP). social and environmental costs should be assessed.FINDINGS OF BANK STUDY TOUR ON PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN WATER SUPPLY (Malaysia. can be commercially viable under PSP. Economic. A regulatory authority is essential — with no conflict of interest. in most cases. PSP is not always needed. Even a very small utility. The needs of all stakeholders should be defined and addressed. low cost. • • Foreign technical expertise combined with local business-social-cultural knowledge is the ideal combination. Vanuatu) • The overall objective must be economic and social development. The government should state the objectives of PSP and provide strong commitment. The retrenchment of staff needs to be considered — but it is not always necessary. A means of providing adequate capital investment must be determined — perhaps outside the PSP. Governments do not usually have expertise in assessing and negotiating PSP contracts — unlike the private sector. Contracts must be tendered with competition and negotiations with the first ranked conducted in a transparent manner. The first five years is critical for financial matters and the use of soft loans during this period is not only common. The level of consumer income is a factor to be taken into account. Macau. Reliable. 31 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Don’t rush into PSP — take time to become well informed before making a decision on the exact nature of the PSP. • • • • • Findings of Bank Study Tour on Private Sector Participation in Water Supply . Elements of risk should be identified and suitably apportioned according to rewards/ incentives. Mutual respect between the contractor and the government is needed. The main two reasons for use of PSP are for improved efficiencies in resource management and for greater investment potential. Although privatization may be considered a process of greater and greater involvement of the private sector (such as in Malaysia). Incentives to improve performance must be provided. water resources and a potential for growth in demand. but very necessary.

but also to the people who make daily contact with them. Competing Water Use identical. resulting in poor service to the consumer. This Best Practice section of the Data Book looks at a few best practices which complement the performance parameters used in the Data Book. so we cannot allow development in this sector to lag. but also more attention needs to be paid to the sustainability of those investments. One reason is the lack of efficiency in the public management of human. Private Sector Participation Elsewhere in the Data Book there is a special overview of private sector participation (PSP) in the sector. and leak repairs. political. There are historical.2) and Selangor Waterworks Department (1. religious. Fourth. Second. should be vocal in advocating more investment in this sector. environmental. it addresses the question of equitable development (not just for the rich). With economic analysis of water supply projects now mandatory in the Bank. Governments must be encouraged to provide clear policies and guidelines in the resolution of these matters. This is not a simple problem. improves the health and welfare of the people and reduces the burden of women. The other reason is that the private sector can bring in funding for capital development (although the terms of such financing will normally be much more severe than conventional sources such as multilateral development banks). First. Third.BEST PRACTICE IN WATER UTILITIES Introduction The Data Book provides information which allows water utilities to assess their rating among one another for various performance parameters. and consultants. special case studies are being prepared to look at the competing uses of water resources for water supply and irrigation purposes in particular. a number of partners may associate. This is best done through a metered bulk supply which is paid for by the community. financial and water resources. Water supply development promotes economic growth. All stakeholders in the sector including consumers. the water authority and the government. it dramatically reduces the unit cost of water to the poor. it will help to stamp out corruption and exploitation Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region . it will reduce the health risk not only to the poor. the municipality. These may include a foreign water supply contractor. leasing arrangements (otherwise known as affermage) and concession agreements. donors. social. That means more qualified and better trained staff and better O&M practices. a local firm (not necessarily in the water business). billing and collection. There are normally two main reasons for considering PSP. Malaysia (J hor and Kala Lmpur) is a particularly good o u u example. management contracting of O&M. Failure of a water supply to a major city may have horrendous implications. Staff/1. It has been said that the most important problem facing mankind in the 21st century will be water. because it is becoming scarce and there is considerable competition for its use. government. financial. economic. Advocacy for Water Supply There is no doubt that the quality of water supply services in developing countries reflects the lack of advocacy for the sector.4) reflect the use of the private sector in providing bulk water. utility. In PSP alternatives. Service to the Urban Poor There is much to be done in most developing countries on this subject.0connections in J hor Water 0 o Company (1. Governments need to know in a transparent manner what effective financial subsidies are being provided to the farmers when they are given preference over domestic water supplies in the development and use of water. regardless of whether or not they have land tenure. More investment is needed. Other PSP alternatives being implemented in the region are build-operate-transfer (BOT) of water production facilities. Fifth. This will identify the good performers. the utility will gain more water to serve others and more revenue too. and technical considerations to be evaluated in a balanced manner and no two situations will be 32 It is time for developing countries to give specific attention to providing formalized piped water supply services to the urban poor. It will suffice to note here that the contracting out of services to the private sector has noticeably increased in the four years since the first Data Book. It would be appropriate for the poorer performers to approach the better performers for assistance in improving their operations.

of the poor. Sixth, it will help to mobilize urban poor communities to help themselves. It is significant, that in Manila, with the recent privatization of water supply services a formal policy of service to the urban poor will be introduced. Autonomy Autonomy is manifested in the three main areas of staffing, finance and procurement of goods and services. Singapore’s Public Utilities Board (PUB) is an excellent example of a public utility which pays its staff and management well and so obtains top quality performers. With many water utilities having an annual turnover of more than $0million, it is 1 in the public interest to have the best qualified and experienced staff managing these funds. Singapore PUB also has a small but efficient staff with a staff/ 1,0 0 connections ratio of 2.0Utilities need autonomy . in finance. This means a clearly defined tariff policy and freedom to implement that policy. It also means financial authority to make decisions and have them implemented quickly. Especially in matters which affect O&M, the utility must have the autonomy to make procurement at short notice, without being bound up in bureaucracy. The Metropolitan Waterworks Authority (MWA) in Bangkok is a good example of a utility which has financial autonomy and a performance which allows it to obtain considerable capital financing from the local bond market. In the Bank’s experience, autonomy also goes hand in hand with strong leadership and management skills. MWA and Singapore PUB exhibit these qualities too. Brain drain is a problem for especially the relatively small developing countries. This can be minimized in this sector through increased autonomy of water utilities. If the enabling environment which exists in Singapore and Bangkok cannot be replicated in other countries, then autonomy must be sought through artificial means, such as introduction of the private sector into at least the management functions. Tariffs and Financial Management In setting tariffs, the first consideration must be a consistent transparent tariff policy endorsed by the government. Subsidies given by the government to the sector as well as so called " ross-subsidies" c within the sector need to be clearly outlined. Demand management through higher rates for high consumption and a lifeline rate where there are urban poor, should be considered in the tariff structure. The mechanism for tariff adjustments must be defined.
Best Practice in Water Utilities

Ideally an independent regulatory authority should be established to monitor and approve tariffs. This is essential when the private sector becomes involved in the management of water supplies. Tariffs should take into account loan covenants agreed with major funders of capital works. Particularly in the larger cities, the grant financing of water supply investments needs to be phased out, so that the burden on the government to provide these subsidies is eliminated. At the same time, water utilities need to generate from tariffs a cash flow which will cover O&M costs, debt servicing (both capital repayment and interest) and provide a contribution to capital investment. The utility should aim initially to have an average tariff not less than the average incremental cost of water and then eventually aim to meet the full economic cost of water (which will include environmental costs). Affordabilty and Willingness to Pay In the past, when water was not scarce, it was common practice to design water supply schemes based on relatively fixed engineering design criteria such as a domestic consumption of 20l/c/d. Now 0 that water is scarce and there is competition for it, water consumption must be estimated on the basis of the price people will pay for it. Tonga and the Maldives are good examples of high tariffs and low consumption figures, all dictated by the scarcity of water. When it comes to the design of new or expanded facilities, we should always remember that everyone already has access to water, even though it may be of poor quality and in not a very convenient location. It is easy to over-estimate demand by assuming that everyone not having a piped water supply will automatically connect to the new scheme. In fact, there are numerous examples of people making the choice to stay with their dug well at no cost, rather than connect to the new piped scheme at considerable cost. This is where public awareness and hygiene education campaigns prior to the project can help. One way of assessing affordability is to check the water bill against the power bill. When the ratio is low then one can normally assume that the water tariff is affordable. 24-Hour Water Supply It is of some concern that a number of water authorities in developing countries seem to be quite happy to operate water supplies with less than 24-hour service to consumers, quoting the some for all, rather than all for some axiom. This exposes consumers to a high health risk from contamination entering distribution
33

pipework during vacuum conditions created in the distribution pipework when water is absent. It makes accurate measurement of consumption impossible. Also there is evidence that more water is consumed under less than 24-hour supply, because people leave their taps open to fill storage, which can often then overflow to waste. It is also noticeable that once less than 24-hour water supply is accepted, the hours of service progressively deteriorate down to one or two hours per day. Water authorites must resist the requests of politicians to continually extend services on the periphery of the urban areas. Maléwith only 16-18 l/c/d domestic , consumption, provides an excellent illustration of the prerequisites for a 24-hour supply; i.e.; full and accurate metering, a tariff sufficiently high to introduce demand management, and timely collection. It is not valid for a utility to claim it does not have enough water for 24hour supply, especially when domestic consumption figures are 10 0 -20 0 l/c/d. Operation and Maintenance It can readily be seen from the Data Book, that utilities have differing definitions of O&M. So much of what should be considered as O&M, is in fact left to investment projects to rectify. This applies to replacement of pipes, pumps, valves, water meters, instrumentation and service vehicles and particularly to the reduction of unaccounted for water. If tariff policies and loan covenants are to include references to O&M, then it is essential that every water utility clearly define O&M. More prestige must be given to those associated with O&M, if the quality of O&M is to be improved. Too often it plays second fiddle to development. This is a management concern. Consumer satisfaction must be paramount in O&M activities. Particularly, queries about billing and notification of breakdowns or leaks must be quickly addressed. The utility must make it easy for the consumer to pay the water bill. In Sri Lnka, a a number of consumers don’t pay their bill on time because the monthly billing is so small that it costs as much to go and pay the bill as the amount of the bill. It is also noticeable from the Data Book that a number of utilities are now only reading meters every 3 or 4 months. Preparation and timely publication of an Annual Report on operations is essential for the accountability of the utility to the government and the public. Unaccounted for Water In the reduction of unaccounted for water, the utility can start with a policy of phasing out public taps,
34

wherever possible. The corollary of this, is that the price of a new connection must be made affordable, by allowing the consumer to spread payment over two or three years. Next comes 10 0 percent metering of production and consumption, with regular replacement of meters to ensure accuracy. Repair of all visible leaks is necessary. That should go without saying, yet many utilities neglect even that fundamental. Elimination of illegal connections should be done, hand in hand with mapping of the distribution system. A house to house survey can identify suspected illegal connections. For those with no registered connection, the house can be checked for taps and an analysis of the water coming from the taps carried out. For those with a registered connection, the actual consumption can be checked against the expected demand from the household occupants. If this is significantly lower than average, then the taps inside the house can be checked one by one against registration on the meter, for the presence of a possible second unmetered connection. Finally, invisible leaks can be traced with leak detection equipment. It makes sense, for reduction of unaccounted for water to be a normal maintenance task, carried out on a zonal basis, where a specific local area is the responsibility of a specific maintenance crew. In a number of the studied utilities it would be appropriate for one person to be responsible for 50– 0connections and get to 0 1,0 know the area intimately so as to combat UFW, water wastage and illegal connections. Monitoring of Performance Every utility, must be able to measure its performance. This means its own performance with time, and its own performance in comparison with other utilities. It can be seen from the Data Book that a number of utilities have incomplete data. For example, only part of production and part of consumption is metered. Furthermore, in many utilities the meters are not all working, so consumption can only be estimated. It is time for utilities to carefully distinguish between NRW and UFW. If every utility sets itself performance targets in terms of consumer satisfaction, management of human, financial and water resources, then it will have a control mechanism for measuring improvements. A " uggested evaluation s criteria" for utilities is given in Appendix 3. Research Universities in the Asian and Pacific region are always looking for relevant real life research topics. The
Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region

water supply sector has a number of these begging for further study. These include: (i) competing water uses and subsidies; (ii) domestic water consumption uses and needs; (iii) consumption patterns under intermittent water supply; (iv) subsidies to the water supply sector; (v) elasticity of price versus demand; (vi) service to the urban poor; (vii) affordability,

willingness to pay and cost recovery; (viii) illegal connections; (ix) an historical overview of groundwater use; (x) an overview of the use of bottled water; (xi) the cost of boiling and filtering water; and (xii) a comparison of the health status of those who drink tap water, with those who boil or filter water from the same system.

Best Practice in Water Utilities

35

TOWARDS EFFECTIVE WATER POLICY

A.

The Challenge

The Bank is formulating a policy to help its developing member countries (DMCs) meet the rapidly increasing demands on their water resources and water services. The proceedings of a regional consultation workshop were published in 1996 in three volumes entitled Towards Effective Water Policy in the Asian and Pacific Region. The workshop agreed that: 1. Water has become the critical natural resource in most countries of the Asian and Pacific Region. National action programs are needed to manage water resources and improve water services that will sustain human and economic development in each country in the coming decades. Governments should provide leadership, commitment, and a focus on principles to direct an effective water sector development process in each country. To catalyze investments in integrated water sector programs in the Region, the Asian Development Bank should target the water sector in its operations with a long-term perspective and through effective partnerships.

no longer be considered independently from national water policies and the need to improve the management of scarce water resources. In each country, therefore, water and sanitation strategies need to be formulated that are based on a national water policy.

Principles for essential water sector functions:
1.

National water resources development and management should be undertaken in a holistic, determined, and sustained manner to meet national development goals and protect the environment.
Planning, development, and management of specific water resources should be decentralized to an appropriate level responding to basin boundaries. Delivery of specific water services should be delegated to autonomous and accountable public, private, or cooperative agencies providing measured water services in a defined geographical area to their customers and/or members for an appropriate fee.

2.

2.

3.

3.

4.

Crosscutting principles for successful water sector activities:
4. Water use in society should be sustainable — with incentives, regulatory controls, and public education promoting economic efficiency, conservation of water resources, and protection of the environment — within a transparent policy framework.

B.

Principles for Effective Water Policy

The policy consultation results were captured in a set of seven generic water policy principles. These principles help to provide a holistic focus on water sector development, which was envisaged by the Dublin Conference on Water and the Environment in 1992. An important distinction is made between the management of water resources and the delivery of water services. Both are essential and interdependent water sector functions. These principles are being taken into account in the formulation of the Bank’s water sector policy. The provision of water and sanitation services through autonomous and accountable service providers is an important water subsector. Water and sanitation services in the region can, however,
36

5.

Shared water resources within and between nations should be allocated efficiently for the mutual benefit of all riparian users.
Water sector development activities should be participatory and consultative at each level, leading to commitment by stakeholders and action that is socially acceptable.

6.

Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region

2. and greater public and private sector investment in the sector in the Bank’s DMCs over a sustained period. and investment services to the sector in the context of a long-term partnership with selected DMCs. but not limited to: lack of autonomy in institutions. Objective To improve the health and livelihood of people in the Bank’s developing member countries through provision of equitable. inefficiencies in the management of human. This means also leveraging policy reforms through such investments. management should be at the lowest practicable level. evaluation. C. and sustainable investments in water supply and sanitation. poor maintenance. and lack of planning and development in terms of comprehensive water resources management. Finally. basin. excessive subsidies. Providing integrated investment packages of policy support. Public relations and public awareness. representing regional concerns at global fora. lack of defined tariff policy. Decentralization of national authorities. project. weaknesses in public awareness. D. Developing regional cooperation by supporting comparative analysis and exchange of experience on priority regional issues (such as this publication). cost-effective. Successful water sector development requires a commitment to sustained capacity building. the emerging strategy of the Bank in the urban water supply subsector is given below. Background The strategy recognizes and addresses some of the major constraints in the urban water supply subsector including. Staff need to be given the opportunity to 37 Towards Effective Water Policy . low levels of service. and water resources. financial. particularly financial management personnel. The Bank’s Strategic Roles The Bank’s Medium-Term Strategic Framework defines three developmental roles to assist DMCs in any targeted sector in the Bank’s operations. and taking into account the state of water utilities in the region (as established in the Data Book). service entity. including the mechanism for making periodic revisions to tariffs. inequities and inadequacies in coverage. and community level. 3. including the water sector: 1. capacity development. In general. Human Resource Management The Bank will encourage institutions to develop a small number of permanent employees who are wellqualified and represent the best people who can be obtained from the open market. The utility should have adequate numbers of fully-qualified and experienced staff. Utilities must produce an audited annual report on their operations within the year following the reported period. to respond effectively to changing needs at the national. National Policies National policies should start with one for comprehensive water resources management and a defined strategy to implement it. monitoring. The water supply subsector needs its own policy which can be articulated in a brief statement. within the water supply subsector. research. and supporting regional cooperation among DMCs. and community participation and responsibility are all encouraged. Catalyzing investment in the region and promoting policy change.7. or by allowing the private sector to take over some of the institution functions. devolution of responsibilities to local authorities. including hygiene education and water conservation need to be strongly developed. A Strategy for Urban Water Supply Based on the above broad framework for water sector management. The enabling environment in a given country is the key factor in the choice of the appropriate option. Institutions Autonomy in institutions can be attained by two means: through appropriate legislation and commitment of the Government to give that autonomy. lack of advocacy for and investment in the sector. and learning at all levels. the government needs to clearly define a tariff policy. capacity building. lack of defined national sector policy.

(A Handbook for the Economic Evaluation of Water Supply Projects is now under preparation in the Bank. General Although appropriate standards of performance for human. In order to achieve the necessary financial viability. The consumer is also entitled to be given on a regular basis relevant information about the utility and activities which may affect them. The Bank strongly encourages water demand management through use of high tariffs for consumption in excess of reasonable use. the utility should be aiming to meet the full economic cost of water (which will include associated environmental costs). The first is that the utility has well-qualified and trained staff appropriate to the volume of funds being handled. 38 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region . This means fully metering all production sources and all consumer outlets. In general. it is also mandatory to identify and quantify all subsidies. is the need for independence from government subsidies. water utilities should maintain average tariffs at least at the level of the incremental financial cost of new water supplies. the Suggested Evaluation Criteria given in Appendix 3 gives an indication of the performance standards the Bank would normally expect. identification of illegal connections. even when the residents do not have official tenure of the land. the Bank wants to see 24hour supply. This means phasing out grant financing for capital investments and tapping nongovernment sources of financing. and identification and repair of invisible leaks. and water resource management will vary from one utility to the other. Second. Repair of visible leaks. It is now mandatory to conduct financial and economic appraisal of water supply and sanitation projects for Bank financing. It is necessary for utilities to make provision for a consumer to make a small deposit on the new connection fee and allow the balance to be repaid with the tariff over two or three years. water needs to be carefully managed all the way from source to drain. The Bank encourages water supply and sanitation development to go hand in hand. This is necessary.accept responsibility and have incentives for good performance. financial. public tap services should be phased out in favor of direct connections. not only to give convenience to the consumer. plus debt servicing (capital repayments and interest). Consumer Concerns On behalf of consumers. plus a contribution to capital investment. at intervals recommended by the manufacturer (in the range of 6-8 years for good quality domestic water meters). is the need to reduce accounts receivable to the lowest practicable amount. The consumer should expect to get water from the tap which is potable. through bulk metered supplies. but also because health improvements will be greatly enhanced. The Bank strongly endorses provision of formal piped water supply service to the informal settlements of the urban poor. Water Resources Management At the water supply subsector level. The price of a new connection should be affordable to all potential consumers. wherever possible.) In the appraisal of all projects for Bank financing. such as commercial banks and local bond issues. A strong training program which facilitates learning from others in the region and beyond is necessary. Fourth. and ensuring the accuracy of such metering is maintained by regular replacement of the meters. Financial Resource Management The Bank is interested in four main areas of financial management in water utilities. The difference between unaccounted for water and non-revenue water should be clearly established and monitored as efforts are made to reduce both. The Bank acts as a regional resource center for water supply and the Data Book is an example of this service. full and accurate measurement of all consumption. but also to safeguard health and to ensure accurate measurement of consumption. Third. will all contribute to the reduction of UFW. since increased water supplies means increased need for wastewater control. upto-date mapping. Ultimately however. is maintaining a healthy cash flow which allows revenues from tariffs to meet O&M costs.

PART II REGIONAL PROFILES (Figures and Tables) .

40 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .

Bhd.000 90.500 1.000 32.960 1.580..000 11.197.000 3.350.Table 7: NAMES AND LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES Country Bangladesh Bangladesh Bhutan Cambodia China.690 26.000 78.374.153 7.654. Ltd.000 3.880. of Cook Islands Fiji Hong Kong.100 280.000 9.(Johor Water Company) Selangor Waterworks Department Pihak Berkuasa Air Pulau Pinang (Penang Water Authority) Malé Water and Sewerage Company.000 10.924.702 1.700 36.500. Rep.000 695.100 670. Ltd.000 2.000 970.263.000.000 46.840.000 3.302 5. Soc. The abbreviated “Ho Chi Minh” has been used throughout most of the Regional Profiles primarily for space/presentation purposes. China India India India India Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Kazakstan Korea.004.085 4.000 46.050 Year 2 1995 1995 1996 1996 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1996 1996 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1996 1996 1995 1995 1996 1995 1996 1996 1996 1995 1995 1996 1996 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1996 1996 1995 1995 1995 Name of Utility Chittagong Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Thimphu City Corporation (Water Supply Unit) Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority Beijing Municipal Waterworks Company Shanghai Municipal Waterworks Company Tianjin Waterworks Group Company.765 10. Year refers to the year when population was determined or estimated. Rep.000 6.China Thailand Thailand Thailand Tonga Uzbekistan Vanuatu Viet Nam. Rep.270.250.250. Rep.000 1. of Korea.000 10.000. of China.931 2.1) Tonga Water Board Tashkent Vodocanal Union Electrique du Vanuatu. Hanoi Water Business Company Ho Chi Minh City Water Supply Company Western Samoa Water Authority Population refers to the population of the area of responsibility of the utility in the city.486. of Viet Nam.943 990.000 1.114 935. of Kyrgyzstan Lao PDR Malaysia Malaysia Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Myanmar Myanmar Nepal Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Papua New Guinea Philippines Philippines Philippines Singapore Solomon Islands Sri Lanka Taipei.000 195. Soc. Water Supply Division Fiji Public Works Department Water Supplies Department Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Water Supply Department) Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (Hydraulic Engineer’s Department) PDAM Kodya Dati II Bandung PDAM DKI Jakarta PDAM Tirtanadi Medan Industrial Enterprise Almaty Vodocanal Seoul Metropolitan Government (Office of Waterworks) Ulsan City Water and Sewerage Board Industrial Enterprise Bishkek Vodocanal Nam Papa Lao Syarikat Air Johor Sdn. Regional Profiles . Ltd.800.000 824. of China. Water Supply and Sewerage System Company (USAG) Mandalay City Development Committee (Water and Sanitation Department) Yangon City Development Committee (Water and Sanitation Department) Nepal Water Supply Corporation Faisalabad Development Authority (Water and Sanitation Agency) Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Lahore Development Authority (Water and Sanitation Agency) The Waterboard (Lae District Office) Metropolitan Cebu Water District Davao City Water District Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System Public Utilities Board (Water Department) Solomon Islands Water Authority National Water Supply and Drainage Board Taipei Water Department Metropolitan Waterworks Authority Provincial Waterworks Authority (Regional Office No.116.700 600.000 4.400.000 1.293.300.000 1.000 9.000 4.595.000.9) Provincial Waterworks Authority (Regional Office No.731.INSTITUTIONS 41 .470.800.000 11.626 605.000 4. Manila refers to the entire Metro Manila. People’s Rep.801.000 8.610.000 1.963. People’s Rep. People’s Rep. of Western Samoa 1 2 3 4 5 City Chittagong Dhaka Thimphu Phnom Penh Beijing Shanghai Tianjin Rarotonga Suva Hong Kong Calcutta Chennai Delhi Mumbai Bandung Jakarta Medan Almaty Seoul Ulsan Bishkek Vientiane Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Penang 3 Malé Ulaanbaatar Mandalay Yangon Kathmandu Faisalabad Karachi Lahore Lae Cebu Davao Manila 4 Singapore Honiara Colombo Taipei Bangkok Chiangmai Chonburi Nuku’alofa Tashkent Port Vila Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City 5 Apia Population1 1.000 3. Penang refers to the entire Penang Island.000 10.000 266.600 224.

830 1.868 1.424 335.000 2.000 103.547 6.510.000 264.962 132.500 1.000 5.237.060 9.380 534.200 3.400 Number of Utility Connections 2.600 8.742 1.800 31.322 1.194.101 18.259.000 144.851.780.130 10.648.974 1.033 2.369 49.270.000 1.000 7.565 1.640 1.904.163 4.032.350 695.000 4.740.390 274.194.000 592.165.000 9.304 143.806 Number of Staff 25.730 486.500 29.000 594.000 3.091 893 640 606 550 506 500 438 395 374 363 360 293 260 243 238 212 200 190 188 187 171 167 166 165 153 126 110 110 100 92 84 78 75 70 67 67 59 50 50 38 30 29 21 8 7 2 City Seoul Shanghai Bangkok Manila Taipei Delhi Mumbai Hong Kong Tashkent Beijing Karachi Tianjin Singapore Lahore Calcutta Jakarta Almaty Dhaka Ho Chi Minh Colombo Kuala Lumpur Bishkek Yangon Johor Bahru Hanoi Chennai Penang Ulsan Medan Bandung Ulaanbaatar Faisalabad Chittagong Davao Cebu Kathmandu Phnom Penh Suva Mandalay Chonburi Vientiane Chiangmai Lae Apia Honiara Rarotonga Port Vila Thimphu Nuku’alofa Malé City Hong Kong Seoul Shanghai Taipei Bangkok Chiangmai Chonburi Delhi Karachi Kuala Lumpur Singapore Manila Johor Bahru Lahore Jakarta Calcutta Colombo Mumbai Ulsan Penang Ho Chi Minh Chennai Beijing Medan Dhaka Tashkent Kathmandu Bandung Hanoi Tianjin Almaty Suva Davao Yangon Faisalabad Bishkek Cebu Mandalay Vientiane Phnom Penh Chittagong Lae Apia Malé Nuku’alofa Honiara Rarotonga Port Vila Ulaanbaatar Thimphu City Delhi Shanghai Mumbai Karachi Manila Colombo Chiangmai Chonburi Chennai Beijing Hong Kong Bangkok Calcutta Tianjin Seoul Dhaka Tashkent Jakarta Lahore Kathmandu Faisalabad Singapore Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Almaty Johor Bahru Taipei Kuala Lumpur Yangon Ulaanbaatar Penang Bandung Medan Suva Chittagong Vientiane Davao Cebu Phnom Penh Bishkek Mandalay Lae Apia Ulsan Nuku’alofa Malé Honiara Thimphu Port Vila Rarotonga City Delhi Manila Hong Kong Johor Bahru Bangkok Singapore Seoul Beijing Shanghai Karachi Mumbai Suva Tianjin Tashkent Dhaka Penang Cebu Kuala Lumpur Yangon Jakarta Davao Taipei Almaty Calcutta Chennai Bishkek Medan Lahore Ho Chi Minh Ulaanbaatar Ulsan Colombo Bandung Chiangmai Chittagong Phnom Penh Chonburi Faisalabad Rarotonga Mandalay Vientiane Kathmandu Lae Honiara Nuku’alofa Apia Port Vila Thimphu Hanoi Malé City Seoul Mumbai Delhi 1 Shanghai 2 Karachi 1 Manila 1 Hong Kong Bangkok 2 Beijing 1 Tianjin 2 Chennai 2 Dhaka Taipei Lahore Singapore Calcutta 2 Jakarta 2 Ho Chi Minh Yangon 1 Tashkent 1 Colombo Kuala Lumpur Hanoi Almaty 1 Medan Faisalabad 1 Johor Bahru Bandung Ulsan Kathmandu 1 Ulaanbaatar 1 Phnom Penh Chittagong Penang Bishkek 1 Mandalay 1 Davao Cebu Suva Chonburi 1 Vientiane Chiangmai Malé 1 Lae 2 Honiara Apia Nuku’alofa Thimphu Port Vila1 Rarotonga1 People Served 10.034 63.000.177 263.000 2.544 1.310 138.000 27.000 1.400 199.742 1.610.580.156 1.547 6.708 37.000 2.079 57.000 504.326 15.595.523 222.800.400 7.860 910.865 1.506 2.375.000 832.900 3.031 5.710 108.226 6.830 304.050 36.000 4.767 160.204 107.736 5.380 1.540 730.600 2.866 102.000 91.374 932.560 2.601.000 781.080.453 6.000 2.827.202 164.000 160. PT and bulk supply connections to residential areas.237.830 5.092 1.555 6.486.259 271.300 1.728.731 5.457.454 240.691 779.943 10.078 2.289.763.750 372.140 78.693 362.679 7.265 3.820 1.983 107.158 127.428 4.335.004.000 945.168 1.000 9.141 3.500 33.760 25. 42 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .186 1.986.873.120 1.762 128.000 334.000 1.863 2.495 1.000 8.003 1.057 11.700 46. 2 Based on population served by HC.257.876 96.169.Table 8: SIZE OF UTILITY Daily Production (m3) 4.108.105 1.650 371.180 1.762 9.500 70.624.000 4.374.350.000 3.274 1.820 1.467 400.050.000 2.086 900.000 499.099.258 248.900 536.197.133 2.132 1.000 5.628 7.400 191.565 972.460.041 8.060 1.241.950 80.645 1.798 297.849.000 5.171 600.096 95.397 1.000 46.717 1.880 360.778 100.465 1.000 386.983 144.000 2.106 2.322.959.108 188.957.320 2.820 1.000 56.377 28.332 3.700 6.461.480 11.270.000 81.084 290.886.991 323.931 46.400 8.126 757.022 923 900 760 609 604 532 463 435 315 269 249 204 135 73 66 46 20 15 Service Area (km2) 1.518.087 123.590 1.994 96.914 34.058 1.100 684.196 1.530 268.100 Notes: 1 Computed from given percentage of service coverage and total population.700 1.

25 – 1.Figure 1: TYPE OF WATER UTILITY 40 No.75 0.50 Operating Ratio (Expenses/Revenues) Regional Profiles .00 – 1.INSTITUTIONS 43 .75 –1. of Utilities 30 20 10 Hong Kong Kuala Lumpur Mandalay Rarotonga Seoul Suva Thimphu Ulsan Yangon Almaty Apia Bandung Bangkok Beijing Bishkek Calcutta Cebu Chennai Chiangmai Chittagong Chonburi Colombo Davao Dhaka Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Honiara Jakarta Johor Bahru Kathmandu Lae Lahore Manila Medan Penang Phnom Penh Shanghai Singapore Taipei Tashkent Tianjin Ulaanbaatar Vientiane 0 Delhi Faisalabad Karachi Malé Mumbai Nuku’alofa Port Vila Government Department Government Corporation Other Figure 2: OPERATIONS SUBSIDY FOR UTILITY 25 No.20– 0.50 >1.50 0. of Utilities 20 15 10 5 0 Almaty Karachi Mandalay Manila Yangon Mumbai Penang Phnom Penh Singapore Taipei Thimphu Ulsan Bandung Bangkok Bishkek Cebu Chennai Chiangmai Chittagong Chonburi Colombo Davao Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Honiara Jakarta Johor Bahru Kathmandu Lahore Seoul Tashkent Ulaanbaatar Vientiane Dhaka Kuala Lumpur Lae Medan Nuku’alofa Port Vila Shanghai Tianjin Beijing Faisalabad Calcutta Delhi Hong Kong Malé Suva 0.00 1.25 1.50 – 0.

Figure 3: GRANT ELEMENT OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT >150.000 Connections Vientiane Almaty Chiangmai Chonburi Tianjin Bishkek Rarotonga Hanoi Kathmandu Phnom Penh Thimphu Ulaanbaatar Lae Honiara Apia Suva 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage Grant Funding 44 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .000 Connections Chennai Delhi Jakarta Medan Lahore Manila Beijing Colombo Shanghai Ho Chi Minh Karachi Dhaka Hong Kong 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage Grant Funding <150.

Figure 4: CAPITAL EXPENDITURE PER CONNECTION 20 No. of Utilities 15 10 5 Almaty Apia Bishkek Calcutta Chittagong Davao Delhi Faisalabad Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Honiara Kathmandu Lae Lahore Nuku’alofa Penang Shanghai Tashkent Thimphu Bandung Cebu Chennai Hong Kong Johor Bahru Karachi Manila Medan Mumbai Rarotonga Singapore Suva Taipei Ulaanbaatar Vientiane Chiangmai Chonburi Colombo Dhaka Kuala Lumpur Port Vila Jakarta Malé Seoul Ulsan Bangkok Beijing Mandalay Phnom Penh Tianjin 0 <50 50 –100 100 –150 150 –200 >200 Capital Expenditure (US$ per Connection) Regional Profiles .INSTITUTIONS 45 .

000 Connections Malé Nuku’alofa Thimphu Port Vila Rarotonga Honiara Apia Lae Chiangmai Vientiane Chonburi Mandalay Suva Phnom Penh Kathmandu Cebu Davao Chittagong Ulaanbaatar Faisalabad Bandung Penang Hanoi Yangon Bishkek Surface Water Ground Water 0 0.1 0.Figure 5: PRODUCTION VOLUME >150.0 2.2 0.4 0.0 4.5 Cubic Meters per Day (Million) * Belongs to <150.0 3.000 Connections.0 5.0 Cubic Meters per Day (Million) <150.3 0.000 Connections Medan Ulsan Chennai Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Colombo Ho Chi Minh Dhaka Almaty* Jakarta Calcutta Lahore Singapore Tianjin* Karachi Beijing Tashkent* Hong Kong Mumbai Delhi Taipei Manila Bangkok Shanghai Seoul Surface Water Ground Water 0 1. 46 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .

000 Connections Tashkent Lae Honiara Vientiane Almaty Hanoi Chittagong Tianjin Bandung Phnom Penh Davao Ulaanbaatar Kathmandu Cebu Faisalabad Chiangmai Yangon Mandalay Apia Bishkek Thimphu Chonburi Nuku’alofa Penang Suva Port Vila Rarotonga Malé 53.Figure 6: STORAGE CAPACITY >150.000 Connections Dhaka Taipei Shanghai Manila Bangkok Jakarta Ulsan Seoul Calcutta Beijing Karachi Medan Ho Chi Minh Kuala Lumpur Colombo Mumbai Delhi Singapore Johor Bahru Hong Kong 0 7 14 21 28 35 Number of Hours (Production Equivalent) <150.8 230.WATER PRODUCTION INSTITUTIONS 47 .0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Number of Hours (Production Equivalent) Regional Profiles .

Figure 7: MAIN WATER TREATMENT PROCESS 30 No. of Cities 30 25 20 15 10 5 Bandung Bangkok Beijing Bishkek Chennai Chiangmai Chittagong Chonburi Colombo Davao Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Hong Kong Johor Bahru Karachi Kuala Lumpur Lae Lahore Mandalay Mumbai Penang Phnom Penh Port Vila Seoul Shanghai Singapore Suva Taipei Tianjin Ulaanbaatar Ulsan Honiara Malé Nuku’alofa Thimphu Vientiane Yangon Almaty Calcutta Cebu Delhi Dhaka Faisalabad Jakarta Kathmandu Manila Medan Tashkent 0 Gas Powder Both 48 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region . of Cities 25 Bandung Kuala Lumpur Bangkok Manila Beijing Mumbai Calcutta1 Penang1 Chennai1 Phnom Penh Chittagong Seoul Colombo Shanghai Delhi1 Singapore Hanoi Suva Ho Chi Minh Taipei Hong Kong Thimphu Jakarta Tianjin Johor Bahru Ulsan Karachi Vientiane 1 Kathmandu Notes: 1 With Slow Sand Filter 2 Rapid Sand Filter 3 Desalination 20 15 10 5 Almaty1 Bishkek Cebu Davao1 Dhaka Faisalabad1 Honiara Lae Lahore Mandalay Nuku’alofa Port Vila Ulaanbaatar Yangon Apia Chiangmai 2 Chonburi 2 Malé 3 Medan 2 Rarotonga Tashkent 0 Conventional Chlorination Only Slow Sand Filter/Other Figure 8: CHLORINATION METHODS 35 No.

of Cities 40 30 20 10 Calcutta Chennai Chittagong Lahore Delhi Ulaanbaatar Karachi Yangon Kathmandu Almaty Apia Bandung Bangkok Beijing Bishkek Cebu Chiangmai Chonburi Colombo Davao Dhaka Faisalabad Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Hong Kong Honiara Jakarta Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Lae Malé Mandalay Manila Medan Mumbai Nuku’alofa Penang Phnom Penh Port Vila Rarotonga Seoul Shanghai Singapore Suva Taipei Tashkent Thimphu Tianjin Ulsan Vientiane 0 Less than 90% 90 –100% Percentage of Production Metered Regional Profiles .WATER PRODUCTION INSTITUTIONS 49 .Figure 9: PRODUCTION METERING 50 No.

5 2.6 0.3 0.0 1.5 1.9 1.Figure 10: CITY CONNECTIONS >150.0 2.2 1.000 Connections Thimphu Ulaanbaatar Lae Port Vila Rarotonga Honiara Nuku’alofa Apia Malé Vientiane Chittagong Phnom Penh Chiangmai Chonburi Mandalay Suva Cebu Bishkek Faisalabad Kathmandu Yangon Davao Almaty Tianjin Hanoi Bandung Penang Tashkent 0 0.000 Connections Kuala Lumpur Dhaka Colombo Medan Beijing Johor Bahru Chennai Ho Chi Minh Ulsan Mumbai Calcutta Jakarta Lahore Manila Singapore Karachi Delhi Taipei Bangkok Shanghai Seoul Hong Kong 0 0.5 Connections (Million) <150.5 Connections (Hundred Thousands) 50 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .

SERVICE INSTITUTIONS 51 .Figure 11: DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY SERVICES Regional Profiles .

000 Connections Karachi Delhi Chennai Mumbai Calcutta Manila Lahore Dhaka Jakarta Colombo Hong Kong Seoul Shanghai Bangkok Taipei Singapore Ulsan Ho Chi Minh Johor Bahru Beijing Medan Kuala Lumpur 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Average Number of Hours per Day <150.Figure 12: WATER AVAILABILITY >150.000 Connections Bandung Kathmandu Faisalabad Yangon Phnom Penh Thimphu Chittagong Chonburi Hanoi Cebu Chiangmai Nuku’alofa Ulaanbaatar Honiara Tashkent Penang Tianjin Almaty Davao Bishkek Suva Mandalay Vientiane Malé Apia Rarotonga Port Vila Lae 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Average Number of Hours per Day 52 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .

Figure 13: WATER USE Regional Profiles .SERVICE INSTITUTIONS 53 .

000 Connections Dhaka Beijing Hong Kong Medan Jakarta Ho Chi Minh Shanghai Ulsan Karachi Colombo Mumbai Singapore Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Calcutta Manila Delhi Seoul Lahore Taipei Bangkok 0 100 200 300 400 Liters per Capita per Day <150.Figure 14: PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION >150.000 Connections Malé Phnom Penh Hanoi Nuku’alofa Kathmandu Thimphu Tianjin Tashkent Mandalay Bishkek Bandung Chiangmai Suva Chittagong Chonburi Davao Lae Faisalabad Vientiane Cebu Ulaanbaatar Almaty Penang Honiara Rarotonga Port Vila Apia 0 100 200 300 400 Liters per Capita per Day 54 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .

25 0.25 – 0.00 Average Cost (US$/liter) Regional Profiles .10 – 0.Figure 15: DRINKING WATER QUALITY 35 No. of Cities 30 25 20 15 10 5 Almaty Apia Bishkek Calcutta Cebu Davao Delhi Faisalabad Honiara Johor Bahru Lae Lahore Malé Manila Mumbai Nuku’alofa Port Vila Suva Tashkent Bandung Bangkok Beijing Chennai Chiangmai Chittagong Chonburi Colombo Dhaka Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Hong Kong Jakarta Karachi Kathmandu Kuala Lumpur Mandalay Medan Penang Phnom Penh Rarotonga Seoul Shanghai Singapore Taipei Thimphu Tianjin Ulaanbaatar Ulsan Vientiane Yangon 0 Tap Boiled/Filtered Figure 16: BOTTLED WATER USAGE 24 No.50 Bandung Beijing Cebu Ho Chi Minh Malé Phnom Penh Seoul Tianjin Ulsan Almaty Bishkek Hong Kong Kuala Lumpur Rarotonga Shanghai Tashkent Honiara Lae Mandalay Nuku’alofa Port Vila Suva Ulaanbaatar 0. of Cities 18 12 6 Chiangmai Delhi Chonburi Medan Apia Bangkok Calcutta Chennai Chittagong Colombo Davao Dhaka Faisalabad Jakarta Johor Bahru Karachi Kathmandu Lahore Manila Mumbai Penang Taipei Thimphu Vientiane 0 0.SERVICE INSTITUTIONS 55 .75 0.75 – 1.00 >1.50 – 0.

Figure 17: UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER >150.000 Connections Malé Tianjin Almaty Tashkent Penang Port Vila Faisalabad Davao Vientiane Chittagong Chiangmai Thimphu Chonburi Honiara Cebu Kathmandu Nuku’alofa Bishkek Suva Bandung Ulaanbaatar Apia Mandalay Lae Phnom Penh Hanoi Rarotonga 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percentage Unaccounted For Water 56 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .000 Connections Singapore Beijing Shanghai Mumbai Chennai Johor Bahru Delhi Taipei Medan Karachi Ulsan Ho Chi Minh Seoul Colombo Kuala Lumpur Hong Kong Bangkok Lahore Manila Calcutta Dhaka Jakarta 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percentage Unaccounted For Water <150.

Figure 18: NON-REVENUE WATER >150.000 Connections Singapore Beijing Shanghai Chennai Johor Bahru Medan Ulsan Ho Chi Minh Seoul Kuala Lumpur Hong Kong Taipei Bangkok Karachi Delhi Calcutta Dhaka Colombo Jakarta Manila 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percentage Non-Revenue Water <150.000 Connections Malé Tianjin Penang Port Vila Davao Almaty Chittagong Honiara Chiangmai Chonburi Cebu Vientiane Kathmandu Suva Nuku’alofa Bishkek Ulaanbaatar Bandung Thimphu Mandalay Lae Phnom Penh Tashkent Hanoi Faisalabad 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percentage Non-Revenue Water INSTITUTIONS Regional Profiles .MANAGEMENT 57 .

4 0.6 Production Cost (US$ per Cubic Meter) 58 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .3 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.65 0 0.5 0.5 0.6 Production Cost (US$ per Cubic Meter) <150.2 0.000 Connections Tashkent Almaty Thimphu Bishkek Hanoi Faisalabad Phnom Penh Ulaanbaatar Chittagong Tianjin Kathmandu Rarotonga Vientiane Chiangmai Lae Chonburi Mandalay Honiara Penang Suva Apia Davao Bandung Cebu Nuku’alofa Port Vila Malé 2.3 0.Figure 19: UNIT PRODUCTION COST >150.000 Connections Lahore Calcutta Delhi Karachi Dhaka Colombo Mumbai Beijing Manila Shanghai Ho Chi Minh Kuala Lumpur Seoul Bangkok Johor Bahru Chennai Ulsan Taipei Medan Jakarta Singapore Hong Kong 0 0.

8 1.4 Average Tariff (US$ per Cubic Meter) Regional Profiles .1 0.86 0 0.2 0.7 Average Tariff (US$ per Cubic Meter) <150.0 1.2 0.MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS 59 .5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.000 Connections Calcutta Delhi Beijing Mumbai Shanghai Karachi Dhaka Ho Chi Minh Colombo Lahore Manila Chennai Medan Seoul Bangkok Kuala Lumpur Taipei Johor Bahru Ulsan Singapore Hong Kong Jakarta 0 0.6 0.Figure 20: AVERAGE TARIFF >150.000 Connections Tashkent Faisalabad Apia Thimphu Bishkek Almaty Tianjin Ulaanbaatar Hanoi Chittagong Vientiane Kathmandu Honiara Phnom Penh Penang Suva Davao Chiangmai Bandung Chonburi Port Vila Nuku’alofa Lae Cebu Mandalay Malé 4.2 1.

910.195.240 18.236.05 NA 1.332.961.394.392.690.775 280.869 8.61 0.449.230 3.60 0.26 0.98 1.711.613 2.529 22.698.80 0.615.25 NA NA City Chittagong Dhaka Thimphu Phnom Penh Beijing Shanghai Tianjin Rarotonga Suva Hong Kong Calcutta Chennai Delhi Mumbai Bandung Jakarta Medan Almaty Seoul Ulsan Bishkek Vientiane Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Penang Malé Ulaanbaatar Mandalay Yangon Kathmandu Faisalabad Karachi 2 Lahore Lae Cebu Davao Manila Singapore Honiara Colombo Taipei Bangkok Chiangmai Chonburi Nuku’alofa Tashkent Port Vila Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Apia Operating Ratio1 0.257.84 0.374 1.89 0.003 99.719 211.967 41.777 12.870.351.107 12.588.790 34.454 117.111 34.27 0.115.74 0.466.201.649.744 327.626.032.60 0.111 3.213 25.84 0.60 0.19 1.79 0.20 1.37 0.531 5.805.342.654 1.61 0.156 243.34 0.933.671 1.222.461 1.01 0.48 1.400.268 38.454 13.895 30.857.457 3.96 0.01 1.096 1.387.94 1.430 8.748 3.61 0.74 0.784 41.799 8.19 1.880.903.117.61 1.35 0.74 0.895 3.096 (No data) Annual Water Billings (US$) 4.501 16.402.12 1.106.71 0.04 1.055 2.303 2.96 0.55 0.342 20.77.133 748.350 11.49 0.897.186.242.83 0.98 1.611.34 0.80 0.060 3.330.339.580.72 0.006 11.146.388.30 1.181 4.873 22.709.05 1.989.22 0.787 22.316.497.69 0.41 0.222 100.585.89 0.95 0.72 1.898 6.367 21.935.304 15.031.940 16.084 98.692.508 272.650 14.211.37 0.142.79 0.35 0.019.148.439 Ascending Order Operating City Ratio 1 Mandalay Yangon Chonburi Karachi 2 Almaty Lae Chiangmai Colombo Cebu Chittagong Thimphu Singapore Kuala Lumpur Malé Phnom Penh Johor Bahru Manila Taipei Lahore Ulsan Kathmandu Ulaanbaatar Penang Hanoi Nuku’alofa Davao Seoul Tashkent Bishkek Bangkok Chennai Vientiane Bandung Ho Chi Minh Jakarta Dhaka Suva Tianjin Mumbai Port Vila Shanghai Medan Honiara Beijing Faisalabad Delhi Hong Kong Calcutta Rarotonga Apia 0.170.Table 9: OPERATING RATIOS OF CITY WATER SUPPLIES Annual O&M Costs (US$) 2.63 5.735 270.931.60 1.500.278.53 0.426.424 25.71 0.701 49.401 72.60 0.25 0.243 14.60 0.945 146.230.55 0.74 0.27 0.038 14.062 9.956.798.331.051 (No tariff) 4.56 0.853 532.430.666 28.643 2.661 601.103 83.905 910.04 1.89 0.22 0.96 0.951 16.39 0.71 0.95 0.48 1.411 18.314. ratio without billing arrears is 0.027.441 31.259 64.65 0.962 2.475 2.749.241.993.71 0.318.728 1.56 1.30 1.921 334.136 23.60 0.49 0.818 7.83 0.880 155.423 9. 60 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .699.882 24.604 7.267.660.135 99.20 0.85 1.351.136.631.479 1.41 1.69 0.284.899.064.937.718 2.047.316.447.39 0.764.12 0.96 NA Notes: 1 Operating Ratio = O&M Cost/Billings 2 Billings include past arrears amounting to US$39.63 5.85 0.53 0.967.095.476 45.946.534 17.835 29.388 1.89 0.08 1.463 275.664 4.226 259.020.179 4.177.620 1.65 0.661 1.711 49.60 0.580.323 23.842.08 0.26 1.305.94 0.

Regional Profiles .000 Connections Ulsan Taipei Kuala Lumpur Johor Bahru Singapore Seoul Hong Kong Bangkok Medan Lahore Jakarta Shanghai Ho Chi Minh Colombo Karachi Manila Calcutta Dhaka Delhi Chennai Beijing Mumbai 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Staff per 1.000 Connections Chonburi Chiangmai Rarotonga Penang Port Vila Davao Mandalay Bishkek Malé Bandung Suva* Cebu Honiara* Hanoi Phnom Penh Almaty Lae Kathmandu* Apia* Nuku’alofa* Vientiane* Tashkent Faisalabad Thimphu Chittagong Tianjin Ulaanbaatar 49.000 Connections <150.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Staff per 1.9 579.MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS 61 .000 Connections * Ratio is for the entire utility.000 CONNECTIONS (CITIES) >150.Figure 21: STAFF PER 1.

000 Connections Yangon Penang Suva Mandalay Kathmandu Honiara Faisalabad Apia Bandung Thimphu Chittagong Nuku’alofa Lae Phnom Penh Malé Tianjin Port Vila Chiangmai Chonburi Hanoi Vientiane Tashkent Davao Ulaanbaatar Cebu Bishkek Almaty 0 15 30 45 60 75 Percentage of Professional Staff in Utility 62 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .Figure 22: PROFESSIONAL STAFF >150.000 Connections Mumbai Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Lahore Colombo Calcutta Delhi Hong Kong Ulsan Karachi Singapore Medan Dhaka Chennai Beijing Taipei Jakarta Bangkok Ho Chi Minh Seoul Shanghai Manila 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage of Professional Staff in Utility <150.

of Utilities 20 15 10 5 0 Phnom Penh Ulaanbaatar Almaty Beijing Bishkek Calcutta Chennai Colombo Faisalabad Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Karachi Kathmandu Lahore Mandalay Medan Shanghai Tashkent Thimphu Tianjin Vientiane Yangon Bandung Chittagong Delhi Dhaka Honiara Malé Mumbai Apia Cebu Davao Jakarta Lae Manila Nuku’alofa Penang Rarotonga Bangkok Chiangmai Chonburi Hong Kong Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Seoul Suva Ulsan Singapore Taipei 0 –1 1– 5 5 – 10 10 – 20 20 – 50 >50 Management Salaries (US$1.000 per Year) Regional Profiles .Figure 23: TYPE OF ANNUAL REPORT 25 No.MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS 63 . of Utilities 20 Almaty Bandung Beijing Bishkek Calcutta Delhi Ho Chi Minh Hong Kong Honiara Johor Bahru Karachi Kathmandu Medan Phnom Penh Seoul Suva Tashkent Tianjin Ulsan Vientiane 15 Bangkok Cebu Chennai Chiangmai Chonburi Colombo Davao Dhaka Jakarta Kuala Lumpur Manila Nuku’alofa Penang Singapore Taipei 10 5 0 Hanoi Lae Mumbai Port Vila Shanghai Ulaanbaatar Apia Chittagong Faisalabad Lahore Malé Mandalay Rarotonga Thimphu Yangon Glossy Intermediate Format Type-script None Figure 24: AVERAGE SALARIES OF THE TOP FIVE MANAGEMENT POSITIONS 25 No.

Improve water quality. Prompt repairs. Institutional reform. Computerize monitoring system for treatment plant. Increase water pressure. Introduce computerized pipe network distribution management system. ISO 9002 Quality Assurance System classification. Increase water pressure. Reduction in unaccounted for water. Equitable distribution of available supply. Improved operations and service. Improve customer relations and service. Water quantity and increased pressure.g. Extension of service capacity. Privatize the water utility. Mumbai Bandung Reduction in unaccounted for water to 25% by year 2000. Replace old water pipes and expansion. Lack of equipment (e. Additional sources of raw water and check leakage. Improve water resources management in the island. leak detection instrument). Improve water quality. Reliability with 24-hour supply. Revision of tariff. Increase supply hours/24-hours supply. Better water storage facilities. Improve service. To achieve supply of 105 lpcd of water and to ensure effective sewage collection and disposal and reuse of wastewater. Improve water quality. Reduce operating cost. Increase production to cover 80% of population by year 2000.Table 10: PRIORITY NEEDS OF UTILITY City As seen by Management Consumers’ Opinion Chittagong Improvement of management. To enhance quality of service to customers. Reliability and 24-hour supply. Increase water quantity and pressure. operation of valves and electrical panel board. Improved service. Increase water quantity and pressure. Amendment of labor law.. Improvement of financial management. Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region 64 . Dhaka Thimphu Phnom Penh Beijing Shanghai Tianjin Rarotonga Suva Hong Kong Calcutta Chennai Improve water quality. Improve water quality. Inadequate skilled and dedicated personnel. Increase water quantity and pressure. Delhi Increase water supply and longer supply hours. Improved efficiency. Increase water pressure. To improve operational efficiency. Corporatisation of the utility. Development of water supply master plan for Rarotonga. Improve water quality. Ensure regular or 24-hour supply. More house connections. Reduce water rates. Higher water pressure. More tubewells. Improve water quality. To strengthen and develop the utility into a serviceoriented commercial organization. Improve bill collection and raise rate of return. Reducing unaccounted for water. Decrease operations cost. Improve service to consumers.

e. Protection of water sources. Improved hygiene and lengthen distribution hours in kiosks. Minimize interruptions of supply. Tariff policy (i. Sewerage system upgrade and maintenance. Sufficient and regular water supply. Lower price of water. More water and increase pressure. lower price) Improve piped water distribution system. None.. To develop personnel capability. Expand water distribution system with more water trucks.MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS 65 . Price of water should at least cover production cost. Medan Almaty Seoul Ulsan Bishkek Vientiane Johor Bahru Increase water pressure. Tariff review. Implement metering for entire water supply system. More hot water supply and water for irrigation. Improved and stable supply of water. Water quality. Increase water supply and pressure. Improving core competency. Management improvement. Leakage and wastage control. Implementation of agreed water policy with government. Kuala Lumpur Penang Improve water quality. Reduction of leakage. Modern production equipment for utilities. Improve water quality. Replacement of equipment. Water metering. Leak repair and replace old distribution lines. Proper maintenance and timely billing. Investment funds for nationwide expansion and skills upgrading for technicians/staff. Improve quality and taste of water. Corporatisation/privatisation. Human resources development. Improve water quality. To reduce non-revenue water. Using latest technology in water supply operation and maintenance. Malé Ulaanbaatar Mandalay Financial improvements. Replace pipes and repair leaks. Kathmandu Regional Profiles . More piped water connections. Reduce unaccounted for water. Increase total production capacity. Yangon Expand water supply lines. Reduce breakdown and improve pipe system. Improve water quality. tankers and kiosks. Improve service. Lower expenses for power and electricity.Table 10: PRIORITY NEEDS OF UTILITY (continued) City As seen by Management Consumers’ Opinion Jakarta Decrease unaccounted for water. Technological improvements. No interruption of supply. Address non-payment of bills by some users. Increase water pressure. Water quality improvement. Improve bill collection efficiency. Shortage of manpower. Improve water quality. Water quality improvement.

Human resources management. Make the distribution system more efficient. Secure adequate supply to meet long-term needs. Improve maintenance. Reliability and 24-hour supply. Demand management to keep consumption growth low. Improve water quality. More water and increased pressure. fuel. Increase water supply and pressure. Institutional strengthening. Autonomy in management functions. Improve water quality. More water and increased pressure. Improve water quality. and funds for power.Table 10: PRIORITY NEEDS OF UTILITY (continued) City As seen by Management Consumers’ Opinion Faisalabad Water source development. Quick repairs. Increase pressure. Financing for expansion. Improve water quality. Improve cash flow through better revenue collection. Unaccounted for water reduction. Higher water pressure. Infrastructure development. Supply of replacement parts. Karachi Lahore Lae Cebu Davao Manila Singapore Honiara Colombo Taipei Bangkok Chiangmai Chonburi Nuku’alofa Tashkent 66 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region . Reduce non-revenue water. Improve water supply. supply and pressure. Rehabilitation of water system. Improve water pressure. Rehabilitation of water system. Improved operation and maintenance. Reliable water supply and new water source. Reduce or lower rates. Improve cleanliness and reduce chlorine. Funds for improvement and expansion of waterworks systems. Increase water supply and pressure. Reduce chemical/improve water quality. More water and increased pressure. Additional water to meet demand. Distribution system strengthening. Improved operation and maintenance. Safe and reliable water supply. Optimal O&M and reduction of UFW. Improve water quality. Autonomy from government bureaucracy. Increase sales. Higher water pressure. Reliable supply of water. Human resources management. chemical and transport. Improve billing. Improve water quality. Better water quality. Service area expansion. Stable and reliable water quality. Financing for expansion. Improved operation and maintenance. Sufficient water supply. Introduce preventive maintenance of tubewells. Reduction of unaccounted for water. Funds for improvement and expansion of waterworks system. Improve water quality. Capital funding for large source development. Efficient work performance. Increase water pressure. Leak prevention and repair.

more water and higher pressure.MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS 67 . Increase water pressure. Cost recovery. Improve the workers’ expertise and skill to meet technical requirements. Institution building and development for the water sector. Improve the physical facilities. Need for stronger water pressure. Figure 25: PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION 30 No. Reduce water rates. Expand to villages with more connections. Improve water quality. Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Apia Improve quality of water. Reliability. Improve service. Customer service satisfaction. of Utilities 25 20 15 10 5 Almaty Beijing Bishkek Calcutta Chittagong Delhi Faisalabad Hanoi Hong Kong Karachi Kathmandu Lae Lahore Mandalay Mumbai Nuku’alofa Penang Phnom Penh Rarotonga Shanghai Suva Tashkent Thimphu Tianjin Ulaanbaatar Ulsan Vientiane 0 Bangkok Cebu Chiangmai Chonburi Colombo Ho Chi Minh Honiara Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Malé Port Vila Bandung Chiangmai Chonburi Johor Bahru Malé Manila Port Vila Taipei Bandung Chiangmai Chonburi Colombo Davao Dhaka Jakarta Malé Manila Medan Port Vila Seoul Singapore Taipei Honiara Malé Manila Port Vila Apia Cebu Chennai Chiangmai Chonburi Colombo None Source Dev't/Production Distribution/Leak Repair Bill Collection/ Meter Reading Management Other Regional Profiles . Reduce unaccounte1d for water to 50% by the year 2000.Table 10: PRIORITY NEEDS OF UTILITY (continued) City As seen by Management Consumers’ Opinion Port Vila Quality of service. Economic viability.

of Cities 10 Bandung Beijing Cebu Ho Chi Minh Honiara Jakarta Mandalay Manila Nuku'alofa Penang Shanghai Tianjin 5 Almaty Bishkek Chiangmai Chittagong Chonburi Dhaka Karachi Tashkent Ulaanbaatar Colombo Yangon Delhi Hanoi Medan Calcutta Chennai Hong Kong Kathmandu Malé Rarotonga Vientiane 0 Metered Use Flat Rate Property tax Combination No Payment 68 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .Figure 26: METHODS OF PAYMENT FOR WATER THROUGH HOUSE CONNECTIONS 35 No. of Cities 30 25 20 15 10 Bandung Bangkok Beijing Cebu Chiangmai Chittagong Chonburi Colombo Davao Ho Chi Minh Hong Kong Honiara Jakarta Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Lae Malé Mandalay Manila Medan Nuku’alofa Penang Port Vila Seoul Shanghai Singapore Suva Taipei Thimphu Tianjin Ulsan Vientiane Apia Bishkek Calcutta Faisalabad Karachi Tashkent Ulaanbaatar 5 Almaty Kathmandu Lahore Chennai Mumbai Delhi Dhaka Phnom Penh Yangon Hanoi Rarotonga 0 Metered Use Flat Rate Combination No Payment Figure 27: METHODS OF PAYMENT FOR WATER THROUGH PUBLIC TAPS AND STAND PIPES 15 No.

of Cities 30 Almaty Bandung Bangkok Beijing Cebu Chiangmai Chittagong Chonburi Colombo Davao Dhaka Faisalabad Ho Chi Minh Honiara Jakarta Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Lae Lahore Malé Mandalay Manila Medan Nuku’alofa Penang Port Vila Seoul Shanghai Singapore Suva Taipei Thimphu Tianjin Ulsan Vientiane 24 18 12 6 Kathmandu Apia Mumbai Bishkek Chennai Phnom Penh Tashkent Delhi Hanoi Ulaanbaatar Yangon Karachi Calcutta Hong Kong Rarotonga 0 Metered Use Flat Rate Combination No Payment Figure 29: CONSUMER METERING 30 No.Figure 28: METHODS OF PAYMENT FOR WATER THROUGH INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL CONNECTIONS 36 No. of Cities 25 Bandung Bangkok Beijing Cebu Chiangmai Chittagong Chonburi Davao Ho Chi Minh Hong Kong Honiara Jakarta Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Lae Colombo Phnom Penh Kathmandu Thimphu Manila Malé Mandalay Medan Nuku’alofa Penang Port Vila Seoul Shanghai Singapore Suva Taipei Tianjin Ulsan Vientiane 20 15 10 Apia Karachi Bishkek Lahore Calcutta Rarotonga Chennai Tashkent Faisalabad Ulaanbaatar Hanoi Yangon 5 Almaty Delhi Dhaka Mumbai 0 0 – 50% 50 – 75% 75 – 99% 100% Percentage of Connections Metered Regional Profiles .TARIFF INSTITUTIONS 69 .

of Cities 35 Almaty Apia Bandung Bangkok Beijing Bishkek Calcutta Cebu Chiangmai Chonburi Colombo Davao Delhi Ho Chi Minh Hong Kong Honiara Jakarta Johor Bahru Kathmandu Kuala Lumpur Lae Malé Mandalay Manila Mumbai Nuku’alofa Penang Phnom Penh Port Vila Shanghai Suva Taipei Tashkent Thimphu Tianjin Vientiane Yangon 30 25 20 15 10 5 Bangkok Beijing Bishkek Chennai Chiangmai Chonburi Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Manila Medan Phnom Penh Shanghai Tashkent Tianjin Ulaanbaatar Vientiane Yangon Almaty Bangkok Beijing Bishkek Cebu Chennai Chiangmai Chittagong Chonburi Colombo Davao Delhi Dhaka Faisalabad Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Hong Kong Honiara Jakarta Karachi Kuala Lumpur Lahore Medan Penang Port Vila Seoul Shanghai Singapore Taipei Tashkent Tianjin Ulaanbaatar Ulsan Vientiane Bishkek Hong Kong Jakarta Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Nuku'alofa Penang Seoul Singapore Suva Taipei Ulsan Bangkok Bishkek Colombo Hong Kong Kuala Lumpur Penang Singapore 0 Bill Collector Bank Post Office Utility Office Other 70 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .Figure 30: METHODS OF PAYMENT COLLECTION 40 No.

TARIFF INSTITUTIONS 71 .Figure 31a: DOMESTIC TARIFF STRUCTURES Figure 31b: DOMESTIC TARIFF STRUCTURES Regional Profiles .

Figure 31c: DOMESTIC TARIFF STRUCTURES Figure 31d: DOMESTIC TARIFF STRUCTURES 72 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .

Figure 31e: DOMESTIC TARIFF STRUCTURES Figure 31f: DOMESTIC TARIFF STRUCTURES Regional Profiles .TARIFF INSTITUTIONS 73 .

Figure 31g: DOMESTIC TARIFF STRUCTURES Figure 31h: DOMESTIC TARIFF STRUCTURES 74 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .

Figure 31i: DOMESTIC TARIFF STRUCTURES Figure 31j: DOMESTIC TARIFF STRUCTURES Regional Profiles .TARIFF INSTITUTIONS 75 .

Figure 31k: DOMESTIC TARIFF STRUCTURES Figure 31l: DOMESTIC TARIFF STRUCTURES 76 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .

0 – 3. of Cities 15 10 5 Cebu Mandalay Nuku’alofa Port Vila Taipei Bangkok Beijing Chiangmai Chonburi Faisalabad Hanoi Hong Kong Honiara Karachi Lae Lahore Malé Shanghai Singapore Thimphu Tianjin Vientiane Almaty Bandung Chittagong Ho Chi Minh Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Penang Phnom Penh Seoul Ulaanbaatar Ulsan Apia Bishkek Jakarta Kathmandu Manila Medan Suva Colombo Davao Delhi Dhaka Mumbai Tashkent 0 1.0 – 2.0 Chennai >20.Figure 32: RATIO INDUSTRIAL/DOMESTIC TARIFF FOR 30 CUBIC METERS PER MONTH 20 No.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 – 20.0 Cost Ratio (Industrial/Domestic) INSTITUTIONS Regional Profiles .TARIFF 77 .0 – 4.

Figure 33: WATER REVENUE COMPONENTS 78 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .

94 5.52 1.12 10.92 0.60 0.67 5.73 2.13 14.38 5.09 9.47 6.28 0.12 48.72 6.00 0.37 5.40 0.41 1.40 5.59/month.10 3.34 2.24 3.41 40.80 0.56 0.86 4.24 2.86 1.51 0.64 1.57 5.17 3.21 7. 30 & 50 m3/month) Cost of 10 m3 (US$) 57.92 1.95 17.24 3.52 2.60 0.18 NA NA NA City Cost of 50 m3 (US$) 401.40 1.70 0.33 20.24 1.17 1.96 0.37 10. 3 Subject to minimum charge.20 0.08 1.29 1.70 1.89 3.35 5.00 8.62 2.01 3.87 5.99 5.05 0.TARIFF INSTITUTIONS 79 .82 2.64 6.37 4.10 4.47 9.06 25.60 0.19 1.28 0.45 0.15 1.82 0.42 2.45 34.55 2.21 1.12 4.80 6.47 4.71 4.40 4.90 3.06 NA NA NA City City Cost of 20 m3 (US$) 143.60 3.64 2.28 0.57 1.90 1. Regional Profiles .86 13.64 1.74 1.03 16.97 0.38 3.83 2.47 5.93 4.46 2.80 1.43 0.85 4.84 0.35 3.30 NA NA NA Malé Mandalay Port Vila 2 Nuku’alofa Singapore Hong Kong 1 Cebu Lae 3 Chonburi Ulsan Davao Taipei Honiara Kuala Lumpur Bangkok Jakarta Chiangmai Karachi Seoul Bandung Johor Bahru 3 Ho Chi Minh Manila Vientiane Faisalabad Hanoi Penang 3 Medan Shanghai Lahore 3 Phnom Penh Chittagong Suva Dhaka Tianjin Almaty Beijing Kathmandu Ulaanbaatar Thimphu Chennai 4 Mumbai 5 Bishkek Colombo Apia 6 Delhi Tashkent Rarotonga 7 Calcutta 8 Yangon Malé Mandalay Hong Kong 1 Nuku’alofa Port Vila 2 Singapore Cebu Chonburi Ulsan Lae Davao Kuala Lumpur Taipei Honiara Seoul Chiangmai Bangkok Johor Bahru Jakarta Bandung Karachi Vientiane Manila Medan Ho Chi Minh Faisalabad Hanoi Shanghai Phnom Penh Chittagong Penang Kathmandu Suva Dhaka Tianjin Almaty Beijing Lahore 3 Ulaanbaatar Thimphu Bishkek Colombo Apia 6 Mumbai Chennai 4 Delhi Tashkent Rarotonga 7 Calcutta 8 Yangon Malé Hong Kong 1 Mandalay Nuku’alofa Port Vila 2 Singapore Cebu Lae Chonburi Ulsan Davao Kuala Lumpur Chiangmai Johor Bahru Seoul Taipei Honiara Manila Bangkok Bandung Jakarta Medan Karachi Vientiane Ho Chi Minh Penang Faisalabad Hanoi Kathmandu Shanghai Phnom Penh Chittagong Suva Dhaka Tianjin Almaty Beijing Lahore Ulaanbaatar Colombo Thimphu Bishkek Apia 6 Mumbai Delhi Chennai 4 Tashkent Rarotonga 7 Calcutta 8 Yangon 5 6 7 8 Malé Hong Kong 1 Mandalay Cebu Nuku’alofa Singapore Lae Port Vila 2 Chonburi Ulsan Seoul Davao Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Chiangmai Honiara Manila Jakarta Medan Bandung Bangkok Taipei Vientiane Karachi Penang Ho Chi Minh Kathmandu Faisalabad Hanoi Colombo Shanghai Phnom Penh Chittagong Suva Dhaka Tianjin Almaty Beijing Lahore Ulaanbaatar Thimphu Bishkek Apia 6 Mumbai Delhi Chennai Tashkent Rarotonga 7 Calcutta 8 Yangon Notes: 1 Cost of equivalent monthly volume based on 4-month billing practiced in Hong Kong. Subject to annual minimum charge of US$19.76 1.18 13.89 11.31 5.43 13.77 13.10 0.75 1.16 9.08 1.40 0.40 11.54 2.14 2.51 11.22 17.00 2.28 0.23 4. Subject to quarterly minimum charge.27 16.10 3. 20.07 9.09 5.84 3.46 1.08 0.27 29.27 2.62 0.92 2.91 0.14 14.80 4.05 equivalent to US$1. Rates are based on property tax.20 0.35 1.55 4.82 1.34 0.55 2.62 1.76 3.36 1.23 0.20 0.05 6.35 0.78 3.86 0.05 24.16 1.10 1.08 12.97 10.54 3.25 4.16 2.70 1.69 9.89 2. 2 Cost of equivalent monthly volume based on quarterly billing practiced in Port Vila.86 5.99 0.51 3.88 0.40 4.12 NA NA NA City Cost of 30 m3 (US$) 229.28 0.82 0.40 3.85 0.Table 11: COST OF WATER FOR DOMESTIC USE (HOUSE CONNECTIONS) (10.88 2.07 17. 4 Covered under minimum charge up to 30 m3.13 27.03 8.66 1.56 0.73 7.92 0. No tariffs are levied.77 1.44 7.19 9.85 0.80 1.12 1.27 1.20 23.02 3.

of Cities 15 10 Apia Bishkek Chennai Colombo Delhi Lahore Mumbai Tashkent Thimphu Ulaanbaatar 5 Almaty Beijing Chittagong Dhaka Kathmandu Penang Phnom Penh Shanghai Suva Tianjin Bandung Bangkok Chiangmai Davao Faisalabad Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Honiara Jakarta Johor Bahru Karachi Kuala Lumpur Lae Manila Medan Seoul Taipei Vientiane Cebu Chonburi Port Vila Singapore Ulsan 0 0 –10 10 – 20 20 – 50 50 – 100 Hong Kong Mandalay Nuku’alofa Malé 100 – 200 >200 Cost of Domestic Water (US$ per 200 Cubic Meters per Year) Figure 35: AFFORDABILITY OF DOMESTIC WATER (As Percent of Average Household Income Based on Per Capita GNP) 30 No.Figure 34: COST OF DOMESTIC WATER AT 200 CUBIC METERS PER YEAR 20 No. of Cities 25 Almaty Bangkok Beijing Bishkek Calcutta Chennai Chiangmai Chonburi Colombo Faisalabad Hanoi Hong Kong Johor Bahru Karachi Kuala Lumpur Lahore Medan Mumbai Penang Phnom Penh Seoul Shanghai Singapore Suva Taipei Tashkent Thimphu Tianjin Ulsan 20 15 10 5 Bandung Chittagong Davao Dhaka Honiara Jakarta Manila Nuku’alofa Vientiane Cebu Ho Chi Minh Kathmandu Malé Port Vila Lae 0 0 –1% 1% – 2% 2% – 5% >5% Percentage Water Cost per Household Income 80 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .

71 83.96 2. 3 Two years advance water charges and security deposit are also collected.79 92. a monthly meter maintenance cost is also collected.079.16 80.39 100.69 7.47 87.41 151. Regional Profiles .14 906.52 29.78 14.85 350.84 68.59 77.06 902.68 11.42 49.00 283.98 164.16 135.73 66.16 83.TARIFF INSTITUTIONS 81 .10 69.99 41.53 40.08 7.23 59.03 10.68 79.38 3.39 361.11 95.21 27. 2 Amount is customer’s guarantee.50 147.977.45 164.51 49.25 33.48 72.65 76.69 40.66 115.11 1.Table 12: CONNECTION FEE FOR HOUSE CONNECTION Price of New Connection (US$) 1.93 485.10 44.46 City Seoul Taipei Yangon Ulsan Mandalay Tianjin Singapore Bangkok Tashkent Phnom Penh Port Vila Hong Kong Rarotonga Bishkek Beijing Honiara Manila Colombo Vientiane Chiangmai Chonburi Medan Cebu Bandung Hanoi Lae Thimphu Chittagong Almaty Penang Johor Bahru Kathmandu Ho Chi Minh Davao Chennai Calcutta 1 Faisalabad Dhaka Nuku’alofa Apia Delhi Suva Jakarta 2 Mumbai Lahore Kuala Lumpur Karachi 3 Notes: 1 One year advance on water bill is also collected.34 94.05 28.

7 1.5 4.7 16.4 3.0 7.5 0.Table 13: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES Accounts Receivables (Months) 19.8 5.5 0.03 0.0 10.0 1.0 6.1 11.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 2.8 12.2 1.7 7.5 1.3 6.00 (No tariff) (No data) (No data) City Mumbai Karachi Faisalabad Shanghai Dhaka Chittagong Bishkek Lahore Tashkent Suva Manila Chennai Almaty Honiara Delhi Kathmandu Thimphu Hong Kong Ho Chi Minh Vientiane Colombo Lae Johor Bahru Penang Ulaanbaatar Bangkok Cebu Taipei Chonburi Calcutta Seoul Nuku’alofa Chiangmai Singapore Bandung Jakarta Malé Phnom Penh Ulsan Kuala Lumpur Davao Mandalay Tianjin Beijing Medan Hanoi Port Vila Rarotonga Yangon Apia 82 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .9 1.1 1.12 0.5 4.0 2.0 6.2 0.4 5.03 0.5 2.6 1.2 3.3 3.5 0.4 4.0 11.0 4.0 5.08 0.

INSTITUTIONS Regional Profiles .000 Connections Taipei Calcutta Johor Bahru Lahore Karachi Shanghai Bangkok Chennai Kuala Lumpur Colombo Seoul Ulsan Ho Chi Minh Beijing Medan Hong Kong Singapore Delhi Jakarta Manila Dhaka Mumbai 0 25 50 75 100 125 Percentage Collections Over Billings <150.000 Connections Almaty Faisalabad Thimphu Ulaanbaatar Chittagong Chiangmai Malé Bandung Phnom Penh Vientiane Cebu Kathmandu Suva Hanoi Chonburi Bishkek Yangon Mandalay Tashkent Tianjin Lae Port Vila Penang Honiara Nuku’alofa Davao 0 25 50 75 100 125 Percentage Collections Over Billings Note: Collections may include arrears.Figure 36: COLLECTION EFFICIENCY >150.TARIFF 83 .

of Cities 25 20 15 10 5 Almaty Bandung Bishkek Chennai Delhi Dhaka Faisalabad Hanoi Hong Kong Honiara Karachi Kathmandu Lae Lahore Manila Medan Mumbai Seoul Shanghai Singapore Suva Taipei Tashkent Thimphu Ulsan Apia Bangkok Beijing Calcutta Cebu Chiangmai Chittagong Chonburi Colombo Davao Ho Chi Minh Jakarta Johor Bahru Kuala Lumpur Malé Mandalay Nuku’alofa Penang Phnom Penh Port Vila Rarotonga Tianjin Ulaanbaatar Vientiane Yangon 0 Water Bill with Sewerage Surcharge Water Bill without Sewerage Surcharge 84 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .Figure 37: SEWERAGE SURCHARGE 30 No.

Regional Profiles .54 0.12 1.79 2.51 1.44 11.44 1.01 0.38 6.62 1.TARIFF INSTITUTIONS 85 .42 0.08 1.21 0.31 0.10 No Significant Water Vending Almaty Apia Beijing Bishkek Chennai Hong Kong Honiara Johor Bahru Kathmandu Kuala Lumpur Lahore Medan Nuku’alofa Penang Port Vila Rarotonga Seoul Singapore Suva Taipei Tashkent Thimphu Tianjin Ulsan City Vientiane Malé * Mandalay Faisalabad Bandung Delhi* Manila Cebu Davao * Chonburi * Phnom Penh Bangkok * Ulaanbaatar Hanoi Mumbai * Ho Chi Minh Chiangmai * Karachi Lae * Chittagong * Dhaka Jakarta Calcutta* Colombo* * Some water vending but not common.33 7.81 0.68 14.Table 14: WATER VENDING Water Vending in City Price (US$/m3) 14.17 3.74 4.50 0.43 1.89 4.64 1.05 4.

000 Connections Lahore Colombo Calcutta Dhaka Ulsan Ho Chi Minh Medan Chennai Kuala Lumpur Johor Bahru Karachi Delhi Beijing Mumbai Manila Jakarta Shanghai Taipei Singapore Bangkok Seoul Hong Kong 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Annual O&M Costs (US$ Million) <150.Figure 38: ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS >150.000 Connections Rarotonga Nuku’alofa Malé Honiara Lae Phnom Penh Port Vila Chiangmai Faisalabad Vientiane Apia Ulaanbaatar Chittagong Kathmandu Chonburi Mandalay Bishkek Hanoi Suva Almaty Davao Cebu Yangon Penang Bandung Tashkent Tianjin 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Annual O&M Costs (US$ Million) 86 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .

Figure 39: O&M COST COMPONENTS Regional Profiles .OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE INSTITUTIONS 87 .

Figure 40: METERS REPAIRED OR REPLACED ANNUALLY >150.000 Connections Tashkent Yangon Bishkek Hanoi Almaty Port Vila Lae Chonburi Honiara Ulaanbaatar Suva Mandalay Kathmandu Apia Chiangmai Bandung Chittagong Vientiane Phnom Penh Penang Davao Tianjin Cebu Nuku’alofa 0 10 20 30 40 Meters Repaired/Replaced per 100 Connections 88 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .000 Connections Delhi Colombo Lahore Johor Bahru Manila Ulsan Dhaka Taipei Seoul Hong Kong Jakarta Medan Kuala Lumpur Beijing Shanghai Bangkok Singapore Ho Chi Minh 0 10 20 30 40 Meters Repaired/Replaced per 100 Connections <150.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 89 .3 59.000 Connections Yangon Hanoi Port Vila Penang Mandalay Bishkek Bandung Almaty Apia Ulaanbaatar Faisalabad Phnom Penh Tianjin Tashkent Kathmandu Chonburi Chittagong Thimphu Chiangmai Davao Suva Honiara Vientiane Cebu Nuku’alofa Lae 40.000 Connections Singapore Karachi Delhi Ulsan Hong Kong Mumbai Medan Beijing Seoul Chennai Taipei Dhaka Lahore Colombo Calcutta Jakarta Ho Chi Minh Kuala Lumpur Johor Bahru Shanghai Manila Bangkok 0 2 4 6 8 10 Leaks Repaired per 100 Connections <150.4 0 5 10 15 20 25 Leaks Repaired per 100 Connections INSTITUTIONS Regional Profiles .6 54.Figure 41: LEAKS REPAIRED ANNUALLY >150.

92 0 10 20 30 40 Annual Maintenance Expenses as Percent of O&M Costs 90 Second Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region .83 81.000 Connections Ulaanbaatar Chonburi Phnom Penh Faisalabad Chittagong Rarotonga Penang Hanoi Chiangmai Port Vila Bandung Tianjin Almaty Vientiane Nuku’alofa Malé Cebu Davao Apia Thimphu Lae Kathmandu Bishkek Honiara 79.000 Connections Ho Chi Minh Colombo Kuala Lumpur Manila Dhaka Johor Bahru Taipei Chennai Seoul Jakarta Medan Beijing Karachi Bangkok Shanghai Singapore Lahore Ulsan Hong Kong Calcutta Mumbai Delhi 0 10 20 30 40 Annual Maintenance Expenses as Percent of O&M Costs <150.Figure 42: ANNUAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES >150.

of Cities 25 20 15 10 5 Apia Mandalay Rarotonga Bandung Bangkok Beijing Bishkek Cebu Chennai Chiangmai Colombo Davao Ho Chi Minh Hong Kong Jakarta Johor Bahru Karachi Kuala Lumpur Lae Malé Medan Penang Phnom Penh Port Vila Seoul Shanghai Singapore Suva Taipei Tashkent Tianjin Ulaanbaatar Almaty Calcutta Chittagong Chonburi Delhi Dhaka Faisalabad Hanoi Honiara Kathmandu Lahore Manila Mumbai Nuku'alofa Thimphu Ulsan Vientiane Yangon Almaty Bangkok Bishkek Jakarta Kuala Lumpur Malé Penang Port Vila Seoul Singapore Taipei Bandung Bangkok Beijing Jakarta Johor Bahru Malé Port Vila Seoul Singapore Taipei Tianjin Bangkok Bishkek Cebu Davao Ho Chi Minh Karachi Malé Manila Medan Shanghai Singapore Taipei Ulsan 0 None Billing and Accounting Billing or Accounting Pumping Treatment Other Regional Profiles .OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE INSTITUTIONS 91 .Figure 43: AUTOMATION OF OPERATIONS 30 No.

PART III WATER UTILITY/CITY PROFILES .

salaries. The monthly water bill averages Tk378.231. operate and maintain water and sewerage works and other facilities relating to environmental sanitation.509. .39 48.000 (US$68. As seen by Management 1) Improvement of management. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Reliability with 24-hour supply.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : : : : : : 28. and budget for O&M and development.730 : US$4.504 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use except for standpost consumption which is paid by the government to CWASA on flat rate.90 48. It has a partly developed management information system with a computerized billing system. Priority Need of Utility I. Overall rating of the utility is poor (73%) with another 20% rating it satisfactory.63 (US$8.400 : US$ 144. tariffs.037.107 Tk 6.3% have 24-hour water supply. Government control extends to staff and top management appointments.73) payable in advance. 614 663 (880-31) 610 465 Sultan Mahmud Chowdhury. 2 Billing is done monthly and consumers pay through banks.67) compared to the monthly power bill of Tk828.511new connections were installed in 1995.246 0. 2) Amendment of labor law.088 Tk153. Chairman The Chittagong Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (CWASA) is a government corporation set up in 1963 which is responsible for water supply and sewerage for Chittagong with a total population of one million people.98).60 (US$18. The utility is responsible for water production and distribution.210. 2) Water quantity and increased pressure. improve. but given free to consumers.BANGLADESH Water Utility Utility Profile CHITTAGONG WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Chittagong WASA. CWASA is currently following its 1997-2000 Development Plan.000 : US$3. Dampara. only 3. About 62% experienced water service interruption in the month preceding the interview. Bangladesh (880-31) 621 606.987 Tk179. Major Changes in the Water Utility Not in the First Data Book. Price for new connection is Tk3.088 0.101 760 Tk141. 3 About 1. It provides water to the urban poor through 680 public taps for which government pays on a flat rate basis.711. 57% boil their drinking water.179 Expenditure Per Connection : US$5.90 100.117. Consumer Survey Findings The average monthly consumption is about 89. II.13/connection : 100% government loan Tariff Structure (Effective 1995) Category DOMESTIC NON-DOMESTIC Industrial Commercial Truck Sales Rates (Tk/1000 gallons) 17.9 m3 per household of 20 persons.246 0. Of those interviewed. Mission Statement “To construct. With only 10% considering water quality to be good.293.00 (US$/m3) 0. More than 75% of those interviewed consider water pressure to be low. Chittagong.950 : US$3. expand.

107 35% 35% US$0.000 m3/d 23.500 meters are replaced or repaired annually. Other water sources are tubewells and ponds. Considered as only one account paid by the government.459 731 Nil 28.117.56 10 months 27.728 leaks were repaired. .905 m3 84 sq km UFW 35% Industrial/ Commercial 13% Service Connections House (20 persons/HC) Public Tap (250 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 4 5 21.314. During the year. Other use and billing refer to institutional connections.572 3.838. 4.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 Annual Water Billings US$4.119/m3 Boiled 8 Per Capita Consumption 6 Other 3% Industrial/ Commercial 41% Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.044/m3 0. In 1996-97. about 2.000 consumer complaints were registered.City Profile CHITTAGONG WATER SUPPLY Population: 1.659 3 Annual Water Use 3 52.130 m Other 2% 8 680 1.777 Data as of 1995-96 except leak repairs (1996-97).7 Parts/ Materials 20% Other 4% Personnel 24% 7 Only 60% of production is metered. About 10% of consumers get 24-hour supply. Approximately 1. About 10 water samples out of 80 tested failed the bacteriological tests.762 m3/d 38% 62% Conventional 158.000.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2 1 CHITTAGONG Domestic 50% 144. Total area of responsibility of WASA is 168 sq km. 6 7 8 Power 52% Annual O&M Costs US$2.101 Domestic 56% 60% 15 hours/day 139 l/c/d US$0.

respectively.16) for 20 mm and 25 mm connections. Managing Director The Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (DWASA) is a government corporation set up in 1963 which is responsible for water supply and sewerage for Dhaka and the nearby city of Narayanganj covering a total population of 9 million people.000 connections ratio improved from 21. only 41% have 24-hour water supply. 5 Sewerage charge is added to water bill at 100% of water bill for connected users. Of those interviewed. Priority Need of Utility I.000 : US$12.641(US$37.304 3. 2 Billing is done every two months and consumers pay through banks. 53% externally-funded government grant/equity Collections include arrears from previous year Tariff Structure (Effective March 1997) Category METERED Residential & Community Commercial & Office Industrial NON-METERED Residential & Community Commercial & Office Industrial Rates (US$/m3) 0. . 4 In 1995. About 23% experienced water service interruption in the month preceding the interview.103 Tk1.000 : US$23. Staff/1. average tariff increase was only 25%.59).560. Overall rating of the utility is fair (44%) to good (15%).130. salaries. The original water supply system which was built in 1874 has billing and collection that are privatized.12/connection : 47% national government grant.3 to 18.000 : US$15.58 11.5.082 0. 2) Improvement of financial management. while water availability improved from an average of 6 hours/day to 17 hours/day to most consumers. Public standpost consumption is free to users but paid to DWASA by the city corporation.05) to Tk3.19% per annum on annual valuation of holdings (for all three categories) Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use except ¼ of house connections and ¾ of institutional connections which are non-metered.209 (Tk/m3) 3. UFW was further reduced from 62% to 51%.033 Tk 565. and budgets for O&M and development are under government control.870. 3 Tariffs setting aims to make the utility commercially viable and to allow it to add new facilities. Consumers’ Opinion 1) More tubewells.000 : US$12. II.77 23. DWASA has a partly developed management information system with a computerized billing system. The urban poor is provided with street hydrants (public standposts) with bills paid by the city corporation. 3. Price for new connections range from Tk1. 91% boil their drinking water.843.760. tariffs.956. Mission Statement No Mission Statement. 2) Privatize the water utility.299 Expenditure Per Connection : US$145.701 Tk 660. With only 21% considering water quality to be good. Non-metered consumers pay a flat rate based on property valuation. Kawran Bazar. The water bill averages Tk487 (US$11. While unit production cost increased by 111%.BANGLADESH Water Utility Utility Profile DHAKA WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 98 Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue. Dhaka-1215.266 1. Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly consumption is about 139 m3 per household of 20 persons with many engaged in car washing and gardening. It is currently following its 19972002 Development Plan for both water supply and sewerage.981new connections were installed.040.150 (US$72.16) compared to the monthly power bill of Tk1.460. Bangladesh (880-2) 816 792 (880-2) 812 109 K.63 52. As seen by Management 1) Institutional reform.268 (US$29.780. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections 1 Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds 1 : : : : : : 164. Azharul Haq. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1996) The average daily production increased by 39% while the total connections increased by 45%.813 Tk 561. payable in advance. although staff and top management appointments.

Other sources of water are tubewells. Other use and billing refer to institutional connections.307 meters were replaced or repaired. 5.103 51% 51% US$0. An additional 23% of the total population is served by what the utility classify as administrative loss.5 Other 7 15% 5 Personnel 29% Total area of responsibility of Dhaka WASA is 450 sq km.045/m3 1.City Profile DHAKA WATER SUPPLY Population: 9.956.093/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 20% Per Capita Consumption 4 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.304 Domestic 73% Other 7% 6 285.870.209 1.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 DHAKA 781. About 27 water samples of 706 tested failed the bacteriological tests during the year.000 m3/d 30. .701 Data as of 1995-96 except tariff (1997).540 m3/d 96% 4% Chlorination 850. About 15. About 20% out of this total UFW is lost due to illegal connections. 3 4 5 Parts/ Materials 5% 6 7 Power 51% Annual O&M Costs US$12. During the year.262. Other cost includes transport and miscellaneous expenses. Approximately 40% of consumers get 24-hour water supply.100 m 3 42% 17 hours/day 95 l/c/d US$0.624 1.000 consumer complaints are registered annually.135 336 Nil 164.000.000 m3 360 sq km Other 4% 6 Domestic 41% UFW 51% Industrial/ Commercial 4% Service Connections House (20 persons/HC) Public Tap (500 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 2 3 Annual Water Use 160.000 1.000 leaks were repaired and 4.01 11 months 18.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 Annual Water Billings US$12.

Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly consumption is about 75 m3 per domestic connection of 18 persons. Only 17% experienced water service interruption in the month preceding the interview.215. The Water Supply Unit is currently following its 1986-2000 Development Plan. The monthly water bill averages Nu93.988.070 Notes: 1 All consumers started paying on metered use from 1 July 1996 with all connections metered.475 Nu1.806 46 Nu1.74 (US$4.000 : US$50. Mission Statement No Mission Statement. solid waste. Prior to that residents paid for all services (water supply.000 people. 2) Lack of equipment (e.800.25 1. sanitation. 3 In 1996. As seen by Management 1) Inadequate skilled and dedicated personnel. tariffs. Assistant Engineer The Water Supply Unit of the Thimphu City Corporation was formed in 1982 and is responsible for water supply of Thimphu Municipality with a population of 32. It takes about 4-1/2 days for the utility to repair reported leaks in the system. 2) Improved operations and service. 2 Billing is done monthly and consumers pay at the water utility office. appointment of top management and budget for development. No annual report is published. Of those interviewed.000 : US$83.000 : US$49. 24 new connections were installed.25 0. II. Thimphu. 80% externally-funded government Tariff Structure Rates (Nu/m3) (US$/m3) 1. 71% boil or filter their drinking water. Bhutan (975) 22265.947 Nu2..20 m3/month 21.035 1.286 Expenditure Per Connection : US$27.) together and there was no proper accounting of water supply services. Government control extends to number of staff.728 Nu2. Price of new connection is Nu2.90 (US$2. Post Box No.84/connection : 20% national government grant. Priority Need of Utility I.110.99). General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds grant (Effective July 1996) Category Domestic Total consumption Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 0 . 33% have 24-hour water supply.000 : US$58. . etc. The water utility has a partly developed management information system with a computerized billing system. Overall rating of the utility is fair (55%) to good (40%). street lights. The existing tariff structure is fixed with the objective of meeting at least O&M costs. leak detection instrument).50 0. About 62% consider water quality to be good. 4 The water bill has a 50% sewerage surcharge on water sales.62) compared to the monthly power bill of Nu178. salaries.BHUTAN Water Utility Utility Profile THIMPHU CITY CORPORATION (Water Supply Unit) Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Thimphu City Corporation. Budget for expansion and other capital works is provided by the government as grant.049 0. Major Changes in the Water Utility Not in the First Data Book.780.40 m3/month Over 40 m3/month : : : : : : 1. The water utility used to be under the Public Works Department of the Ministry of Social Services.75 2. 22757 (975) 24315 Bhimlal Dhungel.g.84) payable in advance.035 0.500 (US$69. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Reliability and 24-hour supply.

019/m3 0. Unserved residents get water from streams. Only 20% of consumers have 24-hour water supply. Each connection serves a building with 4 households.555.000 m3/d 3. About 12 samples are tested annually of which 2 fail the bacteriological tests. Other use and billing refer to institutional connections. .000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 Annual Water Billings US$83.5 Personnel 55% 6 7 Total area of responsibility is 10. Parts/ Materials 45% 5 6 7 8 Annual O&M Costs US$49.2 sq km.052/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 36% Per Capita Consumption 5 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.000 m Other 8 13% Domestic 51% 93% 12 hours/day 93 l/c/d US$0.60 4 months 25.806 Annual Water Use 3 2.3 sq km UFW 37% Domestic 40% Other 8 20% Industrial/ Commercial 3% Service Connections House (18 persons/HC) Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 3 4 2 1.475 37% 53% US$0.657 Nil 21 23 105 Nil 1.000 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional 8. Full metering of all connections is on-going.215 m3 8.City Profile THIMPHU WATER SUPPLY Population: 32.000 (1996) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 THIMPHU 7. About 625 consumer complaints were registered in 1996. About 183 leaks were repaired in 1996.728 Data as of 1996. A large part of NRW comes from unbilled consumption along transmission line between treatment plant and reservoirs which will be billed and charged starting 1997.

201. .23% government loan. 427 238 Mr.559.377 463 KR 3.805 (US$11. appointment of top management and budget for development.47% national government grant.226 KR 6. 427 238 (855-23) 427 657.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : : : : : : 34. Non-metered consumers pay on flat rate.302 people. Only 21% of the survey respondents claim to enjoy 24-hour supply.803 new connections were made.000 : US$9. Consumer Survey Findings The average monthly water consumption is 38.787.025. Price of new connection is KR450. In the month preceding the survey.647.776 Expenditure Per Connection : US$274. 2.256 Notes: 1 Almost all consumers pay on metered use except for less than 5% of commercial and institutional connections and 14% of house connections which are not yet metered. Overall rating of PPWSA by the consumers surveyed ranges from fair (38%) to good (21%).12% internally generated reserves Tariff Structure (Effective June 1994) Category Domestic & Institutional Commercial & Industrial (KR/m3) 250 700 Rates (US$/m3) 0. domestic consumers in areas with low water pressure do not pay.18% commercial loan. The original utility which dates back to 1895 is responsible for water production and distribution to the city’s population of 824. Cambodia (855-23) 427 657. Major Changes in the Water Utility Not in the First Data Book.CAMBODIA Water Utility Utility Profile PHNOM PENH WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : North of Railway Station.627 (US$4.41) for 15 mm and KR500.828. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Higher water pressure.091 0. Director General The Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority (PPWSA) is an autonomous public enterprise established under the tutelage of the Phnom Penh Municipal Government in December 1996. Only 24% consider water quality to be good and 33% said satisfactory. the utility allows residents to draw water from public underground tanks with the total bill shared by users. 4 The water bill has no sewerage surcharge.421. 5.441 KR25.68) for 20 mm connections payable in advance. Phnom Penh.98) compared to a monthly power bill of KR31. tariffs.580 : US$1.435 : US$2.031. 21% experienced water supply interruption. Billing and accounting are fully computerized while part of the treatment facility is computerized.56 m3 per family with monthly water bill averaging KR13.344. 3 Tariffs set aim to balance expenses and revenues that will assure financial viability of the enterprise.62). about 12. PPWSA is following its 1997-2001 Development Plan. 2) Extension of service capacity.000 (US$182. 0. II. 2 Consumers are billed every two months and they pay at the water utility office or through utility bill collectors. Ek Son Chan. 61% complained of low water pressure. 3 In 1996.466.784 KR 5. To serve the urban poor. Priority Need of Utility I. Government exercises control on staff salaries. 2) More house connections. It produces a type-script annual report for the government. As seen by Management 1) Reducing unaccounted-for-water.115 : US$2.000 (US$164. Mission Statement “To produce and provide water for general use of the public in Phnom Penh.400. about 81% boil water for drinking.07/connection : 92. The water utility has a well developed management information system.332.

150/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 59% Per Capita Consumption 4 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.040 m Other 7% 6 Domestic 34% 83% 12 hours/day 32 l/c/d US$0. failed the bacteriological tests during the year.City Profile PHNOM PENH Population: 824. about 20.201. A large proportion of water samples.332.784 Data as of 1996.000 m3/d 22.5 Personnel 5% Other 7 11% 5 Total area of responsibility is 290 sq km. In 1996.9 months 13.096 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional 110.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 Annual Water Billings US$2.387 Nil 126 6.442 337 85 34. About half of the consumers have 24-hour water supply. about 754 leaks were repaired and 2. Other costs are for contingency and miscellaneous expenses.035/m3 0. 173 out of 192 tested.302 (1996) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 PHNOM PENH Domestic 22% 103.441 61% 61% US$0. In 1996.630. . Other use and billing refer to institutional and other connections serving the urban poor.377 Annual Water Use 3 37.500 m3 78 sq km UFW 61% Industrial/ Commercial 13% Other 4% 6 Service Connections House (25 persons/HC) Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 2 3 27.61 0.342 consumer complaints were attended to.561 meters were replaced or repaired. Parts/ Materials 24% Power 60% 4 5 6 7 Annual O&M Costs US$1. Unserved residents use wells and ponds as sources.

447 : Y261. UFW was reduced from 28% to 8%. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality. Beijing 100034.108 can be explained by previous interpretation of number of house connection as those connected to the utility despite several houses being connected through the same meter. 3 About 5.084 : Y548. Average tariff increased by 155% while unit production cost increased by 186%.93% government loan. The apparent decrease in total connections from 1.00/connection : 60. appointment of top management. the other half satisfactory.000 people in its area of responsibility. The average monthly water bill is Y6.189.863 new connections were installed in 1995. Only 2% experienced supply interruption in the previous month. 92% still boil water for drinking as a matter of habit. banks or through utility bill collectors. collection and water treatment systems are computerized. . General Manager The Beijing Municipal Waterworks Company (BMWC) is a government enterprise responsible for the water supply of Beijing. II. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1988-1995) The utility reduced its staff to 31% of its previous size. Price of a new connection is Y830 (US$100.8 0.096 1. Overall rating of the utility by the surveyed consumers is good (85%).103 Expenditure Per Connection : US$298.2010 Development Plan. tariffs. etc.241 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use with all connections metered. treats the water and distributes it to 5. BMWC is currently following its 1996.62). Mission Statement No Mission Statement General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 222.000 : US$31. Priority Need of Utility I. Service coverage is now 100% from 96%.30 (US$0.3.141. 4 There is no sewerage surcharge in the water bill. 2) Increase water quantity and pressure.5 0. Hospital.153.000 : US$41. School. Consumer Survey Findings A family consumes an average of 12.108 : 6.145 2. 10% construction fund in tariff.754. Half of the respondents perceive water quality to be good.0 0.060 0.050.76) compared to the average monthly power bill of Y38. budgets for O&M and development and disconnection for non-payment of bills. PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF Water Utility Utility Profile BEIJING MUNICIPAL WATERWORKS COMPANY Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 19 Yangrou Hutong. As seen by Management 1) Decrease operations cost.920 to 222. Government maintains control of staff salaries. 2) Improve service to consumers.46 m3 of water per month. including Beijing proper and 4 suburban counties with a system that dates back to 1910.CHINA. Xicheng District. 96% said they have 24-hour water supply. 25.136. There were also increases in storage capacity (191%) and treatment capacity (30%).43% internally generated reserves Tariff Structure (Effective May 1996) Category Domestic Industrial. China (86-10) 6616 7744 (86-10) 6616 8028 Xu Yang. The utility has a partly developed management information system.2 0.64% externally-fund government grant. BMWC buys raw water from the Beijing Water Conservancy Bureau.000 : US$31.486.031 : Y341.377. More surface water is now used with surface water accounting for 46% of total production from 31% before.580. Its billing. A type-script 1995 annual report for government is available. Of those interviewed. Hotel (ordinary) Hotel (High class) Rates per cubic meter (Y/m3) (US$/m3) 0.28 (US$4.11) payable in advance.821.454 : Y260. 2 Consumers are billed monthly and pay at the water utility offices.000 : US$66.

580. About 2.136. Other cost inlcudes depreciation and cost of water treatment plant construction.499 9.108 Domestic 27% Public Tap (115 persons/PT) 675.444 meters were replaced and 6. Ten complaints were registered in 1995. Other 6 50% Bulk Supply 13% Parts/ Materials 4% 5 6 Annual O&M Costs US$41.698 leaks were repaired in 1991.084 8% 8% US$0.454 Data as of 1995.282 26 3. None of the 6.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1.600 m 3 24 hours/day 96 l/c/d US$0.000 m3/d 520.486.851. . Other use and billing are for local government offices and institutions.289 were repaired.2 4 Personnel 14% Power 19% Each connection serves several families. 10.051/m3 Boiled Other 5 49% Industrial/ Commercial 24% Per Capita Consumption 3 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.08 months 27.360 water samples tested during the year failed the bacteriological tests.564 21.000 m3 550 sq km Industrial/ Commercial 33% UFW 8% BEIJING Other 5 25% Domestic 34% Service Connections House (35 persons/HC) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 100% 2 1 Annual Water Use 176.558 11.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 Annual Water Billings US$31.City Profile BEIJING WATER SUPPLY Population: 5.3 0.848.061/m3 1.640 m3/d 54% 46% Conventional 2.179 222.269.

The state maintains control on number and salaries of staff.30 0. Billing is monthly except domestic and public taps which are billed every two months. 2 In 1995.814. about 237.64 (US$1.21% local government grant Tariff Structure (Effective May 1997) Category Rates per cubic meter (Y/m3) (US$/m3) 0. The original water system was established in 1883. As seen by Management 1) ISO 9002 Quality Assurance System classification.197. Ltd.284.811. tariffs.888. Of those interviewed. 3 The utility started charging a sewerage surcharge of 4% in 1996.373. The utility is also using SCADA and GIS in its operations. is responsible for the water supply of the city with a population of 8. collection and archives management are computerized.000 people. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality.90 0.408 : US$ 70. II.827. An intermediate format 1996 annual report published by SMWC is available. Bills are paid through bill collectors or in banks and water utility offices.80 0.. 74% considered water quality to be good although 67% boil. Billing. SMWC buys both raw water from the conservancy bureau and treated water from Ling Qiao Water Co.044. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : : : : : : 1. it takes 1-2 days for leak repairs on pipes to be made.451 Y581.262 : US$ 87.157 0.082 Domestic & public hot water station Public taps/standpipe supply Industrial & other purposes Nursery.185.895 Y728.109 0.58 0. which serves the Pu Dong New Area.79% national government grant. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1988-1995) Average daily production increased by 12% while the number of connections increased by 22%.92.68 0.000 : US$105. a government enterprise under the municipal government.40/connection : 51.1 from 5.80 0.000 new connections were made.24). Priority Need of Utility I. appointment of top management and budgets for O&M and development.070 0. The number of staff increased by 40% bringing staff/1.060 Y972. Operating ratio improved to 1.CHINA. home for the aged.19 from 1. PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF Water Utility Utility Profile SHANGHAI MUNICIPAL WATERWORKS COMPANY Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 484 Jiangxi Road (Central) Shanghai 200002.70 (US$6. Average tariff increased by 675% while the unit production cost increased 471%. Only 21% claimed to have low water pressure from their tap. up from 37% five years ago. General Manager The Shanghai Municipal Waterworks Company (SMWC).000 connections ratio to 6.2 m3 per family. Mission Statement No Mission Statement. Service interruption in the month prior to the survey was experienced by only 2%. filter or do both to their drinking water. UFW decreased from 25% to 14%. Consumer Survey Findings The average monthly water consumption is 20. troops Ocean going vessels Agricultural base Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use. 2) Improve customer relations and service.571 Y877.096 0. SMWC has a partly developed management information system and is guided in its development by the current 1995-2000 Development Plan. The water bill averages Y12. Overall rating of SMWC ranges from good (54%) to fair (45%).3 previously. 2) Increase water quantity and pressure.717 11. The national government grant for capital improvements increased to about 52% of total investment funds. China (86-21) 6321 5577 (86-21) 6323 1346 Xu Guoxiang.881 : US$117.679 Expenditure Per Connection : US$38. .52) per month compared to the monthly power bill of Y51. 48.096 1.251.

Bulk Supply 48% Parts/ Materials 15% Annual O&M Costs US$117.835 6 Other 1% Personnel 13% Power 23% Total population of Shanghai is 13.284.068/m3 1.1 months 6.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 14% 14% US$0.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2 SHANGHAI 1 UFW 14% 4.2 persons/HC) Public Tap (80 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 3 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Per Capita Consumption Average Tariff Drinking Water 4 Industrial/ Commercial 53% 1.000 m3/d 549.720.091 meters were replaced or repaired in 1995.758 failed to pass the bacteriological tests.0 Annual Water Billings US$98. Other use includes water used in public areas and sale to nearby towns and counties.684 13.19 11.000.717 Annual Water Use 1. About 99.190 516 10.400 7.066/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 75% Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.753.000. SMWC is responsible for the city area only.City Profile SHANGHAI WATER SUPPLY Population: 8.000 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional 5.000 m3 506 sq km Other 10% Domestic 23% Service Connections House (3. All production is metered.600.728.895 Data as of 1995.197.827.225 leaks were repaired and 138.497. Other connections are mostly connections to apartment buildings each serving several families. about 54 water samples out of 9. In 1995. . Industrial/Commercial includes institutional use.725.418 1.000 m 3 6 Other 2% Domestic 23% 100% 24 hours/day 143 l/c/d US$0.509 42.

Treatment capacity also increased by 41%.01..051 : Y220.000 : US$34.866. Each house connection per access gate in apartment buildings serves an average of 14 families instead of the common practice of one house connection per family or household. 2) Improve bill collection and raise rate of return.05 0.000.15 0. 19. China (86-22) 339 3887 (86-22) 330 6720 Chen Lian Xiang.75/connection : 27.000 people in the urban districts of Tianjin Municipality. Ltd. budgets for O&M and development and disconnection for non-payment of bills. appointment of top management.1% government loan.000 : US$28. Bills are paid at the water utility offices.9% construction fund in tariff Tariff Structure (Effective October 1994) Category Residential Institutional Industrial Commercial Entertainment Rates per cubic meter (Y/m3) (US$/m3) 0. 15. Repairs on leaks are attended to in 1-2 days.880 to 108.000 : US$26. General Manager The Tianjin Waterworks Group Co.86) per month compared to the monthly power bill of Y27.142.237.000 (US$3. (TWWC) is a government enterprise responsible for water supply to 4.30). Mission Statement No Mission Statement.4 to 49.17 (US$0. Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 54 Jianshe Road.847.000 to Y60.203. 2) Improve water quality.570.139 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use. Priority Need of Utility I. Average tariff increased by 129% while unit production cost increased by 95%.115 1. This increased the staff/1.866 : 5. Service coverage is 100%. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 108. Its billing. TWWC has a partly developed management information system.3% national government grant.000 connections from 11. . 2 Consumers are billed monthly except some households which are billed every two months. PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF Water Utility Utility Profile TIANJIN WATERWORKS GROUP CO.02). Heping District.67 persons.51 to US$7. 27.168.54 m3 for a family averaging 3.082 0.25 to 1. 96% have 24-hour water supply. up from 96%.745 : Y241.090 0.75 0. tariffs.95 0. at banks or through utility bill collectors.608.000 : US$29..37 (US$3. II.3% local bonds. Of those surveyed. collection and water treatment systems are computerized. LTD.68 0.618. Overall rating of TWWC in the survey ranges from good (62%) to fair (34%). Price of new connection is Y3. about 2. The government maintains control on staff salaries. It buys raw water from the Tianjin Water Conservancy Bureau and distributes it through the water system that dates back to 1898.535.9. Surface water now comprises 99% of production from 86% before.127 1. Perceptions on water quality range from good (39%) to satisfactory (54%) yet 92% boil water for drinking.4% internally generated reserves 10.757 Expenditure Per Connection : US$243. Development is guided by its 1996-2010 Development Plan. Bulk connections serving several apartments cost Y30.580. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1988-1995) The TWWC reduced its staff by 52% with the apparent decrease in total connections from 914.428 : Y283.385 : Y239. 3 In 1995.85) for individual town house which is payable in advance. Tianjin 300040. The water bill averages Y7. A type-script annual report for government for 1995 is available.CHINA. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Replace old water pipes and expansion. As seen by Management 1) Reduce operating cost.001 new connections were installed. Operating ratio also improved from 1.000 (US$361. Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly consumption is 9. Only 13% experienced any water interruption in the month preceding the survey. 4 The water bill has no sewerage surcharge.

692. Bulk Supply 27% 6 Parts/ Materials 39% Annual O&M Costs US$30.9 Annual Water Billings US$29.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 TIANJIN UFW 11% 1.722.051 Personnel 6% Other 9% Power 19% All production is metered. about 2.646 leaks were repaired and 21.000 m Public Tap (150 persons/PT) Other 20% 24 hours/day 101 l/c/d US$0.263 669 7.000 m3/d 256.980 meters replaced or repaired. about 10.042 water samples taken failed the bacteriological tests for coliform presence.581 1.638 108.142.3% of 6.139 complaints were registered in 1995. Other connections serve government bodies and entertainment firms.City Profile TIANJIN WATER SUPPLY Population: 4.510.840 6.059/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 60% Domestic 20% Per Capita Consumption 5 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.866 Annual Water Use 3 551.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 11% 11% US$0.4 persons/HC) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 3 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 100% 4 2 Industrial/ Commercial 44% 84.12 months 49. In a one-year period.056/m3 1.000 m3/d 1% 99% Conventional 1.05 0.100 m3 374 sq km Domestic 29% Other 16% Service Connections House (51. About 1.875 7. . Each house connection serves an average of 14 families.580.463 Data as of 1995.150. In 1995.

Notes: 1 There were 50 new connections in 1996. O. appointment of top management. About 75% boil.000 connections ratio improved to 3. ENVIRONMENT AND PHYSICAL PLANNING (Water Supply Division) The Water Supply Division is responsible for the water supply of Rarotonga Island with a population of 11. commercial and institutional connections and 12% of house connections are metered. The government exercises control on the number. Unit production cost decreased by 13%. The utility still do not collect any tariff from its consumers. The division has a partly developed management information system. Tariff Structure There is no tariff levied by the Government on water consumers for the water supply service at present. Staff/1. Average monthly power bill is NZ$81. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1992-1996) The number of connections increased by 69% which are mostly residential users. Cook Islands (682) 20034 (682) 21134 Mr. 2) Better water storage facilities.500 : US$ 6.100 including the capital.500 : US$ 6.5 from 12. Approximately 27% said water pressure is low. Box 102. . Environment and Physical Planning (MOWEPP) with a water supply system that was established in 1900. Avarua Township.444 : NZ$360. Development is guided by its 1995-2000 Development Plan.2% commercial loan.444 : NZ$ 9. Funding sources also changed from purely government grant to the use of commercial loans (72. 27.8% externally-funded government grant Billings and collections are for new connection fees.265 : 15 : NZ$405. Consumer Survey Findings No tariff is levied on the consumers. salary and appointment of staff. About 80% claim to have 24-hour water supply. 2) Development of water supply master plan for Rarotonga.COOK ISLANDS Water Utility Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : P. filter or do both to their drinking water. Director Utility Profile MINISTRY OF WORKS.184 Expenditure Per Connection : US$57. Cost of new connection is NZ$200.700 : US$275.181 : NZ$ 9. However.66) 2 About 95% of all industrial. Water supply interruption was experienced by 55% of the respondents on the month prior to the survey. Rarotonga. Mission Statement No Mission Statement. It is a division under the Ministry of Works. Leak repairs take about 3 days to be made after reporting to the utility.28). As seen by Management 1) Improve water resources management in the island.25/connection : 72. As part of the government reform process. UFW increased from 27% to 70% attributed mostly to leaks in house plumbing systems and agricultural use in residential connections where only 12% of connections are metered but comprise 98% of total connections. budgets for O&M and development.8%). Perception on water quality ranges from satisfactory (56%) to poor (36%) with only 8% saying quality is good.2%) and externally-funded government grant (27.50 (US$55. consideration is being given to the utility’s privatization. Overall rating of the utility is fair (52%) to good (17%). Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality. Priority Need of Utility I. II. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections 1 Annual Billings 1 Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds 1 : 4. No annual report is published by the Water Supply Division.00 (US$135. Nooroa Parakoti.000 : US$244.6.

but estimated by the utility.175 Nil ) ) 23 Nil 4.000 m3/d Nil 100% Slow Sand Filter NA 22.265 67 Annual Water Use 3 3.5 Personnel 64% Power 5% Staff/1.2 persons/HC) Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff 4 1 4.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 Some connections are for family agricultural plots.400 m3 67 sq km UFW 70% RAROTONGA Total Consumption 30% Service Connections House (4. This is not calculated.Town Profile RAROTONGA WATER SUPPLY Population: 11. No tariffs are levied at present.181 Data as of 1996. Except during drought conditions which occur every 4-5 years Computed using total consumption and served population. debt service and administrative costs. training.075/m3 NA NA 3.650.000 m 100% 2 3 No tariffs levied. 24 hours/day 267 l/c/d NA Boiled/Filtered Per Capita Consumption Drinking Water Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio 4 Accounts Receivable 4 5 4 Annual Water Billings ----70% NA US$0. Other cost includes transport. Parts/ Materials 6% 6 Other 6 25% Annual O&M Costs US$275.100 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 10. Most of the "unaccounted for water" is caused by leaking household plumbing systems and agricultural uses. .

085 0.110/m3) of water consumed. and is tasked with handling the water supply and sewerage of Fiji Islands including the capital.450 new connections in 1995.04 in 1995.19) compared to the monthly power bill of F$43.15/m3 (US$0.13 (US$50.0 months from 1. The PWD has a partly developed management information system.822 Expenditure Per Connection : US$69.716 F$ 8.4156 0. The consumers perceived water quality to be satisfactory (51%) to good (45%).51 (US$30.74/connection : 95% national government grant. 3 Sewerage charge for domestic users is F$0. on behalf of the People of Fiji. Drinking from the tap is common to 77% while the rest either boil.672 : US$ 7.100 m3 Over 100 m3 Commercial Water Rates per Cubic Meter (F$/m3) (US$/m3) 0.000 : US$11.83 m3 per family. The present water supply system serves Suva’s population of 280.68 (US$11. Accounts receivable deteriorated to 6. sewerage).463 0.000 people. Suva. water. Its billing and accounting systems are computerized. Industrial rate is equal to the domestic rate multiplied by factor for strength of effluent . up from 80% of total expenditures to 95%. Only 13% complained of low water pressure.03) for domestic and F$72.029. tariffs. Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly consumption is 47. It takes about 4 days for reported leaks to be repaired.876 900 F$16. Cost of new connection is F$15. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) Average daily production increased by 19% while treatment capacity also increased by 11% in Suva Water Supply.243 0. construct. The utility still relies heavily on government grant for capital expenditures. Overall rating of PWD is fair (49%) to good (42%). The government maintains control of number. 2 There were 1.1202 0. 2) Improved efficiency. the operating ratio improved from 1.255.034. .000 : US$ 7. Unaccounted-for-water increased from 36% to 43%.292 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use. The monthly water bill averages F$15. appointment of top management. Suva is currently following its 1983-2003 Development Plan. All the utility’s water supply systems have individual development plans normally drawn up for 20 years with reviews carried out after 15 years. and appointment of staff. for the Government. quality and economy. With the increase in average tariff by 77% and the reduction in unit production cost by 11%.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : : : : : : 100.696 F$10. buildings. salaries.84 to 1. Priority Need of Utility I. filter or do both to their water.90 (US$11.055.4 months in 1991.74) for commercial connections both payable in advance. Mission Statement “ To design. operate and maintain to an appropriate level of efficiency. About 28% experienced water interruption in the month preceding the survey.000. The number of connections increased by 24%. 2) Improved service.3450 0. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Prompt repairs.757 F$10.FIJI ISLANDS Water Utility Utility Profile FIJI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Private Mail Bag.926. certain infrastructural assets (roads. and budgets for O&M and development.279. 5% externally-funded government grant Tariff Structure Category Domestic First 50 m3 51 . The original water supply of Suva was constructed in 1882 and was operated with the sewerage system by the British colonial administration. II. Consumers are billed quarterly and pay at post offices or at the utility office.674 : US$ 6. As seen by Management 1) Corporatisation of the utility. About 84% claimed to have 24-hour water supply. Director of Water and Sewerage The Fiji Public Works Department (PWD) is a government department formed at the time of independence in 1970.000. Suva. Fiji (679) 315 224 (679) 303 023 Ram Sumer Shandil.61).6587 0.

928 Annual Water Use 34. Other connections serve government offices.000 m3 Domestic 72% 24 hours/day 135 l/c/d US$0.500 consumer complaints registered in 1995.500 leaks were repaired and 1.675.500 m3 395 sq km Domestic 39% Other 6% Industrial/ Commercial 12% Service Connections House (5. Residents in the unserved areas use dug wells.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 6 Annual Water Billings US$4.853 Data as of 1995.797 Nil ) ) 67 861 51.9 Other 8 10% The water supply serves not just the city of Suva but neighboring areas on the island of Viti Levu.744 43% 43% US$0.City Profile SUVA WATER SUPPLY Population: 280.430. Only about 0. This figure applies to the whole utility.000 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional 100. . In 1995.585.0 months 7 3 Personnel 27% 8.223/m3 Tap Per Capita Consumption 5 Industrial/ Commercial 28% Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1. None of approximately 850 water samples tested failed the bacteriological tests.132/m3 1. Parts/ Materials 18% Power 45% 3 4 5 6 7 8 Annual O&M Costs US$4. about 8. There were 11. Other costs include transportation expenses and cost of tools and fencing of utility facilities. km.700 meters were replaced or repaired.04 6. Total area of responsibility is 400 sq.653 3.3% of the annual water billing came from government offices where most consumption is free.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2 SUVA 1 UFW 43% 95. rain collectors and creeks.000 m3/d 77.9 persons/HC) Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 3 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 98% 4 46.

efficient and committed workforce to serve the community. to charge on the principle of no-subsidy on the second tier.140 (US$147.561 new connections in 1995. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality.5%. About 96% boil their drinking water.316. Tariffs.000 HK$1.00 (US$36. China (852) 2829 4500 (852) 2824 0578 Mr. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1992-1996) Average daily production increased by 5% while treatment capacity increased by 27%. Staff/1. Flushing water are billed separately to registered customers. Cost of new connection up to 20 mm diameter is HK$1. While the average tariff increased by 50%. The utility’s development direction is guided by its current 19972007 Development Plan.41) compared to the monthly power bill of HK$285. and to generally discourage the extravagant and wasteful use of water above the level necessary to maintain a reasonable standard of living for the third and fourth tiers.544.000 HK$2. funding in the last 5 years is composed of 100% national government grant. Wanchai. UFW also increased from 26% to 35. Man Shiu Hu.100. number and salaries of staff.962 US$199.000 people.45 0.35 (US$31.833 9. Its billing and accounting systems are computerized. This is reflected in the increase in operating ratio from 1.000. Some interruptions were experienced by 19% of the respondents the month prior to the survey.000 connections ratio remains almost at the same level at 2.11 10.798.393.58 7.539. Consumer perception of water quality is satisfactory (59%) to good (12%) with 28% saying quality is poor.270.15 in 1991 to 1. 3 Consumers can pay at banks. 6 Tariff for domestic use is set to provide the minimum quantity of water required for health and hygiene for the first tier which is free. buys 75% of its water from mainland China.591 0. Mission Statement “To provide a reliable and adequate supply of wholesome potable water and sea water to our customers in the most costeffective way. at the utility office or at government collection offices. It also distributes seawater for flushing. CHINA Water Utility Utility Profile WATER SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 48/F Immigration Tower. Almost all (98%) claimed to have 24-hour water supply.359.63.127. large consumers are billed monthly. 2 All consumers pay on metered use. post offices. Consumers are billed every 4 months. Consumer Survey Findings The monthly water bill averages HK$243.16 0.58 0. Priority Need of Utility I. The utility.79).16) payable in advance.000 Expenditure Per Connection : 100% national government grant : : : : : US$532. Hong Kong. 2) Reduce water rates. 7 Gloucester Road. 5 There is approximately 20% sewerage surcharge on the water bill. to make the best use of resources and technology in our striving for continuous improvement in services. to adopt a customer-oriented approach in our services.000 HK$2. to maintain and motivate an effective.94/connection Tariff Structure (Effective 16 February 1995) Category/Consumption DOMESTIC First 12 m3 Next 31 m3 Next 19 m3 Remainder NON-DOMESTIC Trade Purposes Construction Purposes Shipping Purposes Ocean-going Non-ocean-going FLUSHING WATER (Fresh) First 30 m3 Remainder Applicable rate (4-month periods) (HK$/m3) (US$/m3) Free Free 4. While capital investment in 1991 was mostly from consumer contributions (80%). Director of Water Supplies The Water Supplies Department is a government entity tasked with developing and managing water services for Hong Kong.8.7%.830 HK$4. Overall rating of the utility is fair (72%) to good (22%).00 4.291 0.749.724 US$327.311.099. treats the water and distributes it to Hong Kong’s urban population of 6.HONG KONG.168 4. which dates back to 1863. As seen by Management 1) To improve operational efficiency. to remain conscious of our responsibilities towards the environment.736 US$94.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : : : : : : 2. 4 There were 64. China. The Water Supplies Department has a partly developed management information system.820 5.918 1. appointment of top management and budgets for both O&M and development are under government control. unit production cost increased by 84%.591 Notes: 1 Charges are for 4-month periods.537 6. II.05 1.591 Free 0. The number of connections increased by 9. .400.58 Free 4. 2) To enhance quality of service to customers.006 US$298. A typescript annual report for 1995 is available.

Other costs include distribution system expenses.36 persons/HC) Public Tap (89 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 1 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 100% 2 1.000 m Other 5 15% Domestic 44% 24 hours/day 112 l/c/d US$0.0 months 2. 50. About 71.731 leaks were repaired.820 Annual Water Use 3 919.200.100 m3/d 3. people still boil their water as a matter of habit.465 2.8 Annual Water Billings US$327.63 4.070.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2.555/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 41% Per Capita Consumption 3 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1. insurance.City Profile HONG KONG WATER SUPPLY Population: 6.259 more were replaced.151 2.694 meters were repaired and 47.858.580/m3 1.278 191 79.749.006 Data as of March 1996. Other use and billing refer to institutional and other connections.081 water samples tested bacteriologically failed in the last fiscal year.956 39.798.000 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional 3.779 119. While none of the 8. 17. interests.315 consumer complaints were attended to in the fiscal year ending March 1996. In 1995-96.270.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 36% 36% US$0.099. Parts/ Materials 2% 4 5 6 Other 6 20% Bulk Supply 37% Annual O&M Costs US$532. overheads.000 m3 1.935. central administration and connection costs.518. .092 sq km Other 5 11% UFW 36% HONG KONG Domestic 28% Industrial/ Commercial 25% Service Connections House (3.962 Personnel 31% Power 10% Other connections are mainly for government institutions and fresh water for flushing.

98 Notes: 1 Consumers pay on flat rate based on ferrule size or on property tax since none of the connections are metered. Dibyendu Roy Chowdhury. 2) Increase water pressure.71 15.09 (US$6.N. budgets for O&M and development and disconnection for non-payment of bills.11 to 5.13 61.196 0.82/connection : 48% internally generated reserves. Users of public taps do not pay when ferrule is below 10 mm. Price of new connection ranges from Rs1.991 : 5.939.INDIA Water Utility Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 5. Average monthly bill which is based on property tax is Rs196.527.00 Meter Rent (Annual) Rs/annum Below 1” 125 1” .95) payable before installation plus one year advance payment on water bill.37 39.000 people and its adjoining municipalities through its Water Supply Department.00 Supply Ships 70. The department provides water free of charge to bustee dwellers.110 : Rs 81. II. tariffs.200 Metered Rates (plus meter rent) Rs/m3 Non-Domestic in Town 7.642.6 hours per day. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1997) The average daily production increased by 13% while the number of connections increased by 71%. Government maintains control on number.000 : US$ 1.957 US$/annum 3.440 (US$40. operation of valves and electrical panel board. Tariff Structure (Effective 1996-1997) Domestic: Tariffs are based on property tax.25) to Rs26. 2 There were about 19.00 Public Utility/Government 1. Calcutta 700013.961.400 : US$ 4.400 1 2. Priority Need of Utility I.03 6.000 : US$ 2. Lack of metering prevents any meaningful measure or estimate of consumption and unaccounted for water. Consumer Survey Findings The average estimated monthly water consumption is 39. Bills are paid at the utility offices.000 : US$11. Chief Municipal Engineer Utility Profile CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (Water Supply Department) The Calcutta Municipal Corporation (CMC) was established in 1870 and is responsible for the water supply of Calcutta’s 4. Perception on water quality is good (45%) to satisfactory (33%). As seen by Management 1) Introduce computerized pipe network distribution management system. Banerjee Road.400. salaries and appointment of staff. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality.2” 250 Above 2” 500 US$/month 5. 32% other sources 1 Difference between O&M costs and collections is met by CMC budget provision. . 3 Water bill has no sewerage surcharge.5 months.070. One-fourth experienced supply interruption in the month preceding the survey. 44% claimed water pressure to be low. It has a partly developed management information system and its billing system is computerized. Operating ratio increased from 1.49 (US$5. appointment of top management. 20% government loan.893. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs1 Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 335. but it provides bulk supply to adjoining towns.080 Expenditure Per Connection : US$13. The department augments its supply to the city by buying treated water from the Government of West Bengal.028 1.49 6.278. Only 7% claimed to have 24-hour water supply with an average availability of 6.882 : Rs166.400 (US$737.702. Business/Non-Domestic: Flat Rate Based on Ferrule Size Ferrule Size (Inches) Rs/month 3/16 180 ¼ 240 ½ 550 ¾ 1.0 to 1. Accounts receivable improved from 2. The 1996 Mayor’s Annual Report and Budget Statement for Government and CMC Councilors which presents information on the department’s operations is available.99 13.873 : Rs 60. 2) Computerize monitoring system for treatment plant. S.300 new connections in 1995.56 m3 per family.25 due to the very low level of billings and collections.731 : Rs427. Average tariff went down by 73% while unit production cost increased by 4%.49) compared to the monthly power bill of Rs231. The department is currently following its 1990-1997 Development Plan.50 US$/m3 0. Leak repairs take an average of about 4 days to be made.46). Mission Statement No Mission Statement. Overall utility rating is fair (48%) to good (34%). Of those surveyed. About 52% drink water straight from the tap. India (91-33) 244 4518 (91-33) 244 2578 Mr. They are billed annually except domestic consumers who are billed quarterly.

.200 11.City Profile CALCUTTA WATER SUPPLY Population: 4.5 million. 12.5 months 17.165. Other sources are mostly tubewells amd dug wells.882 50% 50% US$0. about 2. UFW estimate given by the utility was 36%.910 ) ) ) 73.400 m3/d 306.873 Data as of 1996-1997.142 Annual Water Use 3 425.011/m3 Tap Other 8 22% Per Capita Consumption 6 Industrial/ Commercial 29% Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.360 tested failed the bacteriological tests.991 38.028/m3 5. In a one-year period.900 complaints were registered in 1996.1 Personnel 29% 7 This does not include commuting population of 2.739 335. Other 4% Bulk Supply 3% Parts/ Materials 23% Power 41% 6 7 8 Annual O&M Costs US$11.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 Annual Water Billings US$2.431. Other connections are for second domestic connections and to buildings serving several families.140 m3 187 sq km Other 4% UFW 50% Domestic 39% Industrial/ Commercial 7% Service Connections House (5 persons/HC) Public Tap (75 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 3 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 4 5 212.25 1. Billing for other includes bulk supply to adjoining towns. Less than 1% of the population has 24-hour water supply.800 leaks were repaired in 1996.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2 CALCUTTA 1 1.400.565 m3/d 15% 85% Conventional/Slow Sand Filter 908.225 m Domestic 49% 66% 10 hours/day 202 l/c/d US$0.278.961. 356 water samples out of 2. Only 5% of production is metered.

690. the utility is now using internally generated reserves and commercial loans for about one-third of its capital investment requirements. Service coverage increased to 97% from 48% although water availability remained almost the same at 4 hours/day.53) for single and two-storey buildings and Rs1. Chennai .59/month 0.280 5.900 (US$53.96 (US$18. The CMWSS has a well developed management information system.00 Minimum/month 200/month UNMETERED Rs/month US$/month 30 0.129 : Rs610. 3 All water charges are subject to 20% sewerage surcharge. India (91-44) 852 5717.89 to 0.80/month 0. IAS. Chairperson & Managing Director Utility Profile CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) is a corporate body constituted in 1978.Minimum/month 10/month 0 . 2) To achieve supply of 105 lpcd of water and to ensure effective sewage collection and disposal and reuse of wastewater.9% government loan.94. Consumer Survey Findings Average estimated monthly water consumption is about 9. Bills are paid at banks. A glossy covered annual report for 1995-1996 is available.000 : US$24.50 m 1. 2) Ensure regular or 24-hour supply.INDIA Water Utility Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : No. appointment of top management.559 5. Metered consumers are billed monthly while consumers paying flat rates are billed quarterly. II.00 Minimum/month 100/month Class IV A: Bulk Supply 20. Staff/1. Chintadripet. Perception of water quality ranges from satisfactory (48%) to good (44%) yet 91% either boil or filter their drinking water.8 hours per day.470.5 to 5.7 although the ratio is still high.997.00 Non .762.” Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 240.00 Minimum/month 100/month Class III: Industrial 25.523 : 6.484 : Rs936.924.076.9% national government grant General Data About Water Utility Tariff Structure (Effective March 1994) METERED (Rate per Cubic Meter) Category/Consumption RS/m3 Class I: Domestic Residential . Mission Statement ”To exclusively attend to the growing needs of and for planned development and appropriate regulation of water supply and sewerage services in the Chennai Metropolitan Area with particular reference to the protection of public health and for all matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The average monthly water bill is Rs104.000 : US$22. The Board is responsible for water supply and sewerage of Chennai (formerly Madras) with its population of 4. It takes an average of 2.000 : US$17.000 connections also improved from 38. As seen by Management 1) To strengthen and develop the utility into a service-oriented commercial organization. 2 There were 53. Santha Sheela Nair.699 5. The urban poor is supplied with water through standposts and mobile water tankers.22 (US$2.00 Minimum/month 200/month Class IV: Government Offices/Hospitals 10. and budget for development are under government control.00/connection : 21. .59 2.62 m3 per family.853 Expenditure Per Connection : US$71.8 months. Staff salaries.5 days for leak repairs to be made. 66. Priority Need of Utility I. Overall rating of the utility is good (57%) to fair (40%).30 m3 Free 3 30 .000 people and also to industries outside the city limits.Residential 10.91) compared to the monthly power bill of Rs673. the utility office or to bill collectors. Price of new connection is Rs1.00 Minimum/month 200/month Class II: Commercial 10.11) for other buildings. From total reliance on government loans and grants in 1991. Accounts receivable went down from 9.280 2. The percentage of surface water out of the total production increased from 75% to 83%.28/month Free 0. tariffs.49 5.641 new connections in 1995.762 : Rs894.1 Pumping Station Road. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality.600 002. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1996) The number of connections in Chennai increased by 29%.99 3.80 -- Notes: 1 House connections are not metered while less than 3% of all other connections are metered.59/month 250 125 200 100 -- 6.773.285. payable in advance.00 3 Over 50 m 2. Availability of water supply averages 9. It is following its 1996-2001 Development Plan.000 : US$26. 10.450 (US$40.59/month 0. The private sector is involved in the maintenance of sewage pumping stations and water extraction from boreholes.3% internally generated reserves.7 to 25.84 US$/m3 0.028 0.280 2.9% commercial loan.226 : Rs811.84).185.056 0. 852 4458 (91-44) 831 243 Tmt. Unit production cost increased by 96% but operating ratio improved from 1.80/month 0. 0. Billing and accounting systems are computerized.

964 864 3.8 months 25.800 consumer complaints were registered in 1995-1996.470.970 m3 171 sq km Other 2 71% Domestic/ Industrial/ Commercial 9% Service Connections House (15 persons/HC) Public Tap (150 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 2 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 97% 3 4 202. No data given because house connections are not metered. For the period 1995-1996.146.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 6 20% 20% US$0.136 Personnel 39% Only 4.186/m3 0. About 61. bad debts and office expenses.790 Data as of 1995-1996.423 240. about 4. Estimate given by the utility. non-residential connections such as hotels.000 m3/d 6. Other refers to bulk supply connections to residential areas and domestic.752 leaks were repaired and 11 meters replaced or repaired in 1995-1996.527 7.247/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 49% Per Capita Consumption 5 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1. lodges.830 m3/d 17% 83% Conventional/Slow Sand Filter 284.212.950 m Domestic 9% 4 hours/day --US$0.4% of production is metered. .City Profile CHENNAI WATER SUPPLY Population: 4.9 Annual Water Billings US$24. interests.690. Other 7 38% Power 14% 3 4 5 6 7 Parts/ Materials 9% Annual O&M Costs US$22.738 tested failed the bacteriological tests. Other costs include depreciation.523 Other 2 42% Annual Water Use 3 122.879 866 24. 309 water samples out of 3.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 CHENNAI UFW 20% 334. cinema theaters and marriage halls.94 5.

India (91-11) 753 5944 (91-11) 753 5939 Rakesh Mohan. UFW was reduced from the estimated 30% in 1992 to 26%. Overall rating of the utility is fair (68%) to good (22%). A type-script annual report for government for 1995 is available. and the Cantonment Board for distribution in their respective areas. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 1.870 : Rs 887. Development direction is guided by its 1992-1997 Development Plan.02 (US$1.68) payable in advance. Perception on water quality is good (47%) to satisfactory (44%).00 0.057 : Rs2. Consumption management and conservation is sought to be ensured through a slab system of pricing within categories of users. Water for the urban poor is supplied through public standposts.500. Price of new connection is Rs525 (US$14. It takes an average of 2. Monthly water bill is Rs63. the total number of connections increased by 24% and staff increased by 11% bringing an improvement in staff/1.08 m3 per family. It provides water in bulk to the N.000 : US$75. 2) Revision of tariff. 2 Tariffs allows subsidy to domestic users by the commercial and industrial users. appointment of top management and budget for development. Additional Commissioner Utility Profile DELHI WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL UNDERTAKING The Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking (DWSSDU) is part of the Delhi Municipal Corporation established under DMC Act of 1957. . Service coverage went up from 69% in 1992 to 86% although water availability decreased by half. Bill payments are made at banks or at the utility office.50 0.800. 2) Increase water pressure. 0.70 0. For the utility.605. Its billing system is computerized.256. About 62% or those surveyed claim to drink water direct from the tap.140 0 .816. Only 16% claimed to have 24-hour water supply with water availability averaging 4.50 m3 5.42 Per extra tap 5.00 0.182 3 Above 100 m 8.000 : US$23.000 : US$24.35 0.81 to 1.9 to 21. The government maintains control of the number of staff and their salaries.28 Double the above rates for Domestic UNMETERED USE Domestic Non-Domestic Notes: 1 Most consumers pay either on metered use or flat rate since not all connections are metered.20 ½” .212 : Rs 846. the average estimated monthly water consumption is 52.68 Per extra tap 10.140 3 51 . As seen by Management 1) Additional sources of raw water and check leakage.48. treatment capacity by 35% and treated water storage by 123%. 3 There were 31. Jhandewalan.00 0. The DWSSDU buys raw water from the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Board and the Bhakra Beas Management Board.4. Consumers are billed quarterly except bulk consumers who are billed monthly being fully metered.50 m3 3.84 Per extra tap 7.M.00 0.292 Expenditure Per Connection : US$30. Mission Statement No Mission Statement.020 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.Up to 3 taps 60. About 36% said water pressure is low and 29% experienced water interruption in the month preceding the survey.60 (US$13.224 Ferrule Size (inch) Applicable Rates ¼” . Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1996) Average daily production for Delhi Water Supply increased by 15%.03/connection : 97.0% government loan.200.169.Up to 3 taps 15.INDIA Water Utility Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Varunalaya.C. Phase II.2 days for repairs to be made. The DWSSDU has a partly developed management information system.00 1.495 : 25.653. tubewells or deep borehole handpumps or by tankers.000 people.D.840.00 0.4% national government grant Tariff Structure (Since 1991) METERED USE Category Domestic Commercial and Institutions Industrial Consumption Applicable Rates (m3) (Rs/m3) (US$/m3) 0 .000 : US$35. New Delhi-110005.084 3 Above 50 m 5. tariffs.100 m 6. II.000 connections ratio from 23.76) compared to the monthly power bill of Rs487. 4 Sewerage surcharge for is included in the water bill.14 3/8”-Up to 3 taps 30. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Increase water supply and longer supply hours. Unit production cost increased by 118% while the tariff rates remained the same.9 hours/day.00 0.63).074. Operating ratio increased from 0.122.608 new connections in 1995.389 : Rs1. Consumer Survey Findings In Delhi. all free of charge.800.20 m3 0.010 3 Above 20 m 0. Priority Need of Utility I. It is responsible for production and distribution of potable water and arranging treatment and disposal of wastewater for the city’s population of 10.6% commercial loan 2.

5 persons/HC) Public Tap (350 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 3 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 4 5 1.495 Other 8 11% Annual Water Use 3 952.000 m3/d 1.397 sq km Other 7% 8 Domestic 60% Industrial/ Commercial 7% Service Connections House (6. About 11% are served by tubewells and 1% by tankers operated by the utility.000 m3 1.579 Nil 1. Total area of responsibility is 1.000 m ) ) 86% 3.484 sq km. There are about 11.649.916 3 Nil 15.000 public taps that are not metered and not billed and about 7.537 leaks were repaired and 10. In 1995-1996.590.000 m3/d 11% 89% Conventional/Slow Sand Filter 2.263 failed the bacteriological tests in 1995-1996.650.City Profile DELHI WATER SUPPLY Population: 10.5 hours/day 209 l/c/d US$0. Only 30% of consumers get 24-hour water supply.165 consumer complaints were registered during the year.000.100 meters replaced or repaired.037/m3 1.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 Annual Water Billings US$23.5 months 21.48 4.169.034/m3 Tap Domestic/ Industrial/ Commercial 89% Per Capita Consumption 6 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.476 26% 44% US$0.000 57. About 474 water samples out of 49.711 Data as of 1995-1996. About 15. Other water use and billing represent bulk supply to the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) and the Cantonment Board.610.260.840.993. about 3. 4 5 6 7 8 Power 23% Annual O&M Costs US$34.096.000 (1996) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2 DELHI 1 UFW 26% 2.4 Parts/ Materials 17% Personnel 55% Bulk Supply 5% 7 Includes floating population of about 500.500 known unauthorized connections. This is for those served by the piped system only. .

78 16.097.77 16. Mahapalika Marg. About 38% perceive water quality to be good while 47% said satisfactory. 2) Equitable distribution of available supply.INDIA Water Utility Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Utility Profile Municipal Corporation Offices. As seen by Management 1) Reduction in unaccounted-for-water. Overall rating of the utility ranges from good (43%) to fair (43%). The utility provides connections to slum dwellers but they have to take metered connections. Operating ratio increased from 0.68 2. 2 There were 2. Price of new house connection ranges from Rs275 (US$7. S. It is responsible for water supply and sewerage of Mumbai’s (formerly Bombay) 10.59 9. Staff/1. About 17% experienced water supply interruption in the month preceding the survey.95 (US$10.503 0.42) compared the power bill of Rs368. India (91-22) 262 0025 (91-22) 262 6437 Mr. Aerated water.340 Expenditure Per Connection : US$78.45 m3 per family. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Increase water pressure.350. factories.N.422 : Rs2.000 (US$83.00 11.000 people.80 7.00 18. Priority Need of Utility I.423.69) to Rs610 (US$17. UFW was reduced from 24% to 18%.041 : Rs1.168 0.31). Mission Statement General Data About Water Utility No Mission Statement.08. The monthly water bill averages Rs50. Average tariff increased by 6% while unit production cost went up by 85%.7 months from 2.31 Notes: 1 Consumers with meters pay on metered use and are billed quarterly. Others pay per property tax and are billed every 6 months. Accounts receivable deteriorated to 19. Capital investments are now funded with more government loans (46% to 60%) and less own contribution. Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs 1 Annual Collections 2 Annual Billings 2 Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds 1 2 : 271.200.84 1. . restaurants and lodging houses 5.017 0.800 (US$) 5. Shopping centers.Race course facilities and hotels Applicable Rate (Rs/m3) 0.90/connection : 40% internally generated reserves. Religious/social halls.00 22.000 : US$75. 60% government loan Includes interests and depreciation Includes arrears from previous years.77 16. hospitals/nursing homes & sports facilities 3. Bills are paid at the utility offices at wards. educational institutions.843.77 50. cinema/film labs and ships 6. However. ice and ice cream factories.60 6. Hydraulic Engineer BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL COPORATION (Hydraulic Engineer’s Department) The Hydraulic Engineer’s Department is a local utility under the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) founded in 1888. Turkar. places of worship 2.096 : Rs 776. works. government utilities and premises 4.516.00 35. Repairs for reported leaks take an average of 4-5 days.80 2.3 although this is still very high.000 connections improved from 61.5 months. Those with bills exceeding RS3.436.80 2.000 : US$68.683. Tariff Structure (Effective April 1996) WATER CHARGES Category 1. Consumer Survey Findings Average estimated monthly consumption is about 19. Mumbai-400 001. Residences. More than half of the respondents drink water direct from the tap.000 : US$21. Its billing system is computerized. Annex Building.978 MINIMUM CHARGES (All the above rates are subject to following quarterly minimum charges.307 0.0 to 33. The utility has a partly developed management information system. 3 Additional charges for sewerage at 50% of water charges are levied on consumers connected to the utility.000 : US$51.530 : 9. dormitories.) Size of Meter DOMESTIC NON-DOMESTIC (mm) 15 20 25 40 50 80 and above (Rs) 30 60 100 100 100 270 (US$) 0. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1996) The number of service connections increased by 92% but water availability still remains low at 5 hours/day. The average number of hours of water availability is 5.86) per quarter are billed monthly.918 new connections in 1995. The BMC buys raw water from the Irrigation Department of the Government of Maharashtra.05) for 15 mm to 25mm connections payable in advance.55 (Rs) 200 350 600 600 600 1.002.83 (US$1. The government maintains control of appointments to top management.000. BMC is currently following the 1981-2001 Development Plan.5 hours.834 : Rs2. An intermediate format annual report for 1996-1997 is available from BMC. Ground Floor.615 0. II.200. 2) Increase supply hours/24-hours supply. about 70% of meters are not functioning and consumers pay on flat rate.00 (US$/m3) 0. Industrial establishments. mills.66 to 1.420.

170. only 3 out of 64.000 (1996) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2. Other billing is from water consumers outside the BMC limits. About 67. About 70% of meters are not functioning.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 Annual Water Billings US$45.530 Other 6% 6 Annual Water Use 3 949.350.165 -Nil 271.000 m3/d 1.650 Data as of 1995-1996. 2.690 m Domestic 20% 5 hours/day 178 l/c/d US$0.624 Nil 4.500 consumer complaints were registered during the year. . Other 4% Bulk Supply 2% 3 4 5 6 Parts/ Materials 28% Annual O&M Costs US$49.7 months 33.615.191.5 persons/HC) Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 100% 2 1 237.506 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional 2. No estimate was given.549.601.City Profile MUMBAI WATER SUPPLY Population: 10.038 18% NA US$0.052/m3 1. In 1995.451.245 samples tested were found positive for e-coli presence.08 19. None of the consumers get 24-hour water supply.741 29. In a one-year period.000 m3 438 sq km Industrial/ Commercial 12% UFW 18% MUMBAI Domestic 70% Service Connections House (43.763 leaks were repaired.058/m3 Tap Industrial/ Commercial 74% Per Capita Consumption 3 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.3 Personnel 35% Power 31% 4 5 Included under house connections.

6% consumer contribution General Data About Water Utility Tariff Structure (Effective April 1994) Consumption (m3)/Rate Customer Group Social: 0 .900 1.484 31 . Mission Statement “To reduce UFW to 25% in the year 2000.200. to improve human resources capability.5% internally generated reserves. Service coverage increased slightly from 39% to 42%. 3 The water bill has a 30% sewerage surcharge.000 (US$143. and.20 to 7.200 1.323 0.51 to US$213.484 0. Billing.Rp341. Bandung 40132. About 70% of the respondents said they have 24-hour water supply. and budgets for O&M and development.001 Expenditure Per Connection : US$73. The private sector is involved in meter reading and leak repair. Indonesia (62-22) 250 9030. The utility buys raw water from the Department of Irrigation of West Java Province.807 0.09 to 0.202 0.605 Over 50 m3 (Rp/m3) 300 600 800 2. Water production shifted to use of more surface water with 94% of total production now coming from this source from 74% in 1992.323 0.270 (US$12. Institutional .605 0.222 : Rp24.200 (US$/m3 0.400 1.500 to Rp192.342 new connections in 1995.242 0.000 Large Business/Trade 800 Industrial: Small Industry 800 Large Industry Minimum Consumption: 10 m3/month for all except Large Industry and Large Business/Trade with minimum of 30 m3/month.7 to 1.202 0. Consumer Survey Findings The average monthly water consumption is 21.29).000 2. Notes: 1 All connections are metered.Rp192. It has a development plan covering the period 1995-2000.000 : US$ 9.403 0.13 to US$77. Average tariff increased by 68% while unit production cost went up by 273%.135 : Rp40.087 : 1.115.605 0.420.104 : US$16.23) compared to the average monthly power bill of Rp31. Overall rating is fair (46%) to good (32%).0 month.50 m3 (Rp/m3) 300 500 600 1.766 0.500 to Rp385.500 (US$/m3 0. 250 6581 (62-22) 250 8063 Ir.242 0.121 0.Rp402.500 1.121 0.764.15 m3 (Rp/m3) 300 300 (US$/m3) 0.139. Consumer perception of water quality is satisfactory (49%) to good (36%).282 0.200 1.000 (US$/m3) 0. Monthly water bill is Rp20.323 0. House connection .000 2. About 97% of consumers boil their drinking water.230 : US$14.000 to Rp675. II. A type-script annual report for government for 1995 is available. .762. Internally generated reserves and consumer contribution now account for 92% of total capital investments from 43% with government loans decreasing to 7. to increase production capacity to cover up to 80% of the population in the year 2000.323 16 .968 0.991. The government exercises control on salaries and appointment of staff.807 PT/Religious Institutions Orphanage/ Hospitals 300 Residential: Small Class Household 500 Middle Class Household 600 High Class Household 500 Government/Military 800 Commercial: Small Business/Trade 1.400 1.9% government loan. 9.161 0.323 0. Ibrahim Suriamihardja.Rp355. President Director PDAM Kodya Dati II Bandung is a government enterprise set up in 1974 and is responsible for the water supply and sewerage systems of Bandung.500 (US$63.INDONESIA Water Utility Utility Profile PDAM KODYA DATI II BANDUNG Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Jalan Badaksinga 10. Some (43%) respondents think that water pressure is low.524 0.300 1.323 0. Commercial .000 connections ratio improved from 1. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Increase water quantity and pressure.000. It takes the utility about 5 days to repair leaks reported to them. to improve financial performance to provide it with the capability to support regional autonomy.400 2.Rp156.121 0.000 1.9% from 57% in 1992. 2 There were 4. As seen by Management 1) Reduction in unaccounted-for-water to 25% by year 2000. About 22% experienced service interruption during the month preceding the survey.96.16 to US$272.80) and Industrial . Staff /1.66).505. Operating ratio improved from 1.565 0.000 (US$77.250 (US$137. PDAM Kodya Bandung provides public bathing.576 : US$14.91/connection : 82. Consumers pay on metered use and are billed monthly. 2) Improve service. Accounts receivable decreased from 2. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) The number of connections increased by 62% while number of staff went up by only 4%. tariffs.200 1. 2) Increase production to cover 80% of population by year 2000.600.807 0.000 (US$162.010.500 2.30).7. accounting and part of the treatment system are computerized.250. Price of new connection payable in advance is as follows: Public tap . a city with a population of 2.66 m3 per family.484 0.202 0.565 0.750 to Rp530.022 : Rp34. Priority Need of Utility I.484 0.65).500 1. 7.460.000 people.121 0. Bills are paid at the utility office. washing and toilet facilities for the urban poor. appointment of top management.758 : Rp36.403 0.242 0.61).202 0.” Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 132.000 1. The utility has a partly developed management information system.121 0.121 0.807 0.30 m3 (Rp/m3) 300 400 500 700 800 800 1.400 (US$8.65 to US$155.605 0.

764.955 m Domestic 65% 42% 6 hours/day 120 l/c/d US$0.108 failed the bacteriological tests. Only about 25% of consumers get 24-hour supply.994.328 m3/d 35.96 1. Remaining 58% of the population not served by the utility rely mostly on tubewells and dug wells.250.202/m3 0.7 6 Personnel 9% Power 4% Parts/ Materials 10% Other 7 76% Bulk Supply 1% Total area of responsibility in the city is 167 sq km.767 m3/d 6% 94% Conventional 239.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 BANDUNG Domestic 47% 191. Other connections are orphanages.841 1. About 1.360 consumer complaints were registered in 1995.829 meters were replaced or repaired in 1995.000 m3 100 sq km UFW 43% Industrial/ Commercial 6% Other 4% Service Connections House (6 persons/HC) Public Tap (100 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 2 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 3 4 117.516 leaks were repaired and 6. general administration and loan interests.087 Other 13% Annual Water Use 3 69.222 43% 51% US$0. 5 6 7 Annual O&M Costs US$14. about 11.369/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 22% Per Capita Consumption 5 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1. . For 1995.115.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 Annual Water Billings US$14.330 558 9.0 month 7.City Profile BANDUNG WATER SUPPLY Population: 2. 126 water samples out of 1.135 Data as of 1995.750 2. hospitals.489 119 132. Other costs refer to maintenance. and places of worship.

787 0. It takes the utility an average of 2. 15. Its billing.037)/m3 Notes: 1 All connections are metered.100 2. Accounts receivable also improved from 1.706. The private sector is involved in billing and collection.340. Coverage improved from 25% to 38%.000 : US$ 99.340 1.5 to 1.35) compared to the average monthly power bill of Rp44. 2) Increase total production capacity. Consumer Survey Findings The average monthly water consumption is 55. pumping and treatment systems are computerized.550 3. 2) Proper maintenance and timely billing.252 0.313 0.30 m3 (Rp/m3) (US$/m3) 390 625 390 1.98.050 (US$ 2. number of staff went down by 25%.50 m3 Over 50 m3 (Rp/m3) (US$/m3) (Rp/m3) (US$/m3) 390 625 775 1. Indonesia (62-21) 570 4250 (62-21) 571 1796 Ir. UFW decreased from 57% to 53%. Average tariff increased by 105% but unit production went up 418%.2 to 5.14) for small commercial and Rp200. Water Trucks .000 (US$80.944 0.550 3.37) for 16” meter. Priority Need of Utility I.950 (US$ 1.42 to 0. Consumers pay on metered use and they are billed monthly except military offices and residences which are billed quarterly. Water Barge .325 3. The government maintains control over staff salaries.000 (US$10.000 (US$0. II.817.000 (US$44. is responsible for the water supply and sewerage of Jakarta. appointment of top management. Pejompongan.003.Rp780 (US$0.321 390 930 875 1.315)/m3. 3 The water bill does not include any sewerage surcharge.787 0.474 0.774.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 362.157 0.625 0.625 1.251 0. President Director The PDAM DKI Jakarta (Pam Jaya).157 0.500 (US$18.97).175 1. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) While the number of connections increased by 29%. Jakarta.625 1.000.2 m3 per family. and operating ratio increased from 0. Average daily production increased by 10% and treatment capacity also increased by 50%.275 0. tariffs.375)/m3. accounting.744 0.845 2. Bills are paid at banks. Perception of water quality is good (51%) to fair (39%).029 : Rp161.Rp930 (US$0.157 0.175 1.100 2.544 0.000 (US$16.Rp5. The staff/1.175 3.396.157 0. Customers pay a guarantee fee of Rp25.000 : US$ 65.375 0. Overall rating of the utility is good (69%) to fair (25%).275 0. Monthly water bill is Rp45.175 1.000 : US$ 99.133 : Rp246.544 0.251 0. 7. About 70% of those surveyed said that they have 24-hour water supply.980.9.474 0.550 1.500 new connections in 1995. a city of 9. As seen by Management 1) Decrease unaccounted-for-water.252 0.938 1.INDONESIA Water Utility Utility Profile PDAM DKI JAKARTA (PAM JAYA) Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Jalan Penjernihan II.339.550 1.900 2.529 : Rp267.68) for large commercial users upon connection. Pam Jaya buys treated water from PDAM Bogor and PDAM Tangerang. Only 16% experienced service interruption in the month preceding the survey.350 1.190)/m3. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improved and stable supply of water.000 : US$107. .000 connections improved from 10.251 1.08) for households. Ships .000 people. Mission Statement “Provide drinking water for all people in Jakarta.321 Special (Per m3 rate): Public Tap .474 1.342. and budgets for O&M and development. 2 There were 21. post offices or at the utility office.116. Pam Jaya provides water to slum areas through public taps.129.5 days to repair leaks reported to them.008 1.200 3.5% internally generated reserves.353 0. About 83% boil their drinking water. The utility has a partly developed management information system.270. Rama Boedi.424 : 2.40) for ½” meter to Rp110.887 1.0 month.950 1.766 0. A glossy covered annual report for 1995 is available.100 1.625 0. Rp40.090 : Rp247.863 Expenditure Per Connection : US$180. Development is guided by its current development plan covering 1997-2005.950 1.560 (US$17.474 0.8% national government grant Tariff Structure (Effective July 1994) Consumption (m3)/Rate 31 .19/connection : 76.Rp2.321 Customer Group Social: Orphanage/Dormitory Government Hospital Non-Commercial: Household High Class Household Embassy/Consulate Government Institution Commercial: Small shops Restaurants/Offices Large Hotels/Buildings Industrial: Small Industry Large Industry 0 .275 0.7% government loan. a government corporation set up in 1977. H.500 3.350 1. They also pay a monthly meter maintenance cost ranging from Rp1.

086 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional 1. other sources of water for the rest of the city population are tubewells.529 Data as of 1995.933.611/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 40% Domestic 41% Per Capita Consumption 5 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.000 meters replaced or repaired.0 month 5.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 Annual Water Billings US$100.315.280/m3 0. 14.784 2. Other 7 65% 4 5 6 7 Annual O&M Costs US$99.City Profile JAKARTA WATER SUPPLY Population: 9.424 Other 19% 354.023 945 42. hospitals. In 1995. about 17. 7 . Only 25% of consumers get 24-hour supply.480 complaints were registered in 1995. etc.9 6 Personnel 13% Power 5% Parts/ Materials 17% The total area of responsibility is 407 sq km.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 JAKARTA Domestic 29% 972. orphanages.98 1.390 m 3 27% 18 hours/day 135 l/c/d US$0. Out of 720 water samples. dug wells and rain collectors.811. depreciation and administration costs.375 362.129 2.347 leaks were repaired and about 18. new connection.240 53% 53% US$0.342. Other connections serve places of worship.168 2. Estimate given by utility is 38%. Other cost includes maintenance.116.042 m3 212 sq km UFW 53% Industrial/ Commercial 10% Other 8% Service Connections House (6 persons/HC) Public Tap (300 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 2 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 3 4 Annual Water Use 312. 210 failed the bacteriological tests.872 m3/d 170.

Kumala Siregar.202 : 923 : Rp55.508 0.452 0. 2) Improve service.565 0.898 : Rp55.260 1.315 : Rp55. None of the respondents experienced water interruption during the month preceding the survey.797. Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly water consumption is 45.791 0.260 4.260 1.286 0.020.000 : US$22. The urban poor are provided with public taps or house connections with connection fees payable in installment.000 : US$22.400 1.034 Expenditure Per Connection : US$63.9. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 188. Priority Need of Utility I. 24% internally generated reserves.200 3 (US$/m 0.097 0.30 m3 31 .800 4. However.242.665. Sisingamangaraja No. appointment of top management. There is more government funding for capital investments now at 76% of the total investments where there was none in 1991.847 1.240 2.282 0. As seen by Management 1) To reduce non-revenue water. Managing Director The PDAM Tirtanadi Medan.113 0.327 0.109 0. Monthly water bill is Rp36.280. respectively. UFW was reduced from 34% to 27%.84) compared to the average monthly power bill of Rp47. Price of new connection is Rp200.120 1. 97% boil their drinking water.508 0.700.30).081 1.282 0.400 2.240 2. manages the water supply of Medan and nearby towns and cities with a population of 1. Overall consumer rating of the utility is good (55%) to fair (42%).000 (US$80. II.214 0.850 (US$19.129 1.565 0.847 0. The utility has a well developed management information system.680 2.141 0.508 1.508 1. Consumers pay on metered use except PDAM offices and former owners of spring sources who get free water. Medan 20212.800. The private sector is involved in billing and collection.15 m3 (Rp/m ) 240 240 240 240 270 530 350 1.260 1.300 new connections in 1995.149 : Rp29.87/connection : 61% government loan.000 : US$12.700 people. data monitoring and water treatment plants are computerized.097 0.960 2.097 0. Sea.222 0.963.097 0.138.260 1.260 1.694 3) (Rp/m ) 240 280 710 810 930 1. 3 The water bill has a 6.904 0. Average tariff increased by 66% and unit production cost also increased by 116%. Perception of water quality is good (66%) to satisfactory (34%).76% sewerage surcharge.400 1. Service coverage improved from 39% to 63%.100 4.694 (Rp/m ) 240 250 480 530 550 700 700 1.050 1.000 : US$22.097 0.000 connections ratio decreased from 6. and budgets for O&M and development.452 0.200 3 Over 50 m3 3 (US$/m 0. a government enterprise established in 1979.426. Consumers are billed monthly and pay at banks and to bill collectors 2 There were 21.565 0. accounting.214 0.508 0.920 Notes: 1 All connections are metered.904 1.200 3 (US$/m 0.100 2.791 0.694 (Rp/m3) 240 350 1. and some public taps on flat rate. The government maintains control over the utility on tariffs. Mission Statement No Mission Statement.101 0.375 0.596. Operating ratio went up slightly from 1.194 0.2.508 0.800 (US$14. Number of connections went up by 64% while the staff increased by only 7%.INDONESIA Water Utility Utility Profile PDAM TIRTANADI MEDAN Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Jln.14 m3 per family.1.141 0.577 0.097 0. It takes the utility about one day to repair leaks reported to them.9 to 4.760 (US$/m3) 0.50 m3 3) Customer Group Social: PT/Orphanage Dormitory/ Hospitals Residential: Small Class Household Middle Class Household High Class Household Embassy/Consulate Government/Military Commercial: Small Business/Trade Large Business/Trade Industrial: Small Industry Large Industry Ports: (Air.508 0.298.68) which may be paid in advance or by installment depending on paying capacity .190 1.120 1. Staff/1.424 0. . Billing. All respondents said they have 24-hour service. 15% national government grant Tariff Structure (Effective November 1994) Consumption (m3)/Rate 16 . River) 0 . Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) Average daily production and treatment capacity both increased by 36% and 100%. Indonesia (62-61) 571 666 (62-61) 572 771 Ir. It has a type-script annual report for government for 1995. 2) To develop personnel capability.02 to 1. Consumers’ Opinion 1) More water and increase pressure.260 4.430 1.480 0.254.960 1.097 0.

741 1. Parts/ Materials 32% Annual O&M Costs US$22.9 Other 7 52% Power 5% 6 Personnel 11% Utility's total area of responsibility is 265 sq km.City Profile MEDAN WATER SUPPLY Population: 1.050 leaks were repaired and 9.702 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 MEDAN UFW 27% 264.400 samples tested.795 188.202 Other 11% Annual Water Use 3 96.000 m Domestic 58% 63% 24 hours/day 131 l/c/d US$0. mosques. In 1995.400 m3/d 22% 78% Rapid Sand Filter 311. Other connections include schools.426.474 58 2. About 200 consumer complaints were registered in 1995.963.64 persons/HC) Public Tap (60 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 2 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 3 4 168.940 27% 29% US$0.232/m3 1.03 month 4. about 2. consulates and airports. churches.2 0. Other sources of water are tubewells and shallow hand dug wells. Other costs include depreciation and loan interest.000 m3/d 79. .500 meters replaced or repaired.898 Data as of 1995.200 m3 166 sq km Other 1% Industrial/ Commercial 12% Domestic 60% Service Connections House (6. Bacteriological tests on water samples show 72 failing the tests out of 2.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Annual Water Billings US$18.854 280 14.611.266/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 31% Per Capita Consumption 5 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.506.

While 47% drink water from the tap.165. As seen by Management 1) Address non-payment of bills by some users. Monthly water bill averages T112. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality.94 (US$2. The utility has a partly developed management information system. The government exercises control over the utility on staff salaries. A type-script annual report for 1996 intended for the government is available.067. billing is done yearly. 442 112 (7-3272) 448 402 Sharipbek Shardarbekov. About 28% experienced service interruption during the month preceding the survey. groundwater source development.778 : 1. 2) Lower expenses for power and electricity. 3 Sewerage charge is 57% to 92% of the water bill depending on the type of connection.18 0. Mission Statement “Improve operation and service by leak reduction. Price of new connection ranges from T5. Connection fees are paid in advance. Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly water consumption is 23.565 : T 494.921 :T 80. It is responsible for water supply and sewerage for the city and surrounding small villages with a total population of 1.250.444 Expenditure Per Connection : US$10.000 : US$ 1. About 61% of those surveyed said they have 24-hour water supply.76 0.49) compared to the monthly power bill of T165. distribution construction and rehabilitation.#196. filter or do both to their drinking water.592. although for small private houses. Kazakstan 480057 (7-3272) 440 017. Bills are paid at banks or at the water utility office.KAZAKSTAN Water Utility Utility Profile INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE ALMATY VODOCANAL Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Jarokova Str.062 4.23) to T20.350 new connections installed in 1996.20). Its accounting and pumping systems are computerized.000 : US$11.820.224.553.907 : T 843.39/connection : 78% internally generated reserves.175 13.063 13. Priority Need of Utility I. public taps in water deficient regions. II.2000.18 0.563 : T1. Development of the vodocanal is guided by its development plan for the period 1995.59 (US$1. Leak repairs take a little more than a day to be completed after being reported to the utility. Consumers are billed monthly. .90) depending on the size of connection and distance from the mains.211. 2) Increase water pressure.175 Notes: 1 Most consumers pay on metered use.000 people.000. Perception of water quality is good (47%) to fair (44%). Only 21% complained of low water pressure with the rest finding it adequate or high. Director General The Almaty Vodocanal is a government enterprise formed in 1937 under the Almaty City Government. Almaty. metering of consumers and expansion of sewage treatment system.73 m3 per family. Major Changes in the Water Utility Not in the First Data Book.000 : US$ 6.000 (US$66.000 : US$16.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 102. Overall rating of the utility is fair (45%) to good (43%). 21% national government grant 1% commercial loan Tariff Structure (Effective November 1996) Category Domestic/residential Institutional Industrial Commercial Water Rates per Cubic Meter (T/m3) (US$/m3) 4.72 0. 2 There were 1.000 (US$264. tariffs and appointment of top management.000. Some non-metered residential and institutional consumers pay on flat rate. about 52% boil.

350 meters were replaced or repaired.000 m3/d 128. . 21 consumer complaints were attended to.City Profile ALMATY WATER SUPPLY Population: 1.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Annual Water Billings US$16.778 Annual Water Use 3 328.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 900.000 102.301 leaks repaired in 1996.4 months 13.921 13% 32% US$0.211.318 1.060 12.000 m3/d 70% 30% Chlorination/Slow Sand Filter 900. Other refers to consumption and billing from institutional and bulk connections to residential areas. Based on house and public tap consumptions. Results of bacteriological tests on 300 water samples taken in 1995 are not known. Estimate given by utility.600 m3 188 sq km Industrial/ Commercial 26% Other 4% 7 ALMATY UFW 13% Domestic 57% Service Connections House (6 persons/HC) Public Tap (150 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 1 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 2 3 4 83. taxes and social benefits of employees.37 5.000 m Domestic 14% 99% 24 hours/day 186 l/c/d US$0.056/m3 Tap Other 7 11% Per Capita Consumption 5 Industrial/ Commercial 75% Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.031.100 2.300 2. During the year.775 Data as of 1996. There were 1.9 Other 8 25% 6 Personnel 11% Other connections are bulk connections to residential areas.000 2.250.018/m3 0. Other costs are loan amortization. Because of limited metering it is likely that the estimated water consumption figures are much higher than actual.500. Bulk Supply 4% Parts/ Materials 2% Power 58% 7 8 Annual O&M Costs US$6.

332 : W248.260 0. II.873.20 to 0. Consumers are billed monthly except residential users who are billed every 2 months.4 m3 per family.000 2.208 1.400 3.1. appointment of top management. Capital investments now are funded from a mix of internally generated reserves.186 : 4.50 51 .342 : US$324.339 0.508 : : : 0.005 1.461.339 0.339 0.248 0.303. REPUBLIC OF Water Utility Utility Profile SEOUL METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT (Office of Waterworks) Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 27-1 Hap-Dong. Monthly water bill averages W7.523.00 W/m3 US$/m3 96.587 0.084 1.711 0. Bills are paid at banks and post offices.935.084 1.35 US$/m3 0. It takes about 2-3 days before leaks can be repaired after these have been reported to the utility.80 (US$8. Mission Statement “Supply of safe.666 : US$289. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) The number of service connections increased by 17% while the number of staff increased by 18%. Only 8% experienced any water supply interruption during the month preceding the survey. Billing. The utility buys raw water from KOWACO but sells water to neighboring Kwacheon and Hanam cities.170 1.740 4.451.448.753.070 1. 4 Water bill includes a 38.000 Expenditure Per Connection : 75.751.270 : US$334.203 0.000 : W256.576 0.655 : : : 0.57 W/m3 US$/m3 115.361 0.451 0. Seodaemun-Ku.451 0. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality.106 230 260 320 350 0.170 129.100 101 .400 14.000 : W287. Consumer Survey Findings The average monthly water consumption is 32.595.500 501 . Assistant Mayor The Office of Waterworks is part of the Seoul Metropolitan Government established in 1908 and is responsible for water supply in the city of Seoul with a population of 10. A type-script annual report for government for 1995 is available.99 W/m3 US$/m3 W/m3 3.22 US$/m3 12. and budgets for O&M and development.775.5 months.84.KOREA.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 1.508 W/m3 3. government and commercial loans.20) compared to the monthly power bill of W23. 2) Protection of water sources.869 : : : : : : 0.001 .500. Seoul.577. 3 There were 23.300 301 . Republic of Korea (82-2) 390 7332 (82-2) 362 3653 Jang-Ho Son. Average tariff went up by 37% while unit production cost increased by 33%.000.000 1.723 (US$1.84 US$/m3 10 Commercial 1st Class 20 Commercial 2nd Class 30 Public Bath 1st Class 500 Public Bath 2nd Class 200 Institutional 20 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use. Accounts receivable increased from 0.943 people.858 1.519 0.3 % sewerage surcharge.400 300 300 300 360 400 400 450 : : : 450 0.977.200 1.396 new connections in 1995.52/connection 14.000 Over 3.3. clean and plentiful water to the citizen. The government exercises control over the utility on number.395 960 960 1.834 : US$154.2.451 0.869 400 400 400 480 510 510 580 : : : 580 0.655 520 520 630 760 890 980 : : : 980 0. appointment and salaries of staff.406 0.240 1.576 0. tariffs.200 201 .5% commercial loan : US$280.40 41 .001 .190 108.20 21 . Meter reading in apartments and residential areas is contracted to a private company.451 0. 2 Tariff setting aims for total cost recovery.542 0. Price of new connection is W1. Perception of water quality is satisfactory (56%) to poor (29%) so most residents (81%) boil their drinking water. 10.106 : : : 1.001 W/m3 180 220 460 540 770 : : : : : : 770 1.3 to 1.667. Operating ratio improved from 1.83).587 0. Development is guided by the utility’s development plan for the period 1996-2011. Overall consumer rating of the utility is fair (74%) to good (10%). pumping and treatment systems are computerized.11) payable in advance.366 1. accounting.260.18 (US$26. Treatment capacity increased by 10% and storage also went up by 19%.30 31 .1% internally generated reserves.4% government loan Tariff Structure (Effective January 1996) Residential Base Volume (m3) Base Rate (Won/month) (US$/month) Excess Use (m3) 11 . Almost all (99%) have 24-hour water supply.321 1. .293 0. 2) Replace pipes and repair leaks.609 0.000 : W296.575. As seen by Management 1) Reduction of leakage.451 0. Priority Need of Utility I.210 1.

This represents water sold to Kwacheon and Hanam and institutional use.838 Nil 1. consumers still boil their water for drinking. Other costs include depreciation.292 5.155/m3 0.959.595.810.500.628.City Profile SEOUL WATER SUPPLY Population: 10.342 Data as of 1995.956 Nil 23 210.666 34% 35% US$0.281/m3 Boiled Per Capita Consumption 2 Industrial/ Commercial 54% Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 Annual Water Billings US$334.84 1.808 water samples failed the bacteriological tests.771 meters were replaced or repaired in 1995.000 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional 6. While none of the 4.000 m 4 Domestic 41% 24 hours/day 209 l/c/d US$0. Leaks in 34.109 Other 5% Annual Water Use 3 1.000 m3 606 sq km Other 3% 4 SEOUL UFW 34% Domestic 45% Service Connections House (6.935.5 months 2.943 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 4.190.057 sites were repaired and 74.5 persons/HC) Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 100% 1 Industrial/ Commercial 18% 1.3 Power 15% 3 Personnel 24% About 63. Other 5 38% Bulk Supply 12% Parts/ Materials 11% 3 4 5 Annual O&M Costs US$280. .845.800 consumer complaints were attended to in 1993.000 m3/d 1.120.035.

242.27 W/m3 US$/m3 138.858 1. 2) Water quality improvement.677 0. 2 Tariffs set aim to balance the water utility’s budget. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1996) The average daily production increased by 42% and treatment capacity went up by 81%.711 0.74 US$/m3 91. The utility buys raw water from the Korean Water Resource Development Company.8%. The government exercises control on staff salaries.600 18. The utility’s billing system is computerized. Average tariff increased by 19% while unit production cost went up by 56%.632 W/m3 8.000.860 2.000. A type-script 1995 annual report for government is available. Consumer Survey Findings The average monthly water consumption is 25.630 (US$44. Consumers are billed monthly and they can pay at banks or post offices. As a percentage of capital investment.993 W25. a large number (65%) think it is poor. Nam Ku. Priority Need of Utility I. 3 There were 55. Kyung-Nam.5 months) and staff/1. It is responsible for the water supply and sewerage of Ulsan.000 : US$28.711 0. Price of new connection averages W800. .553 480 480 560 630 630 660 660 0.327 0. It has a current development plan for the period 1994-1999. a private company half-owned by the government.336 new connections in 1996.158.230 W24.023.000.542 0. REPUBLIC OF Water Utility Utility Profile ULSAN CITY WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 646-4 Shin-Jung 1 Dong. UFW went up from 30% to 33%.850 1. There is a shift to the use of more groundwater from only 1% in 1991 to 10% of the total production. The number of connections increased by more than 5-1/2 times with the additional users in the small rural systems and the shift from bulk metering of groups of residences to individual metering.25 US$/m3 W/m3 16.745 630 740 780 : : 780 0. but government loans now comprise 35% of total funding.885.000 : US$51. Most consumers (81%) boil their drinking water while the rest filter their water.100 101 . 35% government loan 7% national government grant Tariff Structure Residential Base Volume (m ) Base Rate (Won/month) (US$/month) Excess Rate (m3) 11 .550 1.711 0.000 155.5 to 0. a city of 990.920.088 560 : : : : 560 0.664 W45.73).200 201 .745 0.78) compared to the average monthly power bill of W39.564 0.93) payable in advance.177 204 W17.014 Expenditure Per Connection : US$190.000 : US$27. II.9 m3 per family.20 21 .KOREA.326.632 0.76 W/m3 US$/m3 W/m3 10.975 2.542 0.500 103.429 0.50 51 .738.632 : : : : 0.000.85 US$/m3 3 10 Commercial 1st Class 20 Commercial 2nd Class 30 Public Bath 1st Class 200 Public Bath 2nd Class 200 Institutional 30 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use.10 US$/m3 0.30 31 . Overall consumer rating of the utility is good (46%) to fair (39%). Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality.000 : US$20. While 32% perceive water quality to be satisfactory. 4 The water consumption bill includes a sewerage surcharge of about 20.000 connections (5. Leak repairs take less than 6 days to be made after reporting them to the utility.0 to 0.8). There were improvements in accounts receivable (1.300 301 .626 people.980 (US$15. Ulsan City. About 93% of those interviewed said they have 24-hour water supply. Monthly water bill averages W13. Operating ratio increased from 0.880 : : 0.200 9. Republic of Korea (82-522) 743 020 (82-522) 746 928 Ho Kun Song.835 0. 2) Leak repair and replace old distribution lines.327 0. As seen by Management 1) Price of water should at least cover production cost.553 : : : 0. government grants decreased from 30% to 7%.500 Over 501 W/m3 290 290 380 490 : : : 490 1.500 11.749 1.000 (US$902.880 500 600 760 0. About 29% said they experienced water interruption in the month preceding the survey. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : : : : : : 268. Mission Statement No Mission Statement.53 to 0.76/connection : 58% internally generated reserves.71.750 1. Director The Ulsan City Water and Sewerage Board is a government department formed in 1979.186. The administrative district adjustment in 1994 added the rural areas and 9 small water supply systems under the Board’s jurisdiction.

. people boil water for drinking as a matter of practice.000 m Other 9% 6 Domestic 45% 84% 24 hours/day 157 l/c/d US$0.32 persons/HC) Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 2 3 Industrial/ Commercial 19% 249.230 Data as of 1996. Other sources of water are ponds.052 sq km with the inclusion of rural areas in 1994.City Profile ULSAN WATER SUPPLY Population: 990.566 leaks were repaired and 5.396/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 46% Per Capita Consumption 4 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.664 33% 33% US$0. In 1996.242.850. about 1.8 5 Personnel 23% Power 11% The area of responsibility increased to 1.254 meters were replaced or repaired.71 0.626 (1996) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 ULSAN 290. None of the 52 water samples taken in 1996 failed the bacteriological tests. streams and tubewells.500 m3 110 sq km UFW 33% Domestic 45% Other 3% 6 Service Connections House (3. Bulk Supply 19% Other 25% Parts/ Materials 22% 5 6 Annual O&M Costs US$20.5 months 0.177 Annual Water Use 3 105.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 Annual Water Billings US$28.000 m3/d 58. Other use and billing are for public baths and institutional connections. About 1.000 m3/d 10% 90% Conventional 408.623 Nil Nil 17.186.191/m3 0.719 835 Nil 268.825 consumer complaints were attended to in 1995.

000 (US$115. The utility has a typescript annual report for government for 1996. pumping and planning systems are computerized.332. source and distribution rehabilitation.310 : Som 2. and maintenance. rational water use by meter installation. Consumer Survey Findings The average estimated monthly water consumption is 11. Kyrgyzstan 720023 (7-3312) 421 655.48 0. Price of new connection is approximately Som2. Major Changes in the Water Utility Not in the First Data Book.946.188 : Som77.80 (US$1.447.69) compared to a family’s power bill of Som32. and people pay the equivalent of US$1.04 (US$0.802 Expenditure Per Connection : US$2. II. 2 Bills are paid at banks. 3 There were only 52 new connections in 1996.89). The vodocanal provides public taps for the urban poor with help from the city government through its Department of Construction. post offices.440 : US$ 149.087 Notes: 1 Most consumers pay on flat rate based on established per capita consumption per user category.087.083. Of those surveyed.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 63. Mission Statement “Improve operations and service through leak repair. 422 851 Asylbek Isaev.640 : US$4. fuel. The utility has a well developed management information system. It is responsible for water supply and sewerage for the city which has a population of 605. Industrial and commercial users are allowed to pay bills on a barter basis using products like pipes. Director The Bishkek Vodocanal is a government enterprise formed in 1931 under the Bishkek City Government. Only industrial connections are fully metered with almost no metering in the other categories. power and even consumer goods. Service interruptions were experienced by 37% of the consumers. Some 36% of consumers complained of low water pressure from their tap.92 m3 per family.079 : 435 : Som68.055 : Som75. 28% national government grant Tariff Structure (Effective August 1996) Category Population Enterprises Water Rates per Cubic Meter (Som/m3) (US$/m3) 0. Monthly water bill averages Som12. Development direction is provided by its development plan for the period 1997-2001. about 69% said they have 24-hour water supply.00/person/year. Priority Need of Utility I. As seen by Management 1) Improve bill collection efficiency. Bishkek. The government exercises control over the utility on tariff setting and appointment of top management. About 78% drink water from the tap. Its billing. accounting. 420 746 (7-3312) 424 419. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Increase water supply and pressure.000 : US$4.50 0.596.000 : US$3. 2) Water quality improvement.028 1.000 people.37/connection : 72% internally generated reserves.395.39) payable immediately before or after installation. 2) More hot water supply and water for irrigation. Perception of water quality among users is good (68%) to satisfactory (28%). Building #35. Overall rating of Bishkek Vodocanal by its consumers range from fair (60%) to good (24%). 4 Sewerage charge is 46% to 67% of the water bill depending on the category of user. . water utility office or to bill collectors. while the rest boil their drinking water. It takes a little more than a day for the utility to repair reported leaks in pipes. Consumers are billed monthly while small private houses are billed yearly.KYRGYZ REPUBLIC Water Utility Utility Profile INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE BISHKEK VODOCANAL Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Microrayon #10.

Other use and billing are for institutional connections.055 Data as of 1996.264 63. In 1996.053/m3 Tap Industrial/ Commercial 66% Per Capita Consumption 5 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.000. construction and house connection services. Of 16.000.462 748 3.000 m3 167 sq km Other 7 11% 3 BISHKEK 1 UFW 42% Domestic 20% Industrial/ Commercial 27% Service Connections House (7 persons/HC) Public Tap (42 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 2 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 3 4 55. Other 8 46% Parts/ Materials 12% 8 Bulk Supply 6% Annual O&M Costs US$3. Other connections are bulk supply to residential areas each serving about 90 persons.447.800 m3/d 161.474 consumer complaints were registered.946.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Annual Water Billings US$4. .7 months 6.622 water samples tested. emergency fund.89 7. There were 673 leaks repaired during the year.027/m3 0. social needs.759 89 1.000.303 42% 47% US$0. 128 meters replaced or repaired.757 1. about 6.City Profile BISHKEK WATER SUPPLY Population: 605. 143 failed the bacteriological tests in 1996.000 (1996) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 400.000 m /d 100% Nil Chlorination 506.9 Personnel 4% 6 Power 32% Unofficial but more realistic count is 1. Estimate given by utility.079 Other 7 22% Annual Water Use 3 146.000 m Domestic 12% 98% 24 hours/day 112 l/c/d US$0. Other costs include loan amortization. Domestic use and billing include those from bulk supply to residential areas.

Consumers are billed monthly and pay at banks.566.807 : KN2.166 0. As seen by Management 1) Investment funds for nationwide expansion and skills upgrading for technicians/staff. .359. The government exercises control on staff salaries. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Tariff policy (i. 3 There were 1. a national government enterprise established in 1962.1. only 15% drink water from the tap. Somphone Dethoudon.685 : KN2. 19.56/month 0.71) payable in advance. However. Price of new connection is KN89. Sat Settha District.5 m3 (Minimum) 6 .10 m3 (Minimum) Over 10 m3 Tariff Rate (KN/m3) (US$/m3) 2400/month 175 185 195 8750/month 250 280 2.15 m3 (Minimum) 16 .373 Expenditure Per Connection : US$56. Overall consumer rating of the utility is fair (54%) to good (39%). The utility has a partly developed management information system.10 m3 11 .17/month 0. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) For Vientiane. 2) Modern production equipment for utilities.408 : KN2.50 m3 51 .171 0.100 m3 Over 100 m3 Hotels/Restaurants 0 . General Manager The Nam Papa Lao (NPL).191 8.430.3 months. average daily production increased by 21%.000 people and up according to their needs. Consumer Survey Findings The average monthly water consumption is 47. The number of service connection also went up by 24% with service coverage going up to 54% from 33%. For NPL.274 --- 4.395.e. Vientiane.0 to 16. factories and communities from 5. tariffs. Average tariff went up by 96% while unit production cost increased by 104%. Capital investments by NPL are almost totally independent of government sources.50 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use except users of public taps which are free.181 0.47). About 27% experienced interruption in service during the month preceding the survey. staff/1.251 : US$2.815 new connections in 1995. 1. It is also responsible for the four inner cities in Vientiane Municipality with a population of 266.49/month 0.192.308.147 0.319 (US$7.. About 33% complain of low water pressure. lower price).746 (US$12.9% water connection guarantee fee 9. and budgets for O&M and development. 4 The water bill does not have any sewerage surcharge.” Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 37.100 m3 Over 100 m3 Tariff Rate (KN/m3) (US$/m3) 500/month 120 150 175 1200/month 145 170 190 0.171 1.30 m3 Over 30 m3 Government Offices/ 0 .960 people. Only the billing system is computerized.7% internally generated reserves. appointment of top management.100 m3 Over 100 m3 Diplomatic Personnel/ Foreigners 0 .494 : US$2. It has a current development plan covering the period 1992-1997.643 (US$87. A type-script annual report for government for 1995 is available. water connection guarantee fee and commercial loans. 2) Improve piped water distribution system.LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC Water Utility Utility Profile NAM PAPA LAO (Lao Water Supply Authority) Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Phone Kheng Road.000 connections improved from 20. Priority Need of Utility I. II.5% national government grant General Data About Water Utility Tariff Structure (Effective July 1996) Monthly Consumption (m3) Domestic 0 . Lao PDR (856-21) 412 880 (856-21) 414 378 Dr. About 87% of those surveyed said they have 24-hour water supply.142 0. Leak repairs take less than 4 days to be made after reporting to the utility.30 m3 31 . NPL provides standpipes for 2-4 households each in poor communities with lower water tariffs.35/month 0.184.117 0.10 m3 (Minimum) 11 . Accounts receivable improved from 10 to 3.16) compared to the monthly power bill of KN12. with funding mostly from internally generated reserves.07 m3 per family. treatment capacity by 67%.377. Thatluang Neua Village. 2 Tariff setting objectives are to recover costs and to have enough profit for extension and expansion.206 : US$2.00/month 0.914 : 609 : KN2.152. is responsible for the water supply of the entire country.623. Mission Statement “NAM PAPA LAO’s basic political responsibility is to produce clean water according to hygiene principles and supply this clean water to administrative and institutional buildings.9% commercial loan.137. the utility office or to bill collectors.119.890 : US$2.186 Monthly Consumption (m3) Industries/Enterprises 0 . Consumer perception of water quality is satisfactory (59%) to good (28%).245 0.50 m3 (Minimum) 51 . The monthly water bill is KN7.37/connection : 68.

982 sq km.273 24 2.960 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 VIENTIANE Domestic 35% 70.200 m3 59 sq km Other 6 19% UFW 33% Industrial/ Commercial 13% Service Connections House (6.917 leaks were repaired and 1.1 4 Personnel 12% Power 11% The total area of responsibility of Nam Papa Lao is 1.177.5 persons/HC) Public Tap (16.081/m3 0.000 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional/Slow Sand Filter 100. approximately 5. The utility gave a coverage of 92%.491 260 753 Nil 25. While 208 water samples were tested in 1995. rivers and rainwater.064.213 Data as of 1995. .City Profile VIENTIANE WATER SUPPLY Population: 266. no data was available on the results.95 3. Estimate given by NPL is 28%. Other use and billing refer to institutional connections. Ratio is for entire NPL. those not covered use wells.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 Annual Water Billings US$2.789 meters replaced or repaired. Other 7 42% 3 4 5 6 7 Parts/ Materials 35% Annual O&M Costs US$2.25 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Per Capita Consumption Average Tariff Drinking Water 3 2 22.000 m 3 Other 6 30% 54% 24 hours/day 172 l/c/d US$0.3 month 16. Other costs include depreciation and loan interests.550.801 Annual Water Use 25. In 1995.127/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 24% Domestic 46% Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.000 m3/d 9.967 33% 39% US$0. This is based on computed data.

57) for the monthly power bill. JWC has a partly developed management information system.65/m3 1. The utility is currently following its 1995-2005 Development Plan. a full-fledged corporatised government company formed in 1987.96 0. Its billing.) Minimum charge per month 0 .2% other sources Tariff Structure (Effective April 1991) Classification Tariff 1 . Tariff setting is the only area where the government exercises control over the utility.95/m3 1. about 75% boil or filter their drinking water.00 0.119/m3 0. water production and leak repair. Leak repairs take an average of less than a day to be completed after reporting to JWC. 39.945.15/m3 5. BHD. The monthly water bill averages RM18.70/m3 0. etc. II. Larkin 80350 Johor Bahru.650 : 1.1% commercial loan.456/m3 3. 7. Consumer Survey Findings The average monthly water consumption in Johor Bahru is 32.456/m3 1. 2) Reduce breakdown and improve pipe system.358. Malaysia (607) 224 4040 (607) 223 4060 Mohd.945 : RM168.544 : RM162. It took over the responsibility from the Public Works Department. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Increase water pressure.30 (US$15. 2) Improving core competency.863.889. Consumers are billed monthly and pay at post offices or at the utility office.MALAYSIA Water Utility Utility Profile SYARIKAT AIR JOHOR SDN. Managing Director The Johor Water Company (JWC). 3 There were 10. SAJ.51) payable in advance. However.00 1. A type-script 1995 annual report for the government is available. Hatta Bin Bakri.3% internally generated reserves. Major Changes in the Water Utility Not in the First Data Book.98 1.3 m3 per family. As seen by Management 1) Tariff review.277/m3 0.Plantation Estates Tariff Rates (RM) (US$) 3. All the respondents said they have 24-hour water supply.138 Expenditure Per Connection : US$93.376/m3 0.60/m3 1.982 : RM125.39) compared to RM39.20/m3 1. covering total operating cost and financing part of project development. Price of new connection is RM125 (US$49.760 : US$66.519 : US$80.70/m3 0.191.634/m3 0.466/m3 0.4 million.20 m3 Over 20 m3 Tariff 3 .307 : RM204. Mission Statement “To become an efficient water utility corporation which will join the ranks of world-class utility providers.943 : US$64.15 m3 16 .889.45 m3 Over 45 m3 Tariff 2 .” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 534. JWC helps the urban poor by allowing them to connect with reduced water connection fees. Jalan Garuda.129 : US$49. is responsible for water supply for the whole Johor State with a population of 2. 4 Water bill has no sewerage surcharge.723 new connections in 1995. 2 Tariff setting considers social obligation.883.Industrial & Commercial (Shops. The private sector is involved in source development.31/connection : 47.Government & Hospitals (Offices) Minimum charge per month Tariff 4 .65 (US$7.19 0. Overall rating of JWC by consumers is good (57%) to fair (43%).00 3.15/m3 10.Shipping Tariff 5 . accounting and treatment systems are computerized. (Johor Water Company) Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Bangunan Ibu Pejabat. Water quality perception is good (71%) to satisfactory (28%).330/m3 0.30/m3 0.257/m3 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use. About 10% claimed to have experienced service interruption in the month preceding the survey. Priority Need of Utility I.4% government loan 6.313.Domestic (Households) Minimum charge per month 0 .30 m3 31 . .

880 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional 478.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Annual Water Billings US$41.2 Personnel 6% Power 1% Parts/ Materials 5% About 14.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 372.101.900 m3 1.091 sq km Industrial/ Commercial 24% Other 3% 5 JOHOR BAHRU UFW 21% Domestic 52% Service Connections House (5.004. During the year.842.61 2.824 water samples failed the bacteriological tests.City Profile JOHOR BAHRU WATER SUPPLY Population: 1. 75 out of 7. depreciation and others. about 9.534 25. maintenance. Other costs include rental. Ratio of the entire utility is 2. .391/m3 Tap Other 5% 5 Per Capita Consumption 2 Industrial/ Commercial 54% Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1. Bulk Supply 55% Annual O&M Costs US$25.456 leaks were repaired and 2.200 m Domestic 41% 24 hours/day 193 l/c/d US$0.400 consumer complaints were registered in 1995.973 m3/d 472.5 months 4 3 Other 6 33% 1.268 21% 21% US$0. In 1995. Other refers to institutional use and billings.186/m3 0.351.818 meters were replaced or repaired.9.856 Nil 4.2 persons/HC) Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 100% 1 192.323 Data as of 1995.421 Annual Water Use 3 136.698 333 Nil 223.

It takes about 3 days for leak repairs to be made after reporting them to the utility. universities) Government Offices Religious Homes Charitable Institutions Ships Rate/Cubic Meter (RM/m3 ) 0. A glossy covered 1995 annual report is available.4.000 connections ratio improved from 2. II. all either boil or filter their drinking water.19 none Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use. Consumer Survey Findings For Kuala Lumpur.33 0. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Water quality.5 to 1.9% internally generated 20.22) payable in advance. 3 There were 6. Of those surveyed. 83% claim 24-hour water supply.00 20. Accounts receivable improved from 1. Gov’t quarters) 0 . the total connection increased by 38% while the number of staff decreased by 21%.00 none 39. 59990 Kuala Lumpur.617 : US$170.78 m3 per family.297 0.20 0. The government exercises control over the number.860 : 1. the utility office or at automated teller machines.497.5 million including Kuala Lumpur’s 1.374.001. Liew Wai Kiat.80 0. respectively. Capital investments which used to be funded 84% by government grant now depend on internally generated reserves (57%) and commercial loans (20%) with still some government loans (23%).00 20.92 39. . 4 The water bill does not have sewerage surcharge.310 Expenditure Per Connection : 56.96 1.598 : US$117.635. The utility staff/1. tariffs.416 0.636 new connections in 1995.40 Over 41 Condominium Residential Flats (Government) Industrial/Commercial Bulk Supply (Camps. SWD has a 19952020 development plan although a 30-year concession is planned for approval in 1997 which will privatize overall management and operation of the water supply system including capital expenditures.475 0.534 : RM295. Monthly water bill averages RM35.977.131 0. 2 Tariffs set should be able to balance revenue and operating expenditure and those for capital works.317 0. a government department established in 1972. appointment of top management and budgets for O&M and development.166 0.65 1.15 16 .166 0.198 0.96) to RM200 (US$79. 22.934 : US$125.65 0.00 10.42 2.78).60.0 to 0.308 : US$163.00 100. While some drink water from the tap.5 months.42 0.61 3.632.213 : RM411. salaries and appointment of staff.92 7.8% government loan Tariff Structure (Effective 1991) Category Domestic Residential (incl. is tasked to manage the water supply of the State of Selangor with a total population of 3. Operating ratio increased from 0.O.19 1.66 (US$28. As seen by Management 1) Shortage of manpower. About 53% said they had service interruption in the month preceding the survey. For SWD.73 (US$14. Director The Selangor Waterworks Department (SWD).10 (US$/m3) Minimum Charge/Month (RM) (US$) 0.13 to 0. Jalan Pantai Baru. 2) No interruption of supply.243.00 3. Malaysia (60-3) 282 6244 (60-3) 282 7535 Ir. the average monthly water consumption is 49. Perception of water quality is satisfactory (45%) to good (39%). Its billing.700 people.00 1.05 0. 2) Using latest technology in water supply operation and maintenance.68/connection reserves. Price of new connection ranges from RM10 (US$3. The private sector is involved in source development and production.75 0. Priority Need of Utility I.00 3. Consumers are billed every 2 months and pay at banks.982. Unit production cost went up by 385%.257 0.61 7.50 1.3% commercial loan : US$198.614 : RM431.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 932. Overall rating of the utility is fair (50) to good (43%). The utility has a partly developed management information system.455. accounting and pumping systems are computerized.832 3. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1996) Average daily production and number of service connections for Kuala Lumpur Water Supply both increased to 35% and 23%.MALAYSIA Water Utility Utility Profile SELANGOR WATERWORKS DEPARTMENT Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : P.322 : RM501.257 0. post offices. Box 5001. Mission Statement “To provide continuous water supply with the highest quality and at the most economic price.15) compared to the monthly power bill of RM72.19 100.

253 Nil ) ) 1. Ratio for the entire utility IS 1.342/m3 Boiled Other 11% Industrial/ Commercial 52% Per Capita Consumption 6 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.998 29.545 m3 243 sq km UFW 36% Domestic 32% Other 9% Industrial/ Commercial 23% Service Connections House (5 persons/HC) Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 3 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 4 5 126. .004 Annual Water Use 177. Water use and billing for bulk supply to residential areas are included under domestic.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 7 Annual Water Billings US$38.131/m3 0. About 18.5 months 8 9 Parts/ Materials 8% Power 2% Personnel 6% Other 3% 1.411 36% 36% US$0.330 meters were replaced or repaired.454 Data as of 1996.286 tested failed the bacteriological tests.586. 6. Estimate given by utility.560.373 368 156.554 m3/d 204.250 consumer complaints were registered in 1996.60 0.899.City Profile KUALA LUMPUR WATER SUPPLY Population: 1.700 (1996) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2 1 KUALA LUMPUR 486. Treatment plants are also used to serve requirements within Selangor State but outside of Kuala Lumpur.374.570 leaks were repaired. Other connections are bulk connections to residential areas. During the year. Residents in commercial and bulk connections difficult to determine. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bulk Supply 81% Annual O&M Costs US$23.467 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional 1.339. about 100 water samples out of 1.12 Actual average production for Kuala Lumpur in 1996.455 m 3 9 Domestic 37% 100% 24 hours/day 200 l/c/d US$0. Other use and billing are for institutional connections.4. In 1996. 11.

744. Perception of water quality is satisfactory (39%) and good (37%).058 : RM 57.000 : US$11.42) payable in advance. Accounting and pumping systems are also fully computerized.139/m3 10. 2) Minimize interruptions of supply.491 : US$40.746. Average monthly bill is RM 20. telephone and electricity offices. A glossy covered annual report for 1993 is available.017 Expenditure Per Connection : US$43.4 to 4. hence.589. although 95% of the consumers either boil or filter their drinking water.35/m 0.914.42/m 0.172 : RM 28.594/m3 Notes: 1 Bulk domestic rates apply to domestic dwellings.30 (Minimum) (Minimum 3 0.99 3 0. Overall rating of the utility is fair (56%) to good (41%).277/m3 0.20) compared to the monthly power bill average of RM89. etc. General Manager Utility Profile Telephone Fax : (60-4) 261 0169 : (60-4) 282 3581 PIHAK BERKUASA AIR PULAU PINANG (Penang Water Authority) The Penang Water Authority. it is autonomous in its operations acting like a corporatised company. For PWA.50/m3 0.25/connection : 63% internally generated reserves. Low-cost housing projects do not have to pay towards ‘water mains contribution’.90/m3 1. Hand-held computers are used in meter reading and billing. The utility has a well developed management information system.22)/month are billed monthly. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 263. is responsible for the water supply of the whole Penang State which includes Penang Island. the number of connections increased by 28% while the total number of staff went down by 5%.087/m3 3 0.90 m3 3 Above 90 m Trade Minimum Charge/month Ordinary 3 0 . no meaningful comparisons can be made. and every two months for those with more than RM200/month .52/m3 0.000 (US$396. The percentage of government loans used in capital investments went down from 50% to 14%.990 : US$22. 10000 Penang.09 m3 per family. As seen by Management 1) Corporatisation/privatisation.70/m3 0.0.00 10.51).166/m3 0. 2 All consumers pay on metered use.206/m3 0. Only 8% experienced any interruption in water supply in the month preceding the survey. Annual O&M costs increased by 24% but annual collections increased even more by 110%.12) to install house connections.70 (US$8.60 m Above 60 m3 Bulk1 Minimum Charge/month 0 . 3 Tariffs set are intended to sell water at the lowest possible cost consistent with the need to obtain sufficient income to cover recurrent cost and sustain development. Bills are paid at banks. It takes less than 2 days for leak repairs to be made. 2) Human resources development.20 m3 3 20 .00 3. Consumers with bills less than RM200 (US$79. 14% government loan 23% water mains contribution Tariff Structure (Effective 1993) Classification Domestic Supplies Individual Minimum Charge/month 0 . water utility. Staff/1.70/m3 0.258 : 1. Price of new connection is RM150 (US$59.MALAYSIA Water Utility Address Head : Level 33.) Shipping Charges (RM) (US$) 2.202 : US$40. KOMTAR. II. municipal councils and the Penang Development Corporation. a statutory body formed in 1973.22/m 0. 5 The water bill has no sewerage surcharge. 4 There were 14.50 0. ice manufacturers.96 0. Malaysia : Dato’ Lee Yow Ching.000 connections ratio improved from 5. Consumer Survey Findings The average monthly water consumption is 50.027. . About 97% said they have 24-hour water supply. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1990-1995) Data presented in the First Data Book was for the entire Penang State while the data in the City Profile (opposite page) is for Penang Island only.386. that have more than 16 occupants. institutions and schools whose consumption are not considered trade consumption.865. Priority Need of Utility I. post offices.766. Mission Statement No Mission Statement. The utility is relying more on internally generated reserves and water mains contribution from consumers.730 new connections in 1995. While it is still under government control.877 : RM102.357/m3 0.65 (US$35.277/m3 26. The urban poor are given interest-free loans up to a maximum of RM1. PWA follows its 1996-2005 Development Plan.20 m Above 20 m3 Special (Contractors.816 : RM102.

There were about 21. Georgetown.660 m 3 8 2 Domestic 43% 99% 24 hours/day 244 l/c/d US$0.74 2.990. People in the remote hill areas rely on dug wells and mountain streams.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 PENANG ISLAND 1 UFW 20% 304.461 Data as of 1995.440 meters were replaced or repaired.Island Profile PENANG ISLAND WATER SUPPLY Population: 600.626. commercial and institutional connections are classified under trade connections by the utility.449.204 Annual Water Use 110.479 8 Other 8% Personnel 24% 4.000 m3 293 sq km Industrial/ Commercial 32% Domestic 48% Service Connections House (5 persons/HC) Public Tap (50 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 3 4 120. ratio is 4. Bulk Supply 54% 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Parts/ Materials 9% Annual O&M Costs US$13.0 months 7 Annual Water Billings US$18. .850 12. About 16 water samples out of 1.123/m3 0. Total consumption and billing for institutional connections are combined with those under Industrial/Commercial.900 consumer complaints registered in 1995.632 14 ) ) ) Nil 132.307 failed the bacteriological tests. Industrial.4 Power 5% Population and service area refer to those of the capital.208/m3 Boiled/Filtered Industrial/ Commercial 57% Per Capita Consumption 5 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.084 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional/Slow Sand Filter 150. approximately 692 leaks were repaired and 12.000 m3/d 241. Ratio is for 1996.0 (1995).000 Connections Notes: 1 6 20% 20% US$0. and its contiguous area throughout Penang Island. For entire utility. In 1995.

(MWSC) is a joint venture company established in 1995 between the Government of Maldives (70% share) and a Danish Group (30% share).270 liters/day Above 270 liters/day Institutional Commercial Water Rates per Cubic Meter (Rf/m3) (US$/m3) 25. Tariff Structure (Effective 1996) Category Consumption Domestic 0 .90 liters/day 91 . distributing desalinated water via communal distribution points (tap bays) to the public. Cost of consumption from public taps is met by government and provided to the consumers at no cost.698.32 75. it has no influence on day-to-day operations of the utility.13 (US$24.387 Expenditure Per Connection : US$165. Ltd.886 Rf18.741.26 75. .000 people. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs1 Annual Collections2 Annual Billings2 Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds 1 2 : : : : : : 9. The private sector is involved in all aspects of operations to the extent that it holds 30% of the shares of MWSC.453 8. LTD.26 2.895 Rf18. 2) Lower price of water. About 86% of the consumers claim to have 24-hour water supply.585. 3 All connections are new as part of the on-going development project. Box 20148. treatment and water production systems are computerized.000 : US$1. II.603 6. Consumer perception of water quality is good (45%) to satisfactory (31%). Consumers are billed monthly and they pay at the utility office. Republic of Maldives (960-32) 3209 (960-32) 4306 Jan M. For the urban poor. 2) Sewerage system upgrade and maintenance. In 1996. Olsen.272. the Government of Maldives operated a water utility.600 73 Rf32. While the government is the major stockholder.603 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use. the MWSC will install a number of single public taps where low pressure water can be obtained at no cost. accounting.MALDIVES Water Utility Utility Profile MALE’ WATER AND SEWERAGE COMPANY. It is responsible for the water supply and sewerage of Male’ with a population of 78.R.037 Rf19. Consumer Survey Findings The average monthly water consumption is 4.42). 4 The utility operates the sewerage system serving the whole of Male’.000 : US$1.14/connection : 87% share capital. These are based on limited production. As seen by Management 1) Implementation of agreed water policy with government.660. There is no direct sewerage charge but the water rate is expected to cover the operational cost of the sewerage system. 13% equity loan This includes cost of new connections.541. MWSC has a well developed management information system.000 : US$2.000 : US$1.95 101. Perception of water pressure is high (50%) to adequate (31%). Development directions are in the joint venture agreement. Mission Statement No Mission Statement.5 days to be completed from the time they are reported to the utility. Monthly water bill averages Rf288. It aims to allow the utility to maintain financial viability with no external subsidy.95 101. Leak repairs take about 1. 2 The tariff structure is designed to provide cross subsidy. Only 6% experienced interruption in service during the month preceding the survey.151 6. Its billing. Full capacity was attained only in November 1996. Priority Need of Utility I. the MWSC installed additional desalination equipment and a new distribution system supplying water to individual metered property connections and a water tariff was introduced.453 8.34 (US$81.Male’. Major Changes in the Water Utility Not in the First Data Book. Prior to 1995. to provide an adequate profit and rate of return to satisfy investors with sufficient control to prevent taking advantage of a monopoly of an essential service. pumping. Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : P.88 m3 per family.48) compared to the monthly power bill of Rf958. General Manager The Male’ Water and Sewerage Company.O. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve quality and taste of water. About 71% drink water from the tap.138. supplying a low cost sustainable volume of water to each customer. Overall rating of the utility by the consumers is good (46%) to fair (36%). at no cost.996.

0 month 7. Government used to provide free water from the tap bays. m.500 water samples tested annually failed the bacteriological tests. Existing 23 tap bays with 5 single taps each are being phased out.360 m 7 650 Domestic 73% 24 hours/day 16 l/c/d US$4. Average daily production in 1996 was 1. The four plants were commissioned one after the other starting January 1996. Parts/ Materials 20% Power 39% 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Annual O&M Costs US$1. m.000 Connections Notes: 1 6 Annual Water Billings US$1. Individual metering of connections were undertaken in 1996.6 1.400 m3/d Nil Nil Desalination 3.300 m3/d 23./day capacity was attained only in November 1996. Other cost is for transport and membrane replacement fund.285 -) ) 650 15 9. Other use and billing refer to institutional connections.646/m3 0. and full capacity was attained only in November 1996.895 10% 10% US$2. .600 Other 8 18% Annual Water Use 3 388. Estimate made by utility.000 m3 1.City Profile MALE' WATER SUPPLY Population: 78. The figures do not reflect full year of normal.8 sq km Domestic 73% Service Connections House (9 persons/HC) Public Tap 2 Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 100% 3 4 8. None of the 3.698.613 7 Data as of 1996.400 cu. About 300 consumer complaints were registered annually in the past. full-scale operation.000 (1996) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 MALE' UFW 10% Other 8 12% Industrial/ Commercial 5% 2. Almost 90% of consumers have individual rain collectors and yard well./day since 2.064 cu.6 Other 9 11% Personnel 30% 7 Source of production is desalinated seawater.860/m3 Tap Industrial/ Commercial 9% Per Capita Consumption 5 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.027.

89% of consumers boil their drinking water. . tankers and kiosks.003.377 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on flat rate basis except some metered industrial and commercial connections.Water distribution up to 10 km . Central piped water supply system 2.043 400 600 93 0. However.060 : Tug2.617 : US$ 112.581.203.000 : Tug2.Water distribution w/in 10 km .000 Expenditure Per Connection : 100% national government : US$2. Monthly water bill averages Tug809. Overall rating of USAG by the consumers is good (55%) to fair (37%).557. Consumer perception of water quality is good (87%).100 : Tug 90. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Expand water distribution system with more water trucks. As seen by Management 1) Water metering. Constructors bear all costs of connection.507 0. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 1. 3 There were 20 new connections in 1995. each serving a large number of people. 2 Consumers are billed monthly.217. Mission Statement No Mission Statement. 2) Replacement of equipment. USAG is currently following its development plan for the period 1997 . It is responsible for water supply and sewerage of Ulaanbaatar City and suburban residential areas called ger (round canvass-and-felt tents) areas with a total population of 695. Major Changes in the Water Utility Not in the First Data Book. Only 57% said they have 24-hour water supply. Ulaanbaatar 49.753 0. Central piped water supply system 2.5 m3 per family. Chairman The Water Supply and Sewerage System Company (USAG) is a state enterprise established in 1975 under the Municipality of Ulaanbaatar.Water supply through kiosks .Delivery by trucks Institutions and Industrial 1.2000. About 57% of those surveyed experienced service interruption during the month preceding the survey. Water vending occurs in water kiosks supplied by USAG through its subsidiary TANK Company.Delivery by tanker trucks Tariffs (Tug/m3) (US$/m3) 34 0. USAG distributes water partly through piped connections and partly by tanker trucks to public water kiosks.200 300 1.037.562.800 : Tug2.992 : US$61.100 people excluding distant sub-districts. Delivery by tanker trucks .378 : US$3.MONGOLIA Water Utility Utility Profile WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM COMPANY (USAG) Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Khukh Tengeriin Gudamj 5.61).16 (US$1. Leak repairs take less than 2 days to be completed after reporting to the utility.004 1.14 (US$4.056. The utility has a partly developed management information system. Households drawing water from piped connections pay on normative or flat rate.830 : 1. 51355 (976-1) 312194 Osoryn Erdenebaatar. Almost all connections can be classified as bulk supply connections.670. Priority Need of Utility I.74/connection grant Tariff Structure (Effective September 1996) Service Type Domestic Consumers 1. 2) Improved hygiene and lengthen distribution hours in kiosks. They can pay through bill collectors or banks. Consumer Survey Findings Average estimated monthly water consumption is 24. Its billing and accounting systems are computerized.000.502 0.484 : US$2.06) compared to the monthly power bill of Tug3. appointment of top management and budget for development. Operating a water supply system that started in 1959. An intermediate format 1996 financial report is available in lieu of an annual report. Delivery by tanker trucks . II.896. USAG enjoys some autonomy with government controlling only tariffs.117 800 1. Mongolia (976-1) 50120.

about 109 consumer complaints were registered. 2 3 4 Power 70% 5 6 7 8 Annual O&M Costs US$2.846 persons/PT) Annual Water Use 3 58. It does not include those of distant sub-districts served by small water systems.418 persons/HC) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 3 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 100% 4 5 3 19 38 68 564 362 779 1.304 49% 49% US$0.000 Connections Notes: 1 Annual Water Billings US$3.038/m3 0.000 m /d 100% Nil Chlorination --42.000 m3 126 sq km Other 9% UFW 49% 3 Industrial/ Commercial 14% Service Connections House (2.102/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 43% Per Capita Consumption 6 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1. The unusually high ratio is due to the low number of connections since most of them are bulk supply to housing units. 38 leaks were repaired and 42 meters replaced or repaired. During the year.310 water samples were tested in 1996.222.060 Data as of 1996. Computed from consumption in kantors or housing units with bulk supply connections. student camps and bath houses.2 Bulk Supply 4% Parts/ Materials 8% This is 89% of Ulaanbaatar population.830 Public Tap (10. In 1996. While 1. About 95% of consumers have 24-hour water supply.74 2 months 8 7 Personnel 18% 579. no data was given on the results.City Profile ULAANBAATAR WATER SUPPLY Population: 695.000 m Domestic 26% Other 31% 21 hours/day 177 l/c/d US$0. House and other connections include bulk supply to housing and apartment units and water service centers where tankers draw water for delivery to water kiosks in ger areas.020.100 (1996) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2 ULAANBAATAR 1 Domestic 28% 160. Total area of responsibility is 166 sq km. apartments.400. .

467.001 US$298.22.090 : MK91.388 US$15.945 : MK97.39 to 0. Billing is done quarterly and consumers pay at the water utility office 2 There were 3. a city with a population of about 670. About 83% of those surveyed said they have 24-hour water supply. Average tariff increased by 223% while unit production cost barely went up by 3.402.2 months.30 m3 Over 30 m3 Tariff Rate (MK/m3) (US$/m3) 5 0.708 : 315 : MK21. and budgets for O&M and development.809 10 1. The utility has a partly developed management information system.111 US$14.000 people.819.018 : MK95. the number of staff went down also by 32%.3.104.711.4%.000 connections ratio improved from 12.000 Expenditure Per Connection : 100% government loan : : : : : US$ 3. The government exercises control over the utility on the number. 4 The seemingly high rates and prices in US dollars are probably distorted by the disparity between the official exchange rate and the unofficial rate. However. Only 5% have had any interruption in water supply in the month preceding the survey. unaccounted-for-water went up from 33% to 60%. It has a development plan covering the period 1996-2000. Myanmar : (95-2) 36173 : : U Tun Kyi. Head of Water and Sanitation Department The Water and Sanitation Department of the Mandalay City Development Committee was formed in 1992 to be responsible for the water supply of Mandalay.79 m3 per family.73).000 (US$485.423 US$15. Mandalay.446. The staff/1.2 to 6. Priority Need of Utility I. Accounts receivable also improved from 17. Monthly water bill averages MK313.72) compared to the monthly power bill of MK492. appointment of top management.029. Repair of leaks in distribution pipes are done less than 2 days after being reported to the utility. While number of service connections increased by 32%.MYANMAR Water Utility Utility Profile MANDALAY CITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (Water and Sanitation Department) Address Telephone Fax Head : Corner of 26th and 72nd Streets. Mission Statement No Mission Statement General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 49. As seen by Management 1) Financial improvements.80 (US$79.618 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use.87/connection Tariff Structure (Effective August 1996) Consumption (m3/month) 0 . .45 (US$50. Major Changes in the Water Utility Average daily production increased by 74% and coverage increased to 80% from 30% in 1992. 2) Technological improvements.619 new connections in 1995. II.856. Perception of water quality by the consumers is good (96%).0 to 0. 3 The water bill has no sewerage surcharge.) Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly water consumption is 40. Overall consumer rating of the utility is good (92%). Price of new connection is MK3. Consumers say water pressure is high (65%) to adequate (31%). Consumers’ Opinion (No answers given to questionnaire. salaries and appointment of staff. About 74% of consumers filter their drinking water. Operating ratio further improved from 0.39) payable in advance. tariffs.

2.201/m3 Filtered Industrial/ Commercial 1% Domestic 76% Per Capita Consumption 3 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.111 60% 60% US$0. About 95% of consumers get 24-hour water supply.402.708 Annual Water Use 3 33.998 meters replaced or repaired.000 (1996) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 35.423 Data as of 1995-1996. Unserved residents use tubewell or river as source. Other use and billing are those for institutional connections.102/m3 0.000 m3 67 sq km 91. Parts/ Materials 26% Power 65% 3 4 5 Annual O&M Costs US$3.3 Personnel 9% 4 Estimate given by utility.City Profile MANDALAY WATER SUPPLY Population: 670. 1.056 56 53 248 295 Nil 49. 285 leaks were repaired.283 consumer complaints were registered. .215.000 m Other 5 23% 80% 24 hours/day 110 l/c/d US$1.22 0.2 months 6.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 Annual Water Billing US$15.711.000 m3/d 85% 15% Chlorination UFW 60% MANDALAY Domestic 30% Industrial/ Commercial 1% Other 9% 5 Service Connections House (5 persons/HC) Public Tap (50 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 1 2 49. During the year. Hardly any bacteriological tests are taken annually. In 1995-96.

440.06) payable in advance. No annual report is produced. Its billing system is computerized. Operating ratio further improved from 0.182 MK215. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Expand water supply lines.000 : US$34.262 new connections in 1995. commercial and industrial consumers pay on metered use.457 MK109. About 63% of consumers either filter or boil their drinking water.263.000 : US$34.635.500.91/connection : 100% local government funds Tariff Structure No tariff structure was given.000 connections ratio increased from 5.34 to 0.681.000 : US$10. Notes: 1 Few domestic. Consumer Survey Findings Average estimated monthly water consumption is 40. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : : : : : : 96. II. The number of staff also decreased by 33% but the staff/1.000 : US$17.811 MK210. Mission Statement No Mission Statement. Consumers say water pressure is adequate (58%) to high (12%).950 1. Yangon. The government exercises control over the utility on the number.27. About 36% have had interruption in water supply in the month preceding the survey. Myanmar (95-1) 289 781 (95-1) 284 910 U Zaw Win. 2 There were 1. 2) Reduce unaccounted-for-water.828 Expenditure Per Connection : US$181. Consumer perception of water quality is satisfactory (63%). 3 The water bill has no sewerage surcharge. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1992-1995) The use of surface water increased from 80% in 1992 to 86% of the total production which remained about the same. About 66% of those surveyed said they have 24hour water supply.94).000. Water availability improved to 12 hours/day from 8hours/day although per capita consumption is down to 67 l/c/d from 120 l/c/d. It has a development plan covering the period 1996-2000.MYANMAR Water Utility Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : City Hall.857.10 (US$35.600 (US$906. Public tap users pay based on property tax. Average tariff increased by 174% while unit production cost went up by 193%. Service coverage increased to 60% from 50%.65 m3 per family. Billing is done monthly or quarterly and consumers pay at the water utility office or through bill collectors. 4 The seemingly high prices in US dollars are probably distorted by the disparity between the official exchange rate and the unofficial rate.020.168 MK 66. The monthly water bill averages MK114. As seen by Management 1) Implement metering for the entire water supply system. Repair of leaks in distribution pipes are done in a day after being reported to the utility. salaries and appointment of staff. a city with a population of about 3. Overall consumer rating of the utility is fair (66%) to good (10%). 2) More piped water connections. . most pay on flat rate.59 (US$18.54) compared to the monthly power bill of MK222.114 people.0.058. Price of new connection is MK5. Head of Water and Sanitation Department Utility Profile YANGON CITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (Water and Sanitation Department) The Water and Sanitation Department of the Yangon City Development Committee was formed in 1922 to be responsible for the water supply of Yangon.3 to 12. The utility has a partly developed management information system. Priority Need of Utility I. The number of connections seemed to have decreased by 71% but this may reflect the real number of accounts rather than the number of households served by the utility. tariffs and appointment of top management.

263.723 Nil Nil 96.114 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2 1 YANGON 386.950 Industrial/ Commercial 16% Annual Water Use 3 141.718 Data as of 1995.750 m 60% 12 hours/day 67 l/c/d US$0. Only 60% of consumers get 24-hour supply. 150 consumer complaints were registered.067/m3 0. Total area of responsibility is 594 sq km. Other sources are tubewells.457 60% NA US$0. .163.857.27 (No data available) 12.466. Power 36% Parts/ Materials 22% 5 6 7 Annual O&M Costs US$9.050 m3 238 sq km No data available. This is 1992 data. During the year. Lack of production metering and very little consumption metering make it difficult to determine realistic UFW. About 20 water samples out of 60 failed the bacteriological tests in 1995.047 2.160 m3/d 141.0 Other 3% 7 Personnel 39% Production is not metered.456/m3 Boiled/Filtered Domestic 84% Per Capita Consumption Drinking Water Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.750 m3/d 14% 86% Chlorination 159.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 Annual Water Billings US$34. Computed from consumer survey data in the absence of water consumption data. Service Connections House (20 persons/HC) Public Tap (180 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff 5 6 3 4 5 92. ponds and rain collectors.140 40 2.City Profile YANGON WATER SUPPLY Population: 3.

NEPAL
Water Utility

Utility Profile
: : : : Tripureswor Marga, Kathmandu, Nepal (977-1) 253 656 (977-1) 223 484 Min Bahadur Karki, Executive Chairman

NEPAL WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION
Address Telephone Fax Head

The Nepal Water Supply Corporation (NWSC) is a government corporation set up in 1990 from what used to be the Water Supply and Sewerage Board. It is responsible for water supply and sewerage for Greater Kathmandu and 11 other towns. The government exercises control over NWSC on staff salaries and budget for development. Service to the urban poor is provided through public standposts on request of municipal governments. The utility has a partly developed management information system with an accounting system that is computerized. NWSC is currently following a development plan covering the period 1991 - 2005. It has a type-script annual report for government for 1995.

Mission Statement

“NWSC will provide an adequate supply of potable water and offer wastewater systems that will meet the environmental standards of Nepal. The management will aim to meet the needs of all customers in an efficient and effective manner at optimum cost.” Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 138,962 : 2,078 : NRs232,070,000 : US$4,069,619 : NRs254,030,000 : US$4,454,713 : NRs269,890,000 : US$4,732,836 : NRs303,200,000 : US$5,316,966 Expenditure Per Connection : US$38.26/connection : 61% externally-funded government grant; 11% national government grant 17% IDA Credits; 7% government loan; 4% internally generated reserves

General Data About Water Utility

Tariff Structure

(Effective 1996)
METERED Tap Minimum (Inch) ½ (m3) 8 8 - 15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 -100
Above 100

¾ 27 1 50 1-1/2 140 2 235 3 700 4 1,400 NON-METERED

PUBLIC TAP Notes: 1 Consumers pay on metered use or on flat rate since not all connections are metered. Users of public taps do not pay as consumption is paid by the government. Billing is done monthly and consumers pay at the utility office. 2 Tariffs are set to raise sufficient revenue each year to meet operating costs, depreciation and financial obligations like debt servicing and working capital requirements. 3 There were 5,708 new connections installed in 1995. Price of new connection is NRs2,800 (US$49.10) payable in advance. 4 Sewerage surcharge of 50% is included in the water bill.

HOUSEHOLD USE COMMERCIAL and INDUSTRIAL GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISES Minimum Charge Rate above Minimum Charge Rate above Minimum Charge Rate above 3 3 minimum (/m ) minimum (/m ) minimum (/m3) (NRs) (US$) (NRs) (US$) (NRs) (US$) (NRs) (US$) (NRs) (US$ (NRs) (US$) 23.10 0.40 27.55 0.48 25.40 0.45 5.75 0.101 7.75 0.136 6.35 0.111 6.80 0.119 8.50 0.149 7.50 0.132 7.90 0.139 12.50 0.219 8.65 0.152 9.45 0.166 10.4 0.182 11.55 0.202 12.5 0.219 420.00 7.37 15.10 0.265 420.00 7.37 18.90 0.331 462.00 8.10 16.6 0.292 808.50 14.18 17.10 0.300 735.00 12.89 19.35 0.339 808.50 14.1 17.1 0.300 2263.8 39.70 17.45 0.306 2058.0 36.09 19.85 0.348 2263.80 39.7 17.4 0.306 3799.9 66.64 17.90 0.314 3454.5 60.58 20.35 0.357 3799.95 66.6 17.9 0.314 11319. 198.4 18.35 0.322 10290. 180.4 20.90 0.367 11319.0 198. 18.3 0.322 22638. 396.9 18.85 0.331 20580. 360.8 21.40 0.375 22638.0 396. 18.8 0.331 Non-metered connections are assessed monthly rates which range from NRs126 (US$2.21) to NRs55,566 (US$974.42) for ½’ to 4” main taps or connections. Monthly rate for additional branch tap is about one-third of main connection rate. Rates vary slightly among the three categories above. For ½” size public tap, the monthly rate is NRs577.50 (US$10.13).

Priority Need of Utility

I. As seen by Management 1) Leakage and wastage control. 2) Management improvement.

II. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Sufficient and regular water supply. 2) Improve water quality.

Consumer Survey Findings

In Kathmandu, average monthly water consumption is 11.2 m3 per family. Monthly water bill averages NRs116.10 (US$2.04) compared to the monthly power bill of NRs902.20 (US$15.82). Only 13 % of those surveyed said they have 24-hour water supply. Perception of water quality is satisfactory (51%) to good (19%). However, 72% of consumers either boil or filter their drinking water. About 66% complain of low water pressure in their taps. Among the respondents to the survey, 15% experienced service interruption during the month preceding the survey. It takes almost 10 days for leak repairs to be done. Overall rating of the utility is fair (50%) to good (18%).

Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995)

For Greater Kathmandu Water Supply, average daily production increased by 60% and treatment capacity went up by 167%. Number of connections also increased by 79%. Average tariff increased by 179% while unit production cost increased by 36%. Operating ratio improved to 0.72 from 1.60 in 1992. However, accounts receivable went up from 0.8 to 4.5 months. UFW was reduced from 45% to 40%. For the entire NWSC, total connections increased by 25%, number of staff decreased by 13% and staff/1,000 connections ratio improved from 21.2 to 15.0. The utility still relies heavily on government loans and grants to finance its capital improvements.

City Profile
KATHMANDU WATER SUPPLY
Population: 935,000 (1995)
Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area
1

KATHMANDU

107,000 m3/d 25% 75% Conventional 80,000 m3/d 28,500 m3 50 sq km
UFW 40%

Total Consumption 60%

Service Connections House (7 persons/HC) Public Tap (42 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water
2 3

92,600 1,328 450 760 920 Nil 96,058

Annual Water Use 3 39,055,000 m

Domestic/ Industrial/ Commercial 89%

81% 6 hours/day 91 l/c/d US$0.141/m3 Boiled/Filtered
Other 6 11%

Per Capita Consumption
4

Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1,000 Connections
Notes:
1 2 3

5

40% 40% US$0.061/m3 0.72 4.5 months 15.0

Annual Water Billings US$3,316,388

Other 11%

Personnel 40%

Only 70% of water production is metered. Estimate given by NWSC. Other sources are tubewells, dug wells and ponds. About 5% of consumers get 24-hour water supply. In the fiscal year 1995-1996, about 9,492 consumer complaints were registered. During a one-year period, 62 water samples out of 270 tested failed the bacteriological tests. In 1995-1996, 5,436 leaks were repaired and 3,910 meters were replaced or repaired. Other refers to billing for institutional use. Parts/ Materials 33%

4 5 6

Power 16%

Annual O&M Costs US$2,387,374
Data as of 1995-1996.

PAKISTAN
Water Utility Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : P.O. Box 229, WASA, FDA, Faisalabad, Pakistan (92-41) 761 796 (92-41) 782 113 Rashid Ahmad Chaudhry, Managing Director

Utility Profile

FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (Water and Sanitation Agency)

The Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA) is a government agency formed under the Faisalabad Development Authority (FDA) in 1978. It is responsible for the water supply and sewerage of Faisalabad, which has a population of 1,800,000 people. While WASA was formed to be autonomous, the government still exercises control on staff salaries, tariffs, appointment of top management and budget for development. The utility is currently following its 1995-2015 development plan. Its billing system is computerized. No annual report is produced.

Mission Statement

No Mission Statement.

General Data About Water Utility

Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds

: 80,034 : 2,003 : PRs 80,000,000 : PRs 39,318,436 : PRs 56,618,247 : PRs100,000,000 Expenditure Per Connection : 100% government loan

: : : :

US$1,967,424 US$ 966,951 US$1,392,401 US$2,459,280 : US$30.73/connection

Tariff Structure

(Effective September 1993) METERED Applicable Rate PRs/1000 US$/m3
gallons

PRs/1000 gallons

Applicable Rate US$/m3 0.162

Domestic UNMETERED Ferrule Size (inch) ¼ 3/8 ½ ¾ 1 1-1/2 2

Commercial/Industria 30.00 l (Flat rate per month based on ferrule size.) PRs/month US$/month PRs/month Ferrule Size (inch) 45 1.11 3 22,825 132 3.25 4 70,000 265 6.52 5 150,000 660 16.23 6 300,000 1,510 37.13 7 500,000 4,070 100.09 8 1,000,000 8,710 214.20 9 1,200,000

20.00

0.108

US$/month

561.33 1,721.50 3,688.92 7,377.84 12,296.40 24,592.80 29,511.37

Notes: 1 Industrial, commercial and institutional consumers pay on metered use. Domestic users pay on flat rate per month because of lack of metering. Consumers are billed quarterly and pay at banks. 2 Tariffs set are intended to meet O&M costs. 3 There were about 2,000 new connections in 1995. Price of new connection is PRs1,363 (US$33.52) for a ¼” house connection payable in advance. 4 The water bill has a 35% sewerage surcharge.

Priority Need of Utility

I. As seen by Management 1) Water source development. 2) Optimal O&M and reduction of UFW.

II. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality. 2) Reliable supply of water.

Consumer Survey Findings

The average estimated monthly water consumption is 5.42 m3 per family. Monthly water bill is PRs45 (US$1.11) compared to the monthly power bill of 835.58 (US$20.55). Only 8% said they have 24-hour water supply. Consumer perception of water quality is satisfactory (46%) to good (33%). About 79% drink water direct from the tap. It takes about 4.5 days for the utility to repair leaks in their pipes. Overall rating of the utility is good (48%) to fair (40%).

Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995)

Not in the First Data Book.

City Profile
FAISALABAD WATER SUPPLY
Population: 1,800,000 (1996)
Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area
1

FAISALABAD

160,000 m3/d 98% 2% Chlorination/Slow Sand Filter 5,000 m3/d 50,000 m3 70 sq km
Other 2% UFW 30% Domestic 65%

Service Connections House (7 persons/HC) Public Tap (100 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total
2

Industrial/ Commercial 3%

80,000 1,000 9 21 4 Nil 80,034
Other 8%

Annual Water Use 3 58,400,000 m

Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water
3 4

Domestic 69%

60% 7 hours/day 170 l/c/d US$0.034/m3 Tap
Industrial/ Commercial 23%

Per Capita Consumption
5

Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1,000 Connections
Notes:
1 2

Annual Water Billings US$1,392,401
30% 78% US$0.034/m3 1.41 12 months 25.0
Personnel 31%

6

Total area of responsibility is 120 sq km. ST/PTs are not registered. Industrial, commercial and institutional connections are few since most establishments have their own tubewell due to high water table. Estimate given by utility. Most unserved residents rely on tubewells. Only 20% of consumers have 24-hour water supply. About 1,000 consumer complaints are registered annually. About 50 water samples out of 700 tested failed the bacteriological tests. During the year, about 1,700 leaks were repaired; only two meters were reported replaced or repaired. Other 2% Parts/ Materials 4% Power 63%

3 4

5 6

Annual O&M Costs US$1,967,424
Data as of 1995-1996.

86 (US$63.152.141/m3) Commercial/Industrial .6 days for the utility to fix reported leaks. However. Managing Director The Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KWSB) is a semi-autonomous body formed in 1983 which manages the water supply and sewerage of Karachi. 25% national government grant. 1% internally generated reserves Includes arrears of PRs1.501 : PRs2. most meters are not functioning or defective.77 (US$5. Gulshan e Iqbal.000 : US$28. Perception of water quality is satisfactory (66%) to poor (28%).Monthly rate ranging from PRs20 (US$0. Many (80%) complained of low water pressure in their tap.000 (US$39. payroll and MIS are computerized. c) provide an environment in which employees may develop professionally and attain their true potential.170. Pakistan (92-21) 494 7507 (92-21) 454 6020 Brigadier Mansoor Ahmed. a city with a population of 11.55% of Net Annual Rental Value (NARV).790.PRs43/1000 gallons (US$0.00 (US$0.PRs26/1000 gallons (US$0. b) Not connected with water line .623. Monthly water bill is PRs203. 2 There were 19.Monthly rate ranging from PRs26 (0. Operating ratio improved from 1.937. Capital investment is now almost totally dependent on government grants and loans with internally generated reserves representing only 1% of the total from 20% in 1992. Commercial/Industrial a) Connected with waterline .39)/month.608 : PRs1. The staff/1.71/connection : 74% externally-funded government grant. It has proposals for major private sector participation in the future.000 people. Each additional floor in excess of 25% of covered ground floor area is charged 50% of ground floor rates. Overall rating of the utility is fair (56%) to poor (43%).59) for flats with covered areas of 500 sq ft to 5. Water availability decreased to less than 4 hours/day.08 to 0. The government exercises control over KWSB on staff salaries.000 connections ratio improved from 11. KDA Civic Center. Development directions is guided by the 7th 5-year National Development Plan covering 1993-1998.374 : 8. Consumers pay at banks. Billing. 2) Distribution system strengthening.115. . Tariff Structure (Effective July 1995) Residential a) Connected with waterline . Karachi. accounting.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings1 Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds 1 : 1. and.01) compared to the monthly power bill of PRs2.180.385 Expenditure Per Connection : US$51.775 (US$43. and most commercial and industrial consumers on property tax. tariffs and appointment of top management.744 new connections in 1995. b) Flats not connected to water line .954 : PRs2. the number of staff decreased by 28%. Most consumers (80%) either boil or filter their drinking water. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality.032.PRs16. and security deposit varying according to property size. Only 3% said that they have 24-hour water supply. Priority Need of Utility I.64)/month. Billing is monthly for metered consumers and yearly for all others.903).967.000 sq ft and above. Mission Statement “The KWSB is committed to: a) contribute to health and well-being of the citizens of Karachi by producing and supplying adequate potable water at least cost.432. b) Property not connected to waterline .000 : US$27.65) for residences with ground floor areas of 60 sq yd to 5.335.585.PAKISTAN Water Utility Utility Profile KARACHI WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Annex Building.77.PRs26.000 : US$68.00 (US$0.191. b) improve sanitary conditions in the city through development and upkeep of efficient sewage collection network and adequate treatment facilities.797. As seen by Management 1) Additional water to meet demand. metered industrial and bulk residential consumers on metered use. Price of new connection is PRs100 (US$2.39% of NARV Domestic . II. A KWSB Basic Facts report for 1995-1996 is available in lieu of an annual report.200 : US$53. It takes an average of 6. Flats a) Connected with waterline . 3 Sewerage charge is about 50% of water charges.46) for a ½” connection plus two years advance water charges and surcharges.49) to PRs1. Average tariff increased by 214% while unit production cost went up by 89%. 2) Increase water supply and pressure.500. The utility has a partly developed management information system (MIS).7 to 8.58 m3 per family.4.383.691. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) While the number of connections barely increased. d) contribute as a responsible corporate citizen to collective goal of making Karachi a better place to reside and visit.64) to PRs878 (21.59).487.000 sq yd and above.679 : PRs1. Consumer Survey Findings The average estimated monthly water consumption is 50.233) Bulk Supply Notes: 1 Domestic consumers pay on flat rate.

Data is for alternate days.366 9.350 9 Personnel 54% Production is not metered.623.City Profile KARACHI WATER SUPPLY Population: 11.520.000 (US$39.000 water samples failed the bacteriological tests. Other water sources are tubewells and dug wells.8 months 8. about 2. Arrears removed in computation of operating ratio and average tariff.364 179. Less than 1% of consumers get 24-hour water supply. Less than 5% of about 20.500 leaks were repaired and 197 meters replaced or repaired.000 (1996) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 KARACHI 1.394.820 m3/d 2% 99% Conventional 954.000 m Domestic 43% 70% 1-4 hours/day 157 l/c/d US$0.90).542 2.937.000 consumer complaints annually.876 m3 500 sq km No available data. The utility receives an average of 30.648.374 Public Tap (100 persons/PT) Annual Water Use 3 601. Estimate given by KW&SB.77 16.085 5.950 5.032.500. . Almost total lack of metering makes it difficult to determine realistic consumption and UFW values.042/m3 0.067 1. Estimate given by KW&SB.805. Service Connections House (7 persons/HC) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff 6 7 3 4 5 2 830.604 Data as of 1995-1996.091/m3 Boiled Other 26% Industrial/ Commercial 31% Per Capita Consumption Drinking Water Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1. These are estimated volumes. Annual O&M Costs US$25.4 Annual Water Billings US$72.660 m3/d 481. During the year. Parts/ Materials 10% Power 30% Other 6% 5 6 7 8 9 Annual water bill includes arrears of PRs 1. Includes many acccounts not directly connected.967.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 8 30% 40% US$0. Computed using total consumption derived from given UFW and production. Computed using consumer survey data.

063 24. Pakistan (92-42) 575 9023. Unit production cost went up by 21%. 2) Make the distribution system more efficient. 1” .191 Above rates are subject to the following minimum per month corresponding to the size of meter: ½” .84) to PRs4. Only its billing system is computerized. 2% deposit works 13% externally-funded government grant. Rate for properties with ARV above PRs4.765. and budgets for O&M and development.000 gallons.8 to 5. railway colonies and the Cantonment Board.73/connection : 58% government loan.53)/month for property ARVs of PRs400 (US$9. tariffs.862 gallons (58.70 0.131 Above 20.334 gallons UNMETERED Domestic: Monthly water rates are based on percentage of Annual Rental Value (ARV) of property and ranges from PRs33. 575 6739 (92-42) 575 2960 Bashir Ahmed Pannu. As seen by Management 1) Introduce preventive maintenance of tubewells.33. Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly water consumption is 12.165 : PRs451. 2) Improve billing.499 is 60% of ARV. Lahore. Government Officers’ Residences.001 . 17% internally generated reserves.200 (US$29. It takes about 1-1/2 days for the utility to undertake leak repairs after being reported to them.20.385. Monthly water bill averages PRs225.111 : PRs 56.51) for ferrule sizes of ¼” to ½” payable in advance.570 new connections in 1996-1997.000 : US$ 8.35 0.499 (US$110. .093.000 connections ratio from 4.600.000 (23 m3) 7.081 35.54) compared to the monthly power bill of PRs1. WASA has a development plan for the period 1988-1997.800 : US$ 1.89).5. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 371. Service coverage also increased from 51% to 84%. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) The number of connections increased by 13% while the number of staff went up by 35%. water availability to most consumers decreased from 20 to 17 hours/day. The government exercises control on the number and salaries of staff.30 0.20. However. It also serves a few other areas like Model Town. The mix of capital investment sources remain the same with government providing about 81% of loans and grants.106.000 (91m3 ) 11. Priority Need of Utility I.470. Unmetered consumers pay based on ARV .693 : 2.000 : US$10.65 0.000 gallons.7.627 Expenditure Per Connection : US$3. Service interruption during the month preceding the survey was experienced by 7% of the respondents.106 : PRs425.19 (US$5. Religious and Charitable Institutions: Half of domestic rates.000 people. ¾” . Price of new connection range from PRs300 (US$7.000 : US$11.074 5. respectively.00 (US$5.880. Notes: 1 All industrial and commercial consumers and about 21% of domestic consumers pay on metered use.71.81 to 0.40 0. which has a population of 3. About 77% drink water from the tap.30 (US$26.5. The utility has a partly developed management information system. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Increase pressure. 2 There were 11.82) toPRs225. About 6% of those surveyed said they have 24hour water supply. Operating ratio improved from 0. Mission Statement No Mission Statement. appointment of top management.PAKISTAN Water Utility Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 4-A Gulberg V.64).868.00 0.000 (91m3) 15.040 13. increasing the staff/1.755 : PRs360. Billing is quarterly and consumers pay at banks.600. Consumer perception of water quality is satisfactory (71%) while 23% said it is poor. II.47m3) per family.342. 10% national government grant Tariff Structure (Effective December 1994) METERED Domestic Commercial/Industrial Consumption/month PRs/1000 (US$/m3) PRs/1000 (US$/m3) (gallons) gallons gallons 0 .50 (US$0. 3 Water bill includes sewerage charges of up to 60% of the water consumption bill.38) to PRs1. Managing Director Utility Profile LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (Water and Sanitation Agency) The Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA) was formed in 1967 as part of the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) and is responsible for the water supply and sewerage of the city of Lahore. Overall rating of the utility is fair (87%).

610 m3 given may have been grossly underestimated with most meters either non-functional or erratic.442.111 40% --US$0.600 consumer complaints were registered. about 11.820 m3/d 100% Nil Chlorination ----165 sq km No available data. About 11.197/m3 Tap Per Capita Consumption 6 Industrial/ Commercial 15% Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage 2 Service Area 1 LAHORE 1. Total consumption of 56.849. .374 meters repaired or replaced.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 Annual Water Billings US$11. Water is pumped from the tubewells directly to the distribution grid.472 leaks were repaired and 3. The volume is estimated.71 7 months 5.294 water samples taken in 1996. Estimate given by utility.017/m3 0. In 1996. 47 failed the bacteriological tests. Computed using consumer survey data.880. Other sources are tubewells with handpumps.931.693 Annual Water Use 463.300 m 3 8 Domestic 82% Other 3% 84% 17 hours/day 213 l/c/d US$0. not supported by analysis.235 531 2.106. None of the consumers get 24-hour supply.City Profile LAHORE WATER SUPPLY Population: 3. Service Connections House (9 persons/HC) Public Tap (100 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 3 4 5 351.7 Personnel 28% 7 Only 38% of production is metered. Other 5% 5 6 7 Parts/ Materials 13% Power 54% 8 Annual O&M Costs US$7. Out of 4.671 Data as of 1995-1996.232 882 334 16.479 371.270.

02 (US$68.92) 0 .001 : K 9.000 people. Consumer perception of water quality is satisfactory (43%) to good (32%).247 : US$ 819. It has available the 1991 intermediate format annual report.549.67 (US$51.58 0.990.150 : K 1.636 : US$44.995. About 94% said they have 24-hour service.42) Commercial/Industrial/Shipping Minimum of K20.083. Managing Director The Waterboard is a government enterprise established in 1986 and is responsible for operating 11 water supply systems nationwide through their district offices.05(US$2.98 0. Price of new connection is K100 (US$72. Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly water consumption is 22. Leak repairs are done about two weeks after these are reported to the utility.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 18. The monthly water bill averages K71. Water service interruption was experienced by 45% during the month preceding the survey.00 (US$14. 2 There were 75 new connections in 1995. 2) Increase sales. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality. Mission Statement “To supply water related services in the context of the total water cycle to meet community needs in an environmentally sound manner. The Waterboard is under government control only as far as tariff setting is concerned.42) UNMETERED Private Connection Public Standpipe Water Rates per Cubic Meter (K/m3) (US$/m3) Minimum 0.305 : US$7.52/house Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use. II.688 : K10.19% on the water bill.541 (US$/month) 2.753 Expenditure Per Connection : 100% national government : US$7. NCD. Billing and accounting is computerized. Its Lae District office is responsible for the water supply of Lae with a population of 90.PAPUA NEW GUINEA Water Utility Utility Profile THE WATERBOARD Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : P. .418 0. Consumers are billed monthly and pay at the utility office.326 : 269 : K11.30 m3 Above 30 m3 Non-Commercial /Government Minimum of K20.68) compared to the average monthly power bill of K95.148 : US$6.50/house Minimum 0.73/connection grant Tariff Structure (Effective January 1997) Category METERED Residential Minimum of K4. Major Changes in the Water Utility Not in the First Data Book. 3 There is a sewerage surcharge of 0.O. Benson Gegeyo. Papua New Guinea (675) 323 5700 (675) 323 6426 Mr.75 m3 per family.72 0. Boroko. supply and pressure. Box 2779. Overall consumer rating of the utility is fair (48%) to good (35%).15 m3 15 .92/house 2. About 81% drink water from the tap with the rest boiling or filtering their drinking water.924. It has a 5-year development plan covering the period 1997-2002. 2) Improve maintenance.10) payable in advance. As seen by Management 1) Reduce non-revenue water. The utility has a partly developed management information system.136.51).05/house 3.707 0. Priority Need of Utility I.519 0.00 (US$14.75 (K/month) 4.088.11 to 0.

951 61% 61% US$0. Other sources of water are tubewells and rain collectors.000 m Domestic 30% 62% 24 hours/day 146 l/c/d US$0.0 months 17.195.39 3. In 1995.000 m3/d 3.032. Institutional connections serve about 800 persons/connection. During the year.000 m 3 UFW 61% Other 7 15% 50 sq km Service Connections House (5 persons/HC) Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 3 4 2 2.097/m3 0.800 m3/d 100% Nil Chlorination 62. about 1.337.430 Nil ) ) 54 Nil 2. Other cost is for transport expenses.100 consumer complaints were registered. all 12 water samples tested bacteriologically passed the test.600 leaks were repaired and 24 meters replaced or tested in 1995.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Annual Water Billings US$3.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 LAE Domestic 9% Industrial/ Commercial 15% 33. About 1. .City Profile LAE WATER SUPPLY Population: 90. Other use and billing are for bulk supply to institutional connections.640/m3 Tap Other 7 35% Industrial/ Commercial 35% Per Capita Consumption 5 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.1 Other 4% 8 6 Personnel 8% Total area of responsibility of the utility in Lae is 200 sq km.693 209 Annual Water Use 3 12. Parts/ Materials 36% Power 52% Annual O&M Costs US$1.869 Data as of 1995.

6 to 9.34 240.783.3. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improved operation and maintenance. II. Staff salaries. However service coverage is still low at 23% (from 26%) while UFW remained constant at 38%.17 10.34 65.403.40 700. Staff per 1. It is responsible for water supply and sewerage of Cebu City and seven other surrounding towns and cities with a total population of 1.100 : US$15. although the original waterworks system started operating in 1911.00 5.24 (US$21.12 (US$14.00 26. Mission Statement General Data About Water Utility “We are committed to provide adequate.400 : US$16. The water district has relied more on internally generated reserves for its capital expenditures from 10% in 1991 to 29% in the last five years.33 3.72 1. Commercial and industrial consumers pay upon application.96/connection : 71% government loan. Because we are a public utility firm. tariffs and budget for development is under government influence. MCWD has a partly developed MIS and produces a glossy covered annual report (1995).27 140.233.91 3. 3 There were 5. full customer satisfaction is our index of success. 2 Tariffs are set to generate revenue to cover costs (O&M.987 P428. Discounts (5%) are given on current bills paid on or before due date. About 44% experienced water service interruption in the last month. revenue share.795.126.067.54 1. 4 There is no sewerage charge on the water bill.236. It is currently following its 1990-2005 development plan. Abanilla.369 532 P377. . it takes about 5 days for leaks to be repaired.330.14 355.16 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use.000 : US$14. The water bill averages P393. However. General Manager The Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) is a government corporation set up in 1974.77).59) for ½ inch connection payable over 12 months.42 30.374.000 connections ratio improved from 12. 2) Reliability and 24-hour supply. Dulce M. Average tariff increased by 79% while unit production cost increased by 53%. C. Burgos Streets.43 (Per cubic meter) Regular (P/m3) (US$/m3) (See service charge above) 9.953 P 99.” Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs 1 Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds 1 : : : : : : 57. only 23% of this population is currently served by MCWD. Briones .869 Expenditure Per Connection : US$65.000 people.760 : US$ 3.PHILIPPINES Water Utility Utility Profile METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : M.P. Priority Need of Utility I. Cebu City.20 0.52 0. The utility provides communal faucets for the urban poor with one faucet serving at least 25 households.325 P397. 29% internally generated reserves Includes interest expenses on loans Tariff Structure (Effective January 1996) SERVICE CHARGE Meter Size (Inches) ½ ¾ 1 1-1/2 2 3 4 6 COMMODITY CHARGE Consumption (m3) 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-up (For first 10 cubic meters or less) Regular (Peso) (US$) 86. potable and affordable water and an effective sewerage for Cebu. Philippines (63 32) 254-8434 to 39 (63 32) 254-5391 Ms.89 9. Consumers perceive water quality to be good with 88% drinking directly from the tap.293.36 11.109 new connections in 1995.55 6.738. Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly consumption is about 30 m3 per family. As seen by Management 1) Capital funding for large source development. administrative.948. Overall rating of the MCWD is good (87%).90) compared to the monthly power bill of P574.353. Consumers are billed monthly. Price of new connection is P2. debt-service) and to increase Fund Reserve. 2) Autonomy from government bureaucracy. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) The 37% increase in average daily production was accompanied by a 35% increase in service connections. capital outlay.100 (US$79. The private sector is involved in source development and major pipe rehabilitation.31 274.67 118.

City Profile
CEBU WATER SUPPLY
Population: 1,293,000 (1995)1
Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area
2

CEBU

UFW 38%

107,983 m3/d 99% 1% Chlorination 12,000 m3/d 29,270 m3 260 sq km
Industrial/ Commercial 16% Other 2%
7

Domestic 44%

Service Connections House (5.1 persons/HC) Public Tap (128 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water
3 4

53,072 165 3,912 219 1 57,369 ) )

Annual Water Use 3 39,413,795 m

Other 5%

7

Domestic 56%

23% 18 hours/day 173 l/c/d US$0.663/m3 Tap
Industrial/ Commercial 39%

Per Capita Consumption
5

Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1,000 Connections
Notes:
1 2 3

Annual Water Billings US$16,230,799
38% 38% US$0.225/m3 0.55 1.9 months 9.3
Other 8 20%

6

The population is for three cities and five municipalities. Total area of responsibility is 677 sq. km. About 47% of the population get water from wells and 30% from water vendors. Water vending price is P110/m3 (US$4.17/m3). Only 23% of consumers have 24-hour water supply; about 31,475 consumer complaints were registered in 1995. About 1,136 water samples out of 8,372 failed to pass the bacteriological test in 1995. In 1995, about 23,300 leaks were repaired and 18,026 meters were replaced or repaired. Other use and billing refer to institutional connections. Other costs include maintenance expenses, transport, personnel social benefits, etc. Power 18% Parts/ Materials 11%

Personnel 51%

4

5 6 7 8

Annual O&M Costs US$8,880,818

Data as of 1995 except connections (1996).

PHILIPPINES
Water Utility

Utility Profile

DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT
Address Telephone Fax Head : : : :

KM. 5, J. P. Laurel Avenue, Bajada, Davao City, Philippines (63 82) 221-1682 (63 82) 64-885 Wilfredo A. Carbonquillo, General Manager

The Davao City Water District (DCWD) is a government corporation organized in 1973 operating what used to be known as the Sales Waterworks System that dates back to 1921. The water district is responsible for water supply of Davao City which has a total population of 970,765. DCWD is responsible for water production, distribution and source development. Billing and collection is done by the private sector while tariff setting is under government control. DCWD is currently following their 1995-2010 development plan and has a well developed management information system. A glossy covered annual report (1995) is available to the public. The water district provides water to the urban poor through 3/8 inch connections which have lower minimum monthly charge. One free public tap is provided for each barangay (village) where it has a deep well source. Mission Statement “We pledge to supply clean and potable water for all daily requirements at the most reasonable cost. In our quest to do so, we vanguard the preservation of the forests and mountains, a posture to balance the harmony of nature in pace with development. We do deliver the best service and maintain a standard accepted in the industry and work harder to surpass every record. We believe in the need to do all these, for we have the best people in the world to serve, the people of Davao City.”

General Data About Water Utility

Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections 1 Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds
1

: : : : : :

96,994 604 P205,954,000 : US$7,806,019 P246,885,915 : US$9,357,410 P229,778,348 : US$8,709,003 P 34,531,842 : US$1,308,818 Expenditure Per Connection : US$13.49/connection : 45.6% internally generated reserves; 54.4% government loan

Collections include arrears from previous year

Tariff Structure

(Effective July 1992) MINIMUM CHARGE Meter Size (Inches) 3/8 ½ ¾ 1 1-1/2 2 4 COMMODITY CHARGE Consumption (m3) 11-20 21-30 31-40 Over 40 BULK CHARGE Residential & Government Commercial & Industrial (For first 10 cubic meters or less) (Peso) (US$) (Peso) (US$) 20.00 0.758 50.00 1.895 50.00 1.895 80.00 3.032 80.00 3.032 160.00 6.064 160.00 6.064 400.00 15.161 400.00 15.161 1,000.00 37.902 1,000.00 37.902 3,600.00 136.446 3,600.00 136.446 Residential & Government Commercial & Industrial (Per cubic meter in excess of 10 cubic meters) (Peso/m3) (US$/m3) (Peso/m3) (US$/m3) 5.25 0.199 5.25 0.199 6.80 0.258 6.80 0.258 9.00 0.341 9.00 0.341 12.00 0.455 15.00 0.569 Bulk charge per cubic meter is P17.00 (US$0.644)

Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use and are billed monthly. Consumers pay in selected banks or at the water utility office. 2 DCWD tariff structure aims for full cost recovery for O&M costs, debt service and reserves based on a target of 90% collection efficiency and 85% accounted-for-water. It also seeks to effect equitable cross-subsidies among income groups and among customer types. 3 Cost of new connection is P1,100 (US$41.69) for ½ ” connection payable over 12 months. There were 8,779 new connections in 1995. 4 There is no sewerage charge on the water bill.

Priority Need of Utility

I. As seen by Management 1) Rehabilitation of water system 2) Financing for expansion

II. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improved operation and maintenance 2) More water and increased pressure

Consumer Survey Findings

Each family consumes about 33 m3 and pays an average of P186.10 (US$7.05) per month compared to their average monthly power bill of P439.80 (US$16.67). About 77% claim to have 24-hour service; 58% consider water quality to be good with about 84% drinking water straight from the tap. 55% of the consumers experienced water interruption in the previous month; it takes less than 1-1/2 days for utility repairmen to fix reported leaks. Overall rating of the water utility is good (66%).

Major Changes in the Water Utility

Not in the First Data Book.

City Profile
DAVAO WATER SUPPLY
Population: 970,765 (1995)
Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area
2 1

DAVAO

128,204 m3/d 98% 2% Slow Sand Filter 2,816 m3/d 31,763 m3 200 sq km
Industrial/ Commercial 12% UFW 31% Domestic 57%

Service Connections House (5.5 persons/HC) Public Tap 3 Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water
4 5

91,708 ) ) 262 10 96,994 5,014

Annual Water Use 3 46,794,460 m

Domestic 74%

52% 24 hours/day 145 l/c/d US$0.271/m3 Tap
Industrial/ Commercial 26%

Per Capita Consumption
6

Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1,000 Connections
Notes:
1 2 3 4 5

Annual Water Billings US$8,709,003
31% 31% US$0.155/m3 0.83 0.5 months 6.2
Parts/ Materials 15% Personnel 50%

7

Other 8 12%

Capacity is for low sand filter for surface water. Chlorination only for ground water. Service area is only 9% of DCWD's area of responsibility of 2,211 sq km. There are 37 public taps but most are not functioning, hence, are not billed. Unserved residents rely on tubewells and rain collectors. About 99% of consumers have 24-hr supply. In 1995, about 12,488 consumer complaints were attended to. During the year, 191 water samples out of 4,104 failed the bacteriological tests. In 1995, 11,582 leaks were repaired, 4,650 meters replaced and 5,025 more were repaired. Other costs include transport and travel expenses, insurance and other administrative costs.

6 7 8

Power 23%

Annual O&M Costs US$7,241,259
Data as of 1995 except for staff and connections (August 1996).

PHILIPPINES
Water Utility

Utility Profile

METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM
Address Telephone Fax Head : : : :

Katipunan Road, Balara, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines (63 2) 920-5521 (63 2) 921-2887 Reynaldo B. Vea, Administrator

The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) until recently was a government corporation organized in 1971 from what used to be Manila’s waterworks authority that dates back to 1878. Starting August 1997, water distribution came under the control of two private corporations under separate 25-year concession agreements. The MWSS is responsible for 37 cities and municipalities in Metro Manila and adjoining areas of two provinces, with 10,610,000 people. The MWSS is currently following their 1993-1997 development plan and has a partly developed management information system. A glossy covered annual report (1994) is available to the public. MWSS provides water to the urban poor through public faucets in coordination with local governments. Mission Statement “To efficiently provide the people in the service area adequate supply of potable water and sanitary sewerage services at fair and affordable rates in a manner that ensures the conservation of the environment and the viability of the system as a worldclass model water supply and sewerage utility.”

General Data About Water Utility

Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds

: 779,380 : 7,628 : P1,697,860,000 : US$ 64,351,880 : P3,636,000,000 : US$137,863,047 : P3,786,000,000 : US$143,550,466 : P1,258,464,000 : US$ 47,716,084 Expenditure Per Connection : US$61.22/connection : 34% commercial loan; 25% internally generated reserves; 18% local bonds; 19% national government grant/equity; 4% external grants/loans

Tariff Structure

(Effective August 1996) Consumption First 10 m3 Next 10 m3 Next 20 m3 Next 20 m3 Next 20 m3 Next 20 m3 Next 50 m3 Next 50 m3 Over 200 m3 Consumption First 10 m3 Next 90 m3
. . .

Residential (Peso/conn.) (US$/conn.) 29.50 1.12 (Peso/m3) (US$/m3) 3.60 0.14 6.85 0.26 9.00 0.34 10.50 0.40 11.00 0.42 12.00 0.45 12.00 0.45 12.50 0.47 Business Group I 5 (Peso/conn.) (US$/conn.) 134.00 5.08 (Peso/m3) (US$/m3) 13.45 0.51
. . . . . .

Semi Business 5 (Peso/conn.) (US$/conn.) 49.50 1.88 (Peso/m3) (US$/m3) 6.05 0.23 7.45 0.28 9.45 0.36 11.00 0.42 11.50 0.44 12.00 0.45 12.50 0.47 13.00 0.49 Business Group II 5 (Peso/conn.) (US$/conn.) 145.00 5.50 (Peso/m3) (US$/m3) 14.60 0.55
. . . . . .

Next 500 m3 Over 10,000 m3

14.95 15.00

0.57 0.57

17.60 17.70

0.67 0.67

Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use except some house connections (2%) and public taps (30%). 2 Tariff setting aims to generate sufficient revenue to sustain operations, pay debt service and partially finance expansion that considers consumers’ capacity to pay. 3 All consumers are billed monthly. Sewerage charges equal to 60% of water bill are added for the sewered areas; unsewered areas are charged environmental charges equal to 10% of the water bill. 4 Cost of new connection starts at P2,500 (US$94.79) for 1” connection; fee can be paid all at the start or spread over 12 months. 5 Semi Business are small enterprise, Business Group I are mostly commercial, and Business Group II are mostly industrial connections.

Priority Need of Utility

I. As seen by Management 1) Rehabilitation of water system 2) Financing for expansion

II. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improved operation and maintenance 2) More water and increased pressure

Consumer Survey Findings

Each family consumes about 44 m3 and pays an average of P337.80 (US$12.81) per month compared to their average monthly power bill of P1,095 (US$41.52). About 73% claim to have 24-hour service; 42% consider water quality to be good with about 50% drinking water straight from the tap. One-fourth of the consumers experienced water interruption in the previous month; it takes about a week for utility repairmen to fix reported leaks. Overall rating of the water utility is fair (56%) or good (34%). In August 1997, two large Philippine corporations took over water distribution in the MWSS area of responsibility. Since 1990, water treatment capacity increased by 30%, production by 12% and the number of connections increased by 16%. Staff per 1000 connections ratio improved from 12.8 to 9.8.

Major Changes in the Water Utility (1990-1995)

976 47. consultants and resource persons. There were 31.922 meters were replaced or repaired in 1995. Parts/ Materials 9% Power 11% Personnel 59% 5 6 7 Other costs include sundry expenses like janitorial services.851 sq km.610. .063/m3 0. Most areas not served by MWSS depend on wells.6 persons/HC) Public Tap (357 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 3 4 719.022.City Profile MANILA WATER SUPPLY Population: 10. Approximately 58. About 50% of consumers receive 24-hour water supply.698 7.274 sq km UFW 6 58% 3 Domestic 29% Industrial/ Commercial 13% Service Connections House (5. communications.956 8 779. Given consumption data based on billed consumption.8 Other 7 21% 6 About 97% of production is metered.699.000.226 44% 58% US$0.65 6 months 9.518 leaks were repaired and 9.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 Annual Water Billings US$99.800. Annual O&M Costs US$64. honoraria.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2 1 MANILA 2.000 m3/d 352.864 1.232/m3 Tap Industrial/ Commercial 48% Per Capita Consumption 5 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.000 m /d 3% 97% Conventional 4.380 Annual Water Use 3 1.000 water samples taken in 1995. Of 3. etc.880 Data as of 1995.000 m Domestic 52% 67% 17 hours/day 202 l/c/d US$0.640 consumer complaints in 1995.000. The size of the utility's area of responsibility is 1. 84 failed the bacteriological tests. security.351. Difference between computed UFW of 58% and estimated 44% are losses due to illegal connections.878 1.000 m3 1.

07) for domestic use and S$0.000 : US$259.400 (US$350-US$980) for 28-54 mm. The water bill averages S$17.600. It also assumed a new role as regulator of the recently privatized (1995) electricity and gas industries which used to be part of PUB’s services since 1963.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : : : : : : 910. The PUB has a well developed management information system and it follows a rolling 10-year development plan.22/m3 (US$0. average tariff increase was only 10%. Of those interviewed. 32.17 1.24) compared to the monthly power bill of S$64. Water Department The Public Utilities Board (PUB) is a government authority which develops and manages water services for Singapore’s 3 million people through its Water Department. Although 69% consider water quality to be good.03). 2 PUB is required to ensure that its total revenues are sufficient to meet its total operating expenses.0. Only 4% experienced water service interruption in the last month.82 0.56 0. 83% boil their drinking water as a matter of habit and to make it safer.56 0.49 (US$12. A glossy covered annual report (1995) is available to the public. While unit production cost increased by 100%. II.865 S$222.6 m3 per family.905 S$ 76. 2) Demand management to keep consumption growth low.70/connection :100% internally generated reserves Tariff Structure (Effective March 1993) Category Domestic Consumption (m3/month) 1-20 20-40 Above 40 Flat Rate Flat Rate Rates (S$/m3) 0.005 new connections were installed.479 Expenditure Per Connection : US$58. Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly consumption is about 27. Billing and collection are performed by the Customer Accounts Division which has been privatized since 1995 under Power Supply Ltd.36 (US$45. As seen by Management 1) Secure adequate supply to meet long-term needs. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve cleanliness and reduce chlorine.17 2. Overall rating of the PUB is good (71%) to fair (29%). Capital expenditures were financed totally from internally generated reserves up from 77.456.000 : US$ 53.000 connections ratio further improved from 2.305.600.SINGAPORE Water Utility Utility Profile PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD (Water Department) Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 111 Somerset Road #15-01 Singapore 238164. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) Average daily production increased by 16% while the total connections increased by 14%. 3 In 1995. 3 4 The Ministry of Environment imposes a sewerage charge of S$0. Full metering has been practiced since before the 1970s. and to meet a reasonable proportion of the cost of developing the water supply services. Priority Need of Utility I. The PUB provides training facilities and courses in water supply operations.000 : US$259. Price for new connections range from S$500-S$1. .39 0. It also has to pay 20% of its net operating income to the government consolidated fund.305.400.905 S$370. UFW decreased from 8% to 6. Director.10/m (US$0.2%. Mission Statement “To provide an adequate and reliable supply of potable water at the most economic cost to sustain Singapore’s economic growth and prosperity.000.4 to 2. connections. 2) Reduce or lower rates.07 (US$/m3) 0. Tariffs and appointments to top management are under government control.15) for all other uses except shipping which has none. Republic of Singapore (65) 731-3500 (65) 235-9550 Chan Yoon Kum. including interest and depreciation.80 1.000 : US$155.5% five years ago.45 Non-domestic Shipping Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use and are billed monthly.691 1.654 S$370. 100% have 24-hour service.331. especially to professionals from developing countries.82 1. Staff/1.

of 18. support services. Ozone is used in two treatment plants.240.156 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional 2.0 Personnel 29% 4 All production is metered.654 Data as of 1995.553/m3 Boiled Other 5 12% Industrial/ Commercial 48% Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.905 6% 7% US$0.60 1.000 m3/d 1.000 m3 640 sq km Treatment Capacity Industrial/ Commercial 30% Service Connections House (3. Domestic meters are replaced once in 8 years while large meters are replaced once in 4 years.9 persons/HC) Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 5 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Per Capita Consumption Average Tariff Drinking Water 3 835. 13 samples failed the bacteriological tests.691 72.132 Annual Water Use 3 501.208 Nil ) ) 3.931.940 m Domestic 40% 100% 24 hours/day 183 l/c/d US$0. Other costs are depreciation.000. administration.309/m3 0.331.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Storage Service Area 2 1 SINGAPORE UFW 6% Other 5 20% Domestic 44% 1.000 meters replaced.143.654 water samples taken in 1995. Most consumers boil water before drinking as a matter of habit.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 Annual Water Billings US$259. property tax and maintenance.295 56 910.City Profile SINGAPORE WATER SUPPLY Population: 3. 976 leaks were repaired and about 100. Annual O&M Costs US$155. Other 6 55% Power 8% Parts/ Materials 7% Bulk Supply 1% 4 In 1995. .305.1 months 2.375. 5 6 Other includes use and billing for government and statutory boards and shipping.

335. Mission Statement “To provide safe.35 m3 Over 35 m3 Commercial MONTHLY STANDING CHARGE Water Rates (SI$/m3) (US$/m3) 0.329. A type-script 1994 annual report for government is available. is responsible for the water supply of Honiara.20 0. Unit production cost increased by 45% while average tariff went up by 29%. 21401 (677) 20723 Donald Makini. Perception of water quality is satisfactory (40%) to good (17%).426 SI$ 105. 55% externally-funded government grant Tariff Structure (Effective September 1995) Category MONTHLY CONSUMPTION Domestic 0 . a statutory body formed in February 1994. the capital of Solomon Islands with a population of 46.834 SI$3.354 US$1. average daily production increased by 36%.354 0. About 57% drink water from the tap while the rest either boil or filter their drinking water. SIWA has a partly developed management information system. II. Consumers are billed monthly and pay at banks or at the utility office.177 0. The percentage of groundwater of the total production increased from 9% to 28%.96) for ¾” meter connections payable in advance. Operating ratio improved from 1. Works and Utilities since 1985.34) for ½” meter and SI$400 (US$108. The private sector is involved in source development and management.54 to 1.09 m3. Overall rating of the utility ranges from fair (54%) to good (21%).481 : US$1. The utility itself was changed from a government department to an authority with more autonomy in its operations. The utility’s current development plan covers the period 1996-2016.608 : US$ 924. General Manager The Solomon Islands Water Authority (SIWA).30 1.84).163 66 SI$4. UFW was reduced significantly from 55% to 38%. 2 Tariffs set aims to make SIWA commercially viable with a financial system that is accountable and transparent. AusAid is providing staff training. Government exercises control only on tariffs.881. .44) compared to the monthly power bill of SI$83. This responsibility used to be with the Water Unit under the Ministry of Transport. SIWA is currently operating three other systems in 3 out of 9 provinces excluding Guadalcanal Province where Honiara is located.69 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use. Honiara. Monthly water bill averages SI$45.86 (US$22. 4 The water bill has a 50% sewerage surcharge. Approximately 80% said they experienced water interruption in the month preceding the survey.139 SI$4. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Reliable water supply and new water source. sustainable and reliable water and wastewater services to Solomon Islands urban areas.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : : : : : : 6. Box 1407.65 1. About 48% of the consumers claimed to have 24-hour water supply.392.931.SOLOMON ISLANDS Water Utility Utility Profile SOLOMON ISLANDS WATER AUTHORITY Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : P. Solomon Islands (677) 23985. 3 There were 450 new connections in 1995. As seen by Management 1) Institutional strengthening. Repair of leaks reported to the utility takes about 10 days to be made.30 SI$6. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) For Honiara Water Supply.68 (US$12. 2) Improve water quality. Price of new connection is SI$350 (US$95. Consumer Survey Findings The average monthly water consumption per family is 61.952 : US$1. 2) Infrastructure development.747 Expenditure Per Connection : US$4.26.O.532 : US$ 28. Priority Need of Utility I. It has a computerized billing system.66/connection : 45% national government grant.902.

about 3.26 5.7 Honiara Water Supply is responsible for the Honiara Town Area of 41 sq km.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 Annual Water Billings US$910.130 m3/d 28% 72% Chlorination 27.084 leaks were repaired and 98 meters were replaced in 1996. Approximately 90% of consumers have 24-hour water supply.116/m3 1. Other 7 23% Parts/ Materials 33% 3 4 5 6 7 Annual O&M Costs US$1.704 Other 6 10% Annual Water Use 3 9.902.148. About 1.534 38% 38% US$0. During the year.585 762 ) ) 26 5.City Profile HONIARA WATER SUPPLY Population: 46. This ratio is for the entire SIWA.148/m3 Tap Industrial/ Commercial 31% Per Capita Consumption 3 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.931 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 HONIARA UFW 38% 27.450 m 331 Domestic 59% 23 hours/day 251 l/c/d US$0.170 m3 38 sq km Other 3% 6 Domestic 43% Industrial/ Commercial 16% Service Connections House (7 persons/HC) Public Tap (20 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 100% 2 4. Other use and billing refer to institutional connections.130 m3/d 3. Other costs include maintenance equipment rental and compensation to landowners where groundwater is extracted.062 Data as of 1995 except leak repairs (1996).576 complaints were registered. about 91 water samples out of 477 tested failed the bacteriological tests. .4 months 5 4 Power 24% Personnel 20% 10. In 1995.

80 9. The private sector is involved in source development.02) for 12 mm to 20mm diameter connections payable in advance.084 ` Notes: 1 Most consumers pay on metered use with 97% of house.082 0.75 1. the rest either boil or filter water.128.10 m3 10 . . the utility office or authorized collection centers. Overall rating of the utility in Greater Colombo is fair (93%).232 new connections in 1995. P. The average tariff increased by 13% while the unit production cost went up by 96%. vehicle and equipment repair and maintenance.000.205 0.00 0.50 m3 Over 50 m3 Standposts UNMETERED Flat Rate (monthly) Domestic Non-Domestic Category Non-Domestic Gov’t.428 1.370 3. It is a national authority tasked with handling and managing Sri Lanka’s water supply.SRI LANKA Water Utility Utility Profile NATIONAL WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Galle Road. Water availability also increased from 12 to 22 hours/day. staff.57 25.20 m3 20 . and financial performance was produced for government.500.00 1. NWSDB is currently following its 1996-2000 Development Plan. Priority Need of Utility I.53.175.30 m3 30 .2 to 3.00 SLRS/m3 US$ 2. II. The utility has a partly developed management information system.4 m3.500. Its billing and accounting systems are computerized. About 31% experienced service interruption in the month preceding the survey.40 4. drainage and sewerage where local authorities are unable to do so.000 : US$26. Operating ratio went up from 0. and security services.30 4. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) For Greater Colombo.000. 637 178 Mr.013 0. Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly water consumption in Greater Colombo is 20.022 0. the average daily production increased by 39% and treatment capacity also went up by 67%. R. M.400 (US$92.030 22.00 25.10 0.00 80.68 US$/m3 0. As seen by Management 1) Unaccounted-for-water reduction. About 85% claim to enjoy 24-hour service.34 US$/m3 SLRs 150.00 27. To be a supporting agency in providing on-site sanitation. 2) Autonomy in management functions. Consumers are billed monthly and pay at banks.462 0. tariff. Government exercises control on number and salaries of staff. General Manager The National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWSDB) is a government corporation formed in 1975.377 0. Monthly water bill averages SLRs46.00 22. Cost of new connection ranges from SLRs5. Sri Lanka (94-1) 635 281.93).630 : SLRs1.161 0.26 to 0.457.000 : US$45. Leak repairs take about 3 days to be made.75 0.40 12.428 0. Institutions Commercial Tourist Hotels Industries Shipping Bulk Billing Without Electricity With Electricity SLRs 6.40 m3 40 . Mission Statement General Data About Water Utility “To be the premier organization in providing safe drinking water and sewerage facilities.534 Expenditure Per Connection : US$142.2 months. A glossy covered 1995 annual report with key facts and figures. Water quality is perceived to be satisfactory (87%) to good (12%).47) to SLRs6.3.425 : SLRs1. Consumers’ Opinion 1) More water and increased pressure.00 1.00 SLRS/m3 US$ 0. 43% national government grant Tariff Structure (Effective 1994) Service Charge (monthly) Domestic Non-Domestic METERED Category Domestic & Religious Institutions 0 . and budget for development. organization. The distinction between UFW (35%) and NRW (51%) more accurately reflects the water losses.2 to 7. 2 Tariff setting aims to recover O&M costs and debt service or depreciation whichever is higher. To be a facilitating and monitoring agent in collaboration with other related institutions.90 0. Staff/1. 635 247 (94-1) 636 449.000. appointment of staff and top management. About 45% drink water from the tap. Pathiraja.000 : US$24. Total connections in Greater Colombo increased by 25%.01/connection : 57% externally-funded government grant. Ratmalana. 4 Sewerage charge is not included in the water bill.542. corporate plan.404. and 92% of institutional connections metered. 3 There were 32. 2) Quick repairs.681. billing and collection.000 : US$20.60 (US$6.79) compared to the monthly power bill of SLRs404.250 (US$107. payroll preparation. Accounts receivable improved from 10. industrial and commercial connections.40 (US$0. water supply operations.555 : SLRs1.058 0.948.00 25.” Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 323.907.000 connections improved from 9.00 20.259 : 7.377 0.110 : SLRs2.

095.258 167.City Profile COLOMBO WATER SUPPLY Population: 2.050/m3 0.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Annual Water Billings US$17.2 months 7. Total area of responsibility in Greater Colombo is 730 sq km.200 consumer complaints were attended to. A large part of the difference between NRW and UFW are the unbilled consumption from standposts and tenement garden taps.753 1.3 Other 14% 6 7 Personnel 32% About 90% of total production is metered. Parts/ Materials 12% 8 9 Power 42% Annual O&M Costs US$9.216 Annual Water Use 3 182.000 m3/d 228.730 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional 600.564 1.047.000 leaks were repaired and 1.453 551 12.000 m3 110 sq km Other 11% Industrial/ Commercial 8% UFW 35% Service Connections House (6 persons/HC) Public Tap (150 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 3 4 145.450 m Domestic 24% 58% 22 hours/day 165 l/c/d US$0.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2 1 COLOMBO Domestic 46% 499.637 5. about 6. In 1995.800. . During the year.53 3.945 Data as of 1995.401. shipping and hotels.203 failed the bacteriological tests during the year.4. about 25.719 35% 51% US$0.500 meters replaced or repaired. People also use tubewells and dug wells. Other use/billing is mostly for government institutions.144/m3 Boiled Other 8 42% Industrial/ Commercial 34% Per Capita Consumption 5 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1. Approximately 655 water samples out of 6. The ratio for the utility is 23.

836 66. pumping and treatment systems are computerized.000 : US$ 79.5%).2). It published a glossy covered annual report for 1995.2001) costing NT$21.525 : US$146.638 130.274.65) compared to the average monthly power bill of NT$1.1 from 1.999. personnel.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 1.3 to 1.70) for a stainless steel pipe connection payable in advance. tariff.54 (US$7. 3 In 1995.45 50 680 24.503.508 : NT$2. appointment of top management.180 : 1. Price of new connection is NT$30.687 : US$147. Monthly water bill averages NT$212.00 5.7 months.China (886-2) 735 2141 (886-2) 735 3185 Lin.545 new connections installed.098 363.200.46 75 1.590 1. Accounts receivable went up from 0. TWD is following the Taipei Regional Water Supply Project with a first phase (1992.8% government loan Tariff Structure (Effective March 1994) Minimum Water Fee Per Month Meter Size NT$ US$ (mm) 13 17 0. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) Major changes in Taipei Water Supply are in average daily production and treatment capacity which went up by 48% and 33%. materials control. UFW (up from 24% to 26%) and staff/1. 2) Stable and reliable water quality.25).20 5.5%) to fair (42. collection and leak repair.50 (US$42. The private sector is involved in billing. all respondents either boil or filter their drinking water. .000 (US$1. The tariff structure changed in 1994 when TWD did away with consumer classification and now has a single tariff structure for all consumers.187 0. Operating ratio increased slightly from 0.60 0.210. there were 32.465 : NT$4.24 200 20.597 Expenditure Per Connection : US$61.000 (US$1.086.20 21 .079. Wen-Yuan. Overall rating of TWD is good (42.060 721.314. The government exercises control on the number and salaries of staff. Commissioner The Taipei Water Department (TWD).162.289.801.273 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use. Leak repairs take less than 2 days to be made after being reported to the utility. 18.9 billion and a second phase (2002-2111).277.000 Over 1.1.884.0% commercial loan. Only 4% said that they experienced any water interruption during the month preceding the survey.70 6.000 connections ratio (improved to 1.64 in 1990 to 0.2% internally generated reserves 10. respectively.298. a government enterprise formed in 1907.180 0. There is also a 63% environmental surcharge in the water bill.000 5.50 7.61 20 68 2. is responsible for the water supply of Taipei and suburban areas serving about 3.TAIPEI.234 0.39 Over 250 55. 2 Tariffs set are meant to recover all costs and to earn a reasonable profit.428 1.12 m3.200 201 .53 40 374 13.174. Mission Statement “Sufficient quantity. 4 Sewerage surcharge is 4 . Consumers are billed every 2 months and pay at post offices.60 61 .69.618.64 Water Rates per Cubic Meter (NT$/m3) Consumption (US$/m3) (m3) 1 .14) for a PVC pipe connection and NT$45. However. satisfactory service at reasonable rates.CHINA Water Utility Utility Profile TAIPEI WATER DEPARTMENT Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 131 Changxing Street.507 : NT$5.44 25 126 4. II. Water quality is perceived to be satisfactory (88%).989.58 250 35.153 people. The utility has a well developed management information system. All respondents said they have 24-hour water supply. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Leak prevention and repair. Taipei.5%). There were very slight changes in number of service connections (down by 1.86 150 10. TWD buys raw water from Feitsui Reservoir but is responsible for treatment and distribution. Average tariff increased by 78% while unit production cost went up by 216%. accounting.04 100 3.094.205 0.156 : NT$4. Priority Need of Utility I. banks and the utility office.121 : US$211. As seen by Management 1) Sufficient water supply.67/connection : 71.660. and budget for development. 2) Better water quality. excellent quality.20% of the water bill. Consumer Survey Findings The average monthly water consumption per family is 26. Its billing.

In 1995. TWD stopped classifying connections in 1996. 41 water samples out of 4. About 30.660.801.709 cu. 99% 24 hours/day 262 l/c/d US$0.000 m3 190 sq km UFW 26% Service Connections Annual Water Use House (3. Other costs include interests.000. Other 8 38% Bulk Supply 8% Power 6% Parts/ Materials 9% Annual O&M Costs US$146.388/m3 Boiled Per Capita Consumption 6 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.156 Data as of 1995. about 390 consumer complaints were registered.049 meters were replaced or repaired during the year.343 731.003.7 months 1. During the year.28 persons/HC) Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total 3 ------------1./day.508 26% 37% US$0.353.153 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2 1 TAIPEI Total Consumption 74% 2.69 1. maintenance and rent.785 m3 Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 4 5 No connection classification. m.989.1 3 Personnel 39% Actual daily production in 1995 was 2.000 m3/d Nil 100% Conventional 3. Total area of responsibility is 400 sq km.000 m3/d 210.City Profile TAIPEI WATER SUPPLY Population: 3. . depreciation. Other residents in area of responsibility rely on mountain springs.171.623 leaks were repaired and 44.201/m3 0.960 tested failed the bacteriological tests.740.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 Annual Water Billings US$211.

Customers are billed monthly and pay at banks.420.001-30.028 Vol -m3 Rates for first 200 m3 same as Commercial.393 91-100 81-100 10.1 to 2 months.000 2. Accounts receivable improved from 3.000 30.516.00 (US$37.369 0.640 : US$243.99 0. automated teller machines or to bill collectors. The average monthly water bill is B257.000 40. Staff salaries.69 0.736 : B 5.01 0. Bangkok 10210. the utility offices.404 COMMERCIAL/Government Vol -m3 0-10 (B/m3) Package 50. As seen by Management 1) Reduction of unaccounted water. Water bill has no sewerage surcharge.367 71-80 51-60 9.32 8.001-20. 30% commercial loan Tariff Structure (Effective October 1995) RESIDENTIAL Vol .338 0.31 0.262 51-60 31-40 8.6 m3 per family.001-40.45 7.237 0. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) Average daily production increased by 34% while treatment capacity increased by 250% as a result of the increase in the average annual capital investment from B1.000 6. payroll.92 10.300. Governor The Metropolitan Waterworks Authority (MWA) is a government enterprise set up in August 1967 which is responsible for the water supply of Bangkok and two nearby provinces with a total population of 7.30 9.50 (US$/m3) See Comm’l 0.661 : B 7.1 billion to B10 billion.66 0.419 121-160 121-160 10.000 cu m/day to serve 14.95 (US$/m3) 0. Average tariff increased by 25% and unit production cost went up by 135%. Its Billing.001-4.446 Over 200 Over 200 11.6.364 0.000 10.53 5.422 0. Thailand (66-2) 504 0123 (66-2) 503 9493 Mrs. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality.990.34 0.08) for ½” to 1” diameter connections payable in advance.000. 2) Service area expansion. MWA is currently following their 1996-2001 Development Plan which is part of the updated Master Plan (1987-2017) with 8 future investment projects each aiming to increase production capacity by 400.000. About 80% said they have 24-hour water supply.837. UFW increased to 38% from 31%. Don Muang District. Perception of water quality among those surveyed is satisfactory (72%) to good (17%).771.380 81-90 61-80 9.343 0. Priority Need of Utility I. A glossy covered annual report for 1995 is available. pumping and treatment systems and MIS are all computerized.001-6.547 new connections in 1995. Mission Statement No Mission Statement.942.83 8. 3 There were 66.000 Over 50.432 161-200 161-200 10. The urban poor are provided with house connections with payment of connection fees spread over 12 months.351 0. 2) Improve water pressure. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 1.251 0.75 9.162 0.716 : B 6. It takes about a week before repairs on reported leaks are completed.18 10.000 : US$405.40 9.15 6.380 : 5.251 41-50 21-30 6. 2 MWA sets tariffs that will cover the utility’s costs while considering customers’ affordability. 201-2.65 8. II.00 (US$/m3) Package 2.811 minimum 0.353 61-70 41-50 9.98) to B10.019.377 0. Chuanpit Dhamasiri.THAILAND Water Utility Utility Profile METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AUTHORITY Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 18/137 Prachachuen Road.00 8. Investments are now funded from internally generated reserves and commercial loans without foreign loans which was 48% of total funding in 1991. Cost of new connection ranges from B7.85 6. About 80% boil or filter their water before drinking. There are about 58% who complain of low water pressure on their taps. Overall rating of MWA by the respondents range from fair (74%) to good (15%).00 with B20 minimum 5.000 20.000 (US$283.637 : B10. About 43% claim to have experienced service interruption in the month preceding the survey.000 4. .958 : US$304.50 6. However.241.001-10.000 INDUSTRIAL (B/m3) See Comm’l 11.679.000 people.325 0. Staff/1.80 7.18 6.443 0.000 : US$274. Total number of connections increased by 21% with the service coverage reaching 82% from 79% in 1991.700 (US$434.80/connection : 70% internally generated reserves.04 0.434.000 connections also improved from 5. The MWA has a partly developed management information system (MIS).396 0.60 (US$10.1 million people or 91% of the people in its area of responsibility. The private sector is involved in water production for the waterworks system that dates back to 1914.277 0.264 0.36 0.71 0.77).290 0.5 to 4.001-50.45) compared to the monthly power bill of B931.20 0.454 0.702. tariffs and budget for development are under government control.97 9.264 31-40 11-20 6.459 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use.406 101-120 101-120 10.513 Expenditure Per Connection : US$326.45 0. accounting.m3 0-30 (B/m3) 4. Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly water consumption is 34.316 0.10 8.224 0.

In 1996.657 m3/d 510.405. Annual O&M Costs US$243. MWA attended to 18.313/m3 Boiled/Filtered Industrial/ Commercial 59% 6 Per Capita Consumption 4 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.849.080 sq km.078 7. depreciation and interest payments.039 1.805 leaks repaired and 121.748 38% 38% US$0.199.648 consumer complaints.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Annual Water Billings US$272. There were 119.380 Annual Water Use 3 1.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 BANGKOK Domestic 32% 3.241.6 Power 10% 5 Personnel 31% Total area of responsibility is 3. Other costs include loan amortization.019.661 .663 tested in 1995 failed the bacteriological tests. Industrial/commercial use and billing include those for institutional connections.City Profile BANGKOK WATER SUPPLY Population: 7.000 m3 893 sq km Industrial/ Commercial 30% 6 UFW 38% Service Connections House (5 persons/HC) Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 2 3 917.558 meters replaced or repaired in 1996.267. Other sources include wells.579 1.995 m Domestic 41% 82% 24 hours/day 265 l/c/d US$0.173/m3 0. Other 7 45% Parts/ Materials 14% Data as of 1994-1995 except for leaks.662. complaints and meters replaced or repaired (1996).89 2 months 4. About 276 water samples out of 7.527 Nil 157 315.300. ponds and rainwater.863 m3/d 5% 95% Conventional 3.

547 : B2.00 6.218. the average monthly water consumption per family is 26.75 16.50 8.294 0.75 17.345 0.243 0.436 0.001-40.343 31-40 8.422 0-10 5.353 161-200 10.742 : 6.385 0.396 11-20 6.694 : US$128.001-10. 25% local bonds General Data About Water Utility Tariff Structure (Effective March 1993 .00 10.25 10.217 0. Accounts receivable was largely reduced from 22.922.629 INDUSTRIAL (Inside Industrial Estate) Vol (m3) B/m3 US$/m3 Vol (m3) B/m3 US$/m3 Vol (m3) B/m3 US$/m3 Min.365 0.001 Baht/ m3 15.66 0.000 7.651 : B3.286.000 : US$165.025 (US$1.000 7.507 0.598 0.16 m3.69 0.00 US$/ m3 1. Consumer Survey Findings In Chiangmai. About 50% thinks the water pressure is low.00 US$/ m3 0. Donmuang.00 7. More than half (55%) perceived water quality to be poor with only 4% drinking water from the tap without boiling or filtering.Chiangmai) Volume Residence & Others m3/month Minimum 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-50 51-80 81-100 101-300 301-1.00 5.365 0.00110.001 6.00 12.406 0.75 16. Thailand (66-2) 551 1020 (66-2) 552 1547 Mr.426 0.000 11.680 0.40 0. 2 Tariffs set are to reflect real cost in each locality to ensure that PWA has sufficient revenue to cover its expenditures.14/connection : 42% internally generated reserves. 7% commercial loan 26% national government grant.39 (US$5. Operating ratio improved from 0. 3 There were 2.001-6.50 10. Priority Need of Utility I.436 0. like Chonburi.264 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use.75 4. distribute water throughout the country. commercial loans and government grant.380 2. Consumers are billed monthly and pay at banks.10 0.49.001-20.” Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 1.00 9.71 0. The Chiangmai Water Supply is under the PWA Regional Office No.2 months.50 10. Hence.050 (US$83. A glossy covered annual report for 1994 is available. seek sources of water and acquire water for treatment.000 1.720 0.50 10.000 Over 3.443 Over 50.01 0. appointment of top management.000 10.50 6. Government exercises control on staff salaries.75 11.001-3.068.92 0.422. 50. which manages the water supply of about 223 local water utilities throughout Thailand outside Bangkok. deliver.152 0.000 9.75 14.000 2.262 121-160 10.546 Expenditure Per Connection : US$138.393 4.16) to B30.THAILAND Water Utility Utility Profile PROVINCIAL WATERWORKS AUTHORITY Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 72 Chaengwattana 1 Road. waterworks in some areas.028 61-80 9. Thanya Harnpol.000.00 9.) . to produce. except for the Bangkok Metropolitan area and Samut Prakan Province. (For more utility changes. 2) Improve water quality.416 0.001-30.001-50.316 41-50 9. The billing and accounting systems are computerized.369 21-30 6.50 9.001-2.183 0.50 US$/ m3 2. production. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) Coverage increased to 65% from 39% in Chiangmai.590 : B4.847 : US$121.264 0. have tariff structure different from others.99 0.50 13.666 new connections in 1995 in Chiangmai.512. the utility offices or to bill collectors.406 6. The utility has a partly developed management information system.047.028 0.364.00 10. local bonds is a new source of capital investment funds although it still relies on internally generated reserves.558 0.284 0.04 0. Monthly water bill averages B132.9 which is responsible for 24 other waterworks.406 0.00 7.50 10.50 0. leak repair.252 101-120 10.25 10.454 40.000 8.00 3.20 0. and budgets for O&M and development. Unit production cost also went down by 54%.446 Government Agencies Baht/ m3 30. Mission Statement “To conduct surveys. Overall rating of the utility in Chiangmai is fair(76%).05) for ½ “ to 6” diameter connections payable in advance.75 16.416 0. 4 There is no sewerage charge since sewerage is not PWA’s responsibility.191. Cost of new connection ranges from B2. see discussions in the Chonburi profile. Only 12% of those surveyed had service interruption in the month preceding the survey and it takes less than two days for reported leaks to be repaired.36 0.718. Governor The Provincial Waterworks Authority (PWA) is a government corporation set up in 1979. 2) Human resources management.345 0.74 down to 0.194.37) compared to the average monthly power bill of B488.385 0.446 Industrial (Outside) Baht/ m3 50.15 0.365 0.609 0.18 0.657 : B3. As seen by Management 1) Funds for improvement and expansion of waterworks systems.45 0.75 11.50 15.00 6.290 51-60 9. The private sector is involved in billing and collection.45 0.243 0.419 10. For PWA. Bangkok 10210.159.446 30.432 20.00 2. About 74% said they have 24-hour water supply.83). II.203 81-100 10. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Higher water pressure. Average tariff decreased by 36% in 1991 with billings including large arrears.367 201-2. and.203 0.80 0.34 0.00 9. to undertake other business related to the water supply business.995.3 months to 1.83 (US$19.75 0. tariff.905 : US$121.669 0.25 8. PWA is currently following its 1997-2001 Development Plan. security and cleanliness.50 9.00 0.000 9.680 0.426 0.

758 meters were replaced or repaired.5 persons/HC) Public Tap 1 Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 2 3 28. about 4.299/m3 Filtered Other 7 21% Industrial/ Commercial 33% Per Capita Consumption 4 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1. 8 . Power 25% Annual O&M Costs US$1.500 m Domestic 46% 65% 20 hours/day 135 l/c/d US$0.5.City Profile CHIANGMAI WATER SUPPLY Population: 195.096/m3 0. Other use and billing refer to institutional connections. In 1994-1995.643 Data as of 1994-1995.49 6 7 5 Other 1% Parts/ Materials 19% Personnel 55% 1.760 m3/d 16.2 months 5.069 Annual Water Use 3 16. 13 water samples out of 127 tested failed the bacteriological tests.430 35% 38% US$0.335 295 Nil 35.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Annual Water Billings US$3.631.972.500 m3/d 5% 95% Chlorination/Rapid Sand Filter 53. Ratio for the entire PWA is 5. O&M costs do not include loan amortization.5 This is where water used for construction and for fire fighting are drawn by water tankers. interest and depreciation.100 m3 92 sq km Other 7 12% UFW 35% CHIANGMAI Domestic 37% Industrial/ Commercial 16% Service Connections House (4. About 70% of consumers get 24-hour water supply.177 1 3.261 3. Other sources are wells and rainwater.316.600 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 46.013 leaks were repaired and 1. During the year.

00 0. and budgets for O&M and development.25 13.01m3 per family.75 0.00 18.507 0.254 0.487 0.847 : US$121.00 US$/ m3 2.001 Baht/ m3 25.00 0.25 0. The Chonburi Water Supply is under the PWA Regional Office No. 7% commercial loan 26% national government grant: 25% local bonds General Data About Water Utility Tariff Structure (Effective February 1995 .345 0. PWA is currently following its 1997-2001 Development Plan. About 55% boil.50 12.781 0.68 (US$7.364. Bangkok 10210.50 12.840 0.000 Over 3.05) for ½ “ to 6” diameter connections payable in advance.000 13.507 6.335 101-120 13.001-4.547 B2. Local bonds is a new source of capital investment funds.396 0.548 Over 50.191.507 0.00 6. 75.822 0.590 B4.467 0. the total connections increased by 58% while the staff increased by only 12.781 0.Chonburi) Volume Residence & Others m3/month Minimum 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-50 51-80 81-100 101-300 301-1.75 13.826 0. and.75 0.922. the utility offices or to bill collectors.771 0.527 10.27 19. leak repair. II.345 0. average water availability is 13 hours/day. About 33% had service interruption the month preceding the survey.538 20.527 0.218. except for the Bangkok Metropolitan area and Samut Prakan Province.00 0.467 0. Priority Need of Utility I.25 7.487 0.025 (US$1.50 0. commercial loans and government grant.5% improving the staff/1.043 61-80 12.995.446 31-40 11.000 11.00 8.000 13. deliver.527 0-10 7. waterworks in some areas.25 19.00 12.651 B3.50 8. Annual O&M costs increased by 115% while annual collections went up by 65%.467 201-2. seek sources of water and acquire water for treatment. Major Changes in the Water Utility For PWA.014 0.000 : US$165.00 9.25 0. filter or do both to their drinking water.75 11.25 0.25 0.000 2.718.385 0. The private sector is involved in billing and collection.905 : US$121. It takes about 4 days for leak repairs to be made.000 12.” Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : : : : : : 1.50 US$/ m3 1.25 17.284 0.517 0.00 12.1 which is responsible for 16 other waterworks.609 0.00 7.304 81-100 12. Governor The Provincial Waterworks Authority (PWA) is a government corporation set up in 1979. About 47% claimed 24-hour water supply.50 15.75 0.050 (US$83.657 B3.00 0. production. Consumers are billed monthly and pay at banks. Thailand (66-2) 551 1020 (66-2) 552 1547 Mr.50 0. security and cleanliness.742 6.446 0.286.548 Industrial (Outside) Baht/ m3 70.001 9.00 0.50 11. the average monthly water consumption is 19.000 9.365 0. 3 There were 3.000. The monthly water bill averages B179.001-10.538 0. The level of annual capital expenditure also increased by 195%. Mission Statement “To conduct surveys. like Chonburi. Consumer Survey Findings For Chonburi. 2) Human resources management. Thanya Harnpol.512. Perception of water quality ranges from good (31%) to satisfactory (24%).365 121-160 13. Government exercises control on staff salaries.047.00 0.87).50 0.41 (US$26. The billing and accounting systems are computerized.659 0. .487 2.001-30. 2 Tariffs set are to reflect real cost in each locality to ensure that PWA has sufficient revenue to cover its expenditures.548 Government Agencies Baht/ m3 45. Donmuang. Overall utility rating is fair (63%).00 11. The utility has a partly developed management information system. although PWA still relies on internally generated reserves.001-2.5.477 21-30 9.194.426 41-50 11.29) compared to the monthly power bill of B662.50 US$/ m3 1. to undertake other business related to the water supply business.50 9.068.001-50.001-6. Cost of new connection ranges from B2. have tariff structure different from others. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Higher water pressure.701 0.16) to B30. As seen by Management 1) Funds for improvement and expansion of waterworks systems.50 0.THAILAND Water Utility Utility Profile PROVINCIAL WATERWORKS AUTHORITY Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 72 Chaengwattana 1 Road.00 11.304 0.25 19. which manages the water supply of about 223 local water utilities throughout Thailand outside Bangkok.446 0.159.805 new connections in 1995 in Chonburi.001-40.50 0.396 51-60 12.000 10.527 0.7 to 5.00 11.000 connections from 7.00 13.25 20. 4 There is no sewerage charge since sewerage is not PWA’s responsibility. tariff.000 11.546 Expenditure Per Connection : US$138.001-3.50 12.694 : US$128. More than half (53%) said water pressure is low.000 13.14/connection : 42% internally generated reserves. 2) Improve water quality.75 13.538 0.001-20.00 13.25 13.517 0.00 16.467 0.25 0.497 4.548 30.00 3.365 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use. Hence.730 INDUSTRIAL (Inside Industrial Estate) Vol (m3) B/m3 US$/m3 Vol (m3) B/m3 US$/m3 Vol (m3) B/m3 US$/m3 Min.50 12.456 161-200 13. A glossy covered annual report for 1994 is available.558 40. distribute water throughout the country.422.000 1.50 9. to produce.50 0. appointment of top management.497 11-20 8.

461/m3 Boiled/Filtered Other 7 27% Industrial/ Commercial 32% Per Capita Consumption 4 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1. During the year. two water samples out of 12 tested failed the bacteriological tests.021 leaks were repaired and 551 meters were replaced or repaired. Only 50% of consumers get 24-hour water supply.016 Annual Water Use 3 29.747.126 Nil 47.098/m3 0. .661 Data as of 1994-1995.500 m3/d Nil 100% Chlorination/Rapid Sand Filter 96. Other use and billing refer to institutional connections. Estimate given by water utility. Other sources are tubewells and rain water.5.580.6 months 6 5 Personnel 8% Other 1% Power 32% 5.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 Annual Water Billings US$8.910.458 consumer complaints were registered in 1995.000 m3/d 39.000 m3 75 sq km Other 17% 7 CHONBURI UFW 37% Domestic 32% Industrial/ Commercial 14% Service Connections House (4. Ratio for the entire PWA is 5.City Profile CHONBURI WATER SUPPLY Population: 224. about 4.700 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 81.5 This is where water used for construction and for fire fighting are drawn by water tankers.841 1 30 3.500 m Domestic 41% 89% 16 hours/day 145 l/c/d US$0. In 1994-95.5 persons/HC) Public Tap 1 Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 2 3 39.133 37% 38% US$0.34 1.018 4. Bulk Supply 47% Parts/ Materials 12% 4 5 6 7 Annual O&M Costs US$2. About 1.

3 About 50 new connections were installed in 1995. .12/m3 (US$0. quality driven and humane employees to secure a sustainable ”commercial” future of the Tonga Water Board.11) for consumption of less than 1. Helu. Leak repairs take an average of 6 days.500 people. Nuku’alofa. Approximately 37% experienced service interruption in the month preceding the survey and 42% complained of low pressure. is responsible for water supply throughout the Kingdom of Tonga. Consumer Survey Findings The average monthly water consumption is 21. About 57% claimed to have 24-hour water supply.342 Expenditure Per Connection : US$17. Manager TONGA WATER BOARD Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : The Tonga Water Board (TWB).453 : 135 : T$1.398 : T$ 984. Its accounting system is computerized. average tariff increased by 32% while unit production cost went up by 5%. Monthly water bill averages T$16.018 : US$148.197 : US$847. Poor consumers may pay over a period of 12 months.001 .55/connection : 78% internally generated reserves.22).528 0.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 8.10 (US$4.8 to 1. Overall rating of the utility is fair (45%) to good (36%). Accounts receivable improved from 3.660 0. About 70% drink water from the tap with many of them also boiling their water.770 0. II. 2) Efficient work performance.532 0.5 months. It no longer gets contributions from consumers and it is now using commercial and government loans for funding capital improvements. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) For Nuku’alofa.000 (T$/1.000 5.21) payable in advance.000 Over 10. Tonga (676) 23299 (676) 23518 Saimone P.621 0. Priority Need of Utility I.00 Charge (T$/m3) 0. As seen by Management 1) Safe and reliable water supply.001 . In practice. 4 There is no sewerage surcharge in the water bill. TWB has a partly developed management information system.880 (US$/m3) 0.86 to 0. Mission Statement “Productivity based.TONGA Water Utility Utility Profile P.37 (US$42.000 : US$793.546 liters). 2 All consumers pay on metered use. There is a proposed new uniform rate for Nuku’alofa which is T$1. While there is no private sector involvement in the utility. Cost of new connection is T$35.80. It is the Board’s policy to provide safe and reliable water to the urban poor at the lowest cost possible allowing them to pay water connection fees spread over 12 months.903/m3) with a minimum charge of T$5. Box 92. Nuku’alofa.00 3. it exercises powers in urban areas of four major islands including the capital.408 : T$1.229 : T$ 184. the Board seems to be autonomous with government hardly exercising any control or influence in its operations or decision-making.00 (US$28. UFW increased from 25% to 42%.40 3.426 0.709 Notes: 1 The above rates are for Nuku’alofa with different rates for the other islands. O. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Reduce chemical/improve water quality. Operating ratio improved from 0. A glossy covered annual report for 1995 is available.000 gallons) 2. The utility is increasingly using internally generated reserves for its capital investment needs from 41% to 78% out of the total.10.50 4.450 : US$927. 2) Increase water supply and pressure.000 1. Average daily production increased by 16% while number of connections went up by 33%. which has a population of 36.54) compared to the average monthly power bill of T$52. Perception of water quality is good (28%) to satisfactory (24%) with some complaints on taste and hardness. 17% commercial loan 5% government loan Tariff Structure (Effective 1992) Water Usage (Gallons) 0 -1. Billing is monthly and consumers pay at post offices or at the utility office.80 (US$13.150.8 m3 per family.000 gallons (4. a statutory body established in 1966.5. customer focus.051.

3 4 5 6 Power 24% Annual O&M Costs US$601.094 m3 30 sq km Other 4% 6 3 UFW 42% Industrial/ Commercial 4% Service Connections Annual Water Use House (6 persons/HC) Public Tap (4 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 100% 2 6. This ratio is for the entire Board. During the year.396 2.0 Parts/ Materials 17% Total area of responsibility is 35 sq km. About 87% of consumers get 24-hour water supply.Town Profile NUKU'ALOFA WATER SUPPLY Population: 36.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 Annual Water Billings US$748.80 1.000 m 3 Domestic 84% 21 hours/day 78 l/c/d US$0.500 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 1 NUKU'ALOFA Domestic 50% 5.476 leaks were repaired and 2.501 4 42% 45% US$0. Four water samples out of 12 tested failed the bacteriological tests in 1995. Other use and billing refer to institutional use. 3.060 45 46 30 215 Nil 6. 3.044.630/m3 Tap Other 7% 6 Per Capita Consumption 3 Industrial/ Commercial 9% Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1. . In 1995.5 months 5 Other 2% Personnel 57% 16.294/m3 0.243 Data as of 1995.735 consumer complaints were attended to.600 m /d 100% Nil Chlorination NA 3.278 meters were replaced or repaired.

It takes less than 2 days for the utility to repair water leaks from the time they are reported. post offices or at the utility office.800 : Sum1.000 : Sum1. The government maintains control over the utility on the number and salaries of staff. About 56% said they have 24-hour water supply. About 54% drink water from the tap while the rest boil their water. Only industrial connections pay on metered use since these are the only connections metered. II. appointment of top management and budget for development.090 5.31) compared to the monthly power bill of Sum174.257 US$0. A type-script 1996 annual report for the government is available. Consumer Survey Findings The average estimated monthly water consumption is 25. It is under the Tashkent City Community Services Department and is responsible for the water supply and sewerage of the city with a population of 1.13 m3 per family.000 (US$164.821.888. 450 567 (7-3712) 337 835. About 70% of those surveyed complained of low water pressure while 51% said they experienced service interruption during the month preceding the survey.310 : 2.022.74 (US$2. Uzbekistan (7-3712) 566 028. source development.#2.45) payable in advance. Its billing and accounting systems are computerized.87).010.062 US$ 95.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 143.10 (US$0. 2 Tariffs set aims for profitability that will cover the company’s social needs and expansion of production and distribution.690 people.792. 3 There were 655 new connections in 1996.837.00 0.090 Notes: 1 Almost all consumers pay on flat rate based on established per capita consumption.601 Expenditure Per Connection : 100% internally generated reserves : : : : : US$14.50 0.800 : Sum 5. and funds for power. eliminating use of drinking water for garden irrigation.924. .560 : Sum 871. Tashkent.” The utility has a partly developed management information system. Priority Need of Utility I. distribution system expansion. Director The Tashkent Vodocanal is a government enterprise formed in 1931. Overall rating of the utility by the consumers is fair (83%). chemical and transport.445. 2) Supply of replacement parts.888 US$16. 450 249 Zakirkhodja Salikhodjayev. and expansion of sewerage system. The urban poor are provided with piped water connection under the “Makhallya Programme. Consumers are billed monthly and pay at banks. fuel.66/connection Tariff Structure (Effective April 1997) Category Domestic Institutional Commercial Industrial Water Rates per Cubic Meter (Sum/m3) (US$/m3) 0. 4 Sewerage charge is 49% to 75% of the water bill. As seen by Management 1) Improve cash flow through better revenue collection. 2) Improve water quality. The vodocanal’s development follows the development plan for 1997-2000.UZBEKISTAN Water Utility Utility Profile TASHKENT VODOCANAL Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : Chekhova Str. Consumers perceive water quality to be good (70%) to satisfactory (27%).006 2. Price of new connection is Sum10. Monthly water bill is Sum19. Mission Statement “Provide uninterrupted and 24-hour good quality water supply to the City of Tashkent by leak reduction.033 5.50 0. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Increase water pressure.620 US$16.37 0.330.622. Major Changes in the Water Utility Not in the First Data Book.

000 m 363 sq km 3 TASHKENT UFW 14% Domestic 35% 6 Industrial/ Commercial 51% Service Connections House (6 persons/HC) Public Tap (100 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 1 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 2 3 119.310 Domestic 6% 6 Annual Water Use 3 896.629 1. All 3.330.000 m3/d 117.85 6. Other costs include employees' social benefits like pension. Parts/ Materials 15% Power 49% 6 Water use and billing for bulk connections to residential areas and institutional connections are included under domestic.096 14% 63% US$0.924.912 143.321 3.959 water samples tested for bacteriological tests during the year passed the test.395 11. . Other sources of water are tubewells and rivers. In 1996.538 4.022/m3 Tap Industrial/ Commercial 94% Per Capita Consumption 4 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1. health insurance and leave benefits.620 Data as of 1996. about 6.457. The lack of meters in residential connections makes it difficult to accurately determine consumption and UFW.897.3 months 17.917 leaks were repaired and 161 meters replaced or repaired.300 m3/d 26% 74% Chlorination/Slow Sand Filter 2.500 m 98% 24 hours/day 109 l/c/d US$0.261.690 (1996) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2.515 2. 7 Annual O&M Costs US$14.914. About 160 consumer complaints were attended to in 1996.016/m3 0.9 Other 7 23% 5 Personnel 13% Other connections are bulk supply to residential areas.City Profile TASHKENT WATER SUPPLY Population: 1.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 Annual Water Billings US$16.

220 5.19 66.667 : US$ 407. Priority Need of Utility I.036 Expenditure/connection : US$102.556 (US$22. 2 Tariff setting is based on considerations and formula specified in the concession contract between UNELCO and the government.504 0. distribution and source development as well as capital investment for extensions.50 51 .236.450 (US$474.666.387 0.68 19. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve water quality.154. accounting. Box 26.063 (US$44.100 101 . 2) Economic viability.200 Over 200 (Vt/quarter) 275 550 880 2. Although the average tariff increased by only 8%.63 (US$/quarter) 2. The monthly water bill averages Vt2.50) to Vt54.770 11. Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly water consumption is 53.302 : US$1. UFW decreased from 42% down to 26% allowing the utility to even reduce its average daily production and still serve the needs of the additional consumers that connected to the Port Vila Water Supply System. Vanuatu (678) 22211 (678) 25011 Mr. II.77 96. Its present development plan covers the period 1994 . Only 15% said they experienced service interruption in the month preceding the survey.82 (US$/m3) 0. General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 3 years) Source of Investment Funds : 3. 4 Water bill do not include sewerage charges.42/connection : 100% internally generated reserves Tariff Structure (Effective January 1997) Service Charge Meter Size (mm) For less than 25 15 20 25 30 40 Over 40 Consumption Charge Consumption (m3/quarter) 0 . A new tariff system was also introduced by UNELCO replacing the single uniform rate to one based on meter and consumption charges. As seen by Management 1) Quality of service.36 48. 2) Reduce water rates. renewals and upgrading of the system.80 7.VANUATU Water Utility Utility Profile UNION ELECTRIQUE DU VANUATU. unit production cost went up by 261% resulting in the operating ratio going up from 0. 3 There were 99 new connections installed in 1995-96.550 7.768. .16).29) compared to the monthly power bill of Vt5.542 0.531 : Vt 46. New connections cost from Vt 17.688 : US$1.000 people. UNELCO is responsible for production. UNELCO’s management information system is well developed with billing.2014.12. The French Government is providing a 25-year concessional loan to UNELCO to fund the first 3 years of its capital program.40 4. responsibility for the provision of water supply to Port Vila has been vested in Union Electrique du Vanuatu Limited (UNELCO) under a 40-year management concession contract. About 76% of those surveyed claimed to have 24-hour supply.370 (US$151. Mission Statement No Mission Statement.75 62. About 61% take water for drinking straight from the tap. Overall rating of the utility is good (31%) to fair (29%). It takes less than 2 days for leak repairs to be made by the utility. the Public Works Department was responsible for the city’s population which is now about 26. pumping and treatment systems now computerized. Prior to privatization. Port Vila.42 57.41 67. Perception on water quality ranges from satisfactory (28%) to good (26%).974 : 20 : Vt159. General Manager Since 1994. An intermediate format annual report for 1995 is available. Consumers are billed quarterly and pay at banks or at the utility office.236.O. (UNELCO) Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : P.19 m3 per family.92) for meter sizes of 15 mm to 50 mm payable in advance. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1990-1996) The number of connections for Port Vila increased by 45%.100 (Vt/m3) 44.179 : Vt141. LTD.531 : Vt141.768. Jean Francois Barbeau.302 : US$1.581 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use.43 in 1990 to 1.388.

700 m 3 PORT VILA 1 0-50 m3 18% UFW 26% 9.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 Annual Water Billings US$1.000 m3 2 0-50 m3 18% Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 3 4 5 98% 24 hours/day 273 l/c/d US$0. Computed using total consumption.405/m3 1.400 m3/d 100% Nil Chlorination Over 200 m3 35% 100-200 m3 10% 50-100 m3 11% 21 sq km Service Connections House Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total 2 ------------3.950.Town Profile PORT VILA WATER SUPPLY Population: 26.488/m3 Tap 100-200 m3 50-100 m3 14% Per Capita Consumption 6 14% Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1. .179). Other costs include cost of major upgrading of the system amounting to Vt40. Only 10 consumer complaints were registered during the year.236.974 Over 200 m3 54% Annual Water Use 3. Parts/ Materials 9% Power 26% Annual O&M Costs US$1. About 12 leaks were repaired and 15 meters were replaced or repaired in 1995-1996.388.531 26% 26% US$0.12 Nil 5.000 (1996) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 7.179 Data as of 1995-1996. Other sources are rainwater.431. Users were classified according to consumption ranges since UNELCO took over in 1994. All 324 water samples passed the bacteriological tests.0 Other 8 28% 2 Personnel 37% Estimated since there is no accurate population figure.610 (US$357.

Mission Statement “To provide potable water which is safe and adequate to Hanoi City.700. Staff/1.667.500 0. Director General The Hanoi Water Business Company (HWBC) is a government enterprise under the city’s Department of Communication.905. The utility’s billing system is computerized. 2) Improve service. . Consumers’ Opinion 1) Increase water pressure. SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF Water Utility Utility Profile HANOI WATER BUSINESS COMPANY Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : 44 Yen Phu Road.400.654. However. tariffs. Viet Nam (84-4) 829 2478 (84-4) 829 4069 Bui Van Mat. The company supplies water to the urban poor by public taps paid by the local government.12) compared to the monthly power bill of D62. Service coverage increased to 76% from 69% as well as water availability from 12 to 18 hours/day.113. appointment of top management. 30% government loan Tariff Structure (Effective 1 August 1996) Category Water Rates per Cubic Meter (D/m3) (US$/m3) 1. 4 There were 3. The monthly water bill averages D12.360.5%. Overall rating of the utility is fair (73%).710 1. Water availability to those surveyed is about 19 hours/day.369 D59. A present JICA study is preparing development plans for the periods 2000-2005 and 2005-2010. II.779.210. 2 Consumers are billed monthly and can pay through banks or the utility offices. industrial and institutional connections and 24% of house connections are metered. It is currently following its 1996-2000 Development Plan. Consumer Survey Findings Average estimated monthly water consumption is 11. 5 The water bill has a 10% sewerage surcharge on water sales.108 2.5% with treatment capacity also increasing by 15. UFW also increased from 53% to 63%.588.000 connections ratio improved to 13. Foreign Offices & Foreigners Notes: 1 Only about half of commercial.3 from 28. The government exercises control on the utility’s staff salaries. About 85% perceive water quality to be satisfactory although all respondents boil water before drinking. Cost of new connection is D850.438 (US$1.520 (US$5.327.645 D48.000 : US$4.787 D 2.216 5.48) payable in advance. An intermediate format annual report for 1995 is available. 3 The utility is aiming for a step-by-step increase in tariff until the year 2002 for it to meet actual expenses.000 (US$76. It is responsible for the water supply of Hanoi City and its 5 urban districts and 2 suburban districts with a population of 1.495 Residences Production Units and Government Institutions Business. More than half (55%) complain of low water pressure.572 D62. Services. The utility still relies heavily on externally-funded grants. these did not match the 115% increase in number of connections resulting in low pressures and reduced per capita consumption of 45 l/c/d from 157 l/c/d in 1991.63).” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : : : : : : 123. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) Average daily production increased by 12. As seen by Management 1) Reduce unaccounted-for-water to 50% by the year 2000.085 people.761 new connections installed in 1995. 2) Institution building and development for the water sector.8.200 0. Priority Need of Utility I.632. Average tariff increased by 250% while production cost increased by 176%. Non-metered consumers pay a flat rate based on a fixed monthly per capita consumption.VIET NAM.000 Expenditure Per Connection : US$1. Leak repairs are undertaken on the average about 9 days after reporting.94/connection : 70% externally-funded government grant.000 : US$5.000 : US$ 240.400 0.800 : US$5. Hanoi. budgets for O&M and development and disconnection for non-payment of water bills. Transport and Public Works set up in 1954 after being under the French colony since 1854.9 m3 per family.

About 1.710 Domestic 35% 76% 18 hours/day 45 l/c/d US$0.000 m3/d 55.03 months 13.000 m3/d 100% Nil Conventional 393. A large part of NRW is from PT/SP consumption not paid by the local government. Residents not served by the utility rely on wells.000 m 699 3.400. 7 8 9 10 Power 58% Annual O&M Costs US$4. about 320 leaks were repaired and 300 meters were replaced or repaired.000 m3 7 sq km Industrial/ Commercial 12% UFW 63% Domestic 25% Service Connections House (9.79 0.9 persons/HC) Public Tap (115 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 5 6 4 118.085 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2 1 HANOI 360. . 237 water samples of 1. HWBC is replacing public taps with house connections at the rate of 30 HCs/PT.400. Included under industrial connections.367 Data as of 1995.113/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 65% Per Capita Consumption 7 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1.City Profile HANOI WATER SUPPLY Population: 1.3 Other 10 11% Bulk Supply 1% Parts/ Materials 8% 8 9 Personnel 22% About 91% of production is metered. Total area of responsibility of HWBC is 25 sq km excluding the rural areas of the city.787 63% 71% US$0. During the year.802 921 --Nil 123. ponds and rainwater.095 consumer complaints were registered in 1995. Approximately 80% of consumers have 24-hour water supply.288 3 Annual Water Use 3 131.033/m3 0.167 tested failed the bacteriological tests.654. In 1995. Other costs include transport and road restoration expenses.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Annual Water Billings US$5.588.

SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF Water Utility Utility Profile HO CHI MINH CITY WATER SUPPLY COMPANY Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : No.5 m3. billing. 71% either boil or filter their drinking water.100 5.678 : US$ 5. Consumer perception of water quality is good (69%) to satisfactory (12%). Average tariff increased by 188% but unit production cost also increased by 410%. As seen by Management 1) Improve the physical facilities.85 0. About 21% experienced service interruption during the month preceding the survey.200 8.279 0.929. 2 Tariff setting aims at full cost recovery with profit including sufficient counterpart funds for project loans and contingencies for cost escalation and reserves for long term development.399. Consumer Survey Findings Average monthly water consumption per family is 39. UFW decreased significantly from 41% to 34%.58/connection : 90% national government grant.1. Priority Need of Utility I. 2) Expand to villages with more connections.640 (US$17. WSC buys treated groundwater from Hoc Mon WTP.797.911 : D248. 3 There were 6. Payroll.55 0.8 m3/month Over 8 m3/month Water Tariff in Foreign Currency Foreign agencies Industries w/foreign capital Business w/foreign capital 0 .35 0.6 to 6.000 (US$44.55 0. Overall rating of WSC ranges from fair (52%) to good (33%). Consumers’ Opinion 1) Need for stronger water pressure.000 (US$62.783 (US$/m3) 0.278.264 : US$21. causing the staff/1. WSC has a partly developed management information system.300 2.9 to 3.812 Expenditure Per Connection : US$20.524 : US$24. However. Vo Van Duong. Director The Ho Chi Minh City Water Supply Company (WSC) is a government enterprise formed in 1966 under the city’s Department of Communication. The utility is currently following its 1996-2010 Development Plan.955 : D269.590 : D242.112.316. 829 1090 (84-8) 824 1644 Mr. They are billed monthly and pay at designated banks.700 0. personnel and flow measurement at Thu Duc WTP are computerized. The use of national government grant to fund capital improvements almost doubled while internally generated reserves went down from 49% of the total in 1991 to just 10%.857. 2) Improve the workers’ expertise and skill to meet technical requirements.85 0.016 new connections in 1995. It manages the water supply system of Ho Chi Minh City including Bien Hoa Industrial Zone and Thuan An District of Song Be Province with a total population of 4. 10% internally generated reserves Tariff Structure (Effective 1 August 1996) Category Water Tariff in Local Currency Domestic 0 .4.99) to D700.117 0. Viet Nam (84-8) 829 1974. District 3. Leak repairs are made 4 days after reporting to the utility.000 connections ratio to increase from 4.731. Water bills average D64. Ho Chi Minh City.100 3.VIET NAM. Transport and Public Works. Accounts receivable increased from 0.454 : 1. Cong Truong Quoc Te.491. accounting.000 people. The urban poor are supplied with water through water tankers and public taps.8 m3/month Over 8 m3/month Water supplied to ships Foreign residents Water Rates per Cubic Meter (D/m3) (US$/m3) 1. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) The number of connections increased by 10%.110 (US$5. Mission Statement “Ho Chi Minh City Water Supply Company is a special techno-economical unit for the supply of water to meet the water demand for industrial and domestic uses of the people in Ho Chi Minh City and in Bien Hoa industrial zone. About 71% said they have 24-hour water supply.4 m3/capita/month Over 4 m3/capita/month Industrial (Production) Business and Service 0 .98) payable in advance.87).” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds : 248. A type-script annual report for government for 1995 is available.468 0. the number of staff by 53%.331.247.197.638 : US$22. . 4 Water bill has no sewerage surcharge. II. The private sector is involved in source development and water production.960 : D 56.823. at the utility office or to bill collectors. Cost of new connections range from D500.55 Notes: 1 All consumers pay on metered use.4 months.77) per month compared to the monthly power bill of D197.189 0.

.

000 m3/d 11% 89% Conventional 700.083/m3 0.000 m3 153 sq km Other 7% 8 UFW 34% Industrial/ Commercial 11% Service Connections House (10 persons/HC) Public Tap (1.000 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 2 1 HO CHI MINH CITY Domestic 48% 730.4 7 Personnel 12% Power 28% Notes: Actual daily production in 1995 was about 706.215 meters were replaced or repaired.731. Total area of responsibility is 2. In 1995.000 Connections 1 2 3 4 5 Annual Water Billings US$22.130 m 3/d. major repairs.537 1. .131/m3 Boiled Industrial/ Commercial 33% Per Capita Consumption 6 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable Staff/1. About 96% of residents have 24-hour water supply.770 4.433 3 3.270 persons/PT) Industrial Commercial Institutional Other 3 Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 4 5 236. Residents not served by the utility rely mostly on tubewells.736. overhead.160 2. about 9.318. Other use and billing refer to institutional connections.069 sq km.4 months 6.96 3. Other costs include depreciation. All 480 water samples tested passed the bacteriological tests.257. Only 18 consumer complaints were registered in 1995.000 m3/d 260. production cost and taxes. Other 9 48% Parts/ Materials 9% Bulk Supply 3% 6 7 8 9 Annual O&M Costs US$21.735 34% 34% US$0.096 Data as of 1995.932 leaks were repaired and 56.454 Other 8% 8 Annual Water Use 3 257.355 m Domestic 59% 52% 24 hours/day 136 l/c/d US$0. Mostly bulk supply connections to residential areas.City Profile HO CHI MINH CITY Population: 4.551 248.

8. Overall rating of WSWA is fair (53%) to good (24%).991 : US$40.5 m3/day 5 0. Apia. UFW also increased from 15% in 1992 to 50% in 1996.05) per annum Farms (cattle. Private sector is involved in its financial operations with government exercising control on staff salaries. Apia Water Supply distributes water to the city’s population of 46. in an effort to provide reliable. About 64% said they have 24-hour service. poultry. As seen by Management 1) Customer service satisfaction. Perception on water quality is satisfactory (49%) to good (22%) with 47% of the respondents drinking water from the tap while the rest either boil or filter their water.05 38. Mission Statement “To form a partnership with its customers.075 Expenditure Per Connection : 100% national government : US$2.020 Second 2.0 m /day 30 0.040 3 Over 5.48) compared to the monthly power bill of WS$93.5 m3/day 10 0. Consumer Survey Findings The estimated monthly water bill averages WS$36.10) per annum Others First 2. safe and economical water services in a manner that is efficient. piggery.19) per annum Notes: 1 Institutions refer to day care centers.219 : US$ 632.080 Minimum Charge = WS$96 (US$38.000 : WS$ 562.05). tariffs.100 3 Over 5.060 3 Over 5. 4 There are no sewerage charges in the water bill. Consumers are billed annually and pay at the utility office. 2 Almost all pay the minimum annual flat rate since the only metered connections are 31% of the commercial connections.10 76. General Manager The Western Samoa Water Authority (WSWA) is a government enterprise formed in 1994 and is responsible for 41 waterworks systems including the Apia urban area which used to be under the Water Division of the Public Works Department since 1962. It takes an average of 3 days for reported leaks to be repaired by the utility. 2) Cost recovery.5 m3/day 15 0.353 : US$ 223. Most data available are for the entire WSWA making it difficult for any meaningful comparison with data for Apia Water Supply in 1992. Only metering is for 31% of commercial connections in Apia. Priority Need of Utility I. and budgets for O&M and development. small crops) Others Annual Rate (WS$/annum) (US$/annum ) 48 96 192 19.5 m3/day 20 0.35 (US$37.060 Minimum Charge = WS$48 (US$19.762 : 249 : WS$5.000 connections ratio to about 15.270.595.16/connection grant Data is for Apia only Tariff Structure (Effective 1993) UNMETERED WATER Category Domestic Farms (cattle. more water and higher pressure. Box 245. fair.05) for 15 mm to 25 mm diameter connections payable in advance.0 m /day 20 0. Western Samoa (685) 20409 (685) 21298 Latu Sauile Toga Kupa.0 m /day 15 0. appointment of top management. the people of Western Samoa. Water production is under the Watershed Management Division of the Ministry of Agriculture.78) to WS$300 (US$119. schools/universities. small crops) First 2. progressive and environmentally.080 Second 2. piggery. Major Changes in the Water Utility (1991-1995) Unit production cost for Apia increased by 71%.050 people. hospitals. The WSWA started improvements in its billing and collection in 1996 with the hiring of billing staff. O.19 METERED WATER (WS$1=100 sene) Category/Consumption Annual Rate (sene/m3) (US$/m3) Domestic/Institutions1 First 2. Consumers’ Opinion 1) Improve quality of water 2) Reliability.5 m3/day 25 0. .120 Minimum Charge = WS$192 (US$76. The number of connections and staff for the entire WSWA both increased slightly while retaining its staff/1.WESTERN SAMOA Water Utility Utility Profile WESTERN SAMOA WATER AUTHORITY Address Telephone Fax Head : : : : P. poultry.489 : (Data not available) : WS$1. 3 About 574 new connections were installed in 1995. home for the elderly and seminaries/convents.48 (US$14.040 Second 2.5 m/day 10 0.091. socially and spiritually responsible. About 60% experienced service interruption in the month preceding the survey. Cost of new connection ranges from WS$70 (US$27.” General Data About Water Utility Connections Staff Annual O&M Costs Annual Collections 1 Annual Billings Annual Capital Expenditure (Average over last 5 years) Source of Investment Funds 1 : 15. II.

048/m3 Tap Per Capita Consumption 3 Efficiency Indicators Unaccounted Water Non-Revenue Water Unit Production Cost Operating Ratio 5 Accounts Receivable Staff/1. 24 hours/day 337 l/c/d US$0.218 638 Annual Water Use 3 11. Other costs include transport. Annual O&M Costs US$2. This is for entire WSWA.000 m No breakdown available. no data was available on the bacteriological test results.315. No data on Apia O&M costs are available. While 186 water samples were tested during the year.353 9 . About 107 leaks were repaired and 330 meters were replaced or repaired during the year. Industrial/commercial use includes institutional use. Annual collection used in absence of billing data.000 Connections Notes: 1 2 3 Annual Water Billings US$270. Most UFW occur within private properties due to lack of metering. This is for the entire WSWA's 41 waterworks including Apia water supply.091.439 50% No data available US$0.580 NA ) ) ) 7.900 m3/d 12. administrative and training expenses.73 No data available 6 8 4 Personnel 29% 15.144/m3 7.Town Profile APIA WATER SUPPLY Population: 46. High consumption due to lack of metering except for about one-third of commercial connections.8 Other 9 46% About 3.000 m3/d 1% 99% Slow Sand Filter 16.878 consumer complaints were registered during the year.050 (1995) Production/Distribution Average Daily Production Groundwater Surface Water Treatment Type Treatment Capacity Storage Service Area 31. 4 5 6 7 8 9 Power 19% Parts/ Materials 6% Data as of 1995-1996.450 m3 29 sq km UFW 50% APIA Domestic 40% Industrial/ Commercial 7 10% Service Connections House (7 persons/HC) Public Tap Industrial Commercial Institutional Other Total Service Indicators Service Coverage Water Availability Average Tariff Drinking Water 100% 1 2 6. This ratio is for the entire WSWA.

OPERATIONS MANUAL .

02 Name of Water Utility Serving the City : 1.04 Telephone Number(s) : Fax Number(s) : 1.GENERAL Date: _________________ 1.05 Head of the Water Utility: Name : ____________________________ Title : ____________________________ 1.01 City : 1.00 Country: 1.03 Address : 1.11 Utility is responsible for Production .06 Year Utility was Formed : 1.10 Water Utility Responsibility: Appointment of Top Management Budget for O&M Budget for Development Disconnection for non-payment For City alone City & other towns/cities State/Region National authority Distribution Source Development 1.09 Government Influence : Which of the following are subject to Government influence or control? Number of staff Staff salaries Tariffs Appointment of Staff 1.07 Is the Water Utility : Part of Government Department? Government Corporation/Enterprise? Other ? ______________________ 1. in what aspect(s)? Source Development Distribution Billing & Collection Other ___________ Yes No Production Management Leak Repair 1.APPENDIX 1 WATER UTILITY QUESTIONNAIRE PART A .08 Is there Private Sector Involvement in the Water Utility? If Yes.

17 Average Annual Salary of Five Highest Paid Full-Time Management Personnel: _________________ 1.21 Annual Water Utility Operations Cost : _____________________ 1.25 Total Capital Expenditure in the Last 5 years : _____________________ Funded by: internally generated reserves government loan commercial loan government grant/equity. 1. Year ______ to Year ______ 1.13 Water Utility Staff : ________ Operations : ________ Development : ________ Total : ________ Professional : ________ Skilled : ________ Unskilled : ________ 1995 1993 1994 None 1.20 Does the Utility Have a Mission Statement? Yes If Yes. please provide the mission statement.14 Staff Classification: 1. national government grant/equity.15 Latest Annual Report Available: 1. external local bonds other __________________ ____ % ____ % ____ % ____ % ____ % ____ % ____ % 100 % ..24 Top 2 Priority Needs of Utility : ________________________________________ (As seen by management) ________________________________________ 1. No 1.23 Annual Water Utility Billings/Sales: _____________________ _____________________ 1.WATER UTILITY QUESTIONNAIRE Page 2 of 10 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 Water Utility Connections Total 1.22 Annual Water Utility Collections: 1.18 Management Information System : Well developed Partly developed Non-existent Yes No 1.16 Nature of Annual Report: Glossy brochure for public Type-script for Government Intermediate format 1.19 Is there a Development Plan? If Yes. indicate period covered.

Expansion or a Combination.26 Major Projects Started After 1990: Year Project Title Start End Cost (local currency) No. PART B .00 PRODUCTION 2.WATER UTILITY QUESTIONNAIRE Page 3 of 10 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ 2. New Scheme.03 Is all production metered? Yes No (ex treatment plant) If No.CITY SPECIFIC 2.05 Do you buy bulk water for distribution? Raw Water Treated Water Yes Yes No No 2..01 Proportion of Water Production from: (1) Surface water (2) Groundwater (3) Other sources ________________ ______ % ______ % ______ % 2.m.06 Total Capacity of Treatment Plants ____________ cu m/day . of Beneficiaries Increase in Production (cu.04 Estimated Total Production Volume _________________ cu m/day (ex treatment plant or equivalent) 2. 1./day) Type/Nature of Project* * Type of Project can be Rehabilitation. what proportion is metered? _____ % 2.02 Is the development of the city’s water supply sources part of an overall water resources development strategy? Yes No If Yes. briefly state the strategy.

21 Population of Utility’s Area of Responsibility __________ 3. dia.11 Chlorination by 2. __________ sq.12 Treated Water Storage Capacity _____________ cu m 2.km.31 Population Served by the Utility ______ % __________ sq.Cement Fiberglass Cast Iron Others Size Range (mm.30 Population Served 3.09 Proportion of Water Production Receiving No Treatment ______ % ______ % ______ % 2. dia.12 Size of Utility’s Present Service Area 3.00 CONSUMER SERVICE 3.13 Distribution Network Material PVC HDPE PB G.07 Proportion of Water Production Receiving Full Treatment 2.I.) Age Range (years) 3.WATER UTILITY QUESTIONNAIRE Page 4 of 10 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 Service Area in City 3. 2..) Age Range (years) Material Steel Asb.08 Proportion of Water Production Receiving Chlorination Only 2.11 Size of Utility’s Area of Responsibility 3.km.10 Main Treatment Process Conventional Slow Sand Filter Desalination Chlorination Other _______________________ Gas ____ % Powder ____ % 2.20 Population in City 3. Ductile Iron Size Range (mm. .

4 3.WATER UTILITY QUESTIONNAIRE Page 5 of 10 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 Tube Wells ______ % Dug Wells ______ % Ponds ______ % Rain Collectors ______ % Others ________ ______ % Total: 100 % 3. _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ 3.48 Number of Other Connections 3..47 Number of Fire Hydrants 3.2 3.45 Number of Institutional Connections ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 3.3 3. briefly state the policy.41 Number of House Connections HC Average number of people per HC 3.46 Bulk Supply Connections to Residential Areas (Residential High Rise Buildings and Subdivisions) Number of People Served by the Connections ___________ 3.38 Does the water utility have a policy for providing water supply to the urban poor? Yes No If Yes.1 3.43 Number of Industrial Connections 3.32 Population Served by Other Sources of Water in Utility’s Area of Responsibility: 3.44 Number of Commercial Connections 3. 3.50 Proportion of Connections Metered? House Connections ______ % Public Taps/Standpipes ______ % Industrial Connections ______ % Commercial Connections ______ % Institutional Connections ______ % Bulk Supply (Residential) ______ % Fire Hydrants ______ % Others _______________ ______ % ___________ ___________ .42 Number of Public Taps (PT)/Standpipes (SP) Average number of people per PT/SP 3.40 Service Connections 3.

04 Annual Collection for all commercial use 6.02 Total for all SP/PT 5.03 Annual Collection for all industrial use 6.00 WATER BILLING (Annual: For the period ________________ ) ( Local Currency) _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ 5.00 WATER CONSUMPTION (Annual : For the period __________ ) Metered Estimated Total (cu.07 Total for all other use ____________ ____________ ____________ 4.WATER UTILITY QUESTIONNAIRE Page 6 of 10 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….06 Annual Collection for all bulk supply (res’l) 6. __________________________________________ __________________________________________ . briefly state these objectives.06 Total for all bulk supply (residential) 5.00 COST RECOVERY (Annual: For the period ________________ ) (Local Currency) ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ 6.) 4.02 Annual Collection for all SP/PT 6.01 Total for all HC ____________ ____________ ____________ 4.05 Total for all institutional use ____________ ____________ ____________ 4.01 Total for all HC 5.05 Total for all institutional use 5.06 Total for all bulk supply (res.) (cu.m.02 Total for all SP/PT ____________ ____________ ____________ 4.03 Total for all industrial use ____________ ____________ ____________ 4.08 Grand Total 6.08 Grand Total 6.07 Total for all other use 5.04 Total for all commercial use ____________ ____________ ____________ 4.07 Annual Collection for all other use 6.05 Annual Collection for all institutional use 6..03 Total for all industrial use 5.) (cu.m.15 Financial Objectives: Does the water utility have financial objectives to guide its tariff setting? Yes No If Yes.08 Grand Total ____________ ____________ ____________ 5.m.10 Current Accounts Receivable (expressed in number of months equivalent of average sales) _______ months 6.01 Annual Collection for all HC 6. 4.04 Total for all commercial use 5.) ____________ ____________ ____________ 4.

50 Tariff vs.20 Basis for Billing for Water HC Consumers Pay on Metered Use Consumers Pay on Flat Rate Consumers Pay per Property Tax Consumers Do Not Pay SP/PT Industrial Commercial Institutional Bulk (Residential) 6. Consumption Pattern 6.43 Price of New Connection ________________ 6.41 Number of New Connections installed in 1995 ________ 6..25 How frequent are consumers billed? Monthly Every 2 months Quarterly Others _____________ 6.45 Average waiting time for a new connection _______________ 6.30 Methods of Payment Water bills are paid through Bill Collector Bank Post Office Water Utility Office Automated Teller Machine Others _______________ 6.WATER UTILITY QUESTIONNAIRE Page 7 of 10 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….51 When were the last 2 tariff increases made? _________________ _________________ .44 Method of Payment (for new connection) All at start Over 12 months or less Over more than 12 months 6.40 New House Connections 6.42 Number of Applications Outstanding ________ as of _____________ (Please indicate date) 6. 6.

WATER UTILITY QUESTIONNAIRE Page 8 of 10 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 Proportion of consumers with 24 hours supply 7.60 Number of Meters Replaced or Repaired (Annual) 7.60 Sewerage 6.52 Choose 100 representative metered domestic consumers and give the total of their billed consumption (cubic meters) and the corresponding total bill amount (local currency) for each of the 3 months before and the 3 months after the latest tariff increase.71 Number of Bacteriological Tests Failed (Annual) _______ _______ _______ _______ .40 Number of Leaks Repaired (Annual: Period ______ ) _______ 7.) Months Before Tariff Increase: (1) __________________ Total Bill/Sales (local curr.50 Number of Consumer Complaints (Annual) 7.12 Average number of hours per day of water availability to most people 7.00 WATER SERVICE 7.) __________________ (2) _______________ (3) _______________ Months After Tariff Increase: _______________ _______________ (1) __________________ __________________ (2) __________________ __________________ (3) __________________ __________________ 6.62 Does water bill have environmental surcharge? Yes No How much? _____ % 7.21 Estimated Non-Revenue Water _____ % _____ % _____ % _____ hours 7.70 Number of Bacteriological Tests Taken (Annual) 7. m.61 Does water bill have sewerage surcharge? Yes No How much? _____ % 6. Total Consumption (cu.Reliability for Consumers 7.10 Water Availability .20 Estimated Unaccounted for Water 7.. 6.

O.) 10.00 MAINTENANCE EXPENSES (Annual) __________ (Estimate from 8.00 AUTOMATION/COMPUTERIZATION 10.01 What aspects of the water utility’s operation are computerized or automated? None Billing Accounting Others ________________________ Pumping Treatment PLEASE FORWARD COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE PLUS: 1) Copy of Latest Annual Report 2) Copy of Current Tariff Structure * 3) Summary of Development Plan 4) 100 Consumer Survey Questionnaires * Give details of when introduced and the mechanism adopted for tariff adjustments. 0980 Manila. 8. BY AIRMAIL TO: Manager Water Supply. pipes.WATER UTILITY QUESTIONNAIRE Page 9 of 10 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….06 Transport 8.02 8. etc.04 8. valves.05 Purchase of Bulk Supply Personnel Power/Fuel Chemicals Replacement parts (meters.01 8.) Other Materials 8.00 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST FOR CITY (ANNUAL) 8.. Urban Development and Housing Division (West) Asian Development Bank P. Box 789.07 Other (Explain) _____________________________ Total O&M Cost for City = __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ 9. pumps. Philippines This Questionnaire was completed by: Name : Designation : Address : Fax/Telex : _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ .00 above those expenses specifically for Maintenance.03 8.

: _____________________________ .. Sources of Information in the Water Utility: Name : _____________________________ Designation : _____________________________ Unit/Dep’t. : _____________________________ Name : _____________________________ Designation : _____________________________ Unit/Dep’t. : _____________________________ Name : _____________________________ Designation : _____________________________ Unit/Dep’t. : _____________________________ Name : _____________________________ Designation : _____________________________ Unit/Dep’t.WATER UTILITY QUESTIONNAIRE Page 10 of 10 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Public Tap 3. Specify number of cubic meters or number of containers/month.) Table 1 . Total: 4. Tubewell 7. What is your household’s main source of water for: (You may check more than one source for each use. how many hours a day on the average is water available? Yes No ________ hours .APPENDIX 2 WATER UTILITY CONSUMER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Other (specify) Total: Col. 5.2 Cooking 1. 2: Monthly Consumption Col. Rain Catchment 6. 3: Average Monthly Expense House Tap Public Tap Water Vendors Bottled Water Rain Jar Tube Well Pond Others 3. How much on the average does your household pay for electricity per month? _________________ Is water from the water utility available 24 hours a day? If No. 1: Source 1.6 Others (Specify) a) ____________ b) ____________ 2.) Sources Uses 1.4 Laundry 1.1 Drinking 1.Monthly Water Consumption and Expense Col. How much water from each source (Column 1) in Table 1 below does your household use each month? (Please fill in Column 2 below.) For containers: Capacity per container: ______________ How much on the average do you pay for water per month? (Please fill in Column 3 below. Pond 8.5 Dish Washing 1. Indicate expense per source used. Water Vendors 4.3 Bathing 1. Bottled Water 5. House Tap/House Connection 2.

what is the most important improvement the water utility should do? ___________________________________________________________________ . What do you think of the quality of water coming from the taps? If Poor. In your opinion.6. why? Due to: Color Taste Direct Boiling Filtering Both Hardness Good Satisfactory Poor Other reason _________ 7. Do you drink water from the tap? After: 8. What do you think of water pressure from the taps you are using? High Adequate Low Yes No 9. how long does it take the water utility to send a repairman to fix the defects? ________ days 11. In case of breakdowns or leaks in the pipe mains your tap is connected to. Has there been any interruption in water supply from your tap in the last month? 10. How would you rate the water utility? Good Fair Poor 12.

000 Connections Management Salaries 5% 5% 10% Accountability Annual Report Total 10% 100% 10% 100% Notes Coverage (House Connections) 100% >50% <50% 10% 5% 0% 10% Water Availability 24 hours >12 hours <12 hours 10% 5% 0% 10% Service Level (a) No public Taps Public Taps (b) 100-200 l/c/d <100l/c/d or>200 l/c/d 5% 0% 5% 0% 10% .APPENDIX 3 SUGGESTED EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR UTILITIES Consumer Satisfaction Coverage Water Availability Service Level New Connection Fee 10% 10% 10% 10% 40% Water Resources Management Water Production/Population UFW/Metering Consumption 5% 10% 5% 20% Financial Resource Management Grant Financing Operating Ratio Accounts Receivable 5% 10% 5% 20% Human Resource Management Staff/1.

New Connection Fee Reasonable Cost High Cost Installments to Pay Total Fee upfront 5% 0% 5% 0% 10% Water Production/Population <0.5 m3/day/person 5% 0% 5% UFW/Metering Full Metering Partial Metering UFW < 25% UFW > 25% 5% 0% 5% 0% 10% Consumption <200 l/c/d >200 l/c/d 5% 0% 5% Grant Financing Nil Any 5% 0% 5% Operating Ratio <0.75 0.00 > 1.1.000 Connections <10 >10 5% 0% 5% Management Salaries Above Government Level Government Level 5% 0% 5% Accountability Annual Report Available to Public Annual Report Unavailable Timely Report (within 12 months) Reporting after 12 months 5% 0% 5% 0% 10% .00 10% 5% 0% 10% Accounts Receivable <3 months >3 months 5% 0% 5% Staff/1.5 m3/day/person >0.75 .