al-auja, image by eyad jadallah 2017 bridge to ... · years 2013, 2014, and 2015, that included key...

Bridge to SustainabilityWater and Wastewater Service Providers in PalestineFacts and Prospects - 2015 Report

June 2017

Al-Auja, Image by Eyad Jadallah 2017

Bridge to Sustainability

Water and Wastewater Service

Providers in Palestine

Facts and Prospects

2015 Report

June 2017

Contents

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Foreword ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Quick Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................................11

Chapter One ......................................................................................................................................................13

Introduction to the Water and Wastewater Service Providers ................................................................................................14

(1.1) Water and Wastewater Service Providers .............................................................................................................................14

(1.2) Comprehensive coverage of performance monitoring ...................................................................................................14

(1.3) Water Resources .............................................................................................................................................................................16

(1.4) Operational Information .............................................................................................................................................................19

(1.5) Bulk Water Providers – The West Bank Water Department (WBWD) ...........................................................................22

Chapter Two ......................................................................................................................................................23

Detailed Review of the Performance of Service Providers According to KPIs ...................................................................24

(2.1) Technical Indicators ......................................................................................................................................................................25

(2.2) Financial Indicators .......................................................................................................................................................................37

(2.3) Water Quality Indicators .............................................................................................................................................................48

General observations pertaining to quality indicators: .............................................................................................................49

(2.4) Other Indicators .............................................................................................................................................................................51

Experiences and Applications .........................................................................................................................54

The Jericho Municipality Mobile Billing System .........................................................................................................................55

Chapter Three ...................................................................................................................................................57

Reality and challenges in the Water Sector....................................................................................................................................58

(3.1) The delay in issuing relevant regulations and policies ....................................................................................................58

(3.2) Israeli deductions pertaining to wastewater .......................................................................................................................59

(3.3) Debts of water facilities and departments to WBWD .......................................................................................................59

(3.4) Establishing the National Water Company ...........................................................................................................................61

(3.5) Water purchases from Mekorot Company and debts of Gaza Strip municipalities benefiting from this water .... 61

Chapter Four .....................................................................................................................................................63

Recommendations and Prospects ....................................................................................................................................................64

(4.1) General recommendations: .......................................................................................................................................................64

(4.2) Specific recommendations to service providers: ...............................................................................................................65

Annexes .............................................................................................................................................................66

Annex (1) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................67

Annex (2) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................70

Annex (3) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................71

Annex (4) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................72

Annex (5) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................74

Maps

Tables

Graphs

Graph #1: Average Daily per Capita Water Consumption for Domestic Use – West Bank ............................................25

Graph #2: Average Daily per Capita Water Consumption for Domestic Use – Gaza Strip .............................................25

Graph #3: Results of Water Balance Analysis .................................................................................................................................31

Graph #4: Amount of NRW for every km in length of the network per annum- WB .......................................................35

Graph #5: Amount of NRW for Every km in Length of the Network per Annum- GS .....................................................36

Graph #6: Coverage Rate of Wastewater Services-WB ..............................................................................................................36

Graph #7: Coverage Rate of Wastewater Services-GS ...............................................................................................................37

Graph #8: Average Selling Price for One Cubic Meter of Water- WB .....................................................................................38

Graph #9: Average Selling Price for One Cubic Meter of Water- GS ......................................................................................38

Graph #10: Operational Costs per Cubic Meter of Water Sold - WB ......................................................................................39

Graph #11: Operational Costs per Cubic Meter of Water Sold - GS .......................................................................................39

Graph #12: Collection Efficiency – Water Services- WB .............................................................................................................41

Graph #13: Collection Efficiency – Water Services- GS ..............................................................................................................41

Graph #14: Collection Efficiency – Wastewater Service– West Bank ....................................................................................43

Graph #15: Collection Efficiency – Wastewater Service – Gaza Strip ....................................................................................43

Graph #16: Working Ratio (Efficiency Ratio) – Water Service- WB .........................................................................................46

Graph #17: Working Ratio (Efficiency Ratio) – Water Service- GS ..........................................................................................46

Graph #18: Operational Costs per Cubic Meter of Wastewater - WB ....................................................................................47

Graph #19: Operational Costs per Cubic Meter of Wastewater - GS .....................................................................................48

Graph #20: Staff Productivity Index - Water Service - WB .........................................................................................................51

Graph #21: Staff Productivity Index - Water Service - GS ..........................................................................................................51

Graph #22: Female Staff as a Percentage of the Total Staff - WB ............................................................................................52

Graph #23: Female Staff as a Percentage of the Total Staff - GS .............................................................................................53

Graph #24: Debts of Water Utilities and Departments to the WBWD...................................................................................59

Graph #25: Debts to WBWD by Governorate ................................................................................................................................60

Graph #26: Consumption of Mekorot Water in the Gaza Strip 2012 – 2015 ......................................................................61

Graph #27: Distribution of Amounts of Consumption of Mekorot Water in the Gaza Strip 2015 ..............................62

Graph #28: Total Cost of Consumption of Mekorot Water in the Gaza Strip 2012 - 2015 .............................................62

Map #1: West Bank Service Providers with their Jurisdiction Areas Covered in this 2015 Performance Monitoring Report ............................................................................................................................................................................................................15

Map #2: Gaza Strip Service Providers with their Jurisdiction Areas Covered in this 2015 Performance Monitoring Report ............................................................................................................................................................................................................16

Map #3: Water Resources – West Bank ...............................................................................................................................................18

Map #4: Water Resources – Gaza Strip ...............................................................................................................................................19

Map #5: The Average Amount of Water Sold per Capita per Day – West Bank ...................................................................27

Map #6: The Average Amount of Water Sold per Capita Per Day – Gaza Strip ....................................................................28

Map #7: Percentage of Non-Revenue Water – WB .........................................................................................................................33

Map #8: Percentage of Non-Revenue Water – GS ..........................................................................................................................34

Map #9: Results of Water Quality Main Indicators in West Bank and Gaza .........................................................................50

Table #1: Operational Data for West Bank Service Providers ......................................................................................................21

Table #2: Operational Data for Gaza Strip Service Providers .....................................................................................................22

Table #3: Summary of Wastewater Service Tariffs Provided by Service Providers in 2015 ...............................................44

Table #4: Number of Debtors to WBWD and their Distribution among Governorates ....................................................60

6

Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015

CMWU: Coastal Municipalities Water Utility

GIS: Geographical Information System

GIZ: German International Development Agency

GS: Gaza Strip

IWA: International Water Association

KPIs: Key Performance Indicators

MoH: Ministry of Health

NIS: New Israeli Shekel

NRW: Non-Revenue Water

NWC: National Water Company

PCBS: Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics

PWA: Palestine Water Authority

SP: Service Provider

TOR: Terms of Reference

UNICEF: United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund

VAT: Value Added Tax

WB: West Bank

WBWD: West Bank Water Department

WHO: World Health Organization

WSRC: Water Sector Regulatory Council

Abbreviations

7

Foreword

The Water Sector Reform Program was introduced to meet an

undeniable urgent need for institutional, technical, and legal re-

forms within the sector to advance its efforts to meet the needs

and aspirations of Palestinian citizens. This effort has without

doubt resulted in many achievements to this date of which

one is an outstanding contemporary Water Law that stipulates

the separation of authorities and the establishment of the Water Sector Regulatory

Council (WSRC).

The distribution of roles between the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA), the Water

Sector Regulatory Council (WSRC), a National Water Company (NWC), and the rest of

the Water and Wastewater Service Providers in Palestine will guarantee the success

of this sector. Therefore, the combined efforts of these institutions and ensuring sup-

plementation of their mandate will be the cornerstone of this sector’s success and

sustainability.

The first steps have been taken, but the march towards success cannot stop now.

The path stretches ahead until we achieve all of our objectives and all relevant insti-

tutions need to contribute to this success. The WSRC has already developed several

mechanisms and tools to monitor and improve performance, and many Water and

Wastewater Service Providers were involved in the process of learning how to use

them. Nevertheless, there are still several tools and procedures pending the conclu-

sion of licensing and other regulations stipulated in the Water Law.

The WSRC calls upon all relevant Palestinian institutions including the Palestinian

Government to give urgent priority to the Water Sector in general and the Water Sec-

tor Reform program in particular to guarantee the sustainability of this sector.

The Water and Wastewater Service Providers have exerted and continue to exert ef-

forts worthy of appreciation and respect to guarantee the provision of high quality

and reasonably priced services to citizens taking everyone’s interests into account.

There is no doubt that the service providers’ recognition of and positive attitude to-

wards the Council during the process of collecting, reviewing, and verification of the

data had a clear impact on facilitating the latter’s task to serve this sector. We hope

that this positive relationship will continue in the service of mutual national interests.

Mohammad Said Hmaidi

CEO

8


Acknowledgement

The WSRC would like to express its gratitude to everyone who contributed in draft-

ing, designing, and printing this report. In particular, special thanks go to the World

Bank and the Federal Government of Germany implemented through GIZ. We would

also like to thank participating Water and Wastewater Service Providers for their full

cooperation in providing us with the necessary data, and to the joint team from the

WSRC and the GIZ for collecting, checking, and analyzing the data provided by the

Water and Wastewater Providers who participated in this report.


9

Introduction

The diversity in the nature of institutions and the size of their jurisdiction as well as

the varied economic and social conditions in different parts of the West Bank and the

Gaza Strip where the service is provided makes it difficult to conduct a fair compari-

son between the ‘water and wastewater’ service providers. The WSRC, in its efforts to

motivate all Water and Wastewater Service Providers to improve their performance

has developed reasonable standards as a tool to evaluate performance that take

these differences into consideration and continues to strive to improve its monitor-

ing system by introducing new KPIs in line with international standards in the field.

The vision of the Council to monitor the performance of service providers is aligned

with the achievement of the overall objective of the Water Sector Reform Program

and the Water Law, i.e. improving and raising the level of water service provision.

Therefore, the Council views this report as one of the tools for planning, monitoring,

and providing incentive to improve performance. This will also assist citizens in their

right to participate in decision making processes. Regular performance monitoring

reports benefit the sector through reaching decision makers in order to define priori-

Cabinet of Ministers

Ministry of

Agriculture

Ministry of Local

Government

National Water

Company

Water User

Associations Water Service

providers

Palestinian Water

(Authority (PWA

Water Sector

Regulatory Council

Water Sector Framework

Source: PWA

(Policies, Planning & Water Resources)

(Performance Monitoring, licensing & development)

(Bulk Water Supply)

(Water Distribution) (Water Distribution)

Bulk Water Supply

Regulatory Relationship With WSRC

Hierarchical Relation

Policies, Planning & Resources

10


ties of intervention, direct assistance, and develop new plans or amend existing ones

in line with the general objective of the reform process.

The process of monitoring performance has started to take a more comprehensive

approach at the country level after streamlining performance monitoring all over the

WB and GS. The number of service providers with which WSRC is working together

in data collection and analysis in the WB increased to 39 service providers, keeping

in mind that all service providers in the GS were covered as of 2015. Furthermore,

service providers comprised in monitoring reports up to this date serve about 74% of

citizens in Palestine, noting that the Council was not able to obtain the Data of the

West Bank Water Department, to review it, analyze it and present it in this report.

By publishing this report, the Council has published performance reports for the

years 2013, 2014, and 2015, that included key performance indicators for Water and

Wastewater Service Providers in WB and GS.

This report also includes an analysis of key performance indicators which cover tech-

nical, financial, and water quality, as well as general recommendations pertaining to

the performance of service providers and ways to improve it. It is worth noting that,

where necessary, KPIs were presented under the classification of service providers

according to size based on the number of valid connections for each service provider

as follows:

Group Number of valid connections

Group (A) > 8,000

Group (B) > 2,000 ≤ 8,000

Group (C) < 2,000

11

Quick Overview

Number of Service Providers included in the report (64)

39 West Bank

25 Gaza Strip

Non-Revenue Water

32% in the West Bank (for 39

service providers)

39% in the Gaza Strip (for

the whole of the Strip)

Quantity of Water – West

Bank

Locally extracted: 29.8 mil-

lion m3

Purchased: 16.5 million m3

Percentage of coverage 74%

of the population

West Bank 62%

Gaza Strip 100%

Classification of Service

Providers

Water Society (1)

Local/Village Councils (2)

Water Undertakings (3)

Joint Water Councils (5)

Water and Wastewater

departments within munici-

palities (53)

Average Collection Rate -

Water Service

West Bank: 69%

Gaza Strip: 52%

Quantity of Water - Gaza

Strip

Locally extracted: 80 million

m3

Purchased: 7.6 million m3

Produced by desalination

plants: 0.5 million m3

Number of population

served

West Bank: 1,768,217

Gaza Strip: 1,656,802

Size of Service Providers

Small – Serving less than 2000 customers: 23 Service

ProvidersMedium – Serving 2000 to 8000 customers: 29 Service

ProvidersLarge – Serving more than 8000 customers: 12 Service

Providers

Per capita water consump-

tion for domestic purposes

West Bank: 74 liters per capi-ta per day

Gaza Strip: 93 liters per capi-ta per day

Number of valid Connections

West Bank: 268,726 Connec-tions

Gaza Strip: 154,410 Connec-tions

12


13

Chapter One

Ein Farah, Image by Eyad Jadallah 2017

14


Introduction to the Water and Waste-water Service Providers

Nablus Municipality , Image by Eyad Jadallah 2017

(1.1) Water and Wastewater Service Providers

The 2014 Palestinian Water Authority Data Bank En-

hancement Project funded by UNICEF estimated the

number of water and wastewater service providers

in the West Bank and Gaza Strip at more than 280

SPs consisting of water and wastewater undertak-

ings and authorities, departments within munici-

palities, as well as Village and Joint Service Councils.

This number does not include individuals and com-

panies that run and distribute desalinated water in

the Gaza Strip totalling over 160 service providers.

(1.2) Comprehensive coverage of perfor-mance monitoring

This report reflects the performance monitoring of

a larger number of Water and Wastewater Service

Providers in Palestine compared to the 2014 report.

This current report comprises all water and waste-

water service providers in the GS and 39 service

providers in the WB1. It should be noted that WSRC

could not obtain the data of the only bulk service

provider in the West Bank. Hence, for the first time

this report does not include the West Bank Water

Department (WBWD).

The total number of population who receive the

service from service providers that are monitored

reached 1,769,000 citizens in the WB or 62% of the

WB population. If we add service providers moni-

tored in the GS the percentage of coverage in this

2015 performance report reaches 74% of the total

population.

Maps (1) and (2) below show the distribution of ser-vice providers in the WB and GS that are covered in this reporting period with the jurisdiction area for each.

1 The service providers will be referred to in brief names, attached in

Annex 1 Table with the full name of each service provider.

15

Map #1: West Bank Service Providers with their Jurisdiction Areas Covered in this 2015 Performance Monitoring Report

16


Map #2: Gaza Strip Service Providers with their Jurisdiction Areas Covered in this 2015 Performance Monitoring Report

Abasan Al Kabira

Al Fukhari

CMWU-Rafah

(1.3) Water Resources

Tables in Annex (2) and (3) summarize the water resources available to service pro-

viders included in this report for the year 2015. Data and information gathered, as

shown in the Maps (3) and (4), show that six of the water service providers whose per-

formance is being monitored in the WB rely totally on local water resources while 28

17

service providers rely on water purchased from Israeli companies, while the rest rely

on a mix of local and purchased water combined. This clearly shows the vulnerability

of the sector and the size of Israeli control over it.

The lack of control over water resources limits the capacity of service providers to

plan for the future or guarantee the quality of water provided to the citizens. Further-

more, they cannot control the cost of production or distribution which means they

have no influence on the price of the service. The development of this sector, which

is part of the overall Palestinian development process, cannot be complete while this

control persists, and the search for water resources under Palestinian control has be-

come an urgent necessity.

The situation in the Gaza Strip is different. The majority of service providers rely on

local water resources. Only 8 service providers depend with different percentages on

purchased water from Mekorot Company or the wells of ex-settlements and desalina-

tion plants like Khuza’a and Abasan al Jadida which depend 100% on purchased wa-

ter, and Abasan al Kabira which depends largely on purchased water (93%). However,

and as will be clarified in the performance indicators later on in this report, the Gaza

Strip suffers from the low quality of water provided to customers.

18


Map #3: Water Resources – West Bank

19

Map #4: Water Resources – Gaza Strip

(1.4) Operational Information

The Regulatory Council is currently putting the last touches on the TOR for a program

for monitoring the operational processes of Water and Wastewater Service Providers

in line with paragraph 7 of article 24 of the Water Law. This section of the report will

present several observations made by service providers as a preliminary overview

rather than a comprehensive description of operational processes in this sector.

20


First Observation: The number of domestic connections does not reflect a real effort

to apply correct principles in terms of providing each connection with a separate me-

ter. The numbers show that there is a single meter for every 17-20 customers as is the

case in most areas in southern Palestine. This means that many residential buildings,

regardless of the number of families residing in them share one meter/one connec-

tion. This situation is most noticeable in Hebron, Dura, Yatta, Tuqu’, and most areas of

the Gaza Strip.

Second Observation: Some service providers still consider water services as an em-

ployment opportunity regardless of the real need for staff. This reflects negatively on

the cost of the service and hence the price of a cubic meter of water provided to the

customers which becomes an obstacle to potential development of this service.

Third Observation: Data has been collected on the length of service providers’ distri-

bution networks to enable the Council to follow up on the development of infrastruc-

ture, in the hope that service providers will document the length of the networks and

the rest of the components of water and wastewater systems. The accuracy of data

on the length of the networks varies from one service provider to another, whereas

some service providers conduct an accurate measurement of the length of the net-

work using GIS2 maps while others estimate the length, keeping in mind that in 2015

some SPs provided numbers on the length of their network that were less than those

provided in 2014.

Fourth Observation: The percentage of the population who receive wastewater ser-

vices remains at 31% in the West Bank and 70% in Gaza Strip, which requires doubling

efforts to guarantee the protection of public health and the environment.

Tables (1) and (2) provide the general operational data of service providers included

in this report for the year 2015.

2 Geographic Information System (GIS)S

21

Table #1: Operational Data for West Bank Service Providers

Service Provider No. of Staff

No. of Active

Water Connec-

tions

No. of Popu-

lation Served

with Water

Services

Water Network

Length (km)

No. of Population

Served with Waste-

water Services

Tulkarm 103 13,434 80,000 398 20,000

WSSA 80 12,835 102,087 312 70,000

Hebron 84 17,900 228,000 305 150,000

JWU 267 60,175 330,000 1,423 N/A

Nablus 312 41,177 209,161 510 204,003

Jenin 57 8,590 54,000 149 42,000

Qalqiliya 28 9,890 52,412 149 51,000

Salfit 7 2,644 15,500 60 9,500

Tubas 21 6,880 43,836 145 N/A

Northwest Jenin 31 6,157 60,000 505 N/A

Mythaloun 10 4,016 24,400 138 N/A

Northwest Jerusalem 17 4,584 39,370 132 N/A

Abu Dis 14 3,200 28,000 33 N/A

Deir Al Ghusun 3 2,136 11,000 55 N/A

Beit Ummar 4 2,749 17,254 80 N/A

Sai’r 7 3,091 25,000 69 N/A

Halhul 7 3,852 29,222 70 N/A

Jericho 30 6,150 22,380 113 12,309

Dura 6 3,600 37,500 105 N/A

Ya’bad 7 2,700 16,000 35 N/A

Arraba 5 2700 13,000 21 N/A

Bani Na’im 5 2,600 25,000 60 N/A

Tarqumiya 3 2,520 18,000 76 N/A

Yatta 21 3,944 67,000 130 N/A

Beituniya 13 6,134 35,000 52 N/A

Al ’Ezariya 10 3,483 28,000 49 200

Biddya 5 2,100 10,232 30 360

Illar 9 7,133 1,426 6 N/A

Al Sawahra 2 979 6,600 20 N/A

Al ’Auja 2 720 5,214 28 N/A

Anabta 6 1,882 8,597 51 3,869

Azzun 5 1,736 9,738 40 N/A

Southeast Nablus 23 7,048 42,288 278 N/A

Qabatiya 23 3,519 27,000 50 N/A

Al Far’a 4 780 4,500 5 N/A

Attil 4 1,950 11,000 60 N/A

Za’atara 3 1,300 8,000 60 N/A

Kafr Ra’i 4 1,118 9,500 24 N/A

Tuqu’ 4 1,320 13,000 80 N/A

Source: Submitted data by WSPs

22


Table #2: Operational Data for Gaza Strip Service Providers

Service Provider No. of Staff1

No. of Active

Water Con-

nections

No. of Popu-

lation Served

with Water

Services

Water Net-

work Length

(km)

No. of Population

Served with Waste-

water Services

An Nuseirat 17 8,300 75,000 93 65,000

Jabalia 75 13,672 160,157 190 157,194

Khan Yunis 88 17,379 193,123 371 159,042

Gaza 101 48,134 591,712 600 518,510

CMWU - Rafah 47 18,348 195,570 375 126,550

Al Bureij 7 3,740 41,382 50 30,492

Az Zawayda 5 2,323 15,257 87 13,077

Al Qarara 16 2,400 20,000 120 N/A

Al Maghazi 14 2,650 28,221 48 27,348

Bani Suheila 25 4,638 39,941 103 9,985

Beit Hanun 26 4,163 50,051 120 38,304

Beit Lahiya 40 7,658 73,547 170 64,895

Deir al Balah 47 7,258 78,329 139 54,830

Abasan al Kabira 6 3,322 23,198 55 N/A

Az Zahra 4 1,100 3,889 19 3,189

Ash Shuka 10 1,578 11,867 82 N/A

Al Fukhkhari 4 1,008 6,420 52 N/A

Al Musaddar 3 330 2,410 19 1,500

Al Mughraqa 5 1,412 8,241 25 6,181

An Naser 7 1,275 8,206 37 N/A

Umm an Naser 5 457 3,773 10 3,018

Khuza’a 6 1,266 11,524 50 N/A

Abasan al Jadida 5 1,279 6,114 36 N/A

Wadi as Salqa 3 402 5,300 44 N/A

Wadi Gaza 3 318 3,570 33 N/A

(1.5) Bulk Water Providers – The West Bank Water Department (WBWD)

The WBWD is the only entity that supplies bulk water in the West Bank, in addition

to its ownership and management of water resources consisting of 17 ground water

wells. In addition to the wells, the department currently supplies water bought from

Israeli sources which constitutes 80% of the amount of water that it currently sup-

plies and distributes to service providers.

The WBWD did not provide the WSRC with any information for the year 2015 to

evaluate performance indicators and to publish them. The data and indicators

published in the 2014 report are the most recent updated data that the Council

has regarding the performance of the WBWD.

Source: Submitted data by WSPs

23

Chapter Two

Ein Al Sultan Spring, Image by Iyad Jadallah 2017

24


Detailed Review of the Performance of Service Providers According to KPIs

Several KPIs have been approved for water service

providers in Palestine. These indicators were select-

ed based on the IWA Performance Indicators System

adapted to local conditions. The indicators are divid-

ed into three main categories: technical, financial, and

water quality indicators, in addition to a gender indi-

cator.3

The Palestinian Water Authority in its “Strategic Plan

and Action Plan for the Palestinian Water Sector (2017

– 2022)” incorporated several objectives and indica-

tors to be achieved in 2022 compared to the current

indicators of 2014. Following are some of those objec-

tives and indicators:

Indicator 2022

West Bank Gaza Strip

Amount of purchased wa-ter (million m3)

92 14

Percentage of non-revenue water

26% 31%

Percentage of wastewater network coverage

45% 80%

Collection efficiency 80-90% 75-80%

Amount of water per capi-ta (liter per capita per day)

88 104

3 The WSRC has published a booklet about its KPIs and how each

indicator is calculated and sources of information for each. The

Council also published a report titled «The Performance of Water

Service Providers in Palestine; Summary of 2015-2014».

Soft copies of our Publications can be downloaded from the Council’s

website: www.wsrc.ps Ein Samia Water Station Source: Jerusalem Water Undertaking

25

(2.1) Technical Indicators

(2.1.1) Average daily per capita water consumption for domestic uses

This indicator is calculated for service providers who separate domestic consumption of water from other types of water consumption (commercial, touristic, industrial). This reflects a more accurate measurement of the total water consumption level per capita that can be compared with WHO relevant standards.

Graph #1: Average Daily per Capita Water Consumption for Domestic Use – West Bank

0

50

100

150

200

250Group A Group B Group C

lite

r p

er

cap

ita

pe

r d

ay

WHO recommended minimum standard for domestic water consumption

WHO absolute minimum standard for domestic water consumption

Tuqu'

Kafr Ra'i

Za'atara

Attil

Al Far'a

Qabatiy

a

Southeast

Nablu

s

Azzun

Anabta

Al 'Auja

Al Saw

ahraIll

ar

Biddya

Al 'Eza

riya

Beituniy

a

Yatta

Tarq

umiy

a

Bani Na'im

Arraba

Ya'bad

Dura

Jeric

ho

Halhul

Sa'ir

Beit Um

mar

Deir Al G

husun

Abu Dis

Northw

est Je

rusa

lem

Myth

aloun

Northw

est Je

nin

Tubas

Salfit

Qalq

iliya

Jenin

Nablus

JWU

Hebron

WSSA

Tulkarm

Graph #2: Average Daily per Capita Water Consumption for Domestic Use – Gaza Strip

0

50

100

150

200

Wad

i Gaz

a

Wad

i as S

alqa

Abasan

al J

adid

a

Khuza'a

Um

m a

n Nas

er

An Nas

er

Al Mughra

qa

Al Musa

ddar

Al Fukh

khar

i

Ash S

huka

Az

Zahra

Abasan

al K

abira

Deir

al B

alah

Beit La

hiya

Beit H

anun

Bani S

uheila

Al Mag

hazi

Al Qar

ara

Az

Zaway

da

Al Bure

ij

CMW

U –

Raf

ah

Gaz

a

Khan Y

unis

Jabal

ia

An Nuse

irat

WHO recommended minimum standard for domestic water consumption

WHO absolute minimum standard for domestic water consumption

lite

r p

er

cap

ita

pe

r d

ay

Group A Group B Group C

26


The West Bank towns of Dura, Yatta, and Abu Dis still record the lowest rate of per

capita water consumption, barely sufficient to meet basic domestic. needs. One of

the reasons for the low consumption level (less than 30 liters/capita/day) is the re-

strictions imposed on the use of local water resources by the Occupation forces and

the high percentage of non-revenue water for several service providers. In the Gaza

Strip the amount of water consumption per capita still ranges between 39 liters/cap-

ita/day in the Wadi Gaza municipality to 140 liters/capita/day in Az Zawayda munic-

ipality.4

The majority of the population consumes less than the minimum amount of 150 li-

ters/capita/day recommended by the WHO, while the minimum amount internation-

ally is 100 liters/capita/day. If this situation persists in less fortunate areas it might

reflect negatively not only on the health of the citizens and the possibilities of real

development, but it might go beyond that to threatening public peace, and Palestine

has already witnessed protests on the shortage of available water resources.

The just and fair distribution of water resources given the objective circumstances

cannot be achieved without advancing the establishment of a National Water Com-

pany and Regional Water Utilities (RWU) as well as developing available water re-

sources and searching for the development of additional resources.

(2.1.2) The average amount of water sold per capita per day

This indicator measures the total share of water consumption according to number

of individuals for all uses: domestic, commercial, industrial, and touristic as well as

bulk users. This indicator is calculated to compare between service providers in case

they do not separate the different types of water consumption.

4 International and regional performance indicators assume that drinking water is potable and safe, yet that

does not apply to the Gaza Strip where, according to Palestinian Water Authority and UN agency reports,

more than 96 % of the water provided to the population by different service providers is not potable.

27

Map #5: The Average Amount of Water Sold per Capita per Day – West Bank

28


Map #6: The Average Amount of Water Sold per Capita Per Day – Gaza Strip

The lack of proper classification of customers and the registration of almost all cus-

tomers as domestic connections by most service providers in the WB and the GS has

had a negative impact on this indicator because it does not give an accurate estimate

29

of rate of consumption for non-domestic categories. The justification provided by

almost all service providers for not classifying connections according to type of con-

sumption is that a single tariff is applied to all connections regardless of their type of

activity or consumption.

If the separation of patterns of consumption is applied properly it will show the real

amount of water available for domestic customers compared to other types of cus-

tomers and will provide an excellent tool to define the new tariff structure and help

define which types of customers should be encouraged according to the strategic

goal of the service provider.

We can note the large difference between the domestic consumption indicator and

the total consumption indicator for service providers who have separated types of

consumption, such as in Kafr Ra’i whose bulk sales to the areas of Fahmeh and Al

Rameh reached 40%. In Illar as well, 65% of the water entered into the system is bulk

sales. The consumption of the commercial category in Sa’ir reached 42%. These ex-

amples show the importance of separating types of consumption and not placing

them all under the category of domestic consumption which will impact the calcula-

tion of the average per capita water and the tariff structure.

(2.1.3) Percentage of Non-Revenue Water (NRW)

The percentage of NRW reflects the difference between water supplied through the

water distribution network and water for which invoices have been issued for cus-

tomers. This percentage reflects real or material losses such as water leakage, and

other losses such as illegal connections, inaccurate measurement of water meters,

etc.

It is worth noting that the water balance was used during the data collection process

in 2015 to calculate the percentage of NRW. The water balance is a logical analysis

based on international standards in classifying the components of NRW. Each service

provider defined the components of NRW each according to their geographic area of

jurisdiction and objective circumstances for each service area.

The water balance provides an excellent tool for service providers to define priorities

of their action plan to reduce NRW.

The water balance is also a good monitoring tool for the WSRC to follow up and review

plans of action for each service provider, and to set specific objectives for improving

performance of every service provider within the framework of a performance incen-

tive system or to review and amend tariff structures.

30


Wat

er E

nter

ing t

he Sy

stem

:is

the

tot

al w

ater

am

ount

en

teri

ng t

he s

yste

m f

rom

al

l sou

rces

incl

udin

g w

ater

pr

oduc

ed fr

om lo

cal w

ater

so

urce

s (i.

e. w

ells

, spr

ings

, de

salin

atio

n pl

ants

) an

d pu

rcha

sed

wat

er a

mou

nts.

Unbi

lled

Auth

oriz

ed

Cons

umpt

ion:

the

amou

nt o

f wat

er

supp

lied

by

Wat

er

Serv

ice

Prov

ider

for

free

thr

ough

wat

er

met

ers

or

with

out

met

ers.

Phys

ical L

osse

s:is

com

pose

d of

all

loss

es

resu

lting

of

le

akag

e fro

m m

ain an

d di

strib

utio

n pi

pelin

es,

rese

rvoi

r le

akag

e an

d / th

roug

h co

nnec

tions

, et

c.

Bille

d Aut

horiz

ed C

onsu

mpt

ionis

the

wat

er

amou

nts

that

co

rres

pond

to

the

Aut

horiz

ed

met

ered

con

sum

ptio

n , w

here

an

invo

ice

is gi

ven

to

the

cust

omer

s th

roug

h w

hich

the

re

venu

es o

f the

wat

er u

tiliti

es

are

gene

rate

d.

Com

mer

cial (

Appa

rent

) Lo

sses

is c

ompo

sed

of a

ll lo

sses

: si

mila

r to

m

eter

ina

ccur

acie

s (c

usto

mer

met

ers)

, da

ta e

ntry

, the

fts, e

tc.

Reve

nue W

ater

Non-

Reve

nue W

ater

Wat

er B

alan

ce

Loca

lly P

rodu

ced

Pur

chas

ed

31

The illustration below summarizes the components of NRW on the basis of which the

water balance was developed. The Chart No. (3) below summarizes the results of the

water balance analysis for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Graph #3: Results of Water Balance Analysis

3.0%

10.0

%

23.0

%

64.0

%Bi

lled

Aut

hori

zed

Con

sum

ptio

n

Wat

er B

alan

ce A

naly

sisU

nbill

ed A

utho

rize

d C

onsu

mpt

ion

4,74

6,45

6 m

3

35,7

48,4

69 m

3

Com

mer

cial

Los

ses

159,

614

m3

Phys

ical

Los

ses

Non

-Rev

enue

Wat

er

Equi

vale

nt t

o 16

0 M

illio

n N

IS

5645

632

2 m

3

36.0

%

Wes

t Ban

k &

Gaz

a Str

ip

Bille

d A

utho

rize

d C

onsu

mpt

ion

3.8%

61.2

%

0.00

%

50.0

0%

100.

00%

50.0

0%

100.

00%

5.5%

29.5

%

Gaz

a Str

ipW

est B

ank

25,9

78,1

11 m

3

9,77

0,35

8 m

3

Com

mer

cial

(A

ppar

ent)

Lo

sses

Phys

ical

Los

ses

(Lea

kage

)

4,84

0,08

3 m

3

Unb

illed

Aut

hori

zed

Con

sum

ptio

n

3,33

3,92

9 m

3

0.00

%

Com

mer

cial

(A

ppar

ent)

Lo

sses

Phys

ical

Los

ses

(Lea

kage

)

1,41

2,52

7 m

3

Unb

illed

Aut

hori

zed

Con

sum

ptio

n

11,1

21,3

14 m

3

14.0

%

16.0

%

2.0%

Bille

d A

utho

rize

d

Con

sum

ptio

n

Not

e: A

naly

sis

cove

rs 3

9 W

ater

Ser

vice

Pro

vide

rs in

the

Wes

t Ba

nk

Not

e: Ea

ch $

is e

quiv

alen

t to

3.6

8 N

IS

Not

e: A

naly

sis

cove

rs a

ll Wat

er S

ervi

ce P

rovi

ders

in G

aza

Stri

p

68.0

%

32


It seems that efforts exerted by some service providers to reduce the rate of NRW

were very modest or that the issue was not given sufficient priority, since some ser-

vice providers, as can be seen above, cannot account for half the quantity of water

that they supply through the system. This is clearly bad management of this sector

and constitutes drastic losses due to the high percentage of NRW, keeping in mind

the limited water resources available.

In the WB, Al Eizariyah, Jenin, and Tulkarm registered the highest percentage of NRW

(50%, 49%, and 49% respectively). In the GS the municipalities of Wadi Gaza and Al

Mughraqa and Beit Hanun still register the highest rates of NRW (58%, 58%, and 56%

respectively).

The immediate compliance with the National Water Strategy and the Water Law by

installing meters and billing all types of use including public parks, public institutions,

as well as the civil defense and others reduces NRW and facilitates the task of service

providers to specify areas of water loss which will eventually lead to increasing the

per capita share of water as well as increase revenues from water services.

33

Map #7: Percentage of Non-Revenue Water – WB

34


Map #8: Percentage of Non-Revenue Water – GS

35

Illar drew attention to itself by recording the lowest rate of NRW reaching 4% which

casts doubts on the accuracy of data provided in the water balance account and

raised a discussion during the workshop organized by the Council to present the ini-

tial results of this report. The mayor of Illar municipality, responded by stating that

there is not one single illegal connection or a connection without a water meter and

all customers are billed including official department buildings. Bills are also issued

for any breach in the network and the cost is estimated and borne by the entity that

caused the damage or the municipality itself. He also added that 65% of the water in

the system is sold by bulk which might explain the low rate of NRW.

The experience of Illar Municipality’s management of the water service requires a

more in-depth study to understand and replicate their experience in case there are

good practices to improve the NRW indicator.

(2.1.4) Amount of NRW for every km of the network and main pipelines per annum

This indicator allows us to compare service providers of different sizes. The length of

the network is measured and the amount of NRW is compared for every km in length.

This indicator measures the efficiency of the network and supply lines and its results

will assist the water service provider to improve plans for future investments and re-

pair or replace the network.

Graph #4: Amount of NRW for every km in length of the network per annum- WB

13500

12000

10500

9000

7500

6000

4500

3000

1500

0


m3

pe

r k

m in

th

e n

etw

ork

pe

r ye

ar

Average NRW per km in the network per year

Tuqu'

Kafr Ra'i

Za'atara

Attil

Al Far'a

Qabatiy

a

Southeast

Nablu

s

Azzun

Anabta

Al 'Auja

Al Saw

ahraIll

ar

Biddya

Al 'Eza

riya

Beituniy

a

Yatta

Tarq

umiy

a

Bani Na'im

Arraba

Ya'bad

Dura

Jeric

ho

Halhul

Sa'ir

Beit Um

mar

Deir Al G

husun

Abu Dis

Northw

est Je

rusa

lem

Myth

aloun

Northw

est Je

nin

Tubas

Salfit

Qalq

iliya

Jenin

Nablus

JWU

Hebron

WSSA

Tulkarm

36


Graph #5: Amount of NRW for Every km in Length of the Network per Annum- GS

30000

27500

25000

22500

20000

17500

15000

12500

10000

7500

5000

2500

0


m3

pe

r k

m in

th

e n

etw

ork

pe

r ye

ar

Average NRW per km in the network per year

Wad

i Gaz

a

Wad

i as S

alqa

Abasan

al J

adid

a

Khuza'a

Um

m a

n Nas

er

An Nas

er

Al Mughra

qa

Al Musa

ddar

Al Fukh

khar

i

Ash S

huka

Az

Zahra

Abasan

al K

abira

Deir

al B

alah

Beit La

hiya

Beit H

anun

Bani S

uheila

Al Mag

hazi

Al Qar

ara

Az

Zaway

da

Al Bure

ij

CMW

U –

Raf

ah

Gaz

a

Khan Y

unis

Jabal

ia

An Nuse

irat

(2.1.5) Wastewater service coverage percentage

This indicator is considered a main indicator of health, environment and public safe-

ty. It is important on the national level to guide investment towards the sector of

collecting and treating wastewater.

Graph #6: Coverage Rate of Wastewater Services-WB

pe

rce

nt

%0

%20

%40

%60

%80

%100 Group A Group B Group C

Tuqu'

Kafr Ra'i

Za'atara

Attil

Al Far'a

Qabatiy

a

Southeast

Nablu

s

Azzun

Anabta

Al 'Auja

Al Saw

ahraIll

ar

Biddya

Al 'Eza

riya

Beituniy

a

Yatta

Tarq

umiy

a

Bani Na'im

Arraba

Ya'bad

Dura

Jeric

ho

Halhul

Sa'ir

Beit Um

mar

Deir Al G

husun

Abu Dis

Northw

est Je

rusa

lem

Myth

aloun

Northw

est Je

nin

Tubas

Salfit

Qalq

iliya

Jenin

Nablus

JWU

Hebron

WSSA

Tulkarm

37

Graph #7: Coverage Rate of Wastewater Services-GS

%0

%20

%40

%60

%80

%100Group A Group B Group C

m3

pe

r k

m in

th

e n

etw

ork

pe

r ye

ar

Wad

i Gaz

a

Wad

i as S

alqa

Abasan

al J

adid

a

Khuza'a

Um

m a

n Nas

er

An Nas

er

Al Mughra

qa

Al Musa

ddar

Al Fukh

khar

i

Ash S

huka

Az

Zahra

Abasan

al K

abira

Deir

al B

alah

Beit La

hiya

Beit H

anun

Bani S

uheila

Al Mag

hazi

Al Qar

ara

Az

Zaway

da

Al Bure

ij

CMW

U –

Raf

ah

Gaz

a

Khan Y

unis

Jabal

ia

An Nuse

irat

The number of Wastewater Service Providers in the West Bank are 9 out of 39 ser-

vice providers covered in this report: Tulkarm, WSSA, Nablus, Qalqiliya, Jenin, Jericho,

Anabta, Salfit and Hebron. No serious investments in the wastewater sector were reg-

istered in 2015 apart from continuing to expand the wastewater network in Jericho in

addition to a pilot project in Biddya covering 130 connections connected to a waste-

water network and a wastewater treatment plant.

In the Gaza Strip the majority of service providers also provide wastewater services

with the exception of 9 providers who do not have a wastewater network: Wadi Gaza,

Wadi as Salqa, Al Qarara, Abasan al Kabira, Abasan al Jadida, Khuza’a, Al Fukhkhari, Al

Naser, and Al Shuka.

(2.2) Financial Indicators

(2.2.1) Average selling price for one cubic meter of water

The average selling price of one cubic meter of water varies greatly from one service

provider to another as a result of divergence in operational costs due to several fac-

tors including the difference in water resources (purchased or produced), and the

difference in the levels for water pumping and energy sources used which results in

differences in pumping and treatment costs and other technical issues. All of these

factors lead to differences in the selling price between providers. Nevertheless, all

service providers are obliged to abide to the unified principles of calculating the wa-

ter tariff as described in the Tariff Bylaw number 1, 2013.

38


Graph #8: Average Selling Price for One Cubic Meter of Water- WB

0

2

4

6

8

10


NIS

pe

r cu

bic

me

ter

Average of average selling price per m3 of water

Tuqu'

Kafr Ra'i

Za'atara

Attil

Al Far'a

Qabatiy

a

Southeast

Nablu

s

Azzun

Anabta

Al 'Auja

Al Saw

ahraIll

ar

Biddya

Al 'Eza

riya

Beituniy

a

Yatta

Tarq

umiy

a

Bani Na'im

Arraba

Ya'bad

Dura

Jeric

ho

Halhul

Sa'ir

Beit Um

mar

Deir Al G

husun

Abu Dis

Northw

est Je

rusa

lem

Myth

aloun

Northw

est Je

nin

Tubas

Salfit

Qalq

iliya

Jenin

Nablus

JWU

Hebron

WSSA

Tulk

arm

Graph #9: Average Selling Price for One Cubic Meter of Water- GS

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0 Group A Group B Group C

NIS

pe

r cu

bic

me

ter

Average of average selling price per m3 of water

Wad

i Gaz

a

Wad

i as S

alqa

Abasan

al J

adid

a

Khuza'a

Um

m a

n Nas

er

An Nas

er

Al Mughra

qa

Al Musa

ddar

Al Fukh

khar

i

Ash S

huka

Az

Zahra

Abasan

al K

abira

Deir

al B

alah

Beit La

hiya

Beit H

anun

Bani S

uheila

Al Mag

hazi

Al Qar

ara

Az

Zaway

da

Al Bure

ij

CMW

U –

Raf

ah

Gaz

a

Khan Y

unis

Jabal

ia

An Nuse

irat

To establish the fairness of sales prices while ensuring that they comply with the gen-

eral principles of the tariff structure in terms of cost recovery and taking into consid-

eration the social and economic conditions, the Council continues to review water

and wastewater tariffs giving priority to service providers who do not recover the

costs of service provision.

39

(2.2.2) Operational costs per cubic meter of water sold

The average sales price per cubic meter of water and operational costs per cubic me-

ter of water sold need to be reviewed in tandem to clarify the gap between the av-

erage selling price of one cubic meter of water compared to the operational costs

(production, distribution, and management) per cubic meter of water sold.

Graph #10: Operational Costs per Cubic Meter of Water Sold - WB

0

2

4

6

8

10

NIS

pe

r cu

bic

me

ter

sold

Personnel costs per m3 of water sold

Water purchase costs (at purchase point) per m3 of water sold

Energy costs per m3 of water sold

Other operating costs per m3 of water sold


Tuqu'

Kafr Ra'i

Za'atara

Attil

Al Far'a

Qabatiya

Southeast

Nablu

s

Azzun

Anabta

Al 'Auja

Al Saw

ahraIll

ar

Biddya

Al 'Eza

riya

Beituniy

a

Yatta

Tarq

umiy

a

Bani Na'im

Arraba

Ya'bad

Dura

Jeric

ho

Halhul

Sa'ir

Beit Um

mar

Deir Al G

husun

Abu Dis

Northw

est Je

rusa

lem

Myth

aloun

Northw

est Je

nin

Tubas

Salfit

Qalqili

ya

Jenin

Nablus

JWU

Hebron

WSSA

Tulkarm

Graph #11: Operational Costs per Cubic Meter of Water Sold - GS

0

5

10

15

20

NIS

per

cub

ic m

eter

sol

d

Personnel costs per m3 of water sold

Water purchase costs (at purchase point) per m3 of water sold

Energy costs per m3 of water sold

Other operating costs per m3 of water sold

Wadi G

aza

Wadi a

s Salq

a

Abasan a

l Jadid

a

Khuza'a

Umm

an N

aser

An Nase

r

Al Mughra

qa

Al Musa

ddar

Al Fukhkhari

Ash S

huka

Az Zahra

Abasan a

l Kabira

Deir al B

alah

Beit Lahiy

a

Beit Hanun

Bani Suheila

Al Maghazi

Al Qara

ra

Az Zaw

ayda

Al Bure

ij

CMW

U – R

afah

Gaza

Khan Yunis

Jabalia

An Nuse

irat


40


Upon reviewing the indicator above and taking into consideration its relationship

to other indicators, we have the following observations:

• The cost of water purchased from Mekorot includes a VAT and a fine for late pay-

ments which increases the cost of water.

• The Water Authority meters (unlike the municipality meters) are located adjacent

to the border in the Gaza Strip which Israel considers restricted land. This means

that the Palestinian Water Authority staff cannot reach those meters to record

their readings except on rare occasions. This is why they rely on municipality me-

ter readings to compare with invoices from Mekorot Company. There is no way to

verify the accuracy of Mekorot Company meters which would be the most accu-

rate way to verify the accuracy of the invoice.

• The distance between Mekorot Company meters and municipality meters in some

areas can reach more than 4 kilometers. Most of the area is agricultural land which

might explain the great difference sometimes between the different readings be-

cause of illegal consumption and transgressions on water lines.

• The amounts of water sold and rates of NRW as well as the incentive discounts

that service providers sustain are main factors in defining the levels of operational

costs per cubic meter of sold water.

• Some service providers, especially in the Gaza Strip, apply a policy of incentive

discounts on accumulating debts which increases operational costs per cubic me-

ter of water sold.

• It is important to accurately calculate operational costs per cubic meter of water

to set the tariff in towards complete cost recovery.

(2.2.3) Collection Efficiency – water services

It was found that the efficiency of collection for some service providers reached high

levels such as 129% in Arraba, 139% in Anabta, and 108% for the Jerusalem Water

Undertaking. These high rates can be explained by the collection of part of previous

debts in addition to the current bill whereby both Arraba and Anabta municipali-

ties organized a campaign to collect debts by connecting the water bill with prepaid

electricity meters. This resulted in the full collection of current water bills in addition

to part of previous debts. Nevertheless, and despite the marked improvement in effi-

ciency of collection, some municipalities and service providers all over Palestine still

suffer from low collection rates to the extent that the service as a whole or at least

maintaining an acceptable level of the service may be under threat if the situation

persists.

41

Graph #12: Collection Efficiency – Water Services- WB

%0

%40

%80

%120

%160Group A Group B Group C

pe

rce

nt

Average collection efficiency - water service

Tuqu'

Kafr Ra'i

Za'atara

Attil

Al Far'a

Qabatiy

a

Southeast

Nablu

s

Azzun

Anabta

Al 'Auja

Al Saw

ahraIll

ar

Biddya

Al 'Eza

riya

Beituniy

a

Yatta

Tarq

umiy

a

Bani Na'im

Arraba

Ya'bad

Dura

Jeric

ho

Halhul

Sa'ir

Beit Um

mar

Deir Al G

husun

Abu Dis

Northw

est Je

rusa

lem

Myth

aloun

Northw

est Je

nin

Tubas

Salfit

Qalq

iliya

Jenin

Nablus

JWU

Hebron

WSSA

Tulkarm

Graph #13: Collection Efficiency – Water Services- GS

%120

%90

%60

%30

%0


pe

rce

nt

Average collection efficiency - water service

Wad

i Gaz

a

Wad

i as S

alqa

Abasan

al J

adid

a

Khuza'a

Um

m a

n Nas

er

An Nas

er

Al Mughra

qa

Al Musa

ddar

Al Fukh

khar

i

Ash S

huka

Az

Zahra

Abasan

al K

abira

Deir

al B

alah

Beit La

hiya

Beit H

anun

Bani S

uheila

Al Mag

hazi

Al Qar

ara

Az

Zaway

da

Al Bure

ij

CMW

U –

Raf

ah

Gaz

a

Khan Y

unis

Jabal

ia

An Nuse

irat

42


The availability of cash is very important for a service provider’s smooth operation-

al cycle. What’s more, collecting due revenues promptly contributes to covering the

service providers’ expenses and costs, while failure to do so will force the latter to ei-

ther borrow money and pay interest, which will increase the cost as well as the price,

or push service providers to a situation where they cannot provide quality service up

to the standards expected by the customers or the regulator. Furthermore, this indi-

cator reflects the efficiency of the SP’s staff in performing their job and the readiness

of customers to pay.

Some of the reasons that service providers gave to explain the low collection

rates during the interviews and workshops were:

• Shared meters, where families sharing one meter are less willing to pay and, in

case of internal conflicts, the situation might arise where everyone might reject

to pay.

• Low collection rates from rental homes where the tenant may evacuate the house

leaving behind many outstanding bills.

• The possibility of transferring a connections or starting a new connections in the

name of the wife or son to avoid paying outstanding bills from the old connec-

tions.

(2.2.4) Collection Efficiency – Wastewater Service

It’s important to look at both indicators of collection efficiency of water and waste-

water services at the same time, since there are no service providers especially in

the West Bank that separate water from wastewater except with the Jerusalem Wa-

ter Undertaking. Besides the costs of consumption of water and wastewater services

are issued on the same bill and collected by the service providers towards the total

amount of the bill which includes other items in addition to water and wastewater.

43

Graph #14: Collection Efficiency – Wastewater Service– West Bank

%80

%60

%40

%20

%0


Tuqu'

Kafr Ra'i

Za'atara

Attil

Al Far'a

Qabatiy

a

Southeast

Nablu

s

Azzun

Anabta

Al 'Auja

Al Saw

ahraIll

ar

Biddya

Al 'Eza

riya

Beituniy

a

Yatta

Tarq

umiy

a

Bani Na'im

Arraba

Ya'bad

Dura

Jeric

ho

Halhul

Sa'ir

Beit Um

mar

Deir Al G

husun

Abu Dis

Northw

est Je

rusa

lem

Myth

aloun

Northw

est Je

nin

Tubas

Salfit

Qalq

iliya

Jenin

Nablus

JWU

Hebron

WSSA

Tulkarm

Graph #15: Collection Efficiency – Wastewater Service – Gaza Strip

%120

%90

%60

%30

%0

Wad

i Gaz

a

Wad

i as S

alqa

Abasan

al J

adid

a

Khuza'a

Um

m a

n Nas

er

An Nas

er

Al Mughra

qa

Al Musa

ddar

Al Fukh

khar

i

Ash S

huka

Az

Zahra

Abasan

al K

abira

Deir

al B

alah

Beit La

hiya

Beit H

anun

Bani S

uheila

Al Mag

hazi

Al Qar

ara

Az

Zaway

da

Al Bure

ij

CMW

U –

Raf

ah

Gaz

a

Khan Y

unis

Jabal

ia

An Nuse

irat


44


There isn’t a unified basis to calculate the tariff for wastewater services. Each service

provider calculates the service tariff differently, and sometimes it is a set amount that

is not based on the principle of cost recovery. Table 3 below summarizes the tariffs set

by service providers providing wastewater services included in this report.

Table #3: Summary of Wastewater Service Tariffs Provided by Service Providers in 2015

805 شيكل لكل اشتراك خلدمة صرف صحي يف الس

Service provider

Percentage of coverage of

the wastewater service

Tariff Disposal of

collected wastewater

We

st B

an

k

Water and sewage authority – Bethle-

hem, Beit Jala and Beit Sahour

69%28% of the value of the bill (excluding the fees

for meter reading)Valley

Nablus municipality 98%0.5 NIS per cubic meter

of consumed waterTreatment

plant

Tulkarem municipality 85%2 NIS per issued water

billTreatment

plant

Qalqilya municipality 97%80 5 NIS per connections for wastewater service

per yearValley

Salfit municipality 61%1NIS per cubic meter of

water consumedValley

Jenin municipality 78%No tariff- just the fees for

a new connectionsTreatment

plant

Jericho municipality 55%0.5 NIS per cubic meter

of consumed waterTreatment

plant

Hebron municipality 66%No tariff- just the fees for

a new connectionsValley

Anabta municipality 45% 8 NIS per issued water bill Valley

Biddya municipality 4%50 NIS per issued water

bill

Treatment plant (pilot

project)

5 This amount was increased to NIS 100 at the beginning of 2017 for every connection annually

45

Service provider

Percentage of coverage of

the wastewater service

Tariff Disposal of

collected wastewater

Ga

za S

trip

Um N Naser municipal-ity

80%25% of the water

billTreatment plant

Beit Lahiya municipality 88%25% of the water

billTreatment plant

Jabalia al Nazleh mu-nicipality

98%25% of the water

billTreatment plant

Beit Hanun municipal-ity

77%25% of the water

billTreatment plant

Gaza municipality 88%15% of the water

billTreatment plant

Az Zahra municipality 82%15% of the water

bill + 7 NIS for each bill

Treatment plant

Deir al Balah munici-pality

70%15% of the water

bill + 5 NIS for each bill

Treatment plant

An Nusseirat munici-pality

87%15% of the water

billTreatment plant

Al Bureij municipality 74%15% of the water

billTreatment plant

+ Valley

Al Maghazi municipal-ity

97%15% of the water

billTreatment plant

+ Valley

Al Musddar municipal-ity

62%5 NIS for each

issued water billTreatment plant

Az Zawayda municipal-ity

86%15% of the water

billTreatment plant

Khan Yunis municipality 82%15% of the water

bill +6 NIS for each bill

Treatment plant

Coastal Municipal Wa-ter Utility – Rafah

65%20 NIS per water

bill issuedTreatment plant

(2.2.5) Working ratio (efficiency ratio) – Water Service

The indicator of working ratio (efficiency) measures the capacity of the institution

to pay its operational costs out of the annual revenues. When this percentage is less

than (1) it shows a higher probability that the prices and tariff applied at the mu-

nicipality can cover the operational costs and provide for a surplus to cover capital

expenditures.

46


Graph #16: Working Ratio (Efficiency Ratio) – Water Service- WB

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Wo

rkin

g R

atio


Average working ratio

Tuqu'

Kafr Ra'i

Za'atara

Attil

Al Far'a

Qabatiy

a

Southeast

Nablu

s

Azzun

Anabta

Al 'Auja

Al Saw

ahraIll

ar

Biddya

Al 'Eza

riya

Beituniy

a

Yatta

Tarq

umiy

a

Bani Na'im

Arraba

Ya'bad

Dura

Jeric

ho

Halhul

Sa'ir

Beit Um

mar

Deir Al G

husun

Abu Dis

Northw

est Je

rusa

lem

Myth

aloun

Northw

est Je

nin

Tubas

Salfit

Qalq

iliya

Jenin

Nablus

JWU

Hebron

WSSA

Tulkarm

Graph #17: Working Ratio (Efficiency Ratio) – Water Service- GS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Wo

rkin

g R

atio

Average working ratio

Wad

i Gaz

a

Wad

i as S

alqa

Abasan

al J

adid

a

Khuza'a

Um

m a

n Nas

er

An Nas

er

Al Mughra

qa

Al Musa

ddar

Al Fukh

khar

i

Ash S

huka

Az

Zahra

Abasan

al K

abira

Deir

al B

alah

Beit La

hiya

Beit H

anun

Bani S

uheila

Al Mag

hazi

Al Qar

ara

Az

Zaway

da

Al Bure

ij

CMW

U –

Raf

ah

Gaz

a

Khan Y

unis

Jabal

ia

An Nuse

irat


It is worth noting here that as far as the Gaza Strip is concerned, this indicator may

not be accurate in many cases because some municipalities do not record operation-

al or maintenance costs (such as electricity and some other operational costs covered

by donors), or they do not keep adequate records of these costs. In reality, not all ser-

vice providers who recorded ratios of less than 1 can actually cover their operational

47

costs6 at the same time as all service providers sell water at much lower prices than

its actual costs.

(2.2.6) Operational costs per cubic meter of wastewater

This indicator was calculated for service providers who provide wastewater services

for their customers. It was noted that service providers do not separate the costs of

wastewater from the costs of water services which constitutes a challenge to calcu-

lating the operational costs for wastewater. Therefore, documenting all the costs of

wastewater services and listing their accounts in separate cost centers will help in

developing a tariff suitable for the water and wastewater services to recover the costs

of those services.

Graph #18: Operational Costs per Cubic Meter of Wastewater - WB

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

NIS

pe

r cu

bic

me

ter


Tuqu'

Kafr Ra'i

Za'atara

Attil

Al Far'a

Qabatiy

a

Southeast

Nablu

s

Azzun

Anabta

Al 'Auja

Al Saw

ahraIll

ar

Biddya

Al 'Eza

riya

Beituniy

a

Yatta

Tarq

umiy

a

Bani Na'im

Arraba

Ya'bad

Dura

Jeric

ho

Halhul

Sa'ir

Beit Um

mar

Deir Al G

husun

Abu Dis

Northw

est Je

rusa

lem

Myth

aloun

Northw

est Je

nin

Tubas

Salfit

Qalq

iliya

Jenin

Nablus

JWU

Hebron

WSSA

Tulkarm

6 The consultant who collected and verified the data expressed reservations on some data in the Gaza Strip which could

not be verified: as he couldn’t directly obtain the financial documents from some service providers.

48


Graph #19: Operational Costs per Cubic Meter of Wastewater - GS

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

NIS

pe

r cu

bic

me

ter

Wad

i Gaz

a

Wad

i as S

alqa

Abasan

al J

adid

a

Khuza'a

Um

m a

n Nas

er

An Nas

er

Al Mughra

qa

Al Musa

ddar

Al Fukh

khar

i

Ash S

huka

Az

Zahra

Abasan

al K

abira

Deir

al B

alah

Beit La

hiya

Beit H

anun

Bani S

uheila

Al Mag

hazi

Al Qar

ara

Az

Zaway

da

Al Bure

ij

CMW

U –

Raf

ah

Gaz

a

Khan Y

unis

Jabal

ia

An Nuse

irat


(2.3) Water Quality Indicators

Customers must have a supply of safe and potable water. To evaluate service pro-

viders’ follow up on water quality the Council has put together a set of water quality

indicators, namely:

• Percentage of water samples (taken from the network including the main pipe-

lines) containing free residual Chlorine in the network and main pipelines.

• Percentage of water samples (taken from source) free from total coliform contam-

ination.

• Percentage of water samples (taken from source) free from fecal coliform contam-

ination.

• Percentage of water samples (taken from the network pipes including the main

pipelines) free from total coliform contamination.

• Percentage of water samples (taken from the network pipes including the main

pipelines) free from fecal coliform contamination.

• Percentage of microbiologic tests carried out.

• Percentage of water samples taken from source free from Nitrate contamination.

49

General observations pertaining to quality indicators:

• It was noted that in the West Bank there is better follow up and higher success

rates for tests of Residual Chlorine amongst the bigger service providers, while

there is a noted weakness in following up the Chlorination process amongst many

other service providers. On the other hand, the Chlorination system in the Gaza

Strip covers all water production facilities and distribution networks of 25 service

providers. The CMWU in cooperation with municipal staff manages, monitors,

and ensures the continuity of the chlorination process. It is worth noting that the

CMWU is in charge of buying and supplying and distributing Sodium Hypochlorite

as well as maintaining chlorine injecting equipment and units. All data point to the

success of the test samples for residual Chlorine in more than 95% of the samples

tested in the jurisdiction area of each service provider, and this is the approved

rate according to local laws and WHO standards.

• Data shows weak monitoring of the quality of water in the network by service

providers in the Gaza Strip where water samples from the network are not tested

on a regular basis except when there is suspicion of contamination or when there

is a report regarding possible contamination. Apart from that samples are always

taken from the source.

• The problem of Nitrate contamination in the Gaza Strip whereby data shows high

levels of Nitrate contamination for all service providers which exposes customers

to health hazards.

• It was noted during the evaluation that a large number of service providers are

not aware of water quality tests conducted by the Ministry of Health and the for-

mer do not even have records of those tests. They are provided only upon request

from the Council and for the purposes of data entry to calculate indicators.

• Service providers need to pay more attention to following up on the quality of

water and regular testing, first and foremost to maintain public health but also

because water quality is indirectly connected to other indicators. For example,

low water quality will reduce willingness of consumers to pay their dues which

will have a negative impact on the collection efficiency. In addition, incidents of

water contamination require treatment and extensive lab tests and perhaps even

searching for alternative water sources which creates an additional financial bur-

den on the service provider and increases operational costs.

50


Map #9: Results of Water Quality Main Indicators in West Bank and Gaza

51

(2.4) Other Indicators

(2.4.1) Staff Productivity Index– Water Service

This indicator is calculated by dividing the total number of full time staff over the

number of service valid connections multiplied by 1000. The higher the indicator the

lower the efficiency of the SP in human resource management, taking into consider-

ation that there are variations resulting from the differences and diversity of opera-

tional circumstances and water resources of service providers.

Graph #20: Staff Productivity Index - Water Service - WB

Emp

loye

e p

rod

uct

ivit

y fa

cto

r - W

ate

r se

rvic

e

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Average staff productivity


Tuqu'

Kafr Ra'i

Za'atara

Attil

Al Far'a

Qabatiya

Southeast

Nablu

s

Azzun

Anabta

Al 'Auja

Al Saw

ahraIll

ar

Biddya

Al 'Eza

riya

Beituniy

a

Yatta

Tarq

umiy

a

Bani Na'im

Arraba

Ya'bad

Dura

Jeric

ho

Halhul

Sa'ir

Beit Um

mar

Deir Al G

husun

Abu Dis

Northw

est Je

rusa

lem

Myth

aloun

Northw

est Je

nin

Tubas

Salfit

Qalqili

ya

Jenin

Nablus

JWU

Hebron

WSSA

Tulkarm

Graph #21: Staff Productivity Index - Water Service - GS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Em

plo

yee

pro

du

ctiv

ity

fact

or

- W

ate

r se

rvic

e

Average staff productivity

Wad

i Gaz

a

Wad

i as S

alqa

Abasan

al J

adid

a

Khuza'a

Um

m a

n Nas

er

An Nas

er

Al Mughra

qa

Al Musa

ddar

Al Fukh

khar

i

Ash S

huka

Az

Zahra

Abasan

al K

abira

Deir

al B

alah

Beit La

hiya

Beit H

anun

Bani S

uheila

Al Mag

hazi

Al Qar

ara

Az

Zaway

da

Al Bure

ij

CMW

U –

Raf

ah

Gaz

a

Khan Y

unis

Jabal

ia

An Nuse

irat


52


(2.4.2) Labor Participation by Gender- water service (total female staff as a percentage of the total staff)

This indicator was introduced by the Council in support of the government initiative

which ratified the national strategy for gender in the environmental sector in 2012

with special focus on the water and solid waste management sector. It attempts to

bridge the gap between the reality of participation of women in the sector and their

representation in decision making positions as a guarantee for sustainable develop-

ment and efficient administration of the water sector.

Results have clearly shown nominal representation of women amongst all service

providers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as the graphs below show.

Graph #22: Female Staff as a Percentage of the Total Staff - WB

%0

%20

%40

%60

%80

%100

Femal workers as % of total staff

Male workers as % of total staff


Tuqu'

Kafr Ra'i

Za'atara

Attil

Al Far'a

Qabatiy

a

Southeast

Nablu

s

Azzun

Anabta

Al 'Auja

Al Saw

ahraIll

ar

Biddya

Al 'Eza

riya

Beituniy

a

Yatta

Tarq

umiy

a

Bani Na'im

Arraba

Ya'bad

Dura

Jeric

ho

Halhul

Sa'ir

Beit Um

mar

Deir Al G

husun

Abu Dis

Northw

est Je

rusa

lem

Myth

aloun

Northw

est Je

nin

Tubas

Salfit

Qalq

iliya

Jenin

Nablus

JWU

Hebron

WSSA

Tulkarm

53

Graph #23: Female Staff as a Percentage of the Total Staff - GS

%0

%20

%40

%60

%80

%100

Femal workers as % of total staff

Male workers as % of total staff

Wad

i Gaz

a

Wad

i as S

alqa

Abasan

al J

adid

a

Khuza'a

Um

m a

n Nas

er

An Nas

er

Al Mughra

qa

Al Musa

ddar

Al Fukh

khar

i

Ash S

huka

Az

Zahra

Abasan

al K

abira

Deir

al B

alah

Beit La

hiya

Beit H

anun

Bani S

uheila

Al Mag

hazi

Al Qar

ara

Az

Zaway

da

Al Bure

ij

CMW

U –

Raf

ah

Gaz

a

Khan Y

unis

Jabal

ia

An Nuse

irat


Graph 22 shows that the percentage of female representation in the West Bank, of

the total number of both male and female employees, is very low. Out of 39 service

providers, 25 service providers had zero female representation, while other percent-

ages ranged between 2% and 25% maximum.

Meanwhile, Graph 23 shows the percentage of females in Gaza Strip, of the total

number of both males and females employees, which is very low as well. Out of the

25 service provider, 18 providers had zero female representation, and a percentage

less than 4% for other providers, except for Al Maghazi and An Nuseirat where the

percentage was 14.2% and 11.7% respectively.

Those low percentages of woman representation, is a clear indicator that females in

both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, are totally excluded from decision-making in wa-

ter resources management.

Generally, the woman has a significant interest in water management, as she plays

a key role in preserving water and lands, where the international community is rec-

ognizing the importance of engaging males and females in water management, and

ensuring the equal access of water resources for both females and males. With re-

spect to the mentioned figures and percentages, it’s necessary to conduct a study

to investigate the extreme weaknesses in women representation, highlight it, and

work on addressing it through legislations. And also through actions that consid-

er women needs, ensure increasing their competence in managing water resources,

and addressing all forms of discriminations between females and males, to be able

to participate actively in the work of the service providers especially in level of deci-

sion-making.

54


Experiences and Applications

Nablus Municipality, Image by Eyad Jadallah 2017

55

The Jericho Municipality Mobile Billing System

The Jericho municipality has always strived to stay up to date with technological

developments to ensure constant improvement of their services and systems,

especially those that target a large sector of the population. In a significant

move the municipality integrated the use of technology in its internal systems to

provide better timely and quality services that propelled it to the forefront of its

counterparts. The municipality has recently focused its efforts on improving water

and wastewater services, and within that effort the IT director, Maisa’ Hijazi, along

with her team developed a mobile billing system that consists of two components:

mobile smart devices and a computer program to operate them.

The computer devices consist of a portable smart device connected to a printer to

facilitate readings, calculate consumption and issue bills, in addition to an office

base used to connect the mobile device to the PC to exchange data. The com-

puter program is connected to and complements

the mobile billing system designed to handle all

billing processes in the field, starting with enter-

ing the meter reading and ending with issuing

the bill and crediting the fees that were collected

which means that the reader/collector can begin

and end the billing process promptly in the field.

The idea for the development of this program

grew out of the need to streamline a long, com-

plicated, and out-dated process that consumed a

lot of time and effort whereby collectors carried

manual lists and recorded meter readings manual-

ly, followed by another team to repeat the process

and double check the readings and then compare

separate lists to resolve any problems. After this,

the readings would be entered on a simple computer program to verify the data

before developing a plan for distribution of bills and collection. All of this was time

consuming and required double the effort in terms of collection, verification, and

providing receipts.

Promising results, but the best is yet to come!

Even though the municipality has not yet achieved its ultimate goals regarding

the billing process, this system contributed to a major development and a quali-

tative leap in the municipality’s performance whether on the internal level or the

level of relationship with the public.

The benefits of this system can be summarized in three main areas:

56


1) Planning for the billing process

- The process became easy, quick, and accurate.

- It became possible to measure and evaluate the perfor-

mance of meter readers.

- Remarkably reduced the time required for meter reading

compared to the use of manual lists.

2) Implementation of the billing process

- Reduced errors in the different phases of reading and re-

cording the readings.

- Expedited the process of calculating the bill which can

sometimes be even conducted in the field.

- Reduced the effort required in the field to plan for and

distribute the bills.

- Ensured supervision of the meter reader in the field through a set of system spec-

ifications that can be managed from the office.

- Reduced the number of staff and time needed for the process.

3) Collection, audit, and crediting the amounts

- Fully computerized the process of verification of amounts collected and their re-

cords.

- Expedited collection through speeding up record-keeping of collected money,

issuing the bills, and crediting the amounts collected.

- Reduced the number of staff and time needed for the whole process.

57

Chapter Three

Wadi Gaza Treatment Plant Source: Water Authority

58


Reality and challenges in the Water Sector

During the process of drafting this report, the

Council came across certain issues that present a

challenge to the development of the water sector.

Following is a summary of the most important of

these challenges:

(3.1) The delay in issuing relevant regulations and policies

For the whole operational system of the sector to

be completed, several regulations and bylaws need

to be issued to support and regulate the work of the

Council, without which the whole process of reg-

ulating this sector will not reach the aspired stan-

dards stated in the water sector reform program.

Some of the regulations that have not been issued

so far and which constitute a point of leverage for

the work of the Council and a tool to improve the

sector’s overall performance are the following (this

list is not comprehensive):

• The licensing bylaw for service providers

• The unified tariff bylaw for water and wastewa-

ter.

• Performance incentives program for service

providers.

• The unified price bylaw for water sold in bulk.

• The financial and administrative bylaws of the

National Water Company.

• Regional Water Utilities bylaw.

• Water Users’ Associations bylaw.


59

(3.2) Israeli deductions pertaining to wastewater

The WSRC prepared a special report7 about this topic and submitted it to the Cabinet

of Ministers. in 2016. This report showed that since 2000 the Israeli government has

appropriated monthly deductions from the taxes it collects on behalf of the Palestin-

ian Authority in return for wastewater treatment. The Israelis have deducted in 2000

the amount of 2.6 million NIS, reaching 82.6 million NIS in 2015. The cumulative total

of these deductions until the end of 2015 reached around NIS 486 million in return

for treating wastewater flowing from the Palestinian lands towards the Green Line.

These deductions were in return for operational and maintenance costs in addition

to capital deductions (to build or expand Israeli treatment plants).

(3.3) Debts of water facilities and departments to WBWDThe following graph shows the development of accounts receivable at the WBWD

from 2011 until 2015. These numbers show an increase in debts by 14% in 2015 com-

pared to the previous year.

Graph #24: Debts of Water Utilities and Departments to the WBWD

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

20122011 2013 2014 2015

777

833

925

1021

1090

Million

Million

Million

Million

Million

Mil

lio

n N

IS

One can observe that in 2015 a limited number of service providers (3) settled part

of their debts from 2014 for WBWD, while the total number of debtors from different

governorates of the West Bank reached 232 as shown in the table below. It is worth

noting that amongst the large debtors, the the Jerusalem Water Undertaking is the

only one that settled part of a previous debt. Apart from that only small debtors set-

tled their debts, keeping in mind that none of the debtors in Jericho, Jerusalem, or

Tubas governorates settled any of their outstanding debts.

7 To read the full report, please refer to our website www.wsrc.ps

60


Table #4: Number of Debtors to WBWD and their Distribution among Governorates

Governorate Number of debtors Number of debtors partially

settled their 2014 debts

Tulkarm 2 1

Jenin 39 13

Ramallah 30 1

Jericho 10 0

Nablus 36 6

Qalqiliya 12 5

Salfit 17 7

Bethlehem 37 1

Hebron 39 3

Jerusalem 10 0

Tubas 2 0

By distributing these debts amongst the West Bank governorates it is noticed that the

Hebron Governorate bears the lion’s share, followed by Bethlehem governorate, then

Ramallah and El Bireh, then Jerusalem, and finally Jenin.

Graph #25: Debts to WBWD by Governorate

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Hebron G

overnora

te

Bethle

hem G

overnora

te

Ramalla

h & A

l Bire

h Govern

orate

Jeru

salem

Govern

orate

Jenin

Govern

orate

Nablus G

overnora

te

Jeric

ho Govern

orate

Salfit G

overnora

te

Qalqili

ya Govern

orate

Tubas Govern

orate

Tulkare

m G

overnora

te

Mil

lio

n N

IS

The most important conclusion from all of the above is that the department’s efforts

to follow up on the collection of outstanding debts is insufficient and it needs to exert

more efforts and apply more effective measures against the debted facilities in com-

plete cooperation and coordination with all relevant parties including the WSRC.

61

(3.4) Establishing the National Water Company

The establishment of the National Water Company (currently the West Bank Water

Department) is one of the most important outputs of the Water Law given its sta-

tus in the area of managing and controlling national water resources, in addition to

the current financial losses it is suffering from and the pressure it represents on the

Authority’s Budget (more than NIS 1,000 million of the cumulative debt) until 2015.

These large debts should be sufficient incentive to expedite the implementation of

the articles of the law under chapter seven stipulating the establishment of a Nation-

al Water Company and appointing its Board of Directors (BoD) as the highest decision

making authority of this company.

(3.5) Water purchases from Mekorot Company and debts of Gaza Strip mu-nicipalities benefiting from this water

Statistics and data acquired by the Council have shown that the amount of water pur-

chased from Mekorot Company in 2015 was 6,895,212 cubic meters, at an increase

of 95% compared to 2014, after the city of Gaza began to be supplied by Mekorot

water as of March 2015. The amounts of water supplied in previous years 2012, 2013,

and 2013 was 3,982,560; 3,597,098; and 3,539,386 respectively as can be seen in the

following graph:

Graph #26: Consumption of Mekorot Water in the Gaza Strip 2012 – 2015

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2012 2013 2014 2015

4 3,6 3,5

6,9

Mil

lio

n c

ub

ic m

ete

rs

Million

Million Million

Million

62


The distribution of this water amongst the Gaza Strip governorates in 2015 was as

follows:

Graph #27: Distribution of Amounts of Consumption of Mekorot Water in the Gaza Strip 2015

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5 3,4

0,5

0,07

0,8

2,1

Million

Million

Million

Million

Million

Mil

lio

n c

ub

ic m

ete

rs

Gaza City Al Maghazi Al Bureij Al Nusairat Eastern Region

Water Management

Council

The total cost of this water over the past four years is detailed in the graph below:

Graph #28: Total Cost of Consumption of Mekorot Water in the Gaza Strip 2012 - 2015

9

12

15

2012 2013 2014 2015

11,8 12 11,9

12,5

Mil

lio

n N

IS

63

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition(SCADA) System in the Municipality of Nablus, Image by Eyad Jadallah 2017

Chapter Four

64


Recommendations and Prospects

(4.1) General recommendations:

• The Licensing Bylaw needs to be finalized

enabling the Council to monitor service pro-

viders’ performance by placing certain condi-

tions and indicators in each service provider’s

license.

• It is necessary to expedite the establishment

of the National Water Company and form its

Board of Directors (BoD) to start working with

the Water Authority to introduce necessary

changes and facilitate the process of trans-

forming the WBWD into a National Water Com-

pany (NWC) and start taking measures to in-

crease the rate of collection before it is too late.

• Expedite the issuance of bylaws for Regional

Utilities to combine small and dispersed water

institutions in large economic units to maxi-

mize the benefits from the economy of scale.

• There is a need for clear instructions terminat-

ing the practice and procedures of incentive

discounts applied by most service providers in

the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to improve

the levels of collection from customers.

• Apply accrual basis accounting systems in or-

der to have a clear, comprehensive and accu-

rate idea of operational costs.

• Follow up and audit Mekorot Company bills

and their financial implications which impact

the cost of water services provided to custom-

ers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

• Review development plans with municipalities

that do not have a wastewater network

yet to develop the services provided to the

population.

Maintenance worker from Jerusalem Water Undertaking, Image by Eyad Jadallah 2017

65

• Necessary measures need to be taken to separate water departments and divi-

sions administratively and operationally from municipalities and make them in-

dependent or semi-independent departments. This step is necessary to ensure a

better, more efficient and more sustainable management of water services which

are crucial for the population.

(4.2) Specific recommendations to service providers:

• It’s crucial that the WBWD submit their data for review and analysis to enable

the Council to analyse the water sector and its development in a comprehensive

manner and to give viable recommendations.

• Urge service providers to ensure that they take microbiological test samples from

all water sources, networks, pipelines, and distribution facilities that they use

whether it is done by the service provider or any other relevant authority such

as the Ministry of Health or the Environmental Quality Authority or the Coastal

Municipal Water Utility or the Palestinian Water Authority in compliance with Pal-

estinian specifications.

• Clear mechanisms need to be developed by service providers to receive and deal

with citizens’ complaints which should be fully documented including responses

to these complaints.

• Charge fees for wastewater services according to a unified system to enable ser-

vice providers to settle their relevant financial dues.

• There is a need to separate the accounts of water and wastewater services from

the accounts of other municipality departments and apply the principle of cost

and revenue centers.

• Request the water balance and analyze it during the process of looking into the

approval of amending the tariff for any service provider. The service provider

needs to annex a clear plan of action to deal with water losses mentioned in the

water balance.

• Water service providers need to classify connections according to legal tariff clas-

sifications before approval of the amendment of the tariff structure or applying a

new tariff.

• Encourage service providers to document standard procedures to deal with con-

tamination cases that are discovered and the time frame required to respond and

deal with contamination cases and other data in accurate and reliable records.

• Urge service providers to provide documented reports on records of complaints

and questions from customers during the preparation of the annual report on

performance indicators data.

66


Ramallah Water Pump in Industrial Area, Image by Eyad Jadallah 2017

Annexes

67

Annex (1)

Water and Wastewater Service Providers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip included in this report

Abbriviations Name of Service Provider

West Bank

HalhulWater and Wastewater Department - Halhul Municipality1

HebronWater and Wastewater Department - Hebron Municipality2

Abu Dis Water and Wastewater Department - Abu Dis Cooperative Society

for Water3

Al ‘AujaWater and Wastewater Department - Al ‘Auja Municipality4

IllarWater and Wastewater Department - Illar Municipality5

Al ‘EizariyaWater and Wastewater Department - Al ‘Eizariya Municipality6

Al Far’aWater and Wastewater Department - Al Far’a Municipality7

JeninWater and Wastewater Department - Jenin Municipality8

JerichoWater and Wastewater Department - Jericho Municipality9

JWUJerusalem Water Undertaking10

Southeast Nablus / Aqraba Joint Service Council for Planning & Development - South East

Nablus District11

Kafr Ra’iWater and Wastewater Department - Kafr Ra’i Municipality12

Mythaloun Water and Wastewater Department - Mythaloun Join Service

Council13

NablusWater and Wastewater Department - Nablus Municipality14

AnabtaWater and Wastewater Department - Anabta Municipality15

ArrabaWater and Wastewater Department - Arraba Municipality16

As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya Water and Wastewater Department - As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya

Municipality17

AttilWater and Wastewater Department - Attil Municipality18

Northwest JeninNorthwest Jenin Joint Service Council19

Northwest JerusalemNorthwest Jerusalem Joint Service Council20

AzzunWater and Wastewater Department - Azzun Municipality21

Bani Na’imWater and Wastewater Department - Bani Na’im Municipality22

QabatiyaWater and Wastewater Department - Qabatiya Municipality23

QalqiliyaWater and Wastewater Department - Qalqiliya Municipality24

68


Sa’irWater and Wastewater Department - Sa’ir Municipality25

Beit UmmarWater and Wastewater Department - Beit Ummar Municipality26

BeituniyaWater and Wastewater Department - Beituniya Municipality27

BiddyaWater and Wastewater Department - Biddya Municipality28

SalfitWater and Wastewater Department - Salfit Municipality29

TarqumiyaWater and Wastewater Department - Tarqumiya Municipality30

Deir al GhusunWater and Wastewater Department - Deir al Ghusun Municipality31

Tubas Tubas Joint Service Council32

TulkarmWater and Wastewater Department - Tulkarm Municipality33

WSSA Water Supply and Sewerage Authority of Bethlehem, Beit Jala and

Beit Sahour34

WBWDWest Bank Water Department35

Ya’badWater and Wastewater Department - Ya’bad Municipality36

YattaWater and Wastewater Department - Yatta Municipality37

Za’taraWater and Wastewater Department - Za’tara Municipality38

‘TuquWater and Wastewater Department - Tuqu’ Municipality39

DuraWater and Wastewater Department - Dura Municipality40

69

Gaza Strip

GazaWater and Wastewater Department - Gaza Municipality41

Abasan al JadidaWater and Wastewater Department -Abasan al Jadida Municipal-

ity42

Abasan al KabiraWater and Wastewater Department - Abasan al Kabira Munici-

pality43

Al BureijWater and Wastewater Department - Al Bureij Municipality44

JabalyaWater and Wastewater Department - Jabalya Municipality45

Al FukhkhariWater and Wastewater Department - Al Fukhkhari Municipality46

Al MaghaziWater and Wastewater Department - Al Maghazi Municipality47

Al MughraqaWater and Wastewater Department - Al Mughraqa Municipality48

Al MusaddarWater and Wastewater Department - Al Musaddar Municipality49

Al QararaWater and Wastewater Department - Al Qarara Municipality50

Khan YunisWater and Wastewater Department - Khan Yunis Municipality51

Khuza’aWater and Wastewater Department - Khuza’a Municipality52

An NaserWater and Wastewater Department - An Naser Municipality53

An NuseiratWater and Wastewater Department - An Nuseirat Municipality54

Ash ShukaWater and Wastewater Department - Ash Shuka Municipality55

Az ZahraWater and Wastewater Department - Az Zahra Municipality56

Az ZawaydaWater and Wastewater Department - Az Zawayda Municipality57

Bani SuheilaWater and Wastewater Department - Bani Suheila Municipality58

Beit HanunWater and Wastewater Department - Beit Hanun Municipality59

Beit LahiyaWater and Wastewater Department - Beit Lahiya Municipality60

CMWU - RafahCoastal Municipalities Water Utility61

Deir al BalahWater and Wastewater Department - Deir al Balah Municipality62

Umm an NaserWater and Wastewater Department - Umm an Naser Municipality63

Wadi as SalqaWater and Wastewater Department - Wadi as Salqa Municipality64

Wadi GazaWater and Wastewater Department - Wadi Gaza Municipality65

Ash ShukaWater and Wastewater Department - Ash Shuka Municipality66

70


Annex (2)

Summary of results for the 39 Service Providers in the West Bank

Service ProvidersLocal Resourc-

es (M3)Percent %

Purchased

Quantities

(M3)

Percent % Total (M3)

JWU 2,233,694 13% 15,094,220 87% 17,327,914

WSSA - 0% 5,444,728 100% 5,444,728

Nablus 9,959,147 94% 588,924 6% 10,548,071

Tulkarm 6,789,670 100% - 0% 6,789,670

Qalqiliya 4,450,591 100% - 0% 4,450,591

Salfit 111,629 18% 512,402 82% 624,031

Jenin 1,125,090 42% 1,563,732 58% 2,688,822

Jericho 3,060,280 100% - 0% 3,060,280

Tubas - 0% 1,293,971 100% 1,293,971

Hebron - 0% 6,909,200 100% 6,909,200

Northwest Jenin 386,484 36% 674,638 64% 1,061,122

Mythaloun - 0% 561,643 100% 561,643

Anabta 614,507 100% - 0% 614,507

Dura - 0% 469,500 100% 469,500.00

Northwest Jerusalem - 0% 953,510 100% 953,510.00

Za’atara - 0% 248,897 100% 248,897.00

Tuqu’ - 0% 507,230 100% 507,230

Al ‘Auja - 0% 630,375 100% 630,375

Abu Dis - 0% 700,134 100% 700,134

Attil - 0% 469,230 100% 469,230

Deir Al Ghusun 584,505.00 89% 74,400 11% 658,905

Illar - 0% 652,170 100% 652,170

Al Far’a - 0% 196,513 100% 196,513

Ya’bad - 0% 549,441 100% 549,441

Arraba - 0% 415,127 100% 415,127

Kafr Ra’i - 0% 380,269 100% 380,269

Bani Na’im - 0% 630,720 100% 630,720

Tarqumiya - 0% 435,000 100% 435,000

Beit Ummar - 0% 746,212 100% 746,212

Halhul - 0% 575,900 100% 575,900

Sa’ir - 0% 666,560 100% 666,560

Yatta - 0% 1,086,283 100% 1,086,283

Southeast Nablus - 0% 819,410 100% 819,410

Azzun 520,350 100% - 0% 520,350

Al Sawahra - 0% 339,240 100% 339,240

Al ‘Ezariya - 0% 1,305,819 100% 1,305,819

Qabatiya - 0% 914,766 100% 914,766

Beituniya - 0% 993,158 100% 993,158

Biddya - 0% 491,338 100% 491,338

71

Annex (3)

Summary of results for the 25 Service Providers in the Gaza Strip

Service

Providers

Local

Resources

(M3)

Percent %

Purchased

Quantities

(M3)

Percent %

Produced/

purchased

from de-

salination

units (M3)

Percent % Total (M3)

An Nuseirat 3,114,380 72.8% 819,689 19.2% 344,000 8.0% 4,278,069

Jabalia 12,244,221 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12,244,221

Khan Yunis 8,451,683 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8,451,683

Gaza 27,702,150 88.7% 3,526,500 11.3% 0 0.0% 31,228,650

CMWU -

Rafah7,887,929 99.2% 0 0.0% 65,240 0.8% 7,953,169

Al Bureij 1,640,494 95.8% 71,960 4.2% 0 0.0% 1,712,454

Az Zaway-

da1,004,447 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1,004,447

Al Qarara 1,213,580 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1,213,580

Al Maghazi 952,779 64.4% 527,353 35.6% 0 0.0% 1,480,132

Bani Suhei-

la962,302 60.3% 561,418 35.2% 73,000 4.6% 1,596,720

Beit Hanun 3,379,303 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3379303

Beit Lahiya 4,503,675 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4,503,675

Deir al

Balah3,895,404 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3,895,404

Abasan al

Kabira84,000 6.9% 1137267 93.1% 0 0.0% 1,221,267

Az Zahra 446,848 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 446,848

Ash Shuka 501,186 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 501,186

Al Fukh-

khari241,040 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 241,040

Al Musadd-

ar158,230 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 158,230

Al

Mughraqa669,090 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 669,090

An Naser 419,395 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 419,395

Umm an

Naser245,780 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 245,780

Khuza’a 0 0.0% 517,628 100.0% 0 0.0% 517,628

Abasan al

Jadida0 0.0% 392,040 100.0% 0 0.0% 392,040

Wadi as

Salqa184,250 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 184,250

Wadi Gaza 121,390 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 121,390

Total 80,023,556 90.9% 7,553,855 8.6% 482,240 0.5% 88,059,651

72


Group A

Utilities Tulkarm WSSA Hebron JWU Nablus Jenin Qalqiliya Salfit Tubas Northwest

Jenin

Mytha-

loun

Northwest

JerusalemAbu Dis

Deir Al

Ghusun

Beit

UmmarSa’ ir Halhul

Indicator name Unit

TECHNICHAL INDICATORS

Average daily per capita water consumption at

domestic levell/c/d 103 74 N/A 79 69 64 161 80 56 36 45 60 27 71 N/A 32 41

Average daily per capita water consumption -All types l/c/d 118 83 58 103 91 69 171 92 60 40 49 62 56 81 78 57 42

Domestic water consumption as % of total con-

sumption% 87% 86% 100% 76% 76% 92% 94% 87% 93% 90% 92% 97% 49% 88% 100% 56% 97%

Industrial water consumption as % of total con-

sumption% 0% 0% 0% 4% 2% 1% 1% 6% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

Commercial water consumption as % of total

consumption% 11% 14% 0% 9% 7% 7% 4% 1% 0% 0% 7% 2% 51% 12% 0% 42% 2%

Touristic water consumption as % of total con-

sumption% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Bulk water consumption as % of total consumption % 1% 0% 0% 10% 15% 0% 1% 6% 7% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Non-Revenue Water by volume % 49% 42% 30% 28% 34% 49% 27% 16% 26% 12% 22% 7% 17% 44% 34% 22% 22%

Non-revenue water in (m3) per km in the network

per year m3 8,389 7,262 6,775 3,396 7,095 8,857 7,918 1,617 2,275 238 902 524 3,567 5,311 3,167 2,138 1,844

Non-revenue water per connection per day l/c/d 681 484 316 220 241 421 327 101 131 53 85 41 101 375 252 130 92

Wastewater Coverage % 85% 69% 66% N/A 98% 78% 97% 61% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

FINANCIAL INDICATORS

Average selling price per m3of water NIS 3.30 6.41 4.57 6.89 6.13 5.40 1.63 3.96 6.08 5.74 5.73 5.70 5.34 2.83 5.86 5.10 5.07

Operating costs per m3 of water sold NIS 2.29 6.73 5.57 7.09 5.55 9.05 1.26 3.95 5.14 5.56 4.58 3.61 5.49 2.12 4.86 4.61 6.07

Personnel costs per m3 of water sold NIS 0.90 1.35 0.97 2.11 1.57 2.52 0.25 0.33 0.91 1.60 0.94 0.59 1.04 0.45 0.22 0.42 0.82

Water purchase costs (at purchase point) per m3 of

water soldNIS 0.00 4.49 3.59 3.48 0.24 2.19 0.00 2.77 3.49 2.03 3.35 2.80 3.67 0.29 4.15 3.45 3.31

Energy costs per m3 of water sold NIS 0.67 0.20 0.53 0.67 2.12 1.92 0.57 0.30 0.12 0.52 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.73 0.00 0.01 0.14

Other operating costs per m3 of water sold NIS 0.72 0.70 0.66 0.83 1.63 2.42 0.44 0.56 0.62 1.50 0.27 0.21 0.78 0.66 0.49 0.73 1.80

Collection Efficiency - water service % 50% 74% 74% 108% 71% 102% 55% 100% 67% 90% 65% 43% 31% 81% 36% 27% 94%

Collection Efficiency - wastewater service % 25% 74% 0% N/A 72% 0% 57% 73% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Working ratio (Efficiency Ratio) - water service No. 0.69 0.95 1.02 0.90 0.88 1.64 0.74 0.94 0.81 0.88 0.76 0.62 1.01 0.71 0.79 0.86 1.15

Operating Costs per m3 of Wastewater NIS 0.93 1.72 1.24 N/A 1.33 0.95 0.80 1.02 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

QUALITY INDICATORS

Water samples (taken from network including mains)

containing free chlorine residual (RC) % 98% 100% 88% 100% 100% 89% 99% 100% 100% 98% 100% 80% N/A N/A N/A N/A 100%

Water samples (taken at source) free from total

coliform contamination % 99% 100% 100% 99% 78% 100% 100% 91% 95% 100% 75% 100% N/A 100% N/A 100% N/A

Water samples (taken at source) free from fecal

coliform contamination % 100% 100% 100% 100% 87% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 83% 100% N/A 100% N/A 100% N/A


free from total coliform contamination % 97% 100% 94% 99% 99% 98% 100% 92% 100% 100% 86% 100% 97% 47% N/A 100% 96%


free from fecal coliform contamination % 100% 100% 96% 100% 99% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 91% 100% 98% 68% N/A 100% 86%

Microbiological tests carried out % 161% 132% 66% 151% 300% 346% 349% 341% 1051% 108% 98% 19% 93% 81% N/A 37% 186%

Water Samples (taken at the sources) free from Nitrate

contamination % 60% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% N/A 100% N/A 100% 100%

LABOUR PARTICIPATION BY GENDER - WATER SERVICE

Female workers as % of total staff % 3% 14% 0% 6% 10% 2% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 12% 0% 0% 25% 14% 0%

Male workers as % of total staff % 97% 86% 100% 94% 90% 98% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 88% 100% 100% 75% 86% 100%

OTHER

Staff productivity index-water service No. 7.7 6.2 4.7 4.4 7.6 6.6 2.8 2.7 3.1 5.0 2.5 3.7 4.4 1.4 1.5 2.3 1.8

Annex (4)

Summary of Results for 39 SPs in the West Bank

73

Group B Group C

Jericho Dura Ya’bad Arraba Bani Na’im Tarqumiya Yatta Beituniya Al ‘Ezariya Biddya IllarAl

SawahraAl ‘Auja Anabta Azzun

Southeast

NablusQabatiya Al Far’a Attil Za’atara Kafr Ra’i Tuqu’

221 28 65 57 N/A 38 30 55 59 N/A 77 N/A N/A 83 86 43 N/A N/A N/A N/A 47 N/A

270 28 80 60 50 40 31 59 64 91 240 121 252 116 123 47 62 73 84 66 82 59

82% 100% 81% 95% 100% 95% 98% 93% 93% 100% 32% 100% 100% 71% 70% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 58% 100%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

18% 0% 0% 5% 0% 2% 1% 6% 5% 0% 3% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 19% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 65% 0% 0% 19% 30% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 0%

27% 18% 12% 29% 28% 39% 30% 23% 50% 18% 4% 14% 29% 40% 16% 11% 33% 41% 28% 23% 26% 20%

7,266 792 1,885 5,820 2,981 2,232 2,529 4,477 13,276 2,930 4,633 2,368 7,171 4,807 2,088 317 6,127 2,198 943 4,045 1,276

366 63 67 126 189 184 228 103 507 115 52 133 764 357 132 34 239 285 185 119 234 212

55% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4% N/A N/A N/A 45% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2.17 6.50 4.73 2.35 5.00 4.99 4.51 8.13 6.00 3.45 2.78 4.25 4.04 3.38 2.78 4.67 4.52 4.18 2.91 4.00 5.40 4.21

2.03 6.05 3.77 4.90 4.68 6.59 5.90 6.95 6.79 4.69 2.88 4.16 4.20 3.02 2.49 4.44 6.26 5.90 2.10 4.81 4.79 5.07

0.69 1.24 0.59 0.50 0.36 0.35 0.81 0.74 0.54 0.38 0.43 0.18 0.08 0.84 0.38 0.74 1.19 1.11 0.40 0.50 0.33 0.38

0.00 3.16 0.95 3.77 3.65 4.30 3.76 5.54 5.89 3.74 1.15 3.61 3.69 0.00 0.00 2.91 3.67 3.51 1.11 3.30 3.54 3.55

0.39 0.08 1.36 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.23 1.77 1.43 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.47 0.01

0.95 1.57 0.87 0.61 0.67 1.92 1.31 0.66 0.36 0.57 0.45 0.38 0.20 0.41 0.69 0.76 1.33 1.28 0.59 0.99 0.46 1.12

71% 61% 99% 129% 35% 16% 40% 96% 54% 96% 99% 22% 13% 139% 109% 94% 27% 65% 81% 58% 82% 50%

22% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 67% N/A N/A N/A 51% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

0.87 0.87 0.76 1.96 0.90 1.22 1.25 0.77 1.06 1.18 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.82 0.86 0.85 1.35 0.82 0.64 1.16 0.87 1.16

0.75 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.75 N/A N/A N/A 0.78 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

94% N/A 75% 100% 100% N/A 73% N/A N/A 98% 16% N/A N/A 90% 82% 100% N/A N/A 37% N/A 89% N/A

81% N/A 82% 100% 100% N/A 78% N/A 100% 100% N/A 100% N/A 75% 88% 100% 89% N/A 80% 100% 88% N/A

87% N/A 92% 100% 100% N/A 78% N/A 100% 100% N/A 100% N/A 75% 88% 100% 97% N/A 100% 100% 100% N/A

100% 89% 100% 100% 61% N/A 84% 100% 100% 100% 87% 88% N/A 95% 95% 100% 100% 50% 89% 94% 88% 97%

100% 89% 75% 100% 81% N/A 90% 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% N/A 95% 85% 100% 92% 50% 98% 94% 88% 97%

1035% 50% 37% 39% 73% N/A 328% 10% 133% 193% 182% 331% N/A 119% 270% 30% 17% 33% 219% 200% 104% 110%

N/A N/A 100% 100% N/A N/A 83% N/A 100% 100% N/A N/A N/A 100% 100% 100% N/A N/A 100% N/A 100% N/A

6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0%

94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5.8 1.7 2.6 1.9 1.9 1.2 5.3 2.1 2.8 2.4 6.3 N/A N/A 3.2 2.9 3.3 6.5 N/A 2.1 2.3 3.5 3.0

74


Annex (5)

Summary of Results for 25 SPs in the Gaza Strip

Group A Group B

Utilities An Nuseirat Jabalia Khan Yunis Gaza CMWU - Rafah Al Bureij Az Zawayda Al Qarara Al Maghazi Bani Suheila

Indicator name Unit

TECHNICHAL INDICATORS

Average daily per capita water consumption at

domestic levell/c/d N/A 160 69 84 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 81

Average daily per capita water consumption -All types l/c/d 88 162 72 91 73 75 140 121 86 82

Domestic water consumption as % of total con-

sumption% 100% 99% 96% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98%

Industrial water consumption as % of total con-

sumption% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Commercial water consumption as % of total

consumption% 0% 0% 2% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Touristic water consumption as % of total con-

sumption% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Bulk water consumption as % of total consumption % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Non-Revenue Water by volume % 43% 43% 40% 37% 34% 34% 22% 27% 40% 25%

Non-revenue water in (m3) per km in the network

per year m3 19982 27466 9146 19330 7280 11511 2573 2772 12416 3924

Non-revenue water per connection per day l/c/d 613 1046 535 660 408 422 264 380 616 239

Wastewater Coverage % 87% 98% 82% 88% 65% 74% 86% 0% 97% 25%

FINANCIAL INDICATORS

Average selling price per m3 of water NIS 1.91 1.14 1.70 0.95 1.63 1.89 1.87 1.37 2.10 3.81

Operating costs per m3 of water sold NIS 2.27 1.06 1.61 1.78 2.00 2.30 1.14 1.90 3.03 3.97

Personnel costs per m3 of water sold NIS 0.33 0.43 0.54 0.34 0.68 0.30 0.36 0.85 0.27 0.55

Water purchase costs (at purchase point) per m3 of

water soldNIS 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 2.24 2.29

Energy costs per m3 of water sold NIS 0.42 0.34 0.51 0.38 0.69 0.26 0.27 0.49 0.25 0.71

Other operating costs per m3 of water sold NIS 0.40 0.29 0.55 0.34 0.64 1.70 0.50 0.57 0.28 0.41

Collection Efficiency - water service % 35% 55% 45% 33% 38% 36% 46% 67% 34% 41%

Collection Efficiency - wastewater service % 22% 55% 45% 32% 36% 19% 41% N/A 27% 19%

Working ratio (Efficiency Ratio) - water service No. 1.15 0.90 0.92 1.80 1.20 1.19 0.59 1.36 1.42 1.02

Operating Costs per m3 of Wastewater NIS 0.90 0.83 1.37 0.98 1.71 1.84 0.68 N/A 0.59 1.51

QUALITY INDICATORS


containing free chlorine residual (RC) % 99% 100% 99% 100% 99% 100% 99% 100% 100% 99%

Water samples (taken at source) free from total

coliform contamination % N/A 89% 85% 86% 85% N/A 80% 100% N/A N/A

Water samples (taken at source) free from fecal

coliform contamination % N/A 96% 89% 95% 92% N/A 80% 100% N/A N/A


free from total coliform contamination % N/A N/A 89% 92% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A


free from fecal coliform contamination % N/A N/A 89% 96% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Microbiological tests carried out % 0% 51% 25% 30% 27% 0% 27% 10% 0% 0%

Water Samples (taken at the sources) free from Nitrate

contamination % 36% 20% 9% 21% 43% 100% 27% 0% 64% 50%

LABOUR PARTICIPATION BY GENDER - WATER SERVICE

Female workers as % of total staff % 12% 0% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 14% 4%

Male workers as % of total staff % 88% 100% 99% 99% 98% 100% 100% 100% 86% 96%

OTHER

Staff productivity index-water service No. 2.0 5.5 5.1 2.1 2.6 1.9 2.2 6.7 5.3 5.4

75

Group C

Beit Hanun Beit Lahiya Deir al Balah Abasan al Kabira Az Zahra Ash Shuka Al Fukhkhari Al Musaddar Al Mughraqa An Naser Umm an Naser Khuza’aAbasan al

JadidaWadi as Salqa Wadi Gaza

79 N/A 71 97 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 123 N/A N/A N/A N/A

82 95 80 104 96 73 82 120 94 115 125 84 131 56 39

97% 100% 89% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 11% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

56% 43% 42% 28% 45% 37% 20% 33% 58% 18% 30% 29% 26% 42% 58%

15722 11519 11631 6139 10916 2239 949 2757 15435 2063 7357 2993 2777 1763 2145

1242 701 611 278 503 318 134 439 749 164 435 324 214 524 610

77% 88% 70% 0% 82% 0% 0% 62% 75% 0% 80% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1.11 1.30 2.09 2.15 1.50 1.50 1.55 1.90 1.65 0.90 1.00 0.95 2.54 1.49 2.06

2.06 1.40 1.44 5.43 1.44 4.55 5.67 1.97 1.84 1.96 2.62 6.78 4.89 2.79 17.79

0.97 0.69 0.54 0.23 1.07 1.08 2.03 0.77 0.56 0.75 1.17 1.72 1.09 1.59 6.65

0.00 0.00 0.00 2.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.03 2.97 0.00 0.00

0.38 0.31 0.41 0.38 0.10 2.20 1.74 0.53 0.81 0.72 0.72 0.35 0.25 0.53 8.71

0.71 0.41 0.49 1.92 0.28 1.27 1.90 0.68 0.47 0.50 0.73 1.68 0.58 0.68 2.43

54% 50% 31% 60% 82% 22% 79% 67% 32% 89% 34% 79% 29% 55% 95%

48% 13% 12% N/A 54% N/A N/A 62% 38% N/A 31% N/A N/A N/A N/A

1.81 1.05 0.68 2.32 0.90 2.81 3.34 1.01 1.03 1.90 2.41 6.47 1.77 1.63 7.96

1.64 0.75 1.04 N/A 0.92 N/A N/A 1.43 1.55 N/A 1.37 N/A N/A N/A N/A

99% 100% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100%

91% 88% 100% 100% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A

98% 95% 100% 100% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

154% 92% 1% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0%

69% 17% 100% N/A 100% 0% N/A 100% 75% 0% 100% N/A N/A 100% 100%

0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

6.2 5.2 6.5 1.8 3.6 6.3 4.0 N/A 3.5 5.5 N/A 4.7 3.9 N/A N/A

Bridge to SustainabilityWater and Wastewater Service Providers in PalestineFacts and Prospects - 2015 Report

June 2017


al-auja, image by eyad jadallah 2017 bridge to ... · years 2013, 2014, and 2015, that included key...

Documents