Al-Auja, Image by Eyad Jadallah 2017 Bridge to ... · years 2013, 2014, and 2015, that included key...
Transcript of 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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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.
Al-Auja, Image by Eyad Jadallah 2017
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
13
Chapter One
Ein Farah, Image by Eyad Jadallah 2017
14
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Group A Group B Group C
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Group A Group B Group C
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
Graph #8: Average Selling Price for One Cubic Meter of Water- WB
0
2
4
6
8
10
Group A Group B Group C
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
Group A Group B Group C
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
Group A Group B Group C
40
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Group A Group B Group C
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
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
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
Group A Group B Group C
44
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
Graph #16: Working Ratio (Efficiency Ratio) – Water Service- WB
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Wo
rkin
g R
atio
Group A Group B Group C
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
Group A Group B Group C
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
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
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Group A Group B Group C
(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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Group A Group B Group C
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
Group A Group B Group C
52
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
(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
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
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
Group A Group B Group C
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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.
Al-Auja, Image by Eyad Jadallah 2017
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Water samples (taken from network including mains)
free from total coliform contamination % 97% 100% 94% 99% 99% 98% 100% 92% 100% 100% 86% 100% 97% 47% N/A 100% 96%
Water samples (taken from network including mains)
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
Bridge to Sustainability: Facts and Prospects 2015
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
Water samples (taken from network including mains)
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
Water samples (taken from network including mains)
free from total coliform contamination % N/A N/A 89% 92% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Water samples (taken from network including mains)
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