Performance Monitoring Report 2019

Home , Ramallah, Ras Karkar, Zababdeh

حقائــق وبيانــات مقدمــي خدمــات ﺑﺮج ﺧﻠﻒ، ﺷﺎرع اﻟﺮوﺿﺔ Khalaf Building, Al-Rawda St. اﻟﺒﻴﺮة، ﻓﻠﺴﻄﻴﻦ Al Bireh- Palestine المياه والصرف الصحي في فلسطينPERFORMANCE 1294 240 2 +970 +970 2 240 1295 [email protected] MONITORING wsrc.ps wsrcps The Performance of Water and REPORTWastewater FOR WATER Service Providers AND WASTEWATERin Palestine PROVIDERS IN PALESTINE2019 ملخص WSRC Summary 2016 - 2017 2020 © DECEMBER 2020

DECEMBER 2020

1 President of the State of Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas State of the Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh

2 3 7 Preface

9 Forward

10 Significance of the Performance Indicators Report

12 CHAPTER 1: Water and Wastewater Service Providers in the State of Palestine

24 CHAPTER 2: Detailed Review of the Performance of Service Providers According to KPIs

25 Technical indicators

40 Financial indicators

50 Water Quality Indicators

52 Other Indicators

59 General Recommendations

Graphs

26 Average daily water consumption per capita for domestic usage in the West Bank

27 Average daily water consumption per capita for domestic usage in the Gaza Strip

28 Average daily sold water per capita in the West Bank

29 Average daily sold water per capita in the Gaza Strip

33 Percentage of non-revenue water in the West Bank

34 Percentage of non-revenue water in the Gaza Strip

36 NRW per km of the network per year in the West Bank

37 NRW per km of the network per year in the West Bank

4 38 Daily NRW per connection in the West Bank

39 Daily NRW per connection in the Gaza Strip

The average selling price per cubic meter of water and the operating cost per cubic meter 40 of sold water in the West Bank The average selling price per cubic meter of water and the operating cost per cubic meter 41 of sold water in the Gaza Strip

42 The operating costs of service providers in the West Bank

43 The operating costs of service providers in the Gaza Strip

45 The working ration (efficiency) for water service in the West Bank

46 The working ration (efficiency) for water service in the Gaza Strip

47 The collection efficiency of water service fees in the West Bank

48 The collection efficiency of water service fees in the Gaza Strip

49 The collection efficiency of wastewater service fees in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

52 Staff productivity index for water service in the West Bank

53 Staff productivity index for water service in the Gaza Strip

54 Water service employment by gender in the Gaza Strip

Water service employment by gender in the West Bank

Maps

Map 1: Locations of water service providers in the West Bank

Map 2: Locations of water service providers in the Gaza Strip

5 Preface

6 Chairman’s Preface

For the sixth year in a row, the Water Sector Regulatory Council (WSRC) publishes the Performance Monitoring Report of Water and Wastewater Service Providers in the State of Palestine against all the odds of the political situation. As is customary, this year’s report provides more comprehensive coverage of service providers.

The direct and indirect support, offered by the government of Palestine, represented by the Prime Minister, has been instrumental to the WSRC’s sustainability and development. In a similar vein, the generous financial support conferred by the Netherlands’ government has the most significant impact on the WSRC’s progress and performance.

This year saw further harmony between the Water Authority (PWA) and the WSRC – a match that led both stakeholders to enter into a memorandum of understanding. This cooperation is to be brought into fruition by delegating the responsibility of collecting all the water and wastewater service providers’ data to the WSRC. The WSRC also expressed willingness to share such data and their analysis and significance with the PWA.

The WSRC board played a useful role in sustaining the WSRC service. Such a part was manifest in the direct dialogue it entered into with the Prime Minister to surmount obstacles and facilitate communication with relevant ministries and institutions such as the Ministry of Local Government, PWA, the Ministry of Finance and Planning, and the Ministry of Agriculture. Furthermore, the board took part in reviewing the WSRC strategies for the three years to come, the WSRC modus-operandi, annual work plan, and performance indicators.

WSRC was able during the year to provide the PWA with specific data, set the WSRC objectives, and develop the SPs financial sustainability report. It also reviewed a number of tariffs charged by service providers and responded to many complaints by water and wastewater service providers and users.

Moreover, the council has developed the roadmap and agreed with the relevant stakeholders, such as the PWA and the MoA, on its role in the project to water banking project in the North Gaza.

The WSRC is much obliged to the government of Palestine, represented by the Prime Minister, and the government of the Netherlands, represented by the Netherlands Representative Office in Ramallah, for their massive support.

Last but not least, the BOD is particularly indebted to the council team for their considerable effort in the face of all challenges..

Mohammad Awny AbuRamadan Water Sector Regulatory Council Chairman

7 Forward

8 CEO’s Forward

This year, the collection of data was not a breeze. It even went beyond the bounds of possibility due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The impact of pandemic paralyzed many aspects of public life. And, the WSRC office was not an exception. Many of its staff, as well as service providers’, were under quarantine. Not to mention the restrictions on movement and meetings. All these factors have unavoidably delayed data collection.

Unlike previous years, data was not verified in a general meeting with the service providers. The WSRC communicated with each service provider individually; this measure did not allow any direct exchange of knowledge and lessons among the providers’ community.

Under the emergency state, the WSRC had to cancel its field visits to service providers for monitoring. Nonetheless, the coverage of the population served by monitored service providers was 85%; noting that the Gaza Strip percentage was 100%.

Within this report, a number of localities, particularly in southern governorates, were reported to receive less than the minimum daily amount of water per capita, i.e., 50 liters/capita/day. The WSRC identified over ten communities that received less than 30 liters/capita/day.

The non-revenue water (NRW) percentage hovered above 50% in eight localities, four in the West Bank and four the Gaza Strip. Considering the history of this problem in the affected areas, the figures underline the failure of the service providers to address this issue.

Although energy cost per cubic meter of water still stands for 40% of the total cost, some service providers’ personnel cost is still too high. Of note, over half of the service providers supply water to their customers at below-cost prices. Considering this indicator and the low tariff collection, service provision’s sustainability is more likely to be at stake.

Although prepaid meters provide a safe option to address collection issues, thefts persist as a serious cause for concern to many service providers.

Concerning water quality, several service providers rely on the Ministry of Health (MoH) to carry regular sampling even though the MoH does not report tests results unless it is requested. The service providers are, therefore, the farthest from staying informed on the quality of potable water.

Upon the recent MoU with the PWA, the WSRC intends to cover 100% of the water and wastewater service providers as of the next year.

Mohammad Said al-Hmaidi Water Sector Regulatory Council CEO

9 Significance of the Performance Indicators Report

In view of the instrumentality of performance reports, article 20 of the Decree NO. 14 for the Year 2014 Relating to Water Law provides that these reports are to be furnished to the Cabinet of Ministers. Article 24 of the cited law further requires the council to establish and publish a database containing all relevant statistical, technical, and financial information.

The primary beneficiary of performance monitoring reports is the members of the public, followed by the service providers, government, donors, researchers, and human rights and consumer protection organisations. The report benefits the stakeholders mentioned above as follows:

Service providers

With a the list of performance indicators (KPIs), this report provides a guiding compass for service providers to chart the next year by diagnosing their operations in relation to water and wastewater service, and thus help service providers to identify where they stand.

The performance report compares the performance of service providers as a tool for encouragement and peer- learning.

The performance report provides a token of compliance by the service providers with the governance principles by publishing their performance data during the reporting period.

The performance report informs the decisions made by higher authorities based on the (KPIs) to address weaknesses such as low collection rates, which warrant interventions to build the service provider’s collection capacity.

10 Government of Palestine

The performance report results inform and guide the government support and projects;

The performance report informs sectoral planning, compliance with the role and responsibilities stated by law and institutional structures, and decisions related to the water sector reforms.

Members of the public

The performance report ensures public access to the performance of service providers who were elected by the public to assume this role.

The performance report ensures that the public is aware of critical information that impacts the citizens, such as operating costs, average selling price, and compliance with governance principles and justice.

Donors

The performance report provides accurate guidance to projects by accurate figures and results.

The performance report informs donors’ review of the aids granted to the Palestinian people and their results by monitoring and measuring the improvement in water and wastewater services.

Researchers and other stakeholders interested in the water sector

This group of beneficiaries can make use of the figures the report provides for analytical and research purposes.

11 CHAPTER 1 Water and Wastewater Service Providers in the State of Palestine

12 Water and Wastewater Service Providers in the State of Palestine

The Decree NO. 14 for the year 2014 defines the service provider as ‘the National Water Company and regional water utilities, including local government units, joint service councils, and associations that provide water and/ or wastewater service(s).’

The WSRC endeavours to cover all water and wastewater service providers across the State of Palestine. In 2019, it gradually reached 98 service providers– 73 in the West Bank and 25 in the Gaza Strip.

The population served by the service providers, covert in this report, is estimated to be about 2,246,936 people in the West Bank, i.e., 75% of the West Bank population. As for the Gaza Strip, the served population is estimated to be around two million people, i.e., 100% of the population. All in all, this report covers 85% of the served population across the State of Palestine.

Report Inclusivity

Service Providers

39 39 16 25 25 19

SERVICE 64 64 SERVICE 35 SERVICE PROVIDERS PROVIDERS PROVIDERS COVERAGE 74% COVERAGE 74% COVERAGE 60% 2016 2015 2014

73 64 64 25 25 25

98 SERVICE 89 SERVICE 89 SERVICE PROVIDERS PROVIDERS PROVIDERS COVERAGE 85% COVERAGE 82% COVERAGE 82% 2019 2018 2017

13 Coverage of Service Providers based on the organizational structure

Gaza Strip

NO. OF SERVICE GOVERNORATES PROVIDERS 11 73

NO. OF GOVERNORATES

LOCAL 5 COUNCILS MUNICIPALITIES 2 61

SERVICE WATER PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION 25 1

WATER UTILITY WATER UTILITY 2 1

JOINT SERVICE COUNCILS MUNICIPALITIES 7 24 West Bank

14 Table 1: Operational data for service providers in the West Bank

Population Population Water NO. of Water NO. of WW Served by served by the NO. of staff Network Service Provider connections connections the water wastewater Length (km) network network

Kufr Al-labad 2 964 250 5,500 3000 20 Abu Dis Cooperative Society for Water 14 3,780 - 26,000 - 33 Attil 4 2,300 - 11,000 - 60 Al 'Auja 3 950 - 5,000 - 28 Zababdeh 1 1,004 - 5,000 - 20 Beit Lid 5 1,213 280 7,000 2100 62 JSC - Beit Liqiya 10 2,950 - 15,670 - 48 Biddya 10 3,400 130 11,000 650 14 Burqeen 3 1,293 - 7,150 - 33 Illar 10 1,760 - 8,000 - 6 Jericho 45 8,327 1000 36,500 5,000 204 Kafr Ra'I 5 1,443 - 8,855 - 55 Nablus 310 43,892 14440 198,536 192,582 539 Northwest Jerusalem – JSC 19 5,050 - 40,000 - 149 Northwest Jenin – JSC 37 9,862 - 57,634 - 753 Qabalan 2 1,800 - 9,500 - 39 Qabatiya 19 3,947 - 25,000 - 58 Qalqiliya 27 10,733 13615 56,441 55,000 157 Ras karkar - VC 2 347 - 2,000 - 5 Salfit 17 - - 16,880 6700 64 Tulkarm 136 15,993 14920 83,606 64,350 421 Al Karmel 4 540 - 12,000 - 120 Ya'bad 5 3,520 - 18,000 - 45 Al Zaweih 2 1,450 - 6,000 - 15 Al 'Eizariya 15 3,983 - 30,100 - 54 Bani Zaid Al Gharbia 10 1711 72 11,000 400 50 WSSA 53 13,694 12276 116,157 81,301 450 JWU 278 70,608 - 375,000 - 1,700 Tarqumiya 4 3,248 - 20,000 - 82 Beita 2 2,672 - 12,000 - 75 Al Dhahiriya 10 2,960 - 45,000 - 113 Al Ubeidiya 7 1,745 - 16,000 - 40 Zeita 4 1,100 770 3,500 3,500 Beituniya 18 6,228 - 27,544 - 58 As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya 3 959 - 9,000 - 12 Bala' 4 1,703 153 9,000 3,000 Azzun 3 2,058 - 10,000 - 50

15 Table 1: Operational data for service providers in the West Bank

Population Population Water NO. of Water NO. of WW Served by served by the NO. of staff Network Service Provider connections connections the water wastewater Length (km) network network

Bani Na'im 7 3,500 - 27,000 - 65 Baqa Al Sharqiya 2 1,173 650 4,800 3,140 18 Halhul 14 4,405 - 32,000 - 92 Hebron 81 20,176 14000 215,000 180,000 325 Jenin 67 9,854 - 53,173 37,121 184 Kharas 5 1,700 350 9,150 3,250 32 Nuba 4 1,057 500 7,134 3,000 40 Sa'ir 9 3,740 - 27,500 - 69 Soureef 5 2,934 - 20,000 - 90 Yatta 21 4,583 - 79,000 - 165 Za'tara 7 2,000 - 8,500 - 71 Beit Foureek 7 2,500 - 12,000 - Tuqu' 4 1,459 - 14,300 - 94 Beit Ummar 8 2,852 - 18,500 - 100 Deir al Ghosoon 6 2,500 - 12,500 - 65 Tubas JSC 24 9,270 - 48,600 - 337 Mythaloun - JSC 11 4,564 - 22,400 - 144 Azmut - VC 2 610 400 4,000 2500 7 Anabta 7 1,945 1370 9,500 7600 51 Al Shyoukh 7 1,850 - 13,000 - 60 Taffouh 4 1,660 - 15,000 - 40 Aqraba 4 2,022 - 10,000 - 65 Housan 3 1,200 - 7,300 - 35 Samu' 6 3,150 - 28,000 - Nahalin 7 10,000 - 10,000 - 46 Idna 5 3,700 - 28,500 - 80 Anata 7 2,150 - 35,000 - 20 Dura 10 4,237 - 35,000 - 58 Beit Ula 3 1,625 - 16,000 - 42 JSC - Rural Dura H-4 8,000 - 43,000 - - Ramallah 20 - - - 60,000 - Al-Bireh 17 - 11178 - 90,000 - Al-Ram 5 - 6,820 - 35,750 - Bir Nabala 2 - 2200 - 7000 - Barta'a Sharqiya 2 - 640 - 3200 - JSC - Taybeh and Ramoun 2 - 280 - 3500 -

16 Table 2: Operational data for service providers in Gaza Strip

Population Population Water NO. of Water NO. of WW Served by served by the NO. of staff Network Service Provider connections connections the water wastewater Length (km) network network

Abasan Jadida 5 1261 - 8984 - 38

Abasan Kabira 18 3917 - 26730 - 75

Bani Suhaila 25 5218 1714 42252 17424 117

Beit Hanoun 25 5529 4744 53591 41436 165

Beit Lahya 34 9402 7723 87415 71262 170

Braij 21 4800 3900 43287 36452 70

CMWU -Rafah 74 19918 17222 207767 185897 650

Dair al Balah 38 8030 6153 81686 73947 242

Fukhari 9 1156 - 6434 - 58

Gaza city 218 47523 47650 603917 557967 700

Jabalia Al Nazleh 96 15225 17679 216173 187977 350

Khan younis 153 21655 19350 238197 194183 550

Khuzaa 8 1814 - 11133 - 55

Maghazi 14 2764 2350 26807 24767 67

Moghraga 11 1407 1315 8937 7150 35

Musaddar 3 394 227 2574 2167 18

Naser 6 1568 - 8766 - 54

Nusairat 30 8574 7737 87958 77983 165

Qarara 20 2450 82 25000 610 125

Shuka 14 1470 322 15529 3451 61

Um Ennaser 6 658 465 4910 3758 10

Wadi Gaza 8 987 710 4292 3577 24

Wadi Salga 5 641 - 6679 - 23

Zahra 9 1255 1243 5500 3000 29

Zawaida 16 2763 1720 22967 21219 89

17 water and wastewater service providers in the West Bank

54 service providers depend only on purchased water. 73 7 service providers depend only on local water resources. 6 service providers depend on local water resources and purchased water.

6 service providers provide only wastewater service.

18 water and wastewater service providers in the Gaza Strip

12 service providers depend on both local water resources and purchased water. 25 12 service providers depend only on local water resources. 7 service providers have desalination water plants.

19 Table 3: Quantities of available water to service providers in the West Bank

Local Water Resources – Local Water Resources – Purchased Water (m3) Service Provider Wells (m3) Springs (m3)

Kufr Al-labad - - 264,170 Abu Dis Cooperative - - 734,443 Society for Water Attil - - 563,630 Al 'Auja - 877,744 Zababdeh 163,435 Beit Lid - - 184,400 JSC - Beit Liqiya - - 680,560 Biddya - - 463,718 Burqeen - - 279,755 Illar - 816,350 Jericho 3,474,950 - Kafr Ra'I - - 368,958 Nablus 7,408,940 2,900,514 1,463,599 Northwest Jerusalem – - - 1,121,133 JSC Northwest Jenin – JSC 1,105,443 - 821,881 Qabalan - - 225,843 Qabatiya - - 1,127,651 Qalqiliya 4,700,294 - - Ras karkar - VC - - 69,468 Salfit 158,844 189,248 405,400 Tulkarm 8,229,915 - - Al Karmel - - 102,580 Ya'bad 630,950 Al Zaweih - - 262,170 Al 'Eizariya - - 1,276,004 Bani Zaid Al Gharbia - - 372,594 WSSA - - 5,904,403 JWU 2,010,990 - 17,307,121 Tarqumiya - - 628,737 Beita - - 514,988 Al Dhahiriya - - 749,818 Al Ubeidiya - - 438,701 Zeita 960,000 - - Beituniya - - 1,134,236 As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya 450,636

20 Table 3: Quantities of available water to service providers in the West Bank

Local Water Resources – Local Water Resources – Purchased Water (m3) Service Provider Wells (m3) Springs (m3)

Bala' 460,070 - - Azzun 568,160 57,080 Bani Na'im - - 760,246 Baqa Al Sharqiya - 273,490 Halhul - - 948,406 Hebron - - 7,992,443 Jenin 1,142,058 - 2,250,062 Kharas - - 533,134 Nuba - - 277,665 Sa'ir - - 1,081,267 Soureef - - 731,081 Yatta - - 1,236,922 Za'tara - - 275,114 Beit Foureek - - 241,980 Tuqu' - - 496,549 Beit Ummar - - 871,756 Deir al Ghosoon 583,755 - - Tubas JSC 2,051,519 Mythaloun - JSC - - 785,092 Azmut - VC - - 232,229 Anabta 779,212 - - Al Shyoukh - - 444,566 Taffouh - - 276,131 Aqraba - - 244,722 Housan - - 264,360 Samu' - - 602,513 Nahalin - - 392,625 Idna - - 575,559 Anata - - 1,106,493 Dura - - 838,509 Beit Ula - - 480,211 JSC - Rural Dura H-4 - - 733,742

21 Table 4: Quantities of available water to service providers in Gaza Strip

Local Water Local Water Purchased Water Water Produced from Resources – Wells Resources – Springs Service Provider (m3) desalination plants (m3) (m3) (m3) Abasan Jadida 102,525 24,222 305,081

Abasan Kabira 20,900 1,506,524

Bani Suhaila 914,236 - 1,060,817 124,100

Beit Hanoun 4,266,154 - - -

Beit Lahya 6,164,639 -

Braij 1,822,561 - 313,740 -

CMWU -Rafah 9,087,887 - 170,185 14,521

Dair al Balah 5,486,871 - 61,690 1,800

Fukhari 348,383 - 6,000 -

Gaza city 28,603,633 - 7,759,401 70,614

Jabalia Al Nazleh 12,809,798 -

Khan younis 8,669,009 - 237,031 -

Khuzaa 172,560 490,562 -

Maghazi 1,083,153 - 479,634 11,000

Moghraga 708,064 - - -

Musaddar 197,454 - - -

Naser 464,541 - - -

Nusairat 3,390,324 - 964,100 133,435

Qarara 1,471,076 -

Shuka 744,530 - 14,521

Um Ennaser 278,500 -

Wadi Gaza 168,230 -

Wadi Salga 264,580 -

Zahra 451,940 - - -

Zawaida 1,189,628 - - -

22 Key Performance Indicators – West Bank Water Department

# Indicators Unit 2019

1 Working Ratio No. 2.36

2 Collection Efficiency % 79.04%

3 Operating cost per cubic meter of water sold NIS 5.88

3.1 Personnel cost per cubic meter of water sold NIS 0.13

3.2 Cost of purchased water per cubic meter of water sold NIS 3.30

3.3 Cost of energy per cubic meter of water sold NIS 0.32

3.4 Other operational costs per cubic meter of water sold NIS 2.13

4 Non-revenue water (ratio) % 8.51%

The Palestinian Authority (PA) subsidises the water price and bear portion of bulk purchasing costs–a fact many consumers do not know. Although the WBWD purchases water from Mekorot by ILS 3.2 per cubic metre, it resells it to the service providers at ILS 2.6 per cubic metre. Moreover, Mekorot adds more expenses to the WBWD’s bill, such as fines and maintenance fees.

23 CHAPTER 2 Detailed Review of the Performance of Service Providers according to KPIs

24 I. Technical indicators

1. Average daily water consumption per person for domestic usage

This indicator is calculated for service providers who separate domestic water consumption from other types consumption (e.g. commercial, tourism-related, industrial). Some service providers still measure the overall consumption without separating domestic consumption from other types of consumption. This indicator does not apply to them due to their unreal per capita value, which is to be presented under the next indicator.

Twenty-six service providers in the West Bank and 15 service providers in the Gaza Strip do not classify connections by usage. Of note, the fee collectors and/or metre readers can classify the connections by consumption type at a reasonable cost.

The least average water domestic consumption per capita (litre/person/day) The West Bank The Gaza Strip

Carmel Anata Yatta Wadi as-Salqa Deir al-Balah Az-Zawayda 20 23 29 63 68 70

The WHO preferred minimum benchmark for domestic use is 150 litres per capita/day, although the global minimum is 100 litres/capita/day.

25 Average daily per capita water consumption at domestic level | West Bank L/C/D Kufr al-labad 80 Abu Dis Cooperative Society for Water 48 Attil 113 Al 'Auja 240 Zababdeh 67 Beit Lid 50 JSC - Beit Liqiya 89 Biddya 85 Burqeen 80 Illar 88 Jericho 137 Kafr Ra'I 59 Nablus 68 Northwest Jerusalem - JSC 67 Northwest Jenin - JSC 49 Qabalan 51 Qabatiya 86 Qalqiliya 160 Ras karkar - VC 87 Salﬁt 84 Tulkarm 147 Al Karmel 20 Ya'bad 65 Al Zaweih 90 Al 'Eizariya 57 Bani Zaid Al Gharbia 60 WSSA 69 JWU 79 Tarqumiya 55 Beita 80 Al Dhahiriya 38 Al Ubeidiya 58 Zeita 361 Beituniya 76 As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya 67 Bala' 64 Azzun 109 Bani Na'im 62 Baqa Al Sharqiya 119 Halhul 53 Hebron 70 Jenin 62 Kharas 80 Nuba 76 Sa'ir 31 Soureef 65 Yatta 29 Za'tara 50 Beit Foureek 52 Tuqu' 48 Beit Ummar 68 Deir al Ghosoon 99 Tubas JSC 68 Mythaloun - JSC 53 Azmut - VC 35 Anabta 74 Al Shyoukh 81 Taffouh 45 Aqraba 43 Housan 71 Samu' 49 Nahalin 73 Idna 49 Anata 23 Dura 50 Beit Ula 52 JSC - Rural Dura H-4 39

26 Average daily per capita water consumption at domestic level | Gaza L/C/D

Abasan Jadida 100 Abasan Kabira 111 Bani Suhaila 95 Beit Hanoun 98 Beit Lahya 85 Braij 78 CMWU -Rafah 75 Dair al Balah 68 Fukhari 112 Gaza city 85 Jabalia Al Nazleh 99 Khan younis 70 Khuzaa 130 Maghazi 82 Moghraga 90 Musaddar 117 Naser 119 Nusairat 84 Qarara 96 Shuka 76 Um Ennaser 109 Wadi Gaza 73 Wadi Salga 63 Zahra 161 Zawaida 70

Only eight service providers in the West Bank meet the WHO preferred minimum benchmark (100 litres/capita/ day), namely in Attil, Baqa ash-Sharqiyya, Jericho, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, al-Auja, Zeita, and Azzoun. In other areas, the supplied amounts are far less the minimum to meet the basic needs, as in Carmel, Anata, and Yatta.

The case in the Gaza Strip seems better than the West Bank. For example, the minimum domestic consumption does not fall below 60 litres/capita/day. Nonetheless, the quality of water constitutes a major obstacle for service providers in the Gaza Strip.

According to PWA and UN reports, more than 96% of the water provided to the population by different service providers is not potable. Moreover, the supplied amounts to some localities do not meet the minimum requirement to manage through the Covid-19 pandemic such as hygiene requirements.

100 100

74 91 L/C/D 150 L/C/D 150 The West Bank The Gaza Strip

The calculated value The WHO recommended minimum standard for domestic use The WHO standard of absolute minimum quantity for domestic use

27 2. Average daily sold water per capita:

This indicator measures the total share of water consumption according to the number of individuals for all uses: domestic, commercial, industrial, and tourist-related and bulk users. The indicator is calculated to compare service providers if they do not separate the different water consumption types.

Average daily water sold per capita based on total population | West Bank L/C/D Kufr al-labad 80 Abu Dis Cooperative Society for Water 49 Attil 113 Al 'Auja 240 Zababdeh 72 Beit Lid 52 JSC - Beit Liqiya 90 Biddya 85 Burqeen 80 Illar 260 Jericho 179 Kafr Ra'I 106 Nablus 100 Northwest Jerusalem - JSC 68 Northwest Jenin - JSC 56 Qabalan 51 Qabatiya 86 Qalqiliya 171 Ras karkar - VC 87 Salﬁt 102 Tulkarm 149 Al Karmel 20 Ya'bad 70 Al Zaweih 90 Al 'Eizariya 67 Bani Zaid Al Gharbia 60 WSSA 82 JWU 102 Tarqumiya 71 Beita 85 Al Dhahiriya 38 Al Ubeidiya 59 Zeita 671 Beituniya 84 As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya 67 Bala' 64 Azzun 129 Bani Na'im 62 Baqa Al Sharqiya 119 Halhul 58 Hebron 78 Jenin 67 Kharas 80 Nuba 79 Sa'ir 61 Soureef 65 Yatta 30 Za'tara 69 Beit Foureek 52 Tuqu' 52 Beit Ummar 71 Deir al Ghosoon 99 Tubas JSC 72 Mythaloun - JSC 57 Azmut - VC 35 Anabta 115 Al Shyoukh 81 Taffouh 45 Aqraba 45 Housan 71 Samu' 49 Nahalin 73 Idna 49 Anata 23 Dura 50 Beit Ula 52 JSC - Rural Dura H-4 39

28 Average daily water sold per capita based on total population | Gaza L/C/D

Abasan Jadida 102 Abasan Kabira 122 Bani Suhaila 97 Beit Hanoun 101 Beit Lahya 86 Braij 79 CMWU -Rafah 76 Dair al Balah 73 Fukhari 113 Gaza city 96 Jabalia Al Nazleh 103 Khan younis 77 Khuzaa 131 Maghazi 82 Moghraga 91 Musaddar 118 Naser 121 Nusairat 84 Qarara 98 Shuka 78 Um Ennaser 111 Wadi Gaza 77 Wadi Salga 72 Zahra 167 Zawaida 91

The lack of a sound classification of connections due to the single tariff applied to all connections regardless of the consumption type. The WSRC, therefore, recommends that the service providers exert further effort to classify different types of consumption– given the vitality of the average per capita domestic consumption indicator. This indicator cannot be accurately measured without separating domestic usage from other purposes. For instance, the amount available in Illar and Zeita is enormous, yet around 40% of it is bulk sales to neighbouring areas, and a considerable portion of this water is used for domestic agricultural purposes. This also applies to al-Auja and Hebron, where a large part of sold water is used for commercial, industrial, and farming activities. The municipality of Gaza provides water for dozens of ready-mix concrete factories and commercial and tourist facilities. Calculating all these categories as one would unavoidably lead to misleading results on the consumption per capita and cannot be compared with the WHO preferred minimum benchmark for domestic use.

Several water service providers cannot increase the supplied water due to various reasons, first and foremost, the Israeli control over the Palestinian water resources. Nevertheless, every service provider should make the optimal use of the available resources by minimising losses.

29 Average daily water sold per capita based on total population West Bank

less than 50 51 - 100 101 - 150 more than 150 L/C/D L/C/D L/C/D L/C/D

Karmel Beit Ula Qabalan JWU Qalqiliya 20 52 51 102 171 Anata Beit Foureek Beit Lid Salfit Jericho 23 52 52 102 179 Yatta Northwest Jenin Kafr Ra’I Al ‘Auja Tuqu’ 30 - JSC 106 240 52 56 Azmut VC Attil Illar 35 Halhul Mythaloun - JSC 113 260 58 57 Al Dhahiriya Anabta Zeita 38 Bani Zaid Al 115 671 Al Ubeidiya Gharbia JSC - Rural Dura H-4 59 60 Baqa Al Sharqiya 39 119 Aqraba Bani Na’im Sa’ir 62 61 Azzun 45 129 Taffouh Soureef Bala’ 65 64 Tulkarm 45 149 Abu Dis Cooperative Jenin Al ‘Eizariya Society for Water 67 67 49 Northwest As Sawahira Samu’ Jerusalem - JSC Ash Sharqiya 49 68 67 Idna Ya’bad Za’tara 49 70 69 Dura Housan Tarqumiya 50 71 71 Tubas JSC Beit Ummar 72 71 Nahalin Zababdeh 73 72 Nuba Hebron 79 78 Burqeen Kufr al-labad 80 80 Al Shyoukh Kharas 81 80 Beituniya WSSA 84 82 Biddya Beita 85 85 Ras karkar - VC Qabatiya 87 86 Al Zaweih JSC - Beit Liqiya 90 90 Nablus Deir al Ghosoon 100 99

30 Average daily water sold per capita based on total population Gaza Strip

more than 150 101 - 150 51 - 100 less than 50 L/C/D L/C/D L/C/D L/C/D

Zahra Beit Hanoun Wadi Salga None 167 101 72 Jabalia Al Nazleh Dair al Balah 103 73 Abasan Jadida Zawaida 102 91 Um Ennaser Khan younis 111 77 Abasan Kabira Wadi Gaza 122 77 Fukhari CMWU -Rafah 113 76 Musaddar Shuka 118 78 Naser Braij 121 79 Khuzaa Maghazi 131 82 Nusairat 84 Gaza city 96 Beit Lahya 86 Moghraga 91 Bani Suhaila 97 Qarara 98

31 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 customers. This percentage reflects real or material losses such as water leakage, and other losses, including illegal connections, inaccurate water meters, etc.

In the West Bank, Anata, Jenin, Bal’a, and as-Sawahira ash-Sharqiya recorded the highest percentage of NRW (62%, 55%, 54% and 51% respectively). In the Gaza Strip, Mughraqa, Deir al-Balah, Beit Lahia and Beit Hanun had the highest rates of NRW (58%, 56%, 55% and 54% respectively).

However, nine out of 67 service providers in the West Bank recorded a low percentage of NRW. Some rates were less than 15% even after review. This decrease is likely due to the service providers’ strict measures to minimise losses and new water network. . To that end, some service providers LISTED all connections and networks and issued bills for any damages or leakage to be charged from the responsible person or the municipality. Otherwise, there might be an inaccurate estimate of the produced and sold water by the service provider.

Water Entering the System is the total water amount entering the system from all sources including water produced from local water sources (i.e. wells, springs, desalinization plants) and Water Balance purchased water amounts.

Locally Produced

Purchased

(Apparent) Losses is composed of all losses similar to meter inaccuracies (customer meters), data entry, thefts, etc Physical Losses is composed of all losses resulting of Unbilled Authorized Authorized Consumption leakage from main and distribution Consumption is is the water amounts that correspond to pipelines, reservoir leakage and/or the amount of water supplied by the Authorized metered consumption, through connections, etc. Water Service Provider for free where an invoice is given to the through water meters or without customers through which the revenues meters. of the water utilities are generated.

Non- Revenue Water Revenue water

32 Non-Revenue Water by volume (%) | West Bank

Kufr al-labad 39% Abu Dis Cooperative Society for Water 33% Attil 20% Al 'Auja 23% Zababdeh 18% Beit Lid 28% JSC - Beit Liqiya 34% Biddya 26% Burqeen 25% Illar 7% Jericho 31% Kafr Ra'I 7% Nablus 38% Northwest Jerusalem - JSC 11% Northwest Jenin - JSC 39% Qabalan 21% Qabatiya 31% Qalqiliya 25% Ras karkar - VC 9% Salﬁt 16% Tulkarm 43% Al Karmel 13% Ya'bad 27% Al Zaweih 22% Al 'Eizariya 42% Bani Zaid Al Gharbia 26% WSSA 41% JWU 28% Tarqumiya 18% Beita 28% Al Dhahiriya 16% Al Ubeidiya 22% Zeita 11% Beituniya 26% As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya 51% Bala' 54% Azzun 25% Bani Na'im 20% Baqa Al Sharqiya 24% Halhul 24% Hebron 24% Jenin 55% Kharas 50% Nuba 25% Sa'ir 43% Soureef 35% Yatta 29% Za'tara 22% Beit Foureek 14% Tuqu' 45% Beit Ummar 45% Deir al Ghosoon 23% Tubas JSC 38% Mythaloun - JSC 41% Azmut - VC 77% Anabta 49% Al Shyoukh 14% Taffouh 37% Aqraba 33% Housan 29% Samu' 17% Nahalin 32% Idna 11% Anata 62% Dura 22% Beit Ula 37% JSC - Rural Dura H-4 16%

33 Non-Revenue Water by volume (%) | Gaza

Abasan Jadida 22% Abasan Kabira 22% Bani Suhaila 29% Beit Hanoun 54% Beit Lahya 55% Braij 42% CMWU -Rafah 38% Dair al Balah 56% Fukhari 25% Gaza city 42% Jabalia Al Nazleh 37% Khan younis 23% Khuzaa 19% Maghazi 49% Moghraga 58% Musaddar 44% Naser 14% Nusairat 40% Qarara 39% Shuka 38% Um Ennaser 29% Wadi Gaza 29% Wadi Salga 25% Zahra 25% Zawaida 36%

4. NRW per kilometre of the network per year

For a more precise analysis of the status of the service provider, NRW indicators need to contused as a whole. The two graphs below show the volume of NRW per km of the network per annum. This indicator calculates the amount of NRW per kilometre of the network, which is caused by water leakage and illegal connections.

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 in improving plans for future investments and repair or replacing the network.

34 35 Non-revenue water in (M3) per km in the network per year | West Bank M3/KM

Kufr al-labad 5,195 Abu Dis Cooperative Society for Water 7,293 Attil 1,854 Al 'Auja 7,231 Zababdeh 1,506 Beit Lid 843 JSC - Beit Liqiya 4,931 Biddya 2,730 Burqeen 2,148 Illar 8,360 Jericho 5,351 Kafr Ra'I 451 Nablus 8,380 Northwest Jerusalem - JSC 861 Northwest Jenin - JSC 992 Qabalan 1,250 Qabatiya 5,988 Qalqiliya 7,462 Ras karkar - VC 113 Salﬁt 1,849 Tulkarm 8,496 Al Karmel 113 Ya'bad 3,787 Al Zaweih 3,768 Al 'Eizariya 10,042 Bani Zaid Al Gharbia 1,929 WSSA 5,391 JWU 3,188 Tarqumiya 1,384 Beita 1,913 Al Dhahiriya 1,090 Al Ubeidiya 2400 Zeita - Beituniya 5,034 As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya 19,119 Bala' - Azzun 3,071 Bani Na'im 2,340 Baqa Al Sharqiya 3,647 Halhul 2,493 Hebron 5,877 Jenin 10,118 Kharas 8,279 Nuba 1,769 Sa'ir 6,788 Soureef 2,838 Yatta 2,179 Za'tara 839 Beit Foureek - Tuqu' 2,373 Beit Ummar 3,894 Deir al Ghosoon 2,046 Tubas JSC 2,333 Mythaloun - JSC 2,220 Azmut - VC 25,800 Anabta 7,445 Al Shyoukh 1,041 Taffouh 2,563 Aqraba 1,239 Housan 2,159 Samu' - Nahalin 2,730 Idna 794 Anata 34,563 Dura 3,123 Beit Ula 4,245 JSC - Rural Dura H-4 -

36 Non-revenue water in (M3) per km in the network per year | Gaza M3/KM

Abasan Jadida 2,534 Abasan Kabira 4,465 Bani Suhaila 5,209 Beit Hanoun 13,862 Beit Lahya 20,117 Braij 12,691 CMWU -Rafah 5,354 Dair al Balah 12,900 Fukhari 1,550 Gaza city 21,827 Jabalia Al Nazleh 13,435 Khan younis 3,776 Khuzaa 2,351 Maghazi 11,443 Moghraga 11,787 Musaddar 4,803 Naser 1,205 Nusairat 10,764 Qarara 4,613 Shuka 4,745 Um Ennaser 8,040 Wadi Gaza 2,007 Wadi Salga 2,884 Zahra 3,876 Zawaida 4,767

5. Daily NRW per connection

This indicator details the quantity of NRW per active connection, thus it:

Measures actual costs borne by each legal connection, in addition to the cost of actual consumption recorded by the metres.

Measures additional quantities of water that can be made available by reducing water losses.

Helps decision-makers at different authorities determine the real need for new water sources in comparison to the available ones.

Assists the WSRC in monitoring the levels of services provided and set improvement targets for the service providers in line with the national and international standards and directives.

Service providers and other stakeholders can also employ the outputs of this indicator to spearhead public awareness campaigns to reduce NRW.

37 Non-revenue water per connection per day | West Bank L/C/D Kufr al-labad 300 Abu Dis Cooperative Society for Water 174 Attil 133 Al 'Auja 584 Zababdeh 82 Beit Lid 118 JSC - Beit Liqiya 218 Biddya 99 Burqeen 150 Illar 78 Jericho 359 Kafr Ra'I 47 Nablus 282 Northwest Jerusalem - JSC 70 Northwest Jenin - JSC 208 Qabalan 73 Qabatiya 241 Qalqiliya 299 Ras karkar - VC 45 Salﬁt - Tulkarm 763 Al Karmel 69 Ya'bad 133 Al Zaweih 107 Al 'Eizariya 373 Bani Zaid Al Gharbia 154 WSSA 485 JWU 210 Tarqumiya 96 Beita 147 Al Dhahiriya 114 Al Ubeidiya 151 Zeita 257 Beituniya 128 As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya 655 Bala' 402 Azzun 204 Bani Na'im 119 Baqa Al Sharqiya 153 Halhul 143 Hebron 259 Jenin 518 Kharas 427 Nuba 183 Sa'ir 343 Soureef 238 Yatta 215 Za'tara 82 Beit Foureek - Tuqu' 419 Beit Ummar 374 Deir al Ghosoon 146 Tubas JSC 232 Mythaloun - JSC 192 Azmut - VC 812 Anabta 535 Al Shyoukh 92 Taffouh 169 Aqraba 109 Housan 173 Samu' 89 Nahalin - Idna 47 Anata 881 Dura 117 Beit Ula 301 JSC - Rural Dura H-4 41

38 Non-revenue water per connection per day | Gaza L/C/D

Abasan Jadida 209 Abasan Kabira 234 Bani Suhaila 320 Beit Hanoun 1,133 Beit Lahya 997 Braij 507 CMWU -Rafah 479 Dair al Balah 1,065 Fukhari 213 Gaza city 881 Jabalia Al Nazleh 846 Khan younis 263 Khuzaa 195 Maghazi 760 Moghraga 803 Musaddar 601 Naser 114 Nusairat 568 Qarara 645 Shuka 393 Um Ennaser 335 Wadi Gaza 134 Wadi Salga 283 Zahra 242 Zawaida 421

39 II. Financial indicators

1. The average selling price per cubic meter of water and the operating cost per cubic meter of sold water

Comparison of the average selling price and the operating Operating Costs Average Selling Price costs per m3 of water sold (NIS/M3)2019 | West Bank

Kufr al-labad 4.1 3.7 Abu Dis Cooperative Society for Water 8.1 6.5 Attil 2.4 2.6 Al 'Auja 7.5 4.1 Zababdeh 5.3 5.3 Beit Lid 5.2 5.1 JSC - Beit Liqiya 5.3 6.5 Biddya 5.4 4.0 Burqeen 4.1 5.5 Illar 2.9 3.0 Jericho 3.0 2.8 Kafr Ra'I 4.9 6.1 Nablus 5.9 6.4 Northwest Jerusalem - JSC 4.4 5.2 Northwest Jenin - JSC 7.7 5.9 Qabalan 9.3 5.0 Qabatiya 5.2 4.7 Qalqiliya 1.3 1.8 Ras karkar - VC 3.8 4.6 Salﬁt 3.2 3.6 Tulkarm 2.4 3.5 Ya'bad 3.8 4.7 Al Zaweih 2.6 3.4 Al 'Eizariya 6.2 5.7 Bani Zaid Al Gharbia 6.8 5.4 WSSA 7.8 6.2 JWU 8.2 6.9 Tarqumiya 4.8 4.9 Beita 4.7 3.7 Al Dhahiriya 6.9 8.0 Al Ubeidiya 4.7 5.5 Zeita 0.5 1.6 Beituniya 7.6 6.2 As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya 7.1 4.5 Bala' 4.7 6.9 Azzun 2.9 2.9 Baqa Al Sharqiya 3.1 2.9 Halhul 5.9 7.5 Hebron 6.0 4.7 Jenin 10.8 6.2 Kharas 6.4 6.1 Nuba 4.1 4.4 Sa'ir 6.8 5.7 Soureef 6.3 3.6 Yatta 5.3 5.1 Za'tara 6.0 4.5 Beit Foureek 7.8 6.1 Tuqu' 6.7 5.0 Beit Ummar 5.4 5.7 Deir al Ghosoon 1.8 2.5 Tubas JSC 6.4 5.1 Mythaloun - JSC 5.7 5.9 Anabta 3.6 3.6 Al Shyoukh 7.2 5.7 Taffouh 5.2 6.7 Aqraba 6.1 7.6 Housan 3.8 5.3 Samu' 4.7 5.4 Nahalin 6.2 5.0 Idna 5.1 5.3 Anata 12.0 5.0 Dura 5.7 5.6 Beit Ula 8.1 5.0 JSC - Rural Dura H-4 5.5 6.2

40 The indicators of the average selling price per cubic meter of water and the operating costs per cubic meter of sold water should be construed as a whole, as the gap between the average selling price of a cubic meter of water and the operating costs (production, distribution and management excluding depreciation) per cubic meter of sold water becomes obvious.

The average selling price per cubic meter varies from water service provider to another due to the disparity in operating costs. Nonetheless, the principles of water service tariff calculation according to the Tariff Bylaw

NO. 1 of 2013, with which all the service providers must comply unless a new scheme is otherwise made.

As noted in previous reports, the average selling price per cubic metre does not mean the service provider’s tariff. In fact, it is a general indicator for the average selling price per cubic metre of water– to be compared with the operating cost, borne by the service provider. This indicator is calculated based on the billed water in ILS in relation to the total of domestic, commercial, tourism-related, and industrial and bulk sales of water per cubic metre.

The massive gap between the average selling price per cubic metre of water and the operating cost per cubic metre of sold water –as showcased under the working ratio indicator (efficiency)– demonstrates that the service provider cannot cover the operating costs. In such a case, the service provider must review the operating costs to–

(i) Ensure that operating costs are clear of any additional unjustified costs.

(ii) Review the applied tariff in harmony with the operating costs, and thus avoid loss or failure to cover the operating costs in the initial stage and meet all the ensuing costs for sustainable and improved service provision.

Such a gap is observed in Anata and Qablan in the West Bank and Alnaser, Gaza, and Absan al-Kabira in the Gaza Strip.

Comparison of the average selling price and the operating Operating Costs Average Selling Price costs per m3 of water sold (NIS/M3)2019 | Gaza

Abasan Jadida 2.5 2.5 Abasan Kabira 5.4 2.1 Bani Suhaila 4.4 2.4 Beit Hanoun 1.6 1.9 Beit Lahya 2.0 1.2 Braij 2.1 1.8 CMWU -Rafah 1.7 1.4 Dair al Balah 2.9 1.8 Fukhari 3.2 1.5 Gaza city 2.7 1.0 Jabalia Al Nazleh 1.3 1.2 Khan younis 2.1 1.8 Khuzaa 4.1 2.4 Maghazi 2.6 1.9 Moghraga 1.6 1.6 Musaddar 1.8 2.0 Naser 3.6 1.0 Nusairat 2.0 1.9 Qarara 2.0 1.6 Shuka 1.7 1.2 Um Ennaser 2.0 1.0 Wadi Gaza 2.7 2.5 Wadi Salga 1.8 1.5 Zahra 1.8 1.5 Zawaida 1.2 1.8

41 Operating costs per m3 of water sold | West Bank | LUC/m3

COST OF OTHER OPERATIONAL SERVICE PROVIDER COST OF ENERGY COST OF STAFF PURCHASED WATER COSTS Kufr al-labad 0.2 0.6 2.5 0.9 Abu Dis 0.0 1.8 4.7 1.7 Attil 0.1 0.6 1.2 0.4 Al 'Auja 0.4 0.2 6.9 0.1 Zababdeh 0.0 0.4 3.6 1.3 Beit Lid 0.0 1.5 3.6 0.1 JSC - Beit Liqiya 0.3 0.9 3.5 0.6 Biddya 0.0 0.6 3.5 1.2 Burqeen 0.0 0.6 3.1 0.4 Illar 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.5 Jericho 0.4 1.3 0.0 1.3 Kafr Ra'I 0.4 0.6 3.0 1.0 Nablus 2.2 1.5 0.2 1.9 Northwest Jerusalem - JSC 0.1 0.8 3.0 0.6 Northwest Jenin - JSC 1.1 1.9 1.8 2.8 Qabalan 0.1 1.1 4.7 3.5 Qabatiya 0.0 0.8 3.5 0.9 Qalqiliya 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.5 Ras karkar - VC 0.1 0.5 2.8 0.4 Salfit 0.2 0.5 2.0 0.5 Tulkarm 0.6 0.7 0.0 1.0 Ya'bad 0.4 2.3 2.9 5.5 Al Zaweih 1.6 0.6 1.0 0.6 Al 'Eizariya 0.1 1.4 0.3 0.8 Bani Zaid Al Gharbia 0.0 0.7 5.1 0.4 WSSA 0.1 1.5 3.5 1.7 JWU 0.4 2.6 4.4 0.3 Tarqumiya 0.6 2.1 3.5 2.0 Beita 0.0 0.6 3.1 1.1 Al Dhahiriya 0.0 0.4 3.7 0.6 Al Ubeidiya 0.1 1.0 3.1 2.7 Zeita 0.0 0.7 3.3 0.6 Beituniya 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya 0.0 0.9 5.7 1.0 Bala' 0.0 0.1 5.3 1.7 Azzun 3.2 0.8 0.0 0.6 Bani Na'im 1.1 0.2 0.3 1.3 Baqa Al Sharqiya 0.0 0.9 3.3 0.7 Halhul 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.9 Hebron 0.1 0.7 3.7 1.4 Jenin 0.3 0.8 4.2 0.8 Kharas 1.2 2.6 3.6 3.5 Nuba 0.0 0.5 5.2 0.6 Sa'ir 0.0 0.4 3.6 0.1 Soureef 0.0 1.4 4.8 0.6 Yatta 0.2 0.8 4.0 1.2 Za'tara 0.0 0.8 3.7 0.8 Beit Foureek 0.0 0.9 3.3 1.7 Tuqu' 0.1 2.8 4.1 0.8

42 Beit Ummar 0.0 0.6 4.7 1.3 Deir al Ghosoon 0.0 0.2 4.7 0.5 Tubas JSC 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.7 Mythaloun - JSC 0.1 0.9 4.2 1.2 Anabta 0.0 1.0 4.4 0.3 Al Shyoukh 0.4 1.0 5.4 Taffouh 1.7 1.4 0.0 0.6 Aqraba 0.3 2.1 3.1 1.6 Housan 0.2 0.6 2.9 1.5 Samu' 0.0 0.4 3.9 1.9 Nahalin 0.1 1.3 2.3 0.2 Idna 0.1 0.7 3.1 0.8 Anata 0.0 0.8 5.0 0.4 Dura 0.0 1.0 3.1 1.0 Beit Ula 0.0 0.9 10.9 0.2 JSC - Rural Dura H-4 0.0 1.0 3.4 1.3

Operating costs per m3 of water sold | Gaza | LUC/m3

COST OF OTHER OPERATIONAL SERVICE PROVIDER COST OF ENERGY COST OF STAFF PURCHASED WATER COSTS Abasan Jadida 0.3 1.5 - 0.7 Abasan Kabira 0.1 0.8 3.3 1.2 Bani Suhaila 0.5 0.7 2.9 0.3 Beit Hanoun 0.3 0.7 - 0.6 Beit Lahya 0.9 0.5 - 0.5 Braij 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.8 CMWU -Rafah 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.4 Dair al Balah 1.7 0.8 0.0 0.3 Fukhari 0.6 1.5 - 1.1 Gaza city 0.4 0.4 1.6 0.3 Jabalia Al Nazleh 0.6 0.4 - 0.4 Khan younis 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.9 Khuzaa 0.2 1.2 2.3 0.4 Maghazi 0.0 1.2 0.9 0.4 Moghraga 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.5 Musaddar 0.5 1.0 - 0.3 Naser 0.9 1.4 - 1.4 Nusairat 0.2 0.3 1.1 0.5 Qarara 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.4 Shuka 0.5 0.7 - 0.5 Um Ennaser 0.5 1.0 - 0.6 Wadi Gaza 1.0 0.9 - 0.8 Wadi Salga 0.1 1.2 - 0.6 Zahra 0.9 0.5 - 0.4 Zawaida 0.2 0.4 - 0.6

43 The graph below details operating costs per service provider as follows

Personnel costs per cubic metre of sold water. Purchased water costs per cubic metre of sold water. Energy costs per cubic metre of sold water. Other operating costs per cubic metre of sold water. Energy costs vary depending on the service providers’ operations. Nablus recorded the highest energy costs at 40% of the operating costs. This is attributable to the number of wells operated by the municipality and the pumping stations, which pump water at different heights to adapt to the typography of the area. On the other hand, service providers who exclusively depend on purchased water for potable water reflect a relatively low energy cost or barely calculate it.

Energy losses might cause high energy expenses. Therefore, such failures need to be tracked, and the efficiency of pumps should be verified.

Compared to the service providers in the West Bank, energy expenses in the Gaza Strip, stand for a considerable portion of the operating costs due to the high cost of energy in the Gaza Strip. Energy expenses are even higher if the service provider uses diesel generators as in Deir al-Balah– where energy expenses stand for over 50% of the overall cost per cubic metre of water.

Purchased water does not only refer to the water procured from the West Bank Water Department (WBWD), but also to the water bought from private wells. Thus, the cost of purchased water is not tantamount to the selling price set by the WBWD (i.e. ILS 2.6 per cubic metre).

This indicator affects other factors such as NRW volumes. For example, if the water loss were high, the cost of purchased water would increase as well, although the selling price from the WBWD is the same. Still, the service provider would bear operating and administrative costs higher than the sold water.

2. The working ratio (efficiency) for water services The working ratio is calculated by taking total operating, maintenance, and administrative expenses, excluding depreciation, and dividing it by the gross billed revenues. If the percentage were more than 1 per cent, the total operating and administrative costs would exceed the billed operating revenue. Thus a deficit would be detected in the operational cycle. Should it be less than 1 per cent, the gross operating revenue would exceed the operating and administrative costs. In the latter case, the service provider would generate a surplus and cover part or all the depreciation and capital expenses. Further, if the bill data were accurate and reliable, the working ratio would provide evidence on whether the tariff is adequate to cover the operating and maintenance expenses.

Anata, al-Auja, Tarqoumia, and Qabalan recorded the highest working ratio given the large volume of NRW. As indicated earlier such losses are direct losses incurred by the service provider. In the Gaza Strip, most service providers incur operating losses, and an-Nasr and al-Fukhari were the most affected.

44 Working ratio (Efﬁciency Ratio) - water service (No.) | West Bank

Kufr al-labad 1.0 Abu Dis Cooperative Society for Water 1.0 Attil 0.8 Al 'Auja 1.8 Zababdeh 0.8 Beit Lid 1.0 JSC - Beit Liqiya 0.8 Biddya 1.2 Burqeen 0.7 Illar 0.9 Jericho 1.0 Kafr Ra'I 0.8 Nablus 0.9 Northwest Jerusalem - JSC 0.8 Northwest Jenin - JSC 1.2 Qabalan 1.8 Qabatiya 1.1 Qalqiliya 0.7 Ras karkar - VC 0.8 Salﬁt 0.8 Tulkarm 0.6 Al Karmel 1.4 Ya'bad 0.8 Al Zaweih 0.7 Al 'Eizariya 1.0 Bani Zaid Al Gharbia 1.3 WSSA 1.1 JWU 1.0 Tarqumiya 0.9 Beita 1.1 Al Dhahiriya 0.8 Al Ubeidiya 0.8 Zeita 0.3 Beituniya 1.1 As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya 1.5 Bala' 0.7 Azzun 0.9 Bani Na'im 1.7 Baqa Al Sharqiya 1.0 Halhul 0.8 Hebron 1.1 Jenin 1.6 Kharas 1.0 Nuba 0.9 Sa'ir 1.1 Soureef 1.6 Yatta 1.0 Za'tara 1.2 Beit Foureek 1.3 Tuqu' 1.2 Beit Ummar 0.9 Deir al Ghosoon 0.7 Tubas JSC 1.1 Mythaloun - JSC 0.9 Azmut - VC - Anabta 1.0 Al Shyoukh 1.2 Taffouh 0.7 Aqraba 0.7 Housan 0.7 Samu' 0.9 Nahalin 1.2 Idna 1.0 Anata 2.2 Dura 0.9 Beit Ula 1.6 JSC - Rural Dura H-4 0.8

45 Working ratio (Efﬁciency Ratio) - water service (No.) | Gaza

Abasan Jadida 0.9 Abasan Kabira 2.4 Bani Suhaila 1.3 Beit Hanoun 0.8 Beit Lahya 1.6 Braij 1.1 CMWU -Rafah 1.2 Dair al Balah 1.5 Fukhari 2.1 Gaza city 2.3 Jabalia Al Nazleh 1.0 Khan younis 1.1 Khuzaa 1.7 Maghazi 1.3 Moghraga 0.7 Musaddar 0.9 Naser 3.4 Nusairat 1.1 Qarara 1.2 Shuka 1.3 Um Ennaser 2.0 Wadi Gaza 0.9 Wadi Salga 1.2 Zahra 1.1 Zawaida 0.7

Some providers might fail to estimate joint costs from other municipal departments, and thus come up with inaccurate results, for municipal water units receive services and share costs with other departments, including but not limited to salaries and wages of the mayor and the engineering department if the water unit is part of it.

3. Collection efficiency for water services

In general, collection rates are still low, particularly in the Gaza Strip. This indicator measures the efficiency of the service provider’s staff in performing their role and responsibilities in parallel with the consumers’ willingness to pay. In the West Bank, the collection rates were drastically low. Azmout (17%), Idhna (28%), and al-Auja (33%). In the Gaza Strip, al-Shuka, al-Maghazi, and Gaza recorded the lowest rates at 19%, 21%, 22%, respectively.

This indicator measures the percentage of collected bills issued in this year and overdue bills from past years. Ideally, collection rates should be 100% if all the bills issued in the year be collected with zero outstanding bills from previous years.

The results of some service providers show collection rates higher than 100%. Notwithstanding, such figures are

46 attributable to the collection of overdue fees from previous years in addition to the current year’s due bill. Of note, service providers stand in need of a mechanism to separate the revenue of the current year from previous years, as they use an accumulative method to record the collected revenue.

Collection Efﬁciency for water service - West Bank

Kufr al-labad 80% Abu Dis Cooperative Society for Water 58% Attil 83% Al 'Auja 33% Zababdeh 97% Beit Lid 100% JSC - Beit Liqiya 65% Biddya 100% Burqeen 87% Illar 92% Jericho 95% Kafr Ra'I 104% Nablus 65% Northwest Jerusalem - JSC 88% Northwest Jenin - JSC 96% Qabalan 100% Qabatiya 45% Qalqiliya 84% Ras karkar - VC 140% Salﬁt 73% Tulkarm 37% Al Karmel 100% Ya'bad 96% Al Zaweih 75% Al 'Eizariya 61% Bani Zaid Al Gharbia 44% WSSA 78% JWU 94% Tarqumiya 50% Beita 77% Al Dhahiriya 95% Al Ubeidiya 94% Zeita 70% Beituniya 90% As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya 47% Bala' 63% Azzun 100% Bani Na'im - Baqa Al Sharqiya 100% Halhul 100% Hebron 54% Jenin 52% Kharas 67% Nuba 100% Sa'ir 44% Soureef 99% Yatta 44% Za'tara 57% Beit Foureek 70% Tuqu' 58% Beit Ummar 64% Deir al Ghosoon 154% Tubas JSC 77% Mythaloun - JSC 36% Azmut - VC 17% Anabta 117% Al Shyoukh 97% Taffouh 44% Aqraba 97% Housan 71% Samu' 100% Nahalin 56% Idna 28% Anata 73% Dura 86% Beit Ula 91% JSC - Rural Dura H-4 100%

47 Collection Efﬁciency for water service - West Bank | Gaza

Abasan Jadida 31% Abasan Kabira 25% Bani Suhaila 33% Beit Hanoun 38% Beit Lahya 45% Braij 27% CMWU -Rafah 34% Dair al Balah 23% Fukhari 38% Gaza city 22% Jabalia Al Nazleh 48% Khan younis 38% Khuzaa 53% Maghazi 21% Moghraga 40% Musaddar 41% Naser 58% Nusairat 34% Qarara 43% Shuka 19% Um Ennaser 24% Wadi Gaza 34% Wadi Salga 43% Zahra 68% Zawaida 26%

48 4. Collection efficiency for wastewater services

The majority of wastewater service providers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip do not separate bills for wastewater services. They issue a single bill that covers the fees of water and wastewater service consumption. Eventually, they collect the overall bill amount, which might include other items in addition to the water and wastewater services.

Collection efﬁciency- waste water service (%) | West Bank

Kufr al-labad 84% Al Bireh 50% Biddya 87% Jericho 31% Qalqiliya 88% Salﬁt 85% Tulkarm 51% WSSA 112% Bani Zaid Al Gharbia 44% Bala' 100% Zeita 70% Nuba 62% Kharas 80% Bir Nabala 13%

Collection efﬁciency- waste water service (%) | Gaza

Bani Suhaila 5% Beit Hanoun 31% Beit Lahya 40% Braij 14% CMWU -Rafah 35% Dair al Balah 28% Gaza city 26% Jabalia Al Nazleh 12% Khan younis 9% Maghazi 23% Moghraga 13% Nusairat 24% Qarara 46% Shuka 4% Um Ennaser 27% Wadi Gaza 19% Zahra 75% Zawaida 23%

49 III. Water Quality Indicators

The WSRC monitors the water quality indicators through the available results of laboratory tests the service providers perform in addition to the relevant data provided by the MoH. Besides, the PWA laboratory provides some results on water resources.

On its part, the MoH regularly takes samples from the water resources, networks, pipelines, and household and institutions connections as per a well-defined sampling programme. However, water and wastewater service providers are not a party to this effort, yet the results of the tests are shared with service providers if there is an immediate need for follow-up and intervention as in the cases of contamination. The service providers otherwise are not involved in the sampling either in terms of locations or size of samples. This also applies to the tests unless the service provider lodges a request to be allowed access to such data.

The monitoring results show that about 45% of the service providers have reliable data on the potable quality covering most of the quality indicators. On the other hand, 55% of the service providers have data covering some of the quality indicators, which indicates a lack of integrated coordination and follow-up with the entities in charge of testing from the service providers’ side.

The list below sums up the indicators monitored by the WSRC:

Percentage of water samples (taken from the network including the main water pipelines lines) that contain residual free chlorine in the network and main pipelines. Percentage of water samples (taken from the source) and free from Total Coliform (T-Coli). Percentage of water samples (taken from the source) and free from Fecal Coliform (F-Coli). Percentage of water samples (taken from the network including the main water pipelines) and free from Total Coliform (T-Coli). Percentage of water samples (taken from the network including the main water pipelines) and free from Fecal Coliform (F-Coli). Percentage of microbiological tests performed. Percentage of water samples (taken from the source) and free from nitrate. Nevertheless, the WHO is the prime authority to determine the number of monthly samples to be taken from the network or how to measure the compliance of the testing results with the WHO recommendations.

Notably, most groundwater sources, especially wells, meet the standard specifications, while this is not the case with springs and rainwater collection wells. The Ministry of Health has reported many contamination cases in some parts of the distribution networks and reservoirs, provided that those reservoirs belonged to private homes, public institutions and more seriously many of them belonged to restaurants, schools, kindergartens, or bakeries.

The monitoring results in the West Bank during 2019 have arrived at the following:

57% of the samples contained residual free chlorine in networks and main pipelines. 70% of the samples taken from the water resource comply with the WHO standards and the Palestinian specifications on Total Coliform (T-Coli). 90% of the samples taken from the water resource comply with the WHO standards and the Palestinian specifications on Fecal Coliform (F-Coli). 90% of the samples taken from the network, including main pipelines, are free from Total Coliform

50 (T-Coli); 89% of the samples taken from the network, including main pipelines, are free from Fecal Coliform ( F-Coli); and 94% of the samples comply with the national and international specifications on nitrate in water.

The monitoring results in the Gaza Strip during 2019 have arrived at the following

95% of the samples contained residual free chlorine in networks and main pipelines. 62% of the samples taken from the water resource comply with the WHO standards and the Palestinian specifications on Total Coliform (T-Coli). 75% of the samples taken from the water resource comply with the WHO standards and the Palestinian specifications on Fecal Coliform ( F-Coli). 53% of the samples taken from the network, including main pipelines, are free from Total Coliform (T-Coli). 73% of the samples taken from the network, including main pipelines, are free from Fecal Coliform ( F-Coli). 17% of the samples comply with the national and international specifications on nitrate in water.

General observations and recommendations on quality indicators:

A high percentage of the service providers in the West Bank do not add chlorine to potable water, and if they do, the levels added do not comply with the national and international standards. All the service providers in the Gaza Strip add the required chlorine levels to the connections; however, some connections are contaminated due to the damages to these connection or illegal connections. The service providers are to keep a copy of the results of the tests performed by the MoH or any other authority, provided the copy be consistent with the testing programme. Several service providers fail to perform the required tests as per the WHO recommendations and Palestinian specifications; thus an immediate intervention is to taken to consider the resources available to the service providers. Nitrate contamination in the Gaza Strip showcases the constant deterioration of water quality and the non- compliance of supplies with the international standards. Agricultural wells or springs are not to be used or connected to the main network before verifying their quality, and chlorine should be added to water from a source added to the network, provided all be performed under effective monitoring and supervision. The WSRC calls upon the service provider to inspect public tanks and urge the customers and consumers to maintain their private tanks and wells clean. In public institutions, water quality in the storage sites (wells and tanks) should be monitored.

51 IV. Other Indicators

1. Staff productivity index for water service

This indicator is often used to measure the efficiency of human resources management and the effectiveness of performance. This indicator is calculated by dividing the full-time staff number by the number of connections multiplied by 1,000. Nonetheless, this measurement does not apply to the service providers that operate less than 1,000 connections, as it is based on the staff number per 1,000 connections.

Staff productivity index-water service (No.) | West Bank

Kufr al-labad - Abu Dis Cooperative Society for Water 3.7 Attil 1.7 Al 'Auja - Zababdeh 1.0 Beit Lid 4.1 JSC - Beit Liqiya 3.4 Biddya 2.9 Burqeen 2.3 Illar 5.7 Jericho 4.0 Kafr Ra'I 3.5 Nablus 5.5 Northwest Jerusalem - JSC 3.8 Northwest Jenin - JSC 3.8 Qabalan 1.1 Qabatiya 4.8 Qalqiliya 2.5 Ras karkar - VC - Salﬁt - Tulkarm 9.3 Al Karmel - Ya'bad 1.4 Al Zaweih 1.4 Al 'Eizariya 3.8 Bani Zaid Al Gharbia - WSSA 3.1 JWU 3.9 Tarqumiya 1.2 Beita 0.7 Al Dhahiriya 3.4 Al Ubeidiya 4.0 Zeita 1.8 Beituniya 2.9 As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya 3.1 Bala' 1.8 Azzun 1.5 Bani Na'im 2.0 Baqa Al Sharqiya 2.6 Halhul 3.2 Hebron 2.7 Jenin 5.8 Kharas 2.4 Nuba 1.9 Sa'ir 2.4 Soureef 1.7 Yatta 4.6 Za'tara 3.5 Beit Foureek 2.8 Tuqu' 2.7 Beit Ummar 2.8 Deir al Ghosoon 2.4 Tubas JSC 2.6 Mythaloun - JSC 2.4 Azmut - VC - Anabta 3.6 Al Shyoukh 3.8 Taffouh 2.4 Aqraba 2.0 Housan 2.5 Samu' 1.9 Nahalin - Idna 1.4 Anata 3.3 Dura 2.4 Beit Ula 1.8 JSC - Rural Dura H-4 -

52 As other indicators, this index does not allow absolute comparison of service providers, for the staff needs vary based on the service provider’s operations. For example, a service provider that operates its wells and pumping plants would not have the same staff size as a service provider that only purchase and distribute water.

Staff productivity index-water service (No.) | Gaza

Abasan Jadida 4.0 Abasan Kabira 4.6 Bani Suhaila 4.2 Beit Hanoun 3.4 Beit Lahya 2.1 Braij 3.1 CMWU -Rafah 2.3 Dair al Balah 3.2 Fukhari 7.8 Gaza city 1.7 Jabalia Al Nazleh 2.0 Khan younis 7.1 Khuzaa 4.4 Maghazi 4.3 Moghraga 4.3 Musaddar - Naser 3.8 Nusairat 2.3 Qarara 7.3 Shuka 5.9 Um Ennaser - Wadi Gaza - Wadi Salga - Zahra 4.0 Zawaida 4.3

53 2. Gender Mainstreaming by Service Providers

“Percentage of female employees of the water service workforce”

Women’s participation in the water and wastewater service sector is still meagre in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The low percentage of female employees in the water service sector is attributable to the fact that most of the recruits to the water or wastewater service are collectors, maintenance workers, guards and well operators, which are often occupied by males. Females in municipalities often occupy reception and secretarial positions or in financial departments, but they are not considered in this indicator because it looks at the employees fully recruited to the water and wastewater service.

Female workers as % of total staff (%) | Gaza Females Males

Abasan Jadida 0% 100% Abasan Kabira 0% 100% Bani Suhaila 5% 95% Beit Hanoun 0% 100% Beit Lahya 0% 100% Braij 7% 93% CMWU -Rafah 2% 98% Dair al Balah 0% 100% Fukhari 0% 100% Gaza city 1% 99% Jabalia Al Nazleh 3% 97% Khan younis 1% 99% Khuzaa 0% 100% Maghazi 17% 83% Moghraga 0% 100% Musaddar 0% 100% Naser 0% 100% Nusairat 5% 95% Qarara 0% 100% Shuka 8% 92% Um Ennaser 0% 100% Wadi Gaza 0% 100% Wadi Salga 0% 100% Zahra 0% 100% Zawaida 0% 100%

54 Female workers as % of total staff (%) | West Bank Females Males

Kufr al-labad 0% 100% Abu Dis Cooperative Society for Water 0% 100% Attil 0% 100% Al 'Auja 0% 100% Zababdeh 0% 100% Beit Lid 0% 100% JSC - Beit Liqiya 20% 80% Biddya 10% 90% Burqeen 0% 100% Illar 0% 100% Jericho 6% 94% Kafr Ra'I 0% 100% Nablus 7% 93% Northwest Jerusalem - JSC 21% 79% Northwest Jenin - JSC 5% 95% Qabalan 0% 100% Qabatiya 0% 100% Qalqiliya 0% 100% Ras karkar - VC 0% 100% Salﬁt 8% 92% Tulkarm 2% 98% Al Karmel 0% 100% Ya'bad 0% 100% Al Zaweih 0% 100% Al 'Eizariya 0% 100% Bani Zaid Al Gharbia 0% 100% WSSA 7% 93% JWU 9% 91% Tarqumiya 0% 100% Beita 0% 100% Al Dhahiriya 0% 100% Al Ubeidiya 0% 100% Zeita 0% 100% Beituniya 6% 94% As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya 0% 100% Bala' 0% 100% Azzun 0% 100% Bani Na'im 14% 86% Baqa Al Sharqiya 0% 100% Halhul 7% 93% Hebron 2% 98% Jenin 5% 95% Kharas 0% 100% Nuba 0% 100% Sa'ir 11% 89% Soureef 0% 100% Yatta 0% 100% Za'tara 14% 86% Beit Foureek 14% 86% Tuqu' 0% 100% Beit Ummar 13% 88% Deir al Ghosoon 17% 83% Tubas JSC 0% 100% Mythaloun - JSC 0% 100% Azmut - VC 0% 100% Anabta 0% 100% Al Shyoukh 0% 100% Taffouh 0% 100% Aqraba 0% 100% Housan 0% 100% Samu' 0% 100% Nahalin 14% 86% Idna 0% 100% Anata 0% 100% Dura 0% 100% Beit Ula 0% 100% JSC - Rural Dura H-4 0% 0%

55 3. Wastewater service coverage

Wastewater Coverage (%) | West Bank

Kufr al-labad 55% Beit Lid 30% Biddya 6% Jericho 24% Nablus 97% Qalqiliya 97% Salﬁt 40% Tulkarm 77% WSSA 70% Bani Zaid Al Gharbia 3% Bala' 33% Zeita 100% Nuba 42% Kharas 36% Hebron 84% Azmut - VC 63% Baqa Al Sharqiya 65% Jenin 70% Anabta 79% Ramallah 85% Al Bireh 93% Al Ram 58% Bir Nabala 100% Barta'a Sharqiya 64% JSC - Taybeh and Ramoun 50%

Wastewater Coverage (%) | Gaza

Bani Suhaila 41% Beit Hanoun 77% Beit Lahya 82% Braij 84% CMWU -Rafah 89% Dair al Balah 91% Gaza city 92% Jabalia Al Nazleh 87% Khan younis 82% Maghazi 92% Moghraga 80% Nusairat 89% Qarara 2% Shuka 22% Um Ennaser 77% Wadi Gaza 83% Zahra 55% Zawaida 92%

56 Water Service Providers Service Area - West Bank

1. Abu Dis 26. Dura

2. Al 'Auja 27. Halhul

3. Al 'Eizariya 28. Hebron

4. Al Dhahiriya 29. Idna

5. Al Karmel 30. Illar

6. Al Shyoukh 31. Jenin

7. Al Ubeidiya 32. Jericho

8. Anabta 33. JWU

9. Anata 34. Kafr Ra'I

10. Annzeh VC 35. Kharas

11. Arrabeh 36. Kufr al-labad

12. As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya 37. Mythaloun - JSC

13. Attil 38. Nablus

14. Azmut - VC 39. Northwest Jenin - JSC

15. Azzun 40. Northwest Jerusalem - JSC

16. Bani Na'im 41. Nuba

17. Bani Zaid Al Gharbia 42. Qabalan

18. Barta'a Al Sharqiya 43. Qabatiya

19. Beit Lid 44. Qaffen

20. Beit Ula 45. Qalqiliya

21. Beit Ummar 46. Ras karkar - VC

22. Beituniya 47. Sa'ir

23. Biddya 48. Salﬁt

24. Burqeen 49. Taffouh

25. Deir al Ghosoon 50. Tarqumiya

51. Tubas JSC 60. Baqa Al Sharqiya 68 Beita

52. Tulkarm 61. Zeita 69 Aqraba

53. Tuqu' 62. Bala' 70 Beit Liqya

54. Wadi Al Far'a VC 63. Al Zaweih Governerate

55. WSSA 64. Housan JSC - Rural Dura H-4 56. Ya'bad 65. Nahalin 57. Za'tara 66. Soureef 58. Zababdeh 67. Samu' 59. Yatta

57 58 General Recommendations

Taking due account of the challenging facing the provision and sustainability of water service in the State of Palestine can help the stakeholders to create an action plan that is rock-bedded on the service providers’ willingness and readiness to improve these vital services.

Based on the inputs of this report, the WSRC arrives at the following:

Service providers’ margin to increase the per capita water consumption is very slim due to Israeli control over water resources. The service providers still have legroom to minimise water losses, and thus slightly increase the per capita share. This modest increase could be realised if the service providers monitored their networks to keep them clear from illegal connections and damages and ensured accurate reading of well-operated metres. Water price variation is a challenge that cannot be addressed currently due to a set of objective reasons related to sources and typography. However, the report highlighted two controllable factors of the operating costs per cubic metre of water: energy and personnel expenses. The service providers are invited to review such costs and take the proper actions. The MoH should engage the service providers in the sampling and testing. The service provider must take part in determining the sites to be sampled and the number of samples. In a similar vein, the MoH should share a copy of the results of the tests regardless of their content. Some of the service providers do not comply with the service governance principles, including billing, information and data disclosure, and promotional discounts, which needs immediate consideration and solution. Some service providers’ technical and financial capacity might impede their sustainability and development if the water bill is their only source of income. Such service providers must act to segregate accounts, define the expenses to be covert by the water revenue, and allocate them exclusively for water and wastewater services. Having that accomplished, the service provider can take steps to establish joint service councils or regional water utilities. Service providers lack specific technical capacities and experience in service provision due to resignations or the like. Therefore, an integrated knowledge transfer should be put in place to sustain knowledge transfer among water and wastewater service personnel, and thus improve the service provision. Monitoring of wastewater systems revealed that small-scale wastewater treatment plants across the State of Palestine were no longer functional, or the efficiency of treatment is considerably low. Solving this issue further realises the recommendation to establish joint water and wastewater service councils or regional utilities because such an effort might lead to the establishment of sustainable wastewater treatment plants. Most of the service providers fail to duly document complaints. Eventually, this report lacks a section on complaints. The service providers, therefore, must document all the complaints and redressal procedures. Some service providers are far from categorising their connections, which impedes the determination of the percentage of each type of consumption per sector, and thus does do not inform the planning effort. The sources of pollution in many sites are increasing steadily, whether from agricultural use, solid or liquid waste, or industrial pollutants. The manifestations and consequences of containment are evident in many wells and necessitate measures to be taken to protect such resources.

59 Indicators that warrant immediate intervention:

The percentage of NRW must be decreased. The table below lists the service providers that must take swift measures to decrease their NRW, which exceeded 40%.

West Bank Gaza Strip

Anata Jenin Moghraga 62% 55% 58% As Sawahira Ash Bala’ Dair al Balah Sharqiya 54% 56% 51% Kharas Anabta Beit Lahya 50% 49% 55% Tuqu’ Beit Ummar Beit Hanoun 45% 45% 54% Tulkarm Sa’ir Maghazi 43% 43% 49% Al ‘Eizariya WSSA Musaddar 42% 41% 44% Mythaloun - JSC Gaza city 41% 42% Braij 42% Nusairat 40%

The water fee collection rate must be increased to realise 100% collection rate.

These bills are part of the public funds, and more effort needs to be exerted for collection purposes. The service provider should pay further attention to this aspect and seek more funding resources to cover the costs.

Service providers referred to in the table below have a collection rate of water bills less than 50%.

West Bank Gaza Strip Azmut - VC Shuka Maghazi 17% 19% 21% Idna Gaza city Dair al Balah 28% 22% 23% Al ‘Auja Um Ennaser Abasan Kabira 33% 24% 25% Mythaloun - JSC Zawaida Braij 36% 26% 27% Tulkarm Abasan Jadida Bani Suhaila 37% 31% 33% Taffouh Nusairat CMWU -Rafah 44% 34% 34% Yatta Wadi Gaza Fukhari 44% 34% 38% Sa’ir Khan younis Beit Hanoun 44% 38% 38% Bani Zaid Al Gharbia Moghraga Musaddar 44% 40% 41% Qabatiya Wadi Salga Qarara 45% 43% 43% As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya Beit Lahya Jabalia Al Nazleh 47% 45% 48%

60 The operating costs and tariff of service providers who recorded significantly high or low working ratio should be reviewed. The operating costs must be justifiable and cannot be further decreased without impacting the service level. The service provider shall also ensure that the water cost does not include operating costs other than the water service. Having that ensured, the service provider should review their tariff. The working ratio is often referred to as tariff efficiency due to its direct impact on the service provider’s financial sustainability.

West Bank Gaza Strip

Anata Naser 2.2 3.4 Al ‘Auja Abasan Kabira 1.8 2.4 Qabalan Gaza city 1.8 2.3 Tarqumiya Fukhari 1.8 2.1 Bani Na’im Um Ennaser 1.7 2.0 Jenin Khuzaa 1.6 1.7 Soureef Beit Lahya 1.6 1.6 Beit Ula 1.6 Tulkarm 0.6 Zeita 0.3

+970 59 7720001 [email protected] © 2020 WSRC ﺑﺮج ﺧﻠﻒ، ﺷﺎرع اﻟﺮوﺿﺔ Khalaf Building, Al-Rawda St. اﻟﺒﻴﺮة، ﻓﻠﺴﻄﻴﻦ Al Bireh- Palestine +970 2 240 1294 PERFORMANCE +970 2 240 1295 [email protected] MONITORING wsrc.ps wsrcps REPORT FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER PROVIDERS IN PALESTINE2019 © 2020 WSRC DECEMBER 2020