Bridge to Sustainability the Annual Performance Monitoring Report of Water and Wastewater Service Providers in Palestine - 2017

ﺑﺮج ﺧﻠﻒ، ﺷﺎرع اﻟﺮوﺿﺔ Khalaf Building, Al-Rawda St. اﻟﺒﻴﺮة، ﻓﻠﺴﻄﻴﻦ Al Bireh- Palestine +970 2 240 1294 +970 2 240 1295 [email protected] wsrc.ps wsrcps Bridge to Sustainability The Annual Performance Monitoring Report of Water and Wastewater Service Providers in Palestine - 2017

1 Caesarea Beach – by Samir Abu Su’ud 2007

Contents

2 Chairman’s Message 7

CEO’s Statement 9

CHAPTER ONE: WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE PROVIDERS IN PALESTINE 12

CHAPTER TWO: DETAILED INDICATOR-BASEDMONITORING OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE 24 WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE PROVIDERS

Technical Indicators 25

Financial Indicators 42

Water Quality Indicators 54

Other Indicators 58

CHAPTER THREE: NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 62

ANNEXES 68

Annex (1) Water and Wastewater Service Providers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip 69 Monitored in the 2017 Report

Annex (2) Registration Fees to Water and Wastewater Service in the West Bank and the Gaza 72 Strip of the Service Providers in the 2017 Report

Annex (3) Summary of Results of the Water and Wastewater Service Providers in the West 74 Bank in 2017

Annex (4) Summary of Results of the Water and Wastewater Service Providers in the Gaza 80 Strip in 2017

Annex (5): Cabinet Decree on the Regulation and Control of the Water Service Sector Revenue 83 and Expenses

3 Table of Figures

Figure 1: Average daily per capita water consumption for domestic use – the West Bank 26

Figure 2: Average daily per capita water consumption for domestic use – the Gaza Strip 27 Figure 3: The average amount of water sold per capita per day based on the number of the 28 population in the West Bank Figure 4: The average amount of water sold per capita per day based on the number of the 29 population in the Gaza Strip Figure 5: Percentage of NRW 33

Figure 6: Percentage of NRW - The Gaza Strip 34

Figure 7: Summary of the analysis of the water balance for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip 37

Figure 8: NRW indicator per km of network per year in the West Bank 38

Figure 9: NRW indicator per km of network per year in the Gaza Strip 39

Figure 10: NRW indicator per connection per day in the West Bank 40

Figure 11: NRW indicator per connection per day in the Gaza Strip 41

Figure 12: Average selling price for one cubic meter of water and operational costs 43

Figure 13: Average selling price for one cubic meter of water and operational costs per cubic 44 meter of water sold in the Gaza Strip

Figure 14: Operational costs of service providers in the West Bank 45

Figure 15: Operating Costs of Service Providers in the Gaza Strip 46

Figure 16: Working ratio (efficiency ratio) – Water service in the West Bank 48

Figure 17: Working ratio (efficiency ratio) – Water service in the Gaza Strip 49

Figure 18: Collection efficiency – Water service in the West Bank 50

Figure 19: Collection efficiency – Water service in the Gaza Strip 51

Figure 20: Collection efficiency – Wastewater service 53

Figure 21: Staff productivity indicator – Water service in the West Bank 59

Figure 22: Staff productivity indicator – Water service 60

4 List of Tables

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

Table 2: Operational data for service providers in the Gaza Strip 17

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

Table 4: Quantities of available water to service providers in the Gaza Strip 22

Table of Maps

Map 1: The results of the main water quality indicators in the West Bank 56

Map 2: The results of the main water quality indicators in the Gaza Strip 57

5 One of Jordan River Tributaries– by Samir Abu Su’ud 2007

Forward

6 Chairman’s Message

As the WSRC Board of Directors brings the Annual Performance Report of the Water and Wastewater Service Providers in Palestine 2017 to the light in the face of the challenges it coped and still copes with. WSRC remains strong-willed to have its mission complete, lock, stock and barrel. Culminated in the enactment of the Decree-by-Law NO. 14 of 2014 and fleshed out by the establishment of WSRC, the pursuit of water sector reform was ushered in 2009 with the Cabinet’s ratification of the Reform Plan. Such an effort could defy all odds with a view of realising the Reform Plan objectives.

The support of the Prime Minister had the most significant impact on the WSRC responsibility to monitor maltitude of water and wastewater service providers across Palestine. Furnishing this summary report, WSRC never ceases to move ahead against all the odds.

For the fifth year in a row, WSRC monitors the performance of the water and wastewater service providers in Palestine. We take pride in the record of achievements of many service providers that was manifest in the accuracy, responsibility, and diligence they demonstrated to audit their financial statements. Let alone their painstaking endeavours to build up their knowledge, boost their performance, and take stock of the kinks in service provision and integration of the relevant departments. WSRC also prides itself on the continuous effort to communicate with the customers in pursuit of a greater public satisfaction.

Despite the challenges facing the water service provision, first and foremost, the limited water resources, a cohort of water and wastewater service providers still could nail some achievements by decreasing the loss ratio and the supply cost per cubic meter of water, raising the bar on the quality and quantity of the quality tests, and enhancing the efficiency and collection.

In the same vein, several water and wastewater service providers made a shift to prepaid metering with an aim at increasing the collection ratio. However, such a step stands in need of further follow-up and examination, given the diversity and multiple efficiency levels of such prepaid meters. WSRC is also concerned of a surge in the commercial losses, for the mode of operation of such meters decrease the on-ground follow-up of the connections and networks.

Last but not least, the WSRC Board of Directors prides itself on the dedication and devotion of the WSRC staff to have the missions complete by wielding the limited available resources in line with the Decree-by-Law NO. 14 of 2014.

Recognising its instrumentality in assessing the current service provision levels and in enhancing the service provision in the offing if its data are used the right way; its recommendations are acted on, and its results are built on, we gladly present to you this report.

Mr. Abdelkarim Asa’d BoD Chairman

7 Ein Qiniya by Fadi Arouri

INTRODUCTION

8 CEO’s Statement

Having all the performance reports of water and wastewater service providers complete, WSRC provides indicia of the wise guidance of HE Prime Minister, the WSRC Board, and the strong relationship with the service providers. The continuous effort of the WSRC employees is worthy of our all due respect. Our team worked and finalised the Performance Monitoring Report, the Comparative Report, the Performance Monitoring Report of water and wastewater service providers, the Water Service Governance Report, the Toolkit of Compliance with Governance Principles, the Wastewater Service Tariff Report. Furthermore, WSRC staff reviewed tariff applied by many service providers. Still, there are many tasks we have not had the chance to achieve yet. To name the most significant, the monitoring of the water supply agreements, monitoring the operational processes on a broader scale, monitoring the performance of the West Bank Water Department (WBWD), the establishment of the Consumer Complaint System as well as the establishment of the Service Provider Incentive Program. Of note, the failure of achieving the aforesaid is not attributable to the poor performance of WSRC, but the lack of financial support. On the contrary, WSRC looks forward to building up and cementing a strong relationship with the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and the partners in the water sector. WSRC also hopes to add these goals to its record of accomplishments in the upcoming year. However, WSRC suffers financial fragility, which without an urgent intervention by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and all of the sector actors, be they local or international organisations, may paralyze the progress of WSRC. The significance of this report unfolds through the following:

As the law stands, WSRC is required to publish periodical reports on the performance of the service providers in line with the national will to ensure the exercise of the right to access information. This measure goes in line with the global practice to celebrate the International Right to Know Day every July 28TH. It also complies with articles 20 and 24 of the Decree-by-Law NO. 14 of 2014 on water. WSRC provides the technical, financial, and water quality data, and other types of data relating to water and wastewater service providers in Palestine to the stakeholders, policy makers, politicians, researchers, donors, and the public.

While preparing this report:

WSRC hosted many BA, MA, and PhD students from national and international universities. Those students conduct research on the water sector and are in need of data. WSRC also provides them with the data they need through the performance reports that were conducted throughout the years and the WRIS. Many service providers set up their strategic plans and projects, directly or through consulting firms with the help of the data WSRC has been collecting, auditing, and adding up into (Water Regulatory Information System) WRIS. Many researchers used WRIS to inform and write their research papers, which were either published or presented at different conferences. The enforcement of the institutional integrity of the service providers to achieve better information access and auditing. This step established a better connection, cooperation, and integrity among the departments in the institutions of the service providers, including the technical, financial, administrative, and other relevant departments.

Published data became more precise and comprehensive than in the past. This improvement rings particularly true for service providers that worked for more than a year with WSRC on monitoring the performance indicators. The process of collecting, auditing, and analysing data caught the attention of the service providers due to its instrumentality and the extent to which it impacts the measurement of the performance indicators. Remarkably, the interest in performance monitoring of the service providers and following-up to the indicators as a performance development strategy has witnessed an increase.

We look forward to writing the achievements of the Index Performance Report 2018, hoping it will be a space to shed light on realizing all the objectives and tasks we could not accomplish in 2017. In a similar vein, WSRC undertakes to accomplish these tasks in a perfect agreement and greater coordination with all of the institutions in the water sector. .

Mohammad Said Al Hmaidi WSRC CEO 9 NOTE

10 This report is not a detailed audit report but to analyse the data and the performance indicators that the service providers introduced and were reviewed by WSRC. The process involved collecting, auditing, and completing the lost data through field visits and daily follow-up, using the WSRC tools, such as WRIS. The data was cross-checked with the available documented records. WSRC considers this process as a perfect opportunity to build the capacity of the service providers in data analysis and collection. Therefore, and even if there are discrepancies in specific data compared to previous years, this does not infringe on the accuracy of the data, overall, nor the accuracy of the performance indicator reports. If any, it is another step in the right direction towards improving the quality of data available in the records of service providers.

Some service providers (especially in the Gaza Strip) collected more precise data than the data of the last year concerning the population and the water network length. As hinted earlier, such varieties demonstrate the improvement of the quality of the collected data. WSRC looks forward to achieving that through a non-stop effort at the data collection front. On another note, most service providers, when collecting data on population, rely on the data presented by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS).

11 (Al-Khan al-Ahmar – Jerusalem – by Fadi ‘Arouri)

CHAPTER ONE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE PROVIDERS IN PALESTINE

12 Water and Wastewater Service Providers in Palestine The Decree-by-Law NO. 14 of 2014 defines service providers as: “the National Water Company, regional water utilities, local authorities, joint service councils, and associations that provide water or wastewater services.” The Water Sector Regulatory Council exerts all effort to reach all service providers. Gradually, WSRC reached 89 service providers in 2017 (i.e. 64 in the West Bank, and 25 in the Gaza Strip)1.

Noting the number of population that receives water services and that are included in the report off 2017 reached 2,186,275 citizens, which equals 72.6% of the West Bank population. What is more, the serviced population in the Gaza Strip reached 1,899,291 citizens, showing 100 per cent coverage. The coverage percentage of this report amounts to 82% of the total serviced population across the State of Palestine.

Report Inclusivity

Service Providers

16 39 39 64 19 25 25 25

35 service providers 64 service providers 64 service providers 89 service providers 60% coverage 74% coverage 74% coverage 82% coverage 2014 2015 2016 2017

Tables 1 and 2 show the operational data of the service providers included in the report of 2017. By the same token, tables 3 and 4 provide the available water amounts to the service providers in 2017.

1 For the purposes of this report, abbreviations and short names will be used in this report to cite and refer to the service providers. However, Annex 1 has a list of the full names of the service providers covered in this report.

13 Coverage of Service Providers

The Gaza Strip NO. of Service governorates providers 10 64 NO. of governorates

5 Local Councils 3 Municipalities 52

Service Water Associations providers 25 1

Water Utility Water Utility 2 1

Joint Services Councils Municipalities 6 24 The West Bank

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

NO. of Water network NO. of Water population NO. of population NO. of staff NO. of WW length Service Provider connections connections served- served- water wastewater service (km) service

Abu Dis 14 3,595 0 30,000 0 36 Al-‘Auja 3 890 0 5,800 0 30 Al-‘Ezariya 13 3,725 0 30,000 0 50 Al-Beira 8 0 13,348 0 80,000 0 Al-Dhahiriya 15 2,700 0 40,000 0 82 Al-Karmel 5 450 0 7,200 0 36 Al-Shyoukh 7 1,649 0 12,050 0 70 Al-Ubeidiya 9 1,608 0 15,000 0 40 Al-Ram 5 0 1,141 0 27,384 0 Anabta 8 2,034 1,350 9,500 7,500 51 Anata 4 2,050 0 35,000 0 19 Arraba 5 2,250 0 13,220 0 45 As-Sawahira 2 1,060 0 8,500 0 20 Attil 4 2,000 0 11,000 0 60 Azmout 2 600 400 4,000 2,500 7 Azzun 3 1,900 0 9,527 0 43 Bani Na’im 5 2,850 0 20,000 0 45 Bani Zaid 7 1,600 72 11,000 400 50 Barta’a 3 1,599 554 10,000 2,770 25 Beit Lid 7 1,115 75 5,680 1,200 30 Beit Ula 2 1,563 0 15,000 0 59 Beit Ummar 4 2,917 0 18,470 0 96 Beituniya 7 6,027 0 42,000 0 57 Biddya 5 2,465 110 10,451 550 44 Beir Nabala 1 0 1,400 0 5,500 0 Burqeen 3 1,250 0 7,000 0 30 Deir Al-Ghosoun 4 2,279 0 12,000 0 60 Dura 11 3,747 0 39,336 0 104 Halhul 11 4,166 0 30,200 0 86 Hebron 118 19,060 9,863 240,000 169,000 325 Idna 6 3,450 0 27,000 0 85 Illar 9 1,610 0 8,000 0 5 Jenin 57 9,554 7,400 55,000 45,000 150

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

NO. of Water network NO. of Water population NO. of population NO. of staff NO. of WW length Service Provider connections connections served- served- water wastewater service (km) service

Jericho 51 6,807 476 31,500 2,475 203 JWU 270 66,761 0 340,000 0 1,500 South East Nablus District 21 7,682 0 41,816.5 0 290 Rammun and At- Taiyba 7 0 280 0 2,240 0 Kafr Ra’i 5 1,330 0 8,347 0 51 Kharas 8 1,365 290 9,100 3,500 30 Kufr Al-Labad 4 914 202 5,000 3,000 20 Mythaloun 11 4,300 0 21,500 0 141 Nablus 311 44,674 14,271 221,898 216,986 522 Northwest Jenin 32 6,485 0 62,000 0 513 Northwest Jerusalem 19 5,230 0 32,339 0 144 Nuba 4 950 380 5,950 2,280 19 Qablan 2 1,561 0 8,365 0 30 Qabatiya 22 3,708 0 24,439 0 55 Qaffen 3 2,400 0 10,000 0 35 Qalqiliya 55 9,723 12,656 55,065 54,000 153 Ramallah 19 0 22,070 0 53,000 0 Ras Karkar 2 307 0 2,000 0 5 Sa’ir 7 3,565 0 22,000 0 69 Salfit 11 2,844 1,017 16,218 6,000 62 Taffouh 5 1,504 0 15,000 0 42 Tarqumiya 11 3,106 0 20,000 0 80 Tubas 23 8,517 0 48,958 0 180 Tulkarm 127 14,715 13,800 83,056 64,000 410 Tuqu’ 4 1,465 0 13,000 0 90 Al-Far’a 4 770 0 4,700 0 11 Bethlehem 55 15,146 8,927 116,157 81,301 312 Ya’bad 4 3,179 0 17,000 0 38 Yatta 21 3,930 0 74,000 0 165 Za’tara 7 1,420 0 8,200 0 68 Zababdeh 3 808 0 5,500 0 20

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

NO. of Water network NO. of Water population NO. of population NO. of staff NO. of WW length Service Provider connections connections served- served- water wastewater service (km) service

Absan Al-Jadida 5 1,405 0 8,361 0 38

Absan Al-Kabira 20 3,958 0 25,696 0 75

Al-Bureij 14 3,994 3,200 39,599 36,988 50

Al-Fakhkhari 7 1,105 0 5,477 0 58

Al-Maghazi 13 2,704 2,500 25,323 23,653 62

Al-Mughraqa 6 1,367 748 10,427 8,594 40

Al-Musaddar 8 372 210 2,458 1,423 18

Al-Qarara 15 2,251 0 26,394 0 125

Al-Naser 6 1,523 0 7,636 0 52

Al-Nusseirat 25 7,997 7,367 80,536 64,949 150

Al-Shuka 14 1,504 500 13,978 2,467 80

Al-Zahraa 7 1,145 1,090 5,071 4,270 18

Al-Zawaida 6 2,606 1,565 21,695 20,265 88

Bani Suhaila 25 5,018 1,603 39,367 12,432 115

Beit Hanun 31 4,829 4,189 48,058 39,178 150

Beit Lahiya 30 7,084 5,771 80,854 76,362 180 Coastal Municipalities 132 20,676 17,159 189,689 177,182 390 Water Utility )(CMWU Deir Al-Balah 45 7,766 6,143 78,011 69,799 240

Gaza 191 64,177 47,426 599,654 536,533 716

Jabalya 167 20,421 16,632 202,171 188,841 200

Khan Yunis 120 21,143 15,263 213,056 169,952 514

Khuza’a 9 1,754 0 11,160 0 50

Umm Al-Nasr 6 640 463 4,642 3,553 10

Wadi As-Salqa 4 570 0 6,379 0 20

Wadi Gaza 6 477 0 4,448 0 15

17 Water and Wastewater Service Providers in the West Bank, of which:

(45) Service providers depend on purchased water only. 64 (5) Service providers depend on local water sources only. (9) Service providers depend on local water sources and purchased water.

(5) Service providers included in this report only provide the wastewater services, i.e., not water services.

18 Water and Wastewater Service Providers in the Gaza Strip, of which:

(2) Service providers depend on purchased water only. 25 (13) Service providers depend on local water sources only. (10) Service providers depend on local water sources and purchased water.

(6) Service providers have desalination plants.

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

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

Abu Dis 0 0 680,331

Al-‘Auja 0 0 805,159

Al-‘Ezariya 0 0 1,248,078

Al-Beira 0 0 0

Al-Dhahiriya 0 0 694,722

Al-Karmel 0 0 56,640

Al-Shyoukh 0 0 422,050

Al-Ubeidiya 0 0 364,626

Al-Ram 0 0 0

Anabta 779,534 0 0

Anata 0 0 1,067,200.60

Arraba 0 0 368,405

As-Sawahira 0 0 370,105

Attil 0 0 524,840

Azmout 0 0 186,703

Azzun 578,860 0 0

Bani Na’im 0 0 662,172

Bani Zaid 0 0 453,009

Barta’a 0 105,120 288,964

Beit Lid 0 0 188,335

Beit Ula 0 0 475,853

Beit Ummar 0 0 769,674

Beituniya 0 0 1,070,861

Biddya 0 0 580,160

Beir Nabala 0 0 0

Burqeen 0 0 262,652

Deir Al-Ghosoun 524,808 0 5,500

Dura 0 0 676,053

Halhul 0 0 906,254

Hebron 0 0 7,800,000

Idna 0 0 295,091

Illar 0 0 846,840

Jenin 1,197,400 0 1,200,580

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

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

Jericho 0 2,924,705 0 Jerusalem Water 1,643,662 0 16,494,994 Undertaking South East Nablus District 0 0 1,060,452

Rammun and At-Taiyba 0 0 0

Kafr Ra’i 0 0 440,783

Kharas 0 0 457,022

Kufr Al-Labad 0 0 216,290

Mythaloun 0 0 691,222

Nablus 7,725,698 1,679,458 1,162,642

Northwest Jenin 947,562 0 730,950

Northwest Jerusalem 0 0 1,116,101

Nuba 0 0 251,708

Qablan 0 0 203,623

Qabatiya 0 0 1,064,370

Qaffen 499,234 0 141,790

Qalqiliya 4,454,636 0 0

Ramallah 0 0 0

Ras Karkar 0 0 64,480

Sa’ir 0 0 935,072

Salfit 0 74,670 565,030

Taffouh 0 63,690 261,231

Tarqumiya 0 0 555,000

Tubas 0 0 1,651,680

Tulkarm 7,235,443 0 0

Tuqu’ 0 0 453,354

Al-Far’a 0 0 240,564

Bethlehem 0 0 5,390,536

Ya’bad 0 0 621,000

Yatta 0 0 868,600

Za’tara 0 0 316,720

Zababdeh 0 0 173,135

Total (m3) 25,586,837 4,847,643 59,399,206

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

Local Water Local Water Purchased Water Water Produced from Service Provider Resources-Springs Resources-Wells (m3) (m3) desalination plants (m3) (m3)

Absan Al-Jadida 0 0 396,978 0

Absan Al-Kabira 64,000 0 1,130,386 0

Al-Bureij 1,559,297 0 195,238 0

Al-Fakhkhari 284,550 0 0 6,000

Al-Maghazi 938,717 0 408,519 0

Al-Mughraqa 701,800 0 0 0

Al-Musaddar 199,081 0 0 0

Al-Qarara 1,379,210 0 0 0

Al-Naser 408,870 0 0 0

Al-Nusseirat 3,056,548 0 1,068,030 111,028

Al-Shuka 510,000 0 0 0

Al-Zahraa 427,542 0 0 0

Al-Zawaida 1,050,008 0 0 0

Bani Suhaila 800,884 0 962,254 176,926

Beit Hanun 4,206,622 0 0 0

Beit Lahiya 4,622,385 0 0

CMWU 7,888,440 0 48,000 96,000

Deir Al-Balah 4,207,507 0 15,951 10,000

Gaza 14,724,926 0 6,401,683 0

Jabalya 12,800,000 0 0 0

Khan Yunis 8,607,651 0 8,750 60,450

Khuza’a 0 0 586,002 0

Umm Al-Nasr 245,600 0 0

Wadi As-Salqa 239,790 0 0 0

Wadi Gaza 134,591 0 0 0

Total (m3) 79,058,019 11,221,791 460,404

22 Bulk Water Service Providers – WBWD

The West Bank Water Department (WBWD) is the main bulk water service provider in the West Bank. Further, it owns and operates water resources of 17 groundwater wells. The department distributes the water purchased from Israeli resources, which makes 80% of the water supply to the service providers.

The WBWD did not provide WSRC with any data during the years 2015, 2016, and 2017 to assess its performance indicators and publish them. Accordingly, the data and the indicators that were published in 2014 are the only available updated data the Council has about the WBWD.

23 (One of the Jordan River Tributaries – Baniyas – by Samir Abu Su’ud 2017)

CHAPTER TWO A DETAILED REVIEW OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE PROVIDERS PER INDICATOR

24 I. Technical Indicators

1. Average daily per capita water consumption for domestic use This indicator is measured for service providers who have separated domestic consumption of water from other types of water consumption (commercial, touristic, industrial). Some service providers calculate the total consumption under domestic consumption without separating different types of consumption. Therefore, they were excluded from this presentation of the results of this indicator because their per capita share is not real and will be presented in the following indicator.

This report includes 22 service providers in the West Bank and 15 service providers in the Gaza Strip out of 64 service providers in the West Bank and 25 in the Gaza Strip who do not filter the connections by the type of consumption. Of note, the process of classifying the types of consumption can be done in a swift, simple, and uncostly manner by the bill collectors and meter readers through their field visits.

The least daily per capita water consumption for domestic use (l/c/d)

The West Bank The Gaza Strip

Al-Karmel Idna Yatta Wadi Gaza Al-Mughraqa Wadi As-Salqa 18 23 24 56 60 66

‘The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends 150 litres of water per capita per day although the minimum international water per capita per day is 100 litres to meet the basic needs.’

(Jericho – by Fadi Arouri 2016) 25 Figure 1: Average Daily per Capita Water Consumption for Domestic Use The West Bank

Abu Dis Al-‘Auja l/c/d Al-‘Ezariya Al-Dhahiriya Al-Karmel Al-Shyoukh Al-Ubeidiya Anabta Anata Arraba As-Sawahira Attil Azmout Azzun Bani Na’im Bani Zaid Barta’a Beit Lid Beit Ula Beit Ummar Beituniya Biddya Burqeen Deir Al-Ghosoun Dura Halhul Hebron Idna Illar Jenin Jericho Jerusalem Water Undertaking South East Nablus District Rammun and At-Taiyba Kafr Ra’i Kharas Kufr Al-Labad Mythaloun Nablus Northwest Jenin Northwest Jerusalem Nuba Qablan Qabatiya Qaffen Qalqiliya Ras Karkar Sa’ir Salﬁt Taffouh Tarqumiya Tubas Tulkarm Tuqu’ Al-Far’a Bethlehem Note: Service providers who do not separate domestic Ya’bad consumption from other types of consumption are Yatta highlighted in grey color. Za’tara Zababdeh

26 Figure 2: Average Daily per Capita Water Consumption for Domestic Use The Gaza Strip

Absan Al-Jadida Absan Al-Kabira 63 l/c/d Al-Bureij Al-Fakhkhari Al-Maghazi Al-Mughraqa Al-Musaddar Al-Qarara Al-Naser Al-Nusseirat Al-Shuka Al-Zahraa Al-Zawaida 94 Bani Suhaila 88 Beit Hanun 114 Beit Lahiya CMWU 77 Deir Al-Balah 73 Gaza 85 Jabalya 97 Khan Yunis 80 Khuza’a Umm Al-Nasr 111

Wadi As-Salqa Note: Service providers who do not separate domestic Wadi Gaza consumption from other types of consumption are highlighted in grey color.

Average daily per capita water consumption for domestic use in 2017

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

The West Bank has only four service providers that provide the minimum supply of water as per the WHO recommendation (i.e. 100 l/c/d), namely: Azzun, Tulkarm, Qalqiliya, and Jericho. There are limited quantities in Al-Karmel, Idna, and Yatta, where the supply does not meet the basic needs of the citizens.

The available water amounts in the Gaza Strip might seem better than in the West Bank. For instance, the water per capita per day is never less than 50 litres as the case is in some parts of the West Bank. The quality, nevertheless, remains the major obstacle facing the service providers in the Gaza Strip. A string of reports from PWA and UN agencies showed that higher than 96% of the water supplied to the population is unsafe drinking water. For more information, see the Water Quality Maps, page. 57).

27 2. The Average Amount of Water Sold per Capita per Day based on the Number of the Population This indicator measures the total share of water consumption per the number of individuals for all types of use (i.e. domestic, commercial, industrial, and touristic as well as bulk users). In principle, the indicator is set to compare service providers to each other in case they do not separate the different types of water use.

The lack of a proper classification of subscribers to the water service could be justified to the single tariff that applies to all connections regardless of their type of consumption. WSRC recommends the service providers exert greater effort to separate and classify the various types of connections. Taking due account of the importance of the indicator “Average Daily per Capita Water Consumption for Domestic Use”, which would not be real unless the service providers separate the domestic consumption from other types of uses, this stepping stone is must to go. For example, the available water quantity in Illar might seem very high, but almost 40% of it is bulk water sold to neighbouring regions. Same applies to Al-‘Auja and Hebron, where huge purchased water quantities are consumed for commercial, industrial, and agricultural purposes. Meanwhile, the Gaza Municipality provides tens of concrete factories and dozens of the commercial and touristic buildings with water. Lumping all the consumption in one category gives an inaccurate rate for the indicator of per capita consumption that cannot be compared to the WHO standards.

Figure 3: The average amount of water sold per capita per day by population – The West Bank

Abu Dis l/c/d Al-‘Auja Al-‘Ezariya Al-Dhahiriya Al-Karmel Al-Shyoukh Al-Ubeidiya Anabta Anata Arraba As-Sawahira Attil Azmout Azzun Bani Na’im Bani Zaid Barta’a Beit Lid Beit Ula Beit Ummar Beituniya Biddya Burqeen Deir Al-Ghosoun Dura Halhul Hebron Idna Illar Jenin Jericho Jerusalem Water Undertaking South East Nablus District Kafr Ra’i Kharas Kufr Al-Labad Mythaloun Nablus Northwest Jenin Northwest Jerusalem Nuba Qablan Qabatiya Qaffen Qalqiliya Ras Karkar Sa’ir Salﬁt Taffouh Tarqumiya Tubas Tulkarm Tuqu’ Al-Far’a Bethlehem Ya’bad Yatta Za’tara Zababdeh 28 Figure 4: The average amount of water sold per capita per day based on the number of the population in the Gaza Strip

Absan Al-Jadida Absan Al-Kabira l/c/d Al-Bureij Al-Fakhkhari Al-Maghazi Al-Mughraqa Al-Musaddar Al-Qarara Al-Naser Al-Nusseirat Al-Shuka Al-Zahraa Al-Zawaida Bani Suhaila Beit Hanun Beit Lahiya CMWU Deir Al-Balah Gaza Jabalya Khan Yunis Khuza’a Umm Al-Nasr Wadi As-Salqa Wadi Gaza

It is true that many service providers cannot increase the amounts of available water from the source due to Israeli control over water resources. Still, every service provider is required to seek the optimal utilisation of the available water amounts especially by reducing non-revenue water (NRW) as much as possible.

Although the average amount of water per capita this year is still very close to the previous year, some service providers showcased an increase in this aspect. To name a few, Bani Na’im, Dura, Kafr Ra’I, Qabatiya, Al-Buraij and Al-Mughazi. In parallel, these service providers also presented a notable decrease in the NRW. On the very grounds, some service providers showed the decreased average amount of water per capita such as Al-Mughraqa and Al-Qarara. If to any, this drop could be attributed to a high increase in the NRW.

Khirbat at-Tawil – Nablus – by Fadi Arouri 2014 29 The Average Amount of Water Sold Per Capita per Day Based on the Number of the Population in the West Bank

Less than 50 51 - 100 101 - 150 More than 150 l/c/d l/c/d l/c/d l/c/d

Al-Karmel Al-Ubeidiya Bani Na’im JWU Qalqiliya 18 54 76 112 164 Idna Beituniya Sa’ir Kafr Ra’i Jericho 23 57 77 117 201 Yatta Northwest Jenin Qabatiya Tulkarm Al ‘Auja 25 58 78 118 232 Anata Tuqu’ As Sawahira Azzoun Illar 28 58 78 125 280 Azmout Taffouh Ya’bad Anabta 36 58 79 128 Abu Dis Al ’Ezariya Za’atara Qaffen 37 60 80 137 Al-Dhahiriya Arraba Ras Karkar 38 60 80 Dura Beit Lid Kekr al-Labad 42 60 81 Qablan South East Nablus Bethlehem 50 60 82 Mythaloun Beit Ula 62 83 Hebron Northwest Jerusalem 62 84 Bani Zaid Al-Shyoukh 65 84 Tubas Nuba 67 85 Jenin Nablus 67 89 Halhul Al-Far’a 68 91 Zababdeh Deir al-Ghusun 68 91 Tarqumiya Salfit 69 92 Burqeen Attil 72 95 Kharas Biddya 74 95 Beir Ummar Barta’a 75 98

30 The Average Amount of Water Sold per Capita per Day Based on the Number of the Population in the Gaza Strip

More than 150 Less than 50 51 - 100 101 - 150 l/c/d l/c/d l/c/d l/c/d

None Wadi Gaza Al-Fukhkhari Al Zahraa 56 104 169 Al-Mughraqa Absan al-Jadida 60 104 Umm al-Nase وادي السلقا 66 112 Ash-Shuka Al-Qarara 69 118 CMWU Khuza’a 79 121 Deir al-Balah Beit Hanun 80 122 Khan Yunis Al-Musaddar 82 131 Al-Buraj 84 Al-Maghazi 86 Absan al-Kabira 88 Bani Suhaila 90 Gaza 92 An-Naser 93 An-Nusserirat 94 Beit Lahiya 96 Al Zawaida 100 Jabalya 100

31 3. Percentage of Non-Revenue Water This indicator shows the difference between the amount of water supplied by a water service provider through the water distribution network and the billed water amounts. The outcome represents the losses of the service provider. Figure on page 36 demonstrates the components of the non-revenue water; which can be real or losses such as water leakage, water distribution tank overflows, illegal connections, and inaccurate water meters.

In the West Bank, Azmout ranked first with the highest percentage of NRW at 72% followed by Anata (65%). Furthermore, the apparent water losses as in illegal connections and inaccurate measurement of water meters stood at 46% in Anata and 49% in Azmout. Therefore, service providers in Anata and Azmout must exert more considerable effort to reduce the NRW. Such a step gain added importance because the amount of water per capita is very low. As the figures stand, it reaches 22 l/c/d in Anata and 36 l/c/d in Azmout.

Moreover, there are service providers with NRW percentage above 40%- to name a few, Tulkarm, Al-‘Ezraiya, Kharas, Jenin, Anabta, and Bani Zaid. Of note, Tulkarm and Jenin persist in showing such high percentages for the fourth year in a row. If any, these figures reflect the lack of any appropriate measures by the relevant service providers to reduce the NRW.

In the Gaza Strip, Al-Mughraqa ranked first at 60% followed by Beit Hanun, Jabaliya, Al-Mughazi, and Al-Musaddar at 45%, 43%, 41%, and 41%, respectively.

Based on verified data, 11 out of 64 service providers in the West Bank show very low percentages of NRW, wheresome percentages were below 15%. The reason for that is the lack of documentation or inaccurate estimates of the produced or purchased amounts of water. The result, the produced or purchased amounts were shown as less than their real value if compared to the sold water and recorded in the billing system. Some service providers directly burden the subscribers or the municipality with the water losses. In such cases, especially in Taffouh, Beit Ula, and Illar, an intervention shall be made to help those service providers manage and document the data.

32 (The water pump of Khallet Batrakh –Hebron – by Eyad Jad-Allah 2017) Figure 5: Percentage of NRW in the West Bank

Abu Dis Al-‘Auja Al-‘Ezariya Al-Dhahiriya Al-Karmel Al-Shyoukh Al-Ubeidiya Anabta Anata Arraba As-Sawahira Attil Azmout Azzun Bani Na’im Bani Zaid Barta’a Beit Lid Beit Ula Beit Ummar Beituniya Biddya Burqeen Deir Al-Ghosoun Dura Halhul Hebron Idna Illar Jenin Jericho Jerusalem Water Undertaking South East Nablus District Kafr Ra’i Kharas Kufr Al-Labad Mythaloun Nablus Northwest Jenin Northwest Jerusalem Nuba Qablan Qabatiya Qaffen Qalqiliya Ras Karkar Sa’ir Salﬁt Taffouh Tarqumiya Tubas Tulkarm Tuqu’ Al-Far’a Bethlehem Ya’bad Yatta Za’tara Zababdeh

33 Figure 6: Percentage of NRW in the Gaza Strip

Absan Al-Jadida Absan Al-Kabira Al-Bureij Al-Fakhkhari Al-Maghazi Al-Mughraqa Al-Musaddar Al-Qarara Al-Naser Al-Nusseirat Al-Shuka Al-Zahraa Al-Zawaida Bani Suhaila Beit Hanun Beit Lahiya CMWU Deir Al-Balah Gaza Jabalya Khan Yunis Khuza’a Umm Al-Nasr Wadi As-Salqa Wadi Gaza

The very low NRW in Illar keeps bringing up questions to the surface. As previous reports indicated, the Municipality of Illar succeeded in identifying all the water supply connections/points by having a meter per supply point and bills are issued regularly with no illegal connections within the municipal boundaries of Illar. However, the main reason for this progress is attributable to the financial accounting Illar Municipality uses for NRW. The Municipality issues bill per damage or leakage and charges it from the originator of the damage, or it bears itself. In other words, the Municipality collects revenues almost equal to what it supplies of water. From a technical perspective, however, there are large amounts of lost water, and thus the per capita share of water remains unreal.

Nevertheless, the efforts of the service providers deserve all due acknowledgement. Especially, those making headway to reduce the NRW as in Al-‘Auja, Beitunya, Qabatiya, Beit Ummar, Absan Al-Jadida, Al-Mughazi, Al-Zahraa, Deir Al-Balah, Khuza’a, Wadi Al-Salqa, and Wadi Gaza through:

the rehabilitation of the water network main lines, replacement of old meters, and maintenance and follow-up;

monitoring and reduction of the illegal connections; and

previous reports by WSRC made it clear that the “unbilled authorised consumption” is part of the NRW. In response, some service providers endeavoured to reduce and bill all serviced buildings that were not billed in the past, or whose consumption estimates were not accurate.

34 (Ein as-Sultan – Jericho – by Hala al-Khuri 2016)

35 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.

Revenue water Non- Revenue Water 36 WSRC in cooperation with service providers calculates the percentage of NRW through using the water balance. Identifying the components of NRW have a primary role in directing efforts and funding towards solving this problem and reducing the percentage of NRW.

Figure 7 summarises the results of the analysis of the water balance for both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Figure 7: Summary of the analysis of the water balance for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

Non-Revenue Water Percent Unbilled Authorized Consumption 5,066,850 m3 Commercial losses 36,870,987 m3 9.2 32.558 million m3 equivelant Physical Losses to 186 million NIS 20.5 16,484,511 m3 2.8 Billed Authorized Consumption 67.5 121,127,381 m3

72.8% 70.7% 70.7% Authorised Consumption Billed Authorised Consumption Revenue water 3 3 64,694,313 m 62,823,097 m 62,823,097 m3

2.1% Unbilled Authorised Consumption 1,871,216 m3

27.2% 13.3% 13.9% 29.3% Total Losses Commercial NRW 3 (Apparent) Losses Physical Losses 24,196,176 m 3 3 11,849,548 m3 12,346,627 m 26,067,392 m

The West Bank

67.8% 64.3% 64.3% Authorised Consumption Billed Authorised Consumption 3 3 58,304,284 m 61,499,918 m 58,304,284 m3

3.5% Unbilled Authorised Consumption 3,159,634 m3

27.6% Commercial 4.6% 32.2% Physical Losses 35.7% (Apparent) Losses 3 Total Losses 3 4,137,884 m NRW 3 25,021,439 m 29,159,323 m 32,354,957 m3

The Gaza Strip

37 4. Amount of NRW per km of Network per Year To have a more precise analysis of the water status, service providers must read the NRW indicators as one. The two figures below demonstrate the NRW amounts per km of network per year, for this indicator measures the NRW amounts per km network per year, e.g., water leakage and illegal connections.

This indicator is is set to compare service providers of different capacities. It determines the length of the network and the NRW amounts per km. It also reflects the efficiency of the network and the pipelines. The results of this indicator provide great help in the planning, investment, rehabilitation, and replacement of networks.

Figure 8:Amount of NRW per km of network per year in the West Bank

Abu Dis 3 Al-‘Auja m /km/Year Al-‘Ezariya Al-Dhahiriya Al-Karmel Al-Shyoukh Al-Ubeidiya Anabta Anata Arraba As-Sawahira Attil Azmout Azzun Bani Na’im Bani Zaid Barta’a Beit Lid Beit Ula Beit Ummar Beituniya Biddya Burqeen Deir Al-Ghosoun Dura Halhul Hebron Idna Illar Jenin Jericho Jerusalem Water Undertaking South East Nablus District Kafr Ra’i Kharas Kufr Al-Labad Mythaloun Nablus Northwest Jenin Northwest Jerusalem Nuba Qablan Qabatiya Qaffen Qalqiliya Ras Karkar Sa’ir Salﬁt Taffouh Tarqumiya Tubas Tulkarm Tuqu’ Al-Far’a Bethlehem Ya’bad Yatta Za’tara Zababdeh

38 Figure 9: Amount of NRW per km of network per year in the Gaza Strip

3 Absan Al-Jadida m /km/Year Absan Al-Kabira Al-Bureij Al-Fakhkhari Al-Maghazi Al-Mughraqa Al-Musaddar Al-Qarara Al-Naser Al-Nusseirat Al-Shuka Al-Zahraa Al-Zawaida Bani Suhaila Beit Hanun Beit Lahiya CMWU Deir Al-Balah Gaza Jabalya Khan Yunis Khuza’a Umm Al-Nasr Wadi As-Salqa Wadi Gaza

5. Amount of NRW per Connection per Day This indicator spells out the amounts of NRW that every active connection bears of the service provider. Therefore, this indicator:

uses another way to measure the value of the additional costs every legal connection bears as well as the real cost of the consumption amount recorded in the meters;

measures the additional water that may be available for citizens in case the NRW quantities were reduced;

helps stakeholders in different bodies determine the real need for new water resources if compared with the already existing ones;

helps the WSRC monitor the level of service provided to people, and determine the goals of performance improvement of the service providers to reach the local and international standards regarding water quantities; and

generates results that can be used by service providers and other entities in the campaigns of raising public awareness, to reduce NRW quantities.

39 Figure 10: Amount of NRW per Connection per Day in the West Bank

Abu Dis l/con./d Al-‘Auja Al-‘Ezariya Al-Dhahiriya Al-Karmel Al-Shyoukh Al-Ubeidiya Anabta Anata Arraba As-Sawahira Attil Azmout Azzun Bani Na’im Bani Zaid Barta’a Beit Lid Beit Ula Beit Ummar Beituniya Biddya Burqeen Deir Al-Ghosoun Dura Halhul Hebron Idna Illar Jenin Jericho Jerusalem Water Undertaking South East Nablus District Kafr Ra’i Kharas Kufr Al-Labad Mythaloun Nablus Northwest Jenin Northwest Jerusalem Nuba Qablan Qabatiya Qaffen Qalqiliya Ras Karkar Sa’ir Salﬁt Taffouh Tarqumiya Tubas Tulkarm Tuqu’ Al-Far’a Bethlehem Ya’bad Yatta Za’tara Zababdeh

40 Figure 11: Amount of NRW per connection per day in the Gaza Strip

l/con./d Absan Al-Jadida Absan Al-Kabira Al-Bureij Al-Fakhkhari Al-Maghazi Al-Mughraqa Al-Musaddar Al-Qarara Al-Naser Al-Nusseirat Al-Shuka Al-Zahraa Al-Zawaida Bani Suhaila Beit Hanun Beit Lahiya CMWU Deir Al-Balah Gaza Jabalya Khan Yunis Khuza’a Umm Al-Nasr Wadi As-Salqa Wadi Gaza

What is the meaning of “the non-revenue water amount in Kharas is 422 l/con./d”?

This means that if this water amount was available, the additional per capita would be 84 l/con./d, given that every connection serves one household of 5 people (i.e. 422/5=84). Meaning that the per capita in Kharas would increase from 74 l/c/d to 158 l/c/d.

As a result, the classification of Kharas will be more than the minimum amount recommended by WHO.

(Al-Majaz School – Masafer Yatta – Hebron – by Fadi ‘Arouri 2017) 41 II. Financial Indicators

1. Average selling price for one cubic meter of water and the operational costs per cubic meter of sold water The average selling price per cubic meter of water and operational costs per cubic meter of sold water needs to be reviewed in tandem to clarify the gap between the average selling price of one cubic meter of water compared to the operational costs (i.e. production, distribution, and management) per cubic meter of sold water.

The average selling price per one cubic meter of water varies from one service provider to another due to the variation in the operational costs. Nevertheless, the principles of water tariff calculation have been standardised in accordance with the Water Tariff Bylaw NO. 1 of 2013, by which all service providers need to abide until a new tariff act is made.

As indicated in previous reports, this indicator does not refer to the tariff used by the service provider, but is a general indicator of the average selling price per cubic meter to be compared with the operational costs of the service provider. This indicator is calculated by working at the total sales of billed water in NIS compared to the total sales of water for domestic, commercial, touristic, industrial, bulk, and tankers per cubic meter.

42 (Wastewater treatment plant / Nablus – by Eyad Jad-Allah 2017) Figure 12: Average selling price per cubic meter of water and operational costs per cubic meter of sold water in the West Bank

Operational costs per cubic meter Average selling price per cubic meter NIS/m3

43 Figure 13: Average selling price per cubic meter of water and operational costs per cubic meter of sold water in the Gaza Strip

Operational costs per cubic meter Average selling price per cubic meter NIS/m3

This significant gap between the average selling price and the operational costs per cubic meter of water, as demonstrated by the Working Ratio Indicator, later on in this report, reflects the inability of the service provider to cover the operational costs. Hence, the service provider must first review the operational costs, to ensure that all of the costs are justified. Second, the service provider must review the applied tariff in accordance with the operational costs to ensure there will be no losses, their ability to cover the operational costs in the first stage and the capital costs later on to achieve the sustainability of the service and to improve its quality.

This applies to Anata, Azmout, Biddya, Deir al-Ghusun, and al-Dhahiriya in the West Bank, and ash-Shuka, Gaza, Khuza’a, Umm an-Naser, Absan al-Jadida, Wadi as-Salqa, al-Fukhkhari, Absan al-Kabira, Wadi Gaza, and al-Qarara in the Gaza Strip.

Annexes 3 and 4 show the operational costs per service provider in detail, including:

Costs of staff per cubic meter of water sold;

Cost of purchased water per cubic meter of water sold;

Cost of energy per cubic meter of water sold;

Other operational costs per cubic meter of water sold.

44 Figure 14: Operational Costs of Service Providers in the West Bank

Abu Dis Al-‘Auja Al-‘Ezariya Al-Dhahiriya Al-Karmel Al-Shyoukh Al-Ubeidiya Anabta Anata Arraba As-Sawahira Attil Azmout Azzun Bani Na’im Bani Zaid Barta’a Beit Lid Beit Ula Beit Ummar Beituniya Biddya Burqeen Deir Al-Ghosoun Dura Halhul Hebron Idna Illar Jenin Jericho Jerusalem Water Undertaking South East Nablus District Kafr Ra’i Kharas Kufr Al-Labad Mythaloun Nablus Northwest Jenin Northwest Jerusalem Nuba Qablan Qabatiya Qaffen Qalqiliya Ras Karkar Sa’ir Salﬁt Taffouh Costs of staff per cubic meter of water sold. Tarqumiya Cost of purchased water per cubic meter of water sold. Tubas Cost of energy per cubic meter of water sold. Tulkarm Other operational costs per cubic meter of water sold. Tuqu’ Al-Far’a Bethlehem Ya’bad Yatta Za’tara Zababdeh

0 2 4 6 NIS/m3 8 10 12

45 The energy expenses vary per the operational processes implemented by the service provider. Nablus ranks first in terms of the highest energy expenses. The energy expenses stand for 40% of the total operational costs compared with the number of wells operated by the municipality and the pumping stations that pump water to different heights according to the topography of the service areas. On the other hand, the energy expenses decrease and can be nearly immeasurable by service providers that rely on purchased water as the sole water resource of drinking water. If any, this highlights the close interrelation between the energy expenses and fuel prices, which change as per the changes in the global fuel market. Thus, it is not always under the control of the service provider. High energy expenses can also be attributed to the energy losses, which makes it imperative to audit such losses.

Compared to the West Bank, the energy expenses make a significant portion of the operational expenses of water service in the Gaza Strip. That is due to the high energy prices in the Gaza Strip, especially when relying on the Diesel-electricity generators, as in Wadi Gaza where energy expenses stand for about 40% of the total expenses per cubic meter.

The purchased water does not only refer to the water purchased from the WBWD; it also refers to the water purchased from private wells. Therefore, the water purchase cost indicator does not measure the selling price for the water departments in the West Bank (2.6 NIS per cubic meter). Other factors also affect this indicator, such as the quantity of the NRW. For example, the higher water losses are, the higher water purchase cost indicator will be although the WBWD does not change the price. The service providers derive such an increase by adding the operational and administrative costs in higher percentages that of the sold water.

Figure 15: Operational costs of service providers in the Gaza Strip

Absan Al-Jadida Absan Al-Kabira Al-Bureij Al-Fakhkhari Al-Maghazi

Al-Mughraqa Al-Musaddar Al-Qarara Al-Naser Al-Nusseirat Al-Shuka

Al-Zahraa Al-Zawaida Bani Suhaila Beit Hanun Beit Lahiya CMWU Costs of staff per cubic meter of water sold. Deir Al-Balah Cost of purchased water per cubic meter of water sold. Gaza Cost of energy per cubic meter of water sold. Jabalya Other operational costs per cubic meter of water sold. Khan Yunis Khuza’a Umm Al-Nasr Wadi As-Salqa Wadi Gaza

0 2 4 6 8 NIS/m3 10 12

46 The water price is supported by the Palestinian Authority, which also bears a portion of the bulk purchasing prices. Many of the consumers do not know this nugget of information. The service provider purchases the water from the WBWD at NIS 2.6 per cubic meter although WBWD purchases the water at 3.2 NIS from Mekorot; let alone the maintenance expenses, fines, and other expenses Mekorot adds to the WBWD’s bill.

Of note, it would have been possible to publish more information about the operational costs that the WBWD incurs if WSRC had been able to access the information of the WBWD for further analysis.

2. Working Ratio Indicator (Efficiency Ratio) – Water Service The working ratio is calculated by dividing the operating, working, maintenance, and administrative costs (excluding depreciation) to the total billed operating revenues. If the percentage is more than 1, it indicates that the total operating and administrative costs are higher than the billed operating revenues. Meaning that there is a deficit in the operating cycle. However, if the rate is less than 1, it indicates that the billed operating revenues are higher than the operating cost and the administrative expenses. This result means that the service provider achieves a net operating surplus that can cover part, or all, of the capital costs. Further, in case the bill data was sound and reliable, the working ratio would indicate the sufficiency of the tariff level to cover the operating and maintenance costs.

Wastewater Treatment Plant of at-Tira – Ramallah – by Eyad Jad-Allah 2017 47 The highest results of working ratio indicator in the West Bank were recorded in Anata and Azmout due to the high NRW quantities. As mentioned in the NRW indicator, these quantities inflict significant losses upon the service provider. The majority of the service providers in the Gaza Strip also suffered operational losses, and the highest losses were in al-Qarara and Wadi Gaza.

Figure 16: Working ratio (Efficiency Ratio) – Water service in the West Bank

Abu Dis Al-‘Auja No. Al-‘Ezariya Al-Dhahiriya Al-Karmel Al-Shyoukh Al-Ubeidiya Anabta Anata Arraba As-Sawahira Attil Azmout Azzun Bani Na’im Bani Zaid Barta’a Beit Lid Beit Ula Beit Ummar Beituniya Biddya Burqeen Deir Al-Ghosoun Dura Halhul Hebron Idna Illar Jenin Jericho Jerusalem Water Undertaking South East Nablus District Kafr Ra’i Kharas Kufr Al-Labad Mythaloun Nablus Northwest Jenin Northwest Jerusalem Nuba Qablan Qabatiya Qaffen Qalqiliya Ras Karkar Sa’ir Salﬁt Taffouh Tarqumiya Tubas Tulkarm Tuqu’ Al-Far’a Bethlehem Ya’bad Yatta Za’tara Zababdeh 48 The service providers might make some mistakes that cause false results of this indicator, such as:

Leaving out some of the operational costs when calculating the total costs, which shows the operational costs less than their real value. Accordingly, the working ratio would be less than 1; meaning that the service provider gains revenues from the service which might not reflect the facts on the ground; Allocating other costs to the water service from other services, especially that the majority of the service providers are water and wastewater departments within municipalities that provide a variety of services, which allows for having a lot of joint expenses; Not documenting nor including the operational costs that are provided to the service provider as government and donor’s aids or grants. As a result, the revenues will appear higher than the operating costs.

Figure 17: Working ratio (Efficiency Ratio) – Water service in the Gaza Strip

Absan Al-Jadida No. Absan Al-Kabira Al-Bureij Al-Fakhkhari Al-Maghazi Al-Mughraqa Al-Musaddar Al-Qarara Al-Naser Al-Nusseirat Al-Shuka Al-Zahraa Al-Zawaida Bani Suhaila Beit Hanun Beit Lahiya CMWU Deir Al-Balah Gaza Jabalya Khan Yunis Khuza’a Umm Al-Nasr Wadi As-Salqa Wadi Gaza

The first measure the service provider must take if the working ratio is higher than 1 is to review the operating costs. The service provider must ensure that all of the operating costs are justified and cannot be reduced without leaving an impact on the service quality. Further, the service provider has to double-check that the water costs do not include other cost centres other than the operational costs of the water service. Then, the service provider must review the applicable tariff, as the efficiency ratio can also be referred to as the ‘tariff efficiency’ because it directly influences the financial sustainability of the service provider. 3. Collection Efficiency – Water Service Collection rates remain very low in general, reflecting the efficiency of the staff of the service providers in implementing the tasks assigned to them, in addition to the level of readiness of consumers to pay their dues. The West Bank recorded extremely low collection rates that reached to 6% and 13% in Barta’a and Tarqumiya, respectively. In the Gaza Strip, al-Mughraqa recorded a low collection rate of 7%, while al-Fukhkhari did not collect any bills in 2017.

49 Figure 18: Collection Efficiency – Water Service in the West Bank

50 This indicator examines the collection rates of the bills issued during the current year and the accounts payable. The best and highest collection rates must reach around 100%, where all of the bills must be collected during the year, and where the balances of accounts payable must be reconciled. When the ratio is over 100%, it indicates that the service provider collected the current bills, plus the past due debts. Note that the service providers still lack a proper strategy to separate the current year collections from the past years due to using an cumulative bill collection strategy.

Figure 19: Collection efficiency – Water service in the Gaza Strip

Absan Al-Jadida Absan Al-Kabira Al-Bureij Al-Fakhkhari Al-Maghazi Al-Mughraqa Al-Musaddar

Al-Qarara Al-Naser Al-Nusseirat Al-Shuka Al-Zahraa

Al-Zawaida Bani Suhaila Beit Hanun Beit Lahiya CMWU Deir Al-Balah Gaza Jabalya

Khan Yunis Khuza’a Umm Al-Nasr Wadi As-Salqa Wadi Gaza

Some service providers offer incentive discounts to consumers with accumulated balances to improve the efficiency of bill collection. As the law on local authorities for 1997 28/b stands, price incentives may not be offered unless approved by the Minister. In other words, the service provider shall not provide incentive discounts without the approval of the Minister of Local Government.

Even though the law allows incentive discounts, the service provider must pay attention to the effect of the incentive discount on the full cost recovery. The approved tariff must include the cost recovery by the water and wastewater service providers. The full recovery is realised by generating revenues that pay off the operational and maintenance costs, including the fixed assets depreciation rate based on their real value, relevant loans and their interests, and the development investments. When applying an incentive deduction, it causes a reduction in the revenues needed to cover the costs. Consequently, it reduces the chances of achieving the full cost recovery principle.

51 The Palestinian Law on Local Authorities NO. 1 of 1997 Article 28 Deductions A. The board of a local government unit may exempt or offer a deduction on the fees required from any person on the grounds of his or her poverty acting in the public interest and justice, provided the Minister shall approve this procedure; B. The board of a local government unit may offer incentives or fine schemes for the payers, provided the Minister approve the said.

Moreover, the incentive discounts do not support some of the governance principles such as:

1. Effectiveness: The services cannot be provided with the standard level of quality, and thus they will fall short of the public expectations as long as the revenues do not cover the costs; 2. Efficiency: Services cannot be provided at the lowest price and the shortest time. If any, this will push the consumers to put off paying their dues to obtain the deduction offered on accumulated balances. Such practices adversely affect the efficiency of service performance; 3. Equity: The incentive discount reduces the revenues needed to cover the costs, casting an adverse shadow over the equity of providing the service; 4. Equality: In fact, the incentive discount awards the overdue payers and punishes the committed payers. Further, it distorts the principle of equality across municipal and governmental transactions and measures; 5. Integrity: Some service providers may misuse incentive discount as an election instrument to boost their chances to win. This opposes adhering to the legal measures, the principle of interest conflict avoidance, and the requirement to act in the public interest.

4. Collection Efficiency – Wastewater Service No one of the wastewater service providers whether in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip issues separate bills for wastewater services. The price of water consumption and fees for wastewater services has one bill and collected by the service providers in return for the total amount due on the bill that might include other items in addition to water and wastewater services.

As explained in previous WSRC reports, each service provider calculates the tariff differently. Sometimes, the service tariff is a set price that is not based on the principle of cost recovery. Others do not issue any bills or claims concerning the wastewater service, so the collection only includes the connection tariff. Please, see Annex 2.

52 Treatment drainage basin for agricultural purposes – Ash-Sheikh ‘Ajlin – Gaza, PWA - 2017 Figure 20: Collection efficiency – Wastewater service

The West Bank

Azmout Anabta Bani Zaid Barta'a Beit Lid Biddya Hebron Jenin Jericho Kharas Kufr al-Labad Nablus Nuba Qalqiliya Salﬁt Tulkarm Bethlahem

The Gaza Strip

Absan Al-Jadida Absan al-Kabira Al-Bureij Al-Fukhkhari Al-Maghazi Al-Mughraqa Al-Musaddar Al-Qarara Al-Naser Al-Nusseirat Al-Shuka Al-Zahraa Al-Zawaida Bani Suheila Beit Hanun Beit Lahiya Costal Municipalities Water Utility Deir Al-Balah Gaza Jabalya Khan Yunis Khuza'a Umm al-Nasr Wadi As-Salqa Wadi Gaza

As mentioned at the beginning of this report, WSRC started issuing separate reports on the wastewater providers. These reports provide a wider view of the technical and financial performance indicators and other indicators of the wastewater service regarding the collection, treatment, or re-use.2

2 Note: for reference on the performance of the service providers, please visit www.wsrc.ps or contact with the Council to obtain a copy.

53 Water Quality Indicators

The consumers must have a supply of safe drinking water that is consistent with the Palestinian standards. To evaluate service providers and follow up to water quality, WSRC has put a set of water quality indicators as follows:

Percentage of water samples (taken from the network including the main pipelines) containing free residual Chlorine in the network and main pipelines;

Percentage of water samples (taken from source) free from total coliform contamination;

Percentage of water samples (taken from source) free from total fecal coliform contamination;

Percentage of water samples (taken from the network including the main pipelines) free from total coliform contamination;

Percentage of water samples (taken from the network including the main pipelines) free from total fecal coliform contamination;

Percentage of microbiologic tests conducted;

Percentage of water samples taken free form Nitrate contamination taken at the source.

54 (Al-Haouz Point for Water Distribution – Hebron – by Eyad Jad-Allah – 2017) Observations pertaining to quality indicators:

Many service providers fail to access the water quality tests the Ministry of Health (MoH) conducts, nor do they to document them. These tests are only provided upon the request of WSRC for data entry purposes to measure the indicators;

Tulkarm municipality managed to control the water pollution with Nitrate through shutting down the polluted well, after recording pollution throughout the past three years. Samples of Nitrate-contaminated water appeared in Nablus, Silfit, Barta’a, and az-Zababda. In the Gaza Strip, the data shows a high level of Nitrate contamination the water provided by the majority of the service providers, excluding al-Fukhari, al-Musaddar, and az-Zahraa, which exposes consumers to health hazards. Of note, there is a considerable development in the number of samples taken and tested in 2017;

In the Gaza Strip data have shown that Chlorine residual tests have been successful in more than 95% of the tested samples in the area of each service provider. It is notable that the CMWU purchases, supplies and distributes Sodium Hypochlorite, and maintains the equipment of the chlorination units for all 25 service providers in the Gaza Strip;

Also, in the Gaza Strip neither service providers, PWA, nor the MoH takes samples from the distribution network to test “percentage of water samples free from total coliform contamination” and “percentage of water samples free from total fecal coliform contamination,” except for the CMWU, Deir al-Balah, Jabaliya, and Khan Yunis;

The microbiologic tests indicator shows that some service providers record values of over 100% (see Annex 3). This means that the service provider conducts more tests than is requested by law, which requires reviewing by the service provider to evaluate the need for conducting this number of tests, considering the financial and human resources required to conduct such tests

55 Map 1: The results of the main water quality indicators in the West Bank

Pollution assessment based on biological tests Pollution assessment 1 based on Nitrate tests 1 Jenin 47 2 47 2 Jenin 50 50 3 3 55 55

4 5 4 5

6 58 6 58 8 7 8 7

9 11 12 9 11 12

10 10 14 14 52 Tulkarm 52 13 Tubas Tulkarm 13 Tubas

48 48

16 15 16 15

18 Nablus 18 Nablus 17 17 Qalqilya Qalqilya

The Mediterranean Sea The Mediterranean Sea 19 19 54 54 21 21 Salﬁt Jericho Salﬁt Jericho 20 20

46 46

Ramallah Al-Bireh Ramallah Al-Bireh 23 23 56 22 56 22

24 24

26 26

25 25

41 41

27 Jerusalem 27 Jerusalem 28 29 28 29

42 42 30 30

31 31

32 32 33 33 53 51 45 53 51 45 49 49 35 34 35 34 59 36 59 36

57 Bethlehem 57 Bethlehem 37 39 37 39 38 38

Hebron Hebron 40 40 44 44 43 43

Pollution assessment based on Chlorine Residual tests (1) Northwest Jenin (34) Sa’er 1 Jenin 47 2 (2) Jenin (35) Halhul 50 3 55 (3) Ya’bad (36) Tarqumiya 4 5 (4) Arraba (37) Hebron 6 58 8 7 (5) Qabatiya (38) Dura 9 11 12

10 (6) Kafr Ra’i (39) Bani Na’im 14 Tulkarm 52 Tubas 13 (7) Illar (40) Yatta 48 (8) Attil (41) Anata 16 15 (9) Deir al Ghusun (42) Al Ubediya

18 Nablus 17 (10) Tulkarm (43) Al Dhahriya Qalqilya (11) Mythaloun (44) Al Karmel The Mediterranean Sea 19 54 21 (12) Tubas (45) Ash Shoyoukh Salﬁt Jericho (13) Al Far’a (46) Bani Zeid 20

46 (14) Anabta (47) Barta’a (15) Azmut (48) Beit Lid Ramallah Al-Bireh 23 (16) Nablus (49) Beit Ula 56 22 (17) Azzun (50) Burqeen (18) Qalqiliya (51) Kharas 24 26 (19) Bidiya (52) Kufr al Labad 25

41 (20) Salfit (53) Nuba

Jerusalem 27 (21) Southeast Nablus/Aqraba (54) Qabalan 28 29 (22) JWU (55) Qaffen

42 30 (23) Al ’Auja (56) Ras Karkar (24) Betuniya (57) Taffouh 31

32 (25) Northwest Jerusalem (58) Az Zababdeh 33 53 51 45 49 (26) Jericho (59) Idna 35 34

59 36 (27) Al ’Eizariya Bethlehem 57 (28) Abu Dis 37 39 38 (29) As Sawahira Ash Sharqiya

Hebron (30) WSSA 40 44 (31) Za’atara 43 (32) Tuqu’ (33) Beit Ummar

Map key | The tests are incomplete unpolluted Probability of contamination contaminated

56 Map 2: The results of the main water quality indicators in the Gaza Strip

Pollution assessment based Pollution assessment based on biological tests on Nitrate tests

1 1 2 2

3 3 The Mediterranean Sea 4 The Mediterranean Sea 4

5 North of Gaza 5 Governorate North of Gaza Governorate 6 6 7 Gaza Governorate 7 Gaza 9 8 Governorate 9 8

11 10 11 10

12 12

14 13 14 13 Central Region Central Region Governorate 15 Governorate 15

16 16

17 19 18 Khan Younis 17 18 19 Khan Younis Governorate Governorate

20 20

23 21 23 21

24 22 24 22

Rafah Rafah Governorate Governorate 25 25

Pollution assessment based (1) Beit Lahiya on Chlorine Residual tests (2) Um An Naser (3) Beit Hanun

1 (4) Jabalya Al Nazleh 2 (5) Gaza City 3 (6) Al Mughraqa The Mediterranean Sea 4 (7) Az Zahra

5 North of Gaza (8) Wadi Gaza Governorate (9) An Nusairat 6 Gaza 7 Governorate (10) Al Bureij 9 8 (11) Az Zawayda 11 10 (12) Al Maghazi 12

14 13 (13) Al Musddar Central Region Governorate (14) Deir al Balah 15

16 (15) Wadi al Salqa (16) Al Qarara

17 18 19 (17) Khan Yunis Khan Younis (18) Bani Suheila 20 Governorate (19) Abasan Al Kabira 23 21 (20) Abasan Al Jdida 24 22 (21) Khuza’a

25 Rafah (22) Al Fukhkhari Governorate (23) CMWU-Rafah (24) An Naser (25) Ash Shuka

Map key | The tests are incomplete unpolluted Probability of contamination contaminated

57 IV. Other Indicators:

1. Staff Productivity Index This indicator is often used to measure the efficiency of human resources and their performance effectiveness and is calculated by dividing the total number of full-time staff by the number of service connections multiplied by 1000. This indicator does not apply to service providers who have less than 1000 connections, since it is based on the number of staff per 1000 connections.

As the case is with other indicators, the comparison among service providers cannot be absolute, for the need for staff varies depending on the operations of the service provider. For example, the number of staff of a service provider that manages private wells and pumping stations differ from the number of staff a service provider that only purchases and distributes water.

58 Wastewater Treatment Plant / Nablus al-Gharbiya – by Eyad Jad-Allah 2017 Figure 21: Staff Productivity Index – Water Service in the West Bank

Abu Dis Al-‘Auja No. Al-‘Ezariya Al-Dhahiriya Al-Karmel Al-Shyoukh Al-Ubeidiya Anabta Anata Arraba As-Sawahira Attil Azmout Azzun Bani Na’im Bani Zaid Barta’a Beit Lid Beit Ula Beit Ummar Beituniya Biddya Burqeen Deir Al-Ghosoun Dura Halhul Hebron Idna Illar Jenin Jericho Jerusalem Water Undertaking South East Nablus District Kafr Ra’i Kharas Kufr Al-Labad Mythaloun Nablus Northwest Jenin Northwest Jerusalem Nuba Qablan Qabatiya Qaffen 1.25 Qalqiliya Ras Karkar Sa’ir Salﬁt Taffouh Tarqumiya Tubas Tulkarm Tuqu’ Al-Far’a Bethlehem Ya’bad Yatta Za’tara Note: Service providers that are not applicable to this indicator were demonstrated in the color grey Zababdeh

59 Figure 22: Staff Productivity Index – Water Service

Absan Al-Jadida No. Absan al-Kabira Al-Bureij Al-Fukhkhari Al-Maghazi Al-Mughraqa Al-Musaddar Al-Qarara Al-Naser Al-Nusseirat Al-Shuka Al-Zahraa Al-Zawaida Bani Suheila Beit Hanun Beit Lahiya Costal Municipalities Water Utility Deir Al-Balah Gaza Jabalya Khan Yunis Khuza'a Umm al-Nasr Wadi As-Salqa Note: Service providers that are not applicable to this indicator were demonstrated in the color grey Wadi Gaza

60 Water and Wastewater Department – Hebron Municipality – By Eyad Jad-Allah 2017 2. Labor participation by gender– Water Service

(Total female staff as a percentage of the total staff)

The percentage of representation of women in the water and wastewater service sector is still extremely low in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. That’s because the majority of the full-time workers in the water and wastewater service are bill collectors, maintenance workers, guards, and well operators, and these are male-dominated jobs whereas females work in municipalities as receptionists, secretaries, or in the financial department. However, they are not included in the staff count for this indicator because it relates to staff who are working 100% of their time in water and wastewater services..

Female staff as a percentage of the total staff

The West Bank 5.7

The Gaza Strip 1.3

One of the WSRC workshops – Ramallah – By Yara Abdu-Allah 2018 61 (Ein Gedi – by Samir Abu as-Su’ud 2017)

CHAPTER THREE THE NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

62 Next Steps

First: Addressing of Debt

The debts of the service providers will be its performance indicator, especially when drawing comparisons between the service providers. They will be published in the WSRC reports starting from the 2018 report;

Debt reduction or the scheduling of repayment will be a condition of issuing or renewing licenses, after the approval of the licensing By-law;

Debt repayment or scheduling will be a condition of the approval on the tariff or adjusting it;

The service provider projects’ financing will be connected with the results of the performance indicators according to the instructions of the Cabinet. Accordingly, the debt indicator will be essential to future financing3.

The Council will establish an incentives system as per the law4, withstanding the aforementioned points. .

Second: Full Cost Recovery

WSRC will technically help the service providers define strategies to achieve full cost recovery with the help of its new publication, Full Cost Recovery: A Guidebook and Toolkit for Water Service Providers. To round this mission off, there will be training workshops to comprehensively explain it to the service providers to set strategies to in high hopes that it will be applied in the near future.

(One of the WSRC Workshops –Ramallah – By Amin Talib 2018)

3 Please see the Cabinet of Ministries Resolution in Annex (5) 4 Article (24) section (4) of the Resolution NO. (14) of 2014 on Water

63 Third: Integration of the Tariff Model into the Database WSRC will incorporate the tariff model into the database. The model will be reading the financial data that are entered into the PI model. On that account, the service provider enters the financial data only once. However, this requires a great deal of precision from the service provider to enter the financial data; let alone the need to separate the common expenses in the municipalities, for example, or the separation between the water and the wastewater service providers.

Fourth: Examination of Service Providers As previously mentioned in the performance indicators, some controversial indicators appeared, especially the NRW, and the working ratio. These indicators mean that there must be a deficiency in documenting and managing data by the service providers. Such malpractice could cast a negative impact on the compliance with the governance principles. Therefore, WSRC will visit some of the service providers to follow up and to provide technical help if needed.

64 Recommendations The need to build the capacity of the service providers in the following areas:

1. Data management and documentation;

2. Water quality monitoring and lab tests;

3. Water meters specifications and the approach of choosing the suitable meter, whether it is a post-paid meter or a prepaid one;

4. Full cost recovery achievement;

The necessity to obtain feedback on the water quality by the MoH to the service providers on the quality of water regardless of the results of the microbiologic tests.

The significance of including “depreciation” to the financial costs.

Separate the connections according to the consumption type (household, commercial, industrial…) even if the tariff were unified. This requires some effort by the service provider.

The water and wastewater tariff needs to be reviewed to assure the full cost recovery.

The service provider should work on the water balance and document its components more accurately due to its instrumentality in defining the causes of NRW, and thus develop a clear action plan to handle all of the NRW components mentioned in the water balance.

The service providers should start or complement the documentation of their assets.

The service provider should conduct the periodical microbiological tests, especially that some service providers did not present any data concerning the water quality this year. The Council advises the service providers that do not have specialised labs to work in coordination with the MoH to conduct these water quality tests. Equally important, the service provider should document the results of the tests.

The appointment in the water and wastewater service sector should ensure the equal opportunity and the mainstreaming a gender perspective, whenever possible.

PWA issue the policies mentioned in the National Water Strategy, such as the policies related to the prepaid meters and the incentive discounts.

65 Indicators results that require an urgent intervention:

Taking due account of the importance of reducing NRW ratios, the following table shows the service providers that shall take urgent measures to reduce the NRW ratios, and that surpassed 40%

In the West Bank In the Gaza Strip

Azmout Al-Mughraqa 72% 60% Anata Beit Hanun 65% 45% Tulkarm Jabaliya 50% 43% Al-‘Eazariyah Al-Maghazi 47% 41% Kharas Al-Musaddar 46% 41% Jenin Deir al-Balah 44% 40% Anabta 43% Bani Zaid Al-Gharbiyah 42%

The ratio of water bill collection must be raised to 100%. These debts are part of the public funds, so they must not be dealt with complacency. Therefore, the service provider must take care of this aspect to provide financial sources to cover the costs. The following service providers recorded less than 50% of bill collection:

In the West Bank In the Gaza Strip

Barta’a Ash-Sharqiyah Al-Karmel Al-Fukhkhari 6% 38% 0% Tarqumiya Idna Al-Mughraqa 13% 38% 7% Beit Ula Beituniya Al-Shuka 15% 38% 22% Sa’ir Abu Dis Al-Nusseirat 25% 42% 28% As-Sawahira ash-Sharqiyah Beit Lid Gaza 30% 42% 32% Azmout Anata Absan al-Kabira 32% 43% 32% Qabatyah Tulkarm Al-Zawaida 35% 47% 33% Bani Na’im Beit Ummar CMWU 36% 47% 34% Tuqu’ Al-‘Ezariyah Umm al-Nasr 37% 47% 35% Taffouh Deir Al-Balah 38% 36%

66 operational costs are in place and cannot be further reduced without negatively impacting the service quality. Further, the service provider must ensure that the water costs do not include cost centres other than the operational costs of the water service. Moreover, the service provider must audit the applied tariff, which sometimes shows the efficiency ratio as “the tariff efficiency” because it directly affects the financial stability of the service provider.

In the West Bank In the Gaza Strip

Anata Al-Shuka Gaza 2.14 1.7 1.8 Azmout Khuza’a Umm al-Nasr 3.03 1.8 2.0 Biddya Absan al-Jadida Wadi As-Salqa 0.31 2.2 2.2 Deir al-Ghsoun Al-Fukhkhari Absan al-Kabira 0.47 2.3 2.4 Al-Dhahiriyah Wadi Gaza Al-Qarara 0.54 2.6 2.8

67 (Ras al-‘Ein Spring – Nablus – by Nablus Municipality)

ANNEXES

68 Annex (1) Water and Wastewater Service Providers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip Monitored in the 2017 Report.

# Name of the service provider Short name

West Bank

1 Jerusalem Water Undertaking JWU

2 Water Supply & Sewerage Authority of Bethlehem, Beit Sahour and Beit Jala Bethlahem

3 Nablus Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Nablus

4 Tulkarm Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Tulkarm

5 Qalqiliya Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Qalqiliya

6 Salfit Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Salfit

7 Jenin Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Jenin

8 Jericho Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Jericho

9 Tubas Joint Service Council Tubas

10 Hebron Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Hebron

11 Northwest Jenin Joint Service Council Northwest Jenin

12 Mythaloun Water Supply and Sanitation Joint Service Council Mythaloun

13 Anabta Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Anabta

14 Dura Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Dura

15 Southwest Jerusalem Joint Service Council Northwest Jerusalem

16 Za’tara Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Za’tara

17 Tuqu’ Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Tuqu’

18 Al-Uja Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Uja

19 Abu Dis Coorporative Society for Water Abu Dis

20 Attil Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Attil

21 Deir al-Ghsoun Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Deir al-Ghsoun

22 Illar Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Illar

23 Wadi Al Far’a Village Council Al Far’a

24 Ya’bad Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Ya’bad

25 Arraba Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Arraba

26 Kufr Ra’i Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Kufr Ra’i

27 Bani Na’im Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Bani Na’im

28 Tarqoumiya Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Tarqoumiya

29 Beit Ummar Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Beit Ummar

30 Halhul Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Halhul

31 Sa’ir Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Sa’ir

69 # Name of the service provider Short name

32 Yatta Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Yatta

33 Joint Service Council for Management – South East Nablus District South East Nablus

34 Azzun Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Azzun

35 As-Sawahira Ash Sharqiya Local Council As-Sawahira Ash Sharqiya

36 Al-‘Eazariya Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-‘Eazariya

37 Qabatiyah Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Qabatiyah

38 Beituniya Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Beituniya

39 Biddya Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Biddya

40 Al-Beira Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Beira

41 Al-Dhahiriya Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Dhahriya

42 Al-Karmel Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Karmel

43 Ash-Shyoukh Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Ash-Shoyoukh

44 Al-Ubeidiya Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Ubediya

45 Ar-Ram Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Ar-Ram

46 Anata Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Anata

47 Azmout Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Azmout

48 Bani Zaid al-Gharbiya Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Bani Zeid

49 Barta’a ash-Shariya Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Barta’aa

50 Beit Lid Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Beit Lid

51 Beit Ula Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Beit Ula

52 Beir Nabala Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Beir Nabala

53 Burqeen Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Burqeen

54 Idna Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Idna

55 At-Taiba and Rammun Joint Water Supply and Sanitation Service Council At-Taiba and Rammun

56 Kharas Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Kharas

57 Kufr al-Labad Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Kufr al-Labad

58 Nuba Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Nuba

59 Qablan Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Qablan

60 Qaffen Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Qaffen

61 Ramallah Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Ramallah

62 Ras Karkar Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Ras Karkar

63 Taffouh Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Taffouh

64 Az-Zababdeh Municipality - Water Supply and Sanitation Department Az-Zababdeh

70 # Name of the service provider Short name

The Gaza Strip

1 Al-Nusseirat Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Nusseirat

2 Jabalya an-Nazlah Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Jabalya an-Nazlah

3 Khan Yunis Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Khan Yunis

4 Gaza Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Gaza

5 Coastal Municipality Water Utility Gaza - Rafah CMWU

6 Al-Bureij Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Bureij

7 Al-Zawaida Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Zawaida

8 Al-Qarara Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Qarara

9 Al-Maghazi Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Maghazi

10 Bani Suheila Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Bani Suheila

11 Beit Hanun Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Beit Hanun

12 Beit Lahiya Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Beit Lahiya

13 Deir al-Balah Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Deir al-Balah

14 Absan al-Kabira Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Absan al-Kabira

15 Al-Zahraa Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Zahraa

16 Al-Shuka Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Shuka

17 Al-Fukhkhari Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Fukhkhari

18 Al-Musaddar Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Musaddar

19 Al-Mughraqa Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Mughraqa

20 Al-Naser Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Al-Naser

21 Umm Al-Nasr Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Umm Al-Nasr

22 Khuza’a Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Khuza’a

23 Absan al-Jadida Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Absan al-Jadida

24 As-Salaqa Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department As-Salaqa

25 Gaza Municipality- Water Supply and Sanitation Department Gaza

71 Annex (2) Connection Tariff to Water and Wastewater Service in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of the Service Providers in the 2017 Report.

Service provider New connection tariff Current fee

Water Supply & Sewerage 28% of the water bill value (excluding the Authority – Bethlahem, Beit 1550 NIS up to 4 m length fees on reading the meter) Jala, Beit Sahour Households: 1.5 JOD per square meter Nablus Municipality Commercial and industrial: 3 JOD per square 0.5 NIS per cubic meter of the billed water meter Households: 150 JOD Tulkarm Municipality Stores: 75 JOD 2 NIS per water bill Basement: 69 JOD

Qalqiliya Municipality 50 JOD 120 NIS per registration in the year

4.15 NIS per square meter of the construction Salfit Municipality area 1 NIS per cubic meter of the billed water 1 NIS on the empty land Households: 65 JOD Jenin Municipality 0.5 NIS per cubic meter of the billed water Commercial: 90 JOD 0.5 NIS per cubic meter of the consumed Jericho Municipality 13 NIS per square meter water Households: 40 JOD + 2 JOD per square meter Hebron Municipality Commercial: 20 JOD + 100 JOD up to 42 No tariff – only the new registration fees square meter + 2 JOD per additional square meter 50 JOD in addition to 1 JOD per square meter Anabta Municipality 10 NIS per issued water bill – Network subscription

Biddya Municipality 500 JOD 50 NIS per issued water bill

1.25 JOD for the first 150 square meters + Nuba Municipality 10 NIS monthly 0.75 JOD per every additional square meter

Kharas 1.5 JOD per square meter 20 NIS monthly

Barta’a 1500 NIS per subscription No tariff

Ar-Ram 3 JOD per square meter No tariff

Beir Nabala 3 JOD per square meter 60 NIS yearly

Azmout 50 JOD No tariff

Construction above already existing 3 JOD per licensed square meter New construction • 30 qirsh per square meter according to Ramallah 0.45 JOD per square meter yearly the area • 3 JOD per licensed square meter • 30 qirsh per square meter of regression area • 3 JOD per square meter of the building • 1 JOD per square meter of the covered Al-Beira 1.8 NIS per cubic meter of the billed water parking lots • 300 fils per empty land

72 Service provider New connection tariff Current fee

2 NIS per cubic meter of 80% of the billed At-Taibah and Rammoun 2 JOD per square meter water

Bani Zaid 100 JOD 1.5 NIS per cubic meter of the billed water

Households: 850 NIS Kufr al-Labad 8 NIS monthly Commercial: 350 NIS Households: 750 NIS Beit Lid 10 NIS monthly Commercial: 350 NIS

Attil 120 JOD 30 NIS monthly

Om an-Nasir Municipality 300 NIS 25% of the issued water bill

400 NIS – one story Beit Lahiya Municipality 25% of the issued water bill 500 NIS – two stories

Jabalia an-Nazlah Municipality 330 NIS 25% of the issued water bill

Households: 350 NIS + 60 new installation fees allowance + 150 NIS per additional story Households: 25% of the issued water bill Beit Hanun Municipality Industrial: 750 NIS + 60 installation fees Industrial: 30% of the issued water bill allowance Households: 80 NIS per one story, 120 NIS per up to 5 stories, 500 NIS per up to 5 stories Gaza Municipality and the roof 16% of the issued water bill + 4 NIS per story Other uses (industrial, commercial, institutions …) 200 NIS

Az-Zahraa Municipality 200 NIS 15% of the water bill value + 7 NIS per bill

400 NIS – households Dei al-Balah Municipality 15% of the water bill value + 5 NIS per bill 1000 NIS – industrial

Al-Nusseirat Municipality 200 NIS 15% of the water bill value

Al-Bureij Municipality 250 NIS 15% of the water bill value

Al-Maghazi Municipality 200 NIS 15% of the water bill value

Al-Musaddar Municipality 400 NIS 10 NIS per issued water bill

Al-Zawaida Municipality 200 NIS 15% of the water bill value

600 NIS – cement building 15% of the water bill value + 6 NIS per Khan Yunis Municipality 400 NIS – barracks and the zinc-roofed apartment housing 400 NIS – households 30 NIS per household apartment CMWU - Rafah 600 NIS – industrial 60 NIS for Commercial consumption

73 Annex (3) Summary of Results of the Service Providers in the West Bank in 2017

Al- Al- Al- Al- As Indicator name Unit Abu Dis Al-‘Auja Al-Karmel Anabta Anata Arraba Attil Azmout Azzun Bani Na’im Bani Zaid Barta’a Beit Lid Bait Ula ‘Ezariya Dahiriya Shyoukh Ubeidiya Sawahira

TECHNICAL INDICATORS

Average daily per capita water consumption as l/c/d 31 232 55 38 18 71 53 90 28 57 78 95 36 106 76 65 81 58 83 domestic level

Average daily per capita water consumption – All l/c/d 37 232 60 38 18 84 54 128 28 60 78 95 36 125 76 65 98 60 83 types

NRW by volume % 26% 38% 47% 21% 16% 12% 20% 43% 65% 21% 35% 27% 72% 25% 16% 42% 10% 34% 5%

NRW in (m3) per km in the network per year m3 5,000.00 10,187 11,789.88 1,761.27 252.22 743.59 1,777.65 6,594.53 36,495.72 1,680.44 6,403.10 2,383.18 19,217.43 3,378.33 2,355.20 3,814.56 1,636.92 2,110.90 386.44

NRW per connection per day l/con./d 137 941 434 147 55 86 121 453 940 92 331 196 614 209 102 327 71 167 40

FINANCIAL INDICATORS

Average selling price per m3 of water NIS/m3 7.08 4.14 6.42 8.37 5.35 5.83 5 4.52 5 4.65 4.42 2.85 3.62 2.75 5 5.61 4.44 5.26 5

Operating costs per m3 of water sold NIS/m3 8.36 5.21 6.73 4.73 7.86 5.01 4.87 2.93 10.72 3.06 4.93 2.24 11.37 2.53 3.82 7.31 3.66 7.42 3.28

Working ratio (efficiency ratio) – water service Number 1.15 1.25 0.99 0.54 0.77 0.86 0.88 0.67 2.14 0.63 1.14 0.79 3.03 0.85 0.76 1.23 0.78 1.46 0.63

Collection efficiency – water service % 42% 89% 47% 95% 38% 60% 63% 107% 43% 100% 30% 100% 32% 120% 36% 72% 6% 15% 47%

Collection Efficiency – wastewater service % 93% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Operating Costs per m3 of wastewater NIS/m3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0 0 0.54 0 0 0.04 1.9 0 0

QUALITY INDICATORS

Water samples (taken from network including % 100% 100% 93% 86% 43% 100% 79% mains) containing free Chlorine residual (RC)

Water samples (taken at source) free from total % 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 38% 50% 100% 100% 90% coliform contamination

Water samples (taken at source) free from fecal % 100% 97% 100% 0% 19% 100% 100% 100% 100% 43% 100% coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including % 100% 85% 100% 72% 50% 83% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 100% 69% 89% mains) free from total coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including % 100% 92% 100% 89% 100% 97% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 61% 100% mains) free from fecal coliform contamination

Microbiological tests carried out % 267% 217% 81% 313% 7% 89% 122% 131% 100% 127% 278% 103% 46% 175% 200%

Water samples (taken as the source) free from % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% Nitrate contamination

LABOUR PARTICIPATION BY GENDER – WATER SERVICE

Female workers as % of total staff % 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 14% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Male workers as % of total staff % 100% 100% 100% 93% 100% 86% 89% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

OTHER

Not Not Not Staff productivity index-water service Number 3.89 3.37 5.56 4.24 5.6 3.93 1.95 2.22 1.89 2 1.58 1.75 4.38 1.88 6.73 1.28 applicable applicable applicable

74 Annex (3) Summary of Results of the Service Providers in the West Bank in 2017

TECHNICAL INDICATORS

Average daily per capita water consumption as l/c/d 31 232 55 38 18 71 53 90 28 57 78 95 36 106 76 65 81 58 83 domestic level

Average daily per capita water consumption – All l/c/d 37 232 60 38 18 84 54 128 28 60 78 95 36 125 76 65 98 60 83 types

NRW by volume % 26% 38% 47% 21% 16% 12% 20% 43% 65% 21% 35% 27% 72% 25% 16% 42% 10% 34% 5%

NRW per connection per day l/con./d 137 941 434 147 55 86 121 453 940 92 331 196 614 209 102 327 71 167 40

FINANCIAL INDICATORS

Average selling price per m3 of water NIS/m3 7.08 4.14 6.42 8.37 5.35 5.83 5 4.52 5 4.65 4.42 2.85 3.62 2.75 5 5.61 4.44 5.26 5

Operating costs per m3 of water sold NIS/m3 8.36 5.21 6.73 4.73 7.86 5.01 4.87 2.93 10.72 3.06 4.93 2.24 11.37 2.53 3.82 7.31 3.66 7.42 3.28

Working ratio (efficiency ratio) – water service Number 1.15 1.25 0.99 0.54 0.77 0.86 0.88 0.67 2.14 0.63 1.14 0.79 3.03 0.85 0.76 1.23 0.78 1.46 0.63

Collection efficiency – water service % 42% 89% 47% 95% 38% 60% 63% 107% 43% 100% 30% 100% 32% 120% 36% 72% 6% 15% 47%

Collection Efficiency – wastewater service % 93% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Operating Costs per m3 of wastewater NIS/m3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0 0 0.54 0 0 0.04 1.9 0 0

QUALITY INDICATORS

Water samples (taken from network including % 100% 100% 93% 86% 43% 100% 79% mains) containing free Chlorine residual (RC)

Water samples (taken at source) free from total % 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 38% 50% 100% 100% 90% coliform contamination

Water samples (taken at source) free from fecal % 100% 97% 100% 0% 19% 100% 100% 100% 100% 43% 100% coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including % 100% 85% 100% 72% 50% 83% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 100% 69% 89% mains) free from total coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including % 100% 92% 100% 89% 100% 97% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 61% 100% mains) free from fecal coliform contamination

Microbiological tests carried out % 267% 217% 81% 313% 7% 89% 122% 131% 100% 127% 278% 103% 46% 175% 200%

Water samples (taken as the source) free from % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% Nitrate contamination

LABOUR PARTICIPATION BY GENDER – WATER SERVICE

Female workers as % of total staff % 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 14% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Male workers as % of total staff % 100% 100% 100% 93% 100% 86% 89% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

OTHER

Not Not Not Staff productivity index-water service Number 3.89 3.37 5.56 4.24 5.6 3.93 1.95 2.22 1.89 2 1.58 1.75 4.38 1.88 6.73 1.28 applicable applicable applicable

75 Annex (3) Summary of Results of the Service Providers in the West Bank in 2017

Beit Deir Al South East Kufr Al Indicator name Unit Bituniya Biddya Burqeen Dura Halhul Hebron Idna Illar Jenin Jericho JWU Kafr Ra’i Kharas Mythaloun Nablus Ummar Ghosoun Nablus Labad

TECHNICAL INDICATORS

Average daily per capita water consumption as l/c/d 72 54 95 72 80 42 66 62 23 83 61 168 88 49 65 74 81 57 66 domestic level

Average daily per capita water consumption – All l/c/d 75 57 95 72 91 42 68 62 23 280 67 201 112 60 117 74 81 62 89 types

NRW by volume % 34% 18% 37% 30% 22% 12% 18% 30% 22% 4% 44% 21% 23% 13% 19% 46% 31% 30% 30%

NRW in (m3) per km in the network per year m3 2,747.09 3,347.00 4,906.61 2,616.97 1,921.25 750 1,875.44 7,195.14 762.48 5,922.00 7,043.29 3,041.31 2,810.59 478.91 1,655.75 7,008.50 3,405.25 1,458.81 6,068.48

NRW per connection per day l/con./d 248 87 240 172 139 57 106 336 51 50 348 275 173 50 174 422 204 131 194

FINANCIAL INDICATORS

Average selling price per m3 of water NIS/m3 6 6.82 4.16 4.92 3.96 5.7 5.43 4.84 9.29 2.8 5.84 2.56 6.83 5.01 5.57 6.85 4.05 5.74 6.11

Operating costs per m3 of water sold NIS/m3 4.88 6.22 1.35 4.48 1.9 4.5 4.59 5.7 8.62 2.6 7.22 2.43 7.13 4.01 5.14 6.25 3.61 4.89 5.33

Working ratio (efficiency ratio) – water service Number 0.86 0.82 0.31 0.78 0.47 0.78 0.81 1.07 1.07 0.9 1.3 0.97 0.97 0.75 0.86 1.01 0.87 0.91 0.92

Collection efficiency – water service % 38% 67% 87% 89% 103% 101% 61% 65% 38% 64% 72% 122% 99% 95% 105% 110% 84% 65% 76%

Collection Efficiency – wastewater service % 100% 0 31% 75% 64% 73%

Operating Costs per m3 of wastewater NIS/m3 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 1.33 0 0.00 2.21 0.55 0 0 0 0.41 0.01 0 1.44

QUALITY INDICATORS

Water samples (taken from network including % 100% 100% 97% 83% 99% 100% 100% 83% 82% 99% mains) containing free Chlorine residual (RC)

Water samples (taken at source) free from total % 50% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 88% 88% 70% coliform contamination

Water samples (taken at source) free from fecal % 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 92% 100% 83% coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including % 88% 92% 100% 100% 94% 77% 68% 100% 100% 99% 100% 88% 89% 68% 99% mains) free from total coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including % 92% 92% 100% 100% 100% 88% 69% 100% 100% 99% 100% 480% 91% 86% 99% mains) free from fecal coliform contamination

Microbiological tests carried out % 232% 400% 110% 222% 85% 52% 274% 335% 1199% 236% 2% 100% 159% 102% 258%

Water samples (taken as the source) free from % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% Nitrate contamination

LABOUR PARTICIPATION BY GENDER – WATER SERVICE

Female workers as % of total staff % 25% 14% 20% 0% 0% 0% 9% 2% 0% 11% 4% 4% 7% 10% 0% 0% 25% 0% 7%

Male workers as % of total staff % 75% 86% 80% 100% 100% 100% 91% 98% 100% 89% 97% 96% 93% 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 90%

OTHER

Not Staff productivity index-water service Number 1.37 1.16 2.03 2.4 1.76 2.94 2.64 6.19 1.74 5.59 6.86 8.28 4.04 2.73 3.76 5.86 2.56 6.96 applicable

76 Annex (3) Summary of Results of the Service Providers in the West Bank in 2017

Beit Deir Al South East Kufr Al Indicator name Unit Bituniya Biddya Burqeen Dura Halhul Hebron Idna Illar Jenin Jericho JWU Kafr Ra’i Kharas Mythaloun Nablus Ummar Ghosoun Nablus Labad

TECHNICAL INDICATORS

Average daily per capita water consumption as l/c/d 72 54 95 72 80 42 66 62 23 83 61 168 88 49 65 74 81 57 66 domestic level

Average daily per capita water consumption – All l/c/d 75 57 95 72 91 42 68 62 23 280 67 201 112 60 117 74 81 62 89 types

NRW by volume % 34% 18% 37% 30% 22% 12% 18% 30% 22% 4% 44% 21% 23% 13% 19% 46% 31% 30% 30%

NRW per connection per day l/con./d 248 87 240 172 139 57 106 336 51 50 348 275 173 50 174 422 204 131 194

FINANCIAL INDICATORS

Average selling price per m3 of water NIS/m3 6 6.82 4.16 4.92 3.96 5.7 5.43 4.84 9.29 2.8 5.84 2.56 6.83 5.01 5.57 6.85 4.05 5.74 6.11

Operating costs per m3 of water sold NIS/m3 4.88 6.22 1.35 4.48 1.9 4.5 4.59 5.7 8.62 2.6 7.22 2.43 7.13 4.01 5.14 6.25 3.61 4.89 5.33

Working ratio (efficiency ratio) – water service Number 0.86 0.82 0.31 0.78 0.47 0.78 0.81 1.07 1.07 0.9 1.3 0.97 0.97 0.75 0.86 1.01 0.87 0.91 0.92

Collection efficiency – water service % 38% 67% 87% 89% 103% 101% 61% 65% 38% 64% 72% 122% 99% 95% 105% 110% 84% 65% 76%

Collection Efficiency – wastewater service % 100% 0 31% 75% 64% 73%

Operating Costs per m3 of wastewater NIS/m3 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 1.33 0 0.00 2.21 0.55 0 0 0 0.41 0.01 0 1.44

QUALITY INDICATORS

Water samples (taken from network including % 100% 100% 97% 83% 99% 100% 100% 83% 82% 99% mains) containing free Chlorine residual (RC)

Water samples (taken at source) free from total % 50% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 88% 88% 70% coliform contamination

Water samples (taken at source) free from fecal % 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 92% 100% 83% coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including % 88% 92% 100% 100% 94% 77% 68% 100% 100% 99% 100% 88% 89% 68% 99% mains) free from total coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including % 92% 92% 100% 100% 100% 88% 69% 100% 100% 99% 100% 480% 91% 86% 99% mains) free from fecal coliform contamination

Microbiological tests carried out % 232% 400% 110% 222% 85% 52% 274% 335% 1199% 236% 2% 100% 159% 102% 258%

Water samples (taken as the source) free from % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% Nitrate contamination

LABOUR PARTICIPATION BY GENDER – WATER SERVICE

Female workers as % of total staff % 25% 14% 20% 0% 0% 0% 9% 2% 0% 11% 4% 4% 7% 10% 0% 0% 25% 0% 7%

Male workers as % of total staff % 75% 86% 80% 100% 100% 100% 91% 98% 100% 89% 97% 96% 93% 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 90%

OTHER

Not Staff productivity index-water service Number 1.37 1.16 2.03 2.4 1.76 2.94 2.64 6.19 1.74 5.59 6.86 8.28 4.04 2.73 3.76 5.86 2.56 6.96 applicable

77 Annex (3) Summary of Results of the Service Providers in the West Bank in 2017

Northwest Northwest Ras Indicator name Unit Nuba Qablan Qabatiya Qaffen Qalqiliya Sa’ir Salfit Taffouh Tarqumiya Tubas Tulkarm Tuqu’ Al Far’a Bethlehem Ya’bad Yatta Za’atara Zababdeh Jenin Jerusalem Karkar

TECHNICAL INDICATORS

Average daily per capita water consumption l/c/d 43 81 84 50 78 137 154 80 52 75 52 53 62 109 56 91 71 65 24 74 66 as domestic level

Average daily per capita water consumption l/c/d 58 84 85 50 78 137 164 80 77 92 58 69 67 118 58 91 82 79 25 80 68 – All types

NRW by volume % 22% 12% 27% 25% 35% 22% 29% 9% 34% 15% 2% 12% 28% 50% 34% 24% 36% 21% 23% 25% 21%

NRW in (m3) per km in the network per year m3 719.68 904.86 3,438.99 1,711.97 6,741.13 4,015.31 8,321.57 1,206.00 4,585.80 1,523.29 162.57 839.81 2,549.06 8,903.45 1,722.67 5,181.82 6,187.93 3,353.05 1,187.90 1,151.50 1,847.46

NRW per connection per day l/con./d 156 68 193 90 274 160 359 54 243 91 12 59 148 680 290 203 349 110 137 151 124

FINANCIAL INDICATORS

Average selling price per m3 of water NIS/m3 4.48 5.76 5.39 5.68 4.44 1.28 1.8 4.32 5.11 3.87 4.83 5 5.85 3.68 4.64 3.5 6.38 4.48 5.45 4.21 5.55

Operating costs per m3 of water sold NIS/m3 5.33 4.23 6.23 5.66 6.13 0.84 1.46 4.2 5.04 3.33 4.17 4.23 4.95 2.44 5.19 5.37 6.6 3.18 6.24 4.6 6.23

Working ratio (efficiency ratio) – water Number 0.97 0.8 1.13 0.88 1.31 0.65 0.77 0.95 0.95 0.82 0.81 0.8 0.83 0.64 1.07 0.83 0.9 0.68 1.14 1.2 1.18 service

Collection efficiency – water service % 96% 71% 64% 97% 35% 157% 117% 100% 25% 92% 38% 13% 88% 47% 37% 69% 71% 113% 62% 60% 100%

Collection Efficiency – wastewater service % 41% 71% 50% 30% 103%

Operating Costs per m3 of wastewater NIS/m3 0 0 1.47 0 0 0 0.77 0 0 0.55 0 0 0 0.61 0 0 1.05 0 0 0 0

QUALITY INDICATORS

Water samples (taken from network including mains) containing free Chlorine % 100% 79% 17% 100% 99% 100% 100% 18% 100% 89% 100% 17% residual (RC)

Water samples (taken at source) free from % 100% 85% 97% 100% 100% 94% 64% 96% 97% 100% 94% 100% 83% total coliform contamination

Water samples (taken at source) free from % 100% 85% 97% 100% 100% 94% 79% 100% 100% 100% 98% 29% 92% fecal coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including mains) free from total coliform % 100% 85% 98% 85% 100% 100% 100% 86% 83% 91% 95% 100% 96% 86% 83% contamination

Water samples (taken from network including mains) free from fecal coliform % 100% 85% 98% 85% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 99% 100% 100% 99% 86% 83% contamination

Microbiological tests carried out % 77% 55% 342% 106% 50% 498% 279% 119% 15% 590% 125% 185% 316% 100% 185%

Water samples (taken as the source) free % 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 83% from Nitrate contamination

LABOUR PARTICIPATION BY GENDER – WATER SERVICE

Female workers as % of total staff % 6% 21% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 14% 18% 0% 9% 0% 2% 0% 25% 6% 0% 0% 14% 33%

Male workers as % of total staff % 94% 79% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 86% 82% 100% 91% 100% 98% 100% 75% 95% 100% 100% 86% 67%

OTHER

Not Not Not Not Staff productivity index-water service Number 4.93 3.63 1.28 5.93 1.25 5.66 1.96 3.87 3.32 3.54 2.7 8.63 2.73 3.63 1.26 5.34 4.93 applicable applicable applicable applicable

78 Annex (3) Summary of Results of the Service Providers in the West Bank in 2017

TECHNICAL INDICATORS

Average daily per capita water consumption l/c/d 43 81 84 50 78 137 154 80 52 75 52 53 62 109 56 91 71 65 24 74 66 as domestic level

Average daily per capita water consumption l/c/d 58 84 85 50 78 137 164 80 77 92 58 69 67 118 58 91 82 79 25 80 68 – All types

NRW by volume % 22% 12% 27% 25% 35% 22% 29% 9% 34% 15% 2% 12% 28% 50% 34% 24% 36% 21% 23% 25% 21%

NRW per connection per day l/con./d 156 68 193 90 274 160 359 54 243 91 12 59 148 680 290 203 349 110 137 151 124

FINANCIAL INDICATORS

Average selling price per m3 of water NIS/m3 4.48 5.76 5.39 5.68 4.44 1.28 1.8 4.32 5.11 3.87 4.83 5 5.85 3.68 4.64 3.5 6.38 4.48 5.45 4.21 5.55

Operating costs per m3 of water sold NIS/m3 5.33 4.23 6.23 5.66 6.13 0.84 1.46 4.2 5.04 3.33 4.17 4.23 4.95 2.44 5.19 5.37 6.6 3.18 6.24 4.6 6.23

Working ratio (efficiency ratio) – water Number 0.97 0.8 1.13 0.88 1.31 0.65 0.77 0.95 0.95 0.82 0.81 0.8 0.83 0.64 1.07 0.83 0.9 0.68 1.14 1.2 1.18 service

Collection efficiency – water service % 96% 71% 64% 97% 35% 157% 117% 100% 25% 92% 38% 13% 88% 47% 37% 69% 71% 113% 62% 60% 100%

Collection Efficiency – wastewater service % 41% 71% 50% 30% 103%

Operating Costs per m3 of wastewater NIS/m3 0 0 1.47 0 0 0 0.77 0 0 0.55 0 0 0 0.61 0 0 1.05 0 0 0 0

QUALITY INDICATORS

Water samples (taken from network including mains) containing free Chlorine % 100% 79% 17% 100% 99% 100% 100% 18% 100% 89% 100% 17% residual (RC)

Water samples (taken at source) free from % 100% 85% 97% 100% 100% 94% 64% 96% 97% 100% 94% 100% 83% total coliform contamination

Water samples (taken at source) free from % 100% 85% 97% 100% 100% 94% 79% 100% 100% 100% 98% 29% 92% fecal coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including mains) free from total coliform % 100% 85% 98% 85% 100% 100% 100% 86% 83% 91% 95% 100% 96% 86% 83% contamination

Water samples (taken from network including mains) free from fecal coliform % 100% 85% 98% 85% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 99% 100% 100% 99% 86% 83% contamination

Microbiological tests carried out % 77% 55% 342% 106% 50% 498% 279% 119% 15% 590% 125% 185% 316% 100% 185%

Water samples (taken as the source) free % 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 83% from Nitrate contamination

LABOUR PARTICIPATION BY GENDER – WATER SERVICE

Female workers as % of total staff % 6% 21% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 14% 18% 0% 9% 0% 2% 0% 25% 6% 0% 0% 14% 33%

Male workers as % of total staff % 94% 79% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 86% 82% 100% 91% 100% 98% 100% 75% 95% 100% 100% 86% 67%

OTHER

Not Not Not Not Staff productivity index-water service Number 4.93 3.63 1.28 5.93 1.25 5.66 1.96 3.87 3.32 3.54 2.7 8.63 2.73 3.63 1.26 5.34 4.93 applicable applicable applicable applicable

79 Annex (4) Summary of Results of the Water and Wastewater Service Providers in the Gaza Strip in 2017

Absan Absan Al Al Al Al Al Al Bani Beit Beit Deir Al Khan Indicator name Unit Al- Al- Al Bureij Al Qarara Al Naser Al Nusseirat Al Shuka CMWU Gaza Jabalya Fukhkhari Maghazi Mughraqa Musaddar Zahraa Zawaida Suheila Hanun Layiya Balah Yunis Jadida Kabira

TECHNICAL INDICATORS

Average daily per capita water consumption as l/c/d 104 63 84 104 86 60 131 118 93 94 69 169 94 88 114 96 77 73 85 97 80 domestic level

Average daily per capita water consumption – All l/c/d 104 88 84 104 86 60 131 118 93 94 69 169 100 90 122 96 79 80 92 100 82 types

NRW by volume % 20% 27% 31% 29% 41% 60% 41% 20% 36% 35% 31% 27% 25% 33% 45% 39% 32% 40% 35% 43% 27%

NRW in (m3) per km in the network per year m3 2061 4379 10739 1428 8871 10598 4543 1553 10096 3826 1959 6397 2960 5639 12631 9984 6633 7054 15396 27206 4476

NRW per connection per day l/con./d 153 227 368 205 557 850 602 145 519 582 285 276 274 354 1075 695 343 597 471 730 298

FINANCIAL INDICATORS

Average selling price per m3 of water NIS/m3 2.63 2.46 1.89 1.55 2.13 1.66 2 1.67 1.91 1.38 1.57 1.23 2.01 3.31 1.24 1.35 1.36 1.79 1.16 1.15 1.67

Operating costs per m3 of water sold NIS/m3 6.01 6.33 1.32 3.87 2.43 2.3 2.3 5 2.09 2.28 2.7 1.52 1.2 3.45 1.89 1.46 1.88 2.02 1.99 1.4 1.9

Working ratio (efficiency ratio) – water service Number 2.2 2.4 0.7 2.3 1.1 1.2 1.1 2.8 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.2 0.6 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.8 1.2 1.1

Collection efficiency – water service % 67% 32% 37% 0% 37% 7% 43% 41% 28% 65% 22% 53% 33% 51% 42% 63% 34% 36% 32% 46% 52%

Collection Efficiency – wastewater service % 17% 0% 41% 0% 36% 32% 29% 58% 30% 17% 31% 12% 52% 32% 13% 46% 33%

Operating Costs per m3 of wastewater NIS/m3 0 0 0.75 0 0.87 2.16 1.59 0 0.64 0 1.46 1.13 0.87 1.32 1.59 1.15 1.08 1.05 0.53 1.2 1.19

QUALITY INDICATORS

Water samples (taken from network including % 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 96% 100% 99% 100% 100% mains) containing free Chlorine residual (RC)

Water samples (taken at source) free from total % 93% 86% 60% 100% 74% 50% 94% 62% 96% 73% 79% coliform contamination

Water samples (taken at source) free from fecal % 86% 86% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 81% 100% 89% 89% coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including % 55% 61% 91% 64% 72% mains) free from total coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including % 98% 79% 90% 76% 89% mains) free from fecal coliform contamination

Microbiological tests carried out % 0% 0% 15% 0% 11% 20% 8% 0% 14% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 98% 138% 88% 139% 74%

Water samples (taken as the source) free from % 69% 100% 53% 60% 100% 0% 35% 0% 0% 100% 35% 20% 56% 40% 25% 30% 13% 19% 4% Nitrate contamination

LABOUR PARTICIPATION BY GENDER – WATER SERVICE

Female workers as % of total staff % 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 7% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 2% 1%

Male workers as % of total staff % 100% 100% 100% 100% 85% 100% 100% 100% 96% 100% 93% 100% 100% 96% 100% 100% 98% 100% 99% 98% 99%

OTHER

Not Staff productivity index-water service Number 3.56 5.05 3.51 6.33 4.81 4.39 3.94 3.13 6.66 9.31 6.11 2.3 4.98 6.42 4.23 6.38 5.79 2.98 8.18 5.68 applicable

80 Annex (4) Summary of Results of the Water and Wastewater Service Providers in the Gaza Strip in 2017

TECHNICAL INDICATORS

Average daily per capita water consumption as l/c/d 104 63 84 104 86 60 131 118 93 94 69 169 94 88 114 96 77 73 85 97 80 domestic level

Average daily per capita water consumption – All l/c/d 104 88 84 104 86 60 131 118 93 94 69 169 100 90 122 96 79 80 92 100 82 types

NRW by volume % 20% 27% 31% 29% 41% 60% 41% 20% 36% 35% 31% 27% 25% 33% 45% 39% 32% 40% 35% 43% 27%

NRW in (m3) per km in the network per year m3 2061 4379 10739 1428 8871 10598 4543 1553 10096 3826 1959 6397 2960 5639 12631 9984 6633 7054 15396 27206 4476

NRW per connection per day l/con./d 153 227 368 205 557 850 602 145 519 582 285 276 274 354 1075 695 343 597 471 730 298

FINANCIAL INDICATORS

Average selling price per m3 of water NIS/m3 2.63 2.46 1.89 1.55 2.13 1.66 2 1.67 1.91 1.38 1.57 1.23 2.01 3.31 1.24 1.35 1.36 1.79 1.16 1.15 1.67

Operating costs per m3 of water sold NIS/m3 6.01 6.33 1.32 3.87 2.43 2.3 2.3 5 2.09 2.28 2.7 1.52 1.2 3.45 1.89 1.46 1.88 2.02 1.99 1.4 1.9

Working ratio (efficiency ratio) – water service Number 2.2 2.4 0.7 2.3 1.1 1.2 1.1 2.8 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.2 0.6 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.8 1.2 1.1

Collection efficiency – water service % 67% 32% 37% 0% 37% 7% 43% 41% 28% 65% 22% 53% 33% 51% 42% 63% 34% 36% 32% 46% 52%

Collection Efficiency – wastewater service % 17% 0% 41% 0% 36% 32% 29% 58% 30% 17% 31% 12% 52% 32% 13% 46% 33%

Operating Costs per m3 of wastewater NIS/m3 0 0 0.75 0 0.87 2.16 1.59 0 0.64 0 1.46 1.13 0.87 1.32 1.59 1.15 1.08 1.05 0.53 1.2 1.19

QUALITY INDICATORS

Water samples (taken from network including % 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 96% 100% 99% 100% 100% mains) containing free Chlorine residual (RC)

Water samples (taken at source) free from total % 93% 86% 60% 100% 74% 50% 94% 62% 96% 73% 79% coliform contamination

Water samples (taken at source) free from fecal % 86% 86% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 81% 100% 89% 89% coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including % 55% 61% 91% 64% 72% mains) free from total coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including % 98% 79% 90% 76% 89% mains) free from fecal coliform contamination

Microbiological tests carried out % 0% 0% 15% 0% 11% 20% 8% 0% 14% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 98% 138% 88% 139% 74%

Water samples (taken as the source) free from % 69% 100% 53% 60% 100% 0% 35% 0% 0% 100% 35% 20% 56% 40% 25% 30% 13% 19% 4% Nitrate contamination

LABOUR PARTICIPATION BY GENDER – WATER SERVICE

Female workers as % of total staff % 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 7% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 2% 1%

Male workers as % of total staff % 100% 100% 100% 100% 85% 100% 100% 100% 96% 100% 93% 100% 100% 96% 100% 100% 98% 100% 99% 98% 99%

OTHER

Not Staff productivity index-water service Number 3.56 5.05 3.51 6.33 4.81 4.39 3.94 3.13 6.66 9.31 6.11 2.3 4.98 6.42 4.23 6.38 5.79 2.98 8.18 5.68 applicable

81 Annex (4) Summary of Results of the Water and Wastewater Service Providers in the Gaza Strip in 2017

Indicator name Unit Khuza’a Umm Al-Nasr Wadi As Salaqa Wadi Gaza

TECHNICAL INDICATORS

Average daily per capita water consumption as l/c/d 121 111 66 56 domestic level

Average daily per capita water consumption – All l/c/d 121 112 66 56 types

NRW by volume % 16% 23% 38% 32%

NRW in (m3) per km in the network per year m3 1845 5560 4502 2883

NRW per connection per day l/con./d 144 238 444 248

FINANCIAL INDICATORS

Average selling price per m3 of water NIS/m3 2.12 1 1.49 1.99

Operating costs per m3 of water sold NIS/m3 5.8 2.35 3.62 6.39

Working ratio (efficiency ratio) – water service Number 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.6

Collection efficiency – water service % 48% 35% 50% 40%

Collection Efficiency – wastewater service % 41%

Operating Costs per m3 of wastewater NIS/m3 0 1.93 0.27 0

QUALITY INDICATORS

Water samples (taken from network including % 100% 100% 100% 100% mains) containing free Chlorine residual (RC)

Water samples (taken at source) free from total % 80% coliform contamination

Water samples (taken at source) free from fecal % 100% coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including % mains) free from total coliform contamination

Water samples (taken from network including % mains) free from fecal coliform contamination

Microbiological tests carried out % 0% 0% 33% 0%

Water samples (taken as the source) free from % 67% 75% Nitrate contamination

LABOUR PARTICIPATION BY GENDER – WATER SERVICE

Female workers as % of total staff % 0% 0% 0% 0%

Male workers as % of total staff % 100% 100% 100% 100%

OTHER

Staff productivity index-water service Number 5.13 Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

82 83

Design By © 2018 WSRC Emad S. AbuBaker ﺑﺮج ﺧﻠﻒ، ﺷﺎرع اﻟﺮوﺿﺔ Khalaf Building, Al-Rawda St. اﻟﺒﻴﺮة، ﻓﻠﺴﻄﻴﻦ Al Bireh- Palestine +970 2 240 1294 +970 2 240 1295 [email protected] wsrc.ps wsrcps Bridge to Sustainability The Annual Performance Monitoring Report of Water and Wastewater Service Providers in Palestine - 2017