Benchmarking to Improve Urban Water Supply Delivery in ... · sewerage authorities (WASA) with similar functions, but also with somewhat specialized authority. Benchmarking and performance

The Water and Sanitation Program is a multi-donor partnership administered by the World Bank to support poor people in obtaining affordable, safe, and sustainable access to water and sanitation services.

WATER AND SANITATION PROGRAM: RepoRt

Targeting the Urban Poor and Improving Services in Small Towns

Benchmarking to Improve Urban Water Supply Delivery in Bangladesh

2014


2 Benchmarking in Bangladesh

AcknowledgmentsThis note was prepared by the Bangladesh Benchmarking Project Team, led by Abdul Motaleb (Senior Water and Sanitation Specialist, Water Sanitation Program), Arif Ahamed (Water and Sanitation Specialist, SASDU), Zakir Hossain (Local Consultant), and Cesar E. Yniguez (Benchmarking Adviser), with advisory assistance from Alexander Danilenko and Berta Macheve of the Water and Sanitation Program.

The team would like to acknowledge the support provided by the Bangladeshi authorities and sector stakeholders. It would especially like to express its gratitude to the senior government officials, managing directors of Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna, Rajshahi Water and Sewerage Authorities, Honorable Mayors of Pourashavas, donor agencies, and private operators who kindly offered their time, documentation, data, and expert feedback and guidance in the process of preparing this note. The team is particularly indebted to Mr. Abu Alam Md. Shahid Khan, Local Government Division (LGD) Secretary, Ms. Zuena Aziz, LGD Additional Secretary, Mr. Shamsuddin Ahmed, LGD Joint Secretary, and Mr. Khairul Islam, Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Local Government Rural Development and Cooperatives (MLGRD&C).

We would like to thank the management of Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulan, Rajshahi Water and Sewerage Authorities, and all the participating Pourashavas/Municipalities for their invaluable support during the preparation of this note.

The review benefitted immensely from policy-oriented national and international workshops held on November 13–14, 2011 and April 15–18, 2012, led by the LGD of the Ministry. These workshops were enriched by the participation of Mr. Alexander Danilenko, Ms. Berta Adelaide Da Silva Macheve, Ms. Rosemary Rop, Mr. Masroor Ahmed, Ms. Vandana Bhatnagar, and Mr. Christopher Juan Costain of the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP). The workshops were attended by Mr. Imran Amir Ali of the World Bank Institute (WBI) serving as a resource person, Mr. William Muhairwe, former Managing Director of the National Water and Sewerage Corporation, Kampala Uganda, Mr. Neil Mcleaod, Managing Director of eThekwini Water and Sanitation, Mr. Sam Parker of Water and Sanitation for Urban Poor UK, and Mr. Taqsem Ahmed Khan, Managing Director of Dhaka WASA. The policy workshops brought together key policymakers, urban water utilities, private operators working in Bangladesh, active donors to the water sector in Bangladesh, and renowned experts in public-private partnerships (PPPs).

The Policy Note was completed under the technical advice and oversight of Mr. William Kingdom, Lead Water and Sanitation Specialist, SASDU, Ms. Caroline Van Den Berg, Lead Water and Sanitation Specialist, MNSWA, and Mr. Stephan Raphael Dahan, Water and Sanitation Specialist, ECSUW. The team would like to express its sincere gratitude and thanks to them.

Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) reports are published to communicate the results of WSP’s work to the development community. Some sources cited may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are entirely those of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank or its affiliated organizations, or to members of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank Group concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to [email protected]. WSP encourages the dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. For more information, please visit www.wsp.org or email [email protected].

© 2014 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank

Write Media 2014


3www.wsp.org

Targeting the Urban Poor and Improving Services in Small Towns


2014



ADB Asian Development BankADp Annual Development ProgramAusAID Australian Agency for International DevelopmentBADC Bangladesh Agriculture Development CorporationBAeC Bangladesh Atomic Energy CommissionBAMWSp Bangladesh Arsenic Mitigation Water Supply ProjectBBS Bangladesh Bureau of StatisticsBDt Bangladesh TakaBM&pIp Benchmarking and Performance Improvement PlanningBStI Bangladesh Standard Testing Institute BRGM French Geological SurveyBWDB Bangladesh Water Development BoardCeGIS Center for Environment and Geographical Information System CHt Chittagong Hill TractsDAe Department of Agriculture ExtensionDANIDA Danish International Development AssistanceDpHe Department of Public Health EngineeringDoe Department of EnvironmentGSB Geological Survey of BangladeshIWM Institute of Water ModelingJICA Japan International Cooperation AgencyLGD Local Government DivisionLGeD Local Government Engineering DepartmentLGI Local Government InstitutionLpCD liters per capita per day MLGRD&C Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development, and CooperativesMIS Management Information SystemMoU Memorandum of UnderstandingMtBF Mid-Term Budget FrameworkNGo Nongovernmental organizationNRW Non-revenue waterppp Public-private partnershippSU Policy Support UnitRDA Rural Development AcademySDp Sector Development ProgramSIp Sector Investment PlanSWAp Sector Wide ApproachUNICeF United Nations International Children Emergency FundUp Union ParishadWASA Water Supply and Sewerage AuthorityWAtSAN Water and SanitationWBIUR World Bank Institute Urban ReformsWHo World Health OrganizationWSp Water and Sanitation ProgramWSS Water Supply and SanitationUWUN Urban Water Utilities Network

Abbreviations and Acronyms


5www.wsp.org

Contents

executive Summary.................................................................................................................................7

1. Bangladesh: Administrative, economic, and Social profile.........................................................10

1.1 Country Overview, Urbanization, and Poverty.....................................................................10

1.2 Institutional Structure of the Local Government and Urban Water.......................................11

1.3 Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE)...............................................................12

1.4 Water Supply and Sewerage Authorities (WASAs).............................................................13

1.5 City Corporations and Municipalities (Pourashavas)..........................................................14

1.6 Tariff Setting Mechanism and Tariff Levels.........................................................................14

1.7 Local Government Institutions (Union Parishad)................................................................16

1.8 Long-Term Vision of Country Development (2009) and Water and Sanitation Services.......16

2. Water Resources...........................................................................................................................17

2.1 Surface Water....................................................................................................................17

2.2 Groundwater.....................................................................................................................18

3. Legal Framework for Water and Sanitation..................................................................................20

3.1 Policies and Strategies for Water Supply and Sanitation...................................................21

3.2 National Strategies for Water Supply and Sanitation.........................................................22

4. Status of Water and Sanitation Based on performance Assessment........................................24

4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................24

4.2 Sample Definition..............................................................................................................25

4.3 Water Coverage and Urbanization.....................................................................................26

4.4 Wastewater Collection and Sanitation................................................................................26

4.5 Water Production, Consumption, and Losses....................................................................27

4.6 Financial Performance.......................................................................................................28

4.7 Assets and Investment Practice ........................................................................................30

4.8 Benchmarking and Performance Improvement Process in Bangladesh.............................30

4.9 WSP-WBI Training on Successful Water Utility Reforms.....................................................31

4.10 Conclusions......................................................................................................................32

References.............................................................................................................................................34

Annex 1..................................................................................................................................................35

Water Quality Standards and Guidelines....................................................................................35

Water Quality Monitoring............................................................................................................35

Annex 2...................................................................................................................................................37

Status of Contamination.............................................................................................................37

National Policy and Implementation Plan for Arsenic Mitigation 1994..........................................38

Annex 3...................................................................................................................................................40



Location of Utilities in Bangladesh using IB-NET


7www.wsp.org

Executive Summary

Water service is a key life-supporting facility in Bangladesh. Water in municipalities (Pourashavas) is provided by the municipal water companies, which are ring-fenced water departments of Pourashavas. There are 309 Pourashavas in the country. In the six largest cities, the Government established three city corporations and four water and sewerage authorities (WASA) with similar functions, but also with somewhat specialized authority.

Benchmarking and performance improvement planning were introduced to municipal water providers in Bangladesh in 2006. They were developed under the Bangladesh Benchmarking and Performance Improvement Planning (BM&PIP) for the Urban Water Utilities Project facilitated by the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), in cooperation with the Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE) and the Local Government Division (LGD) of the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development, and Cooperatives (MLGRDC). Performance data from 11 utilities were collected and analyzed in 2007 for the first time. A national workshop was convened in May 2008 to present the findings and discuss ways of improving the performance shown by the benchmarking indicators. A draft framework for the establishment of an urban water utilities network was prepared by representatives of five Pourashavas with WaterAid Bangladesh and the Bangladesh Municipal Development Fund. The draft was subsequently reviewed and discussed among the Pourashava utilities, leading to the establishment of the Urban Water Utilities Network for Performance Improvement (UWUN) in March 2009 by mayors and representatives of 10 Pourashavas.

With over 146 million people in an area of 147,570 km2, Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. The overall population growth rate is about 1.5 percent. However, the influx of population in urban areas has taken the growth rate over 3.5 percent, on average, whereas the growth rate of urban migration in metropolitan cities is about 5 percent. Dhaka is the capital and the largest

metropolitan city in the country, with more than 12.5 million people. The next largest city is the port city of Chittagong, with more than 3.65 million people. Urban areas in Bangladesh can be divided into three tiers: Dhaka and Chittagong that have populations of many millions; four other City Corporations with populations of between 0.5 to 1.5 million; and 309 urban municipalities with populations of 0.05 to 0.5 million. The total urban population, estimated to be about 25 million, is expected to be 50 million by the end of 2015. Local government institutions, that is, the City Corporations and Pourashavas, are legally responsible for water supply and sanitation for the people, including the poor people, within the municipality area, except in Dhaka, Chittagong, Rajshahi, and Khulna. A water supply and sewerage authority (WASA) has been set up in each of these City Corporations. Among the water utilities, only Dhaka WASA also provides sewerage services.

While Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (DWASA) covers water services for 89 percent of its residents, Rajshahi Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (RWASA) covers 67 percent, Chittagong Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (CWASA) covers 40 percent, and Khulna Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (KWASA) covers 24 percent. Only 102 Pourashavas have an intermittent piped water supply that serves very limited households. The average coverage by piped water supply in the Pourashavas is only 39 percent; the remaining 32 percent is served by hand tube wells. At present, urban populations, especially poor people, are the most vulnerable if water supply and sanitation services are inadequate. Large numbers of future urban populations will thus require a reliable and safe piped water supply system. The lack of effective management capacity has been identified by the Government of Bangladesh and other stakeholders as a major reason why urban utilities are not performing well. Benchmarking is recognized as an effective tool to monitor performance and formulate performance improvement programs.


8

Executive Summary

Benchmarking in Bangladesh

Over the 2011–2012 period, 33 large municipal providers participated in the annual benchmarking exercise, with 30 UWUN members doing performance improvement activities through sharing expertise and experiences during network meetings and workshops in 10 exchange visits. As a result, DWASA and Manikganj have reduced their non-revenue water (NRW); Jessore has increased its coverage; Lakshmipur has rationalized its flat-rate tariff, thereby increasing its revenues; collection efficiency has improved in Faridpur through the availability of more bank payment outlets and in Haziganj through a computerized billing system; and Gazipur and Moulvibazar were able to optimize use of their production wells through production metering, among other means. More utilities are joining UWUN and participating in its activities and programs.

In FY13, WSP is supporting the consolidation of the BM&PIP process through the compilation of an urban water utility data book summarizing the performance of the 33 utilities on the key benchmarking indicators. WSP will be seeking to extend this benchmarking process further by drawing in other partners (the ADB, JICA, and GIZ) through the hosting of key benchmarking data sets through the Water Supply and Sanitation Local Consultative Group (WSS LCG) mechanism. WSP will also be extending support for consumer satisfaction surveys with other utilities.

The past six years provided several opportunities for WASAs, City Corporations, and Pourashavas to develop and implement programs for performance improvement among the water service providers using benchmarking as a tool and networking as a vehicle for learning to improve their performance. Both small and notable achievements have encouraged more utilities to participate in BM&PIP programs, with technical and financial support from the LGD, DPHE, and the WSP at the World Bank. The challenge is to sustain the existing programs with guidance and support from national government sector agencies (the LGD and DPHE), while the WSP and other development partners find ways of providing technical support for enhancing and improving the current programs.

Figure 1: evoLUtIoN oF peRFoRMANCe ASSeSSMeNt oF WAteR pRovIDeRS IN BANGLADeSH (2007–2012)

2003 11 utilities collectedand analyzed performance data for the first time.

2007First training in performance assessment.

201031 water utilities participate in benchmarking >40% of country urban population covered.

2009Performance improvement plans developed for Dhaka, Jessore, and another eight utilities.

2011Dhaka WASA: NRW down from 41% to 33%.Account receivable drop from 422 days to 212.Jessore increased coverage from 52% to 84%, reduced staff per connection from 8.2 to 6.2 per 1,000 connections.

Haziganj: Collection efficiency: 92%.

2012Investment programs developed based onoutcome indicators and measurable development objectives.

Performance Indicators Average Top Quartile

Coverage % 43.9 58.8

Consumption (lpcd) 68.6 81.3

Water availability (hrs/day) 8.8 11

Unaccounted for water (%) 24.9 17.6

Operating ratio 1.07 0.73

Collection period 4.2 1.5

Staff/1,000 connections 9.3 6.6

Table 1: pReLIMINARy UtILIty BeNCHMARkING DAtA


9

Executive Summary

www.wsp.org

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

80

60

40

200

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

80

60

40

200

The study concluded that Bangladesh municipal water providers are facing significant pressure from urbanization. The difficulty in accommodating new residents is reflected by many performance indicators: from coverage rates and rationing of the water through shortened hours of operation, as well as the falling value of assets per capita. It is important to study trends on the utility level and then prepare investment programs for the most needed utilities, which, as of today, would be utilities for the fifth group—serving populations from 500,000 to 1 million—that experience the most difficulties.

Tariffs are low, reflecting the low cost of operation of the water utilities, whereas labor costs dominate (over 50 percent in almost every utility). This presents a threat for modernization and implementation of new technologies as over-use of many

Figure 2: WAteR UtILIty CoveRAGe (%)

utilities can place a significant burden on the reform process. Electricity costs are also high, illustrating the exposure of water utilities to potential financial shocks if electricity prices for providers become unregulated.

Collection rates are low for all utilities. The current practice of writing off bad debts does not motivate utilities to enforce collection and presents a problem for many of them as inaction in this regard can promote non-payment, specifically for new residents.

The following chapter summarizes the status of the urban water sector and presents the development trends of water utilities in the country. Annex 1 and 2 describe the water quality issues, and Annex 3 provides a summary of the performance for each water provider that participated in the exercise.

Figure 3: UNACCoUNteD FoR WAteR (%)



Figure 1.1: popULAtIoN pRoJeCtIoN

Bangladesh: Administrative, Economic, and Social ProfileI.

1.1 Country Overview, Urbanization, and PovertyWith an area of 144,000 square kilometers and an estimated population of about 150 million in 2010, Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. It consists of seven divisions, which are further subdivided into 64 districts, and the districts into 482 upazilas (subdistricts). Finally, upazilas are divided into 4,498 unions. There are provisions in the administrative set up for local governments at the district, upazila, and union levels, but at present, local governments exist in upazilas and unions. In urban areas, there are two types of local government for water services: six City Corporations for large and metropolitan cities and 308 Pourashavas (municipalities) for smaller entities.

Since independence in 1971, the national GDP has more than tripled in real terms and food production has increased at a similar rate. Sustained economic growth since the early 1990s has allowed the country to make good progress with poverty reduction despite a series of external setbacks. GDP grew at an average of 5.8 percent over the past decade, with GDP per capita reaching US$840 in 2012. Ready-made garments and remittances have emerged as the twin drivers of the economy. Even more impressive than the economic growth has been progress with improving the social and human dimensions. Bangladesh’s faster gains in human development than in income growth result from public policies that have complemented the remarkable energy at the grassroots level.

The population growth rate has declined from 2.9 percent per annum in 1974 to 1.2 percent in 2009, and the incidence of poverty has been declining along this trend. The infant mortality rate (under 5 years old) declined from 151 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1991 to 65 deaths per 1,000 live births

in 2007, and during the same period, the infant mortality rate dropped from 94 deaths per 1,000 live births to 52.1

Figure 1.1 shows population projections up to 2025, made in line with the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics population projection under the assumption of a total fertility rate of 2.1 percent by 2021. Population projections for both urban and rural populations were done by the Planning Commission, Urban Development Directorate (UDD) and the National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT). It is expected that the rural population will stabilize after 2015, with some reduction after 2025, due to migration to the cities. On the contrary, urban population is expected to increase sharply, due mainly to high migration from rural areas. The total population of the country in the next five year tranches, that is, in 2015, 2020, and 2025, is projected to be 162 million, 172 million, and 183 million, respectively.

1Management Information System, Directorate General of Health Services, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Health Bulletin 2009.

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980 2000 2020 2040 2060

Population Projection

Pop

ulat

ion

in m

illio

n

Total Urban Rural


11

Bangladesh: Administrative, Economic, and Social Profile

www.wsp.org

Figure 1.2: oRGANIzAtIoNAL StRUCtUReS UNDeR tHe LoCAL GoveRNMeNt DIvISIoN

The national head count poverty index declined from 57 percent in the early 1990s to 49 percent in 2000 and 40 percent in 2005.2 In 2009, the poverty level is estimated to be between 31.1 percent and 32.5 percent. Despite rises in household income, gaps in poverty across different occupation groups, gender, and region persist or are growing. The bottom 40 percent, which coincides with the proportion of poor in the total population, received only 14.4 percent of the total income, whereas the top 5 percent received nearly 27 percent of the total income in 2005. Various studies indicate that the extreme poor are mainly women. Regional disparities in poverty also remain: poverty is higher in the western region of the country and lower in the eastern region. The poverty incidence in the three northwestern divisions, namely Khulna, Barisal, and Rajshahi, was 45.7 percent, 52.0 percent, and 51.2 percent, respectively, in 2005, while the incidence of poverty in southeastern divisions—Dhaka, Chittagong, and Sylhet—were comparatively lower at 32.0 percent, 34.0 percent, and 33.8 percent, respectively.3

1.2 Institutional Structure of the Local Government and Urban Water

HIStoRICAL BACkGRoUNDThe institutional framework for communal services has taken shape over the past 150 years, from the passing of the Bengal Local Self Government Act in 1885 establishing Union Committees responsible for roads, public health, and primary education and authorizing them to raise funds.

Municipalities in urban areas have been rendering public health services since 1863. The Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE) was created in 1935 as a sector agency to promote public health by ensuring the provision of safe drinking water and, since 1954, sanitation as well. After independence in 1971, the Government of Bangladesh first emphasized rehabilitation of damaged water supply and sanitation services and subsequently started installation of new facilities through the DPHE. Since then, the water and sanitation sector went through a phase of rapid development with increased participation from citizens.

NAtIoNAL WAteR SUppLy AND SANItAtIoN INStItUtIoNAL FRAMeWoRkAt the national level, the Local Government Division of the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development, and Cooperatives has overall responsibility for the water and sanitation sector. The DPHE and WASAs are under the administrative control of the LGD. DPHE is responsible for the implementation of water supply and sanitation projects in the public sector in rural and urban areas outside the areas covered by the WASAs. In addition to the DPHE, the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED), also under the LGD, implements water and drainage projects in urban areas as part of urban infrastructure development projects. Coordination at the national level between the sector stakeholders such as government agencies, NGOs, development partners, and the private sector is performed by the National Forum for Water Supply and Sanitation, established in the LGD.

2Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES), 2005. No national level HIES was carried out after 2005.3Government of Bangladesh (2008). A Strategy for Poverty Reduction in the Lagging Regions of Bangladesh,General Economics Division, Planning Commission, Dhaka.

Local Government Division

Line agencies Semi-autonomous agencies Local Government Institutions

URBAN RURAL

DPHE LGED WASAs Dhaka WASA

Chittagong WASAKhulna WASA

6 x City Corporations308 x Pourashavas

64 x Zila Parishad 482 x Upazila Parishad

4,466 x Union Parishad


12



In urban areas, the DPHE was originally responsible for water and sanitation services, but the Pourashavas and the City Corporations have gradually become more involved in the planning, implementation, and management of the water systems. Water Supply and Sewerage Authorities were established in 1963 in Dhaka and Chittagong, with responsibility for water supply, sewerage, and drainage. Since 1990, Dhaka WASA’s coverage extended to the town of Narayanganj. The Khulna and Rajshahi WASAs were also created in the 1990s.

The Local Government Division under the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development, and Cooperatives is mandated to provide overall guidance to the water sector. The LGD implements and oversees policies and plans and implements development programs through the organizations under it. Capacity building of the LGD and the government organizations under it is focused here. It is expected that other organizations in the sector, such as NGOs and the private sector, would take the initiative to build capacities in line with their functions as suggested in the Sector Development Program (SDP).

The organizational structure of the different organizations under the LGD involved in the implementation of water and sanitation is shown in Figure 1.2. The organizations under the LGD are of three types: (i) line agencies consisting of the DPHE and LGED; (ii) semi-autonomous organizations, such as the three WASAs; and (iii) Local Government Institutions (LGIs) in urban and rural areas. The DPHE as the national focal agency for water and sanitation is involved in urban and rural areas. The WASAs, urban LGIs such as City Corporations and Pourashavas, and the LGED deal with urban areas. Of the six City Corporations, those in Dhaka, Chittagong, and Khulna do not address water and sanitation as these cities have WASAs for this purpose. Rural areas are handled by the rural LGIs (essentially Upazila Parishad and Union Parishad; at present, Zila Parishad has no substantive role).

StRUCtURe AND FUNCtIoNSThe LGD performs a wide range of functions including policymaking, planning, financial mobilization, and allocations and the development and maintenance of the institutional framework for Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS). Framing of operational rules, regulations, guidelines, and procedures for the agencies and institutions and their

supervision, monitoring, and evaluation are an important part of its functions. The LGD shares with the Planning Commission the tasks of policy decision making, sector allocation, and funding, as well as project appraisals, approval, monitoring, and evaluation. It also liaises and negotiates with donors through the External Relations Division (ERD) of the Ministry of Finance (MoF) for commitment of resources for the sector program.

There are about 200 staff in the LGD, most of whom are permanent. The LGD is headed by the Secretary and operates through its four Wings, each headed by a Joint Secretary. Different agencies and institutes are placed in the Wings as follows:

l Administration Wing: Apart from administration and audit, the District Councils (Zila Parishad) and the Upazila and Union Parishads

l Development Wing: City Corporations, Pourashavas, and the LGED

l MEI Wing: Three cells—planning, evaluation, and monitoring

l Water Supply Wing: The DPHE and Dhaka, Chittagong, and Khulna WASAs

The Policy Support Unit (PSU), headed by a Director (Deputy Secretary), is placed under the Water Supply Wing and at present operates in project mode, with financial support from the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA). It has been agreed with the LGD that the PSU would be integrated as a permanent unit by 2014. The LGD also implements innovative projects such as the Hygiene Sanitation and Water Supply (HYSAWA) project that finances the Union Parishads (UP) for water and sanitation intervention out of a dedicated fund, which functions under Company Laws.

1.3 Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE)According to the National Policy for Safe Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation, 1998, the DPHE is the national focal agency for water and sanitation. It is involved in planning and implementing water and sanitation facilities in rural and urban areas, except areas under the oversight of WASAs. The DPHE carries out the implementation works in collaboration with the City Corporations, Pourashavas, and Union Parishads.


13


www.wsp.org

The DPHE has a number of executive engineers at the district levels and sub-assistant engineers at the upazila level. There are also four tube well mechanics in each upazila. According to its November 2009 organogram, the DPHE has 7,052 sanctioned staff positions of which 444 are Class-I engineers and 652 Class-II engineers (sub-assistant engineers). This position includes the recently approved 363 new staff, including 242 Class-1 engineers (assistant engineers). Each assistant engineer would be in charge of two or three upazilas. All new staff have not yet been appointed; however, this recent expansion would enhance the DPHE’s field strength.

As the lead agency for the sector, the DPHE’s organizational strength is a vital element in the development of the sector.

1.4 Water Supply and Sewerage Authorities (WASAs)WASAs were first established in Dhaka and Chittagong through the E.P. Ordinance of 1963 to address the water supply and sanitation needs of large cities. The intention

was to operate the organizations according to different laws from public law, which was viewed as not being sufficiently flexible to operate utilities under commercial practices. However, the organizations were managed by government-appointed staff and functioned mainly under public rules and regulations and as such, the desired commercial efficiency did not materialize.

In order to address growing needs and mounting complexities, the WASA Act was enacted in 1996 to create more autonomy in WASA operations by establishing a WASA Board consisting of representatives of different stakeholder entities. To date, only the top management, that is, the Managing Director and the Deputy Managing Directors, are recruited externally on commercial terms and conditions. The salaries and benefits of the other levels are fixed according to the public service salary benefit structure with no incentive package for better performance. Khulna WASA was established in 2008, and there is the possibility of establishing another WASA soon in Rajshahi.

Present Functions Future Functions

NATIONAL

Conduct hydrogeological investigation for safe water sources and emergency intervention during natural calamities.

To a limited extent, carry out water quality monitoring and R&D for appropriate WSS technologies.

NATIONAL

Continue with hydrogeological investigation and emergency intervention during natural calamities.

Carry out national water quality monitoring and surveillance, including groundwater level and quality monitoring. Strengthen R&D activities.

Maintain a national WSS database.

URBAN

Plan and implement WSS projects jointly with the LGIs.

URBAN

Provide technical assistance to LGIs to plan and implement WSS projects and to ensure efficient systems operation, including water safety plans.

Support the LGD/Regulator to set service standards and monitor the service level.

On behalf of the LGD, advise and monitor the use of surface and groundwater.

Table 1.1: pReSeNt AND FUtURe MAJoR FUNCtIoNS oF tHe DpHe UNDeR tHe LoCAL GoveRNMeNt DIvISIoN

Table 1.2: pReSeNt AND FUtURe MAJoR FUNCtIoNS oF tHe WASAs

Present Functions Future Functions

l Manage operation of the WASAs, which requires technical and financial improvements.

l Provide WSS services in accordance with the quality and service standards set by the LGD/Water Regulatory Commission.

l Ensure customer care and services to disadvantaged communities.

l Operate the water supply section (and conservancy section) following sound technical and commercial practices.

l Partner with the private sector and NGOs in some service delivery areas.


14



1.5 City Corporations and Municipalities (Pourashavas)Water supply and sanitation (WSS) services are among the mandated functions of the City Corporations and Pourashavas. Previously, WSS development projects were solely implemented by the DPHE, but to gradually transfer more responsibilities, the modalities have changed and projects are now jointly implemented. The DPHE implements relatively more sophisticated technical interventions such as treatment plants, production wells, and transmission lines, whereas City Corporations and Pourashavas implement piped networks. Under some donor-supported urban development projects, the LGED also implements WSS installations in a similar manner as the DPHE. Water and sanitation assets are owned by the DPHE, which is also responsible for investments, and in some cases, the Pourashavas are involved in the process of investment. However, all operation and maintenance responsibility falls to the City Corporations and Pourashavas. Water supply is managed by the water supply sections of the City Corporations and Pourashavas, while sanitation is managed by the conservancy sections. Both sections are under the Engineering Department.

The Pourashava (municipality) is fully authorized to produce and supply water and render related services to its citizens according to the Pourashava Act of 2009:

1. A prescribed application form (fixed price) by the Pourashava will be collected and submitted with a plumbing plan of the location where the connection will be placed.

2. The inspection and examination shall be completed by the Pourashava water supply section within 30 days of submission of the application.

3. Within 15 days of receiving written reports from the Pourashava water supply section, the Pourashava will approve/reject the application, inform the applicant, and collect the prescribed connection fee (there are different fees for different diameters of pipe water connection including domestic/commercial/industrial) along with other necessary expenditures specified by the Pourashava.

4. If the abovementioned fees are not submitted by the applicant within one month of obtaining permission for connection, the Pourashava reserves the right to cancel permission for the connection.

5. If any location is provided with a water connection, the Pourashava can, if it deems necessary, place a meter at an appropriate location and the applicant will be obligated to pay the meter price and meter establishment cost as fixed by the Pourashava.

6. In the case of water being provided through a connection without a meter, the Pourashava shall set the monthly water rate time to time based on the water supply pipeline diameter and connection type.

7. There are also by-laws on “water price payment, prevention of misuse and wastage of water, restrictions on taking a water supply connection from other sources, irregular water supply, disconnecting the connection, and establishing re-connection of water.”

The Local Government Acts regarding City Corporations and Pourashavas give them the authority to recruit staff and set water rates. However, this authority is not fully realized due to the need for approval from the LGD or owing to their own reluctance.

Autonomy regarding the functions of the water sections and their low capacity is the prime concern in the context of effective service delivery and sustainability. The smaller the Pourashava, the greater the need for capacity support.

1.6 Tariff Setting Mechanism and Tariff LevelsThe Pourashava is responsible for setting the water tariff rate in accordance with the Pourashava Water Supply By-Law of 1999, and the Pourashava council imposes the rate without requiring prior permission from the Government. Therefore, the water tariff varies substantially from utility to utility and there is no fixed rule or regulation to periodically update monthly water tariff rates, which is left completely to the utility’s discretion. Some Pourashavas change rates at three- to five-year intervals; some do not change rates even over 10 to 12 years. In fact, Pourashavas have been operating under these arrangements without a supervision and monitoring mechanism from the central level. The same arrangement exists for the City Corporation and Water Supply and Sewerage Authorities.

The following different water tariff rates exist in different utilities in Bangladesh.


15


www.wsp.org

Name of Utility Residential Tariff per 1,000 liter (BD taka)

Dhaka WASA 7.24

Chittagong WASA 6.57

Table 1.3: WAteR tARIFF RAteS (2012)

Table 1.4: FIxeD WAteR tARIFF (peR CoNNeCtIoN peR MoNtH)

Sl. No Name of Utility 12 mm diameter Pipe Connection

Remarks

1 Rajshahi WASA 125.00 Most utilities have 12 mm diameter pipe connections (residential). Some utilities have water meters, but they are few in number.

2 Khulna WASA 105.00

3 Sylhet City Corporation 100.00

4 Barisal City Corporation 60.00

5 Rangpur City Corporation 50.00

6 Gazipur City Corporation 170.00

7 Chapai Nawabganj Pourashava 80.00

8 Chuadanga 95.00

9 Jessore 170.00

10 Manikganj 150.00

11 Meherpur 140.00

12 Narsingdi 150.00

13 Bagerhat 150.00

14 Chandpur 250.00

15 Kushtia 100.00

16 Laksham 125.00

17 Lakshmipur 320.00

18 Lalmonirhat 90.00

19 Narail 150.00

20 Rajbari 110.00

21 Satkhira 150.00

22 Shariatpur 150.00

23 Bhola 160.00

24 Chowmuhani 200.00

25 Faridpur 100.00

26 Gopalgonj 275.00

27 Hajigonj 200.00

28 Munshiganj 150.00

29 Natore 100.00

30 Noapara 80.00

31 Sherpur 150.00

In the absence of a water meter, the tariff is fixed by the diameter of the pipe connection


16



1.7 Local Government Institutions (Union Parishad)The Union Parishad (UP) is the lowest tier of local government; in fact it is the only type of LGI that has been active for a long time, while the other levels are sometimes abolished or are not fully effective. As such, attention is focused on UP functions and their capacity development. The roles of the Upazila Parishad in water and sanitation are still evolving and may also have some prominence in the future.

The provision of WSS services constitutes an important part of the mandate of UPs, although the local government functions are much wider. UPs are staffed with only one secretary to serve all purposes. UPs receive annual block grants through upazilas and generate a limited amount of revenue by levying taxes and fees, for example property transfer tax and registration fees, leases of market, water bodies, and ferry ghats.

Under the Union Parishad Act of 2009, UPs must have 12 Standing Committees for welfare and development, of which the Union Water and Sanitation (WATSAN) is one. In order to involve the UPs in WSS services under different DPHE projects, the WATSAN Committee was established in 1994, the Tube Well Site Selection Committee in 1998, and the Union Arsenic Committee in 2000.

A lack of staff, little autonomy, insufficient finances, and the absence of a proper administrative support structure weakened

the UPs to the extent that they are close to the rural people and have social and political influence over them, but their potential has not been fully realized.

1.8 Long-Term Vision of Country Development (2009) and Water and Sanitation ServicesThe Government has adopted a long-term vision for the country’s development, reflected in the Perspective Plan of Bangladesh 2010–2021, which provides goals for the future along with an indicative plan for achieving these goals by 2021. The Government has identified five priority areas: (i) maintenance of macroeconomic stability and control over commodity prices in the face of the global economic crisis; (ii) effective action against corruption; (iii) power and energy; (iv) the elimination of poverty and inequity; and (iv) establishment of good governance.

In order to achieve the long-term vision, 12 sets of targets for different sectors have been set for the macroeconomy, including “Ensure living accommodation for the entire population by 2015, supply pure drinking water for the entire population by 2011, and bring each house under hygienic sanitation by 2013.” This target indeed reflects the high priority that the Government attaches to the water and sanitation sector in its development agenda. The five priority areas and the 12 sets of targets are reflected in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper II and the upcoming Sixth Five-Year Plan.


17www.wsp.org

Water Resources2.

2.1 Surface WaterBangladesh lies across the delta of four major rivers, the Ganges-Padma, the Brahmaputra-Jamuna, the Meghna, and the Teesra. These rivers and their distributaries discharge about 5 million cubic feet of water per second into the Bay of Bengal at peak periods. The annual sediment load of the rivers has been estimated at between 1.5 and 2.4 billion metric tons. In total, Bangladesh has about 24,000 kilometers of rivers, streams, and canals.

The surface water system of Bangladesh consists of the major river network, the world’s largest delta, and the massive flood plains, which become inundated in the monsoon season. Seasonality is a major consideration for any surface water in Bangladesh.

In addition to the network of rivers, the surface water system is composed of lakes and over one thousand beels and haors, which are saucer-like depressed basins of a marshy character. There are also ox-bow lakes, the remnants of dead rivers in the southwestern parts of the country. In addition to these natural water bodies, there are several ponds of various sizes in each village. The total number of ponds is estimated to

be 1,288,222 (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics2007). The areas of the individual water bodies are provided in Table 2.1; the total area of the water bodies is over 12,000 square kilometers, which is about 8 percent of the total land area of Bangladesh.

Surface waters are substantially polluted by agricultural, industrial, domestic, and municipal sources. The quantity of silt generated during the monsoon is very high, while algae grow this extensive in stagnant water bodies such as ponds in the dry season. In addition, unsanitary practices contribute significantly to the deterioration of surface water quality. The fecal coliform concentration, an indicator of pollution due to unsanitary practices, in most surface water bodies, is between 500 to several thousand per 100 milliliters. Therefore, the use of surface water for drinking requires elaborate and expensive treatment, including clarification and disinfection.

There are several constraints hampering the use of surface water for drinking in urban areas. First, it is not available year round in many parts of the country. Second, the investment, operation, and maintenance costs are much higher than for groundwater-based systems. Third, salinity is a limiting factor in coastal districts, while industrial pollution in and around the large cities is a major concern. Finally, in rural areas, there is less availability of ponds safe from polluting activities such as fish farming and domestic purposes such as bathing and washing. Moreover, there are reports of the presence of toxins4 in pond water.

Furthermore, rainfall in Bangladesh varies widely, not only from season to season, but also from one region to another. The mean annual rainfall varies from 1,400 millimeters in the western part of the country to almost 5,000 millimeters in the northeast and is characterized by wide seasonal fluctuation.

Type of Water Body Area (km2)

Main rivers (Padma, Meghna, and Jamuna)

2,174

Other rivers and canals 2,626

Dead rivers and ox-bow lakes 225

Beels/haors/natural water bodies 1,540

Estuary 5,518

Total 12,082

Source: SPARRSO Report, 1984.

Table 2.1: WAteR BoDIeS IN BANGLADeSH

4World Health Organization, Geneva. Occurrence of Cyanobacterial Toxins (Microcystins) in Surface Waters of Rural Bangladesh— Pilot Study Report, May 2004. Water, Sanitation, and Health Protection of the Human Environment.


18

Water Resources


About 90 percent of the total rainfall occurs in the period between June and September.

Surface water issues in Bangladesh can therefore be summarized as follows: (i) varying water availability during different seasons as well as its irregular occurrence; (ii) an intricate network of alluvial rivers carrying a huge annual discharge and sediment load, which is also unstable in nature causing embankment erosion; (iii) withdrawal in upstream areas, which has a serious effect on socioeconomic growth, the environment and ecology, and threatens fish habitations; (iv) inland navigation blockages; (v) increased water demand for domestic use; and (vi) an increase in salinity in the coastal belt.

2.2 GroundwaterThe use of groundwater in Bangladesh is managed by various agencies. Despite the existence of national policies on both water resources and on safe water and sanitation, there is no integrated strategy to ensure the beneficial use, protection, and sustainability of this vital natural resource. Current developments are mostly done on an ad hoc basis driven by demand.

Groundwater accounts for over 90 percent of the drinking water supply in the country. In some parts of rural areas, such as the coastal belt, where suitable aquifers are unavailable,

pond sand filters (PSF) are used to treat pond water. Due to the arsenic problem in groundwater, alternative solutions like PSF are being used in many parts of the country. Groundwater from quaternary to recent sediments is the principal source of water for domestic, industrial, and irrigation use in Bangladesh. Shallow alluvial aquifers are recharged through rainfall and flooding, and replenished almost everywhere each year, except in areas like Dhaka where, due to continuously increasing abstraction, groundwater levels decline continuously. Recharge to deeper aquifers is more difficult to assess. The aquifer system can be divided into three parts:

(i) An upper or main aquifer, extending to about 150 meters,5 the source of what is referred to in this report as “shallow” groundwater;

(ii) A deep aquifer, extending from 150 meters to about 350 meters; and

(iii) A very deep or lower aquifer, extending below 350 meters to as much as 1,600 meters, about which very little is known.

The available recharge for groundwater in the shallow aquifers, the varying sources of demand (water supply, environment,

5 The value of 150 meters is a useful guide, but does not have precise significance although it is the approximate limit of aquifers deposited since the Last Glacial Maximum and is an approximate limiting depth for the occurrence of arsenic pollution. However, older and arsenic-free aquifers often occur at shallower depths.

Region Gross Area (kha)

Usable (1) Recharge (mm3)

Groundwater Demand (mm3) (2) Balance: UR–GD (mm3, %)

Water Supply

Environment Agriculture Total

Northwest 3,016 12,100 539 1,290 9,548 11,377 +723 (6%)

Northeast -

3,569

-

23,100

222 170 1,357 1,749 17,066 (74%)

North-central 566 637 3,082 4,285 -

Southeast 3,007 9,800 232 149 1,158 1,584 8,216 (84%)

South-central 1,426 3,500 179 88 652 919 2,581 (74%)

Southwest 2,562 5,600 289 620 4,196 5,105 495 (9%)

Eastern Hills - - 181 - - 181 -

Total (mm3) 13,580 54,100 2,208 2,999 19,993 25,200 28,900

(%) - - (8.8%) (11.9%) (79.3%) (100%) (53%)

Notes: 1. Resource Assessment by NWP-II. 2. Groundwater demand estimated by the NWMP.

Table 2.2: USABLe ReCHARGe AND GRoUNDWAteR DeMAND


19

Water Resources

www.wsp.org

and agriculture), and its balance for different hydrogeological regions is assessed up to 2025 and summarized in Table 2.2.

Only 8.8 percent of groundwater is used for water supply, 11.9 percent for transportation, and 79.3 percent for agriculture. The resource availability indicates that without considering water quality issues, there should be no serious regional problem of groundwater availability for water supply. However, at the subregional level, it is noted that recharge could be a constraint along the western border of Bangladesh, and especially beneath the High Barind. The lowering of groundwater in and around Dhaka due to over-abstraction is a specific problem.

Deep wells (150–350 meters) were originally installed in the coastal area to avoid salinity. In early 2000, a survey found that only 1 percent of deep wells exceeded arsenic concentrations of 50 parts per billion (ppb) and none greatly exceeded that level. Since 2002, deep wells have been installed at a faster rate in that area. Deep wells are also increasingly installed further north and over large areas of central Bangladesh as a solution to the shallow tube wells where high levels of arsenic contamination are generally found. For these reasons, deep aquifers are becoming increasingly important for water supply, especially in rural areas.

The development (abstraction) of deep aquifers is constrained overall by the threat of migrating arsenic and salinity and locally hindered by the presence of boron, iron, and manganese. To what extent deep groundwater is a renewable resource is a matter of serious debate, but it is certain that this resource can supply large quantities of good quality water for many years. This potential is best demonstrated by the deep municipal well field at Khulna, which has sustained intensive pumping for more than 45 years with no evidence of either salinization or arsenic pollution (BRGM, 2005). The key uncertainty associated with exploring deep aquifers, however, stems from the almost complete absence of water quality and quantity monitoring of deep groundwater (as opposed to production wells).

The functions involved in groundwater management can be classified into five groups: (i) monitoring; (ii) assessment; (iii) protection and regulation; (iv) well development; and (v) research and development. An assessment of the current roles of the main organization is set out along with recommendations for their possible future roles, as discussed further below. The roles of some agencies have changed dramatically in the past two decades; notably, the Bangladesh Agriculture Development Corporation (BADC) and to a lesser extent the Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB) played a major role in installing irrigation wells, but now have virtually none. It should also be noted that no agency6 has meaningfully controlled the activities of the private sector in abstracting groundwater, and there has been only limited control and coordination between ministries.

A detailed discussion of water quality is presented in Annexes 1 and 2 of this report.

Table 2.3: oRGANIzAtIoNS INvoLveD IN GRoUNDWAteR MANAGeMeNt

Ministry

Department

Major Role Minor Role

Water Resources WARPO, BWDB

Local Government DPHE, WASAs LGIs, LGED, RDA

Agriculture BADC, BMDA DAE

Environment DOE

Science & Technology BAEC

Energy & Minerals GSB

Private Sector IWM, CEGIS, consulting firms

6With the possible exception of Dhaka WASA.

The main organizations involved in groundwater management are listed in Table 2.3. To this list of stakeholders must be added the private sector which, as farmers and as householders, are by far the largest abstractors of groundwater, but are not formally represented in water management.



Legal Framework for Water and Sanitation3.

The legal framework of the water and sanitation sector in Bangladesh consists of acts and ordinances and other legal instruments specifying the functions and responsibilities of various sector organizations; the major ones are outlined in Table 3.1. The acts and ordinances relating to the functioning of water and sanitation activities for the water resources sector are also provided.

Under the provisions of the acts and ordinances, different rules, regulations, by-laws, and executive orders are prepared by the relevant ministries and agencies, for example, the various Dhaka WASA rules and regulations, which are issued at different times, and the Pourashava Water Supply Model By-Law, 1996.

A review of the existing legal framework7 reveals:

Acts and Ordinances Brief Description

Rules of Business 1996 This instrument allocates responsibilities to various government departments and ministries. It allocates responsibility for water supply and sanitation in rural areas and in urban areas not declared municipalities to the Local Government Division through the DPHE.

Local Government Acts l Local Government (Pourashava) Act, 2008l Local Government (City Corporations) Act, 2008l Upazila Parishad Act, 2008l Union Parishad Act, 2008

These Acts specify the responsibilities relating to water and sanitation at the different levels of local government. Responsibilities include the provision and maintenance of water supply, sanitation, and drainage facilities, and the prevention of pollution of water sources.

WASA Act, 1996 This Act gives power to the Government to establish WASAs in any area, with permission to perform any work relating to water supply, sewage systems, solid waste collection, and drainage. It also describes the composition of the Board and delineates responsibilities between the Board and the Managing Director. At present, WASAs are established in Dhaka, Chittagong, and Khulna.

Environmental Conservancy Act, 1995 This Act is followed by the Environmental Conservation Rules, 1997, establishing a framework for environmental management and setting environmental quality standards, including water quality standards.

Acts and Ordinances related to public health and hygiene, e.g.l Penal Code, 1860l Public Health (Emergency Provisions)

Ordinance, 1944l Pure Food Ordinance, 1956l Factory Acts, 1965

Public health concerns are addressed by various legal instruments and controlled locally and by local government entities.

Table 3.1: LeGAL INStRUMeNtS GoveRNING tHe WAteR AND SANItAtIoN SeCtoR

7Institutional Review of the Water and Sanitation Sector, 1994 by UPI (now PSU) and Final Report on Dhaka WASA and Pourashava Water Supply Section, December 2009 (under ADB’s Management Support for Dhaka WASA).


21

Legal Framework for Water and Sanitation

www.wsp.org

l There is overlap of the roles and responsibilities of sector agencies, for example, between the DPHE and LGIs (e.g. Union Parishad and Pourashavas) and there is a need for clarity and greater effectiveness through modification of the rules and regulations and by issuing executive orders from the Local Government Division.

l Clarification and streamlining of the roles and responsibilities relating to water supply and sanitation between the two line agencies under the Local Government Division, namely the DPHE and LGED, are required.

l There is a need for proper enforcement and further delegation of powers according to the existing Local Government Acts, 2009. For example, at present, the WASA Act, 1996, is not fully applied in the case of Chittagong, where City Corporations and Pourashavas are not still able to recruit staff independently, according to the terms of the Act, as prior permission is needed from the Local Government Division. There is also a need to transfer authority to the City Corporations and Pourashavas from the Local Government Division for the demarcation, protection, and maintenance of water bodies for water supply and the environment, including the establishment of watersheds for water intake.

l Some Acts and other instruments need to be adapted to the present situation. For example, according to the WASA Act, 1996 (Section 22; Subsection [2]) WASAs are empowered to increase water rates, with the Board’s permission, by up to 5 percent in a financial year; otherwise, they must seek approval from the Government. Dhaka WASA is proposing that it be allowed to increase rates by up to 10 percent to meet growing costs and make its operation financially viable. Similarly, the Model By-Law of 1996 was prepared under the Pourashava Ordinance, 1977, that was in force at the time. However, with the new Local Government (Pourashava) Act, 2009, there are no by-laws for matters relating to water supply; instead, the Acts serve as regulatory instruments.

3.1 Policies and Strategies for Water Supply and SanitationThe appropriateness of the two policies to meet the present and future challenges is discussed below.

l The National WSS Policy, 1998, provides coverage targets for rural water supply in terms of average

coverage of the number of users per tube wells; for urban areas, overall coverage percentages are given. This does not address the gaps in terms of quality of service coverage.

l WSS Policy, 1998, sets targets for coverage levels, but without any timeframe or any indication of resource availability.

l Decentralization of administrative and financial authority to the Local Government Institutions is mentioned, but the actual modalities for decentralization have not been prepared.

l Although a general requirement for a regulatory framework for groundwater abstraction (for irrigation) has been proposed in the National Water Management Plan (NWMP), the requirement of a regulating authority, especially for the water supply and sanitation sector, is not mentioned in any policy.

l The National WSS Policy, 1998, delineates the roles and responsibilities of government agencies, the private sector, and NGOs. It recognizes the DPHE as the lead sector agency and also makes suggestions regarding the roles of LGEDs in donor-supported projects that include water and sanitation. However, the institutional arrangements between the national government agencies (DPHE, LGED) and LGIs (UPs, Pourashavas, and City Corporations) are only suggested in the policies. The roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined through subsequent strategies or government directives.

l A mechanism for well-defined coordination among different sector stakeholders at the community and central levels is absent.

l The WSS Policy, 1998, was formulated more than a decade ago. Important issues have emerged subsequently, such as climate change, water safety, and the notable importance of hygiene promotion.

l National Arsenic Policy, 2004, was prepared on the basis of knowledge available at that time. Much more information is now available. (National Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Policy, 1998)

It is therefore evident that no new policies or modifications are required at this moment. The National WSS Policy, 1998, may remain unchanged, but, under its framework, some strategies are suggested in order to be prepared to meet the existing and emerging sector challenges, which are described below.


22



3.2 National Strategies for Water Supply and SanitationUnder the framework of the abovementioned policies, some new strategies are under preparation, while the two existing strategies need to be updated. These different strategies should be prepared to address specific sector issues or themes. The strategies target the national, sector, and subsector levels.

Existing National Strategies needing revision and updating:

a) National Sanitation Strategy, 2005b) Pro-Poor Strategy for Water and Sanitation

Sector, 2005

National Strategies under preparation:c) National Strategy for Hygiene Promotiond) National Strategy for Hard to Reach Areas and Peoplee) National Strategy for Cost Sharing

All sector themes or issues are not covered under the existing or planned strategies. For example, there is a strategy for sanitation, but none for water supply.

The presence of several strategies in the sector often creates confusion when carrying out development works in a rural or an urban area since several strategies have to be consulted. Thus, the existing strategies and those under preparation need to be streamlined by being reviewed and recast into two specific strategies for the two subsectors.

l National Strategy for Urban Water Supply and Sanitation

l National Strategy for Rural Water Supply and Sanitation

These strategies may be reviewed and updated, if necessary, every three to five years. The strategies would be followed by all stakeholders, including government agencies, NGOs, and the private sector. The need for the abovementioned strategies was discussed and agreed with the main sector stakeholders in five exclusive workshops held with the LGD, DPHE, WASAs, City Corporations, and Pourashavas. Specific elements of the strategies that need to be considered when formulating those strategies were also discussed.

The National Strategy for Urban Water Supply and Sanitation document would clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of the LGD, DPHE, LGED, WASAs, City Corporations, and Pourashavas in the sector’s development. The roles of other partners such as the private sector and NGOs will also be specified. The strategy will outline a reform and capacity-building agenda and set milestones. Some of the elements of the strategy are general, applicable to all urban areas, while others are specific to WASAs, City Corporations, and Pourashavas. As the Chittagong Hill Tracts follow a unique administrative set-up in a social and cultural context, they too require specific considerations, provided below.

GeNeRAL1. Take immediate measures to improve operational and

management efficiencies by (i) reducing unaccounted for water to 25 percent by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020; (ii) identifying and taking actions against illegal connections, leakage, and waste control; (iii) replacing old and defective pipelines; and (iv) introducing distribution zone management, including installation of bulk meters at sources and zones.

2. Pay special attention to addressing the needs of low-income communities.

3. Install water meters for all customers and establish progressive water tariffs that reflect the true costs of services, while providing a safety net for the poor.

4. Ensure application of the IEC Guidelines for WASH Promotion by all sector partners.

5. Carry out R&D to develop appropriate technologies to address the diverse needs.

6. Set up a monitoring and coordination mechanism at the community, local government, and central levels.

7. Build the capacities of sector institutions as well as communities to protect the environment, adapt to climate change, and build resilience to disasters.

8. Support and encourage the private sector to play a greater role in future.

WASA1. Implement the Partnership Framework to strengthen

the governance and organization structure, improve financial management capacity, and sustain service delivery.


23


www.wsp.org

CIty CoRpoRAtIoN AND poURASHAvA1. Develop a database by conducting a baseline survey

and update it regularly.2. Establish a dedicated fund for the development

of WSS services, which could be accessed based on performance.

3. The DPHE will support the City Corporations and Pourashavas with the following: (i) preparing

master plans, including a land use plan; (ii) building operational and financial management capacities; (iii) installing water meters; (iv) repairing pipelines, controlling waste and leakage, and upgrading the water supply systems; (v) developing consumer care and customer relationships; and (vi) improving the management of sludge from septic tanks and pit latrines.

Please give caption



Status of Water and Sanitation Based on Performance Assessment4.

4.1 IntroductionBenchmarking and performance improvement planning was introduced to municipal water providers in Bangladesh in 2006. They were developed under the Bangladesh Benchmarking and Performance Improvement Planning (BM&PIP) for Urban Water Utilities Project facilitated by the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), in cooperation with the Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE) and the Local Government Division of the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development, and Cooperatives (MLGRDC). Performance data from 11 utilities were collected and analyzed in 2007 for the first time. A national workshop was convened in May 2008 to present the findings and discuss ways of improving the performance shown by the benchmarking indicators. A draft framework for the establishment of an urban water utilities network was prepared by representatives of five Pourashavas with WaterAid Bangladesh and the Bangladesh Municipal Development Fund. The draft was subsequently reviewed and discussed

among the Pourashava utilities, leading to the establishment of the Urban Water Utilities Network for Performance Improvement (UWUN) in March 2009 by mayors and representatives of 10 Pourashavas.

Over the 2011–2012 period, 33 utilities participated in the annual benchmarking exercise, with 30 UWUN members doing performance improvement activities through sharing of expertise and experiences during network meetings and workshops in 10 exchange visits. As a result, DWASA and Manikganj have reduced their NRW; Jessore has increased its coverage; Lakshmipur has rationalized its flat-rate tariff, thereby increasing its revenues; collection efficiency has improved in Faridpur through the availability of more bank payment outlets and in Haziganj through a computerized billing system; and Gazipur and Moulvibazar have optimized use of their production wells through production metering among other means. More utilities are joining UWUN and participating in its activities and programs.

Figure 4.1: evoLUtIoN oF peRFoRMANCe ASSeSSMeNt oF WAteR pRovIDeRS IN BANGLADeSH (2007–2012)

2003 11 utilities collectedand analyzed performance data for the first time.

2007First training in performance assessment.

201031 water utilities participate in benchmarking >40% of country urban population covered.

2009Performance improvement plans developed for Dhaka, Jessore, and another eight utilities.

2011Dhaka WASA: NRW down from 41% to 33%.Account receivable drop from 422 days to 212.Jessore increased coverage from 52% to 84%, reduced staff per connection from 8.2 to 6.2 per 1,000 connections.

Haziganj: Collection efficiency: 92%.

2012Investment programs developed based onoutcome indicators and measurable development objectives.


25

Status of Water and Sanitation Based on Performance Assessment

www.wsp.org

The past six years provided several opportunities for WASAs, City Corporations, and Pourashavas to develop and implement programs for performance improvement among the water service providers using benchmarking as a tool and networking as a vehicle for learning to improve their performance. Both small and notable achievements have encouraged more utilities to participate in BM&PIP programs with technical and financial support from the LGD, DPHE, and the WSP at the World Bank. The challenge is to sustain the existing programs with guidance and support from national government sector agencies (the LGD and DPHE) while the WSP and other development partners find ways of providing technical support for enhancing and improving the current programs.

In FY13, the WSP is supporting the consolidation of the BM&PIP process through the compilation of an urban water utility data book summarizing the performance of the 33 utilities on the key benchmarking indicators. The WSP will be seeking to extend this benchmarking process further by drawing in other partners (the ADB, JICA, and GIZ) through the hosting of key benchmarking data sets through the WSS LCG mechanism. The WSP will also be extending support for consumer satisfaction surveys with other utilities.

There are a number of challenges associated with urban water supply benchmarking. Most production wells do not have water meters or the meters are not calibrated to generate data with reasonable precision. There are also a number of public and private hand pump tube wells in urban areas. Many people with household connections also have hand pump tube wells. However, the exact number of hand pumps and their use patterns are unknown; thus, service coverage by hand pump tube wells in urban areas is difficult to determine. At the same time, hand pump tube wells are not considered a feasible solution for urban areas with high population density because most are installed in shallow aquifers, which are vulnerable to pollution from the on-site sanitation system, if they are not already polluted.

Under the above circumstances, some figures were estimated by the respective cities or Pourashavas and the DPHE based on local information available and considering factors such as water production, number of household connections, street hydrants, and hand pump tube wells, and the area covered by a piped network. Urban water supply coverage is determined for two standards: the basic standard is considered to be the total coverage by piped water supply and hand pump tube wells, whereas the improved standard is considered to be by piped water supply only.

4.2 Sample DefinitionPerformance assessment was initiated in 2007 as a joint effort of the Ministry of Local Government and the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program. It has continued ever since and plans for expansion to more utilities are under way.

The sample can be considered representative of the country’s utilities. The figures remain stable across cross sections of the utilities in the sample and are always above 40 percent of the country’s urban population.

Performance Indicators Average Top Quartile

Coverage % 43.9 58.8

Consumption (lpcd) 68.6 81.3

Water availability (hrs/day) 8.8 11

Unaccounted for water (%) 24.9 17.6

Operating ratio 1.07 0.73

Collection period 4.2 1.5

Staff/1,000 connections 9.3 6.6

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total number of utilities 13 16 18 37 38 34

Number of utilities serving 50,000-100,000 residents (Band 3) 2 2 1 8 9 8

Number of utilities serving 100,000-500,000 residents (Band 4) 7 10 13 22 21 19

Number of utilities serving 500,000-1 million residents (Band 5) 2 2 2 2 4 4

Number of utilities serving more than 1 million residents (Band 6) 2 2 2 5 4 3

Percentage of Bangladesh’s urban population in the study sample 44% 45% 48% 63% 61% 55%

Table 4.2: pARtICIpAtIoN oF UtILItIeS IN tHe StUDy (2007–2012)

Table 4.1: pReLIMINARy UtILIty BeNCHMARkING DAtA


26



4.3 Water Coverage and UrbanizationThe urban population grew at the rate of 2.9 to 3.1 percent per year from 2007 to 2012. Utilities were barely able to keep pace, especially after the 2008 economic crisis. The highest urbanization rates are in the cities with 1 million residents and above. Dhaka WASA was able to maintain coverage despite an increase in urbanization by about 500,000 new residents a year. Smaller cities were able to provide in-house or yard connections during the last 6 years of this period and reduce the rate of shared water taps from about 30 percent of the population to around 5 percent.

It is important for smaller utilities to start evaluating the potential of existing systems to withstand pressure from new residents, especially in Pourashavas with populations between 100,000 and 500,000 people.

4.4 Wastewater Collection and SanitationConventional sewer systems are only present in Dhaka, where about 30 percent of the population is served by a sewer network and the remaining population uses on-site options such as septic tanks, pit latrines, unhygienic latrines, or none at all. The amount of sewage that is collected in Dhaka is three times higher than the capacity of the only wastewater

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

80

60

40

200

Figure 4.2: WAteR CoveRAGe By UtILIty, % (2012)

Figure 4.3: WAteR CoveRAGe By pRovIDeR GRoUp, %

Figure 4.4: popULAtIoN pReSSURe oN WAteR NetWoRkS, peR kM oF tHe NetWoRk

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Average Band 3 Band 4 Band 5 Band 6

The water systems are characterized by extreme density: in large WASAs, there are 3,000 or more people per kilometer of the network, exceeding parameters for countries such as China and Brazil, where there are rarely more than 1,500 people per kilometer of the network. This means that new customers are settling within existing housing and networks, thus overloading already underdeveloped systems.

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Band 3 Band 4 Band 5 Band 6


27


www.wsp.org

treatment plant (at Pagla); therefore, the plant is bypassed, and most of the sewage is discharged untreated directly into the river. Many buildings in the large cities, including the high-rises, are not connected to any kind of sanitation system. In some cases, their septic tanks are overflowing and discharging effluent in the drains or directly into lakes, canals, and rivers, causing serious pollution and health hazards in the densely populated areas. The sanitary conditions of urban slums are deplorable; only 8 percent to 12 percent have hygienic latrines. Most slum dwellers have no other options than to dispose of waste in drains, open fields, roadsides, or riverbanks.

Figure 4.5: ReSIDeNtIAL CoNSUMptIoN, LpCD

Figure 4.6: HoURS oF opeRAtIoN, HoURS A DAy oN AveRAGe

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


4.5 Water Production, Consumption, and LossesWater production is relatively stable in all utilities, except the ones with populations below 100,000, where production per capita decreased by more than 25 percent, mainly due to the recent influx of rural populations. Consumption patterns are the same for all utility groups, as urban populations consume nearly 90 percent of the water sold. Water consumption is higher in larger municipalities, reflecting higher living standards and more appliances requiring water being used. Water rationing through interrupted supply is the norm for the country. The trend in recent years has not changed much, except for some reduction of operations in companies serving from 500,000 to 1 million residents.

0

5

10

15

20

25

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


60

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

80

60

40

200

Figure 4.7: UNACCoUNteD FoR LoSSeS By UtILIty, %


28



Unaccounted for losses are reportedly relatively high. They can be estimated with some measure of precision in the large WASAs, where consumption metering systems are developed (about 85 percent of connections are metered in all large utilities as of 2012). In smaller utilities, losses reported are smaller due to a shorter period of supply and apparently lower pressure in the systems. The unaccounted for water may seem under-reported owing to the fact that the accident rate in these companies is two to three times higher than in large WASAs (3.0-3.4 and 1.4 pipe breaks per kilometer of the network a year, respectively).

There is a clear trend of water loss reduction in large companies, which can also be attributed to the launch of performance benchmarking.

4.6 Financial PerformanceWater tariffs are low in most utilities. Average revenue rarely exceeds US$0.20 for any utility.

While regular tariff increases in Bangladeshi takas are normal, inflationary pressure does not allow for fair tariffs to be set. The graph illustrates the gap.

This is also reflected by a drop in the ratio of the cost of water to the average income in all groups of utilities. The lowest tariff burden was reported by water providers that serve cities with between 500,000 and 1 million residents.

Cross-subsidies or higher tariffs for non-residential users are common practices for all utilities. The highest rate was in the largest WASAs in 2012—tariffs for non-domestic users were 3.3 times higher than for residents. At the same time, charges for other types of users are lower than residential tariffs due to their value for overall employment of residents.

Figure 4.8: UNACCoUNteD FoR LoSSeS By pRovIDeR GRoUp, % oF tHe WAteR pRoDUCeD

Figure 4.9: AveRAGe WAteR ReveNUe IN US$/M3

Figure 4.10: AveRAGe ReveNUe IN BANGLADeSHI tAkA/M3

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


$-

$0.02

$0.04

$0.06

$0.08

$0.10

$0.12

$0.14

$0.16

$0.18

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


BDT -

BDT 2.00

BDT 4.00

BDT 6.00

BDT 8.00

BDT 10.00

BDT 12.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Revenue Bangladeshi Taka/m

Revenue Bangladeshi in constant Taka (2007)

3


29


www.wsp.org

The cost of operations was relatively stable from 2007 to 2012, ranging from US$0.06 to US$0.10 per m3. In local currency terms, the costs increased slightly, but remained below overall inflation. The cost structure remained the same for different groups of water companies. Labor costs were highest in small utilities and presented a challenge for all utilities as labor exceeded 50 percent of total costs for all groups. The electricity cost was also a significant burden for water providers, ranging from 29 percent to 45 percent of total costs. All water providers were vulnerable in this regard since although electricity costs are regulated, potential increases in the electricity tariff pose a real threat for the already weak sustainability of all providers.

Cash flow has shown a negative trend for all groups of providers due to poor collection, and utilities for group 5 demonstrate the lowest cost recovery.

Figure 4.12: BReAkDoWN oF CoStS, By GRoUp oF pRovIDeRS (2012)

Figure 4.11: ReSIDeNtIAL WAteR CoSt to GNI peR CApItA, %

Figure 4.13: CoSt ReCoveRy, RAtIo oF totAL ReveNUe to totAL CoStS

Figure 4.14: CASH FLoW BALANCe, RAtIo oF CoLLeCteD ReveNUe to totAL CoStS

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80%

1.00%

1.20%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Band 3 Band 4 Band 5 Band 6 Average

Electricity costs, % Labor costs, %

Cost recovery was achieved by all groups of utilities. At the same time, no utility reported investments from its own finances.

-

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Average Band 3 Band 4 Band 5 Band 6

-

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


However, there is no a visible accumulation of accounts receivable as the Government continues to allow the practice of writing off bad debts.



4.7 Assets and Investment PracticeThe value of assets per capita is declining in all groups of utilities, reflecting the fact that urbanization is either stable or surpassing the efforts of municipalities to develop water and sanitation systems.

Figure 4.15: ACCUMULAtIoN oF ACCoUNtS ReCeIvABLe, DAyS oF BILLING

Figure 4.16: vALUe oF tHe UtILIty ASSetS peR ReSIDeNt, US$ peR CApItA

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


4.8 Benchmarking and Performance Improvement Process in BangladeshBenchmarking (BM) has been well recognized as a tool for performance improvement and decision making. The Benchmarking and Performance Improvement Planning (BM&PIP) process was first introduced to the water utilities in 2005-06 under the WSP regional program in Bangladesh. Later, the LGD and WSP jointly organized workshops on BM&PIP initially for 11 water utilities, which included Dhaka WASA, Chittagong WASA, Rajshahi City Corporation (RCC), and eight other Pourashavas during the 2007–2009 period. However, 33 utilities, including four WASAs and two City Corporations, have participated in the BM&PIP program since 2009 and all 33 reported their benchmarking results in 2011. Two key recommendations from the workshops were (i) establish a water utility network to sustain the BM&PIP program and enhance the capacity of the utility and (ii) institutionalize BM&PIP initiatives to scale up initiatives in a more sustainable manner.

In response to the need for institutionalization, the LGD, with support from WSP, organized a two-day workshop from November 13-14, 2012, in Dhaka. The objectives were to (i) learn and understand the importance of BM&PIP for improving service delivery; (ii) learn and understand the impact of urban utility networking on enhancing the capacity of utilities; and (iii) recommend actions for institutionalizing BM&PIP and the Urban Water Utility Network. In total, 128 participants attended the workshop, including mayors from 25 Pourashavas and Managing Directors from four WASAs.

The presentations on benchmarking reports highlighted the performance level of 33 water utilities in Bangladesh from 2010 to 2011 and revealed noteworthy success with performance improvements in reducing water wastage, increasing revenues,

$-

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

$70.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Band 3 Band 4 Band 5 Band 6 Average Inaugural session of Benchmarking and Performance Improvement Planning Workshop



31www.wsp.org

and improving the safety of water supplies, among other areas. However, the need for further improvements was reported regarding consistency in benchmarking data collection for different years; better estimates of UFW/NRW or metering of consumption and production; disaggregation of operation and maintenance costs to show various cost items instead of labor and electrical costs only; and not including long overdue accounts in current billing and revenues. The workshop not only stressed performance improvements with respect to performance indicators, but also the accreditation of water utilities and data reliability.

The relevant recommendations emerging from this exercise are the following:

(i) The issue of BM&PIP needs to be included in the policy strategy as well as in the Annual Development Program (ADP) budget. There should be a separate unit or cell in the LGD to execute the policy. Utilities should be empowered to practice BM&PIP and share results with other utilities through the network.

(ii) The Ministry of Local Government Rural Development and Cooperatives should lead the institutionalization of the Urban Water Utility Network, and a separate section of the LGD should be set up to regulate the network activities of utilities when WSP support is discontinued.

(iii) The DPHE has to play an active role in integrating the small utilities into the benchmarking exercise and incentivize this group to join the network.

(iv) PIP based on proper benchmarking data should focus not only on what utilities would like to do, but should also lead to new projects that the utilities can readily submit to the Government and other donors for capital investment.

4.9 WSP-WBI Training on Successful Water Utility ReformsThe World Bank Institute (WBI) and WSP organized a four-day training session on designing and implementing successful utility reform in water supply and sanitation. The main objective of this training was to strengthen capacities and improve governance among key stakeholders within the water supply and sanitation sector. This would be achieved by examining the major challenges surrounding water and sanitation service provision and addressing these challenges through effective management, optimizing operational efficiency and accountability, building consensus among stakeholders, ensuring financial sustainability, and satisfying customer demands.

The training exercise brought together managers from various water utilities in the region to examine the issues confronting the management of underperforming utilities on a daily basis. Through presentations, case studies, group exercises, guest speakers, interactive debates, and competition, the training exercise aimed to cultivate a critical mass of change agents by providing the knowledge and understanding to identify and enable transformational change within their utility.

This global discourse created a motivational environment that focused on solutions and actions and prioritized the following: (i) South-South knowledge exchange; (ii) fostering fellowship among regional utilities; and (iii) sharing the best practices and experience of change agents from within Africa and South Asia. Participants engaged with international and regional experts through presentations, case studies, exercises, and interactive discussions to better internalize the challenges faced in the urban water sector in South Asia and then focused on identifying how to address these challenges through sharing best practices. Key aspects of the training focused on performance benchmarking, public-private partnerships

Participants in Benchmarking and Performance Improvement Planning Workshop




(PPPs), innovation and strategic communication, tariff design and revenue, financial challenges, strengthening relationships with CSOs and NGOs, gender equity, and the value of integrating ICT into the water sector.

As the program concluded, participants expressed interest in narrowing the scope of the regional effort and hosting country-specific capacity development initiatives revolving around key country priorities. World Bank Institute Urban Reforms (WBIUR) and WSP will continue to collaborate and explore how to meet the abovementioned demand.

4.10 ConclusionsPerformance benchmarking is an important step in the development of the Bangladeshi sector-monitoring system. It objectively presents the situation and trends in the sector’s progress and suggests the areas that require attention from the utilities and the Government. The conclusions and recommendations are as follows:

1. BeNCHMARkING pRoCeSS(i) Institutionalization of Benchmarking & Perform-

ance Improvement Programming should be continued by:

• Including the issue of BM&PIP in the policy strategy as well as in the ADP budget. Utilities should be empowered to practice BM&PIP and share results with other utilities through the network.

• Institutionalizing the monitoring, evaluation, and reporting systems in each utility.

• Encouraging utilities to update data and perform benchmarking themselves, with the DPHE playing a proactive role in moving forward with benchmarking for small utilities.

(ii) The institutionalization of the Urban Water Utility Network:

• The issue of networking should be included in the national policy and all the utilities should have incentives to be active members. Utilities should allocate funds from their revenue for networking activities and capacity building for staff.

• There should be funding provided through the network for the replication or adoption of good practices.


• The Urban Water Utilities Network can be sustained by the Pourashavas with guidance and support from the LGD and DPHE.

(iii) Overall Recommendations:• The BM&PIP initiatives of Dhaka WASA should

be adopted by other utilities to improve their performance and organizational sustainability.

• With regard to data validity and reliability, small utilities need training and process guidance to generate more reliable data. The WSP should continue its support to the utilities, enabling them to adopt the process of data accreditation.

2. peRFoRMANCe ReSULtS(i) Water utilities in the country are facing significant

pressure from urbanization. Difficulties associated with accommodating new residents are reflected in many performance indicators, from coverage rates and rationing of water to shortened hours of operation and the falling value of assets per capita. It is important to study trends on the utility level and then prepare investment programs for the most critical utilities. As of today, the utilities that experience the most difficulties are those serving populations of 500,000 to 1 million.

(ii) Tariffs are low, reflecting the low cost of operation of the water utilities, whereas labor costs dominate (over 50 percent in almost every utility). This presents a threat to modernization and the implementation of new technologies as over-use of many utilities can place a significant burden on the reform process.

(iii) Electricity costs are also high, illustrating the exposure of water utilities to potential financial shocks if electricity prices for providers become unregulated.

(iv) Collection rates are low for all utilities. The current practice of writing off bad debts does not motivate utilities to enforce collection and presents a problem for many of them as inaction in this regard can promote non-payment, specifically for new residents.

(v) To increase revenues, utilities should gradually introduce a water metering system.


33www.wsp.org


References

Management Information System, Directorate General of Health Services, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Health Bulletin 2009.

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES), 2005.

Government of Bangladesh (2008). A Strategy for Poverty Reduction in the Lagging Regions of Bangladesh, General Economics Division, Planning Commission, Dhaka.

World Health Organization, Geneva. Occurrence of Cyanobacterial Toxins (Microcystins) in Surface Waters of Rural Bangladesh—Pilot Study Report, May 2004. Water, Sanitation, and Health Protection of the Human Environment.

Institutional Review of the Water and Sanitation Sector, 1994 by UPI (now PSU) and Final Report on Dhaka WASA and Pourashava Water Supply Section, December 2009 (under ADB’s Management Support for Dhaka WASA).

Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) in 2009. Preliminary Report, January 2010, by BBS and UNICEF.

Ravenscroft, Peter and Kazi Matin Ahmed. Implementation Plan for Arsenic Mitigation (IPAM) in Bangladesh: Recommendations for a Revised Implementation Plan for Arsenic Mitigation (IPAM 2009). Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank. 2009.



References


35www.wsp.org

Annex 1: Water Quality

Water Quality Standards and GuidelinesStandards for drinking water quality for Bangladesh were published in 1997 under the provision of the Environment Protection Act 1995, based on the 1993 WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. There are 55 physical, chemical, and microbiological parameters in the list of standards. Some standards are different from the WHO guideline values and the reasons for this are not always clear.

Status of Water QualityThe 1998-99 National Hydrochemical Survey (NHS) provides a baseline for evaluating groundwater quality across the country, except for the Chittagong Hill Tracts. In addition, a number of local and regional studies of natural water quality and anthropogenic pollution were conducted. Considering the impact on health, aesthetic reasons, and the geographic spread, the water quality parameters may be divided as shown in Table A1.1.

Arsenic. Health effects of arsenic, at the concentrations experienced by millions, are so great that it must be the highest priority for action in the sector. There are two distinct areas for action: (i) eliminating exposure at contaminated water sources, and (ii) protecting currently safe and new wells in at-risk areas. Arsenic, which would require the greatest attention, is discussed separately in the following section.

Iron and manganese. These occupy a second level of priority, driven by a combination of the aesthetic aspects of obtaining ‘‘good’’ water and the health-based concern over manganese (over 0.4 mg/L). There will be a stronger demand for achieving these goals in urban and piped-rural supplies than at domestic tube wells, where the aesthetic aspects are more likely to be tolerated.

Salinity. The shallow aquifers in the coastal areas are thoroughly saline. Pockets of salinity occur inland, especially in the Comilla and Chandpur districts.

Microbiological contamination. Groundwater and surface water are contaminated mainly because of local hydrogeological conditions. Contaminated water may be produced through various technologies (for example, tube wells, dug wells, and pond sand filters) as a result of improper operation and maintenance or unhygienic handling. This subject is discussed separately under the Water Safety Plan.

It is extremely important that national drinking water standards are correctly set. Without appropriate standards, the objectives associated with a safe drinking water supply will not be fully achieved and investments may be misguided or wrongly prioritized. These standards provide the targets (performance criteria) by which the Government will regulate the providers of drinking water.

Categories of Water Quality Parameters Parameters

Natural parameters of concern and covering a wide area Arsenic, iron, manganese, and salinity

Natural parameters that are more localized or low-intensity problems Barium, boron, uranium, nitrate, and ammonium

Anthropogenic parameters need to be monitored and corrective action taken to reduce the risk

Microbiological, agrochemical, and industrial pollutants

Health-related parameters by WHO, but not expected to occur in Bangladesh (need to be confirmed by analyzing representative samples)

Mercury, tin, radioactivity, radon, and silver

Table a1.1: CAteGoRIeS oF WAteR QUALIty pARAMeteRS




Water Quality MonitoringWater quality monitoring is an essential element for providing a safe water supply to the population. The country’s capacity for surveillance of water quality is also limited. The Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE), Department of Environment (DoE), and the Bangladesh Standard Testing Institute (BSTI) are responsible for water quality surveillance; however, their capacity in terms of manpower and other logistics is limited in view of the task to be performed since there are numerous water points in the rural country. The DPHE has developed a Water Quality Surveillance Protocol, which describes parameters, testing procedures/methods, and sampling frequency in an ideal condition. However, considering the limited testing capacities of the existing water testing

facilities and that millions of water systems are to be tested, a review of the existing protocol with a reduced number of parameters and testing frequency is needed. Decentralization of the testing responsibility must be done to the greatest extent possible.

Ideally, water quality monitoring in a country should take place at three levels, as shown in Table A1.2.

At present, there is some Level-1 and Level-2 monitoring, but there are no activities or regulations in place for Level-3 monitoring. The obligatory quality assurance role of the water suppliers/providers as per Level-1 is very important because risks to consumers’ health, owing to the water quality, can arise at this point.

Monitoring Levels Functions To be carried out by Remarks

Level-1 Testing water quality parameters critical to a specific drinking water supply system as an obligatory routine function of the water suppliers/providers under its responsibility for operational monitoring.

Urban areas by WASAs, City Corporations, and Pourashavas.

Rural areas by the communities and individual households.

The operation and maintenance of the rural water supply systems installed by the public sector or NGOs is handed over to the communities.

Level-2 Monitoring quality of drinking water being supplied by different suppliers/providers/authorities/owners, performed by the government as its regulatory function through some designated national organizations/agencies.

This is usually categorized as third-party surveillance of drinking water quality and may be contracted out to a specialized public or private agency by the Local Government Division or the proposed Water Regulatory Commission.

Level-3 Monitoring trends/changes in water quality (such as an increase or decrease in the concentration of certain parameters and the addition of new harmful organic, inorganic, and other substances) of water sources (surface and ground) by the government as its regulatory functions through some designated national organizations/agencies.

This State-sponsored monitoring function may be categorized as water quality surveillance of national water resources.

Table a1.2: DIFFeReNt LeveLS oF WAteR QUALIty MoNItoRING



37www.wsp.org

Status of ContaminationScreening of all wells in 272 upazilas (about 5 million) in 2000–03 under the Bangladesh Arsenic Mitigation Water Supply Project (BAMWSP) revealed that 29 percent exceeded 50 ppb. Subsequent DPHE surveys of 1,000 wells in each of the remaining 192 upazilas found that 3 percent of wells exceeded 50 ppb. Combining the two surveys indicated that total arsenic-contaminated tube wells in the country stood at around 20 percent of all hand pump tube wells exceeding 50 ppb arsenic concentration. The arsenic contamination of tube wells in shallow depths (below 150 meters) and deeper depths (above 150 meters) is shown in Figure A2.1.

Estimates of the population exposed to over 50 ppb of arsenic in their drinking water come from different studies. From the 1998–99 DPHE survey, it was suggested that 27 million were exposed to drinking water with arsenic levels higher than 50 ppb and around 50 million with arsenic levels higher than 10 ppb (the WHO guideline). In 2002, the Government estimated that 29 million were exposed to over 50 ppb of arsenic, whereas the DPHE/BAMWSP surveys estimated the exposed population at 20.2 million.8 The BAMWSP screening surveys also identified over 38,000 suspected arsenicosis patients in the 2000–03 period. TheDGHS survey in 2009 identified about 37,000 arsenicosis patients in the country.9

Figure a2.1 DIStRIBUtIoN oF ARSeNIC IN tUBe WeLLS WItH DeptHS WItHIN 150 MeteRS (LeFt) AND IN tUBe WeLLS ABove 150 MeteRS (RIGHt)

8There are various reasons for the differences including testing methods; the calculation scheme; real changes in arsenic concentrations; and the progress of mitigation. 9It is noted that both surveys refer only to skin manifestations. In addition, although water analysis is useful supporting evidence, it is not a necessary condition for diagnosing arsenicosis, which can result from poisoning through the food chain.

<1 ppb

1–10

10–50

50–200

200–400

>400 ppb

No Data

Arsenic concentration

Note locally high arsenic in deep wells in parts of Jessore District

Annex 2: Arsenic Mitigation




There are no reliable statistics on the proportion of the exposed population now served by arsenic-safe water. A significant, but unknown, proportion of people living in arsenic-affected areas have switched to nearby safe wells. Many deep tube wells and other technologies were installed by the Government, NGOs, and individual families to provide arsenic-safe water. A 2007 Policy Advisory Note estimated that about 14 percent of the exposed population had access to some kind of arsenic-safe technology. The most updated estimation comes from a survey by BBS/UNICEF in 200910 (MICS) where it was found that 12.6 percent of the population is still consuming arsenic-contaminated water above 50 ppb. In addition, 3.1 percent of the population is drinking water with arsenic contaminations over 200 ppb, which poses a serious threat to health. In light of the WHO guideline of 10 ppb, 23.1 percent population is affected.

A situation analysis of arsenic mitigation was conducted by the DPHE and JICA in 2009 covering 3,132 unions in 301 upazilas (arsenic affected). Summary results of arsenic contamination and a number of arsenic patients are provided in Tables A2.1 and A2.2.

10 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) in 2009. Preliminary Report, January 2010, by BBS and UNICEF.11Implementation Plan for Arsenic Mitigation (IPAM) in Bangladesh: Recommendations for a Revised Implementation Plan for Arsenic Mitigation (IPAM 2009), by Peter Ravenscroft and Kazi Matin Ahmed, Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank, 2009.

National Policy and Implementation Plan for Arsenic Mitigation 1994Attaching top priority to the problem of arsenic in drinking water, the Government of Bangladesh adopted the National Policy for Arsenic Mitigation (NPAM) 2004 and Implementation Plan for Arsenic Mitigation in Bangladesh (IPAM) 2004. The policy provided guidelines for arsenic mitigation in the drinking water, health, and agriculture sectors. Since 2004, several research and investment projects were implemented and knowledge of arsenic contamination, its risks and mitigation options, has improved significantly.

A detailed Review Study11 of the National Policy and Implementation Plan for Arsenic Mitigation 2004 was carried out and it is suggested that the National Plan for Arsenic Mitigation 2004 should remain; however, its associated Implementation Plan should be separated. As shown in Figure A2.2, each of the key ministries—Agriculture, Health, Local Government (for water supply), and Water Resources—should develop separate implementation plans for arsenic mitigation in each sector.

Public Safe Water Coverage Percentage of Tube Wells with Arsenic Contamination<20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% >80% Total

<20% 189 223 370 535 7,204 8,52120-40% 428 666 935 1,034 8,888 11,95140-60% 1,885 1,890 1,213 792 1,708 7,48860-80% 1,682 1,049 631 1,348 509 5,21980-100% 770 490 148 214 245 1,867>100% 418 674 483 274 118 1,967No data 18 8 0 0 0 26Total 5,390 5,000 3,780 4,197 18,672 37,039

Table a2.1: NUMBeR oF ARSeNIC-CoNtAMINAteD pUBLIC tUBe WeLLS IN DIFFeReNt UNIoNS

Table a2.2: ARSeNIC pAtIeNtS IN DIFFeReNt UNIoNS

Public Safe Water Coverage Percentage of Tube Wells with Arsenic Contamination<20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% >80% Total

<20% 143 35 51 67 188 48420-40% 115 75 86 94 145 51540-60% 449 140 89 68 76 82260-80% 507 120 37 57 31 75280-100% 213 46 21 14 12 306>100% 149 32 22 25 13 241No data 9 1 1 0 1 12Total 1,585 449 307 325 466 3,132



39www.wsp.org

12National Committee on Arsenic for intersectoral coordination was abolished by the Prime Minister’s Office in 2009.

This proposal was agreed in principle in the National Forum for Water Supply. Now it should be processed to the Cabinet Division for approval.

A draft Implementation Plan for Arsenic Mitigation for Water Supply (IPAM-WS) is a lso suggested by the Review Study. This should be reviewed by the sector stakeholders and forwarded to the Secretaries’ Committee on Arsenic or Cabinet Division for approval.

Figure a2.2 oRGANIzAtIoN oF poLICy AND pLANS FoR ARSeNIC MItIGAtIoN

Implementation Plans for Arsenic Mitigation (IPAM) in:

Water SupplyIPAM-WS

MLGRD&C

AgricultureIPAM-Ag

MoA

HealthIPAM-H

MoH&FP

Water Resources

IPAM-WR

MoWR

National Policy for Arsenic Mitigation

The Implementation Plan should also be in line with the recent JICA study on arsenic.

Coordination between the sectors for arsenic issues is to be carried out through the Secretaries’ Committee on Arsenic.12 It is also recommended to increase the scope of the Committee to include water resource management issues and rename the committee the ‘‘Secretaries’ Committee on Water.’’




Table a3.1: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN DWASA AReA CoveRING DHAkA AND NARyANGANJ

DWASA. Dhaka and Naryanganj (BD10) - 2012

Band Size Averages

Country Average

Total coverage, % 88% 81% 75%

Direct connection coverage, % 87% 79% 73%

Shared taps connection coverage, % 0% 1% 2%

Water production, lpcd 180 173 157

Total water consumption, lpcd 127 123 113

Residential water consumption, lpcd 114 110 101

Residential water consumption, % 90% 89% 89%

Density of network, connections per km of network 95 92 87

Density of network, population per connection 35 34 32

Density of network, people per km of network 3,367 3,162 2,768

Staff per 1,000 connection 9.30 10.17 9.75

Staff per 1,000 customers 0.26 0.31 0.33

Metered connections, % 85% 84% 70%

Non-revenue water, % 30% 28% 28%

Continuity of service, hr 22.5 20.8 18.6

Pipe breaks, km/year 1.00 1.36 1.62

Revenues, Bangladesh taka/m3 12.870 12.7194 11.411

Revenues, US$/m3 0.160 0.1582 0.142

Costs, Bangladesh taka/m3 8.176 7.488 6.389

Costs, US$/m3 0.102 0.101 0.094

Cost recovery 1.57 1.5 1.5

Cross subsidy rate 3.45 3.33 3.124

Electricity costs, % 39% 39% 39%

Labor costs, % of total costs 53% 92% 84%

Collection rate, % 83% 82% 79%

Collection period, days 202 187 176

Affordability, % of water cost to GNI per capita 1.00% 0.96% 0.82%

Affordability, % of water cost to average salary 0.04% 0.06% 0.06%

Value of assets, US$/capita 48.05 50.01 45.38

Annex 3: Utilities Profile



41www.wsp.org

pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN DWASA AReA CoveRING DHAkA AND NARyANGANJ

9,500

10,000

10,500

11,000

11,500

12,000

12,500

13,000

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %

Population and Coverage

Population, 000 Coverage, %

Consumption Breakdown for 2012

Residential, % Industrial/Commercial, % Institutions and others, %

20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%

200210220230240250260270280

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

3 /km

/day

Non-Revenue Water

Non Revenue Water, m/km/day Non Revenue Water, %

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

$0.05

$0.07

$0.09

$0.11

$0.13

$0.15

$0.17

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m3

Revenue, Costs, and Cost Coverage

Revenues, US$/m Costs, US$/m Operation cost coverage

0.20

0.22

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.30

0.32

9.00

9.50

10.00

10.50

11.00

11.50

12.0012.50

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions

Staff per 1,000 Connections and Customers

Staff per 1,000 connections Staff per 1,000 customers

Costs Breakdown 2012

Labor, % Energy, % Contracted out services, %

0

100

200

300

400

500

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %

Collection Rate and Period

Collection period, days Collection rate, %

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$700,000,000

$800,000,000

$900,000,000

$40

$45

$50

$55

$60

$65

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets

Total value of assets, US$

Value of assets per capita, US$




CWASA. Chittagong (BD9) - 2012

Band Size Averages

Country Average















Continuity of service, hr 10 20.8 18.6

Pipe breaks, nr/km/year 4.35 1.36 1.62


Revenues, US$/m3 0.181 0.1582 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.110 0.101 0.094










Table a3.2: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN CHIttAGoNG CWASA. CHIttAGoNG



43www.wsp.org

pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN CHIttAGoNG CWASA. CHIttAGoNG

3,400

3,450

3,500

3,550

3,600

3,650

3,700

30%

33%

36%

39%

42%

45%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %



Consumption Breakdown, 2012


10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

405060708090

100

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.50

0.70

0.90

1.10

1.30

1.50

1.70

1.90

$0.06

$0.08

$0.10

$0.12

$0.14

$0.16

$0.18

$0.20

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m

Revenue, Costs and Cost Coverage


0.47

0.48

0.49

0.50

0.51

0.52

0.53

0.54

13

14

15

16

17

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown, 2012


50

100

150

200

250

300

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$-$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets

Total value of assets, 000 US$ Value of assets per capita, US$




KWASA (BD20) - 2011

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.012 0.1582 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.046 0.101 0.094










Table a3.3: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN kWASA. kHULNA



45www.wsp.org

pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN kWASA. kHULNA

1,480

1,490

1,500

1,510

1,520

1,530

1,540

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%

2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %



Consumption Breakdown

Residential, % Industrial/Commercial, %

25%

27%

29%

31%

33%

35%

3035404550556065

2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.24

0.26

0.28

0.30

0.32

0.34

$-

$0.02

$0.04

$0.06

$0.08

2010 2011 2012 Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

20

21

22

23

2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown, 2012

Labor, % Energy, %

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$-

$5

$10

$15

$20

2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets

Total value of assets, 000 US$





KWASA (BD20) - 2011

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.016 0.142 0.130


Costs, US$/m3 0.049 0.116 0.106










Table a3.4: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN kWASA



47www.wsp.org

pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN kWASA

-200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2008 2009 2010 2011

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %





0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2008 2009 2010 2011

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water

Non-Revenue Water, m/km/day Non-Revenue Water, %

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

$-$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.04 $0.05 $0.06 $0.07 $0.08

2008 2009 2010 2011

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erge

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m

Revenue, Costs and Cost Recovery


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2008 2009 2010 2011

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown

Labor, % Energy, % Other costs, %

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

2008 2009 2010 2011

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$-$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70

2008 2009 2010 2011

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets





BCC. Barisal (BD12)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.088 0.059 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.085 0.055 0.094










Table a3.5: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN BCC. BARISAL



49www.wsp.org

pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN BCC. BARISAL

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

51%

52%

53%

54%

2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %




Residential, % Industrial/Commercial, % Institutions and others,%

19%

20%

21%

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


1.001.051.101.151.201.251.301.35

$0.06 $0.07 $0.08 $0.09 $0.10 $0.11 $0.12 $0.13 $0.14

2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.36

0.38

0.40

0.42

0.44

0.46

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

10.00

10.50

2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


130

140

150

160

170

180

48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%

2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$-

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets





SCC. Sylhet (BD36)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.080 0.059 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.037 0.055 0.094










Table a3.6: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN SCC. SyLHet



51www.wsp.org

pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN SCC. SyLHet

-100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

42%

44%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %





Institutions and others, %

17%18%19%20%21%22%23%

0

10

20

30

40

50

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.000.501.001.502.002.50

$-

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m


Revenues, US$/m Costs, US$/m

Operation cost coverage

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


0

50

100

150

200

250

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets






RWASA. Rajshahi (BD11)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.048 0.059 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.065 0.055 0.094










Table a3.7: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN RWASA. RAJSHAHI



53www.wsp.org

pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN RWASA. RAJSHAHI

750

760

770

780

790

800

810

820

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %






0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

$-$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.04 $0.05 $0.06 $0.07 $0.08

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Sta

ff p

er 0

00 c

usto

mer

s

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


0

50

100

150

200

250

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$-

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets






JPS. Jessore (BD4)

Band Size Averages

Country Average










Density of network, people per km of network 833 1,296 2,768








Revenues, US$/m3 0.068 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.078 0.074 0.094










Table a3.8: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN JpS. JeSSoRe



55www.wsp.org

pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN JpS. JeSSoRe




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0

10

20

30

40

50

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

$-

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

enct

ions



190

195

200

205

210

215

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %



Cost Breakdown


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %






GPS. Gazipur (BD3)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.045 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.051 0.074 0.094










Table a3.9: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN GpS. GAzIpUR



57www.wsp.org

pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN GpS. GAzIpUR

260

280

300

320

340

360

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %






20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50

70

90

110

130

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

$-$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.04 $0.05 $0.06

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m




0.12

0.12

0.13

0.13

0.14

0.14

01234567

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


0102030405060

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600

$-$1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets





CP. Chandpur (BD7)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.107 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.101 0.074 0.094


Cross subsidy rate - 2.93 3.124








Table a3.10: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN Cp. CHANDpUR



59www.wsp.org

pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN Cp. CHANDpUR

-

50

100

150

200

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %





20%21%22%23%24%

0

10

20

30

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

Non

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water

Non-Revenue Water, m/km/day

Non-Revenue Water, %

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

$-

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.38

0.40

0.42

0.44

0.46

0.48

9.00

9.50

10.00

10.50

11.00

11.50

12.00

12.50

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


0

50

100

150

200

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-$20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140

$-

$0.2

$0.4

$0.6

$0.8

$1.0

$1.2

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets





CP. Chuadanga (BD2)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.058 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.059 0.074 0.094










Table a3.11: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN Cp. CHUADANGA



61www.wsp.org

pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN Cp. CHUADANGA

130 131 131 132 132 133 133 134 134

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %





15%

20%

25%

30%

15

20

25

30

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

1.00

2.00

$-

$0.05

$0.10

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m




0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

5

6

6

7

7

8

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions

Staff per 1,000 Customers and Connections


Cost Breakdown

Labor, % Energy, %

0

100

200

300

400

500

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$-

$50

$100

$150

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets





CNJ P. Chapai Nawabganj (BD8)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.029 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.022 0.074 0.094










Table a3.12: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN CNJ p. CHApAI NAWABGANJ



63www.wsp.org

pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN CNJ p. CHApAI NAWABGANJ

246

248

250

252

254

256

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %





10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

$-

$0.02

$0.04

$0.06

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m




0.20

0.22

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.30

0.32

0.34

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

6.60

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


0

100

200

300

400

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$-

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets





NatP. Natore (BD34) Band Size

AveragesCountry Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.011 0.059 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.005 0.055 0.094










Table a3.13: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN NAtp. NAtoRe



65www.wsp.org

Narsingdi Pourashava. Narsingdi (BD6)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.170 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.051 0.074 0.094










Table 3a.14: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN NARSINGDI poURASHAvA




pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN NARSINGDI poURASHAvA

210 215 220 225 230 235 240 245

28%29%29%30%30%31%31%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

thou

sand

Cov

erag

e, %

Population and Coverge





20%

22%

24%

26%

28%

30%

32%

151617181920212223

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

$-

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

$0.25

$0.30

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m




0.26

0.27

0.28

0.29

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets




67www.wsp.org

MaP. Manikganj (BD5)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.108 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.081 0.074 0.094










Table a3.15: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN MAp. MANIkGANJ




-20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %





0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0

5

10

15

20

25

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

$-

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

2007 2008 2009 2010 20112012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m




0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

6.006.507.007.508.008.509.009.50

10.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


0

50

100

150

200

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

$500,000

$550,000

$600,000

$12 $14 $16 $18 $20 $22 $24 $26

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets



pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN MAp. MANIkGANJ



69www.wsp.org

HP. Hajigonj (BD31)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.068 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.060 0.074 0.094










Table a3.16: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN Hp. HAJIGoNJ




pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN Hp. HAJIGoNJ

105

106

107

108

109

110

20%21%22%23%24%25%26%27%

2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

thou

sand

Cov

erag

e, %





10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

$-

$0.02

$0.04

$0.06

$0.08

$0.10

2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.200.220.240.260.280.300.320.340.36

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


10

15

20

25

30

35

40

89%

90%

91%

92%

93%

2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$260

$270

$280

$290

$300

$310

$320

$330

$8

$9

$10

$11

$12

$13

$14

2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets





71www.wsp.org

CHOPOU. Chowmuhani (BD28)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.098 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.078 0.074 0.094










Table a3.17: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN CHopoU. CHoWMUHANI




JP. Jamalpur (BD40)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.027 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.023 0.074 0.094










Table a3.18: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN Jp. JAMALpUR



73www.wsp.org

SHP. Sherpur (BD42)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.079 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.065 0.074 0.094










Table a3.19: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN SHp. SHeRpUR




-20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2008 2009 2010 2011

Pop

ulat

ion,

thou

sand

Cov

erag

e, %





0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.40

$-

$0.02

$0.04

$0.06

$0.08

$0.10

$0.12

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.70

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.0014.00

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


5860626466687072

80%80%81%81%82%82%83%83%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets



pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN SHp. SHeRpUR



75www.wsp.org

FPS. Faridpur (BD43)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.150 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.106 0.074 0.094










Table a3.20: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN FpS. FARIDpUR




125

130

135

140

145

150

155

44%44%45%45%45%45%45%46%

2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %





0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0

5

10

15

20

25

2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

$-

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

$0.25

2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m Revenue, Costs and Cost Coverage


0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

4.20

4.40

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


0

50

100

150

200

250

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$6,000

$6,500

$7,000

$7,500

$-

$50

$100

$150

2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets



pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN FpS. FARIDpUR



77www.wsp.org

GP. Gopalgong (BD15)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.154 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.177 0.074 0.094










Table a3.21: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN Gp. GopALGoNG




95

100

105

110

115

56%

58%

60%

62%

64%

66%

2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %





10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

4

5

6

7

8

9

2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

$-

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

$0.25

2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.580.580.580.590.590.590.590.59

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


35363738394041424344

88%

88%

89%

89%

90%

90%

2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$-$2 $4 $6 $8

$10 $12 $14 $16

2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets


pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN Gp. GopALGoNG



79www.wsp.org

LakP. Lakshmipur (BD44)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.211 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.184 0.074 0.094










Table a3.22: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN LAkp. LAkSHMIpUR




145

150

155

160

165

19%

20%

20%

21%

21%

22%

22%

2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %





0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%

0

5

10

15

20

25

2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

$-

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

$0.25

2009 2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

2009 2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown

Labor, % Energy, %

0

50

100

150

200

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2009 2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets


pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN LAkp. LAkSHMIpUR



81www.wsp.org

SHP. Sherpur (BD46)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.079 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.065 0.074 0.094










Table a3.23: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN SHp. SHeRpUR




KP. Khustia (BD29)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.059 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.058 0.074 0.094










Table a3.24: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN kp. kHUStIA



83www.wsp.org

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

36%37%38%39%40%41%42%43%44%45%46%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d





0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

$-

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown

Labor, % Energy, %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$2,900 $3,000 $3,100 $3,200 $3,300 $3,400 $3,500 $3,600 $3,700 $3,800 $3,900

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets


Cov

erag

e, %

pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN kp. kHUStIA




BP. Bagerhat (BD1)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.092 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.082 0.074 0.094










Table a3.25: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN Bp. BAGeRHAt



85www.wsp.org

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %





0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

0

5

10

15

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

$-

$0.02

$0.04

$0.06

$0.08

$0.10

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.500.600.700.800.901.001.10

8

9

10

11

12

13

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


0

100

200

300

400

500

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

$1,100

$1,200

$-$2 $4 $6 $8

$10 $12 $14 $16 $18

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets


pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN Bp. BAGeRHAt




SatP. Satkhira (BD24)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.090 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.079 0.074 0.094










Table a3.26: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN SAtp. SAtkHIRA



87www.wsp.org

167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %





30%31%32%33%34%35%36%37%38%39%

24252627282930313233

2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

$0.07

$0.08

$0.08

$0.09

$0.09

$0.10

2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

2010 2011 2012 Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


747678808284868890

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$1,900 $1,950 $2,000 $2,050 $2,100 $2,150 $2,200 $2,250

$-

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets


pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN SAtp. SAtkHIRA




BBP. Brahminbaria (BD33)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.052 0.085 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.058 0.074 0.094










Table a3.27: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN BBp. BRAHMINBARIA



89www.wsp.org

Lakshmipur BD (13) - 2011

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.097 0.100 0.130


Costs, US$/m3 0.092 0.068 0.106










Table a3.28: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN LAkSHMIpUR




-20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2009 2010 2011

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %





0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0

5

10

15

20

25

2009 2010 2011

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

$-

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

2009 2010 2011

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.0014.0016.00

2009 2010 2011

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


050100150200250300350

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2009 2010 2011

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-$500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

2009 2010 2011 Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets



pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN LAkSHMIpUR



91www.wsp.org

Laksham (BD19) - 2011

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.092 0.100 0.130


Costs, US$/m3 0.065 0.068 0.106










Table a3.29: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN LAkSHAM




RPCC. Rangpur (BD35) - 2011

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.074 0.100 0.130


Costs, US$/m3 0.047 0.068 0.106










Table a3.30: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN RpCC. RANGpUR



93www.wsp.org

HP (BD25) - 2010Band Size Averages

Country Average



Shared taps connection coverage, % - 7% 2%















Revenues, US$/m3 0.086 0.118 0.138


Costs, US$/m3 0.051 0.093 0.108










Table a3.31: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN Hp




MHP. Meherpur (BD 16)

Band Size Averages

Country Average










Density of network, people per km of network 688 829 2,768



Metered connections, % 0.00% 0.00% 70.27%





Revenues, US$/m3 0.045 0.062 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.051 0.049 0.094










Table a3.32: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN MHp. MeHeRpUR



95www.wsp.org

-

20

40

60

80

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %




Residential, %

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0

5

10

15

20

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

$-

$0.01

$0.02

$0.03

$0.04

$0.05

$0.06

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.70

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


010203040506070

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$-

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets


pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN MHp. MeHeRpUR




BhP. Bhola (BD 32) Band Size

AveragesCountry Average













Metered connections, % 0% 0.00% 70%





Revenues, US$/m3 0.055 0.062 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.060 0.049 0.094










Table a3.33: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN BHp. BHoLA



97www.wsp.org

SHP. Shariatpur Pourashava (BD 22)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.059 0.062 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.036 0.049 0.094










Table a3.34: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN SHp. SHARIAtpUR poURASHAvA




50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66

37%

38%

39%

2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %





15%

17%

19%

21%

23%

25%

27%

1011121314151617

2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

$-$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.04 $0.05 $0.06 $0.07

2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.44

0.46

0.48

0.50

0.52

0.54

0.56

0.58

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$270

$280

$290

$300

$310

$320

$330

$-$2 $4 $6 $8

$10 $12 $14 $16

2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets


pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN SHp. SHARIAtpUR poURASHAvA



99www.wsp.org

SHP. Shariatpur Pourashava (BD 45)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.059 0.062 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.036 0.049 0.094










Table a3.35: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN SHp. SHARIAtpUR poURASHAvA




50

55

60

65

70

37%

38%

38%

39%

2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

thou

sand

Cov

erag

e, %






18%

20%

22%

24%

26%

28%

30%

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

$-$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.04 $0.05 $0.06 $0.07

2010 2011 2012 Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m




0.440.460.480.500.520.540.560.58

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$270

$280

$290

$300

$310

$320

$330

$-$2 $4 $6 $8

$10 $12 $14 $16

2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets.

US

$

Val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets


pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN SHp. SHARIAtpUR poURASHAvA



101www.wsp.org

Narail Pourashava. Narail (BD 17)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.080 0.062 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.057 0.049 0.094










Table a3.36: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN NARAIL poURASHAvA




61.0

61.5

62.0

46%

47%

48%

49%

50%

51%

52%

2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %





43%

43%

43%

43%

44%

44%

44%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water


1.35

1.40

1.45

1.50

1.55

$-

$0.02

$0.04

$0.06

$0.08

$0.10

2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m




0.42

0.44

0.46

0.48

0.50

0.52

0.54

6.00

6.20

6.40

6.60

6.80

7.00

7.20

2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


8486889092949698100

72%72%73%73%74%74%75%75%76%76%77%

2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$200

$210

$220

$230

$240

$250

$260

$270

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets


pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN NARAIL poURASHAvA



103www.wsp.org

NPP. Noapara (BD 27)

Band Size Averages

Country Average


















Revenues, US$/m3 0.054 0.062 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.067 0.049 0.094










Table a3.37: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN Npp. NoApARA




80.0

80.1

80.2

5.0%

5.5%

6.0%

6.5%

2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

tho

usan

d

Cov

erag

e, %






0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water



0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

$-$0.02 $0.04 $0.06 $0.08 $0.10 $0.12 $0.14

2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m




0.82

0.83

0.84

0.85

0.86

0.87

0.88

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


0

50

100

150

200

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$-

$5

$10

$15

$20

2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Valu

e of

ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets


pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN Npp. NoApARA



105www.wsp.org

LMH. Lalmonirhat (BD 30)

Band Size Averages

Country Average










Density of network, people per km of network 1,167 829 2,768








Revenues, US$/m3 0.057 0.062 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.038 0.049 0.094










Table a3.38: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN LMH. LALMoNIRHAt




69

70

71

72

73

20%21%22%23%24%25%26%27%

2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

thou

sand

Cov

erag

e, %





0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water



0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.00

$-$0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.04 $0.05 $0.06 $0.07

2010 2011 2012

Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.27

0.28

0.29

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

2010 2011 2012

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions


Staff per 1,000 connections

Staff per 1,000 customers

Costs Breakdown


0

50

100

150

200

250

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$-$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets



pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN LMH. LALMoNIRHAt



107www.wsp.org

MuP. Munshiganj (BD 21)

Band Size Averages

Country Average










Density of network, people per km of network 1,089 829 2,768








Revenues, US$/m3 0.087 0.062 0.142


Costs, US$/m3 0.058 0.049 0.094










Table a3.39: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN MUp. MUNSHIGANJ




72.4 72.6 72.8 73.0 73.2 73.4 73.6 73.8 74.0 74.2

43%

44%

45%

46%

2010 2011 2012

Pop

ulat

ion,

thou

sand

Cov

erag

e, %





13.0%

13.5%

14.0%

14.5%

15.0%

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

2010 2011 2012

NR

W, %

NR

W, m

/km

/day

Non-Revenue Water



1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

1.50

1.55

$-

$0.02

$0.04

$0.06

$0.08

$0.10

2010 2011 2012 Op

erat

ion

cost

cov

erag

e

Rev

enue

and

cos

ts, U

S$/

m



0.44

0.46

0.48

0.50

0.52

0.54

0.56

9.5010.0010.5011.0011.5012.0012.5013.0013.50

2010 2011 2012 Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

cus

tom

ers

Sta

ff p

er 1

,000

con

nect

ions



Cost Breakdown


80

85

90

95

100

71%

72%

73%

74%

75%

76%

2010 2011 2012

Col

lect

ion

per

iod

, day

s

Col

lect

ion

rate

, %



$280

$290

$300

$310

$320

$330

$340

$9.0

$9.2

$9.4

$9.6

$9.8

$10.0

2010 2011 2012

Tota

l val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$

Val

ue o

f ass

ets,

US

$/ca

pita

Value of Assets



pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN MUp. MUNSHIGANJ



109www.wsp.org

Rajbari (BD23) - 2011

Band Size Averages

Country Average



Shared taps connection coverage, % - 5% 2%















Revenues, US$/m3 0.045 0.054 0.130


Costs, US$/m3 0.082 0.050 0.106










Table a3.40: pRoFILe oF UtILItIeS IN RAJBARI





111www.wsp.org

Water and Sanitation ProgramThe World BankPlot # E-32, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Agargaon, Dhaka 1207Phone: (880-2) 8159001 E-mail: [email protected] site: www.wsp.org

The Water and Sanitation Program is a multi-donor partnership administered by the World Bank to support poor people in obtaining affordable, safe, and sustainable access to water and sanitation services.

Documents

Benchmarking to Improve Urban Water Supply Delivery in ... · sewerage authorities (WASA) with similar functions, but also with somewhat specialized authority. Benchmarking and performance