P U B L I C P R I V A T E P A R T N E R S H I P F O R E F F E C T I V E M A N A G E M E N TO F W A T E R S U P P L Y A N D S A N I T A T I O N S E R V I C E S I N S M A L L T O W N S

I N U G A N D A

by

Jane NimpamyaCoordinator, APWO

CON

TENT

Content

Background Water reform process PWOs in Uganda Framework

Performance indicators Access to save water Reporting Revenue management

Outlook

BACKGRO

UN

DBackground

3. Services shall stay in the decentralization framework but reduce governmental burden

2. Service provision is not economically viable for international operators

1. Poor track record of Local Authorities in managing water systems

Reform of Urban Water and

Sanitation Sector(RUWASS)

1999

increased performance and cost effectiveness achieving the national development targets achieving the MDG goals

Aims:

Private SectorParticipation recognized

Three management aspects were observed in the water reform process

Private Water Operators in Uganda – a short overview BACKG

ROU

ND

Almost all PWOs are organized in the Association of Private Water Operators (APWO). APWO was formed as a platform in 2002 with eight member companies and has now 21 PWO under her umbrella.

At present, Private Water Operators managewater in 84 small towns throughout Uganda

In Uganda, bigger towns are managed by the parastatal National Water & Sewage Company , NWSC, usually referred to under the name “National Water”.

- including the former war zone areas in the north and in the troubled eastern part

Smaller towns, though, are generally managedby Private Water Operators on the base ofManagement contracts with the Local Water Authority.

BACKGRO

UN

DThe number of PWOs and towns managed by them have increased significantly in the last years

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

0102030405060708090

100

TownsPWOs

This trend will continue due to high population growth - rural growth centers become towns.

“Contract Management” is the basis for the work of PWOsBACKG

ROU

ND

PWO

The duties of the Water Authority and the PWO is defined in a management contract.(= infrastructure remainswith government)

LocalGov’t

MWE

The relation between theMinistry and the water authorities is determined in a performance contract.

Customer

Both contracts set the frameworkfor the relationship between PWO and customer.

BACKGRO

UN

DThere is a strong institutional setting in order to control the work of the PWO

LocalGov’t

PWO

WSS Board

Town Clerk Chair Social service Committee Representative domestic consumers Representative institutional consumers Representative other consumers

institutes

controls

MWEGuides,monitors, controls &trains

reports

APWO

Functions: Information exchange Capacity building “Think tank” counseling & guidance

reports

DATA ANALYSIS

Performance Indicators: Access to safe water I

In the last years, substantial improvements were seen in the extension of pipelines (2009: 83 km).

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

0

50

100

Accordingly, the number oftotal connections raised.

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

010,00020,00030,00040,000

Total Active

Active Connections are about84% of total connections onaverage.

Performance Indicators: Access to safe water IIDATA AN

ALYSIS

2001/02

2002/03

3003/04

22003/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

01234

Water supply (in million liters)

As the graphic demonstrates, also the delivery of water has significantly increasedIn the last years. At present, PWOs provide about 3 million liters for the public.

DATA ANALYSIS

Performance Indicators: Reporting

Reporting is essential for providing a good information base for decision making on all levels, including the Ministry. In the past, this has been a great challenge.

In 2001, only 36% of towns have reported at least once in a year. In 2009 thisnumber is up to 85%

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

020406080

100

Reports

DATA ANALYSIS

Performance Indicators: Revenue Management I

2006/07 2007/08 2008/090

100020003000

The last years have also brought a significant reduction of the average cost of producing water(from 2.057 UGX per m3 in 2006 to 766 in 2009).

DATA ANALYSIS

Performance Indicators: Revenue management II

Financial year

Collection efficiency(in %)

% age funded byrevenue

2001/02 68 65

2002/03 78 87

2003/04 80 90

2004/05 81 93

2005/06 83 105

2006/07 84 107

2007/08 85 120

2008/09 86 127

DATA ANALYSES

Performance indicators - Overview

+ -Pro-poor approaches for watersupply in small towns not yet developed

sanitation not well covered

improved access to safe water

improvementsin record keeping and

reporting

reduced production costs

increased performance in revenue management

The reform of the water sector has broughtsignificant improvements for the population,but more needs to be done.

OU

TLOO

KHow do we want PWOs to continue to improve ? (Examples)

Issue Challenges Planned Activities

improve billing Manual billing (mistakes) faulty meters

Procure and installbilling software for allmember companies

pro-poor approach Data-base Technology Financing concept

Prepaid-meter pilot together with MWEand development partners

less inadequate water high O&M costs power failures environmental issues, climate change

O&M Manual & training

NRW-training

better coverageof sanitation

better embed sanitation in service provision creating of win-win situations

Awareness-campaign

Thank you for your attention