Presentación de PowerPoint...The Sunass benchmarking pillars III. The benchmarking developed by the Sunass until the year 2015 IV. The new benchmarking approach from 2016 V. Results

IWA Pi 2017 - Specialist Conference on Benchmarking and

Performance Assessment

Ana Vergara

Vienna, May 16, 2017

2

I. Introduction

II. The Sunass benchmarking pillars

III. The benchmarking developed by the Sunass until the year 2015

IV. The new benchmarking approach from 2016

V. Results and perspectives 2017

3

I. Introduction

Sunass

• Peruvian regulatory body

• Water and sanitation services

• Until 2016: urban area (Water and Sanitation Companies - WSCs).

• From December 2016: urban and rural area.

Supervisory function

• Performance assesment.

• Data collection from the WSCs.

• Benchmarking evolution from 1998 until now.

4

I. Introduction

II. The Sunass benchmarking pillars

III. The benchmarking developed by the Sunass until the year 2015

IV. The new benchmarking approach from 2016

V. Results and perspectives 2017

5

II. The Sunass benchmarking pillars

Benchmarking

Clear rules Data capture and transfer

system

Technical assistance

Institutionality

Legal framework SICAP-FTP Videoconferences

Benchmarking team

Coordinators in WSCs

6

I. Introduction

II. The Sunass benchmarking pillars

III. The benchmarking developed by the Sunass until the year 2015

IV. The new benchmarking approach from 2016

V. Results and perspectives 2017

7

III. The benchmarking developed by Sunass until

the year 2015

SEDAPAR

SEDAJULIACA

SEDALORETO

AYACUCHO

MOQUEGUA

ILO

MARAÑON

SEDACAJ

CHAVIN

EMAPISCO

MANTARO

SAN MARTIN

BARRANCA

EMAPAT

NOR PUNO

EMAPAY

ALTIPLANO ABANCAY

CHANKA

SEDAPAR SRL

MOYOBAMBA

SIERRA C

YAULI

EMAQ

EMPSSAPAL

CALCA

EMAPAB

EPSSMU

PASCO

EMUSAP

HUANCAVELICA

SEDAPAL

HUACHO

HUARAL

CAÑETE

GRAU

SEDALIB

EPSEL

ATUSA

EMAVIGS

EMAPICA

SEMAPACH

TACNA

EMAPACOP

SELVA C

HUANCAYO

HUANUCO

SEDACHIMBOTE

SEDACUSCO

EMSAPUNO

SUNASS

WSC Number of water connections administered

Number of WSCs

SEDAPAL More than 1 million 1

Large WSCs 1 More than 100 000 up to 1 million

4

Large WSCs 2 More than 40 000 up to 100 000

13

Medium WSCs More than 10 000 up to 40 000

14

Small WSCs Bethween 2 000 and 10 000 18

Total 50

The WSCs in Perú

8

III. The benchmarking developed by Sunass until the year 2015

The beginnings – First ranking 1998

•Coverage

•Content of free residual chlorine in netwroks

•Wastewater treatment

•Metering level

•Non revenue water

•Collection period

•Operating cost coverage ratio

•A score was given to the WSCs based on the KPIs average.

The improvements – Second ranking 2011

•Survey

•New KPI (Customer complains, customer satisfaction, working environment, energy cost, website information, installation time for new connections, pipe breaks).

•New ranking (weighted average) aligned to the National Sanitation Plan.

•A score was given to the WSCs based on the KIP weighted average).

Achievements 2015

•Clear directives, legal framework, continuos improvement, strategic allies in the WSCs, data capture software.

•Two reports: i) The WSCs and its development and ii) The regulatory benchmarking

Ranking with no context information, developed without the WSCs, no

improvements, no good

practices identified, no focrs.

9

I. Introduction

II. The Sunass benchmarking pillars

III. The benchmarking developed by the Sunass until the year 2015

IV. The new benchmarking approach from 2016

V. Results and perspectives 2017

10

IV. The new benchmarking approach from 2016

Acces

• Water coverage

• Sewerage coverage

• Water connections increasement

Sustainability

• Underground water use

• Operating cost coverage

• Wastewater treatment level

• Disasters management risk

Costumers

• Costumers satisfaction level

• Website information

• Installation time for new connections

Quality of service

• Metering level

• Continuity of service

• Pipe breaks

• Sewer system blockages

The new benchmarking KPIs

To stop performance assesment with a ranking.

To show the indicators evolution with context information

To focus on a benchmarking area

Workshops

To identify good practices

To make periodic auditing

To make a single report

Benchmarking evaluation (Specialized consultancy)

11

IV. The new benchmarking approach from 2016

(privada/publica)

Pequeña

(si/no)

Sierra

AREAS INDICADOR UNIDAD VALOR 2014 POSICIÓN 2014 Δ 2013TENDENCIA

12-14

DISTRIBUCIÓN

2014

Cobertura de agua potable % 99,3 0,12

Δ Nro. de conexiones/Total conex.

Año anterior% 4,3 0,08

Cobertura de alcantarillado % 77,6 0,00

Densidad de atoros Atoros/km 0,69 -0,04

Continuidad hrs/día 13,8 -0,09

Micromedición % 53,44 0,015

Densidad de roturas Roturas/km 0,11 -0,62

AGUA POTABLEAguas subterraneas/aguas

superficiales% 100 0

ALCANTARILLADO Tratamiento de aguas residuales % 39,51 -0,24

Relación de trabajo % 99,99 -0,03

Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres % - - - -

Tiempo atención conexiones

nuevasdías hábiles - - - -

Información página web % 13,8 -0,09

Satisfacción del cliente % - - - -

EPS NOR PUNO S.A.Nombre oficial:

Mecanismo de retribución por

servicios ecosistémicos:

SO

ST

EN

IBIL

IDA

D

CLIENTES

INDICADORES DE DESEMPEÑO

SERVICIO

AMBIENTAL

AGUA POTABLE

ALCANTARILLADO

AGUA POTABLE

ALCANTARILLADO

FINANCIERA

CA

LID

AD

INFORMACIÓN DE CONTEXTO

AC

CS

ES

O

Tipo de empresa:

Categoría:

N° de localidades administradas:

Nro. de PTAR:

Región geográfica:

Draft report sent to

the WSCs before the

workshop

Workshop results

12

IV. The new benchmarking approach from 2016

13

I. Introduction

II. The Sunass benchmarking pillars

III. The benchmarking developed by the Sunass until the year 2015

IV. The new benchmarking approach from 2016

V. Results and perspectives 2017

14

V. Results and perspectives Results

• The WSCs have a data collection culture.

• Since 2016 the Sunass benchmarking seeks to promote performance improvement.

Approach for 2017

• Compliance with the MAV ( maximum admisible values) standard

• Non-domestic sewage

Why this approach?

• Only 17 WSCs meet the standard .

• We want to measure the indicator 6.3.1 (Proportion of wastewater treated safely) of the SDG 6 (Ensuring the availability and sustainable managment of water and sanitation for all)

Proportion of wastewater treated safely (indicator

6.3.1)

Part A (Proportion of the population whose

wastewater is safely treated)

Part B (Proportion of wastewater from

econocmic activities (non-domestic customers) that

are previously treated

Compliance with the MAV standard

15

V. Results and perspectives

Organization for the implementation

of the MVA standard

Proportion of non-domestic users

registered

Additional payment

application

Monitoring actions carried out

Attention of complains about

MVAs

Relevant aspects to evaluate in the MAVs standard

If someone has the

responsibily of the activity

Proportion of non-domestic users that have been

identified and registerded b the WSCs

If the the WSC applies the calculation for additional payment

in accordance to Sunass regulations

Unnanounced monitoring actions of the non-

domestic wastewater discharges

Application of a special complains handling

procedure First group: BOD,

COD, Total suspended solids,

oils and fats

Second group: Al, As, B, Cd, CN, Cu, Cr+6, Cr, Mn,

Hg, Ni, Pb, pH, T°,sulfates,

sulfures, sedimented

solids, amoniacal nitrogen

The WSC closes the sewage connection

The non-domestic user has an additional charge

The MAVs standard

IWA Pi 2017 - Specialist Conference on Benchmarking and

Performance Assessment

Ana Vergara

Vienna, May 16, 2017