Standard format for Case Study and City in Time reports (D5)

WaterTime partners:PSIRU, School of Computing and Maths, University of Greenwich, UK

ERL, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain Tampere Institute of Environmental Engineering and Biotechnology (IEEB), Finland

International Water Affairs, Hamburg, Germany Eötvös József College, Hungary

Coordinator: PSIRU, CMS (M257), University of Greenwich, Park Row, London SE10 9LS, U.K.

FP5: Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development Key Action 4: City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage

Thematic Priority 4.1.2: Improving the quality of urban lifeContract No: EVK4-2002-0095

www.watertime.org

watertime@watertime.org

A research project supported by the European Commission

www.watertime.org

1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................5

2 CITY BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................5

3 WATER AND WASTEWATER UNDERTAKING...............................................................5

3.1 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................53.2 WATER AND WASTEWATER UNDERTAKING PROFILE............................................................53.3 SYSTEM PROFILE...................................................................................................................73.4 REGION PROFILE...................................................................................................................83.5 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS.................................................................................................9

4 ACTORS IN WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES PROVISION AND PRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................10

5 DECISION MAKING PROCESS EPISODES......................................................................12

5.1 EPISODES.............................................................................................................................145.1.1 Factors........................................................................................................................175.1.2 Outcomes....................................................................................................................175.1.3 Summary of case studies episodes..............................................................................17

5.2 COLLATING EPISODES.........................................................................................................18

6 PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABILITY IN DECISION MAKING..........................20

6.1 PARTICIPATION...................................................................................................................206.2 SUSTAINABILITY.................................................................................................................22

7 CITY IN TIME.........................................................................................................................23

7.1 INTERVIEWS ON KEY STRATEGIC DECISIONS.......................................................................247.2 DATA TO BE REQUESTED AND IDEAS FOR PRESENTATIONS................................................25

8 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS........................................................26

9 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................27

10 ANNEXES.............................................................................................................................28

10.1 ANNEX A: WATER SYSTEM PROFILE...................................................................................2810.2 ANNEX B: TABLE EXAMPLES..............................................................................................3210.3 Annex C: Stockholm Water: Selected strategic decisions.................................................35

19/05/2023 Page 2

www.watertime.org

The standard format to be used in the case study reports (D5) is a tool to ensure that the data is gathered in a consistent way coherent with the analytical framework. This deliverable is developed in the first work package in order to facilitate the process of integrating and synthesising results into recommendations on best practice and elaboration of the decision-making model.

D5 will set out a standard reporting format that will be used by all partners for the presentation of information collected in the case study research. It has been drawn up in consultation with all partners and reflects the requirements of the analytical framework. D5 represents an important quality assurance tool for securing standard and comparable reporting across partners and across cities. D5 is produced as a Word document and will be available in paper format as well as electronically for downloading from the project web site.

Watertime is based on 29 case studies. These case studies are expected to provide information on the interaction between a range of PESTE factors, at various levels, and the parties and processes involved in decision-making, including the constraints on decisions and objectives of decision-makers, so that models can be developed of these interactions to guide future decision-makers.

The case studies provide an opportunity to study the elements of the decision-making process in each city with regard to water services provision and production. These elements are not pre-determined, even by the simple PESTE framework, and not restricted to local levels. They may include local consumer group activities, policies of development banks, regulatory decisions, municipal votes, multinational business strategies, ministerial rulings, supra-national environmental decisions, or many others. The transparency involved and the scope for participation also vary.

Our comparative research examines patterns of similarities and differences across the cases. The cases selected are sufficiently different to require an explanation of variety. As we explain in the Analytical Framework (D4) our case-oriented approach has many special features: First, case-oriented methods are holistic -they treat cases as a whole and not as collections of parts. Thus, the relations between the parts of a whole are understood within the context of the whole. Second, causation is understood conjuncturally. Outcomes are analyzed in terms of intersections of conditions, and it is usually assumed that any of several combinations of conditions might produce a certain outcome. They could be analysed through different methods, qualitative or quantitative, as it was quoted in the analytical framework. These and other features of case-oriented methods make it possible for researchers to interpret case historically and make statements about the origins of important qualitative changes in specific settings (Ragin, 1987).

Taken into account the premises explained above, Watertime standard format for Case Study and City in Time reports aims to ensure comparability of data across the case studies at the cross-case analytical synthesis stage, without impeding the flexibility needed to do justice to each individual case study.

The standard format for being used in case studies must be implemented as a useful tool to help the different researcher teams or individual researchers to achieve two main common goals:

1. Deliver case study reports with a minimum common structure and contents2. Generate a common minimum analytical narrative approach in the case studies capable to

generate a set of report results (data collection, events and episodes identification and

19/05/2023 Page 3

www.watertime.org

explanation, actors and factors relationships description and explanations, best practices,…) that permit us to develop in a coherent way the work packages 4 and 5.

This standard format it is not a rigid grid to allocate our results or a frame to write the case study report. Instead, our idea is to use this format as a common referent. That is why in some case studies some part will be more and deeply developed than others and probably we will find some case study reports that will incorporate new points on the different issues.

Another key point in the design and use of this tool is its close connexion with the Watertime analytical framework.

Summarizing, the job of the standard format is, at the level of the individual case study, is to provide a standardized agenda for the investigator’s line of inquiry, together with some standardized tools for following the research and structuring the data gathered.

19/05/2023 Page 4

www.watertime.org

1 INTRODUCTION

This section should include a common part explaining the reasons to develop a case study report in the context of Watertime project. The aim, objectives and expected results of the case study and a summary of the analytical framework point 2.5, which explains the role of the case study reports in general and specifically in the Watertime context. It should also include a specific part for each report, explaining the reasons to choose the selected case and the research expectations. If the researcher considers useful, it could be interesting to include in this introduction the national context aspects that are especially relevant in the case.

2 CITY BACKGROUND

This is a brief description of the case study city. An outline of this point contents is in the analytical framework Annex F: checklist of potential information needed for case studies, points 1 and 2. It is very important to take into account that we are analyzing the urban water cycle and that the general information that we are going to gather must help us to achieve our goal. That is why depending on the city the concrete contents must be different and the relevance of each point will vary.

3 WATER AND WASTEWATER UNDERTAKING

The profile description and performance indicators in 2002 are defined based on the IWA Manual of Best Practice Performance Indicators for Water Supply Services and on the IWA Manual of Best Practice Performance Indicators for Wastewater Services, adapted to the Watertime project.

3.1 Background

This section lays out a short introduction to the context of the case study water and wastewater undertaking, the role of the municipalities as well as a brief historical background of water and wastewater services in the city. It also includes information on the ownership, operational management responsibility and administrative structure of the water and wastewater services.

3.2 Water and wastewater undertaking profile

The undertaking profile outlines the framework of the organisation. It is important to notice that the organization or company as a whole has to be considered at this point. (In many cases this framework will match up with the city framework).

19/05/2023 Page 5

www.watertime.org

DATA CONCEPTUndertaking identification Name

Geographical scope Nation State Region Local

Scope of activity of the organisation as a whole. One single choice cab be replied as “yes”

Type of activityWater supply and

No other activity Wastewater Storm water and drainage Electricity Gas District heating Other (specify) ………………………………….

Scope of activity of the organisation as a whole, beyond the water supply (multiple choices are valid)

Type of assets ownership Public Private Mixed

Ownership of the undertaking infrastructure. One single choice can be replied as “yes”

Type of operations

Public Private Mixed

Type of operational management of the undertaking. One single choice can be replied as “yes”.

Total personnel (no) Total number of undertaking employees dealing with services production

Outsourcing (%) Estimated cost percentage of all the functions that are outsourced

Annual costs (EUR/a) Annual costs including capital, operations, maintenance (including external manpower costs) and internal manpower costs

Annual revenue (EUR/a) Operating revenues + interest income

Average annual investment (EUR/a) Cost of the investments over the last three years /Tariffs (EUR/m) Average water charge and average wastewater charge

19/05/2023 Page 6

www.watertime.org

3.3 System profileThe system profile focuses on the water service organization only in the city which is studied. It contains information of the water volumes managed, of the physical assets, the technological resources used, the customers, financial information, tariff system and personnel.

Water service organization chart. Define briefly the main departments and their competences and objectives. See example above.

The water system profile can be defined through the IWA performance indicators for water supply services. The detailed tables proposed can be found in the Annex A at the end of this document. Note that if some of the work is done by an external company then these tables have to be adapted to that situation. Thus, additional information is needed such as which department selects the partner companies, which department controls (quality and quantity) the work, etc.

The financial data shall be referred to an annual basis (EUR/year). The following table has being introduced to clarify financial concepts.

19/05/2023 Page 7

www.watertime.org

Some detailed set of data can be found in a different annex at the end of this document: it includes financial information, tariff system, and personnel tables based on the IWA Performance Indicators for water supply services.

3.4 Region profile1

DATA CONCEPTDEMOGRAPHY AND ECONOMICSPopulation density (persons/km ) Resident population / area under the responsibility of the

water (and ww) undertakingHousehold occupancy (persons/house) Resident population / total number of dwellings (houses +

apartments)Population growth rate

Current (% per year) Population variation during the last ten years / population in the first year of this period x 10

Forecasted (% per year) Forecasted average yearly population growth rate for the future ten years

Gross National Product per capita (EUR/capita/a) Gross National Product / total country population

ENVIRONMENT (

Yearly rainfall (average for the past 30 years) Average (l/m2/a) Yearly average rainfall (average for the past 30 years) Maximum (l/m2/a) Yearly maximum rainfall assessed as the annual maxima of

the last 30 years

1 Relevant region must be regarded as the area served by the water undertaking, since it can be the city, as in Grenoble or Timisoara cases, or the autonomous community, as in Madrid case study

19/05/2023 Page 8

www.watertime.org

Minimum (l/m2/a) Yearly minimum rainfall assessed as the annual minima of the last 30 years

Air temperature (average for the past 30 years) Daily average (C) Average daily air temperature of the year (averages for the

past 0 years) Daily maximum (C) Average air temperature for the hottest day of the year

(averages for the past 0 years) Daily minimum (C) Average air temperature for the coldest day of the year

(averages for the past 0 years)Topography

Maximum delivery elevation (m) Maximum elevation above sea level at the water delivery points of water distribution area

Minimum delivery elevation (m) Minimum elevation above sea level at the water delivery points of water distribution area

Raw water quality – Sources types Surface water (%) Annual abstraction of surface water / total abstraction x 100 Natural springs and wetlands (%) Annual abstraction of natural springs and wetlands water /

total abstraction x 100 Well water (%) Annual abstraction of well water / total abstraction x 100 Borehole water (%) Annual abstraction of borehole water / total abstraction x 100 Saline and brackish water (%) Annual abstraction of saline and brackish water / total

abstraction x 100DATA CONCEPT

BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENTbusiness growth rate

Current (% per year) the appearance and disappearance of businesses during the last ten years / population in the first year of this period x 10

Forecasted (% per year) Forecasted yearly average business growth rate for the future ten years

industry growth rate Current (% per year) the appearance and disappearance of businesses during the

last ten years / population in the first year of this period x 10 Forecasted (% per year) Forecasted yearly average business growth rate for the

future ten years

3.5 Performance indicators

INDICATOR CONCEPTCUSTOMER COMPLAINTSCustomer complaints, water supply (no/connect/a) Number of complaints during the year /number of water

service connectionsCustomer complaints, wastewater (no/connect/a) Number of complaints during the year /number of

wastewater service connectionsWATER LOSSESNon-revenue water by volume (%) Non-revenue water / system input volume x 100Water losses by volume (%) Non-revenue water excluding unbilled authorised

consumption / system input volume x 100Sewer network leakage (%) Revenue water / treated wastewater x 100

FINANCIAL DATA 2

Unit total costs (EUR/m3) (Annual running costs + annual capital costs) / authorized

2 See point 3.2 for definitions

19/05/2023 Page 9

www.watertime.org

consumption (including exported water)Unit annual revenue (EUR/m3) (Annual operating revenues – capitalised costs of self

constructed assets) / authorised consumption (including exported water)

Unit investment (EUR/m3) Annual cost of investments (expenditures for plant and equipment) / authorised consumption (including exported water)

PERSONNELTotal personnel per 1000 connections (nº/1000 connections)

Number of full time equivalent employees of the water service / number of service connections x 1000

It must be noticed that some of the data should be gathered for earlier years since we are not only asking for a single set of current data. In order to make research consistent and facilitate the process of integrating results, it should be suggested common years for all the case studies to use.

4 ACTORS IN WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES PROVISION AND PRODUCTION

Watertime analytical framework point 3.2.1 describes the main features that we must take into account in relation to the actor’s dimension. As we said in that deliverable, one of the key tasks is to identify the relevant actors and classify them in common or at least homogeneous case studies groups.

The actors shall be classified in accordance with the IWA Manual of Best Practice Performance Indicators for Water Supply Services and with the IWA Manual of Best Practice Performance Indicators for Wastewater Services taking into account the Watertime project requirements.

Watertime will use a similar actor’s groups. Indirect Stakeholders (ISH), included in IWA manual, is not a useful category in Watertime analytical framework because these indirect stakeholders will be considered in the context of our episodes if they are relevant. The analytical framework presents an example of different actors at different levels of government. It is not an exhaustive list of actors, it is only an example of the actors that we can find in the episodes that we are going to deal with in our case studies.

Partially following the IWA list of actors we sort the actors in the following groups:

1. Water undertakings (WU). We will identify the public or combined organizations who manage the urban water cycle. In some cases we will find different bodies responsible for the water supply, sewerage and waste water treatment, while in other cases only one public company is responsible for the whole urban water cycle. When a public company, for example in the Cordoba case, is the responsible for the whole urban water cycle, the company is obviously linked with local government and some specific complex decisions are taken at city council level. In this case, we do not include the local government body responsible for these kind of decisions in this group; we will include it better in Policy making bodies. This category also includes relevant internal actor in the water companies, as the Board of Directors, Manager,…

19/05/2023 Page 10

www.watertime.org

2. Consumers or direct service users (C). With whom the water undertaking has a supplier –customer relationship. In some cases, it will be useful to split users in concrete groups such as households, companies, public sector,…

3. Political organizations (PO). This includes political parties or political coalitions that participate in this field in the political arena

4. Stakeholders (S). Usually the term “stakeholder” includes all individuals or groups with an interest in a policy. They can be divided into four categories: public sector agencies, directly affected parties, indirectly affected parties and others. In the Watertime context, the public sector bodies can have a determinant role in the decision making process and that is why we will include them in a specific category. Stakeholder category includes profit and non profit private organizations that participate in any way in the urban water cycle. It is far from easy to define a complete list of this kind of organizations but it would be probably useful to identify clearly these groups. After the draft case study report we will be able to reformulate the following groups:

a. Consumers Association (SCO)b. Community Association (SCM)c. Unions (SU)d. Employers Organizations (SE)e. Farmer Association (SF)f. Environmental Organizations (SEV)g. Professional Associations (SP) h. Mass media (SM)

5. Policy-making bodies – political establishment (PE) at local, national or international level6. Regulatory Agencies (RA) responsible for setting up and verifying compliance with statutory

and other obligations.7. Financial agencies (FA), of particular importance in such a capital-intensive sector as the

urban water cycle.8. Multi-national companies (MNC)

It should be noticed that some other categories of actors apart from “policy making bodies” may be nationally and internationally organised, as unions do.

For each actor we will gather the relevant data which permit us to identify their role and participation in the decision process. Depending on the actor, the relevant data will be very different; that is why it is better to develop specific auxiliary table in each case study. For example, in Cordoba we found as a very relevant actor the communities association. They have a local federation that in Cordoba case is crucial in the Emacsa participatory process. For this actor, the financial data are very important to identify the real independence from the local council. In fact, its history and its role at the end of the Franco era are basic to understand its participation in the episodes that we are going to analyse. Summarizing, the auxiliary tables containing the relevant concrete data of the actors will depend on the researcher needs in each case study.

Despite the all mentioned above, a minimum common data related to actors is absolutely necessary to develop later Watertime work packages. That is why a minimum actors table contents must be fill in each case study. Items covered on this table are the following:

Actor’s Name Description(Level of governance and brief description of the actor) Role in Water cycle

19/05/2023 Page 11

www.watertime.org

(Main functions related to the water cycle or connections with the water cycle must be defined) Power and Influences(Describe the scope and area of influence of the actor, if any, and how strong it is) Main goals(Main goals of the actor which could have an influence on urban water cycle)

Example: Córdoba case (not every actors identified are included):

Actor Name Description Role in Water cycle Power and influences GoalsSU1 Local Union

of Comisiones Obreras

Local trade Union. Include every sector Union at local level.Closer to Izquierda Unida. Internal conflicts.

The Union’s representative in the EMACSA board of directors is chosen by this Unions Level

High influence in Cordoba working class. High participation in Local employment and development Plan.

Improve labour conditions in general local agreements. Defend worker’s interest as users in public services provisionSupport public production of public servicesReduce unemployment Cordoba rate

SU2 Emacsa Union of Comisiones Obreras

Water Company Union of Comsiones Obreras.

Negotiation of labour conditions in the water Company (salary, working time, workplace safety, retirement conditions,..).

Strong in terms of membership coverage. High workers support. Well coordinated with other local public companies unions

Improve Emacsa workers labour conditions .

SU3 Local Union of Union General de Trabajadores

Local trade Union. Include every sector Union at local level. Closer to Socialist Party.

The Union’s representative in the EMACSA board of directors is chosen by this Unions Level

Medium influence in Cordoba working class.

Improve labour conditions in general local agreements. Defend worker’s interest as users in public services provision

SU4 Emacsa Union General de Trabajadores

Water Company Union of Union General de Trabajadores

Negotiation of labour conditions in the water Company (salary, working time, workplace safety, retirement conditions,..).

Second Union in Emacsa. Less influent than the other Union

Improve Emacsa workers labour conditions. Increase workers support.

PE1 Employment and local development city Councillor

Member of city council responsible of water service

Emacsa’s President. She chooses the Emacsa’s Manager. Power limited by the Board of Directors

The quality of the water public service as a way to obtain votes. Budget balance.

5 Decision making process episodes

The focus of the case studies is in the decision-making and the decision-making processes with regard to the key strategic decisions in provision and production of water services within the last years. The period consider must be flexible as other aspects of our research; 15-20 years could be deemed appropriate but in some cases we found a key strategic decision that affects the current situation that was taken thirty years ago. For example in Córdoba case, EMACSA was set up as public Company in 1969.

According to Rasinmäki (1997, p. 167), the provision responsibility of services means being responsible for the legal and statutory duties and tasks, which should be terminologically separated from the production of services. The provision responsibility consists of the duties of the public

19/05/2023 Page 12

www.watertime.org

authority, public decision-making, arranging the investments, regulation, using public power, and organising the production of the services. According to Ostrom, Schroeder and Wynne (199), the term provision refers to decisions made through collective-choice mechanisms regarding the following:

The kinds of goods and services to be provided by a designated group of people. The quantity and quality of the goods and services to be provided. The degree to which private activities related to these goods and services are to be regulated. How the production of these goods and services is to be arranged. How the provision of these goods and services is to be financed. How the performance of those who produce these goods and services is to be monitored

(ACIR 1987, cited by Ostrom et al 199).

The term production in this context refers to “the more technical process of transforming inputs to outputs–making a product–or, in many cases rendering a service” (ACIR 1987, cited by Ostrom et al 199).

A ‘stable’ traditional system can shift into a state of instability, a break or ‘bifurcation’, in such a way that even a rapid and unpredictable change into a new dominant systemic state occurs (Figure 1). From history we can find several ‘revolutions’ or ‘crucial epochs’ of this type (Mannermaa 1991, p. 64). In the case studies, for the analytical purposes the episodes including several events are used to describe these ‘crucial epochs’. The main element is constructing a table of events.

Figure 1. Evolutionary development (Mannermaa, 1991).

19/05/2023 Page 13

www.watertime.org

The key strategic decision may vary greatly according to the case circumstances and thus the flexibility in the selection of the decisions and decision-making processes should be allowed. Yet, the decision theory and analytical framework and PESTE approach as described in the Analytical Framework should be applied as appropriate.

The interviewees should also be allowed to express their own views on other possible key strategic decisions in the data gathering process, which can be a mixture of a thematic interview, informal discussions and unstructured open interview (For example, see: http://www.metodix.com/showres.dll/en/enindex).

5.1 Episodes

Watertime analytical framework describes the standard format for case study reports as a tool to achieve the research goals. It is interesting to reproduce the following figure to clearly understand the role of the episodes in our research.

In Watertime we are going to introduce factors and actors into the events and episodes analysis. The set of episodes will permit to collate them (see point 5.2: Collating episodes) and obtain answers to the questions set out in the table above.

19/05/2023 Page 14

www.watertime.org

The steps to be followed in the individual case study research are:

Collect information to acquire enough case study knowledge that permits identify, Set of episodes to analyse Episode analytical narrative (events, actors, factors) Collating episodes Draw up a comprehensive narrative of the decisions, outcomes and options including the

factors and actors related to them and the participation and sustainability issues

The set of events directly and intimately related to decision making reform or key strategic decision constitute an episode. The episode is defined by the researcher after a deep knowledge of the case of study. The analytical framework describes the episode as the result of interaction of actors, factors. The episode in the analytical narratives framework can refer to different decision making process related to relevant aspects in the provision or production water services. The case study background knowledge will permit to the researchers to identify the set of episodes to analyse.

Each episode must be clearly defined and identified. The basic element to understand the episode is the event. As we have shown in the Analytical framework the episode narrative structure includes episode events, and also other events that help us to understand the episode (prior, contemporaneous, related and later events). See figure in the analytical framework for a clearer explanation. The selected events are showed in the episode event’s table. This table includes the answer to the following questions: What is the event, who are the actors that participate in it, why the event happen (which are the factors that generate the event) and when it is developed.

If possible, it is very important to identify the source and consequent events. In some cases, especially if the event is a contemporaneous or prior event, it will not be possible to establish this relationship.

The episode’s event table contains at least the following items:

Event number. A number to identify the event Description of the event Date. It can be a specific date or a short time period. It should include two date fields for

every event: a starting date and an end date. The end date can be blank if it is still ongoing, or the same as the start date if it was a one-off event

Actor. Actor/s that participate in the event (see actor’s table) Factor. Factor/s that explain or generate the event (see factor’s table) Outcome. The impact of the event in the decision making (see outcome’s table) Source events. It refers to the events that favour this event Consequent event. The events that this event has brought.

19/05/2023 Page 15

www.watertime.org

An example of this table, referred to the Grenoble case, is showed below

Event no Description Date Actor Factor Outcome Source events

Consequent events

1Win municipal elections

June 1995 Opposition parties

Unpopularity of water privatisation

Termination/renegotiation of privatised concession on the agenda

2

Former mayor and Suez executive receive prison sentences for corruption

November 1995

Court of justice Powers of investigating magistrates in France

Flaw of decision making process leading to privatised concession is revealed

Increased political cost of maintaining the status quo

Report on privatised concession exposes excessive costs

November 1995

CRC (Chambre Régionale des Comptes)

Competence of French public audit bodies

Economic flaws of the privatised concession are revealed

Increased political cost of maintaining the status quo (also in light of electoral pledges)

4

Evaluation of termination in light of compensation to be paid to LdE

June 1995-May 1996

New majority in city council

Commercial law governing relationships between local authorities and private operator

Perceived economic cost of opting for unilateral termination of corrupt concession

“Tribunal du commerce” chaired by entrepreneur, not professional judge – unfavourable context for city

5

Opposition to renegotiation option

June 1995-May 1996

ADES (green party within new majority)

Limited political representation of radical views

ADES makes the case for unilateral termination in light of corruption

ADES fails to change the decision of the city council

6 City council decides to renegotiate privatised concession into public private joint-venture with LdE (SEG)

May 1996 New majority in city council

Political costs of maintaining status quo compared against economic costs of unilateral termination

City council assumes majority of debts of the privatised concession

SEG still controlled by LdE, economics of PPP do not change (SEG as an empty shell)Question of legal validity of previous acts (e.g. setting of tariffs, decisions of city council) left unsolved

19/05/2023 Page 16

www.watertime.org

Event no Description Date Actor Factor Outcome Source events

Consequent events

City council fails to put concession out for tender (validity of decision for PPP to be questioned later)

5.1.1 Factors

According to the Watertime analytical framework, factor’s dimension includes all kinds of subjective motivation and behaviour, as well as objective elements.

The table of factors will contain at least the description of it and the actors associated.

Factor Description Associated with actor/sF1 Demographic changes leading to rising water demand C1

F2 Ideology PO1, PO2

F3 Need/desire to reduce public borrowing PO1, PE1

5.1.2 Outcomes

The outcome’s episode table contains the description of the outcomes of the events which constitute the selected episode and, if possible, the relationship with the event, according to different actors.

5.1.3 Summary

of case studies episodes

As a result of the episodes’ analysis we will obtain a table containing the summary of the case study relevant episodes. This table includes for each episode:

Episode Events that constitute the episode (See episode’s event table) Actors (See episode’s event table) Factors (See episode’s event table) Date (See episode’s event table)

We will include one more item: the decision process which the episode belongs to as result of the collating episodes process (see below).

19/05/2023 Page 17

Outcome Event Description Relationship to event, according to different actors

O1 E1 Loss of transparencyLocal council (PE1): smallTrade unions (SU1): large

Trade unions (SU2): Medium

O2 E1 Increased water pricesLocal council (PE1): smallTrade unions (SU1): large

Trade unions (SU2): Medium

O3 D1 Personal gainLocal council (PE1): noneTrade unions (SU1): large

Trade unions (SU2): Medium

www.watertime.org

Episodes

Part of which

decision process?

Covering events: What (description) Who

(actors) Why (factors) When

Ep1 D1 E1,E2,E privatisation councilPersonal gain, budgetary pressures, ideology (F2)

Oct 1981-May 1982

5.2 Collating episodes

As we said in the Analytical Framework, collating analytical episodes is useful to draw up a comprehensive list of the decisions, outcomes and options related to these decisions in the considered period. We recover in this table the set of decisions that we are going to take into account in the case study. The items that this table must content are the following:

Decision sphere. The field of the water services where the decision is developed. (see table below).

Description. Brief Description of the decision and their main characteristics Options considered. Actors. The actors involved and excluded. (see actors table above) The factors involved and excluded. These factors must be identify in different way

depending on the case and the decision: objectively, consensus, as result of the interviews or other research techniques used or according the researcher criteria and background. (See factors table below).

The outcomes linked to the decision. If the decision has been taken lately some of the outcomes can be unobservable, but mostly outcomes decision analysed have to be observable.

An example of a decision that can be included is shown in the following table.

Decision process

Sphere Description Options considered

Actors [excluded]

Factors [excluded] Outcomes

D1

Operations Build a new Treatment plant to whole waste

water city

C7,C8

D1

Organizational

Privatization of municipal

waterworksC1,C2 (A1)

[(A2)]

According to - Local council:

public borrowing (F), [ideology

(F2)]Trade unions:Ideology (F2)

Personal enrichment

(O); increased water prices

(O2)

19/05/2023 Page 18

www.watertime.org

The categories of the decisions can vary depending on the case studied. Next table recovers an initial list that can be useful for developing the draft case study reports and surely will be completed and improved as a result of them. We have specified in a more detailed category the decisions regarding participation since it is one of the Watertime especial areas of interest.

DECISION SPECIMEN EPISODEREGULATIONHealth and safety Water quality standards; workplace safety requirementsEnvironment Effluent standards; abstraction requirementsEconomic Customer protection; financial viability requirementsService quality Customer protection; customer satisfactionWater allocation Water rights; renewal of abstraction permits; competing use

ORGANISATIONALOrganising of the service production Change in the responsibilityOwnership Divestiture; incorporation; establishment public utility company;

partial sale of assets; owner’s responsibilitiesSupramunicipal cooperation Ditto; contract-based regional and intermunicipal cooperation;

mergersOperational management Concession; lease and management contracts; outsourcing; major

internal changes in organisational structures and responsibilities; operator’s (service producer’s) responsibilities

Bundling of services Consolidation of energy, gas and water servicesSupervision and monitoring From municipal council to technical council or to board of

directors

OPERATIONS Limits of service area Enlargement; downsizingService culture Administrative domain to service domain: participatory

approaches and practices; customer and media relations; reputation management; customer services

Assets management System; procedures and practicesBudgeting and accounting From municipality to utility; from public accounting procedure to

private company accounting procedureCharges Full cost recovery principle; Polluter pays –principle; metering;

introduction of water/wastewater charge; introduction of fixed charges; equality; reasonability

Financing of investments Municipal taxes; commercial loans; bondsFinancing of operations Service charges; municipal taxes: property taxManagement systems and practices Major effectiveness or efficiency improvements; Management by

objectives; management by results; Balanced Scorecard; performance indicators; Incentive structures; Total quality management; ISO 14001 standard; demand management; risk management; emergency response; strategic planning and management

Water source From surface water to groundwater; new or additional surface water source; source protection

Water treatment Major changes in treatment processesWater quality control Treatment processes; network; tap water; water laboratoryWastewater treatment DittoSludge management Ditto; re-use; energy useControl Automatic control of system operations; energy conservation

19/05/2023 Page 19

www.watertime.org

Reporting Annual report; environmental report Personnel Work process improvements; training; educationResearch & Development Internal; research institutes

PARTICIPATIONInformation-Transparency Media, Web, Information centres.Consultation User questionnaires, impact assessment, focus groups, opinion

polls, participative budgetDiscussion Meetings, consultative boards.Codecision making Partnership, consensus building

Decision making Concessions, Stakeholders as operators

The options will be also included in a table containing the description and the actors that support or oppose them.

Option Description Actors supporting –(opposing)

Op1 Continued public ownership Trade Unions (A2)(Local council (A1))

Op2 Privatisation Local council (A1)(Trade unions) (A2)

6 PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABILITY IN DECISION MAKING

The Standard format defines specific tables for these two crucial aspects of Watertime case study research.

6.1 Participation

As explained in the Watertime Analitycal Framework evaluating public participation on decision making processes means going through the following key aspects of public participation:

1. The enabling environment;2. Participation in decision making;3. Monitoring of implementation.

Concerning the first key aspect, evaluating the public’s access to information requires answering the following questions:

1a. What information is accessible by the public?1b. What are the costs of/barriers to access to information?1c. Who can access the information?

Concerning the second key aspect, evaluating public participation in decision making requires considering the following questions :

19/05/2023 Page 20

www.watertime.org

2a. Who participates?2b. How do they participate?2c. Who decides who participates?

Concerning the third key aspect, evaluating public participation in relation to the monitoring of decisions being implemented requires considering the following:

a. Who monitors?b. How transparent is the monitoring project?c. What remedies are available for the public against unsatisfactory outcomes?

The following levels of participation were defined on the AF (Annex C):

1. Information-transparency: Is the minimum legal. The public is provided with or has access to information (not genuine PP, but the basis for all forms of it). The information and the transparency are preconditions of participation at the same time that EU directive’s requirements

2. Consultation: The views of the public are sought3. Discussion: Real interaction takes place between the public and government4. Co-decision making: The public shares decision-making powers with government

Considering these levels and within the Watertime analytical narrative approach of the case studies episodes, events and if necessary general assessment, the following tool has being developed, as a checklist’s classification in relation with the public participation level.

Table of Classification Public Participation in each case (BCP 1). (Annex C from the AF)

City: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: General Episodes Events

Information – Transparency

MediaWeb – InternetNotice BoardInformation centersOthers….Consultation

User questionnairesImpact assessmentsFocus groupOpinion pollsOthers…Discussion Participative budgetOthers…Discussion

Multi-attribute analysisSubsidiaries roles

19/05/2023 Page 21

www.watertime.org

Planning for realMeetings Others…Codecision making

Partnership Consensus buildingParticipative budgetStakeholders membersOthers…Decision making

ConcessionsStakeholders as operatorsDelegationCapacity buildingOthers…

It could be possible to find other experiences or methods of public participation at each level, which aren’t actually shown on the table. In this case it should be included.

6.2 Sustainability

Watertime identifies two kind of tools to obtain the classification. The first one focused mainly in the process of decision making, considering factors, actors, public participation and time in the city. (Annex C, Analitycal Framework). The box showed below represents this first tool, with a qualitative scale of sustainability represented on the rows, and the different PESTE factor represented on the columns. This table permits the sustainability evaluation of each event or episode.

Sustainability Analysis table in the light of each city considering events or episodes (SAB 1).(Annex C from the AF)

City: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date:

Event Episode

Political Economical Social Technical EnvironmentPESTE factors

Sustainability

HighMediumLow

To qualitatively evaluate the sustainability the following categories were proposed (see Analytical Framework 3.2.3 and Annex C), characterized by increasing degrees of sustainability, in terms of continuity, virtuousness and plurality:

The first degree is that of Low Sustainability (LS): this type is characterised by low durability, in the light of the extremely adverse effects produced by the process in question. Such effects might be so negative that the pressure exerted on the system will lead to its cessation or fundamental alteration in the short or medium term. For example, price increases imposed by a water operator might be so untenable that civil unrest lead to the cancellation of the concession within few months

19/05/2023 Page 22

www.watertime.org

from its award. In this case, the lack of virtuousness and plurality adversely affects continuity of the system.

The second degree is that of Modest Sustainability (MS): this type might be characterised by some degree of durability, despite the high costs in terms of one or more of the PESTE dimensions which the local community has to suffer. In this case, one or more factors allow for the continuity of the system despite low virtuousness and plurality. Factors allowing for continuity might include power and resources of certain actors, and their networking in the pursuit of their interests, and/or external factors of economic and institutional nature. The fact that the system is characterised by continuity does not exclude that, in the future, the lack of virtuousness or plurality lead to the crisis of the system and its cessation.

The third degree is that of High Sustainability (HS): this type is characterised by enhanced sustainability, in the light of the ability of the local system to promote its own development without generating adverse effects at political/institutional, economic, social, technical and environmental levels. In other words, the continuity, virtuousness and plurality of the system are mutually reinforcing.

The second tool shows the same concepts than before but the following table is oriented to compare different classification between case studies in general terms:

Sustainability Analysis table in the light of each city considering events or episodes (SAB 1).(Annex C from the AF)

Cities:

General comparisons

Date: Date: Date: Date: Date:

Political Economical Social Technical EnvironmentPESTE factors

Sustainability

HighMediumLow

7 CITY IN TIME

The Standard Format includes in this point the information that requires the development of the City in Time Work Package.

City in Time (later called CIT) will specifically seek to address the following questions:

what were the strategic decisions that have mostly affected the development (binding, limiting, postponing)?

who and what factors define and create the demand for services? how does the historical context constrain potential best practices for the future? What limits do technical choices in the past impose on decision-making?

19/05/2023 Page 23

www.watertime.org

on what basis have selected strategies been formulated and decided upon during different time periods?

how has the role of public private partnership (PPP) changed over the years and how is it likely to change in the future?

The City of Time work package will seek to use the following data in order to analyse past and future decision-making:

dates and sequence of key decisions on systems e.g. special public bodies, responsibilities to local government or central government, changes of ownership of systems between private sector, national and local governments; changes of operators between sectors; changes in pricing and charging methods; introduction of water rights;

local and national (and international) past decisions, which constrain and limit present choices e.g. connection of bulk water supply sources; boundaries of administrative units; taxation and borrowing powers of local governments;

factors and interest groups involved in the past e.g. emergence of public health issues; origins of private sector role; environmental issues and local traditions; economic development; restructurings at entry to and exit from former communist regimes in eastern European countries.

It will use three main sources:

primary data collected through the case study visits; each case study will produce a historical report, which will be provided to the lead contractor of this work package who will be responsible for producing an annual synthesis. Standardisation and communication will be facilitated through web-based information sharing system and the agreement at the outset on common reporting structures;

primary data collected through the interactive national stakeholder meetings to be held in conjunction with the Steering Group meetings. The objective is that these are working meetings intended to provide useful inputs to the project as well as undertaking validation and review functions;

secondary data identified through the case study interviews: the lead contractor will be responsible for following up on information identified through the case studies;

use of existing body of local, national and international historical research on urban water systems research.

7.1 Interviews on key strategic decisions

When making an interview of the case study and particularly the CIT we recommend that the interviews should be flexible enough. CIT can be carried out separately or jointly in connection with the larger interviews of the case studies.

The experience from Stockholm indicates that the utility representative or other interviewee should be given the chance to describe the key decisions as he/she seems it or them.

Note that if possible CIT should have views of several persons representing various types of stakeholders.

19/05/2023 Page 24

www.watertime.org

You may also contact or ask contact addresses of local or national water/environmental/public history researchers. Just ask them kindly (unless you can do it yourself) to describe the evolution of the WSS sector in the country by five to eight key phases. E.g. in Finland such phases could be as follows: Initiation before 1870, rise of first works 1870-1902, diffusion of innovations 190-199, WW II, reconstruction, rapid growth 1960-1982, balanced growth till 2000. If the case utilities have published any history books or papers in English, kindly send the copy to TUT.

The major objective of the City in Time is to find out a proper number of key strategic decisions that have affected the overall evolution of the water and sewerage services in the city. Note that some of these decisions may first have seemed less important while later on they have proved to be of great importance.

When considering the decisions please keep in mind all the PESTE dimensions. For instance, it may be that extension of the technical systems as such is not necessarily a key decision unless it has included also remarkable changes in the technical system.

The compiled report “City in Time” will be edited and finalized by TUT. However, this will largely rely on the material and findings of each of the case studies. In the case of City in Time, the guideline of the case studies should be used clearly as a checking list only. If certain data are not easily available, it should not be seen as a major problem.

As an example, the first draft on the decisions related to the case of Stockholm is in the Annex D.

The table is quite similar to the Episode in Watertime which can be utilized to show the long episodes of City in Time.

7.2 Data to be requested and ideas for presentations

If available, the CIT should include the following basic data in numbers and graphical form (samples/examples will be provided later):

- a table of key decisions as guided by the first trial on Stockholm (Annex D). They should include at least major organisational changes including the connection between water works and sewage works. Please, use footnote or other explanations to clarify the organizational set-up and operational principles, if needed.

- total water consumption (m/day; e.g. every ten to twenty years)- relative use of ground vs. surface water (if available, e.g. every five years) - any data on the amount of money flow of annual expenditures that have finally gone to the

private and public sector, if available (e.g. percentage). Even any indicative values of the magnitude could be reported (a sample to be provided later).

- you can also ask a historian or another expert familiar with long-term development to make a list of some key strategic decisions concerning water supply and sanitation services at the national level.

- in case of municipal water and sewage utilities you could check if an indicative table like below is available:

19/05/2023 Page 25

www.watertime.org

City of Hämeenlinna

City’s total expenditure

FIM

Proportion of water services

%

City’s total incomes FIM

Proportion of water services

%1915 45 905 2.74 45 905 7.961960 1 75 678 999 6.61 1 777 791 114 4.191980 414 778 978 7.58 416 858 519 .292000 1 11 200 000 .49 1 5 600 000 2.61

High expenditure values of water services in 1960 and 1980 were caused by exceptionally large investment (construction) projects during those years

- specific water consumption (liters per capita per day: using the number of people connected, e.g. every three to five years during for the last 0 years if available)

- level of wastewater treatment (BOD, P and N if applicable: influents/effluents in mg/l or percentage removal; for the last 30 years if available; if non-existent should be recorded)

See case study guidelines and the table of categories of decisions. Use this as a checklist and utilize it whenever needed and applicable for CIT. Yet, do not go to the details of undertaking profile and system profile.

8 Conclusions and discussion of findingsThis section would be extremely helpful in order to identify the main issues to be taken into account when working on best practices and building the decision making model. In other words, a conclusive section on findings obtained from the case study would help the synthesis of work carried out in the 29 case studies, so that producing best practices and a model which can be a smoother process. Partners might want to use the PESTE list of potential questions and issues to raise (Annex G of the Analytical Framework) in any phase of the case studies to identify the angles of the research to be carried out. While the questions in the List mainly require explanations on the basis of qualitative data, the Appendix is a checklist of indicators providing quantitative information and surveys and questions otherwise pointing to the description of specific aspects of water supply and sanitation systems. Therefore, partners might want to use this document as a tool to analyze the empirical evidence gathered and to help to elaborate the recommended practices and decision making model (e.g. as a reminder of possibly relevant issues)

19/05/2023 Page 26

www.watertime.org

9 REFERENCES

ACIR. 1987. The organization of local public economies. Washington, D.C. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.

Alegre, H., Hirner, W., Baptista, J.M., and Parena, R. (eds) 2000. IWA Manual of Best Practice Performance Indicators for Water Supply Services. p. 160.

Mannermaa, M. 1991. In search of an evolutionary paradigm for futures research. Futures. Vol. 2, Issue 4. pp. 49-72.

Matos, R., Cardoso, A., Ashley, R., Duarte, P., Molinari, A. and Schulz, A. (eds) 200. IWA IWA Manual of Best Practice Performance Indicators for Wastewater Services. p. 192.

Ostrom E., Schroeder L. & Wynne S. 199. Institutional incentives and sustainable development: Infrastructure policies in perspective. Westview Press Inc. Boulder, Colorado. 266 p.

Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method, University of California Press

Rasinmäki J. 1997. (Original in Finnish, summary in English) Yksityistäminen kunnallishallinnossa. Hallinto-oikeudellinen tutkimus yksityistämisen oikeudellisista taustoista, edellytyksistä, rajoituksista, muodoista ja vaikutuksista. The privatisation of the administration of local government: A judical study of the background, provisions, restrictions, forms and effects of privatisation. Kauppakaari Oy. Helsinki. 512 p.

19/05/2023 Page 27

www.watertime.org

10ANNEXES10.1 Annex A: water system profile

DATA CONCEPTSERVICE DATAType of water supply system

Bulk water supply Direct distribution Bulk supply and direct distribution

One single choice can be replied as “yes”

Type of wastewater system Collection Treatment Collection and treatment

One single choice can be replied as “yes”

Population (no) Water supply Wastewater

Resident population within the service area

Population served (no) Water supply Wastewater

Size of resident population directly served within the service area

Supply area (km2) Water supply Wastewater

Area that can or is intended to be served by the network

PHYSICAL ASSETSWATER RESOURCES

Yearly abstraction capacity (m3/a) Maximum yearly allowance of water abstraction for water supply, based on the availability of raw water resources under normal climatic conditions (i.e. the value used in design and abstraction licence if any)

Daily abstraction capacity (m3/d) Maximum daily allowance of water abstraction for water supply, ditto

Reliable annual yield of sources (m3/a) Estimated annual reliable yield of water resources under adverse (drought) conditions (i.e. the value used in supply/demand balance evaluation)

Reliable daily yield of sources (m3/d) Estimated annual reliable ditto

IMPOUNDING RESERVOIR STORAGE Number (no) Number of impounding reservoirs Total capacity (m3) Volume of impounding reservoirs that can be used for water

supply

WATER TREATMENT PLANTS Number (no) Number of treatment plants No treatment (m3/d) Water delivered to users without any treatment Disinfection only (m3/d) Water delivered to users with disinfection only Conventional treatment (m3/d) Water delivered to users from conventional treatment plants Advanced treatment (m3/d) Water delivered to users from advanced treatment plants

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS Number (no) Number of ww-treatment plants No treatment (m3/d) Wastewater disposed without any treatment Mechanical treatment (m3d) Wastewater disposed after mechanical treatment Conventional treatment (m3/d) Wastewater treated with conventional systems Advanced treatment (m3/d) Wastewater treated with advanced systems

19/05/2023 Page 28

www.watertime.org

PHYSICAL ASSETSTRANSMISSION AND STORAGE TANKS/SERVICE RESERVOIRS

Number (no) Number of transmission and distribution storage tanks (customer storage excluded)

Total capacity (m3) Volume of transmission and distribution storage tanks (customer storage excluded)

PUMPING STATIONS (WATER SUPPLY) Number (no) Number of pumping stations of the transmission and

distribution system (customer pumping systems excluded) Total capacity (kW) Total nominal power of the transmission and distribution

system pumps (customer pumping systems excluded)

PUMPING STATIONS (WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER) Number (no) Number of pumping stations of the ww-collection system

(customer pumping systems excluded) Total capacity (kW) Total nominal power of the ww-collection system pumps

(customer pumping systems excluded)

TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION NETWORKMains lengths (km) Transmission and distribution mains length (service

connections excluded)

SEWERAGE NETWORKMains lengths (km) Wastewater and stormwater sewer mains length (service

connections excluded)

SERVICE CONNECTIONS (WATER SUPPLY)Total number of service connections (no) Number of service connectionsTotal number of metered service connections (no) Number of metered service connections

SERVICE CONNECTIONS (WASTEWATER) Total number of www-service connections (no) Number of www-service connections

CONSUMPTION

Daily average input (m3/d) Annual input of the transmission system / 65

Total per capita consumption (l/capita/day) (Daily average input – exported water) / population served / 65

TREATED WASTEWATER

Daily average treated wastewater (m3/d) (Annual treated wastewater – imported wastewater – exported wastewater) / 65

Total per capita treated wastewater (m3/d) Daily average treated wastewater / population served

CUSTOMER SERVICEExistence of system to record all customer complaints (yes/no)

Existence of registers that record total number of verbal and written customer complaints, enabling nature of complaints to be determined by scrutinising individual entries

Existence of formalised system to record all customer complaints for service quality monitoring and assets management purposes (yes/no)

Existence of customer complaints recording and data processing system that is used for resolving customer complaints, monitoring of service quality and performance and assets management planning

Existence of a guaranteed standards scheme (yes/no) Existence of guaranteed standards scheme that establishes the rights of customers, including at least: minimum service pressure at the delivery point; maximum time to get a new connection and to repair an existing one; maximum time of written responses; appointment times to attend customers’ premises

19/05/2023 Page 29

www.watertime.org

FINANCIAL INFORMATIONOPERATING REVENUESSales revenues (EUR/a)Work in progress (EUR/a)

Capitalised costs of self-constructed assets (EUR/a)

The summation of the amounts in each of the below mentioned cost categories that have been incurred in the construction of new or rehabilitated assets.

Other operating revenues (EUR/a) TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES (EUR/a) The summation of the above mentioned amounts

FINANCIAL INFORMATIONOPERATING COSTSOPERATIONAL COSTSImported (raw and treated) water costs (EUR/a) BULK SUPPLY IMPORTS: total payments, for imported bulk

supplies. (imported raw water and/or imported treated water).Energy costs (EUR/a) POWER: all energy costs for water supply – electricity and fuel for

motive machinery.External services costs (EUR/a) OUTSOURCING: outsourcing of technical or administrative

services, such as consultants, contractors undertaking, operational tasks, meter reading and accounting fees.SOFTWARE LICENCES AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT: license fees on computer software and technical support by software companies.ASSOCIATED COMPANIES: costs of associated companies not included in other items.THIRD PARTY SERVICES: operating costs of providing water services to third parties (other than the regulated water supply function) that are not included in other items.

Leasing and rentals costs (EUR/a) Payments for leasing or renting premises, vehicles, mobile and fixed plant and equipment.

Purchases of consumables and other materials for maintenance and repair (EUR/a)

MATERIALS AND CONSUMABLES: all materials and consumables other than energy, that are not in HIRED AND CONTRACTED SERVICES and which are required for operation of sources, treatment plants, transmission and distribution systems.

Taxes, levies and fees (EUR/a) Any operating license paid to a governmental or municipal authority, abstraction charges, local authority rates.

Exceptional earnings and losses (EUR/a) Any exceptional income or expenditure from donations, investment subsidies, compensations or adjustments related to sales / writing off of fixed assets.

Other operating expenditures (EUR/a) OTHER DIRECT COSTS: any other operating costs (but excluding interest and taxation, on an aggregated basis).GENERAL AND SUPPORT EXPENDITURES: the aggregate direct cost of GENERAL AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES (manpower costs excluded) (see section .2 for definitions).CUSTOMER SERVICES: costs directly associated with customer services that are not included in previous items, related to customer accounting, reading of meters, debt recovery, costs of disconnections, customers’ enquiries and complaints handling.SCIENTIFIC SERVICES: costs directly associated with scientific and laboratory services and with the monitoring of quality that are not included in previous items.OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES: costs directly associated with other business activities that are not included in previous items, except for cost depreciation.DOUBTFUL DEBTS: charge/credit to the profit and loss account for bad and doubtful debts.

INTERNAL MANPOWER COSTS (EUR/a) EMPLOYMENT COSTS: the sum of the total manpower costs of permanent and temporary personnel, including employment-

19/05/2023 Page 30

www.watertime.org

FINANCIAL INFORMATIONrelated social costs and benefits paid by the employer.

TOTAL OPERATING COSTS (EUR/a) The summation of the above mentioned amounts

FINANCIAL INFORMATIONDEPRECIATIONS (EUR/a)Depreciation (referred to the book values)

COST DEPRECIATION: cost depreciation charge on tangible fixed assetsAMORTISATION OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS: any amortizations or other reduction in the balance sheet valuation of intangible assets, such as goodwill.THIRD PARTY SERVICES:_ cost depreciation on assets relating to third party services, together with any infrastructure renewal charge for infrastructure assets relating to third party services.

E.B.I.T. = O.I. (EUR/a) Operating income = Earnings before interests and taxes

NET INTEREST (EUR/a) NET INTEREST: Net cost of short, medium and long-term loan capital (INTEREST EXPENSES – INTEREST INCOME).

E.B.T. = G.I. (EUR/a) Gross Income = Earnings before taxes

TAXES (EUR/a) All taxes and levies on gross income related to water supply activities.Tax costs and levies strictly connected with plants operation (such as sewerage charges on treatment wastes, charges for water abstraction, pipeline and concession charges, environmental levies, water control authority charge etc) have to be regarded as operational costs and included in TAXES, LEVIES and FEES (Running costs)

NET INCOME Earnings after interests and taxes

FINANCIAL INFORMATIONINVESTEMENTSAverage investment Cost of the investments over the last three years /

The tariff system shall be briefly described.

TARIFF SYSTEM

Kind of tariff applied - Fixed- Variable (depends on the number of m consumed)

Average supply water tariff for direct residential consumption (EUR/ m3) Average tariff, excluding public taxes

Average waste water tariff for direct residential consumption (EUR/ m3) Average tariff, excluding public taxes

Total average water charges for direct consumption (EUR/ m3)

Annual water sales revenue from residential, commercial, industrial, public, institutional and other customers (exported water excluded; public water taxes excluded) / (total annual authorized – exported water)

PERSONNEL Total personnel Number of full time equivalent employees

19/05/2023 Page 31

www.watertime.org

Management and support personnel Number of full time equivalent employees dedicated to administration, strategic planning, legal affairs, personnel, public relations, quality management and other supporting activities

Financial and commercial personnel Number of full time equivalent employees working in financial and commercial activities

Customer service personnel Number of full time equivalent employees working in customer service activities

Technical services personnel Number of full time equivalent employees working in technical services

Salary average (EUR/year) per category Euro per year per each of the above categories

10.2 Annex B: table examples

TABLE OF ACTORSCase study:Date:Actor Name Description Role in Water

cyclePower and influences

Goals

SU1SU2SU3SU4PE1

Actor’s categories:

Water undertakings (WU) Consumers or direct users (C) Political organizations (PO) Stakeholders (S).

Consumers Association (SCO)Community Association (SCM)Unions (SU)Employers Organizations (SE)Farmer Association (SF)Environmental Organizations (SEV)Professional Associations (SP) Mass media (SM)

Policy-making bodies – political establishment (PE) Regulatory Agencies (RA) Financed agencies (FA)Multi-national companies (MNC)

TABLE OF EVENTSCase study:Date:Episode:

19/05/2023 Page 32

www.watertime.org

Episode description: Event no Description Date Actor Factor Outcome Source

eventsConsequent

events12

3

4

5

6

TABLE OF FACTORSCase study:Date:Factor Description Associated with actor/sF1

F2

F3

TABLE OF OUTCOMESCase study: Date:

Otcome Event Description Relationship to event, according to different actors

O1

O2

O3

TABLE OF EPISODESCase study:Date:

Episodes Part of which decision process?

Covering events

What (description)

Who (actors)

Why (factors) When

Ep1Ep2Ep3

19/05/2023 Page 33

www.watertime.org

Ep4Ep5

TABLE OF DECISION PROCESSESCase study: Date:

Decision process Sphere Description Options

consideredActors

[excluded]Factors

[excluded] Outcomes

D1D2D3D4

TABLE OF OPTIONSCase study: Date:

Option Description Actors supporting –(opposing)

Op1

Op2

Op3

Op4

19/05/2023 Page 34

www.watertime.org

10.3 Annex C: Stockholm Water: Selected strategic decisions

Year Event Reason Outcome Organisational change Stakeholders

1851 Proposal for water works public vs. private

“Hygienic must” vs. gas “luxury”

Decision making power to the city

Different groups among local councillors

1855 Decision to construct waterworks

Approved proposal of planner

Board of worksDifferent groups among local councillors

1861 Waterworks facility goes into operation

Slight change in the Board

1904 Norsborg ww utility intake

Pollution on surface source

1909 Disproval of decision not to connect water closet to sewage system

Economical state of city (tariff of excreta removal) health aspect

Pollution of surface water, increasing amount of wc

Local councillors, Health officers

1921

Organisational change

Decision by the city council, 1919

Waterworks under Technical Bureau (gas, electricity, water)

Board of city´s industrial works

City council, Administration of water works

1925Compulsory metering

Waterworks demand for metering on new installations

98 % per cent of water got through meters

Technical bureau, consumers

192 Decision to try mechanical purification of sewage

Pollution problems (quality, smell of surface water)

Experts, local councillors, WW administration, consumers

190() New intake Constant growth1954

Organisational change New set-up

Gas and waterworks joined

Gas and waterworks

City council, Administration of Gas – and waterworks,

1955Act Act on waterworks

State, Municipalities, consumers

196 Decision of Österbygdens vattendomstolRequirement for purified sewage water

Legal instruments, City council, Administration of WW, consumers

1968 Pricing the tap water

New balance sheet procedure

Raising on water rate by 50 %

Administration of waterworks, consumers

Early 1970s Water consumption Start of declining

consumption1974

Water + sewerage Rationalisation Sewerage charge (2*prices)

Water and sewage works

City council, Administration of WS

1990 Incorporation Overcharging Foundation of water company Stockholm water co. City council

19/05/2023 Page 35