Hidrológiai Közlöny, 2016 (96. évfolyam)
2016 / 3. szám - HISTORICAL SNAPSHOT - Papp Mária - Ritvayné Szomolányi Mária - Szalay Miklós - Nagy-Kovács Zsuzsanna Ágnes: Water supply in Hungary
Mária Papp et al: Water Supply in Hungary 23 03 0> V5 Ö o Q? ns c V ü Q. imT- 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0 ■ urban ■ rural ^ flush mile' A with sewer ■ high (tensity E middle density ■ low density A flush toilet ^ wrth sewer Figure 13. Percent of population with private flush toilets (left) and sewer connection (right) in the Danube region countries Performance Customer satisfaction strongly correlates with service quality, though only few privately managed utilities conduct customer satisfaction surveys directly. In Hungary, according to the results of independent surveys, customer satisfaction stands at 77%, above the regional average of 63%. Another customer-related indicator is cost: water- related services are affordable to the average consumer. Thresholds are set below 5% of income and nowadays there is centralized tariff control, resulting in the so- called “overhead decrease”. The average collected water tariff in Hungary is $5.35, which is in the middle range compared to tariffs in countries of the region. As for tariff-setting trends, there is no specific methodology in Hungary. The process is under development: it is only applied by communities with newly established networks. An important aspect to consider would be the implementation of the rate of return, which has been applied in some countries. As for the present situation, municipal governments seem to prefer lower tariffs to higher profits. From a financial aspect, the second important shortcoming is that the region is still far from implementing the principle on cost recovery outlined in the Water Framework Directive. Only operational expenditure is covered by tariffs. Investments are generally supported by public funds and external transfers. The amount of regional investments is about €3.5 billion, significantly below the target, needed to achieve EU and national targets. According to the survey mentioned above, Hungary is lagging behind regarding the average annual investment share of the overall sector financing with only 15%, while 38% compared to the Danube region and 42% in Europe. If we also take into account that the capita/year value stands only at 13€, the picture becomes even darker. Throughout the past years, there has been an above-inflation increase in the costs. This tendency has resulted in a significant increase in tariffs, which were the major source to cover operational costs in Hungary until 2013. The performance of the sector is below international standards; especially overstaffing and non-revenue water pose significant challenges. As of non-revenue water, the situation in Hungary can be declared as consolidated, with 6.1%, which only slightly rises above the determined good practice level and is well under the average 14% for EU member states and 35% for the Danube region, where the lack of proper metering and water balancing is still a problem for most service providers. Because it is directly related to the condition of the network through the water leakage factor, maintenance and reconstruction play a major role. Hence, the relationship between utility efficiency and the economic development of the area becomes even more apparent. The issue of staffing level is an on-going topic, mainly in locally owned public utility companies. Staff productivity is 1.7 for 1000 inhabitants, which is almost equal to the regional average, but it is still above the international good practice level and the EU member state value, which is set for 1 employee per 1000 inhabitants served. This is an indicator where the economy of scale could play an important role in the future. On the other hand, another indicator that helps to determine a company’s sound commercial practice is the collection ratio. Traditionally, the western part of the Danube Basin represents a high rate, above or even outperforming 100% with Austria 105%, Slovakia 116% and Romania 112%. Hungary, with 94%, is below the average of the values in the Danube countries. However, it is not absolutely clear how the collection ratio is calculated. On the other hand, another indicator to determine and compare the performance of the water sector in the region is WUPI (Water Utility Performance Index). This index defines three major categories (coverage, quality and management) and ten sub-categories with each score ranging from 1 to 10. With a score of 81, Hungary is in the upper third and above the regional average of 69. CONCLUSION We can conclude that the Hungarian water utility sector performs well compared to the other countries in the region. On the other hand, it must be clear that there is still the possibility for further improvement if we compare the above indicators with international standards and
