**Table 1: Summary Performance Indicator Statistics for Pourashavas (mean weighted by number of connections)**

|**Indicators**|**Number of**<br>**Observations**|**2010**|**2016**|**% Δ 2010‐**<br>**2016**|**Std. Dev.**|**Min**|**Max**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Non‐Revenue Water (%)|48|22|18|‐16%|10.95|3.23|51.82|
|Staff productivity (Connections/Staff)|48|129|163|26%|54.02|39.00|275.00|
|Water Consumption (lpcd)|43|86|88|2%|32.03|30.80|209.85|
|Continuity of services (hours/day of water supply)|48|8.7|9.3|7%|5.46|0.70|24.00|
|Cost Coverage (ratio)|48|1.46|1.17|‐20%|0.35|0.40|2.34|
|Average Revenue (US$/m3 of water sold)|46|0.09|0.10|12%|0.05|0.02|0.21|
|Unit Cost (US$/m3 of water produced)|47|0.05|0.07|63%|0.04|0.01|0.17|
|Collection rate (%)|48|68|80|19%|14.59|37.21|121.38|
|Meteringrate(%)|48|28|21|‐25%|33.96|‐|100.00|

Source: Author calculations based on IBNET data Pourashavas performed poorly when compared with global averages and with the WASAs and city corporations, except on indicators of efficiency.

_Efficiency:_ Pourashavas outperformed the WASAs and five city corporations on NRW. NRW in the pourashavas was 21.9 percent in 2010, which further decreased to 18.4 percent in 2016 compared to an NRW of 23 percent in 2016 for WASAs and city corporations during this period. Pourashavas also had lower NRW compared to the global average NRW, which was above 35 percent. While it is tempting to conclude that pourashavas performed well on this indicator, the low metering rates in the pourashavas may point to inaccurate measurement of NRW.

While staff productivity was higher globally at above 300 connections per employee throughout 2010‐ 2016, pourashavas performed better than the WASAs and city corporations during the period. Globally, there were more than 300 connections per employee throughout the period, while pourashavas had 163 connections per employee in 2016 increasing 26 percent from 2010. On the other hand, the average for WASAs and city corporations in 2016 was consistently lower than the pourashavas throughout the period and was only 101 connections per employee in 2016.

_Availability:_ Pourashavas performed poorly on indicators of availability – quantity of water supplied per person per day and duration of supply. Both global and WASA and city corporation averages performed better than the pourashavas. Consumption of water per person per day in the pourashavas was between 86 and 90 lpcd during 2010‐2016 compared to 100‐120 lpcd in the same period among the WASAs and city corporations. Global consumption of water was around 161‐165 lpcd for the same period. In terms of continuity, pourashavas had an average duration of 9 hours of water supply service for the period under review compared to 19 hours for WASAs and city corporations and 23 hours globally.

_Financial sustainability:_ On average, service providers in Bangladesh were able to cover their costs from their revenues. Cost coverage in pourashavas was greater than 1 for the entire period 2010‐2016, although it steadily decreased from 1.45 in 2010 to 1.17 in 2016. Similarly, although higher, the cost coverage for the WASAs and city corporations decreased from 1.43 in 2010 to 1.31 in 2016. On the other hand, global cost coverage increased from 1.25 in 2010 to 1.33 in 2016.

Average revenues and unit costs were very low in Bangladesh compared with global averages. Average revenues in Pourashavas increased slightly from US$ 0.09/m3 of water sold in 2010 to US$ 0.10/m3 of water sold in 2016. Similarly, average revenue for the WASAs and city corporations increased from US$ 0.14/m3 of water sold in 2010 to US$ 0.18/m3 of water sold in 2016. Meanwhile, for the same period global average revenues were much higher at US$ 1.28/m3 in 2016. Unit costs were also low in the 5