Moving Forward: Focus on East Africa

Queue at a water point in Kibera, Nairobi. Source: ASA

Although its title indicates a wider remit, this blog has focussed almost exclusively on East Africa and on the informal settlements that exist in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. In this post I want to draw on  Crow and Dill's (2014) paper to explore some recent events in the water governance of these cities and to consider how they relate to my recent thoughts on the inclusion of community actors.

It appears that in the wake of Dar es Salaam's privatisation fiasco its new water body, DAWASCO, has recognised the importance of community strategy for supplying the city's extensive unplanned settlements. Its initial attempt to bring the Hanna Nassif community into governmental discussions as a development actor proved to be a success. But it was difficult to supervise and as such they have since moved on to Water User Associations (WUAs). This new model is based on a similar principle to that discussed in an earlier post, and may fall foul of the same criticisms highlighted by Jaglin (2002).

In Nairobi two schemes have been attempted to extend water and sanitation access in informal settlements. The first, Maji Bora Kibera, sought to regularise the activities of water vendors operating in the city's biggest slum. It had initial success, bringing together 80% of the vendors in an agreement that would see bills paid, leaks reported and corrupt connections with utility plumbers severed. However, in late 2007 the association broken down when the Nairobi police force carried out a series of disconnections across the settlement.

The second scheme discussed by Crow and Dill is a community-based pipe extension project which took its inspiration from a previous project in Kisumu. Whilst reasonable success had been achieved in Kisumu, in Nairobi's Mkuru settlement the incumbent water traders soon gained control of the 'community groups' that were intended to be in charge of the water supply.

These recent proceedings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi hold great relevance to the discussion which has been taking place on this blog. They indicate that there is a movement towards acknowledging the importance of community actors in the water supply of urban areas, but that this movement faces some clear challenges. Not least is that of handing power to the community and ensuring, through sufficient oversight, that the right people benefit. 

The many faces of privatisation

Vendor collects water in jerrycans in Mathare, Nairobi. Source: eNCA.

In my previous post I outlined how privatisation comes in many shapes and sizes. For K'Akumu (2004) the question is whether any of these shapes or sizes will really work for the urban poor in Kenya. In developing an answer the author discusses the value of regulation, contractual clauses and social tariffs. But most interestingly of all, he writes about the potential of alternative water suppliers.

As we have seen from the outset private water vendors in East Africa are on the up and up. These entrepreneurs make a profit by extracting water where a piped supply exists and distributing it to areas in which one does not. Whilst their prices are high, the quality of their water tends to be good (Kjellén 2000) and, most importantly, they will deliver to the informal settlements which the state and large private utilities will not.

Despite the growing significance of these vendors as part of the urban water mix they receive very little in the way of support. In fact, Kenya's 2002 Water Act served to inhibit their operations (K'Akumu 2004). In much of the literature they they are described as an interim solution. A stop gap whilst the piped network is extended. But in light of Richard Taylor's comment that many African countries are unlikely to get piped networks equivalent to those in London or New York, maybe we need to reconsider their role. Maybe, as Allen et al. (2006) argue small-scale solutions such as local distributors and groundwater wells are going to become increasingly important parts of the urban water supply.

Informing the debate: some literature on privatisation

The private sector has reared its head in various ways through my blog posts so far, but until this week I had not read much of the broader literature on the subject. Having now done so, I wanted to share some of my insights and reflect on the role of the private sector in improving water access.

To begin with I want to point out that the privatisation of a water supply is not one single strategy. Instead it encompasses a whole range of approaches from short-term service contracts through to full divestiture. In Africa one important distinction is that between the French model of privatisation, which works through leasing arrangements, and the British model which involves the transferal of asset ownership to a private entity (Pierce 2015).

The next thing to note is that the success or failure of a privatisation initiative has a great deal to do with the context in which it takes place (Bayliss 2003). As we saw in my last post City Water failed to make good of that which was left behind by DAWASA. But in Cote d'Ivoire privatisation proved hugely successful and only began to falter as the country's wider economic circumstances changed in 2002. Further examples of this relationship abound and can be found in Bayliss' article.

A related point, but one worthy of individual mention, is that privatisation will only work with due oversight and regulation on behalf of the government (Golooba-Mutebi 2012). A large part of the success in Cote d'Ivoire was down to a social tariff which ensured the provision of water to those who could not afford the going market rate. While such forms of regulation are necessary they can be difficult to implement given the lack of competition amongst private companies to provide the service (Bayliss 2003).

The fourth and final point I want to make is that innovation, either in the form of the cross-subsidies mentioned above, or the participatory action outlined in an earlier post, rarely come from the private sector (Hall and Lobina 2007). Instead these ideas emerge from the public sphere -- from communities, authorities and political activity.

The conclusion then, as much as I can offer one at this stage, is that privatisation alone is not a solution (Carter and Danert 2003). That what is needed is a combination of private sector participation, government regulation and community initiatives. More on this next time!

The failure of privatisation in Dar es Salaam

Dar es Salaam before dusk. Source: Wikipedia

In my last post I discussed how private vendors have responded to a dilapidated water network in Tanzania’s second city. In the days since I have done a bit more digging into the recent history of water reform in Dar es Salaam and the results are quite revealing. 

It appears that the failure of the piped network has not gone unnoticed. In the early 2000s it was recognised that fewer than 100 thousand households were connected in a city of 2.5 million people (Action Aid). The World Bank and IMF were pushing heavily for DAWASA (the management body at the time) to be superseded by a private utility. 

The outcome was that City Water took control in 2005 and a series of mass disconnections and price hikes ensued. Unprofitable areas of the city were handed over to NGOs and the consortium set about doing… well, not a lot as it happens. There were no improvements made to the piped supply, the water quality declined and the government saw none of the lease fee which had been agreed. In the same year as the contract began City Water's top three executives were branded ‘undesirable migrants’ and told to leave the country (see Guardian article). 

To take the above as illustrative of all privatisation efforts would be a step too far. But a story such as this certainly doesn't seem to cast a neoliberal approach in good light. As the Water Aid analysis concludes 'Governance cannot be substituted by a contract'.