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.