'Water for all, or for profit'

In the previous post, I introduced different ways in which water supplies across Africa could be managed effectively. In this post, I explore the private sector in South Africa, analysing whether privatisation at a municipal level has been effective in managing water supplies.

Prior to researching the ownership of water resources across Africa, I was under the impression that all water supplies in Africa were privately owned. Surely it is effective for the private sector to manage water since they have the money and knowledge to create social change. Work from the IFC was significant in building this narrative, where private sector engagement is encouraged to pursue social development. Their work illustrated only positive impacts from privatisation, failing to show the downfalls. However, I soon found that this perspective is very reductionist and that there is a whole host of complex issues that arise when deciding who should manage water supplies. The narrative of the private sector being the panacea to social development is heavily contested; instead a paradox is apparent as financial investment has worsened access to water supplies (Forsyth 2010).

So, why privatise water supplies? In the 1980’s, the responsibility for water provisions was allocated to local authorities in countries such as Guinea and Tanzania. However, the centralised government were under scrutiny as they failed to equitably distribute water supplies, which led to an alteration in how water should be managed across Africa; ‘a democratic decentralisation as the strategy of choice’ (Golooba-Mutebi 2012: 430). Public run water supplies were inefficient because they were captured by politics; thus, the solution was to hand management over to the private sector (Bayliss 2003). However, the irony of integrating water sources with market forces is that it has further politicised water across African countries where citizens cannot afford water. This has been explored by Zuluaga (2002) who argues that the belief of water being provided for free has been politically difficult for the private sector, as their first objective is profit, despite water being a human right.

Notwithstanding some of the successes of privatisation, I am very sceptical of the intentions and successes of the private sector. Therefore, I will argue that privatisation has not been as successful as was anticipated and that there is a need to reassess how water is best managed.

The development of prepaid standpipes in Dolphin Coast by Siza Water Company (SWC) caused controversy among citizens and SWC. The South African free-water policy, which was developed in 2001, guaranteed a certain quantity of free water to every South African. Despite greater equitable access for people without connections (Heymans et al 2014), citizens could not afford water supplies. As a result, people were forced to use traditional water supplies which were heavily polluted, resulting in the cholera epidemic. I am pessimistic about the privatisation of water supplies because it is further hindering basic human rights. 

The visual below illustrates the complex history behind privatisation in South Africa, implying that privatisation is likely to exacerbate inequality.

Figure 1 – ‘This is a very eye-opening comic because it compares the apartheid to water privatisation. It makes you think of the deaths that occurred because of the apartheid and the deaths that occur because of water privatisation. it is difficult to think that people were finally liberated only to be put in chains controlled by water privatisation.’ (Rcrodrig 2014)

So, we must question whether citizens across Africa are better off without privatisation of water supplies. This is an incredibly complex question which requires in-depth ethnographic work and interviews with citizens, but from what I have learnt throughout this research is that some Africans have been worse off from privatisation. David McDonald states that:

"people are saying: I have to choose between water and food — or between 

electricity and sending my child to school…Nobody really ever bothered to find out if people could afford these services. And, as it turns out, people can't… 90% of residents now access water from elsewhere”.

Thus, is privatisation the way forward?

We cannot tarnish all privatisation of water supplies with the same brush. Across SSA, privatisation has enhanced managerial efficiency through the ownership of the water infrastructures (Bayliss 2003). Nonetheless, it is clear that there is no definitive relationship between ownership and access to safe water, as argued by Bayliss (2003: 516) who emphasises that ‘performance cannot be determined on the basis of ownership’. There is a need for effective regulation from the government, as well as communication and participation from the community (Harvey and Reed 2006).

Upon reflection, I have learnt that public discourse regarding the privatisation has provided false hope to communities through portraying themselves as saviours in this development crisis. In my opinion, private sector participation can only be successful insofar as it considers the users who are directly impacted by privatisation. Therefore, is community-management a better alternative?