Water vendors associations in informal settlements
(2)
DEW Point Enquiry No. A0415
April 2011
i
Title:
Water vendors associations in informal settlements
Client:
Jacques-Edouard Tiberghien, Building Partnership for
Development in Water and Sanitation (BPDWS)
Client contract No:
06 7037
DEW Point Ref:
A0415
Contact and
correspondence:
DEW Point, The Old Mill • Blisworth Hill Barns • Stoke
Road • Blisworth • Northampton, • NN7 3DB • UK
TEL: +44 (0)1604 858257 FAX: +44 (0)1604 858305
e-mail: [email protected]
www.dewpoint.org.uk
Authors:
Mathews Chirasha Wanjala
Organisations undertaking Practical Action Kenya
work:
Amendment record:
Version:
Date:
Draft Final Report
21/04/2011
Final Report
Reference:
Task Manager :
Quality Assurance DEW
Point:
Ingrid Carlier
Date:
Disclaimer
This report is commissioned under DEW Point, the DFID Resource Centre for Environment,
Water and Sanitation, which is managed by a consortium of companies led by Harewelle
International Limited1. Although the report is commissioned by DFID, the views expressed in
the report are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent DFID’s own
views or policies, or those of DEW Point. Comments and discussion on items related to
content and opinion should be addressed to the authors, via the “Contact and
correspondence” address e-mail or website, as indicated in the control document above.
1
Consortium comprises Harewelle International Limited, NR International, Practical Action Consulting,
Cranfield University and AEA Energy and Environment
ii
Table of contents 1. Description of enquiry 2. Water vendors associations in informal settlements 2.1 Introduction to water supply in informal settlements in urban areas 2.2 Community‐based and private water vending 2.3 What are Small Water Enterprises (SWEs)? 2.4 The variety of SWE activities 2.5 Water vending regulation and control 2.6 Experiences of water vendors and SWEs in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 2.7 Experiences of water vendors and SWEs in Nairobi, Kenya 2.8 Experiences of water vendors and SWEs in Khartoum, Sudan 2.9 Experiences of water vendors and SWEs in Accra, Ghana 2.10 Experiences of water vendors and SWEs in Kampala, Uganda 2.11 Other examples 2.12 Suggestions on how to improve vendor services References 1 2 2 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 14 iii
1. Description of enquiry BPD Water and Sanitation are interested in learning about experiences involving water vendor associations in the management of water points in the context of informal settlements. There is such an association active in Kibera, where we work, and we would like to know about such experiences with this kind of associations elsewhere. The idea is to focus on experiences where associations of water vendors have been integrated in the management model of a new infrastructure, including water kiosks. We are also particularly interested in the negotiation aspect in the relationship with these associations. Could you help us collect that kind of information? 1
2. Water vendors associations in informal settlements 2.1 Introduction to water supply in informal settlements in urban areas Water supply to all informal settlements in the country is largely inadequate. In Nairobi for example residents tend to obtain water from water kiosks located either within informal settlements or adjacent to them. The kiosks are either owned by individual operators or in a few cases by community based organisations (CBOs). The prices charged by kiosk operators are in most cases more than twice higher than paid by individual consumers with Nairobi City Council (NCC) metered connections. For some years now NCC, the water undertaker, has relaxed water connection procedures for applicants within informal settlements and no longer insists on title deeds/lease as proof of land ownership for obtaining connections. The procedure is as follows: • The applicant obtains a special form from the city council water and sewerage department and fills it. In the case of a CBO, proof of registration with the department of social services must be shown. • Water and sanitation officials then visit the site and conduct interviews and necessary verifications to determine the authenticity of the information provided on the form. • If found acceptable, the application is approved and the applicant is given the authorisation to lay pipes from the public/legal connection point which is nearest to his or her structure. In most cases, applicants are given water metres to go and connect on their own. The relaxation in NCC’s water policy to allow for water connection to informal settlements raises the following efficacy and sustainability issues: • A lot of water goes to waste due to poor workmanship, inadequate supervision by NCC staff during construction and use of poor quality pipes. In most cases, the water consumed is also contaminated by leakages. • Collections from these areas are in most cases said to be less than 15%. The end users (poor slum dwellers) pay the operators to NCC at a higher unit cost than the NCC charges, the operators do not pay NCC. Who is benefiting from this? • The need for signing by the chief etc. breeds fertile grounds for rent‐seeking behaviours. This gate‐keeping costs increase connection fees for water vendors, and it is passed to final users. • The number of connections allowed by the NCC is relatively smaller and does not encourage competition and possible price reduction. • The high retail prices charged (about Ksh 5 per 20 litre jerry can) mean that a large number of informal settlement dwellers cannot afford to purchase sufficient potable water for their needs and resort to unsatisfactory alternative sources such as the highly contaminated Nairobi river and the unsafe rainwater roof catchments (what with flying toilets!). 2.2 Community‐based and private water vending The activity of informal water vending has both advantages and disadvantages for poor communities in the developing world. On the negative side, the distribution of water by vendors is expensive, irrespective of whether vehicles are powered by people, animals or machines. Also, households served by water vendors generally pay more than those directly connected to the piped water system. Beyond cost considerations, vending is sometimes 2
linked to health problems as hawkers may sell from polluted sources or from fouled containers. The positive features of water vending are that it provides a valuable service for communities in urban areas with no access to piped water. It saves time as compared to fetching water from other sources. It is labour intensive, and therefore creates job opportunities. Simple technologies of water vending systems can be readily maintained on a local basis in low‐income urban settlements. Private and community‐managed vending kiosks often compete with each other. 2.3 What are Small Water Enterprises (SWEs)? In many cities of Africa, Asia and South America, more than half of the population obtain their water services from suppliers other than the official water supply utility. SWEs are private enterprises, usually operated by small scale entrepreneurs (with a maximum of 50, and usually fewer employees) which earn money from the sale of water. SWEs typically provide water services alternative to, or supplementary to, those provided by water utilities. They usually supply water to places that are unserved or inadequately served by the utility or at times when the utility is not able to provide those services. Customers are not necessarily poor: families from all income groups may rely on SWEs to provide all the water, or to provide additional supplies of water during periods of water rationing. In many cities however, it is low income households that are worst served by the utility and most depend on SWEs. SWEs may obtain water from natural sources (e.g. wells) or from the piped water network (either formally or illicitly). Three broad categories of SWEs are: 1. Wholesale vendors (e.g. tanker operators), who obtain water from a source and sell the water to consumers and distributing vendors; 2. Distributing vendors who obtain water from a source or from a wholesale vendor, and sell the water directly to consumers, via door to door sales (including in some cases small piped networks); and 3. Direct vendors who sell water directly to consumers who come to collect and pay for water at the source. This category includes resellers and operators of water kiosks. A common obstacle to improving SWEs, whether they involve operating kiosks in Dares Salaam or Nairobi, donkey carts in Khartoum, tankers in Accra or one of the many other types of SWEs found in these cities, is that they have not traditionally been considered to be legitimate suppliers. The goal of the utility has been assumed to be one of replacing rather than assisting SWEs. The Government’s responsibility with regard to SWEs has been to prohibit them from selling ‘over priced’ or ‘sub‐standard’ water, rather than to encourage them to invest more vigorously. Perhaps this is why the interface between the utility and SWE water systems was found to be a major source of problems. In some places, regulations suppress supplies without any discernible impact on the quality of provision. The cart operators in Khartoum, for example, view the public health regulations as just another excuse used by local officials for harassing them, rather than taking greater care on water provision and delivery. Often, the illegitimate character of SWEs has inhibited the investments that would improve the reliability or quality of supplies. This lack of investments applies to both utilities who fail to invest in servicing the SWEs, and the SWEs themselves, who can not secure finance at competitive rates. In most cities, the situation is changing and there are new opportunities for developing more vigorous and economically efficient SWE systems. Sectoral reforms are providing more opportunities for small, as well as large, private enterprises. Governments are more inclined 3
to recognize the strengths of SWEs. Utilities are being encouraged to work with, rather than against, SWEs. Provided these lessons can be learnt, one can expect a number of benefits particularly for low‐income neighbourhoods: • Greater customer convenience, as SWEs become more reliable and accountable. • Lower prices, as supplies from SWEs increase. • Reduced burden from water‐related diseases, as hygiene improves. The utility can also expect to benefit from: • Less water lost, as SWEs invest in better equipment (and less illegal connections); and • Higher utility revenues, as SWEs become legitimate and reliable paying customers. Characteristics of SWEs in the water supply sector Typical market speciality Filling gaps in service delivery Filing niche market Serving markets with low entry and investment costs Relative competences SWEs have good local knowledge SWEs are innovative in their use of local resources SWEs are responsive to the demands of the poor SWEs can operate competitive markets Potential disadvantages Quality controls are difficult to implement and enforce for informal enterprises There is a limited scope for investment SWEs have difficulty in achieving substantial economies of scale Potential advantages for Responsiveness: SWEs can provide services where other the urban poor service providers will not go SWEs will sell small volumes of water and accept small individual payments for water supply SWEs may be willing to offer credit or agree to convenient payment schemes Flexibility: SWEs are adaptable and can tailor their services to the specific physical and social characteristics of the neighbourhood Source: Adapted from McGrahan and Owen (2004) Advantages and disadvantages of water vending Advantages Disadvantages Households can purchase water in small Prices are higher than the public utility and quantities are unregulated Households have greater choice on where to Poorest can not afford the prices get water based on affordability Households can pay for water to be Service is not guaranteed delivered to their door‐steps They extend the coverage of the public It draws attention to the deficiencies of utility when they re‐sell piped water to areas public utilities in service provision not covered The quality is almost that of piped water In some cases, this water is stolen from piped water supply 4
They are not legally recognized or licensed and are unregulated Can lead to unchecked and unregulated use of groundwater Status of informal and formal vendors ‐ Uganda experience Illegal: Theft from the piped network. Informal vendors often supply ‘stolen’ water from the mains to areas with low pressure or not covered. They are in competition with the piped system and can sometimes engage in vandalism to prevent its extension. Re‐selling of piped water. Households reselling water from their own piped connection. Mobile vendors. They sell piped water or water from protected and unprotected sources, they are difficulty to regulate. Legal: Operate within a contract. In some countries, informal vendors operate standpipes built with public funds. Water is sold by the bucket or jerry can or to distributing mobile vendors. These vendors have some form of contract, which may specify re‐sale prices, hours of operation, terms of payment and conditions of rescinding the contract. These re‐sellers are charged a different tariff by the public utility. Acknowledged but not legally recognized. In some countries, the resale of household water is acknowledged but not legally recognized. This means that households are neither punished nor charged a commercial tariff rate. 2.4 The variety of SWE activities SWEs respond to local conditions and find ways to fill niche markets for water. There is therefore considerable variety in the nature and scale of SWE activity, depending on local circumstances such as water resources, topography, utility service levels, and the regulatory framework. Various SWEs usually operate in parallel within the same city or settlement, serving different categories of customers (Kjellen and McGrahan, 2004). Five types of SWEs are described below: 1. Re‐sales. Individual households that have piped water often sell water onto neighbours, either in small quantities, or through extensions to the piped network. Residential resales often supplement other water services, such as public stand posts and water kiosks, which are unable to meet the needs of the local population. In Bamako (Mali) 25% of water supplies are through resales (Solo 1998). Even in areas where water resell is illegal, utilities often privately acknowledge that SWE activities are a consequence of the utility’s inability to supply water adequately to all customers. Utility staffs are therefore reluctant to take action against water resellers, and may modify their practices to accommodate SWEs activities. In Accra, for example, where the resale of water is illegal, SWEs pay commercial water tariffs, indicating that the utility has modified its practice in the knowledge that resale occurs. In several cities SWEs have concessions to sell water from kiosks. Kiosk operators are in a strong position, but they need to rely on local goodwill, so need to keep their prices down. 2. Distributing SWEs ‐ Water carriers. Water carriers operate widely in many cities in Africa, Asia and South America. Carrying water is a physically demanding activity and water carriers may use plastic or metal containers either carried manually or on 5
handcarts, bicycles or animal‐drawn handcarts. Water carriers are usually males from low‐income households similar to the ones they serve. 3. Distributing SWEs ‐ Tankers. Tanker lorries are able to deliver large volumes of water, but the capital required to purchase and maintain a tanker is a major obstacle to entry in this SWE market. Tankers often serve higher‐income customers and customers who require bulk supplies of water. 4. Private water supplies. In some locations, alternative water sources may be used in addition to utility water supplies. SWEs may obtain water from groundwater sources (via wells). In several places supplies from SWEs using groundwater exceed 30% of the total water supply. Solo (1998) cites, as examples, Tegucigalpa (Honduras), Lima (Peru), Guatemala City, and parts of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. 5. Bottled pre‐packed water. Sales of small volumes of bottles or sealed containers of water reflect a relatively recent business development. This is probably in response to increased income levels, higher aspirations, and the perceived poor quality of water supplied by some utilities. The size of businesses ranges from small enterprises that produces sealed plastic bags filled with water, to large businesses producing bottled spring or mineral water. Various authors (for example: Conan 2003; Khan and Siddique 2000) give examples of such enterprises. Instances of SWEs selling water in sachets were also encountered in Accra, Ghana. Entry to the water vending business is usually easy, requiring little investment, and this makes the market competitive, given that these SWEs have no guaranteed customers. They then have to attract and retain enough customers to remain in business. 2.5 Water vending regulation and control Water vendors typically operate illegally or at the margins of established legal frameworks. Ambulating vendors are difficulty to regulate or tax, partly due to their great number and low level of earning. In Tanzania, pushcart vendors are supposed to carry small business licences but none of them do. From Khartoum (Sudan) however, Njiru and Albu (2004) report that one of the constraints faced by donkey cart operators is the persistent harassment from local officials in respect of taxes to be paid. Confiscation of carts is a common occurrence, as health checks on animals, carts and operators are carried out to extract dues rather than improve the basic hygiene. With regard to water quality, vendors are usually blamed for supplying unsafe water. The consumption of packaged water purchased from vendors in markets in Ibadan (Nigeria) has been found to be associated with diarrhoea among children (Oyemade et al 1998). It is likely that all pouring the water from one container to another exacerbates the risk of contamination. Still, Kjellen (2000) found pushcart water vendors in Dar es Salaam to be surprisingly quality conscious. Moreover, a study covering several places in East Africa found water from vendors and kiosks, as well as that which is piped to the house, to be relatively safe in terms of low diarrhoea prevalence among children in families relying on these sources (Thompson et al 2001; Tumwine et al 2002). Water vending is normally a competitive business, due to the lack of jobs and easy entry to the vendors market. Pushcarts as well as water containers can be rented on a daily basis. Due to this, water vendors do not reap monopolistic benefits or rents. Existing cartels may not be apparent until there are attempts to challenge them. Cairncross and Kinnear (1991, p.269) tell of an Oxfam project facilitating the purchase of donkeys and carts for water vending among Southerners living in a squatter area in Khartoum. The 6
Southerners were effectively barred from using the water source, which was controlled by northern Sudanese. In another area, existing vendors lobbied against the extension of piped water into the area. In considering how to regulate the SWEs, the indirect costs of regulation (e.g. reduced water supplies) must be set against the gains (e.g. a low risk of water contamination). One of the most common problems with regulations is that standards are set so high that SWEs can not comply without drastically reducing the water supply. Such regulations are rarely enforced vigorously –local officials are likely to be all too aware that enforcing such regulations strictly would do more harm than good. But intermittently enforced regulations can easily provide opportunities for corruption, and undermine the regulatory process. Effective regulation is regulation that supports incremental improvements in SME provision, and does not impose a burden on those SWEs that are providing vital services. Regulations on SWEs are made more difficult by the number and variety of SWEs and of the markets they serve. Overly bureaucratic registration and inspection systems are sometime ignored. Formal and informal agreements have been reached among SWEs in some cities, and can provide the basis for indirect regulation. Tanker drivers in Accra have formed an association, but most SWEs operate on the basis of informal agreements. Agreements may break down as circumstances change, such as during water shortages for instance (Kjellen and McGrahan 2004). More importantly, agreements among SWEs will not always serve the interests of customers, and may inhibit healthy competition. In short, it is important not to assume that regulation needs to involve formal rules prescribing how SWEs should operate. Voluntary regulation, responding to complaints, and facilitating negotiated settlements are also important forms of regulation. 2.6 Experiences of water vendors and SWEs in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Most of the urban poor in Dar es Salaam live in informal settlements, where the utility has not extended its networks. Water services are provided by SWEs. Most of the settlements face serious water supply problems and without SWEs, the problems could be worse. SWEs also provide much needed employment and income earning opportunities to the poor. Types of SWEs and how they operate 1. Street water vendors using pushcarts to transport water in jerry cans to customers and to small business enterprises 2. Private water boreholes and kiosks supplying water to consumers and water vendors at the supply point sources or through distribution network 3. Communal water boreholes and kiosks supplying water to consumers and water vendors at supply point sources 4. Household resellers of utility water to neighbours; and 5. Wholesale transporters of water using tankers trucks to supply water mostly to wealthier customers and far away settlements Most of SWEs provide water supply services in the low income informal settlements. Water supply chains in Dar es Salaam Supply chain relate to all activities involved in the flow of water from service providers with bulky supply at the source, through different means of transportation to the end user. The major actors include water suppliers, distributors and water customers. The water is supplied through direct transportation from the source by the customers themselves, through private piped systems or through street water vendors who transport the water in jerry cans loaded on pushcarts. Water Distributors includes: 7
1. Street water vendors who transport water usually in six 20‐litre jerry cans using pushcarts. 2. Water tanker operators (capacity 7,000‐10,000 litres) who transport water using tankers. Water is sold to wealthier households or construction sites. Payment is made either per delivery or on a monthly basis. Customers of SWEs services include: • Poor households • Small business enterprises in the informal settlements • Wealthier homes living in high income areas without adequate supply. 2.7 Experiences of water vendors and SWEs in Nairobi‐Kenya Nairobi lacks significant local or surface groundwater sources. Less than half the population has legitimate household connection to the Nairobi City Water and Sewerage Company Limited (NCWSCL) piped network. Over a million people obtain NCWSCL water through other means, principally through SMEs. For the most part these water consumers are poor people inhabiting informal urban settlements, often near the municipal boundaries, which are not covered by the NCWSCL distribution network. In Maili Saba, Kibera, the principal role of SWEs is to deliver NCWSCL’s bulk water from the utilities mains pipelines ‐some 2‐3 km away‐ into the settlements where it can be sold. In addition, SWEs fulfil other important functions: • They protect against short‐term supply intermittency by providing (limited) tank storage • They protect against seasonal supply shortages by investing in alternative water sources • They provide door‐step delivery services for households and small businesses unable or unwilling to carry water from retail points. Types of SWEs and how they operate 1. Private kiosks (owner‐managed), with ad‐hoc, usually substandard, piped connections to the NCWSCL mains 2. Manual vendors, usually using bicycles or hand carrying jerry cans of water from kiosks, boreholes or other unprotected sources to homes and local small businesses 3. Private boreholes (managed by the owner), extracting groundwater of often dubious quality. Water supply chains in Nairobi informal settlements The main supply chains in Maili saba, which account for more than 90% of the supply, are NCWSCL private kiosks and manual vendors. Poor households use river water for laundry and washing. NCWSCL’s supply can be unreliable during protracted dry spells, and residents may rely more on boreholes, unprotected wells or even the local river for cooking and drinking water. Private kiosk owners typically pay for legitimate or semi‐legitimate connections to the NCWSCL pipeline, and then invest in a low cost pipeline to transfer water to their own kiosks. These pipelines ‐being plastic and shallow buried‐are prone to deliberate or accidental damage, and frequently leak. The costs of establishing kiosks and their piped connections, including bribes and dues paid to utility officials, local slum landlords and politicians, can be as high as USD 300‐1,000. Maintaining these connections can also be expensive, and these costs are recovered through hefty mark‐ups. There does not appear to be much competition between kiosks, and nor is there rapid entry of new players into the 8
kiosk owning market. Presumably this is because the process of setting up the business, and in particular getting connected and licensed, is cumbersome and lacking transparency. Manual vendors tend to be either bicycle users (predominantly male), or back loaders (predominantly female). Manual vendors have a low status in society, their business activity is not licensed and consequently they suffer harassment by various officials and local landlords. It seems that a significant percentage of their incomes may be being diverted by this means. Example of Community vs Private water vending in Kibera, Nairobi. In Kibera, a low income area in Nairobi, water provision for the 500,000 residents is organized through around 500 water kiosks. These are mostly run by individual private owners, but some are operated by water committees and women groups. These community kiosks usually sell their water at a lower price than the private owners. Yet, the cost of connection to the city water network can be quite high as the distance to the nearest main for the connection can be up to two kilometres, but profits on the sale of water are such that it is easily earned back. Where the community groups own the kiosk, the profits are usually reinvested in infrastructure or services within the same area and are therefore contributing to the improvement of the living environment. The private owners are usually absentee landlords who do not invest the profits in the same area. Source: Wegelin, M, IRC, 1997. 2.8 Experiences of water vendors and SWEs in Khartoum, Sudan The three cities of Khartoum, including Al Khartoum, Al Khartoum Bahri and Umm Durman (Omdurman) rely on both surface water from the river Nile, and groundwater from deep and shallow aquifers beneath the cities. Nile water extraction, treatment and distribution is managed by Khartoum State Water Corporation. This network serves 210,000 household connections in the centre of the city. Rapid urban expansion in the past two decades has left around four million people now living in very extensive informal settlements and former displaced people’s camps outside the reach of KSWC’s distribution network. People who inhabit these peri‐urban informal settlements are predominantly rural migrants who have fled drought, civil war and destitution in other Sudanese regions. In typical settlements such as Soba Al Aradi and Dar Al Salam, the principal role of SWEs is merely to deliver water from KSWC’s water yard to the door‐step of households, where it is sold. In addition, SWEs in Khartoum fulfil important functions: • They provide households with access to more distant water yards when the local ones is out of order • They sometimes provide flexible payment arrangements tailored to their customers’ needs • They deliver water from low quality sources such as old irrigation ditches and wells to construction sites • They are starting to become involved in the management of water yards under contract from KSWC. Types of SWEs and how they operate Mobile cart operators, with donkey‐drawn water carts that shuttle between water yards, homes and construction sites. Licenced yard management agents who are just starting to emerge as players, alongside community‐managed water yard committees. 9
Water supply chain in Khartoum Each operational water yard typically serves 600‐1,000 households, and may be served by 30‐50 cart operators, each making seven to ten trips a day, with 380 litre tanks. For the cart operator, delivery distances range from 50‐750 metres, increasing to 2 km when the nearest water yard is out of order. At the time of the study, KSWC had only licensed around 20 private water yard management agents on an experimental basis. These SWEs are required to provide financial collateral and technical competency. Prices at the water yard are fixed by the utility and the revenue is shared. The long term viability of this business is still uncertain since aside from fuel for pumping, the main costs of water yard operations are unpredictable (repair and replacement of equipments). Most of the community‐managed water yards have run into difficulties in this regard. Cart operators are typically young men with few assets, often using hired animals and carts. The work is low status and extremely tedious, and there are few entry barriers to the business. Competition for both customers and access to water is often intense, with long delays common at water yards. 2.9 Experiences of water vendors and SWEs in Accra, Ghana In spite of efforts to increase access to potable water supply in Ghana, the gap between demand and supply has continued to widen. Ghana Water Company (GWC) reports an average water coverage of 59% of residents in urban areas, thus leaving the gap of at least 41% to be covered by SWEs. Most of the unserved are the poor living in areas without a network or in underserved areas with limited reticulation. In Accra, service provision is on average better than in most of urban Ghana, and coverage is estimated to be 82%. As the groundwater is saline, wells and boreholes are not a solution for the poor in Accra, like in some other cities. This means that SWEs who rely on utility supply are the only suppliers for the poor in Accra. Types of SWEs and how they operate The GWC is the utility mandated to supply water in urban areas. All other secondary and tertiary water suppliers fall within the category of (SWEs). They comprise the following: • Tanker operators • Cart operators • Domestic vendors • Neighbourhood sellers • Sachet water/ice block sellers All the above operators obtain water from the utility water system, and form important intermediary supply chains between the utility and the end users. The tanker operators obtain water from specified filling points within the utility’s distribution system, and then sell to domestic vendors, and also directly to end users such as households and commercial establishments. Water supply chain in Accra Although the SWE supply chains are known to exist, only the relationship between the utility and the water tankers’ association is formalized. Through the agreements with the water tankers associations, GWC attempts to loosely regulate their operations in the areas of water quality and price. Despite this relationship, the utility does not see most of SWEs as a legitimate part of the water supply chain, key to meet the requirements of the unserved or underserved customers, many of whom are poor. SWEs are largely seen as exploiters or at 10
best nuisance to other water consumers, because their activities are perceived as depriving others from getting supplies. 2.10 Experiences of water vendors and SWEs in Kampala, Uganda The following types of water vending are found in Kampala: Tankers: NWSC has provided 3 outlets to private contractors in Kampala as filling points for tankers. At present only 2 outlets are in operation. There are more than 30 water tanker trucks in Kampala. Water tanks in peri‐urban areas: In peri‐urban areas or areas where NWSC water does not reach or where there are severe shortages, there are water sellers who have large tanks. The water tankers sell water to these vendors who then sell water in jerry cans. Tap owners: They sell water to the vendors as well as directly to the consumers. Private borewell owners: These sell water to the vendors as well as directly to the consumers. Grocery shops: The grocery shops purchase NWSC water and sell it in cans of 20 litres. Vendors on bicycles: Vendors sell water in cans which they transport on their bicycles. These vendors also regularly supply water to certain households, who benefit also from getting water delivered at their doorstep, thus saving them the time and effort of collecting and transporting the water. These vendors mostly sell water from unprotected sources such as springs. Vendors hand‐carrying cans: These vendors help households to collect and transport water to the home at a cost per jerry can. Most of these vendors collect and sell spring water. These water vendors, by re‐selling piped water to the poor who are unable to invest in obtaining a private or yard tap connection for their households, are actually extending the NWSC coverage to the urban poor. There are three main sources of water for the informal water vendors: NWSC water supply from stand posts and taps, private bore wells and springs. In the low‐lying areas of Kampala natural springs can be found. People use this water for drinking and other domestic needs. Water taken directly from the springs is free for the consumer. Informal water vendors sell water to consumers in jerry cans having a capacity of 20 litres. Case study: Rapid Water Sellers, Kampala One of the three outlets provided by NWSC for filling water in tankers is owned by Mr. Kawega James. His business located near the industrial area in Kampala is called Rapid Water Sellers. Mr. Basher Kalanji for example owns a water truck with a capacity of 8,000 litres. He bought this truck second hand at a cost of 10 million shillings. He has been in the business for 2 years and pays 10,000 shillings to Rapid Water Sellers to fill his truck. All his business is managed through phone calls on his mobile. On an average he makes 6 to 8 trips a day. More trips are made in the summer and on days when NWSC water is shut down in certain areas. His pricing is: ‐ Up to 3 miles: 50,000 shillings, which translates into 125 Ushs per jerry can. ‐ 3 to 10 miles: 80,000 shillings, which translates into 200 Ushs per jerry can. ‐ Above 10 miles: negotiated price. His main customers are factories (Coco‐Cola), hotels, schools, big private bungalows, building contractors and water vendors. 11
A startling revelation made by him was that water has also been taken from fire hydrants on many occasions. 2.11 Other examples In Kampala, the average cost of water for a family of six is 200 to 600 Ushs per day. On a washing day, this goes up to 300‐900 Ushs per day. In addition, the households spend money on charcoal in order to boil water for drinking purposes. When water is vended from stand posts, installed by donors or NGOs, the price per jerry can is lower as was found in Kamwanyi‐Nsyamba locality in Kampala where a local NGO, CIDI, has installed a stand post under a donor‐funded programme for providing water to the urban poor. In Soweto, which is one of the poorest slums in Kampala, people who can not afford to buy water collect it from the nearby Kayongoga spring. The quality of the water in the spring is not good as domestic sewage gets mixed with it. A study of water vending system in Onitsha, Nigeria illustrates the point of water provision in poor, urban settlements. Studies there indicate that it was the poorest households in Onitsha who were paying more for water, both in absolute amounts and in terms of percentage of their income spend on water services. Onitsha has some 700,000 inhabitants but only some 8,000 households are connected to a public water supply system. The vast majority of the population obtains its water from the vending system operated by the private sector. Source: Whittington, Lauria and Mu, World Bank 1989. In other African cities, the differentials in the cost of water (ratio of price charged by water vendor to prices charged by the public utility) can be very high indeed. Examples are: Abidjan 5:1; Kampala 4:1 to 9:1; Lagos 4:1 to 10:1; Nairobi 7:1 to 11:1; (World Development Report 1988, quoted in Global Report on Human Settlements 1996). In many cases, households pay over 10% of their monthly incomes for vended water services, as compared to figures of between 1‐5% on monthly incomes for piped water. In some cases, households ‘purchasing from vendors pay as much as 50 times more per unit of water than households connected to the municipal system’ (Lovei and Whittington, 1991, p.9). Moreover, research conducted in rural Tanzania recorded that villagers in the Wewala District must either buy water from vendors at high cost or fetch water from traditional sources. When they must purchase water from vendors, ‘some villages pay the equivalent of up to one day’s agricultural wages for a 20 litre bucket’ (Rondinelli, 1991, p.421). 2.12 Suggestions on how to improve the vendor services •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recognize the role played by water vendors Seeing water vendors as an integral part of the water supply system may help in the design and implementation of more comprehensive policies that better serve the poor end‐users Recognising water vendors as official partners in the water system can also build trust and accountability Addressing existing constraints on informal water markets such as high prices relative to piped water Changing counter‐productive laws against water vending Removing constraints on water supply Reducing water tariffs for water vendors and reducing costs constraints 12
•
Formation of vendor and consumer associations and improving the relationship between vendors, consumers and water utilities providers. 13
References Adam Smith International (2002), Socio‐economic survey on water accessibility in Ghana, Public Utilities Regulatory Commission, Accra Albu, M. And Njiru, C. (2002), The role of small‐scale independent water providers in urban Areas”, Waterlines international journal of appropriate technologies for water supply and sanitation,Vol 20, No 3, pages 14‐16 Balleteros, M. M. (2002), Rethinking institutional reforms in the Phillipine houing sector, Discussion Paper Series 2002‐16, Phillipine Institute for Development Studies, Metro Manila. Budds, J. and McGranahan, G. (2003), Are the debates on water privatization missing the point? Experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America, Environment and Urbanization, Vol 15, No. 2, pages 87‐113 Cairncross, S. and Kinnear, J. (1991), Water vending in urban Sudan, Water Resources Development, Vol 7, No 4, pages 267‐273. Conan, H. (2003), Scope and Scale of Small Scale Independent Private Water Providers in 8 Asian Cities, Asian Development Bank, Manila. ESCAP (1991), Guidelines on Community Based Housing Finance and innovative Credit Systems for Low‐income Households, Report ST/ESCAP/1003, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. Ferguson, B. (2004), Scaling up housing micro‐finance: a guide to practice, Housing Finance International, Vol 19, No 1, pages 3‐13. Finger, M. and Allouche, J. (2002), Water privatisation: Trans‐National Corporations and the Re‐Regulation of the Water Industry, Spoon Press, London Government of Tanzania and UN‐Habitat (2003), Re‐establishing Effective Housing Finance Mechanisms in Tanzania: The Potentials and the Bottlenecks, UN‐Habitat, Nairobi Khan, H.R. and Siddique, Q.I. (2002), Urban water management problems in developing countries with particular reference to Bangladesh, Water Resources Development, Vol 16, No 1, pages 21‐33. Kjellén, M. and McGranaham, G. (2004), Informal Water Vendors and Getting Better Services for the Urban Poor, Thematic Paper for the Urban Forum in Barcelona, UN‐Habitat, Nairobi. McGrahan G., Njiru C., Albu M., Smith M., Mitlin D., (2006) How small water enterprises can contribute to Millennium Development Goals McGranaham, G. and Owen, D. L. (2004), Getting Local Water and Sanitation Companies to Improve Water and Sanitation Provision for the Urban Poor, Thematic Paper for the Urban Forum in Barcelona, UN‐Habitat, Nairobi. Ogero Bosire (2002) Assessment of Local Service Delivery within Informal and Peri‐Urban Settlements in Kenya. 14
Okpala, D. (1994), Financing housing in developing countries: a review of the pitfalls and potentials in the development of formal housing finance systems, Urban Studies, Vol 31, No 9, pages 1571‐1586. Pangare Ganesh and Vasudha Pangare (2008) Informal Water Vendors, Uganda . Snell, S. (1998), Water and Sanitation Services for the Urban Poor – Small Scale Providers: Typology & Profiles, UNDP World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Washington D.C. Solo, T. M. (1998), Competition in water and sanitation; the role of small‐scale entrepreneurs, Note 165, The World Bank, Washington D.C. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), Partnership in the Water Sector for Cities in Africa. Report, 1997. WHO and UNICEF (2000), Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report, World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund, Geneva and New York. World Bank (2003), Dar es Salaam Water Supply and Sanitation Project: Project Appraisal Document 25249 – TA, World Bank, Washington D.C. 15