1

Water for the Poor: Who Cares?

Are Water Kiosks a Sustainable and Adapted Solution for Peri-Urban Areas and Informal Settlements?

A Critical Analysis of an Article Prepared for KfW[1]

Table of Contents

Water for the Poor: Who Cares?

1Introduction

2Objectives of Water Supply Schemes for the Urban Poor

2.1Accessibility

2.2Assumptions Regarding the (Continued) Use of Alternative Sources

2.3Kiosk Water Consumption and the Planning Process

2.4Being Rational or Unaware?

3Advantages and Disadvantages of Kiosk Systems

3.1Introduction

3.2Kiosks and “Social Connections”: The Kampala Case

3.2.1Introduction

3.2.2Kiosk Operation and Vendor Incomes

3.2.3A New Approach

3.2.4Kiosk, Yard taps, Price and Distance

3.2.5Keeping Treated Water Affordable

3.2.6Advantages of the NWSC “Social Connection” Approach

3.2.7Disadvantages of the NWSC “Social Connection” Approach

3.2.8The Price of Water and the Rights of the Customer

3.3Main Advantages of the Kiosk System

3.4Kiosks in Un-Metered Environments

3.5Areas Less Suited for Kiosks

3.5.1Urban Areas with Low Population Densities

3.5.2Urban Areas Served Through Hand Pumps and Springs

4Changing Settlement Patterns and the Introduction of Kiosks

4.1Dedicated Kiosk Distribution Networks or Mixed Systems?

4.2Impact of the Introduction of Water Kiosks

4.3Investments and New Types of Housing

4.4Kiosks: A Supply Driven Water Supply Technology?

4.5Responding to an Emerging Market for House Connections

5The Low-Cost Residential Areas: A Public Health Time Bomb

5.1Making Necessary Distinctions

5.2The Low-Cost Issue: Downgrading or Doing Nothing?

5.3Adapting to Dilapidation

5.4Experiences with the Introduction of Kiosks in Low-Cost Areas

5.5Arguments in Favour and Against “Downgrading”

5.6Lessons Learned

6Kiosks and the Need for Proper Planning

6.1The Use of Norms During the Planning Process

6.2Measuring Water Consumption in Peri-urban Areas

6.3Planning of a Kiosk System: Using Norms or Facts?

6.4An Example: Poor Planning of Kiosks Schemes on the Copperbelt

6.5The Millennium Development Goals and Per Capita Investment Costs

7Planning and Management of Kiosk Systems: Community Participation

7.1Should Community Participation Determine Access to Water?

7.2Zambia: The Peri-Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Strategy

7.3A Critical Evaluation of the Strategy: Limits to Community Participation

7.3.1Differences between Rural and Peri-Urban Areas

7.3.2Water Supply in Poorly Organised Peri-urban Areas

8Poor Image, Loss of Confidence and the Creation of By-Passes

8.1Poor Image of the LWSC

8.2Creating By-Passes and Development from Below

8.3Local Presence is Key

8.4Need for a Holistic Approach (2)

9Management of Kiosk Systems by Service Providers

9.1Main Problem Service Providers Face Managing Kiosks

9.2Vendor Livelihood Strategies and an Absent Service Provider

9.3Being Sucked by the Swirl

9.4More Observations Concerning Corporate Culture

9.4.1Office and Field

9.4.2The Corporate Culture of the Old SWSC

9.5Management of Water Supply Schemes by RDCs

9.6Lessons Learned from RDC-Managed Water Supply Schemes

9.7Reasons for Service Providers to Supply Peri-Urban Areas

10Tariffs, Per Capita Consumption and Water Vendor Incomes

10.1Introduction

10.2Willingness and Ability to Pay and Quantities Consumed

10.3How Tariff Structures are Designed

10.4Decision-Making at the Household Level

10.5Improving Vendor Incomes, Tariffs and Elasticity of Demand

10.6Rendering the Kiosk System More Flexible

10.7Vendor Incomes and Cross Subsidies

11Should the Poor Pay More?

11.1LWSC and Peri-Urban Water Supply

11.2The Regulator and the Solidarity Principle: Making Peri-Urban Water Supply Unattractive

11.3Potential Revenue from the Peri-Urban Areas

11.4Victims of a Short-Sighted Political Debate

11.5The Pro-Poor Discourse and the Willingness and Ability to Pay

12Concluding Remarks: Who should be Responsible for Peri-Urban Water Supply?

12.1Lazy Entrepreneurs and Assumptions about Peri-Urban Water Supply

12.2The Role of NGOs: Lessons Learned

13Coverage and the MDGs: MLGH Wake Up!

13.1What Are We Aiming For?

13.2Urban or Rural: Who knows?

Glossary, List of Abbreviations, Exchange Rates and Bibliography

Glossary

List of Abbreviations

Exchange Rates

Bibliography

Endnotes

______

Water for the Poor: Who Cares?

Are Water Kiosks a Sustainable and Adapted Solution for

Peri-Urban Areas and Informal Settlements?

1Introduction

The objective of this discussion paper is to offer a detailed critical analysis of an article prepared for KfW (see: List of Abbreviations) entitled Wasserversorgung über Zapfstellen: Relevante Aspekte für die Versorgung armer Bevölkerungsgruppen (KfW 2004, see Bibliography). We would like to address and refute some of main generalisations and conclusions of this article as well as the assumptions or data upon which assertions are based. Our commentary also contains a set of recommendations. One of the major weaknesses of the KfW article is that it does not offer any alternative pro-poor water supply solutions.

Our critique is based upon experience with the introduction and management of kiosk systems acquired in Zambia. We will also draw upon experiences and data from Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Uganda and Tanzania.

Through the preparation of this paper, we hope to contribute to a better understanding of the complex challenges faced by service providers, ministries, regulators, NGOs and donor agencies that are involved in the development and implementation of water supply schemes in informal settlements and other underprivileged urban settings. We also intend to show that kiosk systems can and do achieve their objectives in a variety of African urban settings and do make a significant contribution to the improvement of the public health situation as well as to the performance of service providers.

This paper is organised as follows:

  • Chapter 2 discusses the main objectives of water supply to the peri-urban and informal settlements.
  • Chapter3 focuses upon the advantages and disadvantages of various peri-urban water supply approaches. This is done by comparing the kiosk system with another approach to peri-urban water supply.
  • Chapter 4looks at the advantages of kiosk-dedicated distribution networks and mixed systems (networks supplying kiosks and domestic connections). This chapter also tries to answer the question whether water kiosks should be seen as a demand-driven or supply-driven technology.
  • Chapter 5examines the pitfalls and potentials of the introduction of kiosks in planned residential areas which previously received water through house connections.
  • Chapters 6 and 7discuss the planning of kiosk systems. It is argued that the planning of kiosk system should be done on the basis of data instead of upon norms and assumptions.
  • Chapters 8 centres on the role, responsibilities and actions of the various stakeholders – communities, service providers and NGOs – concerning water supply to peri-urban areas and informal settlements. Chapter 8 shows that community organisations have developed several ways to by-pass councils and ministries in their attempt to develop their area and to improve water supply.
  • Chapter 9deals with the management of kiosk systems. Attention is paid to the important relation between the service provider and the water vendor. One of the conclusions presented in this chapter is that, low vendor incomes often explain why collection efficiencies are low. Low collection efficiencies are a direct threat to the long-term sustainability of the kiosk system.
  • Chapter 10 analyses vendor incomes in relations to tariffs and water demand.
  • Chapter 11 discusses the discrepancy which exists between the willingness and ability of peri-urban residents to pay for water and the commercial/financial requirements of the service providers on the one hand and the amounts mentioned by other stakeholders such as the regulator on the other.
  • Chapter 12 presents a number of concluding remarks and shows that service providers should not shun the peri-urban areas but consider them as an interesting challenge, also from a commercial point of view.
  • Chapter 13looks at the coverageand adequate water supplydefinitions used by the Zambian Central Statistical Office (CSO) and argues that clear definitions are needed in order to assess the required interventions in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

2Objectives of Water Supply Schemes for the Urban Poor

2.1Accessibility

The main objectives of kiosk-based water supply schemes which aim at supplying the poorest urban socio-economic strata can be summed as follows:

  • Social objectives.
  • Public health objectives.
  • Commercial and Financial objectives.
  • Technical objectives.
  • Environmental objectives.

All objectives directly or indirectly relate to the sustainability of the water supply schemes. For example, a kiosk system is only viable in the long run if it is able to meet the financial and commercial targets of the service provider. The social objective can be translated into “accessibility”,a concept which can be dissected into the following elements:

  • Distance between the dwellings and the nearest kiosk.
  • Maximum waiting time at the kiosk during peak demand hours.
  • The price (affordability) of water.
  • The design of the kiosk (user-friendliness and ergonomic design).
  • Business hours of the kiosks.
  • The quality of the service provided by the Water vendor.

Considering sustainability and the financial/commercial objectives in particular also implies that the long and short term interests of the following 3 main stakeholders are taken into account:

  • The population of the urban areas concerned.
  • The Service provider.
  • The Water vendor who operates the kiosk.

It is often assumed that the various objectives of a kiosk system and the interests of the various stakeholders are incompatible. The social objective of a kiosk system is often assumed to be incompatible with the financial and commercial objectives of service providers. If treated water is affordable for the urban poor residing in informal settlements, then collections cannot cover the operation, maintenance and replacement costs of these supply schemes. If water is affordable, and if the service provider is able to cover its costs, then the commission (a percentage of the tariff) given to the vendorswill not allow them to earn a decent living. In the following chapters, we argue that kiosk systems can achieve all their objectives and satisfy the needs and interests of all stakeholders, provided they are well planned and provided certain conditions are met. Conditions such as a minimal population densityand the willingness and ability to pay a certain tariff. We also show that proper planning involves the active participation of the community and its representatives.

2.2Assumptions Regarding the (Continued) Use of Alternative Sources

The KfW article concludes that the introduction of kiosks or standpipes (“Zapfstellen”) usually results in households abandoning their usual sources of unsafe water sources (springs, wells, surface water, etc., see KfW 2004: 4/8), which represent significant health risks. Several studies (detailed household water supply measurements among large numbers of households) carried out in informal settlements in Zambia, Uganda and Rwanda[2] by GKW Consult show, however, that after the introduction of piped water, households continue to use cheaper sources of water for usages such as construction work, laundry, watering domestic animals and even bathing. The newly introduced water outlets that supply safe but relatively expensive water are mainly used for drinking and preparing meals. The inhabitants of Ngenda (Rural District) in the Bugesera-Sud region of Rwanda, did not abandon their springs after the introduction of water kiosks in 1998, and continued harvesting rain water. In Chipata and Monze, 2 mid-size towns in Zambia, residents did not abandon the wells in their yards, nor their wells in the nearby dambo (see glossary).

The introduction of kiosks usually leads to adaptations in water fetching practices, domestic treatment methods andconsumption patterns. For example, in many Zambian peri-urban areas, households that depend on unsafe sources of water (yard wells, scoop holes and shallow dambo wells) treat their water by adding chlorine (brand name Clorin). The use of chlorine has been promoted by an American NGO (the Society for Family Health). The introduction of kiosks often puts an end to domestic water treatment practices.[3]

The fact that households prefer to use a combination of safe and unsafe sources also explains why per capita consumption levels are low. In Chipata,where kiosks were introduced in 1994, daily per capita kiosk consumption never exceeded 7.5 litres.[4]In Lusaka per capita consumption levels in some peri-urban areas with poor access to alternative sources, range between 15 and 27 litres. Even in Burkina Faso, where people often lack alternative water sources and where per capita consumption levels at kiosks are relatively high (between 19 and 25 litres), residents will use alternative sources if they have access to them. A study carried out in Bobo Dioulasso, shows that total kiosk consumption during the hot season (when temperatures often exceed 40ºC) is between 40 and 45 litres/person/day (see endnote).[i] During the rainy season when residents use rainwater and water from wells, at the kiosks was measured at 21 - 25 litres/cap/day. (ONEA/IGIP/Hydroplan/GKW Consult 1997: 13).[5]

In Rwanda (Bugesera-Sud region), daily per capita kiosk consumption ranged between 1 and 2.5 litres (approximately 88% of all households used the kiosks 6 months after their inauguration). These low consumption levels are not an indication of unaffordable tariffs. In fact, in the Bugesera-Sud Region, some residents paid 10 times more for a 20-litre container (FRW 150 which in 1998 was approximately $ 0.50) of unsafe water (from a stream or the lake) before the inauguration of the kiosks and a study carried out by GKW Consult showed that the proposed tariff of FRW 14 was affordable and acceptable to a large majority of the population.

The consumption patterns of kiosk customers and that combined use of unsafe and safe sources[6] explains why residents of informal settlements, who belong to the less affluent socio-economic strata of society, are prepared to pay relatively high tariffs. Their appraisal of existing and proposed tariffs already incorporates an estimation with regard to the quantities of payable water they consume or will consume.

In the informal settlements of Kampala (Uganda) and the peri-urban areas of Lusaka (Zambia), kiosk customers pay 2 to 9 times as much for a cubic metre of water as compared to the residents of formal residential areas who have access to house connections. Residents of low-income areas who depend upon informal tariffs because they make use of the house connections of neighbours or the services of water resellers often pay even more. In Dar es Salaam andOuagadougou water resellers who deliver water at their customers’ doorstep, charge a tariff which is 5 to 15 times higher than the domestic tariff.

The strategic use of a combination of water sources is to some explained by the limited financial resources households have access to but they also reflect householdpriorities. In order to limit and control water expenditures,many residents of peri-urban or informal settlements will restrict the consumption of “expensive” treated water to health related usages such as drinking, preparing meals and washing babies.

Household members do not always share the same priorities. In Ikom and Ogoja in CrossRiverState (Nigeria), female-headed households tend to spend more money on water in comparison with households where the man (husband) is the main breadwinner (GKW 1993). Fetching water is considered to be a female responsibility and although male household heads are expected to pay for water, their household budget priorities tend to be different from the priorities of female household heads.

The continued use of sources of unsafe water in combination with kiosk water is sometimes based upon non-budgetary considerations. Residents in Itimpi, a peri-urban area of Kitwe (an important mining town in Zambia’s Copperbelt) pointed out that they continue using the wells in their yard because the distance is short and whilst they value having their own source of water.

2.3Kiosk Water Consumption and the Planning Process

The use of a combination of water sources has important implications for the planning and evaluation of kiosk projects. Initial comments by the responsible Ministry (MINITRAP) and KfW, which were made a few months after the inauguration of the Ngenda kiosks, reflected a deep sense of disappointment because the beneficiaries were only consuming 1 - 2.5 litres/day instead of the expected 10 litres/capita/day.[7]All technical and financial/commercial calculations and estimations had been made on the basis of the assumption that the beneficiaries - the total population of Ngenda (approximately 120,000 persons in 1998)- would consume according to the norm of the Ministry: initially,10 litres/capita/day and eventually 20 litres/capita/day. Data collected by the Consultant on alternative sources of water and pre-project consumption patterns, on the basis of which a daily per capita kiosk consumption of 3.75 litres was predicted, were disregarded. The discrepancy between the norm and reality was explained by a lack of awareness among the population, which was largely attributed to the sensitisation programme which apparently had not managed to lure residents away from their traditional sources of water.

A household survey and numerous formal and informal in-depth interviews with residents 6 months after the inauguration of the kiosks, showed, however, that the majority of the population of Ngenda considered the kiosk project, which involved the construction of a large treatment plant, a success. Treated water had become accessible and affordable and most households fetched the water they needed for drinking and preparing meals,at the kiosk. For other usages, they continued fetching water from alternative and cheaper sources such as streams, springs, the lake and rooftops (rainwater harvesting).

2.4Being Rational or Unaware?

The Ngenda example shows, that residents do not act according to norms, but when it comes to their water supply problems consider such factors as health risks, distance, usage, price and opportunity costs. The result of these assessments may result in low household and low per capita consumption levels, but this does not imply that families make irresponsible decisions.

In Ngenda, the team of the consultant responsible for the sensitisation programme had not convincing scientific public health arguments which could be used during a sensitisation/education campaign to convince the population not to use spring water for bathing and washing, or not to use the water from streams for watering domestic animals or construction work. In other words, the Ngenda example shows that a kiosk project can achieve its social and public health objectives even if per capita consumption levels are low.