“All for some”: water inequity in Zambia and Zimbabwe

In southern Africa, gross disparities in access to water are symptomatic of the overall uneven pattern of development. Despite post-independence egalitarian rhetoric, in countries such as Zambia and Zimbabwe inappropriate models (piped house connections in the urban areas, high technology irrigation schemes in the agricultural sector), combined with weak macro-economies and poorly formulated sectoral policies have actually exacerbated the disparities. Zero or very low tariffs have played a major role in this. Although justified as being consistent with water’s special status, inadequate tariffs in fact serve to undermine any programme of makingwater accessible to all. This has led to a narrowingof development options, resultingin exclusivist rather than inclusivist development, and stagnation rather than dynamism. A major part of the explanation for perpetuation of such unsatisfactory outcomes is the existence of political interest groups who benefit from the status quo. The first case study in the paper involves urban water consumers in Zambia, where those with piped water connections seek to continue the culture of low tariffs which is by now deeply embedded. The result is that the water supply authorities (in this case the newly formed, but still politically constrained ‘commercialised utilities’) are unable even to maintain adequate supplies to the piped customers, let alone extend service to the peri-urban dwellers, 56% of whom do not have access to safe water. The paper outlines some modest, workable principles to achieve universal, affordable access to water in the urban areas, albeit through a mix of service delivery mechanisms. In a second case study of rural productive water in Zimbabwe, the reasons for only 2% of the rural subsistence farming households being involved in formal small-scale irrigation schemes 20 years after independence are explored. Again, a major part of the explanation lies in government pursuing a water delivery model which is not affordable or sustainable on a wide scale. Its provision, via substantial capital and recurrent subsidies, for a small group has a large opportunity cost for society as a whole. The small-scale irrigators have a vested interest in ensuring that the subsidies are maintained, but in the process continue to absorb a disproportionate amount of resources which could be used for development elsewhere. By choosingsimpler, cheaper water technologies, and assisting farmers with growing and marketing high value crops, the resources could instead be used to benefit a much larger proportion of households. With well designed programmes aimed at achieving equity, large numbers of subsistence farmers could improve their incomes and start workingtheir way out of poverty. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.