Interrogating pre-paid water metering as a policy option

Hardlife Mudzingwa

Considering that pre-paid water meter installation is costly at around US$300 per household, how will local authorities ensure affordability?

With World Water Day on today, I felt compelled to interrogate pre-paid water metering as a policy option. To do justice to this policy discourse, I will try to weigh merits and demerits, trace where pre-payment for water emanates from and envisage the outlook of the institutional framework likely to support pre-paid water metering, informed of course by Government policy documents.

Why pre-paid water metering as a policy option? Local authorities perspective

Local authorities view pre-payment as an effective policy to deal with unaccounted water and the culture of non-payment for water.

The other reason is to reform the culture of “township/high-density” suburbs residents, and establish a new conception of civic virtue. Their argument is that once revenue is generated through the pre-payment system, access to water is ultimately improved.

Establishing a new economy of water consumption is another reason. The perception is that due to the discourse on climate change and the possibility of erratic rainfall, we have to economise our use of water.

Band wagon, the fact that others are doing it and, therefore, let us follow the crowd of nations, is one of the reasons.

Pre-payment for water has also been used as a depoliticising device in the context of rent boycotts due to poor services.

Setting the context and importance of policy and legal analysis in relation to pre-paid metering

Residents are facing serious water challenges emanating from a variety of factors.

There is erratic supply of water, water disconnections, non-payment for services, poor water quality, water pollution (Lake Chivero amongst the top 10 dirty lakes in the world), and massive destruction of water sources in particular wetlands.

The National Water Policy gives impetus to the creation of Water Utility Boards that will operate at Local Authority/Municipality level.

Harare has already made some developments in composing a Water Utility Board. Full council meetings’ minutes during the last quarter of 2014 reveal that councillors at some point asked whether Harare Water Utility was a private company or within the confines of Harare Municipality.

There are concerns that Water Utility Boards might be abused and act as cash cows for people in positions of authority.

The same reservations that residents had with Zinwa and its Catchment Boards prevails amongst residents up to this day.

ZimAsset provides a contextual setting also for interrogating policy relations with the pre-paid water metering agenda.

ZimAsset makes provisions for public-private partnerships as a viable option to finance water.

The economic blueprint has not clarified the form that these partnerships should take.

There is a high possibility that local authorities might engage a private institution to install pre-paid water meters given resource constraints to bankroll the process.

Any private business entity operates with profit generation as its objective. Part of the politics that people need to keep at the back of minds is the awarding of tenders.

Already the China Eximbank loan meant to cater for rehabilitation of Morton Jaffray Water Works is an eye-opener.

According to a report by the Special Committee appointed by Harare Council in terms of Section 100 of Zimbabwe’s Urban Councils Act (Chapter 29:15) dated 3 June — 3 July, contract prices for works equipment, machinery and other accessories were overpriced.

The report established that the actual cost of three warehouses constructed is US$700 000 rather than the US$2 600 000 charged.

Research has established that “pre-paid water metering do not underlie legal restrictions” (Thomas Gass, Assessment and Opportunities of Pre-paid Metering Systems in Zimbabwe Municipalities).

Many people in Zimbabwe live below the poverty datum line and hence “provisions of equity in terms of water supply is key”. Section 77a of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides for the right to water.

The international community has highlighted its stance on water provision with efforts such as the International Covenant on Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights General Comment 15, the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and UN Human Rights Council resolution 12/8, etc.

Policy, Legislative and Regulations Sources for pre-paid water metering analysis

Water Utilities provided for in Section 1.3.3 of the 2013 National Water Policy gives the foundation to the pre-paid water metering policy.

This section talks about decline in revenues from agricultural water which crippled Zinwa planning, development and management of water.

Zinwa viability depended much on agricultural water.

Section 1.3.2 of the National Water Policy earmarked Urban Council Authorities and Rural District Councils as Water Services Authorities whose main focus is authorising provision of water.

The same section gives birth to Water Service Providers which may be public, private or mixed and are responsible for providing water.

Section 77a of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and Section 4 of the Water Act should also guide councillors in framing policies. Section 4 of the Water Act prohibits privatisation of water.

Policy and legal issues in relation to pre-paid water metering

Considering that pre-paid water meter installation is costly at around US$300 per household, how will Local Authorities ensure affordability?

Do the benefits of pre-payment meters exceed costs of installation?

Research informing this article shows that water bills average US$20 per month whilst the cost of installing a meter at a household is around US$300.

A simple division of US$300 by US$20 reveals that it takes 15 months to recover costs.

Were there enough public consultations on the policy and if so what were the positions of different stakeholders on the issue?

How will health standards be maintained especially in a nation with a history of cholera outbreak?

What measures have been put in place to curb such disasters?

Is there a health policy at Local Authority level to ensure public safety?

What is the effect of pre-paid water metering on hand-washing routines and other hygiene related behaviours?

The national water policy states that water service providers can either be public, private or mixed. What is the City of Harare envisaging on its pre-paid water metering? Public or Private? Public-Private Partnerships? If so, what form will these partnerships take?

What is the role of the resident besides paying for water, in these partnerships?

A critique of pre-paid water metering as a policy option

The benefits of pre-payment relates to the fact that there is billing accuracy and no estimates.

There is the assumption that they may increase revenue collection but this is questionable especially with boreholes providing alternative water sources for free in urban areas.

Through pre-paid water metering, there is possibility of adjusting consumption of water where rationing is necessary, for example in drought-prone areas.

They address non-payment for water. There are also possibilities to integrate pro-poor policies through provision of minimum service level maintained for vulnerable customers.

For example, in South Africa 200 litres are provided free of charge per household per day, if the consumption of the vulnerable consumers exceed the 200 litres they then have to pre-pay for the water.

“Prepaid water systems are not a technical magical wand to fix underlying management issues in the delivery of urban water supply,” (Kathy Eales, Richard Franceys, August 2014).

The Services Level Benchmarking Report for Harare done by the World Bank, had overwhelming evidence that the problem in Harare is a management issue.

Research revealed that technical requirements (network stability) are not yet fulfilled and the organisational development of councils also has to progress. Operationally, the system needs close monitoring and rapid response capability to identify and resolve problems.

I doubt if local authorities’ employees respond to issues that fast.

“Affordability and financial viability of pre-paid water is a major challenge.”

The finance spent on installation need to match percentage improvement in revenue and the likely increased costs.

Citizens are not interested in technology, “they are interested in good services, reliably delivered at affordable prices.”

Pre-paid water meters do not ensure that water is available and can record consumption even if only air is passing through the device.

They also “do not establish communication systems and relationships” between duty bearers and rights holders.

The United Nations fact sheet No. 35 establish that the right to water has freedoms and entitlements. Freedoms include being free from arbitrary disconnections. Entitlements include access to minimum amount of safe drinking water to sustain life and health.

The State also has a duty to communicate any changes made in water systems through publication in the Gazette.

Policy recommendations

I recommend that if local authorities are eager to install pre-paid water meters they should target major water debtors like private companies owing them thousands.

This is because the benefits outweigh costs of installation and is a good cross-subsidisation measure.

Local authorities should also address burst water pipes that account for loss of thousands of dollars. To address non-payment for water, councils should deal with root causes to non-payment through dialogue that builds trust.

Development of payment plans with residents owing local authorities and increasing public expenditure on water are viable options.