Water privatisation risks deepening inequality in Zimbabwe, policy brief warns

by Staff writer

Zimbabwe risks worsening water inequality and weakening local authorities if it pursues private utility contracts without protecting affordability and public accountability, a new policy brief warns.

The report, published by the RECLAP Institute on October 15, urges the government to reverse what it describes as a January 2025 directive imposing private water-sector partnerships on urban councils.

Authored by researcher and water-rights advocate Khumbulani Maphosa, the brief draws on experiences across African countries to argue that private participation has frequently fallen short of promises to improve services, attract investment and stabilise tariffs.

Titled Reclaiming Africa’s Water Future: Unmasking the Fallacy of the Neoliberal Water Privatisation Promise, it places particular emphasis on the implications for Bulawayo and other Zimbabwean cities.

“Zimbabwe’s January 2025 directive risks recreating the exact conditions that led to the total collapse, international lawsuits, or forced nationalisation rescues observed in Tanzania, Gabon, and Niger,” the report states.

The brief identifies seven areas for assessing water-sector reforms: billing accuracy, service delivery, accountability, investment, tariff stability, water losses and institutional capacity.

Its central argument is that stronger revenue collection does not necessarily translate into reliable or affordable water for residents.

Prepaid meters under scrutiny

The report raises concerns about prepaid and smart-meter systems, warning that automated disconnections could leave vulnerable households without water when their credit runs out.

It identifies private contractor Helcraw Electrical in its discussion of Zimbabwe’s proposed arrangements and questions whether metering technology can resolve problems rooted in deteriorating infrastructure and inadequate supply.

The brief argues that expensive connection and registration charges could also prevent low-income households from joining formal networks. Those excluded, it says, may then depend on informal vendors charging substantially more than municipal suppliers.

It describes this burden as a “poverty premium”, in which households least able to pay face higher costs for accessing an essential service.

Lessons from African contracts

The study cites Tanzania’s terminated City Water lease and Ghana’s discontinued Aqua Vitens Rand management contract among examples it says demonstrate the limits of private-sector management.

According to the brief, anticipated improvements in investment, billing and service delivery did not consistently materialise under these arrangements.

It also examines continuing private-sector involvement in countries including Senegal and Côte d’Ivoire, arguing that technical improvements can coexist with unequal access and supply shortages.

However, the document contains inconsistencies in its country classifications. Niger and Gabon appear in its list of countries that abandoned private arrangements but are also discussed in a section labelled as covering countries currently privatising water. This complicates its presentation of historical and current experiences.

Call for public investment

For Zimbabwe, the report warns that centrally negotiated contracts could separate decision-making power from local accountability, leaving councils to answer residents’ complaints without sufficient control over tariffs, investment or operations.

It recommends direct public infrastructure financing, stronger municipal engineering capacity and transparent programmes to repair leaks and reduce non-revenue water.

Local authorities are urged to scrutinise long-term profit-sharing contracts and hold public discussions on ways to modernise services while retaining public ownership.

The brief also calls on civil society organisations and trade unions to monitor utility agreements, examine tariffs and defend workers’ rights.

Although strongly opposed to privatisation, the report acknowledges the problems used to justify reform, including ageing pipes, weak billing systems, unpaid government water bills and tariffs that do not cover operating costs.

Its proposed alternative is publicly financed, municipally accountable reform rather than transferring control to private operators.