Quarterly Bulletin

 There is an African Proverb that says that, “One cannot pick lice using only his thumb.” This proverb stresses the importance of community through individual contributions. It is the common goals of the individuals that make the community work. If individuals value different things and want to go it their own way, common goals cannot be met. Chilufya Chileshe explores the concept of Public Private Partnerships by way of giving a case of the Lusaka City Council hiring private firms to collect garbage.

Partnerships have the potential of achieving great benefits, but in those instances where one party seeks to exploit the other in the partnership the results can be rather dire.

Zambia is a country where mere access to food and good nutrition by most is deficient. We are in a desperate search for answers to overcome these problems, to ensure equitable distribution of resources and access to good quality public services

Consider the concept of Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Could this be an answer to the lack of state investment in vital services? Or is it just another form of privatisation and commercialisation of public services?

Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) refer to any collaboration between public bodies, such as local authorities or central government, and private companies. This is one of the buzz phrases in modern day development discourse and is encouraged in almost all development initiatives.

The New Economic Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) encourages it, along with International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank as well as the United Kingdom government. It is believed to be the best way to secure improvements in public services for the people.

The government of Zambia began to implement economic and political reforms in 1991 with PPPs greatly encouraged to “foster greater competition and efficiency” in the economy.  The recent   policy   on    collection   of garbage in Lusaka is one area that is a result. Every household is required to have their garbage collected for a fee. Medium-density households, for instance, have to pay K30, 000 per month to private firms that have been contracted by the council.

Surely partnership is good, and links with the understanding of the need for more than just the thumb to achieve our goal. PPPs as they are articulated involve private sector supply of infrastructure and services that have traditionally been provided by the government.

To be borne in mind is that government’s role is to ensure citizens have decent lives and access to good public services, whilst private corporations’ sole aim is to make profit. Hence, one becomes sceptical and particularly concerned about a mix of the two, especially the extension of the private sector into areas like schools and hospitals. This is because services which have been known to be free – like garbage collection – or those provided at subsidised costs may have to be accessed commercially.

According to the IMF, “An infusion of private capital and management can ease fiscal constraints… and increase efficiency.” Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair adds, “Private companies are often more efficient and better run than bureaucratic public bodies.”

However, the relationship we are witnessing between the Council and the private companies collecting the garbage in Lusaka fails to demonstrate a partnership where expertise is brought together to achieve or reach common societal ends. Instead, this garbage privatisation suggests a purely business relationship. The expectation is that the people to be serviced by this initiative would be part of the partnership. Could the three Ps not refer to the people, the public and the private sector? Surely a thumb with two fingers to pick lice is even more desirable than a thumb with just one finger.

The majority of these medium density households in Lusaka required to pay K30, 000 to have garbage collected - or else risk prosecution if they throw the garbage in backyard rubbish pits - are families with inadequate or no monthly incomes, either because they are retired civil servants or simply unemployed as a result of the privatisation of the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP) era. So the garbage fee adds an extra burden to already stressed families and high cost of living. 

As the monthly Basic Needs Basket survey for July 2008 conducted by the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) shows, a family of 6 requires K1, 893,150   to   survive   while  most family incomes are well below half that amount. Adding K30,000 to their budget for rubbish removal can be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
In theory, bringing the public and private sector together should allow the management, skills and financial acumen of the business community to create better value for money, for taxpayers.

However, development is more than just value for money; it is a “movement from a state of deprivation or less human conditions to more human conditions,” according to Pope Paul VI in Progress of People (1967). Zambia is in great need of this shift of people to be empowered and enabled to push themselves out of the state of impoverishment.

PPPs in the way they are being implemented are a business relationship. The use of the word partnership disguises the fact that this is commodification of our sanitation service. Even the IMF (2004) agrees that “PPPs offer similar benefits to privatisation.”

So are we to expect good public service delivery and an improvement of our lives from the garbage PPP? Or the same harsh effects of privatisation that Zambians have experienced before?

Chilufya Chileshe
JCTR Staff
Lusaka