Blog by Analía Saker, Terra Michaels, and Mohammed Farhaoui, co-leads of the RWSN Sustainable Services Theme. Featured image: Aguaconsult, Peru.
Trends come and go quickly in the WASH sector. When a new concept shows early signs of success, it is often promoted as the next big solution, packaged by development partners, donors, and foundations. These actors, in turn, push governments to adopt the latest approach, frequently triggering wide-reaching reforms with mixed results.
We have seen this cycle play out repeatedly: private sector participation, on-site sanitation, blended finance, carbon credits, and the list goes on. In rural water service delivery, the pattern is even clearer. Municipalities and local governments were once seen as the appropriate service providers. In the 1990s, the spotlight shifted to Community-Based Management (CBM). When the limitations of unsupported CBM systems became apparent, public rural utilities were pushed as a more “professional” solution. Today, Safe Water Enterprises (private companies heavily supported by international donors) are the rising stars.
These shifts are often driven more by the perceived failure of one model than by strong, scalable evidence of success from another. Governments are influenced to adopt new service delivery models, often initiating complex reform processes. Yet, the sector lacks solid evidence to prove that such reforms lead to better performance or more sustainable services.
A recent example comes from Ghana, where a now-concluded USAID-funded study sought to investigate this issue. The research compared three rural water service delivery models for piped schemes, aiming to identify what actually drives performance. This was especially relevant in a context where the Government of Ghana is increasingly backing service provision through the Community Water and Sanitation Agency, acting as a new rural public utility, while development partners strongly advocate for Safe Water Enterprises. Meanwhile, support for the still-widespread CBM model has all but disappeared.
Surprisingly, the study found small performance differences among the models. Performance outcomes were more closely linked to socio-economic context and the service provider practices than to the model itself. Although the findings are specific to Ghana, they raise a broader question: are we focusing on the wrong thing? Perhaps it is not about the model at all, but rather about how it is implemented and whether critical elements like professionalism, regulation, and accountability are in place.
This idea was reinforced in a recent webinar we hosted in April this year, where case studies from across the globe showcased how different models can succeed when implemented well and supported by an enabling environment.
- Cambodia: Fully private rural providers invest in, operate, and maintain water systems, under government regulation and licensing.
- Peru: CBM remains the dominant model in rural areas, but the sector is actively working to professionalize and regulate service provision.
- Morocco: Public utilities manage rural service delivery as an extension of their urban mandates.
- Senegal: A global best practice in public-private partnerships for rural water service delivery.
These examples show that success is not determined by the management model itself, but by the conditions in which it operates. Instead of chasing the next big trend, we should be focusing our energy and resources on strengthening the elements that matter most, regardless of the model. These include cost-reflective tariffs, regulatory oversight, accountability mechanisms, participation, professionalized staffing, and robust monitoring systems.
Let’s stop asking, “What is the right model?” and start asking, “What makes the model work?”
Join the RWSN Sustainable Services discussion group to continue this conversation.
Rural Water Supply Network - blog 