Oct 2025 – Rural Water Supply Network

Pastoralists and Water 10 – Finding common ground between pastoralism and conservation

By Karl Wagner[1], Jennifer Gooden[2], Magnus Sylvén[3], Adrian Cullis[4]

This month, its over to Karl, Jennifer, Magnus and Adrain on our ongoing blog series which, this month, reflects on pastoralism and conservation!

Searching for common ground

Progress toward big challenges, like protecting rangelands and the pastoralists who use them, can be strengthened by finding partners who share common ground. We think this is the case with the pastoralism and conservation communities. In essence these communities have much in common, but in practice they have remained separate and therefore unable to achieve the protection of large, unfragmented landscapes. This is exacerbated by short-sighted perceptions:

Conservation practitioners tend to see domestic livestock, especially in managed herds, as an intrusion into the natural ecosystem. Sadly, many conservation practitioners would rather see a grassland absent of all large herbivores than a grassland grazed by pastoralists’ herds.
Pastoralists – for cultural and subsistence reasons – prize a “bigger is better” approach to herds, seeking to maximize the animal numbers to enhance livelihood stability in fragile environments. This can result in oversized populations of domesticated animals and add another driver of land degradation.

Finding balance

In reality, it’s not either-or but rather a matter of finding an optimal balance of multiple land uses. This includes recognizing that livestock can cover some, perhaps many (but not all!), of the ecological functions of wild animals. For example, cattle and bison are both bovines and both increase the bioavailability of soil nitrogen for microorganisms and plants through excretion of dung and urine.

However, wild bison must face predators, extreme weather, and food shortages, which keeps their population numbers within the ecosystem’s carrying capacity. Managed herds of cattle don’t face these risks to the same degree, and are also more selective in their grazing, resulting in a loss of rangeland biodiversity over time. Furthermore, when pastoralists and ranchers manage cattle herds more commercially, there’s often an increased risk of poorer grazing practices and accelerated rangeland degradation.

Where we agree

If we can zoom out and look at grasslands as socioecological systems, there are many things we might agree on:

Human civilization has seriously degraded earth’s ecosystems, leaving less than 3% that could be considered fully functional.
The more functional an ecosystem, the greater its ability to provide the goods and services that rural and urban communities need for their survival, wellbeing and prosperity – provided they are given access.
The human population stands at 8 billion and counting, growing in numbers as well as in demand for natural resources.Yet we live on a finite planet, and natural resources are limited.
We are in a systemic crisis, and we must identify and implement systemic solutions. This requires systemic, holistic thinking. Problems can no longer be seen or solved in isolated silos.
As a pragmatic consequence, natural resource management must pursue multifaceted objectives. It needs to address not only harvests but also the functionality and long-term resilience of ecosystems.

What wild animals can do

There’s one more unifying but lesser-known fact: wild animals can repair and enhance an ecosystem’s functionality. Wild animal impacts on ecosystem processes benefit pastoralists, too. Left wild, they can help with nutrient cycling, carbon capture, invasive species control, flood control, and water purification. One can think of non-management of wildlife as a management tool for grazing.

Wild animals are not mere bystanders in the face of environmental change. Like climatic factors, such as temperature, precipitation, and ocean currents, wild animals affect the web of life, actively shaping the spaces in which they live.

The role all animals play

Animals large and small, wild or domestic, have been found to both directly and indirectly play an intricate role in the water regulation on rangelands, the ecohydrology, ranging from micro-perturbations to the macro-perturbation commonly described as ecosystem engineering. Examples of large mammals having a positive impact on wetlands in rangelands include:

Wild species: elephants, hippos, African buffalo, tapirs, beavers, muskrats, and geese
Domestic species: water buffalo, cattle, and horses

All these species spend time both on land and in water, connecting terrestrial with aquatic ecosystems, affecting particularly the supporting services, such as nutrient cycling, ecosystem productivity, sediment/soil formation, seed dispersal, biodiversity, food webs and trophic cascading, water distribution and flow, as well as ecosystem heterogeneity. More detailed information is provided in the following two publications “Taking animals into Account: The Critical Role of Wild Animals in Shaping Wetland Ecosystems and the Services they Provide, A Report to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands – global outlook (February 2025) and Africa Special Report (July 2025).

What wild animals need

Space: In the face of rapid population declines, wildlife needs recovery areas sufficiently large for populations to flourish.
Complete food webs: Functional ecosystems require a complete food web, including predators.
Ecosystem engineers: Some species significantly modify their environments, creating space for many other species to flourish. Animals like beavers, elephants, and prairie dogs all play outsized roles in positively shaping the land and water around them.

Adapting pastoralist practices

The good news is with a few adaptations, pastoralist practices can be tools for land restoration. Holistic and regenerative grazing practices can build soil organic matter, increase water retention, sequester carbon, conserve biodiversity, and reduce the spread of invasive species. Similarly, community wildlife conservancies in Africa are another example of management practices that have resulted in a significant comeback of wildlife across large areas of Africa at the same time as providing new economic opportunities for people.

Let’s join the forces of the pastoralism and conservation communities to protect the large landscapes through which abundant wildlife and nomadic pastoralists have migrated since time immemorial.

About the authors

[1] Director, Campaigns, Global Rewilding Alliance

[2] President/CEO, Biophilia Foundation

[3] Director, Science-Policy-Practice, Global Rewilding Alliance

[4] Co-Chair, IYRP 2026, Pastoralists and Water Working Group

Financing Maintenance in Last-Mile Contexts: Endowment Funds for Rural Water Sustainability

Featured photo: Ghana, Lucy Parker

Article by Cincotta K. & Nhlema M.

Abstract

Rural water supply systems in low-income settings, particularly in last-mile communities, face chronic sustainability challenges. Financing predictable operation and maintenance (OPEX) remains a persistent gap, with one in four water points in sub-Saharan Africa being non-functional at any given time. While community-based management has been the dominant model for post-construction maintenance, it is increasingly recognized as insufficient, relying on underfunded household tariffs, volunteer committees, and limited technical support. Emerging solutions like results-based financing and professionalized maintenance contracts have shown promise with some securing government financing. This paper proposes district-level maintenance endowment funds, a mechanism where invested capital generates predictable income, as another option for financing rural water maintenance. These funds would support targeted subsidies, results-based contracting, and accountable, locally governed service delivery aligned with decentralization frameworks. This proposed model is agnostic to the specific management model, whether community-based, professionalized, or hybrid. The focus is on creating a predictable, long-term financing mechanism, particularly for so‑called ‘last-mile’ rural communities: small, dispersed villages, often with fewer than 1,000 people, that are typically excluded from piped water systems due to high per-capita service costs.

Two key arguments frame this proposal: (1) while endowment funds may be initially capitalized by international donors or organizations, over time they reduce dependency on short-term donor cycles by creating a predictable, locally managed revenue stream, and (2) Piloting endowments at the district government level strikes the right balance between being close enough to last-mile communities, accountable to them, and large enough to achieve economies of scale that will ensure financial viability for service provider payments.

THE PROBLEM: Persistent Non-Functionality and Unrealistic Expectations

Across sub-Saharan Africa, one in four rural water systems are non-functional at any given time. These failures are not anomalies, but they reflect a systemic global challenge: the absence of a reliable model for rural water service delivery beyond construction. For decades, community-based management (CBM) has been the dominant approach. It assumes that because communities value water, they will voluntarily manage infrastructure. But the viability of CBM is increasingly being questioned. Tariffs based on affordability rarely cover full maintenance costs, especially in small, dispersed communities, with variable incomes, that are often not prioritized for piped systems. Trained committee members often leave, and access to spare parts or technical support is limited. Volunteer fatigue, lack of retraining, and systemic underinvestment compound the problem.

The expectation that people living in the poorest rural villages must fully fund and manage the long-term maintenance of their own water systems does not align with how water systems are managed anywhere else in the world. In high-income countries, water infrastructure is maintained by trained professionals and supported by stable funding streams, often not limited to water user fees, but supplemented by public financing mechanisms such as property taxes and municipal budgets. The same should hold true, if not more so, in low-resource rural settings. A more realistic, equitable approach is therefore urgently needed.

TRIED AND TESTED SOLUTIONS: Results-Based Financing (RBF) – When Performance Meets Poverty

New RBF models are emerging. Uptime, as an example, is a partnership supporting professionalized rural water service providers that pays providers based on verified uptime. This shifts incentives from reactive repairs to preventive maintenance. Between 2020 and 2022, Uptime supported services for 1.5 million people in seven countries. Governments in countries such as Kenya, Bangladesh, and Zambia are now beginning to adopt performance-based financing approaches like this into their own public financing systems. This has been inspired in part by the evidence generated through philanthropic pilots. Yet, a central limitation remains: these models have demonstrated viability primarily in communities large enough or more “well-off” to generate economies of scale. This makes them financially attractive to service providers, but systematically excludes smaller, remote last-mile communities that are seen as less “bankable”. This is not a critique of performance-based models like Uptime, they are delivering results and proving their value. But it does highlight the need to pilot complementary result-based financing mechanisms that can address the unique realities of last-mile communities. Expecting the world’s poorest to fully finance their own essential services is neither equitable nor realistic. What’s needed is smart, targeted financing, including well-placed subsidies, that reflects the diversity of community capacity and directs public investment where it’s needed most. This is especially critical for last‑mile communities, i.e. remote, low‑density villages where user fees alone can never sustainably cover operating expenses.

This frame of thought, of differential and context-specific financing solutions, borrows from Dorward et al.: “Hanging In, Stepping Up, and Stepping Out.” Most rural households are “Hanging In,” unable to pay without full subsidy. Others can co-finance with support (“Stepping Up”), or engage with market models (“Stepping Out”). This model enables differentiated financing that aligns with real-world capacity. Targeted subsidies are not about dependence; they free up cash for productive use while ensuring reliable services. Importantly, we differentiate between water as a service that must be reliably provided for health and dignity, and water as a productive resource used to generate income. The proposed endowment-backed financing model speaks to the former, guaranteeing essential domestic supply. Other financing tools may be more appropriate for supporting productive uses of water in agriculture or enterprise.

RBF models have proven we know how to make maintenance work. The challenge now is to pilot solutions, such as endowment funds, that can sustainably support these communities where market-based approaches do not reach, thereby ensuring universal access to all.

THE PROPOSAL: District-Level Maintenance Endowment Funds

To close the financing gap, we propose district-managed endowment funds dedicated to rural water maintenance. These funds would invest capital to generate steady income for maintenance costs, insulating service delivery from budget shocks and donor cycles. They would:

Provide predictable financing by requiring implementing agencies to allocate a fixed amount, e.g. 10-20% of infrastructure costs, into the fund.
Enable targeted subsidies using the Hanging In/Stepping Out framework.
Support results-based contracting for professional maintenance providers.
Align with decentralization by placing fund management at the district level, while national governments serve as regulators.

This model borrows from urban utility principles where professional service delivery is underpinned by predictable financing and adapts them to rural realities. It does not assume full cost-recovery from users, nor does it treat water as a commodity for profit. Instead, it creates a stable platform for targeted subsidies and professional maintenance services in communities where user fees alone are structurally insufficient.

A Tribute to Catarina de Albuquerque: A Legacy of Mandate and Momentum

Catarina de Albuquerque (1970–2025)

It is with heavy hearts that we pause, not to let grief diminish the force of her legacy, but to honor the fierce, unyielding presence of a foundational architect of human right to water. Catarina de Albuquerque (1970–2025) was a tireless expert who leveraged her wisdom, courage, and political will to change the world’s most basic equation.

Catarina’s career was a masterclass in strategic advocacy, dedicated to transforming an ethical concern into a concrete, legally binding global objective.

For us, her most monumental achievement was her brave assumption of the role as the first UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation (2008–2014). This work culminated in the unwavering declaration of the 2010 resolution by the UN General Assembly, formally recognising access to water and sanitation as human rights. This was a critical shift, forged by her bold conviction, that moved the issue from a development challenge to a State obligation under the international human rights framework.

Catarina didn’t just advocate for recognition; she focused on accountability.

She ensured these rights were explicitly incorporated into the global development agenda, successfully driving their inclusion in Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6): “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.”
Her diplomatic force was also evident in her work presiding over the negotiations for the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (OP-ICESCR). This profound legal instrument created a mechanism for individuals to challenge human rights violations at the UN level, giving real teeth to economic and social rights.

As CEO of the Sanitation and Water for All – a UNICEF-hosted global partnership (SWA) partnership she continued to strategically mobilize high-level political will and financing, ensuring that policies prioritised the poorest and most marginalized, embodying the principle to leave no one behind.

For us, the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN), especially the Leave No One Behind Theme, Catarina provided the intellectual architecture necessary to fulfill our mandate. She moved beyond theory to provide us with actionable tools for implementation, ensuring the human rights framework was specifically tailored for the rural frontiers where we operate. Her collaborations directly strengthened RWSN’s technical focus by embedding social accountability and equity into service delivery models.

Her influential work, such as the book On the Right Track: Good Practices in Realising the Rights to Water and Sanitation, provided the necessary guidance for countries to operationalize these rights, directly informing our approach to national policy engagement.
She actively engaged with RWSN partners, notably through joint events like the World Bank and RWSN Webinar on the Human Right to Water, demonstrating her enduring commitment to bridging high-level policy with grassroots, rural implementation.

This strategic alignment means our commitment to the forgotten is a globally recognised legal duty, a legacy of her unparalleled expertise.

Catarina’s life offers a potent vision for every generation that follows, proving that policy is the highest form of power.

To the Youth, she demonstrated that a deep, determined focus on law and strategic advocacy is the lever for world-altering results. You are not merely inheritors of problems; you are the architects of the future legal reality for water and sanitation. Your fresh perspective and moral clarity are essential to holding power accountable and securing human rights.
To the Women in Water, Catarina is the indisputable proof of what a courageous, intellectual, fiercely determined woman can achieve. She was the one who shattered the ceiling and demanded accountability, showing women how to transform technical expertise into unassailable rights-based mandates. Your leadership is non-negotiable; Wield your power and be bold in its assertion.
And to the Global South, she is a powerful, undeniable call. She is the proof that our rightful place is not just to benefit from global policy, but to lead, command, and enforce the international human rights framework that demands equity for our communities. Our local experience is the unshakeable moral anchor that must drive global social justice.

Catarina’s greatest gift was not the victory itself, but the enduring reminder that our work is never done. Her unwavering commitment lights the path ahead, and her words continue to set our highest standard:

“I encourage you to continue the critical work you are all doing in recognising water, sanitation and hygiene as fundamental for all.” – Catarina, 2020

We honour her memory not through sorrow, but through renewed purpose, transforming grief into greater effort, deeper dedication, and higher quality in all we do. Inspired by her fearless leadership and strategic brilliance, we celebrate the progress she secured and press forward, with determination and wisdom, until the shared vision of universal water access becomes a reality for everyone, everywhere.

Written by Euphresia l, RWSN Leave No One Behind theme co-Lead, with inputs from Dr Amita Bhakta PhD, Sandra van Soelen, and Temple Chukwuemeka Oraeki, LNOB co-Leads.