“Financial Innovations for Rural Water Supply in Low-Resource Settings” Innovation 3: Water Quality Assurance Funds

Innovation 3: Water Quality Assurance Funds

This blog post is part of a series that summarizes the REAL-Water report, “Financial Innovations for Rural Water Supply in Low-Resource Settings,” which was developed by The Aquaya Institute and REAL-Water consortium members with support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The report specifically focuses on identifying innovative financing mechanisms to tackle the significant challenge of providing safe and sustainable water supply in low-resource rural communities. These communities are characterized by smaller populations, dispersed settlements, and economic disadvantages, which create obstacles for cost recovery and hinder the realization of economies of scale.

Financial innovations have emerged as viable solutions to improve access to water supply services in low-resource settings. The REAL-Water report identifies seven financing or funding concepts that have the potential to address water supply challenges in rural communities:

Village Savings for Water
Digital Financial Services
Water Quality Assurance Funds
Performance-Based Funding
Development Impact Bonds
Standardized Life-Cycle Costing
Blending Public/Private Finance

Understanding Water Quality Assurance Funds

In rural areas, community-managed water supplies are increasingly recognized as unsustainable, in part because communities with small water systems (e.g., handpumps, mechanized boreholes, and small piped systems) often struggle to collect enough money to maintain water infrastructure (Whaley et al. 2019). As a result, they typically must neglect critical aspects of professional water management, such as water quality testing to verify its safety for human consumption. Rural agricultural communities, situated far from public or private laboratories, struggle to access testing services due to distance and irregular income patterns. However, a viable solution comes in the form of introducing a third-party guarantor to distribute the risks associated with unpaid water testing fees among various stakeholders (Halvorson-Quevedo and Mirabile 2014). The third party can help to facilitate testing arrangements and provide indirect financial support, wherein stand-by funds are only accessed when the local fee-for-service exchange is disrupted.

How does it work?

“Assurance funds” provide liquid assets (e.g., a savings account) that can be quickly mobilized if a liability arises. Water quality assurance funds are held by a third party (e.g., a nongovernmental organization) to guarantee payment for to the beneficiary (e.g., a centrally located water quality laboratory) if a rural community is unable to pay for water testing services on time (Press-Williams et al. 2021).

By employing this innovative model, larger professional laboratories can extend low-cost centralized monitoring services to smaller rural water systems, fostering efficiency and incentivizing wider-scale testing. As a result, laboratories gain a new market for their services while rural communities gain a reliable means of verifying their drinking water safety with greater certainty and lower startup cost than establishing onsite laboratory capacity.The assurance fund accounting is managed by the third party and can be drawn down

slowly, leveraging donor aid, or replenished if the rural community is able to pay back service fees at a later date (Figure 1). Contract enforcement is managed through the local government authorities.

Figure 1. Simplified illustration of a water quality assurance fund mechanism (Source: Vanessa Guenther, The Aquaya Institute)

Implementation of assurance funds requires diligent management to ensure accountability. Skilled staff must manage the fund as long as it exists.For water quality assurance funds, field and laboratory staff must adhere to good protocols to ensure water quality data are accurate and address decision-making needs in a timely manner.

Examples

Pilot examples come from a few African countries:

With funding support from the Hilton Foundation, The Aquaya Institute (a nonprofit research and consulting organization) developed an assurance fund in 2020 to encourage an existing laboratory to provide water quality monitoring services to small rural water systems in the Asutifi North District of Ghana (Figure 2; Press-Williams et al. 2021). The water systems mobilized community-collected water fees to pay Ghana Water Company Limited’s (GWCL’s) central laboratory (Figure 3) for monthly services. If they defaulted on payments, then GWCL could file a claim against the assurance fund. This centralized testing approach cost an average of $67 per test, or approximately 60% of what it would have cost to provide training and testing equipment for each separate water system.

Between March 2020 and January 2021, GWCL testing revealed microbial contamination in more than half of the 134 water samples across nine water systems, raising awareness among water system managers about issues with chlorination procedures (Press-Williams et al. 2021). In most cases, water systems were able to pay GWCL within one month of receiving testing services. Despite payments being delayed for approximately one third of testing services, GWCL filed only one claim against the assurance fund, instead negotiating directly with the defaulting water systems to allow more time. Extension of the same concept to other districts in

Ghana as well as in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania is underway with additional funding support from USAID REAL Water, the Hilton Foundation, and the Helmsley Charitable Trust. Another use of the assurance fund was to deliver targeted subsidies for specific communities during times of need (e.g., Covid-19 pandemic, fuel price inflation).

Figure 2. Ghana Water Company Limited analyzes bacteria in drinking water samples from small water systems in the nearby rural district of Asutifi North. (Source: Bashiru Yachori, Aquaya Institute).

Figure 3. A Ghana Water Company Limited technician collects a sample from a water point in Asutifi North, Ghana, as part of the Water Quality Assurance Fund agreement (Source: Bashiru Yachori, Aquaya Institute).

To access further information on financial innovations for rural water supply in low-resource settings, you can download the complete report HERE.

The information provided on this website is not official U.S. government information and does not represent the views or positions of the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Government.

References:

Halvorson-Quevedo, Raundi, and Mariana Mirabile. 2014. “Guarantees for Development.”

Press-Williams, Jessie, Caroline Delaire, Bashiru Yachori, AJ Karon, Rachel Paletz, and Ranjiv Khush. 2021. “Water Quality Testing Assuance Fund: Lessons Learned.” Research Brief. Lesson Learned. Aquaya Institute. https://aquaya.org/wp-content/uploads/2021_Water-Quality-Assurance-Fund-Lessons-Learned-_ResearchBrief.pdf.

Whaley, Luke, Donald John MacAllister, Helen Bonsor, Evance Mwathunga, Sembeyawo Banda, Felece Katusiime, Yehualaeshet Tadesse, Frances Cleaver, and Alan MacDonald. 2019. “Evidence, Ideology, and the Policy of Community Management in Africa.” Environmental Research Letters 14 (8): 085013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab35be

From Gaps to Growth: Capacity development in WASH sector

This is a guest blog by RWSN member Kirsten de Vette.

Capacity development plays a pivotal role in fostering sustainable progress towards ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. This article presents several striking findings stemming from several recent capacity assessments and capacity development reviews I was involved in over the past three years. Tackling these issues will have transformative impact on the water, sanitation, and hygiene and development sectors, whilst the required effort is expected to be relatively low.

Photo 1: WASHPaLS#2: Focus Group Discussion Jigawa Nigeria. Photo credit Nanpet Chuktu

Finding 1: There is misalignment on what capacity means

There are diverse definitions and interpretations of this concept, which can impede effective implementation of interventions. Some speak of institutional capacity (enabling environment and organizational capacity), others speak about individual capacity (skills, competencies, abilities), and others only address the organizational capacity (knowledge management, leadership, systems etc) itself. This has a knock-on effect on what capacity development means. For some it is simply looking at the education of new professionals (i.e. TVET, universities). Others only equate the term capacity development with training, and others may indicate it is strengthening institutions (i.e. systems, policies etc.).

Very few stakeholders interviewed incorporate all four levels of capacity (enabling environment, organizational, individual, and society)[1] in their thinking. Many even seem to neglect the broader issues affecting capacity, such as workforce development and sustainable employment.

On top of this the terms capacity – building, – development and – strengthening are now used interchangeably to describe the process of increasing capacities. In academic literature the first two are explored and do in fact mean something different. The third is used by some to overcome a certain level of tension on the terminology inherited from the history of capacity development (will be described in following blog).

To address this, we need to develop a common understanding among stakeholders in water, sanitation, and or hygiene (perhaps broaden to include all development work) on what capacity means, and what effective capacity development then entails. This will create a solid foundation for future endeavours and collaboration.

Photo 2: WASHPaLS#2: Field visit Bihar India. Photo credit: Anand Shekhar

Finding 2: Addressing the Job Shortage Dilemma

Strengthening capacity and education alone may not be sufficient if there is a lack of suitable job opportunities. While the importance and shortages of human resources have been identified (IWA, 2014; GLAAS 2012/ 2014/ 2017/ 2022; World Water Development Report, 2016; forthcoming USAID WASHPals#2), the existence or development of corresponding employment opportunities cannot be guaranteed.

The labor market, especially for rural sanitation, is largely reliant on (I)NGOs, or Development partners, who are normally in place on project basis. Where positions are present in the public sector, they are shared with other responsibilities (e.g. water, solid waste, building & constructions and or others) that are of higher priority. The positions in the informal private sector are dependent on demand (and or projects) and often do not (yet) guarantee full-time employment in the long run.

To address this, we need to address sustainable employment, and create avenues for career growth in the sectors. This can be supported by raising awareness about the need for job creation (and investment), but also by developing the proper policies, mandates and incentives that justify stakeholders to create the needed jobs.

Finding 3: Coordination and Communication gaps

There is insufficient coordination and communication among capacity development providers, development partners, and sector actors. The education sector often struggles to meet the needs of the WASH sector, while the sector itself is unable to effectively communicate its requirements. It was also highlighted by several key informant interviews in country studies that INGOs/ development partners working at country level often fail to coordinate (all of) their capacity development efforts (the forthcoming USAID WASHPaLS #2). This results in overlapping interventions in certain regions while leaving others with inadequate support.

We need to make capacity development a collaborative endeavour. By integrating capacity development (jointly defined as per finding one) and in particular workforce development into the narrative, and into the national review meetings and or Water, Sanitation and or Hygiene plans. But also, by developing a platform for stakeholders to engage in dialogues and share insights on how to develop the needed workforce and supporting structures to deliver the country’s plans. By fostering collaboration and shared responsibility, we can harness the collective expertise and resources to enhance capacity development outcomes.

Photo 3: WASHPaLS#2: Validation workshop, Accra Ghana. Photo credit Bertha Darteh

Finding 4: Persistent challenges in capacity development efforts

Beyond, the higher-level findings (1-3), there are also persistent challenges in capacity development interventions themselves. The most important ones are:

Mismatch supply and demand: This can be caused by focus on what supply has on offer rather than soliciting what the audiences need.
Time Constraints and Limited Application: Capacity development initiatives often fall short in allocating sufficient time for participants to fully engage in the learning process and apply acquired knowledge to their work. This issue is compounded when training or workshops disrupt regular duties, compelling participants to tackle additional workload.
Narrow Focus and Overemphasis on Training: Capacity development is still frequently equated solely with training. This neglects other ways of (adult) learning that have already been recognized by the education sector and (adult) learning specialists. This limited perspective also fails to address broader aspects such as organizational structures, enabling environments, and societal factors that significantly influence capacity development outcomes.
One-Size-Fits-All Approach: Many capacity development efforts suffer from a lack of consideration for the diverse target audiences involved, including politicians, managers, and technicians. Recognizing the unique interests, needs, and learner preferences of each group is pivotal in designing tailored interventions that foster meaningful impact.
Unidirectional Learning: Traditional capacity development activities often fail to harness the valuable expertise and input of participants. By disregarding the insights of practitioners and experts during the design and implementation of programs, the potential for an inclusive and collaborative learning environment is undermined.
Lack of (long-term) capacity development strategy: Many capacity development efforts lack a comprehensive strategy (also referred to as design) capturing the outcomes, outputs, objectives, audiences, learning methods approaches, actions at the four levels of capacity, and evaluation of the intervention. In addition, and relevant for our sectors with high turnover rates, is strategizing for the retention and utilization of acquired learning and knowledge through knowledge management practices.
Insufficient Knowledge of Effective Practices: A lack of information on successful but also failing capacity development practices poses a significant challenge to the advancement of this field. Collecting data on impact and application is essential to identify and share evidence-based strategies, enabling continuous improvement and enhanced effectiveness.

Every capacity development intervention needs to check these points and address them accordingly.

Guiding Principles for Effective Capacity Development:

Building upon the identified four challenges there is a need for overarching guiding principles for effective capacity development.

Time and Application: Allow sufficient time for learning and provide opportunities for participants to apply their knowledge in their work. Consider local governance, mandates, and roles to minimize disruptions and extra workload.
Holistic Approach: Expand the scope of capacity development to address multiple levels of capacity, including individual, organizational, enabling environment, and society. Incorporate diverse learning methods, such as peer-to-peer interactions, virtual tours, mentoring, communities of practice, and working groups.
Tailored Solutions: Recognize the unique interests, needs, and approaches of different target audiences. Develop customized capacity development activities that align with specific requirements.
Engage Specialists: Involve practitioners and experts in the design and implementation of capacity development programs. Their expertise will ensure a comprehensive design that considers different audiences, learning methods, and impact measurement.
Inclusive Learning Environment: Value the input and expertise of participants to create an inclusive and collaborative learning environment.
Evidence-based Approach: Emphasize the importance of measuring impact and collecting effective capacity development practices. This data-driven approach enables continuous improvement and knowledge sharing.
Learning Mindset: Foster a culture of sharing experiences, success stories, failures and lessons learned to encourage ongoing learning and adaptation

Photo 4: WASHPaLS#2: Focus Group Discussions, Bihar India. Photo credit Anand Shekhar

By embracing these guiding principles, stakeholders involved in capacity development can address common errors and enhance the effectiveness of interventions in the water, sanitation, and hygiene sectors. Collaboration, coordination, and a shared vision are paramount in creating sustainable solutions and achieving meaningful impact. Let us, as water professionals and international development professionals, strive for innovative and context-specific approaches to capacity development that foster lasting change.

Do you have additional thoughts, ideas, or guiding principles to add? Reach out to me

Sources:

link to WASHPaLS 2: https://www.globalwaters.org/resources/assets/washpals-2-factsheet

link to one of Wateraid projects I worked on (the others are internal to WaterAid)

https://washmatters.wateraid.org/publications/capacity-needs-assessment-for-regulators-in-water-sanitation-and-hygiene-how-to-guide

IWA. 2014. An Avoidable Crisis: WASH Human Resource Capacity Gaps in 15 Countries. [online] Available at: <https://iwa-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/1422745887-an-avoidable-crisis-wash-gaps.pdf>

UN-Water GLAAS. 2022. GLAAS 2021/2022 Survey Data. https://glaas.who.int/glaas/un-water-global-analysis-and-assessment-of-sanitation-and-drinking-water-(glaas)-2022-report

UN-Water GLAAS. 2014. Investing in water and sanitation https://www.unwater.org/publications/un-water-glaas-2014-investing-water-and-sanitation

UN-Water GLAAS. 2012. The challenge of extending and sustaining services https://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/pdf/glaas_report_2012_eng.pdf

Lincklaen Arriëns, W. and Wehn de Montalvo, U., 2013. Exploring water leadership. Water Policy, 15(S2), pp.15-41.

UN World Water Development report. 2016. Water and Jobs. https://www.unwater.org/publications/un-world-water-development-report-2016

UNDP, 2008. Capacity Assessment Methodology User’s Guide. [online] Available at: [Accessed 23 February 2021]

About the author: Kirsten de Vette is independent consultant and facilitator working in water, sanitation, and hygiene (related) sectors for over 13.5 years. She is a sociologist with business background who connects people, facilitates knowledge and expertise exchange, facilitates partnerships, collaboration and or change processes and facilitates capacity assessment/ development. Her expertise is in capacity development, stakeholder engagement & facilitation of change processes and learning.

She wrote this blog to share recurring findings across her recent projects in the hope that it may support action in the future. The type of projects this blog is based on is 1) coordinating (or facilitated) the undertaking of capacity assessments at organizational, national and global level and 2) reviewing capacity development efforts (2020-2023). Over 300 grey and white paper reports were reviewed across these projects, 150 people directly interviewed, and 6 country capacity assessments coordinated (with 350 people). The author wants to thank WaterAid and Tetra Tech under USAID WASHPaLS #2 for these assignments and their openness for the findings to be re-used. To take these learnings forward, she will be approaching key actors in the water, sanitation and hygiene sector to engage on these capacity development principles, and will write follow-up blogs. Stay tuned on her website and on linkedin

“Financial Innovations for Rural Water Supply in Low-Resource Settings” Innovation 2: Digital financial services

This blog post is part of a series that summarizes the REAL-Water report, “Financial Innovations for Rural Water Supply in Low-Resource Settings,” which was developed by The Aquaya Institute and REAL-Water consortium members with support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The report specifically focuses on identifying innovative financing mechanisms to tackle the significant challenge of providing safe and sustainable water supply in low-resource rural communities. These communities are characterized by smaller populations, dispersed settlements, and economic disadvantages, which create obstacles to cost recovery and hinder the realization of economies of scale.

Village Savings for Water
Digital Financial Services
Water Quality Assurance Funds
Performance-Based Funding
Development Impact Bonds
Standardized Life-Cycle Costing
Blending Public/Private Finance

Understanding Digital financial services

Digital financial services have penetrated many aspects of daily life, including water services.

One strategy to address the gap in rural water funding is to increase the financial sustainability of water systems through improved water revenue collection and management (Waldron and Sotiriou 2017). In low-income countries, the collection of service fees primarily relies on cash, which can be labor-intensive, difficult to track, prone to miscalculations, and susceptible to theft or loss (Sharma, 2019). However, by implementing automated digital recording of time-stamped water usage and payment data, the planning, projection, and delivery of water services can be significantly improved (Waldron et al., 2019).Good record-keeping aids water service providers in tracking performance changes over time, as well as supporting financial sustainability, water conservation, and climate adaptation.

How does it work?

“Digital financial services” encompasses two concepts: financial services (e.g., payments,

savings, credit, insurance, user suport) and the technologies that deliver them to end users (Waldron et al. 2019). Services such as online savings or credit accounts mainly benefit adults who work outside the home and have bank accounts (Coulibaly 2021). The digital technologies accessible to users who rely on cash may include mobile money (electronic wallets using a mobile phone), water sale kiosks or “ATMs,” and prepaid token technologies (REAL-Water 2022).

Customers can use digital mechanisms to conveniently purchase water, reducing waiting times and operational downtimes when live vendors or caretakers are unavailable (Waldron et al., 2019). With prepaid digital services, the efficiency of water fee collection can reach nearly 100% (with the exception of targeted subsidies or discounts). “Postpaid” digital financial services, which collect fees retrospectively for prior water usage, enable service providers to automatically track outstanding payments and initiate billing. Digitization may enable better payment compliance, as those with seasonal or inconsistent income are able to deposit a sum of money and draw on it over time (Sharma 2019).

Moreover, the implementation of prepaid metering for automated water dispensing devices and postpaid digital water service accounting brings benefits to both water system operators and customers, improving fee collection consistency as well as convenience. They may likewise simplify subsidy delivery to vulnerable customer segments.

Figure 1. Training a customer in Ruiru, Kenya on how to use his phone for making

water payments (Source: Joyce Kisiangani, The Aquaya Institute)

Examples

Technology provider Grundfos partnered with the nongovernmental organization World Vision and Safaricom, the leading telecommunications provider in Kenya, to install 32 self-service water kiosks (called LifeLink systems) in locations that lacked water infrastructure, serving both

homes and businesses (Waldron et al. 2019). Initial uptake was high and interviews documented user benefits from reduced favoritism in water distribution as well as being able to track and review spending. Collecting mobile payments cost less than collecting cash payments, a savings that could be reinvested to upgrade services or passed onto consumers (Sharma 2019). The World Bank and others have likewise been working to scale affordable water installations in Tanzania using prepaid Grundfos card kiosks combined with solar pumping, which vastly reduces water transportation time and stabilizes high prices offered by private sellers (World Bank 2017). Recognized downsides of this and other digital payment examples have included questions of who requires data access, remote monitoring needs, labor cuts, reduced customer service capabilities, and difficulty paying among the ultra-poor (Waldron et al. 2019).

The nonprofit organization Safe Water Network uses Hangzhou LAISON Technology digital household prepaid meters in their piped connection program in Ghana. Customers receive a device to input a token purchased through mobile money. New users joined quickly following customer workshops to explain the payment system, and the enhanced cost recovery shifted the operation from a net loss to a net surplus (Waldron et al. 2019). Ensuring proper use will likely require sustained engagement. Safe Water Network has continued expanding the household connection metering program to serve several thousand households in small rural towns in Ghana’s Ashanti Region.

Transitioning to digital payments comes with certain challenges, such as additional transaction fees, costly startup infrastructure, poor telecommunications technology, skepticism towards technology, and the belief that water services should be cheaper or free, as well as income loss for traditional vendors who primarily handle cash transactions. Local training support and outreach efforts for social inclusion can be beneficial for expanding digital services. However, digital financial services do not represent a fix-all solution. Their successful implementation requires substantial training and effective governance to transition service providers and communities to new processes that increase collection efficiency, while minimizing the impact on customers’ water usage (Heymans, Eales, and Franceys, 2014).

Digital financial service innovations have made inroads globally in urban areas and are rapidly expanding to serve rural residents in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. As use expands, social inclusion efforts may be needed to ensure the services benefit vulnerable populations (Coulibaly 2021).

To access further information on financial innovations for rural water supply in low-resource settings, you can download the complete report HERE.

References:

Coulibaly, Sionfou Seydou. 2021. “A Study of the Factors Affecting Mobile Money Penetration Rates in the West African Economic and Monetary Union (Waemu) Compared with East Africa.” Financial Innovation 7 (1): 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-021-00238-0.

Heymans, Chris, Kathy Eales, and Richard Franceys. 2014. “The Limits and Possibilities of Prepaid Water in Urban Africa: Lessons from the Field.” Case Study. WSP.

REAL-Water. (2022). Technological Innovations for Rural Water Supply in Low-Resource Settings. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Rural Evidence and Learning for Water Project

Sharma, Akanksha. 2019. “Digital Payments in Water: Findings from Two New Research Projects.” Mobile for Development (blog). March 18, 2019. https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/blog/digital-payments-in-water-findings-from-two-new-research-projects/.

Waldron, Daniel, and Alexander Sotiriou. 2017. “Digital Finance and Sustainable Water Service for All.” Brief. CGAP. https://www.cgap.org/research/publication/digital-finance-and-sustainable-water-service-for-all

Waldron, Daniel, Caroline Frank, Akanksha Sharma, and Alexander Sotiriou. 2019. “Testing the Waters: Digital Payments for Water and Sanitation.” Working Paper. Washington, D.C.: CGAP.

“Financial Innovations for Rural Water Supply in Low-Resource Settings” Innovation 1 – Village Savings for Water

Innovation 1: Village Savings for Water

Village Savings for Water
Digital Financial Services
Water Quality Assurance Funds
Performance-Based Funding
Development Impact Bonds
Standardized Life-Cycle Costing
Blending Public/Private Finance

Understanding Village Savings for Water

Community-based savings and credit associations offer rural dwellers in low-income settings an opportunity for member-only access to loans, emergency support, and small annual investment returns. With abundant existing savings groups in sub-Saharan Africa and India, the mechanism has been leveraged in some cases to improve financial management of rural water systems. They offer a framework for creating dedicated, affordable, and transparent savings funds to pay for high-quality maintenance and repairs. Groups may dissolve over time, though, and require periodic external support. Field results from limited-scale water initiatives in several African countries have maintained an above-average reserve fund to support water point maintenance, repairs, or upgrades (The Water Trust 2022).

How does it work?

One low-barrier approach to improve funding for water system maintenance shifts financial management duties from volunteer water committees to new or existing community-based savings and credit associations. These self-selected, self-governed groups offer rural residents informal yet structured financial services with several built-in accountability mechanisms. Groups made up of 5–40 members usually operate on a 12-month cycle (VSL Associates 2022; Orr et al. 2019; Allen and Panetta 2010; Swinderen et al. 2020). At the beginning of each cycle, the group develops a constitution, defining savings and borrowing terms along with group bylaws (Figure 1). At weekly or monthly meetings, each member deposits the agreed amount of money into a common fund. Members can then take small, low-interest loans from this internally-generated capital. At the end of the cycle, each member receives their savings plus a portion of the overall interest earned from loans. Many savings groups offer a small mutual insurance scheme as well, using funds to provide allowances or no-interest loans in the case of unexpected member hardships (e.g., family illness or death).

Figure 1. Typical community savings group approach (Source: Vanessa Guenther, The Aquaya Institute)

The saving group model offers several advantages, including transparency, accountability, and trust-building among members. Successful implementation examples in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in Uganda, have demonstrated their positive impact on water point management. By integrating savings groups, water user committees have reinforced accountability and improved the community’s commitment to paying for water services.

However, this model also faces challenges, such as limited capacity and technical expertise, the potential disintegration of savings groups, and the need for ongoing subsidization of maintenance services. While there may be initial costs associated with establishing savings groups, the return on investment can be significant. For instance, external support costs for savings group startup could exceed $1,000 per system, with a longer time frame needed to observe returns in the form of a sustained water fund (The Aquaya Institute, in press); however, the return on investment considering all-purpose savings can reach up to 20:1 (Krause 2022).

Examples

In sub-Saharan Africa, savings groups have been utilized to support water point management. In the Lira district of Northern Uganda, existing water user committees began offering small loans for personal needs, which reinforced their record-keeping accountability as well as the community’s commitment to paying monthly for water services (Nabunnya et al. 2012). Challenges included some refusal to pay for water and the informal process and money handling approach (by the local volunteer treasurer). In the Kamwenge district of southwestern Uganda, Water for People trained communities on financial planning for water point breakdowns, with savings groups as one of the strategy options (Muhangi 2018). Additional Ugandan examples come from Link to Progress (Piracel 2021), The Aquaya Institute (Marshall, Guenther, and Delaire 2021), WE Consult and Charity Water, Lifewater International, and Amref (Teo 2016). SEND has supported savings groups in Sierra Leone (SEND 2020), while the USAID West Africa Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Program (USAID ND) and the nongovernmental organization WaSaDev have supported savings groups in Ghana.

In Malawian “borehole banking,” a central account is established at a water point and contributions are made through monthly water user fees. Then, community members who contribute can access loans, to be paid back with interest to the water point account (Mbewe 2018).

A pilot of 175 water points with “borehole banks” achieved an average savings of approximately $80 for operation and maintenance, about ten times higher than the average savings reported for water points without borehole banks. The rate of functionality increased from 64% to 94% between 2015 and 2017.

In another program from Uganda, The Water Trust worked with VSLAs to set aside an agreed-upon fraction of members’ payments earmarked as a “water point reserve fund,” which can only be used for handpump maintenance. Monitoring results have been encouraging: in the 2017 pilot, 32 water points with VSLA-based water funds had collected an annual average fund about four times greater than 28 communities relying on coached water user committees or a maintenance contract approach alone (Prottas, Dioguardi, and Aguti 2018). By 2020, The Water Trust invested training resources to extend the approach to more than 200 communities, with annual reserve funds continuing to meet or exceed target amounts (The Water Trust 2020). The approach has expanded to cover more than 700 water points, documenting higher measures of water point functionality and active water point management for water points with an associated VSLA (The Water Trust 2022).

Figure 2. Village Savings and Loan Association members in the Kabarole district, Uganda, holding up their passbooks (Source: Katherine Marshall, The Aquaya Institute)

Although the concept of using savings groups to mobilize and manage water point funds has existed for several years (Agbenorheri and Fonseca 2005), this approach is not yet common and remains in the early stages of evaluation research (e.g., by The Water Trust and The Aquaya Institute). Despite compelling examples, its application to serve rural water supply services is globally limited. The knowledge base comes almost exclusively from implementation experience, with fewer examples of rigorous evaluation at scale. Improved documentation would improve the sector’s understanding of how to most effectively leverage community savings groups to improve rural water services.

Savings groups supporting water point management are of interest to government service providers and NGOs offering subsidies. Rural service providers facing challenges with inconsistent user payments should consider experimenting with community savings groups, particularly in areas where pay-as-you-fetch systems are underperforming, such as communities served by public handpumps (Marshall, Guenther, and Delaire 2021). Danert (2022) estimates that approximately 20% (ranging from 1%–60%, by country) of sub-Saharan

Africa’s population relies on handpumps. Additional opportunities arise in communities with gravity flow schemes and mechanized boreholes that have regularly struggled to collect revenue.

To access further information on financial innovations for rural water supply in low-resource settings, you can download the complete report HERE.

References:

Agbenorheri, Maxwell, and Catarina Fonseca. 2005. “Local Financing Mechanisms for Water Supply and Sanitation Investments.” Backgroud report for briefing paper. WELL-Resource Centre Network for Water, Sanitation and Environmental Health.

Allen, Hugh, and David Panetta. 2010. “Savings Groups: What Are They?” Overview. Washington, DC: The SEEP Network

Danert, Kerstin. 2022. “Stop the Rot Report I: Handpump Reliance, Functionality and Technical Failure. Action Research on Handpump Component Quality and Corrosion in Sub-Saharan Africa.” St Gallen, Switzerland: Ask for Water, Skat Foundation & The Waterloo Foundation.

Krause, Heather. 2022. “VSLA by the Numbers: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Impact and ROI of VSLAs.” CARE International.

Marshall, Katherine, Vanessa Guenther, and Caroline Delaire. 2021. “Willingness-to-Pay for Water Management in Kabarole District, Uganda.” RESEARCH BRIEF. Uganda: Aquaya Institute.

Muhangi, Martin. 2018. “Saving for Operation & Maintenance around Water Point Sources.” Uganda: Water for People.

Nabunnya, Jane, Lydia Mirembe, Peter Magara, Martin Watsisi, and Robert Otim. 2012. “Community Management of Water Services: Approaches, Innovations from Lango & Rwenzori Regions.” Triple-S. Uganda: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.

Orr, Tracy, Meagan Brown, Jennine Carmichael, Christine Lasway, and Mario Chen. 2019. “Saving Groups Plus: A Review of the Evidence.” Accelerating Strategies for Practical Innovation & Research in Economic Strengthening (ASPIRES).

Piracel, Esther. 2021. “External Evaluation Report: Improvement of Water Supply and Sanitation in Oyam District in Northern Uganda.” External evaluation Report. Arua, Uganda: Link to Progress

Prottas, C, A Dioguardi, and S Aguti. 2018. “Empowering Rural Communities to Sustain Clean Water and Improve Hygiene Through SelfHelp Groups.” In 41st WEDC International Conference, 3030:6. Nakuru, Kenya.

SEND. 2020. “Improved Access to Sustainably Managed Micro-Finance and WASH Systems – WASH Self-Supply Project.” Sierra Leone: SEND Sierra Leone.

Swinderen, Anne Marie van, M Phil, Sekou Traoré, Andrew Magumda, Paul Rippey, David Panetta, Juliet Munro, et al. “Long-Term Performance and Evolution of Savings Groups.” Final Report. SEEP Network, 2020.

Teo, Namata. 2016. “Water User Committees Using Village Savings and Loans Association for Sustainable O&M of Their Water Facility.” In 7th RWSN Forum, 6. Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire.

The Water Trust. 2022. “Improving Water Point Functionality in Rural Uganda through Self-Help Groups: A Cross-Sectional Study.” The Water Trust.

USAID ND. “USAID WA-WASH Success Story: Improving Payment for Water Services through Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs).”

VSL Associates. 2022. “VSL Associates – Who We Are.” VSLA. 2022.

International symposium brings systems leaders including 10 ministerial delegations to The Hague to take action on WASH and connected SDGs

IRC WASH Press Release

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS – 1 MAY 2023 – Between 2-4 May 2023, more than 700 changemakers and systems leaders from water, sanitation and hygiene, health, climate, economic development, and social justice – will gather at the World Forum, The Hague, for the All Systems Connect International Symposium 2023. Those attending include 10 ministerial level delegations from Ethiopia, Guatemala, Ghana, Honduras, Indonesia, Liberia, Malawi, Nepal, Rwanda and Uganda. The Symposium will prompt systemic thinking, leadership, and action across sectors and silos to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.

The event follows hot on the heels of the UN Water conference in March 2023, providing the ‘how’ to the UN Conference’s ‘why’. The three core themes are systems leadership – leading across boundaries and driving collective action in complex circumstances; connecting across silos and sectors – finding better ways to address shared system challenges, together; and importantly on day three, taking action – making commitments that will accelerate progress and deepen impact to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Throughout, it will highlight the central role of water and sanitation in achieving the SDGs, and the injustice that one in three of the world’s population still lacks access to safe water and sanitation. Delegates will experience 250+ presenters recognised for their global expertise and influence; 60+ cross-cutting sessions on water, sanitation and hygiene, climate, finance, health and beyond; ten themes crafted to build connection, break silos and generate action; three Make Change design sprints to innovate and prototype solutions along with country dialogues designed to catalyse change. The Symposium is convened by international think tank IRC, global nonprofit Water For People and Water for Good, a nonprofit with expertise in working in fragile states – members of the One For All global alliance. Multiple stakeholders include UNICEF, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, the World Health Organization, Sanitation and Water for All, the Government of the Netherlands, World Vision and the Osprey Foundation. Patrick Moriarty, CEO, IRC said: “We need to connect across silos and sectors if we’re to tackle the challenges we’re all facing and achieve the SDGs. The issues are complex, but the solutions are there. They lie in strong, interconnected, national and local systems working in co-ordination to deliver crucial public services. All Systems Connect is a determined intervention to change the way we work and look at how to make this happen.” Samson Bekele, Co-CEO, Water For People, said: “We have less than a decade to ensure that every home has taps and toilets, and every community has safe, continuous and unending water, sanitation and hygiene services. We’re failing in many areas, but we know what’s needed–joint commitments, more funding to the sector, and political will at every level. At All Systems Connect we’ll be uniting to equip ourselves with the skills, know-how and connections to achieve so much more.” Jon Allen, CEO, Water for Good, added: “We recognise that the current way of doing things in the sector needs to shift to achieve universal and sustainable WASH services. This requires collaborative planning and execution and connecting beyond sectors and silos. The Symposium will enable all of us to connect with purpose, work on collective solutions, and strengthen our capabilities as systems leaders.” said Jon Allen, CEO, Water for Good.

A window into the future of India’s rural stepwells: perspectives from Gujarat

India’s rural stepwells (or vavs, baolis or jhalaras) mark past relationships between communities and local water supply. Today, many are protected by the Archaeological Survey of India as historical sites of heritage. But, in the face of modern-day challenges, this second blog in a two-part series asks, what future lies ahead for these water sources with their intricate architecture, and for their local rural communities? To find out, I went to Adalaj Ni Vav near to Ahmedabad, Gujarat in early 2023.

Gujarat’s rural vavs: under threat from competing demands

More than just a water point, Adalaj Ni Vav is steeped in history with a story of love and tragedy. Yet, as nearby Adalaj village expands to meet the demands of this tourist hotspot, changing surroundings and competing priorities bring new challenges for the future conservation of this stepwell, and others like it. Buses arriving with tourists lack drop off spots. I saw the congestion on the roads leading to the well in the absence of an auto rickshaw stand, with vehicles, pedestrians and street vendors fighting for space.

The water body in the stepwell is also under threat. Local women no longer climb down Adalaj’s steps to collect water. Over time, the water has been polluted due to the influx of visitors dumping plastic into it, contaminating it, and leaving it stagnated, and no longer fit for use[i]. The Urban Management Centre [ii]’s work with the jhalaras of Jodhpur, Rajasthan, has identified challenges of overflowing and flooding during monsoon seasons. As piped water supply reaches every household, water is not collected from the stepwells and they stand neglected. This is despite them being part of a network of natural and artificial reservoirs where upstream water bodies collect the water and transfer it downstream. Lessons can be taken from this work in India’s cities to adopt a renewal approach for the adaptive re-use of rural stepwells such as Adalaj Ni Vav and others.

Sustaining Gujarat’s vavs

At present, there is significant focus on the maintenance and restoration of the sculptural elements of Adalaj Ni Vav, through protective guards that stop the many visitors from directly interacting with the structure, and vigilant caretakers ensuring their upkeep. Coverings over the octagonal well demonstrates the efforts being taken to prevent the water being contaminated by visitors dropping waste from outside the structure into the well.

Covering at the top of the structure to protect the well (Photo: Amita Bhakta)

Protecting and sustaining Gujarat’s vavs for the future also requires interventions from external organisations. Aside from the protection granted for Adalaj by the Archaeological Survey of India, it comes under nearby Ahmedabad’s recognition as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Gujarat’s Directorate of Archaeology and Museums has been pivotal in efforts to clean the stored water in the state’s vavs, and has a role to play in supporting local authorities to conserve stepwells such as Adalaj for the longer term. As heritage sites, there remains a challenging balance to strike in the longer term. Whilst creating a ‘tourism zone’ through public-private partnerships can generate much needed revenue for the local economy, the re-use of the vav as an attraction should not come at a cost of further harm to the vav from pollution. Ensuring public awareness of the need to conserve vavs as markers of India’s water history is key.

Sustaining vavs for the future involves curation. Stepwells could be turned into ‘living’ water ‘museums’ to teach future generations about the importance of water security as climate change takes hold in India. Converting stepwells to water museums can create awareness of the rich history and the role that Adalaj and other vavs played in supplying water, acting as community hubs, and providing livelihoods for well-digging artisans in the past.

Rural stepwells of the past could inspire engineers and architects of today. As we grapple with the challenges of energy security, we should look to vavs for lessons on integrating light and natural ventilation into buildings of the modern era.

Adaptive reuse of rural vavs can be done creatively. The magnificent architecture that strikes tourists as they descend towards the pool of water can provide a temporary backdrop for outdoor concerts and art exhibitions. Water festivals at stepwells, which can provide exhibition spaces, can incorporate traditional music and stories of their rich past, to educate younger generations about their historical roots and recognise the cultural significance of stepwells for their ancestors.

Looking ahead

Gujarat’s rural stepwells may no longer fulfill their traditional purpose of supplying water, but there is no need to consign these beautiful structures to the past. Let’s look forwards towards routes to celebrate and keep India’s rural water history alive. It’s time we worked together to ensure stepwells continue to play a role in our lives in creative ways.

Acknowledgement

Special thanks to my friend, Mona Iyer, for facilitating this field visit, and to Mahesh Popat for his brilliant support in the field. Thank you to the secretariat for their moral support for this work and to Temple Oraeki for reviewing drafts of this blog.

About the author: Amita Bhakta is a freelance consultant and co-lead for the leave no-one behind theme at the Rural Water Supply Network. She has specialised in looking at hidden issues to achieve equity and inclusion in WASH and has a keen interest in rural water heritage in India.

Amita Bhakta at Adalaj Ni Vav, Gujarat, India

Photo credits: Amita Bhakta.

[i] Srivapathy, U. and Salasha T. 2021. Adalaj Stepwell: A Magical Resonance of Architectural Ingenuity. Athens Journal of Architecture – Volume 7, Issue 2 pp. 275-304

[ii] Anurag Anthony, Urban Management Centre, personal communication, March 2023

Measuring water point functionality is trickier than you’d think. Here’s how we tried to make it more reliable in Uganda.

If you measure something, how do you know that someone else would get the same result? This is a fundamental question in many fields including medicine and psychology, but it is rarely considered in rural water supply.

This is a guest blog by Daniel W. Smith, a Water & Sanitation Advisor at the Center for Water Security, Sanitation, and Hygiene at USAID in Washington, DC.

Photo: A handpump mechanic performs preventive maintenance in Uganda
(Photo: Daniel W. Smith)

This problem became painfully apparent during a recent study of professionalizing handpump maintenance in Uganda conducted by the Program for Water, Health, and Development at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and International Lifeline Fund. Our data collection team had a seemingly straightforward instruction: Count a handpump as functional if it provides water. But different data collectors interpreted the instruction differently. Some would count a handpump as functional even if it took a long time to get a little water. Others counted handpumps in a similar condition as nonfunctional. We needed a clearer, more reliable procedure to ensure that handpump functionality measured by different people would be comparable.

Learning from Gujarat’s past relationship with rural water through its stepwells

India: home to almost a fifth of the global population. Yet, its rural communities continue to face challenges in accessing water, due to overextraction depleting groundwater, poor recharge, and increased demand for water as industries expand and the rural economy grows. Ensuring water security for the future requires us to learn from the past. Across India, rural populations once met their water needs through ingenious feats of architecture in the form of stepwells (or baolis or vavs). I went to visit Adalaj Ni Vav (Rudabai Stepwell), on the outskirts of Ahmedabad, Gujarat in February 2023. In this two-part blog series, I reflect on the lessons we can learn about the significance of stepwells for India from past uses of Adalaj (part 1) and look ahead the role that stepwells could play in the future (part 2).

What are stepwells?

Stepwells are linear buildings. Steps lead down to landings with pavilions that house two shrines, and columns which make them resemble a room, followed by more steps, until reaching a cylindrical well at the bottom. The roof of one room becomes the floor of the pavilion above. Gujarat’s stepwells range from 60 to 80-feet in depth, with their upper-most landings receiving the most light, screened by walls known as Jalees to provide shade. Stepwell corridors are open to the sky except where it enters a pavilion. The terraces of stepwells are typically marked by noises and splashes as women beat clothes and scour pots, animals drink and children run around. The stepwells are referred to by landmarks (e.g. station vav), goddesses (e.g. Surya Kundi), patrons (e.g. queen) or place (e.g. Adalaj)[i].

Shrine in a pavillion at Adalaj (Photo: Amita Bhakta)

Adalaj Ni Vav: a well with a tragic tale

Adalaj Ni Vav is a 75.3-metre-long stepwell laid out in a north-south direction. On my visit, I made my way down one of the three flights of steps arranged in a cross to enter the vav, which are attached to the main stepped corridor leading to the well at the bottom, with an octagonal opening at the top and a pavilion resting on 16 pillars with 4 built-in shrines. The vav was built between 1498-1505 by Sultan Mahmud Begada in honour of Queen Rudrarani, who he promised to marry after it was completed. When the vav was completed, Rudrarani committed suicide by jumping in to the well. Through his grief, the Sultan killed those who built it to prevent another similar vav from being built, who are buried in the graves in the nearby garden ⁱ.

Learning from Gujarat’s past links to Adalaj

Adalaj Ni Vav was once a hub for the local community until the British Raj put it and many other vavs into disuse, deeming it unhygienic and introducing taps, pumps and borewells. Rainwater harvesting enabled the community to wash their clothes and feed their animals. Travellers used the vav, built along trade routes to support India’s economic development, as a resting site[ii].

Whilst it is no longer used as a water point, Adalaj’s long-standing spiritual connections to local people can help to sustain the cultural legacy of the stepwell. There is scope to pave a way for the community to continue its traditional purpose as a place of worship. The shrine on the outer wall has long been used and maintained by local Brahmin women to the present day, who worship local goddesses for fertility, health, and family prosperity.

But, it is not just people who stand to benefit from lessons from Adalaj’s past. Birds and animals used to be attracted to the vav as a cool spot, drawn in by food left over from festivals. In an era of global challenges such as climate change, it is important to recognise that the stepwell was once a place where rich biodiversity could flourish.

Moving forward: bridging the history of Gujarat’s stepwells to the future

The history of Gujarat’s rural stepwells reflects the cultural significance they held in the past, and show a need to recognise them as previous places of sustenance and of continued spiritual value. Whilst it is unlikely that Adalaj will once again serve as a water point, it can provide a place for biodiversity to flourish, and has the potential to teach and reengage local communities with their own water management systems for future preservation, particularly in these parts of Gujarat where drilling for petroleum is creating depressions in the water table. Let’s recognise the collective memory of Gujarat’s rural stepwells as historical sites of interest and work to preserve these ancient structures for the future.

Acknowledgement

Photo credits: Amita Bhakta.

References

[i] National Institute of Design (1992) Adalaj village: a course documentation Ahmedabad: National Institute of Design

[ii] Adalaj stepwell exhibition, Adalaj, India

UN Special Rapporteur – What’s next: the legacy of the UN Water Conference

Pedro Arrojo Agudo
UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation

Reposted from OHCHR

After some days of reflection, I want to share my thoughts on the UN Water Conference, which was undoubtedly a historical event for all those committed to the human rights to water and sanitation.

First, I would like to congratulate the President of the UN General Assembly and the UN Secretary-General, as well as the co-host member states, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Tajikistan. For the first time in 47 years, the UN family gathered to host a global event on water; this is in itself a positive achievement. The UN provides an important platform to discuss the fundamental human rights to water and sanitation and I welcome the decision to hold a third UN Water Conference in 2025.

Strengthening accountability for water

This blog is based on the Accountability for Water action and research programme funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and managed by the Partnership For African Social and Governance Research (PASGR), supported by Water Witness International, KEWASNET and Shahidi Wa Maji. The full webinar summary is available here.

On 15th December 2022, a global webinar was held to discuss the critical importance of accountability for water. During the webinar, a partnership of organizations led by PASGR and Water Witness presented the findings of their Accountability for Water research program, which aimed to identify specific actions to strengthen accountability in different contexts. The programme partners involved in the research include KEWASNET, Shahidi Wa Maji, WaterAid, Water Integrity Network, End Water Poverty, IRC, and World Bank. Dr Pauline Ngimwa and Dr Muthio Nzau of PASGR introduced the webinar.

Dr Tim Brewer of Water Witness gave an overview of the research programme which started with the global review of evidence carried out in 2019-2020. According to this review, 80% of the research papers on accountability found that interventions contributed to improved water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services and water resource management (WRM). Common lessons emerged with clear recommendations for action by governments, civil society, donors and others. While a key lesson is that accountability is context specific, an analytical framework based on the “5 Rs of accountability” can be used to identify specific challenges and opportunities within this framework – the ability to review, explain, and report performance against rules, responsibilities, and obligations, and to react constructively to improve performance through sanctions, incentives, or corrective measures.

The review identified a series of knowledge gaps and questions, including gender, donors, government responsiveness, measurement, and civic space. Based on this analysis, 14 Professional Research Fellows (PRF) working in the water sector in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Liberia, and Zimbabwe from a range of government, civil society and academic institutions investigated accountability issues in their own contexts. The full list of research topics and researchers is at the bottom of this blog.

The following key takeaways for governments, civil society organizations (CSOs), and donors were drawn from a compilation of recommendations from the research projects .Presenters included Dr Firehiwot Sintayehu (Addis Ababa University); Eunice Kivuva (CESPAD); Chitimbwa Chifunda (WaterAid Zambia), The full list of research topics and researchers at the end of this blog demonstrates the depth and breadth of evidence underlying these recommendations .

Three key takeaways for governments

Laws, policies and accountability mechanisms are essential to support accountability. However, lack of clarity and consistency between sectors and levels, a lack of knowledge and capacity about the laws and mechanisms, and weak enforcement often undermine these. Therefore, the key recommendations are to:
- Harmonise, strengthen, and execute laws and policies for water resources and WASH at national and subnational levels,
- Strengthen accountability systems and relationships: mechanisms, standards, regulation, monitoring, stakeholder engagement and enforcement including for the private sector,
- Build capacity on accountability, develop an accountable outlook and de-politicise accountability systems.
Clear roles and responsibilities and better coordination: Accountability mechanisms are often let down by poor coordination, unclear or conflicting roles and responsibilities and widespread lack of enforcement. Key actions required are to:
- Clarify institutional roles and responsibilities between actors for WASH and WRM – eliminate conflicts in functions,
- Separate implementation and regulatory institutions,
- Strengthen horizontal and vertical institutional and sector coordination across water users through enforceable accountability systems and mechanisms.
Informed engagement with citizens and users: All the researchers found that effective engagement with citizens, citizen groups and water users is essential for accountability but wanting. To address this governments need to:
- Introduce or strengthen accountability mechanisms such as public hearings and citizen oversight panels,
- Provide Information, education, and mobilisation for communities ensure access for marginalised groups,
- Support civil society to vertically integrate social accountability initiatives into decision making at different levels,
- Support coordination amongst actors to increase the capacity of rural women and marginalised communities to participate in problem analyses and decision-making processes.

Three key takeaways for civil society,

Activate and institutionalise effective citizen oversight mechanisms. As well as the government actions to strengthen engagement with citizens and water users Civil society organisations need to support this, they should:
- Advocate for more legally institutionalised avenues of citizen oversight,
- Ensure that citizens’ monitoring and advocacy initiatives are vertically and strategically integrated in decision making at all levels,
- Carry out budget tracking throughout the whole cycle from planning to expenditure.
Build capacity, empowerment and organise communities. A very common cause of weak accountability is the low levels of knowledge and capacity of water users about their rights, the laws and responsibilities around water provision and resource management, and how they can use accountability mechanisms. Civil society organisations need to:
- Build capacity on accountability mechanisms and support their use,
- Strengthen grassroots user groups and associations to participate in decision making,
- Support civil society and water users, especially women, to move up the Participation ladder from token participation to active participation, decision making, and control.
Build on what works, like budget tracking, evidence-based advocacy, litigation. There is growing knowledge about successful strategies for strengthening accountability. This research has helped to strengthen a community of practice on accountability and identify examples that others can learn from. Key lessons for civil society are to:
- Strike a balance between constructive and critical approaches to advocacy,
- Bring strong evidence for advocacy,
- Raise awareness of WASH and WRM issues amongst all stakeholders including citizens, government and development partners.

Four key takeaways for donors and private sector

Support governments and CSOs to strengthen accountability frameworks, monitoring and enforcement. Donors can provide financial and political support for the actions for governments and civil society mentioned above. They need to:
- Support governments on WASH and WRM accountability actions as above,
- Support CSO actions as above,
- Support good governance and democratic space for citizens’ voice. Citizens’ engagement is critical to enhancing accountability,
- Invest in women’s participation and reaching marginalised people,
- Strengthen political will for accountability. Donors can influence government priorities,
- Invest seriously in sustainability.
Water investments need to go beyond projects. They need to:
- Go beyond procedural & financial accountability. For example strengthen basins planning to ensure responsible industrial water use,
- Support budget tracking through the cycle – budget tracking is an effective tool to improve budget performance,
- Invest in appropriate technology to support accountable and responsive services, For example digital monitoring of services and water treatment technology to prevent pollution of water resources.
Enhance due diligence. Researchers found examples of very weak accountability in economic uses of water by industrial and agricultural actors. Donors and private investors can help strengthen accountability by requiring:
- Stronger due diligence of companies in relation to water use,
- mandatory reporting on water,
- promoting and enforcing the Polluter pays principle
Be accountable! Donors are major investors in the water sector but often do not fulfil their commitments. For example in Zambia the WASH sector is 80% funded by Donors but only 29% of that was tracked through the budget.
- Accountability Mechanisms are needed to enable Governments and CSO to hold Donors accountable for their commitments.

Discussion and next steps

During the webinar, Sareen Malik from KEWASNET, emphasised the importance of legislation to strengthen accountability mechanisms. NGOs can play an important role to advocate for this and bring stakeholders together in Joint Sector reviews as a critical mechanism for accountability, monitoring and reporting.

Martin Atela of PASGR reflected on the role of politics in undermining accountability and suggested that political interference can be mitigated by greater clarity on roles and boundaries of ministerial responsibilities. He also emphasized the need to find ways to work with political elites so they see the value in change

Next steps involve joining the community of practice on accountability for water, to continue learning from experience and to advocate for commitments to strengthen accountability.

Research partners are organising an event at the UN Conference on Water 2023: “Where is the accountability” on Tuesday 21^st March, driving a greater emphasis on governance and accountability. This needs to be front and centre of all discussion.

The Research programme is managed by the Partnership for African Social and Governance Research (PASGR) and Water Witness International with financial support from the Hewlett Foundation.

More information about the research is on the website including findings from the global review of evidence, recorded presentations from webinars at World Water Week 2022 in Stockholm, presentations from country specific webinars, and summary briefings of all the research topics. www.accountabilityforwater.org

List of Research topics, Professional Research Fellows and host institutions

Ethiopia

Government Dynamics of Accountability in Ethiopia, Mulugeta Gashaw, Water Witness Ethiopia
Political Economy Analysis of water governance, Asnake Kefale
Risks and opportunities for growth in Ethiopia’s textile and apparel industries, Esayas Samuel
Wastewater management in upstream catchment of ARB, Yosef Abebe, Addis Ababa University and Ministry of Water and Energy
Accountability of the One WASH National Programme of Ethiopia, Michael Negash, PSI
Towards a sustainable management of faecal sludge: the case of Addis Ababa, Tamene Hailu
Alwero Dam governance, Firehiwot Sentayu, Addis Ababa University

Kenya

Government Dynamics of Accountability in Kenya, Dr Tiberius Barasa
Enhancing coordination for accountability and sustainability in water resources management; a case of Kerio sub-catchment in Baringo rift valley basin. Eunice Kivuva (CESPAD)
Kakamega County Water and Sanitation Company, Kenya. Mary Simiyu, Kakamega Water Service Provider
Rural Women and water decisions in Kwale and Kilifi Counties, Felix Brian, KWAHO
Strengthening accountability in solid waste management through incentives and penalties in Naivasha, Kenya, Naomi Korir, Sanivation

Tanzania

Government Dynamics of Accountability in Tanzania, Dr Opportuna Kweka
Assessment of Gender Power Relations and Accountability in Community Based Water Supply Operators in Selected Water Basins of Tanzania, Pitio Ndyeshumba, Institute of Lands
Regulatory and Legal Accountability for Water Pollution in Tanzania: The Case of Msimbazi River Basin in Dar es Salaam City, Mwajuma Salum, University of Dar Es Salaam
Opportunities and challenges of accountability claiming in Tanzania’s water sector, Dr Parestico Pastory, University of Dodoma

Zambia

What makes budget advocacy an effective accountability tool, Bubala Muyove, NGO WASH Forum and Chitimbwa Chifunda, WaterAid Zambia

Zimbabwe

Assessing the effectiveness and impact of statutory accountability mechanisms to improve water service provision and catchment management, Mable Murambiwa, Combined Harare Residents Association, Zimbabwe

Liberia

Accountability Challenges in The Liberia Water-Supply Sector: LWSC in Robertsport and Kakata, Timothy Kpeh, United Youth for Peace, Liberia

About the author: This blog is authored by Louisa Gosling, freelance specialist in accountability, rights and inclusion in WASH, previously working with WaterAid and as chair of RWSN.