Rural Water Supply Network – blog – Page 2 – Rural water services that last, for everyone, forever

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.

Pastoralists and Water 9 – Reflecting on very rapid land degradation

With our 9th blog on Pastoralists on Water in this series, let me give the floor to Patrick Worms, Senior Science Policy Adviser for the Nairobi-based World Agroforestry Centre, with his reflections on very rapid land degradation. And if you are wondering how this relates to water, do check out our 5th blog – A brief introduction to green water.

By Patrick Worms

“Last month, I gave keynotes on grazing management and agroforestry at a conference on climate and health I was kindly invited to by Nightingale Wakigera, Maison Ole Kipila and Nathan Uchtmann at Maasai Mara University in Narok, Kenya. I focussed on the very rapid land degradation that typically follows the spread of fencing across the savanna, be it for livestock grazing or to keep wildlife penned into too-small conservation areas.

Maasai Mara may be one of the better places in East Africa to contrast the results of good and bad grazing management: on one side of the fence, you have the vast Serengeti-Maasai Mara ecosystem, where a million-strong wildebeest herd follows the rains and new grass in their massive migration, one of the last ones on the planet; on the other, the creeping fences are privatising the savanna into small enclosures. The resulting contrast couldn’t be greater: swaying, thick grasses on one side; degraded, bare ground and thorny bushes on the other.

Desertifying, bush-encroached paddock near Narok, Kenya (Source: Patrick Worms)

From the perspective of soil and rangeland health, it doesn’t much matter if your grazers are cows or wildebeest. What matters is the way the grazing is done. An intense, short period of grazing followed by a long rest period is best. That’s the management style pioneered by lions chivvying migrating herds along in tight bunches in the Serengeti.

Anything else sets the stage for land to degrade, either drying into desert or choking under invasive bush. That is the trouble of most pastures across the world’s semi-arid zones, of many of the smaller African national parks, and of the fenced grazing lands that fringe Kenya’s Mara reserve. Why? When livestock are not moved, they repeatedly graze the tastiest plants, manuring the thorny, toxic ones while doing so. The grass doesn’t get rested, and eventually dies from overgrazing.

Heavy bush encroachment on overgrazed paddock near Maasai Mara, Kenya
(Source: Patrick Worms)

But don’t think that removing animals altogether does the trick: grasses evolved to be grazed (they are by far the biggest group of plants that grow from their base, not from their tips). When they’re undergrazed, they eventually die and form a thick thatch that prevents new grass growth from emerging.

Overgrazing and undergrazing is killing grasslands around the world, whether they’re rangelands geared to livestock production, too-small conservation areas geared to preserving iconic wildlife, or indeed mountain and hillside pastures in temperate areas. Everywhere, bare ground and woody bushland is spreading.

But this is not fate. It’s a choice.

The good news is that managing grasslands well does not require capital, but skill – and a nerdish attention to the health of the soil and rangeland. With livestock, the tools can be as simple as competent herders or cheap, mobile electric fences (if there are lions around, things get more complicated, but still manageable – lions can be scared off by guard dogs, and livestock made invisible in a night enclosure). With wildlife, the tools are salt/mineral licks and boreholes that can be turned on and off.

Pasture enclosed less than 10 years ago, encroachment progressing
(Source: Patrick Worms)

The goals are the same: to ensure high animal impact for very short periods, by imitating the Maasai Mara’s migrating wildebeest herds allowing the savannahs to rest and regrow before being grazing again, typically after the next rains.

This is how we can regenerate grasslands around the world, by learning the lessons of the Maasai Mara”.

Kettle market in Ewaso Ngiro, Kenya (Source: Patrick Worms=

This is an adaptation of a LinkedIn post by Patrick Worms in August 2025.

Is community management sustainable? Evidence from Northern Pakistan

Blog by Jeff Tan, Aga Khan University – Institute for the Study of Muslim Civilisations (AKU-ISMC). Featured photo: Hunza Valley, Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan, Jeff Tan

The limitations of community-based management (CBM), and the conditions for its success, were identified as early as 1990 in a World Bank discussion paper. From very early on, it was recognised that communities needed ongoing external support from donors, NGOs and governments. However, management training, capacity building, technical input, financial assistance, and supportive policy and legislation necessary to create an “enabling environment” for successful community management rarely materialised. This raises a number of questions: Why has this external support not been forthcoming? Why has community management continued to be promoted despite the absence of support and lack of sustainability? Why has there been ‘a reluctance amongst academics and practitioners to challenge the CBM model’?

To answer these questions requires some appreciation of the wider discourse on development and in particular the anti-state rhetoric of neoliberalism that has sought to downsize, decentralise and ultimately bypass government. This has had the effect of fragmenting and hollowing out the state while at the same time prioritising markets and the private sector. Given that there is no profit to be made from delivering water services to low-income households that cannot afford to pay cost-covering tariffs, it is not surprising that previous state failure was replaced by market failure, with the private sector failing to step in to deliver water services.

One obvious solution would have been to address the sources of state failure, specifically underfunding, fragmentation and the loss of technical capacity. Instead of rebuilding state capacities, the distrust of, and ideological aversion to, the state has shifted the responsibility of water services from governments to local communities, built around the narrative of community participation, empowerment and self-help, with communities expected to take responsibility of their circumstances. It is hardly surprising then that community management is seen to enable ‘government officials and donors alike to abdicate responsibility for ensuring long-term sustainable water services’.

The recent turn against community management, not least by the World Bank, shows the persistence of CBM problems. But the Bank’s promotion of “professionalization” of water services as an alternative reflects a failure to examine the underlying tensions and problems in the CBM model and the wider delivery of rural water services, and reinforces an anti-state bias and blind faith in private sector participation. There are three structural tensions in the CBM model that have been noted in the literature and that need to be more cogently articulated.

The first tension is between access to water and cost recovery (a cornerstone to the sustainability of CBM), with low tariffs (to ensure access to water) unable to cover operating costs, let alone major repairs and capital refurbishment. Compounding this is the inability of households to pay already very low tariffs, with irregular, if any, tariff payments or collections.

The second tension is the long-term needs of water services and the short-term horizons of donors and NGOs. Only the state has a sufficiently long-term horizon to provide the indefinite support needed to sustain community management and ensure ongoing water services. But this added burden on the state for this comes at a time when the state in lower middle income countries (LMICs) is severely constrained financially and technically, having had fiscal discipline imposed on it and broken up and hollowed out in the name of decentralisation and localisation. If governments do not have the capacity to provide the so-called “enabling environment” to support community management, as has been the case since 1990, then a model that requires continued external support that is not forthcoming cannot be sustainable, “islands of success” notwithstanding.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the funding model for CBM is short-term, project driven (rather than programmatic or cross-sectoral) and fragmented, where the needs of water services are indefinite, with the choice being between reaching a greater number of underserved communities in the short term or serving fewer communities but with longer term support and greater sustainability. Longer-term support is especially needed because communities cannot even finance major repairs let alone capital refurbishment needed at the end of the lifespan of water infrastructure (typically 15-20 years) and to expand services to cater for population growth.

These structural features of CBM can be illustrated in the constraints faced by an otherwise successful delivery of clean drinking water through piped water networks to 459 settlements serving around 48,000 households and over 400,000 people under the Water and Sanitation Extension Programme (WASEP) in Gilgit-Baltistan, northern Pakistan. The challenges of sustaining and scaling up this textbook implementation of community management are reported in the results of a two-and-a-half-year British Academy-funded research involving a large-scale household survey of over 3,000 households, interviews with water management committees and a review of financial records, focus group discussions, an engineering audit and water quality tests.

Unlike qualitative and selective case studies, the combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis here presents important insights into the resilience but also limits of communities in sustaining water services, particularly given weak state capacities and the lack of external support. It also highlights the importance of “hardware” (engineering and water infrastructure) in sustaining water delivery, and best practices in the implementation and delivery of water services that can transcend some of the limitations of the CBM model.

The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN) or its Executive Committee.

Jeff Tan is a Professor of Political Economy at AKU-ISMC and was Principal Investigator on a British Academy grant on the sustainability and scalability of community water management in Northern Pakistan.

How three male allies are advancing gender equity in Kenya’s water sector

Featured photo: Daily, millions of girls and women in Kenya walk for water, losing time, safety, and opportunity. Photographer: Euphresia Luseka

Blog by Euphresia Luseka, co-lead of the RWSN Leave No-one Behind theme.

The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN) or its Executive Committee.

A Walk Before Dawn

At five in the morning, Busia County, Kenya is still wrapped in silence. But Jeruto is already walking. Fourteen years old, barefoot, a yellow jerrycan pressed into her hip. Three kilometres to water, three kilometres back.

She knows this path by heart. She also knows it is never safe. Men wait in the shadows. The price of water is sometimes not money but dignity. By the time she returns, the day has already slipped away; half her classes gone, her body exhausted, her hope dimmed.

“I was afraid,” she says. “But what choice did we have?”

This is the reality of women and girls without drinking water supplies on the premises every day stolen by the simple act of survival. And yet, here is the cruel paradox; when decisions are made about water, women are nowhere in the room. They carry the heaviest burden but hold the least power. The sector is still led by men.

That irrationality is finally being challenged. In western Kenya, three men, yes, men are ripping up the old rules of water and power. They are saying: enough. Not with platitudes, not with empty gender policies that gather dust, but with radical reforms that change who gets to sit at the table, who gets paid, who gets promoted, who gets heard.

And the truth they have stumbled into is this; Gender equity is not tokenism. It is infrastructure. It is resilience. It is the difference between a girl chained to a jerrycan and a girl being educated.

When Water Becomes Opportunity

The revolution begins small. For Jeruto, it started with the hum of a drilling rig. Just metres from her school gate, the Lake Victoria North Water Works Development Agency (LVNWWDA) sunk a borehole. Water surged from the ground, and with it, time, safety, and dignity returned to her life.

The 3 hours she once lost on the road became minutes. Within a year, girls’ local schools’ attendance had risen by nearly 30 percent.

For Joel Wamalwa, the agency’s CEO, this borehole was not just a piece of engineering. It was a revelation.

“Water unlocks education, strengthens health, reduces risks of violence, and frees women’s time for work and enterprise,” he says. “When women are included in planning and leadership, water systems become not only more equitable but more sustainable.”

Water, he insists, is not only a service. It is a multiplier.

Joel Wamalwa, CEO LVNWWDA says water is a Multiplier, Photographer: Euphresia Luseka

The Paradox of Exclusion

And yet, Joel has spent much of his career staring at a contradiction that borders on absurd. Women carry the heaviest weight of water scarcity rationing supplies, absorbing the stress of breakdowns, managing survival when systems fail. They are the first to wake, the last to sleep, the ones who walk the farthest.

But when utilities gather to make decisions on staffing, on budgets, on infrastructure women are almost invisible.

“We made choices about them without them,” he says quietly. “That was not only unjust. It was inefficient.”

The numbers from Mckinsey back him up. Utilities with gender-diverse leadership are 21 per cent more profitable. Boards with women deliver up to 95 per cent higher returns. For Joel, the conclusion is obvious: “Equity is not compliance. It’s not tokenism. It’s strategy.”

Pastoralists and Water 8 – Ensuring Agency for Pastoralists to Develop their own Water Supplies

By Adrian Cullis

In addition to our planned 24-part series of blogs – one a month for 2025 and 2026 – to support the International Year of Pastoralists and Rangelands (IYRP) 2026, Kerstin and I co-facilitate the IYRP’s Pastoralists and Water working group.

Figure: Borana women collecting water from a livestock pond (Photo credit: Adrian Cullis)

Learning about Pastoralists and Water in East Africa

The working group has around 40 members scattered around the world – Australia, India, East and Southern Africa, Europe and the Americas – and we meet online, almost every month. The June 2024 meeting had an East Africa focus and included three excellent presentations on Borana (Ethiopia), Karamoja (Uganda) and Turkana (Kenya)^[1]. The Borana presenter was Did B. a former colleague in Save the Children/US, Ethiopia. I well remember our first meeting in Nagelle, as Did wasted no time telling me that Save the Children could achieve better outcomes by working with – as opposed to ignoring – customary Borana institutions, as did Farm Africa and SoS Sahel. This resonated with my experience in Karamoja, Uganda where the value of working with customary pastoral institutions had become apparent when restructuring the Lutheran World Federation’s programming around customary sections and sub-sections.

Social networks among the Borana

Keen to learn more, I asked how Did felt this might be done. He carefully explained the various roles and responsibilities of olla (grazing communities), maadda and dheedha (area-based rangeland grazing and landscape units), families and clans. As he explained, Borana customary institutions provide the governing framework within which Borana households operate and develop their social networks, a necessary part of navigating life in a semi-arid area subject to highly variable rainfall. It’s these social networks, for example, that have historically supported Borana families overcome the loss of livestock during times of drought, outbreak of disease or theft by neighbouring pastoralist ethnic groups. Did concluded that it was also these customary institutions that were integral to the Borana’s 560-year success living in the region, and that the lack of recognition by any international development partner was a source of considerable frustration to the Borana community and its leaders.

A Water Project

Having agreed the principle, we moved to the detail with a wider group of Save the Children staff, and it was in this first meeting that someone proposed that we start with the water programme. I remember inwardly groaning as I had increasing reservations about water programming in pastoral areas, from my experiences in Karamoja. I’ve documented some of these reservations in the July 2025 blog. I therefore anticipated more of the same. However, what was being suggested was far from what I’d expected. As the staff explained ‘ it’s around dry-season livestock watering – when the ponds dry – that Borana customary institutions really come to life’. I therefore started visiting Borana adadi and tulla(shallow and deep wells), and the learning journey started.

At that time, the Save the Children/US water programme was using USAID-funding to rehabilitate ella shallow wells: food-for-work for the excavations, the supply of cement and rebars for the construction of water-basin-stairways and cattle troughs, and the hire of experienced masons. If you’re not familiar with Borana shallow and deep well systems, then it’s worthwhile watching this short two-minute video.

Figure: Borana ella or shallow well with improved water-basin-stairway (Photo credit: Adrian Cullis)

Water projects that work

Having visited half a dozen well complexes and met with and listened to pastoralists describing with considerable and justifiable pride how Borana clans had maintained their wells and managed the associated rangelands without over-use over four-hundred years, I was eager to visit some of Save the Children/US project sites. At each of the sites, I was introduced to the Abba Konfi – owner of the well, and the Abba Herega – manager of the well.^[2] As I became more familiar with the sites, I eventually asked the question, ‘if you could manage these sites for 560-years, what’s stopping you from doing this today?’ The response was something of a development watershed, as an elder immediately responded, ‘we didn’t ask for all this support, what we asked for was the rebars^[3] and cement, with which we could build better, safer and more lasting water-basin-stairways.’ Long-story short, Save the Children/US slowly withdrew funding support for well rehabilitation other than for the purchase and supply of rebars and cement, which were delivered to a store near the site and left for the clan leaders to access and use when required. Subsequent monitoring visits confirmed that the work progressed as it had before, but with an elevated sense of pride, and that local Save the Children/US programme staff adjusted well to a more supportive role. This is what I increasingly think is the role that people in development should play.

Water resource development in pastoral areas by pastoralists

A decade or more later, I returned to Borana on a pastoralist water assignment for CARE Ethiopia and, as good fortune would have it, I again had the pleasure of working with Did B (following Save the Children/

US’s withdrawal from Borana, he had accepted a position with CARE). During the visit, the team he had assigned me to work with learned of and visited an adadi excavation site in Dillo Woreda. From the elders we learned that the excavation was being carried out without external assistance of any form, and that the Abba Konfi and clan elders were providing food and payment – including in the form of livestock – for the excavation team. The excavation was already well advanced, and the team were confident that in another 6 months it would be completed, including a water-basin-stairway and livestock troughs.

Figure: Excavation of an ella or shallow well, Dillo Woreda, Ethiopia (Photo credit: Adrian Cullis)

This second visit closed a learning loop for me, namely that water resource development in pastoral areas is much better left to pastoralists themselves as they are typically more than able to generate their own resources and that external investment often by-passes and undermines customary institutions, to the detriment of the wider management of the rangelands. Once again, less is more!

This is part of our blog series on pastoralists and water.

^[1] Anyone not registered with the Working Group but interested to receive a copy of the presentations can request them from Kerstin.

^[2] The Abba Herega rotates herd watering based on a household’s labour contribution during the excavation and herd size, with sheep and goats watering first, followed by cattle and then camels.

^[3] Rebars are steel bars used for reinforcing concrete

Is it the management model or its application?

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.

UNQUALIFIED WATER WORKERS AND FORGED CREDENTIALS: THE HIDDEN CORRUPTION UNDERMINING SDG 6

Photograph 1 Showing a Graduate in Kenya, Source: NTV Kenya

Blog by Euphresia Luseka, co-lead of the RWSN Leave No-one Behind theme.

The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN) or its Executive Committee.

Fake Qualifications, Real Consequences: The Brenda Sulungai Case

Across Africa, water utilities are expected to be drivers of sustainable development, climate resilience, and digital transformation. Yet beneath this ambition lies a disturbing contradiction: highly complex systems are being operated by staff who, in most cases, lack even the basic credentials to do the job.

Despite major gains in infrastructure and technology investments, Kenya’s water utilities continue to underperform often not due to a lack of funding or innovation, but because of the human capital crisis festering within. I have witnessed strategic plans, technological upgrades, and donor-funded initiatives collapse under the weight of a talent base that was never prepared or licensed.

In July 2025, Brenda Nelly Sulungai a former staff at Nairobi City Water and Sewerage Company (NCWSC), was arraigned in a Kenyan Court, for forgery, uttering a false document, and deceiving a principal to gain employment. The Sulungai case demonstrates that the underlying problem extends far beyond individual misconduct on fraudulent activities, but rather the existing system permits such deception to occur and persist undetected for long. A fundamental breakdown exists in the accountability mechanisms embedded within the Human resources ecosystem of Water Corporations and Utilities.

This blog analyses the technical, legal and operational risks posed by weak certification systems, forgery, and unqualified staffing across Kenya’s water sector. It also proposes a plan for professionalising the sector, building institutional resilience, and restoring public’s vital trust.

The Pervasive Scale of Credential Fraud

“Every academic certificate in Kenya is now questionable. Forgery is happening across all sectors including those critical to life like water and health. We cannot ignore this anymore.” –Twalib Mbarak, CEO, Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC)

This stark statement captures the magnitude of Kenya’s credential fraud crisis as a structural failure that compromises public service integrity at scale as demonstrated in Box 1.

Box 1: Sector-Wide Credential Fraud Uncovered in National Audit

Following a 2022 presidential directive, the Kenya National Qualifications Authority (KNQA), in collaboration with the EACC and the Public Service Commission (PSC), audited academic and professional credentials across 400+ public institutions. Of 47,000 employment records reviewed, over 10,000 (30%) were forged or unverifiable documents. Credential fraud in Water Service Providers (WSPs) flourished under conditions of decentralised recruitment, limited HR oversight, and politicised hiring. Frontline operational roles such as meter readers, plant technicians, lab staff, and revenue officers are especially vulnerable to infiltration by individuals presenting forged or non-accredited certificates. In a coastal county, 5 out of 8; 63% of water treatment technicians lacked formal technical certification highlighting serious lapses in frontline hiring. WSPs such as Nairobi City and Garissa Water & Sewerage Company were cited for fraudulent promotions and appointments. The audit prompted a directive requiring all WSPs to submit comprehensive staff verification reports. EACC investigated over 2,000 public servants for holding fraudulent academic qualifications. In parallel, PSC has flagged more than 1,200 employees with irregular documentation in public institutions, signalling collapse in credential verification and HR governance.

“This is systemic. There are falsified documents even at PhD level, dissertations are downloaded from the internet.” – Dr. David Oginde, Chairperson, EACC

Senior public officials have not minced words. Head of Public Service Felix Koskei has declared the forged qualifications surge a ‘national emergency.’ PSC Chairman, Anthony Muchiri emphasised the urgency of cultural reform, framing the restoration of integrity as both a legal and moral imperative.

Consequently, this is not simply a matter of individual misconduct it points to a systemic failure in verification systems, risk management, and institutional accountability.

The Grave Consequences: Incompetence Endangering Lives and Undermining Progress

The human capital crisis in Kenya’s water sector driven by systemic weaknesses in credential verification, licensing, and staff training is not only an administrative oversight but threatens public health and utility performance.

Improper chlorine dosing, no action on bacteriological alerts and contaminated boreholes link to unqualified personnel, contributing to recurrent outbreaks of waterborne diseases such as cholera and typhoid. Therefore, Water sector HR reforms must be framed not just as a governance issue, but as a public health and national security imperative.

“You cannot digitize your way out of poor staffing. At some point, someone has to operate the system.”

The human resource crisis is also undermining the operational stability and financial viability of Kenya’s WSPs. Underqualified technical staff routinely mismanage complex systems like SCADA and GIS, leading to frequent breakdowns and service disruptions. Poorly trained revenue officers contribute to billing errors, customer dissatisfaction, and 30% revenue leakage crippling reinvestment in maintenance and training. Even as utilities embrace digitisation, adoption is hindered by a lack of skills and internal resistance to change. Without parallel investment in the human capabilities needed to run and sustain infrastructure, digital and capital investments risk failing to deliver impact.

Sustainable transformation requires human capital to be treated as a core infrastructure asset.

Systemic Vulnerabilities and Their Underlying Causes

I. Governance Deficit: Institutional Decay Through Political Capture

Kenya’s water sector suffers from a foundational governance breakdown; WASREB, the national water regulator notes a few WSPs have structured HR policies, indicating systemic weakness. Other gaps include: Outdated job descriptions, Irregular or absent performance reviews and Non-existent competency frameworks.

“Staff appointments in WSPs are frequently driven by tenure, local allegiances, or political alignment rather than technical merit. This erosion of meritocracy is neither incidental nor benign; it is indicative of deliberate political capture.”— Charles Chitechi, President, Water Sector Workers Association of Kenya (WASWAK)

Even WSP BODs that are governance bulwarks, are compromised. Opaque recruitment, undertrained members, and entrenched conflicts of interest have rendered them susceptible to patronage.

This politicisation has real operational costs, including poor service delivery, stagnant capacity, and a rise in credential forgery.

II. Regulatory Void: Absence of Mandatory Professional Licensing

Despite being designated as Kenya’s 16 critical infrastructure sectors, the water sector lacks a national mandatory licensing framework. Unlike medicine or engineering, no statutory barrier prevents an unqualified person from operating a treatment plant. Training institutions exist, including KEWI, NITA, and TVETs, but certification is inconsistent, and unenforced. Most alarming is the absence of a centralised professional registry, allowing forgeries to pass undetected unless exposed by whistleblowers.

Kenya’s current policy approach enables fraud by omission. The lack of a licensing regime is not a gap; it is a deliberate vulnerability.

III. Investment Blind Spot: Human Capital as the Missing Infrastructure

According to WASREB, Kenya’s WSPs spend less than 1% of OPEX on staff training, compared to the 5%-7% benchmark in high-performing WSPs globally. This chronic underinvestment in people creates a compounding deficit: Stagnant skills lead to operational bottlenecks, Low morale drives attrition and disengagement and Poor efficiency increases non-revenue water (NRW).

“You cannot digitize your way out of poor staffing. At some point, someone has to operate the system.”

A study by AfDB found that targeted training investment can lead to 20%-30% efficiency gains. The false economy of skipping training leads to far greater costs through system failures and revenue loss.

These figures make the business case clear. Training is not a cost; it is a strategic investment with measurable returns.

IV. Project Design Fallacy: Infrastructure Without Operators

Despite significant investments in tools such as GIS mapping, NRW audit software, and digital billing systems, Kenya’s utilities remain trapped in underperformance.

From experience, the primary reason infrastructure projects fail is they’re often designed for a workforce that does not yet exist. Few pause to ask: Who will operate, manage, and sustain these systems?

This leads to predictable implementation failures. Development partners often assume that technology adoption is a standalone solution, overlooking the critical human capability gap.

Table 1 Showing Summary of Systemic Failures and Strategic Fixes

Root Problem	Underlying Cause	Strategic Fix
Politicized HR and opaque recruitment	Governance failure	Independent oversight and merit-based systems
Weak mandatory licensing	Regulatory neglect	National framework aligned with global standards
Minimal training investment	Financial and strategic myopia	Mandated 5% OPEX for staff development
Failed technology implementations	Ignored human capacity gap	Capacity-first planning and project sequencing

Towards Resilience: Five Strategic Levers to Professionalize Kenya’s Water Sector

Kenya’s water sector is confronting a systemic talent crisis, addressing these challenges requires a structural response anchored in global best practices, informed by local constraints, and focused on long-term institutional resilience. This plan outlines 4 interlocking strategic levers designed to professionalize the sector and establish talent as a core infrastructure asset.

Lever	Core Insight	Priority Actions	Strategic Shift	Expected Outcome
Proactive Credential Verification	Shift from post-hire audits to real-time identity checks	Integrate KNQA/KUCCPS into hiring- Enforce role-based access protocols. Adopt zero-trust frameworks	Link credential verification to hiring and promotions	Pre-employment fraud prevention; increased hiring integrity
Mandatory Licensing for Technical Roles	Legalise role-based licensing to ensure competence	Establish national licensing board- Align with NQFs- Phase rollout starting with public-facing roles	Make licensing a prerequisite for key technical roles	Professionalised, accountable workforce
Performance-Driven HR Governance	Replace tenure-based hiring with performance-linked systems	Implement HR scorecards tied to KPIs- Map skills to close gaps- Link career progression to performance	Institutionalise meritocracy and depoliticise HR	Talent aligned with service outcomes; improved retention
Strategic Learning Investment	Treat training as core infrastructure, not a cost centre	Mandate 5% OPEX for learning- Deploy centralized Learning Management System- Align training to operational KPIs	Make capacity-building part of financial and project planning	Technically agile, continuously upskilled workforce

Conclusion: Talent Is Infrastructure

Kenya’s water systems are only as effective as the people who plan, operate, and maintain them. As the World Bank warns, weak water institutions can turn climate risks into crises undermining resilience across health, agriculture, and energy systems.

The Brenda Nelly Sulungai case shows credential fraud is not just a governance lapse it’s a national risk multiplier. Amid climate stress and population growth, human error becomes infrastructure failure.

Reform must begin and end with people. Priority actions include:

Verifying identities and qualifications through real-time credential checks
Mandating professional licensing to close technical regulatory gaps
Investing in structured, ongoing training
Aligning performance systems with merit-based progression
Fostering a culture of accountability, technical rigor, and service

These steps reflect a central truth: talent is infrastructure.

Former President Mwai Kibaki, UNESCO’s Special Envoy for Water in Africa, put it clearly: “We need to commit ourselves to turning actions into real reforms… and together we can make Africa water secure and peaceful.”

Pastoralists and Water 7 – Introducing the first Call to Action: Sustainable Water Development in the Pastoral Rangelands

Dr Kerstin Danert, Ask for Water Ltd, Scotland, UK

We have made it to the 7^th monthly blog in this series on Pastoralists and Water. It has become a great team effort (notably without any artificial intelligence used). Here is a synopsis of where we are so far:

I started in blog 1 by reflecting on my early encounters with the term “Pastoralist” and my uncomfortable feelings in relation to the stigma towards pastoralists in Uganda, and later in Chad.
Blog 2 unpacked what pastoralism actually is – both an economic activity and cultural identity and introduced rangelands as places where livestock graze and pastoralists live. I shared my realisation of the importance of pastoralism in the global food system and that herd mobility has value! I concluded that while pastoralism is largely misunderstood, more pastoralists are gaining voice.
Maryam Niamir-Fuller and I explained how pastoralists specialise in making use of highly variable environments to produce food moving with their livestock, shared the link to this beautiful short film, alongside emphasising that rangelands cover 54% of the earth’s land surface, with much diversity in blog 3.
In blog 4 supported by their recent policy brief, Jackson Wachira, Masresha Taye, Hussein Wario and Nancy Balfour challenged us as to whether new water supplies in the Horn of Africa drylands are the solution for pastoralists resilience or part of the problem. I will return to this question later.
We introduced green water in the 5th blog, a team effort involving Klas Sandström, Aida Bargués Tobella, Malin Lundberg Ingemarsson, Chris Magero, and Adrian Cullis, emphasising the importance of healthy soils and highlighting that green water really matters for blue water. If you are confused – I recommend that you read the blog!
In June 2025, for the 6^th blog Adrian Cullis took us to Karamoja, reflecting upon experiences in the mid 1990s up to today and with respect to pastoralists, water and management – particularly noting pastoralist being pushed out, not by an explicit excision policy or violence, but by land use practices and the quiet erosion of land access.

And so that takes us to this, our seventh blog in the series. Here I am introducing you, as readers to The First Call to Action by the IYRP Working Group on Pastoralists and Water. It is called “Sustainable Water Development in the Pastoral Rangelands”.

The call is to stakeholders – including the financiers, planners, community workers, engineers, hydrogeologists and hydrologists who deal with rural water supply services.

Personally, while I support it, I feel that it does not make for entirely comfortable reading. I feel challenged by it. I argue that parts of the call challenges norms, ingrained ways of working, or assumptions widely held within the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) sector. The main one, is that, if well sited, constructed and properly managed and as long as people benefit, that a new, or rehabilitated permanent water source, is almost always a good thing to support.

And so, with this introduction, I hope to spark some reflection, much-needed dialogue, and ultimately even changes in practice.

I am not going to try to summarise the whole call – at five pages it is short enough in its own right! Rather I would like to draw your attention to the second point in the call, and seek your opinions, whether as responses in the comments below, through email or LinkedIn exchange, or through discussions with members of the IYRP Pastoralists and Water working group either online or face to face, or even through joining the group.

So, … after all of this build up, what is the second point in this Call to Action? As a clue, it echo’s the questions raised in the 5^th blog which focussed on the Horn of Africa, asking whether new water supplies in the drylands are the solution for pastoralists resilience or part of the problem?

The Call to Action – Point two is

“reduce and reverse rangeland conversion:

Discontinue the development of new water infrastructure that enables the appropriation of rangelands by external investors or elite pastoralists for private benefit – such as commercial agriculture, mining, or renewable energy projects – or that would result in new settlements and year-round grazing, as both degrade pastoral rangelands and undermine pastoral livelihoods. Instead, support pastoralist communities working to reclaim and restore control over their traditional rangelands. “

What do you think of this? Do you agree? Can this statement be applied universally or is it unique to some places, such as parts of East Africa? Do you, or does your organisations work in rangelands? How would taking this into account affect the way in which you work or what you fund? Is this something that needs more space within the WASH sector.

And what are the counter arguments? Is there need to diversifying livelihoods in pastoralist systems; what to the pastoral youth want? It is possible for a win-win with investment in rangelands, including water development, which provides new opportunities while allowing pastoralists to continue to use the rangeland sustainably?

This is part of our blog series on pastoralists and water within the 2026 International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists.

Dr Kerstin Danert is a Water Specialist, Researcher and Facilitator and together with Adrian Cullis, co-facilitates the IYRP Pastoralists and Water Working Group. Both Adrian Cullis and Nancy Balfour reviewed and provided inputs to this blog.

From overseeing drilling operations to supervising them for the client: field realities from Uganda

By Ayebale Ared (Welthungerhilfe)

With this blog, I would like to share a few short reflections from my experiences overseeing and supervising drilling activities over the past ten years, both from the contractor’s and the INGO/client’s perspectives.

Figure 1: Ayebale Ared on the field (Welthungerhilfe)

From the drilling contractor’s side – overseeing drilling operations

I was fortunate to work with a drilling firm that prioritized quality, accountability, and training. The work culture encouraged flexibility, allowing us to try out different drilling methodologies. One of the most valuable aspects was the emphasis on real-time logging and decision-making based on live site observations. As the overseer of the drilling operations, I had to be physically present in the field, equipped with a laptop, drilling logs, a handheld GPS, a tape measure, a V-notch Weir, a dip meter, an E.C & a pH meter, and a camera, to support real time supervision and technical decisions as drilling progressed.

There was no remote oversight; everything was site-based and collaborative. Communication within the team was strong both for daily updates and for collectively addressing any issues that had financial or technical implications.

**Figure 2 (above) Sample box containing drill cuttings** (Source: Ayebale Ared)

However, there were limitations.

At the time, our machinery could not compete for larger contracts, particularly those requiring the drilling of production boreholes with casing diameters larger than 5″ internal diameter (ID). While we successfully drilled several open-hole design boreholes, which are suitable for handpumps these cannot be upgraded to accommodate technologies such as solar-powered water systems (SPWS) due to initial design constraints.

**Figure 3 (above) Water Sampling during borehole development showing decreasing turbidity** (Source: Ayebale Ared)

From the Client’s Side (INGO) – supervising drilling

Switching to the client’s side offered me the opportunity to work with a range of drilling firms year after year. By then, I had completed the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN) Professional Drilling and Borehole Management course (2019), and I was actively applying the knowledge in the field. I have worked with drillers with different equipment, resulting in more efficient drilling, constructing cased, rather than open holes. I also have had the chance to mentor and train new supervisors in professional supervision practices, proper borehole logging, and how to make sound real-time decisions at the site.

However, not all experiences have been positive

Remote, or part time supervision is common with a bigger percentage of the drilling firms I have worked with, often resulting in decisions made by drillers to minimize cost rather than address real-time field conditions which are not supervised in the field by the client. Some drilling firms opt for untrained, inexpensive overseers, which undermines the quality of work. As an example, many have no idea what real time logging is but just write a number of pipes and send short video clips to their bosses in office who make remote decisions. This usually becomes a challenge with the client’s supervisor ends up being painted bad as “a bad guy”. Without a qualified client supervisor on-site, the narrative of events can shift dramatically. I’ve observed poor siting practices, with boreholes positioned near anthills or trees leading to complex drilling challenges and post-installation issues such as silting, root intrusion, and compromised water quality. This has been subsequently verified through borehole video inspections and microbial tests. Additionally, poor gravel packing techniques have led to bridging, and inadequate borehole development has left screens poorly cleaned and functioning below standard.

**Figure 4 (above) Measuring drill pipe lengths (Source: Ayebale Ared)**

These reflections underline the critical importance of professional supervision, well-trained personnel, good oversight by the drilling contractor, and appropriate on-site decision-making throughout the drilling process.

I hope these insights are helpful as we continue to improve and uphold quality in our water supply interventions.

Ayebale Ared has over 10 years of experience in the water sector, specializing in WASH programs, borehole drilling, and rehabilitation in Uganda. He has worked on both the contractor and client sides, gaining a well-rounded perspective on best and worst drilling supervision experiences and practices