by Tapio S. Katko, Jarmo J. Hukka, Petri S. Juuti, Riikka P. Juuti and Eric J. Nealer.
Illustrations: Pertti O. Väyrynen. Publisher: IWA Publishing, London.
Is bottled water better for you than tap water? Is the pollution created by wastewater treatment plants a major issue? Is privatisation the best solution for more efficient water use? These are just a few of the myths busted in Dispelling Myths About Water Services.
In any society, water and wastewater systems are of fundamental importance to the development of communities and the well-being of both people and the ecosystem. Unfortunately, this fact has been reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic, by all manner of natural disasters, and by recent armed conflicts around the world. In such situations, clean water and sanitation are among the first things that need to be organised.
In this book, internationally renowned experts examine 21 common misconceptions regarding water supply and wastewater services, dispelling the myths by drawing on their global insights and avoiding technical jargon, while simultaneously raising questions of concern relating to water services.
Access to clean water and safe sanitation is essential for life. Without it, our time on this planet becomes dangerously short. People do not necessarily think about the challenges relating to water services, but the message is clear: to build sustainable water services, proper rules, accountable and responsive leadership, and well-informed stakeholders are vital, alongside resilient organisations and robust physical systems.
Originally published in Finnish, this English edition has been completely rewritten and includes examples and references from countries across the world. Original illustrations bring the content to life.
Whether you’re a water professional, policy maker, or environmental enthusiast, Dispelling Myths About Water Services helps sort the fact from the fiction regarding our most vital resource: water.
The book is freely available as an e-version: DOI: https://doi.org/10.2166/9781789064162 and a printed copy can be bought as well from the website for 20% off seasonal offer for the printed version by the code “DMAWS25”, Valid until 21st Dec 2025.
Erich Bauman, the founder of RWSN, passed away in Ireland at the age of 81 after a brief illness. He was an imaginative and gifted water engineer and development practitioner with many years of hands-on field experience, mainly in Asia and Africa.
A pragmatic, out-of-the-box thinker and leading authority on the design, manufacture, and maintenance of handpumps in low-income countries, Erich was a forceful advocate for the community ownership and management of small-scale water schemes and an indefatigable trainer of government engineers and village-level operatives.
Erich was born and grew up in Switzerland. After graduating as a mechanical engineer, he began his career designing tractors, but the 1970s were a bad time for the industry and many factories, including his, closed. So, in 1979, he moved to Bangladesh where he began work at the Mirpur Agricultural Workshop and Training School (MAWTS) where his focus moved from tractors to expanding the manufacturing capacity of factories to produce and sell the simple rower-pump, which was ideal for low-cost irrigation. It was through this that he met Ken Gibbs (UNICEF) and Tim Journey (World Bank) who were working on improvements to direct-action handpumps for domestic water supply.
In 1984, Erich turned down a job at the World Bank to return to Switzerland and join SKAT, which was then an association affiliated with the University of St. Gallen. He rose to become Managing Director and navigated the organisation through the tricky transition of becoming an independent consulting company, SKAT Consulting Ltd, in 1997 and establishing Skat Foundation in 2002, before handing over the reins to Jürg Christen. His attention to detail and quality was applied to getting ISO 9000 accreditation in quality management within the organisation.
But perhaps Erich will be best remembered for his progressive management of two influential, global development networks: The Handpump Technology Network (HTN); and The Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN).
In 1992, in the wake of the 1981-1990 International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade (IDWSD) during which hand pumps had become the mainstay of rural water supply programmes, a meeting was organised by the donor community at Kakamega, Kenya. A global forum for the better coordination of hand pump development, manufacture, operation and maintenance was mooted and Erich was tasked with setting up a Secretariat for what was to become the Handpump Technology Network (HTN). It was to be funded by The Swiss agency for Development Cooperation (SDC) and based at Skat in St. Gallen, Switzerland.
After twelve years under Erich’s leadership and with the proven benefits of this coordinating technical network for everything related to hand pumps, the HTN mandate was broadened in 2004 to become the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN) to more comprehensively support rural water supply initiatives from drilling and hand pumps to water quality testing and everything in between.
During his tenure, his achievements, which it is no exagerration to say have touched the lives of tens of millions of people and their everyday water access, included:
Supporting governments in multiple countries, including Ghana and Uganda to develop standardisation policies so that chaos of 10, 20, 30 different handpumps was rationalised to 2-3 so that supply chains and operation and maintance support become more sustainable.
At the RWSN Forum Ghana (2005), from the left: Julian Jones, Erich Baumann, Peter Morgan, Peter Wurzel, Karl Erpf (photo from Peter Morgan)
Those of us who worked with Erich in the early years know that the HTN and its successor, the RWSN, would never have come into being, let alone thrived, without his passion, drive and commitment. His engagement with Network members, travels to participating programmes in far flung places, the training courses he ran and his precise documentation of the successes and failures of water projects around the world, reinforced belief in the worth of the RWSN, while his promotion of multi-year work plans secured longer term funding and continuity in the running of the Network.
In 2009, after seventeen years, Erich handed over the reins of the Secretariat to Dr Kerstin Danert and retired to Ireland from where he maintained a watching brief over his RWSN brainchild, mentoring and encouraging his successor to grow the Network. Which she did, embracing drilling practice and bringing it mainstream.
Erich leading a handpump training course hosted by the Austrian Red Cross, Vienna, 2012 (Photo: S Furey)
Kerstin was succeeded in 2017 by the Network’s third and current Director, Sean Furey who has continued to build on Erich’s pioneering initiatives and Kerstin’s work while expanding the RWSN remit and enhancing its profile such that it is now recognised by donors, governments and sector professionals as the leading rural water supply forum globally – a vibrant network of some 17,000 members in 174 countries and bringing rural water supply know-how and technical solutions to quite literally, millions of poor communities. This then, is Erich’s legacy, and likely a long lasting one.
Erich was a humanist at heart; generous and self-effacing but dogged in the pursuit of a goal. Balancing the serious business of rural development with his own wry brand of humour was a welcome asset when accompanying him on contentious field missions or when engaged in difficult negotiations with partners.
Erich was a much-valued mentor to many water wallahs around the world and a great friend to those who were lucky enough to know him. He was a one off. Irreplaceable.
RIP Erich and thank you for what you did in the time that you had, mostly for others.
By Rupert Talbot (UNICEF WES; India, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia (1970 -2003), HTN Chair, 1996-2003) with contributions from Dr Peter Wurzel (UNICEF, HTN Chair, 1992-1996); Jürg Christen (former Managing Director, Skat Consulting Ltd.); Dr Peter Morgan; Dr Kerstin Danert (Ask for Water Ltd. RWSN Director, 2009-2017); Sean Furey (Skat Foundation, RWSN Director, 2017-present).
By Barbara van Koppen, Scientist Emerita at the International Water Management Institute
The earlier RWSN webinars and blogs about pastoralists’ water governance highlight how these communities have found solutions for survival and wellbeing in fragile environments, based on in-depth ecological knowledge . The blogs also expose the risks and threats when external agencies, such as government, NGOs, and private sector intervene, even with the best intentions of providing support. It underlines, again, the vital importance for external agencies to listen to everybody, leaving no one behind, from the very first phases of planning action.
This blog, by Barbara van Koppen explores whether and how these insights can apply more widely. Do the various ways in which pastoralists generate solutions and receive external support or face threats also apply to smallholders and mixed farmers as well as fisherfolks in low-income rural areas in general? When we read ‘pastoralist’, can we interpret this more generally as ‘marginalized rural water user’, or in many cases even ‘humankind’? If such overlap exist, would more cross-fertilisation strengthen general calls for community-led planning and for a recognition of customary water tenure in policy and law? Let us explore, starting with pastoralists’ integrated water management.
Multiple uses
For pastoralists, water is life in many ways. Humans and animals need water daily and year-round for drinking. Every human also daily depends on water for domestic uses. Further, seasonal or year-round water enables vegetation growth for immediate use or storage for human livelihoods: nature’s grass, shrubs, and trees, or cultivated animal feed, or crops or fruits for own consumption or sale. Water is also needed for other livelihood activities, for example, the trade of milk. For humans, silos don’t exist; one use cannot without the other. When access to water is limited and prioritization inevitable, during seasonal droughts, pastoralists set a lower priority on their own drinking and other domestic uses above absolute minimum quantities than drinking by their animals. Together, the multiple water uses bring health and wealth and vice-versa.
Afar de facto multi-purpose infrastructure, Ethiopia (Source: Barbara van Koppen)
Moving to nature’s multiple, variable, unpredictable water sources
This life dependency on variable, only partly predictable and land-bound water resources, underpins age-old knowledge of the local integrated hydrological cycle of multiple sources: precipitation, surface water bodies, run-off, soil moisture (green water), wetlands, and groundwater. Without Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) to combine multiple sources, survival is impossible. This shapes pastoralists’ mobility to the sites of their seasonal and year-round uses: in dry seasons the (usually male) herders move their cattle to grazing areas and permanent water sources, for example up in the mountains. Even homes can remain mobile. Depending on seasons, part of mixed farming communities, may move their herds out and live in temporary houses.
Making water move to sites of use: soil and water conservation and multi-purpose infrastructure
Pastoralists also make water move to, or stay in the favourite sites of use for themselves and their animals. Soil and water conservation in the rainy season feeds grasses, shrubs and trees for grazing or improves the cultivation of feed and crops. Construction, operation and maintenance of storage and conveyance infrastructure bring water seasonally or year-round to homesteads, distant grazing or cropping areas or other preferred sites. Dug ponds, tanks and drums store water. Groundwater is storage that is recharged. Buckets to lift or carry water, wheel burrows, canals, pipes, and trucks transport water.
Afar livestock trough Ethiopia (Source: Barbara van Koppen)
The (usually male) individuals or self-organized groups who invest in the infrastructure typically have the strongest claims to the water stored and conveyed for their multiple needs, but other people and animals may be attracted. Access rights are even more open for infrastructure installed by government or NGOs.
In sum, at community-level, pastoralists combine multiple local surface and groundwater sources, with various infrastructures to access water for multiple uses at multiple sites Sharing of water that flows over or under these lands shapes internal and external relationships. As the Boran say: “Water is either a source that you ‘share in’ as a member of a descent-based collectivity, or one that you ‘share out’ to signify respect” (Dahl and Megerssa 1990*). These insights and arrangements are mainly orally shared, also through culture and rituals.
All the above – multiple uses, sources, infrastructures and sharing – may sound complex, but communities can draw a map (on the ground or on paper) of this core of their livelihoods and culture in a few hours.
However, the most severe threats to pastoralists’ access to water are in the ‘sharing out’ of water with foreign and national powerful third parties, grabbing land and water and polluting for profit- and export-oriented large-scale cereal farms, plantations, mining, or tourists and game parks.
Implications for support agencies
What do you think? Don’t these features fit more settled rural communities as well? And fishers? They fit FAO’s general definition of water tenure: “Relations, customarily or formally/legally defined, between people, as individuals or groups, with regard to water” (FAO 2020**). In FAO’s Global Water Tenure Dialogue, pastoralism is a clear example of a broader growing recognition of customary, or community-based, or indigenous, water tenure.
Joining forces, the following two implications for governments and other external agencies seem equally important for pastoralists and more settled rural communities or fisherfolks.
First, any external support for improved water management should start with the above-mentioned diagnostic of a resource map. Different parts of the community (men, women, young, old, different livelihood strategies) will indicate their current situation. On this basis they will identify their problems and envision and prioritise actions, while cost-effectively indicating required support.
Participatory resource mapping Zambia (Source: Barbara van Koppen)Participatory design in Ga Moela, South Africa (Source: Barbara van Koppen)
This diagnostic resource mapping is the moment to ensure everyone’s voices are heard, so that those who need most can prioritise action. External agencies’ mandates of support on offer should be transparent and as open as possible. Too restrictive mandates can fail to align with local priorities or ignore pastoralists and fisherfolks altogether. This may even be the case in broad approaches such as the food-energy-water nexus (which tend to ignore domestic water uses) and humanitarian aid (which may ignore animals’ and other productive needs). When broader needs than the support on offer emerge, other expertise and funding sources need to be mobilised.
Second, when water is scarce during dry seasons and droughts, prioritization is inevitable. The following prioritisation proposed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to water*** provides excellent guidance for decolonized prioritisation that may well align with communities’ own prioritisation.
1. Water for life (domestic uses, productive uses, aquatic life);
2. Water for general interest;
3. Water for economic uses and profit making.
References
*Dahl, G.; Megerssa, G. 1990. The sources of life: Boran conceptions of wells and water. In: Palsson, G. (ed.) From water to world-making. African models and arid lands. Uppsala, Sweden: The Scandinavia Institute of African Studies. pp.21–38.
**FAO. 2020. Unpacking water tenure for improved food security and sustainable development. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 40p. (Land and Water Discussion Paper 15). https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1230en
***UN (United Nations) 2024. Water and economy nexus: managing water for productive uses from a human rights perspective. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation Pedro Arrojo Agudo. Fifty-seventh session 9 September–9 October 2024. Agenda item 3. Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. A/HRC/57/48. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5748-water-andeconomy-nexus-managing-water-productive-uses-human
By Karl Wagner[1], Jennifer Gooden[2], Magnus Sylvén[3], Adrian Cullis[4]
This month, its over to Karl, Jennifer, Magnus and Adrain on our ongoing blog series which, this month, reflects on pastoralism and conservation!
Searching for common ground
Progress toward big challenges, like protecting rangelands and the pastoralists who use them, can be strengthened by finding partners who share common ground. We think this is the case with the pastoralism and conservation communities. In essence these communities have much in common, but in practice they have remained separate and therefore unable to achieve the protection of large, unfragmented landscapes. This is exacerbated by short-sighted perceptions:
Conservation practitioners tend to see domestic livestock, especially in managed herds, as an intrusion into the natural ecosystem. Sadly, many conservation practitioners would rather see a grassland absent of all large herbivores than a grassland grazed by pastoralists’ herds.
Pastoralists – for cultural and subsistence reasons – prize a “bigger is better” approach to herds, seeking to maximize the animal numbers to enhance livelihood stability in fragile environments. This can result in oversized populations of domesticated animals and add another driver of land degradation.
Finding balance
In reality, it’s not either-or but rather a matter of finding an optimal balance of multiple land uses. This includes recognizing that livestock can cover some, perhaps many (but not all!), of the ecological functions of wild animals. For example, cattle and bison are both bovines and both increase the bioavailability of soil nitrogen for microorganisms and plants through excretion of dung and urine.
However, wild bison must face predators, extreme weather, and food shortages, which keeps their population numbers within the ecosystem’s carrying capacity. Managed herds of cattle don’t face these risks to the same degree, and are also more selective in their grazing, resulting in a loss of rangeland biodiversity over time. Furthermore, when pastoralists and ranchers manage cattle herds more commercially, there’s often an increased risk of poorer grazing practices and accelerated rangeland degradation.
Where we agree
If we can zoom out and look at grasslands as socioecological systems, there are many things we might agree on:
Human civilization has seriously degraded earth’s ecosystems, leaving less than 3% that could be considered fully functional.
The more functional an ecosystem, the greater its ability to provide the goods and services that rural and urban communities need for their survival, wellbeing and prosperity – provided they are given access.
The human population stands at 8 billion and counting, growing in numbers as well as in demand for natural resources.Yet we live on a finite planet, and natural resources are limited.
We are in a systemic crisis, and we must identify and implement systemic solutions. This requires systemic, holistic thinking. Problems can no longer be seen or solved in isolated silos.
As a pragmatic consequence, natural resource management must pursue multifaceted objectives. It needs to address not only harvests but also the functionality and long-term resilience of ecosystems.
What wild animals can do
There’s one more unifying but lesser-known fact: wild animals can repair and enhance an ecosystem’s functionality. Wild animal impacts on ecosystem processes benefit pastoralists, too. Left wild, they can help with nutrient cycling, carbon capture, invasive species control, flood control, and water purification. One can think of non-management of wildlife as a management tool for grazing.
Wild animals are not mere bystanders in the face of environmental change. Like climatic factors, such as temperature, precipitation, and ocean currents, wild animals affect the web of life, actively shaping the spaces in which they live.
The role all animals play
Animals large and small, wild or domestic, have been found to both directly and indirectly play an intricate role in the water regulation on rangelands, the ecohydrology, ranging from micro-perturbations to the macro-perturbation commonly described as ecosystem engineering. Examples of large mammals having a positive impact on wetlands in rangelands include:
Domestic species: water buffalo, cattle, and horses
All these species spend time both on land and in water, connecting terrestrial with aquatic ecosystems, affecting particularly the supporting services, such as nutrient cycling, ecosystem productivity, sediment/soil formation, seed dispersal, biodiversity, food webs and trophic cascading, water distribution and flow, as well as ecosystem heterogeneity. More detailed information is provided in the following two publications “Taking animals into Account: The Critical Role of Wild Animals in Shaping Wetland Ecosystems and the Services they Provide, A Report to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands – global outlook (February 2025) and Africa Special Report (July 2025).
What wild animals need
Space: In the face of rapid population declines, wildlife needs recovery areas sufficiently large for populations to flourish.
Complete food webs: Functional ecosystems require a complete food web, including predators.
Ecosystem engineers: Some species significantly modify their environments, creating space for many other species to flourish. Animals like beavers, elephants, and prairie dogs all play outsized roles in positively shaping the land and water around them.
Adapting pastoralist practices
The good news is with a few adaptations, pastoralist practices can be tools for land restoration. Holistic and regenerative grazing practices can build soil organic matter, increase water retention, sequester carbon, conserve biodiversity, and reduce the spread of invasive species. Similarly, community wildlife conservancies in Africa are another example of management practices that have resulted in a significant comeback of wildlife across large areas of Africa at the same time as providing new economic opportunities for people.
Let’s join the forces of the pastoralism and conservation communities to protect the large landscapes through which abundant wildlife and nomadic pastoralists have migrated since time immemorial.
About the authors
[1] Director, Campaigns, Global Rewilding Alliance
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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!
[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
Rural Water Supply Network - blog 