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.
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.
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?”
The UN WWDR 2026 shall serve as a vital resource, illustrating how global trends and phenomena are reshaping gender dynamics in societies around the world. The interplay between conflict, migration, and gender equity in WASH reveals stark realities. In regions afflicted by conflict and instability, women’s safety and access to essential services are severely compromised.
The plight of women in conflict zones is further exacerbated by migration. Women and girls face an increased risk of sexual and gender-based violence during conflicts. Yet, amid these challenges, women remain indispensable agents of change—actively participating in peace-building, conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconstruction. This resilience highlights the need to recognize and harness women’s potential for positive transformation in their communities.
Migration and its intersection and climate change also alters traditional gender roles and expectations, as families adapt to new environments; it presents opportunities for economic independence and education, empowering them to challenge restrictive gender norms. Still Migrant women often encounter exploitation, discrimination, and limited access to resources, underscoring the urgent need to address these barriers.
Corruption emerges as another formidable barrier to WASH and gender equity. It restricts women’s access to essential services and undermines their participation in leadership and decision-making processes, as demonstrated in weaponisation of water. U.N. Women has called for urgent action to protect Sudanese women and girls, emphasizing the need for accountability in addressing high levels of sexual violence and exploitation. “We cannot let Sudan become a forgotten crisis,” asserts U.N. Women’s Addou, highlighting the critical necessity for action in conflict-affected regions.
On my blog on Diversity in Water sector leadership I emphasise the concerning underrepresentation of women. A World Bank report highlights that less than 18% of the workforce in water utilities are women and that two-thirds of sanitation leaders are white according to a FLUSH LLC publication that I co-authored. This systemic inequity reflects deeper societal structures, suggesting that without diverse leadership, the water sector risks stagnation and failure in meeting SDG6 targets.
by Sean Furey, Director – RWSN Secretariat @ Skat Foundation
Rural Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) is such a local, personal, issue that does global-level exchange make sense?
At first glance, rural areas and communities worldwide seem too diverse for networking and knowledge exchange to be useful or meaningful. What does WASH for isolated hamlets in the Nepalese Himalayas have in common with a fishing village on the Peruvian coast or a small town in northern Nigeria? Quite a lot, it turns out.
When it comes to shear financial clout and convening power, Multi-lateral Development Banks (MDBs) are hard to beat, but even they have had mixed success with rural WASH – but there have been successes and they have recognised that they can learn from each other so that they can provide their client governments with the technical assistance and financial options to deliver sustained improvements. So, last year the relevant focal points from the African (AfDB), Asian (ADB) and Inter-American (IDB) met and agreed on a Call to Action with three priorities:
Information-based decision-making and rural WASH investments and service monitoring.
Institutional strengthening & coordination.
Rural sanitation.
From this, we organised a webinar mini-series drawing on their recommendations for case studies on each topic from each region.
Finding the common threads and bringing them together to make them stronger
This year, we took more steps to build an understanding and appreciation of the solutions that have the potential to transcend the variability of local contexts and be adapted. With growing interest, our colleagues at the World Bank also joined the small group and together we organised a special SIRWASH breakfast meeting and an open session on “Coordinating Rural Water Investments to Promote Security and Stability” with REAL-Water :
The SIRWASH breakfast meeting that followed was in the spirit of collaboration among countries in the global south, using knowledge sharing as a catalyst for innovative and sustainable solutions. It was attended by more than 40 representatives from countries (Haiti, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Nigeria and Uganda), multilateral banks, multilateral and bilateral agencies (SDC, AECID, SIDA, WHO, OAS, UNICEF), NGOs and philanthropists (including, One Drop, Water For People, Avina, Aguatuya, mWater, Global Water Center), as well as networks, partnerships and research (RWSN, SuSanA, WASH Agenda for Change, WASH Funders Group, SIWI, Uptime, the Aquaya Institute).
Using the “Fishbowl” method, participants exchanged their perspectives in an open and dynamic way on how strategic partnerships can increase impact in the sector. Discussions focused on two key questions:
1. How can technological innovations in rural WASH information systems be supported to be truly effective in decision making and incentivize scaling up?
2. What are practical solutions to improve the design and implementation of national rural WASH programs so that their benefits are sustained over the long term?
One of the central themes was innovation through sector information systems, a crucial tool for planning and managing water and sanitation services in rural areas. Three countries shared their experiences on how they have adapted and improved these systems:
Haiti highlighted the use of information systems for decision-making;
The importance of institutionalizing information at the national level and ensuring that communities participate in the validation and appropriation of data and decisions was emphasized.
In addition to information systems, the event underscored the need to integrate both technological and social innovations to improve rural services. Social innovations and behavioural change are essential for communities to take ownership of the systems and actively participate in their management and maintenance. Participants agreed that long-term sustainability is about finding the sweet spot between community-ownership/responsibility and external support.
The second critical issue addressed was the sustainability of rural water and sanitation services. Participants stressed that the successful implementation of these services cannot depend solely on initial investments in infrastructure. Innovative mechanisms need to be developed to ensure their financing and continued operation. The examples of Brazil and Nigeria were instructive, both countries demonstrating how the combination of effective governance and innovative financial models can ensure the operational sustainability of services:
Brazil presented its comprehensive implementation of their National Rural Sanitation Program (PNSR).
Nigeria highlighted the ways a results-based SURWASH programme is strengthening institutional capacity.
The Uptime Consortium shared their experiences and successes with Results-based Contracting on rural water service delivery across many contexts.
The discussion emphasized the need for functionality and quality indicators for rural services, linking reliable information to financial incentives for operators. This strategy can enhance the long-term sustainability of these systems. The working group concluded that collaboration is essential to ensure countries have reliable information for decision-making, aimed at improving the quality of rural services.r decision-making aimed at enhancing the quality of services in rural areas.
In the final discussion, consensus was reached on the need to create and maintain an enabling ecosystem for the development and sustainability of rural services. The great opportunity for development partners to join efforts and seek synergies, contributing technical and financial resources to this ecosystem in the countries was highlighted.
The event concluded with a clear call to action: all actors – governments, development banks, cooperation agencies, NGOs, networks and the private sector – must remain committed to financing and strengthening rural water and sanitation services. The MDBs will continue to work together on a concrete action plan to exchange and replicate successful and innovative experiences to ensure universal and quality WASH services in the countries.
Knowledge exchange is not just talk and powerpoint presentations, it is about building connections and trust between individuals and organisations, finding those common interests and encouraging co-creation of new insights and more sustainable solutions.
The symbolic activity organized by One Drop, where participants bonded to represent their intention to work together towards a common goal, was a powerful reminder of the importance of lasting partnerships. This symbolic gesture is just the beginning; it is essential to continue to scale up efforts so that the most vulnerable communities can access quality water and sanitation services in a sustainable and equitable manner.
Top-Down meets Bottom-Up
After this event, our partner Aguatuya convened an online meeting of Latin American WASH networks to encourage bottom-up exchange to complement our high-level approach. But we will follow that thread in the next post…
Many thanks to the large number of people involved, but in particular to Sergio Campos, Manuela Velasquez-Rodriguez and Cristina Mecerreyes at IDB; Diane Arjoon at AfDB, Vivek Raman and Tanya Huizer at ADB, Awa Diagne and Sarah Nedolast at the World Bank, Janine Kuriger at SDC, and to the wonderful RWSN/SuSanA team: Dr Aline Saraiva, Batima Tleulinova, Susanna Germanier, Lourdes Valenzuela, Paresh Chhajed, Chaiwe Sanderse and all the speakers and panellists for the webinars and sessions.
The sustainability of drinking water supply infrastructure remains a challenge in rural areas of low-and middle-income countries. Through this research to identify factors contributing to functionality, we analyzed monitoring data from ten non-governmental organization drinking water supply programs across nine sub-Saharan African and South Asian countries. Data were from 1,805 randomly selected water points, including tap stands, spring protections, rainwater collection systems, and hand pumps.
We found an impressive 92% of sampled water points constructed within the prior year were functional, versus only 79% of those constructed earlier (average 3.5 years, range: 1–12 years old).
Tap stands from piped water systems exhibited 74% lower odds of functioning than boreholes with hand pumps within the older construction sample. This disparity underscores the necessity of considering the suitability and reliability of various water supply systems in rural contexts.
As global efforts to expand piped water services align with international development goals, our results advocate for a nuanced approach. Higher water service levels offer undeniable benefits, but the accompanying technological, institutional, and financial requirements must be carefully weighed. Particularly in rural settings, where challenges of limited resources and infrastructure maintenance persist, comprehensive strategies are essential to mitigate risks and maximize the effectiveness of water supply interventions.
Read the full Open Access paper here:
Murray, A. L., Stone, G., Yang, A. R., Lawrence, N. F., Matthews, H., & Kayser, G. L. (2024). Rural water point functionality estimates and associations: Evidence from nine countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.Water Resources Research, 60, e2023WR034679. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023WR034679
Many countries are looking to expand rural water services and improve service levels for people living in small towns and rural areas by investing in small, decentralised piped water services. Francophone West Africa has a long history of delegating water services (usually piped) in small towns and rural areas to professional operators, both public and private.
The RWSN Secretariat in partnership with the REACH programme spent the last year investigating the experience of the delegation of rural water services and the drivers behind recent rural water policy reforms in several countries of francophone West Africa. We did a detailed desk review, and spoke to 25 experts in rural water sector in the region to understand why and how rural water policy reform happened, and what lessons can be drawn from their experiences in delegating rural water services to professional operators.
De nombreux pays cherchent à développer les services d’eau en milieu rural et à améliorer les niveaux de service pour les habitants des petites villes et des zones rurales en investissant dans des réseaux d’eau décentralisés et de petite taille. L’Afrique de l’Ouest francophone a une longue histoire de délégation des services d’eau potable (généralement des petits réseaux) dans les petites villes et les zones rurales à des opérateurs professionnels, qui peuvent être des associations publiques ou des opérateurs privés.
Le Secrétariat du RWSN, en partenariat avec le programme REACH, a passé l’année passée à enquêter sur l’expérience de la délégation des services d’eau et les moteurs des récentes réformes de la politique de l’eau potable en milieu rural dans plusieurs pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest francophone. Nous avons réalisé une étude documentaire détaillée et parlé à 25 experts du secteur de l’eau en milieu rural dans la région pour comprendre pourquoi et comment les réformes des politiques d’eau potable en milieu rural se sont produites, et quelles leçons peuvent être tirées des diverses expériences de délégation des services d’eau potables en milieu rural à des opérateurs professionnels.
To unlock the economic potential and alleviate poverty in rural areas, access to improved water access crucial. Building upon the insights of the previous blog under the same title “Politics, Water Governance and Service Delivery Management Models for A Resilient Rural Water Sector”, this blog delves into the transformative power of adaptation and partnerships in addressing the challenges of the rural water sector. Discover how Kakamega County Government adopted Pilot Markets Based Water Service Delivery Management Models, its benefits and lessons.
Transforming Rural Water Management through Partnerships.
Between 2012-2015, SNV Kenya in partnership with Kenya Markets Trust and Adams Smith International designed a participatory action research based innovative programme; the Market Assistance Programme (MAP) that aimed at improving sustainability of rural and small towns’ water supply by engaging private firms. This project used the Making Markets Work for the Poor (M4P) concept in analysing and designing models for post-construction management of water systems.
By addressing capacity of both public and private actors (formal and informal), SNV concluded space for interventions taking a market systems approach could be successful. The approach in Kakamega County included: (1) Market Research on willingness and ability to pay by consumers (2) Commercial Viability Assessments for rural water supplies (3) Modelling Private Public Community Partnerships (PPCPs) and business planning for private firms (4) Procurement, negotiation and contracting of private firms (5) Orientation and capacity building for the lease operator and nurturing relationships (6) Consumer Awareness, (7) Strengthening National and County level evidence-based policy lobbying and advocacy.
Kakamega County selected the Lease Operator Model (Refer to Figure 1 below) where a Water Service Board (Lake Victoria North Water Service Board) engaged a Lease Contract with the main Water Service Provider (WSP) in Kakamega; Kakamega County Water and Sanitation Co. (KACWASCO). The national water regulator (WASREB) approved the framework for water tariff setting and enforcement, while taking into consideration affordability and cost recovery principles. The project created awareness on the pros and cons of adopting Public Private Community Partnership Management Model, oriented KACWASCO on possible business opportunities and models; and supported public authorities (WSB and Kakamega County Government) on participatory and transparent procurement process. KACWASCO provided water services under a licensing regime/revenue payment model in Navakholo Sub- County. KACWASCO was attracted by the potential of increasing their bottom line and public sector investments in infrastructure to strengthen overall profitability.
Figure 1 Illustrating the Lease Operator Model
Results
The facilitated interventions improved sustainability of water services in Navakholo. KACWASCO was able to increase access to water for 8,330 people in underserved and unserved areas of Navakholo by 2015, whilst greater oversight opened the possibility for the county government support to improve services, collect data on performance, and demand accountability from them. Other results included:
Improved Management of Navakholo Rural Water Supplies:
In rural areas, improving management practice of Water Management Committees is key to improving sustainability.
SNV facilitated: (1) legal transformation of the Water Management Committees to Water Users Association (WUAs) to separate governance and management roles, and (2) engagement of KACWASCO Lease Contract that enabled professionalized management towards demand responsive service provision.
Access to Finance for the Lease Operator: During the initial stages of implementing the Lease Contract, financing rehabilitation works to operationalise unfunctional systems was a key issue. If KACWASCO were to borrow from a commercial market (at a high interest rate of 18-21%) notwithstanding the risks, the water tariff had to be increased to ensure the water supplies are commercially viable which would be unaffordable for the poor. MAP designed a water-financing product, using blended subsidy concept, to enable WSPs access market finance.
It is worth noting that taking a market systems approach in the water sector is complicated given the public nature of water. A purely free-market approach was fraught with risks and could lead to inequitable access, meaning careful consideration had to be given to the role of the public sector. SNV first evaluated the rural water sector, highlighting potential for growth in services delivery. Whilst assets were publicly owned and activities regulated by WASREB, there was room for commercial incentives. Profits were generated through tariffs and connection/reconnection fees, creating potential for private sector investment that encouraged the uptake of the water financing product.
Public Sector Capacity Strengthening: The PPP procurement is different from the traditional procurement of good and services, as the payment for the PPP’s is mainly made from the projected revenues of the water systems. A high level of trust, mutual commitment to set objectives and clearly defined incentives for KACWASCO was created.
Policy Advocacy and Support: The entire concept of PPCP and private sector participation was a relatively new concept in the rural water sector. Therefore, the project supported evidence-based policy advocacy and improvements at national and county levels; MAP supported the State Department for Water in developing PPP tools and guidelines and in improving coordination and communication through National PPP Node.
Lessons
The success of any SDM pilot depends a lot on learning and adaptation to provide an effective evidence base for policy and regulatory adjustments. Overall, there was a huge potential for PPPs to improve sustainability, service levels and revenues through operational and managerial efficiencies. Change of mind sets takes time MAP was time bound; the success of the model required strategic continuous engagement of all three groups of stakeholders: the water buyers (users), the water sellers (Lease operator) and the Sector policy and regulations makers (public authorities) to achieve sustainable outcomes. Particularly there was need to support Kakamega County in developing and implementing appropriate legislations, policies, guidelines so that PPPs are fully recognised and adopted to enhance scaling of the model through transparent procurement process and tools, financing, performance monitoring, learning and replication of emerging success of PPCPs, yet such documents take a lot of time and resources to be accented and adopted.
Through these partnerships and improved legislations and policies, the path is paved for understanding the institutional reforms and scaling solutions needed to achieve a sustainable rural water sector, fostering economic growth and improving livelihoods. More on “Scaling Sustainable Models can be found in the Blog 3 of “Politics, Water Governance and Service Delivery Management Models for A Resilient Rural Water Sector”
About the author:
Euphresia Luseka is a Water Governance Specialist and Co-Lead of RWSN Leave No-One Behind Theme. She is a seasoned Expert with experience in leadership, strategy development, partnerships and management in WASH sector nationally, regionally and internationally. She has specialised in WASH Public Policy, Business Development Support Strategies and Institutional Strengthening of urban and rural WASH Institutions. Euphresia has several publications and research work in her field.
This is a guest blog by RWSN member Kirsten de Vette.
Capacity development plays a pivotal role in fostering sustainable progress towards ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. This article presents several striking findings stemming from several recent capacity assessments and capacity development reviews I was involved in over the past three years. Tackling these issues will have transformative impact on the water, sanitation, and hygiene and development sectors, whilst the required effort is expected to be relatively low.
Photo 1: WASHPaLS#2: Focus Group Discussion Jigawa Nigeria. Photo credit Nanpet Chuktu
Finding 1: There is misalignment on what capacity means
There are diverse definitions and interpretations of this concept, which can impede effective implementation of interventions. Some speak of institutional capacity (enabling environment and organizational capacity), others speak about individual capacity (skills, competencies, abilities), and others only address the organizational capacity (knowledge management, leadership, systems etc) itself. This has a knock-on effect on what capacity development means. For some it is simply looking at the education of new professionals (i.e. TVET, universities). Others only equate the term capacity development with training, and others may indicate it is strengthening institutions (i.e. systems, policies etc.).
Very few stakeholders interviewed incorporate all four levels of capacity (enabling environment, organizational, individual, and society)[1] in their thinking. Many even seem to neglect the broader issues affecting capacity, such as workforce development and sustainable employment.
On top of this the terms capacity – building, – development and – strengthening are now used interchangeably to describe the process of increasing capacities. In academic literature the first two are explored and do in fact mean something different. The third is used by some to overcome a certain level of tension on the terminology inherited from the history of capacity development (will be described in following blog).
To address this, we need to develop a common understanding among stakeholders in water, sanitation, and or hygiene (perhaps broaden to include all development work) on what capacity means, and what effective capacity development then entails. This will create a solid foundation for future endeavours and collaboration.
Photo 2: WASHPaLS#2: Field visit Bihar India. Photo credit: Anand Shekhar
Finding 2: Addressing the Job Shortage Dilemma
Strengthening capacity and education alone may not be sufficient if there is a lack of suitable job opportunities. While the importance and shortages of human resources have been identified (IWA, 2014; GLAAS 2012/ 2014/ 2017/ 2022; World Water Development Report, 2016; forthcoming USAID WASHPals#2), the existence or development of corresponding employment opportunities cannot be guaranteed.
The labor market, especially for rural sanitation, is largely reliant on (I)NGOs, or Development partners, who are normally in place on project basis. Where positions are present in the public sector, they are shared with other responsibilities (e.g. water, solid waste, building & constructions and or others) that are of higher priority. The positions in the informal private sector are dependent on demand (and or projects) and often do not (yet) guarantee full-time employment in the long run.
To address this, we need to address sustainable employment, and create avenues for career growth in the sectors. This can be supported by raising awareness about the need for job creation (and investment), but also by developing the proper policies, mandates and incentives that justify stakeholders to create the needed jobs.
Finding 3: Coordination and Communication gaps
There is insufficient coordination and communication among capacity development providers, development partners, and sector actors. The education sector often struggles to meet the needs of the WASH sector, while the sector itself is unable to effectively communicate its requirements. It was also highlighted by several key informant interviews in country studies that INGOs/ development partners working at country level often fail to coordinate (all of) their capacity development efforts (the forthcoming USAID WASHPaLS #2). This results in overlapping interventions in certain regions while leaving others with inadequate support.
We need to make capacity development a collaborative endeavour. By integrating capacity development (jointly defined as per finding one) and in particular workforce development into the narrative, and into the national review meetings and or Water, Sanitation and or Hygiene plans. But also, by developing a platform for stakeholders to engage in dialogues and share insights on how to develop the needed workforce and supporting structures to deliver the country’s plans. By fostering collaboration and shared responsibility, we can harness the collective expertise and resources to enhance capacity development outcomes.
Finding 4: Persistent challenges in capacity development efforts
Beyond, the higher-level findings (1-3), there are also persistent challenges in capacity development interventions themselves. The most important ones are:
Mismatch supply and demand: This can be caused by focus on what supply has on offer rather than soliciting what the audiences need.
Time Constraints and Limited Application: Capacity development initiatives often fall short in allocating sufficient time for participants to fully engage in the learning process and apply acquired knowledge to their work. This issue is compounded when training or workshops disrupt regular duties, compelling participants to tackle additional workload.
Narrow Focus and Overemphasis on Training: Capacity development is still frequently equated solely with training. This neglects other ways of (adult) learning that have already been recognized by the education sector and (adult) learning specialists. This limited perspective also fails to address broader aspects such as organizational structures, enabling environments, and societal factors that significantly influence capacity development outcomes.
One-Size-Fits-All Approach: Many capacity development efforts suffer from a lack of consideration for the diverse target audiences involved, including politicians, managers, and technicians. Recognizing the unique interests, needs, and learner preferences of each group is pivotal in designing tailored interventions that foster meaningful impact.
Unidirectional Learning: Traditional capacity development activities often fail to harness the valuable expertise and input of participants. By disregarding the insights of practitioners and experts during the design and implementation of programs, the potential for an inclusive and collaborative learning environment is undermined.
Lack of (long-term) capacity development strategy: Many capacity development efforts lack a comprehensive strategy (also referred to as design) capturing the outcomes, outputs, objectives, audiences, learning methods approaches, actions at the four levels of capacity, and evaluation of the intervention. In addition, and relevant for our sectors with high turnover rates, is strategizing for the retention and utilization of acquired learning and knowledge through knowledge management practices.
Insufficient Knowledge of Effective Practices: A lack of information on successful but also failing capacity development practices poses a significant challenge to the advancement of this field. Collecting data on impact and application is essential to identify and share evidence-based strategies, enabling continuous improvement and enhanced effectiveness.
Every capacity development intervention needs to check these points and address them accordingly.
Guiding Principles for Effective Capacity Development:
Building upon the identified four challenges there is a need for overarching guiding principles for effective capacity development.
Time and Application: Allow sufficient time for learning and provide opportunities for participants to apply their knowledge in their work. Consider local governance, mandates, and roles to minimize disruptions and extra workload.
Holistic Approach: Expand the scope of capacity development to address multiple levels of capacity, including individual, organizational, enabling environment, and society. Incorporate diverse learning methods, such as peer-to-peer interactions, virtual tours, mentoring, communities of practice, and working groups.
Tailored Solutions: Recognize the unique interests, needs, and approaches of different target audiences. Develop customized capacity development activities that align with specific requirements.
Engage Specialists: Involve practitioners and experts in the design and implementation of capacity development programs. Their expertise will ensure a comprehensive design that considers different audiences, learning methods, and impact measurement.
Inclusive Learning Environment: Value the input and expertise of participants to create an inclusive and collaborative learning environment.
Evidence-based Approach: Emphasize the importance of measuring impact and collecting effective capacity development practices. This data-driven approach enables continuous improvement and knowledge sharing.
Learning Mindset: Foster a culture of sharing experiences, success stories, failures and lessons learned to encourage ongoing learning and adaptation
Photo 4: WASHPaLS#2: Focus Group Discussions, Bihar India. Photo credit Anand Shekhar
By embracing these guiding principles, stakeholders involved in capacity development can address common errors and enhance the effectiveness of interventions in the water, sanitation, and hygiene sectors. Collaboration, coordination, and a shared vision are paramount in creating sustainable solutions and achieving meaningful impact. Let us, as water professionals and international development professionals, strive for innovative and context-specific approaches to capacity development that foster lasting change.
Do you have additional thoughts, ideas, or guiding principles to add? Reach out to me
UNDP, 2008. Capacity Assessment Methodology User’s Guide. [online] Available at: [Accessed 23 February 2021]
About the author: Kirsten de Vette is independent consultant and facilitator working in water, sanitation, and hygiene (related) sectors for over 13.5 years. She is a sociologist with business background who connects people, facilitates knowledge and expertise exchange, facilitates partnerships, collaboration and or change processes and facilitates capacity assessment/ development. Her expertise is in capacity development, stakeholder engagement & facilitation of change processes and learning.
She wrote this blog to share recurring findings across her recent projects in the hope that it may support action in the future. The type of projects this blog is based on is 1) coordinating (or facilitated) the undertaking of capacity assessments at organizational, national and global level and 2) reviewing capacity development efforts (2020-2023). Over 300 grey and white paper reports were reviewed across these projects, 150 people directly interviewed, and 6 country capacity assessments coordinated (with 350 people). The author wants to thank WaterAid and Tetra Tech under USAID WASHPaLS #2 for these assignments and their openness for the findings to be re-used. To take these learnings forward, she will be approaching key actors in the water, sanitation and hygiene sector to engage on these capacity development principles, and will write follow-up blogs. Stay tuned on her website and on linkedin
Rural Water Supply Network - blog 