When Policy Blocks Progress: Lessons from Tanzania’s Rural Water Services
When Policy Blocks Progress: Lessons from Tanzania’s Rural Water Services
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Today, I write not
just as a water engineer or an international graduate, but as someone who has
lived, walked, and worked in rural Tanzania. While I often express my thoughts
in academic or professional tones, this post is more personal. It comes from the
heart, driven by lived experience and deep emotional investment.
The views expressed in this blog are entirely my own and do not represent the official position or policies of eWATERservices. All experiences and reflections shared are based on my personal perspective and professional journey.
1.
A
Personal Journey of Hope and Disappointment
Coming Home with
Hope: Three years ago,2022, I
graduated with distinction from the University of Leeds, UK, with an MSc in
Water, Sanitation, and Health (WaSH) Engineering. I returned home full of hope,
armed with academic excellence and a vision for transformation, determined to
contribute to my country’s progress, particularly in improving rural water
access.
I understood that the
water sector was entering turbulent times. Global economic policies were
shifting, and rural communities—home to over 62% of Tanzanians—were at risk of
being left behind. These communities feed the nation and contribute to government
tax collections, yet 51% of the country’s population still rely on unsafe or unimproved water sources,
according to WHO/UNICEF JMP.
- Expectation: Modern, reliable water systems for every
community.
- Reality: Villagers walking 5+ kilometers to unsafe sources and paying 500
TZS per 20 L of untreated river
water—five times the urban rate.
Photo: A lady carrying jerrycans of water transported from far, on bicycle. This picture was taken during my scoping activities in Morogoro region, Tanzania, 2022.
2. The Stark
Inequity Between Rural and Urban Access
Despite 62% of
Tanzanians living in rural areas, 51% still depend on limited or
unimproved sources. In contrast, only 18.89% of urban residents face
that struggle—most are switching to improved sources.
|
Location |
Surface water (%) |
Unimproved
sources (%) |
|
Rural |
17.85 |
16.65 |
|
Urban |
2.29 |
0.90 |
Source: JMP data, 2022. A split data
of Tanzania showing rural vs. urban water access rates.
3. The Promise of
eWATERservices—and the Roadblocks
My Mission with
eWATERservices: In 2022, I was
fortunate to join eWATER as a Scoping Lead. My mission was simple but powerful:
identify underserved rural villages where our company could invest in digital,
reliable water services.
eWATER proposed model
in Tanzania
eWATER had investment available to fund, install and maintain full water systems in
villages across Morogoro Region and wider rural Tanzania
- eWATER would have invested 100% of the capital
required to install or refurbish water systems, including installing
eWATER Smart Taps.
- The required price of 100TSh per 20L at a
revenue share of 75% eWATER, 20% CBWSO and 5% Community Development Fund. Communities
and CBWSOs across the region and wider rural Tanzania agreed to the
proposed tariff in order to get reliable, nearby access to clean water,
24/7.
- eWATER’s revenue share would cover ongoing
O&M costs, including data hosting and communications, spare parts,
technicians, customer service and water treatment.
- This O&M period would be for a minimum
of 10 years, with an option to renew.
- Any surplus revenue will be reinvested
directly into water systems within the district
In Morogoro and
Malinyi districts, I scoped over 30 villages. In some, residents paid TZS 500
per jerrycan of untreated river water—more expensive than piped water in towns.
They walked over five kilometers or queued at night for water.
We proposed a
climate-smart, 24/7 water system with prepaid meters, close water points, and a
10-year contract to cover all O&M costs. The community and local RUWASA
teams welcomed us.
But the Ministry of
Water delayed approval. They questioned our pricing and novelty of the model, ignored the unique
operational challenges of rural settings, and failed to empower local RUWASA
offices to approve pilot projects.
Three Years Later:
What Has Changed? Nothing.
I still receive calls
from village leaders asking if we’ll ever return. It breaks my heart. I’ve seen
their struggle. The silence from those in power is deafening.
Photo: Village
member purchases water from the Bowser. Photo taken during scoping in Babati
district.
4. Challenges of
the CBWSO Model Under Global Funding Shifts
The current rural water supply model in
Tanzania
In Tanzania, rural water service
operations are largely managed by Community-Based Water Supply
Organizations (CBWSOs). These are local entities established under the Water
Supply and Sanitation Act No. 5 of 2019 and regulated by RUWASA
(Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency). Their key features include:
- Ownership and Operation: CBWSOs are
legally recognized, community-based entities responsible for owning,
operating, and maintaining rural water supply schemes.
- Governance: Each CBWSO is governed
by a board elected by the community, and it must be registered by RUWASA.
- Regulation and Support: RUWASA
provides technical oversight, capacity building, and ensures compliance
with service delivery standards.
- Revenue Collection: CBWSOs collect
user fees to finance operations, maintenance, and minor repairs, but often
struggle with cost recovery due to low tariffs and limited community
capacity.
- Challenges: Most CBWSOs face
financial sustainability issues, poor record-keeping, and limited
professional capacity, which affects service quality and system
reliability.
CBWSOs are the frontline service providers
in rural areas, but their performance is mixed, with increasing calls for professionalization
and blended models to ensure more reliable and sustainable rural water
services.
The global shift in economic policies—particularly
the reduction in donor funding—is having a significant impact on the Community-Based
Water Supply Organization (CBWSO) model in Tanzania and other similar
contexts. Here's a brief explanation:
As donor priorities shift toward sustainable,
investment-ready models, traditional CBWSOs—largely reliant on donor and
government subsidies—are struggling to adapt. With agencies like USAID
scaling down or exiting certain countries, including parts of Africa, the
support that CBWSOs have historically depended on for capacity building,
infrastructure development, and technical assistance is diminishing.
Most CBWSOs lack:
- Financial sustainability: They
depend heavily on low user tariffs that can't cover operational and
maintenance costs.
- Business-oriented structures:
They're often not structured to attract private or blended financing.
- Data systems and transparency: This
limits investor confidence in their operations.
As a result, there's growing pressure to reform
rural water service models—moving from purely community-managed systems to professionalized
or hybrid approaches that can demonstrate sustainability,
accountability, and investability, aligning with current global financing
trends.
The funding shift is exposing the
structural weaknesses of CBWSOs and accelerating the need for more robust,
scalable, and commercially viable models in rural water service delivery.
5. New Global Water Sector Shift
For years, developing countries have
borrowed heavily to finance non-infrastructure components of water projects —
believing these would unlock sustained progress. From community-led O&M
models to capacity-building, institutional reforms, developing legal
frameworks, and project ownership schemes, many of these well-intended programs
were financed with the hope that they’d deliver lasting impact.
But let’s ask ourselves: how many of these actually worked?
Some have yielded results but in too many cases, they didn’t or delivered
little results..
What we’ve seen instead is:
🔻 Little
to no long-term growth in the water sector, especially in rural areas
📉
Increased public debt without matching value
💸
Taxpayers left footing the bill for failed promises
Why? Because these programs often lacked direct, accountable, and
performance-driven investment in Operations & Maintenance (O&M) — the
lifeblood of sustainable water service delivery.
📊 It's
no longer enough to blame limited CAPEX. The real challenge lies in how we
sustain services. Without structured O&M financing and utility performance
tracking, the sector will continue to lag.
Multilateral banks and donors must redefine their impact models.
We need:
✅ Direct O&M
programming within financial models
✅ Data-driven
utility performance metrics
✅ Financing
linked to service outcomes, not assumptions
It’s time for development finance in WaSH to be anchored in evidence,
sustainability, and accountability — not just political timelines and abstract
ownership models.
eWATERservices' operation model aligns strongly with the current global demand for sustainable,
investment-ready water service delivery, particularly in rural and
underserved communities. Here’s how: eWATERservices' Operations &
Maintenance (O&M) model is designed to ensure reliable,
cost-effective, and sustainable rural water supply through the use of digital
technology, professional support, and data-driven decision-making.
|
Key Strength |
Description |
|
Proactive Maintenance |
Real-time
monitoring enables early detection of leaks, low flow, or tampering. This
allows issues to be addressed before they escalate into major failures. |
|
24/7 System
Monitoring |
Smart meters and digital dashboards track water usage and
performance continuously, providing visibility and alerts at any time of day. |
|
Reduced Downtime |
Since
faults are identified early and maintenance teams are promptly notified,
repairs are carried out faster, reducing the time water points remain closed. |
|
Data-Driven Decisions |
The system collects usage patterns, revenue flows, and performance
metrics, which inform targeted interventions and better infrastructure
planning. |
|
Financial Sustainability |
Prepaid
mobile payments generate reliable income that directly funds routine
maintenance and repairs—removing reliance on external subsidies or donations. |
|
Accountability |
Every transaction, system fault, and technician response is
logged, creating a transparent record that enhances trust and oversight. |
|
Scalable Model |
The digital
tools and remote support systems allow the model to be expanded to many
communities without requiring large local teams in each location. |
|
Improved User Trust |
Communities experience reliable service with fewer disruptions,
which builds confidence in the system and increases willingness to pay for
water. |
|
Efficient Use of Resources |
Maintenance
is prioritized based on real-time need, optimizing technician deployment and
spare part use—leading to cost savings and higher operational efficiency. |
Here's a clear comparison table showing the
key differences between the eWATERservices model and the traditional CBWSO
model in the rural water sector context:
|
Feature |
eWATERservices Model |
CBWSO
(Community-Based Water Supply Organization) |
|
Management Structure |
Professionally
managed with centralized technical and operational support |
Community-led,
often volunteer-based committees |
|
Technology
Integration |
Smart prepaid meters, mobile payments, cloud-based monitoring |
Manual metering, cash payments, paper-based records |
|
Revenue Collection |
Automated,
real-time mobile payments |
Manual fee
collection, prone to delays and misuse |
|
O&M (Operation
& Maintenance) |
Proactive, remote diagnostics and scheduled maintenance |
Reactive, depends on local capacity and availability |
|
Financial Sustainability |
Designed
for cost-recovery and scalable investment |
Often
donor-dependent, limited cost recovery |
|
Transparency &
Accountability |
High – data visibility for usage, revenue, and performance |
Low – poor documentation and weak auditing mechanisms |
|
Scalability & Replicability |
Easily
scalable due to standardized tech and operational model |
Difficult
to scale; highly dependent on local dynamics |
|
Private Sector
Engagement |
Strong – structured as a social enterprise attractive to investors |
Limited – mostly public or donor-funded with weak investment
appeal |
|
User Experience |
24/7
access, flexible pay-as-you-go model |
Inconsistent
access, billing disputes common |
|
Monitoring &
Reporting |
Real-time digital dashboards and alerts |
Irregular reporting, limited performance tracking |
|
Adaptability to Policy Shifts |
Aligned
with global trends favoring sustainable, tech-driven solutions |
Vulnerable
to changes in donor policy and governance frameworks |
Photo: Residents qeueing
for water at the standpipe. Photo taken
in Yarotonik village in Babati in 2022 during scoping activity. This is managed by CBWSO
Photo: Residents dispensing water using eWATER tag during registration in Kiamariga village, Laikipia, Kenya, in April, 2025.
6. Progress in
Kenya: A Beacon of Possibility
Since relocating in
early 2023, our team has:
- Secured 3 county partnerships in 3 first months of setting up business in Kenya
- Served 10,000+ people immediately in TharakaNithi county
- Expanded to 4 counties and 35,000+
beneficiaries
- On track to reach 1 million by 2029
Why Kenya Institutional Structure
Supported eWATER Model
Kenya devolved the water sector following
the enactment of the 2010 Constitution, primarily to enhance efficiency,
equity, and accountability in service delivery. The previous centralized system
was characterized by bureaucratic delays, limited responsiveness to local
needs, and uneven resource allocation, often favouring urban centres.
By devolving water services to county
governments—as outlined in Schedule 4 of the Constitution—Kenya aimed to ensure
that decisions regarding water supply and sanitation are made closer to the
point of service delivery. This decentralization enables counties to plan,
finance, and implement context-specific solutions, increase community
participation, and attract private sector partnerships, ultimately leading to
more sustainable and inclusive water access across the country.
The devolved water
governance model in Kenya created a favorable environment for eWATER
investments by enabling local-level decision-making, flexibility, and
openness to innovation. Under this model, county governments—rather than a
central authority—are responsible for rural water service provision, which
allows them to independently pilot and adopt new technologies that
improve service delivery. eWATER’s smart metering and prepaid water access
model aligns well with the counties’ mandate to ensure efficient, transparent,
and sustainable water supply systems.
Additionally, the
devolution framework encourages Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and community
involvement, both of which are essential for the eWATER model to thrive.
Counties that prioritize technology-driven solutions and are willing to
co-invest or offer enabling environments—such as supportive regulations, access
to infrastructure, and community sensitization—have become strategic entry
points for eWATER’s scalable innovations. The competitive nature of county
development also incentivizes leaders to adopt performance-based solutions like
eWATER, which improve service reliability and revenue collection.
|
Aspect |
Tanzania (Rural Water Supply Services) |
Kenya (Rural Water Supply Services) |
|
Governance
Structure |
Centralized
under RUWASA (Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency) |
Decentralized
under County Governments (per 2010 Constitution) |
|
Institutional
Autonomy |
RUWASA is a national agency managing
rural water supply across all regions |
Counties make independent decisions; some
have created Water Works Agencies |
|
Private Sector
Engagement |
Minimal; most projects are government/donor-led |
Growing involvement of PPPs and private operators
(especially in some counties). |
|
Community
Involvement |
Community-Based Water Supply Organizations
(CBWSOs) often lack capacity |
Community participation is part of county
frameworks but varies by county |
|
Policy
Framework |
Guided
by Water Supply and Sanitation Act 2019 |
Guided
by Water Act 2016 and devolved policies |
|
Monitoring
& Evaluation |
Mainly managed by RUWASA; often manual
and under-resourced |
Counties with strong capacity use digital
tools for M&E |
|
Service Level
Coverage |
Many
rural areas still use unimproved sources (over 50% in some regions) |
Higher improved coverage in rural areas, though
still below urban levels |
|
Tariff Setting
& Revenue |
Set by RUWASA; limited cost recovery; mostly
subsidized |
Tariffs set by Water Services Regulatory
Board (WASREB) with county input |
|
Technology Use |
Limited
adoption of smart systems |
More
counties experimenting with smart meters, digital platforms |
|
Sustainability
of Projects |
Poor sustainability after donor exit; frequent
system breakdowns |
Slightly better sustainability due to county
maintenance budgets and PPPs |
|
Capacity of
Local Operators |
Many
CBWSOs lack technical and financial capacity |
Varies
widely; some counties invest in capacity building |
|
Donor
Dependence |
High; most rural projects funded by public & donors (e.g., World Bank, AfDB) |
Also significant, but more diverse
funding sources (Private, Public, donors) due to devolution |
Institutional Arrangement of Rural Water Supply in Tanzania
Tanzania’s rural water supply is primarily overseen by the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency (RUWASA), a government body under the Ministry of Water established to manage and develop rural water services nationwide. RUWASA is responsible for planning, implementing, and maintaining rural water infrastructure, coordinating with local government authorities (LGAs), and promoting community participation.
While communities are encouraged to form Water User Associations or Community-Based Water Supply Organizations (CBWSOs) to manage local systems, the technical and financial oversight rests with RUWASA, which also mobilizes funds from the government and development partners to improve service delivery across rural areas.
Flowchart: Tanzania Water Ministry Institutional
arrangement as per USAID report titled: TANZANIA INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR
WATER SUPPLY, 2022 by Peace Musonge, Isack Abdiel, Kausha Dierker, Caroline
Delaire. Link: https://aquaya.org/wp-content/uploads/7Dec_Tanzania_Institutional-FrameworksforWaterSupply.pdf
Institutional Arrangement of Rural Water Supply in Kenya
In Kenya, the provision of rural water services is a devolved function, primarily managed by County Governments under the 2010 Constitution. The Ministry of Water, Sanitation, and Irrigation (MoWSI) provides overarching policy direction, while the Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) regulates service quality and compliance.
Water Service Providers (WSPs), which may be public, private, or community-based, are licensed by WASREB to operate and maintain rural water systems. Financing for rural projects often comes through the Water Sector Trust Fund (WSTF), targeting underserved areas. Meanwhile, the Water Resources Authority (WRA) oversees the sustainable management of water resources.
Despite this structured framework, rural service delivery remains challenged by capacity gaps and limited private sector involvement at the community level.
Flowchart: Kenya Water Ministry Institutional arrangement
as per the article titled: Water Management Education in the East African
Region: A Review of the Challenges to Be Addressed. By Brian
Nalumenya, Matteo Rubinato, Michael Kennedy, Jade Catterson, Hilary Bakamwesiga.
and Matthew Blackett.
Key Notes:
-
County Governments are responsible for water service delivery since the 2010 Constitution (devolved function).
-
WSPs operate under license from WASREB and may include county-owned utilities, NGOs, or private operators.
-
Water Sector Trust Fund (WSTF) plays a key role in financing rural water projects.
-
WRMA (now WRMA succeeded by Water Resources Authority - WRA) handles water resource management, including permits and catchment protection.
| Feature | Tanzania | Kenya |
|---|---|---|
| National Ministry | Ministry of Water (MoW) | Ministry of Water, Sanitation, and Irrigation (MoWSI) |
| Decentralization | Centralized through RUWASA (national agency) | Devolved to 47 County Governments |
| Main Implementing Agency | RUWASA – Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency | Water Service Providers (WSPs) under County Governments |
| Community Involvement | Community-Based Water Supply Organizations (CBWSOs) | Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), NGOs, and WSPs |
| Regulatory Body | No independent regulator (RUWASA regulates and implements) | Independent regulator: WASREB (Water Services Regulatory Board) |
| Water Resource Oversight | Ministry oversight | Water Resources Authority (WRA) |
| Private Sector Role | Mentioned in policy but not operationally active in rural areas | Allowed and licensed, but participation remains low in rural areas |
| Financing Sources | Government, donors, limited community contributions | Water Sector Trust Fund (WSTF), County funds, donor funding, and user fees |
| Quality Monitoring | Through RUWASA | Mandated to WSPs, regulated byWRA and WASREB. |
| Current Challenges | Limited innovation, central control, weak private sector engagement | Uneven service levels across counties, limited rural private sector involvement |
7. eWATER Kenya:
Leading a New Era of Rural Water O&M
eWATER Kenya is
pioneering a full-system Operation & Maintenance (O&M) model,
leveraging technology and data-driven insights to deliver reliable water
access. I have had the privilege of leading the O&M department, working
alongside an exceptional team of skilled, forward-thinking professionals.
This experience has
shown that rural water systems can achieve urban-level reliability—we
are demonstrating above 98% system uptime, improved water quality, and
efficient network management.
This model is more
than just technical—it is transformational, providing a blueprint for
sustainable water services that can scale nationally and beyond. It
positions Kenya as a leader in innovative, technology-driven rural water
management, proving that with the right model, communities can have continuous,
safe, and affordable water supply.
The graph below demonstrates a consistent trend we’ve observed across multiple deployments: eWATERservices' full system operations significantly outperform hybrid models, where only smart taps are managed by eWATER, but the backend infrastructure (e.g., pumps, storage tanks, pipe networks) remains under third-party control—typically community organizations or local authorities.
💡 Why does full system control make a difference?
When eWATER manages the entire water supply chain, from the pump to the tap, the results are clear:
-
Higher service uptime: With full oversight, faults are detected and resolved faster, minimizing downtime.
-
Reduced water loss (non-revenue water): Proactive leak detection, smart metering, and data tracking ensure tighter control of the system.
Increased accountability: There’s a single entity responsible for performance—no blame-shifting between operators.
-
More efficient maintenance: Real-time diagnostics and centralized scheduling mean quicker, data-informed decisions
In contrast, hybrid systems often suffer from:
-
Delayed response times, due to poor communication between tap operators and infrastructure managers
-
Inconsistent maintenance routines, leading to premature system failure
-
Fragmented accountability, where no one takes full responsibility when problems arise
The data speaks for itself: integrated, professionalized management results in greater efficiency, transparency, and reliability—all essential for long-term sustainability in rural water supply.
-
Screenshot: eWATER Dashboard
data on 28/07/2025
Screenshot: System
downtime recorded from the eWATER live dashboard
8. A Call to Action
Tanzania’s rural communities deserve more
than promises—they deserve sustainable solutions. As I walk those dusty paths
and witness the daily struggle for clean water, I remain committed to raising
my voice. Until the Government of Tanzania creates an enabling environment that
embraces innovation, transparency, and private-sector models like eWATER,
lasting impact will remain out of reach. It is time to move beyond rhetoric and
invest in proven technologies that ensure every household has reliable access
to safe water.
“Progress will always
be out of reach for any government that resists innovation, startups,
flexibility, fresh ideas, and pilot projects.”
“A government that clings to structures, rigid laws, bureaucracy, and the status quo —one that is uncomfortable with being challenged or hearing alternative views— will only slow down its own people.”
Join me in
demanding policy reforms that
prioritize sustainable, professionally managed water services. Our communities
cannot wait.
Below are some of the impact photos from my work in Kenya.
Comments
Post a Comment