Rural Ugandans: Bus or stranded trailer truck to SDG 6?

In 2015, a substantial global commitment was established by the UN, where countries pledged to 17 Sustainable Development Goals to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for everyone by the year 2030.

One of the most vital goals, SDG 6, focuses on water: ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. Fast forward to today — how is Uganda faring, particularly in its rural communities?

At first glance, the numbers appear favourable and potentially motivational. According to reports from the ministry of Water and Environment, 67 per cent of rural and 72 per cent of urban populations currently have access to safe drinking water. This surpasses the sub-Saharan African average of 57 per cent.

The outcome is satisfactory, correct? Please pause! These statistics conceal a significant issue that will soon be revealed. A substantial number of the improved water sources are not fully functional.

Some are broken and in a state of disrepair, while others exhibit partial functionality. As of 2023, 280 out of the country’s 722 piped water systems — equating to nearly 39 per cent — were either completely non-functional or only partially working, according to the ministry of Water and Environment report of 2023.

This is not just the water sources that are nonfunctional; investment is abandoned. The rural lives that depended on these facilities for their drinking water are also abandoned. When spot checks were carried out, about 15 per cent of improved water sources were nonfunctional.

That is not just a number — these represent approximately 14 million Ugandans required to walk significant distances to access contaminated water. This situation arises either from the absence of an improved drinking water source in their communities or the failure of the only improved water source in the village.

This presents an invisible crisis. What are the consequences of this? They are brutal and significant. Findings from extant studies by the Economic Policy Research Centre indicate that Uganda incurs an annual loss of about €1.5 billion due to inadequate WASH services.

Sector experts say this points to a deeper systemic issue: the chronic underfunding of Uganda’s water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector.

“WASH continues to be deprioritised by policymakers who view it as less economically productive than sectors like energy and roads,” observed researchers Sève and Denis in a 2018 analysis.

With existing infrastructure deteriorating and access to water becoming precarious, stakeholders are calling for urgent reforms, including the creation of innovative and alternative financing mechanisms to safeguard this essential sector.

While Uganda continues to invest in expanding WASH infrastructure, sector experts warn that an imbalanced budget allocation is undermining the long- term sustainability of WASH services.

A significant portion of the sector’s funding remains directed towards development expenditures, particularly capital investments, at the expense of operations and maintenance. In the 2023/24 financial year, 58.1 per cent of the WASH budget was earmarked for capital spending — reflecting a persistent trend in resource allocation.

In stark contrast, only 2.7 per cent of the budget was allocated to operations and maintenance, a slight increase from 2.2 per cent in the previous fiscal year. This disparity highlights a critical weakness in the sector’s financial planning.

Despite the vital role of routine upkeep in ensuring the functionality of water systems, non-wage expenditures continue to be underfunded. The result is a growing number of broken or partially functioning water points, threatening both service delivery and the broader goal of universal access to safe water.

Without a strategic shift to adequately fund operations and maintenance, Uganda risks losing the gains it has made in expanding access to water and sanitation infrastructure. In turn, rural communities bear a considerable burden, totalling approximately €1.127 billion annually.

The time lost collecting water alone costs rural Uganda €55.2 million annually, which is three times greater than that of urban areas. If time allows, reflect on how the lost time could impact education, agriculture and small enterprises if it were made available.

So, back to the question: Are rural Ugandans advancing towards SDG 6, or are they stranded? Are rural Ugandans not paying the highest costs? The nature of the truth is multifaceted. What would be the real distinction between the statistics and the on-the-ground jinx and its practical implications?

The government, in collaboration with its development partners and CSOs, has made impressive progress; however, the reality is that rural communities continue to lag. The approach of relying solely on construction is insufficient.

Consider this: constructing a borehole is one thing, but maintaining and sustaining it is another and requires a series of steps. The primary issue lies therein. That is why sector experts are advising a shift from focusing just on “functionality” to functional sustainability.

This change is essential, notwithstanding the intricate terminology involved. Institutions and households continue to face challenges that remain largely unrecognised. Schools are not exempt either.

A 2018 UNICEF study indicated that 73 per cent of intermediate schools and 58 per cent of primary schools have access to water. However, the study did not evaluate the reliability, safety, or quality of that water. In Uganda, drinking water is contaminated with faecal matter, arguably at a rate of 78 per cent.

Annually, one in 2,000 Ugandans succumb to WASH-related infections. This signifies a substantial number of avoidable fatalities. In rural households, over 78 per cent of WASH- related diseases occur. Guess what? That amounts to about 36.9 million cases recorded annually.

Once more, if time permits, reflect on the impact on families, healthcare facilities, and the economy. Here is the Elephant in the Room — and the science is clear too: studies indicate that the provision of piped water leads to a 73 per cent reduction in diarrheal illnesses, while household-level treatment only offers a 28 per cent reduction, according to a 2014 study by the World Health Organisation.

But transitioning to sustainable piped water systems, especially in rural areas, is not a cheap endeavour. The implementation of piped water systems in Uganda is projected to require about €6.05 billion to achieve safely managed drinking water for all by 2030. That is not pocket change—but consider the implications over the cost of inaction!

It is clear: Business as usual will not suffice. But where will all the money come from? Water sector experts are already expressing concern that, in the absence of significant modifications, improved water systems will not reach the people who need them the most — especially in rural households and schools.

Consequently, the process of rural-urban migration, urbanisation, and the emergence of new social and economic pressures may increase as people are compelled to relocate to areas with piped water systems.

So, what are the current broken pieces — and how do we gather ourselves as a sector to fix them? For long, Uganda has implemented the community management model — where community members oversee the operation and maintenance of their water systems. But do they know how?

Do community members understand this model? In theory, the model sounds empowering and exhibits significant capabilities. In practice, it has been riddled with issues, and numerous obstacles have been identified.

Water and sanitation committee members lack the necessary technical, financial and organisational support required to keep these systems functioning. The community management idea is good, but the backup support never truly materialises. Water and sanitation committees show deficiencies in training, funding and authority.

They do not have the required resources, yet are expected to carry out operation and maintenance tasks. Is it accurate to contend that the actors replaced community management with community participation—in practice? A model that has been employed and praised for decades is now reported to be faltering.

Yet, in my opinion, it is the actors who have misrepresented it. The lack of utilisation of professional structures has likely compromised its promise of delivering long-term functionality. Subtly, who is responsible for the abandonment of the water systems — the model or the actors involved?

I see we are now abandoning both the model and its water systems—both are being terminated. Should they all go? However, living together in a community does not imply that everyone shares the same commitment to maintaining a well. This inevitably transforms into the classic “Tragedy of the Commons” story.

So, what is the unconventional approach? It is time for a new strategy; however, it is still not a panacea, particularly for the rural water sector issues. Rural water management requires professionalisation through the integration of qualified sector private operators and service providers, the establishment of financially-viable systems, and the assurance of genuine community engagement to spur behaviour change.

This does not sound new, does it? Nonetheless, a handful of sector players are practising it in typical rural water project contexts—why? Thanks to the Ministry of Water and Environment for the 2020 National O&M Framework. And yes, that means rural households should pay to keep the nuts and bolts tight and the chains greased.

This should not merely be a contribution, but a payment for water as a service beyond the intermittent Uganda shillings 1,000 per household, only collected when the borehole breaks down. Water services cannot be free if water systems are to be sustainable. The good news? We are not afraid.

A World Bank study reveals that users are willing to pay for water, but on one condition — that the water system must be reliable, affordable, and of good quality— potable water. This is a relief, correct? Reducing dependence on point sources like boreholes and enhancing investment in piped water systems, particularly in rural areas, is essential.

Piped water systems mitigate the risks associated with waterborne diseases and improve water management efficiency. However, despite the rural water sector’s funding challenges, we maintain a positive outlook as the sector continues to suffer from inadequate funding. Concessional loans, NGO assistance, and donor funding still support the sector; however, the level of support remains insufficient to address the problem properly.

Uganda requires approximately €5 billion to provide a water source for every village by 2030. Sector partners such as Viva con Agua are stepping up, collaborating with government entities to enhance water infrastructure, local capacity, and resilience within communities, schools, and WASH entrepreneurs.

However, there is a need for additional resources and a greater sense of urgency. My call to action: the primary objective? To achieve SDG 6, especially in rural areas, the actors need to reassess and rethink everything from funding to water management strategies that engage with communities.

Transitioning from the current “build, forget, and repair” mentality is key. It is vital to empower and provide appropriate, tailored professional support to communities. To meet the challenge, funding at both national and global levels for rural WASH projects should be explicitly prioritised and multiplied.

Most importantly, we need to discuss and act now, not later. Rather than postponing, sector actors must speak to each other without delay. The rationale is that access to water is not just a development goal—it is a human right.

Advocate for enhanced investment in the rural water sector and be part of this important sector transition as a matter of urgency. Remember, the clock is ticking.

The writer is a WASH programmes coordinator at VIVA. con Agua e. V.