This document describes a case study of a Hungarian development project that improved access to water in Uganda. The project provided solar-powered water purification systems called "Oasis water towers" at three schools near the Rwamwanja Refugee Settlement, benefiting refugees and local communities. The project selection process was transparent, prioritized environmental and social considerations, and selected a private sector partner based on established criteria. The systems can produce over 144,000 liters of purified water per day and were designed to be resilient, inclusive, and self-sustaining. The project demonstrated good infrastructure governance principles throughout its lifecycle.

1. Infrastructure
Governance in
Practice:
Improving access to water in
Uganda through a Hungarian
development project
(a case study)

2. FR
2
What is
infrastructure
governance?
Ultimately, it is a framework
for enhancing the quality
and impact of public
investments
Source: World Bank, Infrastructure
Governance Assessment Framework (2020)

3. Infrastructure
Governance
W hy it is imp ortant:
• Helps us invest our resources more efficiently, thus
targeting the infrastructure gap: higher output per
input.
• Principle 6 of the G20 Principles: well-designed
and well-functioning infrastructure governance
institutions allow countries to assess the financial
sustainability of projects, weighing opportunity
costs.
• The impact of public infrastructure projects, can
be assessed more effectively.
3

4. FR
A case study of infrastructure
governance in practice: a
development project in Uganda
financed by Hungary
Projec t : im p rovin g acc ess to water in th e
Rwamwan ja Refugee S ettl e ment of
Ugan d a ( imp lementation : 2 0 1 9 -2 02 0)
• A 1.17-million-euro infrastructure
project
• Providing refugees and local
communities with “Oasis” water
towers, thus providing potable water
to three schools
• Target beneficiaries: vulnerable
people and children
• GRID-based development 4
Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary
For further information, see also the overview by the implementing
partner: https://vtkinnosystem.com/2020/03/31/1813/

5. FR
Project selection
How was th e p rojec t id entified ?
1. The demand for a water infrastructure
project was determined on the basis of
local consultations in Uganda
2. Reacting to the demand, in line with the
development strategy of the Republic of
Uganda and Hungary’s International
Development Cooperation Strategy
(IDC2025), an open call for proposals
(procurement) was launched
3. The call for proposals was publicly
accessible (transparency!) and “any and
all” actors were invited to participate
5
4. The private sector implementing actor was
selected on the basis of:
• an openly published criteria,
• value-for-money,
• development impact,
• relevant experience and expertise
5. The project was selected on the basis of the
pre-established and priorly published criteria
by a specially appointed Project Selection
Committee
6. Contracting was then conducted on the basis
of Hungarian legislation, thus ensuring
fairness
Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary

6. FR
GRID-based project
How d oes it ab id e by th e GR ID p rin c ip les?
• Green
• Resilient
• Inclusive
• Development
6
• Providing potable water through solar-powered
water purification systems and providing the
know-how to operate such infrastructures in the
future
• Providing self-sustaining systems in rural areas,
thus in times of crisis they still have access to
water
• Available to all, but targeting vulnerable peoples
and children
• An investment targeting the eradication of
poverty, providing local employment
opportunities and promoting growth and well-
being

7. FR
Quality Infrastructure
Investment Principles
W h ic h p rin c ip les were p rioritized d u rin g p rojec t
selec tion ?
• QII Principle 1: Maximizing the
impact for sustainable growth
• QII Principe 5: Integrating social
considerations in investments
7
• By providing potable, easily accessible
water, vulnerable communities do not
need to spend time fetching water
from distant areas, and they do not fall
ill as frequently (reducing healthcare
costs and increasing work time)
• The refugee settlement hosts
vulnerable communities, women and
children without access to basic goods
and services

8. FR
How resilient and inclusive is
the project?
8
• Factors indicating resilience:
1. largely “self-sustaining”
system,
2. resistant to the impacts of
climate change (excess
heat, rain, etc.),
3. modular in design, and thus
can be easily expanded in
the future (easy to rebuild,
restructure, as necessary)
4. solar-powered, thus
resilient to power outages.
• Factors indicating inclusion:
1. provides water on a non-
discriminatory basis,
2. provides support especially
to vulnerable groups,
3. gender aspects were
considered, as local women
have easier access to
potable water, decreasing
travel times.

9. FR
9
End results summarized
• Self-automated system capable of producing 6,000 liters of purified water per hour or
144,000 liters per day
• Three solar-powered systems at three locations
• Staff trained within the framework of the project managing the systems on a daily basis

10. FR
Key indications of success
throughout the project lifecycle
Govern an c e p rin c ip les were ap p lied throu gh ou t
th e lifec yc le :
• The selection procedure was wholly transparent.
• Environmental and social considerations were prioritized when selecting the
implementing actor and the precise scope of the project.
• Resilience and climate change considerations were at the forefront of the
selection, design and implementation process.
• Value-for-money was a decisive factor in the implementation process and in
the end thousands of people gain access to potable water within easy reach
for a modest investment.
• Public-Private Partnership model was abided by, as a highly experienced
private sector actor coordinated the implementation process on the basis of
a contractual agreement. 10

11. FR
Future considerations
How cou ld th e p rojec t h ave b een imp roved in
terms of infrastru c tu re govern an c e?
1. Whilst resilience was a factor in the decision-making process of the project,
it was not the central, deciding issue. The call for proposal could have
potentially emphasized this requirement to a greater degree, especially
considering the rural nature of the project (near the Rwamwanja Refugee
Settlement).
2. Further studies could have been conducted before implementing the
project in order to examine the potential negative implications of providing
potable water primarily to the most vulnerable groups in Rwamwanja.
“Positive discrimination” (favoring one group over another) might lead to
animosity on behalf of those local residents who have not directly
benefited from the investment as opposed to the targeted beneficiaries (in
this case the vulnerable groups in the Refugee Settlement). 11

12. Thank You.