Mémoire Master Eau et Société 2021 - Water & Society Msc thesis 2021

Mémoire
présenté pour l'obtention du Master
Mention : Eau
Parcours : Eau et Société
Technical and institutional innovations around domestic water access in
rural semi-arid areas of southern Mozambique
par Eduardo GOMEZ JIMENEZ
Année de soutenance : 2021
Organisme d'accueil : Chaire Eau Pour Tous, CIRAD, UMR G-eau

1
AgroParisTech, Montpellier SupAgro, l'Université de Montpellier, le Centre International de Recherche
Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD) et la Chaire Eau Pour Tous n’entendent donner aucune
approbation ni improbation aux thèses et opinions émises dans ce rapport ; celles-ci doivent être considérées
comme propres à leur auteur.
J’atteste que ce mémoire est le résultat de mon travail personnel, qu’il cite entre guillemets et référence toutes
les sources utilisées et qu’il ne contient pas de passages ayant déjà été utilisés intégralement dans un travail
similaire.

2
Mémoire de stage
présenté pour l'obtention du Master
Mention : Sciences de l’Eau
Parcours : Eau et Société
Technical and institutional innovations around domestic water access in
rural semi-arid areas of southern Mozambique
par Eduardo GOMEZ JIMENEZ
Année de soutenance : 2021
Organisme d'accueil : Chaire Eau Pour Tous, CIRAD, UMR G-eau
Mémoire présenté le : 24/08/2021

3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank my internship supervisor Raphaëlle Ducrot for trusting me for this internship,
and for all the tips and theoretical lessons she gave me all along the internship. I would also like to thank my
internship supervisor in Mozambique, Nícia Givá, for the welcome and the advice she gave me about the field
work. Of course, I would like to thank Azinaida Artur, my ProSuLi teammate and adventure partner, without
whom this work would not have been possible and for trusting me as a motorbike driver. I would like to thank
the other members of the ProSuLi team that I have met in the field. Among them, Alexandre Caron, for the
warm welcome he gave me on my arrival, Calton Vidro, and Amélia Madope, whose fieldworks have been a
great source of information in this work. I would also like to thank Marine Colon, my pedagogical tutor in
Montpellier, as well as all the pedagogical team of the Master Water and Society, whose teachings have
inspired me during this work. Finally, I would like to thank Arjen Naafs, for his interest and for the resources
he provided me with at the beginning of my work, Moises Mabote, for his availability and help in my research,
the members of ONGAWA in Manhiça for taking the time to invite me to visit their interesting projects, the
driver Mondlane, for accompanying me and acting as interpreter, and all the other people I interviewed
during my internship, in the field and elsewhere.

4
RESUME
L’Objectif de Développement Durable 6 vise à garantir l’accès de tous à des services
d’alimentation en eau et d’assainissement gérés de façon durable. Dans des zones rurales semi-
arides du sud du Mozambique, c’est également l’objectif. Gouvernement et autres partenaires
sont en train d’explorer des nouvelles solutions consistant en des innovations techniques et
institutionnelles. A travers des entretiens semi-structurés avec différents acteurs du secteur
public, du secteur privé, de la société civile, ainsi que des utilisateurs des infrastructures
innovantes, j'ai effectué une analyse de ces innovations en mettant en lumière leurs contributions
concernant l’accès à l’eau des populations et la durabilité des infrastructures, d’un point de vue
technique, institutionnel et d'équité.
Mots clés
Accès à l’eau – durabilité – semi-aride – développement – Mozambique – rural
ABSTRACT
Sustainable Development Goal 6 aims to ensure access to sustainably managed water and
sanitation services for all. In semi-arid rural areas of southern Mozambique, this is also the goal.
Government and other partners are exploring new solutions consisting of technical and
institutional innovations. Through semi-structured interviews with different actors from the
public sector, the private sector, civil society, and users of the innovative infrastructures, I
conducted an analysis of these innovations, highlighting their contributions to people's access to
water, and the sustainability of the infrastructures, from a technical, institutional and equity
points of view.
Key words
Water access – sustainability – semi-arid – development – Mozambique – rural

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................................................................................................................... 3
RESUME ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................... 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................................... 5
TABLE OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................... 7
PREFACE....................................................................................................................................................... 8
ACRONYMES AND ABREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 10
1. Context .................................................................................................................................................... 11
1.1. Evolution of rural water supply in developing countries ..................................................................... 11
1.1.1. Supplying the world....................................................................................................................... 11
1.1.2. Seeking to improve the service ..................................................................................................... 12
1.1.3. Innovations.................................................................................................................................... 13
1.1.4. Current management trends......................................................................................................... 15
1.2. Rural water supply situation in semi-arid Mozambique ...................................................................... 15
1.2.1. The country briefly ........................................................................................................................ 15
1.2.2. Semi-arid south.............................................................................................................................. 17
1.2.3. Water governance in Mozambique............................................................................................... 18
1.2.4. Formal institutional framework..................................................................................................... 19
1.2.5. Rural water supply infrastructures in southern semi-arid Mozambique...................................... 21
2. Literature review ..................................................................................................................................... 22
2.1. Concepts and theories.......................................................................................................................... 22
2.1.1. Socio-technical framework............................................................................................................ 22
2.1.2. Theory of access, accessibility, and affordability .......................................................................... 23
2.1.3. Institutional theories ..................................................................................................................... 23
2.1.4. Social justice .................................................................................................................................. 24
2.2. Analytical framework............................................................................................................................ 25
2.2.1. Innovations, actors, and motivations............................................................................................ 25
2.2.2. Collective water access through innovation.................................................................................. 26
2.2.3. Institutional innovations................................................................................................................ 27
2.2.4. Innovations’ sustainability through functionality and justice perceptions................................... 27
2.2.5. Spatial dimension of innovations .................................................................................................. 28
3. Objectives................................................................................................................................................ 29
4. Materials and methods ........................................................................................................................... 31
4.1. Selected innovative systems................................................................................................................. 31
4.1.1. A multi-purpose solar-powered pumping system (MPS) .............................................................. 31
4.1.2. A domestic water supply system combining kiosks and household connections (K) ................... 31

6
4.1.3. A multi-purpose solar-powered pumping system coupled with a brackish water desalination
treatment (MPSD) ................................................................................................................................... 32
4.1.4. Two domestic solar-powered pumping system coupled with a brackish water desalination
treatment (SD1 and SD2)......................................................................................................................... 32
4.1.5. A private domestic water supply system (P) ................................................................................. 33
4.2. Sites of study ........................................................................................................................................ 33
4.2.1. MPS and K systems in Mangalane Community, Moamba district................................................. 34
4.2.2. MPSD, SD1 and SD2 systems in Chokwe District........................................................................... 35
4.2.3. P system in Manhiça District ......................................................................................................... 35
4.3. Data collection...................................................................................................................................... 36
4.3.1. Field data collection....................................................................................................................... 36
5. Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
5.1. Innovative systems’ development........................................................................................................ 40
5.1.1. The origin of the innovative systems............................................................................................. 40
5.1.2. Consideration of the post-construction phase during the design of the innovative systems ...... 41
5.1.3. The difficult mobilization of the community in the planning and construction phases: example of
the MPS system, Mangalane................................................................................................................... 42
5.2. Efficiency and equity dimensions of the innovations design ............................................................... 44
5.2.1. Water supply efficiency of the innovative systems....................................................................... 44
5.2.2. Equity in water access through the innovative systems ............................................................... 47
5.2.3. Adapting the technicity of the innovations................................................................................... 50
5.3. Mobilizing technical skills and financial resources............................................................................... 52
5.3.1. Management models for the innovative systems......................................................................... 52
5.3.2. Tariffs: addressing access and sustainability................................................................................. 53
5.4. The territorial point of view with the innovative systems ................................................................... 58
5.4.1. Encouraging the participation of the private sector ..................................................................... 58
5.4.2. Cross-subsidies .............................................................................................................................. 58
5.4.3. Extending the water supply services delegation in rural areas..................................................... 59
5.4.4. The emergence of small private operators in rural areas ............................................................. 59
5.4.5. The role of the SDPI and the AURA at the local level.................................................................... 60
6. Discussion and conclusion....................................................................................................................... 61
6.1. Strengths and weaknesses of the studied systems.............................................................................. 61
6.2. Socio-spatial justice.............................................................................................................................. 62
6.3. Relevance of the analytical framework................................................................................................ 63
6.4. Limits .................................................................................................................................................... 63
6.5. New questions...................................................................................................................................... 64
References....................................................................................................................................................... 66
Annexes ........................................................................................................................................................... 70
Annex 1 – Water actors’ map...................................................................................................................... 71
Annex 2 – Photos of common water infrastructures in rural semi-arid southern Mozambique................ 72

7
Annex 3 – List of documents ....................................................................................................................... 73
Annex 4 – List of interviewed actors ........................................................................................................... 74
Annex 5 – General interview grid................................................................................................................ 75
Annex 6 – Interview grid for systems managers ......................................................................................... 76
Annex 7 – Photos of the MPS system.......................................................................................................... 77
Annex 8 – Photos of the SD1 system........................................................................................................... 78
Annex 9 – Photos of the SD2 system........................................................................................................... 79
Annex 10 – Photos of the MPSD system ..................................................................................................... 81
Annex 11 – Photos of the P system............................................................................................................. 84
Annex 12 – Indexation formula for average reference tariffs..................................................................... 85
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Mozambican provinces and climate regions.................................................................................... 16
Figure 2: Rural population evolution in Mozambique from 1960 to 2020. Data source: World Bank, 2021 . 17
Figure 3: Mozambique's institutional water framework................................................................................. 19
Figure 4. Left: An Afridev handpump schema................................................................................................. 21
Figure 5: Schema of the proposed analytical framework ............................................................................... 25
Figure 6: Schema of the MPS system functioning........................................................................................... 31
Figure 7: Schema of the K system functioning ................................................................................................ 31
Figure 8: Schema of the MPSD system functioning ........................................................................................ 32
Figure 9: Schema of the SD systems' functioning............................................................................................ 32
Figure 10: Schema of the P system functioning .............................................................................................. 33
Figure 11: Sites of study and districts.............................................................................................................. 33
Figure 12: Sabie Game Park and water points in Mangalane Community territory ....................................... 34
Figure 13: Summary of the innovative systems' features ............................................................................... 39
Figure 14. Left: Sign with faded Enabel and PRONASAR logos........................................................................ 41
Figure 15: Chronology of the participatory process........................................................................................ 42
Figure 16: Community involvement in the design and construction of the new MPS system ....................... 43
Figure 17. Left: Community members in the selected site for the water tower............................................. 43
Figure 18. Left: meeting for community mobilization and preparation.......................................................... 44
Figure 19: Water supply per household and person in system SD1................................................................ 45
Figure 20. Left: Women carrying jerricans on their heads. Right: Men in a pick-up truck. ............................ 47
Figure 21: Sketch of Mavunguane settlement in Mangalane Community...................................................... 48
Figure 22:Construction of the drinking trough protection fence in the MPS system. .................................... 51
Figure 23: View from the top of the tank tower in the system in Bombofo (D.2) .......................................... 53
Figure 24: Breakdown of tariffs....................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 25: Hypothetical monthly price for a family based on 5m3
consumption ........................................... 55
Figure 26: Price comparison between the new MPSD, SD2 systems.............................................................. 55
Figure 27: Price comparison the pick-up services in Mangalane and Gaza province ..................................... 56
Figure 28: Cubic meter price for the system MPS according to the 20 MZN flat rate. ................................... 56
Figure 30: Schema of the SD systems' functioningSD2 system in Bombofo, Chokwe district ........................ 79
Figure 30: Schema of the P system functioning .............................................................................................. 79
Figure 31K system in Maguinguana, Manhiça district..................................................................................... 84

8
PREFACE
This Master's thesis was carried out as part of the research internship to validate the second year of the
master’s degree in Water and Society, co-accredited by AgroParisTech, Montpellier SupAgro and the
University of Montpellier. The internship was directed by the Centre International de Recherche
Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD) in Montpellier and financed by the Chaire Eau Pour Tous. This
internship is part of a project called ProSuLi, which aims to reconcile the challenges of biodiversity
conservation with human activities and their use of natural resources in areas where they interact. My
contribution to the project focuses on the governance of water resources in an area close to a Transfrontier
conservation area.

9
ACRONYMES AND ABREVIATIONS
AECID: Spanish Agency for International Cooperation for Development
AIAS: Water Infrastructure and Sanitation Administration
ARA: Regional Water Administration
AURA: Water Regulatory Authority
CRA: Water Supply Regulation Council
DNAAS: National Water Directorate
DNGRH: National Directorate of Water Resources Management
DPOPRH: Provincial Directorate of Public Works and Water Resources
ENABEL: Belgian Development Agency
FIPAG: Water Supply Investment and Assets Fund
FRELIMO: Mozambican liberation front
FPA: Private water suppliers
IRC: international think-and-do-tank on WASH
MOPHRH: Ministry of Public Works, Housing and Water Resources
ONGAWA: Spanish NGO
PLAMA: Mozambican Water Platform
ProSuLi: Promoting Sustainable Livelihoods in Transfrontier Conservation Areas
SDPI: District Planning and Infrastructure Service
SDC: Swiss Cooperation Office Mozambique
UGB: Watershed Management Unit
WASH: Water Sanitation and Hygiene
WHO: World Health Organization

10
Introduction
Access to safe and clean drinking water is recognized as a Human Right. Access to safe water and good
hygiene practices are also associated to a reduction in the transmission of diseases, poverty alleviation and
improved health, well-being, and dignity of populations. Under these premises, in 2015, the UN General
Assembly presented the “access to water and sanitation for all” as one of the of the Sustainable Development
Goals in the 2030 Agenda. This objective includes, among other targets, achieving “universal and equitable
access to safe and affordable drinking water for all” (6.1), ensuring “sustainable supply of freshwater” (6.4),
and supporting and strengthening “the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation
management” (6.b). Following this postulates, governments, donors, and civil society mobilize and
coordinate intending to meet these objectives.
Access to drinking water supply services is still a major concern in rural areas of many developing countries.
Around 19% of the world’s rural population was, in 2017, still lacking a basic service1
on water supply, while
in sub-Saharan Africa, the proportion came to 55% of the population (Carter, 2021). One of the major reasons
lies in the non-functionality of many services. While, in the past, significant money has been invested in
infrastructure to increase water access coverage, less attention has been paid to the management of these
infrastructures to ensure that they are functional. Although contested, the model of infrastructure
management on rural water supply that remains predominant today is the so-called community-based
management (CBM). The main problems arising from this model have to do with the technical and financial
capacity of the communities to keep the infrastructures running. Water supply challenges are even greater
in rural areas with semi-arid climates where the resource is scarce and tends to become scarcer as a result
of the climate change, with longer periods of drought and more intense and less frequent rainfall.
In the rural semi-arid areas of southern Mozambique, populations are facing multiple challenges with respect
to the water resource availability. In addition to the effects of the climate change, these challenges include
population growth, an often-brackish groundwater resource, and a hydrology characterized by an
intermittent regime. Moreover, this inland region of southern Mozambique is characterized by a rural
population living in a very dispersed manner, which challenges the spatial coverage of water supply services.
Given these conditions, populations have few quality water resources at their disposal. To alleviate this
situation, both the government and other organizations such as development banks or NGOs have built a
multitude of handpumps in the region. The intention was that the communities would be the ones to carry
out the management through the so-called water committees. Although some are functioning, others are
abandoned after a while, either because the water they supplied was too brackish, or because the
communities are not able to ensure their sustainability. In some cases, the populations must turn to other
sources of water that might be less safe. In recent years, Mozambican government, donors, and other
organizations have been exploring innovative technical and institutional possibilities to try to ensure access
to quality water for rural populations. New technical solutions include multi-purpose systems with solar-
powered pumps and systems with solar-powered desalination treatment. New institutional solutions include
greater intervention by the private sector and cross-subsidies.
The purpose of this master thesis is to discuss —considering technological and institutional innovations as
socio-technical systems— how these innovations attempt to address the challenges of infrastructure
sustainability, access to water for all and adaptation to the specific needs of the targeted populations. To
answer this question, I draw on the socio-technical notion of “functionality” —which considers that the
proper functioning of infrastructures depends on the adequacy between the institutions governing the
infrastructures and their technical features— as well as on a social justice approach to elaborate an analytical
framework. Then I conducted a qualitative research based on social science methods. Results focus on the
innovative systems’ development, their efficiency and equity dimensions, mobilization of technical and
financial resources, and the territorial point of view. Finally, I discuss innovations’ pros and cons as well as
the relevance of this analytical framework for studying water supply innovations in semi-arid rural areas.
1
Basic service is defined as having a drinking water supply from an improved source, with a collection time which does not exceed
30 minutes for a round trip including queuing (JMP, 2019).

11
1. Context
Although the present master thesis has a focus on semi-arid rural areas, the literature review I use does not
explicitly concern semi-arid climates, but rural contexts in developing countries in general. I have chosen this
option because the literature is more abundant and allows me to have a better view on the global dynamics
of rural water supply in developing countries in the last decades, and to put into perspective the contextual
specificities of my study. Firstly, I overview the evolution of strategies that have taken place in recent decades
to address the challenges of water access and infrastructure sustainability in rural environments in
developing countries. Secondly, I present the current technological innovations in rural water supply. Thirdly,
I present the current management trends, associated with technological innovations.
1.1. Evolution of rural water supply in developing countries
To respond to the challenges of drinking water supply in semi-arid rural areas of developing countries, where
the surface resource is non-existent or ephemeral, governments, donors and other international
organizations have invested in different strategies for decades. These strategies include the construction of
infrastructures, the promotion of planning and management models, and innovation.
1.1.1. Supplying the world
Planner states
Once achieved the independence, governments from many developing countries intervened to ensure access
to water for the populations, including rural, with a supply-driven approach. This was a top-down water
supply model, in which the grassroots population had no place in local territorial planning, and which ignored
the heterogeneity of the territories, in socio-economic, cultural, and environmental terms. This model used
to fail in the management phase, due to the limited capacity of governmental institutions, compromising the
sustainability of the infrastructures (Harvey & Reed, 2007). Criticized by NGOs, development banks and other
donors, these organizations began to promote a community-based management (CBM) model in the 1980s.
Handpumps and community-based management
In rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa, the handpump has been, and still is, the drinking water supply
infrastructure par excellence. The handpumps consists of a borehole and an assembly of water pumping
elements and means of conveying water by human traction (Carter, 2021). There is a wide variety of
handpumps, depending on the latter components, as well as the depths and yield they can reach. Their design
is intended for use by rural communities. Handpumps are considered as a lower-level service infrastructures,
requiring regular maintenance and basic technical skills. Many of the handpumps are in the public domain.
The most commonly promoted model to manage handpumps is the community-based management. The
CBM model is based on the argument that if rural communities were actively involved in the development of
water supply infrastructures, specifically in the operation and maintenance (O&M) phase, they would be
more easily sustainable, while, at the same time, governments would take a burden off their shoulders.
Within the CBM, three principles are promoted: participation, ownership and ability and willingness to pay,
with respect of the infrastructures (Moriarty et al., 2013). In other words, the responsibility for the handpump
sustainability falls directly on the communities. The CBM encourages the formation of the so-called water
committees, composed of community members for the management of infrastructures.
However, in many cases, this management model fails to provide very good results for the sustainability of
handpumps, as many communities are unable to ensure the O&M phase on their own, either for economic
or technical reasons. Moreover, Cleaver and Toner (2006) argue that the promoted community
infrastructures “ownership” may become a few members ownership by formalising the water committees,

12
resulting in a greater empowerment of few people and subsequent inequalities. Other authors stress that
while the CBM promotes communities’ participation, it actually promotes participation on management
tasks, neglecting the participation of the communities on the planning and design phases (Harvey & Reed,
2007).
MDGs and demand-responsive approach
Promoted as “low cost solutions” by major international development organizations since the third quarter
of the 20th century (World Bank, 1987), the handpump was the most adequate type of infrastructure to
enable a worldwide increase of the coverage of access to drinking water. This was especially stressed in the
first 15 years of the 21st century, with the promotion of the Millennium Development Goals2
(MDG), where
target 7c aimed “to halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe
drinking water […]”.
In parallel, the World Bank began to promote a demand-responsive approach (DRA). Combined with the
CBM, the aim of this planning-focused approach was to ensure that the infrastructures were appropriate to
the economic capacity and needs of each community. However, the DRA has been criticized for the fact that
it basically focuses on the project phase. It basically consisted of doing a lot of projects and increasing
coverage, in line with the MDGs (Moriarty et al., 2013), with (still) little attention to the post-construction
phase.
In fact, this rush to achieve coverage3
objectives while ignoring essential aspects such as water quality or
insufficient yield, led in many cases to the abandonment of infrastructures because they did not fulfill the
basic functions for which they were designed (Bonsor et al., 2015). What's more, this increased coverage
indicators masked how and when access occurred (Moriarty et al., 2013). In other words, the coverage
indicators hid the functionality of those infrastructures and the level of the services’ continuity.
The MDGs have been criticized for underestimating the sustainability dimension of this kind of infrastructures
(Truslove et al., 2019). In addition to the reasons described above, such as the abandonment of some
infrastructures due to poor service performance, there are other factors that have to do with the capacity of
the user communities to maintain and repair them. As Truslove et al. (2019) show, total life-cycle costs are
often neglected or underestimated by planners. In fact, the sustainability of handpumps as well as other
infrastructures would depend on the adoption of planning and management models in line with the actual
circumstances.
1.1.2. Seeking to improve the service
The play-pump’s short-story
The Play-pump was a promising (and a short-story) infrastructure that did not succeed. That infrastructure
consisted of a merry-go-round, on which children could play, and at the same time the system pumped water
into an elevated water storage tank. The problem was that in places where this was the only source of water,
children were at risk of “playing” too much or, instead, women might be overexploited (Stellar, 2010). The
lesson we could learn here is the importance of user participation in the design and conception of innovations
as a condition for their sustainability.
Solar-powered pumping systems
Mechanic pumps and piped systems are other technologies that can be found in rural areas. Mechanic pumps
refer to those that have electric power as their energy source. Electric power can be generated through
2
It has been recognized that the methods and the data used to monitor the achievement of MDG 7c target, based on national data
bases and census were not enough robust (Bartram et al., 2014).
3
Coverage was defined by the MDG 7c target as the “proportion of population using improved drinking water supply sources”. Where
improved sources are piped water, boreholes or tubewells, protected dug wells, protected springs, rainwater, and packaged or
delivered water (JMP, 2019). Coverage concept has been criticized for focusing on the type the water supply while ignoring the actual
quality of the water accessed (Moriarty et al., 2013 ; Weststrate et al., 2019).

13
connection to the public power grid or through solar panels. Since the grid rarely reaches remote rural areas,
the solar energy option seems a good ally for increasing the level of supply service. This has specially been
the case since the 2010s, when the price of photovoltaic technology dropped considerably (Carter, 2021).
In the case of solar-powered pump systems, these are usually composed of a borehole, a pump, a solar panel,
and an elevated water storage tank in its simplest version. In its premium version, a pipe network and
standtaps or household connexions can be added. The size of the solar panel must be matched to the pump
performance to obtain the desired discharge. Since the operation of the pump depends on the source of
solar energy, the service level is conditioned by several factors such as weather, sunlight incidence schedule,
flow rate and the reservoirs’ capacity.
Obviously, this technology avoids physical strain on users, as is the case with handpumps, but also requires
more investment as the installation of solar panel systems needs more capital. However, with regard to
maintenance costs per person, these systems are more attractive than hand pumps as long as the service
covers communities of more than 500 people. In terms of repairs, this technology requires greater technical
capacity than handpumps (Carter, 2021). In this regard, the World Bank (2018) recommends that
communities hire suppliers during the warranty period and even extend contracts. However, it is not certain
that sustainability can be guaranteed through this option within low-income rural populations.
Service delivery approach
At the beginning of the 2010s, a service delivery approach (SDA) has been called for by many authors in order
to put more emphasis on the whole life cycle of infrastructures, to ensure a continuous and long-lasting
service. This approach came to support the service managers, whether they were from the community or
external. Regarding CBM, the proponents of this planning-focused approach proposed a series of guidelines
such as training, professionalization of the communities for the O&M, as well as to strengthen intermediate
institutions between governments and communities by the entry of “support agents” (Moriarty et al., 2013).
Also, other approaches to accompany SDA have been documented in the same period. For instance, the life-
cycle costs assessment (LCCA), was promoted to anticipate infrastructure sustainability by taking into account
all the possible expenditure costs from capital investment to operation, maintenance and major repairs
(Fonseca et al., 2011).
However, the SDA, with external interventions within communities, have also been criticized for not always
being adapted to local realities. Ducrot (2017) argues that the practices promoted by these approaches, such
as participation and the “correct” functioning of water committees, are less important than the institutional
arrangements that may exist within a community between leaders and other members, in order to achieve
the goals of sustainability and access to water. Cleaver & Toner (2006), in turn, say that formalising (or
strengthening) the institution may leave less room for internal institutional arrangements, resulting in water
access inequities. Another weakness highlighted by Ducrot & Bourblanc (2017) in a study in Mozambique, is
that the information and participation of communities in the planning phase sometimes remains a dead
letter. While CBM was promoted as bottom-up management approach to ensure the sustainability of
infrastructures, the planning approaches seemed to be, in practice, rather top-down. At least, in regard to
the planning phase.
1.1.3. Innovations
The evolution of technologies and management and planning models reflects the importance of the
remaining challenge of infrastructure sustainability in rural areas. The emerging interest in sustainability can
also be seen in the shift from the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals. The
SDGs have also put equity challenges on the table by stressing “access to water and sanitation for all”. In the
last decade, there has been a series of technological innovations aiming to improve the rural water supply
access, with a special focus on sustainability issues.
Here I present some innovative technological approaches that have been spreading in recent years. Although
all the technologies and management models presented above were at some point innovations, I present as
innovations those that are still in a testing, diffusion, acceptance, or institutionalization phase, as opposed to

14
those technologies or approaches that are already somewhat stabilized (successfully or unsuccessfully) in the
rural water supply landscape.
Multiple-Use Systems
With the aim of improving access to water in rural areas, the idea of multiple-use systems or services (MUS)
started to be promoted in the 2000s, moving from a segmental approach to an integrated approach. MUS
consists of water supply services that combine several different existing technologies to integrate several of
them into a single system (Smits et al., 2010). This idea arose from the realization that water supply
infrastructures were often used for uses other than those for which they were intended. For instance, water
intended for irrigation could also be used for domestic use and domestic water could be used for productive
uses. By diversifying the uses, the MUS approach would lead not only to achieve the SDGs 6th
target but also
some others related to health, food security, and so on (Hall et al., 2017).
The idea is also to encourage the participation of communities from the very beginning of the design phase
in order to take into account their water uses and needs. Promoted by international research and
development organizations, several pilot projects have been implemented at the local level in several
developing countries. However, although this approach is already a reality in rural areas in several countries,
few governments have institutionalized (formalized) it (Clement et al., 2019).
Actually, this new technological approach raises new issues, especially in terms of management at both the
local and national levels. At the community level, the diversity of uses and needs of households can lead to
situations of overuse of the service by some users to the detriment of others (Smits et al., 2010), and thus to
conflicts between users if appropriate institutions are not adopted. At the national level, the implementation
of this new approach may be hindered by an inflexible or contradictory sectoral policy framework (Smits et
al., 2010). For example, the policies of a ministry of agriculture may not share the same objectives as those
of a ministry in charge of water supply.
Nexus and Sustainable Development Goals
Nexus approach could be defined as a relatively new vision which consists of targeting different SDGs such
as water access, food security and climate change mitigation and adaptation, using different resources by an
integrated manner. Within this vision, technological and institutional innovation are promoted. The Nexus
concept can be applied at different scales, from the national to the local level. There are many nexus
depending on the challenges to be addressed (Benson et al., 2015), although one of the most widespread is
the Food-Energy-Water nexus (FEW).
In Malawi, Rivett et al. (2018) have explored the potential of the Food-Water nexus by experiences on a
borehole-garden permaculture approach. The study shows the potential benefits of this nexus approach,
such as increased food security, improved water quality, and reduced risk of malaria by eliminating the
stagnant waters. In addition, sales of the garden's products contribute to the sustainability of the
infrastructures. Even so, these experiences have posed new challenges such as defining roles and
responsibilities regarding the gardens and strengthening communication between different ministries to
promote this practice from different perspectives.
The ICT contribution
The information and communication technologies (ICT) have appeared on the scene with the aim of making
a positive contribution to the sustainability of rural water supply services. For instance, the survey tools based
on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) such as mWater, or SINAS in the case of Mozambique. These tools
aim to facilitate the infrastructures information reports from users to public entities and as well as to facilitate
the monitoring from public entities. However, these tools challenges lie in collecting and updating data, as
well as what to do once the information has been obtained.
Remote sensing has been recently promoted as a way to anticipate breakdowns in pumps and act faster,
reducing the time without access to water in remote rural areas where phone network reaches (Thomson,
2021). These sensors can be combined with a GIS database like mWater. In turn, the company UDUMA (2021)

15
has recently developed what they called the “e-pump” which consists of a handpump with an integrated flow
meter. The user would pay for the volume of water consumed using a card that is recharged either with cash
or mobile money. Mobile money uses the GSM technology and permits payments through mobile phones in
rural areas where bank services do not exist, but mobile network does.
1.1.4. Current management trends
An eventual rise in the level of service through the technological innovations or innovative approaches
presented above, may require or promote the intervention of agents external to the community, moving
from a strictly CBM model to innovative management models.
Today, the community-based management is still questioned, but remains the dominant model (Carter,
2021). There is an increasing interest in the private sector for managing rural water services in developing
countries. The main restriction of this option is that is not financially attractive, as users (in low-income rural
areas) would not be able to pay enough for a sustainable service, ensuring, at least, a total cost recovery.
And this, specially in sparsely populated rural areas (Carter, 2021).
Franceys (2019) proposes two alternatives: the use of external subsidies for rural water supply services or
the “utilitisation” concept, which would consist of the recognition of rural water supply as a public utility, “a
business organisation performing a public service and subject to special governmental regulation”. This
process would involve the extension of service areas from small town centres to the rural hinterland for the
same operator.
This new management models would have repercussions on the access to water and the sustainability of the
infrastructures.
1.2. Rural water supply situation in semi-arid Mozambique
Mozambique is no stranger to the evolutions I have presented above in terms of rural access to water and
sustainability challenges, albeit with country-specific characteristics. The authorities must deal with regions
under semi-arid climates, the consequences of the climate change, a complex hydrogeology, a resource that
is often overly mineralized, and widely dispersed populations with few economic resources.
1.2.1. The country briefly
Mozambique is a nation-state located in the southeast of the African continent, with 2,470 kilometres of
Indian Ocean coastline. The country borders Tanzania to the north, Malawi to the northwest, Zimbabwe to
the east, and Eswatini and South Africa to the southwest (Figure 1). The capital city is Maputo, a coastal city
at the southern extremity of the territory, on the bay with the same name. Maputo Bay is also the mouth of
several rivers, including the Incomati, which has its source in South Africa. Mozambique is also home to the
Limpopo River in the south and the Zambezi River in the north. All of them have their source in international
waters and flow into the Indian Ocean. Mozambique has 13 major river basins, in addition to other coastal
basins. The basins with the largest surface area are the Rovuma basin in the north, the Zambezi basin in the
centre, and the Limpopo basin in the south (UEM, [s d]). According to the Köppen-Geiger classification, most
of the country is dominated by savannah-tropical climates in the north, centre, and along the coastline, and
a hot semi-arid climate in the southern interior (Figure 1).
The territory of what is today known as Mozambique was for centuries a Portuguese colony. The country
gained independence from Portugal in 1975, followed by a civil war between the Mozambican Liberation
Front (FRELIMO), supported by the Eastern Bloc, and the opposition Mozambican National Resistance
Movement (RENAMO), supported by the Western Bloc. The two sides reached a peace agreement in 1992,
and since then the FRELIMO party has ruled the country uninterruptedly. As a product of the colonial period,
the official language of Mozambique is Portuguese, but there are about 20 other Bantu origin languages, with
their respective dialects, spoken in different geographical areas (Ngunga, 2021). One of the languages is the
Shangana from the Tsonga branch, which is the third most widely spoken mother tongue. Shangana is spoken

16
in the far south of the country, mainly in the rural areas where the present study was conducted, although it
is also spoken in Maputo City. Today, the state of Mozambique is divided into 11 Provinces. Provinces are
subdivided into Districts, which are further subdivided into Administrative Posts. At the local level,
Administrative Posts are made up of Localities, and these are made up of villages or settlements. This is the
formal administrative division. In addition to the formal administrative division, there is also a traditional
division at the local level, where administrative and traditional authorities, that are also recognised by the
government, coexist. This division does not necessarily overlap with the administrative boundaries of
administrative posts or localities. Within these traditional divisions we can find the so-called traditional
Figure 1: Mozambican provinces and climate regions

17
communities or chiefdoms, which may include the figure of the Regulo (traditional chief). Although the
traditional institutional structures may change slightly depending on the region.
The current population is estimated at just over 30 million people (INE, 2021), in an area of 799,380 km2. The
rural population in Mozambique in 2020 was around 63% (World Bank, 2021). Although the trend shows that
the proportion of the rural population is decreasing in favour of the urban population, the rural population
continues to increase in absolute numbers and in 2020 stood at around 20 million (Figure 2).
1.2.2. Semi-arid south
As shown in the provinces under hot semi-arid climate conditions are Gaza (most of the territory), Maputo
and Inhambane (the western half) in the south, and the southern part of Tete in the north. The two provinces
targeted in this study are Maputo and Gaza. In this semi-arid context, winter seasons are characterized by
long periods of drought. This, specially from May to August, when the average monthly rainfall is below 20
mm. The last severe drought event was in 2016. January is the rainiest month with an average rainfall about
120 mm. The Limpopo and Incomati watersheds cover this region. During the winter season, permanent
watercourses such as the Limpopo or the Incomati see their flow reduced considerably. Other than these
two main rivers, most of the rivers have an intermittent regime, which means that during the winter only
few pools can be found, and surface waters scarce. In this region, climate change appears to reduce the
frequency and increase the intensity of precipitation (Giva et al., n.d.). Summers are hot and floods can occur
due to the intensity of rainfall. In terms of hydrogeology, it is recurrent to find strongly mineralized, or
brackish, groundwater in southern Mozambique. Groundwater frequently exceeds the conductivity limit
value of 2000 μS/cm allowed by the legislation (Ministerial Decree no. 180/2004).
In rural areas, the most common economic and livelihood activities are rain-fed agriculture, cattle raising,
charcoal production and hunting or fishing. Given the lack of employment in rural areas, temporary
emigration of young people to urban areas or to South Africa is common in this area. Most of the people
speak Shangana. This facilitates the migration through south Africa as Shangana is also spoken across the
border. It must be said that commercial and cultural links with other Shangana populations on the other side
of the border are still strong. In addition to Shangana, certain people speak English or Portuguese, specially
those who do have lived in South Africa or in urban areas of Mozambique. The social structure is patriarchal,
and the family system is polygamous. In rural areas, people generally live in huts, in a dispersed manner.
Figure 2: Rural population evolution in Mozambique from 1960 to 2020. Data
source: World Bank, 2021

18
In terms of local governance, the figure of the Regulo (traditional chief) is the traditional authority for a
specific territory that may be home to several settlements or villages. At the village level, the Regulo shares
powers with local leaders of the so-called Grupos dinamizadores4
. Local leaders include Líder comunitário
(Community Leader), Secretario de Bairro (Block Secretary, in the case where the village is divided into several
quarters) and Secretario de Partido (Secretary of the Party FRELIMO). The title of Regulo is hereditary, while
that of Lider Comunitario is by suffrage (Nhancale, 2007). If there is a conflict at the local level (village or
town), the energizing groups are mobilized to resolve it at the local level. These local leaders can rely on
Ndunas, who are advisors. If the conflict cannot be resolved at the local level, it is taken to the Regulado
level. The Regulo can in turn rely on his circle of advisors. In case of taking a matter to higher levels such as
the Administrative Post or the District, the leaders should, theoretically, inform each other.
1.2.3. Water governance in Mozambique
A short historical review of the water supply services’ decentralization
At the end of the 1980s, Mozambique's water supply systems were in a state of degradation after years of
centralized water sector policy, the voluntary destruction of infrastructures during the war, and the economic
situation at the time. In the 1990s, under a more stable atmosphere and the emergence of the IWRM
concept5
, the Mozambican government, supported by international organizations, decided to carry out a
reform of the water sector. The reform consisted of a decentralization process of water management with
the aim of increasing service coverage and ensuring the sustainability of the systems (CRA, 2016).
First, the 1991 Water Law was passed, which paid special attention to environmental sustainability, water
resource utilization, and defined the rights and obligations of users. In 1995, the National Water Policy was
approved with the intention of recovering the country's basic water supply services. This document
promoted the entry of the private sector into public service supply with the aim of improving the quality and
efficiency of the services. In partnership with the World Bank, the Mozambican government defined in 1997
a strategy to involve private operators in urban water supply services through delegation and concession
contracts. This was formalized by the creation of the autonomous public entity Fundo de Investimento e
Património de Abastecimento de Água (FIPAG) in 1998. At the same time, the Conselho de Regulação de
Águas (CRA) was created, with the aim of regulating prices and thus protecting users while ensuring the
sustainability of services. In the late 2000s, under a Water Law revision, this strategy was extended to so-
called small towns (Matavela & Tutusaus, 2017), and is still being extended today. This has been also
formalized by the creation of the the Administração de Infra-estruturas de Água e Saneamento (AIAS).
With respect to rural areas, in 2010 the Programa Nacional de Abastecimento de Água e Saneamento Rural
(PRONASAR) was approved, aiming to increase coverage and ensure the sustainability of water supply and
sanitation services in rural areas. More precisely, the program aimed to create an institutional and
management framework propitious to ensure coverage and sustainability challenges. This was the first
service delivery approach program for rural water supply in Mozambique. Its strategy was based on
supporting communities by training programs, empowering decentralised institutions (districts and
provinces) for planning and management aspects, and encouraging the private sector development (Ducrot,
2017). The private sector would be involved in the whole life cycle of infrastructure: construction, spare parts
supply, and the training of communities in Participação e Educação Comunitária (PEC) sessions. These
sessions aimed to “ensure the involvement of communities in the process of construction, rehabilitation and
management of new and existing water supply infrastructure”, by creating or strengthening the so-called
4
The grupos dinamizadores (or dynamizer groups) were created by FRELIMO after independence to replace the Regulados, which
were considered part of the colonial administrative structure. They consist of a new structure of local leaders and secretaries.
However, the figure of Regulo was not abolished and today coexists with the new administrative structure (Ducrot, 2011). They
recognize to each other.
5
IWRM: Integrated Water Resources Management, is a concept developed by the Global Water Partnership (GWP), based on the
principles of the 1992 Dublin Declaration on Water and Sustainable Development. The IWRM is defined as “a process which promotes
the co-ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic
and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems” (GWP, 2000). The IWRM
concept was opportunistically seized and promoted by major international development organizations and donors (Molle, 2008).

19
water committees. More recently, in 2019, the CRA has been renamed as Autoridad Reguladora de Águas,
Instituto Público (AURA). This can be interpreted as an empowerment of the institution, shifting from a mere
advisory institution to one with a certain degree of authority.
In addition to this decentralization process, in recent years the so-called Fornecedores Privados de Agua (FPA)
have appeared exponentially, supplying water to urban and peri-urban areas as well as to rural areas. These
small private operators are not always licensed, although there is legislation requiring authorization to
operate. They have recently created an association called Aforamo, which counts about 800 members.
1.2.4. Formal institutional framework
Below I describe Mozambique's formal institutional framework in terms of competencies in the water sector
at different levels. For a more detailed description of all the actors involved in the water supply sector in
Mozambique, and the relationships between them, please refer to the Annex 1 – Water actors’ map 1 of this
document.
Figure 3: Mozambique's institutional water framework (inspired from: Matavela & Tutusaus, 2017; WSP, 2016; Ducrot, 2011)

20
National level
The Ministry of Public Works, Housing and Water Resources (MOPHRH) is the body responsible for the
implementation of water sector policies. The National Directorate for Water Supply and Sanitation (DNAAS)
and the National Directorate for Water Resources Management (DNGRH) are structures which, under the
supervision of the MOPHRH, are responsible for defining strategies and public policies in the water sector,
both in rural and urban areas. The DNAAS is in charge of supply and sanitation services, while the DNGRH
aims at the development, conservation, use and exploitation of water resources at the watershed level (CRA,
2016). There are also other ministries involved in the water sector such as the Ministry of Agriculture and
Food Security, the Ministry of the Sea, Interior Waters and Fisheries, or the Ministry of Industry and
Commerce, among others. These ministries constitute the National Water Council, a consultative body of the
Council of Ministers and coordination responsible for pronouncing on relevant aspects of the general water
management policy and its application (Water Law
, Article 17). In the case of interventions by cooperation agencies or other donors, the MOPHRH receives
loans or grants with the approval of the Council of Ministers (Figure 3, on page 19). The MOPHRH can then
transfer the money to the provincial and district authorities.
The Water Regulatory Authority (AURA), under the supervision of the MOPHRH and the Ministry of Economy
and Finance (MEF), is responsible for regulating public supply services in order to harmonize the interests of
users, consumers and the State. Previously, when AURA was called CRA, this institution was responsible for
regulating urban services in both large cities and small towns (FIPAG and AIAS). Now, AURA intends to
regulate water services in rural areas as well.
Provincial and district levels
At the provincial level, the Provincial Directorate of Public Works and Water Resources (DPOPRH) is
responsible for signing contracts with private operators for the construction and/or the delegation of water
supply services in rural areas. While at the district level, it is the District Service of Planning and
Infrastructures (SDPI) which monitors compliance with contracts and the proper functioning of the rural
supply services. If the management is a local community’s responsibility, the SDPI watches for the functioning
of the infrastructure through the so-called water committees. District services are also in charge of licencing
the (little) Private Water Suppliers (FPA) (Figure 3, on page 19).
Basin level
Regarding to the basin levels, the Regional Water Administrations (ARA) are responsible, under the
supervision of the DNGRH, for water resources development and management, in charge of the daily
operations and hydrological data collection (Ducrot, 2011). ARA is in charge of the management of dams and
other hydraulic works. It is also responsible for providing licenses and concessions for water resources
allocation to requesting entities (i.e., FPA). There are 5 Regional Water Administrations, with ARA-Sul
controlling the basins of the main rivers in the south: Maputo, Umbulezi, Incomati and Limpopo. At the lower
level we find the watershed management units (UGB) (Figure 3, on page 19).
Local level
At the local level, as mentioned above, FIPAG is responsible for water supply assets and services in large
cities. This organization can carry out the management on its own if necessary. The AIAS is responsible for
the water supply assets and services in small towns (Simone et al., 2016). In these two cases, infrastructures
are leased to an operator that is in charge to maintain and operate it (Matavela & Tutusaus, 2017).
In rural areas, water committees are the management bodies responsible for monitoring the operation,
ensuring the proper use and maintenance of the water supply and sanitation infrastructures through the
collection of contributions from users. According to the Ministerial Diploma No. 23/2002, they must also
report to the district authorities on the state and functioning of the infrastructures. The private sector can
support communities in the formation of water committees. The private sector can support communities in
the formation of water committees, and in training them in all aspects of infrastructure management. In

21
addition, a significant representation of women is recommended, as they are generally responsible for
household water supply. However, not all water committees function properly.
1.2.5. Rural water supply infrastructures in southern semi-arid Mozambique
When it comes to water supply in rural areas, Afridev handpump (Figure 4, on page 21) is the infrastructure
par excellence. This type of hand pump is designed to cover about 300 people and is the most widespread
type of infrastructure in rural Mozambique. The recommended borehole depth is up to 45 meters. Its
productivity varies from 1.4 m3
/h at 10 meters depth to about 0.7 m3
/h below 30 meters depth (RWSN, 2021).
The quality of the water provided by these infrastructures depends on the quality of the groundwater
resource, which in some cases may be subject to high mineralization due to geological reasons, as well as to
possible contamination with fecal matter due to the proximity or direct use of the infrastructure by cattle. In
the case of highly mineralized or brackish water, this can corrode the materials of the handpumps, thus
affecting their operability. Although it requires regular maintenance, repairs are easy to perform (and quick
if spare parts are available nearby). Initially, this type of infrastructure is designed so that the communities
themselves are responsible for its maintenance through water committees. In the last decade, many hand
pumps have been built, but not all of them are functional, either because of lack of resources for their
maintenance or because of poor water quality. Among other infrastructures we can find individual or
collective rainfall harvesting systems, solar-powered boreholes, or open-air reservoirs. Some images can be
found in the Annex 2. Domestic water consumption in rural areas in Mozambique is estimated to 25 liters
per person per day.
Although these are still the most widely used infrastructures in rural Mozambique, some technological
innovations made their entry into the Mozambican territory in the recent years following the MUS and Nexus
approaches: the multi-purpose6
solar-powered water pumping mini-systems, and the solar-powered reverse
osmosis desalination7
mini-systems. We present hereafter the study sites hosting these new types of rural
water supply infrastructures.
6 Multi-use or multi-purpose systems are considered as socio-technical innovations in recent publications (Clement et al., 2019).
7 Although desalination reverse osmosis technology is not innovative per se, its application on remote off-grid rural contexts is. These
stand-alone desalination plants are also presented as unique and sustainable. Unique, because it is a technology designed not to
require batteries. It is also presented as low water production costs technology, in relation to the drop in solar energy production
costs. (Villessot et al., 2019).
Figure 4. Left: An Afridev handpump schema (RWSN, 2021). Right: A woman filling up a jerrican with an Afridev handpump in
Mangalane

22
2. Literature review
In this chapiter I present different scientific currents that I judge relevant to address the issues of
infrastructure sustainability and access to water: science and technology studies, theory of access,
institutional analysis, and social justice approaches. I will first define some key concepts and associated
theoretical approaches. Second, I will show how water access and sustainability challenges can be studied
through an analytical framework based on the discussed concepts and theoretical approaches.
2.1. Concepts and theories
2.1.1. Socio-technical framework
Innovations
Innovations have been defined as “a function of entrepreneurial activity, in which new combinations of
existing resources occur” (Schumpeter, 1934 as cited in Diaconu, 2011). It is important not to confuse
innovation with invention, which simply refers to a new idea or technological discovery which has not been
diffused yet. Innovations are not technological necessarily, they can be a process, or a management model.
In Science and Technology Studies (STS) it has been widely recognized that technology and society are co-
produced, i.e., the same way that society shapes technology, technology also shapes the society in which it
is embedded. Thus, innovations can be studied as socio-technical artefacts. Some authors focus on
innovation as a system of creation, diffusion, and utilization of a new technology (Geels, 2004). Others, in
turn, represent innovation as a network of interdependent actors that collaborate or compete in a given
context (Wanvoeke et al., 2015). If our purpose is to analyze the success of an innovation, the first approach
focuses mainly on the intrinsic properties of the artefact and the users' environment, while the second
approach takes more into account the relationships between the different actors.
Functionality
The term of functionality has been used in the literature as the functioning at a given time of the “hardware”
or the “software”8
of a water supply service. This definition has been criticized for treating independently
both parts, and not as a whole, since the socio-technical approaches suggest that both the material and the
social parts involved in a particular technology are indissociable (Whaley & Cleaver, 2017). The authors
advocate for a concept of functionality that recognizes these two parts as interdependent on each other, and
where a poor design of one part can affect the other, compromising the infrastructures’ sustainability.
Moreover, functionality, according to Whaley & Cleaver's definition, differs from sustainability, in that the
former focuses on the institutional functioning and the physical functioning of the technical object as strictly
dependent, while the latter only refers to on the long-term functioning of the technical object.
Fluidity
Focusing on the innovation as a socio-technical object, Mol & De Laet (2000), introduce the concept of fluidity
studying the Zimbabwe bush pump. The fluidity of a technology is its ability to adapt to different social
contexts as well as to last. According to the authors, a sustainable technology does not have to be robust,
but rather adaptable and improvable.
8 The “hardware” refers to the physical part of the infrastructure that make up the water supply, while the “software” refers to the
management and governance around the infrastructure.

23
2.1.2. Theory of access, accessibility, and affordability
Since we are dealing with “access” to water, I have deemed it important to draw on the Ribot & Peluso's
Theory of access (2003). According to this theory, access is the “ability to derive benefit from things”. This
“ability” or capacity would be conditioned by the existing power relations between different actors, be they
individuals or groups. According to the authors, each actor has (or may have) at its disposal a “bundle of
powers”, which can be exercised by different mechanisms, in order to control, maintain or gain access to a
given resource. Mechanisms may be right-based (legal, illegal), structural (technological —i.e., innovation—
knowledge-based, authoritarian) or relational (identity or social-related) (ibid). Authors establish that first,
the benefits that can be derived from access must be identified, so that, second, these mechanisms can be
analyzed.
According to Ribot & Peluso (2003), while one actor may have a dominant position vis-à-vis another actor
with respect to the access to a resource, the former may have a subordinate position vis-à-vis another actor.
This means that access to a resource is conditioned by a broad and complex network of power relations.
These power relations link different actors at different spatial and evolve over time. Thus, the Theory of
access would allow us to identify who and how benefits or is excluded from a given resource at a given time.
In a similar way to access in the Theory of access, accessibility has been defined as “the ability of people to
reach and engage in opportunities and activities” (Farrington & Farrington, 2005). The “reach” might
incorporate a spatial dimension, which is missing in the definition of access. However, it has been argued —
in western rural case studies— that taking distances into account is subjective, considering accessibility more
as a political concern than a physical issue. Furthermore, some authors talk about social and cultural
distances that allow or not the collective action instead of physical access (Nordberg, 2020).
In works addressing more specifically access to water, in turn, access has been defined as “the capacity to
access water for consumptive purposes, including physical access, affordability, and reliability” (Jepson,
2014). Following the previous argument, then, physical access should be considered not only in its spatial
dimension, but also as a social and power issue. Affordability, in turn, has recently been reconceptualized
going beyond the strict monetary sense, and taking into account temporal, social and health dimensions
(UNICEF & WHO, 2021). Reliability might refer to the quantity and the quality of the water.
2.1.3. Institutional theories
When we talk about the management of natural resources, or the infrastructures that allow access to these
resources, such as water, institutions play a central role. For Cumming et al. (2020), institutions are “the laws,
rules, norms, and customs governing human behavior and human-environment interactions”. These “social
arrangements” are repeated and have a certain durability over time, (Merrey & Cook, 2012). Rules would
imply a penalty in case of non-respect, and norms would rather imply shame (Ostrom, 2005, as cited in
Wutich et al., 2013).
Some authors make a clear distinction between institutions9
and organisations, the latter being groups of
people with the same objectives, and institutions being the rules and norms that govern and form these
organisations (Merrey & Cook, 2012). Institutions can be formalised into recognised organisations, but not
necessarily. Institutions can be “formal” and “informal”, or as Cleaver (2002) says, “bureaucratic and socially
embedded” institutions. Bureaucratic institutions, those which are explicit and legally documented, and
socially embedded institutions, those which are not documented or explicated. Although bureaucratic
institutions can be hidden depending on the knowledge of each individual.
Different institutional approaches have been developed for the last decades regarding natural resources
management. For instance, Ostrom conceptualized an institutional analysis framework for the sustainability
of Social-Ecological Systems (Ostrom, 2009), where she identifies a series of variables that interact to produce
certain outcomes. However, this approach has recently been criticized for several reasons. One is that the
9
In this study, I generally use the term “institutions” as rules and norms. There are some recognizable exceptions in the text where I
use the term “institutions” for those that are formalized into organizations.

24
approach focuses too much on the local level, ignoring other scales and the interactions that may exist
between the local and the broader levels. Ostrom's theories, such as the institutional design principles for
successful sustainable management, have also been criticized for having paid little attention to the
perception of fairness governing norms in different localized contexts (He et al., 2021).
Another approach is the institutional bricolage, that aims to recognise those rules and norms that are socially
hidden in order to promote policies that are more in line with local contexts (Cleaver, 2002). The institutional
bricolage can be defined as the appropriation or translation of the normative and technical framework of
an external source by local populations according to pre-existing social, historical, and cultural norms. While
bricolage would be the process of "official" recognition of those institutions that govern the life of local
populations (ibid).
From a post-institutional point of view, institutions would be negotiated social practices between different
actors, in which some actors have an advantage over others, within a broader social and economic context
(Cleaver & Toner, 2006). These negotiated practices always lead to outcomes, where some may lose, and
others may gain. The outcomes of such institutions, as well as the participation in their elaboration, and the
context in which they take place, can also be approached as equity-related issues by a social justice
perspective.
2.1.4. Social justice
Wutich et al. (2013) say that “institutional rules play a vital role in people’s understandings of justice in
local water situations”. To understand justice-related issues on water management through institutional
rules, there is a main analytical framework, that can vary slightly depending the author. McDermott's et al.
(2013) framework consists of three justice dimensions to assess the equity: distributive justice, procedural
justice, and contextual justice, while the framework used by He et al. (2021) instead of contextual justice,
deals with recognition justice.
Distributive justice concerns the distribution of benefits and burdens on different individuals and groups
(McDermott et al., 2013). Procedural justice has to do with the political processes that enable the distribution
of resources and the resolution of conflicts (ibid). Recognition justice has to do with the consideration of
cultural and social differences in order to avoid the domination of some groups over others (He et al., 2021).
Contextual justice refers to the political, economic, and social conditions that form the starting point from
which the other dimensions of justice take place. These different justice dimensions are dependent (Wutich
et al., 2013 ; He et al., 2021). For instance, Wutich et al. (2013), in a cross-cultural study of perceptions of
justice in water institutions, showed that in cases where (water access) outcomes were perceived to be more
unfair, users complained more about procedural justice issues. Which means that when results are bad,
injustices in terms of participation are under the spotlight. In this sense, He et al. (2021) say that
“participation in public decision-making can lead to the equitable distribution of outcomes”.
It is widely recognized that justice is an innate human feeling. However, “the application of any universal
principle of social justice entails an injustice to someone, somewhere” (Harvey, 1996, as cited in Nordberg,
2020). Therefore, identifying people's perceptions of what is fair would help to understand the institutions
that govern their day-to-day lives in relation to resources as well as the potential discrepancies, conflicts or
inequities that may arise. Different principles or criteria have been distinguished with respect to the different
dimensions of justice according to the individuals’ or collectives’ perceptions: egalitarianism, utilitarianism,
merit-based, need-based and so on (McDermott et al., 2013 ; He et al., 2021). When there are no explicit
rules by which we can identify the criteria, it is important to search for the (cultural) norms that govern
outcomes distribution (Wutich et al., 2013).
Spatial dimension of social justice
The spatial dimension is almost absent from institutional analysis (Cumming et al., 2020) and the “theory of
access” (Ribot & Peluso, 2003). When dealing with issues such as water supply in sparsely populated rural
areas, in terms of access to water and infrastructure sustainability, the spatial dimension cannot be
overlooked. For example, Consideration of the existence of a spare-parts chain in the territory may have an

25
impact on sustainability (Ducrot & Bourblanc, 2017). If we consider the infrastructure locations, access may
also be conditioned by more or less significant distances depending on the user and the means or
mechanisms available to him (Jepson, 2014).
As far as the social justice perspective is concerned, the approach has mainly focused on social and temporal
dimensions (Nordberg, 2020). When social justice has focused on the spatial dimension, it has mainly been
dealt with in works on urban areas, following the Henri Lefebvre’s “Right to the City” (1968) or the David
Harvey’s “Social Justice and the City” (1973). Few works have addressed the issue of spatial justice in rural
areas, and even fewer in rural areas of developing countries.
However, the spatial dimension can be addressed through the distributive and procedural dimensions of
social or environmental justice. If we look at the fairness criteria for justice dimensions, it might be different
depending on the scale and the actor taken into account, generating contradictions, as well as from place to
place (Nordberg, 2020). For instance, the implementation and testing of technological innovations in rural
water supply also involves pilot-projects in specific locations. Despite advocating an equitable distribution on
paper, in practice sites are sometimes chosen on the basis of accessibility and efficiency or merit-based
criteria (Ducrot & Bourblanc, 2017).
2.2. Analytical framework
Innovations in rural water supply have access to water and infrastructure sustainability as their main
objectives. Access to water and infrastructure sustainability are both drivers and outcomes of the innovations
on rural water supply in developing countries. Here I stress how the theories and concepts presented above
are relevant to discuss water access and sustainability of infrastructures through socio-technical innovations.
2.2.1. Innovations, actors, and motivations
In the case of rural water supply in developing countries, the innovations’ actor network would generally be
composed by private companies, research centers, cooperation and development agencies, governments,
Figure 5: Schema of the proposed analytical framework, inspired from various authors (2.1 Concepts and theories)

26
civil society groups and users. Thus, if we consider innovation as a network of actors from different horizons,
the position and role of the different actors with respect to an innovation may vary. In addition to just meet
the key challenges mentioned above (water access for all and sustainability), other types of drivers could be
the origin of the willingness to innovate. Depending on the actor, motivations might be linked to the
discourse of international organizations, social pressure, profit, or recognition, among others.
According to Geels (2004), there are two distinct parts to an innovation, the supply side, and the demand
side. The production or supply side would be made up of organizations interested in the creation and the
dissemination of the product to obtain benefits such as profit or recognition (Wanvoeke et al., 2015). The
demand side would be composed of users and/or customers, interested in the innovations’ properties which
can solve a given issue. Public entities may have several roles. They can promote the development of
innovations, their regulation, and be customers, among others. So, they can be both on the production side
and on the demand side (Geels, 2004). Wanvoeke et al. (2015) suggest that in the same way that supply can
be encouraged by a demand side actors, demand can be created by the same organizations that make up the
supply side. Thus, innovations can be promoted by both supply-side and demand-side actors to meet the
challenges of supplying water for all and sustainability.
Given that different challenges and motivations come into play, the supply and demand sides are iteratively
mutually shaped. Consequently, it is important to focus on the network of actors and identify possible
contradictions that may undermine the objectives of water access and sustainability for which the innovation
is designed. For instance, Geels (2004) claims to focus on the demand-side or the “users’ environment” as a
fundamental part of the innovation. However, the author minimizes the role of the end-users in the
innovation process suggesting that —for an innovation to be used and gain benefits from the properties for
which it was designed— users must adopt the innovation by adapting their “practices, organizations and
routines”. In fact, Wanvoeke et al. (2015) demonstrated that it can occur that the end-user is completely
absent from the entire innovation process. Concretely, the authors identified a variety of strategies employed
by supply-side organizations that made a drip irrigation innovation successful, in terms of profit objectives
and recognition, yet paying little attention to its end use and sustainability.
2.2.2. Collective water access through innovation
If we consider Jepson’s (2014) definition of water access, an innovation in rural water supply should bring
“the capacity to access water for consumption purposes, including physical access, affordability, and
reliability”. Consumption purposes implies obtaining enough quantity of water for the needs according to
the uses, while reliability implies obtaining water of sufficient quality. In other words, access to water implies
the innovation’s efficiency. In addition to providing a sufficient quantity and quality of water, the innovation
should be affordable to the end-users in monetary, time and social terms, as well as being physically
accessible.
In the case of collective water supply, innovation is not addressed only to a single end-user, but to a socially,
culturally, politically, spatially, and economically heterogeneous set of users or groups of users in the same
community or in different countries. This means that efficiency, affordability, and physical access issues may
vary from one user to another or from one group of users to another. If we think of an innovation as a socially
constructed artifact, efficiency, affordability, and physical access become at some point political issues. This
means that either the attributes that have to do with efficiency, affordability or physical access may be
subject to the outcomes of power relations and negotiations during the different phases of innovation
development. Hence, following the Theory of access (Ribot & Peluso, 2003), access to water would also
depend on the mechanisms available to users to ensure efficiency, affordability, and physical access.
For instance, Silva-Novoa Sanchez et al. (2019) showed how different actors involved in the arrival of a piped
water supply network in a southern Mozambican town adapted the new infrastructures to their needs and
perspectives. This means that a same type of technical object, whether innovative or not, can be
reappropriated in different ways depending on the collective that receives it and the benefits they want to
get from it. Therefore, the notion of technology adaptation or reappropriation appears to be more suitable
to talk about access to water through innovation rather than the Geel’s (2004) notion of the innovation
adoption (2.2.1 above). Furthermore, the authors showed how this adaptation or reappropriation process

27
shaped the power relations between different users and actors. Here, the notion of adaptation relates to
that of fluidity, which makes an innovation not only a durable object —as suggested by Mol & De Laet,
(2000)— but also an object through which the existing power relations and their consequences on access to
water can be observed.
2.2.3. Institutional innovations
The recent history of rural water supply has reflected that the emergence of innovations on rural water
supply often induce changes on management approaches and governance including new institutions (see
section 1.1 above). These new institutions can be promoted by actors external to the user community. They
can also occur in the absence of technological innovation (in the physical sense), in order to improve the
governance of what already exists. Thus, institutional innovations should be also considered as socio-
technical innovations, since they are designed to solve problems that have to do with the physical part of
water supply systems or “what already exists”.
For instance, rural water supply programmes, promoted by governments and other organisations such as
development banks, are often intended not only to increase the number of infrastructures, but also to
strengthen institutions in order to ensure the sustainability of the existing “hardware”. However, this
programs are often designed from a western point of view of what water institutions are or should be
(Ducrot, 2017), or paying little attention to the cultural, historical and social aspects that govern the day-to-
day life of the local populations (Whaley & Cleaver, 2017), both with negative outcomes. Thus, the promotion
of external prefabricated institutional packages without paying attention to the existing local institutions may
lead to undesirable outcomes in relation to the objectives of the innovations.
In fact, in the same way that users who receive a socio-technical innovation tend to adapt the technology to
their interests, institutional bricolage theory suggest that users also tend to adapt the new institutions to
pre-existing norms. For this reason, formal or informal local institutions should be identified prior to any
external intervention involving institutional alterations (Cleaver, 2002). Furthermore, depending on the
actor, the promoted institutions may be guided by different criteria of justice or different points of view and
interests. For this reason, the new institutions can be considered as the fruit of negotiations between
different actors with more or less power over others —as suggested by post-institutionalists (Cleaver &
Toner, 2006). In this sense, Merrey & Cook (2012) suggest that it would be as important to study the
institutions induced by innovations as the institutions that promote innovations in order to identify potential
winners, losers, constraints, and opportunities.
2.2.4. Innovations’ sustainability through functionality and justice perceptions
Sustainability in rural water supply means that the operation and the maintenance of water infrastructures
are guaranteed over time. In the analytical framework I propose here, innovations’ sustainability may be
approached from different angles. If we consider the innovation as a socio-technical system, Wanvoeke et
al. (2015) showed that sustainability can be taken into account or not depending on the motivation behind
the success and the actor network involved in the conception of the innovation. For instance, sustainability
may generate benefits such as recognition, reliability or promotion for governments or private companies
(supply-siders). Thus, following the theory of access (Ribot & Peluso, 2003), sustainability of the
infrastructures that compose the innovation would not only benefit the end-user that maintain access, but
also other actors that control access to water via the innovation. In other words, it is not only the end-user
who potentially benefits from the sustainability but a broader set of actors. Nevertheless, if the end-users
are not involved or their variety of contexts is not taken into account in the design of the innovation,
sustainability might fail —as shown by Wanvoeke et al. (2015).
A stable functionality of an innovative system in the long term would also lead to its sustainability. Following
Whaley & Cleaver (2017), the functionality of an innovative system depends on the adequacy of the
governance and management system with the technical features of the innovation. In the same way that the
efficiency of the systems with respect to the actual needs and uses, the added value of the innovation with
respect to what already exists (Ducrot, 2017) —or still the affordability of the technology by the users— can

28
also influence the maintenance of the innovation. Thus, functionality could be met by designing the technical
aspects of the innovation in a way that respects the needs, practices, routines, modes of organization of the
end users according to the socioeconomical local context. In addition, the adequacy between “hardware”
and “software” advocated by the functionality might also occur if the technical part of the innovation is
enough adaptable to the users context —if we draw into the socio-technical concept of fluidity by Mol & De
Laet (2000).
When dealing with sustainability, users' perceptions of the institutions that govern an innovation can also be
decisive. In this sense, Ducrot & Bourblanc (2017), in a study of equity in the design and implementation of
a rural water supply programme in Mozambique, demonstrated how the sustainability of water supply
infrastructures was impacted by the populations' perception of justice. Failure to consider local perceptions
of equity of can lead to tensions within a community, and this can result in difficulties to mobilize collectively
for maintenance. More recently, a study of a successful model of community forest management by He et
al. (2021), showed that the sustainability of a resource such as the forest depends on the alignment of
institutions with the perceptions of justice of the people in the community. In this case, the institutions in
place are in harmony with peoples’ criteria of distributive, procedural and recognition justice. In other words,
individuals in the community perceived the community's institutions as " fair” thus avoiding possible conflicts
and making the institutions work properly. Thus, following the approaches to social justice, it should be taken
into account how the distributive and the procedural justice dimensions affect users’ perceptions on
institutions.
As presented here above, sustainability might depend on several drivers such as the design of the innovation,
involved actors’ benefits from the sustainability, the functionality of the socio-technical innovation, and
users’ perceptions on the institutions and their outcomes in terms of benefits and burdens. In fact, these
different drives are interdependent since they all point to the consideration of end-users’ practices and
environment as a requirement for sustainability. The sustainability of an innovation is essential to ensure
access to water through it, although sustainability does not guarantee access to water in by itself.
Counterintuitively, Cleaver & Toner (2006) have shown how the formalisation of water management groups
privileged sustainability to the detriment of equity issues regarding access to water in a village in Tanzania.
2.2.5. Spatial dimension of innovations
Innovations also have a spatial dimension, as I have already explained above with the example of pilot
projects. This spatial dimension has consequences in terms of access to water for all and the sustainability of
infrastructures. Access to water, since both the sites chosen for pilot projects and the locations of the
infrastructures that make up the innovation may be intended to favor access to certain populations. It should
be noted here that the choice of sites is not neutral but is guided by criteria that have to do with different
interests, which deserve to be analyzed.
For instance, Ducrot & Bourblanc (2017) showed how the allocation of water supply infrastructure to
administrative units, on the principle of egalitarianism, can also reproduce inequities in access to water if the
population of each administrative unit are not taken into account. This phenomenon can also occur at
different scales depending on the administrative unit targeted. Although this is an example with traditional
infrastructure, the same can happen with innovative systems. Sustainability has also a spatial dimension,
since the functioning of the physical part of an innovation depends on the availability of spare parts, which
in turn is conditioned by a geographical system of production, distribution, and sale.
Finally, as suggested in the literature (Cumming et al., 2020 ; Whaley & Cleaver, 2017), the sustainability of
natural resources —and functionality of rural water supply systems— is subject not only to the end-user
context —as I specially stressed before—, but also to broader governance patterns. Therefore, considering
innovations as socio-technical systems interacting at higher administrative levels and institutions would help
us to better understand the drivers and barriers for sustainability and water for all.

29
3. Objectives
As I mentioned earlier (1.2.5 above, on page 21), innovations in rural water supply have arrived in
Mozambique in recent years, based on the MUS and Nexus approaches. The objective of this study is to
understand how the advent of innovations improves access to water and sustainability of infrastructures in
rural semi-arid areas of developing countries and, particularly, in rural southern Mozambique. This, in a
context of widely dispersed populations, few surface water sources, and a groundwater resource often below
the healthy water quality standards. I try to analyze the challenges from the proposed analytical framework
and the specificities of our case studies, discussing the questions below:
1. How do the proposed innovations, as socio-technical systems, respond or not to the challenge of
allowing easy access to water for all in the studied context?
Hypothesis 1.A:
The innovation, as a socio-technical system, provides an efficient, affordable, and physically accessible
water supply service for all, and these attributes depend on the results of deployed power relations
throughout the different phases of the innovation’s development.
• Does the innovation facilitate an efficient service in terms of water quantity and quality
adapted to the needs of all users?
• Does the innovation facilitate an affordable service in terms of monetary, time and social
costs for all users?
• Does the innovation facilitate a physically accessible water supply service for all users?
• How have efficiency, affordability and accessibility been considered or arranged in the
different phases of the innovation’s development?
Briefly
Innovations in rural water supply target access to water for all and the sustainability of water infrastructures.
Regardless of whether technological or institutional, this analytical framework considers all innovations in rural
water supply as sociotechnical systems. These innovations might imply changes in the way different stakeholders
relate to the water resource and water infrastructures at different geographical scales. Following the proposed
analytical framework, access to water for all through an innovation, might depend on: (i) the efficiency of the
innovation with respect to the actual needs and uses; (ii) the affordability of the innovation for users in monetary,
time and social terms; and (iii) the accessibility of the innovation in the physical sense. Efficiency, affordability, and
physical accessibility depend, in turn, on the results of negotiations and power relations during all phases of
innovation development. Sustainability of the water supply infrastructures involved in innovation is a condition for
access to water (through the innovation), although it may not guarantee access to water for all. The sustainability
of water supply services through an innovation, in turn, might depend on: (i) the consideration of the operation and
maintenance in the design and implementation phases of the innovation; (ii) the capacity of the innovation to
facilitate its adaptation by the end-users’ to their needs, uses, practices and local institutions; (iii) the added value
considering the benefits and possible disadvantages in relation to what already exists; and (iv) the capacity of the
innovation to facilitate the mobilization of resources in the case of maintenance. Finally, access to water and
sustainability may also depend on the objectives and motivations behind the innovation, as these may prioritize
one over the other.

Mémoire Master Eau et Société 2021 - Water & Society Msc thesis 2021

Mémoire Master Eau et Société 2021 - Water & Society Msc thesis 2021

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Mémoire Master Eau et Société 2021 - Water & Society Msc thesis 2021

Similar to Mémoire Master Eau et Société 2021 - Water & Society Msc thesis 2021 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Mémoire Master Eau et Société 2021 - Water & Society Msc thesis 2021