Exploring the institutional barriers to rural water management in Ghana

Water availability and accessibility are critical to the sustainability of lives, livelihoods, and the resilience of ecological systems (Gbedemah et al., 2022; Frimpong et al., 2024). This is well recognized and supported in international development circles, as Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6) seeks to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water for all (UN, 2015). This goal is premised on the troubling reality that close to 2.1 billion people worldwide do not have access to safe drinking water – disproportionately located in developing regions (UNESCO, 2018). Presently, climate change and water management challenges risk pushing more than 40% of the world's population into a water-stressed situation by 2035 (Guppy & Anderson, 2017), a situation that can undermine the achievement of SDG 6 and pose a significant threat to the well-being and prosperity of people and the planet (Tortajada, 2020).

However, current water management challenges and their implications for socio-environmental equity are neither geographically nor spatially blind (WHO/UNICEF, 2024). According to a WHO/UNICEF (2024) report, there are large inequalities within countries, mostly seen in the disparities between rural areas (and small towns) and major urban centers. In sub-Saharan Africa, rural areas tend to be heavily dependent on the natural environment, exposing them to the acute impact of climate change on water resources. Additionally, infrastructural and institutional setbacks structurally impede the effective governance of water for the benefit of often impoverished rural households (Abunyewah et al., 2022; Nyika & Dinka, 2023). In Ethiopia, for example, only 5.8% of the rural population had access to safely managed drinking water compared with 38.6% in the case of the urban population in 2022 (WHO/UNICEF, 2024). Refreshingly, there have been efforts in development policy and practice to address policy shortfalls and improve initiatives that will increase clean water access to rural communities, including the first international decade for clean water (i.e., 1981–1990), the International Conference on Water and Environment in 1992 and the UN Agenda 2030. Incrementally, these policies emphasize water as a social good, promote responsive but locally oriented policy design, a shift from a supply-driven to a demand-driven approach, and support the integration of effective governance strategies in rural water supply at the national level (Abellán & Alonso, 2022; World Bank, 2022).

Ghana, like several countries in sub-Saharan Africa, has adopted and implemented various reforms in the rural water supply sector (Braimah & Fielmua, 2011). For instance, the country adopted a decentralized water supply and management strategy, which allowed water and sanitation issues to be managed by the Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs) or local governing units. The MMDAs, which were established in 1993 as part of Ghana's decentralized administrative structure, were designated as legal owners of public water infrastructure and also entrusted with the responsibility of preparing District Water and Sanitation Plans (Aquaya Institute, 2020). The reforms also led to the creation of the Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA) to manage and provide technical assistance for the delivery of water services in rural, deprived, and small settlements in the country (Braimah & Jagri, 2007). For one, the focus on a bottom-up approach to rural water management was premised on the notion in local governance that community stakeholders, with support from the state, are well-positioned to manage rural water supply (Gyau-Boakye & Amponsah, 2003).

Despite these reforms, water poverty, insecurity, and stress remain acute in rural and small towns in Ghana (Jeil et al., 2020; Abanyie et al., 2023; Amankwaa et al., 2024) and Africa (Abellán & Alonso, 2022), necessitating recent calls in development planning and policy circles for a critical evaluation of the rural water management system in sub-Saharan Africa (Abunyewah et al., 2022). This paper is a modest attempt to respond to this call by focusing on the institutional barriers affecting rural water management in Ghana. The focus on the institutional barriers to rural water management is also necessitated by the fact that previous studies on rural water management have largely focused on community-level water management structures and their dynamics with little attention often given to the institutional dimension of rural water management (e.g., Braimah & Felmua, 2011; Braimah et al., 2016; Akolgo & Ayentimi, 2020). Drawing on residents and institutional perspectives from selected communities in the Upper Manya Krobo District and the Yilo Krobo Municipality, the research specifically examines institutional barriers to rural water management. The barriers are explored from four thematic areas and include (i) monitoring of rural water facilities and infrastructure, (ii) technical services and support, (iii) financial auditing and management, and (iv) engagement and participation processes in decision-making. We are aware that the rural water systems and their management in Ghana are broad, complex, and multifaceted, and there are other social, cultural, and environmental factors that affect current conditions (Dosu et al., 2023). Nonetheless, an emphasis on institutional context is warranted, given that the contribution of water management to sustainable development is sensitive to the institutional context within which policies and interventions are designed and planned (Abunyewah et al., 2022).

This paper makes two contributions to water development policy and research. First, the focus on institutional barriers in rural water management in the Upper Manya Krobo District and the Yilo Krobo Municipality counters the persistent overlooking of rural communities that have limited institutional capabilities but are at the forefront of the socio-environmental crises in rapidly urbanizing regions. This exerts policy implications for environmental planners' efforts in addressing socio-spatial inequities in the water sector. Second, highlighting the institutional challenges in rural water management addresses the challenges of bottom-up approaches that are often designed with little attention to local realities, especially regarding local capacities and resource constraints. This amplifies the emerging scholarly discourse to take content and context seriously in the application of development policies and principles to global south contexts (Abunyewah et al., 2022; Okyere et al., 2024a, 2024b).

After the introduction, the paper presents a review of rural water management systems and the conceptualization of institutional failures in community water management. The study area, methodology, results, and discussion proceed in that order. The final section includes the conclusion and policy implications.

Community water management involves the capacity of a community to impact decisions about water supply and services in the local community (Fielmua, 2020). While community water management involves a shift from central government control to local communities, it is also important to note that the willingness of government at national, sub-national, and local levels to decentralize and support local communities is a key requirement for effective community water management. According to Hutchings et al. (2015), a community water management system is characterized by defined roles that are accepted by different government entities and the local community. In most cases, the community may receive support and subsidies from the government, but ownership and decision-making are vested with the local community.

In a more decentralized structure, as it pertains to Ghana, local governments and their departmental units manage water provision and services (Laryea-Adjei & van Dijk, 2012). This form of decentralization occurs within the MMDA system. MMDAs are decentralized governing units established under the Local Government Act 936, 2016, with the responsibility for local development and planning for the well-being of the people in their jurisdiction. Act 936 provides a legal and institutional mandate for MMDAs to plan, implement, and evaluate social infrastructure projects in consultation with communities (Kasapa & Gyan, 2023). MMDAs, thus, have oversight responsibility over water service management and administration through dedicated units or such as the environmental health and sanitation, and community development units (Dakyaga et al., 2023). The decentralized water management system is tiered and hierarchically structured. The top level is the sector leadership with the responsibility of policy formulation (i.e., the Ministry); the middle level has regulatory responsibilities (i.e., DWSA and the regional committees); and the lower levels are institutions with the responsibility of water service and provision (i.e., MMDAs and the water committee at the community level) (CDD-Ghana, 2012). A detailed explanation of the different tiers of water service and provision is provided hereinafter.

In many developing countries, at the sub-district level, local communities often decide the type of water facilities and systems that are appropriate for their context, pay the cost of providing the services, and are responsible for maintaining the water systems (Bazanaah, 2020). Community water management is also typified by support systems received from national and local governments which include technical support, subsidy, and training (Hope, 2015). Water management committees are the primary organizational structure used in most rural community water management systems (WHO, 1996). Water committees are primarily accountable to the local community and are usually in charge of the daily management of water systems. The formation of water management committees is a result of stakeholder engagements and is primarily a reflection of social diversity, technical expertise, and community confidence in the committee.

Despite being the most used management approach for rural water supply in developing countries, the community management model has not been able to provide rural communities with a highly efficient and sustainable water supply system (Hope, 2015). One issue that has hindered this model's progress is the lack of adequate institutional support (Hutchings et al., 2015). As explained by Harvey & Reed (2002), there has been a misconception that community-managed water projects can best be managed by communities themselves, and therefore, external and institutional support may not be a critical need. According to Harvey & Reed (2002), this is a misconception because community water management systems cannot exist in a vacuum from the larger institutional context and dynamics. As a result, they can only function at their best when there is efficient cooperation and engagement between local government institutions and community water management structures.

In the development planning literature, some scholars (e.g., O'Reilly & Dhanju, 2012; Obeng-Odoom, 2013) argue that the ineffectiveness of community-based management systems reflects the limits of neoliberal bottom-up local governance models imposed by international development organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) during the post-structural adjustment period. Such community-based management practices and bottom-up framings often lead to the ‘responsibilisation’ of community agency and the shrinking or even false retreat of the state (Talbot, 2016; Sørensen, 2017; Hommes et al., 2020). Here, the argument is that the rural water sector is highly institutionalized, and the socio-material detachment of the state demonstrates institutional failures rather than a simplified case for participation and community engagement. Indeed, empirical data from Latin America and Africa indicates that integrating community-based rural water management with state socio-technical interventions could potentially solve enduring issues like capacity, funding, inclusion, and monitoring which is an inherent problem within community water management systems (Romano et al., 2021; Abunyewah et al., 2022; Aigbavboa et al., 2023).

Rural water governance refers to the set of systems (i.e., rules, practices, and processes) involved in decision-making to enhance water management and water service delivery at the rural or local community level (Xu et al., 2024). The effective governance of rural water resources is essential for sustainable development. However, governance and institutional failures often impede the successful management of rural water supply systems. For the purposes of this paper, we situate rural water governance within decentralized modes of community water management. Rural water governance and community management frequently encounter institutional challenges that hinder the provision of safe and reliable water services (Ramos et al., 2020). A broader reading of the literature (e.g., Bakker et al., 2008; Ssozi-Mugarura et al., 2017; Kumasi et al., 2019) shows that institutional barriers encompass four main aspects: engagement and participation, technical capacity, financing, and fragmentation within and between public and private sector agencies. These institutional barriers arise from issues related to policy formulation, regulatory frameworks, and governance structures, ultimately affecting the efficiency of water supply systems (Ssozi-Mugarura et al., 2017). Fragmentation and inadequate coordination among government agencies, NGOs, and community-based organizations can hinder community water management (Mekonnen et al., 2019). Insufficient technical capacity and skills among water service providers and local governance institutions undermine effective community water management (Nhamo et al., 2021), resulting in poor asset management, inability to implement sustainable practices, and limited innovation capacity (Kumasi et al., 2019).

In decentralized rural water governance systems, the selection of community members to form water management committees is supposed to be consultative, yet it is often political. According to Angmor (2020), in Ghana, the nomination of members to the water management committees is supposed to be done at a public gathering in the community, with members required to be ‘respected persons’ living in the community. Following their nomination, members of the committee are then approved, authorized, and inaugurated by the District Assembly. However, nominations over the years have been done by political elites in the community without presenting the nominees to the entire community (Angmor, 2020). This situation leads to a lack of accountability and corruption in the management of water at the community level. Gumbo et al. (2021), therefore, argue that political interference can divert resources and attention away from community water supply priorities, leading to neglect and low investment. Relatedly, elite control of decision-making processes can also derail equitable access to water services in small settlements (Welle & Bain, 2022).

To ensure that community water management efforts are successful, and sustainable, meaningful stakeholder participation is essential. According to Biswas & Tortajada (2020), community engagement in the design, execution, and administration of water projects improves a feeling of sustainability, accountability, and ownership. Coordination and resource mobilization for rural water management are improved by partnerships between government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), businesses, and community-based groups (Savenije, 2018; Kamete et al., 2020).

Ghana's legal and institutional framework for managing water is provided for by the national constitution, the legislative acts of parliament, and the policy framework. Each of these addresses water supply and management from a different dimension. For instance, the 1992 constitution under Article 269 sets up the Water Resources Commission (WRC). The WRC is responsible for managing and coordinating all policies in connection with water in the country (CWSA, 2014, 2017). It is expected to develop plans to utilize, conserve, and improve water resources in Ghana. The WRC spearheaded the development of the National Water Policy (NWP), which provides the framework for the sustainable development of Ghana's water resources (Government of Ghana, 1996; Eduful, 2024). A key principle of the policy is to ensure a safe and adequate water supply to meet the needs of the Ghanaian populace.

In terms of the institutional arrangement, there is a four-tier structure for the management of water in the country spanning the national, regional, district, and community levels. At the national level, institutions are entrusted with tasks such as policy formulation, coordination, and monitoring to deliver safe water to rural areas and small towns. These entities include the CWSA, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD), Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing (MWRWH), Ministry of Finance (MoF), and government–development partners.

Regional stakeholders undertake administrative and technical functions in water management, comprising the Regional Coordinating Council (RCC), and NGOs (Table 1). Meanwhile, at the district level, institutions like the Environmental Health and Sanitation Unit (EHSU), Works Department, and District Water and Sanitation Teams assume responsibility for overseeing rural water systems. Within communities, stakeholders such as Water and Sanitation Management Teams (WSMTs), area mechanics, spare parts dealers, and community members are involved in managing rural water supply systems. Efforts are made to synchronize activities at national, regional, and community levels to ensure the sustainability of rural supply systems. Nonetheless, challenges persist in effectively implementing policies at the community level.

The Yilo Krobo Municipality has an estimated population of 122,705 (GSS, 2021). About 27.1% of all households in the Yilo Krobo Municipality rely on rivers or streams for domestic use (GSS, 2014b). Boreholes and tube wells (20.0%), public taps and pipelines (12.9%), and pipe-borne sources outside the home (14.3%) are other sources of water used for domestic purposes. In urban localities of the municipality, public taps and standpipes are the primary sources of water for residential consumption, serving 31.0% of the urban population. In rural areas, pipe water outside the home (14.6%), boreholes (21.5%), and public standpipes are the main source of drinking water (GSS, 2014b).

This research adopted the qualitative multiple case studies design (Yin, 2009) to explore the institutional challenges characterizing the governance of rural water management in the selected study communities. The use of the multiple case studies design was appropriate for exploring the connections between the research objective and the study's conceptual framing to understand better the institutional problems characterizing water management in the selected communities (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). The study communities were randomly selected in consultation with key stakeholders as an exemplar to understand the governance issues relating to rural water supply systems and to draw implications for other communities in Africa and elsewhere.

The semi-structured interview guide was developed and used for the data collection. The instrument contained open-ended questions on community water management challenges and the socio-demographic information of the interviewees. The use of semi-structured interviews and open-ended questions allowed for flexibility among the respondents to provide a detailed account of their experiences regarding the research objective. It also allowed for better engagement between the interviewees and the interviewer, as there was an opportunity to clarify responses that were not clearer (Frimpong et al., 2022). This approach resulted in the interviewees providing a detailed account of their concerns regarding multiple aspects of the water management system, which affected the effective functioning and sustainability of water services. In finalizing the research instruments, a draft was given to colleagues with expertise and experience in rural development, water resource development, and sustainable community development for vetting. Their feedback helped to reword and restructure the data instruments to read more clearly and capture study objectives. The next step involved pilot testing on selected respondents in the study communities for 2 days. The outcome of the pilot testing demonstrated that the interview questions were reliable and valid as the respondents understood the questions with less difficulty.

The random, purposive, and convenience sampling techniques were respectively used to select the communities' and the research participants. Before the main data collection, familiarization visits were paid to the study communities to meet key stakeholders, such as the Assembly members, members of the WSMTs, and opinion leaders (i.e., traditional leadership and community elders), to explain the purpose of the research to them and how the expected outcome could help improve the water supply challenges they face. The visits also included seeking the permission of the community leaders before data collection. Upon their understanding and advice, the random sampling technique was used to select the research communities, and purposive sampling was for officials who worked in institutions that have direct and indirect roles in improving rural and small-town water supply. The residents were recruited using the convenience sampling technique with the main inclusion criteria being their willingness to participate and also residing in the community for at least more than a year. They were recruited with the assistance of the assembly members, and they voluntarily agreed to take part in the research after the purpose of the study was explained to them. The interview guide was provided in advance to the participants to allow for reflection on the issues to be discussed. In the end, a total of 30 interviews were conducted involving 26 members belonging to the WSMT across the four communities and four key informants' interviews (see Table 2). The actual data collection was carried out for a period of two months. The interviews were conducted at locations of convenience suggested by the participants.

The interviews were mostly conducted in English and a Ghanaian Language (Krobo) based on the preference of the respondents. The final sample size was based on the principle of data saturation, that is, the point at which insights from the data were redundant (Saunders et al., 2018). The duration of each interview was between 30 and 45 min, depending on the interests and details provided by the respondents regarding the interview questions. Further, four focus group discussions comprised of residents and other stakeholders were organized in each of the selected communities (see Table 2). Participants and field observation notes were also utilized in the data collection process. Ethical clearance for the study was approved by the Human Research Ethics of the University of Cape Coast. Before the data collection commenced, the research objectives were explained to the participants. They were assured of anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. Participants gave their written or verbal consent to partake in the research after they had listened and understood the research objectives. All the interviews were recorded with the permission of the participants and transcribed for further analysis.

The transcribed texts were compared against the recorded audio and read through by all the authors to ensure that there were no distortions. The data analytical procedure followed the thematic framework recommended by Charmaz (2000), which resulted in the themes being inductively generated bottom-up from the transcripts. The coding of the transcript was done manually by reading and comparing them several times. The themes that emerged from the data were (i) monitoring of water systems, (ii) technical services and support, (iii) financial auditing and management, and (iv) stakeholder engagement and participation. The trustworthiness and reliability of the findings were ensured by maintaining the participants' original words in the results with little use of inference descriptors (Baxter & Eyles, 1997; Boafo & Lyons, 2023). The data analysis showed that there was little difference across the four communities regarding institutional barriers to rural water management.

Two main steps were conducted to ensure the reliability and validity of the research findings. The first step involved the combination of multiple data sources to ensure congruence or incongruence with the research outcomes. The interview transcripts were compared with researcher observation and field notes and in some cases with reports from the WSMTs. The second step involved the validation of the results during a stakeholder reliability and validity meeting at the end of data collection to share the research outcomes.

Interviews with members of the WSMT in the selected communities indicated that the DWST does not visit the communities regularly to ascertain the state of the water and sanitation systems. During the field interviews, we found that two communities had been visited once for monitoring in the past three years by the DWST. The long spell in the absence of the DWST was a source of concern for the WSMT. For instance, a member of the WSMT at Sikaben expressed the view that they feel they have been left on their own by the DWST. Expressing their views on DWST monitoring, members from the WSMTs had these to say:

Another respondent also said that:

Participants, however, explained that in most cases, DWST visits the community only when there is an emergency with a facility, and they are called upon for inspection, which is reactive. Discussion with participants from the WSMT indicated that the inadequate visit often affected the level and quality of engagement between the DWST and the WSMT resulting in management burdens for rural community management teams already struggling with financial and logistic constraints. Highlighting the impact of the inadequate visit on the activities of the WSMT, a participant of the FGD at Akatawia mentioned that:

Discussions with the representatives of the DWST revealed that they are aware of the concerns raised by the WSMT regarding the limited monitoring visits in the community. For the District Water Management officials, limited funds from budgetary allocations to their unit and lack of logistics like cars and motorcycles for monitoring and inspection explain the infrequent visits. Similar sentiments were shared by the official of the CWSA, who explained that the limited funds have derailed their efforts to provide periodic training to DWSTs and the WSMTs. A DWST participant explained that WSMTs are trained only when they are formed and inaugurated, with this situation affecting knowledge transfer and capacity building of the WSMT.

Discussions with participants revealed that technical support was mainly in two forms. The first is through the organization of training programs by DWST for the WSMT or from the CWSA for either DWST or WSMT. The second technical support offered to the WSMT was financial support to assist in repairs and maintenance of the water projects. In the case of the former, the purpose was to build capacity in managing water projects and transmit new knowledge to community members and leaders to facilitate behavioral change. Unfortunately, such training and educational programs are irregular. Conversation with participants of the WSMT revealed that out of the four communities, the water management training had been organized in only one community, specifically at Apimso. The following remark is illustrative:

With regards to repairs, the current arrangement is that minor repairs are to be addressed using revenues generated from the user charges on the water facilities. The reason is that charges are mostly low and not enough to undertake major repairs. More so, the rationale behind the provision of community water and sanitation is to increase access to all sections of the populace and, at the same time, provide some mechanism to enable maintenance of the water facilities. The District Assembly is required to undertake major repairs of the facilities according to the District Operating Manual (DOM). However, the interviews and FGDs revealed that ‘for the past three years, there have not been any major repairs by the Assembly’ (FGD participant, Apimso). The WSMT often has no choice but to solicit financial support from benefactors or NGOs to assist in such major repairs. For instance, two communities, namely Apimso and Porponya, had to solicit financial assistance from NGOs to assist with major repairs for their water systems. The difficulties in getting financial assistance for major repairs in highlighted in the quote below:

The conditions of the current state of the various water systems in the study communities are a clear reflection of the extent and level of technical assistance for the district. As can be observed from Table 3, out of the 11 water supply systems reported in four communities, five were functional, two were partially functional, and four were not functional. Functional, in this case, means providing optimum service; partially functional means the service provided is not optimum, while non-functional means stop working.

According to the DOM, the DWST, as part of its duties, is to conduct periodic financial audits of the accounts of the WSMT. The purpose is to enhance transparency in the management of the water systems and facilitate effective interactions between the WSMT and DWST for effective decision-making over the management of the water systems. During the fieldwork, 20 out of the 26 WSMT participants from the four communities opined that there had not been any financial auditing by the DWST. The WSMT treasurer, however, did mention that: ‘there has been internal auditing of the accounts by the other WSMT team members and, therefore, they have nothing to hide or are engaging in dishonest conduct’.

Discussion with a DWST informant revealed that: ‘they do visit the communities to inspect the accounts of the WSMT, though these visits are often occasional’. The DWST informant further revealed that: ‘…the WSMT does not have proper accounting records of the sales made from the water systems, they could not even show us material evidence of the sales they do’. When it was mentioned that some of the WSMT informants did indicate that their accounts have been audited and they have nothing to hide, the DWST informants intimated that they have always had problems with the WSMT on their financial accounting. In corroboration to what the DWST informant disclosed, one of the community informants engaged during the FGDs revealed that they are not provided with any records on the sales made from water and sanitation services by the WSMT, and they are not even aware that such records ought to be posted on public notices in the community. The quotes below from a community member and a DWST member on the financial records of WSMT:

According to the DOM, DWST must engage with the WSMT and other stakeholders in the local community to address the challenges confronting the supply and management of water systems (see Table 1). Such engagements are expected to engender interest from all stakeholders and identify areas in the management process that need improvement. Additionally, the WSMT, with support from the DWST, is to engage with the community by organizing water systems and management education and providing periodic financial accounts to community members on the operation of the water systems. During interactions with the community members, it was revealed that though most participants were aware that WSMT exists, there was limited knowledge regarding what exactly they do. For most community members, the team is noted for collecting water levies and providing water. Other roles, such as preparing and reporting financial accounts, repairing boreholes and other water facilities, and organizing periodic meetings, were largely unknown. Explaining the limited engagement between the WSMT and the community, an informant from the DWST had this to say:

The community also participates in the activities of WSMT through their formation. All members of the WSMT are nominated by the community, and this is expected to be done through a gathering where community members are to be present, at least two of the positions, i.e., secretary and treasurer, are to be held by community members who are literate. The constituted WSMT is then presented to the District Assembly who will then confirm and inaugurate the team before they begin their work. However, discussions with participants from the FGD revealed that the selection process does not always follow the process as laid down in the DOM and that most of the community members do not get involved. A participant of the FGD at Sikaben revealed that:

Community water management is a well-intentioned model that seeks to enhance ownership, commitment, and responsibility toward community water systems. The rationale for this model is to promote a bottom-up approach to the decision-making and management of community initiatives and projects (Harvey & Reed, 2002). However, there is widespread misconception and misunderstanding that communities can independently manage water infrastructure without government support. While the role of institutional support is important, it can also interlace with challenges if the commitment and funding to support the management system is not available, especially at the local government level. The findings evoke the institutional dynamics embedded in Ghana's rural water management regime and bring out the peculiar challenges that characterize the institutional support mechanism in place.

First, irregular and inadequate monitoring visits by the DWST presented enormous challenges for the WSMT. Not only did it delay major repairs that needed to be addressed, but it also affected the level and quality of engagement between the DWST and WSMT. Challenges around the monitoring of rural water infrastructure operations and maintenance can be situated within a reactive water governance and planning system. These are conditioned and layered on persisting structural issues, such as budgetary constraints to fund logistics such as vehicles to aid regular visits to communities and the inspection of water facilities (Braimah et al., 2016). This corroborates the limits of decentralized planning and development in the water sector, where administrative decentralization is not accompanied by the fiscal capacity to support the ability of local agencies to deliver on their mandate (Agyemang-Duah et al., 2018). Such conditions create situations in which poor rural communities become overburdened with responsibilities, which further intensifies their impoverishment. Here, the oversimplification and false optimism of the capabilities of local communities to manage critical and essential social infrastructure must be questioned (Okyere et al., 2022), especially where there continue to be inherent challenges in rural water governance and management. Additionally, the limited monitoring visits by the DWST have implications on the ability of the DWST to offer effective managerial, operational, and maintenance performance assessment of the WSMT (Angmor, 2020). Thus, the capacity and effectiveness of the WSMT are not effectively scrutinized as to whether they are satisfactory or meet the minimum managerial standards.

In resource-deficient rural communities experiencing water stresses and poverty, the efficient management of financial resources through auditing and transparent bookkeeping is critical to the functionality and sustainability of critical infrastructures. Our findings revealed that there is poor financial auditing and transparency in the accounts of the WSMT. This aggravates the already dire financial situation and further undermines proper water management and governance for rural communities. This finding also reflects broader issues on financial accountability in water governance specifically and development planning broadly. Aside from the consequences on the financial resources of the local communities, the poor record keeping of daily sales and the irregularity of financial audit by the DWST create additional problems, such as the inability of the DWST to assess whether WSMT can cover operational and maintenance costs, which is also a good measure of how well the WSMT is performing. Ideally, financial auditing must be a participatory process (WHO, 1996; Sinervo et al., 2024) and must involve members outside of the WSMT. However, this was not the case, with some community members appearing to have limited knowledge that the WSMT must publish the sales records on public notices. Several reasons can explain this managerial deficiency and include the politics that characterize the selection of the water management team, thus making them unaccountable to the local community, and limited knowledge of the responsibilities of the WSMT by members of the local community.

Our findings corroborate the notion that bottom-up development through community-based water management systems without building the capacity to act and operate undermines participatory governance and planning (Abunyewah et al., 2022; Aigbavboa et al., 2023). The fact that several water facilities were in poor condition reflects the limited capacity of rural community water management capacities to improve water infrastructure without technical support from the local government. This evokes emerging discussions about bolstering governmental support to advance community water management capacities (see Solanes & Jouravlev, 2006; Romano et al., 2021). While the case of rural communities obtaining support from NGOs and the civil society sector is welcoming, the fragility and uncertainty of the broader funding regime around donor support programs raises concerns about the long-term sustainability of such funding architecture as it becomes the norm for rural communities.

Community engagement in the management of water systems was also found to be limited. In reference to previous studies, the involvement of rural communities in our study can best be described as ‘tokenistic’ (Harvey & Reed, 2002), where a few members of the community are entrusted with the responsibility of managing the water system, and the community has limited knowledge of the responsibilities of the water management team and their own responsibilities. As argued by Kelly et al. (2017), the way that the community is engaged in the management of the water infrastructure will enhance or reduce the sense of ownership of the water systems and their motivation to get involved in issues regarding the management of the water systems. In our case study, the WSMT and other stakeholders, such as the CWSA and DWST, have not organized periodic and regular sensitization and training for community members to enforce engagement and actualize the benefits of bottom-up water management. The evidence of tokenistic and unsatisfactory consultative processes for community-based water management systems corroborates observations of ‘too much bottom, but not enough up’ (Stickells, 2011) in decentralized infrastructure planning and management in Africa.

The failure of the community water management approach to deliver effective and efficient water supply in most parts of Africa and the developing world has called for a re-evaluation of this approach. A key argument that has been presented by previous scholars (e.g., Abunyewah et al., 2022; Gbedemah et al., 2022) is that community water management is a complex issue, and without effective institutional support, the long-term sustainability of water infrastructure and management cannot be assured. This study was a modest attempt to highlight the institutional challenges that affect community water management in rural contexts. The study revealed irregular monitoring visits by local governments, limited training and technical support for water management teams, inadequate audits of financial accounts, poor record keeping and accountability of the water management committee, and limited engagement between the local government and the water management committee and community members.

Based on the findings, we draw policy attention to fixing the institutional loopholes that militate against the potential benefits of community-based water management systems. Policy-wise, this implies efforts be made to sustain and strengthen the community water management system. This will require political support and sustained financial support for the system to work well. Political support entails transparency in the selection of the WSMT members, mechanisms to demand accountability from the WSMT, and improved and effective community involvement in all stages of the water management process. The local government must also develop new co-design platforms that prioritize participation from other external stakeholders (e.g., NGOs), articulate their roles, and provide a range of support to strengthen partnerships. Capacity building must also be improved. Capacity building must be all-encompassing, including regular sensitization for community members on water infrastructure and management, regular training for WSMT, and regular performance assessment. More so, we recommend that institutions such as the CWSA and the Regional Water and Sanitation Team (RWST)¹ be strengthened so that they can discharge their responsibilities as supervisory institutions over the activities of the DWST. This will require improving collaboration with both the DWST and the WSMT, regular performance assessment of the DWST, and providing the necessary technical assistance to the DWST. From a development planning and policy perspective, this paper argues for institutional hybridization (or hybrid local governance), where community water management is not practiced within a binary framework of either community or government or government and civil society. Rather, the case of active local government presence through strong policy, regulatory, and financial support while building the technical capacity of community water management committees and their partners to effectively manage water for all in inclusive and sustainable ways,

This paper has two major limitations. First, the range of participants engaged in this study was limited. Community water management in rural areas encompasses a broad and intricate network of actors across the public, community, and civil society sectors. However, the civil society actors, especially NGOs, were not engaged in this study, omitting an important perspective from a group that tends to fill the void in the water infrastructure management regime in rural areas. Second, a limited qualitative sample of selected communities limits the application of our findings to the broader scope of water stress in rural socio-environmental geographies. Future studies should consider actor-network analysis within multi-scalar networked governance frameworks to better comprehend the institutional dynamics that impede decentralized water governance and the sustainable development of peri-urban and rural communities. Lastly, future studies should also consider correlating quantitative observations such as the functional status of water systems with available quantified information such as water quality measurements, volume of water produced over time, cost capital investments, and operations and maintenance costs.

Data cannot be made publicly available; readers should contact the corresponding author for details.

The authors declare there is no conflict.