Vaibhav’s journey through the complex landscape of governance, law, and water management is anything but conventional. From crafting participatory tools that engage communities to navigating the intricacies of working with water utilities in diverse regions, his work reflects a deep commitment to making policies more grounded and impactful. Whether it’s unpacking the influence of informal governance structures or rethinking how equity fits into service delivery, Vaibhav’s experiences offer fresh insights into the evolving world of water governance.

In this edition of Team Speak, we dive into his reflections – on what works, what doesn’t, and the lessons that have left a lasting impact.

Q: Working on governance models across different countries must be insightful. What’s one surprising takeaway from any of those countries that could inspire how we think about water management in India?

Vaibhav (V): A key tenet of water access that is common to my work in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa has been the sway that informal governance structures have. In some cases, it can be said that they hold greater influence in terms of customary water rights than formal policies. To increase the efficacy of formal governance interventions, I believe it is of critical importance to integrate such customary systems, in rural and peri-urban areas to increase impact, rather than to bypass them. Doing so will not only enhance real world impact but will also do a great deal to improve synergies between localized practices with national policies and frameworks on water management, increasing efficiency, adaptability and improved all round accessibility.

Q: You work at the intersection of law, governance, and water utilities. If you could create a 'user manual' for better policymaking in this space, what would be its first rule?

V: My approach to working in policy is informed by the belief that design must account for equity and not purely efficiency. While it is essential that water policies attempt to cater to universal coverage, they must also account for the socio-economic conditions that shape access to water. Tools such as EquiServe have highlighted the prescient need to embed equity into frameworks that plan for sanitation. Any solution that is geared to improving water access needs to engage with the differential nature of decision-making power, access opportunity and basic affordability. Hence, interventions must cater to lasting growth for the people they seek to impact, rather than a pure focus on optimised service delivery.

Q: Any anecdote from your work experience so far that has left a remarkable impact on you?

V: An important experience that I had was my work in Nepal, wherein during a training workshop, municipal officials expressed that a wastewater treatment plan, while being capex intensive and built with international support, remained largely unutilised. The reason was that the design of such an intervention failed to engage with the local relief, infrastructure and operational hinderances. It went on to confirm that developmental work must be undertaken in a manner that champions local contexts and the needs, capabilities and aspirations of local communities.

A failure of top-down planning proves that ultimately, efficacy in program implementation has to do with practical, context specific engagement that allows local stakeholders to see themselves as partners of development and not just passive receptors. This allows long term, sustainable, adaptable, accessible and agile models that are replicable and scalable.