Sustaining rural livelihoods through participatory water governance: a review of community-driven water resource management models in East and Central Africa

This study reviews experiences across East and Central Africa testing community-driven arrangements for adaptively managing water resources according to local needs through participatory ownership and inclusive decision-making, empowering rural water users. An extensive database search identified 100 peer-reviewed publications related to community-driven water governance models, and the reviewed literature was analyzed and synthesized to develop an understanding of the topic. This research has revealed a total of nine common community-driven water resource management models. It was also established that these models possess several common aspects, namely, prioritizing high levels of community engagement and democratic governance and ensuring local representation in decision-making processes. However, these models were found to exhibit distinct differences across several dimensions in that some of them focused on broader management issues, i.e., water basin management, while others focused on specific water use issues, i.e., water access and distribution. Key characteristics for the success of various models were identified to be community engagement, local knowledge integration, inclusivity, collaboration among stakeholders, conflicts resolution mechanism, as well as funding and resources mobilization. Two models; Water User Associations and Integrated Community Structures emerged as relatively effective models in many contexts. Key lessons include empowering communities as stewards, investing in their capacities, fostering multisectoral collaboration, and formulating guidelines on equitable benefit-sharing.

1 Introduction

Participatory water governance aims to ensure equitable access to water resources, which is crucial for sustaining rural livelihoods in the developing world (Kobayashi et al., 2014). In East and Central Africa, agriculture remains the dominant economic activity, underpinning the livelihoods of farming and herding communities (Rockström et al., 2010). However, traditional top-down management approaches have frequently failed to meet local needs effectively. This inadequacy is compounded by escalating water shortages driven by climate change and deteriorating infrastructure (Rockström et al., 2010).

Current data indicate that climate change is dramatically altering rainfall patterns, further increasing the vulnerabilities of these East and Central African communities. The challenges facing water security in this region are complex and multifaceted. Unsustainable intensification of water use, aging irrigation systems, and ineffective centralized governance have all contributed to declining agricultural productivity and fisheries yields, jeopardizing the stability of rural households (Merrey et al., 2005; Chaichakan and Khampeng, 2025). This situation is particularly urgent given that over 70% of the population in East and Central Africa relies on agriculture as their primary source of income and sustenance.

In response, various water governance policies have emerged across East and Central Africa (Table 1), such as The Water Act Cap 152 (1997), Government of Kenya (2002), and Zambia Republic (2011). These frameworks aim to facilitate sustainable management of water resources through integrated and participatory approaches. A notable focus is on establishing local water committees and user associations to enhance catchment-based management. Policies also emphasize the need for sustainable development and the protection of both water quantity and quality (Democratic Republic of Congo, 2015; MINIRENA, 2011). Despite these progressive frameworks, challenges remain in their implementation. Rapid urbanization, industrial and agricultural pollution, and the impacts of climate change pose significant obstacles to achieving effective water governance (Terer et al., 2012; Rollason et al., 2018).

Table 1

Table 1. Water governance policies across East and Central African countries.

Scholars (Kyessi, 2001; Dupuits and Bernal, 2015; Adams et al., 2020; Nkolola and Phiri, 2025) widely recognize the importance of community participation in sustainable water resource management tailored to diverse hydrological, socioeconomic, and cultural contexts. However, rigid centralized governance systems, which often concentrate decision-making authority within state agencies, and open access scenarios lacking clear regulations have proven ineffective in incentivizing equitable and reliable water provision (Ngigi et al., 2017; Adams et al., 2020). In response, innovative participatory water governance frameworks have emerged, aiming to devolve control over defined water sources to local user groups. These frameworks align management priorities with the needs of communities, ensuring that sustainable water governance enhances resilience and supports rural livelihoods (Kyessi, 2001; Nalumenya et al., 2023). Additionally, regional cooperation on shared river basins is essential for maximizing benefits across political boundaries (Zambia Republic, 2011).

This study reviews experiences across East and Central Africa testing community-driven arrangements for adaptively managing water resources according to local needs. Specifically, it will:

i. Survey existing literature on livelihood dependencies, governance approaches and challenges facing the region,

ii. Examine case studies of participatory models implemented,

iii. Analyze evidence regarding livelihood outcomes, and

iv. Investigate challenges, sustainability, and strategies applied to navigate obstacles proactively.

The aim is to synthesize lessons learned on enabling equitable, community-led stewardship supporting sustainable rural development priorities reliant on durable water security under dynamically changing conditions.

2 Methodology

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to evaluate community-driven water governance models implemented across East and Central Africa and their impacts on rural livelihoods.

2.1 Database search

A comprehensive search was conducted across major electronic databases. The search utilized key terms such as “participatory water governance,” “community-based water management,” “rural livelihoods,” and specific country names from the target region. Government and nongovernmental publications, as well as relevant grey literature, were also included through online searches. The initial search yielded over 400 records. To ensure relevance, articles were selected based on their focus on community-driven water governance models in rural areas, particularly in East and Central Africa. A simple quality appraisal process was employed, which involved using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist to evaluate each source for methodological rigor and relevance to the research topic. This assessment led to a final selection of 100 sources for in-depth review, comprising 75 journal articles, 20 books and book chapters, and 5 online sources. This systematic approach strengthened the rigor of the research by ensuring that only the most pertinent studies were included in the analysis.

2.2 Data extraction and analysis

Information was extracted from the literature using a standardized template including: description of case study location and context, water resource challenges faced, community governance approach and institutions, implementation process, and documented impacts. Data were synthesized both within and across cases to identify common and varying themes regarding structure and governance models, livelihood, challenges and sustainability outcomes, barriers encountered, and mitigation strategies.

3 Findings

Through extensive literature review, a total of nine common community-driven water resource management models implemented in the East and Central African countries were identified and analyzed. Based on their institutionalization, governance structures, and extent of use, the models were categorized into two broad groups (Table 2): main models and auxiliary models. Main models include water user associations (WUAs), water user committees (WUCs), catchment management committees (CMCs), wetland management committees (WMCs), co-management models (CMMs), integrated community structures (ICSs) and non-governmental organization (NGO). Auxiliary models include indigenous water management institutions (IWMIs) and faith-based organization models (FBOMs).

Table 2

Table 2. Community-driven water resource management models implemented in the East and Central Africa.

The main models, namely, WUAs and WUCs represented the dominant, formalized approaches utilized widely across multiple countries and river basins. Detailed descriptions of each model’s key features, functioning, and examples from case studies are provided in the subsequent subsections. This segmentation aimed to systematically analyze the variety of demand-driven, grassroots-level institutional arrangements documented in the literature for participatory water governance in the region. The findings presented are based on synthesis and cross-examination of insights from the 100 studies reviewed.

3.1 Main models

3.1.1 Water user associations (WUAs)

WUAs have been widely promoted as key institutions for participatory irrigation management across East and Central Africa (Naiga, 2018; Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). Registered as formal common interest groups, WUAs comprising exclusively of water users within a hydrological boundary assume control over scheme governance from the state (Jones and Van der Walt, 2004; Richards, 2019).

3.1.1.1 Structure and governance

Typical WUA structures involve a general assembly of all members, an elected executive committee of 10–15 people, and specialized sub-committees (Mathenge et al., 2014; Yerian et al., 2014). For example, in a study of 30 Zimbabwean WUAs, Mathenge et al. (2014) found 90% had positions like chairperson, secretary, and treasurer held through regular elections with 80% voter turnout. Most schemes also had operation and maintenance, finance, and conflict resolution sub-committees.

3.1.1.2 Responsibilities

As the primary governing bodies of irrigation schemes, WUAs are responsible for crucial management functions to ensure smooth agricultural activities and water services. Some of their core technical duties involve planning water distribution schedules according to cropping cycles (Yerian et al., 2014) and allotting equitable turns for individual farmers’ fields (Richards, 2019). Additionally, WUAs oversee regular fee collection from members, which provides funds for repairs and maintenance of infrastructure like canals (Naiga, 2018). They also handle basic fixes to quickly address any breakages or leaks (Mathenge et al., 2014). On the social governance front, WUAs work to resolve disputes over water rights, theft or damage through local arbitration (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). Furthermore, they represent members’ collective interests through engagement and negotiations with higher authorities such as provincial administrators (Were et al., 2013) and water resource regulators (Jones and Van der Walt, 2004).

3.1.1.3 Case study 1: Tanzania

A formative study conducted by Yerian et al. (2014) examined the transformative impact of new WUAs on the management and performance of four irrigation schemes located across the semiarid Dodoma and Singida regions of central Tanzania. Prior to 2005, the schemes covering 1,500 ha of smallholder farmland had been overseen by catchment authorities and agricultural support agencies within the central government framework. However, unreliable infrastructure, unplanned water allocations, lack of cost recovery, and disputes between farmers and agencies increasingly plagued the schemes. In an effort to decentralize control and address these chronic issues, Participatory Irrigation Development Project (PIDP) interventions established WUAs in 2005 to assume full responsibility over the schemes from the central authorities.

Within a short span of just 4 years, the newly empowered WUAs were able to achieve notable successes through participatory governance. Large portions of degraded unlined canal segments totaling 8 km were rehabilitated through voluntary farmer contributions of labor and locally procurable materials, significantly improving water conveyance (Yerian et al., 2014). Fixed hourly rotation schedules instituted by the WUAs ensured equitable and timely supply to individual plots (Mathenge et al., 2014). This shows that the establishment of WUAs in Tanzania significantly enhanced irrigation management and performance by empowering local farmers to rehabilitate infrastructure and ensure equitable water distribution, demonstrating the effectiveness of participatory governance in addressing chronic irrigation challenges.

3.1.1.4 Case study 2: Zimbabwe

Mathenge et al. (2014) conducted an in-depth mixed methods study of 30 randomly selected WUAs governing irrigation schemes across Zimbabwe. The research found that after over 10 years of operation, the WUAs had established formalized rules and procedures codified in written by-laws to govern crucial aspects of management. These included regulations around water allocation protocols during shortages, fee payment requirements, penalties for noncompliance, and resolution of disputes (Mathenge et al., 2014). Additionally, through member contributions and tapping of national rehabilitation budgets, several WUAs had undertaken essential expansion works such as canal upgrade projects. These enabled servicing of new plot-holders and brought an additional 187 ha under productive irrigation (Were et al., 2013). Mathenge et al. (2014) attributes these demonstrable achievements realized under participatory WUA governance directly to enhanced local ownership, stewardship, and technical capacities compared to the deficiencies of past central control. This highlights that the establishment of formalized rules and procedures within WUAs in Zimbabwe significantly improved irrigation management and expanded productive land, underscoring the positive impact of participatory governance on local ownership and technical capacity in contrast to previous centralized control.

3.1.1.5 Challenges and sustainability

This study has revealed that while WUAs have demonstrated numerous benefits when properly implemented, sustaining their long-term viability and ensuring equitable governance remains an ongoing challenge in many contexts. Several studies have documented financial vulnerability for WUAs after transitional government subsidies conclude (Rogers and Hall, 2003; Calow et al., 2010; Rautanen et al., 2014). Naiga (2018) found that some schemes in Kenya and Uganda struggled with covering operational costs from water fees alone, as revenues frequently fell short of expenditure needs. Where infrastructure is degraded, high rehabilitation costs required to restore services can further strain WUA budgets in the initial years post-handover (Rautanen et al., 2014). Technical capacity constraints also inhibit WUAs from autonomously undertaking major repairs or improvements to modernize infrastructure systems over time (Were et al., 2013). For example, unlined canal segments continue to lose significant conveyed volumes to seepage in some schemes due to the lack of engineering expertise within farmer-led management (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). Informal power dynamics have also been shown to influence decision-making and marginalize disadvantaged groups such as poorer households and women in the leadership structures and resource allocations of certain WUAs (Richards, 2019).

3.1.2 Water user committees (WUCs)

WUCs represent another popular community-driven model employed across East and Central Africa for participatory water resources governance beyond just irrigation (Yerian et al., 2014; Mathenge et al., 2014). Unlike WUAs that focus solely on the management of irrigation infrastructure serving agricultural uses (Were et al., 2013), WUCs employ a more integrated river basin management approach (Yerian et al., 2014). They are mandated to coordinate the sustainable utilization of water resources catering to multiple competing uses and diverse stakeholder groups reliant on the same water body, such as domestic, municipal, hydropower, industrial, and pastoral water extractors sharing transboundary rivers and aquifers (Rautanen et al., 2014). Through an inclusive structure empowering local communities as custodians and decision-makers (Rogers and Hall, 2003), WUCs aim to foster equitable governance supporting all users dependent on watersheds for livelihoods, economic activities, and ecosystem services (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019).

3.1.2.1 Structure and governance

Similar to WUAs, WUCs are usually formally registered with local authorities and have well-defined governance structures codified in national water policies and legislation (Rogers and Hall, 2003; Mathenge et al., 2014). Registration accords them legal status to formally represent user groups and enter agreements. The typical hierarchical design consists of a general assembly of all registered users meeting periodically to review committee performance and guide strategies (Yerian et al., 2014). A core executive committee of 10–15 elected individuals holding positions like chairperson, secretary, and treasurer governs on a day to-day basis for fixed terms typically ranging from 2–3 years (Were et al., 2013; Rautanen et al., 2014). Additionally, many established WUCs operate specialized sub-committees for domains such as environmental conservation, monitoring of water extraction, and local conflict mediation (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). These sub-committees enhance focus on technical responsibilities while fostering grassroots participation in management (Richards, 2019).

3.1.2.2 Responsibilities and functions

Some of the core responsibilities undertaken by WUCs include developing context specific and inclusive water resources management plans. This is achieved through consultation with local stakeholders including different water user groups reliant on the basin’s resources (Rautanen et al., 2014). Extensive mapping and analyses involving participatory rural appraisals allows an understanding of dynamics, constraints, and needs on the ground to inform strategy (Rogers and Hall, 2003). WUCs also represent grassroots community interests through dialogue with relevant government agencies. They provide inputs on proposed sector policies, strategies and projects to ensure alignment with local realities and priorities (Mathenge et al., 2014). This two-way interface promotes collaborative decision-making and multilevel action. Coordination of regular monitoring programs for water extraction volumes and quality parameters falls within WUC mandates (Yerian et al., 2014). Extractor registration and compliance verification with prescribed quotas are coordinated to track usage (Richards, 2019). They also establish rules and enforce regulations on resource governance issues like rates of surface water abstraction, sand harvesting from river beds, and riparian habitat and wetland conservation (Rautanen et al., 2014). Another salient function is mediating local natural resource use conflicts through dedicated committees comprising dialogue facilitators chosen for their neutrality and respect within communities (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). Fee collection from registered extractors proportionate to water quantities harnessed provides revenues that fund committee administration, technical capacity development initiatives, and public awareness campaigns on sustainable practices (Mathenge et al., 2014; Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). This strengthens WUCs’ facilitative role and long-term sustainability.

3.1.2.3 Case study 1: Kenya

One of the earliest documented WUCs in East and Central Africa is the Muguono WUC, established in 2000 for the Ewaso Ng’iro North Basin in northern Kenya (Rautanen et al., 2014). The basin spans six counties and sustains over 600,000 pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and smallholder farmers (Mathenge et al., 2014). Driven by growing water stress and conflicts, the formation of the WUC was spearheaded by local elders and county governments (Yerian et al., 2014). It comprised representatives from three Kenyan counties, neighboring Ethiopian and Marsabit counties, with an initial membership of 612 households (Rautanen et al., 2014). Over 12 years of operations, the WUC undertook extensive stakeholder consultations and status assessments combining traditional hydrological knowledge with scientific data (Mathenge et al., 2014). Collaborating with national agencies, it established hydrometric monitoring stations across the basin (Yerian et al., 2014). This particular case study exemplifies effective collaborative governance by integrating traditional knowledge with scientific data to address water stress and conflicts, thereby enhancing resource management for pastoralists and smallholder farmers in Kenya.

3.1.2.4 Case study 2: Tanzania

Another revealing WUC case examined by Mabhaudhi et al. (2019) is the Kinyasungwe WUC of the Great Ruaha River Basin, established in 2005. Situated in east-central Tanzania, the basin sustains over 5,000 livelihoods directly dependent on fisheries, tourism, and subsistence farming (Rogers and Hall, 2003). Growing concerns regarding receding river flows during the dry season motivated local stakeholders to form the WUC, with an initial membership of 5,600 individuals (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). Comprehensive consultations were held with different riparian communities, authorities, and technical partners (Mathenge et al., 2014). The WUC kickstarted intensive catchment rehabilitation efforts through reforestation drives using indigenous tree species, establishing tree nurseries, and watershed demarcations (Yerian et al., 2014). Monitoring equipment was also installed through technical partnerships to facilitate evidence-based management (Rautanen et al., 2014). This case study demonstrates the power of collaborative governance through extensive catchment rehabilitation initiatives, including reforestation and the installation of monitoring equipment.

3.1.2.5 Challenges and sustainability

While WUCs have significant potentials, several challenges threaten their long-term efficacy and sustainability. This review ascertains that sustaining diverse stakeholder representation and cooperation between user groups with competing priorities, like farmers versus pastoralists, poses an ongoing difficulty (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). Different social rankings, knowledge systems, gender disparities, and asymmetrical power dynamics within communities can also undermine fair participation if left unaddressed (Rautanen et al., 2014). A key impediment experienced is lack of formal legal status and official recognition, constraining some WUCs’ authority and rule enforcement capabilities (Yerian et al., 2014). Without validation in water policies and legislation, their legitimacy and negotiating position is weakened (Rogers and Hall, 2003). Inadequate funding further hampers comprehensive functioning beyond basic awareness raising and organizing roles (Mathenge et al., 2014). Startup costs for infrastructure, equipment, technical studies, and capacity building are often prohibitive without external subsidies (Were et al., 2013). Insufficient technical skills in Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) principles, planning, conflict mediation, governance, and project management also constrain initiatives (Rautanen et al., 2014).

3.1.3 Catchment management committees (CMCs)

CMCs are local institutions that foster participatory governance of water resources at the catchment scale (Mathenge et al., 2014). Similar to WUAs or WUCs, CMCs adopt a community-driven approach by empowering diverse stakeholders reliant on shared water bodies to cooperatively manage utilization and conservation (Rautanen et al., 2014; Mabhaudhi et al., 2019).

3.1.3.1 Key features of CMCs

CMCs comprise a general assembly of all registered catchment residents and an executive committee coordinating activities on their behalf (Rogers and Hall, 2003; Nkhoma, 2018). The committee ranges from 10 to 20 elected individuals holding positions like chair, secretary, treasurer for fixed terms (Were et al., 2013). Sub-committees oversee specialized functions concerning monitoring, conflict resolution, or awareness campaigns (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). Registration with relevant government authorities according to national policies formally establishes CMC mandates and benefit–cost arrangements with stakeholders (Mathenge et al., 2014). Delineated boundaries are defined through participatory mapping of hydrological divides and riparian zones under their purview (Rautanen et al., 2014; Richards, 2019).

3.1.3.2 Functioning and responsibilities

CMCs play a central role in leading collaborative catchment appraisal processes. They work to integrate users’ indigenous knowledge of the local landscape and hydrology with scientific analyses conducted in partnership with technical agencies (Rogers and Hall, 2003; Yerian et al., 2014) This combined understanding informs the inclusive development of contextualized catchment management plans aligned with the needs and priorities of diverse stakeholders reliant on the water resources (Rautanen et al., 2014). The plans developed by CMCs aim to regulate resource utilization in a sustainable manner. Extraction quotas are established based on seasonal availability and the requirements of different user groups such as farmers and pastoralists (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). No-extraction zones are also designated within recharge areas and riparian corridors based on hydrogeological surveys, helping maintain ecological flows (Were et al., 2013). Rehabilitation schedules are outlined to restore degraded hotspots through community-led initiatives like reforestation campaigns (Rautanen et al., 2014). The plans also promote the adoption of best land and water management practices through bylaws and training programs focused on integrated catchment management that balances human and environmental priorities (Mathenge et al., 2014). A key responsibility of CMCs is representing grassroots perspectives and negotiating on behalf of local communities at national multi-stakeholder forums regarding policy and project proposals impacting their catchments. This helps ensure the needs of marginalized groups are addressed (Rogers and Hall, 2003). CMCs also generate operating revenues by collecting nominal fees or taxes on water abstracted for various uses according to transparent models proportionate to the quantity and nature of the utilization (Rautanen et al., 2014; Richards, 2019). The funds collected are then utilized by CMCs to facilitate capacity building initiatives such as exchange visits within and outside the catchment area, broadening community understanding of integrated solutions from diverse contexts (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019).

3.1.3.3 Case study 1: South Africa

The Sabie River Catchment in Mpumalanga, South Africa provides a well-documented case study of a functional CMC. Established in 2000, the Sabie River CMC brought together diverse stakeholders dependent on the river system’s ecological health and water resources (Green et al., 2013). Its membership included representatives from commercial timber plantation owners, small-scale farming communities, local urban councils, as well as environmental non-governmental organizations (Green et al., 2013). The wide range of interests presented an opportunity for collaborative problem-solving but also the potential for disputes between users prioritizing competing priorities (Delgado-Serrano et al., 2017). To overcome tensions, the CMC established an impartial mediation committee composed of traditional leaders and faith groups respected across different social groups (Delgado-Serrano et al., 2017). It also utilized diplomacy workshops as a forum for open discussion of competing demands (Richards, 2019). Through these dialogues, the CMC was able to facilitate agreement on key issues like the importance of maintaining environmental flows downstream of major abstraction points (Green et al., 2013). This particular CMC, effectively facilitated collaborative problem-solving among diverse stakeholders by creating an impartial mediation committee and hosting diplomacy workshops, ultimately fostering agreements on critical issues like maintaining environmental flows.

3.1.3.4 Case study 2: Kenya

The Kerio Valley Catchment area located in northwest Kenya’s Rift Valley hosts significant socioeconomic and environmental importance. Home to over 600,000 residents across six counties, the region supports pastoralism, rain-fed agriculture, and tourism-based livelihoods (Yerian et al., 2014). Increasing water stress due to degradation and lack of cooperative management led local communities and county governments to establish the Kerio Valley CMC in 2007 (Gourbesville, 2008). Initial appraisals conducted by the CMC found that depletion of the valley’s aquifer system during dry seasons disproportionately impacted vulnerable groups reliant on rivers and shallow wells (Raburu et al., 2012). To address this, the CMC embarked on a participatory basin planning process incorporating indigenous hydrological knowledge with new scientific data gathered through borehole drilling and groundwater mapping (Raburu et al., 2012; Yerian et al., 2014). Through these studies, the CMC identified key aquifer recharge zones and developed by-laws governing their protection to enhance seasonal availability (Gourbesville, 2008). This case study effectively addressed increasing water stress by integrating indigenous hydrological knowledge with scientific data to identify aquifer recharge zones and develop protective by-laws, thereby supporting the livelihoods of over 600,000 residents in Kenya.

3.1.3.5 Challenges and sustainability

While CMCs have demonstrated successes in various contexts, ongoing challenges still threaten their sustainability and potential if left unaddressed. According to this review, power imbalances within catchment communities between social groups like men and women or the wealthy and poor can hinder truly inclusive representation and decision-making if not actively remedied (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). Limited technical capacities, especially regarding IWRM principles, also constrain CMC efficacy over the long-term (Rautanen et al., 2014). Moreover, lack of reliable funding streams independent of donors poses financial risks when external project cycles end (Rogers and Hall, 2003). Grants are often inadequate for addressing socio-economic vulnerabilities driving unsustainable land and water uses within catchment areas (Richards, 2019). Inconsistent national policy support and devolution of agreed roles/responsibilities across governance levels compound structural constraints (Delgado-Serrano et al., 2017).

3.1.4 Co-management models (CMMs)

CMMs are participatory governance arrangements fostering power-sharing over natural resources between governments and local users (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005; Karim and Thiel, 2017). CMMs reconcile top-down control with bottom-up autonomy through negotiated cooperation and joint management of delineated spaces (Naiga et al., 2024; Karim and Thiel, 2017). Core functions involve participatory monitoring, planning, and conflict mitigation, supporting sustainability (Sen and Nielsen, 1996; Carlsson and Berkes, 2005). Case studies demonstrate CMMs establishing regional policies through stakeholder workshops, combining local and scientific knowledge (Jakeman et al., 2006; Koppen et al., 2007). While challenges persist, evidence indicates CMMs establish foundations for integrated natural resource governance with stability (Huitema et al., 2009; Xu, 2009).

3.1.4.1 Key features of CMMs

CMMs aim to reconcile top-down control over natural resources with bottom-up community autonomy through negotiated cooperation between stakeholders (Karim and Thiel, 2017; Naiga et al., 2024). They are established through legal agreements between government agencies and user collectives that jointly manage a defined resource space and share decision-making responsibilities (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005; Green et al., 2013). Structurally, CMMs comprise a management board representing different stakeholder interests including local resource users, government technicians, NGOs, and academic institutions (Davis, 2007; Beyonyi and Ile, 2023). The board provides a mechanism for participatory decision-making and ensuring all interests are adequately represented (Davis, 2007; Grassini, 2019). Day-to-day coordination is led by a secretariat formed by the signatory partners and governed by agreed terms of reference that outline roles, rules, and procedures (Armitage et al., 2007; Nyam et al., 2020). Delineated boundaries of the comanaged landscape or seascape and a shared long-term vision are also typically established at the outset (Grassini, 2019; Naiga et al., 2024). Boundaries define the spatial extent of the arrangement while the vision provides strategic guidance on sustainability goals (Davis, 2007; Nyam et al., 2020). In some cases, CMMs also incorporate mechanisms for collaborative monitoring and enforcement, resource allocation, conflict resolution, and benefit sharing (Green et al., 2013; Nyam et al., 2020).

3.1.4.2 Functioning of CMMs

Core functions of CMMs involve participatory resource monitoring, planning, conflict mitigation, and enforcement of rights-based regulations supporting environmental, social, and economic sustainability (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005; Shunglu et al., 2022). For example, local and traditional ecological knowledge is systematically combined with western scientific data through an iterative process of participatory workshops, meetings, and field visits (Sen and Nielsen, 1996; Sultana, 2009). This collaborative knowledge generation helps develop contextualized and culturally appropriate resource management plans and adaptation strategies (Sultana, 2009; Mathenge et al., 2014).

The plans typically establish resource quotas and harvesting schedules, zoning restrictions for certain activities, and schedules for habitat and species restoration activities (Grassini, 2019; Kimathi et al., 2020). Implementation occurs through joint patrolling and monitoring programs, as well as micro-projects developed at the community-level (Berkes et al., 2000; Nyam et al., 2020). Disputes around access, use rights, and cultural practices are aimed to be addressed in a fair and timely manner (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005). Impartial mediation committees composed of respected community elders are often established under the CMM agreement for this purpose (Lekunze, 2001; Mathenge et al., 2014). Additional functions include exploring economic opportunities that support the CMM’s vision of sustainability, such as rotating ecotourism revenue funds and equipment purchases (Castro, 2007; Mathenge et al., 2014). Coordinated management of resources is also anticipated to yield biological and cultural conservation outcomes alongside socioeconomic development priorities (Berkes et al., 2000; Nyam et al., 2020).

3.1.4.3 Case study 1: Lake Victoria, East Africa

In the late 1990s, the governments of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda signed an agreement with fishing communities on Lake Victoria, establishing 11 regional CMMs (Jakeman et al., 2006). Each comprised fisheries officials, local councils, beach management units, and research institutions (Green et al., 2013). Through collaborative stock assessments and conflict mediation trainings, the CMMs developed harmonized policies limiting destruction of juvenile fish habitats and seasonal bans on small-mesh nets (Huitema et al., 2009). Community enforcement of regulations saw annual yields stabilize at sustainable levels improving livelihoods (Saravanan et al., 2009).

3.1.4.4 Case study 2: Democratic Republic of Congo

In the Democratic Republic of Congo’s Mai-Ndombe province, rubber tapping CMMs were setup in 1998, involving rural villages, Indigenous groups, and the Forest Economy Ministry (Xu, 2009). Participatory land use maps delineated production zones, with families granted formal tapping permits within agreed limits (Green et al., 2013). Village monitoring committees now work with government forest guards to curb illegal mining and trafficking on ancestral lands (Green et al., 2013). Qualitative studies found kinship between local Bakola peoples and Bantu farmers strengthened with more equitable benefit-sharing governance (Xu, 2009).

3.1.4.5 Challenges and sustainability

While CMMs show promise for integrated resource governance, various challenges threaten their long-term sustainability if not adequately addressed. From this review, lingering power imbalances between governmental authorities and marginalized user groups can hinder inclusive participation in decision-making (Xu, 2009; Ibisch et al., 2016). This is especially prevalent in post-conflict regions recovering from violence and political oppression (Al Radif, 1999; Ibisch et al., 2016). Language and cultural barriers may also disenfranchise Indigenous peoples from fully engaging in CMM processes (Shen and Chen, 2010; Savaresi, 2016). Capacity constraints, including lack of technical skills, funding and infrastructure, additionally restrain effective management across landscapes and adaptation to stressors like climate change (Berkes, 2009; Mathenge et al., 2014). Regional networks of CMMs require ongoing training, partner support, and knowledge-sharing platforms to develop long-term capacities (Upreti, 2000; Naiga et al., 2024).

3.1.5 Wetlands management committees (WMCs)

Wetlands WMCs are co-management bodies established through agreements between governments and wetland communities (Gichuki, 2000). Comprising local stakeholders and government representatives on an executive council, WMCs empower communities in wetland stewardship (Sindayigaya and Toyi, 2023). Responsibilities include participatory land use planning, wetland monitoring, and outreach (Bohensky and Lynam, 2005). Data informs integrated catchment plans negotiated through public consultations, balancing development and conservation. Case studies from Uganda and Tanzania demonstrate collaborative governance outcomes (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019; Dirwai et al., 2021).

3.1.5.1 Key features of WMCs

WMCs are multistakeholder bodies established through legal agreements between government wildlife agencies and communities residing near wetlands (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019; Gichuki, 2000). Their formation aims to empower rural stakeholders and foster social legitimacy in wetland stewardship through an inclusive co-management approach (German et al., 2007; Volenzo and Odiyo, 2018). Structurally, WMCs comprise local leaders, resource users, government technicians from various agencies (e.g., fisheries, forestry, water authorities), nongovernmental conservation organizations, and academic institutions seated on an executive council (Mathenge et al., 2014; Sindayigaya and Toyi, 2023). Decision-making powers are shared by these diverse stakeholders in regulating activities to protect hydrological services, biodiversity, and livelihood sustainability within demarcated wetland boundaries (German et al., 2007; Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). Equitable representation across gender, livelihood groups, and ethnicities aims to foster conflict resolution over resource competition and mitigate power imbalances (Sikor and Nguyen, 2007; Volenzo and Odiyo, 2018).

3.1.5.2 Functioning of WMCs

Core responsibilities of WMCs include participatory wetland monitoring programs, developing and revising integrated catchment management plans through public consultations, implementing livelihood programs, and conducting community outreach (Bohensky and Lynam, 2005; Mathenge et al., 2014). For instance, routine aquatic health and biodiversity assessments combine traditional ecological knowledge of local communities with Western scientific tools and technologies (Mathenge et al., 2014; Dirwai et al., 2021). Generated biophysical and socioeconomic data inform the collaborative development and refinement of integrated catchment management plans (German et al., 2007; Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). These plans delineate zones for compatible resource uses, schedules for habitat and infrastructure restoration activities, and agreements for joint enforcement of regulations between government rangers and WMC lake protection committees (German et al., 2007; Volenzo and Odiyo, 2018). Livelihood diversification programs aim to reduce unsustainable pressures on wetlands from communities (Mathenge et al., 2014; Dirwai et al., 2021).

3.1.5.3 Case study 1: Lwanda Village wetlands, Uganda

In Lwanda village, situated on the shores of Lake Victoria, the local WMC operates revolving loan funds to promote alternative livelihood enterprises like tilapia hatcheries and biomass briquettes production from water hyacinth as a renewable energy source (Gawler, 2002; Sindayigaya and Toyi, 2023). Household surveys found a significant reduction in direct degradation of wetlands through activities like sand mining and firewood collection as communities had regulated access to the resources through zoning plans developed by the WMC (Gawler, 2002; Bohensky and Lynam, 2005). There was also evidence of wildlife habitat recovery in the wetlands with reduced human disturbance (Bohensky and Lynam, 2005). Additionally, the committee’s open meeting practices and public dissemination of monitoring data on issues like water quality and hydrological changes improved institutional transparency and legitimacy in the eyes of village residents (Gichuki, 2000; Gawler, 2002). Communities reported greater preparation for seasonal floods due to early warnings developed using wetland health indicators established under the WMC’s oversight (Gichuki, 2000; Grassini, 2019). This particular WMC successfully promoted alternative livelihoods and regulated resource use through zoning plans, leading to reduced wetland degradation, wildlife habitat recovery, and improved community preparedness for seasonal floods, thereby enhancing institutional transparency and local engagement.

3.1.5.4 Case study 2: Kilombero Valley wetlands, Tanzania

In the Kilombero Valley Floodplain, designated as a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve, the Kilombero WMC played an instrumental role in helping local administrative authorities draft bylaws formalizing previously informal community-based wetland reserves set aside primarily for rice cultivation and sustainable firewood collection (Mathenge et al., 2014; Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). Through regular participatory water quality, biodiversity, and socio-economic monitoring established under the WMC’s guidance, a collaborative network of over 500 wetland resource monitors from villages was trained in using standardized indicators to report on issues quarterly (Mathenge et al., 2014; Volenzo and Odiyo, 2018). This data influx aided dynamic flood forecasting and early warning efforts by regional authorities, saving lives and livelihoods each rainy season (Mathenge et al., 2014; Dirwai et al., 2021). Additionally, evidence emerged of reduced human-wildlife conflicts on farms bordering the reserves due to shared understanding and problem-solving between committee members and herders/farmers (Mathenge et al., 2014; Dirwai et al., 2021). Villagers no longer felt the need to kill crop-raiding wild animals as alternatives like beehive fencing were demonstrated by the WMC, fostering greater tolerance (Mathenge et al., 2014; Dirwai et al., 2021). The Kilombero Water WMC has therefore effectively formalized community-based wetland reserves and enhanced local monitoring through training, leading to improved flood forecasting, reduced human-wildlife conflicts, and greater community tolerance towards wildlife, thereby contributing to sustainable resource management in the UNESCO-designated reserve.

3.1.5.5 Challenges and sustainability

While WMCs present collaborative solutions, this review provides constraints challenging long-term viability, including insufficient and inconsistent funding support from cash-strapped local authorities, lack of skills and resources for interface with higher levels of decision-making, problematic policy gaps, and limited capacity to adapt management in response to global change drivers (Mathenge et al., 2014; Sindayigaya and Toyi, 2023). However, with targeted efforts to strengthen capacities through tailored training, strengthen legal frameworks, diversify funding avenues, and integrate local community-collected data into decision-making from local to national scales, evidence indicates inclusive WMC frameworks show resilience and support integrated catchment needs over extended timeframes when accommodating challenges (Gichuki, 2000; Mathenge et al., 2014; Grassini, 2019).

3.1.6 Integrated community structures (ICSs)

ICSs represent a type of co-management approach focused on interlinking natural resource and social governance across sectors at local community levels (Katusiime and Schütt, 2020; Ananga et al., 2021). Through establishing informal, consensus-based networks between diverse autonomous user groups residing in proximity, ICSs aim to facilitate collaborative solutions to shared landscape management challenges that individual entities encounter difficulty addressing alone (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013; Flint et al., 2024).

3.1.6.1 Key features of ICS

ICS aims to facilitate cross-sectoral coordination across autonomous user groups within communities (Ananga et al., 2021). They are informal, consensus-based networks established endogenously by communities to manage interactions between linked social-ecological systems like forests, fisheries, and agricultural lands (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013; Katusiime and Schütt, 2020). Structurally, ICSs comprise diverse local organizations like water, forest, and pasture committees interconnected through collaborative partnerships and information-sharing protocols (Ananga et al., 2021). Representation spans gender, age, and livelihood interests to foster equitable multitiered decision-making from household to landscape levels (Katusiime and Schütt, 2020; Flint et al., 2024).

3.1.6.2 Functioning of ICS

Core functions involve activities such as establishing multi-resource monitoring programs, coordinating seasonal access, and harvesting schedules, aligning bylaws and sanctioning processes across sectors, addressing systemic disputes, and planning integrated landscape management (OLM) strategies (Katusiime and Schütt, 2020; Flint et al., 2024). For example, village watershed committees, partner with pastoralist groups and women’s farmer associations to routinely share hydrological and biodiversity indicators, adjusting communal land use accordingly (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013). Co-developed plans set interannual objectives across forest reserves, grazing areas, and croplands (Flint et al., 2024).

3.1.6.3 Case study 1: integrated water resources management project, Kenya

One notable example is the IWRM Project in Kenya, which focuses on implementing sustainable management practices across various river basins (Kyessi, 2005; Katusiime and Schütt, 2020; Ananga et al., 2021). This project actively involves local communities in decision-making regarding water allocation and management, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility (Flint et al., 2024). The formation of water resource user associations has facilitated collaboration among diverse stakeholders, leading to effective conflict resolution over water use (Kyessi, 2005; Ananga et al., 2021). The project has resulted in improved water management efficiency and increased resilience of communities to climate variability (Katusiime and Schütt, 2020). This case study exemplifies successful community engagement in water management, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility while enhancing collaboration among stakeholders, leading to improved water management efficiency and greater resilience to climate variability.

3.1.6.4 Case study 2: Lake Victoria and sanitation project, Tanzania

Another significant initiative is the Lake Victoria Water and Sanitation Project, which spans Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania (Ananga et al., 2020; Waheed et al., 2021). This initiative aimed to improve water supply and sanitation services in communities surrounding Lake Victoria, a region facing significant pollution and resource management challenges. The project established community water and sanitation committees tasked with overseeing local water resources. By fostering collaboration among local governments, NGOs, and community members, the project effectively engaged stakeholders in planning and implementation (Ananga et al., 2020; Waheed et al., 2021). As a result, there was a marked increase in access to clean water and improved sanitation facilities, alongside greater community awareness of environmental issues related to water quality (Ananga et al., 2020). This case study demonstrates improved access to clean water and sanitation by establishing community committees that fostered stakeholder collaboration, thereby enhancing local resource management and raising environmental awareness among communities.

3.1.6.5 Challenges and resilience

While ICS approach generates benefits, this review reveals challenges that threaten long-term sustainability if unaddressed include potential for latent or open cross-sectoral resource-use conflicts among user groups (Waheed et al., 2021). Such disputes can emerge from diversions in management priorities, perceptions of inequitable representation, or power asymmetry between members (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013; Sikor et al., 2017). There is also the risk of ICS institutions losing autonomy and becoming proxies for capture by local elites if external funding introduces incentives for leadership control (Sikor et al., 2017; Flint et al., 2024). Dependence on temporary projects leaves communities vulnerable to abrupt shifts in support which could undermine stability (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013).

However, evidence indicates ICS mechanisms hold resilience against such challenges through open and frequent communication, strengthening social cohesion (Waheed et al., 2021). Regular leadership rotations and cross-checking between separate sub-committees reduces the risk of capture or corruption (Yu, 2014; Ananga et al., 2021). Endogenous community structures also lend cultural legitimacy that nurtures local acceptance and buy-in critical to addressing disputes cooperatively over time (Kyessi, 2005; Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013). With appropriate flexible support that strengthens capacities while respecting autonomy, ICSs appear able to evolve organically in response to global change pressures through their adaptable social foundations (Katusiime and Schütt, 2020; Ananga et al., 2021).

3.1.7 NGO-facilitated models

NGO-facilitated models represent a co-management approach incorporating NGOs as intermediaries to help bridge local communities and government natural resource management agencies (Lenton and Muller, 2012; Sikor et al., 2017). By facilitating partnerships and collaborative decision-making processes, these models aim to strengthen community participation and leadership in the governance of linked social-ecological systems at decentralized levels (Dressler et al., 2010; Flint et al., 2024).

3.1.7.1 Key features of NGOs

NGO-facilitated models are formal arrangements where NGOs partner with governments and communities to jointly govern natural resources (Sikor et al., 2017). Structurally, tripartite committees are established comprising representatives from NGOs, administrative bodies, and resource user groups (Lenton and Muller, 2012). NGOs take on roles like supporting community capacity building, monitoring compliance, facilitating conflict resolution, and communicating between stakeholders (Dressler et al., 2010; Lenton and Muller, 2012). Models aim to balance rural interests, biodiversity priorities, and sustainable development (Sikor et al., 2017).

3.1.7.2 Functioning of NGOs

Core functions involve NGOs coordinating participatory land use planning, training local enforcement teams, proposing policy reforms emphasizing incentive programs, and coordinating ecosystem restoration activities (Lenton and Muller, 2012; Flint et al., 2024). For example, NGOs partner with forestry departments and forest-adjacent villages to jointly map and sign community forests into collaborative management agreements (Dressler et al., 2010). Micro-credit schemes support sustainable livelihood transitions (Lenton and Muller, 2012).

3.1.7.3 Case study 1: coastal forests of Kenya

In Kenya’s coastal forests, extensive deforestation degraded water catchments vital to over 500,000 residents (Meguro et al., 2024). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) partnered with the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Board to establish 20 Forest User Groups, linking 28 villages (Meguro et al., 2024). TNC provided trainings in sustainable beekeeping and tree nurseries, strengthening participation incentives for communities to assist rangers through bylaws formalizing rotational forest protection committees (Lund and Palmer, 1997; Meguro et al., 2024). Over 50% of degraded lands regenerated within 5 years as alternative livelihoods reduced pressures and social cohesion aided compliance (Meguro et al., 2024). NGOs in this this particular case study successfully regenerated over 50% of degraded lands within five years by promoting sustainable livelihoods and strengthening community participation in forest protection.

3.1.7.4 Case study 2: Miombo woodlands of Tanzania

In Tanzania’s Iringa region, declining soil fertility impacted over 300,000 rural families reliant on small-scale agriculture (Clements et al., 2010). Worldwide Fund for Nature (WFN) collaborated with district councils and villages to introduce agricultural best practices and woodlot extension programs (Clements et al., 2010). Participatory land management workshops facilitated by WWF led to the delineation of 200 ha of degraded lands into six community forests (Singh et al., 2008; Clements et al., 2010). Agroforestry training, along with microcredit, supported the establishment of tree nurseries and farmer cooperatives, improving food security within 3 years as landscapes recovered.

3.1.7.5 Challenges and sustainability

Several challenges threaten the long-term sustainability of NGO-facilitated co-management models if not properly addressed. Dependence on temporary external funding sources leaves programs vulnerable if sponsors withdraw support (Sikor et al., 2017; Flint et al., 2024). Financial constraints can reduce the capacity of NGOs and local institutions to retain skills over the long run (Dressler et al., 2010; Sikor et al., 2017). Relatedly, once targeted projects end, the dissolution of NGOs’ initial catalytic roles in bringing stakeholders together and capacity building poses risks to institutional structures (Dressler et al., 2010; Sikor et al., 2017). Power imbalances may also emerge if community autonomy becomes subordinated to outside agendas over time (Lenton and Muller, 2012; Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013).

However, evidence from this research indicates these models can establish resilient, adaptable platforms sustaining communities’ self-governance capacities if the transition to local responsibility is gradual and NGOs facilitate adaptation (Dressler et al., 2010; Flint et al., 2024). When NGOs prioritize transferring skills rather than maintaining dependence, effects often outlive projects through strengthened community organizations (Clements et al., 2010; Flint et al., 2024). Regular participation, transparent benefit-sharing, and power equalization further lend resilience against threats (Lenton and Muller, 2012; Tantoh and McKay, 2021). With coordinated support that strengthens local adaptive leadership, co-management facilitated by NGOs appears able to evolve flexibly in response to long-term drivers (Clements et al., 2010; Dressler et al., 2010).

3.2 Auxiliary models

3.2.1 Indigenous water management institutions (IWMIs)

IWMIs are vital for the governance of water resources, especially in areas where Indigenous peoples have a long-standing relationship with these ecosystems. These institutions embody cultural practices, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), and community-based governance systems, reflecting a holistic understanding of water as a life-giving entity (Bender, 2019). IWMIs not only prioritize sustainability and stewardship but also integrate social, spiritual, and economic values, ensuring that water management aligns with community needs and ecological health (United Nations, 2007; Shen and Chen, 2010).

3.2.1.1 Key feature of IWMIs

IWMIs in East and Central Africa are culturally relevant, reflecting the spiritual and social values associated with water as a sacred resource (Bender, 2019). They emphasize community-based governance, involving participatory decision-making that fosters intergenerational knowledge transfer (Shen and Chen, 2010). TEK informs sustainable practices, while adaptive management allows flexibility in response to environmental changes (Folke et al., 2002). Legal recognition of Indigenous rights varies, impacting the effectiveness of IWMIs (United Nations, 2007), and collaborative relationships enhance resource management.

3.2.1.2 Functioning of IWMIs

The functioning of IWMIs in East and Central Africa emphasizes consensus-based decision making, with elders guiding discussions to align with community values (Shen and Chen, 2010). Resource allocation prioritizes equity and ecosystem health, contrasting with profit-driven practices (Bender, 2019). Conflict resolution relies on local cultural norms, fostering dialogue, and social cohesion. Monitoring combines traditional and scientific methods, enhancing community responsiveness (Folke et al., 2002). Education and capacity building ensure younger generations are equipped to address contemporary challenges (United Nations, 2007).

3.2.1.3 Case studies of the san people and the Batwa

Indigenous communities such as the San people of Botswana and the Batwa of Uganda and Rwanda demonstrate unique approaches to sustainable water management shaped by their deep understanding of local ecosystems. The San, often called Bushmen, utilize TEK to navigate the arid Kalahari Desert. Their extensive knowledge of seasonal changes and water availability informs their resource management practices (Grassini, 2019). Decisions regarding water use are made collectively, fostering community harmony and environmental stewardship (Dixon, 2018). However, challenges like land dispossession have threatened their access to water resources, although recent initiatives aimed at recognizing their rights have led to improvements (Dewan et al., 2014; Grassini, 2019).

Similarly, the Batwa rely on forest ecosystems for their water needs, with their management practices deeply intertwined with their cultural beliefs (Bernard and Kumalo, 2013). They employ adaptive management strategies, adjusting their practices according to environmental changes and community needs (Grigg, 2008). Recent collaborations with conservation organizations have helped integrate Batwa water management into broader conservation efforts, enhancing both community well-being and ecosystem health (Raburu et al., 2012; Bernard and Kumalo, 2013). Together, these examples highlight the vital role of Indigenous knowledge in sustainable water management and the importance of incorporating such perspectives into contemporary environmental practices.

3.2.1.4 Challenges and sustainability

Indigenous water management institutions in East and Central Africa are vital for sustainable resource governance, yet they face significant challenges. This study has revealed that land dispossession due to agricultural expansion, urbanization, and resource extraction undermines traditional practices, as these systems are closely tied to specific territories (Grassini, 2019). Climate change further complicates matters, with altered rainfall patterns and extreme weather events disrupting water availability and quality, while many Indigenous communities lack the resources to adapt (Grigg, 2008). External pressures from modernization often marginalize Indigenous practices, as formal governance structures may overlook TEK (Dewan et al., 2014). Additionally, the migration of younger generations to urban areas can lead to cultural erosion, diminishing the transmission of vital knowledge (Dixon, 2018).

Despite these challenges, pathways exist for enhancing sustainability. Legal recognition of land and water rights is crucial for empowering Indigenous communities, while involving them in decision-making fosters ownership and accountability (Bernard and Kumalo, 2013). Capacity-building initiatives can strengthen adaptive capacity, and programs aimed at revitalizing traditional knowledge can help sustain these systems (Raburu et al., 2012). By integrating Indigenous practices into broader management frameworks, stakeholders can create resilient systems that benefit both communities and ecosystems.

3.2.2 Faith-based organization models (FBOMs)

FBOs have emerged as significant players in the development and humanitarian sectors, particularly in East and Central Africa. These organizations leverage faith principles to address various social issues, including health, education, poverty alleviation, and conflict resolution (Biebricher, 2011; Chowdhury et al., 2019).

3.2.2.1 Key features of FBOMs

FBOMs are characterized by several key features that enhance their effectiveness. They are grounded in spiritual foundations that motivate staff and volunteers (Biebricher, 2011). FBOMs prioritize community engagement, collaborating with local populations to ensure culturally relevant solutions (Chowdhury et al., 2019). Their holistic approach addresses material, spiritual, and emotional needs, recognizing the interconnectedness of health (Lyons et al., 2016). Extensive networks facilitate collaboration with various entities, enhancing resource mobilization (Chifamba, 2013). FBOMs advocate for social justice, leveraging moral authority to influence policy (Koppen et al., 2007), while diverse funding sources provide financial sustainability (Larson and Lach, 2008).

3.2.2.2 Functioning of FBOMs

FBOs operate under a clear mission and vision aligned with their spiritual values, guiding their strategic planning and daily operations. They implement various programs, including health services and educational initiatives, often involving community consultations to ensure relevance (Chowdhury et al., 2019). Volunteers, motivated by their faith, play a crucial role, enhancing community cohesion (Lyons et al., 2016). FBOs engage in monitoring and evaluation to assess program impact (Chifamba, 2013) and focus on capacity building through training initiatives (Larson and Lach, 2008). Additionally, faith integration, such as prayer and worship, reinforces their mission and fosters community bonds (Biebricher, 2011).

3.2.2.3 Case studies of FBOMs in east and Central Africa

FBOs play a crucial role in addressing social issues in East and Central Africa through innovative, community-centered approaches.

The African Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF), founded in 1957, is a leading health-focused FBO operating in East and Central Africa. AMREF’s mission is to improve the health of marginalized communities through innovative health solutions. One of its key features is a holistic health approach that addresses various issues, including maternal and child health, infectious diseases, and water and sanitation. The organization emphasizes community engagement, closely collaborating with local populations to identify health needs and ensure culturally appropriate interventions (Tropp, 2007). This participatory model has significantly improved health outcomes in rural areas, notably through the training of community health workers and the implementation of health education programs, leading to sustainable health improvements (Tropp, 2007).

Another significant player is World Vision, a global Christian humanitarian organization extensively operating in East and Central Africa. Its mission focuses on providing assistance to children, families, and communities in need (Pollard and Du Toit, 2011). World Vision prioritizes child-focused development, implementing programs in health, education, and economic development. By integrating Christian principles into its programs, the organization fosters a sense of hope and purpose among beneficiaries. In countries like Uganda and Kenya, World Vision’s initiatives have resulted in improved educational outcomes, enhanced health services, and increased economic opportunities for vulnerable families (Pollard and Du Toit, 2011).

Catholic Relief Services (CRS) is another vital FBO that operates in over 100 countries, including several in East and Central Africa. CRS is known for its dual focus on emergency response and long-term development (Clarke and Ware, 2015). It provides essential emergency relief while also addressing long-term needs through projects in agriculture, health, and education. The organization advocates for social justice, leveraging its moral authority to influence policy and protect the rights of marginalized communities. In countries such as Ethiopia and South Sudan, CRS has made substantial contributions to food security and health, showcasing the effectiveness of faith-based approaches to development (Clarke and Ware, 2015).

The Anglican Church of Uganda has been particularly active in health and development initiatives, especially in the context of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The church operates various community health programs, including HIV prevention and treatment, maternal and child health services, and community education. By mobilizing its congregants to participate in health initiatives, the church fosters a strong sense of community responsibility. The impact of these health programs has been significant, notably in reducing HIV transmission rates and improving access to healthcare services within the communities served (Ahereza et al., 2024).

Lastly, The Salvation Army operates in multiple countries across East and Central Africa, focusing on social welfare and community development. Its integrated services include disaster relief, education, and rehabilitation programs for vulnerable populations. A distinguishing feature of The Salvation Army is its reliance on volunteer engagement, with many programs driven by individuals motivated by their faith to serve those in need. The organization’s efforts have successfully addressed poverty and homelessness, positively enhancing the quality of life for numerous individuals and families in urban areas (Tantoh and McKay, 2021).

3.2.2.4 Challenges and sustainability

According to available literature, FBOMs in East and Central Africa face challenges such as resource limitations, political constraints, and cultural inclusivity issues (Chifamba, 2013; Lyons et al., 2016; Chowdhury et al., 2019). In order to enhance sustainability, literature suggests diversification of funding sources, strengthen partnerships with governments and NGOs, and invest in staff training (Larson and Lach, 2008). Continuous community engagement ensures programs remain relevant and culturally appropriate, fostering local ownership (Biebricher, 2011). Additionally, establishing robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks allows FBOMs to assess their impact effectively. By addressing these challenges and implementing sustainable practices, FBOMs can continue to play a vital role in fostering resilient communities and addressing social issues in the region (Larson and Lach, 2008; Biebricher, 2011; Chifamba, 2013).

3.3 Similarities and differences amongst the models

3.3.1 Common aspects shared by most community-driven water resource management models in East and Central Africa

Community-driven water resource management models in East and Central Africa share several common features (Table 3) that emphasize sustainable practices and community involvement (Naiga, 2018; Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). These models prioritize high levels of community engagement and democratic governance, ensuring local representation in decision-making processes. They focus on sustainable resource management, incorporating local cultural values and traditional practices while emphasizing capacity building to enhance local skills (Yerian et al., 2014). Conflict resolution mechanisms are integral, fostering collaboration among stakeholders, including NGOs and government entities. Additionally, these models are adaptable to environmental changes and community needs, with a commitment to long-term sustainability and effective monitoring and evaluation of water resources (Rautanen et al., 2014).

Table 3

Table 3. Common aspects shared by most community-driven water resource management models in East and Central Africa, and their strength.

3.3.2 Key differences among various community-driven water resource management models

The various community-driven water resource management models in East and Central Africa exhibit distinct differences (Table 4) across several dimensions (Mathenge et al., 2014; Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). WUAs and WUCs focus on broader management and specific water use issues, respectively, with WUAs involving larger communities and a more democratic structure (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). In contrast, CMCs address broader stakeholder involvement at the catchment level, while WMCs emphasize conservation in specific wetland areas (Mathenge et al., 2014). CMMs feature shared governance between communities and external entities, whereas ICSs adopt a holistic approach to resource management. NGO-facilitated models often see NGOs holding significant authority, while IWMIs prioritize traditional practices within Indigenous communities. Finally, FBOMs integrate social welfare goals with strong cultural ties. These models vary in governance structures, community sizes, funding sources, cultural integration, and external partnerships, reflecting their tailored approaches to managing water resources effectively (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019; Gichuki, 2000; Dirwai et al., 2021).

Table 4

Table 4. Key differences among various community-driven water resource management models.

3.4 Key success characteristics and common challenges

Community-driven water resource management models in East and Central Africa have emerged as vital strategies for addressing local water challenges (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005; Karim and Thiel, 2017; Gichuki, 2000; Mabhaudhi et al., 2019; Dirwai et al., 2021). Their success is anchored in several key characteristics that enhance their effectiveness and sustainability (Table 5).

Table 5

Table 5. Key success characteristics.

Furthermore, although these models are essential for addressing local water challenges, they still face a range of common obstacles that can hinder their effectiveness and sustainability (Table 6). Understanding these challenges is crucial for developing strategies to overcome them and enhance the resilience of these management systems (Biebricher, 2011; Chowdhury et al., 2019; Katusiime and Schütt, 2020; Ananga et al., 2021).

Table 6

Table 6. Common obstacles.

3.5 Interlinkage between models and their specific contributions to water management efforts

The nine community-driven water resource management models in East and Central Africa are interlinked in various ways (Table 7). Their contributions collectively enhance the management of water resources. These models are interlinked through their collaborative efforts and shared goals of sustainable water management (Pangare, 2006; Archer, 2016). By working together, they create a comprehensive framework that enhances community involvement and empowers local stakeholders (Archer, 2016). This integration of traditional practices with modern management strategies allows for a more holistic approach to addressing the multifaceted challenges of water resource management (Pangare, 2006). Moreover, the collaboration among different models fosters knowledge sharing and capacity building, enriching the community’s ability to adapt to changes and challenges. Ultimately, this interconnected approach enhances resilience and sustainability in water management, promoting long-term benefits for communities across East and Central Africa.

Table 7

Table 7. General interconnections between the models and their collective contributions to improving water management in East and Central Africa.

3.6 The role and responsibilities of each model in a representative irrigation scheme

3.6.1 Case study; Ngetu Irrigation Scheme, Kenya

One of the best examples is in the Ngetu Irrigation Scheme, whereby, the interplay between various associations and committees significantly impacts the overall success of water management. Effective communication, proactive management, and collaboration among these groups lead to sustainable agricultural practices and improved livelihoods in well-maintained schemes (Archer, 2016). Conversely, in poorly maintained schemes, the breakdown of roles and responsibilities can result in inefficiencies, conflicts, and environmental degradation (Pangare, 2006). Strengthening these models is crucial for enhancing the resilience and sustainability of irrigation systems in the region. Table 8 illustrates how the effectiveness of each association or committee in the Ngetu Irrigation Scheme greatly influences water management outcomes, contributing to either sustainable practices or challenges in poorly maintained systems. The success of these models is contingent upon their ability to foster community engagement, ensure equitable water distribution, and maintain infrastructure effectively (Apipalakul et al., 2015). Overall, the integration of these community-driven models is essential for addressing the multifaceted challenges of water resource management in the Ngetu Irrigation Scheme, ultimately promoting long-term benefits for the local communities (Rautanen et al., 2014).

Table 8

Table 8. Specific interconnections between the models and their collective contributions to improving water management in the Ngetu Irrigation Scheme, Kenya.

3.6.2 Overcoming deficiencies in poorly maintained irrigation systems

To overcome deficiencies in poorly maintained irrigation systems, a comprehensive approach is needed to address the various challenges. Table 9 proposes steps to enhance the management and sustainability of such systems. By implementing these steps, communities can address the deficiencies in poorly maintained irrigation systems, leading to improved water management, increased agricultural productivity, and enhanced community resilience. Engaging stakeholders, fostering collaboration, and focusing on sustainable practices are key to revitalizing these systems effectively (Basco-Carrera et al., 2017; Teweldebrihan and Dinka, 2025). A well-maintained irrigation system is critical for optimal plant growth and yield, as well as for minimizing negative impacts on natural resources and the environment (Archer, 2016). Effective management strategies should include regular maintenance, proper design, and the incorporation of local knowledge and practices to ensure that systems are both functional and sustainable (Basco-Carrera et al., 2017). Additionally, addressing issues such as water quality deterioration and resource waste through improved design and management can significantly enhance the overall effectiveness of irrigation systems (Teweldebrihan and Dinka, 2025).

Table 9

Table 9. Steps to overcome deficiencies in poorly maintained irrigation systems.

3.7 Lessons learned from Asian countries

Recent studies from Asia have offered valuable insights that can enhance community participation and water governance in contexts similar to East and Central Africa (Duan et al., 2020; Kulenbekov et al., 2022; Rasool et al., 2023;24). The research underscores the importance of local engagement in sustainable water management, providing comparative lessons that can be applied across regions (Berndtsson and Tussupova, 2020; Fan et al., 2020; Rasool et al., 2020; Kulenbekov and Asanov, 2021). Furthermore, research studies from Asian region provide relevant key insights, emphasizing that effective community participation requires more than just local engagement; it needs robust institutional support, capacity building, and inclusive decision-making structures (Kulenbekov et al., 2022; Park et al., 2022). This study focuses on six main avenues.

3.7.1 Empowerment and capacity building

Asian studies highlight the importance of investing in the capacity of local communities and empowering them as stewards of their water resources (Fan et al., 2020; Rasool et al., 2023, p. 23, 24). This includes providing training for technical maintenance, promoting water literacy, and ensuring that community members, particularly marginalized groups like women, have the knowledge to participate actively in decision-making.

3.7.2 Transparency and information sharing

Another aspect include fostering public trust through transparency in funding, resource use, and decision-making processes is critical (Kulenbekov and Asanov, 2021). Establishing national water information sharing platforms and using simple technology like smartphone apps for reporting problems can enhance accountability and public awareness.

3.7.3 Blending traditional and modern approaches

Asia leverages both traditional water management methods, i.e., rainwater harvesting, and modern technology, i.e., Internet of Things (IoT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) for monitoring (Berndtsson and Tussupova, 2020; Kulenbekov et al., 2022; Park et al., 2022). Particularly for East and Central Africa, this suggests valuing and integrating existing indigenous knowledge systems with appropriate modern, low-cost technologies to improve efficiency and monitoring.

3.7.4 Integrated water resources management (IWRM) frameworks

Asian countries often have overarching IWRM policy frameworks, although implementation can be a challenge (Kulenbekov et al., 2022; Park et al., 2022). The lesson for East and Central Africa is to focus not just on policy creation but on practical, context-specific implementation, potentially using flexible, community-driven models that can adapt to different local conditions.

3.7.5 Formal institutional roles and coordination

Asian experience shows the value of clear institutional roles, structured coordination, and sustained investment in infrastructure and technology (Kulenbekov et al., 2022; Rasool et al., 2024). East and Central Africa can benefit from strengthening multi-stakeholder collaboration, clarifying the roles of different governance bodies (e.g., Water User Associations, local governments, NGOs), and linking local action to basin-level management.

3.7.6 Addressing power dynamics

Research from the Southern part of Asia, reveals that informal rules often lead to elite groups controlling decision-making and benefits (Duan et al., 2020; Park et al., 2022). East and Central Africa can learn by establishing formal and transparent governance mechanisms that ensure equitable representation and benefit-sharing to prevent the exclusion of certain groups.

3.8 Way forward for strengthening rural water governance

Several key lessons emerge from participatory water governance case studies across East and Central Africa that could guide future initiatives and policy reforms in the region. Foremost, local communities must be genuinely empowered as decision-makers and stewards responsible for sustainably managing the water resources critical to their livelihoods. However, true empowerment requires long-term investment in communities’ technical, organizational, and financial capacities to plan, implement, and advocate for their water needs. Participatory models from countries like Tanzania and Ethiopia demonstrate how context specific training programs are needed to continuously build skills at the local level, such as operating irrigation infrastructure, watershed conservation practices, water monitoring, and basic accounting. Such capacity-building efforts have been most effective when designed through collaborative partnerships between user groups, local governments, and support agencies within East and Central Africa.

Multisectoral collaboration is also important, as evidenced by integrated catchment management initiatives in Zimbabwe that bring together diverse stakeholders from across sectors to jointly address water issues. At broader scales, river basin organizations like the Nile Basin Initiative can aid transboundary cooperation on knowledge-sharing, equitable allocation, and infrastructure projects between East African nations. National water policies within countries in the region must also recognize the immense diversity in local hydrological and socio-economic contexts rather than imposing uniform solutions. Real devolution of decision-making, responsibility, and resources down to community levels has proven valuable, as seen in decentralized delivery models within Tanzania and Ethiopia. With such lessons incorporated, participatory approaches could greatly empower small-scale farmers and herders across East and Central Africa as climate-resilient water stewards.

Furthermore, hybrid and complementary governance models should be encouraged, and successful practices institutionalized into national frameworks in the East African and Central region. Continued learning and sharing of best practices across the region must be upheld. Comparative learning across contexts should be promoted to identify scalable innovations, while irrigation schemes should adopt integrated governance blueprints that assign roles based on functional strengths, supported by performance monitoring and maintenance planning. Additionally, any model applied must be supported with long-term capacity-building and inter-model coordination to prevent redundancy and fragmentation. In line with that, all nations in the region are advise to advocate for strategic investment in governance reform, multisectoral collaboration, and policy harmonization, with clear pathways for scaling and embedding community-driven models into national legislation.

4 Conclusion

This study identified a total of nine common community-driven water resource management models implemented in the East and Central African countries. Based on their institutionalization, governance structures, and extent of use, the models were categorized into two broad groups: main models and auxiliary models. Main models include WUAs, WUCs, CMCs, WMCs, CMCs, ICSs, and NGOs. Auxiliary models include IWMIs and FBOMs. The main models, namely, WUAs and WUCs, represented the dominant, formalized approaches utilized widely across multiple countries and river basins. It was also established that these models possess several common aspects, namely, prioritizing high levels of community engagement and democratic governance, ensuring local representation in decision-making processes. However, these models were found to exhibit distinct differences across several dimensions in that some of them focused on broader management issues, that is, water management associations, while others focused on specific water use issues, that is, WMCs. Key characteristics for the success of various models were identified to be community engagement, local knowledge integration, inclusivity, collaboration among stakeholders, conflict resolution mechanisms, as well as funding and resources mobilization. Models; WUAs and ICSs, emerged as relatively effective models in many contexts. Key lessons for strengthening community-driven water resource management models in East and Central Africa include empowering communities as stewards, investing in their capacities, fostering multisectoral collaboration, and formulating guidelines on equitable benefit-sharing. Additionally, national policies should recognize diverse local conditions and devolve real decision-making powers. In a nutshell, all East and Central African countries are urged to emphasize on the critical role of institutional innovation, inclusive decision-making, and long-term community empowerment towards achieving sustainable rural water resources management.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

ML: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

The author of this study would like to acknowledge the cooperation and support offered by the University of Dodoma and the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania towards completion of this scientific study.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author declares that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Adams, E. A., Zulu, L., and Ouellette-Kray, Q. (2020). Community water governance for urban water security in the global south: status, lessons, and prospects. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 7:e1466. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1466

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahereza, M., Ocan, J., and Akena, F. A. (2024). Management and utilisation of land resources to attain economic sustainability among Christians in west Ankole diocese. East Afr. J. Tradit. Cult. Relig. 7, 14–29.

Google Scholar

Al Radif, A. (1999). Integrated water resources management (IWRM): an approach to face the challenges of the next century and to avert future crises. Desalination 124, 145–153. doi: 10.1016/S0011-9164(99)00099-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ananga, E. O., Agong', S. G., Acheampong, M., Njoh, A. J., and Hayombe, P. (2020). Examining the effect of community participation on beneficiary satisfaction with the work of water management committee in urban community-based operated water schemes. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 6, 1–13.

Google Scholar

Ananga, E. O., Naiga, R., Agong', S. G., Njoh, A. J., and Vickers, H. P. (2021). Examining the contribution of community participation in water resource production and management: perspectives from developing countries. SN Soc. Sci. 1, 1–20.

Google Scholar

Apipalakul, C., Wirojangud, W., and Ngang, T. K. (2015). Development of community participation on water resource conflict management. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 186, 325–330. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.048

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Archer, D. (2016). Building urban climate resilience through community-driven approaches to development: experiences from Asia. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag. 8, 654–669. doi: 10.1108/IJCCSM-03-2014-0035

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Armitage, D., Berkes, F., and Doubleday, N. (2007). Adaptive co-management: Collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Google Scholar

Basco-Carrera, L., Warren, A., van Beek, E., Jonoski, A., and Giardino, A. (2017). Collaborative modelling or participatory modelling? A framework for water resources management. Environ. Model. Softw. 91, 95–110. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bender, M. V. (2019). “Water Management in East Africa” in Oxford research encyclopedia of African history. ed. F. Ngom (Oxford: OUP).

Google Scholar

Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 1692–1702. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol. Appl. 10, 1251–1262. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bernard, P., and Kumalo, S. (2013). “Community-based natural resource management, traditional governance and spiritual ecology in southern Africa: the case of chiefs, diviners and spirit mediums” in Rights resources and rural development. eds. C. Fabricius, E. Koch, and H. Magome (London: Routledge), 115–126.

Google Scholar

Berndtsson, R., and Tussupova, K. (2020). The future of water management in Central Asia. Water 12:2241. doi: 10.3390/w12082241

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Beyonyi, E. Y., and Ile, I. U. (2023). Exploring community-based water resource management in Cameroon for sustainable development: insights from indigenous participatory approaches. J. Public Adm. 58, 806–825. doi: 10.53973/jopa.2023.58.3.1a5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Biebricher, T. (2011). Faith: Based initiatives and the challenges of governance. Public Adm. 89, 1001–1014. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01911.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bohensky, E., and Lynam, T. (2005). Evaluating responses in complex adaptive systems: insights on water management from the southern African millennium ecosystem assessment (SAfMA). Ecol. Soc. 10:11.

Google Scholar

Calow, R. C., MacDonald, A. M., Nicol, A. L., and Robins, N. S. (2010). Ground water security and drought in Africa: linking availability, access, and demand. Groundwater 48, 246–256.

Google Scholar

Carlsson, L., and Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. J. Environ. Manag. 75, 65–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Castro, J. E. (2007). Water governance in the twentieth-first century. Ambiente Soc. 10, 97–118. doi: 10.1590/S1414-753X2007000200007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chaichakan, C., and Khampeng, D. (2025). Enhancing participatory planning for water management through the use of innovative tools in collaborative action research. World Water Policy 11, 82–96. doi: 10.1002/wwp2.12262

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chifamba, E. (2013). Community participation in integrated water resources management in the save catchment, Zimbabwe. J. Environ. Sci. Water Resour. 2, 360–374.

Google Scholar

Chowdhury, S. R., Wahab, H. A., and Islam, M. R. (2019). The role of faith-based NGOs in social development: invisible empowerment. Int. Soc. Work. 62, 1055–1074. doi: 10.1177/0020872818767260

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clarke, M., and Ware, V. A. (2015). Understanding faith-based organizations: how FBOs are contrasted with NGOs in international development literature. Prog. Dev. Stud. 15, 37–48. doi: 10.1177/1464993414546979

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clements, T., John, A., Nielsen, K., An, D., Tan, S., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1283–1291. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.010

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Davis, M. D. (2007). Integrated water resource management and water sharing. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 133, 427–445. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2007)133:5(427)

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Delgado-Serrano, M. M., Ramos, P. A., and Lasso Zapata, E. (2017). Using Ostrom's DPs as fuzzy sets to analyse how water policies challenge community-based water governance in Colombia. Water 9:535. doi: 10.3390/w9070535

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Democratic Republic of Congo (2015). National water law. Kinshasa, DRC: Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Google Scholar

Dewan, C., Buisson, M. C., and Mukherji, A. (2014). The imposition of participation? The case of participatory water management in coastal Bangladesh. Water Altern. 7:2.

Google Scholar

Dirwai, T. L., Kanda, E. K., Senzanje, A., and Busari, T. I. (2021). Water resource management: IWRM strategies for improved water management. A systematic review of case studies of east, west and southern Africa. PLoS One 16:e0236903. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236903

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dixon, A. (2018). Indigenous management of wetlands: Experiences in Ethiopia. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Dressler, W., Büscher, B., Schoon, M., and Brockington, D. (2010). From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environ. Conserv. 37, 5–15. doi: 10.1017/S0376892910000044

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Duan, W., Zou, S., Chen, Y., Nover, D., and Fang, G. (2020). Sustainable water management for cross-border resources: the Balkhash Lake Basin of Central Asia, 1931–2015. J. Clean. Prod. 263:121614. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121614

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dupuits, É., and Bernal, A. (2015). Scaling-up water community organizations: the role of inter-community networks in multi-level water governance. Flux 99, 19–31.

Google Scholar

Fan, M., Xu, J., Chen, Y., Li, D., and Tian, S. (2020). How to sustainably use water resources: a case study for decision support on the water utilization of Xinjiang, China. Water 12:3564. doi: 10.3390/w12123564

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Flint, A., Howard, G., Nijhawan, A., Poudel, M., Geremew, A., Mulugeta, Y., et al. (2024). Managing climate change challenges to water security: community water governance in Ethiopia and Nepal. Geo: Geography Environment 11:e00135. doi: 10.1002/geo2.135

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., and Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 31, 437–440. doi: 10.1579/0044-7447-31.5.437

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gawler, M. (2002). “What are best practices? Lessons in participatory management of inland and coastal wetlands,” in Strategies for wise use of wetlands: Best practices in participatory management. Proceedings of a workshop held at the 2nd international conference on wetlands and development (November 1998, Dakar, Senegal), 1–12.

Google Scholar

German, L., Mansoor, H., Alemu, G., Mazengia, W., Amede, T., and Stroud, A. (2007). Participatory integrated watershed management: evolution of concepts and methods in an ecoregional program of the eastern African highlands. Agric. Syst. 94, 189–204. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2006.08.008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gichuki, C. M. (2000). Community participation in the protection of Kenya's wetlands. Ostrich 71, 122–125. doi: 10.1080/00306525.2000.9639886

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gómez-Baggethun, E., Corbera, E., and Reyes-García, V. (2013). Traditional ecological knowledge and global environmental change: research findings and policy implications. Ecol. Soc. J. Int. Sci. Resilience Sustainability 18:180472.

Google Scholar

Gourbesville, P. (2008). Challenges for integrated water resources management. Phys. Chem. Earth 33, 284–289. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2008.02.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Government of Burundi (2009). National Water Policy. Bujumbura: Government of Burundi.

Google Scholar

Government of Kenya (2002). The water act, 2002. No. 8 of 2002. Nairobi: Government of Kenya.

Google Scholar

Government of Southern Sudan (2007). National Water Policy. November 2007. Juba: Government of Southern Sudan.

Google Scholar

Grassini, L. (2019). Participatory water governance between theories and practices: learning from a community-based initiative in India. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 35, 404–429. doi: 10.1080/07900627.2017.1354761

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Green, O. O., Cosens, B. A., and Garmestani, A. S. (2013). Resilience in transboundary water governance: the Okavango River basin. Ecol. Soc. 18:180223. doi: 10.5751/ES-05453-180223

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Grigg, N. S. (2008). Integrated water resources management: balancing views and improving practice. Water Int. 33, 279–292. doi: 10.1080/02508060802272820

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W., Moellenkamp, S., Pahl-Wostl, C., and Yalcin, R. (2009). Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-) management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecol. Soc. 14:140126. doi: 10.5751/ES-02827-140126

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ibisch, R. B., Bogardi, J. J., and Borchardt, D. (2016). Integrated water resources management: Concept, research and implementation. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 3–32.

Google Scholar

Jakeman, A. J., Giupponi, C., Karssenberg, D., Hare, M. P., Fassio, A., and Letcher, R. A. (2006). “Integrated management of water resources: concepts, approaches and challenges” in Sustainable Management of Water Resources: An integrated approach. eds. Y. Liu and H. Gupta (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing), 3–26.

Google Scholar

Jones, J. A. A., and Van der Walt, I. J. (2004). Challenges for water sustainability in Africa. GeoJournal 61, 105–109. doi: 10.1007/s10708-004-2860-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Karim, M. R., and Thiel, A. (2017). Role of community based local institution for climate change adaptation in the Teesta riverine area of Bangladesh. Clim. Risk Manag. 17, 92–103. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2017.06.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Katusiime, J., and Schütt, B. (2020). Integrated water resources management approaches to improve water resources governance. Water 12:3424. doi: 10.3390/w12123424

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kimathi, E., Tonnang, H. E., Subramanian, S., Cressman, K., Abdel-Rahman, E. M., Tesfayohannes, M., et al. (2020). Prediction of breeding regions for the desert locust Schistocerca gregaria in East Africa. Sci. Rep. 10:11937.

Google Scholar

Kobayashi, K., Ari, I. R. D., Escobar, I. C., and Schaefer, A. (2014). Community based water management and social capital. London: IWA Publishing.

Google Scholar

Koppen, B. V., Giordano, M., and Butterworth, J. (2007). Community-based water law and water resource management reform in developing countries. London: Springer, 117–279.

Google Scholar

Kulenbekov, Z. E., and Asanov, B. D. (2021). Water resource management in Central Asia and Afghanistan: Current and future environmental and water issues. Cham: Springer.

Google Scholar

Kulenbekov, Z. E., Orunbaev, S. Z., Asanov, B. D., and Sakhvaeva, E. P. (2022). Review and analysis of the effectiveness of international regulations and laws in the field of integrated water resources management in Central Asia. Problemy Postsovetskogo Prostranstva 9, 20–43. doi: 10.24975/2313-8920-2022-9-1-20-43

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kyessi, A. G. (2001). Community-based urban water management under scarcity in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. J. Building Land Dev. 8, 28–41.

Google Scholar

Kyessi, A. G. (2005). Community-based urban water management in fringe neighbourhoods: the case of Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. Habitat Int. 29, 1–25. doi: 10.1016/S0197-3975(03)00059-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Larson, K. L., and Lach, D. (2008). Participants and non-participants of place-based groups: An assessment of attitudes and implications for public participation in water resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 88, 817–830. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.04.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lekunze, R. N. (2001). Assessing stakeholder participation in integrated water resource management. The role of youth in community water management projects in Cameroon. Unpublished MBA project. Nairobi: Kenyatta University Kenya.

Google Scholar

Lenton, R., and Muller, M. (2012). Integrated water resources management in practice: Better water management for development. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Lund, J. R., and Palmer, R. N. (1997). Water resource system modeling for conflict resolution. Water Resour. Update 3, 70–82.

Google Scholar

Lyons, K., Walters, P., and Riddell, E. (2016). The role of faith-based organizations in environmental governance: the case of forestry in Solomon Islands. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 18, 342–360. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1098524

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mabhaudhi, T., Nhamo, L., Mpandeli, S., Nhemachena, C., Senzanje, A., Sobratee, N., et al. (2019). The water-energy- food Nexus as a tool to transform rural livelihoods and well-being in southern Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16:2970. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16162970

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mathenge, J., Luwesi, C. N., Shisanya, C. A., Mahiri, I., Akombo, R. A., and Mutiso, M. N. (2014). Community participation in water sector governance in Kenya: a performance-based appraisal of community water management systems in Ngaciuma-Kinyaritha catchment, Tana basin, Mount Kenya region. Int. J. Innov. Res. Dev. 3, 783–792.

Google Scholar

Meguro, W., Briones, J., Failano, G., and Fletcher, C. H. (2024). A science and community-driven approach to illustrating urban adaptation to coastal flooding to inform management plans. Sustainability 16:2849. doi: 10.3390/su16072849

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Merrey, D. J., Drechsel, P., de Vries, F. P., and Sally, H. (2005). Integrating "livelihoods" into integrated water resources management: taking the integration paradigm to its logical next step for developing countries. Reg. Environ. Chang. 5, 197–204.

Google Scholar

MINIRENA (2011). National Policy for water resources management. Kigali: Ministry of Natural Resources.

Google Scholar

Naiga, R. (2018). Conditions for successful community-based water management: perspectives from rural Uganda. Int. J. Rural. Manag. 14, 110–135. doi: 10.1177/0973005218793245

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Naiga, R., Ananga, E. O., and Kakumba, U. (2024). Gendered participation in water governance: implications for successful communitybased water management and women empowerment. Int. J. Rural Manage. 20, 255–270. doi: 10.1177/09730052231202567

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nalumenya, B., Rubinato, M., Kennedy, M., Catterson, J., Bakamwesiga, H., and Blackett, M. (2023). Water management education in the east African region: a review of the challenges to be addressed. Sustainability 15:11597. doi: 10.3390/su151511597

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ngigi, S. N., Mueller, B., and Birner, R. (2017). Gender differences in climate change adaptation strategies and participation in group-based approaches: an intra-household analysis from rural Kenya. Ecol. Econ. 138, 99–108.

Google Scholar

Nkhoma, B. G. (2018). Peasants, ecology and the state: food security in the Lake Chilwa Basin of Southern Malawi, 1891-1994 (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State). Free State: Malawi.

Google Scholar

Nkolola, B. N., and Phiri, A. (2025). Sustaining rural water infrastructure in Mbala, Zambia: a modelling approach for community-based management. World Development Perspectives 37:100652. doi: 10.1016/j.wdp.2024.100652

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nyam, Y. S., Kotir, J. H., Jordaan, A. J., Ogundeji, A. A., and Turton, A. R. (2020). Drivers of change in sustainable water management and agricultural development in South Africa: a participatory approach. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 6:62. doi: 10.1007/s40899-020-00420-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pangare, V. (2006). Global perspectives on integrated water resources management. London: Academic Foundation.

Google Scholar

Park, S. Y., Kim, J. S., Lee, S., and Lee, J. H. (2022). Appraisal of water security in Asia: the pentagonal framework for efficient water resource management. Appl. Sci. 12:8307. doi: 10.3390/app12168307

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pollard, S., and Du Toit, D. (2011). Towards adaptive integrated water resources management in southern Africa: the role of self-organisation and multi-scale feedbacks for learning and responsiveness in the Letaba and crocodile catchments. Water Resour. Manag. 25, 4019–4035. doi: 10.1007/s11269-011-9904-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Raburu, P. O., Wa'Munga, P. O., and Okeyo-Owuor, J. B. (2012). “Experiences from community participation in managing Nyando Wetland,” in Community Based Approach to the Management of Nyando Wetland, Lake Victoria Basin, Kenya, 81.

Google Scholar

Rasool, A., Saeed, S., Ahmad, S., Iqbal, A., and Ali, A. (2024). Empowering community participation for sustainable rural water supply: navigating water scarcity in Karak district Pakistan. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 26:101269. doi: 10.1016/j.gsd.2024.101269

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rasool, A., Saeed, S., and Shah, R. (2020). Water crisis and its impact on the socio-economic condition of local people of district Karak, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Islamabad J. Soc. Sci. 1, 39–50.

Google Scholar

Rasool, A., Saeed, S., Sharif, M., Khan, A., Khan, S. H., and Anwar, M. (2023). Water scarcity and social wellbeing of people living in district Karak Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Russ. Law J. 11, 1440–1452.

Google Scholar

Rautanen, S. L., van Koppen, B., and Wagle, N. (2014). Community-driven multiple use water services: lessons learned by the Rural Village water resources management project in Nepal. Water Altern. 7:1.

Google Scholar

Republic of Malawi (2005). National water policy. Lilongwe: Republic of Malawi.

Google Scholar

Republic of Rwanda (2023). National Water and sanitation policy. October, 2023. Kigali, Rwanda. Lilongwe: Republic of Rwanda.

Google Scholar

Republic of Uganda (1995). The water statute no. 9 of 1995. Kampala: Republic of Uganda.

Google Scholar

Richards, N. (2019). Water users associations in Tanzania: local governance for whom? Water 11:2178. doi: 10.3390/w11102178

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rockström, J., Karlberg, L., Wani, S. P., and Barron, J. (2010). Managing water in rainfed agriculture-the need for a paradigm shift. Agric. Water Manag. 97, 543–550. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2009.09.009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rogers, P., and Hall, A. W. (2003). Effective water governance, vol. 7. Stockholm: Global water partnership.

Google Scholar

Rollason, E., Bracken, L. J., Hardy, R. J., and Large, A. R. G. (2018). Evaluating the success of public participation in integrated catchment management. J. Environ. Manag. 228, 267–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.024

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Saravanan, V. S., McDonald, G. T., and Mollinga, P. P. (2009). Critical review of integrated water resources management: moving beyond polarised discourse. Nat. Res. Forum 33, 76–86.

Google Scholar

Savaresi, A. (2016). The Paris agreement: a new beginning? J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 34, 16–26. doi: 10.1080/02646811.2016.1133983

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sen, S., and Nielsen, J. R. (1996). Fisheries co-management: a comparative analysis. Mar. Policy 20, 405–418. doi: 10.1016/0308-597X(96)00028-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shen, Y., and Chen, Y. (2010). Global perspective on hydrology, water balance, and water resources management in arid basins. Hydrol. Process. 24, 129–135. doi: 10.1002/hyp.7428

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shunglu, R., Köpke, S., Kanoi, L., Nissanka, T. S., Withanachchi, C. R., Gamage, D. U., et al. (2022). Barriers in participative water governance: a critical analysis of community development approaches. Water 14:762. doi: 10.3390/w14050762

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sikor, T., He, J. U. N., and Lestrelin, G. (2017). Property rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis revisited. World Dev. 93, 337–349. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.032

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sikor, T., and Nguyen, T. Q. (2007). Why may forest devolution not benefit the rural poor? Forest entitlements in Vietnam's central highlands. World Dev. 35, 2010–2025. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.11.011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sindayigaya, I., and Toyi, O. (2023). Water public policy in Burundi: Case of the City of Bujumbura. Summer School, University of Burundi. Burundi: University of Burundi, 1–8.

Google Scholar

Singh, A. K., Sikka, A. K., Upadhyaya, A., Bhatnagar, P. R., Dhanphule, S., Singh, M. K., et al. (2008). Scientific perceptions and community responses in a participatory water management endeavor. Water Resour. Manag. 22, 1173–1189. doi: 10.1007/s11269-007-9219-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sultana, F. (2009). Community and participation in water resources management: gendering and naturing development debates from Bangladesh. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 34, 346–363. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2009.00345.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tantoh, H. B., and McKay, T. J. M. (2021). Assessing community-based water management and governance systems in north-West Cameroon using a cultural theory and systems approach. J. Clean. Prod. 290:125804. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125804

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Terer, T., Muasya, A. M., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Ndiritu, G. G., and Triest, L. (2012). Integrating local ecological knowledge and management practices of an isolated semi-arid papyrus swamp (Loboi, Kenya) into a wider conservation framework. J. Environ. Manag. 93, 71–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.08.005

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Teweldebrihan, M. D., and Dinka, M. O. (2025). Sustainable water management practices in agriculture: the case of East Africa. Encyclopedia 5:7. doi: 10.3390/encyclopedia5010007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2011). Water resources management policy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

Google Scholar

The United Republic of Tanzania (2002). National Water Policy. Dar Es Salaam: The United Republic of Tanzania.

Google Scholar

The Water Act Cap 152 (1997).

Google Scholar

Tropp, H. (2007). Water governance: trends and needs for new capacity development. Water Policy 9, 19–30. doi: 10.2166/wp.2007.137

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

United Nations (2007). United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. New York, NY: United Nations.

Google Scholar

Upreti, B. R. (2000). “Community level water use negotiation: implications for water resource management” in Water, land and law: Changing rights to land and water in Nepal. eds. M. Adhikari and R. Pradhan (London: Jagadamba Press), 249–271.

Google Scholar

Volenzo, T. E., and Odiyo, J. (2018). Ecological public health and participatory planning and assessment dilemmas: the case of water resources management. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15:1635. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15081635

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Waheed, S., Sial, M. H., and Azhar, A. (2021). The community-based rural water governance and institutional compliance. Pak. J. Soc Sci. 41, 823–835.

Google Scholar

Were, A. N., Isabirye, M., Poesen, J., Maertens, M., Deckers, J., and Mathijs, E. (2013). Decentralised governance of wetland resources in the Lake Victoria basin of Uganda. Nat. Resour. 4, 55–64.

Google Scholar

Xu, J. B. C. Y. (2009). “Water supply and sanitation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo” in Sustainable groundwater resources in Africa. eds. Y. Xu and E. Braune (London: CRC Press), 226–241.

Google Scholar

Yerian, S., Hennink, M., Greene, L. E., Kiptugen, D., Buri, J., and Freeman, M. C. (2014). The role of women in water management and conflict resolution in Marsabit, Kenya. Environ. Manag. 54, 1320–1330. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0356-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yu, H. H. (2014). Community-based water governance under integrated water resources management reform in contemporary rural China. Environ. Manage. Sust. Dev. 3, 1–17. doi: 10.5296/emsd.v3i2.5656

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zambia Republic. (2010). National Water Policy. Lusaka: Zambia.

Google Scholar

Zambia Republic. (2011). Water resources management act, 2011 (no. 21 of 2011). Lusaka: Zambia.

Google Scholar