Policy versus Practice: Examining Decentralisation and rural water services in Fiji, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu

Author: Dr Mark Love, Research Fellow

Across the Pacific, governments are embracing decentralisation as a guiding principle for public service reform, including in the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector. Decentralisation is relatively strongly cemented in Fiji and Vanuatu and advancing in Solomon Islands. While the notion of decentralisation holds the promise of improved service delivery, especially in rural and remote communities, the reality of implementation often falls short. In small island developing states like Fiji, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, decentralisation is more evident in policy than in practice, and its impacts on rural water service delivery remain uneven. Recognising the gaps between aspiration and reality, researchers from the Pacific Community Water Management Plus (PaCWaM+) applied research program – led by the International WaterCentre, Griffith University, in partnership with colleagues from The University of the South Pacific (Fiji and Vanuatu) and Solomon Islands National University, and supported by the Australian Government’s Water for Women Fund – and undertook formative research in these three countries to better understand the strengths, opportunities, and challenges associated with decentralisation in the rural water sector. The results have just been published in three stand-alone reports (link).

Across all three countries, community water management (CWM) remains the dominant model, even as evidence accumulates that it struggles to deliver long-term, reliable services. The emergence of a “community water management plus” (CWM+) model – characterised by greater professionalisation, diversified delivery approaches and post-construction support – is gaining attention globally. But in the Pacific, where logistical, financial and human resource constraints remain acute, decentralisation offers both a potential mechanism for strengthening support and a test of government capacity. Understanding how decentralisation is being operationalised, and where it is working well and where it can be improved, was the overriding impetus for this study.

The research employed a mixed-methods approach, with a total of 114 semi-structured interviews conducted across the three countries at national, provincial and community levels. Participants included national government officials, provincial authorities, ward and village leaders, and water committee members. In Fiji, interviews were carried out across five provinces; in Solomon Islands, interviews spanned Western and Isabel provinces and Honiara; and in Vanuatu, interviews were conducted across four provinces. In each country, results were presented to key sector actors at stakeholder validation workshops. The research team developed a shared framework comprising six “elements” or “building blocks” of effective decentralisation for rural water service delivery: (i) policy and regulatory frameworks, (ii) budgeting, resources and (material) resources (iii) information and knowledge sharing, (iv) monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL), (v) coordination and harmonisation, and (vi) human resources and capacity development. This framework guided the analysis of institutional strengths, challenges, and opportunities in each country.

In Fiji, decentralisation of the rural water sector is supported by a relatively robust policy foundation, including the 2021 Rural Water and Sanitation Policy. This policy mandates that provincial administrators, particularly Roko Tui and Assistant Roko Tui officers, monitor and support community WASH efforts. However, the research found considerable gaps in awareness and implementation with more than 60% of subnational respondents unaware of the policy, and evidence of respondent confusion about what monitoring, as stipulated on the policy, entails. While Fiji fares better than its neighbours in terms of available resources and institutional capacity, sector fragmentation remains a challenge. Roles are not clearly delineated between the Department of Water and Sewerage and the Water Authority of Fiji, and coordination with other line ministries remains inconsistent. On the ground, water committees receive minimal post-construction support, and although standardised training for committees has recently been piloted, its rollout currently remains limited. Sector-wide MEL systems are underdeveloped, and harmonisation across partners, including NGOs, is ad hoc at best. Despite these limitations, Fiji is well placed to animate a more decentralised and resilient water service delivery system if institutional alignment and subnational capacity are strengthened.

Solomon Islands presents a more fragile picture. Despite repeated references to decentralisation in policy documents, there is little evidence of substantive transfer of power or resources to provincial or local authorities. Interviews revealed a widespread perception that decentralisation has not moved beyond rhetoric. More than half of rural water systems in Solomon Islands fail before reaching their designed lifespan, and water service access has declined over the past two decades. The governance and institutional environment remains centralised, with limited clarity around roles and responsibilities at the subnational level. The national RWASH policy, while progressive on paper including commitments to social inclusion and devolving implementation to “service delivery partners” (SDPs), was described by respondents as overly ambitious and poorly resourced. Provincial governments, while increasingly important in planning and oversight, lack the tools, training, and finances to support communities in maintaining water systems. There is no routine post-construction support, and MEL processes are sparse. Human resource constraints are severe, with burnout and overstretching of key officers cited frequently. Reporting processes are hindered by ad hoc data collection and manual data entry, whilst inactive oversight committees and non-functional stakeholder groups delimit effective sector coordination. Nevertheless, the research found promising avenues to potentially engage Ward Development Committees and Ward Support Officers in planning and coordination, which could provide a foundation for furthering decentralisation aspirations.

Vanuatu represents perhaps the most ambitious of the three cases in terms of policy and structural reform. Decentralisation is a constitutional principle in Vanuatu, and recent years have seen a notable devolution of planning and budget responsibilities to Provinces under the Department of Local Authorities. In the water sector, the Department of Water Resources has initiated a decentralised service delivery framework that integrates national, provincial, and area-level responsibilities. The reforms have provided support for water committee bylaws, with some evidence that they are enforceable and effective. Additionally, the DoWR outsources community training (e.g., water committee training and water safety planning) to SDPs, which – according to respondents – has expanded program reach but introduced quality control challenges. However, despite progress, the reform process remains incomplete. While area councils are now tasked with collating WASH needs and monitoring community water safety plans, they lack consistent funding and adequate technical support. Provincial-level WASH officers are highly motivated but overstretched. Information-sharing systems are underdeveloped. MEL remains largely donor-driven, and monitoring of community water committees is inconsistent and weak in practice. Despite these gaps, Vanuatu stands out for its coherent vision of decentralised rural water service delivery and the structural reforms underway to support it. Ongoing efforts to integrate traditional governance structures and local knowledge systems into water planning also represent a strength that is largely absent in the other case studies.

Taken together, the research highlights both the promise and the peril of decentralisation and rural water service delivery in the Pacific context. Across all three countries, decentralisation has not yet delivered on its potential to strengthen rural water outcomes. In practice, what exists is a mix of partial devolution, deconcentration, and delegation, rather than full political or fiscal decentralisation. The result is a system where responsibilities are passed down without adequate resourcing or clarity, leaving subnational actors in a state of limbo. The community water management model, while still dominant, is under strain. Inadequate training, weak monitoring, and minimal follow-up support mean that even where policies exist, they often have little impact on the ground.

Yet there are also reasons for optimism. All three countries have active policies supporting decentralisation and WASH, and there is a growing awareness among stakeholders of the need to professionalise rural service delivery. The introduction of standardised water committee training in Fiji, the emerging provincial sector coordination in Vanuatu, and the introduction of ward structures in Solomon Islands, are all examples of potential building blocks for stronger systems. What is needed now is greater alignment between national policy and subnational practice – backed by real investment in human and financial resources, institutional capacity, and adaptive learning systems. In the near term, there is an urgent need to shift the focus from delivering individual services to strengthening the systems that underpin them. Only by investing in these foundational capacities can decentralisation move beyond rhetoric and begin to fulfil its promise of safe, reliable, and inclusive water services for all Pacific communities.