At the end of February 2025, the USAID WASH Partnerships and Learning for Sustainability (WASHPaLS) #2 project was terminated for the convenience of the US government, a little over three years into what was planned to be a five-year activity. While cut short, WASHPaLS #2 had started harvesting evidence and (preliminary) findings that, combined with the conclusions of the first WASHPaLS project (2016 to 2022), made valuable contributions to sector learning in the space of rural sanitation and hygiene service delivery. In this SLH Learning Brief, we reflect on some of the key themes and findings of WASHPaLS and WASHPaLS #2 around area-wide, safely managed, market-based sanitation, and where to possibly go from here. Nine key findings are discussed, with future priorities for area-wide sanitation (AWS) proposed.
- Monitoring and adaptive management are key cornerstones for AWS but countries lack systems, tools, and practices.
- Government-led consideration of gender equality and social inclusion is key to ensure and sustain AWS outcomes.
- Workforce development is key, but severely neglected.
- MBS in an AWS context should more proactively address population segments not easily reached by the market.
- The proportion of customers requiring some form of financial assistance is extensive.
- Enterprise-led customer financing for rural sanitation is restricted by general rural financing limitations.
- Smart sanitation subsidy design can increase the number of people able and willing to take up sanitation.
- Subsidy and market adjustments need to be supported by a tailored mix of interventions, including strengthened community engagement.
- Rural faecal sludge management business models require public funding to be viable, but diversification of service options may help improve access to SMS.
Facts Only
* The USAID WASHPaLS #2 project was terminated at the end of February 2025.
* WASHPaLS #2 was planned for a five-year activity but was cut short.
* Findings from WASHPaLS and the first WASHPaLS project (2016 to 2022) contribute to sector learning in rural sanitation and hygiene service delivery.
* Key findings include: Monitoring and adaptive management are essential for area-wide sanitation (AWS) but countries lack the necessary systems, tools, and practices.
* Government leadership on gender equality and social inclusion is key to sustaining AWS outcomes.
* Workforce development is a key requirement but has been severely neglected.
* Market-based sanitation in an AWS context should address population segments not easily reached by the market.
* Extensive reliance on financial assistance exists for customers requiring some form of payment.
* Enterprise-led customer financing for rural sanitation is restricted by general rural financing limitations.
* Smart sanitation subsidy design can increase willingness and ability to adopt sanitation.
* Subsidy and market adjustments require a mix of interventions, including strengthened community engagement.
* Rural faecal sludge management business models need public funding for viability, though service diversification may improve access to sanitation services.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The documented outcomes reveal a structural tension between the technical requirements for area-wide sanitation (AWS) and the existing socio-economic and institutional realities on the ground. The finding that monitoring and adaptive management are cornerstones of AWS, yet implementation systems are lacking, points to a gap not just in technical capacity but in systemic governance infrastructure. This mirrors a recurring pattern where high-level goals (like achieving universal sanitation) are disconnected from the operational tools needed for execution. The emphasis on workforce development being neglected suggests that solutions remain dependent on external inputs rather than internal capacity building, which is a common failure point in development initiatives.
The dynamics around market-based sanitation further illustrate this tension: while markets offer potential mechanisms for service delivery, their application is constrained by financial limitations and the need to reach marginalized populations. The suggestion that MBS must proactively address unreached segments implies that market mechanisms alone are insufficient; they require deliberate structural redesign, as suggested by smart subsidy design, rather than simply being applied as-is. The need for public funding for sludge management business models signals a core conflict: private sector viability versus public good necessitates a re-evaluation of who bears the risk and the responsibility.
The overall pattern suggests that progress in complex sectoral goals depends less on introducing new technologies (like smart subsidies) and more on addressing foundational systemic issues—governance capacity, inclusive social frameworks, and equitable resource allocation. The shift from project termination to synthesizing learning implies that the process itself highlights where accountability structures fail, and future success hinges on ensuring that adaptive management truly becomes institutionalized through government mechanisms that prioritize equity alongside efficiency.
Bridge Questions: What specific governance mechanisms are required to institutionalize adaptive management systems across diverse national contexts? How can public funding for essential infrastructure be leveraged to incentivize private sector innovation without compromising public accountability? What are the long-term implications if workforce development remains a persistent priority gap despite the evidence indicating its critical role in sustaining sanitation outcomes?