Honest, sharp, and unafraid to challenge the usual assumptions — that’s Josh. With a background in urban WASH systems and a deep commitment to socially just development, his work asks hard questions of both policy and practice. In this edition of Team Speak, he reflects on why idealized service models keep failing, what fairness really looks like in WASH governance, and why small, pragmatic fixes might be our biggest shot at real change.
Read on to explore the power of working with what’s real, not what looks good on paper.
Josh (J): It’s evolved a lot—mainly because I’ve let go of the idea that either international aid or national governments on their own are going to fix this. Even when funding was more available, it often failed to produce lasting results. And many governments—especially local ones—don’t have the resources or practical ability to deliver services directly. But that doesn’t mean we should assume private solutions will sort it all out either.
Instead, we need to focus on what’s already happening. In many cities, most water and sanitation services are delivered by informal providers. These systems are already doing a lot of the heavy lifting, but they’re inconsistent, unregulated, unsafe, and often unfair. Trying to replace them from scratch rarely works where resources are limited. A better approach is to help these systems function better: support them where they’re effective, regulate them where they’re not, and step in where they can’t reach.
That also means shifting how we think about government’s role. In a lot of cases, governments can’t and won’t be the direct provider. But they still have a role to play—setting the rules, creating the right incentives, protecting public interests, and making sure no one is left behind. If we can focus on coordination, accountability, and smarter use of limited resources, we’ll be in a much better place than if we just keep chasing idealized models that don’t reflect reality.
J: It would start by being honest about the economics of sanitation. We often plan as if services can pay for themselves through tariffs. But that rarely happens—anywhere in the world. Instead of designing around unrealistic financial models, policy should begin by accepting that subsidies, blended finance, and public investment will always be part of the picture.
That means making long-term affordability and viability the priority—not just for households, but for the people actually delivering the service. Better policy embeds support mechanisms from day one: targeted subsidies, pooled public funds, and clear expectations about what can be covered by user payments and what can’t.
It also focuses on how to make the system work better overall: reducing costs through smarter coordination, bundling services to reduce risk, and structuring contracts so that small operators aren’t set up to fail. Fairness isn’t just about who pays—it’s about who gets to participate, who carries the risk, and who benefits in the long run.
J: Honestly? It’s how absurdly neglected the whole space is.
Sanitation—especially urban sanitation—is one of the most important public health and environmental issues we face. But it’s stuck in a blind spot. It mainly affects people who don’t have money, and for everyone else, it’s an issue they can solve privately—by paying someone to make it go away. So it never becomes a real political or investment priority. But poor sanitation doesn’t stay contained. It affects water quality, contributes to climate vulnerability, and creates long-term costs for everyone—whether through public health crises, degraded ecosystems, or overwhelmed infrastructure. Still, because those impacts are indirect or delayed, the sector keeps getting ignored.
What keeps me here is that the fixes are often really simple. Structure the market. Aggregate demand. Regulate providers. Create predictable revenue. This isn’t some moonshot innovation challenge—it’s about making messy systems work a little more like someone’s in charge.
The problem is that nothing’s changed in years. We’re still building infrastructure that never stood a chance of being sustainable. Still pretending households can fund entire systems through user fees. Still treating informal providers as a temporary stopgap when they are, in fact, the system.
It’s frustrating. It feels stuck. But it also feels like a space where a small amount of practical change could make a huge difference. That’s why I keep doing this. Because there’s no reason for it to be this bad—and no excuse for continuing to pretend otherwise.
