Water is one of the most vital shared resources. As urbanization accelerates and climate change intensifies, the need for sustainable water management has never been more urgent. One such organisation leading collaborative efforts in India is BORDA (Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association), a German NGO with over 25 years of experience working across different states. In this exclusive conversation with APAC Media, Snehit Prakash, Regional Director, BORDA South Asia, shares how the organisation is empowering local communities, specifically in small towns, with innovative, decentralised water management solutions.
What does Borda essentially do, and what are the organization’s current intervention areas?
BORDA is a global organization, but in South Asia—particularly India—our work focuses on collaborating with urban local bodies, citizen groups, experts, and government stakeholders at both state and central levels to co-create and implement localized, context-specific solutions for urban challenges. Our core intervention areas include decentralized water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste management, energy access, and school sanitation
We primarily work in emerging small and medium towns, where infrastructure is often limited. For instance, in a town with 100,000 residents and no centralized sewer system, we help design sustainable wastewater management solutions. Or in a municipality of just 25,000 people with limited financial resources, we support the development of affordable and practical sewage collection systems.
Our approach emphasizes scalability and integration—once a model works locally, we help embed it into broader governance structures so that state and national bodies can adopt and replicate these solutions where needed.
Why does BORDA specifically focus on small towns? What are the policy gaps that the organisation aims to address through its interventions?
To understand this, we need to look back at history. For a long time—up until the early 1990s—India, and even its neighbors like Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, were predominantly rural economies. Policies during that time naturally catered to rural needs and services.
Then, beginning in the early 1990s, a steady yet rapid shift toward urbanization began. Urban development gained prominence, but the urban experience was still largely shaped by the few major metropolitan cities—Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Kathmandu, and Lahore. So naturally, urban policy frameworks were built on what worked in metros, not in small towns. Over time, while the rural population migrated to cities, another significant chunk moved to small and emerging towns. Today, India alone has over 5,000 small towns with populations under one lakh and thousands of census towns that aren’t even formally recognized as urban. This segment, housing 20 to 40 crore people, remains underrepresented in our urban development agenda. Borda believes this must change.
The first and most crucial gap is the lack of adequate representation in urban governance frameworks. Until recently, policies like the Smart Cities Mission focused only on bigger cities. Fortunately, that’s slowly changing with increased attention on tier 2, 3, and even 4 towns. But representation doesn’t mean just funding. It requires a contextual understanding—what works in Mumbai or Bengaluru can’t be copied in a town of 25,000 people. We need policies that reflect the specific challenges of small towns.
Second is the lack of research and data. We don’t know enough about what systems work best in these settings—whether it’s technologies, governance models, or financial mechanisms. Borda supports knowledge generation and pilots solutions tailored to local needs.
Third is capacity building. Small towns lack human and institutional resources. We need governance training for municipal officials, along with technical training—for example, alternatives to large-scale sewage treatment plants that small towns can’t afford or maintain.
And finally, systemic challenges like decentralization gaps, delays in local elections, and limited autonomy at the municipal level need urgent attention. Borda advocates for reforms here by engaging with governments and scaling successful models into policy frameworks.
Small towns can become the engines of sustainable urban growth—if they are made livable, functional, and resilient. But for that, we must give them the attention, resources, and tailored strategies they deserve.
How does BORDA advocate for policy shifts toward contextual solutions in small towns?
We are very actively present in more than twenty small urban local bodies across India, Nepal, and Bangladesh. By this I mean that we have a given number of people—about forty-five—who are physically present in the municipality, continuously trying to understand the specific challenges and needs. This gives us a good assessment of where the gaps lie.
We take back that data, and, in partnership with the municipalities, we design solutions. These might be infrastructure solutions or systemic ones, which we try or pilot in a small town.
Municipalities need support because often the human resource vacancies are very high, and those already working are very stretched doing day-to-day firefighting. They simply don’t have the bandwidth or time to use this data to make actionable plans. So, we support them.
This can take anywhere between three to six or even nine months and involves multiple consultations, looking at finances, resources, and designing solutions. We iterate them, take them to communities, get feedback, and once we have something that looks feasible, we pilot it with government support.
These pilots might be in the form of infrastructure, such as a wastewater treatment plant, or systemic. Some pilots work; some don’t. We document the ones that work very closely. We also document the ones that don’t work carefully. We disseminate these and discuss them with partners, other cities, and state and central authorities. This discussion often forms the basis for embedding these ideas into governance frameworks, as examples, bylaws, or official notifications.
Can you share a few examples where BORDA’s work helped improve water-related issues?
Over the past few years, there have been a few key instances where BORDA’s work significantly contributed to addressing water-related challenges through the co-creation of solutions, implementation, and policy advocacy.
One of the most notable examples is our work on Fecal Sludge Management (FSM) in India, specifically in the town of Devanahalli in Karnataka. This initiative was carried out in collaboration with the Government of Karnataka, with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Centre for Advocacy and Research, and CEPT University.
At the time, the central question was: How do you manage wastewater in cities that don’t have sewerage systems? Fecal sludge management was proposed as a viable, decentralized solution. BORDA supported the implementation of India’s first Fecal Sludge Treatment Plant (FSTP) in Devanahalli, just north of Bangalore. The plant was carefully monitored and co-operated with local government stakeholders. Once it demonstrated clear success, the Karnataka state government adopted the model and began scaling it up across other towns.
This effort didn’t stop at the state level. The success story attracted attention from other parts of India. Over the years, the model has influenced the setup of over 200 such FSTPs across the country, compared to just one in 2016.
This is a clear case of how civil society organizations (CSOs) like BORDA can fill critical knowledge gaps, co-create implementable solutions, and most importantly, influence systemic change through sustained engagement and advocacy.
How did Borda ensure a 24/7 water supply project in a high-altitude region like Leh, and what were the challenges?
The initiative for ensuring a 24/7 water supply in Leh, a high-altitude, water-scarce region, began around 2017–2018. It was sparked by an inspirational exposure visit to Sweden by a local government official. There, they observed 24/7 water supply systems functioning even in sub-zero temperatures and returned with a key question: “If this is possible in Sweden, why not in Leh?”
This catalyzed a series of consultations involving BORDA, the local government, and the community. It was collectively decided to pilot the project in one ward—a small area with around 100 households.
Each stakeholder took a clear, defined responsibility:
- The government committed to financing and operating the system.
- The community agreed to pay water tariffs, take ownership of the infrastructure, and not tamper with water meters.
- BORDA provided the technical expertise, guiding the system design and implementation strategy.
This tripartite collaboration formed the foundation of what is now known as the Leh model.
Challenges were significant:
- Leh had no piped water supply for 7–8 months of the year due to freezing temperatures.
- Daily water availability was as low as 25 litres per capita.
- The harsh winter climate posed technical difficulties in maintaining a continuous flow and preventing pipe freezing.
Despite these conditions, the pilot project has now been running successfully for over three years, delivering 24/7 water even during the coldest months. This has markedly improved living conditions and set a precedent for future water supply systems in similar geographies.
While BORDA’s role was primarily technical, the real success came from the strong partnership between the government and the local community, both of whom took genuine ownership of the initiative.
Building partnerships for a project like 24/7 water supply in Leh must have been challenging. How did BORDA bring all the stakeholders together and ensure their active participation?
For any big or breakthrough project to succeed, people need to be convinced about its utility. That’s what we realized. So, people needed to be inspired. To do that, we organized exposure visits to Sweden and small towns in India with successful water supply models. These visits sparked conversations among officials and residents—it showed them that it was possible. That was the first stage, which we call ‘Inspire.’
After people were inspired, we moved into the ‘Equip’ stage. This is where we equipped all key stakeholders—the municipality, the residents, and ourselves—with the technical knowledge needed. We developed detailed project reports, operational models, and financing plans to demonstrate how the vision could realistically be implemented.
Finally, we entered the ‘Increase’ phase. This involved facilitating ongoing meetings—over a period of six months to a year—to ensure that both the community and government stakeholders stayed engaged. We worked through the details, built consensus, and aligned on responsibilities and incentives. This consistent collaboration helped build strong ownership, which is critical for the long-term sustainability of any project.
It’s a structured approach that we refer to as the ‘Inspire–Equip–Increase’ framework. It’s our way of ensuring deep and lasting stakeholder participation.
With the growing adoption of technologies like AI and IoT, how is BORDA incorporating these innovations into its water and sanitation projects?
Technology certainly has a lot to offer, and it can make things easier, but we’ve also seen situations where it’s been overused or applied without enough thought. Especially in water and sanitation, it’s critical to get the fundamentals right first before jumping into high-tech solutions.
That said, we’ve definitely found meaningful ways to integrate technology. In our 24/7 water supply project in Leh, for instance, we carefully evaluated a range of technologies, from very simple tools to complex systems used in extreme climates like Alaska.
Our focus has always been on solving specific problems, not just digitizing for the sake of it. A good example is how we used IoT sensors to detect frozen pipes. If water isn’t flowing through a meter, the system flags a potential freeze, allowing for targeted shutdowns to prevent damage. We also explored leak detection technologies, but they turned out to be too costly at this stage.
Ultimately, our priority has been to ensure basic access to water first and then look at optimization. Tech is useful, but only when applied thoughtfully and where it truly adds value.
Discussion about this post