Challenges and opportunities with social inclusion and community‐based water management in Solomon Islands

Summary Motivation Rural water services are poor in Pacific Island countries (PICs); ineffective water management (WM) is one of the key reasons. Greater social inclusion in WM groups is a key goal of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6, but there is a lack of data on the make‐up of WM groups and what appropriate and effective inclusivity in WM looks like in the region. Purpose This article contributes to filling these gaps by examining national community WM policy and the attributes and activities of rural WM groups, in practice, in villages across Solomon Islands. The purpose is to influence government policy and guidance relating to the structure and functionality of rural WM groups. Methods and approach Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered from eight rural communities in Solomon Islands between 2018 and 2020 by a team of international and local Solomon Islander researchers. Detailed data from six formalized WM groups along with an analysis of national policy and rural WM guidelines are used to identify strengths and weaknesses in current WM policy and approaches. Findings WM group inclusivity has improved with regard to women, but they still often remain excluded from decision‐making. Young people are essential to the ongoing operation of water systems yet were rarely formal members of water committees. Intra‐village levels of social cohesion were stronger than village‐wide levels. Most water committees had collapsed in the past, lacked institutional sustainability, and failed community expectations. Factors informing this included the high mean age of committee members, multiple obligations of executives, and often poor intra‐village social and geographical representation. Policy implications Villages are not homogenous communities, but include many smaller social units—tribes, extended families, different faith groups—that tend to have stronger social cohesion than “village‐wide” groups or committees. Moreover, many of these groupings are often socio‐spatially demarcated in formalized “zones/areas” of a village. This needs to be reflected in WM group membership and national policy guidelines. At these levels, social cohesion, collective action, and agency are greater than at the village‐wide level, offering opportunities for more inclusive and effective WM outcomes.