The Sustainability Challenge: Lessons from Nepal’s Water-Lift Programs

In recent years, Nepal has rapidly expanded water-lifting projects for irrigation and drinking water. This is driven by growing water scarcity in the mid-hills and the government's commitment to improve water access through solar and electric lift technologies. Yet, despite high demand and significant public investment, many of these projects become non-functional within a few years of installation. 

An IWMI stocktake of Solar Lift Irrigation (SLI) projects in 2022  found that while water lifting projects hold potential to reduce water scarcity,  they have  alarming failure rates, prompting a comprehensive study of SLIs under a federal government flagship program in Surkhet. The study found that while lift systems are typically designed around technical feasibility and upfront cost, far less attention is paid to what it takes to keep them functional over time. Governance, post-installation financing, maintenance, user capacities and realities, and long-term-institutional support either remain weakly integrated or neglected in project design. 

The structural mismatch 

Unpacking this pattern is crucial because the sustainability challenge usually emerges after project handover. Water-lift systems are more resource-intensive and technically demanding than many conventional rural water systems. Their long-term functionality depends on a chain of interconnected requirements: tariff collection, routine maintenance, access to technicians, spare parts, financing for major repairs and component replacement, and the community’s ability to organize, contribute time and money, and mobilize support when problems arise. The failure of any one link in this chain can undermine the performance and longevity of the system. In many lift systems, there is a recurring pattern: systems are installed, handed over, run for a few years, and then a major breakdown occurs. As the available repair and maintenance (R&M) funds fall short, maintenance is delayed, and the system gradually stops functioning, eroding both the physical infrastructure and community trust in the technology. 

To better understand how lift systems are managed after handover, IWMI organized a series of consultations in May 2026 with farmers, water user associations, political representatives, and government officials at ward, municipal, and provincial levels in Bheriganga, Barahatal, and Gurbakot municipalities in Surkhet district, Karnali Province. Across multiple case studies,  irrigation and drinking water users' commitees were actively engaged in managing lift systems. Users' committees collected regular tariffs and actively participated in managing the lift systems. In some cases, households even mobilized additional funds to replace expensive components when the systems broke down. Some systems continue to function even after 8-9 years of handover under community management. 

Yet users live with constant uncertainty and fear: what if the system fails?  The answer points to a deeper structural problem. Most communities collect small, regular tariffs—monthly or usage-based—sufficient to cover routine operational costs such as minor repairs or operator wages. But the problem arises when large, infrequent expenses are needed. For instance, electromechanical components such as pumps are not built to last for decades. The market warranty on these electromechanical components is only up to 2-3 years, with replacements typically required every 4-5 years. When these critical components fail, the repair or replacement costs can range from several hundred thousand rupees, often exceeding NPR 4-5 lakhs (~2600-3300 USD). These costs far exceed the financial capacity of most rural communities, particularly those engaged in subsistence farming. 

This creates a structural mismatch at the heart of many water-lift projects: small, predictable revenue streams are expected to sustain systems that require large, unpredictable investments. As a result, many such lift projects follow a similar trajectory. Systems function well for several years, then a major breakdown occurs. Available R&M funds fall short, maintenance is delayed, and the system gradually stops functioning. Thus, the issue is not merely whether communities are willing and able to manage lift systems, but whether the financial and institutional model they are expected to sustain is realistic. 

Missing post-installation support

In practice, the role of project implementers typically ends once a project is commissioned and handed over to the community. The users are then expected to take full responsibility for the operations and management of the system. Local governments are assumed to provide support on a case-by-case basis but often lack both financial resources and technical capacity to respond effectively. 

There are few mechanisms for follow-up or monitoring, no structured maintenance services, and limited coordination with private sector service providers for repair and maintenance. This creates a fundamental gap between responsibility and support. Communities are held accountable for sustaining systems, but they lack adequate tools, resources, or institutional backing. At the same time, project developers are evaluated based on implementation rather than long-term performance. This creates little incentive to integrate post-installation support into system design.

Aligning need and capacity

This discussion also raises a broader question: can all communities be treated the same when designing and investing in lift irrigation systems? In reality, the sustainability of water-lift projects is shaped by two critical factors: (i) the level of water need and (ii) the community’s capacity to finance, organize, and sustain the system over time. As one ward chairperson reflected during IWMI’s May 2026 consultations:

“For the sustainability of the project, what matters most is how much (water) need there is. If the need is high, people will somehow manage to keep it running. But if the need is low, even if you invest a lot, it will not be sustained…”
— Ward Chairperson, Barahatal Rural Municipality (22 May 2026)

Need matters because communities are more likely to prioritize a system when they depend heavily on it and have few alternatives. Capacity matters because long-term sustainability depends on predictable revenue, collective organization, technical competence, and the ability to mobilize support when needed. Together, these two factors create four distinct contexts, each with different implications for sustainability and project design (Figure 1). 

Quadrant 1 - High need + High capacity: Communities in this quadrant are highly dependent on the lift systems for water access, with few viable alternatives. Likewise, they have a relatively stronger financial, organizational, and managerial capacity to contribute to system operation and management.  In such cases, the community’s incentives and capacities are closely aligned, creating a favorable condition for community-based management of lift systems. However, as lift systems are complex, they cannot be sustained by entirely removing external support. Periodic technical assistance, major repairs, and pump replacement are likely to require external support beyond handover. 

Quadrant 2 - High need + Low capacity: This quadrant is where most subsistence farming communities in the mid-hills fall. Despite high dependence on lift systems for drinking water and irrigation, these communities lack the financial, organizational, and technical capacity to manage lift systems effectively. The issue is not merely the low ability to pay but a mismatch between the community’s dependence on the system and its ability to maintain routine operation, maintenance, and repair. In such cases, limited capacities can lead to deferred maintenance and repair. The breakdown and underperformance of the system, however, have a severe impact on the communities, as there are limited or no alternatives to access water. Therefore, such systems cannot remain functional through community management alone and require sustained public or institutional support beyond handover.

Quadrant 3 - Low need + High capacity: In this context, users have relatively greater capacity to contribute financially and organizationally, but they are not entirely dependent on the lift system for water because alternatives exist. As a result, the main risk is not the inability to manage the system but weak or inconsistent demand for a costly shared infrastructure. Despite the ability to pay, communities might not be willing to pay for the lift system due to cheaper, more convenient, or more reliable alternatives. Such contexts demand a careful assessment of actual demand, usage patterns, and user preferences before investing in lift systems. In some cases, household-level, small-group based, or other locally tailored arrangements might be more appropriate than resource-intensive lift systems. 

Quadrant 4 - Low need + Low capacity: This quadrant presents the least favorable conditions for investment in and community management of lift systems. Here, demand is weak, and the users’ capacity to finance, manage, and maintain the system is limited. This is exemplified by areas with high outward migration where systems are often underutilized, and the burden of tariff payment and management falls on a small number of remaining users. Lift systems could thus impose a financial burden on the community. Therefore, rather than assuming a standard community-managed model, such areas require careful screening during project selection and consideration of locally tailored simpler, lower-cost, or alternative investment options. 

Conclusion

The sustainability challenge in Nepal’s water-lift projects is not simply a problem of technology, tariff collection or user capacities. The deeper issue is that communities are expected to sustain complex projects even when the technical demands and post-installation needs exceed what they can realistically manage. Addressing this challenge requires three shifts in how lift projects are designed and implemented. First, projects need to move away from infrastructure provisions to service-oriented systems, where R&M are built into project design. Second, the sustainability of lift projects should be treated as a shared responsibility among communities, governments, and service providers rather than the burden of users alone. Third, project designs must recognize that communities differ in their needs and capacities and therefore require different levels and forms of support. Without these shifts, many systems will continue to fail because sustainability is still being built on unrealistic assumptions and misaligned expectations.