Discover the different routes of water, from the river to the home What does it take for a regulator to keep sanitation services honest, inclusive, and accountable? This manual breaks down the essentials of regulation in citywide inclusive sanitation — from what regulators do and why sewered and non-sewered services need oversight, to the integrity risks regulators face and the practical mechanisms (standards, monitoring, incentives, sanctions, and more) they can use to prevent corruption and champion the human right to sanitation. A clear, visual introduction for anyone working on sanitation governance, regulatory reform, or integrity in the WASH sector. --- DOWNLOAD

Discover the different routes of water, from the river to the home Water doesn't take a single path to reach a home in Lima — and the route it travels often determines its cost, quality, and reliability. This series of four illustrated posters traces water's journey through the city, following real stories that reveal how corruption and integrity failures shape access at every stage. 1. From the River to the City How is water sourced and distributed in Lima? This poster maps SEDAPAL's journey of water from the Rímac, Chillón, and Lurín rivers to the city. 2. From the Public Fountain to the Water Tank Through María's daily routine, this poster shows how public fountains supply unconnected settlements close to the network. 3. From the Water Truck to the Water Tank This poster follows Manuel, an independent water truck operator, through a single working day. 4. From the Water Tank to the Home Carla's story shows what happens once water reaches the home. --- DOWNLOAD Posters in English Posters in Spanish

"Climate finance can build [water] tanks, pipes, and treatment plants, but unless it also builds transparency, accountability, and trust, the people most vulnerable to climate change may remain vulnerable even after millions of dollars have been spent." - MD Abdul Malak, Jagannath University Integrity Talk 17 June 24, 2026, co-hosted with GIZ Climate finance is scaling fast, and a need for speed is exactly what our warming planet requires. But speed, combined with complex implementation chains and institutions that are often unprepared to securely handle a massive influx of new money is also exactly where corruption and poor integrity thrive. In this Integrity Talk, co-hosted by WIN and GIZ, panellists traced what happens when that money moves faster than the safeguards meant to protect it, and what that ultimately costs the people it was meant to reach. Go straight to recording > Get in touch about our work on climate finance > --- The challenge of managing increased finance well Martin Dersch (GIZ) framed the event with a problem that sits underneath everything else discussed: there is still no single, agreed definition of what counts as climate finance, or how to track and monitor it. Layered on top is the "race for adaptation finance", or large volumes of capital needed to move quickly under political and humanitarian pressure, through long, opaque procurement chains, toward institutions that often lack the accountability infrastructure to handle them. Karen Ernst (Green Climate Fund) described a similar dynamic in relation to growth from within the fund itself: the GCF went from seven approved projects in 2015 to 296 by the end of 2025, backed by USD 16.7 billion in commitments, delivered through a network of more than 200 accredited entities. "That is a very good result for the fund," she said, "but for any integrity function, that also means there is an expanding risk." GCF is, in her words, a "second-line institution" — headquartered outside Seoul, with no direct implementation role and, until its board approved new regional offices, no physical presence anywhere near the projects it funds — meaning that oversight remains tricky. When the chain breaks before the money reaches Faith Ngige (Kenya Platform for Climate Governance) walked participants through what oversight challenges can look like on the ground. Kenya's Financing Locally-Led Climate Action (FLLoCA) programme channels funding through the National Treasury to 45 counties and on to community projects — nearly KES 14 billion disbursed and almost half of it to water security. "As the funds proceed to the county level, visibility starts to diminish," she said. "And as the money goes to the project level, you are not even able to follow it all the way." Procurement documents that civil society organisations request are often simply not forthcoming. Her deeper concern was the disconnect between disbursement and outcome: "The challenge is not just money moving, but money should be able to move in a manner that is able to address the very challenge it was designed for." Ramon Alikpala (Future Water Asia) showed what that breakdown looks like at its most extreme. He opened with an old joke — two ministers compare houses, one built on 20% skimmed from a real bridge, the other on 100% skimmed from a bridge that was never built at all. "That joke describes, unfortunately, with precision what's actually happened in the Philippines." Between 2022 and 2025, roughly USD 11 billion was allocated to flood control (over USD 25 billion since 2011), much of it tied to "ghost projects" — infrastructure paid for in full but never built — across a portfolio of some 30,000 flood-control contracts. More, just 15 of more than 2,400 accredited contractors received about a fifth of the entire budget. "The failure of flood control is not just fiscal waste," he said. "It is fatal" — pointing to an estimated 900–1,000 flood-related deaths in the same period, many in communities where infrastructure had been recorded as complete but was never there. Md. Abdul Malak (Jagannath University) brought the same failure down to a single name. In a coastal adaptation project in Bangladesh, a widow was surveyed, assessed as eligible, and placed on the beneficiary list for a free rainwater-harvesting tank. Her name later disappeared from the final list with no explanation, while other households described paying informal costs for installations that were meant to be fully funded. "The water tank that was supposed to come in my name was taken by others," she told researchers. "If my name was on the list, why was I left out?" Audience Q&A - how can we fix some of these problems? Asked what share of project cost should reasonably go toward accountability, Ernst gave no figure: "Everybody always wants higher standards of integrity, and everybody wants accountability. But that requires resources — financial and human. That's a real commitment funders and partners need to understand." Pressed on balancing rigorous safeguards against the growing complexity of accessing climate finance, her answer was simplification rather than fewer safeguards — bringing standard conditions "down to the core minimum" so under-resourced recipients can actually meet them. Alikpala, drawing on his own experience preparing a GCF concept note, agreed that the safeguard burden is still worthwhile: "It might have been tedious and complicated, but it really provided us some insights on the process." On what structurally needs to change, Alikpala pointed to three things: procurement transparency, "structurally enforced, not left to administrative discretion"; routine physical verification — community monitoring, satellite checks, third-party audits — rather than reactive inspection; and separating political discretion from technical procurement decisions altogether. He noted the Philippines' e-procurement system covers goods and services but largely excludes large infrastructure, the exact gap the scandal exploited, and described work underway with the Asian Development Bank to benchmark utility costs so outlier pricing becomes harder to hide. Malak offered a smaller but telling illustration of the same weakness: a university tender, open to every registered bidder, that drew only one bid — priced almost exactly to the internal estimate. On civil society's role, Ngige raised a structural bind: many CSOs monitoring projects financed through the same system they are meant to check, leaving them in what she called "a grey line" that limits how freely they can speak. Her answer was for smaller organisations to pool resources into alliances, since accreditation thresholds for accessing climate finance directly are out of reach for any one of them alone. Alikpala noted a more basic gap in the Philippines: no independent consumer body exists at all to scrutinise water contracts, unlike in some other countries. What next? Three tensions ran through the session without being resolved. One: whether funders can genuinely simplify safeguards without weakening them. Two: whether accountability functions will ever be resourced in proportion to the money they are meant to protect. Three: if only a small number of organisations can meet the accreditation thresholds needed to access climate finance directly, how can communities still be the ones driving decisions about what gets built where they live? The underlying question of who gets a seat at the table before money is committed, rather than after, remains open. --- Panellist presentations: Martin Dersch (GIZ) set out why climate finance — adaptation finance especially — is structurally exposed to integrity risk, pointing to the lack of an agreed definition, the pressure to move funds quickly, and the concentration of financing in sectors like energy. He then connected these challenges for what this means for water security. Karen Ernst (Green Climate Fund) outlined the mandate of GCF's Independent Integrity Unit and the challenges of running accountability for a fast-growing, arm's-length fund working through 200+ accredited entities. Ramon Alikpala (Future Water Asia) presented the Philippines flood-control corruption scandal as a case study in systemic capture of procurement, auditing, and verification systems, with direct implications for water and sanitation. Faith Ngige (Kenya Platform for Climate Governance) traced Kenya's FLLoCA programme from National Treasury to county and ward level, identifying where financial visibility and civil society independence break down. Md. Abdul Malak (Jagannath University) presented field research from a coastal adaptation project in Bangladesh, using one beneficiary's experience to show how targeting and grievance failures play out at the household level. --- Recording

Join us to achieve SDGs through transparency and collective action. 65+ global partners committed to a just world with decent water access. Become a WIN partner Application form A global network for integrity action WIN is a global, open network of individuals and organisations. We bring people together with integrity as a guiding principle, to improve water management and service delivery. We work with more than 65 partners from all over the world, including civil society organisations, international development organisations, sector funders, water and sanitation service providers, regulators, and associations. Formal WIN partners publicly commit to launching integrity initiatives and are supported by the WIN team. Partnership is a voluntary process to strengthen collaboration and exchange. Funding is not guaranteed. READ WIN PARTNERSHIP POLICY READ CODE OF CONDUCT FOR WIN PARTNERS Please tell us about your organisation and how we can contact you Organisation* First name of contact person Last name of contact person Email* Address of organisation Organisation website Where do you work? (Geographical scope) What do you do? Please tell us more about why you want to join WIN and about your work on integrity Why does your organisation wish to join the Water Integrity Network?* How does your organisation wish to engage with the network? Joint advocacy Joint research Knowledge sharing, discussions, working groups Using or promoting integrity tools Other Which areas of work are you most keen to explore? Climate adaptation Urban water Sanitation and CWIS Rural WASH and community-based water and sanitation Water and sanitation finance Water allocation and resource management Other Does your organisation already promote integrity in the water and sanitation sectors, and if so, how (specific examples are appreciated)?* I have read and agree to the WIN partnership policy I have read and will respect the WIN partner code of conduct I affirm that my organisation does not discriminate or exclude groups or individuals and is not convicted for human rights violations or corruption. Yes, please subscribe me to the WIN mailing list to receive newsletters and event invitations Submit

View our Publications to learn about global water integrity, discover integrity assesment best practices and case studies from around the world. 1 2 3 4 5 Publications

Training and open, online courses on water integrity, integrity for water and sanitation in informal settlements, utilities, regulators, government, and more Water Integrity Academy FREE online self-paced courses on integrity for people working in or studying water and sanitation. Bespoke presentations and training on integrity risks and tools. GET IN TOUCH Online courses What we do? ONLINE COURSES HYBRID COURSES TAILORED TRAINING DEVELOPMENT OF ONLINE COURSES FAQ Online courses 1 2 To suggest new training topics, get answers, or share feedback, get in touch! CONTACT WIN FAQ Why follow a course on water integrity? Integrity plays a crucial and overlooked role in improving water and sanitation financing and programme development. WIN training will help water and sanitation professionals better understand the risks that can undermine their work and their institution’s reputation. Participants will also learn to identify the root causes of corruption and poor integrity, develop innovative approaches, and deliver projects that are more transparent, accountable, and participatory. How do I enroll? To register for online courses, click on the descriptions of the course(s) you wish to enroll in and follow the registration links. Most courses are held on the Moodle educational platform for which you will need to register using your email address. What are the requirements to join a course? WIN’s online courses are for anyone who would like to learn more about integrity and corruption in the water and sanitation sectors, and no prior knowledge or experience is required. An internet connection and device to access the courses are the only technical requirements. How can I get a certificate? All of our online courses offer the option to obtain a certificate of completion. Once you have successfully completed all the course requirements and met the passing criteria, you will be eligible to request your certificate. Certificates are issued upon payment of a fee, which can be made after you have completed the course. Does WIN offer any in-person courses? Currently, all free courses are being offered online only, where participants can join at their own pace. WIN does provide (paid) bespoke trainings to organisations on demand. To explore opportunities for collaboration, please contact the WIN programme lead for capacity development at info@win-s.org DOWNLOAD CURRENT COURSE CATALOGUE (English) DESCARGAR EL CATÁLOGO DE CURSOS (en español) "Being a water professional who is into designing of treatment processes and analysis, this course gave me a different perspective on how water integrity can be achieved and how corruption stopped in an organisation. This is very important when tackling SDGs." Water Integrity Basics course participant, UAE More courses - coming soon Stay in the loop Sign up for notifications when new courses and sessions open. Email* Do you have a preferred language for courses? Select options for specific notifications New topics, new courses Integrity basics Service in informal settlements Submit