LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE ACCOUNTABILTIY FOR WATER RESEARCH PROGRAMME: PAYING ATTENTION TO GENDER EQUITY AND CLOSING CIVIC SPACE WIN is a partner of the Accountability for Water action and research programme since its launch in 2020. The first part of the global evidence review for the programme concluded that 80% of articles reviewed associate positive outcomes for water sector governance with accountability and advocacy interventions (e.g. improved operations). This evidence is the basis for a theory of change detailing the factors influencing how accountability interventions contribute to improved service delivery and water management. The accountability interventions are grouped in 4 areas: social accountability and monitoring including social audits and citizen voice strengthening; evidence-based advocacy including research and public hearings; statutory accountabilty mechanisms including audit and disclosure or grievance mechanisms; and budget analysis and expenditure tracking. In 2022, the programme release Part III of its global evidence review focusing on specific features of accountability interventions related to: gender equity, the role of donors, government responsiveness, measurement of acccountability, and closing civic space . The study concludes that measuring accountability remains complicated. Donors can play a constructive role, especially with reliable funding and capacity building, but only when they do not determine the agenda and respond to community needs. Government responsiveness depends significantly on context. Two elements of context can have a significant impact on the outcomes and impact of accountability interventions: gender equity and the closing of civic space . These also influence the other elements of the analysis and must be taken into account with care for future interventions. Given that women are systematically excluded from decision-making in many regions, the study concluded that: “ Approaches including gender-responsive budgeting, targeted funding, and external support to women’s groups have been shown to positively influence performance of accountability interventions. […] Opening up space for information sharing to give women the confidence to claim their rights and make complaints against relevant authorities improved access, equity, and affordability of WASH. ” Wider societal interventions and complex dynamics must however also be taken into account to really secure improvements and long-term change. Closing civic space is also a major concern for accountability interventions, especially as research from CIVICUS points to growing restrictions on civic space worldwide in the last years . As we move forward, we must take into account the “ strong evidence that the protection of autonomous and open civic spaces, social movements, and alliances of environmental and social advocates spanning from the local to the national and international scale are paramount to securing a fair water future. “

In Brazil’s 4th Open Government Action Plan, the development and implementation of Open Government Commitment 10 on Water Resources, have been an opportunity to build participation and bring new actors to the table - including civil society and basin committees - to improve and increase the availability of information on water resources in Brazil. In April 2020, the #WaterOpenGov Community of Practice spoke with Marcus Fuckner, Coordinator of Planning Area Situation and Information Management at Brazil’s National Water Agency (ANA), on the open government commitments for water included in Brazil’s 4th Open Government Action Plan. This is an edited transcript of the conversation. Understanding water governance in Brazil The National Policy of Water Resources (PNRH), defined in 1997 by the law Nº 9.433, also called the “Law of Waters”, is the cornerstone of water governance legislation in Brazil. The PNRH structured, oriented and modernised the administration of Brazil’s water resources. In 2000, Law No 9.984 established the National Water Agency (ANA) as the responsible entity to implement the national policy and to coordinate the National Management System of Water Resources (SINGREH). ANA implements the PNRH in Brazil through water allocation terms and the regulatory framework, in addition to five official policy instruments: water resource plans, water permits, water quality objectives, water charges, and information systems. Water management in Brazil is decentralised and managed at different levels by different entities. States and federal districts work with additional instruments to manage the water bodies under their control. The National Management System of Water Resources (SINGREH) is a cooperative mechanism for water management which brings together entities from different levels. Currently, the sanitation portfolio (which covers drinking water supply services, sanitary sewerage, urban cleaning and solid waste management, and drainage and rainwater management) is shared between the Ministry of Regional Development’s (MDR) National Secretariat of Sanitation and the regulatory bodies of the States and municipalities, with occasional service outsourcing to private companies in certain municipalities. At the time of this publication, a bill is under debate at the National Congress that would modify the regulatory framework for sanitation in the country, giving regulatory powers to the ANA, which would make it the National Agency for Water and Basic Sanitation. Developing Brazil’s 4th Open Government National Action Plan Brazil’s 4th Open Government Action Plan contains 11 commitments, which were discussed and designed with the participation of 105 individuals (representatives of 88 institutions, including 39 civil society organisations, 39 Federal Public Administration bodies and 10 State and Municipal Public Administration bodies). The Office of the Comptroller General (CGU), which coordinates the Alliance for Open Government in Brazil led the process of developing the Action Plan. The methodology included the discussion of challenges and then the definition of commitments through co-creation workshops, i.e. meetings with equal participation of government specialists and civil society on the prioritised issues. The process was meant as democratic and designed to open the floor to issues beyond those prioritised by government bodies. Several topics were thus addressed: Structural issues, which their very nature, have the potential to improve Open Government policies in Brazil; Issues prioritised by the government which have been identified and proposed by government bodies as being of strategic importance for the Federal Government to move forward on matters of open government; Issues prioritised by civil society and selected through a public consultation on thematic proposals. The topic of water resources was brought in via civil society participation, as the third most-voted for during the online consultation phase. Two co-creation workshops were held in May and August of 2018 to define Open Government Commitment 10 on Water Resources. One workshop sought to identify the problems and their respective potential solutions, and the other was designed to formulate the commitment. Commitment 10 is linked to target 6.5 of Sustainable Development Goal 6 on Water. It focuses on improving the National Information System of Water Resources (SNIRH) portal, first published in 2016, with the aim of providing more transparency on the water situation in the country, to address challenges in improving its availability in terms of quality and quantity. ANA’s involvement in the open government commitment on water As the process of developing the OGP Action Plan was ongoing, the CGU contacted the Board of Directors of the ANA and the Ministry of the Environment (MMA), to which ANA reported until December 2018, to highlight the government’s work with transparency in water issues. During the process of co-creating Commitment 10, it was recognised that ANA is responsible for a) systematic monitoring of the water resources b) the preparation of annual reports of the Brazilian Water Resources Overview and c) the coordination and management of SNIRH. The CGU then proposed that ANA coordinate the water commitment included in the OGP Action Plan. The full process has helped to deepen ANA’s work on access to water resources information and data. Currently, ANA has its own open data portal, in addition to making data available on the Brazilian Open Data Portal platform. ANA has defined priority databases to make available in open formats, based on the most frequent information requests made through Citizen Information Services (SIC) of public administrations (established through Brazil’s Access to Information Law (Law No. 12,527 of 2011). Implementing open government Commitment 10 on Water Resources Launched in August 2018, the implementation process of Commitment 10 on Water Resources comprised a set of eight compliance milestones. Public institutions such as ANA, the Ministry of the Environment (MMA), the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA) and CGU were some of the actors involved in implementation along with civil society organisations such as Artigo 19, Fundación Esquel, Water Governance Observatory, World Resources Institute (WRI), and the University of São Paulo. CGU held six meetings with stakeholders throughout the process, to work towards the milestones and to address common challenges, including for example the required changes in the administrative structure. Critical river basins were identified to carry out improvements. A pilot training workshop was held for a specific river basin committee (Paranapanema river basin, in the State of São Paulo and Paraná) and another extended workshop was held at the Annual National Meeting of River Basin Committees (ENCOB), in October 2019. Moreover, civil society organisations Artigo 19 and Fundación Esquel organised an online consultation to propose further improvements to the SNIRH. Improvements to the SNIRH carried out in the implementation of Commitment 10 now have important benefits. Lessons learned from implementing Commitment 10 on Water Resources: the need to plan a sustainable process An important lesson learned from implementing Commitment 10 on Water Resources came to the fore from the uneven level of participation between institutions throughout the implementation process. The change of government in Brazil (2018/2019) and the changes that occurred in the institutional matrix of SINGREH influenced the actions of some participating partner institutions, making it difficult to implement some actions previously planned in the commitment. In particular, it affected the participation of the National Water Resources Council (CNRH) and the availability of resources for the participation of representatives of basin committees and civil society in the workshops. To mitigate this, an online workshop was planned. As a suggestion for future action plans and for other member countries of the OGP, the duration and timing of the Action Plan commitments should be carefully considered to limit the impact of changes in the administrative structure when implementation extends over two administrations.

ARE GENDER-BLIND INDICATORS NOT ENOUGH? By Tamar Hayrikyan, Managing Partner at Técnicas Rudas Supported by the Water and Open Government Community of Practice Globally, women and girls take on a grossly disproportionate burden in the work of securing water for their communities. Yet they remain dramatically underrepresented in water management at all levels. This leaves them vulnerable to and dependent on men for their water and sanitation needs – despite distinct menstrual, pregnancy, and child-rearing needs – and effectively deepens their economic marginalization. Gender-blind indicators don’t make these issues appear and that’s a big problem. In Open Government co-creation processes, including those related to water and natural resource governance, we often talk of mainstreaming gender to address these issues more systematically. At Técnicas Rudas, we’re proposing that to do this and take the next step in advancing gender-inclusive governance, we need to mainstream the use of gender indicators. Why gender indicators? To measure impact, to observe change, or to detect differences in characteristics across populations, policy makers, social scientists, and project managers make use of indicators. The feminist perspective calls our attention to two dangers of relying on easily accessible, simple indicators of well-being like GDP per capita, literacy rates, access to healthcare etc. First, the assumption of relative homogeneity obscures significant, systemic disparities within a given population along these indicators. A second and deeper danger is that the indicators generally neglect to take into account the systematic exclusion of marginalised populations from data collection efforts, which further exacerbates the fact that women’s and minorities’ realities are made invisible. These dangers have significant consequences at the design, implementation, and evaluation stages of open government commitments related to Natural Resource Governance (NRG). At the design stage, the blind spots mean that policy ideas and “theories of change” might be much less relevant and far-reaching in practice than they appear on paper. At the implementation state, implicit discriminatory practices can go entirely unnoticed. At the evaluation stage, the same blind spots mean that skewed or counterproductive impacts might go undetected and uncorrected. Gender has been part of human rights and development sector discourse for years! In that time, many have come to realise that relying on feminist intuition or focusing on getting people of diverse backgrounds “at the table”, is simply not enough. For gender to be taken into account, it needs to count, and be counted. That’s why we’re proposing gender indicators. New research to show impact of gender-based approach In 2019, the Feminist Open Government Initiative invited organisations to present proposals for action-oriented and evidence-driven research to support the adoption of a gender perspective in Open Government. As a feminist organisation that works a lot on issues related to transparency and extractive industries, and one that relies on open data and grassroots participation, this call for proposals made us think. What does having a gender perspective look like in practice? Does a gender-based approach have observable consequences? For example, do policy priorities change? Do strategies change? In 2019, my colleagues and I embarked on a year-long, action-driven exploration of the practical potential of gender indicators within the Open Government Partnership. We adopted a specific focus on commitments related to natural resource governance (NRG) and the differential impacts of the extractive industries on women. Our case study countries were Mexico, Colombia and Peru – contexts where land rights movements and socio-environmental conflicts persistently challenge both traditional and sustainable development logic, and where NRG commitments feature frequently in National Action Plans. Our research took a detour almost as soon as we kicked off. Because the open government discourse is so embedded in the Sustainable Development Agenda, our original layout also integrated the SDG framework. However, we quickly realised that in the contexts where NRG challenges are most extreme – where indigenous communities face off against multinational corporations to keep toxic spills from contaminating bodies of water, and where open-pit mines threaten to displace entire villages – the development agenda doesn’t quite resonate. Instead, we turned towards the international human rights framework to help us think strategically and ethically about where we need gender indicators most. We proceeded with an intensive period of literature review, interviews, and round-tables with specialists on the extractive industries, open data, and feminism in Mexico, followed by workshops with women land rights defenders in Peru and Colombia, with whom we worked together to test methods for creating and using gender indicators in the context of the challenges and needs of their communities. Gender indicators highlight the harmful impact of extractive industries in terms of human rights According to front-line land rights defenders who participated in this research, the differential impact of decisions about how natural resources are exploited or safeguarded is most apparent in connection with the impact of extractive industries on human rights. In particular, when it comes to the right to water and sanitation, we see a very dangerous chain reaction of impacts. For example, a mining project has a dramatic effect on a community’s ability to exercise its right to water (due both to pollution and scarcity), which has cross-cutting consequences, by affecting the health of the entire community, which disproportionately burdens women due to traditional roles as caregivers, and thus in turn also lead to a drop in their ability to participate in the labor market, a subsequent reduction in livelihood, and further deterioration in access to health. Meanwhile, fewer clean water sources translate to more time dedicated to household chores and supporting agriculture production, further reducing time available for rest, education, and remunerated work. Where there is resource extraction, there is violence We also discovered that using gender indicators in the process of co-creating Open Government Commitments brings issues to the forefront that we rarely see in conversations, let alone in action plans, on open natural resource governance. One of these issues is violence. Across the board, where there is resource extraction, an increase in the threat of physical violence appears to be ubiquitous. This includes forced displacement, forced labor, domestic violence, sexual violence, sexual extortion, human trafficking, militarization, intimidation and attacks against community leaders and land rights defenders, and more. Natural resource governance strategies need to confront head-on the violent consequences of opening communities and the environment to extractive industries. Beyond specific indicators, committing to the process Our research illustrates what using gender indicators can accomplish, which is to: make visible what has been invisible for many up until now assign value to what is normally taken for granted – issues that have traditionally been viewed as secondary or only indirectly related to natural resource governance – and put it center stage; and, finally, serve as guideposts for designing much more inclusive and impactful natural resource governance strategies that have respecting and protecting human rights as one of their primary objectives. We now have an extensive menu of gender indicators, which, for the water sector, includes for example disaggregated data on water quality and perceptions on water availability. But the most relevant result of this research is not the indicators, but the process. We created a replicable process to develop gender indicators and published two short, simple guides (in Spanish) to help stakeholders design gender indicators for evaluating long-term impacts as well as short-term results of Open Government commitments. Overall, it’s important to recognise we don’t have to wait for sweeping reforms or for the next national action plan to start using gender indicators. They can be incorporated from the word go, in implementation. That said, and as far as OGP on the international level and on the country level is concerned, there are key moments where we can start to plan and integrate gender indicators: during co-creation, as part of the processes, at the conclusion of a national action plan – specifically in the self-assessment and in the independent reporting mechanisms methodologies- and, ultimately, at impact evaluations. We should think of indicators not just as evaluation tools but also as guideposts that can help us ensure – from the moment of co-creation – that what we’re trying to achieve and the path we’re taking to getting there takes into account gender and gender minorities. The emphasis on process is in line with one of the final takeaways that I am left with as this project comes to a close: One doesn’t “have” a gender perspective in a passive state; a gender perspective is, or should be, the active, collective and continuous undertaking of a deliberate process. Keeping this in mind will be key if the OGP is to transform into a genuinely inclusive platform. About the author Tamar Hayrikyan, Managing Partner at Técnicas Rudas, a Mexico-based organization that aims to contribute to social movements and human rights defense through strategic research, technology, creative alliances and organizational strengthening. Prioritising grassroots initiatives, our approach integrates an intersectional gender lens and digital security. Tamar has an academic background in political economy and human rights, as well as professional expertise in corporate accountability, transparency in the extractive industries, documenting human rights violations and protecting human rights defenders. Image: Sincerely Media on Unsplash

On water integrity, gender, and the troubling issue of sextortion Sareen Malik is Executive Secretary of the African Civil Society Network for Water and Sanitation (ANEW) and vice chair of the steering committee of SWA. Based in Nairobi, ANEW is the umbrella organisation of water and sanitation CSOs across Africa, present in over 50 countries. Bringing over 15 years of experience in the field of water governance and restructuring WASH NGOs, Malik helps organisations to meaningfully engage in the water and anti-corruption sectors, and to recognise good water governance as key to improved sector performance. Malik is a lawyer by profession and has widely published on water sector governance tools, policies, and practices for state and non-state actors. This article was derived from a recorded interview between Sareen Malik of the African Civil Society Network for Water and Sanitation (ANEW) and Tasneem Balasinorwala of the Water Integrity Network (WIN), held on May 20, 2021. It has been edited for clarity. How does access to water and sanitation facilities contribute to a sense of dignity for women, children, and people with physical disabilities? Let’s look at it from two points of view: the urban setting and the rural setting. Within urban settings, distances to water and sanitation are often shorter, but the facilities are usually inadequate. There’s already quite a bit in the documentation on this, including harrowing pictures of rundown facilities. To use facilities with some level of cleanliness, you have to have cash with you. These facilities are not safe for many women and girls. It involves waking up at ungodly hours to get water or to go to the bathroom. In Nairobi, we know of so-called “flying toilets”. Basically, when the men of the family are away for work over the week, women and girls who are too afraid to access the sanitation facilities, defecate in plastic or paper bags and throw them out. When the men are back on the weekends, there are fewer incidents of these flying toilets. And let’s not even get into the issues of menstrual hygiene management, which is another nightmare. You don’t have the sanitary space or sanitary pads, and your water use tends to increase. You are not in a position to look after yourself the way you should. And this causes girls to stay at home, missing out on school. We see this, really, pretty much everywhere. The facilities are also not designed for people with disabilities. So, people with disabilities have to rely heavily on community or family members to support them. And this assistance is usually not very forthcoming. Within rural settings, all this is exacerbated by the distance. In 2011, we were testing a programme, so visited a small settlement by a river. We saw people with disabilities and the elderly at the river, and women fetching water from the river. There is domestic use, defecating, and showering that is equally taking place at literally the same point. And let us not forget the animals. This was not a very long stream-type of river. People with disabilities were using that particular river because it was the most accessible. During the day, when nobody was around, they were left to their own devices. So, the programme asked the service provider to bring facilities closer – to set up water kiosks or some sort of piping system. It was actually a success – one of the cases where the service provider went in and actually tried to set up some sort of WASH facilities for these people. Let us come back to the issue of dignity. Toilet facilities are mired in low maintenance and overuse. A couple of years ago in a school in Kajiado [a county in Kenya], we had three-generation toilets. That is, some organisation came in and pitched a toilet. Then it broke down. Then somebody else came in and set up a different facility. Then another one came in and set one up when that broke. And it was pretty much that way every time one set of facilities broke down. The issue there was really an issue of maintenance. Ownership of these facilities is also an issue we see in these communities. The toilets were messy, backed up, and disused. Even where WASH facilities had been set up in certain communities, you’d still have people defecating in the open. There were cases where men did not want to use the same facilities as the women. So, it had not solved the problem, per se. We did see some ODF [open defecation free] and CLTS [community-led total sanitation] initiatives training communities but also remaining on the backend to make sure that these facilities were actually maintained. That’s how you come closer to the real issues are. There’s the crack in the door of the WASH facility that allows for the Peeping Tom to look in, for example. And there’s the poor lighting and the well-documented assaults taking place in these facilities. But these are also areas of gathering as well. In one informal settlement in Eldoret, the pastor of the church discouraged his flock from using the WASH facilities, because he felt there was too much going on over there. A lot of people would go there to shower at the local waterfalls – men and women together. Of course, this raised a lot of issues regarding exposure, unwanted pregnancies, and just this mingling. It was a kind of hypersexualised environment. This pastor put a stop to it. So, we went with him to the service provider to see if a proper facility could be set up. KEWASNET and ANEW have recently done some groundbreaking research on sextortion in two informal settlements in Kenya. What should people know about this issue? In 2015, we were in two informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya to do a human-rights-based analysis of power dynamics around water. This [sextortion] issue came up. Unfortunately, legitimising the issue has been really difficult. The sense I am getting from it is that because an NGO or a big research centre has not yet produced results on this, it is not credible. We proceeded to collect stories to understand the issue – there was never any doubt that these women had stories to tell. We then brought the issue to the global level in 2018, working in partnership with SIWI [Stockholm International Water Institute], which had already done some research on the matter. We then received support from the Danish government to go ahead with a bigger baseline survey. Of the violence that women and girls experienced, we found that 8–10 percent was sextortion – sex for water. We heard from local leaders who had been themselves victims. The results of this violence are, of course, disastrous: sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, and death in certain cases. All this, really, because of trying to access water and sanitation services. We’re trying to focus on the issue of sextortion, but it touches on other issues of SGBV [sexual and gender-based violence], in terms of making WASH facilities safer and more accessible to women and girls, so that they are not filled with dread and anxiety when they actually go to and use these facilities. We have started a campaign – Sex for Water – with a number of activities, including a little bit more research on some of the issues, because these are new dimensions. One of the dimensions is to really understand perceptions of sexual behaviour within certain communities and the power element. Even if the woman does have the money to get the water, the proposal still comes to her, you see. It is a power game – I have to have power over you. This speaks to much bigger issues – and of gender equality – that we have within our society. We have been sensitising communities to this, as part of our capacity building. We are mentoring young boys and girls on SGBV. It has been really good to see youth taking an active role within their communities, addressing these issues in the heart of informal settlements. We’ve also found that where there was action taken against sextortion or against SGBV, mothers were behind that action. Where you had mothers go to the police, the mothers also followed up on the case. (And the first time we heard about sextortion was actually from a mother.) But one of the most important elements of the advocacy campaign is pushing for the acceptance and legitimising of sextortion within our legal and policy frameworks. How has the Kenyan water sector reacted to this research? Kenya organised a big gender and youth conference in July 2021, and the Sex for Water programme was added to sessions and the report. WASH practitioners are shocked, but some still question whether this is really a thing. The response from policymakers remains to be seen. They’ve been hearing about it. I’ve gotten informal calls. Is this really a thing? Did you just invent a new problem? Did you manipulate them to say this? The struggle is real. Many are not ready to accept that it’s a one-party thing. Even at one of our workshops, there was the concept of “willing buyer, willing seller” – that this is “a currency by women to avoid paying bills.” It doesn’t matter if it’s used, the officer on duty is not supposed to accept it. It’s important that we write about consent and power. We have to push back and say that, if the conditions were right, she’d probably never think about such a trade in the first place. We also have to push the authorities to make more water points free for women, like they drilled borewells for COVID. It’s possible. What can global water sector organizations do? They can accept, legitimise, and mainstream work on addressing sextortion in their programmes. They know that there is gender-based violence, but they have not accepted sextortion. They feel that they need to conduct the research themselves. But what about the voices of the people telling you that these things have happened. Shouldn’t that be evidence enough? If not, at least accept the results of those that have done the research. The data is being presented to you – build on the data. How are the focus and funds for gender in water and sanitation translating into improving the situation in Kenya? Gender equality is recognised within the Kenyan constitution. And Kenya has made a lot of strides in addressing gender issues, passing laws like the Sexual Offences Act 2006 for eg. But a lot more needs to be done in terms of changes in conservative attitudes towards women and girls. This is a very long process. We are seeing the emancipation of Kenyan women[1]. The public space is open to women in Kenya. Women are taking up more leadership positions. For example, Martha Koome was recently appointed chief justice. We saw reforms on inheritance laws. We saw certain marital practices being outlawed, like wife inheritance. Kenya may not be where Rwanda is, in terms of its [majority-female] parliament, but I still feel that East Africa is quite active in pushing women. That said, at the kick-off meeting of Sex for Water, the local leader said that when men see her walking into a room – and this is verbatim – “It’s like my vagina is on my forehead. They see a vagina working.” It says a lot that, in spite of her position, she was still not getting the respect that she deserved, because she is a woman. We’ve been in meetings to which women were invited but remained silent the entire meeting – silent, even as their issues were being discussed. NGOs try to get a bit smarter on that front, for example, by just having meetings with women. But as soon as the man walks in, nobody says anything. This is more in the remote areas; within urban settings, we are seeing more assertiveness – even aggression – coming from women. Practitioners often see a water point with a massive queue of women and girls and think it’s just a technical problem. But if we’re going to talk about water governance, we know that governance means power. So, approaching it from that governance perspective means understanding the power dynamics in this queue and conducting some sort of power analysis within these communities. Practitioners need to open their eyes, to look closely, and to ask the questions that will lead to a much bigger conversation. [1] A recent study – developed by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) in partnership with the State Department for Gender, UN Women and UNICEF using a first-of-its-kind measure of women’s empowerment, the Kenya Women’s Empowerment Index (WEI), – shows that only 29 percent of Kenyan women can participate equally and effectively in political, economic, and cultural life — and that their involvement is largely dependent on household circumstances. The Index provides the first comprehensive and systematic measure for women and girl’s empowerment in Kenya.

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT CORRUPTION, INTEGRITY, AND CLIMATE FINANCE FOR WATER-RELATED ADAPTATION By Binayak Das, WIN Programme Coordinator Billions of dollars of new, urgent, often poorly traced climate adaptation funding are flowing through relatively untested channels into the water sector, a sector which is vulnerable to corruption because of its fragmentation, technical complexity, and the essential, irreplaceable nature of the services it provides. Close to 80% of climate adaptation funds are directed to the water sector and related sectors – wastewater, disaster risk management, and natural resources management. This is already an inordinately small share of total climate finance: only 6.3% of climate finance goes to adaptation and not mitigation. It’s all the more important to make sure it is not wasted. Corruption and poor integrity pose significant risks for climate adaptation The IPCC scientific committee stated in 2021 with high confidence that floods and droughts are going to become more intense, water availability will be affected for human consumption, agriculture, industrial and economic activities, leading to food crisis and biodiversity loss. In its latest report of April 2022, it stresses the need for “accelerated and equitable climate action” and shows that the next few years are critical to avert disaster. Water is the primary vessel for climate adaptation work. Effective “accelerated and equitable climate action” is threatened by insufficient funding and by corruption and poor integrity. These waste resources and talent, divert much-needed funding away from those who need it most, and drive inappropriate adaptation choices. What happens when climate finance in the water sector is misused Corruption does not just result in financial losses. In the water and sanitation sectors, it impacts directly on people’s lives, health, and livelihoods, on socio-economic development and on environmental sustainability. It hits hardest in the most vulnerable communities, poor coastal and rural populations in developing countries, those affected by conflict and political instability, marginalised communities, those with limited choices of where to live and how to earn a living, women-headed households, the old and the very young, and people with disabilities. In some cases, poor integrity can increase the risk of maladaptation, where the outcomes of climate adaptation programmes are subverted: climate-related risks increase instead of decrease or new additional risks and vulnerabilities are created. In practice, there are already many troubling cases of corruption and poor integrity in climate projects, from funds gone missing, to dysfunctional flood protection systems that are not built according to specifications, from capture by elites, to cyclone shelters built for private purposes on private land inaccessible to the targeted community. We are only aware of the tip of the iceberg. Anti-corruption initiatives in climate adaptation are improving A number of climate finance actors, including major multilateral funds, have already put in place anti-corruption measures and evaluation mechanisms to ensure the efficacy of their programmes. These efforts are important and valuable even if there is room for improvement. Transparency International’s April 2022 report recommends specific improvements in terms of accountability and transparency. It also highlights the need for policies on sexual harassment, related to gender policies focused on promoting equal participation and equitable outcomes for women. This is especially relevant for the water and sanitation sectors where women play a major role in managing household water and hygiene but have little representation at the sector level. Wanted: integrity initiatives built for and with the water sector We see both a need and an opportunity for a broader approach that addresses the specific risks of the water sector. This has three major implications: Focusing on the corporate governance and anti-corruption policies of funders themselves is an important first step. However much more can be achieved by also investing in the capacity for integrity of water and sanitation sector actors, and not only the direct recipients of funding. This means supporting their ability to take advantage of accountability mechanisms and their capacity to assess and preventively act on their specific sector, and water-energy-food nexus, integrity risks. The water and sanitation sectors have a crucial responsibility: to provide an essential service – and human right – for all. There must a be focus in climate adaptation work on centering the voices, and water and sanitation needs, of the most vulnerable, those bearing the brunt of climate change, the left behind and those who run the risk of being left behind, including climate refugees. Only 2% of climate funds reach vulnerable communities and local communities seldom participate in decision-making on fund allocation and planning. This can and must change. The water and sanitation sectors are not just about pumps and pipes. Existing financing mechanisms are already skewed towards major infrastructure developments even when these are not in line with people’s needs or with the capacity available to maintain or operate them. Climate adaptation funding has similar biases. Not enough funding is spent on improving the governance systems, with the result that governance failures, including corruption, may lead to significant risk of maladaptation. One way to address this is to assess and address corruption risks during procurement processes but also early on, in budget allocation, planning and design phases. This requires more long-term investment in building governance capacity and in corruption risk assessments. We urgently need to prioritise and invest more in water and sanitation through climate work. We also need to make sure we use available funds to their utmost potential and to the benefit of those who need them most. For this, we need to invest in partnerships with water and sanitation sector stakeholders, and invest in governance and integrity.

LESSONS FROM NEW RESEARCH ON SEXTORTION FOR WATER ACCESS IN BANGLADESH A new research paper from WIN, Change Initiative, Development Organisation of the Rural Poor and UNU-Merit investigates the incidence and risk factors associated with sextortion when accessing water and sanitation services by women in four different regions in Bangladesh. The study contributes to the growing evidence base exposing sextortion as a grave but hidden violation of the human rights to water and sanitation. by Rebecca Sands, WIN Programme Coordinator and GESI Focal Point Being forced to pay a bribe in exchange for basic services is a grim and unjust daily reality for countless people across the world. It is all the more devastating when it takes the form of sextortion. “Poor women faced so much difficulty to get water and sometimes some of them had to surrender themselves to those mean men as they were so desperate to get water and other services.” – Focus Group Participant, Rasulpur (Dhaka South City Corporation) Sextortion is a form of corruption and abuse of power in which sex, rather than money, is the currency of the bribe. It occurs across the globe and in a range of sectors , from healthcare to education, policing to water service provision. Due to social stigma, cultural taboos, poor comprehension of the issue, and a lack of safe reporting mechanisms, sextortion goes largely unreported, bringing an added challenge to identifying and addressing the problem. There is significant evidence that corruption in the water and sanitation sectors disproportionately affects vulnerable populations and hits the poor the hardest, particularly women. There may be no more serious manifestation of this than being forced into paying a sexual bribe in exchange for the resource most essential to sustaining life. Yet despite increasing awareness that women, girls, and other vulnerable members of society may face risks of violence and abuse when accessing WASH services, there is little information on where and how sextortion incidents are occurring, and scarce conversation focused on awareness and prevention . New evidence from Bangladesh In new research undertaken with partners Change Initiative, Development Organisation of the Rural Poor (DORP) and UNU-Merit, we set out to examine the incidence and risk factors associated with sextortion in accessing WASH services by women in four regions of Bangladesh : two rural, water-stressed areas and two slum areas in the capital, Dhaka. Analysing data collected from a standardised survey alongside key informant interviews and focus group discussions, the study builds on existing research ( UNDP-SIWI Water Governance Facility ; KEWASNET-ANEW Sex for Water Project ; Pommells et al. ) underlining sextortion as a serious problem in the water and sanitation sectors that impedes access to essential services and infringes upon human rights. Sextortion is not uncommon, and is exacerbated by poverty, water insecurity, and low literacy Sextortion is both a form of corruption and a form of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). In addition to the SGBV component, three elements must be present to constitute the corruption component in sextortion, including (I) abuse of authority; (II) a quid pro quo exchange; and (III) psychological coercion rather than physical force ( IAWJ ). This corruption component, and notably the exchange element, may contribute to significant under-reporting of sextortion. It is therefore important to show the inter-relatedness with SGBV, while specifically highlighting the specificity and risk factors related to sextortion. The new study sought to specifically examine cases where these corruption elements are present, in order to further understand the phenomenon, the inter-relatedness of SGBV and sextortion, and the norms that allow SGBV/sextortion to continue. The survey examined nine different forms of SGBV, four of which are considered sextortion. Findings from the research show that about 15% of the women surveyed had experienced sexual and gender‐based violence (SGBV) when accessing water, toilets, or bathing facilities. About one-third of these cases constituted sextortion. Due to the stigma associated with experiencing sextortion and/or SGBV, the prevalence of the issue in the study area may be under-reported. The study found that there are several key risk factors of experiencing sextortion, illustrating the need for further study of compounding risks. Poverty levels Prior research suggests that women living in poverty are more vulnerable to sextortion , a risk factor also found to be true in this study. With a lack of resources to pay with money and/or goods, women are often left with no choice but to rely on their bodies as the only remaining ‘currency’. Using a variation of the Lived Poverty Index ( Mattes, 2008 ) to examine poverty at the household level, the research confirmed that those respondents who reported having experienced sextortion were more likely to have a higher score on the Index, signifying a more severe level of poverty. “People don’t support the poor, when we ask for help or try to complain a crime, nobody believes us. (…) We don’t have any support, any right to be in the position to say no.” – Focus Group Participant, Rasulpur (Dhaka South City Corporation) Household water insecurity Women coming from water insecure households were more likely to experience sextortion as well as to pay bribes in order to receive WASH services, highlighting that those experiencing water insecurity are vulnerable to the discretion of service provider officials . Overall, 23% of respondents live in water insecure households, but make up 43% of reported sextortion cases. “Most of the women are helpless as they are not capable of giving big amounts of money as bribery to get the legal connection, so they are abused by the service providers.” – Key Informant Interview, Korail (Dhaka North City Corporation) Respondents who reported predominately relying on unprotected water sources (unprotected wells and springs, rainwater collection and/or surface water) were also disproportionately affected by sextortion incidents. Notably, none of the respondents that had direct access to WASH services in their homes reported being exposed to sextortion. Literacy levels Another key aspect that contributed to respondents’ vulnerability to sextortion is their level of literacy, supporting previous research that demonstrates corruption’s potential to feed upon the consequences of illiteracy such as lack of resources, limited access to information and/or diminished power and voice. A majority of sextortion cases (72%) reported in this study affected either illiterate or partially literate women. Those women who are literate made up almost half the sample (48.9%) but accounted for only 28.3% of the reported sextortion cases. Strengthening the response to sextortion Much remains to be done to combat the issue of sextortion. Existing legal frameworks, including anti-corruption and SGBV legal frameworks, are largely inadequate at raising awareness and prosecuting the act, and very few countries have adopted or even discussed specific legislation to address the problem ( Transparency International, 2022 ). Globally, significant shifts need to occur to confront the issue head-on through collective action: governments, sectoral institutions, communities and relevant authorities must all work together, first and foremost to make reporting of issues safer and to support victims, while addressing key risk factors. Service providers must also play a proactive and practical role, leading the way for other stakeholders. As one key informant stated, “ water is a fundamental right and the service providers are responsible to ensure equal distribution of water for all. They need to change their mindset, as they hold the ultimate power and can demand anything in the exchange of service. They have to be taught to be accountable for their duty.” Water service providers, operators, and vendors therefore should: Recognise sextortion and other forms of sexual abuse as serious offenses for which there is zero tolerance; Ensure that sextortion is incorporated in integrity policies and sanction catalogues; Ensure that leadership, staff, contractors, and other organisational stakeholders are aware of the issue, understand the penalties for engaging in such behaviour, and know how to identify and report potential cases; Conduct vetting procedures before appointing people to positions where they may abuse their power; Introduce independent reporting mechanisms that assess the organisation’s capacity to eradicate and address instances of sextortion and/or sexual violence and abuse; Raise awareness on the issue among water users and their right to report instances of sextortion in accessing water and sanitation services; Put in place formal reporting and response mechanisms where individuals can report incidents freely, confidentially, and without discrimination; Ensure that reported cases of sextortion and/or sexual abuse and violence are investigated in a timely manner by trustworthy and independent entities. Experiencing sextortion and/or SGBV in accessing water and sanitation services has severe social, psychological, physical and economic implications. Some of the risk factors identified in the study indicate that more vulnerable groups are at increased risk for this gendered form of corruption. Further research on the topic is critical to raise awareness, to identify trends for where, how, and under what circumstances sextortion is occurring, and to hold service providers and decision makers accountable. Read the full working paper here: https://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/abstract/?id=9348

INTEGRITY FOR SMALL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS IN AFRICA AND LATIN AMERICA: SUCCESSES, LESSONS LEARNED AND CHALLENGES AHEAD Small water supply systems play a key role in providing access to water in rural and peri-urban areas. Many of these systems are outside any centralised water network or state service provision scheme and they work thanks to volunteers and solidarity mechanisms for collective repairs or extensions of the service to unserved groups. As many of these systems are not formally recognised, they receive very little support to access credit or legal contract support services. However, they face significant operational challenges, such as ensuring appropriate water quality and timely maintenance, extending infrastructure, or securing land status. In our Integrity Talk, partners explored different models for small water supply system management in Africa and Latin America and discussed their experiences of working with the Integrity Management Toolbox for Small Water Supply Systems (IMT-SWSS). This tool, initially developed by Caritas Switzerland and WIN for rural water supply systems in Kenya, links small system management committees with local stakeholders and duty-bearers. It puts them in the driving seat to develop a step-by-step plan for service improvements, using governance and compliance tools as stepping stones for more sustainable service provision. With special guests: Peter Njaggah (Water Services Regulatory Board of Kenya, WASREB); Namarome Lukelesia (Water Sector Trust Fund); Elvia Arzate (Controla Tu Gobierno); Girum Girma (Caritas Switzerland). “The theme of integrity generates trust, and trust is what we need to reach the most vulnerable.” – Elvia Arzate, Controla Tu Gobierno KEY TAKEAWAYS Regularisation of small water systems, or at least formal dialogue with local government, can ensure there is at least more data on service levels from small systems, and, importantly, can ensure committees have access to more resources through grants and loans. However such regularisation is only possible when the legal framework recognises water committees and clearly defines responsibilities. It also requires trust from committees in local and national authorities. Building trust and links between stakeholders, especially between committees and local authorities, contractors and duty bearers, is crucial for communities to gain access to formal resources and services and in some cases for communities to accept external interventions. Trust between committees and users is also essential to increase willingness to pay, support water conservation, and motivate for good service. Integrity is the motor for trust through all its pillars: Transparency, Accountability, Participation, Anti-Corruption and Inclusion. Increasing transparency for example - on the funds available and how they are spent, or on water quality and tariffs - limits discretionary service. Acknowledging the contributions and know-how of local communities, especially indigenous communities, is also key. As is ensuring participation from communities, for example by adapting tools for low literacy and taking into account the schedules and time constraints of volunteers, especially women. What is the role of the Water Services Regulatory Board of Kenya (WASREB) and how does it engage with small water supply system managers? Peter Njaggah (WASREB): The Kenyan Constitution recognises the human rights to water and sanitation and these have been translated into national standards. Every citizen of Kenya is entitled without discrimination to water that is affordable, reliable, easily reachable, and of good quality. We also have a very strong water regulatory system providing clear rules and regulations to protect water resources and to control the quality of the service. WASREB has set up a licencing system for any entity providing water services. We work in close cooperation with small system managers to ensure uniform standards, collect data to track the progressive realisation of the right to water, improve cost recovery, ensure that they do not operate in isolation, secure access to credit or resources, and create control systems to protect the right of consumers. In this way, we are able to promote integrity. Why is important to regularise small systems? How do local communities perceive the process of regularisation? Peter Njaggah (WASREB): There are over 7000 small water supply systems in Kenya that serve a large part of the population, but many of their management committees are not registered as legal entities and there is no data. Committees that are not registered generally cannot access credit or resources and this is problematic. For example, the national government created a special fund to help communities with small systems during COVID-19. Many could not get these funds because the water committees are informal. We see it as a form of discrimination. To facilitate regularisation, according to our Water Act of 2016 we offer different licencing models to help small systems depending on their commercial viability. For those systems located in the service provision area of a formal water service provider, we offer four options: The formal water supply provider takes over the system; The formal water supply provider delegates responsibilities to a registered water user association that manages the system; A cluster of small system committees contract a private operator, with a contract with the formal water supply provider; The system committee has sufficient capacity to expand and become a formal water supply provider. For those systems that are not commercially viable and are located outside the service provision area of a formal water provider, we offer two options: The County Government, with linkages to WASREB, establishes a contract with the small water supply system committee; The County Government contracts a private operator, to maintain service delivery standards. “We create awareness to show the benefits of operating in a regularised way. Rather than forcing regularisation and the adoption of a particular option, we recognise the diversity of small systems and allow them to select the model that is better suited to them. In this way we limit resistance.” – Peter Njaggah, WASREB What is the importance of promoting integrity in investment programmes targeting small systems in Kenya? Namarome Lukelesia (Water Sector Trust Fund): The role of the Water Sector Trust Fund is to provide grants to counties to assist the financing and development of water services in underserved areas. We have done the following to promote integrity in the management of our programmes and these grants: applied a project risk management tool, enhanced the capacity of implementing agents, reduced ineligible costs by auditors, and developed a manual for project implementation with clear processes. Strengthening integrity in our operations has ensured continued support from international development partners (e.g., KfW, World Bank, IFAD, EU). What are the main integrity risks you see related to investment programmes for small water supply systems? Namarome Lukelesia (Water Sector Trust Fund): The main integrity risks are conflicts of interest occurring during the identification and implementation phase. In many cases, the identification of the project is politically motivated and in the implementation phase, there are many interested parties. Other issues include the limited capacities of implementing partners, poor compliance with laws and regulations, and activities being implemented outside the contract, leading to increasing costs. To reduce integrity risks, we are investing in capacity building and we have created a project guidance tool with an internal and external audit checklist. We are recruiting officers at the county level, including engineers, and they have played a key role in enhancing accountability. We have also established a mechanism to ensure that grant recipients report back continuously to the Water Sector Trust Fund. With all these measures we aim to secure access to clean water and sanitation to at least 75% of Kenyans by 2030. What are the opportunities related to applications of the integrity management for small water supply systems (IMT-SWSS)? Elvia Arzate (Controla tu Gobierno): In Mexico, there are at least 4000 small water supply systems in communities that have been historically marginalised. They face a lack of infrastructure and poor access to training, technology, or financing. Controla Tu Gobierno has used the Integrity Management Toolbox for Small Water Supply Systems (IMT-SWSS) with partners and WIN since 2020, with seven small system water management committees (known as comités autónomos or comités comunitarios de agua). The benefits for integrity and for the performance of the systems are numerous. For instance, some committees worked to set up differentiated tariffs for residential and commercial users. This facilitated the payment of debts to the Federal Committee of Electricity. Another example is improved communication with the community, which has encouraged community participation, generated trust, and promoted water conservation. Girum Girma (Caritas Switzerland): The Government of Ethiopia has policies and, regulations for water supply in remote areas. One of them is the Ethiopian WaSH Implementation Framework (2013) which puts a clear focus on defining the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, including WASHCOs (community water supply systems in Ethiopia). However, the framework has limitations. Here is where the IMT-SWSS becomes very useful, especially in building the capacity of WASHCOs to manage and operate their water system. The tool, which is visual and didactic, and includes games, clear exercises and hands-on activities, was easy to apply in communities with low literacy levels, allowing for their active participation. The process has had positive results, notably that the IMT-SWSS has helped to create trust between users and management committees. “The IMT-SWSS created favourable conditions to build trust between management committees and users. For example, we saw that people were willing to pay for operation and maintenance services when they were properly informed, trained, and motivated.” – Girum Girma, Caritas Switzerland What are the main integrity challenges small water supply systems face? Elvia Arzate (Controla tu Gobierno): In Mexico, water committees face many problems. First, collective forms of water provision are not recognised in the National Water Law. Second, much of the work of the committees is performed voluntarily. Third, the development of megaprojects (e.g. airports) is preventing local communities from accessing water resources by altering land tenure rights. Fourth, it’s a challenge to carry the responsibility of securing water services in the face of natural phenomena such as water scarcity and erosion. Girum Girma (Caritas Ethiopia): Small water system committees face several challenges. For example, maintenance costs are highly dependent on external finance, there is low state involvement and support for remote systems, and there is no transparency or exchange between committees and water officers or technicians. Building trust requires time. What have we learned from communities for promoting integrity? What can we learn in particular from indigenous and autonomous communities? Elvia Arzate (Controla tu Gobierno): In the beginning, it was not easy to start working with the IMT-SWSS. There was resistance and distrust because the committees did not know the work of WIN and Controla Tu Gobierno. The committees asked, “Why are they giving us something without asking anything in return? Why don’t they ask for money?” Once we got to know each other, we created trust and they recommended our work to other water committees. We have had to adapt to their necessities, timings, and traditions. This is a process of responsibility and mutual learning. We do not teach them, we share knowledge. The committees managing water supply systems in indigenous or autonomous communities have existed for longer than the institutions supplying water at the state level. Autonomous communities have a strong respect for nature and common goods. They also have their own forms of community practices and collective work. This is a good starting point for us to learn about integrity.

A water stewardship initiative (WSI) can be more effective if the partnership is founded on trust and built with concrete measures to address transparency, accountability, participation, and anti-corruption concerns. In a world in which water is increasingly too little, too much, or too polluted to meet our needs, water stewardship initiatives may be part of the solution to managing water better in some contexts. Such initiatives bring together a range of players to form collective action partnerships to address linked water risks. Typically, these multi-stakeholder partnerships include representatives of the private sector, government and affected communities, and they address water risks within a designated catchment area. Like all partnerships, water stewardship initiatives stand or fall on the level of trust between the partners who may have ideological differences, strongly held views, or a long history of mutual distrust. Over the years, a number of frameworks for designing and managing water stewardship initiatives have emerged. Applied correctly, they can help build trust between stakeholders. But they will only be truly effective if integrity is built in as a guiding principle. What defines effective water stewardship? A water stewardship initiative will be seen as effective when the majority of stakeholders feel that the initiative has addressed their needs. This might be improved access to water for downstream communities; the social license to operate, improved reliability of access to water, and reduced reputation and regulatory risks for the private sector; and the achievement of environmental protection and/or restoration programmes. Getting to this point and demonstrating effectiveness requires strong foundations: Trustworthy, credible, and accountable participants; Clear objectives and demonstrable outcomes that advance sustainable and equitable water management; and Inclusive, transparent, and responsive processes and governance that lead to informed and balanced decision-making, and clear communication and disclosure. These are three dimensions of integrity that have been presented in The Guide for Managing Integrity in Water Stewardship Initiatives developed by WIN, the CEO Water Mandate and the Pacific Institute in 2015. The guide also includes descriptions of practical tools to build up each of these dimensions. The power and challenges of collective action In 1997, Davis, Schoorman and Donaldson set out a Stewardship Theory which described the potential of multi-stakeholder collective action in addressing water security challenges, as a response to the more individualistic approaches usually in play. Stewardship Theory assumes that stewards are “motivated to act in the best interests of their principals” and to prioritize “pro-organizational, collectivistic behaviours”. This motivation towards a collective approach for managing water assumes that trust can be built between the relevant stakeholders. The challenge is how to build trust between stakeholders who have not historically worked together, or worse, may have had fractious relationships in the past, and where there are significant imbalances in power between the different partners. This is complicated by the fact that water stewardship initiatives are generally run on a voluntary basis without any legally binding agreements being in place. In the absence of being able to hold stakeholders accountable by legal means for their pledged cash and/or in-kind contributions, a change in mindset is required. Stakeholders need to take a leap of faith when engaging in a water stewardship partnership, trusting that other stakeholders genuinely want to contribute to finding joint solutions to water risks. Integrity: a practical approach to build trust By formally putting integrity measures in place ensuring Transparency, Accountability, Participation, and Anti-corruption for the partnership can ensure partners take the leap of faith from a stronger, and more secure base. The Guide for Managing Integrity describes various tools that can be used to support the set up and management of water stewardship initiatives with a focus on integrity. Such tools or processes include for example: processes and structures that ensure balanced and participatory decision-making, processes for disclosure of actions and use of funds, as well as mechanisms for open learning. Specific tools such as stakeholder mapping can also be used to ensure that all stakeholders, whether powerful or not, are involved, and to ensure that their legitimate interests and knowledge are taken into consideration. Lessons learned from case studies The Lusaka Water Security Initiative (LuWSI) in Zambia, through a stakeholder mapping and engagement process, engaged with over 30 international, local and national public, private, and civil society sector actors working towards water security for the residents and businesses of Lusaka. The Initiative also actively included input from 12 of the city’s most vulnerable wards in terms of socio-economic profile and known water security risks. LuWSI also has partnership work plans with a detailed monitoring and evaluation framework. It publically share information about performance and expenditure and thus has the ability to publicly demonstrate balanced decision-making that seeks public benefit, equity, and sustainability, building trust both within and outside the WSI. The Foundation Water Fund for Life and Sustainability, a WSI with an environmental and social focus on the sugarcane sector in the upper Cauca River Valley in Colombia, is another good example. Partners commit financial and human resources for joint actions aimed at the protection and conservation of watersheds that drain into the Cauca River, the main water source for sugar production in the area. Projects are designed using local knowledge of communities and indigenous groups. There are also joint project planning and implementation processes, based on agreed objectives and outcomes. The report Building Effective Water Stewardship Initiatives: The Case for Integrity highlights the most important integrity measures needed in water stewardship initiatives based on lessons from these two cases and others. Download Building Effective Water Stewardship Initiatives: The Case for Integrity: Download the Integrity Framework for Water Stewardship Initiatives Integrity, trust and the way forward Integrity in governance of water stewardship initiatives is built on the four pillars of transparency, accountability, participation and anti-corruption measures. High levels of integrity lead to trust building between partners. Greater levels of trust lead to stronger and more sustainable outcomes from water stewardship initiatives. It is a win-win situation.

How can we assess and address issues of exclusion and marginalisation in informal settlements from a water integrity perspective? How can different stakeholders use integrity and support the realisation of the human rights to water and sanitation in informal settlements? What has changed with the COVID-19 pandemic? The Water Integrity Network advocates for safely managed water and sanitation services in informal settlements by working with regulators, utility companies and small water supply system operators in Africa, Asia and Latin America. We see the exclusion of people living in informal settlements from access to decent water and sanitation services as a failure of integrity. This Integrity Talk highlights the experiences of utility companies, community-led initiatives, and international organisations in addressing this failure. With special guests: Alana Potter (End Water Poverty), Sudha Shrestha (UN Habitat), Marcelo Rogora (Aguas y Saneamientos Argentinos, AySA) and Nils Thorup (Grundfos Foundation). Featuring a clip of the film Into Dust, directed by Orlando von Einsiedel. KEY TAKEAWAYS Recognition: Residents of informal settlements deserve recognition as active members of the urban fabric with the same rights as other urban dwellers. Such recognition is fundamental if utilities and the sate are to engage effectively with these communities for the provision of decent water and sanitation services. Affordability: Water and sanitation services must be delivered at an affordable price. Many residents of informal settlements actually pay more than wealthier neighbours for water of dubious quality. This needs to be urgently addressed with policies that recognise the specific needs of people living in informal settlements. Free basic water allocations or sustainable lifeline tariffs are good examples of how to materialise the principle of affordability of the rights to water and sanitation for those living in poverty. Responsibility: There is a close link between land tenure and water provision. Many people living in settlements around the world are excluded from formal water and sanitation supply because their land tenure status is not recognised. However, there is still a responsibility to deliver services. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that even in times of crisis, utility companies can undertake immediate action, regardless of land ownership, to expand service provision. Pro-poor anti-corruption: the failure to provide decent water and sanitation services in informal settlements leaves the door open for corrupt, discriminatory, and discretionary service, which can put health and lives at risk. Residents may be forced into informal arrangements with water mafias, which in a number of cases are given free rein by authorities. Such arrangements leave no room for accountability and are likely to leave behind the most vulnerable. Water Integrity for Informal Settlements during COVID-19 What are the main conditions that hinder the provision of water and sanitation services in informal settlements? Alana Potter (End Water Poverty): More than one billion people worldwide live in informal settlements and they are usually not recognised as legitimate citizens, participants and rights-holders. Informality is commonalty associated with lawlessness and criminality. However, many informal settlements do not exist by accident; they are historically rooted and can be traced back even to colonial times. They provide land for accommodation, and affordable housing near transportation and economic centres of activity. They persist because of state and market failures to provide poor residents with affordable accommodation in well-located areas. Stigma, discrimination, poor integrity are beneath the reluctance to provide decent services in informal settlements. The results is that residents generally pay more for water and sanitation of uncertain or inadequate quality and do not enjoy the human rights to water and sanitation even when these are constitutionally recognised. During the COVID-19 pandemic, residents of informal settlements have been severely affected because of higher population densities, stagnant water, narrow pathways that reduced mobility and emergency response access. When residents find ways to claim their rights, these are often criminalised or rejected by authorities. It is critical that we change the mindset and recognise residents of informal settlements as actors and counterparts to engage with. In some settlements in South Africa, for example, residents organise their own residential and economic land uses, provision of water, sanitation, electricity and solid waste collection services. They defend themselves against evictions and organise local representation and leadership, engaging actively with the state through informal participation processes, in protests, and in the courts. “People are the ones who claim their rights. Having the right to water and sanitation in the law is nothing until people claim it.” - Alana Potter, End Water Poverty What measures did UN-Habitat put in place to support the provision of WASH services in informal settlements in the COVID-19 crisis? Sudha Shrestha (UN Habitat): In Nepal, in the first stage, UN-Habitat mobilised local partners to distribute masks, hand sanitiser and coverall suits due to the shortage in the market. We also launched a community close-watch using mobile phones to collect information on COVID-19 related issues, health, handwashing and sanitation, hygiene and cleanliness, and water. This information filled a database to assist municipalities in the formulation of policies and strategies. We also used social media to spread news related to COVID-19 measures and created a WASH cluster in the border region between India and Nepal to facilitate migration in and out of the country. We also provided temporary handwashing facilities in healthcare facilities, schools, quarantine centres, public spaces (e.g., markets), and informal settlements while supporting food distribution in vulnerable areas. What efforts were undertaken by the water utility of Buenos Aires (AySA) to ensure water access in informal settlements during the COVID-19 pandemic? Marcelo Rogora (Aguas y Saneamientos Argentinos, AySA): AySA provides water and sanitation services to 14.5 million inhabitants in the city of Buenos Aires. We have developed concrete actions to strengthen participatory actions and accountability. In 2021, for example, we incorporated a digital platform called aysa.DATA into our website. This platform provides communication channels and open data to inform the public about concessions while also giving the opportunity to file complaints. In informal settlements, AySA implemented two programmes: “Agua más Trabajo” (Water more work) and “Cloaca más Trabajo” (Sewer more work). Both programmes aim at expanding networked services in vulnerable areas though close cooperation with municipalities and local cooperatives. The benefits of these programs are numerous: first, they supported employment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, our workers are 50 percent women who are engaged in management tasks as well as technical work. This is important to us, as AySA supports gender equity. AySA covers the costs of both programmes and provides training to local cooperatives. Municipalities also play a key role in managing the financial resources provided by AySA and in hiring local residents. For us, these actions are associated with not only anti-corruption but also with integrity. “When we talk about integrity we focus not only on measures to prevent corruption but also inclusion, participation, gender equality and respect for human rights such as universal access to potable water and sanitation.” - Marcelo Rogora, AySA What kind of legal mechanisms are available for residents in informal settlements to hold governments and service providers accountable? Alana Potter: When people are delegitimised as formal participants they often turn to inventive forms of participation. I think multiple strategies are needed on multiple fronts. In South Africa, for example, the use of the Housing Act and the Expropriation Act have strengthened service delivery. In the housing sector, the Anti-Eviction Law, in particular, has helped people to secure land tenure so that they are in a position where the settlement can be upgraded and they can receive services. In some cases, the use of the law and litigation is more strategic than direct. In the Marikana informal settlement, it was impossible to relocate 60 000 residents, so the court ordered the city of Cape Town to purchase the land where the settlement was located. “Even if you do not have the direct right to water and sanitation in the legislation, there are creative ways to use other rights.” - Alana Potter, End Water Poverty What advice would you have for other utilities that are struggling to navigate legal challenges to secure water and sanitation services in informal settlements? And has the COVID-19 crisis made these challenges easier or more difficult to overcome, and why? Marcelo Rogora: What is important is the cooperation and coordination between different actors involved in water supply provision such as the government, utility companies, the community, as well as regulators. Otherwise, I see it as very difficult to achieve positive results, particularly when there are legal obstacles against extending the network into informal areas. In Buenos Aires, we have all been working together to make laws and regulation more flexible and to adjust technical guidelines to secure universal access to water and sanitation in marginalised areas. AySA has faced serious challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, like in many other countries. But we acted quickly to respond to water demands. In a period of one month, we launched an emergency plan to intervene in vulnerable areas, despite complete isolation in Argentina. We equipped local cooperatives with basic instruments to guarantee safe working conditions (e.g. masks, disinfectant). We also focused our efforts on providing support to workers that were on the front lines during the crisis. When somebody got infected and could not work, their economic situation was severely affected. We created a plan to assist workers facing financial difficulties to protect their health and the health of the community. Why did the Grundfos Foundation decide to support the creation of the “Into Dust” Film, which focuses on the work of Perween Rahman, mapping water mafias in Karachi? Niels Thorup (Grundfos Foundation): At the Grundfos Foundation we primarily work in refugee camps and rural communities and we supply water pumps globally. We supported this film to raise awareness about water issues globally. As a foundation working with a close link to the private sector it is very important that we raise awareness about real issues such as corruption and that we address real problems. Water will be a huge issue in the future due to climate change and we need to address the problems directly instead of just talking about the good solutions that we see today. There is the tendency to equate the human right to water with the idea that water should be provided for free. How does this discussion help us to understand possible ways to guarantee the right to water to poor residents without threatening the financial sustainability of providers? Barbara Schreiner (Water Integrity Network, WIN): Currently, residents of informal settlements often pay much higher prices for poorer quality of water services than those in wealthier areas. This is a profound issue of integrity because the system is penalising the people that are living in poverty. Obviously, when providing sustainable water services, funding has to come from somewhere. And we need to ask where the money comes from. How much time and money should be put into collecting small amounts of money from poor people? When should tax-based schemes be mobilised to subsidise tariffs, or cross-subsidisation? There are a number of ways to cover financial costs from different sources rather than sqeezing revenue out of poor residents. In South Africa, a Free Basic Water policy was introduced to ensure that nobody was denied access to water because they could not afford to pay. More resources INTO DUST is a documentary that tells the story of Perween Rahman, an activist who decided to uncover the exploitative strategies of water cartels in Karachi informal settlements. She fought against water injustices and for accountability, exposing the perverse effects of water corruption in marginalised areas. (Director: Orlando von Einsiedel, Country: Pakistan, Year: 2021) Human Rights and Water Integrity in Informal Settlements Water Integrity Global Outlook 2021: Urban water and sanitation

What is the role of regulators in securing access to water and sanitation services? How can they promote transparency, accountability and participation, and which challenges do they face in doing this? The Water Integrity Network (WIN) works in close cooperation with regulators in Latin America and Africa to promote integrity in the water and sanitation sectors. For this Integrity Talk, WIN partner organisations shared their experiences and reflected on their work driving integrity, not only inside their own organisations, but also in relation to governments, water service providers, and consumers. With special guests: Pilar Avello (SIWI); Corinne Cathala (Inter-American Development Bank, IDB); Giovanni Espinal (Water and Sanitation Services Regulatory Entity ERSAPS, Honduras); Robert Gakubia (former head of the Water Services Regulatory Board WASREB, Kenya); and Chola Mbilima (Eastern and Southern Africa Water and Sanitation Regulators Association, ESAWAS). KEY TAKEAWAYS Integrity starts from within: it is important to implement integrity measures also within a regulatory institution and then with water and sanitation providers and consumers. There are no fixed formulas for regulators to drive integrity in the water and sanitation sectors. Each regulator has its own individual mechanisms for approaching integrity according to the context where it is operating. Integrity assessment tools or indicators can help better target and adapt interventions. No real change will take place at the regulatory level without the cooperation of governments and respective ministries, or without the engagement of stakeholders and users. Working with vulnerable or marginalised communities and water supply committees in rural areas is an essential element of the integrity work of regulators. Regulators can play an important role in promoting integrity by making budget allocations clear and by informing consumers about how resources are used to improve coverage and quality of water services. Regulators and their functions Regulators are essential in the provision of adequate, affordable and reliable water and sanitation services. They set up rules and standards for utility companies, ensure adequate tariffs, monitor and report on quality of service, ensure effectiveness of investment and sustainability, and secure citizen involvement (WIN, 2021). They are crucial in balancing the interests of governments, consumers and utilities, while also limiting harmful behaviour (Twyman and Simbeye, 2017). In contexts where corruption and integrity failures compromise the performance of water and sanitation service providers, appropriate regulatory frameworks can promote transparency, accountability and participation and support the realisation of the human rights to water and sanitation. To build integrity in the water and sanitation sectors and boost service delivery, the Water Integrity Global Outlook WIGO (2021) recommends these actions for regulators: Regulate for equity, providing incentives or standards for pro-poor services. Regulate for integrity, setting standards and specifically monitoring procurement and corporate governance in utilities. Regulate with integrity, in a transparent and accountable manner, giving voice to residents. Regulate non-utility service provision. Regulators and their role in promoting integrity What kinds of tools are available to regulators to support their work in promoting integrity in the water and sanitation sectors? Pilar Avello (SIWI): The Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), WIN and cewas have developed tools to support regulators in promoting integrity. The Integrity Management Toolbox for Regulators addresses how regulators can be accountable to policy-makers, service providers and consumers. Following the WASHREG approach, we selected six regulatory areas (what regulators regulate): tariff setting, service quality regulations, competition regulation, consumer protection, environmental regulation and public health regulation, and key activities performed by regulators (how regulators regulate): enforcement, definition of rules and approval of licences as well as monitoring and information. For these areas and activities, we identified a set of integrity risks that could occur and the tools that could be used to mitigate them. The ultimate goal is for regulators to develop roadmaps to improve integrity within their own organisation. In the long-term, we are planning to implement this toolbox in Paraguay, Honduras and Ecuador between 2021 and 2023. How can regulators put integrity into pracitce in the water and sanitation sectors? Robert Gakubia (former head of the Water Services Regulatory Board WASREB, Kenya): We do not perceive regulators as anti-corruption fighters but as key players in identifying violations on integrity in order to ensure that people have access to sustainable water services. The role of regulators is to provide an environment that facilitates efficiency, effectiveness and equity in the provision of water and sanitation services, while addressing the sustainability of the service. WASREB looks at the whole water service chain from governance all the way to the consumers. We look at governance by addressing different aspects: how service providers organise their services in terms of provision, how they do their financial management and develop their human resources, how commercial aspects are connected to consumer services, how they engage and inform consumers, how they prioritise investments. All these issues are connected to integrity. Giovanni Espinal (Water and Sanitation Services Regulatory Entity ERSAPS, Honduras): The benefits of integrity are connected to the principle of transparency. Regulators are obliged by law to enforce transparency by providing all information to service providers and consumers in terms of water quality and investment plans to improve coverage rates and achieve universal access. To secure accountability, we organise consumer assemblies, and team up with local supervision and control units (unidades de supervición y control local) to make information available. We also promote “consumer forums” to inform a wider public about their rights and responsibilities and the quality of water they receive. Our work with integrity was initiated with the implementation of an Integrity Management Toolbox. The Toolbox has been very useful to identify new indicators that have helped us to promote integrity. In particular, it has helped us to guide water providers on how to use their own resources and manage bidding for tenders. These aspects are very important, because in Honduras resources are limited and if they are used in an inefficient or illegal way, water provision will be negatively impacted. As a regulator, I suggest looking at what integrity means, how it manifests itself. It is important to understand that we do not operate in isolation. Integrity can help us to make sustainable use of our resources in order to solve the problem of lack of water and sanitation. “One of the main challenges for regulators is to promote integrity within their own organisation before engaging with water providers and consumers. We are constantly facing complex questions such as: what is integrity for us, how do we manage our own resources, and how do we take decisions.” - Giovanni Espinal, ERSAPS How do you establish commonality about integrity issues across the region you work in? Chola Mbilima (Eastern and Southern Africa Water and Sanitation Regulators Association, ESAWAS): Currently our organisation has 10 members. We approach regulation from different perspectives. First, we provide a framework for the discussion of regulatory issues and by doing so, we promote good governance as a way to achieve integrity. It is very important to define clear responsibilities in order to promote accountability and transparency. Second, we develop instruments and tools that guide regulators in performing their functions. In particular, we have designed guidelines for regulators with implications for integrity. I will give an example: we have developed a guideline for tariff setting for the entire region to assist regulators. This relates to a lot of issues of corruption, exclusion, and accountability. The guideline articulates how consumers can participate in tariff setting and raise their voice. We try to make information clear so consumers are aware about how tariffs are set up and what people can do to get a new connection. We try to help each other in the region. As regulators, I have noticed that, in the region, corruption primarily emerges from lack of information and unclear rules. We try to establish clear regulations and share information as much as possible. We have also done regional benchmarking to share information. We agree to set standards as a region and we make information available to a wider public. By doing this, we try to promote transparency, however, member countries also have their own individual ways of approaching integrity. “For regulators, information and data management are key aspects to fight corruption and promote integrity. Most of the time we are hit with lack of data and this becomes a problem because it is a recipe for corruption. If people do not have information they won’t be able to know what road to take and that can bring issues of corruption.” - Chola Mbilima, ESAWAS From a financier’s perspective, what is your motivation to invest in promoting integrity within regulators and what do you see as the direct benefit to your financed projects? Corinne Cathala (Inter-American Development Bank, IDB): The IDB has worked in close cooperation with WIN, cewas and SIWI to assist regulators in the management of their information management systems. This has brought transparency to the way they handle information and accountability to the consumers. We are currently working with 22 regulators in 14 countries. We also aim at strengthening frameworks among regulators as well as supporting partnership and creating a collaborative environment with governments and all water sector stakeholders. The IADB also backs the AquaRating initiative, a performance rating system for water and sanitation utilities. In collaboration with WIN, we have developed a focus analysis targeting integrity and transparency and it has been applied in several water and sanitation utilities. Although this tool was originally designed for utilities, several regulators from Ecuador, Bolivia and Colombia have approached to us to also use these indicators. How do you provide opportunities to marginalised communities in Honduras to hold regulators and utility companies accountable? Giovanni Espinal (ERSAPS): The majority of water providers in Honduras supply rural areas and they work on a voluntary basis. Integrity is part of their heritage as they operate through participatory schemes. They do not receive any economic benefit from tariffs and they represent a true example of what constitutes integrity in the provision of water services. However, they are rural communities and we have to make an effort to make their work visible and to support them to make wise use of the few resources they obtain, especially to reinvest in the improvement of the water service and resources. As regulators, we should avoid any distortion of the system of integrity and volunteer commitment, and recognise their contribution to collective forms of water service provision. While promoting integrity within the work of regulators, how does the IDB articulate the human right to water compared to issues of economic efficiency? Corinne Cathala (IDB): This is tricky question. The UN resolution on the human rights to water and sanitation is oriented to incorporate elements such as effective availability of water, minimum levels of consumption, quality and access to water. These are very important aspects that we are working on with regulators. But we also look at economic efficiency to foster rational use of water resources without undue political interference. However, these aspects should be part of a long-term view that incorporates mechanisms of subsidies to help the most vulnerable population. Many countries, for example, have adopted a scheme of gradual adjustment of tariffs in order to subsidise families that have payment capacity problems. There is lots of work not only at the regulatory level but also at the public policy level with ministries. How do you encourage a regulator to start to work with the concept of integrity? Chola Mbilima (ESAWAS): A key strategy to motivate regulators is to invite them to visit places where things are working. We support regulators that supposedly are not doing so well to visit regulators that do things better. They have the opportunity to ask questions and they appreciate how the system works. We also encourage them to visit regulators, policy-makers and service providers to get ideas about how to make their own internal changes. In ESAWAS, we do not force people, but we expose them to institutions that work well. It’s a strategy to push regulators to implement integrity. References Twyman, B. And Simbeye, I. 2017. Regulating Lusaka’s Urban Sanitation Sector. The Importance of Promoting Integrity and Reducing Corruption. Berlin: Water Integrity Network (WIN) and Aguaconsult. Water Integrity Network (WIN). 2021. Water Integrity Global Outlook 2021. Water Integrity in Urban Water and Sanitation. Berlin: Water Integrity Network.

With Sanitation and Water for All Integrity Talks are interactive discussions with WIN partners about their challenges and lessons for advancing integrity in the water and sanitation sectors. This is an edited summary of our fourth session on tariffs and inflation. How do water providers and regulators deal with tariffs in times of high inflation? Inflation is the rate of increase in prices over a given period of time. When acute, as is the case today in many regions, it has significant impact on the cost of living and of basic services, including water and sanitation. This is often felt most sharply by the poor, who are led to make drastic choices to secure essential services. Water and sanitation service providers must cover costs and deal with rising prices of operations and maintenance, while maintaining affordable service for all. This has its challenges. In this Integrity Talk, panellists discussed the impact of inflation in the water and sanitation sectors with a focus on tariff setting, the ways to make water and sanitation services affordable to low-income groups, and the role of integrity in realising the human rights to water and sanitation. With special guests: Dick van Ginhoven (WIN), Virginia Roaf (Sanitation and Water for All, SWA) James Cleto Mumbere (Uganda Water and Sanitation NGO Network, UWASNET), Rajesh K. Advani, (World Bank), Katia Ochoa Trucios (Servicio de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado de Lima, SEDAPAL). KEY TAKEAWAYS The human rights to water and sanitation obligate States to use the maximum available resources for realising human rights. There is pressure to increase water tariffs to cover mounting costs of operations and maintenance. Low tariffs drive a vicious cycle: insufficient financing leads to poor services; poor services exacerbate low levels of payment; this further undermines the financial health of the utility and leads to lack of investment in maintenance in particular. There are significant integrity risks in the tariff-setting process: from capture to insufficient transparency or participation. High inflation has sharpened the focus on these. States and local authorities need to engage with communities to understand their needs and ability to pay. Involving the community in designing and understanding tariff structures can improve transparency and accountability and help reduce petty corruption. How does high inflation affect the provision of water and sanitation services? Dick van Ginhoven (WIN Supervisory Board): Some economists attribute the current inflation surge to product shortages resulting from global supply chain problems, largely caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. On top of that, the war in Ukraine has increased energy prices worldwide. There are also other fundamental mechanisms triggering inflation and depreciation of local currencies. Inflation can occur when prices rise due to increases in production costs, such as raw materials and wages, or a surge in demand can cause inflation as consumers have/are willing to pay more for products. This might drive increases in, for example, the cost of energy, chemicals, housing upgrades, investment, and water. Rajesh Advani (World Bank): Inflation in the water and sanitation sectors can be heightened by poorly allocated funding. Governments are spending $320 billion per year on water and sanitation service subsidies. From that, 56% is captured by the wealthiest populations and only 6% reaches the poorest 20%. In utility operations, there is a financing gap when costs are higher than funding. In other words, investment, maintenance and operating costs are higher than the available funding which is obtained through tariffs, taxes, and transfers. In periods of high inflation, utilities have to spend more resources to cover the costs of electricity, staff and chemicals, which, in combination with a reduction of public funds, increases the gap. What is the impact of low tariffs on the financing gap? Rajesh Advani (World Bank): Low tariffs drive a vicious cycle where the higher the financing gap, the higher the requirement for additional financing. As public funds are usually insufficient, maintenance is neglected, worsening the technical performance of the utility. When water service provision is deficient, customers are not willing to pay, weakening financial performance and requiring more capital to restore the system, increasing again the financing gap. Katia Ochoa Trucios (SEDAPAL): Peru has one of the lowest tariffs in Latin America. It is not high enough to cover maintenance costs and extend infrastructure coverage. “When maintenance costs are not covered, water is not delivered properly, affecting directly people’s supply.” – Katia Ochoa Trucios (SEDAPAL) How do the human rights to water and sanitation fit in to the discussion on tariffs and inflation? Virgina Roaf (SWA): While tariffs should be sufficient to cover costs for delivering water and sanitation, human rights require that these services be ‘affordable’ for people with low or no incomes. This also means that services must sometimes be available for free, with the costs covered by the State or through cross-subsidisation. Nevertheless, just having a human right to water doesn’t mean that water is immediately available and that it is available for free. States need to make sure people understand this. Human rights impose obligations on States to carefully consider how they prioritise their available resources and to demonstrate that they are making adequate plans and committing adequate funds to ensure that everyone is able to enjoy all their human rights, including water and sanitation. Local governments need to know what aspects of the human right to water they still need to work on, for example: participation, transparency, and how to address corruption. Also, local authorities need to engage with the local community. Inequalities are deepened through poorly managed tariffs and through inflation, as the poorest are least able to withstand the accompanying financial shocks, sending them into deeper poverty. Integrating human rights principles into financial thinking will ultimately improve the lives of the poorest people on this planet. “The challenge is no longer whether the human rights to water and sanitation exist, but how they are to be implemented.” – Virginia Roaf (SWA) What key factors should be considered for better tariff setting? James Cleto Mumbere (UWASNET): In Uganda, there is a legal framework where the tariff system is guided by the Constitution. Several policies clearly outline the key stakeholders in water tariff determination. For example, water utilities make proposals using statutory instruments. Then the responsible minister approves them. The current tariff structure is still hampered by two critical factors: service fees, and VAT (Valued Added Tax), which increase the tariff by about 2% and 18% respectively. Service fees and VAT should be removed from all water tariffs, especially for the poor. Furthermore, it would be important to include pro-poor performance indicators for the utilities at all levels. “For any effective tariff guideline, collection, and payment modalities, it is important to involve the poor in tariff settings to clearly understand their challenges in accessing water.” – James Cleto Mumbere, Uganda Water and Sanitation NGO Network (UWASNET) Katia Ochoa (SEDAPAL): In the city of Lima, Peru, there is a differentiated tariff according to the types of use (social, domestic, industrial, and state use). The domestic tariff is further differentiated between “beneficiary” and “non-beneficiary”. Lower-income residents are under the beneficiary category and they pay according to their income. This allows for differentiated payment and benefits poor households. The tariff is established by the regulator with the intention of providing sustainable services, which means, covering the operations and maintenance costs, service delivery, and investment in projects to expand coverage. The regulator establishes the tariff with the objective of limiting negative impact on the population. Nevertheless, challenges remain in tariff setting, mainly because the price set by the regulator does not cover the full operating costs, increasing the financing gap. How does financing, and especially loans, affect tariffs? Dick van Ginhoven (WIN Supervisory Board): There is a need for a clear financial position of utilities and governments. In Kenya, for example, around 50% of the water budget is spent on debt servicing, which is increasing because of depreciation. This is never going to be sustainable. We need to look at local markets to finance investment and link that investment with the regulation of tariff indexing. I suggest that existing debt may have to be restructured into local debt. How does corruption affect tariffs? Rajesh Advani (World Bank): Corruption happens on two levels. The first one is petty corruption causing issues both in society and utilities. Some initiatives implemented to fight corruption include using technologies, for example, payment by phone. In Nairobi, there are multiple issues with endemic corruption but they have little tolerance for it. Utilities use technologies and engage with people by holding meetings and conferences in local areas. By encouraging communication with local stakeholders they have had success in increasing access to water and sanitation in informal settlements. There is a need to involve the community to build social capital and weaken corruption. On the other side, there is grand corruption. When there are corrupt practices in investment planning and contracting, there is a huge impact on both the operational and financial viability of utilities. Even though there are very strict requirements regarding the procurement of all contracts in multilateral agreements, the main question we face is, what are governments doing? What is the track record of investigating and then of prosecution? What challenges remain in tariff setting? What are the big priorities? Virginia Roaf (SWA): Tariffs are still too low for people who can afford to pay more. People who can access the service are paying less than people who don’t have access to the service, for example, residents of informal settlements. Katia Ochoa (SEDAPAL): Lima faces constant population growth caused mainly by migration of poor or extremely poor people to the city. These people generally benefit from a differentiated tariff and this category has seen an increase of 50% in the number of residents. There is still a deficiency in the methodology for identification of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the differentiated tariff: it is sometimes inexact and very subjective. We may be supporting people who are not in need, while the provision of water services must be as efficient as possible to be able to provide affordable prices. James Cleto Mumbere (UWASNET): I fully support the idea of more local currency financing. But I think for that to happen, utilities need to improve and build creditworthiness to make them attractive targets for the financial sector. Otherwise, banks will not be interested in lending to companies that will not repay their loans. A legal framework that allows more access to private finances is very important, as is the role of regulation. MOVING FORWARD Inflation has increased the costs of water and sanitation provision and maintenance. In response, a number of water and sanitation service providers have significantly raised tariffs where possible, but not always in a transparent and accountable manner. The urban poor are more likely to suffer the effects of inflation than higher-income households as they tend to spend a higher share of their income on water and sanitation. With this in mind, a number of water providers and regulators have undertaken significant efforts to mitigate the impact of inflation and secure affordable tariffs. This Integrity Talk highlighted a number of integrity measures used to mitigate inflation and make tariffs affordable: cross-subsidisation, differentiated tariffs, and mobilisation of the human rights to water and sanitation to oblige States to use the maximum available resources for realising human rights. There is still room for improvement in many regions. This Integrity Talk also underscored the need to take into account depreciation. Many States have taken foreign loans to improve water and sanitation services. With inflation, the debt burden has increased due to local currency depreciation. Debt relief and restructuring, as well as local currency financing are important instruments to consider better support service improvements and ensure adequate and affordable access to water and sanitation for all.

The water sector faces a complex web of challenges that cannot be solved solely through financial investments in physical infrastructure. At the Water Integrity Network , we strongly believe that success, quality service delivery, and sustainable water resource management depend on operators’ ability to invest in systems that prioritise human engagement and build on proactive plans for clean and sustainable governance. We call this process Integrity Management (IM). IM facilitates the development of more robust systems to overcome pervasive challenges in the water sector, including wasted resources, ageing and unsustainable infrastructure, as well as poor: Ethical standards Transparency Accountability Risk mitigation systems Regulatory compliance How does Integrity Management work? IM emphasises the importance of building organisational capacity , and of identifying and responding to integrity risks. IM focuses on: Proactive and regular risk assessment Efficient operations and streamlined administration through integrity Informed and unbiased decision-making Trust building Inclusivity and stakeholder participation Sustainability and resilience The outcome of Integrity Management : a valued organisational culture of integrity aligned with the greater good of communities, key stakeholders, and the environment. Integrity Management is essential The fact that the world is facing unprecedented water challenges cannot be overstated. Water sustainability and delivery is strained across the globe due to an array of factors related to population growth , climate change , increasing water demand , and the degradation of water sources. Water utilities know the threats to infrastructure and sustainability of service. It’s now crucial that they also delve into the underlying dynamics that weaken their response . Increasing professionalism and trust Professionalism is key in developing a skilled workforce capable of managing resources, delivering quality services, and implementing best practices. Adhering to standards, codes of conduct, and industry guidelines enhances the sector's overall performance. Emboldening trust among stakeholders, including the public, government entities, NGOs, funders or investors, and private sector partners, is paramount. Transparent communication, honest engagement, ethical values, and a commitment to the common good are essential. Upholding the mandate to deliver: safeguarding water resources amid ongoing climate disruption Climate disruption underscores the need for IM methods. As climate disruption escalates, vulnerable communities worldwide face disproportionate challenges such as disrupted rainfall patterns, droughts, and rapid flooding events. The major risk, and tendency, in such times of crisis, is that services become discretionary instead of universal as they should be per SDG commitments . To withstand, adapt, and respond to these growing challenges, Water utilities must build organisational resilience, optimise resource management, address inefficiencies, and put controls in place to ensure equitable service delivery. InWASH is a practical Integrity Management toolbox to empower water utilities InWASH is the only dedicated Integrity Management tool for Water Utilities. It distils a transformative approach to addressing the root causes of water delivery issues. The Transparency, Accountability, Participation, and Anti-Corruption (TAPA) framework is its foundation. Transparency is vital as it demonstrates to users how their water is managed and delivered, and showcases creditworthiness to financiers – a precondition for investment Accountability clarifies roles and holds stakeholders responsible for their actions Participation engages stakeholders for inclusive decision-making Anti-corruption measures mitigate corrupt practices that drain resources The tool includes an Integrity Assessment, a streamlined, indicator-based assessment tool, aligned with the Aquarating Utility Benchmarking Standard , to guide an organisation through the Integrity Management process. By supporting operators in identifying and addressing underestimated risks such as corruption, operational inefficiencies, and customer service challenges, as well as effective integrity practices, InWASH provides a platform for enhanced service delivery. Harnessing Integrity Management to create solutions InWASH's success stories and challenges encountered, along with key learnings from case studies, offer valuable insights. By leveraging InWASH, generates momentum and ownership within water utilities for reform and performance enhancements. Integrity Management offers valuable solutions to the challenges faced by Water Utilities: Helps identify key risks and priorities. Encourages collective ownership and participation for solutions. Improves user relations and utility reputation Ensures transparent communication about service improvement. Contributes to financial stability and creditworthiness. Navigating unprecedented challenges such as rapid population growth, urbanisation, rising energy costs, and climate disruption requires the holistic approach of IM . Integrating water integrity into an organisation's values is paramount for Water utilities to ensure sustainable service delivery. IM addresses multifaceted challenges within the water sector, ensuring alignment with the greater good of communities and the environment. For more information about InWASH and how it can be utilised to bolster water sector integrity, please contact us.