The Citywide Inclusive Sanitation (CWIS) framework has been introduced to ensure that sanitation services are provided in a safe, sustainable and reliable way in cities, particularly to vulnerable groups. Contrary to previous approaches that tend to focus on incrementally extending the centralised sewerage network, CWIS puts forward both sewered and non-sewered systems and focuses on sustainable service. In this integrity talk, we discussed how CWIS is working in practice and how different actors are taking on board the framework. We focused on integrity, responsibilities, regulation and what we can do to enable long-term change. This is an edited summary of the main discussion points of Integrity Talk 9 on Citywide Inclusive Sanitation, which took place online on November 29, 2023. See other Integrity Talk summaries here . With special guests: Dr. Christoph Lüthi, EAWAG-SANDEC; Claire Grisaffi, Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP); Bill Twyman, AguaConsult; Tanvir Ahmed, ITN-BUET; Rohini Pradeep, CDD Society. Moderated by Ivan Zupan, Water Integrity Network (WIN). KEY TAKEAWAYS CWIS is a powerful and useful framework – it makes it possible to reframe sanitation in a positive and innovative manner, without stigma. Its flexibility and focus on principles, rather than solutions, make it particularly adaptable. It is however not straightforward to implement. It requires long-term commitment and investment. Above all it requires new ways of thinking and doing sanitation work, along with adequate new capacity and dedicated people working collaboratively across the sector. Integrity is an important component of CWIS work and is embedded in CWIS functions (particularly under accountability, resource planning, and management). It is especially needed to: define clear responsibilities for all stakeholders and build accountability along the entire sanitation value chain; ensure that poor integrity and shadow systems don’t undermine impressive developments in regulatory work; safeguard available resources and attract new ones; build community trust and engagement, ensuring acceptability. SUMMARY What is Citywide Inclusive Sanitation (CWIS) and why does it matter? Christoph Lüthi (EAWAG-SANDEC):  The global water crisis manifests in different areas as too little water, too much water, or too dirty water. In response, CWIS is the dominant paradigm for achieving safe sanitation for urban context. CWIS is not new and it’s not a set approach. It’s a framework for solutions where all members of the city have equitable access to adequate and affordable improved sanitation services through, appropriate systems of all scales (sewered and non-sewered), without any contamination to the environment along the entire sanitation value chain.   In the last two years, we’ve seen an increasing number of pilot implementations and moves to operationalise CWIS. This includes work on ways to measure progress. For example, to measure progress on equity, indicators can include: percentage of population with access to improved sanitation or shared sanitation, or the percentage of the population living in informal settlements with access to improved sanitation. None of this is prescriptive. It’s a guide for action that most large funders are aligning with. What do you see as the main implications of CWIS for utilities? How are service providers taking the framework on board? Claire Grisaffi (WSUP): We've seen that the CWIS framework is a powerful concept. It has made investment into promotion of non-sewered solutions much more politically palatable and it also embeds the understanding that high quality faecal sludge management can provide safe sanitation and even be prestigious. For utilities, there are still two major challenges to implementation: The whole new way of working to manage non-networked services and the very different capacities needed to do so. In many cases, service providers are not providing direct services like they are used to, but managing multiple formal and informal service providers. They also have to build trust and manage expectations and social norms around safe sanitation, with limited public funding. The need to balance often conflicting aims for universal access to sanitation and commercial viability. There is an assumption that market mechanisms can work and that low-cost sanitation services can be developed. What we’re seeing is that providing safe sanitation – safe for households, safe for workers, safe for society at large – has a high cost, even more so in lower income areas due to difficult access and poor-quality containment. As implementing partners, we also must seriously reflect on our own integrity and the approaches we are promoting. Are we overly optimistic about the potential of the private sector? Are we transparent about what financially viable services really mean and how that can imply a sustainable level of subsidy? Are we thinking enough about the weight placed on utilities to reach universal access? We’ve seen the importance of developing trust, the importance of local management. And in terms of design of services, we’ve seen how important it is to actually demonstrate what safe sanitation service looks like. Because for many people, it’s horrific and shameful. You have to understand how this is viewed by communities.  -Claire Grisaffi, WSUP What do we know about regulating for CWIS? What can we learn from Zambia? Bill Twyman (AguaConsult): Across the continent there is a bias in regulation towards water supply only. Zambia doesn’t entirely escape this trend but is still at the forefront of many developments for regulation of urban sanitation. Zambia stands out for its independent regulatory agency (National Water Supply and Sanitation Council, NWASCO) and the impressive and wide range of regulatory instruments in place, also for non-sewered sanitation. There are also some regulatory functions that are in a sense shared with the Lusaka Water Sanitation Company, which acts as a bridge to smaller service providers. This doesn’t mean the Zambian sanitation sector is immune to corruption and poor integrity. In our research, we came across a number of cases – from bribery, nepotism and misuse of per diems to allegations of large-scale corruption in procurement and management of major internationally funded programmes. Recommendations to improve and strengthen regulation include e-procurement, better data collection, public reporting on integrity and integrity failures. We need to pay attention and understand this shadow system better. There is no doubt that in countries with no dedicated regulatory actors and weaker regulatory systems, the issues related to poor integrity will be much more perverse and far more widespread. -Bill Twyman, Aguaconsult On a broader level, we see many weaknesses in the regulatory environment, in relation to autonomy, capacity coordination, and accountability. We also see weaknesses in the application of integrity mechanisms: standards monitoring, reporting incentive sanctions or more specific mechanisms relating to governance, human resources, or project execution. There’s a lot we could be doing to reduce the opportunities for corruption. Generally, you see better regulator performance when there is a dedicated agency, but that’s not the case in every context. Tanvir Ahmed (ITN-BUET): In cases where there are a lot of utilities or a lot of private operators, regulation through an agency may be easier but in other cases maybe not. In Bangladesh, an independent regulatory agency is not an option. But CWIS does bring out notions of accountability and responsibility. It has regulation almost built in through the principles. Claire Grisaffi (WSUP): A good example we see isn’t about passive adaptation to new regulation. That doesn’t work. Utilities have to lean into the discussion on what’s working and what’s not. They see low demand, low profit margins and the need for a long-term change process, meaning it will be typically deprioritised. As a consequence, regulation pushing on-site sanitation just doesn’t get implemented. A good practice is for utilities to have units or dedicated staff or dedicated budget lines, even if they are tiny, just to make sure that you actually have that accountability and visibility of service.   How can we then create an enabling environment for CWIS? What can we learn from Bangladesh for the mainstreaming of CWIS? Tanvir Ahmed (ITN-BUET): Dhaka has very low coverage for sewerage and a sewerage system that hasn’t expanded over time with the city. Only 1.2% of the households are connected to sewers. The city, with 20 million people, has only one sewerage treatment plant. Faecal Sludge Management (FSM) was never in any city plans. This is the backdrop for the CWIS and how it has to evolve in Bangladesh. What we see across the country is programmes in small cities that are exemplary in relation to individual CWIS principles. Faridipur City has worked on awareness raising and equity and has women-led treatment operations; Sakhipur has closed the loop on managing the entire sanitation service chain, Khulna has set performance targets with a clear inclusive mandate. These examples have yet to be replicated and scaled up. We are still using traditional approaches to planning and implementation. For CWIS to work and for the 216+ municipalities that are still unserved or have no Faecal Sludge Treatmpent Plant (FSTP), we need a strong collaborative ecosystem. As a first step, the country developed an institutional regulatory framework for Faecal Sludge Mangement (FSM) which outlines who the sanitation stakeholders are and what their relationship is. We have the ministry on top, the local government institutions to implement, and the agencies to support sanitation investments. The next step is a regulatory mechanism for sanitation. ITN-BUET focuses on capacity building for all actors. It is especially crucial to prioritise capacity building at the local level. There’s a realisation there that focusing on implementers is not enough. Mayors and city officials have become important stakeholders. We have to make them realise that citywide inclusive sanitation is a change of mind-set. That it’s not only infrastructure. That it is also means service. People think of a toilet but it’s a combination of everything. -Tanvir Ahmed, ITN-BUET Christoph Lüthi (EAWAG-SANDEC): Around the principle of mixed technologies and mixed systems, we are still getting a lot of pushback. And that has a lot to do with old-school engineering thinking about ‘one-size fits all’ or ‘we want sewers for our city’. Many utility managers want sewers. That can actually create delays and issues in project implementation. Political will is central.   How is it working in practice? What can we learn from India about project implementation? Rohini Pradeep (CDD Society): When looking at CWIS principles, we must think in terms of public service. How do we strengthen service by bringing in responsibility, accountability, and better resource planning, in order to ensure high levels of equity and sustainability. Integrity is clearly key. It underpins trust-building and community engagement, it encourages equitable access, transparency on the use of funds, better accounting, capacity building, and regulation. What we see very often in our work is community toilets that are not or poorly maintained, or where usage is very low. There are many factors contributing to this situation. Poor and unintegrated planning and siting is one. Unclear or clashing responsibilities and insufficient capacity is another. When there are delays because of limited resources or unclear responsibilities and multiple service providers, people will bypass formal solutions, resort to private contractors, or connect themselves however they can. We’ve seen examples where one truck is used for multiple activities in the process of collecting waste then desledging. It created delays and pushed people elsewhere when cooperation between stakeholders could have been beneficial for everyone. One other big concern is financing. When no provisions are made for operation and maintenance (O&M) upfront, local municipalities will have to put up funds. But sanitation is usually then at the bottom of the list of priorities. There are a number of interesting initiatives being piloted, for example performance-based contracts for service delivery, subsidy programmes, quotas of low-income users for each providers. Most of these rely on strong community engagement for success. Integrity is key to this, especially the inclusion of all stakeholders in planning. Clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of each party involved and resourcing these adequately is the next crucial step.   RECORDING

RESEARCHING AND RAISING AWARENESS ABOUT SEXTORTION IN WATER AND SANITATION DATES 2021-Current LOCATION(S) Bangladesh, Mexico, Kenya PARTNERS UNU-MERIT, DORP, Change Initiative WHAT IT'S ABOUT Sexual extortion, or “sextortion”, is a gendered form of corruption in which sexual acts, rather than money, are the currency of a bribe. It is common in the water and sanitation sectors, meaning that many (mostly) women will have to pay with their bodies for an essential service which should be a guaranteed human right. What makes sextortion nefarious and complex is the social stigma associated with it, the power dynamics related to gender, the paucity of research and data on the act, and the corruption in the larger system that makes reporting and taking action difficult. The fact that there is an exchange or transaction when sextortion occurs makes reporting more difficult and victim blaming common. This makes sextortion different from other forms of gender-based violence and possibly more taboo, even though the consequences are severe. These include shame and trauma for victims, direct and indirect economic consequences, the transmission of diseases, unwanted pregnancies, exclusion, and other social consequences. WIN partners, including KEWASNET in Kenya , and the SIWI Water Governance Facility in Colombia and South Africa , pioneered research on sex for water. Still the topic remains misunderstood and hard to take on. WIN is continuing to support research and raise awareness on the dynamics and impact of sextortion as well as the needs of survivors. WIN worked with DORP and Change Initiative on the largest study specifically on sextortion in 2 regions in Bangladesh. The first results, published with UNU-Merit show that poverty, low literacy, and inadequate access to water and sanitation facilities are drivers of sextortion. Further research is ongoing in Mexico. PUBLICATIONS Factsheet: what is sextortion and what should be done about it English: French: Spanish: Research papers Working paper on research in Bangladesh: FIND OUT MORE OR GET INVOLVED Contact our programme coordinator

The essential contributions of youth organisations in addressing water-related challenges and advocating for integrity in water governance In many regions, passionate young people are contributing to youth groups and water parliaments. They have new networks, tools, technologies, and opportunities for learning. And, they are deploying these capabilities to ensure water stays on the agenda, to weigh in on decisions they are usually excluded from, and to proactively hold local authorities to account on their promises and the budgets they allocate to addressing water issues. In Integrity Talk 10, they shared some thoughts on their vision, their work, and their challenges. This is a summary of the main discussion points of Integrity Talk 10 on youth engagement for water integrity, organized with the World Youth Parliament for Water . The event took place online on March 27, 2024. See other Integrity Talk summaries here. With special guests: Cynthia Chigwenya, African Union Commission; Felix Brian, Kenya Water for Health Organization (KWAHO); Charles Amenya, National Youth Water Parliament – Kenya; Boluwatito Awe, Nigerian Youth Parliament for Water, Amiya Prapan Chakra Borty (Arka), Dhrubotara Youth Development Foundation (DYDF). Moderated by Johanna Arita, World Youth Parliament for Water KEY TAKEAWAYS Youth parliaments have been instrumental in leveraging technology and social media to stimulate action from duty bearers and raise awareness about water issues, while promoting innovation in the sector. Young leaders have been actively involved in initiatives of monitoring water service delivery, tracking election promises, and monitoring budgets . They have been raising awareness about water-related issues in communities and schools, advocating for policy changes , and sharing best practices for water management, advocacy, and research. This is crucial water integrity work. Many youth networks emphasize capacity development, community awareness raising, and partnership. This is key to their sustainability. They have also proven their worth as partners for SDG6, especially in collaboration with local governments . It is essential for institutions to support these youth networks - with funding, resources, access to information and networking opportunities - for action research and community-led development. “We want to catalyse youthful but meaningful water conversations. We want to position young people as strategic partners and opinion shapers and not just beneficiaries. We understand that they hold a lot of knowledge, a lot of expertise we should tap into. There is flexibility, creativity, innovations and huge agency in youth groups." - Felix Brian (KWAHO)  Can you share input on how the context and need for youth advocacy on water is evolving, across Africa in particular? (Cynthia Chigwenya) There are four main points to highlight when considering the context for youth engagement, all connected to how governance, accountability, and human rights relate and impact on peace and security. First people look to regional and international actors for action on basic service provision but one crucial actor is actually local government. Knowing this, it is important to look at the competency and human capital in local government. Only then can we reconsider accountability mechanisms at local level, before getting to accountability at national or regional levels. It’s also at the local level that we have to examine misuse of resources. Second, we are increasingly living in a context where traditional methods to hold authorities accountable may be somewhat inefficient. People are using alternative methods of participation, including protest for example. This is however not evident when democratic standards are in decline. Third, we have to consider the influence of external actors championing work on some of the fundamental human rights that we have. We have look at how this influence is perceived by local government and how it affects governance. Finally, climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It doesn't affect just the African continent, but its impacts are disproportionate on the continent because of limited adaptive capacities. We do not have infrastructures to respond effectively. How do the Youth Parliaments in Kenya, Nigeria, and Bangladesh work and promote transparency, accountability, and innovation in the water sector? (Felix Brian, Charles Amenya, Boluwatito Awe, Amiya Prapan Chakra Borty) Youth Parliaments across Kenya, Bangladesh and Nigeria are not set up and managed in the same way but they all have in common that they bring together water advocates who are not necessarily water sector professionals. They focus on raising awareness with broad reach and using new networks, technology and (social) media. They are generally deeply engaged at local level, in communities, in schools. They all emphasise youth’s motivation, drive and their ability to innovate, adapt, and build partnerships that break silos in the sector and enable exchange of learnings and best practices. They all focus on accountability and see themselves as key players in promoting transparency. In Kenya , Youth Parliaments are set up at county level. They also have a national umbrella parliament. Youth Parliaments focus on improving accountability, engaging in research, enhancing communication and coordination, networking with stakeholders, and building the capacity of youth groups in the water sector. They collaborate with different sectors, including the private , public , and government, to address water challenges and amplify research to back their arguments and influence the agenda and prioritise WASH issues in different forums. They monitor election promises related to water issues and participate in the development of water policies and bills . “We were really lacking that opportunity to engage our decision makers and also drive the decisions that are being made around the water sector in this country. So the Youth Parliaments are seen an opportunity for young people to start understanding how to engage with policy leaders, how to engage with different platforms, present their pitch and solutions for the water sector. We are amplifying research to ensure we have evidence that can really back all our arguments. And we are also looking at accountability from every angle." -Charles Amenya (National Youth Water Parliament, Kenya) In Nigeria , the Youth Parliament for Water works with partners at different levels. The Youth Parliament collaborates with local communities to improve access toclean water and sanitation. They create awareness, implement projects, and advocate for the prioritisation of water at the local andnational level. They ensure youth from remote areas are heard, connected and have opportunities to share their work. The Nigerian Youth Parliament for water also connects with international organisations like the World Youth Parliament for Water and the International Secretariat for Water. These international partnerships provide learning opportunities, cross-cultural collaboration, and sharing of best practices in water governance. Promoting transparency and accountability, especially in the allocation and use of public funds for water-related projects is a key element of the Parliament’work. For example, they have used data from organisations like BudgIT to assess public budgets in water with journalists and monitor what is actually being implemented in communities. “As young people, we have to earn a living, we don’t all work in the water sector. We are sometimes limited in what we could do. There are challenges. So, we encourage people, we train and motivate youth leaders. (...) Young people are really important. They are crucial. They are advocates for change. We have the power. We have the zeal. We are not afraid to hold these older people accountable for the actions that they have committed to taking. Young people must be included in initiatives for water integrity." -Boluwatito Awe (Nigerian Youth Parliament for Water) In Bangladesh , the DYDF and youth parliament focus on advocacy and training. There is no continuous national parliament but rather consultation at the national level based on Youth Parliament work, sessions, and dialogues locally, rotating in different divisions of Bangladesh at district, committee, and community levels. The focus is on solving problems from the grassroots level. Youth Parliaments advocate for youth engagement, and as youth voice, on all kinds of different policies in conservation, WASH, IT, and more. For example, through its work over five years, the Youth Parliament helped develop the national Youth Policy. By training youth leaders and raising awareness, they have also contributes to increasing the number of youth representatives in Parliament. Climate is now becoming an essential pillar of action. Q&A How can we sustain the initial enthusiasm of youth engaging in Youth Parliaments, especially since so much of this work is voluntary? Several ideas were highlighted: Capacity building or training on skills that can ensure sustainability, for example fundraising, understanding local governance and decision-making processes, networking. Building connections, especially with local governments . Ensuring a baseline level of commitment, for example 30 minutes a day for water and the Youth Parliament. Beyond funding, what other kind of support do youth organisations need for their integrity work? Besides funding, what is most needed is networking opportunities and support from partners to learn about research, how to implement research, how to use research and data. How can we make sure that youth perspectives are taken seriously and really taken into consideration? There are two critical elements that can boost trust and support youth work: working directly with government, even to develop and execute certain activities, and partnerships. There is much more impact through partnerships than through work as an independent organisation tackling issues alone. Partnerships with youth in remote areas and organisations there is particularly useful. Are young people more aware of corruption and are they willing to do more than before? Yes! Youth Parliament events in Bangladesh have helped increase awareness in youth in the country for example. Across countries, social media has also played a big role. Young people today are more likely to directly go to government officials or the press and discuss issues. There is better data and more evidence and youth are directly feeling the impact of corruption. Having the right information, the data, the evidence, is a key ingredient in the corruption conversation. Photo: Markus Spiske, Unsplash

SUPPORTING REGULATORY AUTHORITIES TO BENCHMARK AND INCENTIVISE INTEGRITY IN WATER AND SANITATION SERVICE DELIVERY DATES 2021-Current LOCATION(S) Global, Honduras, Ecuador PARTNERS ERSAWAS, ERSAPS WHAT IT'S ABOUT Regulatory agencies have a fundamental role in ensuring integrity in water and sanitation and there are many actions regulators can take to regulate for integrity: from proactive integrity risk benchmarking to better communication with users. Regulators are also directly vulnerable to integrity risks, which include but are not limited to capture by stakeholders, extortion of service providers, and non-transparent practices in the regulatory process. WIN supports regulators to assess real risks and practically regulate for integrity: focusing on equity, ensuring professional and compliant service, enabling informed participation, and taking a stand against corruption. We do this through dedicated research on key risk areas, as well as direct support to regulators with integrity clinics, risk management frameworks. With the Consortium for Water Integrity in Latin America (with SIWI and cewas) and with support form the Inter-American Development Bank, we are codeveloping tools for managing internal risks and for benchmarking utility performance from an integrity perspective. These tools have been piloted in Honduras and Ecuador and will continue to evolve with further testing in the region. “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 (Water and Sanitation Services Regulatory Entity ERSAPS, Honduras) PUBLICATIONS Regulating urban sanitation (Zambia research): Water service providers and revenue collection from public customers: Integrity and the role of water sector regulators: FIND OUT MORE OR GET INVOLVED Contact our programme coordinator:

PUTTING WATER INTEGRITY AT THE HEART OF CLIMATE WORK FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE AND EFFECTIVE ADAPTATION DATES 2018-Current LOCATION(S) Global PARTNERS Green Climate Fund, Transparency International, GIZ, IWMI WHAT IT'S ABOUT The climate crisis is also a water crisis. Extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and storms, as well as other major climatic changes, are directly connected to water. Water is also at the heart of climate adaptation. The water and related sectors already receive the most funds for climate adaptation purposes. With vast sums of money being invested into climate change adaptation, billions of dollars are flowing through new channels, some of them relatively untested, and into the water sector - a sector which is already vulnerable to corruption because of its fragmentation, technical complexity, and the essential, irreplaceable nature of the services it provides. Corruption and poor integrity in climate-related finance pose significant risks for the water sector. Not only do they result in financial losses, they contribute to poor design and implementation of adaptation measures and directly impact people’s lives, health, and livelihoods, as well as socio-economic development and environmental sustainability. They also hit hardest in the most vulnerable communities. Integrity needs to be built into every way that we choose to respond to the climate crisis, including the ways in which we protect water resources and safeguard the human rights to water and sanitation. From big funders to local communities, integrity readiness is key to ensure resilience of the sector and of communities, especially those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. We are bringing together organisations committed to strengthening integrity in climate action in the water and sanitation sectors. Together we are researching maladaptation and integrity risks in climate adaptation, raising awareness, and supporting the development of social accountability mechanisms to monitor climate action in the water sector. IN DIALOGUE An exchange of ideas between the former Head of the Independent Integrity Unit at the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Mr. Ibrahim Pam, and WIN’s Executive Director, Barbara Schreiner, on how damaging the lack of integrity in the water sector can be and what to do about it. PUBLICATIONS WIN's climate approach: On maladaptation: On climate finance and integrity readiness: On the need for integrity in national adaptation plans: FIND OUT MORE OR GET INVOLVED

IMPROVING WATER SERVICE AND ADDRESSING PREMATURE WATER SYSTEM FAILURE IN RURAL AND MARGINALISED AREAS DATES 2017-Current LOCATION(S) Global, Kenya, Mexico PARTNERS Caritas Switzerland, KEWASNET, WASREB, CESPAD, KWAHO, NIA, Cantaro Azul, Controla Tu Gobierno WHAT IT'S ABOUT Over the last decade, service provision in developing countries has considerably improved and professionalised in urban and commercially viable areas. However, in rural and marginalised areas where services are often not commercially viable, people still depend on point sources or small-scale piped systems. These systems are often managed by community groups that sometimes struggle to remain active and also often operate outside a country’s regulatory framework or oversight systems, with little support and limited accountability. In many cases, these water systems end up offering low quality services or quickly break down. For years, NGOs and other water sector actors have been trying to address this issue by providing more technical training. However, this type of training, rarely helps surmount the root causes of poor O&M, which are most often poor management, inadequate or inexistent cost recovery systems, in addition to insufficient access to national or local technical and financial government support mechanisms. Integrity can provide a unique perspective on the sector issues that contribute to poor O&M and low performance of such systems. WIN has been working actively with partners in Kenya and Mexico to support communities in identifying root causes of problems from an integrity perspective. We use the Integrity Management Toolbox for Small Water Supply Systems (IMT-SWSS) to support integrity management processes where communities look at their system with an integrity lens and develop action plans to gradually improve governance, performance, relations with users, and local duty bearers. To date in Kenya, the IMT-SWSS has been embraced and is hosted by WASREB, the national regulator for service delivery. It is seen as an effective tool to build capacity of community groups to comply with the new Water Act and the Rural Water Service Delivery Guidelines of 2019, which refer to the IMT-SWSS management models. A majority of community groups that used the IMT-SWSS reported a positive improvement in how water committees engaged with communities and involved them in decision-making, especially in regard to finance and tariffs. In Mexico, rural communities located in the centre and south of the country which have implemented the IMT-SWSS, put in place a numbers of measures to engage with users, for example: complaint mechanisms for users, regular meetings with families and community audits, or agreements on a transparent fee or rate structure. They continue to use the tool to plan improvements. TOOLS The Integrity Management Toolbox for Small Water Supply Systems (IMT-SWSS) is a set of resources for communities to launch management plans that are participatory and focus on accountability and compliance. PUBLICATIONS On the impact of integrity management tools: Case studies: FIND OUT MORE OR GET INVOLVED Contact our programme coordinator

Developing guidelines for effective cross-sector decision-making on natural resource management DATES 2022-Current LOCATION(S) Global PARTNERS GIZ, GCF WHAT IT'S ABOUT Climate change, population growth, and economic development are straining needs for fresh water, food, and energy. An integrated approach is essential to manage resources sustainably and secure healthy ecosystems. The Water Energy Food Ecosystems (WEFE) Nexus (or WEF Nexus) is a decision-making framework recognising interlinkages between sectors and aiming to maximise synergies while balancing trade-offs, for a more sustainable future. Integrity is crucial for the successful implementation of WEFE Nexus programmes and initiatives. Transparency, accountability, participation, and anti-corruption measures provides a path to ensure equitable access to scarce resources, balance competing interests, manage trade-offs, and ensure resources are allocated in the public's interest. The WIN integrity guidelines share recommendations on how best to work towards integrity in four governance areas: 🏦 INSTITUTIONS Towards balanced, accountable decision-making; ℹ️ INFORMATION For open data sharing and strong capacity; 💲 INVESTMENT To safeguarded finances and ensure sustainability; ✔️ IMPLEMENTATION Towards participatory planning, and clear processes for control, monitoring, and reporting. PUBLICATIONS FIND OUT MORE OR GET INVOLVED: Contact the programme coordinator:

UNPAID BILLS BY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON UTILITY FINANCE AND UNDERMIND SERVICE DELIVERY TO PEOPLE DATES 2020 LOCATION(S) Global, Kenya, Zambia, Mexico PARTNERS EWP, GIZ, SWIM WHAT IT'S ABOUT Access to safe water and sanitation are human rights. To serve everyone and realise these rights, water and sanitation service providers must be able to operate and stay financially viable. However, there is evidence to show that many public institutions do not pay the water bills they receive, or with crippling delays. This is a problem for service providers who count on this revenue. When public institutions don’t pay, people do. The burden shifts to those who face increased tariffs and those who are left with poor or no service, who pay with their health, time, and productivity. There are many ways to address the issue. Utilities must improve systems to ensure collection of payments. Governments must ensure payments to utilities are given due priority and urgent attention. This is essential, to ensure resilience in crises, avoid costly bailouts, and safeguard the human rights to water and sanitation for all. WIN and End Water Poverty are bringing attention to this issue and sharing best practices to improve collection processes and prioritise timely payments, with the support of GIZ, ESAWAS, AMCOW, Water Citizens Network, KEWASNET, and the Zambia NGO WASH Forum. PUBLICATIONS Policy brief: Summary: Research factsheet: FIND OUT MORE OR GET INVOLVED Contact the programme coordinator:

Los problemas actuales de escasez de agua no se deben sólo a la falta de agua Un artículo de Kelly Acuña and Rebecca Sands, Water Integrity Network - Programme Leads. La Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México, donde viven casi 23 millones de personas, está sumida en una grave crisis del agua. El 84% del territorio nacional sufre actualmente algún grado de sequía, y el 100% de la Ciudad de México experimenta una sequía severa a partir del 15 de mayo de 2024 . La prolongada sequía y temperaturas sin precedentes hacen temer un inminente "Día Cero". El impacto del cambio climático en la prestación de servicios de agua y saneamiento es tremendo y no puede subestimarse. Sin embargo, la falta de agua no es la única culpable de la crisis del agua en Ciudad de México . Las denuncias de mala gestión y las advertencias de residentes y funcionarios que han sido desatendidas durante casi una década nos obligan a examinar hasta qué punto la debilidad en la integridad contribuye a la grave situación en la que se encuentran muchas personas. Mala gestión y controles deficientes: agravantes de la presión sobre unos recursos ya limitados La abundancia histórica de lluvias en la Ciudad de México proporcionó en su día abundante agua a sus habitantes, pero la urbanización ha transformado su paisaje en hormigón y acero. El crecimiento descontrolado y el agotamiento de las zonas verdes necesarias para reponer los acuíferos están agravando la escasez de agua. Una de las principales razones es la expansión de los " carteles inmobiliarios ", muchos de los cuales obtienen permisos de construcción del gobierno de la ciudad de forma indiscriminada o ilícita, dejando tras de sí daños sociales y medioambientales El abastecimiento de agua en Ciudad de México ha requerido soluciones de ingeniería complejas y costosas. La ciudad depende en gran medida de acuíferos a cientos de metros bajo tierra o de agua procedente de más de 100 kilómetros de distancia a través del sistema Cutzamala . La extracción excesiva de agua subterránea está provocando el hundimiento de la ciudad   y el planteamiento de Ciudad de México se ha vuelto insostenible, ineficaz y económicamente oneroso. Los problemas se agravan por las prácticas de extracción no reguladas ; incluso en los casos en que las entidades cuentan con los permisos para perforar nuevos pozos, el control de las extracciones es escaso o nulo , lo que a menudo da lugar a que los usuarios del agua superen los límites de extracción. Además, la mala gestión de los recursos hídricos y el mantenimiento inadecuado de la infraestructura del agua están provocando pérdidas de agua del 40%, atribuible tanto al deterioro de las tuberías , como a las conexiones ilegales. La corrupción tiene una intrincada relación con el agua no contabilizada , ya que dificulta la supervisión, debilita la capacidad institucional para abordar el problema, contribuye a la mala calidad de la infraestructura y desvía fondos necesarios para el mantenimiento, las mejoras y el monitoreo. Desigualdad de acceso, robo de agua y apropiación indebida Cuando tantos habitantes de la ciudad ya se enfrentan a importantes restricciones y a la pobreza hídrica, pérdidas del 40% del agua resultan inquietantes. Los efectos del estrés hídrico en Ciudad de México son muy desiguales y especialmente graves en los barrios periurbanos de bajos ingresos. Mientras que las zonas más ricas de la ciudad no parecen afectadas, los cortes de agua son cada vez más extremos en las zonas de la ciudad con altos grados de marginación social. En algunas comunidades, no es raro que los residentes pasen meses sin agua corriente, algo habitual incluso antes de que empezara la crisis actual. Además, debido al acceso deficiente o a la inexistencia de infraestructuras, los residentes en zonas de renta baja deben recurrir a menudo a distintos medios para conseguir agua suficiente para sobrevivir: un grifo comunitario, un pozo, la compra de agua embotellada o el reparto a través de pipas de agua (camiones cisterna). La calidad del agua no suele ser óptima, la búsqueda diaria -a menudo asignada a las mujeres cabeza de familia- lleva mucho tiempo y es agotadora, y los costes son elevados. El reparto de agua en pipas es hasta 14 veces más caro que el servicio regular de agua de la red pública. "La mala gestión del agua en la ciudad ha aumentado la carga sobre las mujeres que son cabeza de familia, reduciendo así sus recursos económicos y de tiempo para acceder a la igualdad de oportunidades laborales, educativas y sociales. Además, la falta de fiabilidad de los servicios de agua ha afectado de forma desproporcionada a comunidades históricamente marginadas, convirtiendo la crisis del agua en una cuestión social." -Tamara Luengo, Aqueducto El robo de agua también es un problema importante. Los ladrones pinchan los ductos y venden el agua a usuarios vulnerables a un precio exagerado. La práctica de robar agua para venderla ilegalmente, o "huachicoleo", es cada vez más rentable  a medida que el sistema de suministro de la ciudad se vuelve menos fiable. El actual sistema de concesiones parece dar un trato preferente a las empresas privadas , que utilizan miles de millones de litros de agua al año, a menudo superando impunemente lo permitido. A menudo se dispone de datos inexactos sobre el uso y el pago del agua y se sigue comercializando agua procedente de permisos de agua que no se cumplen. Todo eso, mientras los mexicanos ricos siguen supuestamente llenando lagos artificiales con fines estéticos y los complejos turísticos de alto nivel usan el recurso a ritmos alarmantes. Y no sólo sufren los habitantes de Ciudad de México. Las comunidades de las afueras de la ciudad que antes tenían abundantes lagos donde pescar y abastecerse de agua han visto desaparecer estos oasis. Hoy, en las orillas de sus lechos lacustres secos, se están instalando pozos para extraer agua subterránea y bombearla hasta la capital . Lack of transparency Otro de los principales problemas señalados tanto por residentes como por expertos es la falta de transparencia sobre la situación real del sistema Cutzamala. A principios de 2024, el Instituto Nacional de Transparencia, Acceso a la Información y Protección de Datos Personales (INAI) solicitó a la Comisión Nacional del Agua  (CONAGUA) informar sobre la infraestructura hidráulica que actualmente conecta las presas del país con localidades, ciudades, municipios, estados o cualquier otro destino. La CONAGUA supuestamente no turnó la solicitud de información a todas sus unidades administrativas competentes, por lo que no puede haber certeza de que haya proporcionado toda la información disponible. El INAI determinó que la CONAGUA no cumplió con el procedimiento de búsqueda establecido por la Ley Federal de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública y pone en entredicho la capacidad de la CONAGUA para vigilar la explotación de los recursos hídricos en todo el país. Dado que la propia CONAGUA se ha referido en reiteradas ocasiones a las complejidades y deficiencias de los recursos hídricos en todo el país, el INAI ha reafirmado que el acceso a esta información es aún más importante para conocer las posibles líneas de acción en caso de escasez . " La información que se genera en torno al tema del agua es de suma relevancia en la toma de decisiones y también la generación de políticas públicas para garantizar el derecho humano que toda persona tiene para acceder a información relacionada con la disposición y saneamiento de agua para consumo personal y doméstico, que debe ser suficiente, salubre, aceptable y asequible ", advirtió el INAI  a través de la comisionada Josefina Román Vergara. También hay falta de transparencia sobre la calidad del agua en toda la ciudad, como ejemplifica el reciente caso de contaminación del agua en el distrito de Benito Juárez. A principios de abril, más de 400 personas denunciaron que el agua de sus casas . Tras un proceso de análisis de muestras de agua, el organismo operador de la Ciudad de México (SACMEX) determinó inicialmente que el agua era de buena calidad. Sin embargo, posteriormente recomendó a los residentes de la zona que no bebieran ni se bañaran con ella. No se facilitó información sobre la fuente de contaminación ni sobre los posibles riesgos para la salud. Además, el 29 de abril SACMEX tomó la decisión de reservar por tres años los resultados de laboratorio sobre el agua contaminada para que estos no sean "interpretados erróneamente" . Esto representa una clara violación al derecho humano de acceso a la información, reconocido en la propia constitución. Politización ante la escasa rendición de cuentas La crisis del agua en la ciudad ha llegado en un momento crucial: las elecciones generales mexicanas están previstas para el 2 de junio de 2024. Para los votantes, la crisis no puede ignorarse. En febrero, por primera vez, la escasez de agua superó a la seguridad como la principal preocupación de los habitantes de la Ciudad de México, y el porcentaje de votantes que señalaron este problema se triplicó con respecto a mayo pasado, según la empresa de investigación Aragón . Para Raúl Rodríguez Márquez, presidente del Consejo Consultivo del Agua (una Organización de la Sociedad Civil dedicada a convocar a diferentes actores en torno a los retos del agua en México), lo más grave es que el problema no se está reconociendo adecuadamente. " Dicen que para resolver un problema lo primero que hay que hacer es reconocerlo, y creemos nosotros que todavía las autoridades no ven en esto un grave problema ", explicó a reporteros de CNN . La falta de reconocimiento del problema y de las preocupaciones de los residentes por parte de las autoridades competentes y los responsables de la toma de decisiones está fomentando un entorno de escasa rendición de cuentas. En este contexto, la crisis está siendo politizada tanto por los gobernantes como por los opositores. A pesar de que la CONAGUA pareciera incapaz de proporcionar documentación sobre la infraestructura hidráulica del país y las conexiones de las presas que permitan informar sobre posibles planes de acción, aseguró a BBC Mundo que una posible fecha del "Día Cero" del 26 de junio es una interpretación errónea de diferentes escenarios. En los últimos meses, CONAGUA ha declinado múltiples solicitudes de entrevista y no responde a preguntas específicas sobre la perspectiva de tal escenario. Los dirigentes actuales también restan importancia al asunto. En la mañanera de AMLO del 14 de febrero el Presidente de México, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, afirmó que se estaba trabajando para solucionar el problema del abasto del agua. No se aclararon los detalles de dichas obras. Por su parte, el Jefe de Gobierno de la Ciudad de México, Martí Batres Guadarrama, afirmó en una reciente rueda de prensa que las noticias sobre el día cero eran "fake news" (noticias falsas) , difundidas por opositores políticos. Por el contrario, la oposición está aprovechando la crisis para avivar los temores de los votantes sobre la seguridad del agua. A principios de 2024, la candidata presidencial de la oposición, Xóchitl Gálvez, declaró en múltiples entrevistas que incluso en abril podría haber poca disponibilidad para bombear agua hacia el Valle de México . Esta predicción no se ha materializado. Enturbiando aún más las aguas, José Luis Luege, ex titular de CONAGUA, forma parte del equipo de campaña de Gálvez. Por último, el ostracismo de los medios de comunicación está obstruyendo la transparencia y el escrutinio público. El 11 de abril, el presidente López Obrador se enfrentó a la periodista de Telemundo  Vanessa Hauc por la escasez de agua en México. Hauc afirmó que los datos de CONAGUA advierten que tres de cada 10 hogares mexicanos no tienen acceso al agua, y citó información específica sobre el estado de Chiapas, donde las poblaciones vulnerables no tienen acceso al agua. Como respuesta, el presidente López Obrador acusó a los medios de comunicación de no ser objetivos ni profesionales. Ante una situación potencialmente grave, la ausencia de rendición de cuentas por la disfunción histórica y continuada del sistema, así como la falta de información crítica sobre los recursos hídricos y las infraestructuras del país, han permitido a los políticos manipular la narrativa. A medida que se acercan las elecciones, la politización de la crisis del agua continúa, dejando a los residentes ante un futuro incierto . Soluciones unilaterales? Las soluciones a la crisis que se proponen actualmente están centradas en la construcción de mega infraestructuras para traer agua de zonas alejadas de la Ciudad de México. Algunas de estas zonas, como Tabasco o Chiapas (sugeridas por el presidente Obrador), se encuentran a casi 1.000 kilómetros de distancia. Además de quitar el agua a estas comunidades, esta solución es costosa, consume mucha energía y no resuelve el problema del agua que se desperdicia una vez que llega a la ciudad, ni las cuestiones relacionadas con la toma de decisiones en torno a la asignación del recurso. En su página web, CONAGUA ha anunciado un proyecto de tres años destinado a mejorar la infraestructura hídrica atender el estrés relacionado con la reducción de abasto desde el sistema Cutzamala. El proyecto incluye la instalación de nuevos pozos y la puesta en marcha de plantas de tratamiento de agua. Las mejoras físicas del sistema son ciertamente necesarias. Sin embargo, los planteamientos que se basan casi exclusivamente en soluciones tecnológicas siguen ignorando las formas en que la mala gobernanza y la corrupción contribuyen al problema y obstaculizan el desarrollo de infraestructuras adecuadas y eficaces en primer lugar. Además, expertos indican que, aunque la ciudad dispusiera de los fondos necesarios -que no los tiene- las grandes obras necesarias para una rápida revisión de las infraestructuras son inviables en una ciudad con una población tan grande y tantos desplazamientos diarios. En la prensa mexicana y en vísperas de las elecciones de junio, prosiguen debates sobre la conveniencia de implicar más al sector privado en la búsqueda de soluciones. El opositor Santiago Taboada, por ejemplo, ha propuesto modelos público-privados (APP), alegando la falta de dinero público suficiente para solucionar la crisis. Una solución de este tipo también debe examinarse a la luz de los riesgos de integridad específicos y subyacentes que pueden poner en peligro su eficacia y afectar al servicio para los más necesitados. Los riesgos de integridad relacionados con APP pueden incluir conflictos de intereses, flexibilidad incorporada a los contratos a largo plazo que puede crear espacio para una escasa rendición de cuentas, una mayor probabilidad de soborno y colusión debido al valor a menudo muy elevado de los contratos , y retos para la supervisión y la regulación provocados por la limitada transparencia de las complejas estructuras financieras. Las APP tampoco son inmunes a la cuestionable dinámica de las campañas electorales, en las que las empresas pueden trabajar para financiar las campañas de sus partidarios a cambio de políticas favorables. ¿Entonces qué se puede hacer para la integridad? Aumentar la transparencia Independientemente de los próximos resultados electorales, los gobernantes deben dar prioridad a la transparencia, garantizando que todo el mundo tenga acceso sin obstáculos a la información sobre el uso del agua (especialmente el de las empresas privadas), la disponibilidad, los niveles de las presas, los recursos hídricos subterráneos, los niveles de servicio en las zonas desatendidas, la calidad del agua, los presupuestos de los servicios públicos, las capacidades financieras y los esfuerzos para reducir el agua no facturada. La transparencia también va de la mano de la rendición de cuentas, apoyada por organizaciones de la sociedad civil e instituciones de supervisión como el INAI e InfoCDMX. Estas organizaciones enfrentan actualmente amenazas de reducción o eliminación por parte del gobierno. Su preservación y fortalecimiento deben ser prioritarios. Además, los medios de comunicación deben ser protegidos y apoyados para que puedan desempeñar su papel en la difusión de información y la rendición de cuentas de los políticos.Increase transparency Centrarse en la equidad de la asignación Los dirigentes deben colaborar más eficazmente con las comunidades y la sociedad civil para abordar la igualdad de acceso y las soluciones locales a los problemas del agua. Muchas comunidades de bajos ingresos llevan mucho tiempo viviendo en condiciones de día cero y siguen sintiéndose excluidas de la toma de decisiones. Es esencial reforzar los Consejos de Cuenca , un mecanismo que incorpora la participación ciudadana en las decisiones sobre los recursos hídricos, y publicar información sobre sus actividades y resultados. Además, es crucial reforzar el derecho humano al agua en los marcos jurídicos, por ejemplo, mediante la reglamentación del agua como bien común nacional, donde las decisiones sobre su uso deben provenir de toda la población de México.   Modificar las concesiones y aplicar mecanismos anticorrupción en su ejecución El actual sistema de concesiones de agua se traduce en una profunda falta de información sobre cuánta agua extraen las empresas privadas y con qué fines, en la incapacidad del gobierno para recaudar pagos o controlar cómo se explotan los recursos hídricos, y en la desigualdad en la distribución. Como también ha informado Al Jazeera, la normativa existente en materia de agua se aplica de forma deficiente y a menudo se elude mediante la corrupción . Sin embargo, aunque el control efectivo de las concesiones debe mejorarse considerablemente , el propio sistema debe revisarse, probablemente mediante una nueva Ley General de Aguas. Esta ley debería dar prioridad a los derechos humanos de agua y saneamiento, a las personas frente a los beneficios, restringiendo las concesiones de agua en zonas con escasez o sequía y dando prioridad al uso personal y doméstico del agua. Una nueva ley también debería incluir sólidos instrumentos anticorrupción que mitiguen problemas como la falsificación de documentos en la obtención de concesiones . Abordar el riesgo en las primeras fases de los procesos de decisión y planificación Es probable que la mejora de las infraestructuras y las soluciones técnicas sigan siendo una prioridad. Por lo tanto, es crucial reforzar los procesos de toma de decisiones, presupuestación y planificación en las primeras fases, para que se construyan las infraestructuras adecuadas , donde más se necesitan y con un alto nivel de calidad. Estos pasos son vitales para mitigar diversos riesgos para la integridad, como los conflictos de intereses o el uso indebido de fondos públicos. Organizaciones como WIN y CoST (Iniciativa para la Transparencia de las Infraestructuras) han desarrollado herramientas para ayudar en estos procesos. Cambiar las normas, hacer de la integridad la expectativa y la prioridad Promover y valorar la integridad para cambiar las normas sociales y la cultura organizativa puede suponer un gran avance. Aceptar o esperar que la corrupción sea la norma ya no debería ser una opción . Por ejemplo, como se destaca en el próximo Water Integrity Global Outlook en Finanzas , cuando a los participantes en México se les presentó información que mostraba que la mayoría de las personas se oponían a la corrupción, ellos sintieron un aumento de la confianza en las opiniones de los demás. Esta información también les hizo más propensos a rechazar la idea de que la corrupción era una parte inherente de la cultura mexicana y disminuyó la probabilidad de pagar un soborno. Estos hallazgos son de enorme importancia, ya que implican que el mensaje correcto puede afectar significativamente la participación en actividades corruptas . Un liderazgo fuerte y ético es, por supuesto, crucial para garantizar que no haya razones ni racionalizaciones fáciles para la corrupción. Las próximas elecciones mexicanas presentan una oportunidad oportuna para que los líderes de la ciudad y del país estén a la altura de las circunstancias.

Notes on weaponisation of water for World Water Day 2024 By Barbara Schreiner, Executive Director, Water Integrity Network The theme of World Water Day 2024 is ‘Leveraging Water for Peace’ – a critical and important issue. But it would be a mistake if we don’t also face up to the ongoing use of water as a weapon of war . Water has been used as a weapon of war across human history. The ratification of the Geneva conventions and the recognition of the human right to water brought some hope that this would end. It is not the case. In 2017, media reported that the Syrian government bombed water resources and cut off 5.5 million people from water supplies. In Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State used their control of dams, canals, and reservoirs to deny water to certain regions and to flood the path of approaching enemies. After the annexing of Crimea by Russia, Ukraine cut off water supply to the region. And, one of the first acts in the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was to destroy the dam on the Dnipro river to restore this water supply. In October 2023 Israel cut water supplies to Gaza, leaving residents surviving on only a few litres of water per person per day. Access to water is a human right. Access to water is a key to peace. Water integrity requires that we do what is right, stand by our mission to realise the human rights to water and sanitation, and uphold international law. We cannot let weaponisation of water continue. When water becomes a tool of conflict, entire communities and ecosystems are at risk Weaponisation of water can be military or political . The above cases are all military in nature: the control of water is used to coerce, intimidate or weaken opposing parties and/or civilian populations. In situations of political weaponisation, water is used to reinforce political legitimacy, not only during active conflict, but before and after. At the heart of the issue lies the recognition of water as a fundamental human right. Access to clean water is not merely a matter of convenience; it is a prerequisite for health, dignity, and survival . Whether through the deliberate contamination of water sources or the destruction of infrastructure, the weaponisation of water undermines the most basic rights of individuals and perpetuates cycles of suffering and deprivation. Moreover, the environmental consequences of weaponising water are profound and far-reaching. Water is not a static resource; it is part of a complex ecosystem that sustains life on earth. Disrupting natural water cycles, polluting waterways, and depleting aquifers can have devastating effects on biodiversity, ecosystem health, and the livelihoods of countless species. In regions already facing water scarcity and environmental degradation, the weaponisation of water exacerbates existing challenges. Illegal and intolerable Humanitarian concerns underscore the urgency of preventing the weaponisation of water. In conflict zones, access to clean water is often already compromised, leaving civilians at heightened risk of disease, malnutrition, and death. Obstruction of humanitarian aid and deliberate targeting of water infrastructure makes everything worse. As custodians of human rights and dignity, we cannot remain silent in the face of such injustices. From a legal standpoint, the weaponisation of water violates established principles of international humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions prohibit the use of methods and means of warfare that cause indiscriminate harm to civilians or fail to distinguish between military targets and civilian objects. Deliberately targeting water sources clearly contravenes these Conventions. The weaponisation of water also has long-term implications for peace and stability. Water-related conflicts can quickly escalate into larger disputes and destabilise fragile states. In a world already grappling with the impacts of climate change, resource scarcity, and political instability, the weaponisation of water only serves to further strain relations between nations and perpetuate cycles of violence. Staying firm in our committment to human rights: accountability and no impunity for weaponisation of water Preventing the weaponisation of water requires a multifaceted approach. We must address both the root causes of conflict and the underlying drivers of water insecurity . Diplomatic efforts to promote dialogue, cooperation, and conflict resolution are essential for defusing tensions and fostering peaceful relations between states. We must also invest in water infrastructure, management, and conservation to build resilience and limit risk. At the same time, it is imperative that we hold perpetrators of water-related atrocities accountable for their actions. The international community must condemn the use of water as a weapon. It must support efforts to investigate and prosecute those responsible for such crimes. By upholding the principles of justice and accountability, we send a clear message that the weaponisation of water will not be tolerated in any form. The weaponisation of water in any form is a threat to human security, environmental stability, and peace, at all levels. As stewards of water it is imperative that we recognise the dangers inherent in such actions and continue the fight to prevent its occurrence.

We're writing blogs and articles to address reader questions on finance and integrity. We're also happy to collaborate and cowrite with our partners. Do get in touch! "The water sector is an ideal prism through which to see both the means by which corruption blights lives and some of the potential approaches for confronting it, which could be transferable to other sectors. Reliance on water as a basic commodity means that disruption of access to it from corruption has devastating social impacts, and disproportionately so for the poor. WIGO24 casts a fresh look at how the systems for financing the water sector can be affected and proposes new ways of approaching the problem." - Philip Mason, former anti-corruption adviser to UK Department for International Development, member of the WIGO2024 steering committee The Water Integrity Global Outlook (WIGO) is a flagship publication of WIN and its network partners. Published every three years, it is a call for action for water integrity, bringing together the latest research and cases on specific themes. The next WIGO will be published in 2024 and focus on integrity and water and sanitation finance. It will focus in particular on The flows of finance in water and sanitation and related integrity challenges How improving integrity improves financial viability and sustainability of service delivery How integrity challenges vary according to context How transparency and accountability can bring about change at scale and What sector stakeholders can do to strengthen integrity in water and sanitation finance. A special WIGO edition for Latin America with dedicated case studies will also be published. We are currently researching and preparing the publication of WIGO. WIGO development is overseen by a multi-stakeholder Steering Committee with expertise in anti-corruption, finance, development finance, water and sanitation. What's your take Partner with us for WIGO We welcome feedback and ideas. Take part in our blog series on key challenges related to integrity and water and sanitation finance or share your inputs. "When it comes to finance, it’s not just about the provision of infrastructure but systems for the ongoing delivery of sustainable, accountable services with full participation that matters. And that’s what water integrity is about.” - Alana Potter, End Water Poverty, member of the WIGO2024 Steering Committee

Authors: Barbara Schreiner, Executive Director, Water Integrity Network; Tim Brewer, Water Witness International; Patrick Moriarty, IRC; Catarina Fonseca, IRC; Mary Galvin, Water Integrity Network In a previous blog we argued that blended finance is unlikely to resolve the funding gap of the water and sanitation sectors . There are a number of reasons, including a lack of interest from investors, limited fiscal space in poor countries in particular, and the risks of foreign currency loans. In this blog, we look at options for reducing the funding gap through better use of existing funding . The priority should be to use existing funds effectively and efficiently, before seeking further, perhaps risky, financing options. Pouring more water into a leaking bucket is seldom a good course of action. Are we budgeting for corruption and mismanagement? Global assessments of the funding gap have been calculated based on historical costs, the most comprehensive attempt being by Hutton and Varghese in 2016 . They undertook an extensive data search, validated infrastructure costs for larger countries, extrapolated cost data from similar countries for those lacking data and then projected those costs in relation to meeting the delivery needs of the sector. Such historical cost analyses provide a useful benchmark, but they include the hidden costs of corruption and mismanagement. Evidence suggests that by reducing these hidden costs, we can substantially reduce the funding gap . In this way, we can improve the overall financial and operational sustainability of the sector. The costs of corruption are notoriously difficult to quantify – there is, after all, a strong incentive for participants in corrupt deals to keep the details hidden. Nevertheless, WIN in partnership with the Inter-American Development Bank identified corruption-related financial costs of up to 26% in the water sector in Latin America . UNODC cites figures of up to 25% of public funds generally . These are startlingly large portions of total investment. Yet research by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) shows even higher figures, claiming wastage of 30 – 50% of infrastructure funds (not only water and sanitation) due to poor management. The message from the IMF is clear: “ countries can end waste in public investment and create quality infrastructure with specific actions to improve infrastructure governance. ” Mismanagement and non-revenue water Mismanagement can be measured in different ways. In the water sector there is an obvious one: non-revenue water (NRW). Non-revenue water levels vary significantly around the globe, but most water practitioners accept that this is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. In Africa, for example, NRW estimates range from 29% in Uganda to 73% in Liberia . This comprises both physical water losses, and financial losses arising from corruption, theft, poor billing and poor revenue collection. The two forms of NRW are not independent. Financial losses undermine maintenance and compliance budgets, leading to increasing physical losses and further financial losses . The systemic impact is a negative feedback loop that undermines services and water services providers. This is why reform in this area has the potential to be a powerful accelerator of progress. Stopping the negative feedback loop will have compounding benefits. Additional money raised for compliance and maintenance will generate more revenue and reduce operational costs (physical infrastructure that is well maintained breaks down less frequently and less severely). Managing infrastructure better and improving revenue collection systems, with suitably defined tariffs to protect the poor, will go a long way to making water service provision more financially viable. This is a crucial step towards the delivery of affordable and sustainable services. The city of Jackson in Mississippi, for example, was not able to issue accurate and timely bills, and had slow processes for identifying non-payment. They moved to a system that could generate more accurate water bills and improve billing , which improved their revenue collection by $10 million per annum. The funding gap would be a lot smaller if we weren’t building corruption and mismanagement costs into the calculations, if we weren’t allowing them to continue in real life. It seems sensible then, that the priority should be on reducing corruption and improving infrastructure management – fixing the holes in the bucket before pouring in more water. Failure to spend budgets Reducing corruption and improving governance and management will not resolve all challenges. The water sector currently lacks the capacity, or will, to spend its existing meagre budgets. The World Bank found execution rates on public WASH budgets in a number of countries at about 70% . In other words, in a sector that constantly begs for more money, 30% of existing WASH budgets remained unspent at the end of the financial year! Cumbersome centralised public financial systems mean that funds sometimes arrive only a few months before the close of the fiscal year. Contracts are then not awarded and work isn’t done as planned. It is hard to plead for more resources, public or private, if the sector isn’t spending the money it has available. The wrong people are getting subsidised To compound the challenges, subsidies do not always reach those most in need of support. A World Bank study found that, in ten low and middle-income countries, nearly 60% of subsidies go to the wealthiest residents . They estimate that well over $300 billion per annum in subsidies is not being used to meet pressing needs – to extend and maintain services to poor and marginalised communities. In short: Water and sanitation service providers are failing to collect the money due to them. They are failing to spend the money they do have. And, they are failing to curb the corruption and mismanagement that waste significant amounts of existing funds. Those that fall outside the calculations Most of this discussion revolves around formal water and sanitation provision, through utilities, municipalities or government agencies. There are other challenges for informal and community delivery systems that fall outside public budgets and financial management systems. As long as they remain informal, they are prey to corruption and mismanagement, with little or no regulatory tools to protect them. What can we do? The message is simple. Before begging for more money, we need to fix the bucket! We need to prioritise the improved use of existing resources and we need investment and commitment to do so . To this end, we need: Governments, DFIs and donor agencies to invest more in improved revenue collection systems, together with operational capacity in public utilities, municipalities and ministries. Utilities and regulators to build strong anti-corruption mechanisms into their systems. A new vision for financing the sector, one driven by integrity and the optimal use of existing resources to serve the most marginalised first. The technical knowledge about how to do much of this already exists. What is lacking is the political will (to drive meaningful change and reform) and the technical capacity (to implement it). Only intentional action by coalitions of national and local government, civil society, and service providers will deliver this sort of wholesale sector reform, or systems strengthening. Such action will also require senior level political leadership and protection. Changing a culture characterised by corruption involves removing corrupting incentives and tacit acceptance of ‘how things are done’ . This will depend on a public focus on accountability that is promoted from the highest political levels, is supported by sector players and civil society, and that welcomes public scrutiny and criticism. The reality is, that even if we reduce corruption, mismanagement, and non-revenue water to more reasonable values, we will still struggle to meet everyone’s needs. However, to stand a fighting chance and to attract more investment, we must fix the bucket. Only then will we demonstrate that a strong system is indeed capable of providing quality services and, thus, is also a worthy recipient of increased investment – public or private.