Centrarse en las infraestructuras cívicas y de integridad para obtener más y mejor financiación en los sectores del agua y el saneamiento Por Claire Grandadam y Kelly Acuña, Water Integrity Network Las Reuniones de Primavera están concluyendo; los ministros de Finanzas de América Latina y el Caribe se reúnen hoy en Washington DC convocados por SWA para compartir buenas prácticas y crear asociaciones para la financiación del sector del agua y el saneamiento. Se trata de una gran oportunidad para replantear la financiación del sector. " El momento de dar prioridad al agua y al saneamiento es ahora ", afirma Catarina de Albuquerque. El momento de priorizar las necesidades de los pobres o de los que se han quedado atrás, y de dar prioridad a las inversiones en sistemas para la sostenibilidad financiera a largo plazo también es ahora. La infraestructura cívica y de integridad es una parte crucial de este sistema y en América Latina y el Caribe, necesita atención urgente. Acción, Ambición, Rendición de Cuentas - el llamado de la sociedad civil Junto con los líderes de la sociedad civil de América Latina y el Caribe, hacemos un llamado a la Acción, la Ambición y la Rendición de cuentas  a la hora de definir la estrategia de financiación nacional y los compromisos para el sector del agua y el saneamiento. Porque somos quienes somos, también pedimos una llamada adicional, la de Anticorrupción. Para garantizar que los fondos no se malgastan en corrupción, necesitamos salvaguardias sólidas, por ejemplo, para limitar los conflictos de intereses y proteger a los denunciantes. Tenemos que prestar servicios esenciales; la corrupción es demasiado costosa y nos está frenando. Como subraya el grupo de la sociedad civil de la SWA, hay esencialmente dos vías para avanzar en la financiación del sector: Dentro de toda la financiación, existente y nueva, debe prestarse una atención especial a la provisión para las poblaciones vulnerables . El cumplimiento de nuestras obligaciones y responsabilidades en materia de derechos humanos es un elemento crucial de la integridad. Debemos mejorar la eficiencia y la integridad del sector para liberar fondos perdidos por la corrupción y la mala gestión, reasignar los recursos disponibles de forma más equitativa (también hacia tecnologías y sistemas de prestación que beneficien a los residentes con bajos ingresos) y abrir vías para nuevas financiaciones. Para que esta segunda vía funcione, necesitamos mejores datos e información sobre los retos de la financiación y, en particular, sobre la gestión de las finanzas públicas . Afortunadamente, podemos aprender y colaborar con nuestros socios en materia de gobierno abierto, lucha contra la corrupción, finanzas públicas e integridad en América Latina, el Caribe y otros lugares. Fortalecimiento de la acción multilateral en favor de una transparencia que funcione para los sectores del agua y el saneamiento Actualmente estamos dando los últimos retoques al próximo informe Water Integrity Global Outlook,  que se centra en la integridad de la financiación del agua y el saneamiento. Un mensaje clave que emerge es que, mediante la creación de alianzas con instituciones y organizaciones anticorrupción, de integridad y de finanzas públicas, los actores del sector del agua pueden dar un impulso a los sistemas financieros del sector . La investigación aún está en curso, pero ya podemos ver que, en América Latina y el Caribe, existen importantes oportunidades. Es hora de hacer nuevos amigos. De los datos... América Latina se distingue por ser pionera en presupuestos participativos  y actor clave en gobierno abierto . Hay impulsores en la región, un buen número de compromisos nacionales y locales de gobierno abierto para la transparencia fiscal (como los realizados a través de la Open Government Partnership ) e iniciativas de contratación pública abierta que están marcando la diferencia para las  infraestructuras  y otros sectores . En general, el nivel de datos públicos disponibles es relativamente alto.  Es cierto, todavía hay margen para mejorar  y estas grandes tendencias ocultan las variaciones en toda la región . El Barómetro Global de Datos de 2022 también señala una evolución limitada en la disponibilidad o apertura de datos en los últimos años. Pero existe una base nada desdeñable de buenas prácticas, datos y socios comprometidos  con los que trabajar para comprender los retos de la gestión financiera en toda la región. ...a la información El panorama se ensombrece un poco más cuando se examina en detalle cómo funciona esto a nivel sectorial y en los distintos procesos de gestión de las finanzas públicas. Sin embargo, también en este caso hay socios que tienen una visión importante: Necesitamos mejor información sobre los procesos de planificación  de infraestructuras en agua y saneamiento (pero estamos trabajando en ello con CoST ). Necesitamos mejor información sobre la deuda  ( Transparencia Internacional  está trabajando en ello, con un listado de control para empoderar a la sociedad civil y a los agentes de la rendición de cuentas para que exijan transparencia y fomenten la supervisión de la deuda pública, algo a lo que habrá que estar atentos). También necesitamos más información sobre el gasto real. Las entidades fiscalizadoras superiores, con el apoyo de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil , pueden ayudar en este sentido y aportar información valiosa sobre las oportunidades de mejora y eficiencia ( como demuestra Controla Tu Gobierno con su análisis de los informes sobre el tratamiento de aguas residuales ). Pero la Organización Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Entidades Fiscalizadoras Superiores – OLACEFS- lamentablemente sólo dispone de informes sobre el agua  de unos pocos países, y ninguno anterior al 2022. La información presupuestaria  también podría ser más completa, como destaca la Encuesta de Presupuesto Abierto de 2021  del International Budget Partnership. Cabe destacar que la mayor debilidad que señala esta encuesta en relación con la información presupuestaria es la participación pública. La necesidad de apoyar la participación, la rendición de cuentas y la integridad Esta debilidad en la participación, y la dificultad de utilizar los datos eficazmente como información para adaptar las estrategias sectoriales, es donde reside el gran reto. Los presupuestos participativos pueden ser muy locales y bastante comunes, pero en toda la región y en todo el proceso presupuestario, la participación pública sigue siendo en realidad bastante baja. En una línea similar, el Barómetro Global de Datos pone de relieve la relativa debilidad de la región en cuanto a capacidad para gobernar los datos abiertos y utilizarlos con fines de impacto . Este reto se ve agravado por las limitaciones al espacio cívico . Especialmente preocupante en la región es la intimidación y el acoso a periodistas y defensores del agua y el medio ambiente. Por eso pedimos a los ministros de finanzas, a los financiadores y a los demás responsables de la toma de decisiones que se reúnen hoy en Washington que se centren en otra inversión que se necesita urgentemente: una inversión en la infraestructura cívica y de integridad de la región. Esta infraestructura son los procesos participativos y las personas, las organizaciones, los medios de comunicación, las instituciones de cumplimiento y supervisión  que hacen un seguimiento del dinero, utilizan y analizan los datos, exigen a los responsables de la toma de decisiones rendición de cuentas y pueden reforzar todos los procesos de planificación, para garantizar que el dinero se asigna donde se necesita y se gasta como está previsto . Invertir en infraestructuras cívicas es también reconocer y financiar a las organizaciones comunitarias por el trabajo que realizan para llegar a las poblaciones vulnerables. Es una inversión necesaria que se amortiza sola.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM PILOTING A NEW INDICATOR FRAMEWORK ON EARLY STAGE INVESTMENT PLANNING Integrity risks related to the selection and planning of new infrastructure are high. They also have significant long-term impacts for people and planet. However, risks related to procurement tend to be better understood and are more often the focus of integrity initiatives. It’s time to look under the hood. 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 - Namarome Lukelesia of the Water Sector Trust Fund (Kenya), when describing the integrity management practices of the Fund for the development of projects in rural areas of the country (for Integrity Talk 3 on Small Water Supply Systems ) Over the years partners have shared many examples of early-stage water infrastructure risks, as in the quote above. In 2022, our research case study on wastewater in Bangkok revealed rent-seeking is often a bigger driver than need in the way wastewater treatments plants are built. Insufficient or inadequate data (because of inadequate capacity or, of more concern, because of selective or discriminating practices), as well as poor participation, can lead to water and climate adaptation infrastructure that doesn’t reach those most in need or cannot be used (as highlighted in recent discussions on maladaptation and on new tech for integrity). Despite cascading impacts on people’s lives and livelihoods and the possibility of exploding costs, risks at strategic planning, project identification, preparation, selection and financing phases, have received llimited research and practical attention and remain somewhat opaque. In response, WIN worked with CoST and the IDB, to identify indicators and associated data points that can ensure stakeholders have visibility and input for decision-making and planning. The result is a data framework for decision-making and accountability: the Framework for Integrity in Infrastructure Planning. In a pilot test in Latin America, data points related to, for example, project location, timing, beneficiaries, vetting process, and project budget, contribute to an examination of nine main risks: Undue influence in decision-making Non-accountable decision-making Unmanaged conflict-of-interest Priority misalignment Misuse of public funds Biased preparation processes Biased budgeting approval processes Manipulation of budgeting processes Non-accountable budgeting processes The first results are promising in terms of ease of use and relevance of results. Indicators made it possible to identify red flags for further investigation related to feasibility studies, inadequacy of project choices, and compliance with procedures. The framework will be further testing in 2023 for further validation before dissemination. Find out more about the framework and early lessons from the pilot:

A simple set of indicators providing input on the status of procedures, practices, and structures for integrity within a utility, based on international best practices. WHEN TO USE IT To give water utility managers quick, actionable input on risk management and compliance processes and possible improvements. To benchmark integrity management across utilities. To share evidence with funders or stakeholders on integrity management, risk preparedness, and creditworthiness To launch an InWASH process, or as input and evidence for an integrity management process. HOW IT WORKS The Integrity Assessment for Utilities is a straightforward survey with 15 indicators covering 5 integrity principles: Tone at the top Risk assessment Integrity controls Corrective action Monitoring The Integrity Assessment can be conducted as a self-assessment or as a full assessment verified by an Integrity Coach. HOW IT WAS DEVELOPED The Integrity Assessment was developed by WIN as an objective benchmark to launch integrity management processes in utilities. It was improved with support from the Inter-American Development Bank in line with developments on the Aquarating Focal Analysis on Business Integrity For Water Operators. It was piloted in multiple utilities across Latin America, where it provided a useful starting points for integrity discussions and work. It is now simplified and accessible online in English, French, and Spanish. HOW TO USE IT The Integrity Assessment for Utilities is accessible online as self-assessment. The data collected is anonymised and processed in the strictest confidentiality by the WIN research team as input to a global trends report on integrity management challenges and best practices for utilities. GOING FURTHER InWASH is a complete integrity management toolbox for utilities that builds on the Integrity Assessment. It makes it possible to develop an integrity management plan for a utility in a participatory and practical manner.

Measurement of city-level water corruption risks based on big-data analysis of procurement data and survey results. WHEN TO USE IT As a quantitative city-level assessment to convince decision-makers To track impact of policy changes and variations in integrity levels over time or across different cities To identify red flags for integrity violations at the level of individual transactions HOW IT WORKS WIRI is a composite index of ratings in three risk areas of urban water and sanitation: investment risk (public procurement risk indicators and a pipe length-based indicator) operation risk (public procurement risk indicators from maintenance , e.g. chemicals, equipment, tools, etc.) client-utility interaction risk (public procurement risk indicators and survey results on bribery in water and sanitation services) HOW IT WAS DEVELOPED WIRI was developed in collaboration with the Government Transparency Institute. It has been piloted in several cities with open data on procurement. It has also been used at national scale with more data for the larger cities in Kenya, Bangladesh, and Peru, where procurement data is publicly available. It has shown that it can detect changes in integrity risk levels between cities and over time and provides insight on which areas of risk may be more problematic. HOW TO USE IT The tool is currently available as an open-source tool for data analysis. For information, help on how to use it, and feedback do contact the WIN team!

The Water Integrity Network Association (WIN) is an international NGO that researches the impact of corruption and poor integrity in the water and sanitation sectors and advocates for better governance jointly with a global network of partners. We develop and promote tools for more transparency, accountability, participation, and the introduction of integrity measures at all levels. We focus on capacity development and risk prevention in water and sanitation sector programmes worldwide, with the aim of improving performance and equity, to the benefit of all. Having actively engaged in Bangladesh for nearly a decade, WIN has undertaken a programme over the past five years to mobilise the government, CSOs, donors, and communities in addressing corruption within the water and sanitation sector, contributing to the improvement of SDG 6 delivery. WIN, with its partners in Bangladesh, has developed a country strategy for Bangladesh, which is to be implemented from 2024 to 2026. To support the successful implementation of our country strategy, WIN is seeking to build a dynamic and proficient pool of experts in Bangladesh. We are calling for expressions of interest for WIN’s Bangladesh Experts Database for the period 2024-2026. We are looking for individuals (or, in special cases, organisations*) to assist WIN as experts with the planning and/or implementation of WIN’s projects and programmes in Bangladesh, in particular: WASH Experts – Public policy, Good Governance ( tools, frameworks ) Water Resources Management with an integrity angle Water Pollution with an integrity angle Integrity & Anti-corruption ( Integrity Tools, Integrity Management Practices ) Water-related Climate Change Adaptation with a focus on integrity Integrity in city-wide inclusive sanitation Water and Sanitation Financing Gender and Social Inclusion (GESI) in Water and Sanitation WIN is committed to fostering good governance in water management. However, we do not support projects involving physical infrastructure development or maintenance. Prospective applicants are encouraged to align their applications and inquiries with WIN's core mission of advancing integrity in water and sanitation through strategic interventions in governance and system improvement. OVERVIEW OF THE ROLE The expert will support WIN in realising WIN’s country strategy goals. By leveraging their extensive experience in the field, they bring valuable connections and possess the acumen to identify the most suitable stakeholders, ensuring the successful implementation of projects. An individual can possess expertise in one particular field or a combination of expertise from the above-mentioned areas.   Tasks may include: pinpointing areas where integrity projects can make a meaningful impact in Bangladesh strategically identifying key stakeholders collecting, interpreting, and presenting evidence on the impact of poor/strong integrity in the form of surveys, research projects, policy briefs, integrity assessments, case studies, blog posts. conducting research on integrity in the thematic areas mentioned above implementing integrity tools with a variety of water and sanitation stakeholders contributing to fundraising efforts ELIGIBLE PROFILES We are looking for experts with a high level of expertise and professional experience in one or more of the fields of WIN’s work in Bangladesh that meet the following criteria: Relevant post-graduate degree and 4 years of experience in international or national development programmes of the thematic area being applied Specific experience in water governance/system strengthening or in the anti-corruption field At least 2 years of experience working in Bangladesh, having developed a network of relevant contacts and being able to show a track record of achievements Experience with NGO advocacy A good understanding of key stakeholders and having an extensive network of contacts with these stakeholders. A sound understanding of the policy and regulatory frameworks and the integrity implications in the chosen area of expertise. A clear interest and drive towards working on the topic of integrity in water and sanitation Experience in working with multiple and relevant stakeholders like CSOs, government agencies, and/or water/sanitation service providers Experience in facilitation of events and workshops, giving trainings and public speaking in both English and or Bengali Fluency in English (Bengali is a strong advantage) Excellent communication, writing, and organsational skills The call for interest is also open to non-Bangladeshi citizens. EXCLUSION Persons who are in one of the following exclusion situations that bar them from receiving WIN funds CANNOT work as experts: bankruptcy, winding up, court-ordered administration, arrangement with creditors, suspension of business activities or similar procedures − in breach of social security or tax obligations − guilty of grave professional misconduct committed fraud, corruption, links to a criminal organisation, money laundering, terrorism-related crimes (including terrorism financing), child labour or human trafficking shown significant deficiencies in complying with main obligations under a previous procurement contract, grant agreement, prize, expert contract, or similar have created an entity under a different jurisdiction with the intent to circumvent fiscal, social or other legal obligations in the country of origin. Experts will also be refused if it turns out that: during the contract award procedure they misrepresented information required as a condition for participating or failed to supply that information they are in a conflict of interest. OTHER DETAILS ABOUT THE ROLE Being accepted to WIN’s Bangladesh Experts Database does not automatically mean that you will be contracted for task assignments. This will depend on our business needs and fulfilment of certain formal requirements. If you are contacted for a task assignment, you will need to sign a WIN Expert Contract. If you are selected, we will sign a contract with the details relating to your assignment (e.g. tasks and working arrangements, remuneration and payment arrangements). Role:  Consultant Contract:  Not fixed, based on need. Contracts are made based on the needs and a consultancy agreement Location:  Work from Bangladesh / remote work, depending on the assignment. No compensation for working environment will be provided like laptop, internet charges etc. If any travel is necessary, travel expenses can be covered as per WIN’s travel policy. Starting date: Can be considered for work from Quarter 1 of 2024   Remuneration:  Daily rate, to be fixed depending on experience Download Call for Expressions of Interest as pdf: TO APPLY We invite qualified candidates to submit via email a cover letter, expressing their motivation and qualifications, and a full CV, including references to: Recruitment@win-s.org The length of the application must not exceed 5 A4 pages. In your cover letter, please clearly indicate your experience and skills in relation to the mentioned requirements and clearly state your motivation and your expertise areas from the list provided above. Further, indicate your daily rates and VAT status, as applicable. *Organizations applying to this call should submit at least one or more CVs of individuals relevant to the expertise advertised. Otherwise, applications will not be considered. Applications will be treated as strictly confidential. Applications are open on a rolling basis until 15 June 2024 , however, we would like to receive applications as soon as possible. If you are interested, please do not wait to apply. Please note that only shortlisted candidates will be contacted. WIN e.V. is an equal opportunity employer.

WEAKENED PUBLIC GOVERNANCE ENABLES ABUSE AND CORRUPTION TO FLOURISH IN SOUTH AFRICA'S WATER SECTOR Corruption in the water and sanitation sector in South Africa has put the water security of businesses and households, and indeed the entire country, at risk. The impacts are severe. On March 12, 2020, Corruption Watch and the Water Integrity Network released an important report, Money Down the Drain: Corruption in South Africa's Water Sector, which examines the extent and drivers of corruption in the water and sanitation sector and makes recommendations on actions to be taken to address such corruption and maladministration. Full report (pdf, EN) Summary (pdf, EN) The report highlights the extent to which corruption has become systemic, involving all levels of society, and rife in both the public and private sectors. So while formal rules, policies and laws appear to be in place, in reality, informal rules prevail. The report describes a number of cases which reveal the involvement of a vast array of players, from plumbers, tanker drivers and senior officials, to mayors to ministers, and the many private businesses that benefited richly from corruption, and in some cases, actively promoted it. Although the behaviour of public sector officials and politicians comes under particular scrutiny, the report also makes clear how the actions of private individuals and businesses, who deliberately exploit weaknesses in the public sector, have an acute impact on water security and on the human right to water. Some companies have actively created conditions which serve their own ends, and in which corruption flourishes. FROM CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT AND POLICY, TO INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL The three broad areas of corruption are characterized in the report. Manipulating procurement and operational processes. Influencing policy and regulatory decisions Taking control of key institutions. The report suggests that the much-lamented lack of institutional capacity in many water sector institutions is the result of deliberate institutional weakening in order to facilitate corruption. It is notable that between 2009 and 2015 the average term of office of the director-general in the Department of Water and Sanitation was only 11 months. Coupled with this are deliberate attempts to weaken mechanisms for oversight of institutional performance, thus clearing the way for the removal of constraints on illicit behaviour. A WICKED PROBLEM, BUT ONE WE CAN ACT ON The report presents a set of recommendations that encompass an overarching strategic approach, and drill down into more specific interventions. These include: Designating the water sector as an ‘island of integrity’; Ending impunity and instilling a culture of consequences; Ensuring the appointment of honest, ethical and committed leaders to run key institutions; Improving and strengthening procurement systems and practices, as outlined in the National Development Plan, including integrity pacts, e-procurement, open contracting data standards, and red flag monitoring; Facilitating transparency in regulatory decisions; Addressing broader environmental factors; and supporting the media and civil society to uncover corrupt activities and pursue them until appropriate remedial action is taken. Download full report (pdf, EN): Executive summary (pdf, EN): Featured image: Clanwiliam Dam, Winfried Bruenken (Amrum) / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)

Read the statement and sign the petition on Change.org here . We have seen water being increasingly weaponised in conflict situations, including, most recently, in Ukraine and Gaza. These are, however, by no means the only situations in which water infrastructure, or the electricity infrastructure that is critical to the supply of water, has been deliberately attacked or abused by parties in a conflict. Iraq, Syria, Yemen and others have also seen attacks on water infrastructure. We believe that every individual, regardless of their location, religion, ethnicity, gender, or other difference, deserves access to clean and safe water at all times, in accordance with the human right to water. As signatories to this statement, we express our commitment to the principles of justice, equality, non-discrimination and respect for human rights. Destruction of infrastructure or stopping of water supplies results in significant harm and is a form of collective punishment, illegal under the Geneva Conventions. Diseases like cholera and diarrhoea spread fast, with high levels of fatalities due to the lack of clean water to treat those affected. Hospitals are unable to provide treatment. Malnutrition and wasting increase. Children, the elderly and the ill are most affected, and most particularly those in poor communities. Women and children who are forced to search for water are exposed to increased risks of sexual harm and violence. Reconstruction of water infrastructure, which requires large budgets to be spent swiftly, is vulnerable to corruption and mismanagement, particularly in conflict or post-conflict situations, leading to further violations of the human right to water. International law, including the Geneva Conventions, stipulates the obligations of all parties involved in conflicts to ensure the well-being of civilians and protect their access to basic needs, including water. ‘The Geneva List of Principles on the Protection of Water Infrastructure’ reiterates the obligations of parties to a conflict as the related to water specifically. As per principle 4, parties to a conflict should refrain from using water infrastructure and water-related infrastructure as a means of warfare. Principle 6 makes it clear that infrastructure related to water is assumed to be a civilian object and as such cannot be attacked or damaged unless it is being used for military purposes. In the light of the above, we call for an immediate cessation of the weaponisation of water in all and any conflict. We call on all nations to abide by International Law and uphold the Geneva Principles on the Protection of Water Infrastructure at all times . We call for the United Nations to develop a process for economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation to be imposed on any country that uses water as a weapon of war and the establishment of an international body to monitor and investigate cases of water weaponisation. Read the statement and sign the petition on Change.org here .

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.