Une nouvelle approche et des nouvelles compétences axées sur l'intégrité sont nécessaires Par Barbara Schreiner, directrice exécutive (WIN) READ ARTICLE IN ENGLISH HERE / LEER EL ARTÍCULO AQUÍ 346 millions de mètres cubes d'eau perdus chaque jour. 39 milliards de dollars perdus chaque année. Les niveaux de rendement de réseau bas (ou d'eau non-comptabilisée -Non-Revenue Water- élevés) sont un défi mondial pour l'approvisionnement en eau potable, entraînant des pertes massives en eau et en argent. Ils compromettent considérablement les progrès vers l'accès universel à l'eau, tant dans les pays développés que dans les pays en développement. Une réduction des pertes d'eau entraînerait des économies financières et une amélioration de la fiabilité des services. De plus, elle atténuerait la pression sur les ressources en eau dans les villes à croissance rapide, contribuant ainsi à la résilience climatique. Un certain nombre de gestionnaires de services publics font des progrès dans la lutte contre les pertes en eau, par exemple grâce à des programmes, des équipes et un suivi des données spécifiques. Cependant, de nombreux efforts ne sont pas entièrement couronnés de succès. La mauvaise gouvernance, la corruption et les malversations exacerbent les pertes physiques et commerciales qui constituent les pertes d'eau. Pourtant, les efforts d'amélioration ciblent rarement ces facteurs. Pour que les programmes de réduction des pertes d'eau soient plus efficaces et durables, il est essentiel que nous comprenions les problèmes de fond et les liens avec une mauvaise intégrité. Qu'en pensez-vous ? Comment abordez-vous les risques d'intégrité dans votre programme de gestion des pertes ? Partagez votre point de vue, contribuez à notre document de travail. La corruption contribue directement aux pertes d'eau Il y a des indications suggérant que les prestataires de services opérant dans des pays où les niveaux de corruption sont plus élevés ont tendance à subir des pertes d'eau plus importantes. La corruption affecte divers aspects de la gestion de l'eau, de la qualité des infrastructures aux pratiques de facturation et à l'efficacité opérationnelle. Les projets d'approvisionnement, de construction et d'entretien entachés par la corruption aboutissent souvent à des infrastructures de qualité inférieure, sujettes aux fuites et aux ruptures, ce qui contribue à l'augmentation des pertes d'eau. Les raccordements illégaux et la falsification des compteurs (en particulier par les gros consommateurs d'eau ou lorsqu'ils sont facilités par le personnel) aggravent encore les pertes commerciales pour les compagnies d'eau. Le népotisme et le copinage au sein des prestatatires de services d'eau peuvent conduire à la nomination de personnel ou d'entrepreneurs non qualifiés, ce qui compromet l'efficacité des initiatives de réduction des pertes en eau. En outre, la corruption détourne des fonds destinés à des projets essentiels, entravant les efforts de modernisation des infrastructures et de mise en œuvre de technologies de détection des fuites. Enfin, les pratiques de corruption érodent la confiance entre les fournisseurs de services d'eau et les clients, ce qui contribue à réduire la volonté de payer pour les services. La nécessité de mettre en place des stratégies globales d'amélioration du rendement de réseau Il est essentiel de s'attaquer à la corruption dans le secteur de l'eau pour réussir à réduire les pertes d'eau. Une approche globale impliquant des solutions juridiques, technologiques et de gouvernance est nécessaire pour atténuer le risque de corruption et améliorer les pratiques de gestion de l'eau. L'amélioration de la gestion financière, le renforcement des processus d'achats et de passation de marchés, l'application des lois anti-corruption et la promotion de la transparence et de la responsabilité sont des étapes cruciales pour les prestataires de services. L'adoption de technologies de pointe, telles que les compteurs intelligents et les systèmes automatisés de détection des fuites, peut améliorer l'efficacité des systèmes de distribution d'eau et minimiser les possibilités de corruption. La professionnalisation des services d'eau par le biais de programmes de recrutement et de formation fondés sur le mérite peut contribuer à atténuer l'influence du népotisme et du copinage, en favorisant une culture de la compétence et de l'intégrité au sein du secteur. De plus, en encourageant la participation et la sensibilisation du public, on peut donner aux usagers les moyens de demander des comptes aux autorités et de faire obstacle aux pratiques de corruption. Des données fiables sont également essentielles pour une prise de décision éclairée, ce qui souligne l'importance de relevés de compteurs, d'une facturation et de systèmes de gestion des données précis. Questions émergentes pour les programmes de gestion du rendement de l'eau Cet impact considérable de la corruption a des conséquences directes sur la manière de gérer au mieux les programmes de réduction des pertes. Disposer d'une équipe dédiée aux pertes d'eau peut être une bonne approche. Est-ce la meilleure ? Quels sont les éléments clés à prendre en compte pour que ces équipes soient les plus efficaces possible ? Quelles compétences le personnel doit-il posséder ? Quelques pistes à explorer... Les professionnels de gestion du rendement de réseau sont-ils suffisamment indépendants ? Ont-ils le pouvoir de s'attaquer aux problèmes de gestion dans différents départements ? Peuvent-ils accéder aux données dont ils ont besoin dans l'ensemble de l'organisation ? Bénéficient-ils d'un soutien suffisant de la part de la direction pour poser des questions difficiles, notamment sur les problèmes de corruption et d'intégrité ou sur la culture et les normes de l'entreprise ? Ont-ils les connaissances et les compétences nécessaires pour faire face aux risques de corruption et d'intégrité ? Sont-ils en mesure de collaborer efficacement avec leurs collègues chargés de l'audit ou de la conformité, et de s'engager auprès des mécanismes de contrôle externes et de la société civile pour renforcer le suivi des fuites et des problèmes ? Les sous-traitants, même dans le cadre de contrats basés sur la performance, peuvent-ils suffisamment prendre en compte les mécanismes de gouvernance interne qui affectent les pertes d'eau ? Le personnel de l'ensemble de l'organisation est-il conscient des normes de conduite qu'il est censé respecter ? Savent-ils quoi faire lorsqu'ils sont confrontés à une situation délicate ? Seront-ils en sécurité s'ils en parlent ? L'accent mis sur les questions de corruption et d'intégrité soulève des plus des questions sur la définition du rendement de l'eau. Est-il temps d'élargir notre catégorisation des composants des pertes d'eau afin de reconnaître explicitement les actes de malversation ? De nombreux tableaux définissant les pertes d'eau ne mentionnent que le vol d'eau comme composante. Pourquoi ? Qu'en est-il de la corruption pour obtenir un relevé de compteur favorable ? Que se passe-t-il lorsqu'il n'y a pas seulement des erreurs dans les relevés et les factures, mais aussi une manipulation active des données ? Qu'est-ce qui se cache derrière la consommation autorisée non facturée et quelle est la part qui résulte d'une ingérence indue ? Des systèmes de gestion des actifs et de facturation solides et précis sont essentiels pour mettre en place des stratégies efficaces de réduction des pertes d'eau, en mettant également l'accent sur l'intégrité. L'analyse des données peut être très révélatrice. Que devrions-nous mesurer et examiner de plus près pour identifier les signes avant-coureurs de corruption ou de manque d'intégrité ? Quelles données les équipes utilisent-elles déjà pour étayer leurs décisions en matière de pertes d'eau ? Quels sont les indicateurs (comme des montants de facturation identiques répétés) que nous devrions absolument suivre ? Photo de Wallace Mawire d'une fuite d'eau dans une rue de Harare, concours de photos WIN 2016. Avec nos remerciements. L'amélioration du rendement de réseau doit être un processus continu et une priorité stratégique En s'attaquant aux causes profondes de la corruption, en mettant en œuvre des cadres juridiques solides, en adoptant la technologie et en promouvant la transparence, nous pouvons soutenir la réduction des pertes d'eau et améliorer le rendement de réseau pour ainsi contribuer à l'utilisation équitable et efficace des ressources en eau pour les générations actuelles et futures. La lutte contre la corruption dans le secteur de l'eau n'est pas seulement un impératif moral, mais aussi une nécessité stratégique pour garantir l'accès à l'eau potable pour tous. Nous recueillons des contributions sur les stratégies visant à lutter plus efficacement et durablement contre les pertes en eau dans le secteur de l'eau en adoptant une approche qui tienne compte de facteurs importants tels que le manque d'intégrité. Nous sommes impatients de connaître votre point de vue. Commentez ci-dessous ou sur Linkedin , ou contactez-nous à l'adresse info@win-s.org .

Por qué necesitamos gestores fuertes de ANC y un nuevo enfoque  Por Barbara Schreiner, Directora Ejecutiva (WIN)    READ ARTICLE IN ENGLISH HERE / LIRE EN FRANCAIS ICI   346 millones de metros cúbicos de agua son perdidos cada día. $39 mil millones perdidos anualmente. El Agua no Contabilizada (ANC) es un desafío global en la provisión de agua potable segura, lo que conduce a pérdidas masivas de agua y financieras. Minimiza significativamente el progreso hacia el acceso universal tanto en países desarrollados como en los países en desarrollo. Reducir el ANC resulta en ahorros financieros y una mayor confiabilidad del servicio. También puede aliviar la presión sobre los recursos hídricos en ciudades de rápido crecimiento, contribuyendo a la resiliencia climática. Varios gerentes de servicios públicos están avanzando en la lucha contra el Agua No Contabilizada, por ejemplo, con programas, equipos y seguimiento de datos. Sin embargo, muchos esfuerzos no son completamente exitosos. La mala gobernanza, la corrupción y las malas prácticas agravan tanto las pérdidas físicas como comerciales que constituyen el ANC. Sin embargo, los esfuerzos de reducción del ANC rara vez abordan estos factores. Para que los programas de ANC sean más efectivos y sostenibles, es primordial que entendamos los problemas fundamentales y sus vínculos con la mala integridad. ¿Cuál es tu opinión? ¿Cómo estás abordando los riesgos de integridad en tu programa de reducción de pérdidas de agua no contabilizada? Comparte tus puntos de vista, contribuye a nuestro documento de trabajo.   La corrupción tiene una relación intrincada con el agua no contabilizada   Las empresas de servicios públicos que operan en países con mayores niveles de corrupción tienden a experimentar mayores pérdidas de agua. La corrupción afecta varios aspectos de la gestión del agua, desde la calidad de la infraestructura hasta las prácticas de facturación y la eficiencia operativa. Los proyectos de adquisición, construcción y mantenimiento contaminados por la corrupción a menudo resultan en infraestructura de calidad inferior propensa a fugas y roturas, lo que contribuye a un aumento en el agua no contabilizada. Las conexiones ilegales y la manipulación de medidores (especialmente por parte de grandes usuarios de agua o cuando son facilitadas por el personal) agravan aún más las pérdidas comerciales para las empresas de servicios públicos. El nepotismo y el amiguismo dentro de las empresas de servicios públicos de agua pueden llevar al nombramiento de personal o contratistas no calificados, comprometiendo la efectividad de las iniciativas de reducción de agua no contabilizada. La corrupción desvía fondos destinados a proyectos esenciales, obstaculizando los esfuerzos para mejorar la infraestructura e implementar tecnologías de detección de fugas. Además, las prácticas corruptas erosionan la confianza entre los proveedores de servicios de agua y los clientes, reduciendo la disposición a pagar por los servicios.   Se necesitan estrategias integrales de agua no contabilizada e integridad en todos los departamentos de servicios públicos   Abordar la corrupción en el sector del agua es esencial para una reducción exitosa del agua no contabilizada. Se requiere un enfoque integral que involucre soluciones legales, tecnológicas y de gobernanza para mitigar el riesgo de corrupción y mejorar las prácticas de gestión del agua. Mejorar la gestión financiera, fortalecer los procesos de adquisición, hacer cumplir las leyes anticorrupción y promover la transparencia y la rendición de cuentas son pasos cruciales para combatir la corrupción dentro de las empresas de servicios públicos de agua. La adopción de tecnologías avanzadas, como medidores inteligentes y sistemas automatizados de detección de fugas, puede mejorar la eficiencia de los sistemas de distribución de agua y minimizar las oportunidades de corrupción. Profesionalizar las empresas de servicios públicos de agua a través de programas de contratación y capacitación basados en el mérito puede ayudar a mitigar la influencia del nepotismo y el amiguismo, fomentando una cultura de competencia e integridad dentro del sector. Además, fomentar la participación y la conciencia pública puede empoderar a los ciudadanos para responsabilizar a las autoridades y actuar como un control sobre prácticas corruptas. Los datos confiables también son esenciales para la toma de decisiones informadas, resaltando la importancia de lecturas precisas de medidores, facturación y sistemas de gestión de datos.   Preguntas emergentes para la gestión óptima del agua no contabilizada     Este impacto de largo alcance de la corrupción tiene repercusiones directas sobre la mejor manera de gestionar los programas de ANC. Contar con un equipo especializado en ANC, como ya tienen varias empresas de servicios públicos, parece un buen enfoque. ¿Será el mejor? ¿Cuáles son los elementos clave que hay que tener en cuenta para que estos equipos sean más eficaces? ¿Qué habilidades necesitan tener los empleados?     ¿Son los profesionales de NRW lo suficientemente independientes? ¿Tienen el poder para abordar problemas de gestión en diferentes departamentos? ¿Pueden acceder a los datos que necesitan de toda la organización? ¿Tienen suficiente apoyo de la alta dirección para hacer preguntas difíciles, incluyendo aquellas sobre corrupción y desafíos de integridad, o sobre la cultura y normas de la empresa? ¿Tienen el conocimiento y las habilidades necesarias para lidiar con riesgos de corrupción e integridad? ¿Pueden colaborar eficazmente con colegas de auditoría o cumplimiento, y comprometerse con mecanismos de supervisión externos y la sociedad civil para fortalecer la monitorización de fugas y problemas? ¿Pueden los contratistas externos, incluso con contratos basados en el rendimiento, abordar suficientemente los mecanismos de gobernanza interna que afectan al ANC? ¿Es consciente el personal de toda la organización de las normas de conducta con las que debe trabajar? ¿Saben qué hacer cuando se enfrentan a una situación delicada? ¿Estarán seguros si dicen algo al respecto?      Además, centrarse en cuestiones de corrupción e integridad plantea preguntas sobre la definición de los componentes del ANC. ¿Es hora de ampliar nuestra categorización de los componentes de ANC para reconocer explícitamente actos de mala conducta? Muchas tablas que definen ANC resaltan solo el robo de agua como un componente. ¿Qué pasa con el soborno para obtener una lectura favorable del medidor? ¿Qué sucede cuando no solo hay errores en las lecturas y facturaciones, sino también manipulación activa de datos? ¿Qué hay detrás del consumo autorizado no facturado y cuánto se debe a interferencias indebidas? La gestión sólida y precisa de activos y sistemas de facturación es fundamental para estrategias efectivas de reducción de ANC, también desde el punto de vista de la integridad. El análisis de datos puede ser muy revelador. ¿Qué deberíamos medir y examinar más detenidamente para identificar señales de alerta de corrupción o falta de integridad? ¿Qué datos están utilizando los equipos actualmente para respaldar sus decisiones sobre ANC? ¿Qué indicadores (como la repetición de importes de facturación idénticos) deberíamos tener en cuenta?     Foto: Wallace Mawire, Fuga de agua en una calle de Harare, concurso fotográfico WIN 2016. Agradecimientos Reducir el agua no facturada debe ser un proceso continuo y una prioridad estratégica     Al abordar las causas profundas de la corrupción, implementar marcos legales sólidos, adoptar la tecnología y promover la transparencia, podemos apoyar la reducción de ANC y contribuir al uso equitativo y eficiente de los recursos hídricos para las generaciones presentes y futuras. La lucha contra la corrupción en el sector del agua no es sólo un imperativo moral, sino también una necesidad estratégica para garantizar el acceso al agua limpia para todos. Estamos recopilando aportes sobre estrategias para abordar de manera más efectiva y sostenible el ANC con un enfoque que tenga en cuenta impulsores importantes como la falta de integridad. Estamos ansiosos por conocer sus opiniones. Comente a continuación o en LinkedIn , o póngase en contacto en info@win-s.org

Why we need strong NRW managers and a new approach By Barbara Schreiner, Executive Director (WIN) LEER EL ARTÍCULO AQUÍ / LIRE EN FRANCAIS ICI 346 million cubic metres of water lost each day. $39 billion lost annually. Non-Revenue Water (NRW) is a challenge globally in the provision of safe drinking water, leading to massive water and financial losses. It significantly undermines progress towards achieving universal access in both developed and developing nations. Reducing NRW results in financial savings and improved service reliability. It can also alleviate the pressure on water resources in rapidly growing cities, contributing to climate resilience. A number of utility managers are making progress in tackling NRW, for example with dedicated programmes, teams, and data monitoring. However many efforts are not entirely successful. Poor governance, corruption, and malfeasance exacerbate both physical and commercial losses that make up NRW. Yet NRW reduction efforts rarely address these factors. For NRW programmes to be more effective and sustainable, it is critical that we understand root issues and the links with poor integrity. What's your take? How are you tackling integrity risks in your NRW programme? Share your views, contribute to our working paper. Corruption has an intricate relationship with non-revenue water Utilities operating in countries with higher levels of corruption tend to experience greater water losses. Corruption affects various aspects of water management, from the quality of infrastructure to billing practices and operational efficiency. Procurement, construction, and maintenance projects tainted by corruption often result in substandard infrastructure prone to leaks and breakages, contributing to increased NRW. Illegal connections and meter tampering (particularly by large water users or when facilitated by staff) further exacerbate commercial losses for utilities. Nepotism and cronyism within water utilities can lead to the appointment of unqualified personnel or contractors, compromising the effectiveness of NRW reduction intiatives. Corruption diverts funds intended to essential projects, impeding efforts to upgrade infrastructure and implement leak detection technologies. Furthermore, corrupt practices erode trust between water service providers and customers, reducing the willingness to pay for services. Comprehensive non-revenue water and integrity strategies are needed, across utility departments Addressing corruption in the water sector is essential for successful NRW reduction. A comprehensive approach involving legal, technological, and governance solutions is necessary to mitigate the risk of corruption and improve water management practices. Improving financial management, strengthening procurement processes, enforcing anti-corruption laws, and promoting transparency and accountability are crucial steps in combating corruption within water utilities. Embracing advanced technologies such as smart meters and automated leak detection systems can enhance the efficiency of water distribution systems and minimise opportunities for corruption. Professionalising water utilities through merit-based hiring and training programs can help mitigate the influence of nepotism and cronyism, fostering a culture of competence and integrity within the sector. Moreover, encouraging public participation and awareness can empower citizens to hold authorities accountable and act as a check on corrupt practices. Reliable data is also essential for informed decision-making, highlighting the importance of accurate meter readings, billing, and data management systems. Emerging questions for best practice non-revenue water management This far-reaching impact of corruption has direct impacts on how best to manage NRW programmes. Having a dedicated NRW team, as a number of utilities already have, seems like a good approach. Is it the best one? What are the key elements to consider to make these teams most effective? What skills do staff need to have? Are NRW proffessionals sufficiently independent ? Do they have the power to tackle management issues in different departments? Can they access the data they need from across the organisation? Do they have sufficient support from higher management to ask tough questions, including around corruption and integrity challenges or company culture and norms? Do they have the knowledge and skills to deal with corruption and integrity risks? Are they able to collaborate effectively with auditing or compliance colleagues , and to engage with external oversight mechanisms and civil society to strengthen monitoring of leaks and issues? Can external contractors, even with performance-based contracts, sufficiently address the internal governance mechanisms that affect NRW? Are staff across the organisation aware of the standards of conduct they are meant to work by? Do they know what to do when faced with a tricky situation? Will they be safe if they say something about it? In addition, a focus on corruption and integrity issues brings up questions about the definition of NRW. Is it time to broaden our categorisation of NRW components to explicitly recognise acts of malfeasance? Many tables defining NRW highlight only water theft as a component. What about bribery for a favourable meter reading? What happens when we don't have just errors in readings and billings but active data manipulation? What is behind unbilled, authorised consumption and how much results from undue interference ? Strong, accurate asset management and billing systems are critical to effective NRW reduction strategies, also with an integrity focus. Data analysis can be very revealing. What should we measure and look at more closely to identify red flags for corruption or poor integrity? What data are teams already using to support their decisions on NRW? Which indicators (like repeated identical billing amounts) should we definitely keep track of? Photo by Wallace Mawire of a water leak in a street of Harare, WIN photo competition 2016. With thanks. Reducing non-revenue water must be a continuous process and a strategic priority By addressing the root causes of corruption, implementing robust legal frameworks, embracing technology, and promoting transparency, we can support NRW reduction and contribute to the equitable and efficient use of water resources for current and future generations. The fight against corruption in the water sector is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic necessity for securing access to clean water for all. We are gathering inputs on strategies to more effectively and sustainably address NRW with an approach that takes into account important drivers like poor integrity. We are eager to hear your views. Comment below or on Linkedin, or get in touch at info@win-s.org . Disclaimer: At WIN we value honest and open discussion. We are a multi-stakeholder network and our site brings together perspectives from across the board. Not all views expressed here reflect official policies .

The suffix -cide , derived from the Latin caedere  meaning "to kill" or "to strike down," carries a heavy weight, signifying acts of deliberate destruction or killing. While it often appears in scientific and technical contexts, its most harrowing uses highlight humanity’s darkest realities. From the persistent horror of femicide , driven by gender-based violence, to the mass atrocities of genocide  that have claimed millions of lives in the last century, these acts demand urgent attention. Recognising these “-cides” is not merely an acknowledgment of the past but a vital call to confront the atrocities still unfolding today.  We argue that the destruction of human, political and ecological systems is now accompanied by a new 'cide' –  hydrocide . Whether as a weapon of war, or through corruption, mismanagement and criminal behaviour – or even just wanton neglect – humans are actively or passively destroying water systems (natural and built) on an unprecedented scale.  The term has been used before (Lundq vist, 1998) [1], but i t has never been more relevant or important as now. Photo by Marija Sajekaite taken in Massachussets, USA (WIN photo competition 2016 on wastewater) A post by Alan Nicol and Rebecca Sands* Hydrocide is happening and it needs to be recognised    Like most things in 2024, hydrocide is enabled and intensified by climate change and corruption. Recognising that all life depends on these systems, we put forward the idea that hydrocide be recognised by human rights and water professionals alike and that measures are put in place to identify and stop perpetrators – wherever and however they operate.    Hydrocide, like ecocide, involves destruction of natural systems but goes further. Whereas ecocide encompasses large-scale environmental destruction across entire ecosystems, hydrocide specifically focuses on the depletion or contamination of water resources and includes the destruction of systems for water service provision . Importantly, both can be weaponised as tools in genocide, as the destruction of ecosystems or water supplies can force populations into displacement, starvation, or death.    As we celebrate the UN Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the UNGA in 1948, we remember article three in particular: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. From this cascades the international laws, conventions, and declarations that help to protect people and the planet, from the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child  to the recognition of the rights to water and sanitation by the UNGA in 2010 . The right to water carries an international acknowledgment that systems that deliver water to people and nature fundamentally underscore the right to life. Hydrocide undermines this right.   --- The weaponisation of water and its links to hydrocide    The weaponisation of water and hydrocide are intimately linked. In conflict, we don’t have to look far to identify possible hydrocide. Most recently, the war in Gaza by Israel’s defence forces has included the massive destruction of water infrastructure ( see here and here ). Destruction of the territory is so widespread that water resources are also contaminated. This has led to accusations that the IDF has deliberately weaponised water as a means to control and punish the Palestinian people by  making large parts of the Gaza Strip uninhabitable .   In other theatres of war, water infrastructure has also been systematically targeted. Most recently in Ukraine in 2022, controversy surrounded the destruction of the massive Nova Kakhovka dam – though neither side denied it had been deliberately destroyed. Elsewhere in Yemen and parts of sub-Saharan Africa , water has been drawn into conflict with deliberate destruction of water systems, exacerbated by weak governance.   All these acts are committed in spite of legal protections accorded civilian populations and infrastructure under the Geneva Conventions.    --- How mismanagement and corruption are destroying water systems    Hydrocide does not just happen in war time, there is other, non-weaponised hydrocide  too. It can be a product of corrupt and criminal activities or failing systems due to wilful negligence and/or poor integrity. In some cases, it manifests as a combination of the two: corruption or poor integrity that weakens institutions and governance, making water systems vulnerable to exploitation.     And in our current era, the risk is further amplified by conflict and by natural systems reaching critical tipping points due to global warming and human population growth.     In England, water companies are releasing unprecedented amounts of semi-treated and raw sewage into waterways and along the coastline . And intensive farming is packing formerly pristine rivers full of destructive chemicals . The systems failure of government regulation and monitoring combined with the undervaluation of nature by private industry has led to a decline in species biodiversity and the capacity of water systems to hold, nourish and nurture life. This further compromises water and sanitation service delivery. It is not uncommon to receive boil water notices for issues that could be avoided. This has become a critical political issue, uniting people by geography and across opposing ideological lines. Hydrocide  is a potent political term – and should, we argue, become widely known.    --- Turning awareness into action    Having defined the concept of hydrocide, the challenge is what to do next.   As water professionals, natural and built hydrological systems form the core of our professional life. Our concern is for their continued capacity to generate and sustain life in the face of mounting shocks and pressures – both from the demands placed upon them by economic growth, social pressures, and the wider disruptions caused by climate change. We are responsible for the oversight and sustainability of these systems, especially as they come under attack by a ‘toxic triangle’ of climate change, corruption, and conflict.  Operationalising the term "hydrocide" may therefore be extremely valuable for water professionals, as it not only underscores the gravity of the challenges we face but also emphasises the urgency to address its related issues beyond the water sector.  The first practical way forward has to be identification and recording instances. Calling out systematic destruction of water systems as a war crime (and potential tool of genocide) against civilian populations wherever this occurs in a methodical and legally sanctioned manner is an important start. This could include establishing a UN-backed global surveillance system to document and address attacks on water systems, in similar vein to WHO’s system for tracking attacks on healthcare infrastructure .     Additionally, the expansion of international legal frameworks to explicitly address hydrocide, building on the work to bring ecocide to the ICC ,  would expand the potential legal jeopardy involved for those that display wilful negligence or intent on harming civilian water systems. This could spur on a more focused effort at using strategic litigation to uphold water justice, with the potential to give legal identity to water systems themselves – whether in nature or not – as essential to life and, therefore, fundamentally underpinning human rights.    Above all, water professionals, policymakers, human rights advocates, and global institutions must collaborate to address the toxic triangle of climate change, corruption, and conflict through new networks and systems of reporting and data collection. We as water professionals cannot stand by as water systems are destroyed. We have to help build a future where these systems remain a source of peace and survival for all, not a tool of destruction or means of enrichment for some.  [1] Lundqvist, Jan. “Avert looming hydrocide.” AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 27 (1998): 428-433. *Alan Nicol is Principle Researcher at IWMI, writing in his personal capacity. Rebecca Sands is Programme Lead for Tools, Climate, Gender and Social Inclusion at WIN.     Disclaimer: At WIN we value honest and open discussion. We are a multi-stakeholder network and our site brings together perspectives from across the board. Not all views expressed here reflect official policies .

Integrity Talk 14 October 21, 2025 “Integrity in the water sector isn't just about preventing corruption, it's about building trust, enabling innovation, and ensuring every drop of investment delivers value for people and the planet. And, there are three critical aspects: transparency in the water sector remains essential; strong PPPs thrive on openness and accountability; and integrity is everyone's responsibility.” -Olive Kabatwairwe, CoST International Public-Private Partnership are promoted as a solution to water and sanitation financing gaps—but they're controversial. Recent reforms in Kenya, South Africa, Brazil, Tanzania, and Zambia have expanded private sector participation in different ways for service and infrastructure, generating debate about risks and benefits.  Across the spectrum of views, one thing is clear: PPPs require strong accountability, effective regulation, and robust public financial management to deliver fair and sustainable outcomes. This Integrity Talk examined what this means in practice for different stakeholders, with practitioner insights from South Africa, Kenya, and Tanzania.  Dr. Sean Phillips , Director General Water and Sanitation Department, South Africa, our keynote speaker, presented South Africa's water sector reforms as primarily performance-driven rather than PPP-motivated. He focused on a dramatic municipal service deterioration caused by structural problems: lack of ring-fenced revenue, fragmented management control, and insufficient expertise. The solution centres on the development of a utility model approach within municipalities, with or without private sector involvement.    Olive Kabatwairwe , Africa Regional Manager, CoST – The Infrastructure Transparency Initiative presented empirical findings from CoST's 2024 survey of 219 private sector respondents across Africa and Latin America, revealing pervasive mistrust, attributing corruption to private and public actors, and highlighting systemic capacity deficits affecting all actors (with only 16% having had ethics training). She prescribed three pillars for improvement: rebuilding trust through dialogue and transparency, ensuring quality procurement, and building capacity.  Malesi Shivaji , CEO, KEWASNET emphasized the State's non-transferable obligation to fulfil the human rights to water and sanitation and the need for radical transparency on service levels and contract terms. He called for civil society to evolve into "rights-based accountability partners" for both state and private actors by building expertise in finance, regulation, and contract law while shifting narratives on business interests.  Eng. Exaudi Fatael Maro , Director of Water and Sanitation, EWURA;   explained that despite Tanzania developing PPP guidelines in 2017, private participation remained minimal until recently due to three barriers: lack of water sector expertise in PPP design, misconceptions equating PPPs with failed privatization, and limited private sector awareness of water opportunities compared to more visible sectors like mining and telecoms. He shared insights on the Tanzanian model – with dedicated water and sanitation sector PPP regulation, and incentives for improved financial management of utilities, including the submission of mandatory business plans with targets, to be reviewed by EWURA before tariff approvals.   The debate was moderated by Barbara Schreiner, WIN’s Executive Director.  Highlights WATER AND SANITATION PPP: WHAT TO REMEMBER Integrity is shared responsibility  and rebuilding trust requires dialogue:  Public sector, private sector, and civil society must all contribute and constructive engagement between historically adversarial groups is essential. The money will not just follow:  Enabling PPPs in water and sanitation is not just about procurement and specific deals, there are broad implications for multi-stakeholder dynamics, financial architecture (and questions related to cost recovery, ring-fencing of revenue, and pricing), utility models, and institutional frameworks and regulation in and beyond the water sector. Regulation with integrity, regulation for integrity:  South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania have enabled very different PPP opportunities (some for service provision, some for infrastructure) and have very different regulatory frameworks to match – some more centralised than others. There is no one-size fits all reform. Learning from regulatory experience with PPPs in other sectors is key. Capacity for PPPs is inadequate, capacity for integrity even more so:  All panellists insisted on the need for better capacity at all levels – for procurement officers and water sector institutions to set up projects, for private sector players (and especially smaller enterprises) to participate and invest, as well as for civil society on contracts and financing to ensure accountability. They also highlighted the crucial role of good quality data. Zoom in on water and sanitation sector regulation: Examples from South Africa, Kenya, and Tanzania OPEN QUESTIONS AND CHALLENGES   Is there a capacity catch 22 ? Everyone agrees on the need for better capacity to design and monitor PPPs, but it's not clear how such capacity building can be financed and organised. Various factors play into making regulation effective. We need more research on which regulatory models are most effective, what integrity risks are inherent in each model, and how to strengthen corrective measures to stop impunity. Professionalisation of certain functions is relevant but possibly insufficient on its own. Dedicated anti-corruption measures and integrity training are also key, but unfortunately often poorly resourced. Data  and information are the next challenge. First data and information need to be available. Open procurement and full transparency on service-level agreements, financial terms, debt, technical performance, and monitoring or auditing is the goal, but, in practice, this competes with commercial confidentiality. We need clear priorities and backing from regulators for maximum transparency. Second data and information need to be reliable. Here integrity controls are also key. Share your thoughts in the polls and comments!   "We are in a context that we must become experts in finance, in regulation, and in contract law, because these are the spaces within which, as civil society, we must now bring in the human rights proof for how finance is delivered, how regulation ensures compliance, and how the different actors, both the state actors and private actors, fulfil the human rights through their contracts." -Malesi Shivaji, KEWASNET MORE RESOURCES Olive Kabatwairwe's summary of the event CoST data portal on private sector perspectives on public infrastructure Malesi Shivaji's thoughts on the role of civil society SIWI report on water integrity and PPPs, with an overview of risks Full recording: An event organised with KEWASNET

We have a small, fully furnished and well-connected office space for rent at our offices in Berlin (Moabit) (as a sublet). Renter must be non-profit or VAT exempt entity. For more information or to schedule a viewing, please contact us at info@win-s.org Download full description with photos as pdf in English Vollständige Beschreibung (mit Fotos) auf Deutsch herunterladen: Office details: Location: Alt-Moabit 91B, 10559 Berlin Size: 20m² private space Rent: 690 EUR/month with no VAT applied Availability: Immediate Amenities included in rent: Fully furnished private office space High-speed internet Kitchen access with tea & coffee flat rate Cleaning service Postal address registration Name sign at entrance Car parking available Dog-friendly environment Barrier free access with elevator Good public transportation connection(U9 Turmstraße, tram M13, S Bellevue, 10 mins to central train station) •                 Verfügbarkeit: Ab sofort     VERMIETUNG EINES BÜROS AM HAUPTSITZ DES WATER INTEGRITY NETWORK IN BERLIN Annehmlichkeiten: Vollständig eingerichtete private Büroräume Hochgeschwindigkeits-Internet Zugang zur Küche mit Tee- und Kaffee-Flatrate Reinigungsdienst Registrierung der Postanschrift Namensschild am Eingang Parkplatz vorhanden Hundefreundliche Umgebung Barrierefreier Zugang mit Aufzug Gute Anbindung an öffentliche Verkehrsmittel (U9 Turmstraße, Straßenbahn M10, S Bellevue, 10 Min. zum )   Bitte beachten Sie: Der Untervermieter muss eine von der Mehrwertsteuer befreite Einrichtung sein!   Für Anfragen und zur Vereinbarung eines Besichtigungstermins kontaktieren Sie uns bitte noch heute unter info@win-s.org  .

In the face of political turbulence, climate-induced water crises, and shrinking civic space, our network has remained steadfast in advancing integrity-driven governance. Together, as the leading global network for water integrity, we have made real gains in pushing forward transparency and accountability in water and sanitation. We are grateful for the support of our partners and funders for making it happen. Thank you! Your commitment helps ensure water and sanitation services are delivered fairly, with transparency and accountability—especially in the most vulnerable contexts. This is crucial work for people and the planet. We look forward to pursuing it at your side and stopping corruption and the misuse, mismanagement, and misallocation of our most precious resource. Highlights of 2024 include: Landmark launch of WIGO: Finance , spotlighting how integrity can close the water financing gap Grassroots advocacy success in Mexico , securing political commitments for the Chiapas Water Agenda Expanded use of integrity tools by utilities and communities in Bolivia, Ecuador, Kenya, and Bangladesh, improving internal systems and trust A new country programme in Uganda , expanding WIN’s regional reach Collaborative work with regulators on Citywide Inclusive Sanitation that brought to light hidden integrity risks that are holding sanitation back and that provides paths for strong regulation and safer service Launch of new free online courses and resources to support sector champions globally in making integrity the heart of water and sanitation. Read more:

DEVELOPING REGULATORY AND RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACHES TO STRENGTHEN CITYWIDE INCLUSIVE SANITATION WITH INTEGRITY LATEST Synthesis of findings from research on regulation of urban sanitation in Tanzania, Rwanda, Zambia, and Bangladesh Integrity is part and parcel of making urban sanitation regulation effective. It can be reinforced with: Specific focus on CWIS, or non-sewered systems. Specific regulatory measures to address integrity risks in different areas (procurement, human resources, or customer relations for example), in collaboration with cross-sector regulators and anti-corruption initiatives. A strong regulatory environment: autonomous and well-resourced regulation as well as transparency and engagement with stakeholders and civil society. OPPORTUNITIES Free training on CWIS, regulation, and integrity WHAT OUR PROGRAMME IS ABOUT Sanitation is dignity, yet it lacks the attention and investment it deserves. The issues are not just technical. Citywide Inclusive Sanitation (CWIS) provides a framework to address gaps by emphasising accountability and enabling environments for sanitation as a right. Unlike usual urban sanitation approaches, it focuses not only on piped sewerage systems but different systems (sewered or not) and suppliers (public, householde, private and informal vendors) that can ensure service throughout all parts of a city. However, corruption and integrity failures hinder the expansion of sanitation services to all. They can also impact CWIS implementation . These failures are often misunderstood or ignored yet they are undermining the work of sanitation practitioners and regulators. They weaken service delivery, hamper the upgrading of infrastructure, erode public and household health, and deepen the oppression of women. There are many ways to act for integrity and address these issues. Our work supports these efforts by identifying risks and offering targeted solutions. Regulators, service providers, and funders can seize these opportunities to ensure equitable sanitation for all while building trust and resilience across the value chain. Make citywide inclusive sanitation a reality with integrity Find out more, support the programme, collaborate on research. Contact the programme coordinator: INCLUSIVE SANITATION: WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR There are significant integrity risks across the sanitation value chain . Sanitation is specifically vulnerable given: uneven and less intensive regulation, the involvement of more small or informal providers, and the often inadequate working conditions for sanitation workers. Better sanitation services will depend on effectively addressing these risks . Five critical improvements are needed: Clear mandates of sanitation practitioners and autonomy of regulators Transparent criteria and decision-making processes for subsidies, tariffs, licencing, budget allocation, financing Proactive integrity risk assessments to target specific measures Better engagement with users Multi-stakeholder oversight of expenditure and service levels, buffered by better data Regulators play a crucial role and can benefit from targeting integrity specifically . A proactive integrity approach requires cooperation and data sharing and combines: broad regulatory mechanisms that promote inclusion (service standards for different sanitation service models, pro-poor guidelines etc.), and specific regulatory mechanisms that address specific operational risks (financial management guidelines, criteria for technology selection, monitoring, saftey and health regulations etc.) Read the research Focus on regulation: Findings from Bangladesh, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zambia Understanding integrity risks across the sanitation value chain and first paths for action Country reports SUMMARY BANGLADESH FULL SYNTHESIS REPORT RWANDA TANZANIA ZAMBIA MORE PROGRAMME BASICS Dates 2023-Current Location(s) Global programme, Research in Bangladesh, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zambia. Partners ESAWAS and ITN-BUETWith support from Aguaconsult and Blue Chain Consulting Make citywide inclusive sanitation a reality with integrity Find out more, support the programme, collaborate on research. Contact the programme coordinator:

WIN is calling for nominations for membership of its General Assembly and for one new member of the Supervisory Board, for a new term starting in November/December 2025. These memberships are for individuals or organisations from the water, sanitation, climate adaptation, or governance and anti-corruption sectors who wish to show their commitment to water integrity, share expertise, and take an active role in guiding WIN’s work. Nominations must be sent by email to info@win-s.org  by 18.00 CEST, August 7, 2025  About WIN The Water Integrity Network (WIN) champions integrity in the water and sanitation sectors to reduce corruption risks and improve service. Our aim is to help realise the human rights to water and sanitation, and ensure the sustainable use of water resources. WIN takes a pro-poor approach to benefit those being left behind. WIN works with partners globally to influence the agenda for integrity, building on research on the impact of poor integrity, the dynamics of corruption, and the levers for integrity in the water and sanitation and climate adaptation sectors. WIN also builds capacity for integrity and supports the development and implementation of practical, sector-led integrity management plans for service providers, regulators, water, sanitation, and climate organisations and institutions, or basin, transboundary, and multi-stakeholder initiatives. More info: https://www.waterintegritynetwork.net/ WIN has over 65 formal partners who have joined to learn and share their knowledge for integrity. Partnership requires commitment to water integrity but is open and free. More info: https://www.waterintegritynetwork.net/partnership-form About the WIN General Assembly The General Assembly of Members is the primary governance body of the WIN association . It decides on long-term strategy as well as annual planning, and is composed of up to maximum 15 members, including organisations and individuals . Three to five WIN members are elected to form the Supervisory Board and provide oversight of the WIN Executive Director. Membership in the General Assembly is for a period of three years, renewable without limit. Supervisory Board positions are also for three years, renewable only once. More info: https://www.waterintegritynetwork.net/about-win Role and responsibilities Membership to the General Assembly and Supervisory Board are voluntary positions, requiring active participation in governance meetings. Meetings generally take place online, though they may occasionally take place in-person, in which case WIN covers transport, accommodation and subsistence. Time commitment: General Assembly: 1 meeting of up to one day per year (generally in November), plus preparation time Supervisory Board meetings: 3 meetings of half to one day per year, plus preparation time Beyond participation in governance meetings, General Assembly members are expected to: Actively engage in the WIN network through participation and contribution to WIN’s ongoing projects, programmes, learning and capacity building events, workshops, webinars, conferences, etc. ; Provide feedback to WIN when requested, such as through the annual partner survey; Act as an ambassador/advocate of water and sanitation integrity within other communities and networks; Be available to chair or run one WIN partner exchange/network event per year, occasionally take part in a mentorship call with an incoming or existing WIN network partner, or contribute to one WIN output or publication. Requirements We are looking for individuals or representatives of organisations who have strong experience and expertise in the following areas: Anti-corruption Fundraising Organisational strategic positioning Candidates must also: Have convening power and a strong network of funders and/or strategic partners Represent a key sectoral group (e.g. WASH, private sector, utilities, regulators etc) Be able to work in English Geographical representation: ideally Asia or Global North Gender: any Process for nominations Candidates must be nominated by another individual or organisation and evidence must be provided of the willingness of the candidate to be nominated. For individuals: The nomination must be accompanied by a motivation as to why the candidate would add value to the WIN General Assembly and a CV of the nominated individual. Self-nominations of individuals will not be accepted. For organisations: WIN partner organisations can be nominated by others or can propose themselves as potential candidates for membership to the General Assembly and Supervisory Board. Proposals must be accompanied by a letter of motivation regarding the value that the organisation would bring to the General Assembly and details of the proposed individual that would represent the organisation on the General Assembly. Nominations must be sent by email to info@win-s.org  by 18.00 CEST, August 7, 2025

Some integrity notes on what we heard at the World Bank – IMF Spring Meetings 2025 by Barbara Schreiner, Water Integrity Network Executive Director In the water and sanitation sectors, there is a great deal of discussion around three proposals on financing: leveraging private finance, innovative funding sources, and better valuing water. In my view, this is like focusing on the tip of the iceberg instead of looking at the likelihood of your ship foundering on the hidden mass lurking below the surface. By concentrating discussions on reforms required to ‘crowd in’ private finance, these narratives divert attention and resources away from addressing the deeper, perhaps more intractable challenges of weak public financial management, inadequate regulation, and systemic corruption. Attracting new money without fixing these foundational problems, is like building a castle on sand. Integrity, accountability, and public capacity must be preconditions for adequate financing for the water and sanitation sectors, not afterthoughts. --- “We need to scale up private investment” At the World Bank – IMF Spring Meetings of 2025, scaling up private investment and creating jobs were the big takeaways. And generally, the notion of mobilising private finance for water and sanitation often dominates discussions on financing the sectors. We know that the water sector faces a huge funding gap. Private finance can make an important contribution but it is not a silver bullet . It now stands at about 2.7% of total sector funding and is unlikely to increase sufficiently to quickly cover a substantial portion of the 300% increase in total funding that is needed . And it is not without risk: for example, risks related to current, or complex financial structures, opaque contracts and missing safeguards. There also remains a huge capability gap between financiers and regulators – the UK being a case in point . Scaling private investment also costs money and demands returns . Are we being realistic about what is needed to address financial stability, risk management, and regulation, in the context of private finance? Are we also sufficiently and honestly emphasising the trade-offs being made? When international financiers seek to de-risk through guarantees, it can lead to offloading risks to the public sector — socialising losses while privatising gains. When we focus primarily on private investment, we overlook deeper issues and miss out on the important gains we need to make first from better governance, better public finance management, and effective regulation. Otherwise, we are trying to fill a leaking bucket. More recent sector specific discussions on gains from efficiency and more detailed financing strategies are important first steps that could be expanded with a focus on integrity. Unfortunately, they still seem to take a back seat at large events like the Spring meetings. This needs to change. --- “We need to tap into new financing” This statement is one we hear most often in relation to climate or private finance. New funding is needed but it’s unlikely to pop up with no strings attached . Climate adaptation finance – which is particularly relevant in the water and sanitation sectors – is still a minute portion of total climate finance. We do need this to increase, substantially. Adaptation in the water and sanitation sectors is going to demand significant investment, whether through building new dams, harnessing untapped groundwater, or climate proofing water and sanitation infrastructure. But even climate finance is not risk free . New channels of funding, difficulties in tracking funding flows, large amounts of money to be spent quickly, all pose integrity risks. We’ve seen climate finance channelled through new users or disbursed under emergency rules with fewer safeguards leading to increased possibility of maladaptation. Then there’s the issue of governments taking on hidden liabilities that divert public funds away from equity-focused water services. Injecting new finance without fixing the fundamentals will only amplify existing dysfunctions and integrity challenges. For example, scaling private finance without rights-based safeguards can deepen inequality. In contexts of limited regulatory capacity, we’ve seen tariff hikes, cut-offs, or exclusion of low-income users. PPPs come with their own risks as well . The funding gap in water and sanitation isn't merely about insufficient capital. It's about how effectively we use existing resources and also attractiveness for investment . Integrity is essential to both. --- “We need to value water better” One other statement we hear often is that we need to value water better in order to sort out many of the funding challenges. It strikes me that a woman walking five kilometres to fetch water in rural South Africa understands water's value profoundly. Families in Delhi slums paying three times what their wealthier neighbours pay to informal vendors know water's value in ways that those of us with reliable tap water never will. The “value of water” is used as a broad brushstroke in the context of tariffs, and risks, and externalities. We should be more specific. What is often meant is that we need to price water correctly to attract private sector investment. "Proper valuation" often translates to pricing strategies that minimise water as a human right and common good. Valuing water means respecting its multiple dimensions—social, ecological, and cultural—not just its economic utility. True valuation recognises water as a human right and as essential for meeting other rights to food, dignity, education, and more. --- Conclusion – first things first: more honesty and transparency When it comes to water and sanitation financing, we need deep integrity, clear risk-sharing frameworks and full transparency on financial arrangements. The tip of the iceberg is not enough. We need more focus below the surface: better use of the resources we have, concrete plans for anti-corruption and integrity promotion, safeguards to limit abuse, strong regulatory oversight as well as input and oversight form civil society. The last points are a growing concern and must be prioritised. Restrictions on civic space and decreases in funding will have grave consequences. And, from what I am seeing, there is also insufficient support to regulators – at the national or global level. Regulators are a key pin in the effective use of sector finance and they are calling for recognition, training and support .

Working Paper Research paper Suggested citation: Water Integrity Network (WIN), 2025. Integrity Risks in Water and Sanitation Climate Adaptation. Water Integrity Research Paper 4. Berlin: WIN As the impacts of climate change intensify, so does the urgency for climate adaptation that is not only effective but fair, transparent, and accountable. Our latest working paper  — Integrity Risks in Water and Sanitation Climate Adaptation  — looks at how integrity issues and corruption exacerbate vulnerability of communities and water and sanitation institutions. It also explores overlooked integrity challenges threatening the success of climate adaptation efforts in the water and sanitation sectors. The paper introduces new definitions and frameworks for understanding water and sanitation adaptation and maladaptation. It then outlines three key types of integrity risks that can lead to maladaptation. First, misrepresentation of climate adaptation projects and climate-washing —a form of greenwashing. Second, the paper delves into mismanagement and financial integrity risks , such as corruption and the misallocation or misuse of adaptation funds across the project cycle—from planning and procurement to implementation and monitoring. Third, the paper proposes adaptation principles and outlines the risks related to flouting these principles in climate adaptation programmes in water and sanitation. The paper proposes first paths to address these different types of risk and lays the groundwork for deeper debate and learning ahead of the next Water Integrity Global Outlook (WIGO 4). We invite practitioners, policymakers, and researchers to engage with us on these critical issues. Share your feedback and questions for WIGO4 here ! Download research paper (pdf):

The surprising ways integrity risks in urban planning and water management affect water supply for Nairobi neighbours An exploration of how urban planning standards, regulations, and enforcement influence water supply provision in fast-growing cities. By Kioko Dan Muoki, Urban and Regional Planner (MSc Urban Management), based on his thesis research on urban planning practices and the case of Parklands, in Nairobi, Kenya ( Contact the author ) Urban planning integrity refers to the presence of transparent, accountable, and participatory processes in urban planning that resist corruption and ensure equitable outcomes for all citizens ( Zinnbauer, 2019 ). In Nairobi, integrity risks in urban planning (not just in water management and services) directly affect water supply in different neighbourhoods in different ways. In the Parklands area, two neighbourhoods present contrasting scenarios. Highridge, an upper-middle-class neighbourhood, was planned and is governed according to urban planning standards. Its residents have secure land tenure and generally have access to piped water only 3 days a week. Across the road, Deep Sea is an unplanned settlement that suffers from neglect and lacks the benefits of formal planning and infrastructure. And yet, residents have a constant water supply at neighbourhood water points. These cases demonstrate that a planned urban development does not necessarily imply a planned water supply. And vice versa. Integrity risks are at play, directly impacting the lives and livelihoods of the city's residents. This has key implications for future developments, especially in an increasingly urban world. --- Urban growth outpacing services There is high demand for real estate, and the Nairobi city planning authorities have responded by approving mass developments. However, supporting services, such as water infrastructure , have not necessarily followed. Highridge neighbourhood reportedly experiences a three-day water-rationing period, and the water utility company has developed an "equitable distribution programme" stipulating the specific days and hours of water supply. Some high-rise flats and apartments avoid water rationing by drilling boreholes and capitalising on large underground reservoirs to supply tenants. On off days, some residents also purchase water at high rates from vendors from nearby neighbourhoods, such as Deep Sea.  In the Highridge case, the absence of a detailed urban plan creates opportunities for political patronage and discretionary approvals, thereby exacerbating water scarcity. --- Urban development outpacing planning Deep Sea also has its urban planning integrity failures. Public land has been subdivided without formal authorisation. This situation has led to land disputes and unclear land tenure status, where different individuals claim ownership and to the emergence of ghost landlords who lease out residences in the settlement. Unlike Highridge, Deep Sea lacks a planned, centralised water supply network. However, private vendors have illegally tapped into the water supply lines that cross the settlement to supply more affluent neighbourhoods to the north of Deep Sea. They have established water points in the settlement and sell the water at a price thirty-three times higher than the set tariff rate. Thus, Deep Sea settlement residents enjoy a constant water supply throughout the week, but they must fetch it from the water point and carry it home. Women and children are primarily responsible for this physical work. In the case of Deep Sea, poor urban planning and inadequate enforcement of land-use regulations create risks to water integrity, such as non-transparent and unfair tariffs and illegal connections. This further complicates residents' access to water and increases their vulnerability. Left: The water utility's distribution line passing underneath shacks and shanties in Deep Sea. Centre : The water utility's distribution line crossing the nearby Mathari River on the edge of Deep Sea, into an affluent neighbourhood. Right: Water point in Deep Sea --- Moving towards sustainable solutions This research and the contrasting case studies, illustrate the indispensable role of urban planning and integrity in achieving sustainable and equitable service delivery and resource management. They also highlight the connections between land tenure, access to water, and water security. There are three priorities emerging: Developing integrated urban plans that include and synchronise water supply and other auxiliary services. Effectively adjudicating land and granting land ownership rights. Promoting water integrity and enforcing regulations on water licensing and tariffs. There is an urgent need to reform how cities like Nairobi manage their resources. The path forward requires collaboration, integrity, and a commitment to inclusivity.