How do residents of informal settlements decide where to get water in informal settlements of Khulna and what are the challenges they face in doing so? Is there transparent information available to them? Is there accountability for the systems that are built in the neighbourhood? A working paper by WIN partner, the Bangladesh Water Partnership Download the full working paper: Key topics covered: Integrity assessment; water integrity risk mapping, service delivery in informal settlements and the roles of NGOs, utilities, and communities in setting them up and managing them over time; water quality and maintenance challenges; corruption challenges. Key findings: Residents want more transparency on their water systems, water quality, and maintenance. There are also significant accountability concerns in how water systems are set up and maintained in informal settlements, including illegal abstraction linked to ineffective regulation enforcement, unclear mandates for service provision, and absence of mechanisms to share concerns or get responses. Geographies: Khulna, Bangladesh Who should read this: Researchers and practitioners focusing on service delivery in informal settlements, to understand root causes of service challenges. Abstract Access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services in low-income and informal settlements in Bangladesh is constrained by governance weaknesses, lack of accountability, fragmented mandates, and uneven institutional responsiveness. This paper examines integrity-related barriers to WASH service delivery in Montu Kaloni and Nurani Mahalla in Khulna, both in the service jurisdiction of the Khulna Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (KWASA). Applying the Transparency, Accountability, Participation, and Anti-Corruption (TAPA) framework developed by the Water Integrity Network (WIN), the study adopts a mixed-methods design combining field observations, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and structured household surveys (n = 40 per settlement). Integrity issues were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (Very low–Very high), standardized to a 1–10 scale, and subsequently aggregated through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to derive weighted integrity deficiency scores and rankings. AHP prioritization assigns the highest normative weight to transparency (46.6%), followed by accountability (27.7%), participation (16.1%), and anti-corruption (9.6%), reflecting stakeholders’ perception of governance importance. Transparency is seen by communities as being critical for integrity in service provision, while anti-corruption actions are given the lowest rating largely because they are seen as intransigent issues that are hard to address. Aggregated deficiency results reveal a contrasting empirical pattern in informal settlements. Across the study area, accountability-related deficiencies account for 69% of total integrity deficiency, compared to 22% under transparency, 7% under participation, and 2% under anti-corruption. Overall integrity deficiency is 2.32 times higher in Montu Kaloni than in Nurani Mahalla; specifically, Montu Kaloni records 1.99, 2.44 and 1.80 times higher deficiencies under transparency, accountability, and participation respectively, while anti-corruption-related deficiency (2%) is observed only in Montu Kaloni and is absent in Nurani Mahalla. Transparency deficiencies constitute 21% of total integrity gaps in Montu Kaloni and 24% in Nurani Mahalla, while participation deficiencies represent 7% and 9% respectively. Resident fetching water from community tube well in Nurani Mahalla - photo courtesy of the author (Banlgadesh Water Partnership) Issue-level AHP and Likert-based ranking clarifies the drivers of integrity deficiency. The highest-ranked issue—indiscriminate use of submersible groundwater systems—reflects weak regulatory enforcement, inadequate service coverage, and ineffective oversight of groundwater abstraction and water quality management. Political mediation required for new connections in disputed settlements ranks second, revealing dependence on informal power structures and the absence of clearly operationalized legal mandates for service provision in contested land areas. Lack of knowledge regarding grievance submission procedures and limited awareness of formal application processes indicate failures in public communication on services and institutional responsibility for ensuring that communities understand their rights and entitlements. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that while transparency carries the highest theoretical weight, structural accountability failures—stemming from unclear mandates, land tenure constraints, weak enforcement, limited grievance redress, and fragmented institutional coordination—dominate in practice. Participation gaps reflect restricted community engagement, donor-driven planning processes, and limited awareness of civic rights, while anti-corruption concerns remain comparatively limited but embedded within broader governance weaknesses. By presenting TAPA weightage alongside aggregated integrity deficiency and ranked issue-level evidence, the study demonstrates a clear divergence between normative governance prioritization and empirical integrity breakdown in informal settlements. Strengthening WASH governance therefore requires integrated improvements across all TAPA dimensions, with particular emphasis on institutionalized accountability, improved transparency of service standards and tariffs, inclusive participation mechanisms, and enforceable anti-corruption safeguards to achieve equitable urban service delivery. Shallow tube well (Lobon Panir Kall) - photo courtesy of the author (Banlgadesh Water Partnership)

by Barbara Schreiner, Executive Director, Water Integrity Network In 2006, a small group of people came together to do something that had never been done before: to name corruption as a water and sanitation crisis, and to do something about it. Founded by IRC, SIWI, Swedish Water House, Transparency International, and the World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme, the Water Integrity Network was born out of growing concerns among water and anti-corruption stakeholders that integrity failures were undermining the sector's ability to serve people, especially the poorest. “Globally, the water sector is riddled with corruption that often negates the impact of development and hits the poor most severely. Corruption reduces water supply, quantitatively and qualitatively, and increases scarcity and pollution. It distorts decision-making for new projects and misallocation of existing schemes. Corruption also skews democratic principles, reduces the domain of public action and ultimately undermines the rule of civil society. Corruption stunts water development and makes it harder and costlier to reach the Millennium Development Goals on poverty, water supply and sanitation services and environmental sustainability.” (WIN 2007) Twenty years on, the mission is the same, but the world around us has changed and demands an innovative response. --- What two decades of work has built For a long time corruption in the sector was widely acknowledged in hushed tones and rarely addressed head-on. WIN helped change that. Today, WIN works with over 65 network partners and allies, running country programmes in Bangladesh, Kenya and Uganda as well as projects across Southern and Eastern Africa and Latin America. WIN develops practical integrity risk mitigation strategies with civil society, utilities, small service providers, regulators, and local governments. We train more than 200 water professionals on integrity topics every year and contribute extensively to global and national research and integrity advocacy. Together with partners, we have made it clear that the sector benefits from integrity: not just accepting the status quo and the losses from corruption. We have also shown there are many ways sector stakeholders can promote change, starting from within the sector.Utilities serving over 13 million users in Bangladesh, Kenya, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico and Uganda have used integrity tools to diagnoses internal risks and work on procedural changes for field operations, improved accounting systems, as well as stronger grievance mechanisms, public hearings and user communications. This means they lose less and account for more, and in the process, they reduced non-revenue water levels, improved reputation and position in regulatory rankings, improved response time for connections and repairs, and closed off easy opportunities for fraud. In Kenya, Mexico, Bangladesh, and Nepal, integrity management improvements among community groups—often starting small, with posting tariffs publicly or setting up user communication channels, recording expenses, or building links to local officials—rebuilt trust between users and providers and improved their financial position enough to pay off bills and expand their systems. We expanded accountability mechanisms in multiple programmes: with regulatory reforms towards formalisation in Honduras and Kenya and especially with support to social accountability campaigns and groups. In Kenya, youth parliaments developed tools to monitor whether politicians delivered on their campaign promises for water and sanitation. In Nepal, WIN facilitated the creation of a WASH Media Forum. In Mexico, civil society partners co-created the Chiapas Water Agenda, securing written commitments from 14 deputies and 9 electoral candidates on water governance reform. Integrity-informed advocacy has also reshaped how budgets are allocated, how contracts are set up, and how bills are paid: schools increased budgets for school WASH in Bangladesh based on results of integrity assessments. Local municipalities did the same in Guatemala for local WASH services. In Mozambique, integrity-focused advocacy protected the sector from major budget cuts. In Zambia, government responded to integrity advocacy by making sure overdue utility bills of public institutions were paid. Perhaps the least visible but most foundational part of WIN's contribution has been to break the silence. We do this with research and networking, for example around the publications of the Water Integrity Global Outlook and with more specific groundbreaking research on sexual corruption or water services in informal settlements. We make problems likes corruption something we can do something about, rather than just suffer through. --- Why this work cannot stop None of this means the work is done. Far from it. Ensuring universal access to clean water and sanitation requires a three-fold increase in investments. Without integrity at the heart of that investment surge and the systems that manage it, more money will simply mean more waste, more capture by vested interests, and more broken promises to the communities waiting for safe water. With climate change, and as floods and droughts compound existing fragilities, the risk of rushed spending and misallocation, bypassed procurement rules, and emergency funds diverted from those most in need will only grow. WIN's work on water integrity and climate adaptation may be its most consequential yet. --- The crisis we cannot ignore Yet today, the space for integrity work is shrinking in ways we could not have imagined a few years ago. Across the world, civic space is closing: civil society organisations face increasing restrictions, watchdog groups are silenced, and environmental defenders — including those fighting for water justice — are imprisoned or killed. The rise of autocratic and populist movements has brought with it a systematic dismantling of transparency mechanisms, independent media, and accountability institutions. For the poorest and most marginalised communities, who depend on these safeguards to have any voice at all, this is a direct assault on their ability to claim their right to safe water and decent sanitation. And precisely at the moment of greatest need, the funding environment for this work has turned hostile. For the WIN network, which has relied on the support of governments committed to development, this is not an abstract trend. It is an existential pressure. The work that has taken twenty years to build — the country coalitions, the training programmes, the research, the tools — is now at risk of being dismantled not because it has failed, but because the political will to fund it is faltering. --- Twenty years and still needed The case for integrity work is stronger now than it has ever been. When budgets are squeezed and every aid dollar must stretch further, the last thing the sector can afford is to lose a portion of every dollar to corruption and mismanagement. Integrity work is not a luxury for good times — it is precisely what is needed when resources are scarce. Integrity is the mechanism by which every available dollar reaches the people it was meant for. It is how the poor secure a voice, a seat at the table, and a claim to the water that keeps them alive. WIN's twentieth anniversary is not a moment to rest. It is a moment to think creatively about what comes next and how to overcome the constraints we are operating within. Success will require new kinds of funding, courage, and a new level of collaboration. Relationships, not capital alone, will define who can sustain this work. Networks like WIN exist precisely for this moment: to connect the people and organisations who share this mission and help them achieve more together than any could alone. Twenty years ago, a small group of organisations came together because they believed that corruption in water and sanitation was both a cause and a consequence of poverty, and that naming it honestly was the first step to changing it. That belief is as true today as it was in 2006. The work continues: mark this moment and help us carry it forward, with transparency, accountability, participation, and anti-corruption. If this work matters to you — if you believe that every dollar invested in water should reach the people it was meant for and who need it most — then make that visible. Share this piece. Bring up transparency, accountability, participation, and anti-corruption at your next meeting. Connect us with others who share this mission. (You can also donate here)

New guideline for local governments to implement water and sanitation climate adaptation projects with integrity: key risks and practical mitigation measures that make sense at local level In brief: New guideline introduces Transparency, Accountability, Participation, and Anti-corruption (TAPA) for local governments as the critical foundation for climate resilient WASH. Provides examples of how political capture and undue influence in early planning stages can lead to maladaptation, where projects shift risk rather than reducing it (e.g., seawalls that protect wealthy areas while accelerating erosion elsewhere). Practical and tested at local level, the guidelines identifies straightforward integrity risk mitigation measures across the adaptation project lifecycle (from planning to monitoring) and in the enabling environment. Water is the primary medium through which climate change affects communities. Floods, droughts, storms, sea-level rise, and rising temperatures are already disrupting drinking water supplies, damaging sanitation infrastructure, and deepening inequalities—especially for those living in informal settlements and low-income areas. While national governments set policy and global donors provide funds, it is local governments that are closest to communities experiencing climate impacts. They receive central government transfers for climate-related projects, they deliver context-specific solutions and services, and they are most directly accountable to local people. Local governments need to get climate adaptation right. For this, they need financing and support. They also must addres governance and integrity risks. Corruption, unjust resource distribution, and mismanaged infrastructure can exacerbate vulnerability to climate change, weaken responses, and divert needed resources for responses at local level. This can lead to maladaptation. And yet, safeguards and oversight mechanisms on the use of climate funds do not always extend as strongly to the local government level, especially in emergencies. An integrity guideline for local government climate adaptation work A new WIN guideline provides a practical, project-cycle framework to identify and counter integrity risks at local level, helping ensure that adaptation investments related to water and sanitation deliver real and lasting outcomes. The guideline complements broad climate-resilient WASH (CR-WASH) frameworks and guidance that desribe what resilience looks like, with practical input for local frontline implementers to ensure that these efforts are not undermined by governance failures. This guideline was developed with review and input from county government officials in Makueni, Kenya, and is supported by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). It is global in scope and includes specific case studies and examples from Kenya (Makueni, Kitui, Isiolo, Marsabit — Ward Climate Change Planning Committees), South Africa, Bangladesh, and the Philippines. Key findings Integrity failures — including corruption, political capture, and weak oversight — are a major but underacknowledged driver of failed climate adaptation in water and WASH, turning well-funded projects into maladaptation. Every stage of the adaptation project cycle carries specific, documented integrity risks: from nepotism in staffing and biased technical assessments, to procurement fraud, substandard construction, and falsified monitoring data. Emergency and disaster response contexts are particularly high-risk, as expedited procurement and urgent fund disbursements frequently bypass standard accountability mechanisms. Community participation and feedback mechanisms are not just good practice — they are a practical anti-corruption safeguard, as demonstrated by Kenya's Ward Climate Change Planning Committees. Addressing integrity risks does not require large budgets: simple, low-cost tools (standard operating procedures, conflict-of-interest disclosures, participation checklists, community monitoring groups, and anonymous hotlines) can significantly reduce corruption risk. Key recommendations 1. Embed TAPA (Transparency, Accountability, Participation, Anti-Corruption) across the adaptation project cycle, from pre-planning integrity scans to community-led monitoring and public disclosure of results. 2. Formalise community oversight by establishing ward- or community-level monitoring committees with a clear mandate, basic training, and direct links to official grievance and correction mechanisms. 3. Prepare before a disaster strikes by developing emergency procurement plans, pre-vetted supplier lists, and clear financial controls that remain active during crisis response. Download: Water Integrity Network (2026). Guideline for Local Governments: Integrity in Water and Sanitation Climate Adaptation. Berlin: WIN. Practical guide for local governments on effectively implementing water and sanitation climate adaptation projects with integrity across the full project cycle. or read online: Go further: Understand maladaptation with insight from the Green Climate Fund Share insight on water and sanitation climate adaptation integrity risks including mismanagement and climate-washing and other cases of misrepresentation. Find out more about ways climate finance tracking could be strengthened with civil society

Lessons from Kenya Massive investment is required for communities to access safe water and withstand major climate-related water uncertainty. For climate finance to deliver on its promises, it must be commensurate with need and effectively reach those who need it most. We cannot afford leakage, misuse, or maladaptation. Yet, there are serious weaknesses in how governments and funders are monitoring where the money goes and whether it is working. In Kenya several organisations are filling this gap. With new tools and data, they are checking whether climate finance is used to its full potential, where it is intended and most needed. Their work is highlighting major integrity issues. WIN and the Centre for Social Planning and Administrative Development (CESPAD) mapped climate finance tracking initiatives in Kenya and brought together local authorities, civil society organisations and funders in March 2026. The aim was to assess integrity risks and share tools and experiences for climate adaptation accountability. Participants in the process emphasised the need for collaborative approaches to ensure climate funds reach communities and contribute to water resilience. Here are our main lessons learned. Download this lessons learned briefing as pdf: Water Integrity Network (2026). Climate Adaptation Finance: Where is the money going and is it really working? Brief. Berlin: WIN. Lessons learned for funders and governments on integrity risks in climate adaptation finance, focusing on weaknesses in monitoring, public participation, and fraud and on the climate finance tracking initiatives that can make a difference and ensure funds reach local communities. INTEGRITY IN CLIMATE ADAPTATION What it means Climate funds and adaptation actions that are transparent, accountable and fair. Funds that are used honestly and efficiently for their intended purpose. Communities that are meaningfully involved from planning through to monitoring. Projects that deliver real adaptation benefits. Resources that reach the most vulnerable populations. Why we need it Without strong integrity, scarce climate funds risk being wasted, adaptation measures may fail or even increase vulnerability, and public trust in climate processes can erode THE PROBLEM WITH CLIMATE FINANCE Significant sums of money are flowing to institutions that are not yet fully prepared to manage them. Financial management systems and capacity are improving, but remain limited — particularly at the local level, where good reforms on paper have not yet been fully implemented in practice. Major funders have some mechanisms in place to detect and address corruption where money is first disbursed at national level, but there is far less visibility and fewer safeguards for funds that are then reallocated to local levels, where smaller but pervasive corruption and integrity risks take hold. Often, corruption is expected and only addressed once it gets out of hand. Too late. Where the leaks are: Leeway in how climate finance outcomes are identified and quantified. Unclear definitions, especially for what should be considered climate or development work. Delays and challenges in using standardised frameworks like the Rio markers and accurately tagging expenditure. Space for abuse and greenwashing. Inadequate participation throughout the funding and project cycle. Limited genuine involvement of beneficiary communities, despite formal public participation requirements. Projects that are based on incomplete data and that lack local ownership and sustainability. Fraud and corruption, especially during procurement and audit. Activities skewed away from the public interest and prioritisation of more lucrative mitigation projects over needed adaptation. Conflicts of interest and collusion contributing to shoddy work, higher costs, and weakened monitoring systems. To make localisation and community-based adaptation not just buzzwords, accountability also has to reach communities. And communities must be empowered to report back and hold decision-makers accountable. Local civil society and watchdog organisations are the bridge for this process, but they are too often side-lined and under-resourced. INTEGRITY RISKS IN CLIMATE ADAPTATION FINANCE Workshop participants in Kenya identifed important weaknesses across the funding cycle that divert resources from their objectives and from the people who need them. The main risks are: Impact on communities and the climate These weaknesses mean climate-vulnerable communities receive less protection, adaptation investments deliver less value, and trust in climate finance erodes, at a time when the window for effective action is narrowing. KENYAN LEADERSHIP ON CLIMATE ACCOUNTABILITY Despite the ongoing challenges to track and report on climate finance, workshop participants identified critical areas in Kenya where progress is happening and a more integrity-focused approach to climate finance transparency is taking place. Legal and policy framework has adapted and is relevant Kenya has developed a robust policy architecture for climate finance, including the National Climate Change Action Plan, county-level Climate Change Action Plans, and National Treasury Circular No. 13/2020 providing specific guidance on tracking and reporting climate finance. Participatory Climate Risk Assessments at county level further embed climate accountability into subnational governance. Climate tagging is specified, even if it mainly still looks good on paper Kenya uses objective-based screening and has incorporated climate codes into the Standard Chart of Accounts alongside a dedicated training handbook. However, the public financial management system is not yet fully aligned. Classification remains subjective depending on sectoral lens, and a new Climate Finance Information System is under development but not yet operational. Work towards formalisation of public benefit organisations and reporting requirements is welcome, though risks need careful monitoring The Public Benefits Organisations (PBO) Act of 2013, new PBO regulations of 2026 and the amended Climate Change Act that explicitly recognises PBOs, all reinforce transparency and provide a legal basis for civil society organisations to engage in monitoring and reporting of their own climate adaptation work. This push for transparency is welcomed by civil society organisations, though risk of constraints to civic space should not be ignored. Local collaborative tracking initiatives are examples to be replicated Two tools stand out: The Makueni Case Tracking Tool, developed jointly by CESPAD, the Water Integrity Network, and Makueni County Government, follows a full project cycle from initiation to closure, combining financial, technical, and social indicators with GPS verification and community participation. The Mulika tool in Marsabit, developed by Pastoralist Community Initiative and Development Assistance (PACIDA), makes ward-level budget data accessible to ordinary citizens through a digital tool and community engagement, and is already being scaled to Isiolo County. Both demonstrate what locally grounded, integrity-focused accountability looks like in practice when civil society and local government join forces. COMMUNITY-CENTRED, COLLABORATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY Integrity risks were discussed openly, including fears around information sharing, potential victimisation, and the need for safe channels to communicate tracking findings. - Workshop participant CSOs can bridge the gap between government and communities, and between funds and people who need them. They can strengthen accountability by monitoring government actions and ensuring responsible use of funds. They can provide capacity-building for communities and local institutions, and offer technical expertise on best practices. CSOs can also manage grievance mechanisms and are the first responders in emergencies. In Kenya, CSOs have shown how this works, and how it can ensure climate finance effectively meets local needs. This kind of work is essential and can make a real difference in stopping misuse and leakage of scarce finance. Yet, too few organisations are able to do it effectively because of shrinking civic space and unreliable funding. What we need now is empowered CSOs with the right support: Effective feedback loops from community or straightforward grievance mechanisms Open procurement and shared data Promotion of political will and political integrity Support and exchange / coordination between civil society organisations and others involved in tracking (including counties or sub-national authorities and supreme audit institutions) Safety for those who track Contact us to support this work further and join the community of organisations working on climate adaptation accountability in Kenya.

Join the Water Integrity Network (WIN) as our next Executive Director Location: negotiable, with 50% time spent in Berlin, Germany Contract: 3 years (renewable), full-time or part-time (to be negotiated) Start Date: 1 January 2027 Application Deadline: 30 May 2026 ____ ABOUT WIN The Water Integrity Network (WIN) is a dynamic, Berlin-based NGO fighting corruption and championing integrity in water and sanitation globally. Since 2006, we’ve worked with governments, utilities, community-based schemes, and civil society to promote Transparency, Accountability, Participation and Anti-Corruption (TAPA) in water and sanitation governance. Our mission? To ensure equitable, corruption-free water resources management and water supply and sanitation access for all—especially the most vulnerable. With a small, committed team at the heart of an extensive network of partners, WIN drives change through research, advocacy, tools and capacity-building. ____ THE ROLE: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR We are seeking a visionary leader to steer WIN into its next chapter. As Executive Director, you will: Lead with impact: Shape WIN’s strategy, ensuring alignment with our mission and global water integrity goals. Mobilise resources: Spearhead fundraising efforts: securing grants, cultivating donors, and forging strategic partnerships. Amplify our voice: Represent WIN at high-level forums, advocating for anti-corruption measures and stronger water governance. Empower a global network: Strengthen alliances with governments, NGOs, financiers and private-sector partners to scale WIN’s influence. Drive operational excellence: Oversee quality products, continual learning and excellence, and inspire a diverse, passionate team. ____ WHO WE'RE LOOKING FOR You’re a seasoned leader with: 15+ years in international development, ideally in water/sanitation, anti-corruption and/or governance. 7+ years managing multicultural teams—proven ability to inspire and execute. Demonstrated work experience at the country level in lower- and middle-income countries. Deep expertise in water and sanitation governance, anti-corruption, or integrity. A fundraising track record—grants, donor relations, and partnership development. Advocacy expertise—experience influencing policy at international levels. Experience working with networks of practitioners for global and local change. Demonstrated focus on results on the ground through locally-led initiatives. Fluency in English (French, Spanish, or German a strong advantage). A passion for equity—pro-poor, gender-sensitive approaches are central to our work. A work permit for Germany will be required once the appointment is made. ____ WHY JOIN WIN? Global influence: Lead an organisation at the forefront of water and sanitation integrity. Collaborative culture: Work with a dedicated, multicultural team and a network of changemakers and partners. Strategic leadership: Shape WIN’s future while tackling one of the world’s most pressing challenges. Professional growth: Competitive salary (grade V), relocation support, and a renewable contract. Salary: €90,000 – €120,000/year (gross) 30 days leave per annum Flexible working environment ____ HOW TO APPLY Ready to make waves? Send your CV and cover letter (highlighting your fit for the role) to: Recruitment@win-s.org by 30 May 2026. WIN is an equal-opportunity employer. We celebrate diversity and encourage all qualified candidates to apply. DOWNLOAD VACANCY AS PDF:

Report of the National Review with Focus on the Districts of Lira, Kabarole, and Bunyangabu New assessment is a call on government, regulators, service providers, civil society, and development partners to work together to strengthen corruption prevention, improve integrity of service providers and institutions, and enhance meaningful participation. Uganda's legal, policy, and institutional framework for water governance has evolved significantly in the last 10 years and now provides for clearer responsibilities, improved coordination platforms, and better performance monitoring systems. Accountability in the sector has been strengthened through proactive regulation, (joint) sector review processes, sector consolidation of service delivery and clear responsibilities, and the active oversight of the Office of the Auditor General and other national institutions. However, despite this robust framework, service delivery is not keeping pace with demand. The system falters under stress from climate impacts, population growth, undue political interference, or corruption incidents. What stands out from the study is the gaps between strong rules and the ability of the sector to handle issues and non-compliance with these rules. As a result, impunity is the major concern. Without decisive integrity-focused action, these weaknesses will continue to undermine service reliability, financial sustainability, environmental protection, and public trust. --- CONTEXT The Water Integrity Network conducted an accountability review for the Ugandan water sector with support from UWASNET starting in 2024. The study provides a broad review of transparency, accountability, participation, and anti-corruption measures in the water sector across investment planning, service delivery, governance of sector institutions, resource management, and environmental protection . --- WATER GOVERNANCE AND INTEGRITY IN UGANDA: MAIN FINDINGS The assessment shows that: National planning documents, budgeting procedures, and sector review processes are generally well established and are among the most clearly defined elements of the sector. Planning, sector review processes, permitting, and drilling oversight appear to face fewer integrity challenges compared to other thematic areas. The area with the most pronounced weaknesses is the governance and management of sector institutions including service providers . This is one of the only areas where the rules and obligations are also minimal or absent. Sector institutions lack anti-corruption strategies and systems, including whistleblower protection. Many decisions are at the discretion of key players, and there are significant openings for malpractice. The report also highlights a few specific integrity concerns: Procurement , where the corruption risk remains high across the different levels. Water quality management , where district capacity has deteriorated, testing is irregular, and communication and follow-up is limited. Tariff setting and revenue management , where discretion is high. Integrity issues in sanitation, especially on-site sanitation, need further investigation. --- RECOMMENDATIONS There are three main priorities for water governance, covering different recommendations: A strong sector positioning on integrity: transparency, accountability, participation, and anti-corruption in law and policy; integrity metrics in regulator reports; integrity research; and broader dissemination of findings from oversight institutions. Integrity at institutional level: for strong water authorities, local water offices, and water committees : requirements on internal integrity and anti-corruption systems including codes of conduct, standardised operating procedures, whistleblower protection, and strong customer service; training and support for financial management and open procurement. Strong accountability through transparent regulation AND civil society engagement: funding and support for social accountability and engagement with water users and civil society; capacity, clear criteria and processes for regulation, especially on tariff setting, gazetting, and water quality management; capacity for cooperation with national oversight institutions (OAG, IG) and PPDA. --- DOWNLOAD See all findings per water sector area and detailed recommendations: Title Uganda Water Sector Participatory Accountability Review: Report of the National Review with Focus on the Districts of Bunyangabu, Kabarole, and Lira Author Water Integrity Network Publication date December 2025 Contributors UWASNET Abstract This report provides a comprehensive integrity and accountability assessment of Uganda’s water sector, evaluating how effectively the country’s legal and policy framework is implemented in practice. Using a de jure–de facto approach and field verification in three districts, it examines transparency and accountability in investment planning, service delivery, and environmental management. The findings reveal a persistent gap between well-defined rules and weak corrective action and implementation, with significant vulnerabilities in enforcement, procurement , financial management, water quality monitoring, and corporate governance.

“Water allocation has moved from being a background administrative activity to one of the most defining water governance challenges of the times. Water allocation is no longer just about matching supply and demand. It has become an arena where societies negotiate sustainability, justice, economic prosperity, and climate resilience all at once.” -Jonatan Godinez Madrigal, IHE-Delft Integrity Talk 15 December 11, 2025 Water availability is increasingly unpredictable because of climate change, and increasingly under pressure from economic and population growth. This is leading to a water resource crisis, but one that is not just hydrological. In this Integrity Talk, leading researchers looked at how people and sectors share water and the challenges of changing the rules and systems for allocation. They discussed how water allocation regimes designed decades ago are buckling under modern pressures, creating fertile ground for corruption and system failure. Go straight to recording > Get in touch about water allocation research > --- Water allocation systems under pressure: power struggles, systemic weaknesses, and deliberate underfunding There are different systems for water allocation, which speakers categorised as the "3 Ps": Permits, Pricing and market-based mechanisms, and Platforms or institutions for decision-making. All these different systems are facing worrisome integrity risks across their development, implementation, and monitoring. Ghost systems and empty institutions were risks that the speakers highlighted specifically. This can refer to: strong laws and principles that cannot be implemented effectively; systems that allocate water that is no longer available; the perception of rights as unchangeable quasi ‘property rights’, over a resource that is public, moving and unstable; and institutions that do not have the power or capacity to carry out their mandate or implement allocation systems adequately. Speakers also noted that insufficient capacity or resources are often mentioned as reasons for the challenges. However, they emphasised that capacity weaknesses are actually often deliberate and they can both enable and stem from corruption or other malfeasance. Understaffed, poorly led water allocation institutions with fractured mandates, as well as systematic underfunding of monitoring making it impossible for allocation systems to work. “There are two ways you can have systemic integrity issues. One, if you have a system where even with exemplary implementation, it cannot produce an equitable and sustainable outcome. That's a systemic integrity issue. Or secondly, if the system itself cannot be implemented, it inherently lacks integrity.” -Dr Mary Galvin, Water Integrity Network --- Examples: water allocation system failures and paths for change At the integrity talk 15, we heard examples of how these water allocation issues play out in Mexico, Indonesia, Chile, South Africa, the Netherlands, and Brazil. The panellists spoke of historical legacies, "water mafias" controlling irrigation gates in Indonesia, and of Mexico's underfunded monitoring, enabling widespread overextraction and power plays slowing reform. “People and companies that had more power were the ones that were able to get their water allocation rights. And those who didn't, or didn't have the resources to go through all the paperwork, they ended up without these water allocation rights. And at the same time, what was happening is that there was very little investment in building a strong regulatory agency of water allocation rights. And so what became the norm was overextraction, pollution of water ecosystems without any consequence for water right owners.” -Fermin Reygadas, Co-Founder of Cantaro Azul The discussion also highlighted positive responses and paths for action. Indigenous communities in Oaxaca are reclaiming collective water management. River basin organisations, like those studied In Indonesia, are implementing straightforward procedural and staffing changes that limit risks of abuse in the operation of floodgates and other systems. There are policy entrepreneurs persistently and slowly pushing through change, for example in Chile. Accountability appears to be a crucial component of any reform. --- What next? The conversation brought out two fundamental challenges: One, can we reform broken allocation systems, or do we need entirely new approaches that shift power and recognise diverse water rights? Two, can we do the work required fast enough? What do you think? “We need to recognize and make things which are unseen seen. Going away from only formal tenure, but recognizing different kinds of use before we allocate. Otherwise, the structural injustice will persist, simply because we are ignoring and not taking into account the real water users in the field.” -Mohamad Mova Al’Afghani, Center for Regulation, Policy and Governance Get in touch to work together on these topics or to get updates on the results of our research on water allocation (info@win-s.org) > --- Panellist presentations: Jonatan Godinez-Madrigal presented findings from a two-year global comparative study by IHE Delft examining water allocation regimes. He discussed a major gap between systems on paper and systems in practice. He also highlighted systemic weaknesses in permits, pricing mechanisms, and platforms for water allocation, noting how these dwarf already very common individual acts of corruption. He also pointed out the difficult position of allocation officials with limited resources dealing with unavoidable trade-offs. He argued solutions must be built on transparency, accountability, and participation. More on his research: https://www.un-ihe.org/water-allocation-and-rights-project Fermin Reygadas traced Mexico's severe water crisis to failures rooted in 1990s reforms that combined neoliberal market-based policy with massive investment for large infrastructure, while neglecting investment in regulatory capacity. He shared examples of change and resistance, for example from Indigenous communities in the region of Oaxaca who have rejected individual permits in favour of collective action to protect the aquifers, limit extraction, and restore water levels. He focused on the need for communities to act together, the need for political incentives, and the usefulness of feedback loops for decision-makers to live with the consequences of their actions. More resources: https://ecologica.jornada.com.mx/2024/10/20/agua-para-pocos-costos-para-todos-375.html https://ecologica.jornada.com.mx/2024/10/20/la-inaplazable-defensa-comunitaria-del-agua-3392.html Mohamad Mova Al'Afghani presented research from the Cimanuk River Basin in Indonesia examining agency tenure: the water rights held by public institutions with operational mandates, particularly those controlling irrigation infrastructure. In Indonesia, where 80% of water use is agricultural and most farmers depend on irrigation networks, the officials managing water gates wield enormous power over which areas receive water. The research documented cases of structural injustice and reports of "water mafia" operating during drought seasons. He closed with possible avenues of response at the level of the river basin organisation in staffing, division of responsibilities, complaint systems, and technology for control. More resources water tenure and this research: https://www.fao.org/in-action/scalewat/water-tenure/global-dialogue-on-water-tenure/en Mary Galvin presented WIN's research on integrity risks in water allocation systems, with particular focus on permitting systems. She introduced a framework distinguishing between procedural integrity risks in the implementation of allocation systems (at various stages from policy development to compliance monitoring) and integrity issues of the system itself, a crucial conceptual distinction. At the procedural level, she identified risks including policy capture and lobbying by powerful groups, collusion between officials and interest groups over drought rules, manipulation of data in water availability assessments, and unclear roles and responsibilities that create exploitation opportunities. Systemic integrity failures occur when even exemplary implementation cannot produce equitable and sustainable outcomes. --- Recording

Frequently Asked Questions What is sexual corruption in water and sanitation? What makes sexual corruption different from other forms of GBV in the water and sanitation sectors? Is sexual corruption really common in the water and sanitation sectors? How does sexual corruption affect women’s rights and wellbeing? Who is most vulnerable to sexual corruption in water and sanitation? Does water and sanitation infrastructure make a difference? Are there effective responses or preventive mechanisms for sexual corruption? What can I or my organisation do? Understanding sexual corruption, or "sex for water" What is sexual corruption in water and sanitation? Sexual corruption, or "sextortion", is a form of corruption where sex — rather than money — is the currency of a bribe. It occurs when someone in a position of power abuses that power to get sexual acts in exchange for a service, opportunity, or benefit. In the water and sanitation sectors for example, someone could be coerced into sexual acts to: Get access to water Obtain or renew water connections Skip long queues, expedite long processes, or avoid inflated prices Gain access to toilets or bathing areas Sexual corruption can happen anywhere: in schools, workplaces, administrative offices, or when accessing essential services like WASH or healthcare, anywhere in the world. Women are most often affected but others can be affected too. The term was first popularised by the International Association of Women Judges (IAWJ) in 2009, and it is now recognised globally as both a form of corruption and a form of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). This double definition is important. It highlights that sexual corruption is not like other forms of gender-based violence and not like other forms of abuse of power. Sexual corruption in water and sanitation reflects unequal access and power dynamics. It is linked to gender inequality, corruption, and poor infrastructure. It limits the human rights to water and sanitation and violates basic human rights principles of equal rights and non-discrimination. What makes sexual corruption different from other forms of GBV in the water and sanitation sectors? Sexual corruption is a hybrid abuse: It is sexual exploitation/abuse (because it violates bodily autonomy). It is corruption (because it involves the misuse of entrusted power and a coercive “exchange”). Even if physical violence is not used, there is hidden pressure to engage, especially as water and sanitation are basic and essential. Most legal systems treat sexual violence and corruption as separate crimes, leaving sexual corruption in a grey area. When laws do not explicitly recognise the act, victims struggle to seek justice. The transactional element of sexual corruption complicates recognition and also reporting. Even where laws exist, survivors often lack safe, confidential ways to report incidents or access legal aid and psychological or social support in the water and sanitation sectors and beyond. Survivors fear they will be wrongly portrayed as complicit and there are reports they also distrust the police and judiciary to take action. Furthermore, the sexual element means it is not, or rarely, detected or covered by tradition anti-corruption systems. Corruption reporting mechanisms are still too rarely oriented to protect or support victims. As a result, sexual corruption remains very much taboo. Perpetrators remain unpunished, and the cycle of abuse continues. Is sexual corruption really common in the water and sanitation sectors? Women have specific water and sanitation needs. In many places, women and girls also collect and manage water for their households. When access is limited or controlled, by meter readers, repair workers, water truck operators, contractors, informal providers, or landlords, women are then on the front line for abuse. Scarcity and poor services, high levels of informality, long distances to facilities, weak oversight, or unclear complaint systems increase the power imbalance and the risk. Though it is poorly documented or studied, there is evidence that sexual corruption in water and sanitation is widespread but taboo. Cases have been reported in the water and sanitation sectors in many countries including Kenya, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Colombia, and the United States. More extensive research has also been carried out in Kenya, Mexico, Bangladesh, and Uganda. How does sexual corruption affect women’s rights and wellbeing? Sexual corruption violates the human rights to water, sanitation, and the principles of equality, and dignity. Victims face physical, psychological, and social harm. Many experience depression, anxiety, or trauma, compounded by shame, stigma, and fear of reprisal. The impacts go beyond individuals: Public trust declines, undermining confidence in service providers and institutions Gender inequality deepens, as women’s safety and access are compromised Development goals stall, since corruption in water and sanitation directly affects health, livelihoods, and education Understanding risk, preventing, and responding to sexual corruption Who is most vulnerable to sexual corruption in water and sanitation? Research from Kenya, Bangladesh, and Uganda shows that sexual corruption disproportionately affects poor, water-insecure, and less educated women. The main drivers of risk are: Poverty: When people cannot afford official fees or bribes, they may be coerced into sexual exchanges instead. Water insecurity: Those relying on shared or informal water sources are at higher risk, as they often depend on gatekeepers for access. Low literacy and awareness: Lack of education limits knowledge of rights and available reporting mechanisms. Gender and social norms: In many contexts, women are expected to remain silent about sexual abuse, leading to severe underreporting. Does water and sanitation infrastructure make a difference? Improved infrastructure directly reduces vulnerability to sexual corruption. Studies show that women with private, piped water connections or household toilets are significantly less exposed to sexual corruption. Investments should prioritise: Expanding household-level water connections Installing safe, well-lit, private sanitation facilities Reducing travel time and exposure to unsafe or informal access points Strengthening community oversight of WASH projects Infrastructure alone is not enough, but it forms the backbone of prevention by minimising dependence on informal systems where abuse thrives. Are there effective responses or preventive mechanisms for sexual corruption? Tackling sexual corruption requires addressing both its corruption and gender dimensions. Strong integrity systems in the water and sanitation sectors can reduce opportunities for abuse and empower users to demand accountability. When WASH service delivery is transparent, affordable, and inclusive, the discretionary power that enables sexual corruption diminishes. In addition to better infrastructure, key actions include: Legal recognition: Define sexual corruption as both corruption and sexual abuse in anti-corruption and gender-based violence laws. Definitions must highlight abuse of power and ensure survivors are not criminalised. Policy integration: Include sexual corruption in national integrity frameworks, WASH strategies, and sector guidelines Training and awareness: Equip officials, contractors, and community workers to recognise, prevent, and respond to sexual corruption Reporting mechanisms: Create safe, anonymous channels for survivors to report abuse without fear Victim support: Provide access to counselling, legal aid, and community-based protection systems Community engagement: Promote awareness and challenge norms that normalise abuse or silence victims What can I or my organisation do? Name it explicity (in policies, training, reporting categories) and share this FAQ! In addition to implementing gender-sensitive programmes and infrastructure, your organisation can: Join calls for research and recognition of sexual corruption in water and sanitation and beyond. Raise awareness within your organisation on the dual nature of sexual corruption and highlight the abuse of entrusted power. Note the risks in service delivery, programme implementation, and human resources. Dedicated training can help (WIN can support you with training) Adapt codes of conduct and establish clear standards of behaviour for staff, contractors, and grantees, for example including clear contractual language prohibiting abuse of power for sexual gain Engage with and support communities, CSOs, and women and GBV protection organisations, also to address underlying drivers of risk Adapt reporting channels and implement survivor centred protection mechanisms: psychosocial support, safety planning, anonymity, referrals—following established GBV/PSEA protocols. Investigate the service-provision environment (billing, access logs, water-trucking schedules, repair orders) or collaborate with researchers to document corruption patterns without exposing survivors. Strengthen oversight of frontline workers, contractors, and local gatekeepers. We can build systems that serve people, not exploit them. The fight against sexual corruption in water and sanitation is not just about stopping abuse, it’s about ensuring that everyone can access water and sanitation safely, fairly, and with dignity.

New research on the prevalence of sexual corruption in access to WASH in three districts reveals urgent need for recognition and action In 2024-2025, WIN, with support from UWASNET and ANEW, carried out research in Bunyangabu, Kabarole, and Lira districts in Uganda on the prevalence of sexual corruption in access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services. Sexual corruption (sometimes referred to as sextortion) happens when someone in a position of power demands, hints at, or accepts sexual acts in exchange for water and sanitation access, repairs, connections, jobs, or rights. --- "Sex for water" is real and affects women in several districts The women interviewed for the research revealed a widespread but hidden problem threatening women accessing WASH in different districts of Uganda. The research shows clearly that sexual corruption is a specific issue, unlike other forms of gender-based violence. It confirms earlier findings from Kenya and Bangladesh, showing that poverty, water insecurity, long travel times, and district-level governance gaps drive risk, not individual traits or behaviour. Interestingly, the results vary significantly between districts. --- Recognise, raise awareness, and build safe water infrastructure To ensure progress on Uganda's targets for water and sanitation access and gender equality, targeted action is necessary to prevent and stop sexual corruption in the water and sanitation sectors. There are three key levers for change in the WASH sector: Formal recognition of sexual corruption in law and policy, with the dual definition of corruption / abuse of power and gender-based violence. Better infrastructure, close to or at home, and designed for women's safety. Awareness and safeguards within water and sanitation institutions, oversight and enforcement bodies, and service providers. See all the findings, download the brief: Lessons learned from campaigns against sexual corruption in East Africa Civil society networks in Kenya, ANEW and KEWASNET, worked with legislators to bring sexual corruption in water access onto the national agenda after research documented widespread “sex for water” practices. A formal petition in Parliament to amend the Penal Code to explicitly criminalise sexual corruption has led to cross-sector commitments for better recognition and is on track to be formally acted on. Three key elements have been key to decisive action on sexual corruption issues in water and sanitation in Kenya but also in education in Tanzania and other sectors globally: Exposure and awareness, backed by research and evidence of the practice, Legal recognition based on dual framing of corruption / abuse of power AND sexual and gender-based violence, Targeted measures and codes of conducts within sector institutions. --- DOWNLOAD Title A Call to Protect Women and Ensure Safe Access to Water and Sanitation in Uganda: Research on Prevalence of Sexual Corruption in Access to WASH in Three Disctricts Reveals Urgent Need for Action Author Water Integrity Network December 2025 Contributors ANEW, UWASNET Description Key results from surveys in three disctricts of Uganda on experiences of sexual corruption in the water and sanitation sectors. Description of the approach, key findings including on the drivers of risk (including poverty, water insecurity, long travel times to fetch water, district-level governance gaps). Recommendations focus on need for recognition and awareness, need for better infrastructure and clear service standards, social protection measures, and more research.

Case Study In rural Bangladesh, many communities face a familiar challenge: there is a basic water system but service falls short. Maintenance is neglected, influential individuals control systems for their personal benefit, and users have little say in how their water services are managed . Weak governance, poor management, and a lack of accountability are often hiding behind these operational problems. Participant in the first IMT-SWSS workshop in Godagari placing input on integrity red flags on the community water system map (photo by DASCOH) A new case study from DASCOH Foundation details how addressing integrity problems head-on can unlock better water services. Working in two schemes in Godagari, Rajshahi District, DASCOH implemented the Integrity Management Toolbox for Small Water Supply Systems (IMT-SWSS) a process for communities to strengthen their management committees and link to local duty bearers. Download full case study (pdf) A Community-Driven Process with Practical Tools DASCOH and the communities used the IMT-SWSS to map their water systems, analyse stakeholders, identify root problems, and select integrity tools to address these problems. Crucially, communities decided their own priorities. DASCOH facilitated but didn't prescribe solutions. The communities chose tools that appear straightforward but can make a big difference in terms of transparency, accountability, and integrity, with cascading effects. This includes simple bookkeeping systems, regular committee meetings with written resolutions, complaint mechanisms using mobile phones, bank accounts for safer money management. DASCOH and the communities also launched regular democratic dialogues where users can provide feedback, get information and even review financial records. After year of implementation and despite political upheaval across Bangladesh, engagement with the community has dramatically increased participation of women in the committee itself and in meetings. Payments rates have increased, and local budgets have been adapted to include new allocations for water systems and maintenance . Practical Lessons for Rural Water Programmes The case study offers frank insights for practitioners. Engaging local government bodies from the outset proved essential. Addressing cultural barriers to women's participation required sustained commitment, not one-off interventions. Communities needed ongoing education about service provider responsibilities to build trust. And flexibility mattered—when water meter installation proved financially unfeasible, communities adapted their approach rather than abandoning their action plans. The full case study includes detailed descriptions of the preparation phase, planning workshops, stakeholder analysis, and implementation timelines. Why This Matters Now For programme officers and funders working in rural water, this case study demonstrates that integrity isn't a soft add-on to technical interventions. It is fundamental to whether systems actually deliver services. The IMT-SWSS provides a replicable process that communities can own , with tools adaptable to different contexts and resource constraints. To learn more about the IMT-SWSS or discuss its application  in your context, contact us. DOWNLOAD

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