FREE ONLINE COURSE Introductory level. Self-paced (4 modules, about 16 hours). We're sorry, this course is currently full. Please sign up for notifications about a next session here. An exploration of how integrity can support the implementation of CWIS projects, with a focus on regulation for CWIS and how regulation and integrity complement each other in the realisation of the human right to sanitation. Citywide Inclusive Sanitation is a framework to ensure everyone in the city has access to adequate and affordable improved sanitation services over time through appropriate systems, both sewered and non-sewered. It is a response to investment policies that have prioritised the construction and extension of sewered systems (for example, pipes, water treatment plants, and in-house connections) but left large parts of the population unserved, especially in newer or informal settlements. This has serious consequences on public health and the environment, as well as on the development of the city.  Improving existing sanitation options, including non-sewered sanitation, is key to increasing coverage. This approach requires more attention, resources and an enabling environment. Course outline: Module 1: Basic concepts: Integrity and CWIS Module 2: Integrity and regulation  Module 3: Integrity risks along the sanitation value chain Module 4: Supporting integrity and regulation in CWIS programmes Who is this course for? Regulators, specialists, and professionals from the sanitation sector Academics and policy makers involved in sanitation projects Objectives By the end of the course, participants will have a clear understanding of how integrity supports the implementation of CWIS projects and how robust regulatory frameworks can ensure inclusive, equitable sanitation, fulfilling the human right to sanitation. They will be able to: Understand the basic concepts of integrity, regulation, and CWIS Analyse how integrity helps to achieve better regulation in CWIS programmes Understand and respond to integrity risks along the sanitation value chain Examine how transparency, accountability, participation, and anti-corruption play out in practice through case studies from different parts of the world. Certification Upon course completion  Language In English

FREE ONLINE COURSE Introductory level. Self-paced (3 modules, about 16 hours). Open. Register here. An introduction to corruption and integrity in the water and sanitation sectors, with input on critical vulnerabilities. Participants learn about the links between integrity, good governance and sustainability of water and sanitation services and learn about four principles of integrity (Transparency, Accountability, Participation, Anti-corruption) to strengthen water and sanitation programmes. The course also includes an introduction to key integrity tools that practitioners can use to assess and address major integrity risks. Course outline: Module 1: Introducing key concepts of integrity and corruption Module 2: Integrity as a cornerstone of good water governance Module 3: Integrity tools and approaches: getting down to work Who is this course for? This course is a good fit for people who are seeking a firm understanding of good governance principles and who need a quick overview of different tools and approaches to handle integrity risks. Members of civil society,  international organisations, private sector, and youth movements. Decision and policy makers, regulators, and high-level professionals and managers active in governmental bodies. Students, professors and researchers active in the fields of water governance, water service delivery, sanitation, sustainable water management, Integrated Water Resources Management, and human rights-based approaches. Language English Course created by the Water Integrity Network (WIN), SIWI, and Cap-Net UNDP for the Water Integrity Learning Group.

FREE ONLINE COURSE Introductory level. Self-paced (3 modules, about 12 hours). Open now. Register here for the course in English . Regístrese aquí para el curso en español . An exploration of the overlooked corruption and water integrity failures contributing to poor service in informal settlements, and what to do about them. This course highlights the importance of rethinking approaches to service in low-income areas and outlines the responsibilities of sector stakeholders, in line with the human rights to water and sanitation. Participants learn to identify integrity failures in the water and sanitation sectors and to explore how these issues might affect their work in cities or peri-urban settings. The course draws on case studies from Peru, South Africa, Kenya, and more to introduce ways to strengthen integrity and reduce opportunities for corruption through transparency, accountability and participation. Course outline: Module 1: Informal settlements overview Module 2: Manifestations of integrity failures Module 3: Strengthening integrity Who is this course for? Political leaders, civil society members, human rights advocates, regulators, and water utility staff. Students and researchers in social and technical disciplines. Urban planners, engineers, and architects. Language: English or Spanish

Identifying red flags in planning processes for water infrastructure, from undue influence, inadequate consultation or feasibility studies, to misuse of budgets. WHEN TO USE IT To improve planning processes by identifying red flags in early-stage decision-making and planning processes for water and sanitation infrastructure. To monitor infrastructure planning and hold authorities accountable. HOW IT WORKS FIIP is a data framework, with indicators and data standards for integrity. It covers early phases of infrastructure projects (Strategic planning, Screening and appraisal including feasibility studies, and Budgeting and approval). It evaluates 7 risk areas: from undue influence in decision-making, to misaligned priorites, or manipulated budget processes. HOW IT WAS DEVELOPED FIIP was developed with CoST – Infrastructure Transparency Initiative with support from the Inter-American Development Bank. It has been piloted in Latin America where it helped highlight possible areas of improvement for procuring entities related to: feasibility studies, use and correlation of data on service levels to aid decision-making, and compliance with procedures. Find out more about results and lessons learned from the pilot: HOW TO USE IT We are currently piloting the framework further and open to collaboration with procuring and implementing agencies. Download Methodology Guide:

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

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 .

FREE ONLINE COURSE Introductory level. Self-paced course in Spanish (3 modules, about 12 hours). Open. Register here. An examination of how water and sanitation utilities in Latin America can effectively manage the integrity risks that jeopardise their work and impact. This course provides an overview of practical strategies and tools to promote ethical and transparent management within utilities and thus improve performance and service delivery. Participants explore different integrity dilemmas that may arise in their daily work and the ways to deal with them. They learn directly from the experiences of peers in Latin America and other regions to improve integrity practices. Course outline: Module 1: Integrity risks in water and sanitation utilities Module 2: Strategies and tools to initiate and strengthen integrity processes Module 3: The integrity dilemmas water and sanitation service providers face Who is this course for? Decision-makers in water and sanitation utilities in Latin America who want to initiate or strengthen integrity processes in their organization. Water and sanitation professionals interested in applying integrity management processes within utility companies. Language Spanish

An examination of water governance and regulatory challenges in England and Wales related to financialisation in the water and sanitation sectors. Most water companies in England and Wales have transitioned to ownership by private equity funds, sovereign wealth funds, and pension funds. This shift has allowed for complex financial practices and financial extraction. Regulation has been relatively slow to respond. This working paper takes the integrity perspective and looks at transparency, power dynamics, and capacity issues driving the situation. The England and Wales water sector faces an intractable set of problems. Huge investment is needed at a time when interest rates and inflation have increased and some firms are under financial pressure of high debts. People are struggling to pay bills with an ongoing cost-of-living crisis, and public trust in the water companies is at an all-time low. The situation in the water sector in England and Wales is described by economist Dieter Helm as one of “spectacular regulatory failure”, none of which was inevitable (Plimmer, 2023c). It is unclear how this can all be reconciled within the current structure. Share your feedback here. WORKING PAPER By: Kate Bayliss (SOAS) and Mary Galvin (Water Integrity Network) Published: September 2024 DOWNLOAD (pdf)

Just as the world is aligning around a core set of ideas about how to tackle water and sanitation, the Gates foundation has decided to bet the farm on technology. Not only is this pivot wrongheaded, the way it has been implemented is less than respectful of its partners. Over the past decade there has been an emerging consensus that the solution to the water and sanitation crisis lies in the spheres of politics, governance, economics and planning and not solely (or even mostly) technology. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) has been a major contributor to this movement, notably through its support of City-Wide Inclusive Sanitation (CWIS). Why then, just as the movement the foundation is part of is gaining traction, has it turned back on itself – doubling down on its commitment to technology and signalling its intention to abandon its more systems-focused work? --- A shift in strategy that ignores best practice and leaves the poor behind Back in February we started to hear rumours about a dismaying message being circulated to the BMGF sanitation grantees. Announcing the departure of longstanding head of the programme, Brian Arbogast, it also signalled a strategic pivot - refocusing the foundation's sanitation portfolio on bringing to market technologies developed in their “reinventing the toilet” work. Nothing particularly wrong with that. But. Since dipping their toes in the water and sanitation world back in 2007, the foundation has come to wield an outsize influence on the sector. In this way it has brought welcome investment to a much-neglected area.Thanks to the Gates Foundation’s efforts, "non-sewered" sanitation is now seen as a viable, environmentally friendly option in many parts of the world, rather than just a temporary step towards sewer systems. The reinvented toilets that BMGF grantees have been working on are an important part of this shift. That said, the pivot has a deeply negative downside in that, even as they double down on technical innovation, the foundation is walking away from work related to sanitation systems , work they played a major role in championing – particularly City-Wide Inclusive Sanitation (CWIS). The timing of this decision is also surprising. The world is just coming to accept that, while technology has an important role to play in water and sanitation, water and sanitation are not fundamentally technological sectors. Just then, the foundation decides to focus on technology and bringing technology to market. A market that is, at best, embryonic (indeed an important part of CWIS is market development!). The world is littered with infrastructure that fails to work within a matter of years. This is largely due to institutional and governance failures, as well as lack of participation and inadequate capacity building. Technology alone has been tried before. Now, the strategic move will have severe negative consequences for the organisations that have relied on Gates funding to drive crucial systems work forward. Most worryingly, it will have grave consequences for the recipients of the work, particularly the poorest and most marginalised communities. --- Undermining past progress and future governance work The message announcing the changes made the point that “ innovative technology development and delivery is what originally drew the foundation to the sector ”. This is partly, but only partly true. A decade ago, for the first “landscaping” studies of the foundation, it was clear that technology development was not the only (or main) challenge facing the sector. Indeed, some of the foundation’s biggest early bets (including their generous funding of IRC) were based on “systems” work. What is more, even since the "reinventing the toilet" work started, the foundation has steadily done more and more work on the system side of things (including CWIS), precisely because the demands and markets for the reinvented toilets did not, of themselves, exist. It would appear that part of the thinking is that the foundation can focus on the technical work and others will fund the "softer" stuff. This sends a disturbing message – that one of the biggest and most powerful funders of the sector sees governance and the tough, system, capacity strengthening, and institutional work as being of secondary importance. What does this mean for sanitation policy down the line? --- Abrupt rupture with partners There’s a second part of the decision that is also disturbing: the way it is being implemented. Despite the message announcing the change committing to a “respectful and thoughtful transition” with existing grantees, word on the street is that this is not quite how things are going in practice. Nor did the decision itself come out of dialogue with partners - more like a bolt from the blue. Organisations, like ours, that rely on philanthropy to do our work have no right to expect unending flows. Our donors have a right to change their strategies. Of course. That said, there is a growing body of accepted good practice as to how philanthropies can do this. One that acknowledges the power of their money over their recipients and that puts genuine value behind concepts like dialogue and partnership. Part of that includes communicating strategy shifts clearly and well in advance. This was, sadly, not the case this time. We believe a major organisation like the Gates Foundation can, and should, do better. In the end, it’s the foundation’s money and how they spend it is unarguably their business! Even if how they plan to spend it will undermine the progress they, and the sector, have been making over the last decade. The impact for the 1.5 billion people who still do not have access to a decent sanitation service is dramatic. By Barbara Schreiner, Executive Director, Water Integrity Network Patrick Moriarty, CEO, IRC With: Cántaro Azul DORP End Water Poverty Redes del Agua Latinoamérica Zobair Hasan, Chief REM, DORP Herbert Kashililah, Chair, Shahidi Wa Maji Timothy Kpeh, United Youth, Liberia Sareen Malik, Executive Secretary, ANEW Jane Nabunnya, Country Director, IRC Uganda Dr. Fermín Reygadas Robles Gil, Director General, Cántaro Azul Nathalie Seguin, Global Coordinator, End Water Poverty Photo: Everett Bartels  on Unsplash   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 .

An integrity talk between water and sanitation regulators from Eastern and Southern Africa and Latin America Regulation plays a critical role in ensuring that water and sanitation services are delivered to all in a manner that is equitable, efficient, inclusive, and sustainable. Water and sanitation sector regulators hold service providers accountable and coordinate interactions between policymakers, service providers, and users. They also face a broad range of integrity and corruption-related risks, both internal to their organisations or in the entities that they regulate. A response requires regulation for integrity and regulation with integrity. Regulating for integrity means establishing regulations that ensure honesty, transparency, accountability, participation, and ethical behaviour in regulated entities . Regulating with integrity focuses on how regulatory bodies themselves operate , ensuring they embody the same standards of transparency and accountability that they promote. This is a summary of an Integrity Talk, organised with the Eastern and Southern Africa Water and Sanitation Regulators Association (ESAWAS) on October 23, 2024, looking at these emerging aspects of regulation with a focus on Eastern and Southern Africa and Latin America. With special guests: Robert Gakubia, Supervisory Board Member of WIN and former CEO of WASREB (Kenya) Yvonne Magawa, Executive Secretary of ESAWAS Chola Mbilima, Senior Financial and Commercial Inspector of NWASCO (Zambia) Diego Polanía, former Executive Director CRA (Colombia) José Miguel Kobashikawa Maekawa (Director of Audit Authority, SUNASS (Peru) Moderated by Kelly Acuña, Water Integrity Network (WIN). --- Key takeaways for water and sanitation sector regulators Water and sanitation sector regulators set the tone for integrity : The commitment of regulatory bodies to accountability, transparency and ethical practices directly impacts sector-wide integrity. When regulators lead by example, service providers are more likely to align with integrity standards, fostering trust across the sector. Clear accountability frameworks build public trust : Effective regulatory frameworks require clear responsibilities and well-defined accountability mechanisms: from clear and monitored performance objectives, to enforced measures addressing deviations or ensuring compliance. User engagement ensures equitable service delivery : Involving users in decision-making processes contributes to fairer, more effective services in response to genuine needs. --- A culture of integrity for the sector, for trust and sustainability Robert Gakubia: Accountability frameworks are essential to aligning the interests of service providers with the public good. For example, through clear performance objectives and rigorous monitoring, water and sanitation sector regulators can ensure that the resources dedicated to water and sanitation are used effectively and equitably, rather than lost to inefficiencies or misuse. Beyond these measures, integrity requires proactive engagement and collaboration with both service providers and the communities they serve. By actively engaging communities in the regulatory process, regulators can ensure that the needs of the public are directly represented and addressed. This engagement is key to maintaining accountability, as it encourages providers to act in ways that genuinely reflect community interests and discourages behaviour that could undermine public confidence in the system. Yvonne Magawa : Regulating for integrity in water and sanitation means that we are not just telling providers what to do but ensuring they are equipped and motivated to do so in ways that build public trust. This approach also requires a commitment to engaging users in the regulatory process, providing them with channels for participation and feedback. Ultimately, regulating for integrity fosters a culture of honesty and responsibility that protects essential services from corruption and mismanagement, ensuring they reach those most in need. Regulating with integrity, on the other hand, focuses on how regulatory bodies operate within their own organizations, ensuring they embody the same standards of transparency and accountability they promote. By fostering integrity, we create an environment where water and sanitation service providers and communities alike can rely on the regulatory system. This trust hinges on regulators having the independence and authority to implement and enforce integrity measures that safeguard against corruption and ensure service quality. For instance, by enforcing policies that require clear documentation, transparent data management, and public reporting, regulators can help build an ecosystem where transparency is the norm. “Regulators serve as the foundation upon which trust in the sector is built” -Yvonne Magawa (ESAWAS) José Kobashikawa: Water and sanitation sector egulators must prioritise transparency in our own decision-making processes and ensure accountability to stakeholders, including service providers, policymakers, and the public. It’s all about creating a regulatory culture where integrity is central, not just in policy but in every aspect of operations. This includes clear accountability for regulatory decisions and robust safeguards against conflicts of interest, which not only enhances trust but also ensures that decisions are made in the best interest of the public. Diego Polanía: Regulators must set an example by upholding the highest standards internally, which in turn reinforces their credibility when enforcing integrity in the water and sanitation sectors. “If we, as regulators, do not model integrity, it undermines our authority and the very standards we seek to uphold” –Diego Polanía (CRA) Chola Mbilima: It is important that regulatory frameworks not only address present needs but are adaptable to future challenges. As water and sanitation demands grow, so too must the systems that ensure their equitable and ethical delivery. Regulators have a responsibility to stay ahead of sector changes, developing flexible integrity frameworks that continue to uphold ethical standards even as the sector evolves. --- Examples of regulation for integrity – Kenya, Peru, and Colombia Robert Gakubia: In Kenya, the Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) has established performance-monitoring systems to hold service providers accountable. Clear performance indicators and public reporting requirements have improved transparency, enabling both the public and regulatory bodies to monitor service quality and resource use. These frameworks align provider incentives with public interests, showing that integrity measures are about compliance and creating value for communities. José Kobashikawa: In Peru, the national sanitation regulator (SUNASS), addresses water affordability and accessibility through community engagement and strict anti-corruption measures. Involving local communities in decision-making has been key to SUNASS’s success. By integrating public consultations and transparency in data sharing, SUNASS has been able to tailor services more effectively to meet community needs while reinforcing trust. “We actively listen to communities, which helps in identifying and addressing integrity risks early on. Meaningful engagement fosters public ownership and reduces risks of corruption” –José Kobashikawa Diego Polanía: The Water and Basic Sanitation Regulatory Commission of Colombia (CRA) has incorporated financial and operational audits. These audits are designed to detect mismanagement and to build a framework for continuous improvement. However, audits do more than ensuring compliance with the law, they also identify areas for improvement to strengthen management. --- Challenges for integrity-focused regulation, and how to address them Chola Mbilima: One of our major challenges is limited resources of regulatory bodies. Many regulators operate with constrained budgets and staff shortages, making it difficult to maintain rigorous oversight. This can hinder implementation and enforcement of integrity measures, especially in regions where the demand for water and sanitation services is rapidly increasing. Partnerships with local and international organisations can alleviate some of these constraints with technical support and expertise, but challenges remain. Yvonne Magawa: Another significant challenge is the resistance to change among service providers and, in some cases, within regulatory organisations themselves. Integrating accountability and transparency measures requires a shift in practices and culture, which can be met with reluctance or even opposition. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity here for education and capacity-building, for example, by providing training sessions on integrity and ethics. This can foster a sense of ownership and responsibility among service providers. Building these skills helps create a culture where all parties are invested in upholding integrity. Robert Gakubia: It is difficult to combat corruption, particularly in regions with a history of governance issues. While this challenge can seem overwhelming, it also presents a critical opportunity for transparency initiatives and community engagement. By establishing mechanisms that allow the public to report issues and access information, regulators can create an environment where corruption is more easily detected and addressed. The public is an invaluable ally in maintaining accountability and accessible reporting channels empower communities to take an active role in ensuring integrity. Diego Polanía: There are many regulators that have implemented adequate internal processes that strength transparency and prevent malpractices. The challenge is that these processes are not visible to the public. Regulators can do more to make information easily accessible to the public by creating platforms and spaces to showcase what regulators are doing and generate trust (e.g, updated websites, periodical reports, public consultations, etc.).

Una conversación entre reguladores de agua y saneamiento de África Oriental y Meridional y América Latina La regulación desempeña un papel crucial para garantizar que los servicios de agua y saneamiento se brinden a todos de manera equitativa, eficiente, inclusiva y sostenible. Los reguladores son responsables de exigir cuentas a los proveedores de servicios y de coordinar las interacciones entre los responsables políticos, los proveedores de servicios y los usuarios. Sin embargo, los reguladores también enfrentan una amplia gama de riesgos relacionados con la integridad y la corrupción, tanto internos en sus organizaciones como en las entidades que regulan. Una respuesta eficaz requiere regular para la integridad y regular con integridad. Regular para la integridad significa establecer normas que garanticen honestidad, transparencia, rendición de cuentas, participación y comportamiento ético en las entidades reguladas. Regular con integridad se centra en el funcionamiento interno de los organismos reguladores , asegurando que ellos mismos encarnen los mismos estándares de transparencia y rendición de cuentas que promueven. Este es un resumen de una Charla de Integridad, organizada en colaboración con la Asociación de Reguladores de Agua y Saneamiento de África Oriental y Meridional (ESAWAS , por sus siglas en inglés), el 23 de octubre de 2024, en la que se abordaron estos aspectos emergentes de la regulación con un enfoque en África Oriental y Meridional y América Latina. Invitados especiales: Robert Gakubia, miembro de la Junta Supervisora de WIN y exdirector ejecutivo de WASREB (Kenya), Yvonne Magawa, Secretaria Ejecutiva de ESAWAS, Chola Mbilima, Inspectora Financiera y Comercial de NWASCO (Zambia), Diego Polanía, exdirector ejecutivo de CRA (Colombia), y José Miguel Kobashikawa Maekawa, Director de la Autoridad de Auditoría de SUNASS (Peru). Moderadora: Kelly Acuña, Red de Integridad del Agua (WIN). --- Conclusiones clave Los reguladores marcan la pauta para la integridad: El compromiso de los organismos reguladores con la rendición de cuentas, la transparencia y las prácticas éticas tiene un impacto directo en la integridad de todo el sector. Cuando los reguladores lideran con el ejemplo, los proveedores de servicios tienden a alinearse con los estándares de integridad, fomentando la confianza en todo el sector. Los marcos claros de rendición de cuentas generan confianza pública : Los marcos regulatorios efectivos requieren responsabilidades claras y mecanismos bien definidos de rendición de cuentas, que incluyan objetivos de desempeño monitoreados y medidas aplicadas para abordar desviaciones o garantizar el cumplimiento. La participación de los usuarios asegura una prestación de servicios equitativa: Involucrar a los usuarios en los procesos de toma de decisiones contribuye a entregar un servicio más justo y efectivo, respondiendo a necesidades reales. --- Una cultura de integridad en el sector para la confianza y la sostenibilidad Robert Gakubia: Contar con un marco de rendición de cuentas es esencial para alinear los intereses de los proveedores de servicios con el bien público. Por ejemplo, mediante objetivos claros de desempeño y un monitoreo riguroso, los reguladores pueden garantizar que los recursos destinados al agua y al saneamiento se utilicen de manera efectiva y equitativa, evitando ineficiencias o mal uso. Más allá de estas medidas, la integridad requiere un compromiso proactivo con los proveedores de servicios y las comunidades a las que sirven. Al involucrar activamente a las comunidades en el proceso regulatorio, los reguladores aseguran que las necesidades de los usuarios sean directamente representadas y atendidas, fomentando la confianza pública y la rendición de cuentas. Yvonne Magawa : Regular para la integridad significa no solo decir a los proveedores qué hacer, sino también asegurarse de que estén capacitados y motivados para actuar de manera que se genere confianza. Esto requiere un compromiso con la participación de los usuarios, proporcionando canales para su involucramiento y retroalimentación. Regular con integridad, por otro lado, se enfoca en el funcionamiento interno de los organismos reguladores, asegurando que cumplan los mismos estándares de transparencia y responsabilidad que promueven. “Los reguladores son la base sobre la cual se construye la confianza en el sector” -Yvonne Magawa (ESAWAS) José Kobashikawa: La transparencia en los procesos de toma de decisiones y la rendición de cuentas hacia las partes interesadas son esenciales. Crear una cultura regulatoria centrada en la integridad no solo mejora la confianza, sino que asegura que las decisiones se tomen en base al interés público. Diego Polanía: Los reguladores deben dar el ejemplo manteniendo internamente los más altos estándares, reforzando así su credibilidad al promover la integridad en los sectores de agua y saneamiento. “Si nosotros, como reguladores, no damos el ejemplo con respecto a la integridad, socavamos nuestra autoridad y los estándares que buscamos defender” –Diego Polanía (CRA) Chola Mbilima: Es importante que los marcos regulatorios no solo respondan a las necesidades actuales, sino que sean adaptables a los desafíos futuros. A medida que aumentan las demandas de agua y saneamiento, también deben crecer los sistemas que aseguren una prestación equitativa y ética de estos servicios. Los reguladores tienen la responsabilidad de anticiparse a los cambios en el sector, desarrollando marcos de integridad flexibles que sigan manteniendo los estándares éticos incluso cuando el sector evoluciona. --- Ejemplos de regulación para la integridad – Kenia, Perú y Colombia Robert Gakubia: En Kenia, el Consejo Regulador de los Servicios de Agua (WASREB) ha establecido sistemas de monitoreo de desempeño para responsabilizar a los proveedores de servicios. Indicadores claros de desempeño y requisitos de informes públicos han mejorado la transparencia, permitiendo tanto al público como a los organismos reguladores supervisar la calidad del servicio y el uso de los recursos. Estos marcos alinean los incentivos de los proveedores con los intereses públicos, demostrando que las medidas de integridad no solo tratan de cumplimiento, sino también de generar valor para las comunidades. José Kobashikawa: En Perú, el regulador nacional de saneamiento (SUNASS) aborda la asequibilidad y accesibilidad del agua mediante la participación comunitaria y estrictas medidas anticorrupción. Involucrar a las comunidades locales en la toma de decisiones ha sido clave para el éxito de SUNASS. Al integrar consultas públicas y promover la transparencia en el intercambio de datos, SUNASS ha podido adaptar los servicios de manera más efectiva para satisfacer las necesidades de las personas mientras refuerza la confianza. “Escuchamos activamente a las comunidades, lo que ayuda a identificar y abordar los riesgos de integridad desde una etapa temprana. Una participación significativa fomenta la apropiación pública y reduce los riesgos de corrupción” –José Kobashikawa Diego Polanía: La Comisión de Regulación de Agua Potable y Saneamiento Básico de Colombia (CRA) ha incorporado auditorías financieras y operativas. Estas auditorías están diseñadas para detectar malos manejos y construir un marco para la mejora continua. Sin embargo, las auditorías no solo garantizan el cumplimiento de la ley, sino que también identifican áreas de mejora para fortalecer la gestión. --- Desafíos para una regulación centrada en la integridad y cómo abordarlos Chola Mbilima: Uno de nuestros principales desafíos son los recursos limitados de los organismos reguladores. Muchos reguladores operan con presupuestos ajustados y escasez de personal, lo que dificulta mantener una supervisión rigurosa. Esto puede obstaculizar la implementación y aplicación de medidas de integridad, especialmente en regiones donde la demanda de servicios de agua y saneamiento está aumentando rápidamente. Las asociaciones con organizaciones locales e internacionales pueden aliviar algunas de estas limitaciones mediante apoyo técnico y experiencia, pero los desafíos persisten. Yvonne Magawa: Otro desafío importante es la resistencia al cambio entre los proveedores de servicios y, en algunos casos, dentro de las propias organizaciones reguladoras. Integrar medidas de rendición de cuentas y transparencia requiere un cambio en las prácticas y la cultura, lo cual puede enfrentarse con reticencia o incluso oposición. Sin embargo, aquí existe una oportunidad para la educación y la capacitación, por ejemplo, ofreciendo sesiones de formación sobre integridad y ética. Esto puede fomentar un sentido de apropiación y responsabilidad entre los proveedores de servicios. Desarrollar estas habilidades ayuda a crear una cultura en la que todas las partes estén comprometidas con mantener la integridad. Robert Gakubia: Es difícil combatir la corrupción, particularmente en regiones con un historial de problemas de gobernanza. Aunque este desafío puede parecer abrumador, también presenta una oportunidad crítica para iniciativas de transparencia y participación comunitaria. Estableciendo mecanismos que permitan a los usuarios informar problemas y acceder a información, los reguladores pueden crear un entorno donde la corrupción sea más fácilmente detectada y abordada. Los usuarios son un aliado invaluable en el mantenimiento de la rendición de cuentas, y los canales accesibles de denuncia empoderan a las personas para tomar un papel activo en asegurar la integridad. Diego Polanía: Muchos reguladores han implementado procesos internos adecuados que fortalecen la transparencia y previenen malas prácticas. El desafío es que estos procesos no son visibles para la gente. Los reguladores pueden hacer más para que la información sea fácilmente accesible, creando plataformas y espacios que muestren lo que están haciendo y generen confianza (por ejemplo, sitios web actualizados, informes periódicos, consultas públicas, etc.).