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

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

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

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

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

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

UNDERSTANDING INTEGRITY RISKS RELATED TO HOW WATER AND SANITATION INFRASTRUCTURE IS DECIDED ON, PLANNED, AND RESOURCED DATES 2023-Current LOCATION(S) Global PARTNERS CoST WHAT IT'S ABOUT We often hear of water and sanitation projects that are not living up to expectations. Wastewater treatment plants that are not in operation after being built, pipelines with maxed out budgets that are years behind schedule, systems that do not have the capacity to deliver sufficient service even before they are completed. Poor planning is often to blame and poor integrity is a major underestimated driver. There are many tools and approaches to identify and limit integrity risks in infrastructure procurement and construction. Far less attention has been paid to ensuring integrity in early-stage planning even though issues at this phase -like capture, rent-seeking, favoritism - directly influence whether a project is viable, appropriate, sustainable, and adequately addressing needs including for the most vulnerable. In response to this challenge, WIN and the Infrastructure Transparency Initiative (CoST), with support from the Inter-American Development Bank, mapped risks and developed a Framwork for Integrity in Infrastructure Planning. The tool includes a set of indicators and associated data points, with reporting templates for institutions involved in infrastructure planning. The tool is currently being piloted in Latin America. PUBLICATIONS Lessons learned from piloting the Framework for Integrity in Infrastructure Planning: FIND OUT MORE OR GET INVOLVED Contact our programme coordinator

A shortfall of finance is hampering progress on SDGs. Yet available public funds, for water in sanitation in particular, often fail to be used effectively, or do not reach those most in need. Mismanagement, inefficiencies, and corruption are contributing to the situation. In this Integrity Talk, organised with Sanitation and Water for All , partners discussed ways to increase participation and integrity, as means to use public funds more effectively. This is an edited summary of the main discussion points of Integrity Talk 8 on Participation and water and sanitation sector finance, which took place online on September 19, 2023. See other Integrity Talk summaries here . With special guests: Meghna Abraham, Executive Director of the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) ; Bubala Muyovwe, Coordinator of the Zambia NGO WASH Forum; Alejandro Calvache, Coordinator at The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Moderated by Mary Galvin, Research Coordinator at the Water Integrity Network (WIN). Key Takeaways There are contested agendas and narratives on financing and the availability of public funding . People are struggling to find answers to whether the public sector can provide and meet the finance gap and what role other actors can and should play, on whose terms and with who benefitting. These are debates that relate to voice, power, capture, and ultimately integrity. There is no doubt that there are financing challenges and these impact service providers acutely in many regions, as in Zambia. There is not one solution however. It’s important to consider challenges in context, along with issues related to international donor funding, international financial flows, and debt burden . Water and sanitation sector actors are building successful and important alliances to hold authorities and funders to account (as shown by the cross-sector advocacy work of the NGO WASH Forum in Zambia) and to address financing needs at local level (as shown by the impact of multi-actor Water Funds Latin America). Session Overview Mary Galvin (WIN) explained that this session was linked to WIN’s forthcoming launch of its flagship report, the Water Integrity Global Outlook on ensuring integrity in financing water and sanitation , with a focus on one aspect of the puzzle: participation and integrity in public sector finance. Meghna Abraham (CESR) framed the session by highligting the need for a human rights perspective on financing the sector, which puts an emphasis on the responsibilities of States. ( See recording ) Bubala Muyovwe (NGO WASH Forum) shared information about NGO WASH Forum’s work to hold the Zambian government accountable on its budget promises to the water and sanitation sectors. ( See recording ) Alejandro Calvache (TNC) presented Water Funds, local collective action platforms to mobilise resources for catchment protection measures. ( See recording ) Finally, speakers answered questions from participants and noted their takeaways from the session. Discussion What do you consider the main challenges for financing in the WASH sector? Meghna Abraham: The human rights framework allows us to focus on the basic right to water and highlight the intersections of different discriminations people face when it comes to water and sanitation, which have deep historical context. It also sheds light on WASH’s relationship with other issues of unequal access, for example in education or health. The framework puts emphasis on the responsibilities of States to provide access and also on obligations for international assistance and cooperation. Here we arrive at the problem of finance. The current narrative on WASH financing is one of scarcity, by which there is a funding gap because there isn’t enough money in the public sector for progress on SDGs. Private money is proposed as the solution to the funding gap, which leads to an emphasis on creating incentives for private investment, on making investments profitable for the private sector, and on creating new asset classes for infrastructure and nature itself. This leads to financialisation. The key question we must ask is whether this is a good model. We tend to focus on developing or calling for safeguards, like due diligence standards or participation, instead of looking at the model itself. Are we actually addressing the problems and huge inequalities that are inherently built into the model? Who is setting the terms of the discussion? It’s important to acknowledge that a lot of countries are being forced into this position because of a very vicious debt and austerity cycle, in itself imposed by international actors. [Water and sanitation] requires a lot of investment, in infrastructure, in addressing inequalities, which cannot be driven by a profit logic but by the logic coming from human rights. It is a state obligation. These are public goods and we require investment whether or not it is profitable in the end. - Meghna Abraham, Executive Director, Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) If you look at the SDG agenda, there really is a massive financing gap. The money we anticipated as necessary is not on the table, not from ODA and not from other sources. But there isn’t enough focus on how to free up public resources and address weaknesses in tax rules or look at profit sharing methods, all neglected ways to raise revenue. There is one narrative, that obscures alternative solutions. This should be questioned. We want the conditions internationally and domestically that make public financing both available but also accountable to people in terms of how it's being spent. - Meghna Abraham, Executive Director, Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) How has civil society participation improved the use of public funds for water and sanitation in Zambia? Bubala Muyovwe: The NGO WASH Forum in Zambia is a network of 40 international and local NGOs and community-based organisations advocating for improved financing and equitable, sustainable service delivery. We also work to strengthen civil society capacity and participation in these spaces. Zambia is landlocked. It has a population of almost 20 million people. About 72% of the population has access to water and 54% has access to sanitation, but these overall figures hide big inequities between rural and urban areas. The big issues we see in terms of public finance for water and sanitation are: a general decrease in budget allocation despite commitments to progressively increase investment much higher per capita spending for people living in urban areas compared to people living in rural areas, and poor budget execution, with only 37% of promised budget actually disbursed to the water and sanitation sectors. These issues combine with inadequate or dilapidated infrastructure, challenges in informal settlements, high non-revenue water levels, high energy costs that impact utility finances, a huge debt stock, and climate change. Historically Zambia has been donor dependent but sources have claimed that even donors are not fulfilling their complete pledges for contributions. This means institutions and services providers are squeezed for resources, there is a financing gap. The NGO WASH Forum built alliances with other networks focusing on gender issues or poverty alleviation, education, or social protection. This ensured that even when we were not in the room, there was always someone speaking WASH. We engaged with political parties and members of Parliament. We reviewed and highlighted gaps in manifestos. We also began dialogues with the ministries – Finance, National Planning, Water – highlighting human rights obligations, the need to focus on the needs of rural populations as well as women and girls, and discussing the big issue of debt. As a result, water, sanitation, and hygiene has much more visibility, including from the highest offices in the land. New avenues have been opened to use resources from local funds (The Constituency Development Fund in particular). Some of the submissions we made to various committees were adopted. Importantly, the water sector received 94.1% of its national budget allocation, a huge improvement. A large number of MPs have now expressed willingness to set up a WASH parliamentary caucus and we have also seen improvements for accountability, in the planning and reporting mechanisms. We’re able to ask questions on why progress is slow, why targets haven’t been met. And the government representatives share some of the challenges they face, whether it’s with procurement processes that slow down getting services to people or something else. - Bubala Muyovwe, Coordinator of the Zambia NGO WASH Forum We have struggled a little to directly discuss corruption issues in the sector. There have been studies and the auditor general did a report on the performance of water utilities which raised a number governance issues. What we have done is respond to parliamentarians and make proposals. We do want to go a step further and assess willingness of service providers to adopt some of the recommendations of the auditor general. How has The Nature Conservancy approached financing of water programmes in Latin America? Alejandro Calvache : The main premise of our work, is that everything we do, everything we promote as a human activity has consequences on our water flows, in terms of quantity but also in terms of quality. This is not just one problem, it’s a collective one which needs to rely on everyone for a solution, from homes, to citizens, to companies, to governments. It is not enough to have good dams, good treatment plants. It is also important for nature to be able to recover and provide water over the long term. To support this, our proposal is collective action platforms which we call Water Funds. A Water Fund has a board that provides guidance on Water Fund interventions, priorities and funding. There’s a jointly defined strategic plan of interventions with the protection of the watershed as main goal. It’s a flexible model. Each Water Fund can involve different players but it’s always multi-stakeholder and most often involves both the public and private sector. How the Water Funds finance their interventions varies. Some funding commitments are from external donors. The Inter-American Developmebt Bank has provided significant funding in some regions for example. The private sector also makes commitments in certain Funds, and in some contexts, funding is primarily from the public sector. The financing does not change the governance models or the decision making process. In the Water Funds, there is a long term relationship, based on strategic plans, which are based on science and agreements between the stakeholders to reach a common goal. - Alejandro Calvache, Coordinator at The Nature Conservancy (TNC) There are three critical elements to our interventions. First our Water Funds are meant to be operational for the very long term, at least 20-30 years. Second, the collective action concept is key. These platforms are meant to be formed not only by public sector stakeholders but also corporate ones, but especially with civil society, local communities, local organisations, local authorities. The third element is science. We need to make sure we have science robust enough to develop a best approach in conservation or in any activity we deploy in the watershed. What are other ways to make better use of public funds? We know that corruption drains funds and preventing corruption can free up resources. Participants in the chat are also suggesting ICT, especially for reducing non-revenue water, or indigenous approaches to water management and WASH. What are your views? Alejandro Calvache: Many activities led by indigenous communities for conservation, or fisheries, or water management are better and more cost effective than plans brought in from the outside. And respecting culture and promoting local ways of conservation is not only important for sustainability but also for local participation. Working at the local level is key. Bubala Muyovwe: I am curious as to what we really mean by indigenous WASH. Some traditions work, and we shouldn’t interfere with them. We can’t copy-paste everywhere. But others are not so clear cut. Using ash to wash hands is a traditional practice but it’s also a practice that stems from people not being able to afford soap. Constructing sanitation facilities with local materials is another example that has advantages and disadvantages. Meghna Abraham: It is key that we do look at empowering communities to be able to protect and continue practices that are important to them. Sometimes we have to acknowledge there are also tensions, maybe on gender, maybe on health or other aspects. We do have to consider the price tag. We also need to build better alliances, with groups working on agriculture and food sovereignty, with groups working on health, because the issues are linked. In terms of corruption, it is a bit convenient to use corruption as a scapegoating exercise for developing countries but there is corruption everywhere. We need to broaden our reference framework. The issue of state capture is indeed also key to the debate and we need to critically examine who dictates the agenda. Recording Part 1 Meghna Abraham, CESR, framing the discussion on availability of public funding for water and sanitation and possible solutions to a funding gap. Part 2 Bubala Muyovwe, NGO WASH Forum, discussing her work holding the Zambia government to account on its WASH budget promises. Part 3 Alejandro Calvache, TNC, presenting Water Funds, local multi-stakeholder action platforms for water protection Part 4 Discussion and Takeaways from Integrity Talk 8 on water and sanitation sector finance

Loss and damage is already hammering the water sector. Thanks but no thanks for the empty promises. By: Barbara Schreiner, Water Integrity Network; Tim Brewer, Water Witness International; Patrick Moriarty, IRC; and Malesi Shivaji, KEWASNET A “landmark deal” on the Loss and Damage Fund was agreed at the start of COP 28 , to a standing ovation from delegates. We welcome progress on this fund – it aims to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries pay for the irreversible impacts of the climate catastrophe, many of which will be felt in the water sector. However, history suggests that a healthy dose of scepticism is in order. That’s because it enters into force in a context in which existing commitments have not been met. And, at a time in which aggressive tax avoidance and illicit financial flows continue to undermine the financial health of developing countries. To combat this, transparency and accountability are critical for the loss and damage fund, and, indeed, all climate funding. Equally important is the need to curb the ongoing outflow of dirty money from the south to the north. The tremendous need for funding for loss and damage The climate catastrophe is hitting increasingly hard. Many of the impacts are water related; through floods, droughts, deteriorating water quality or destruction of water supply systems. Vulnerable communities across the globe are experiencing water-related crises, devastating huge numbers of lives and livelihoods. As organisations active in water, we are seriously concerned about the world’s ability to manage these impacts and move forward with meeting SDG 6 and realising the human rights to water and sanitation. In July and August 2022, massive floods inundated one third of Pakistan, driving millions from their homes. The flood caused ongoing food shortages and outbreaks of waterborne disease, and a $16.3 billion reconstruction bill . Pakistan is responsible for less than 1% of global carbon emissions , hardly commensurate with the devastation it suffered due to climate change. Unsurprisingly, Pakistan has been a leading voice in the call for a Loss and Damage Fund, a call that has been resisted for many years by wealthy nations. Carbon emissions continue to climb and it is increasingly unlikely that we will meet the 1,5 degree target. Adaptation processes are not up to speed. Vast numbers of poor people in developing countries are suffering from the impacts of climate change which they did not cause. Funding for adaptation, and for loss and damage are essential. The bill for the Pakistan flood in 2022 - in the billions , for one event - is indicative of the desperate need. Insufficient pledges. Unfulfilled pledges. Creative accounting. We can do better. At COP28, just over $700 million has been committed to the Loss and Damage Fund so far, as a once off (noting that it is still early days). This is a drop in the bucket when set against the projected economic cost of loss and damage by 2030; estimated at USD 400 billion a year by one study and between USD 290 and 580 billion in another - in developing countries alone. By 2050 this cost rises to USD 1 to 1.8 trillion . The type and timing of these pledges is still unclear. This is important, as wealthy, polluting countries are failing to meet the pledges they have already made. In the 2015 Paris Accord, 196 countries pledged to provide $100 billion a year in new funding for low- and middle-income countries to adapt in the face of climate change. By 2021, six years later, the OECD reported that total annual climate finance amounted to USD 89.6 billion , approaching, but not yet meeting the Paris Accord target. However, Oxfam reports that up to a third of these funds are repurposed development aid , not new funding . In addition, a large proportion of the funding is in the form of loans, which must be repaid. At the same time, adaptation finance (critical for the water sector) dropped by USD 4 billion, reducing the adaptation share of total climate finance from 34% to 27%. This is a major concern since effective adaptation will significantly reduce the requirements from the Loss and Damage Fund. The provision of climate financing through loans is particularly problematic. It means that poor countries must pay twice (if not three times) for climate change: once through the devastating impacts of a climate crisis that they did not cause; again through the payment of loan interest, adding to the debt burdens of already heavily indebted countries; and, sometimes even a third time, through the currency risks related to foreign currency loans. The Green Growth Fund is to be lauded for its initiative to provide green finance in local currency for the markets where it operates. Such an initiative could well be adopted far more widely by climate financiers. All of this takes place in a context in which illicit financial flows continue to move vast sums from the global south to the global north every year. UNCTAD's Economic Development in Africa Report (2020) said Africa could gain $89 billion annually if it curbed illicit financial flows. A new report confirms this possibility, revealing that African countries have generated €1.7 billion in additional revenues from tackling tax evasion and illicit financial flows since 2009 – a real start, but with a long way remaining to go. This is not a problem that should be on the shoulders of developing countries alone. The international tax regime, and the laundering of money by northern based banks make these outflows of capital possible. Against this sorry background, sensible questions to ask include: where all those billions for the Loss and Damage fund are to come from, whether they will constitute new funding or a further repurposing of existing development or humanitarian finance, and whether they will be sufficient to meet the needs of affected countries and to offset the flow of funds from the south to the north. The track record of climate finance to date does not provide food for optimism: development finance repurposed as climate finance; finance provided through loans not grants; failure to meet commitments. Transparency, Accountability, Participation, and Anti-corruption are a must It is increasingly urgent that the creators of the climate crisis are held to account. Developing nations must fight for stronger systems that will hold the wealthy, polluting countries accountable on their promises and responsibilities. As civil society organisations, we have a crucial role to play in making sure accountability is a reality. In conclusion, we welcome the overdue establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund, but we call for stronger mechanisms to hold wealthy nations to account for their commitments to funding the disaster that they have and continue to impose on poorer nations.

Focusing on civic and integrity infrastructure for more and better financing in the water and sanitation sectors By Claire Grandadam and Kelly Acuña, Water Integrity Network The Spring Meetings are concluding; Finance Ministers of Latin American and Caribbean countries are meeting today in Washington DC at the SWA FMM to share good practices and build partnerships for water and sanitation sector finance. This is a big opportunity to rethink funding to the sector. “ The moment to prioritize water and sanitation is now ”, enjoins Catarina de Albuquerque. The moment to priories the needs of the poor or left behind, and to prioritise investments in systems for long-term financial sustainability is also now. Civic and integrity infrastructure is a crucial part of this system. In Latin America and the Caribbean, it needs urgent attention. Action, Ambition, Accountability – the call of civil society Along with civil society leaders in Latin America and the Caribbean, we call for Action, Ambition and Accountability  in defining national financing strategy and commitments for the water and sanitation sector. Because we are who we are, we also call for an extra A, that of Anti-corruption. To ensure funds are not wasted to corruption, we need strong safeguards, for example to limit conflicts of interest and protect whistle-blowers. We have essential services to deliver; corruption is too expensive, and it is holding us back. As the SWA civil society constituency highlights, there are essentially two paths forward for sector financing: Within all funding, existing and new, specific attention must be paid to provisions for vulnerable populations . Complying with our human rights obligations and responsibilities is a crucial element of integrity. We must improve sector efficiency and integrity, to free up funds lost to corruption and mismanagement, to reallocate available resources more equitably (also towards technologies and systems of delivery that benefit low-income residents), and to open avenues for new finance. For this second path to work, we need better data and information on financing challenges, and on public financial management in particular . Fortunately, there is a lot we can learn from and collaborate on with open government, anti-corruption, public finance, and integrity partners in Latin America, the Caribbean and beyond. Strengthening multi-stakeholder action for transparency that works for the water and sanitation sectors We are currently putting the finishing touches on the next Water Integrity Global Outlook , which focuses on water and sanitation finance integrity. A key message emerging is that by building alliances with anti-corruption, integrity, and public finance institutions and organisations, water sector actors can give a boost to sector financial systems . Research is still ongoing, but we can already see that, in Latin America and the Caribbean, there are significant opportunities. Time to make new friends. From data... Latin America distinguishes itself as a pioneer in participatory budgeting and key player in open government . There are movers in the region, a good number of planned national and local open government commitments for fiscal transparency (like those made through the Open Government Partnership ), and open procurement initiatives that are making a difference for infrastructure and other sectors . Overall, there are relatively high levels of available government data . It’s true, there is still room for major improvement and these big trends hide a lot of variation across the region . The Global Data Barometer of 2022 also notes limited evolution in data availability or openness in last years. But there is a non-negligible basis of good practices, data, and invested partners to work with in understanding financial management challenges across the region. ...to information The picture is a little more cloudy when we drill down to examine how this plays out at sector level and for different public financial management processes. Here again however, there are partners who have important insight: We need better information on infrastructure planning processes in water and sanitation ( but we’re working on this with CoST) . We need better information on debt ( Transparency International  is working on this, with a checklist to empower civil society and accountability actors to demand transparency and encourage oversight of public debt – something to watch for). We also need more information on actual expenditure . Supreme audit institutions, with support from civil society organisations, can help with this and provide valuable insight on improvement and efficiency opportunities ( as demonstrated by Controla Tu Gobierno with its analysis of reports on wastewater treatment ). But the Organization of Latin American and Caribbean Supreme Audit Institutions unfortunately has reports for water from only a few countries , and none older than 2022.  Budgeting information could also be more complete, as highlighted by the International Budget Partnership Open Budget Survey of 2021 . Importantly, the biggest weakness this survey points to in relation to budget information is public participation. The need to support participation, accountability, and integrity This weakness in participation, and the difficulty of using data effectively as information to adapt sector strategies, is the where the big challenge lies. Participatory budgeting can be highly local and may be quite common, but across the region and across the budget process, public participation is still actually quite low. In a similar vein, the Global Data Barometer highlights the region’s relative weakness in capacity to govern open data and use it for impact . This challenge is compounded by limits on civic space . Of particular concern in the region, is intimidation and harassment of journalists and water and environment defenders . This is why we are calling on the finance ministers, the funders and the other decision makers gathering in Washington today, to focus on another urgently needed investment: an investment in the civic and integrity infrastructure of the region. This infrastructure is the participatory processes and the people, the organisations, the media, the compliance and oversight institutions who keep track of money, use and analyse data, hold decision makers accountable, and can strengthen all planning processes, to make sure money is allocated where it is needed, and spent as it is intended . Investing in civic infrastructure is also recognising and funding community organisations for the work they do to reach vulnerable populations. It is a necessary investment, that pays for itself.

The case of Sedapal utility in Lima, Peru Case study Published: 2023 Developed in cooperation with the Inter-American Development Bank and SEDAPAL A media investigation in September 2022 exposed concerning irregularities in the process of distributing free water in informal settlements in Lima, a measure that had been put in place in response to the COVID pandemic. Water was diverted and sold for completely different purposes than intended or in some cases resold to residents, instead of provided for free. The Lima utility, SEDAPAL, took swift action in responst to the investigation, issuing public condemnations, applying sanctions, working on better oversight systems for its contractors, and working with WIN to examine integrity risks related to service in informal settlements or low-income communities. Notably, SEDAPAL revamped its contracting procedures to include stringent clauses mandating adherence to ethical codes and community engagement protocols. It also took several measures to track the contracted tankers and open avenues for complaints. Read the case study in English: Leer in Espanol:

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