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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Integrity for basic services - How the Asivikelane coalition is making a difference for city residents in South Africa Access to clean water, sanitation, and reliable basic services is a fundamental right. But ensuring these services are delivered fairly and consistently requires more than just policy—it requires integrity. These videos highlight the crucial role integrity plays in water and sanitation service delivery, particularly in vulnerable communities across South Africa. In a series of interviews, Mondli Mabuza, a Community Facilitator at Asivikelane , shared input on the corruption and integrity failures he sees and the ways they impact his community's access to water and sanitation. He showcases the power of holding municipalities accountable and driving real change. Asivikelane tackles corruption in the procurement and maintenance of essential services—such as broken taps and toilets left unrepaired, uncollected refuse, and misallocated budgets for infrastructure upgrades. Volunteers in informal settlements gather firsthand data on service delivery failures and engage directly with municipal departments to ensure waste, water, and sanitation issues are addressed Asivikelane—meaning “Let’s Protect Each Other” —reminds us that honesty, accountability, and collaboration are not optional—they are essential. Watch the stories. Listen to the voices. Integrity matters.

PROMOTING INTEGRITY TO IMPROVE WATER AND SANITATION SERVICES AND ENSURE SECTOR IS RESPONSIVE TO CITIZENS Creating an action plan for integrity using the IMT-SWSS, Kenya Dates 2011-Current Partners CESPAD, Kenya Water and Sanitation Civil Society Network (KEWASNET), Kenya Water for Health Organization (KWAHO), Neighbours Initiative Alliance (NIA), Water Sector Trust Fund, Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) Programme focus Building awareness for integrity, working with civic organisations and integrity champions to advocate and hold decision-makers accountable.  Research on public financial management, sexual corruption, and integrity and performance of CSOs and sector stakeholders. Strengthening of youth parliaments for WASH and integrity advocacy Management, performance and compliance of rural or remote community water management committees, with support from Water Sector Trust Fund and national regulator, WASREB. Advisory to service providers and sector funders and stakeholders, for using InWASH or developing risk assessment and management frameworks. Climate finance monitoring and awareness raising on related integrity risks SUPPORT INTEGRITY WORK IN KENYA Help strengthen youth parliaments, reach new service providers, develop skills for data analysis and social accountability for climate finance: Contact the programme lead: --- HOW THINGS ARE CHANGING Recognised community groups are professionalising their service and management in rural areas; utilities are taking action on integrity risk WIN and partners work closely with the national water regulator to define clearer management models for rural water supply and capacitate local community water committees. WASREB has also adopted mechanisms and indicators in its oversight of service providers to promote integrity. Over 87 communities  and local groups have applied the Integrity Management Toolbox for Small Water Supply Systems (IMT-SWSS) , crafting action plans that improve governance, transparency, customer relations, and compliance. In Kericho County, for example, this approach significantly raised consumer satisfaction with Water Committee services. Community confidence that fees are used appropriately has increased, along with a better understanding of service costs, has resulted in a greater willingness to pay.  In Makueni county, at least four groups used the IMT-SWSS in 2023, with support from NIA and EKWIP partners. Before this work and new training, the Committees were informal groups with no legal standing. They were not budgeting to guide their operations. They are now changing this, taking steps to register as Water Resource User Associations (WRUA), engaging with and getting support from county government, and developing budgets. As a result of better management, one community group received new funding to facilitate a pipeline extension. Another group managed to repair their solar panels and thereby save on the cost of electricity, enabling them pay off a debt of 767,000 KES they owed to Kenya Power and Lighting Company. Larger urban utilities, like HOMWASCO and KIWASCO, are also taking action by using InWASH to assess integrity risks that could compromise their operations and sustainable service delivery. Youth and integrity champions are organising and getting results in prioritisation of water issues Kenyan youth, through youth parliaments supported by the programme, are organising and want to act on their conviction that WASH funds are not 'well utilised'. In the campaign period before general elections in 2022, youth parliaments engaged prospective candidates and obtained water-focused election promises from them based on the candidate manifestos. This formed the basis of the development of an Election Promises Monitoring tool (EPM) by the youth parliaments of Kisii, Kisumu, Kakamega and Busia and a national monitoring tool by the national youth parliament chapter. These tools are now being used to hold elected politicians accountable. The active role of youth was made possible by several years of engagement and training after initial set up of county then national-level youth parliaments for water. Partners have reported that, with election monitoring and current work, youth are now vocal change agents, influencing action, policy and budgets at county level. In some counties, like Nyamira for example, the youth parliaments have influenced leaders in prioritisation of resources for water resource management and spring protection. Ground-breaking research and awareness raising KEWASNET and ANEW put the issue of sexual corruption in water and sanitation on the global agenda. Their research in Nairobi was the first of its kind to show sexual corruption for water, or sextortion, is not uncommon and massively underreported and ignored. In 2024, their petition to 'Stop Sex for Water' was read in Parliament and as a result of their extensive campaign , new legislation against the practice is being examined, the impact of which will resonate far beyond the water sector. In a first study of its kind in Kenya, endorsed by both the Kenya Ministry of Water and Sanitation and the Council of Governors, the Pipes, Policy, and Public Money report h ighlights how strengthening integrity in public financial management can increase efficiencty and accountability towards citizens, while reducing costly money 'leaks'. It looks at root problems and why budget tracking is so complex, in terms of IT systems, reporting, and responsibilities. Major radio campaigns in Nakuru, Makueni and Kajiado focused on integrity with input from integrity champions and partner research (inluding on specific initiatives like the risk assessment of the Mwache dam development in Kwale or the results of integrity surveys in Kajiado). With the evidence, they were able to promote water and sanitation as human rights, and answer caller questions. The radio shows also helped clarify roles and responsibilities and explain avenues for participation and complaint mechanisms. They have had a major influence on public debate. --- MORE PUBLICATIONS Research On service delivery in informal settlements On public financial management Integrity management and community work On working in small communities with the IMT-SWSS On working with Water Resource User Associations

ENSURING BETTER WATER AND SANITATION SERVICES AND GENDER EQUALITY THROUGH INTEGRITY On the way to school, Bangladesh, photo by Sony Ramany, WIN photo competition entry Dates 2009-Current Partners Bangladesh Water Partnership (BWP), Change Initiative, DASCOH, Development Organisation for the Rural Poor (DORP), ITN-BUET, NGO Forum, WAVE Foundation Programme focus Research for advocacy and policy on service exclusion and integrity, including on: regulatory systems for integrity and Citywide Inclusive Sanitation  (CWIS) prevalence and drivers of the very sensitive issue of sexual corruption  (sextortion) and the way it impacts primarily women  integrity risks in the way resources are used for development and maintenance of WASH facilities in school s.  accountability and citizen engagement in climate adaptation work   integrity failures and regulatory concerns on wastewater treatment and pollution  in the garment industry.   Support to the Bangladesh Water Integrity Network (BAWIN) , launched in 2009 as a joint advocacy group for water and anti-corruption stakeholders. Integrity management for service providers  to manage integrity risks and improve performance and service delivery, with three of the largest utilities in the country (Khulna WASA, Chattogram WASA, and Rajshahi WASA) as well as several city corporations (using InWASH ) to address customer relation issues, billing, metering, human resources, and accountability of field staff. Strengthening capacity and involvement of local water committees and municipalities for rural water supply. SUPPORT INTEGRITY WORK IN BANGLADESH Help reach new service providers, make sure sanitation reaches everyone in the city, and strengthen the CSOs that make integrity a reality in Bangladesh: Contact the programme lead: (acting Lead: Mary Galvin) --- HOW THINGS ARE CHANGING Towards new regulatory systems for CWIS The Bangladesh government is looking at setting up a stronger regulatory system that addresses integrity risks, in light of new research with ITN-BUET highlighting strengths and weaknesses of current policy for advancement of Citywide Inclusive Sanitation (CWIS ). ITN-BUET is offering free training to support the change. Communities set up systems to manage their finances more transparently Following IMT SWSS training by WIN and partners, DASCOH engaged with youth groups in the Rajshahi district. They also organised a ‘democratic dialogue’, where stakeholders clarified local needs and roles and responsibilities of people engaged in WASH. Together, stakeholders of the Pirijpur Water Scheme, which reaches over 1000 people, decided to focus on making sure collected money is saved and sufficient to expand and run the system, and on overcoming people's refusal to pay. The system managers are now working on a simple billing system, opening a bank account, setting up a simple bookkeeping system, and setting a transparent tariff. ‘‘We have never been called before in such a decision-making process. After training we will be able to contribute to proper water supply for many people that are living in hard-to-reach places." -Mst Roksana Parvin, an elected women representative of local government on the work in Prijpur Utilities engaging with customers and reducing scope for malpractice  In Bangladesh’s third largest city, the Khulna Water and Sewerage Authority’s (KWASA) streamlined billing as a result of its work using InWASH . By introducing new software and processes, they now keep better customer records and have reduced undelivered bills by 75%, which has led to increased revenue. For higher customer satsifaction and transparency, KWASA also engaged with the media and launched a series of public hearings where they present company strategy and plans. In Chattogram, also as a result of using InWASH, CWASA improved and diversified customer compl aints channels and now logs and follows up more systematically. It also streamlined its field inspection processes to increase accountability. (Read more on CWASA's integrity work here . ) Ground-breaking research  A 2022 research initiative on sextortion , carried out with partners DORP and Change Initiative in 2 rural and 2 urban areas of Bangaldesh is the largest of its kind in water and sanitation and reveals how much sextortion is underreported. Research into the garment industry’s wastewater management in 2017 revealed gaps in regulatory enforcement and factory compliance, with significant pollution of local waterways. This research has highlighted the need for stronger regulations and enforcement on wastewater treatment to protect public health and the environment Water from a garment factor that should have functioning wastewater treament systems , photo by ENRAC Safeguarding school WASH resources  In schools in southern Bangladesh, looking at WASH in schools with an integrity lens has led to the mobilisation of students and teachers for better school WASH and a better understanding of rules and responsibilities for development and maintenance of school WASH facilities. The research, led by DORP, and involving students, parents, school authorities and local municipalities, is the basis of advocacy to safeguard the resources schools and municipalities are supposed to allocated for WASH facilities in schools. Read more here about how DORP led the work and the results in schools . --- MORE PUBLICATIONS Regulation and Citywide Inclusive Sanitation (CWIS) WASH in Schools English: Bengali: Integrity Management for utilities Wastewater and the garment industry

In Kenya, the Neighbours Initiative Alliance (NIA)  is working with communities to address root causes of water system failures and strengthen water management committees. To support this work, they use the Integrity Management Toolbox for Small Water Supply Systems (IMT-SWSS) initially developed by Caritas Switerland and WIN to build capacity on integrity and create linkages between communities, county water officers, and national regulators. The approach is transforming the way NIA works with rural communities and has led to coordinated, compliant, and transparent services, and increased revenue for water committees that enabled them to invest in sustainable energy supply and water source protection. An interview with Jane Nyamwamu of the Neighborhood Initiative Alliance Can you start by giving us more information on NIA and its work? And in what context did NIA start working with the IMT-SWSS? Established in 1996, Neighbours Initiative Alliance is a NGO that seeks to address the needs of poor and vulnerable pastoralist groups in Kenya. NIA's main mandate and core business is community empowerment through capacity strengthening, influencing and networking. NIA has experience implementing community-anchored programs in water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), health and nutrition, food security, governance, and economic development. Over the years, NIA worked to develop community water infrastructure, systems which were then handed over to management committees to run. The challenge was that the systems were not being managed in a sustainable way, leading to frequent breakdowns and the eventual failure of water projects after one or two years. In 2012, NIA adopted the IMT-SWSS tool to address governance and management issues and work to improve service continuity and sustainability. What were some of the main challenges that you were seeing in community-run systems? The key challenges we observed in community-run systems are either technical or related to management/governance. The technical challenges include: lack of technical knowledge on operation and maintenance, inactive connections, unprotected and polluted water sources, and non-functional infrastructure. The management/governance challenges include:   lack of financial record keeping, misuse of resources during procurement, non-compliance with regulations, tariffs not enabling cost-recovery, high non-revenue water due in part to many illegal connections and low payment rates, l eadership challenges, and undue political interference. What has been your experience of working with the IMT-SWSS? In what way is the tool making a difference for small systems? NIA has been implementing water projects since its inception in 1996. Typically, a training for water committees would last about three to five days, after which the system would be fully handed over to the committee. As mentioned, after one or two years the water system would often become non-functional due to technical and operational failures and a lack of resources and/or support. In addition, since many of the community members were illiterate, 3 to 5 days of training proved to be insufficient to enable them to manage their water system on a long-term basis. Using the IMT-SWSS has brought about major changes, since it is not a one-off process. It prioritises continuous follow-up and mentorship with the communities, which leads to the identification of gaps that the managers of the water system can practically address. By tackling these gaps with targeted support in collaboration with system managers, we have also seen that this builds their confidence to be able to address a range of other issues. The first step towards guaranteeing buy-in is to ensure that the county government leadership (Department of Water) is on board. This includes educating them on what the IMT-SWSS is and how it can assist in solving challenges. In turn, the county government usually recommends specific water systems that can be supported. Following this, two to three community meetings are held in partnership with the county government staff to inform the community on IMT-SWSS process and why their participation is crucial. By using the IMT-SWSS, these small systems are able to: identify better management models that work for their particular situation, become compliant with the current water regulations, and transition into water service providers with high ratings as small water companies under the WASREB impact reports.* WASREB’s framework (and the IMT-SWSS inputs on this) enables water management committees to better understand the legal implications of providing water services, and the  rights and responsibilities of committees. It helps the community to understand that they have a role to play in service provision, which includes reaching out to other partners or facilitating collaboration. We have therefore seen enhanced partnerships among key stakeholders e.g. water users, management committees, regulatory entities (WASREB and WRA), and/or the county and national governments. Other stakeholders have also come to understand that water service provision requires a multi-stakeholder effort. How, in particular, has the tool helped to empower women and marginalised communities? In marginalised communities, for example in Kajiado County, where women and people living with disabilities were not involved in the management of water supply, the tool has enabled them to be involved in the planning, management and implementation of water service provision. This is because the tool specifically calls for the inclusion of vulnerable and marginalised groups. It has also given them knowledge about holding leadership to account at the community and government levels. In Enkongu Enkare, where the water system is managed only by women, the use of the IMT-SWSS helped the committee members to improve their approach to water service provision. Specifically, they prioritised fundraising for solar panels and the setting up of a token mechanism to improve the payment system. This was supported by SIMAVI under the Water Justice Fund Project. Could you highlight a particular success story that is exemplary of the importance of working on integrity at the community level? We have had a lot of success in Nyamira County, for example in Kemasare, Bomwagamo and Machuririati. Improved water supply services Nyamira County is largely rural. There are very few individual and institutional water connections. People mostly rely on surface and groundwater sources for their water supply needs. The IMT-SWSS intervention led to a decision to start treating water by chlorination and to ensure more transparency on system management. This increased users’ confidence in consuming clean and safe water and new connections followed, leading to increased revenue. In Kemasare, connections increased from zero to 150, and in Machuririati from 80 to 265 connections. Registration as a legal entity By engaging with WASREB and the IMT-SWSS tool, system committees came to understand the importance of registering as a legal entity to gain access to financial and/or technical assistance and legal support services, to acquire assets such as land, to seek redress in court, or to sign agreements as service providers. Reduction of non-revenue water through improvements to operation and maintenance Before the IMT-SWSS process, there were many operational issues, at times so severe that services ground to a halt. By focusing on governance structures, the schemes were able to improve revenue collection and thereby employ more competent staff like plumbers, finance officers, and operation and maintenance officers. With this change, there was an increase in metering and leak control, which helped control non-revenue water losses. Better protected water sources In all three of the systems, participants cleaned up the river as a key activity, to better protect water quality and supply. In particular, they removed blue gum trees to increase water quantities, and constructed washing bays dedicated specifically for washing laundry to reduce water contamination. Realising gender parity The role of women as key water users and decision makers at the domestic level has been better recognised in the communities. The use of the tool and its emphasis on including women and other marginalised groups into the management of the system, has resulted in gender parity in the make-up of committees. Use of renewable energy As a result of the IMT-SWSS’s focus on improving operations, as well as the stakeholder analysis sessions, the committees assessed resources they might have available to them to run their system more sustainably. Recognising the opportunity to reduce energy-related costs as well as dependence on fossil fuels, all three systems decided to prioritise the installation of solar panels. Coordination and networking There has been significant improvement in the coordination and working relationships between the county government and the water committees. Within the communities themselves, there is also a good rapport between the water management committees and users due to regular community meetings. In particular, vandalism of the pipelines – largely due to illegal connections - that was previously rampant has greatly reduced. This is due to users having a new understanding and sense of ownership over their own water system, as well as regular interaction with the management committees. What possibilities do you see for future work with the IMT-SWSS, either in Kenya or more broadly? With proper funding and training of facilitators, the IMT-SWSS has the potential to be deployed more widely across Kenya and in different countries. It could be adopted into government plans like the County Integrated Development Plans and Annual Plans. This would mean that county governments could use the tool as a means of continuously training rural water scheme managers as part of a public initiative, which may also inspire other countries to pick up the tool and support sustainable service delivery in rural areas.   *In Kenya, t he Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) is the national regulator of water and sewerage services. Its mandate is to protect the interests of consumers and ensure that water services are efficient, affordable, and sustainable. WASREB guidelines propose a range of management models for rural water schemes, and if a scheme meets the requirements of WASREB, it can officially become a small water company in Kenya.

A discussion on responsibilities, costs, opportunities and water quality in self-supply Self-supply occurs when individuals or small communities independently fund, develop and maintain water and sanitation systems. While self-supply can demonstrate autonomy and resilience and be an opportunity to improve service levels in some cases, it is often a response to major gaps in public service provision. It can also come with high integrity risks, can exacerbate inequalities, and raises concerns related to water quality and sustainability.  People self-provide on a massive scale across the globe, including in high-income countries, and especially (but not exclusively) in rural, remote and peri-urban or informal areas. Some people and communities resort to self-supply because they have no alternatives and no access. Some households invest in own systems for convenience and independence. Self-supply is not a temporary, localised phenomenon but rather a feature of water and sanitation provision globally. This means it cannot be ignored: there will be always households that self-supply. This can be an opportunity for reaching SDG6, in some cases. However, this also should not be used to dodge or shift responsibility. This Integrity Talk, organised by the Water Integrity Network (WIN) and the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN)  on April 2, 2025, looked at these challenges and the path ahead. Sean Furey, Director of RWSN, moderated the panel with: Alana Potter, member of WIN’s Supervisory Board and Head  of Research and Advocacy at the Equality Collective (South Africa) ( see section 1 on the human rights to water and sanitation and the implication for self-supply ) Arto Suominen, Researcher at Tampere University (Finland) ( see section with case from Finland ) Tim Foster, Research Director at the Institute for Sustainable Futures (Australia) ( see presentation of research from Asia and the Pacific ) Henk Holtslag, Senior Advisor at MetaMeta SMART Centre Group (The Netherlands) ( see section on financing household self-supply ) Chola Mbilima, Senior Financial and Commercial Inspector at NWASCO (Zambia) ( see section on case of Zambia and regulation ) Speakers discussed the need to shift self-supply from an invisible and ignored phenomenon to a recognised reality and opportunity, that requires support in order to realise the human rights to water and sanitation and SDG6 . The discussion brought up differences between household-level and community-level self-supply. It showed the challenge of establishing the right balance for support--neither neglect nor over-regulation . The speakers also brought up the role of utilities, and the possibility that they become important counterparts (a case that is being formalised in Zambia). At the same time, they highlighted the need to recognise that there can be a vicious loop between poor municipal services leading to increased self-supply, which could reduce municipal revenue. As a starting point, the panel established the need for recognition, visibility, and information on the context and specificities of the systems and the needs and priorities of the users. More resources Go straight to video The discussion continues on the RWSN - self-supply discussion group, join here   Human Rights to Water and Sanitation and the Implications for Self-Supply “Human rights provide a normative framework for minimum standards and principles against which accountability can be held of public and private actors in courts, and other accountability mechanisms, both invented and invited” –Alana Potter, Equality Collective Alana Potter  (Equality Collective) looked at the reality of self-supply in the legal framework of the human rights to water and sanitation, focusing on cases where self-supply is not an active choice but a response to failures in public service delivery . The lack of public services can have many reasons and include corruption, mismanagement, discrimination, or a lack of prioritisation. Referring to the Hearing the Unheard campaign , she highlighted that people and communities who self-supply are often responding to discrimination that leaves them behind, they are creatively providing solutions and claiming their rights to water, and they want recognition. She highlighted three primary obligations for governments to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights to water and sanitation : The obligation to respect:  Governments may not interfere with or curtail the enjoyment of these rights; they cannot prevent or stop people from self-providing or arbitrarily cut off water supply. To progressively realise the right to water, governments are obliged to take deliberate, concrete and targeted steps to ensure that everyone can access safe, affordable, culturally acceptable water services, wherever they live and however the service is provided. The obligation to protect  the human right to water means ensuring that individuals or entities, including corporations and other private actors, do not interfere with access to safe and sufficient water for everyone. Governments and relevant authorities are responsible for regulating and monitoring activities that could jeopardise people's ability to enjoy their right to water. The obligation to fulfil  the human rights to water and sanitation requires states to ensure access to water and sanitation, and to create an enabling policy and regulatory environment for these rights to be realised and enjoyed by all, wherever they live. The efforts governments make must be in line with the human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination, participation, transparency, accountability and sustainability or non-retrogression, which align with integrity principles. She concluded with five measures governments can take to act on these obligations in the context of self-supply: Creating an enabling legal and regulatory framework, which means recognising supported self-supply in policies, strategies, guidelines, and bylaws  (this could include recognising community-based organisations as legal entities, recognising water for small-scale, productive use and doing better to enforce regulations on large-scale users and corporates that abstract and pollute water sources that downstream communities rely on). Provide financial support  for self-supply (this could include smart subsidies, cross-subsidisation, support to vulnerable groups, prioritising of affordable technologies, and quantifying and recognising the costs of self-supply). Ensuring inter-sectoral and inclusive planning  that puts communities at the forefront of decisions around planning and infrastructure development for supported self-supply. Supporting upgrading of various water supply systems  and advancing technologies , manufacturing and the marketing of affordable pumps, manual drilling, storage tanks, household water treatment etc. Supporting communities through monitoring : of quality, construction standards, surface and groundwater availability, pollution and abstraction by other actors. --- Evidence on Self-Supply in Practice, from Finland to Zambia Household-managed water supply in rural Finland “Every country should accept the fact that pipe water supply service cannot reach all. Therefore, the self-supply service delivery model should be part of the water supply access planning.” –Arto Suominen, Tampere University Arto Suominen (Tampere University) highlighted that only 8 to 10% of the total population in Finland self-provides. However, this represents between 50 to 70% of the rural population (including often vulnerable people, who live remotely and are getting older) and it is not accounted for in official JMP reporting, nor is it monitored in any national database. He showed responsibility for household supply systems (and water quality) is clearly with their owners and health authorities will intervene only in emergency cases, while environmental regulation is extensive and strictly applied. Groundwater use is free. Technology is available. Most households relying on self-supply are satisfied with their systems and do not want government intervention. There are however emerging issues: Transparency and access to information: there is plenty of free, good-quality information online but it is not always available in a format that more elderly people are willing or able to use. Affordability: Costs for a borehole and pump can be up to 15-20% of average annual income, a significant amount for elderly people with small pension, for example. Water quality: despite recommendations that water quality be tested at least every three years, this is not often the case. There are problems and there is no centralised self-supply water quality data. Household water supply across 21 countries in Asia and the Pacific “Self supply is widespread growing, and in many cases delivering a service that is equal to other service models. But it remains underappreciated and ignored by policy. What's clear is that households have made enormous investment in self supply. And, if we're serious about SDG 6, we need to recognise this and harness the opportunity.” –Tim Foster, Institute for Sustainable Futures Tim Foster  presented the results of recent research showing the very high prevalence of household-level self-supply across 21 countries in Asia and the Pacific. A third of the population self-provides across the region  (40% of the population in rural areas, and 20% of the population in urban areas) and this there is an increasing trend. Interestingly, there is a lot of variation across countries in terms of technology, who resorts to self-supply (sometimes the poorest, sometimes the richest), and water quality. For example, in countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar and Mongolia, self-supply is more likely to deliver a ‘safely-managed’ service but this is not the case across the board ( country factsheets with more detail are available here ). There are two major similarities across the region: self-supply is generally more reliable  than piped supply, and there is very little in policy that recognises the practice  despite its prevalence (at most are cursory mentions). Financing supported household self-supply “In Nicaragua there are 50,000 rope pumps installed at family farms, and together these families generated over 100 million dollars in the last 20 years. All this started with 2 million dollars of aid money for training.” –Henk Holtslag, MetaMeta SMART Centre Group Henk Holtslag  ( MetaMeta SMART Centre Group) discussed water quality and water availability and shared experiences on the cost-effectiveness of the supported self-supply service delivery model with examples from rural areas in Zambia, Tanzania, and Nicaragua, where investments in self-supply or home water systems have had significant returns. He opened up four main proposals for discussion: First, supporting the mainstreaming of household water treatment solutions for any service delivery model , as promoted by the WHO (especially water filters, that have been proven as effective). Actions can include large-scale awareness raising, building supply chains, and subsidies for the poorest. It is an approach he claimed could cost as little as $4 per person, in line with the “ 2 with 8 ” water action commitment submitted to the UN to provide safe water to 2 billion people with $8 billion. Second, supporting self-supply as a cost-effective solution to reduce costs to reach SDG6.1 in rural areas, to increase pump functionality, and to impact on poverty and other SDGs. He grounded this proposition with evidence showing that supporting household-level self-supply costs governments or funders 50% less than conventional community supply approaches . He showed examples indicating that a one-time subsidy of $25 per person would be sufficient to reach SDG6.1 in rural areas and that that when households own their wells,, they can generate income through the multiple uses of water, they will better maintain their systems and share water for domestic use with other people. Third, he suggested making similar water subsidies a basic right, on the premise that, in practice, people who already have “safely managed” or “basic service” received a subsidy for capital expenditure from government and /or NGOs of at least $25 per person. Those who still lack basic service deserve a similar subsidy. Fourth, he claimed that household level self-supply could be less vulnerable to corruption than communal supply. A regulatory model for supported self-supply: the case of Zambia “We cannot do away with self-supply systems. These are integral because they come in to cover a gap. (…) But we need rules for them to be able to actually operate effectively. (…) We need systems that will allow them to operate and be able to deal with integrity risks.” –Chola Mbilima, NWASCO Chola Mbilima  (NWASCO) discussed the integrity risks she has seen in relation to community-self-supply in Zambia: exploitation of vulnerable groups, low service levels, overpricing or even extortionary pricing, bribery. She also mentioned the lack of redress mechanisms: when the system isn’t satisfactory, where do you go? Who is accountable, and to whom? When there is a major breakdown, what then? In response, at the policy level and in regulation, Zambia has developed a framework to clarify accountability paths. First with a legal framework that recognises and documents self-supply systems, then by regulating, to ensure utilities act as umbrella organisations for self-supply systems in the area and support and oversee these systems. This means the utilities enter a formal agreement with the self-supply system that they jointly   negotiate the parameters  of. Utilities can provide technical or financial support. They have a role in monitoring water quality. The aim is sustainable service delivery models that will allow for integrity. --- Last Words on Finance and Responsibility “At the end of the day you are doing that work to support the overall objective of government. What I see is that there's a lot of inequity. Because when we talk about self-supply, then everybody says, well, it's the household that should finance. But when we talk about big systems, the government will actually go out of its way to borrow money to go and put up these systems. And yet, in most cases, for example with sanitation, those systems will actually benefit a very small portion of the population. The majority are on self-supply, and they don't get to benefit. I feel like government should find its place in financing these self-supply systems, and they must be creative about it.” –Chola Mbilima, NWASCO --- Integrity Talk 13 Recording