Discover the different routes of water, from the river to the home What does it take for a regulator to keep sanitation services honest, inclusive, and accountable? This manual breaks down the essentials of regulation in citywide inclusive sanitation — from what regulators do and why sewered and non-sewered services need oversight, to the integrity risks regulators face and the practical mechanisms (standards, monitoring, incentives, sanctions, and more) they can use to prevent corruption and champion the human right to sanitation. A clear, visual introduction for anyone working on sanitation governance, regulatory reform, or integrity in the WASH sector. --- DOWNLOAD

Discover the different routes of water, from the river to the home Water doesn't take a single path to reach a home in Lima — and the route it travels often determines its cost, quality, and reliability. This series of four illustrated posters traces water's journey through the city, following real stories that reveal how corruption and integrity failures shape access at every stage. 1. From the River to the City How is water sourced and distributed in Lima? This poster maps SEDAPAL's journey of water from the Rímac, Chillón, and Lurín rivers to the city. 2. From the Public Fountain to the Water Tank Through María's daily routine, this poster shows how public fountains supply unconnected settlements close to the network. 3. From the Water Truck to the Water Tank This poster follows Manuel, an independent water truck operator, through a single working day. 4. From the Water Tank to the Home Carla's story shows what happens once water reaches the home. --- DOWNLOAD Posters in English Posters in Spanish

"Climate finance can build [water] tanks, pipes, and treatment plants, but unless it also builds transparency, accountability, and trust, the people most vulnerable to climate change may remain vulnerable even after millions of dollars have been spent." - MD Abdul Malak, Jagannath University Integrity Talk 17 June 24, 2026, co-hosted with GIZ Climate finance is scaling fast, and a need for speed is exactly what our warming planet requires. But speed, combined with complex implementation chains and institutions that are often unprepared to securely handle a massive influx of new money is also exactly where corruption and poor integrity thrive. In this Integrity Talk, co-hosted by WIN and GIZ, panellists traced what happens when that money moves faster than the safeguards meant to protect it, and what that ultimately costs the people it was meant to reach. Go straight to recording > Get in touch about our work on climate finance > --- The challenge of managing increased finance well Martin Dersch (GIZ) framed the event with a problem that sits underneath everything else discussed: there is still no single, agreed definition of what counts as climate finance, or how to track and monitor it. Layered on top is the "race for adaptation finance", or large volumes of capital needed to move quickly under political and humanitarian pressure, through long, opaque procurement chains, toward institutions that often lack the accountability infrastructure to handle them. Karen Ernst (Green Climate Fund) described a similar dynamic in relation to growth from within the fund itself: the GCF went from seven approved projects in 2015 to 296 by the end of 2025, backed by USD 16.7 billion in commitments, delivered through a network of more than 200 accredited entities. "That is a very good result for the fund," she said, "but for any integrity function, that also means there is an expanding risk." GCF is, in her words, a "second-line institution" — headquartered outside Seoul, with no direct implementation role and, until its board approved new regional offices, no physical presence anywhere near the projects it funds — meaning that oversight remains tricky. When the chain breaks before the money reaches Faith Ngige (Kenya Platform for Climate Governance) walked participants through what oversight challenges can look like on the ground. Kenya's Financing Locally-Led Climate Action (FLLoCA) programme channels funding through the National Treasury to 45 counties and on to community projects — nearly KES 14 billion disbursed and almost half of it to water security. "As the funds proceed to the county level, visibility starts to diminish," she said. "And as the money goes to the project level, you are not even able to follow it all the way." Procurement documents that civil society organisations request are often simply not forthcoming. Her deeper concern was the disconnect between disbursement and outcome: "The challenge is not just money moving, but money should be able to move in a manner that is able to address the very challenge it was designed for." Ramon Alikpala (Future Water Asia) showed what that breakdown looks like at its most extreme. He opened with an old joke — two ministers compare houses, one built on 20% skimmed from a real bridge, the other on 100% skimmed from a bridge that was never built at all. "That joke describes, unfortunately, with precision what's actually happened in the Philippines." Between 2022 and 2025, roughly USD 11 billion was allocated to flood control (over USD 25 billion since 2011), much of it tied to "ghost projects" — infrastructure paid for in full but never built — across a portfolio of some 30,000 flood-control contracts. More, just 15 of more than 2,400 accredited contractors received about a fifth of the entire budget. "The failure of flood control is not just fiscal waste," he said. "It is fatal" — pointing to an estimated 900–1,000 flood-related deaths in the same period, many in communities where infrastructure had been recorded as complete but was never there. Md. Abdul Malak (Jagannath University) brought the same failure down to a single name. In a coastal adaptation project in Bangladesh, a widow was surveyed, assessed as eligible, and placed on the beneficiary list for a free rainwater-harvesting tank. Her name later disappeared from the final list with no explanation, while other households described paying informal costs for installations that were meant to be fully funded. "The water tank that was supposed to come in my name was taken by others," she told researchers. "If my name was on the list, why was I left out?" Audience Q&A - how can we fix some of these problems? Asked what share of project cost should reasonably go toward accountability, Ernst gave no figure: "Everybody always wants higher standards of integrity, and everybody wants accountability. But that requires resources — financial and human. That's a real commitment funders and partners need to understand." Pressed on balancing rigorous safeguards against the growing complexity of accessing climate finance, her answer was simplification rather than fewer safeguards — bringing standard conditions "down to the core minimum" so under-resourced recipients can actually meet them. Alikpala, drawing on his own experience preparing a GCF concept note, agreed that the safeguard burden is still worthwhile: "It might have been tedious and complicated, but it really provided us some insights on the process." On what structurally needs to change, Alikpala pointed to three things: procurement transparency, "structurally enforced, not left to administrative discretion"; routine physical verification — community monitoring, satellite checks, third-party audits — rather than reactive inspection; and separating political discretion from technical procurement decisions altogether. He noted the Philippines' e-procurement system covers goods and services but largely excludes large infrastructure, the exact gap the scandal exploited, and described work underway with the Asian Development Bank to benchmark utility costs so outlier pricing becomes harder to hide. Malak offered a smaller but telling illustration of the same weakness: a university tender, open to every registered bidder, that drew only one bid — priced almost exactly to the internal estimate. On civil society's role, Ngige raised a structural bind: many CSOs monitoring projects financed through the same system they are meant to check, leaving them in what she called "a grey line" that limits how freely they can speak. Her answer was for smaller organisations to pool resources into alliances, since accreditation thresholds for accessing climate finance directly are out of reach for any one of them alone. Alikpala noted a more basic gap in the Philippines: no independent consumer body exists at all to scrutinise water contracts, unlike in some other countries. What next? Three tensions ran through the session without being resolved. One: whether funders can genuinely simplify safeguards without weakening them. Two: whether accountability functions will ever be resourced in proportion to the money they are meant to protect. Three: if only a small number of organisations can meet the accreditation thresholds needed to access climate finance directly, how can communities still be the ones driving decisions about what gets built where they live? The underlying question of who gets a seat at the table before money is committed, rather than after, remains open. --- Panellist presentations: Martin Dersch (GIZ) set out why climate finance — adaptation finance especially — is structurally exposed to integrity risk, pointing to the lack of an agreed definition, the pressure to move funds quickly, and the concentration of financing in sectors like energy. He then connected these challenges for what this means for water security. Karen Ernst (Green Climate Fund) outlined the mandate of GCF's Independent Integrity Unit and the challenges of running accountability for a fast-growing, arm's-length fund working through 200+ accredited entities. Ramon Alikpala (Future Water Asia) presented the Philippines flood-control corruption scandal as a case study in systemic capture of procurement, auditing, and verification systems, with direct implications for water and sanitation. Faith Ngige (Kenya Platform for Climate Governance) traced Kenya's FLLoCA programme from National Treasury to county and ward level, identifying where financial visibility and civil society independence break down. Md. Abdul Malak (Jagannath University) presented field research from a coastal adaptation project in Bangladesh, using one beneficiary's experience to show how targeting and grievance failures play out at the household level. --- Recording

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

When water is scarce, who decides on water allocation, and how? New research examines integrity risks in water allocation in the face of climate change, with a focus on water permittings systems. "Transparent rules, public registries of water rights, clear sustainability limits, and accessible grievance mechanisms help ensure that water allocation adapts to scarcity and climate change without systematically disadvantaging certain groups." In brief: The systems built to decide who gets water, and how much, are struggling to keep pace with the new realities of climate change and unpredictable water flows. This research looks at different water allocation system and focuses on water permits, which are particularly vulnerable to corruption and integrity risk. Evidence from Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mexico, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Tanzania and Spain shows that corruption, political interference, and opaque decision-making are undermining who gets access to water, and that climate change is making this worse. The paper proposes a framework for understanding integrity and integrity risks at two levels: the integrity of water allocation systems themselves, and the integrity of the administrative processes used to implement them. There is risk embedded in policy design, legal frameworks, and system structures, and these tend to disadvantage marginalised users. Fair, transparent and accountable allocation systems are essential for protecting human rights, supporting ecosystems, reducing conflict and building climate resilience. DOWNLOAD Strengthening Integrity in Water Allocation Systems in the Face of Climate Change June 2026 This research was supported by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ). Keywords: Water allocation | Water permits | Water governance | Water resource management | Water corruption | Climate adaptation | Water integrity | Regulation Suggested citation: Galvin, M.; Schreiner, B.; van Koppen, B. (2026). Strengthening Integrity in Water Allocation Systems in the Face of Climate Change. Water Integrity Research. Berlin: Water Integrity Network (WIN). As climate change intensifies droughts, floods and uncertainty, difficult decisions about who gets access to water are becoming increasingly common. Drawing on academic literature alongside in-depth practitioner interviews, this research looks at the systems built to manage these tough decisions and exposes their vulnerabilities. The paper looks at transboundary water allocation systems and national allocation systems. It zooms in on water permits, showing significant integrity risks at each stage of the water permitting cycle. These include burdensome application requirements that exclude small-scale and marginalised users; bribery to expedite permits or weaken conditions; manipulation of water availability models to justify allocations; political interference in decision-making; and selective enforcement that protects powerful users while penalising smaller ones. These are integrity risks to how the system is used and implemented in practice. There are also integrity risks in how the systems are conceived and financed. Interviews reveal how deep, systematic failures and exclusions can be built into the system. Climate change amplifies existing integrity risks. Increased scarcity raises the stakes of every allocation decision. Emergency or drought-response powers can be misused to bypass normal protections. Historical hydrological data is becoming less reliable, creating new opportunities for model manipulation. And already-marginalised groups are most exposed when water is scarce. Urgent action is needed to strengthen our systems. There are some good examples to learn from, including Kenya's tiered permit system that deliberately reduces administrative burden on small users, or community-based collective water concessions in Mexico. Based on these examples and more, the paper closes with practical recommendations for integrity, for government officials, civil society, international organisations, and donors working on water governance reform, water tenure, and climate adaptation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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