In August 2025, Transparency International (TI) chapters in Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kenya and Zambia began applying the Infrastructure Corruption Risk Assessment Tool (ICRAT) to examine corruption risks in public infrastructure decision-making processes.

While corruption risks in infrastructure are often associated with procurement and implementation stages, the experiences across these five countries demonstrate the importance of also examining the earlier project selection. This stage is highly vulnerable to political influence, opaque decision-making and conflicts of interest, with significant implications for public debt, cost of living, service delivery and public trust.

Nine months into implementation, several common themes, innovations and reform opportunities have emerged across the participating countries, alongside context-specific lessons that may be relevant to practitioners, governments, donors and civil society organisations working to strengthen accountable infrastructure systems.

Moving Infrastructure from a Technical Issue to a Public Governance Issue

One of the strongest commonalities emerging across countries has been the recognition that infrastructure governance cannot remain solely a technical policy discussion.

In Indonesia, the chapter invested heavily in public-facing engagement strategies including podcasts, writing competitions, music and social media campaigns. This contributed to growing public understanding that infrastructure decisions are not simply engineering or development issues, but governance issues that directly affect public resources, debt exposure and everyday livelihoods.

Across the participating countries, chapters increasingly recognised the importance of connecting infrastructure accountability to broader public concerns such as rising living costs, public debt sustainability and public financial management. Framing the issue in this way created opportunities to build alliances with civil society organisations working on adjacent issues who may not traditionally engage on infrastructure governance directly.

A further lesson emerging across contexts was the need to tailor how the ICRAT is presented to different audiences. While the tool resonated with the public when framed as a safeguard against corruption and wastage, engagement with government stakeholders proved more effective when the tool was positioned as a mechanism to strengthen systems, improve transparency and support better decision-making processes.

The Critical Role of Media and Information Access

Access to public information emerged as one of the most significant challenges across all five countries. Chapters consistently reported delays and barriers in obtaining project-related documentation and decision-making records necessary to conduct the assessments effectively.

In response, chapters adopted a range of innovative approaches to gather information, including cultivating relationships with former public officials, collaborating with investigative journalists and using right to information requests.

TI Kenya and Zambia demonstrated particularly strong examples of how media partnerships can strengthen accountability efforts. In both countries, chapters engaged investigative journalists early in the research process rather than only after findings had been produced.

In Zambia, this included radio engagement and facilitated question-and-answer sessions between journalists and public officials, which reportedly contributed to improved information sharing and commitments from duty bearers to strengthen consultation and coordination processes in infrastructure decision-making.

In Kenya, the use of the ICRAT framework reportedly helped journalists move beyond reporting on surface-level developments to more systematically investigating corruption risks embedded within infrastructure projects and governance systems.

Governance Risks Emerging Across Contexts

Although the country contexts differ significantly, several governance challenges emerged consistently across the assessments.

Conflict of interest risks featured prominently in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zambia, particularly concerning board appointments, regulatory oversight and political influence over infrastructure decisions.

In both Kenya and Sri Lanka, chapters identified relatively strong anti-corruption legal and policy frameworks already in place, but persistent enforcement challenges limiting their effectiveness in practice.

Transparency and disclosure gaps were another recurring concern. In Pakistan, findings highlighted the absence of a national infrastructure investment strategy and weak alignment between annual implementation plans and long-term strategic priorities. The chapter also identified concerns regarding direct awards of major infrastructure projects to state-owned enterprises and the limited publication of public contracts above certain financial thresholds.

TI Sri Lanka’s findings similarly pointed to political influence, procurement integrity issues, limited transparency and restricted civil society participation in infrastructure decision-making processes. However, the chapter also noted that applying the ICRAT expanded its own organisational lens beyond procurement-focused accountability work to examining corruption risks across the entire infrastructure project cycle, including the often-overlooked project selection stage.

Emerging Reform Opportunities and Institutional Engagement

An encouraging trend across several countries has been growing engagement from oversight institutions and policy actors as the assessments progressed.

In Kenya and Sri Lanka, chapters reported increasing recognition from accountability institutions and government stakeholders of their expertise in accountable infrastructure governance. This has opened opportunities for more collaborative engagement on reform discussions and system strengthening initiatives. In Pakistan, the chapter was invited to participate in infrastructure-related taskforces, creating opportunities to contribute directly to policy and decision-making discussions.

At the same time, multiple chapters — including those in Kenya, Zambia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka — identified the influential role played by international financial institutions and development actors such as the IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank in shaping infrastructure governance incentives and reforms. This reinforced the importance of engaging not only national governments, but also influential financing and policy actors that shape infrastructure priorities and conditionalities.

TI Indonesia’s experience also highlighted the importance of identifying and leveraging existing governance and reform platforms to advance infrastructure integrity agendas. The chapter utilised the Open Government Partnership process as an entry point to advocate for stronger transparency and accountability measures within infrastructure governance. At the same time, the experience reinforced an important practical lesson for reform efforts: achieving meaningful policy gains often requires cultivating allies within government institutions who can help champion reforms internally and sustain momentum through political and bureaucratic processes.

TI Sri Lanka also identified potential opportunities to integrate stronger accountability safeguards into policy-based loan frameworks and public-private partnership processes, recognising the significant financial flows and reform conditions tied to these mechanisms.

The ambitions emerging across participating Chapters also highlight the importance of sustained resourcing and strategic partnerships to support longer-term accountable infrastructure work. Potential avenues for future implementation may include integrating the ICRAT into governance and anti-corruption programming, public financial management initiatives, infrastructure transparency efforts, open government reforms and debt governance workstreams. Several Chapters also identified opportunities to engage development finance institutions, bilateral donors and multilateral actors that are increasingly shaping infrastructure governance priorities and reform incentives globally.

Looking Ahead: Institutionalising the ICRAT Approach

Several chapters are now exploring how the ICRAT can evolve from a one-off assessment into a longer-term accountability mechanism.

In Kenya, the chapter is considering adopting the ICRAT as an annual flagship initiative to assess major public infrastructure projects on a recurring basis. This comes at a time when large-scale infrastructure investments continue to expand, including the next phase of the Standard Gauge Railway project and the establishment of a new infrastructure fund by the Government of Kenya.

Similarly, TI Zambia plans to continue applying the tool to future projects, including those funded through constituency development mechanisms, while also exploring opportunities to influence emerging IMF-supported reforms.

In Indonesia and Sri Lanka, there is growing interest in encouraging governments themselves to adopt or institutionalise elements of the ICRAT approach within infrastructure governance systems. This reflects a broader aspiration for the tool to serve not only as a civil society accountability mechanism, but also as a practical framework for improving integrity, transparency and public value in infrastructure planning and selection processes.

Reflections for the Accountable Infrastructure Community

The experiences emerging across these five countries suggest that corruption risks in infrastructure are deeply systemic and often rooted upstream in how projects are conceived, prioritised and approved — well before procurement begins.

They also demonstrate that strengthening accountability in infrastructure requires more than technical reforms alone. Public engagement, media partnerships, institutional collaboration and strategic framing all play important roles in creating momentum for reform.

As infrastructure investment continues to expand globally amid increasing fiscal pressures and debt concerns, there is growing value in approaches that help governments, oversight institutions and civil society identify corruption risks early and strengthen decision-making processes before costly projects are locked in.

For practitioners and institutions working in governance, anti-corruption and public infrastructure, the early lessons from applying the ICRAT across multiple contexts highlight the potential value of more systematic approaches to assessing and addressing corruption risks throughout the infrastructure project cycle.

To learn more about the ICRAT or connect with implementing chapters, contact TI Australia at info@transparency.org.au