Transparency e-conference 2005 – Summary Week 1 [ongoing]

Adjectives which came to my mind when reading your notes included: thoughtful, intelligent, sincere, wide-ranging, provocative, as well as “healthy frustration” as Rami Baroudi (Iraq, operating out of Cyprus) put it.  The quality of the discussion is really very good and I think that parts deserve to be quoted or used in a publication of some sort.  (If we do this, we would credit you by name, of course.  So would you please tell us if you do NOT want your name or information to be used in a possible publication?)

This note tries to provide an overview reflecting the themes raised thus far.  This include definitions and dimensions of transparency and corruption, global solutions, more specific solutions and several non-solutions.

Evgeny Tyrtyshny (Kazakhstan) reminded us of why we are having this conference … because corruption is inadequately addressed within the water and sanitation sector.  Without tackling it we can't achieve real progress in addressing water (and sanitation) challenges (N.R.Chilukuri-India, Laurent Stravato-The Netherlands).

A wide range of definitions and dimensions were mentioned. Perhaps this variety arises in part because corruption touches so many aspects, and in part because is has situation (case)-specific dimensions. Transparency seemed to be easier to define than corruption.

Transparency was described by various e-participants and included terms such as: "… information, awareness and education of populations and their representatives ..." and “being completely open with information” (Evgeny Tyrtyshny, John La Roche).  This was also cited by Arturo Gleason (Mexico) who referred to “problems of the goverment making technical information available to the public”.

As for defintions of corruption, Paul van Beers provided an hilariously funny, yet deadly serious typology, using the colours of the rainbow.  These categories of corruption related to the development/consultant  syndrone, blackmail-type, embezzlement and misuse of public money, small bribes, procurement and tendering,  commissions, non-payment/kickbacks for payments, “gifts”,  non-payment of agreed contributions, unaccounted for water.  Chetan Pandit  provided another typology: “speed money”, “favour money” and “virtual theft”.  Rami Baroudi suggested a thoughtful but rather lengthy typology to help organize our discussions. Several writers reminded us that corruption has several non-monetary dimensions related to achieving greater power, comfort and security.

In fact, it may be more practical not to try to agree on a specific definition, but rather to look at how corruption operates.  In other words, what are the characteristics of corruption?

First of all, corruption is very costly. Mr. Chilukuri, estimated losses to be as much as 60 to 70 %.  Secondly, it is not specific to the water sector (Chetan Pandit). Thirdly, it has many faces, depending on the specific conditions and structures of the area and programmes (Rami Baroudi).  Fourthly, all countries experience corruption (Sohrab Baghri).  Fifthly, it dramatically reduces sustainability and service levels, particularly to poor people.

Examples of where it occurs included: setting water prices and cost recovery (Laurent Stravato), use of disaster relief funds, construction of large tanks (Jagadiswara Rao for which he provided some facinating images), preparation of estimates, stubstandard materials, non-implementation (N.R. Chilukuri).

Global Solutions and Causes

Some macro-level issues were raised about how to reduce or eliminate corruption.  This included taking strong national action complemented and supported by international actions as well as sound management (Evgeny Tyrtyshny).  My experience is that neither national nor international levels will take action against corruption spontaneously … some consistent stimulation is needed.  Good management, in itself, will reduce corruption, although it is not easy to sustain. 

Several people took a larger view of the issues. Rami Baroudi found it difficult to confine the discussion to the WATSAN sector and leave out the rest of the socio economic sectors of that  society.  Thus, Sohrab Baghri notes that, in developing countries it (corruption) has a direct relation with people's livelihood and income. Sighting poverty as a major problem, he notes that some governments do not pay salaries to their employees for months but expect them to prevent corruption. He introduced the word ‘accountability’ as one key to fighting corruption.

Some writers looked at the issue from a donor viewpoint. Stricter procedures (reducing corruption) were seen to increase bureaucracy (reducing efficiency and perhaps effectiveness) even more.  Indeed these external grants/loans and handling large amounts of external donor funding is one problem. In addition, I believe that the fact that water is often handled as an infrastructure programme creates other conditions for corruption, no matter where the funds come from. 

Solutions

Several specific solutions or entry points were suggested to reduce corruption and increase transparency.   

Andy Narracott focused on independent economic regulation and competition as a means to reduce corruption and increase transparency.  His suggestions were:

1. reporting on utility performance levels and using comparative competition;
2. regulators require water providers to produce asset management plans that show plans to extend services to poorer areas;
3. publishing prices offered by alternative service providers who serve the poor areas; and
4. monitoring and publishing information on the actual water quality from suppliers and even from water bottling plants of the North.

Robert H. Brotherton (USA) suggested setting strict standards for public reporting and communication as part of any grant or public infrastructure improvement program. He noted that it is more important for government (and those agencies funding and building public infrastructure) to maintain a high level of trust from the general public than it is to achieve short term specific goals. Related to this,  John La Roche (New Zealand) noted the challenge of striking a balance between receiving enough information to satisfy all stakeholders that there is accountability, and trusting in the recipient organisation's ability to be fully honest and transparent is an on-going debate. Training and capacity building for the recipient organisation might be necessary.

 It was interesting to see some colleagues from developing countries focusing on project design and implementation to increase transparency and reduce corruption.   There was a facinating case study from an NGO,  the Philippine Center for Water and Sanitation whose author noted the following elements that worked to ensure honesty:  

1. A culture of honesty and trust inculcated in and required of every staff.
2. Purchasing of materials accompanied by community members.
3. Telling Dealers that commissions are not accepted and that cash will be paid on delivery, so they can feel free to quote their best prices.
4. Technologies requiring less materials such as ferrocement (for spring-boxes, reservoirs and water-treatment vessels).
5. Planning the projects with community members
6. Keep time: implementation raises community enthusiasm (and therefore participation to ensure honesty) for their projects.

My own experience reflects the elements listed in the case study above. While these may be known to lead to honest, well-managed project/programmes, a problem is “scaling up” these good practices.  Indeed, in this case study it was cited that only one of 17 towns has yet replicated the approach.

Kallirroi Nicolis found that civil society with its effective collaborations, networks and partnerships promote transparency. But not everyone agreed.  Another lesson learned came from Jagadiswara Rao(India) who focused on water sources. This includes the need to establish the water source sustainability before executing a water project, choosing the nearest sustainable water source and taking action to protect the catchment of the water source.  He also reminded us to read Jennifer Davis’ article on Corruption in Public Service Delivery in India (www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev). 

Non-Solutions

In general, the implicaiton of the discussion thus far is that there is no ‘silver bullet’ that will automatically produce total transparency, good governance and end corruption.  Solutions need to be sought on several fronts, involving both micro and macro approaches.

Some possible solutions or ‘ways ahead’ have not been as productive as first thought.  Evgeny Tyrtyshny notes:  “Unfortunately, the stronger positions on governance and transparency adopted by international, bi-lateral and northern-based organisations have been largely ineffective. Indeed, some of the current macro-trends in the water sector (decentralization, privatization, community management, demand approaches) have not improved governance or reduced corruption as their supporters had hoped.  Mr. Astana (India) has argued, in a published article from the last WEDC conference, that decentralization may actually increase the level of corruption. Carlos Cortes reminds us that democracy does not necessarily reduce corruption or result in better governance.

On the other hand Martin Mbonu (Nigeria) argues convincingly against a supply-driven approach in the sector.

What did many people agree about?  This was the need for involvement in planning and implementation as well as financial oversight which goes a long way to reducing corruption and dishonesty in water supply and sanitation services delivery. My own experience is similar, where these elements have been important in the water sector:

• agreed implementation strategies among the stakeholders,
• public involvement in mapping and sight selection,
• control and openness in tendering and
• frequent quality control of materials. 

Three other mechanishms or tools which I have found to be very useful are:

• Establishing mechanisms to immediately stopping work if there is any corruption or misconduct.
• Putting resources into establishing strong complaints systems at all levels
• In working with the private sector, have strong public information outreach to consumers about costs, time, technology and commodities needed.

Kathleen Shordt, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre