Transparency, Honesty and Corruption in the Water and Sanitation Sector Lessons learned from an e-conference

Year of publication: 2005

Transparency, Honesty and Corruption in the Water and Sanitation Sector les sons learned from an e-conference

By Laurent Stravato, Kathleen Shordt, Cor Dietvorst and Marielle Snel

In May 2005, the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre organized an e-conference forum with 175 registered participants on the topic: Transparency and honesty in the water and sanitation sector.

The focus was on finding strategies – and ways of mainstreaming these -- for greater transparency and reduced corruption in the water sector. We at IRC also hoped to meet like-minded colleagues, learn about their experience and ideas. This was also one of the initial activities in our programmatic theme on transparency, honesty and corruption.

The introductory paper for the e-conference began by asserting that good governance and transparency can free most of the resources needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals for water supply. At the beginning, questions were posted such as: What do we mean by transparency, honesty and corruption? Which benefits can come from greater transparency and honesty? Is it true that the stronger positions on governance and transparency adopted by international, bi-lateral and northern-based organisations have been largely ineffective? In the last two weeks of the conference, the discussion focused more on tools and strategies.

This article summarizes the e-conference and the final appendices show an interesting list of strategies and tools which were mentioned by those who participated.

Few case studies were also presented by participants from Nigeria, Kazakhstan and the Philippines.

Why transparency, honesty and corruption in the watsan sector?

It may be interesting to note that we as facilitators had purposely used the words transparency, corruption and honesty as themes in this e-conference. We knew that theoretically at least, it would complicate definitional issues as the three words have different meanings. However, we had selected the three words because taken altogether; they reflect the focus that we feel as the most relevant in the water sector.

Secondly, selecting only one topical word such as corruption might, we thought, have frightened some of the participants. The somewhat multiple focuses did not seem to disturb the discussion. However, we still had the impression that the issues, while of great interest, simultaneously inspire fear. One indication of this was that a number of writers withheld their names. A second indication was that, considering the great frequency of e-conferences these days, the number who registered was large (175), but the proportion of these who actually participated was rather low (about 30). Apparently people wanted to read or to write in the safety of anonymity.

Definitions and main themes

The IRC team appreciated the commitment, insightfulness and openness of those who participated in the e-conference. Their discussions may, at the very least, have helped scope the themes – transparency, honesty and corruption – in the water sector.

The e-conference was replete with examples using different forms of symbols, images and descriptions to define and categorize these phenomena. Thus, rather than trying to agree on a set of definitions, the process was more inductive. Through a large number of examples and typologies, the scope of the subject began to emerge. Knowing that societies and their institutions are susceptible to corruption at all levels, the point was made that it is important to be aware of how this can be developed. The examples varied greatly, from minor misuses of influence and patronage to institutionalized bribery, to blocking the application best practice/policies and beyond.

The e-conference began with a short introduction (sort of brainstorming) where the point was made that transparency, honesty and corruption are challenges around the world. No countries and no societies are immune. However this does not mean that corruption should be tolerated or accepted.Some participants reminded us that the conference is needed because corruption is inadequately addressed within the water and sanitation sector.

Another theme that emerged during the first and second week related to where to start. The point was made that without attacking the origins of the problems, they can not be fully resolved. Several participants pointed to social/economic inequities in some countries, the exceptionally low pay given to civil servants who must manage substantial resources, or a basic devaluation of societal ethics. Without resolving these fundamental challenges first, they said, transparency and honesty will remain elusive. Corruption will prevail. Other comments implied, however, that while this may be true, we simply will not live long enough to address transparency or corruption if we must wait to solve the problems of international and national inequity. Working on several fronts at a time may be more realistic.

One theme that gradually emerged over the first weeks related to focus. There were some observations about ways of ensuring that donor funding is not misused, others about forms of corruption in developing countries. This seemed to generate several comments questioning the role of donors and their governments in industrialized countries. Issues that were brought up included: ineffectiveness of donors’ new policies on transparency/governance and corruption; the negative impact of excess and time-bound funding together with the ‘urge to spend’; as well as, the observation that corruption seem to be fostered by some of the international companies based in industrialized countries. From this we formulated the position, as stated above, that the issue is relevant to all countries, and all levels, although it may be manifested in different ways.

The themes of the last weeks related to strategies/tools that enhance transparency and can reduce corruption, as well as thinking about what can be done in the future. These were both difficult questions that required far more effort than simply discussing the phenomenon itself. However, from this an interesting list of potential strategies/tools was distilled and appears at the end of this paper.

The relevance and interest of the topic

Most opinions expressed in the e-conference have demonstrated that each of the participants has his/her own 'burning issues' which she/he hoped would be addressed through this conference. Some of the issues and problems were unique to the geographic region. Many, however, are generic, appearing in different settings. Some of the contributions from the different regions are noted below.

NORTH-SOUTH

When corruption happens in industrialized countries, it does not affect individual salaries or income that much. However, in developing countries it can have a direct impact on people's livelihood and income. As one writer put it: “I am sure, we are familiar with governments that do not pay salaries to their employees for months but expect them prevent corruption!!!”

EUROPE:

“Europe is the context where there are more long-standing privatization practices, and where more mature systems of corruption have, therefore, evolved in the WATSAN sector. This is rarely recognized in discussions of corruption but recent years have seen leading politicians prosecuted and convicted of corruption in many Western European countries, including Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. For example, in the city of Grenoble in 1996, a former mayor and government minister and a senior executive of a private water company both received prison sentences for receiving and giving bribes to award a water contract to a subsidiary of the company.”

ASIA

One writer stated that frequent transfers reduces transparency ‘as the same person who is manning water department today may go to other department tomorrow.’ Several writers from Asia referred to politicians and to the misuse of political power. Other referred to specific engineering or design features, such as selecting water sources that are further away and, by implication, giving more scope for corruption.

LATIN AMERICA

Grit Martinez (Transparency International) described an example where a high proportion of corruption lies mainly within the process of public contracting (this can also be seen as international phenomena). Another writer lamented that the government purposely avoided being transparent.

AFRICA

A writer from Nigeria noted that the supply-driven approach prevalent in the water sector leads to lack of transparency and dishonesty in service delivery: “In the first instance, stakeholders are not aware of what goes into the annual budget for the sub sector at the different levels of government (federal, state and local governments) or how the funds budgeted are used at the end of the day. Stakeholders involvement in planning and budgeting as well as review of the budget implementation will go a long way to reducing corruption and dishonesty in water supply and sanitation services delivery.”

Follow-up to the e-conference

The e-conference proceedings were summarized in the list of strategies/tools shown on the following page. This list was used in a subsequent mini-workshop, attended by a small number of colleagues working in Africa and Asia. Then two question were posed. Firstly, it was noted that the e-conference identified many strategies and tools which can enhance transparency or reduce corruption. Do you have anything to add to this list? This question also provided the opportunity for participants to become acquainted with new tools/strategies, in addition to adding some from their own experience.

The second issue raised was: These many examples/strategies are small islands of success. What can be done to scale up these practices, to mainstream them in the practice of water planning, implementation and management? We will continue to use these questions and the list as tool for work in this challenging area.

The next pages provide, first, an interesting list of tools and strategies raised during the conference, with a few additions. The last appendix copies three contributions giving actual case studies.

Improving Improving transparency/honesty and reduce corruption in the water sector

Examples of tools and strategies

Central concept

• Political strategy: Through honestly-managed programmes, politicians will appear more popular and win votes
• Decentralization leads to less corruption (some agree, but some people disagree on this)

Stakeholders

• Involve politicians, media, religious leaders in advocating for transparency and honesty.
• Involve civil society, for example, NGOs/CBOs should design and implement water and sanitation projects (some say it will reduce corruption, but others doubt)
• Separate the implementer from the regulator in water sector.
• Reform the government engineering departments through democratization, experimental pilot programmes, voluntary staff participation in planning and quality circles, and so on. The reform leads to cost reductions and more honest working methods.
• Donors (bi-, multi-lateral, international) should implement their own policies on transparency, participation and anti-corruption
• Involve the private sector more. Increase competition among private players. (Some people agreed, but others doubted this.)
• “Scorpion Unit” that identifies and publicizes corrupt individuals/groups. It can also have ability to initiate litigation.
• Choose work locations for engineers in Government engineering departments by lottery

Planning

• Use sustainable water sources that are as close as possible to users (not far away to increase monies needed)
• Plan water service with the community. Involve leaders, rich/poor people, men/women.
• Community members participate in (and approve) site selection of water points, the design of water distribution nets, physical mapping.
• A representative community group checks the eligibility of “poor” households for subsidies, using agreed criteria.
• Develop the lowest-cost technologies that are relevant. Develop traditional water systems such as rain water harvesting systems.
• Make clear and agreed plans for O&M, sustainability, reaching the poor.

Implementation

• Perform quickly. Work rapidly in planning, release of fund and implementation. A long delay aids corruption and lacks transparency.
• Implementation strategies should be known and agreed among all stakeholders.

Tendering and contracts

• Tendering: control and openness: public tenders, open documents.
• An agreed code of “zero tolerance” for corruption
• Include “no bribery”, “no corruption” clauses in contracts
• Private water providers must produce asset management plans showing how services will be extended to the poor.
• For expenses over $100 or $1000 per week (depending on the person or institution) two signatures are required on an A-4 form.
• Joint signatures on financial and project documents
• Create a list of contractors known for honesty. Create a list of offending contractors.

Construction

• Community and third party control of quality of construction
• Materials: manufacturers and suppliers are told there will be no commission and are given immediate payments.
• Purchasing of local materials accompanied by community members
• Check on quality of materials by one or two of: third party company, ISO, community, NGOs/CBOs

Cost recovery, payment for water

• Fix water tariffs in blocks according to the quantity used. This reduces opportunities for corruption.
• Use water meters in each household
• Set up centralized, “one-stop” application/approval points for household water connection
• Monitor and publish water quality levels of bulk providers, water from treatment plants and bottling plants.
• Have frequent, responsible inspections. Inter-institutional membership.
• Establish and implement rules to immediately stop work if there is any corruption or mis-conduct.

Communication

• Give training in how to report.
• Set strict public reporting requirements for public reporting, to report to donors and so on.
• Household latrine construction: give simple plans, list of materials, costs, labor time and labor costs to householders and to masons/contractors
• Urban water: Publish reports on utility performance levels.
• Publish technical information for public information.
• At the water point site, there can be simple information boards showing the total project cost, who contributes, amounts of contributions, contractor by name, prices, expected date of completion
• Computerize data collection on water and management and make this available to the public
• Media reports highlighting problems of corruption or lack of transparency.
• Media reports highlighting good practice.

Monitoring/reporting

• Check and act on unpaid for water by companies and institutions.
• Check illegal connections and fine (legalize) or stop service to these.
• Fault reporting and complaints systems for water: Set up fault reporting/complaints system, including planning with community members’ how/where to report.
• Protect the staff involved in transparency/honesty issues: transfers and tenure

THREE CASE STUDIES FROM THE E-CONFERENCE

Micro-projects in Nigeria

Martin Mbonu

Programme Manager

Delegation of European Commission,
Nigeria .

The view expressed here is strictly my personal opinion and does not represent the view of my organisation.

The EU is funding micro-projects programme in the nine oil-producing States of the Delta region of Nigeria. Under the programme, the EU co-finances projects selected by the rural communities, with the assistance of non-governmental organizations, up to 75% of the total cost. The benefiting communities pay a minimum of 25% of the cost in cash and/or in kind. Water and sanitation infrastructure constitutes about 40% of the communities’ choices. Other projects include classroom blocks, health centres, roads, boat jetties, community halls, etc.

Experience has shown that a simple information sign board erected at the project site, on which the total cost of the project, who is contributing to the project cost and the amount contributed by each contributor, who has won which contract and at what price as well as the delivery period for the contracts, has reduced tension and improved community participation and ownership. This information board combined with fact that the communities are involved in the design and implementation of the projects have ensured that contractors keep to the budget as jointly planned thus ensuring transparency and accountability.

The Niger Delta region is reputed for youth restiveness; expressed by frequent conflict and violence and incessant demand by youth for “under-the-table” payments from oil contractors, etc. Transparency of operations in the micro-projects programme has translated in the success of the programme as manifested in the number of projects completed at record time and at reasonable

Three examples from Kazakhstan

Evgeny Tyrtyshny Executive Secretary of the Technical Advisory
Committee of the Kazakhstan Water Partnership

The first example was developed in the framework of FASEP (France - Kazakhstan) Project "Program of Water Quality Improvement at the Irtysh River Basin" and was continued by the Project FFEM (France – Russia - Kazakhstan) «Irtysh River Basin Transboundary Water Resources Management» http://www.irmic.org/ and represents the strengthening of the existing management structure for
IWRM goals through the creation of Irtysh River Basin Information System (IRBIS) and further actions. The concept of this Information System for IrtyshRiver Basin includes computer information system as well as all organizational aspects necessary for the support, functioning and system efficiency. IRBIS is seen as a tool for the coordination of data collection on water and management with respect to the responsibility and needs of each partner on basin level, national and international levels.

Secondly, River Basin Councils, which will represent important step in the work of attracting stakeholders were defined by the New Water Code in Kazakhstan. Preimage of this Basin Council is the Public Committee on Irtysh River Protection http://www.belovodye.freenet.kz.

Third example is working as volunteer Kazakhstan Water Partnership http://www.atasu.org/eng/introduction.html. For the purpose of achieving the IWRM the Kazakhstan Water Partnership (GWP-Kazakhstan) is working to disclosure and made accessible any available water information and knowledge at the country.

NGO implementation strategy in southern Philippines

Jose Carmelo M Gendrano

The NGO, the Philippine Center for Water and Sanitation.

Honest and transparent project management is one of the "three plus two" principles we are trying to promote for the successful delivery of sustainable projects ( the others are community participation and appropriate technology, and working in communities where the needs are deepest and local partners are available). These principles are mutually indispensable.

Proof that these work: in 2002 to 2004 we had two CIDA-LGSP programs in Mindanao island that aimed to demonstrate to local governments exactly these principles via the rapid implementation of small water projects. With only seven core field staff, in the space of 10 working months we and the beneficiary communities (we did not hire contractors) were able to build and operationalize 24 water systems in 21 villages of 17 municipalities in six provinces of the island. This resulted to the delivery of improved water services to at least 1424 rural households (7000 people).

We built spring-fed gravity systems, hand pump wells, household roof water systems and filters for improving water quality, depending on which technologies suit a community best. We also introduced sanitation technologies such as biogas septic tanks. Per capita materials cost were about $7, with another $7 expended for salaries and travel expenses. In contrast, government water projects in the area costed about $60 per capita.

To be sure, innovations other than honesty and transparency were also employed. However, these would not have been possible had there not been a culture of honesty and trust inculcated in and required of every staff.

For example, the staffs were divided into three teams, each focusing on one community at a time. These small teams were not only faster-moving but were necessarily largely autonomous, considering that they worked scores of kilometers apart. They traveled on public transport, but had mobile phones so they can report every day by text messages. They were given enough money so they can rapidly purchase the needed materials on the phoned-in permission of the project head, and their daily progress enabled on-time planning of logistics so they can be replenished rapidly. Purchasing of materials were especially straightforward and above-board. Community members accompanied canvassing. Dealers were told that commissions will not be accepted and that spot cash will be paid on delivery, so they can feel free to quote their best prices.

The projects used technologies requiring less material such as ferrocement (for spring-boxes, reservoirs and water-treatment vessels). This not only brought the costs of such components down by as much as a factor of ten; it also meant that there was that much less materials lying around that can be a temptation for pilferage. Design of the water systems were rapid and forthright. Much use was made of prepared templates and computer spreadsheets for rapid calculations of economic sizes of components, bills of materials and the relative costs and benefits of applicable technologies and configurations to a community. All this usually meant that after one or two days of field-data gathering and five days of data-processing, a project plan detailing not only the technical aspects but also roles and counterparts can already be presented to the community for their go-ahead. And, within a few days of the community-pre-construction meeting the first materials can be delivered and something concrete can be started such as a spring-box or a reservoir mold. These had a big impact in raising community enthusiasm (and therefore participation) for their projects.

To be sure, not all systems were finished and running by the time the programs ended. Six were left uncommissioned to wait for counterparts from local governments while one was unsuccessful because of disputes in the sharing of the water source. Of the 17 municipalities, as of this writing only one is known to replicating the approach in other projects, and then only its technology innovations.

To conclude, the programs had been a complex undertaking: geographically each program area spanned 400km from end to end; and there were some 70 local government officials, four donor agency officers, and seventy community leaders aside from the communities themselves that had to be kept in communication and in various ways involved in the program. But imagine how much more complex, slow and unmanageable it could have been without the atmosphere of trust,openness and confidence emphasized to everybody.

- Download:

General_summary_LS_KS_Stock.pdf (94.8 kB)