The XVI World Water Congress took place in Cancun, Mexico, from the 29th of May to the 3rd of July 2017 with “Bridging Science and Policy” as a topic. During the event, more than 1100 participants from 68 countries discussed the crucial role that the water and sanitation sector has in achieving the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. WIN presented work led in collaboration with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Latin America, which is aimed at strengthening transparency and trust in stewardship initiatives like Water Funds. Science is by definition a neutral discipline based on experimental data and independent of political ideologies. But policymakers can be reluctant to accept scientific facts as primary evidence for policymaking, especially if these facts contradict special interests or are poorly understood. Two factors worsen this situation: the possibility to manipulate and distort data to fit certain interests, and the complexity of science for a non-specialized audience. The combination of these two factors can decrease people’s trust towards science. The intense political debate on climate change sciences is an obvious illustration. At the time of the Congress, the United States government announced its official withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Although not a surprise, the news struck participants, resonating as a deep failure in the fight for protecting the planet from the negative impacts of climate change. A key ingredient for bridging policy and science is integrity. More transparency, accountability, and participation can help build trust and reinforce the synergy between science and policy. It is essential that water sector stakeholders take into account integrity principles and conflicts of interest more seriously, use science as evidence for better policymaking and steer scientific enquiry towards the most pressing social needs. Clarifying links to integrity risks when we discuss key water sector issues and policy solutions, can be a strategy to innovate and plan new ways of bridging the gap. In Cancun, this possibility remained implicit for now, but some stepping stones were set. It’s up to us water integrity practitioners to push further and clear away a more inviting path. Integrity is an implicit, cross-cutting issue in the water sector Water security was on everyone’s lips at the Congress. We heard it in the context of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), the water-energy-food nexus, and water governance. In every case, water security conveys a central message: we need to make sure that water is and will be available to sustain livelihoods, human well-being, and healthy ecosystems. In many sessions, the examples that were presented in relation to water security were about conflicts or success stories of shared water resources around the world. Sharing scarce resources fairly and sustainably is central to the concept of water integrity and as such water security is very closely connected. Without a direct reference to integrity, participants also expressed their interest in many other integrity-related topics, for example: The lack of data on people not accessing water services, compared to the availability of data on water users. The few incentives to reduce non-revenue water, compared to the relative ease of getting investments for new infrastructure. The way better information does not necessarily imply better decisions because of the complexity of the decision-making process The importance of accountability to increase investors’ trust. The key role of civil society in fighting corruption and the challenging environment for such work. In relation to the last point, the Cancun Declaration released at the end of the event does urge for collaboration and engagement, in particular with civil society. It’s a small step in terms of recognizing integrity risks explicitly but a step in the right direction nonetheless. ‘They (water specialists) must engage with civil society to assert the role of water in human rights and nature.’ – Cancun Declaration Paths to introduce integrity into the water discussion Congress participants intensively discussed the water-related goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The discussion highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and the ‘3 “I”s’: Institutions, Infrastructure and Investments. It is important to note that these 3 elements relate to important integrity risks: misuse of key positions, bribery and collusion in procurement, and lack of transparency in the public budget. Integrity can be a new way to think of issues at hand and jointly develop fair, effective, and sustainable solutions. Water governance is another important and clear entry point. Good governance and water integrity go hand in hand. The Organizations of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) presented their latest work from implementing their principles on water governance, which emphasise integrity, transparency and trust. The new phase of the OECD Water Governance Programme includes a platform where water practitioners can share their experiences. The aim is to activate a fruitful dialogue for water governance. Integrity to support and enable water stewardship: integrity in Water Funds In Cancun, WIN presented the work it has carried out with TNC and the Water Fund of Medellin, Colombia. Water Funds are water stewardship initiatives in which public and private actors work together to provide water security to metropolitan areas by investing in natural infrastructure. These initiatives have been very successful and are currently considered a model of good practice. Many sessions during the Congress discussed different aspects of their structure. Water Funds rely on technical and scientific data to design their action plans. But such collaborative basin management also requires mechanisms to ensure open accountability, participation, and clear access to information for all stakeholders involved. Open collaboration and knowledge sharing among Water Fund stakeholders have been essential to their success. This relies on trust. WIN’s work on Water Funds (and World Water Congress presentation) focused on: The importance of trust and transparency as essential elements for the success of multi-stakeholder processes; The joint efforts of WIN and TNC to make Water Funds more transparent, secure and participatory; How a better understanding of the success of these initiatives in terms of integrity and effectiveness will be paramount to securing investments and fine-tuning their multi-stakeholder structures. The presentation led to a lively discussion. Some questioned the importance of participation, particularly that of civil society and of the youth. In response, we highlighted the big challenges for water governance in places where civic space is constrained and the importance of new technologies towards transparency. We argued that the experience of the Water Funds is a good example of how important it is to understand the positions, needs and interests of all actors.

Collective and organized action is crucial to reduce corruption and inefficiency. Water Funds are a good approach to make this a reality. – Mr. Alejandro Calvache (TNC) The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a charity organization that works globally to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. TNC works together with communities, businesses, governments, multilateral institutions and other non-profit organizations. TNC launched the Latin American Water Funds partnership across Latin America and, more recently, Water Fund projects in North America, Asia and Africa. Water Funds are a model of long-term environmental conservation for watersheds that supply water to cities and communities. Mr. Alejandro Calvache is the coordinator of the Water Funds programme* in The Northern Andes and Southern Central America Region. He leads the use of technical and financial tools to promote long-term conservation schemes of supplying water basins. The governance of water supply systems has always been a pivotal theme for TNC, especially in Latin America. As a consequence, integrity is both a concern and a target. Water Funds are meant to offer a solid and transparent structure to channel public and private funds into trustworthy platforms for conservation initiatives. In this context, integrity can a) increase the effectiveness of such platforms, b) help achieve greater credibility and reduce reputational risks, c) foster long-term engagement with investors and communities, and d) build more trust among involved stakeholders. We conducted an interview with Mr. Calvache, who has worked with TNC for almost ten years, to find out why Water Funds have been so successful and what challenges TNC still faces in further promoting water integrity in the water sector of Latin America. How is TNC currently contributing to transparency in the water sector in Latin America? TNC has advanced a game-changing approach to improve key ecosystems responsible for water provision in several cities across Latin America. The Water Fund approach combines state-of-the-art science, better governance models, economic principles and collaboration with key stakeholders from the public and private sectors as well as civil society. This encourages participation and transparency in the water sector in Latin America. By focusing on the governance of water provision, TNC is committed to ensuring that water is used and supplied in a transparent manner, where all investments are glassy and expenditures are properly tracked. In Water Funds, large water users in cities like Bogota, Medellin, Quito, Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City and others, now invest in watershed protection projects. These projects are varied and can focus directly on reforestation or also contribute to helping local farmers improve their practices and diversify their income. By reducing the flow of sediments into the water, such activities have led to improved water quality at a fraction of the cost of building water treatment plants. Nature benefits from these projects too: restored forests and grasslands are key to capturing water and sheltering wildlife. To date, TNC has established 20 Water Funds in Latin America, which seek to increase public-private partnerships and collective action to increase transparency in water management. What current and future challenges do you see to reducing corruption in the water sector in Latin America? With regard to current challenges, we see the difficulty for public and private water-related initiatives to be articulated in an organized manner. We are working very hard to avoid dispersion. Collective and organized action is crucial to reduce corruption and inefficiency. Water Funds are a good approach to making this a reality. As for future challenges, these relate more to the ability to secure long-term financing for watershed conservation based on nascent water regulation frameworks, with clear control mechanisms in which civil society plays a permanent role. What factors have ensured that the Water Fund in Medellin has become so successful? First, the commitment from key stakeholders from the early stages of the design phase was crucial to setting up a successful Water Fund in Medellin. For example, Empresas Publicas de Medellin, the environmental authorities, and the private sector were strongly involved from early on. Second, cutting-edge science helped identify Water Fund goals in terms of areas for intervention and return on investment. Third, a clear and balanced public/private governance model established to operate the Water Fund was crucial. Finally, permanent dialogue between different Water Funds within Colombia and across the Latin-American region plays an important part in ensuring that the Water Funds operate successfully. What did the collaboration between TNC and WIN bring so far to the already ambitious objective of the Water Funds? The collaboration between WIN and TNC has brought additional tools that help evaluate and improve the performance of Water Funds. A first gulp from the glass of water integrity, which also helped in starting this collaboration, was the analysis of the governance structure in the Medellin Water Fund. The collaboration between WIN and TNC allowed the Medellin Water Fund team to assess current results and propose solutions to increase efficiency and transparency. Both these elements are very important to build trust and secure Water Fund operations in the long run. We are exploring how to use the methodology in other operational Water Funds in Latin America. There are several actions that TNC wants to focus on in the future to further promote participation and transparency in the way Water Funds operate. These actions have been explored in collaboration with WIN. We want to further strengthen governance models of operational Water Funds. This could mean defining clear enabling conditions for consideration before the design of new Water Funds, to make sure any new Water Fund is efficient, transparent and sustainable. TNC will also be implementing robust science-based monitoring protocols to quantify key impacts in water quality, water regulation, and economic and socio-economic benefits delivered by Water Funds on a regular basis. Where do you see key areas of collaboration with the Water Integrity Network in further pushing for more integrity in the water sector of Latin America? Together with the WIN, we see opportunities to share best practices, lessons learnt and experiences in designing Water Funds in the region. TNC would like to replicate the Water Fund model in different geographies across the world. Collaboration with partners can help us jointly improve the health of watersheds and can play a role in increasing the scale of results in watershed conservation initiatives. The experience WIN is bringing into this partnership transcends the mere integrity assessment and supports the need for more participated approaches in funding the water sector. WIN can help TNC in identifying replicable ways to ensure the right balance of interests gravitates towards watersheds. And, since WIN is a global network, strong collaboration is essential to reach such a scale across the world. *About The Water Fund Programme Water Funds operate through investments and leveraged resources generated and assigned to preserve the basin through conservation actions. These funds aim to invest in nature to increase water security in 40 Latin American cities by 2020. These investments are focused on keeping intact natural areas, restoring the lands along the watershed and river corridors and implementing management practices that minimize the impacts of the activities of land use in the quality and quantity of water. The Water Fund in Medellin, Colombia is one of the most successful Water Funds in the region. This particular Water Fund is capable of collecting public and private funds for the conservation of the watersheds providing water to Valle de Aburrá, including the City of Medellin. In early 2016, WIN discussed with TNC the possibility of making Funds even more transparent, secure for investors and communities, and capable of building trust among stakeholders. It is crucial to have mechanisms to strengthen accountability and promote different levels of participation, to ensure that people of the basins can have access to relevant information on results.

In honour of the UN-Water year on ‘Wastewater’, WIN is posting a series of guest blogs on the topic. Community participation and citizen activism are vital for successful river management and for ensuring clean and healthy rivers. Citizens are best placed to demand accountability from authorities and their political leaders. Often, they bring innovation and wit into their campaigns. The love letter campaign against wastewater discharge An interesting example relates to a citizen movement against wastewater discharge that occurred in the Brantas river basin in Indonesia. A few years ago, 17-year-old Zaskia Dwi Aridhiyant was part of a youth group involved in fighting river pollution. She made a unique move to highlight the mismanagement of wastewater in the area around her school by initiating a campaign called A Love Letter for the Governor. Zaskia gathered 15 students from her school, SMAN Driyorejo, to help monitor industrial wastewater discharge in the area. With a simple water quality test kit and camera for biomonitoring, her group collected samples that detected high levels of harmful pollutants. With the results in hand, the students then sent a ‘love letter’ to the polluting industries about their violations. This letter stated that if the industries would take measures to handle the waste discharge and would respond, Zaskia would send them chocolates as a sign of appreciation. Several industries replied to the love letter and committed to improving their wastewater management. But more than 60% of the letters were left unanswered. Unsatisfied with the result, Zaskia took the movement to another level. She gathered support by asking people to sign her love letter to the Governor of East Java, Sukarwo. Every week over a period of three months, Zaskia campaigned in the city park to collect signatures for her letter to the governor. Eventually, she managed to collect over 500 signatures from students and citizens. - Zaskia campaigned to gain public support every Sunday at Bungkul Park, Surabaya. Copyright: Ecoton. After collecting signatures, Zaskia requested a hearing with the governor, to whom she wished to hand over the love letter with her demand for a better and healthier environment. The letter included her concerns with regard to the compliance of industries to wastewater discharge standards. The governor responded and appointed his representative to meet and accept the love letter. Touched by the love letter, the Governor promised to improve the monitoring and control mechanism of industrial pollution and made the rehabilitation of the Brantas river basin a priority in the East Java province. Pollution in the Brantas basin Brantas is the second biggest river basin on Java Island, Indonesia. The river flows along 17 municipalities, covering 25% of East Java’s catchment. It supports irrigation to about 10,000 paddy fields, over 121 industries, 14 regional water supply enterprises (PDAM), and 10 major hydropower plants [1]. To support these economic and livelihood activities, the river basin was divided into two primary development areas, namely agricultural in the middle/upper area and industrial in the downstream area. In the downstream area, which covers Surabaya city and surrounding regions, industrial development occurs without adequate pollution control measures in place. This has led to the deterioration of water quality. The Surabaya River Pollution Control Action Plan Study (1999) stated that the carrying capacity of the Surabaya river was 65 tons of BOD/day, but that the total pollution load was as high as 330 tons of BOD/day, much higher than the carrying capacity. Industrial wastewater discharge from pulp, paper, and sugar cane factories is a key source of waste and lethal chemicals. Chemicals such as organochlorine pesticide [2], plastic [3], and brominated flame retardant [4] were all found in the downstream area of Surabaya. Water pollution significantly affects the biodiversity of aquatic life, as well as the health and economy of communities living in the Brantas river basin. The decrease of high value fish species and decrease in general fish population has impacted the income of local fishermen. According to a 2011 study by Ecoton, about 50 fish species were lost in the past five decades. Industries often do not comply with discharge standards or other requirements. In particular, during the rainy season, when the water levels of the river are at their peak, industries simultaneously discharge untreated or poorly treated wastewater into the river. In addition, hidden channels continue to discharge untreated or poorly treated wastewater all year round. Other noteworthy violations include the fact that industries are not sending their mandatory six-monthly reports to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Environmental management and water programmes in the Brantas basin The Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MEF) [5] of Indonesia has led two national programmes to tackle the problem of wastewater pollution. The Kali Bersih–PROKASIH aimed at reducing water pollution at the source. During the programme period of 2003–2008, 341 companies signed a statement letter in which they agreed to undertake measures to reduce pollution. Another programme called PROPER (Corporate Performance Rating Assessment) encouraged compliance of companies by publicizing information related to their management of the environment. This programme was less successful since many industries did not comply. Currently, Water Patrol is an ongoing joint programme which helps monitor and control water pollution, particularly industrial wastewater in the Brantas river basin. The programme involves a number of government agencies including the river basin organizations BBWS, Jasa Tirta 1, the EPA, the police department, the city government, the public work agency, and other related agencies. The Water Patrol programme is considered a success story since many different stakeholders are involved in controlling and monitoring industrial wastewater discharge. Despite the ongoing Water Patrol programme, industries continue to clandestinely discharge untreated wastewater. This raises key integrity concerns and highlights the institutional gaps that hamper programmes such as Water Patrol from performing to their full potential. Based on the experience of Ecoton, three key concerns require due attention. Recommendations to promote integrity and tackle wastewater pollution: building institutional capacity: environmental and river basin organisations Firstly, there is a need to build the capacity of EPA Officials, since providing the right leadership within the EPA is crucial. Many times, EPA staff members are nominated by the government and lack the right skills to lead the agency. Posts in the EPA are often considered comfort postings. The leadership does not want to take critical measures that involve risks and conflicts. There have also been instances where staff members have been eager to develop better and more effective programmes to counter pollution or pursue a case but were hampered due to a lack of support from the top. An additional limitation is that the EPA lacks a state investigator and has no real authority to investigate pollution. The EPA is understaffed and often dependent on the regional EPA or MEF. With no state investigator, industries can easily hide evidence, which hampers transparency and accountability. Preventing malpractice and promoting integrity management Secondly, it is key to reduce the opportunities for malpractice. During a private conversation, factory owners and managers told Ecoton that unscrupulous police officers offered to dilute the charges against the defaulters in water pollution lawsuits, provided they were handed additional cash or gifts. The cost of handling lawsuits is much higher as a result of corruption and blackmailing, than building or improving wastewater treatment facilities. In another case, police officers used complaint reports from NGOs to blackmail factory owners. One way of reducing chances of malpractice is to involve the media: publishing stories in which industrial violators may be revealed, thanks to photo and data evidence. Alternatively, complaint letters may be sent to the provincial and municipal EPA, with proof of the violations. Factory owners can be sensitive to bad publicity and may be willing to better abide by the laws. Integrity management, which focuses on integrity risk prevention, is also an important tool to reduce opportunities for malpractice. Together with cewas, WIN launched a pilot project applying the River Basin Integrity Management (IM) toolbox with the Brantas river basin organization in 2015. The initiative is a new collaborative and practical avenue for stakeholders to approach the subject of water quality and pollution in the basin. It should be explored further. Supporting community involvement Finally, an efficient response mechanism and more community involvement are required. Communities are too often left out of project planning and not involved in project monitoring yet they are the most directly affected and concerned by water pollution and water resource management in the basin. Communities and government institutions have noted the often slow response from EPA to their complaints and grievances. Slow responses have made many informants and communities feel neglected and discredited by the EPA. It’s important that faster and more efficient response mechanisms for complaints are built to ensure outreach to communities. The lack of awareness and participation in projects by communities is mainly due to a lack of information and access to active engagement in river basin management. Communities feel left out of river management planning. Most of the programmes are planned top-down and aren’t developed based on community needs. An example of this is a programme aimed at reducing open defecation in the river. The government built communal sanitation facilities but many of these were not used because they were not placed in suitable locations, were designed poorly, or were not maintained. The facilities did not meet the community's needs. Involving communities from the very beginning of the planning stage is crucial. It means plans will be developed from and for the community and allows them to build a sense of belonging in relation to the programme. This helps ensure sustainability. Communities also have a crucial role to play in monitoring programmes and holding governments and industries to account. The love letters of Zaskia Dwi Aridhiyant show that this is possible and can be effective but it requires follow-up and perseverance. Supporting the work of NGOs working with communities and of water integrity champions like Zaskia also for citizen monitoring is essential. ECOTON sees that children or young peoples are vulnerable victims of environmental degradation and especially water pollution. That’s why we focus on empowering them with information and skills to independently monitor water quality and build their confidence to take action to solve the problems. They can make a difference. - One of Zaskia’s group members handed the love letter to East Java Governor, Sukarwo. Copyright: Ecoton. About Ecoton ECOTON stands for Ecological Observation and Wetland Conservation. The organization is based in Wringinanom village, Gresik Regency. Established in 1998, ECOTON has been working on river rehabilitation issues for 19 years. Litigation and non-litigation are ECOTON’s basic approaches to increase multi-stakeholder awareness and participation in Brantas river conservation. The non-litigation approach consists of research, lobbying and advocacy, and education. ECOTON pursues litigation after non-litigation approaches have failed. Litigation is also used as an entry point to open discussions with government institutions or companies/industries. ECOTON works with youth to increase their awareness of the importance of their participation in ensuring the sustainability of clean water. ECOTON trained hundreds of students to monitor water quality with water bugs (biomonitoring). The method was developed 10 years ago to provide an easy and simple monitoring technique which enables everyone to actively participate in monitoring industrial or domestic pollution. [1] Ministry of Public Work. Water Resources Management Plan – Brantas River Basin. 2010. page 101 [2] Sudaryanto A, Takahashi S, and Tanabe S. Chapter 13: Persistent toxic Substances in the environment of Indonesia. Dev. In Environ Sci. 2007. 7: 587 – 627 [3] Darmawanti R. Estrogenic compounds analysis in Surabaya river sediment and their impact to Asian redtailed catfish (Hemibagrus nemurus) intersexuality. 2013. Thesis. Airlangga University. 104 pg [4] Ilyas M, Sudaryanto A, Setiawan I.E, Riyadi A.S., Isobe T, Takahashi S, Tanabe S. Characterization of PCB and BFR in sediments from riverine and coastal waters of Surabaya, Indonesia. Marine Poll Bull. 2011. 62:89-98 [5] The MEF shapes the national policy for industrial and domestic wastewater discharge. Other sector ministries (e.g. industry, marine affairs and fisheries) are responsible for implementing environmental management policy in their sector, while local governmental implementing are agencies responsible for issuing permits and monitoring discharge. Governors have the authority to control water pollution, but the implementation is in the hands of the head of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This short documentary from Harare, Zimbabwe, shows how citizens took action to examine and question the way a loan meant for water service developments was used and administered. Local video journalist, Thomas Madhuku, interviews several residents from Mabvuku, a local township in Harare which is affected by a lack of water supply and speaks to the mayor of Harare to get his opinion on the matter. The video provides an inspiring example of water integrity in action! Do you also have interesting stories to share or need more information about the topic? Get in touch with us via info(AT)win-s.org

Last week, Transparency International published a resource guide on Monitoring Corruption and Anti-Corruption in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The publication stresses the important role of civil society organizations in monitoring corruption. It also points to major limitations in how the official SDG monitoring mechanisms take into account corruption and advocates mainstreaming reporting on corruption across the SDGs. Corruption is a factor limiting development processes and directly affecting how and if all the SDGs can be achieved, not only SDG16. It must therefore be taken into account across the board. To that end, the report provides guidelines to help identify potential indicators and data sources. Sample indicators are also provided for monitoring corruption for five key SDGs. Having had the privilege of contributing to the report, I am sharing a few thoughts on the role monitoring of corruption and integrity plays in supporting the achievement of the SDGs, especially that of SDG 6: Ensure access to clean water and sanitation for all. The importance of developing indicators to measure corruption for the SDGs Corruption is a concealed act by definition: there is not enough reliable data and evidence on the depth of the problem and its impact. As a consequence it is often not possible to monitor, and consequently control, corruption through an evidence-based approach. It is also not always possible to know what really works in fighting corruption, and if any progress has been made. But there are starting points. There are ways to gather reliable and actionable data to inform anti-corruption efforts. There are ways, to use better data, to raise awareness and develop the political will to effectively fight corruption. We can’t afford to wait for the next corruption scandal to come to the spotlight to get a sense of how costly and destructive corruption turns out to be, and how much harder it is to make our efforts to achieve SDGs. A sectoral focus on anti-corruption is required The most ubiquitously cited corruption indicators are those that attempt to describe the problem at a national level. Such indicators can be useful to raise awareness and prompt governments to act. However, their usefulness is limited when it comes to guiding decision-making for anti-corruption efforts. This is partly because many corruption risks tend to be sector-specific. For example, a major corruption risk area in the healthcare sector relates to financial contributions by pharmaceutical companies to medical research units to exercise undue influence. In the water sector, customers can be extorted to pay a bribe to receive a water connection or speed up repair work. As general corruption indicators lack the granularity to reveal such vulnerabilities peculiar to sectors, we need tailored indicators to be able to monitor risks and ensure corruption does not jeopardize the efficacy of global investments. Corruption indicators to monitor SDG 6 Weak governance, corruption, and lack of integrity directly threaten the fulfilment of the water SDG and by extension many of the other SDGs, as these are underpinned by water and sanitation issues. There is a role for stakeholders, and civil society in particular, to support the development of an SDG monitoring framework that addresses these risks. The water sector is particularly vulnerable to corruption, because of territorial and institutional fragmentation, the substantial funds involved in infrastructure projects, the marginalization of communities and local stakeholders, etc. There are also corruption and integrity risks at all levels in the sector and throughout project implementation: from policy and framework conditions all the way to service delivery and consumer interface. Indicators have to be able to grasp this diversity and still inform practical decision-making. So what makes a good indicator? How does one choose? The choice of sample indicators for SDG 6 for our report is partly driven by the availability of data, or at least the existence of experiences by various organizations in capturing data for the indicators. For example, a few of the sample indicators in the resource guide refer to water integrity indicators developed by the Good Governance Working Group of the Ugandan Ministry of Water and Environment with support from WIN and GIZ. These indicators are now being used to monitor good governance in the water and sanitation sub-sector in the country and could be adapted and mainstreamed in other countries. Other featured indicators have been tried and tested in multiple countries. For instance, data on non-revenue water is available and regularly updated for water utility companies in 133 countries. When selecting indicators, it is also important to strike a balance between direct and indirect (proxy) indicators. Whereas direct indicators can help gauge the prevalence and costs of corruption (e.g. petty corruption in service delivery), proxy indicators (e.g. procurement risks, participation levels) help unbox insights where direct corruption measurement is not possible, which, as mentioned, is often the case. Such bespoke indicators can point to red flags and possible enabling factors of corruption, and can thus be useful to guide anti-corruption interventions in the sector. We at WIN have been stepping up our efforts to develop corruption and integrity indicators for the water sector and to produce data on such indicators. We support organizations working on corruption, integrity and governance assessments and look forward to cooperating with others to develop strong indicator frameworks. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch to work together.

Citizens have a role to play in decision-making for urban sanitation planning. But, meaningfully engaging with citizens is not an easy process. Some politicians use the pretence of citizen participation to show that they are considering the population’s point of view or to satisfy a donor’s expectation of participation when in practice the demands expressed by citizens have little impact on the policy developed. A typical and common example of this is when a public status meeting is held to present a sanitation master plan that is already fully developed from scratch by a foreign consulting firm. Such a public presentation is needed, but cannot, in my view, be considered as real or sufficient citizen involvement. The highest level of citizen involvement would imply that citizens work jointly with elected representatives and the administration to develop, implement and monitor policy. Can this be done to ensure better service? How? Here are some examples and concerns of how citizens can take part in sanitation service development, across the whole project cycle. Citizen involvement to guide national wastewater and sanitation policy A 2011 description of lessons learned from Mauritania, Mali, Côte d’Ivoire, Togo, Benin and Niger, on citizen involvement in national sanitation policymaking processes highlights the benefits of creating a representative steering committee. The committee should include representatives of the sanitation demand[1] side: the informal sector, private sector, and citizens. Local NGOs may act as intermediaries, informing and mobilizing the informal stakeholders active in the sector to provide input. Face-to-face interaction is important in consultation processes such as these, which also must stay inclusive. That requires that organizers present the practical implications of policy plans to stakeholders at all levels, avoid technical language and be conscious of the local language. Once a clear, realistic and consensual national policy or strategy has been adopted, monitoring its implementation is essential, and should also include a citizen watch. One example of how this can be carried out is the ongoing water and sanitation citizen budget monitoring initiative in Senegal led by GRET and Forum Civil (a civil society network dedicated to accountability, which is also the Senegalese branch of Transparency International). The project aims to build Senegalese civil society organizations’ capacities to understand and analyse the institutional and economic stakes of water and sanitation. Moreover, it aims to elaborate and test a methodology of civil society involvement in the formulation and monitoring of the Senegalese national budget for water and sanitation. Citizen involvement to design local strategy The programmes ‘Concerted Municipal Strategies (CMS)’ and ‘National Policies and Strategies for Sanitation’ by the NGO programme Solidarité Eau [2], included an in-depth collaborative approach for sanitation planning in twelve medium-sized cities in Africa. This was based on the premise that a city sanitation strategy is only of any value if it has been understood, approved and adopted by all stakeholders. Whilst the approval of a sanitation strategy by all stakeholders is not an easy task, the project showed that the approach was interesting for several reasons. First, the process of developing a city-wide strategy by mobilizing all stakeholders forced local authorities, the State’s administration, and national public sanitation operators, to recognize and take into account the demand from the ‘hidden parts’ of the city. These ‘hidden parts’ include slum areas as well as new or informal settlements on the outskirts of the city. It also provided local stakeholders with an opportunity to express their expectations and concerns and provided them with information and training on a wide variety of issues and challenges that are encountered within the sanitation sector. The programme showed clearly that the consultation process is therefore just as important as the strategy documents resulting from it. Citizen involvement to manage service delivery Community management of water projects and wastewater infrastructure is often presented as a guarantee of better ownership and transparency. According to my experience, however, this is often a misconception. First, it is important to define what ‘community management’ means in practice. Do inhabitants’ associations from a slum area or village have ownership over the infrastructure and the responsibility of service delivery to the area? Do they assume the operation and maintenance of the facilities or set up contracts with small or medium-sized local private operators? In many cases, community-managed decentralized sanitation systems (like a decentralized water treatment system connected to a small-bore sewer network for example) lead to poor quality service. This is the result of the lack of capacities of non-professional operators in terms of financial and technical management, which is especially common when the NGO or development agency initiating the projects pulls out entirely. A 2013 in-depth study I took part in, on small-bore sewer systems worldwide, showed how community management of systems can lead to the public authority relinquishing responsibility for a project. In many cases, this leads to big inequalities in terms of service quality and tariffs. Inhabitants of wealthy city centres benefit from highly comfortable sanitation services, such as sewers, often delivered to them for free or at very low tariff rate levels, while community members have to put in more time and effort to get lower standard service. One example of this is the Brazilian condominal approach. These are simplified sewers, often passing through private properties and have a simplified technical design and strong community planning and management focus. This approach aims to support universal access to sanitation for all layers of the urban population. It is meant to reduce costs by doing more with the same budget. When implemented in Brazil, however, condominal sewers began to be thought of by some politicians and technicians as ‘sewers for the poor’. The poor themselves started to consider this solution as a proof of their status as discriminated people. The media, political advocacy campaigns by users, along with court rulings, have since led to operators being forced to take over management of the condominal sewer schemes in many Brazilian cities. Many initiatives developed in Africa, for example, continue to assign responsibility for ownership and operation of service to the users based on their goodwill and solidarity, whilst failing to provide adequate supervision or support. Even decentralized sanitation systems should benefit from the same attention and care from the local authority. They are primary duty bearers. This is not contradictory with different and pragmatic organizational arrangements, which could include the participation of citizen groups depending on the specific local context. But adequate capacity, supervision, and support are essential. Financial adjustment mechanisms between the rich and poor should also ensure more equality in terms of tariffs between the different areas of the city. Citizen involvement to monitor service Monitoring the progress of the implementation of the local sanitation plan, and its technical and financial performance, is key to the sustainability of local sanitation services. Equally important is monitoring the inclusivity and quality of the sanitation service(s) delivered in the different areas of a city. When citizens are involved in monitoring water or sanitation service they can indicate when the services are not delivered according to standards and push for more accountability in the water sector. GRET has been supporting the municipality of Hin Heup, Laos in the implementation and monitoring of its local sanitation plan. A steering committee was created to involve all local stakeholders in the formulation of the strategy. Meetings are held every six months, with debates organized around recurrent reports at the service level. This mechanism aims to guarantee the accountability of local private services operators. By demanding a better quality of service, conflicts are more frequently resolved and the recovery of users’ fees for the service is enhanced. Citizen monitoring has thus become one of the pillars of local participative regulation. This model is now being replicated in small towns in Mauritania and Senegal for the monitoring of water, solid waste, sanitation and stormwater management services delivery. Conclusions: citizen involvement is not a simple matter but it can not be taken lightly By some public authorities, technicians and even sometimes donors, citizen involvement is often seen as a constraint or non-useful approach. It is indeed not always effective and certainly is not simple. Politicians, and even more so sanitation engineers, can be reluctant to engage in a dialogue with ‘non-representative’ or ‘non-specialist’ stakeholders. It is also not easy for a contracting authority to handle a participative process: to be meaningful a multi-stakeholder dialogue on urban sanitation requires a lot of pedagogy and awareness, as well as a certain level of expertise in terms of facilitation and capacity building. Such a process can take time. In the case of the work done by programme Solidarité Eau, it took at least six months to develop a concerted municipal strategy and extra costs had to be taken into account for capacity-building, communication, and meetings. Unfortunately, whilst the importance of capacity-building and communication cannot be denied, some donors or authorities will at times consider these activities as non-useful software costs and prefer to invest in hardware i.e. infrastructure. However, citizen involvement throughout all steps of the process of definition and implementation of a sanitation policy helps build more sustainable, demand-adapted, efficient, and transparent sanitation services. The importance of citizen involvement in urban sanitation policy and the importance of demanding transparency and accountability should therefore not be underestimated. The various cases presented here show how citizens can act as watchdogs, holding national and local governments to account for how their money is being invested in sanitation projects. This is a crucial contribution to better service. In honour of the UN-Water year on ‘Wastewater’, WIN is posting a series of guest blogs on wastewater and sanitation. This is the first post in the series. Stay tuned for future contributions! Should you wish to take part, please get in touch at info(AT)win-s.org References Desille D. and Valfrey B., pS-Eau, 2011, Developing a national policy and strategies for sanitation: Guidelines for action Le Jallé C., Baerhel C., Ngnikam E., Desille D., Ily J-M, pS-Eau 2012, How to elaborate and implement concerted municipal strategies da Costa Miranda Neto A., Ily JM, pS-Eau, 2012, Choosing and Implementing Small-Bore Sewers, Brazil Case Study Watson, 1995, Water and Sanitation Program, “Good sewers cheap? Agency-customer interaction in low-cost urban sanitation in Brazil” Tsitsikalis A., Frenoux C., Gret, 2012, Domestic Private Faecal Sludge Emptying Services in Cambodia: Between Market Efficiency and Regulation Needs For Sustainable Management Trémolet S., Binder D., AFD, 2010, The regulation of water and sanitation services in developing countries About the author, Jean-Marie Ily of GRET Jean-Marie Ily is a technical advisor and sanitation/solid waste management program coordinator for GRET in Senegal and Mauritania. He graduated from the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Rennes with a master’s degree in utility management. His areas of expertise are: market studies, diagnosis, feasibility and planning studies for drinkable water, sanitation and solid waste management; hygiene promotion and sanitation marketing strategies; business models for water, sanitation and solid waste utilities; implementation of development projects (on both technical, financial, institutional and communication aspects); capacity building of national and local authorities, private and public operators of water, solid waste and sanitation utilities; capitalization studies, research programs management and knowledge management. From 2006 to 2013, he carried out various missions either studies or project implementation for NGOs and French cooperation in Africa, Latin America and Asia. He joined GRET in 2013, giving backup support and advice to GRET staff in Senegal and Mauritania and private and public partners. About GRET – Groupe de Recherches et d’Echanges Technologiques Founded in 1976, GRET is an international development NGO which acts on the ground up to the policy arena, intending to provide durable and innovative answers to the challenges of poverty and inequalities. Its professionals provide lasting, innovative solutions for fair development in the field and work to positively influence policy. GRET’s 771 professionals work on 150 projects per year in 28 countries. GRET works at international national and local levels. In Senegal and Mauritania specifically, GRET: designs and implements field projects building local authority and private operator capacities, for example on management and monitoring of small piped water utilities in rural towns and villages of Senegal and Mauritania; implementing sanitation marketing at scale; working in pilot systems for faecal sludge management or working on a sewer system in the city of Saint-Louis; building the capacities of civil society networks (y’en a marre, forum civil) to claim more inclusive, transparent, and efficient public policies for water and sanitation, etc. Provides expertise, based on the results of applied research, experience and excellent knowledge of the field. Recently we have managed consulting contracts for PEPAM, UNICEF Mauritania, World Bank, Mauritanian Ministry of Water and Sanitation, etc. Runs networks and defends ideas: networking with expert actors and researchers, speaking in international forums, advocating in favour of sustainable development, etc. Produces and disseminates references: we analyse and document our own development experiences, learn lessons from them to improve our modes of intervention and disseminate knowledge, know-how, and methods that have been tested and improved in the field. Find out more about the work of GRET at http://www.gret.org/ Footnotes [1] The concept of “demand” in sanitation reflects the level of satisfaction people have with their lives and informs them of their priorities, practices, expectations, capacity and willingness to pay according to the levels of service offered. It makes it possible to understand the existing situation and the situation to be reached from the point of view of the users of the service and not from a purely technical point of view. (Source: Gret, Memento de l’Assainissement, to be published soon) [2] The Solidarite Eau programme ran from 2008 to 2012. It was implemented by Partenariat pour le Développement Municipal and its partners, including GRET.

We caught up with Rubika Shrestha of HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation Nepal at the RWSN forum in Abidjan in December 2016. She works in regions of Nepal where settlements are often scattered and the WASH schemes very small. Sustainability is an issue for such schemes and accountability lines can be hard to trace. She talked about organizations working together and the tools they can use, like public audits, to increase the integrity of rural WASH projects. She especially highlighted the need to raise awareness and give opportunities for people in rural areas to hold service providers accountable, as well as how they can do this with support from the media. Could you tell me a little bit more about your programme in Nepal? We implement WASH schemes in rural Nepal. The main aim of the water integrity programme component here is to increase integrity in the sector. There are several things that help us with this aim. First, we made a strategic decision to partner with FEDWASUN, the Federation of Water and Sanitation Users Nepal. It is an umbrella organization of user committees, strong in advocacy and lobbying. They work to help user committees claim their rights and voice. They have influence and are effective in political services as a representative organization of users committees. They are the right partner. Second, Helvetas has a good image in the sector. We’ve been present in Nepal since 1956 and working in WASH since 1976. We have strong experience and have been providing basic input to the sector. And we have good practices in terms of water integrity. What kind of integrity activities do you implement? We work to address the gap in TAP: Transparency, Accountability, and Participation. Based on our experience, we set up tools to fill the gap. For example, we systematically run public hearings, public audits, and public reviews during the project implementation cycle. We do the public hearings at the beginning. We bring together the community and discuss who contributes to the projects, what the roles of each stakeholder are and how they contribute to costs. We generally end up with a tripartite agreement with the user committee and local government. Instalments are paid based on the public audit conclusions and the explanation of what has been done. These meetings help show that no users participate more than others and that the work is on track. That things are not biased. The measures that would be needed to enable the poorest to access water are discussed at the beginning and at these reviews. After the schemes are completed the whole implementation is evaluated again. We check whether the project is implemented as per the agreement, on the financial side and also on the process side. Only then are the final instalments made. These are crucial elements to guarantee success and long-term duration of projects, without a bias between communities. Public Audits in WASH projects. © HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation Nepal. We also have information boards, or hoarding boards, where we put three types of information: social information; how many households are benefitting, which tap stand will be for which household; financial information: how much it all costs, what is borne by who, what is the money for; technical information: how many sources are in use, how many and what type of structures are there (intake, reservoir tanks, tap stands). This is placed in the centre of the community. It’s a way to ensure access to information for all stakeholders. And another TAP tool which we promote with FEDWASUN: the district WASH investment plan. It’s a comprehensive yearly plan listing all WASH schemes that will be implemented in a district, including which organization is doing which scheme and how much money is allocated for each locality. FEDWASUN distributes this plan through local media and newspapers. It is a key tool to make service providers more accountable. This type of plan is being replicated in other districts through the district chapter of FEDWASUN. A strong partner, they bring knowledge and experience that is developed with HELVETAS to other districts. And do people really use the plan? How does it work? People really do refer to the district plan. And the media use the plan to question project progress. They’ll see which agency had a plan for a community but where no progress has been made. They ask why. It helps push for effective and on-time implementation of projects. This brings me to another thing: monitoring. There are different stakeholders in a project: government bodies, NGOs, civil society, media, and many others. We formed a team with all stakeholders to monitor projects with a checklist. The team doesn’t only monitor our own interventions. They randomly select schemes in the districts, visit and check the quality, check processes and approaches, check how organizations are implementing, and check policy compliance. Then they hold a reflection meeting where findings are presented. The media are part of the monitoring team but they also do their own independent monitoring. This is good in two ways: they reflect good practices in their own media houses, and they raise issues and show what is lagging behind. This makes service providers more accountable and makes them fulfil their responsibilities. It is very important. How do you work to influence policy? The government of Nepal recently published a WASH sector plan that specifically mentions Transparency, Accountability and Participation. Can you tell us about this plan? There are different platforms and different forums. As a reputable organization with a long working history with the government of Nepal, we are a member of all these platforms, like the National Sanitation and Hygiene Coordination Committee, the Regional WASH Coordination Committee etc. — and we share our experiences there. Our work directly implementing schemes with users in collaboration with local partners is a source of strong evidence from the field to convince people on such platforms. We provide input for policy and take part in policy dialogue based on our experience and evidence from the communities. FEDWASUN also has a strong network all over the country. They now have gained experience with us and are strengthening their capacity on what water integrity really means. They are sensitizing themselves and then spreading the message through their network. They can advocate effectively as a people-based organization. The national WASH sector plan is a good result of our collaborative effort. Many organizations are raising the governance issue. We bring emphasis to TAP as a means to achieve good governance. But it still needs to be signed. We are currently in a government transition phase and a new ministry is taking over. We hope the plan will be internalized and implemented fully. Thank you!

New Water Act 2016 puts into effect in the water sector the constitutional provision for a devolved government. President Kenyatta signed a new Water Act in October 2016. The new law is primarily intended to align the water sector to the devolved structure of government described in the new Constitution of Kenya of 2010. In line with Article 185 of the constitution, the Water Act gives county governments the mandate for water and sanitation service provision and for the development of county waterworks. Water service and water resource regulation remain the responsibility of the national government, as does the management of national public water works, i.e. water works that are cross-county and funded from the national budget. Soon after the signature of the act, the Annual Sector Conference and Kenya Water Week were an opportunity for stakeholders to discuss their views on the act. The discussions brought to light many current hot spots of water governance and integrity. The Annual Water Sector Review 2016 hints at accountability risks The conference was launched with the presentation of the Annual Water Sector Review report: a yearly evaluation of sector progress. This year, the report recognized integrity challenges and specifically recommended better enforcement of ‘good governance in the water sector at all levels to improve overall performance and achieve value for money’ (p. 11). Another key conclusion of the report can be drawn from what it actually doesn’t contain. The report is prepared by the Ministry of Water and Irrigation based on data provided by counties, national sector institutions and CSOs. Only 10 out of 49 counties submitted data to the Ministry however, meaning that a big part of the sector budget, activities and progress was not reflected. This is a revealing example of conflict between national and county governments. In his opening statement for the conference, the Cabinet Secretary for Water, Hon. Eugene Wamalwa, underlined the Ministry’s dedication to having all stakeholders act jointly. But the discussions, sometimes heated, revealed friction and disagreement on the appropriate level of centralization, on what the priorities are and where responsibilities lie. Such disagreement poses accountability risks. Integrity is at the heart of the debate on the division of responsibilities Interestingly, integrity issues are highlighted to justify the position of both parties on the appropriate level of centralization and the division of responsibilities. County government representatives demand a stronger role in managing sector development projects and financial planning, especially as they view themselves as primary facilitators of public participation in decision-making and budget processes. On the other hand, the national government representatives underlined the need to ensure coherence and coordinate programmes centrally, pointing to weaknesses in reporting from the county level and a need for stronger accountability. They also argued that national-level coordination is key to safeguarding transparency. Similar points were discussed in terms of regulation and water resource management. The conference was an important step in bringing both sides to the table but tensions remain high and the debate will now continue not only in the technical coordination committee between the county and national government executives responsible for water but also in court. In December 2016, the Council of County Governors sued the Cabinet Secretary for Water and Irrigation to stop him from implementing the Water Act 2016. What civil society can do in the current situation From an integrity perspective, the constitutional provision for devolution creates new spaces for public participation and accountability at the local level but comes with the added risk that oversight could be weakened and corruption problems be decentralized. Even as the detailed division of roles continues to be debated and adjusted, the County Public Participation Guidelines already provide a clear framework for interaction between citizens and government throughout the cycle of policymaking and budgeting at the county level across all sectors. CSOs and development partners in the water sector can step up efforts to enable citizens to effectively use the new spaces to influence planning and hold county governments responsible for their actions. At the same time, civil society and development partners should advocate safeguarding the advances made in the 2002 reforms in terms of establishing clear lines of accountability by separating functions, thus ensuring that devolution is combined with strong control mechanisms. They can also push to ensure that integrity and ethics are a part of the urgently needed capacity development for county governments to fulfil their new roles.

The water sector stakeholders of Benin validated a new governance and integrity charter in June 2016. This tool and the operationalization mechanism that goes with it are a practical demonstration of the willingness of different stakeholders to act in favour of integrity with a view to achieving the SDGs. The development of the charter is an inspiration for such processes for integrity. We met an integrity ambassador and key promoter of the charter at the RWSN forum in Côte d’Ivoire in December: Arnauld Adjagodo of the Benin Global Water Partnership (GWP Benin). He shared his experience and his thoughts on the future of integrity promotion in Benin. What big changes have you observed in Benin in the last few years in terms of integrity? Since the launch of our work on integrity in Benin supported by WIN, we have seen a real transformation in how different stakeholders understand and are receptive to the topic. At first, we would almost get chased away. Now, the stakeholders are with us and we have a minister of water that has voiced his willingness to become an ambassador for the water integrity charter. To reach this point, we had to bring added value to the ongoing work of the sector stakeholders and build tangible tools responding to their priorities. You have to start with concrete action, everything starts there. It helps to concentrate primarily on the promotion of integrity and not only, not directly anti-corruption. There are institutions for that, there is justice. We are in preventive work and we support the sector stakeholders to sweep in a changing dynamic. That requires resources and patience. It isn’t always easy. Could you tell us more about the water governance and integrity charter? The idea of the charter to promote water integrity was first examined by the multi-stakeholder water integrity coalition of Benin. We thought of putting forward a voluntary engagement process for sector stakeholders, which we believed would be more consensual and beneficial than an imposed process. The charter has its roots in the national regulatory framework and the existing anti-corruption mechanisms. It was developed after a quick integrity scan of the sector and an analysis of the strong points and weak points of existing charters in Benin. Other national charters have not always been so successful when it comes to implementation. To avoid this kind of problem, the integrity charter was developed from the start with an operationalization mechanism agreed on by each stakeholder group. How was the charter developed? It was essential that the process be progressive and participatory. Consultations were initiated with different stakeholder groups of the water and sanitation sector — state actors, civil society organizations, private sector, municipalities, technical and financial partners — to finalize a text with engagements that will be adapted and integrated into individual implementation plans for each stakeholder group. Regulation and anti-corruption authorities were invited to participate in the process, as were the institutions in charge of controlling procurement processes and the general audit authorities. The charter was then validated in multi-stakeholder workshops. It was recommended that all stakeholders adhere to the charter at the annual sector review. We opted for a voluntary process rather than an obligatory one. This was controversial but we bet on the active and positive engagement of the stakeholders. Although there still is an observation committee and a few sanction elements in the charter. The Minister of Water, Mr Dona Jean-Claude HOUSSOU, is committed to being an ambassador of the charter. We are now moving towards the publication of a decree authorizing the institutions reporting to the ministry to fully adhere to the charter. What are the next steps for the GWP Benin? After the decree is taken, we will have a lot of work raising awareness and explaining the charter. We have to make it accessible, promote it and encourage everyone to adhere to and work by it. We’ll be accompanying different stakeholder groups in detailing their implementation plans. And we’ll be fundraising, to finance all this work. You’re also working on several other water integrity promotion initiatives. Could you tell us more about those? Yes, that’s right. There are several other initiatives ongoing. We advocate for integrity at different levels. We’re working on an assessment of integrity and corruption for Benin. In the long run, we aim to set up an early warning system for governance issues to minimize the impact of poor governance and avoid wasting the resources that would allow us to realize the human right to water in Benin. We’re also working with the National Water Institute, developing higher education training syllabi on integrity. We have syllabi for bachelor's degree students now and are working on course syllabi at the master’s degree level. We’re also launching a very interesting project at the municipal level. With a citizen audit and an annotated water integrity scan, we identify good and bad practices in water point leasing to farmers. We’re already seeing that there regularly are issues with the payment of licence fees. There are false declarations and disparities between the information the municipalities have and the realities on the ground. There is not enough monitoring of quality, service levels, price, and failures. It’s a key question for decentralization. We have already made an assessment in 2 municipalities and are looking to extend this programme to at least 10 other municipalities in 2017. WIN helps us mobilize the technical expertise required to implement our activities and facilitates knowledge sharing among partners. It is useful to see what’s being done elsewhere, to present our ideas, and get feedback from the network. We heighten our credibility by showing that our activities are part and parcel of a global dynamic. Thank you!

A strong legal framework but a complex reality In Mexico, access to public information is a recognized human right in the Constitution. After more than a decade since the publication of the first Ley Federal (Federal Law) and numerous reforms, our legal framework has been rated the best in the world, according to the Global Right to Information Rating, developed by the Centre for Law and Democracy. And, indeed, Mexicans have an excellent legal framework on the right to information that was built with the participation of various social actors, including civil society organizations (CSOs) with extensive experience in the use of public information to monitor government performance. Water is also included in the framework. We can currently find very large volumes of public information on water, from the government and various other actors: academics and other specialists, CSOs, foundations and corporations. The variety of government information available is remarkable: from the situation of water resources, quality, infrastructure, uses, concessions, and municipalities at risk of drought, to open data on the number of wastewater treatment plants and volume treated, and much more. Good news, don’t you think? Yes, but… We sometimes find flaws in the government information that is publicly available. For example, it is not always updated or does not correspond with what can be directly observed. For example, according to an investigation y ControlaTuGobierno on the National Inventory of Treatment Plants, some of the infrastructure reported as “operational” is actually not working or treating even a tenth of the declared volume. In addition, the abundance of information does not always translate into useful public knowledge, ie. that can be used by the population to know what to do during emergencies or natural disasters, or that serves to make better decisions in purchasing goods and services. It certainly doesn’t always translate into data that people can use to solve their daily affairs, improve their quality of life, or reduce corruption. The role of civil society: from local to national and vice versa An intermediary is required for information, just like water, to reach those who need it the most. That is precisely a role of CSOs can play. They are the ones translating government information into socially useful information and making it available to vulnerable populations. The good news is that there are many organizations that know how to find the information people need in Mexico, have the ability to process it, and make it accessible for the population. For example, ControlaTuGobierno has been working in the area of the volcanoes since 2005 with organizations that have roots in the region, like Centli, Guardianes de los Volcanes, and the Basin Commission Comisión de Cuenca de los Ríos Amecameca y de la Compañía, advising them on the use of public information and its potential to conserve water resources of communities. Another example that brings together several organizations of various states is the Agua para todos movement, which involves neighbourhood and community organizations, research and academic institutions, small businesses and many other stakeholders throughout the country, are all interested in conserving water resources and ensuring their sustainability for current and future generations. Various online tools and applications that facilitate interaction between citizens and the government for the water sector are available thanks to different Mexican CSOs. For example in Oaxaca, one of the poorest states with many water issues, CSOs in collaboration with the state government have developed a website to report failures and any problems with supply or drainage. They have secured a commitment that these issues be addressed immediately. Another example is the portal Nuestra Agua, where a map can be used to locate water sources, infrastructure, organizations and a host of geo-referenced information on water. This project, designed and managed by civil society, is based on open data from public and private institutions. It provides socially useful information, which is needed by ordinary people to make decisions, participate and, most importantly, make sustainable use of water in Mexico. At the national level, Mexican civil organizations are also working on water issues. For example at the legislative level, they have developed the Bill Ley General de Aguas (General Water Law) by conducting a series of forums, workshops, events and consultations with different sectors in 29 states. Currently, the deadline for issuing this law has expired, but the Bill is still being discussed in Congress. In parallel, it is important to highlight the participation of CSOs in the preparation of the Third National Open Government Plan for Mexico 2016-2018 where it has been possible to include a commitment to drinking water of utmost importance for the conservation of this resource. - A non-operating water treatment plant in the State of Mexico© C. Fernandez Fernandez. The importance of consulting the population Today in Mexico, the large amount of information that is publicly available is an undeniable reality, especially since the entry into force of the Ley General (General Law), which clearly states the characteristics of the information that public bodies must make available to the public in their electronic portals [1]. One of the objectives of the law is to “encourage citizen participation in public decision-making in order to contribute to the consolidation of democracy”[2]. This however is still often not the case. Let’s look for example at the real case of a farmer in Huitzilzingo, in the State of Mexico. One day this man woke up with the news that there were plans to build a wastewater treatment plant on his property. No one consulted or informed him about it; his neighbours told him that there were machines on his land and people measuring and making calculations on the plot –which certainly ruined his harvest. The paradox is that the information is public: anyone with internet access and a computer can find it in the transparency portal of the National Water Commission, CONAGUA and its state counterpart CAEM. The tender for the construction of the plant, the winning company, the assigned budget and the date of completion of the works are all published. Neither the farmer nor his neighbours, who could all benefit from the treated water, not even the municipal authority, knew anything about the project. All this is despite the constitutional mandate and the existence of numerous laws that require the government to consult the people before planning and building infrastructure. The study by ControlaTuGobierno on wastewater treatment plants and the reports of the Supreme Audit Office, emphasizes the importance of consulting the population before planning and building such infrastructure. The benefits are manifold. First of all, the treatment plant would be constructed in accordance with the resources available in the area, for example near a source of electricity. In addition, if the plant responded to a social need, the community would not feel it is an imposition and be considered a public good that belongs to and benefits everyone. As a consequence, it is highly likely that the community would care for its maintenance. Information in this case would not only discourage corruption but also be the most efficient way to protect the public interest and its associated goods. What happens to people when they have no information and cannot participate? There are many scenarios: in some regions, neighbourhoods are flooded and people observe how in a couple of hours water destroys their properties, in other areas vegetables are irrigated with sewage due to lack of potable water, in many housing complexes in large cities water rarely flows through their pipes. Should you be living in a rural area, you may also be very careful when using water from a well since it is not uncommon that such water is poisoned by spills from the nearby (or even faraway -water finds its way) industry. Information in movement A good law, coupled with an alliance between civil society and a transparent government, seems to be the best way to set public information in motion. In the water sector, this is particularly relevant because it implies that the huge public investment in water infrastructure reaches its destination and fulfils its function, which is to achieve integrated and sustainable water management. The information in the hands of people is dynamic information, which is used and contrasted with reality and thus enriches the data produced by the government. For example, in the case of the farmer from Huitzilzingo, ControlaTuGobierno mobilized the information on the treatment plant that is planned on his land by sharing it with him, setting the basis for a real involvement of the community in the project. When discussing data and public information for the water sector, we cannot forget that we are talking about individuals and families, often vulnerable, and about nationally recognized human rights: access to drinking water and sanitation. [1] “oportuna, congruente, integral, actualizada, accesible, comprensible y verificable”. Ley General de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública, Artículo 61. [2] Art. 2, fracción VIII de la Ley General de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública.

“In terms of water sector integrity, we have made good progress, but there is still a long way to go”. For the past twelve years, Dr. Zaman has been the Executive Director of Transparency International Bangladesh (TI-B), which is also the largest country chapter of TI with over 250 staff. As an elected member of the International Board of Directors of TI, Dr. Zaman is internationally renowned for his outstanding contributions, influence and impact in pushing for more transparency and good governance in Bangladesh. Dr. Iftekhar Zaman was instrumental in establishing the Bangladesh Water Integrity Network (BAWIN)*. We caught up with him to discuss his views on integrity, and his take on the progress that BAWIN is making in promoting integrity in water in Bangladesh. Could you tell us about the work that BAWIN is currently promoting on water integrity and good governance in the water sector of Bangladesh? A lot is happening. Besides country assessments, ongoing research, campaigns and advocacy activities, I would like to highlight one specific ongoing initiative that is generating enthusiasm: BAWIN’s partnership with the Khulna Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (KWASA). The partnership was established to promote integrity and increase transparency, accountability and participation in service delivery. The work is based on the Integrity Management Toolbox (IM Toolbox) approach, which was introduced in KWASA with the technical support of WIN and cewas. BAWIN has not only facilitated KWASA’s integrity-related capacity building but also supported KWASA to develop a strong business model and roadmap to institutionalize water integrity in their catchment area. This is the first example of such a Government and NGO partnership with integrity in the water sector in Bangladesh. When I personally met the Managing Director and other relevant senior officials of KWASA, we agreed to explore options to upscale these efforts and share experiences with peer Water Supply and Sewerage Authorities. Working on integrity with the Chittagong WASA is the next step for us. BAWIN also leads advocacy activities. To mark World Water Day 2016, we organized a National Water Rights event with eleven other organizations and delivered conclusions and recommendations including water integrity to the Water Resources Minister who pledged to bring necessary reforms in the sector. We also organized activities in schools for over 7000 students and 2000 other stakeholders (teachers, civil society) on the linkages between the Sustainable Development Goals and water integrity practices. In terms of research, we are soon going to undertake a study on the use and effectiveness of the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) in the garments industry of Bangladesh from a water integrity perspective. How have these programmes been received so far in Bangladesh and have you noted any impact? The most important impact of BAWIN’s work in my view is that water integrity now occupies a prominent place in the water sector narratives and that there is a platform for discussion on institutionalizing water integrity in Bangladesh. Before BAWIN, TI-B advocated for the promotion of better governance in the water sector in terms of transparency, accountability and participation in general. With the establishment of BAWIN, the opportunity arose to integrate these concerns under the banner of water integrity in a systematic manner. This shift as well as the introduction of practical tools such as the IM toolbox was well received by various stakeholders and has helped get buy-in from the public sector. Where do you see further opportunities for collaboration with WIN to push for more water integrity in the sector? We have made good progress, but there is still a long way to go. We would like to generate more evidence-based data to highlight the need for further work on water integrity. Depending on available resources, we could undertake a national survey to assess the nature and extent of integrity gaps, the opportunity and cost of corruption, and to identify potential entry points of integrity interventions. We aim to widen our outreach activities at several levels: engaging a greater number of people, particularly the youth; involving the media, especially in building their capacity and skills on issues related to water integrity; and exploring opportunities to work with national and international NGOs, currently mainly focused on WASH issues. Strengthening the platform for collaboration created by BAWIN will consolidate the enabling environment to raise public demand for integrity, transparency, accountability and participation in the water sector. What current and future challenges do you see to reducing corruption in this sector? Integrity has already been built into policy and institutional commitments. The National Integrity Strategy which was adopted by the Government of Bangladesh is a good example of this. The Sustainable Development Goals are reinforcing the importance of these commitments and providing new opportunities to promote integrity in the water sector. However, as in other sectors, a change in mindset does not happen overnight. There has been progress, for example with the successful implementation of integrity tools within KWASA. But, in other similar bodies personal inhibitions and resistance to change are hindering progress. An equally important issue in this regard is a lack of capacity. More capacities would allow leaders to translate professed political will into practice without fear. Although there is widespread dissatisfaction about the ill effects of corruption and poor integrity, people are generally not sufficiently ready to take a strong stance against the issues. This is primarily due to the lack of trust in the actual application of laws and the effectiveness of institutions mandated with the task of corruption control. There is indeed a tendency to take corruption and governance deficit as a way of life, which constitutes a major challenge from the demand side. As you know a lot of funds are pushed into climate projects. TI-B has been successfully implementing the Climate Finance Tracking Programme. Based on your experience, where do you see the vulnerabilities in relation to water and integrity within climate projects? In parallel with BAWIN, we have successfully developed a method of hands-on tracking of governance performance of projects funded by climate finance and implemented by both the government and NGOs. While tracking, we examine transparency and accountability throughout the whole value chain of projects, from project approval through implementation procedures. We initially started this as a separate project and have more recently integrated it TI-B’s core programme. TI-B successfully raised awareness about the need for effective governance of climate financing mechanisms in government and among experts, and CSOs as well as several other relevant international agencies. In terms of the relevance of this experience for our future work under BAWIN, I would like to add that many of the climate change adaptation projects with relevance to water integrity, especially relatively large infrastructure ones, have been, and are likely to be implemented by institutions that are traditionally among those that are the most vulnerable to corruption. In the same way, water-related projects where integrity is highly needed are also the ones that are resource-intensive and most vulnerable to corruption. TI-B’s experience from the climate finance tracking programme, coupled with the platform of opportunities already created under BAWIN, may therefore enrich the content and quality of implementation of water-integrity-related projects. *About the Bangladesh Water Integrity Network (BAWIN) BAWIN was established in 2011 as an initiative of Transparency International Bangladesh (TI-B) and the Water Integrity Network (WIN). BAWIN is a multi-stakeholder network that includes civil society water sector institutions at national and subnational levels as well as committed individuals. BAWIN promotes integrity in the water sector of Bangladesh through research, campaigns and advocacy to promote the engagement of various stakeholders. The members of BAWIN include the Bangladesh Water Partnership, Transparency International Bangladesh, WaterAid in Bangladesh, the NGO Forum for Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation, Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon, VOICE, Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies, BRAC, Nagorik Uddyog, LEDERS, Institute of Water and Environment and Initiative for Right View. More specifically, BAWIN actively: Stimulates public debate and support for integrity in the water sector in Bangladesh by promoting transparency and accountability in policies and actions affecting the sector; Helps institutions in the water sector to measurably improve transparency and accountability in policies, programmes and operations through knowledge and fact-based advocacy, campaign and engagement; Facilitates change that improves content and quality of services in the water sector with particular emphasis on the sustainable livelihood of all, especially the poor and disadvantaged sections of society. The vision of BAWIN is a water sector in Bangladesh that represents the highest standards of integrity, transparency and accountability, so that people at large, especially the poor and the disadvantaged are ensured of their right to access to water for life and livelihood without being affected by governance deficit and corruption.

The government of Nepal recently released the Nepal Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Sector Development Plan (SDP) for the period 2016 – 2030. The document is primarily aimed at achieving the SDGs and is the culmination of an ongoing consultative effort started in 2013. The SDP encompasses not only WASH, but also IWRM, and suggests a holistic view of handling water management from source to sink, in line with SDG Goal 6. The SDP delves into details on the governance aspects of WASH, and water management. Within the ambit of governance, water integrity has found a prominent place. It is difficult to discuss or address the problems of corruption and politics in the country. The fact that the government recognized the importance of tackling accountability issues in the water sector is remarkable. Nepal is a young democracy still troubled by political turmoil, but with the SDP it has taken strides towards fulfilling the dreams of the Nepalese people. WIN and Helvetas have been advocating the inclusion of integrity in the SDP for the past three years, under the Swiss Development Cooperation supported Multi-Country Water Integrity Programme (MCWIP). This effort, primarily led at the country level by Helvetas Nepal office in close collaboration with WaterAid, NEPAD and FEDWASUN, focused on pushing for TAP in the sector policy as critical element of water governance in Nepal. The publication of the document is a major milestone. It is also proof that policy developments favouring integrity are possible and within reach. Integrity and accountability take a central place in water policy The SDP states that “Water integrity refers to the adherence of water sector actors and institutions to governance principles of transparency, accountability and participation, based on core values of honesty, equity and professionalism. Integrity, by requiring that public interest be paramount, provides the basis for accountable WASH projects and service delivery.” The document emphasizes trust, integrity, and accountability, and further adds that for ensuring accountability in WASH services and operation it is necessary that politicians, policy-makers and service providers are transparent and accept responsibility for their actions. In particular, Chapter 5 on governance emphasizes the rule of law and integrity and suggests a WASH governance framework with accountability as a component. Chapter 8, which focuses on WASH sector themes, has a comprehensive section on water integrity highlighting the need for both vertical and horizontal accountability and the need for transparent and inclusive processes. It also highlights the communities’ right to WASH. An honest assessment of remaining challenges, with integrity as key way forward The sector already has become more inclusive in Nepal. Water Users Committees represent more and more women and marginalized groups. Still, as highlighted in the SDP executive summary, there is room for further improvement in relation to equality and integrity. The disparity in access, inequality in services, and quality of services remain key challenges. Financial resources are distributed unequally among regions and ensuring greater trust and collaboration to develop shared strategies is also still a challenge. It will now be crucial for the government to ensure that the tenets of the SDP are implemented with transparency and integrity. WIN welcomes the SDP as a step forward in reaching the SDG targets and will continue to support its partners in Nepal in strengthening water integrity.