By Almas Haider [1] Migration to Delhi from neighbouring states is changing the social dimensions of the city. Economically and socially marginalized communities often live in unauthorized or illegal colonies and slums, where the provision of basic services, especially water, is irregular, inadequate, and of unacceptable quality. Communities living in legally sanctioned colonies tend to be wealthier, to be more powerful socially, and enjoy better services. In this asymmetric scenario, underprivileged and marginalized people struggle daily to obtain water for their needs, sometimes succumbing to corruption and other illegal means to survive. This WIN brief explores the plight of these people, reflecting on the situation in many urban cities today. According to the UN, about half of the world’s population will live in cities by the year 2030. Inequality and corruption are likely to blight the water sector in these cities as it does in Delhi. Understanding the risks better and exploring the dynamics of integrity in urban water today are essential steps to achieving equitable and effective service for all. Download as pdf: Urban divisions of Delhi Delhi, officially known as the National Capital Territory (NCT), is the capital of India. It is the world’s second-largest megacity, after Tokyo, with an agglomeration of 25 million inhabitants and growth predicted to reach 36 million by 2030 (United Nations, 2014). Delhi is also among the top 40 cities in terms of wealth-making worldwide, with a per capita income of more than 3,000 US$[2] in the year 2012-13 (Delhi Human Development Report, 2013). Also called the city of migrants, Delhi welcomes an estimated 78,000 migrants annually, people searching for education and employment opportunities and for a better quality of life (Delhi Human Development Report, 2013). Nevertheless, some 10 per cent of Delhi’s population lives below the poverty line, according to the standard prescribed by the former Planning Commission (Economic Survey of Delhi, 2014–15). Delhi houses the rich, the middle class, and the poor. There are eight types of housing settlements for the residents, of which only one is termed ‘planned’ and the other seven are ‘unplanned’ colonies. As the population of Delhi has grown, the number of ‘unauthorized’ colonies has also increased from 110 in 1962 to 1,639 in June 2014—largely occupied by lower-middle class and poor residents of the city.[3] Unequal water supply Planned and unplanned settlements as well as socio-economic status play key roles in Delhi’s housing. Some of the settlements, mostly planned, house the higher-income groups; the lower-income groups—consisting of poor, low-income migrants, especially those from the rural belt and minority groups—tend to reside more in the unplanned or unauthorized colonies. This in turn has an impact on access to water, where the planned high-income colonies receive more water than the poorer low-income colonies. For example, some areas in Delhi have 24 hours of sufficient water supply while others struggle to fill their buckets every day (Mahendra Dev and Yedla, 2015: 162). Localities like Mehrauli and Narela received only 29 litres per capita per day (lpcd) of water whereas upmarket Cantonment Board received over 500 lpcd of water (the highest amount in the city) and Karol Bagh received 337 lpcd (Narain, et. al, 2012). This imbalance is typical of water distribution in Delhi. Although water is a basic human right (United Nations, 2010), about half of the population of Delhi is living in unauthorized colonies where most of the population lives in abject poverty, with unacceptable standards of water supply and quality (Agrawal, 2013). These colonies are not officially connected to the network of water pipelines. Residents wake up early and spend hours fetching water every day. Given the intermittent water supply and the difficulty of meeting demand via the piped network, water tankers cross the city to fill the gap. These tankers get their water either from the water utility, Delhi Jal Board, or from private borewells. In the unauthorized South Delhi colony of Sangam Vihar, for example, almost all of its 400,000 residents (World Health Organization, 2011) depend on private water suppliers. Low-income areas in other colonies in the south of the city—including both authorized and unauthorized ones, such as Okhla, East of Kailash, and Greater Kailash—also depend on private water suppliers when their pipes go dry (Bansal, 2012). The National Commission on Urbanization confirms that the water supply system in India is highly biased in favour of the rich, the powerful, and the influential, with the poor suffering an artificial water scarcity (Panickar, 2007). This is particularly true in Delhi’s case. - CC0: Dinesh Bareja via Flickr Political and social boundaries Delhi’s urban water management is influenced by cultural values, societal patterns, and politics. Caste, religion, and political dynamics influence water management significantly and deepen critical integrity issues of inequality and discrimination. These political and social boundaries are associated with a high rate of migration of diverse ethnic groups. This migration affects the city’s social and political structure, which is fragmented into groups reflecting different ethnicities, nationalities, castes, sub-castes, religions, and languages. Among all these fragments, the caste system appears strongly in water distribution, because the caste system relies upon discrimination against those at the bottom of the social hierarchy (Sarkin and Koenig, 2010). There are numerous reports that the untouchable castes have been denied water or faced violence in trying to access water. While the class has taken over from caste, these concepts remain somewhat important to Delhi’s current water supply distribution and access. Poor people are mostly associated with the lower class category and are more likely to face difficulty in accessing water. Just as social schism shapes access to water, politics also plays an important role. Water is a highly political issue in India, where politicians and councillors decide water distribution and pricing (Ramamohan, et al., 2014) and caste politics is a key issue here. Political leaders tend to give preferences to people of a similar background—whether caste, religion, language, or region. Factors inhibiting equity in Delhi’s water governance Issues of equity and access are key integrity concerns. The access issue - having a voice in decision-making - is closely linked to the existence of transparency, accountability, and participation (TAP) mechanisms. Strengthening TAP can help in addressing equity challenges in Delhi’s water governance and management. In Delhi, securing water for all, especially for the most vulnerable, is not just a question of better infrastructure or greater investment, it is equally a matter of good governance. Decision-making processes as well as stakeholder involvement and capacity building can alter the situation. Water governance in Delhi is weak in several aspects of TAP: Transparency concerns “Most of the population is not aware of the decisions of the authorities, having never been informed. The authorities do not really want people to know too much, otherwise they may create problems in the government’s decision-making, because awareness means demands.”[4] (Haider, to be published 2016) Government transparency has been on the agenda since India gained independence and has taken shape since the enactment of the Right to Information Act in 2005. Still, information is patchy and not easily available to the general public. Information on water demand, transmission losses, the location of leakages, and where the lost water goes is not forthcoming.[5] According to the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, information is unavailable on the population size in each part of the city on how much water should be supplied to various parts of the city. CAG adds that distribution is generally based on assumptions; bulk water meters are absent across the distribution network and the amount of water entering the network cannot be tracked (Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 2013). This kind of environment—in which information is not recorded, and the legal framework of Delhi’s water system is unclear—makes the whole system vulnerable to corruption (Panickar, 2007). This affects equity because without transparent information water can be distributed based on powerful influencers or bribes. The poor, marginalized, and minority residents cannot afford to lobby or pay a bribe. Accountability concerns “Whenever we have a problem of water supply in our home, we try to register our complaint with the municipality, but it is very difficult to get a hearing without an agent.”[6] (Haider, to be published 2016) Accountability refers to the clear responsibilities of institutions and individuals, who must be answerable for their actions. It reflects a citizen’s right to question service providers over poor performance and to demand better service. Delhi’s current institutional framework does not allow for the separation of roles and duties of service delivery, sanctioning regulations, and financing, resulting in obscured accountability (Odugbemi 2008). Citizens do not directly question the water authorities. Instead, in jurisdictions across the country, the people elect a representative to mediate with the water authorities for their needs, demands, and concerns regarding the water authorities’ standards (Water and Sanitation Program, 2005). Where political intermediaries cater to certain audiences, many others (especially the marginalized) can be deprived of access to services. Participation concerns Participation implies that all stakeholders, including marginalized and resource-poor groups, are meaningfully involved in deciding how water is used, protected, managed, or allocated. In Delhi, Social Welfare Associations (SWAs) allow participating residents in planned neighbourhoods to meet and actively share their views on the water issues affecting them. These community groups play an important role in spreading information and awareness. However, SWAs, which are formally recognized by the authorities, cannot be established in illegal colonies. The result: people bracketed as lower caste or class and minority groups are excluded from decision-making processes and influence. Moreover, most citizens of low-income households are poorly educated, which undermines their comprehension of the bureaucratic processes of water management. This impends their ability to understand information and to participate. They stage protests, write to the press, or seek help from NGOs. This may solve some problems but does little to improve the system. - CC0: Koshy Koshy via Flickr Impact on poor and marginalized communities The twin problems of inequality and lack of access to water provoke people to violate rules and use illegal ways to get water. In such an environment, people and groups with vested interests step in, leading to an artificial scarcity of resources (Panickar, 2007). This combination of inequitable distribution of water, lack of adequate TAP processes, and corruption is a serious problem for consumers. In the slums and unauthorized colonies of Delhi, people spend hours waiting in queues at water stand posts. The limited duration and untimely supply of water also increase social tension among citizens, which results in frequent disputes in the streets, sometimes violent. On 26 September 2015, the India Express reported the first death to be caused by violence over water. It occurred at a public utility tap on a street called Peepal Wali Gali, which is barely five kilometres from Civil Lines, where Delhi’s lieutenant governor and several cabinet ministers live (Angad, 2015). Water tankers, both private and from the water utility, fill demand-supply gaps across Delhi. Many private tankers sell water without the permission of the water utility; households buy from these private suppliers. This is a highly profitable business. There is a lack of adequate control over their access to water and these private tankers have no shortage of water sources and can include groundwater too. (Bansal, 2012: 11). Recently it was reported that private tanker operators fill their tankers from the utility booster pumping stations and that is not possible without the assistance of staff or officials (Bansal, 2012: 12). The government water subsidy scheme is intended for poor and marginalized residents. However, only residents, especially in the middle to high-income group with metered water consumption benefit from it, thus contributing to inequality. Women and girls bear most of the burden of water shortages and suffer its negative effects on their health, education, and employment (Kher, et al., 2015). There are health implications as well: many unauthorized colonies and slums are in low-lying areas that lack proper sanitation facilities. The key reasons that people pay bribes include obtaining a water tanker from a water utility, installation of a piped water supply, and repair of a water pipeline. Such additional payments for water not only affect a family’s financial stability but can be measured in terms of lost working days, human development, and lives. In Delhi in 2014, the average household paid around 20 US$ as a bribe, from a minimum payment of 5 US$ for a water tanker to a maximum payment of 75 US$ to bring down a water bill—significant amounts for low-income families in India. (CMS Transparency, 2015). The lack of integrity in policies, project design, procurement, and construction has a major impact on the provision of quality services for all. In Delhi, several infrastructure projects are designed and huge investments are made without benefiting the public. In April 2015, for example, The Hindu reported that three engineers from the water utility had been arrested and charged with fraud for awarding construction contracts at a higher rate for so-called urgent projects. Later government enquiry revealed that, in fact, the work was neither necessary nor undertaken (Staff reporter, 2015). Equity is affected by policies too. In Delhi’s case, the ‘right to water’ is not recognized by the Constitution, rather it is derived through judicial interpretation (Cullet, 2013). Water is an everyday need and the day-to-day life of an individual is not organized by judicial decisions. It is comparatively easier for a resident to pay a bribe to get access to water rather than to go to court for the same. This is what people in Delhi do. Ongoing positive developments The statement that the ‘water crisis is a crisis of governance’ is a matter of opinion, but one sufficiently accepted by the majority of the population in Delhi and also reflected in the rise of a new political party, Aam Admi Party (AAP), which won elections in February 2015 on an anti-corruption plank. It promised to deal with the water problem of the city and had several agendas associated with water listed in its manifesto for the Delhi Assembly Election 2015, including: Ensuring 20 kilolitres of water per month to every household in Delhi without any fee. Bringing piped water supply and sewage network to all in Delhi irrespective of their legal status. Upgrading the water infrastructure to reduce water losses. The government has placed emphasis on equal distribution of water to all, recognizing water as a human right. Under its government, the water utility is being revamped and several new projects are being launched. The water utility is connecting 237 unauthorized Delhi colonies to the water pipeline network; the work is expected to be completed by the summer of 2016 (Team MP, 2015). It also will expand the water supply in unauthorized colonies by installing 280 water kiosks, where water will be provided at 0.015 US$ per litre. The new government also intends to make the water utility more transparent and corruption-free. One of the efforts undertaken in this respect is fitting GPS systems to water tankers, so that location, schedule, and time-to-destination information can be made available online. This could help in lowering corruption by countering tanker mafia attempts to divert tankers from their routes (TNN, 2015). Conclusions Lack of equity is a key problem for Delhi’s water supply sector. The new government seems to have a better perception of the root causes of the problem and has implemented a strategy for equity in water distribution. It is too early to draw conclusions about the sustainability of this approach. In order to minimize corruption risks and improve equity, diverse efforts—including participatory approaches and transparent availability of information—are needed. Footnotes, bibliography, and credits For a complete bibliography, download Inequalities in Water Service Delivery in Delhi (PDF). Download full brief (pdf, EN) Almas Haider holds a degree in civil engineering and is an environmental engineer. She is currently a doctoral candidate at the Environmental Policy Research Centre in Berlin. Her dissertation examines the role of informal institutions in the performance of water governance in Delhi. Email: almashaider@gmail.com. The author acknowledges the support of her supervisor, Prof. Miranda Schreurs, who reviewed the brief. 1 US$ = Rs 66.15 (November 2015). There are eight different kinds of settlements in Delhi: clusters, slum-designated areas, unauthorized colonies, resettlement colonies, regularized unauthorized colonies, rural villages, urban villages, and planned colonies. An anonymous resident of Delhi in an interview with the author, July 2014. When approached by the author with queries on Delhi’s water management, the responsible institutions did not reply. Anonymous resident of Delhi in an interview with the author, May 2013. Editorial review by Tammi L. Coles and Binayak Das, WIN. PDF print design by Philip Kieckbusch, diehingucker.de. Creative Commons image credits: “Floating rag picker” (2007) by Koshy Koshy via Flickr; “Water break !” (2011) by Dinesh Bareja via Flickr; “India 207” (2013) by Edmund Gall via Flickr.

Water Integrity Network partners promote and introduce integrity measures that contribute to improving water and sanitation service provision and management globally. In our interactive Integrity Talks, we discuss their challenges and lessons learned. This is an edited summary of our fifth edition on emerging technologies. Emerging technologies are showing increasing value for anti-corruption. There are more tools and digital platforms for collecting data, monitoring and reporting wrongdoing. They can help improve access to information, strengthen the demand for accountability, and citizen participation, which in turn can improve decision-making effective water and sanitation service provision and management. However, the implementation and use of such new technology remains a challenge, especially in areas where access to internet is poor, where quality of data is insufficient, or where there are few skilled users and developers. And, there is still much to learn about their effectiveness and impact. In water and sanitation and related sectors, there are a number of initiatives to learn from: some opening data up for use and assessment by the public, some using data analytics to identify red flags for corrupt transactions in climate adaptation projects, and others assessing the relevance and efficiency of planned investments. In this Integrity Talk, we brought together experts and pioneer users of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and civic tech or gov tech, to learn about the tools they use, and how they support their work on water integrity. We also focused on the challenges and new integrity risks some of these technologies can pose. With special guests  : Isabelle Adam (Government Transparency Institute); Albert Lihalakha (Green Climate Fund, GCF); Maria da Graça Prado (Infrastructure Transparency Initiative, CoST); Nanda Sihombing (Open Contracting Partnership, OCP) KEY TAKEAWAYS There is no one-size-fits-all solution – local context matters for tech too The water and sanitation sectors, with both complex governance structures and critical requirements for large-scale and long-term capital investments, are vulnerable to corruption and poor integrity. Emerging technologies have the potential to make information more available and traceable, and to strengthen anti-corruption efforts, but they are not a magic bullet. Water and sanitation sector stakeholders exploring tech options, from government or civil society, need to factor in the way technology use is shaped by political and economic circumstances and social norms. They also must consider the possibility of new integrity risks arising. The TAPA framework – looking at Transparency, Accountability, Participation, and Anti-corruption – is useful for such an analysis and addresses the key issues speakers discussed in this Integrity Talk. Transparency – We need more open data in the water, sanitation, and climate adaptation sectors on water management, service levels, investment decisions, procurement, and transactions. And we need clear information on how data is collected and used. Standardisation and interoperability are still significant challenges. Accountability – Large volumes of information are difficult to manage and require constant verification. Using such data to hold duty-bearers accountable is difficult, time-consuming, and costly. Information that is provided therefore has to be simple, relevant, and easy to use to ensure the active engagement of citizens. Participation – Citizens have to be empowered to demand and use information. They need to be involved in the development of solutions and need to be technologically equipped and have the skills to use emerging technologies. When applying tools and digital platforms it is important to understand the motivations, capabilities and incentives of users, as well as to consider who might be excluded by the technology being used. Users should be able to track, monitor and report while getting quick and tangible responses from authorities. Anti-corruption – Technology can support anti-corruption efforts, but can create new opportunities for corruption, such as enabling anonymous flows of money, rent-seeking, and use of data for private aims. Implementation should therefore be thought through carefully and accompanied with relevant anti-corruption measures. How can emerging technologies support anti-corruption and integrity? Isabelle Adam (Government Transparency Institute): E-government has become a promising tool in the battle against corruption. There are now tools for the payment of electricity bills and taxes, as well as applications for certificates and personal official identifications (IDs). E-government can be an effective instrument to discourage corrupt acts as it exposes government activities to the public, minimises personal interactions between public officials and citizens, and reduces opportunities for discretionary decisions. However, e-government projects require constant monitoring and revision to avoid being misused by tech-savvy public officials, as tech can also facilitate nefarious use for rent-seeking or issuing fake IDs. Crowd-sourcing and whistle-blowing tools can also be used to improve transparency and reduce corruption. For example, I Paid a Bribe is an application that enables citizens to report bribes. It has been replicated quite broadly as it is relatively easy to use and anonymity is guaranteed. However, the impact varies across regions. While such platforms have been highly successful in India, they seem to have been far less successful in China and Kenya. Blockchain is another new technology, useful for land registries for example, and widely used in India, Georgia, and Ukraine. One benefit of this technology is that it secures records, making them unchangeable because they are decentralised. However, blockchain can be subject to integrity risks as it can also facilitate embezzlement and anonymous flows of money (e.g. money laundering, cryptocurrency transaction). However, blockchain can be subject to integrity risks as it can also facilitate embezzlement and anonymous flows of money (e.g. money laundering, cryptocurrency transaction). Water Integrity Talk 5 – Clip with Isabelle Adam, Lessons learned from reviewing gov tech and civic tech initiatives How can digital technologies help to reduce corruption and build integrity in the development of infrastructure? Maria da Graça Prado (Infrastructure Transparency Initiative, CoST): Infrastructure is known to be a highly corrupt sector. One way to use technology and open data to reduce the risk of corruption is the monitoring and evaluating of infrastructure investments. At CoST, we juxtapose interactive mapping and socioeconomic information. The data and visualisation makes it possible to identify the location of projects that are unjustified, or possibly did not require significant infrastructure investment. It also makes it possible to see which contractors are involved. The aim is to find red flags for integrity failures. Nanda Sihombing (Open Contracting Partnership, OCP): Around 1.47 billion people globally are directly exposed to risk of intense floods. Low-income populations are the most affected by flood events. One way to prevent floods is to invest in infrastructure. Surprisingly however, a number of governments do not have the ability to track investments made on flood relief, response and preparedness. Governments often struggle to monitor where funds are invested and how efforts can best be extended to help adapt to climate change and protect populations at risk. At OCP, we use open contracting to find a solution to this problem. We work with governments, which often lack qualified data scientists, providing capacity building to run an open contracting model to track the investments made on flood relief, response, and preparedness. We also collaborate to collect data and information. Open contracting highly depends on political commitment and cooperation to support its proper implementation. Water Integrity Talk 5 – Clip with Maria De Graca Prado, How data can help accountability What kind of emerging technologies are being used by the GCF-IIU to address corruption issues? Albert Lihalakha (Independent Integrity Unit of the Green Climate Fund, GCF): The Independent Integrity Unit was created to investigate fraud and corruption in GCF-funded activities. We undertake digital forensics by capturing relevant information from different sources such as server data, emails, docs, SMS, WhatsApp, Facebook, browser data, etc. Reviewing all this information manually is overwhelming: there is a lot of data, which makes an investigation process lengthy and the risk of missing key evidence high. As part of our prevention mandate, we therefore developed an “Integrity Due Diligence Platform” to help identify potential risk areas for corruption. Our machine learning has four components: (1) Data Integration from project documents and databases, (2) Integrity Risk Ranking to assess data and inform the selection of projects that will be selected for an integrity review. An integrity review is a process that engages external stakeholders to identify potential gaps in GCF-funded projects and then work collaboratively to address those gaps, with capacity building or technical assistance, (3) Automated and manual Red Flags Detection; and (4) Reporting on the risk mitigation strategy. How do you engage citizens and convince people to use new technologies? Water Integrity Talk 5 – Clip with Nanda Sihombing, Ensuring citizen engagement, a condition for success Can we trust the data used for these analyses? Isabelle Adam: Measurable indicators are very useful to check the quality of data, particularly in public procurement. One of the key benefits of emerging technologies is the ability to quickly identify faulty data. Maria de Graca Prado: Emerging technology can help us to collect and confront information from different sources and identify if the information is inconsistent. Albert Lihalakha: This is a very difficult issue in particular with resource constraints. One of the main challenges is to trace the quality of data and to ensure that civil society organisations or interested parties are inputting the right type of data. These questions need to be answered according to particular contexts as well as with the active engagement of relevant stakeholders where these discussions are taking place. Nanda Sihombing: At the Open Contracting Partnership (OCP) we receive data in different formats, for example, PDFs or Excel sheets. We make it available as open data but in a structured format, this is what we call Open Contracting Data Standards. What are the risks? Water Integrity Talk 5 – Clipwith Albert Lihalakha, Integrity tech risks and what to do about them

WATER IS CENTRAL TO THE SDGS. SO IS WATER INTEGRITY. Brief By Peter McIntyre, Binayak Day and Carmen Fernandez Fernandez Published in 2016 with the Water Integrity Global Outlook 2016 Download this brief as a pdf: Integrity in water governance is a prerequisite to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) – not only the water goals but also those to end hunger, to promote sustainable agriculture, to achieve gender equality and to develop reliable sustainable energy sources. Integrity is essential for protecting the environment and ecosystems and for building safe and sustainable cities. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent a global ambition to transform the world by the year 2030 and include 17 major commitments ranging from ending poverty and hunger to promoting gender equality and economic growth. The SDGs recognize the importance of water related issues in their own right and as a requirement for meeting many of the other goals. However, amongst the major obstacles to achieving these goals, corruption and lack of integrity are two of the most intractable. The SDGs differ from the preceding Millennium Development Goals in being more specific, better targeted and better monitored. They are also much more ambitious, aiming to secure the benefits of development, including safe water and improved sanitation, ‘for all’ and to end poverty ‘in all its forms everywhere’. The 2030 Agenda also recognizes the importance of ensuring the accountability of governments to their citizens, and has made a commitment to systematic follow-up and review. The SDGs point to a future in which people meet their basic needs with livelihoods that bring them out of poverty within a sustainable and safe environment. However, corruption in the water sector pollutes life-giving resources such as rivers, lakes, wetlands and aquifers, wastes investments and leads to a loss of trust and engagement, as well as poor public health. The outcome document adopted by the UN General Assembly cites inequality, corruption, poor governance and illicit financial flows as factors that give rise to violence, insecurity and injustice. Putting an end to the corruption that undermines progress requires an agenda for integrity that makes governments, businesses and NGOs accountable for keeping their promises. THE CENTRALITY OF WATER ISSUES TO THE SDGS The centrality of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in human development and stability is recognized in Goal 6 – to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. It is also recognized that a successful and sustainable water sector is vital for many of the other goals and targets. Water, sanitation and the SDG goals SDG Goal 6 to ‘ensure access to water and sanitation for all’ goes beyond drinking water and sanitation and encompasses hygiene, river basin management with an emphasis on integrated water resources management (IWRM), and environmental concerns. The needs of women and girls to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene are explicitly mentioned in Target 6.2. The need for greater integrity is acknowledged with the inclusion of a sub-target (6b) to ‘support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management’. The SDGs are interrelated and many are especially dependent on effective water governance and management to provide water for food, to protect the environment and to control faecal-spread and water-borne diseases. Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture depends on adequate supplies of water and an unpolluted environment. Goal 3 (ensure healthy live) includes in Target 3.3 the need to combat waterborne diseases. Goal 5 (gender equality) aims to ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making. Goal 7 (affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy) and Goal 9 (infrastructure) are highly relevant to the construction of dams (for hydropower). Goal 11 (safe cities) makes reference to protecting against water-related disasters. Goal 12 (sustainable consumption) calls for ‘public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and priorities’. Goal 13 (resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change) includes an aim for transparency in implementation, vital in view of a potential budget of US$ 100 billion a year to address the needs of developing countries. Goal 15 (ecosystems) calls for ‘the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services’. Goal 16 has a special relevance for anti-corruption work in its call for effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. The targets aim to substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms (16.5); reduce illicit financial flows (16.4); promote effective, accountable and transparent institutions (16.6); and promote inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making (16.7). We believe that these goals can only be met by a water sector that functions well and is free of corruption. MONITORING PROGRESS Goals need to be underpinned by a follow-up and review structure that is able to institutionalize transparency and governmental accountability. The final report of the UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation (UNSGAB) recommended the establishment of a UN Intergovernmental Committee on Water and Sanitation to take on this role to link the sector to the international political level. This will need strong representation from stakeholders, including civil society groups. There is a need for monitoring to cover all aspects of water related targets. Being able to measure how many people have clean drinking water, how much money is being allocated for sanitation and what are the most effective irrigation schemes is central to achieving targets and to combating corruption (OECD, 2014). The UN-Water initiative ‘Integrated monitoring of water- and sanitation-related SDG targets’ (GEMI) proposes a set of indicators to address critical issues in wastewater, water quality, water efficiency, water resources management and water-related ecosystems, to complement existing drinking water and sanitation monitoring (UN-Water, 2015a, b). The 2014 World Water Development Report (UN-Water, 2014) complements these efforts with the aim of providing a global strategic outlook on the state of freshwater resources and its implications for decision-making. Such a global monitoring system in principle provides a reference point for watchdogs and citizens to flag shortfalls with regard to governmental commitments to enhance water management. Monitoring has to take place at the local as well as the global level, and this requires strong capacity and arrangements for community and civil society monitoring. TRACKING FINANCIAL FLOWS Achieving the SDGs requires very large increases in spending from governments and international agencies. Just on its own, the international fund to address the needs of developing countries to meet the challenges of climate change could climb to US$ 100 billion a year, on top of what individual governments spend. The World Bank estimates that the global capital cost of meeting the WASH targets for the SDG on water will be $ 114 billion each year from 2015 to 2030 (Hutton and Varughese, 2016). Extending safely managed water supply and sanitation services to all will require three times current annual expenditure levels, much of the investment required to extend services to those who have least resources. There is currently no overall approach to financing the sector, or even an agreed methodology for understanding how much is being spent on various aspects of the sector or for estimating the size of the financial gap. A 2015 UNEP report says that efforts to identify financing needs are hampered by ‘a confusing picture based on overlapping and incomparable approaches and definitions and compounded by patchy data’ (UNEP, 2015). There is a need to improve data collection and to increase transparency in these areas. It is unlikely that these financial sums can be met by the public sector alone, and will require mobilizing greater financing from the private sector. This creates challenges for the capacity of both the private and public sectors to manage the process with integrity, especially in the areas with the highest capacity for corruption, such as large-scale infrastructure projects, including dams and hydropower. Investment designed to meet targets for drinking water and sanitation also requires protection. Decision-making on awarding water supply and sanitation service contracts needs to be fully transparent, with clear objectives and measurable performance indicators, and backed by effective monitoring, a vigilant regulator, and the involvement of civil society and water consumers. The Water Integrity Global Outlook points out that there are hardly any assessments of the costs of corruption and that data on financial flows in the water sector is scarce. There is a need to strengthen the public finance capacity of water institutions and to improve their communication with the finance ministry within countries. At global level, there is a need for stringent, harmonized and nationally relevant monitoring and reporting mechanisms, to ensure the fulfilment of the SDG pledges. Advisory Board makes final plea to eliminate corruption In its final report the UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation said that in order to achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water, governments must fast-track institutional reforms, boost funding, eliminate corruption and strengthen capacities in their water services sectors. The UNSGAB made seven recommendations for action: Promote a global approach to water Make better use of the existing international legal instruments within the water sector Tackle the growing urban water and sanitation crisis Involve the private sector more strongly in dealing with growing water-related risks Governments must take proactive and preventive action on growing water-related risks The UN must adapt in order to better support Member States in addressing water-related risks Form high level alliances to tackle priority water-related challenges that are ripe for action and five structural recommendations: Establish an UN Intergovernmental Committee on Water and Sanitation Form an UN Scientific and Practice Panel on Water and Sanitation Strengthen UN Water by mandating it to serve as the Secretariat of these entities Set up a comprehensive and independently reviewed global monitoring system Set up a comprehensive and independently reviewed global monitoring framework (UNSGAB, 2015) REFERENCES Hutton, G., and Varughese, M. 2016. The Cost of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene. Washington, DC: World Bank. OECD. 2014. ‘Water Integrity: Promoting Accountability, Transparency and Participation’. In Toolkit for Integrity . Paris: OECD. UN-Water. 2014. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2014, vol. I, Water and Energy. Paris: UNESCO. UN-Water. 2015a. ‘GEMI: Integrated Monitoring of Water and Sanitation Related SDG Targets’. New York: UN. UN-Water. 2015b. Monitoring Waste Water, Water Quality and Water Resources Management: Options for Indicators and Monitoring Mechanisms for the Post-2015 Period. New York: UN. UNEP. 2015. Aligning the Financial System with Sustainable Development: Pathways to Scale. Geneva: UNEP. UNSGAB. 2015. The UNSGAB Journey. New. York: UNSGAB.

A PRIMER ON CORRUPTION AND INTEGRITY IN THE WATER SECTOR, WITH CASES AND TOOLS ‘When we talk to families living without water and sanitation we hear a clear message: that good leadership and management and an end to corruption are critical.’ — Barbara Frost, Chief Executive, WaterAid The world’s water has never been under greater pressure, with unprecedented demands for use in human consumption, agriculture, industry and power generation. How can a growing global population ensure that water remains available, clean and sustainable? The Water Integrity Global Outlook 2016 (WIGO) captures a growing recognition of the need for good governance and measures to eliminate corruption to improve sector performance. It emphasizes the need for transparency, accountability and participation (TAP) to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 6 on water and sanitation. WIGO highlights how institutional fragmentation and corruption undermine resources and services. It demonstrates how integrity and good governance have become international and national priorities and outlines tools and techniques that make improvements achievable. It makes recommendations for action by governments, sector actors, the private sector and civil society bodies. Download in full (PDF, EN) CHAPTERS OVERVIEW 1. A Global Mandate for Water Integrity Integrity is essential to protect and conserve water. It is required to deliver on global development commitments and to address challenges on climate change, food production, sustainable energy and the human rights to water and sanitation. 2. The Importance of Policies and Laws Policies and laws can be targeted to fulfill the human rights to water and sanitation. Enforcement is required with citizen participation to impact on everyday practice. 3. Following the Money Urgent steps are needed to strengthen public financial management systems and heal the fragmentation that puts water resources at risk. There are challenges in increasing financial flows from taxes, tariffs and transfers to meet commitments. Civil society has a critical role in stemming financial corruption. 4. From Planning to Implementation Preparing and implementing water projects and programmes are risk areas for corruption and integrity loss. Good and bad practice examples are shared with guidance to raise standards. 5. Approaches and Tools for Enhancing Integrity Effective integrity risk management rests on a broad range of integrity tools, combined with advocacy and capacity development, designed to fit local contexts. 6. What Counts? Monitoring and Evaluating Water Integrity Monitoring and evaluation are critical to enhancing performance and integrity. Community bodies can act as watchdogs and play a more active role in decision-making processes. Download Executive Summary in English: Download Executive Summary in French: Download Executive Summary in Spanish: Download Executive Summary in German:

PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST Brief By Peter McIntyre Published in 2016 with the Water Ingerity Global Outlook 2016 Download this brief as a pdf: Processes to plan, commission and procure water projects, programmes and infrastructure require careful stewardship, especially when they involve large-scale civil works. The path from planning, procurement and tendering to construction and implementation contains areas of high integrity risk. Large-scale infrastructure projects for water and energy are capital-intensive and public services are monopolistic in nature, which allows room for corruption and abuse. Measures to prevent corruption are often at their weakest at the interface between public and private sectors. The Open Contracting Partnership estimates that governments globally sign contracts to a value of US$ 9.5 trillion every year, yet information about these contracts is often unavailable for public scrutiny, opening the process to corruption and mismanagement. The World Bank Enterprise Survey on Corruption shows that more than 23 per cent of companies in East Asia, South Asia, the MENA region and sub-Saharan Africa have received a bribe request from the public sector. Concerns have been heightened because a new era of large-scale construction is under way in the water sector – for dams, for irrigation, for piped water systems and for wastewater and sewerage treatment. The ability to protect the public interest in water sector development relies on the commitment, skills and integrity of private contractors and public sector officials. The Water Integrity Global Outlook recommends stronger control mechanisms for design, planning and implementation of infrastructure, with a critical evaluation of the use of resources and the generated outcomes. Building an effective relationship with stakeholders, including community-based organizations will help to ensure fair and sustainable implementation of projects. Transparency in contracting, effective supervision and scrutiny through independent audits are central to preventing corruption. A BIAS TO BUILD Over decades, the water sector has made many promises that have been inadequately fulfilled. Broken promises often begin with what has been called “the bias to build”. It is more satisfying – and appears more progressive to generate new infrastructure than to maintain and properly operate what is already there. Politicians who vote through large budgets for water-related projects expect to cut a ribbon and declare something open. Yet major gaps in services are often failures of maintenance. The Rural Water Supply Network has estimated that only two out of three hand pumps in sub-Saharan Africa are working at any point in time and that this represents a crisis of wasted infrastructure investment. (RWSN, 2010). In countries with high levels of corruption, this bias towards new investments offer opportunities to divert money or channel contracts, underestimating costs to win approval and seeking budget increases at a later stage (Grigoli and Mills, 2011). It is common to find ministries underbudgeting for the increased staff and maintenance costs needed to support new investment. Repeated failures, as facilities are left unused or quickly start to fall apart, are integrity issues since they are predictable in the absence of maintenance and represent a massive waste of public investment. In relation to the Sustainable Development Goals, the World Bank has stressed the need to strengthen institutions and regulations to ensure sufficient high-quality spending on operations and maintenance. An area of continuing controversy relates to the construction of large-scale dams for agriculture or hydropower – especially how to balance benefits against the risks to the environment and communities. Benefits may be overstated in projects that result in large-scale displacement of people and livelihoods, while compensation is often insufficient or stolen. (See Mega-dams must share benefits) There is a question mark over large-scale construction projects: are they cost-effective ways to meet need or are they built as matter of national or political prestige? A study from Oxford University found “overwhelming evidence” that hydropower dam budgets are systematically biased below the real costs. (Ansar et al., 2014) The authors put this down to a combination of “delusion and deception”. Economists increasingly recognize that the costs of losing a wetland can be bigger than the value of the energy produced by a dam, and that better assessment tools are needed to ensure short-term benefits don’t hide the long-term losses. (Winemiller et al., 2016). This does not mean that dams should never be built – The World Bank supports hydropower as a major source of green energy – but there needs to be stronger scrutiny of the case for construction and of less disruptive alternatives. Greater accountability can be achieved only if processes are transparent. The Construction Sector Transparency (CoST) initiative promotes public access to detailed information on construction projects, encourages multi-stakeholder groups to scrutinize information and supports target audiences in learning to understand data. Citizens, media, parliaments and agencies can use this information to challenge poor performance, mismanagement and corruption. WEAKNESSES IN PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING The Oganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that government procurement represents 29 per cent of total general government expenditure for its members and 13 per cent of their total GDP. Local government is responsible for more than a half of this expenditure. The OECD identifies procurement as the government activity most vulnerable to waste, fraud and corruption. Low capacity in public sector bodies and local governments slows decision-making, drives up costs, damages the private sector and opens the door to corruption. Water utilities, water boards, river basin organizations and local governments often lack the experience and capacity to make effective judgements about the quality of the bids for large contracts (Andvig et al., 2000). If low cost becomes the only criterion for awarding contracts, then companies are incentivized to bid low to win contracts and may be unable to deliver quality results on time. The UK’s Public Contracts Regulations advise procurers to balance cost and quality to achieve the ‘most economically advantageous’ approach (Practical Law, 2015). The OECD lists a number of ways in which unethical bidders form cartels to rig the tender process to drive up prices and share the profits: submitting non-competitive bids agreeing not to bid or withdrawing a bid. arranging to submit bids only in certain areas. agreeing to take turns at ‘winning’ Lack of capacity can be equally damaging. A report from Ethiopia suggests that many private drilling companies moved into the water sector without a business plan (Defere, 2015) and demonstrated a number of weaknesses: bidding without fully understanding the work or making a site visit; bidding for a very low price, leading to low quality and delays; lacking appropriate machinery and materials; using advance payments for other purposes; and using senior staff to win contracts but having the work done by junior staff. However, many consultants believe that only the lowest bid will win a public contract and complain of weak or corrupt supervision. The drilling companies themselves complained of excessive bureaucracy on the part of the public sector and reluctance to take decisions. STRENGTHENING PROCUREMENT Processes for advertising invitations to tender must be open and fair and contain clear technical requirements. Steps are needed to prevent contracts being awarded to companies with a poor integrity record or inadequate capacity. The selection process should be defined in advance, confidential information must be protected and records kept of selection procedures. The World Bank, which currently funds 1,800 procurement projects to the value of US$ 42 billion in 172 countries, introduced a new procurement framework in 2016 ‘to achieve value for money with integrity in delivering sustainable development’ (World Bank, 2015). This follows consultation in which stakeholders reported fraud and corruption as major problems. The new framework defines roles and responsibilities for the Bank and the borrower and includes recommendations from Transparency International about beneficial ownership, civil society monitoring of procurement, and capacity building (TI, 2015a). The Bank works with countries to produce Country Procurement Assessment Reports, which identify strengths and weaknesses and set out steps to increase the capacity to manage and monitor procurement and reduce scope for corruption. The World Bank and the OECD have also developed a Methodology for Assessing Procurement Systems (MAPS) tool to help developing countries and donors to assess procurement systems. UNICEF says that application of a Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN) Code of Practice achieved a 31 per cent reduction in the unit cost of a borehole under the One Million Initiative in Mozambique, mainly though changes in contract procedures (UNICEF, 2011). A Water Governance Study on behalf of the Water Partnership Programme of the AfDB has noted some improvements in public sector procurement in Africa. (McGarry et al., 2010). The African Development Bank (AfDB) says that polices, legislation and guidelines are ineffective without the capacity to implement them. Many countries ‘continue to lack the necessary human resource capacity to implement these reforms effectively and do not have sufficient political will to drive them forward.’ (ibid). One way to ensure that companies have the capacity to complete contracts is through pre-qualification, a process of vetting the capacity and integrity before formal bidding begins. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) recommends pre-qualification of contractors for all large or complex works and specialized services (EBRD, 2012). Pre-qualification can protect against contracts being awarded to ‘fly-by-night’ companies that have no record of competence. The Taza Suu project to enhance WASH access to Kyrgyzstan villages was financed with loans from the World Bank and the ADB. After the project came under scrutiny the Kyrgyz prosecutor initiated 31 criminal charges against contractors. According to the Kyrgyz Institute for Public Policy, some contractors had established their company only days before the tendering process began (Isabekova et al., 2013). Many countries bar companies from bidding if they have been convicted of criminality. The EU has strengthened regulations to exclude companies that have been convicted of corruption, fraud or money laundering, offences linked to child labour, people trafficking or terrorism, or tax or social security offences. The Open Contracting Partnership has published good practice principles with the aim of making contracting more competitive and fair. It calls on governments to recognize the right of the public to access information related to public contracts. The OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement calls on governments to implement ‘an adequate degree of transparency of the public procurement system in all stages of the procurement cycle’ (OECD, 2015). Transparency International has pioneered integrity pacts under which companies make a commitment to reject all forms of bribery, collusion and corrupt practices. The pacts have been successfully implemented in drinking water and irrigation projects in Pakistan, Colombia, and Mexico. TI and the European Union are piloting integrity pacts project in 11 European countries (TI, 2015b). REFERENCES Andvig, J. C., Fjeldstad, O.-H., Amundsen, I., Sissener, T., and Søreide, T. 2000. Research on Corruption: A Policy Oriented Survey. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute and Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Ansar, A., Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A., and Lunn, D. 2014. ‘Should We Build More Large Dams? The Actual Costs of Hydropower Megaproject Development’. Energy Policy no. 78. Defere, E. 2015. Private Sector Landscape for WASH in Ethiopia: Bottlenecks and Opportunities. The Hague: IRC. EBRD. 2012. ‘Standard Prequalification Documents: Guidance Notes on the Prequalification of Tenderers’ London: EBRD. Grigoli, F., and Mills, Z. 2011. Do High and Volatile Levels of Public Investment Suggest Misconduct? The Role of Institutional Quality. Washington, DC: World Bank. Isabekova, G., Ormushev, K., Omokeev, T., Williams, A., and Zakharchenko, N. 2013. ‘Leaking Projects: Corruption and Local Water Management in Kyrgyzstan’. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute. McGarry, M., Mugisha, S., Hoang-Gia, L., Unheim, P., and Myles, M. 2010. Water Sector Governance in Africa, vol. I, Theory and Practice. Tunis, Tunisia: AfDB. OECD. 2015. Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement. Paris: OECD. Practical Law. 2015. ‘Evaluation of Tenders’. RWSN. 2010. ‘Myths of the Rural Water Supply Sector’. St. Gallen, Switzerland. Transparency International. 2015a. ‘World Bank Adopts Key Transparency International Goals in New Procurement Policies’. Transparency International. 2015b. Practitioners’ Advice on Implementing Integrity Pacts. Berlin:TI. UNICEF. 2011. ‘Improving Cost Effectiveness of Drilling Programmes in Mozambique and Zambia’. New York: UNICEF. Winemiller, K. O., McIntyre, P. B., Castello, L., Fluet-Chouinard, E. et al. 2016. ‘Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong’. Science no. 351 (6269):128-9. doi: 10.1126/science.aac7082. World Bank. 2015. ‘New World Bank Procurement Framework Approved’.

What’s the story? The capacity development programme, ‘Strengthening transparency, accountability and participation in and through WRUAs’, aimed at leveraging the potential of the WRUAs in the Lake Naivasha Basin (Kenya) as reliable, transparent, and credible local water institutions. In 2015, with the understanding that reliable and credible WRUAs are the linchpin for the successful management of water resources, capacity assessments of 12 WRUAs in the basin were conducted. From this analysis, the partnership developed three training modules to counter the identified gaps, and then trained and in the follow-up coached four pilot WRUAs in three areas: Internal governance and integrity Advocacy and lobbying Communications What is a WRUA? A Water Resource Users Association (WRUA) is a group of water users – individuals, farmers, the private sector, and other stakeholders – established under the Kenya 2016 Water Act for the collaborative management of water resources, and the resolution of water-related conflicts at a sub-catchment level. Who was in the partnership? The WRUA Good Governance Partnership implemented the programme, and included seven government institutions, NGOs, a water users’ association, and international organisations. It was made up of: The Centre for Social Planning and Administrative Development (CESPAD), in cooperation with Water Integrity Network, Water Resources Authority (WRA), GIZ International Water Stewardship Programme (IWaSP), and – through the Integrated Water Resources Action Plan Programme and Community Based Natural Resources Management Programmes in Kenya – World Wildlife Fund (WWF). What did they learn? Key lessons, challenges, and solutions can be found in these two new case studies: Cooperating for greater success in WRUAs WRUAs fostering transparency, accountability & participation Want more resources? Access the training modules via the Water Resource Authority.

An interview with Rubina Islam of WASH-SDG programme, Development Organisation of the Rural Poor (DORP). Rubina Islam has been working as an activist in development since 1980. She has had a career path with different international organisations such as Care International, Concern World Wide, and UNDP. She has worked on establishing the rights and the empowerment of women and adolescent girls – ensuring their participation in decision-making at the family, society as well as national level in varied sectors. Water Integrity Network (WIN) and the Development Organisation of the Rural Poor (DORP) are collaborating together under the project Integrity in school WASH: A reality check in Bangladesh. The aim is to understand how integrity issues affect WASH services in schools in Bangladesh by using the Annotated Water Integrity Scan (AWIS) tool. Based on the integrity assessments that have been done, WIN and DORP are advocating for change in policies and implementation practices in schools to improve WASH facilities. Can you describe the average water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) situation of schools in Bangladesh? Schools in Bangladesh have on average one toilet per 187 students according to the National Baseline Survey of 2014. There is no supply of water or soap in nearly two-thirds of the toilets. In addition, frequently toilet windows are tiny, with little light and ventilation, and it is anyone’s guess how bad the stink is. The co-education (mixed boys and girls) schools here usually operate at more than full capacity. Sometimes a school may have up to 900 students but only four toilets. One of the toilets is used solely by the teachers and remains closed to students at all times. So, 900 students effectively use only three toilets. To add to that, there are no separate toilets for boys and girls. When girl students are going through their periods, there is no way for them to change their sanitary napkins. Ninety-five per cent of schools in Bangladesh are not equipped for menstrual hygiene – which translates to the use and disposal of sanitary napkins, or cloth pads. The result is that during their periods, girl students do not attend schools. Have you found a relationship between poor sanitation facilities in these schools and the overall health of students? To be honest, if you would visit these toilets you would be shocked. Most of the time, the toilets are unclean. There are no proper lighting facilities, no running water, and no soap. Most students suffer from urinary tract diseases or infections because they are unable to use the toilets given their unhygienic conditions or because there are so few and therefore overcrowded. When I spoke with the students, they told me that they are forced to go back and use the toilet at home. Can you tell us about the work that WIN and DORP are doing in schools under the project integrity in school wash: a reality check in Bangladesh? To understand how integrity issues affect WASH services in schools in Bangladesh, WIN’s tool called the Annotated Water Integrity Scan (AWIS) was used to obtain primary data. During the 30 workshops performed, the project team collected information from 600 participants in 30 schools, with an equal representation of teachers, students, parents, school management committee members and social leaders. The project is being implemented in 30 schools in two hard-to-reach sub-districts (upazilas) in the south of the country: Bhola Sadar and Ramgati. AWIS was used to obtain data from 600 participants from 30 schools on various integrity issues affecting WASH services in schools. Participants included teachers, students, parents, school management committee members, civil society representatives, journalists, small-medium entrepreneurs, village doctors, imams/priests, and local political leaders. Participants were invited to score and collectively discuss the level of integrity in 5 key areas of WASH in schools (see figure below). Participants scored on transparency, accountability and participation (TAP) in key five areas and then collectively discussed the level of WASH in schools. The data was further complemented with information from a desk review on the legal and institutional framework of the country, a number of consultation meetings, Focus Discussion Groups (FDGs) and visits to school sanitation facilities. In addition, a randomized control trial (RCT) was implemented in parallel to evaluate whether the implementation of AWIS can improve WASH provision in schools. Participants related the term integrity with several concepts linked to TAP such as discussions, meetings and awareness raising. They referred in particular to the involvement of some key stakeholders like students, union parishad, upazila chairperson, SMCs, teachers and parents. Integrity was also associated with aspects such as toilet cleanliness, availability of soap and water, and good practices of washing hands and wearing of shoes during toilet use. Overall, apart from a few exceptions, workshop participants harboured negative views of the situation, particularly regarding menstrual hygiene management (MHM) and inclusion. Indeed, most participants confessed that they have never thought of the impact of sanitation management on students’ health and school attendance rate. Can you explain the management structure that is responsible for WASH in schools? Who currently holds the power to solve this issue? The schools that participated in the AWIS project are public schools, and the School Management Committee (SMC) is the main decision maker. The headteacher is the secretary of the SMC. Members include local influential people, schoolteachers, and guardians, but no politicians are included. In the context of WASH, it is our observation that the SMCs are not paying enough attention to the sanitation needs of the students. Separate toilets for the girls come nowhere in their planning or vision. What is surprising is that even female schoolteachers are insensitive to this. When we had our workshops, girl students shared with us the obstacles they faced with regard to menstrual hygiene management on the school premises. When we raised this concern with the teachers, they refused to discuss it. What was the experience working with WIN and how do you think that added new perspectives to your work in the WASH sector? AWIS is one of the first water integrity tools developed by WIN and has been adapted and applied in numerous countries. An AWIS workshop is a single, time-limited assessment intervention that can reveal new information by facilitating constructive dialogue among different stakeholders on issues related to transparency, accountability and participation (TAP). This dialogue helps establish priority actions to enhance water integrity and governance. I do believe AWIS is a very useful tool that helped us identify the overall WASH status of schools with respect to transparency and accountability from the perspective of different stakeholders as well as students. Local members, mostly women enthusiastically volunteered to be a part of the project. They underwent tool training on the AWIS tool and facilitated workshops including compiling the data in the 30 schools. As a result of this project, there are initiatives whereby: Students, teachers and the local administration are now jointly working to make a set of directives on School WASH circular available on school walls. District officials have undertaken steps to make funds available for the schools to build separate toilets for the girls and allocated a budget to keep the toilets clean. Transparent and participatory decision-making mechanisms have been established among school management committees, parents/guardians and students on WASH services in 30 Schools. Interest is being generated in the media – school WASH experts, policymakers, government officials and civil society are being invited to discuss integrity in School WASH which has not generally been discussed in the media in the past. A radio programme is being broadcast, focused on highlighting WASH issues in schools across the country. The AWIS workshop created a useful switch in thinking in the minds of SMCs, teachers, parents, local leaders and students. They were able to identify and put into context the real situation of school WASH. Do you feel that WASH funds match the true needs of Bangladesh’s WASH conditions and provide adequate relief to the population? In my opinion, the money provided is only partly useful. Those mainly who are responsible for improving WASH conditions are governments, smaller local governments, and institutions. These are the entities that dictate how the funds are ultimately spent. Even if they allocate some funds to WASH development, they are not specific enough. When the Minister of the local government allocates some money for some WASH purpose, they are not using it specifically for water, sanitation or toilet issues. It is for this reason that lobbying and advocacy activities are more essential. I do believe, Bangladesh needs a strong advocacy mechanism to hold the concerned authorities and decision-makers accountable for WASH budgets specifically. On the larger level looking through the gender lens, what is the intersection of WASH and women in your region of Bangladesh? The issue begins at the basic household level. The male members of the household have zero consideration of the needs of women and the risks women face as a consequence of the lack of sanitation facilities. For example, sanitation facilities are installed further away from the household. Women are afraid and insecure about using toilets at night and there have been instances where women have been attacked. Within the school system, many of the girl students do not attend school during menstruation as there is no space to change their sanitary napkins or cloth pads. In the areas of Netrokona and Barguna, it was found that 32% of girls did not use toilets at school during menstruation. Seventy-five per cent reported that they do not change their pads or cloth at school. The operationalization of the school circular is therefore very important – one of the directives is related to MHM but this directive is not pursued and followed in most of the schools. The community, including parents, are not aware of MHM at the household level and has no budget for MHM. Religious taboos also play an inhibiting role. However, the issue extends beyond toilets – women in our country have no participation in the development of public activities or in the activities of local government. Women may be members of local governments but they are not given any real responsibilities. Men in power are set in their thinking that women have no value. In general, in Bangladesh, many women are left behind. Women are not considered important and men are always operating under the assumption that women are inherently lazy. The irony is – we have a female Prime Minister! We believe that women have the capacity to do any type of work. However, it is still a male-dominated country. This can and must change, but we will need more time to establish this in Bangladesh. All photos by Carmen Fernández Fernández and Development Organisation of the Rural Poor-DORP

By Dr Tareq Alam, Development Organisation for the Rural Poor (DORP) As the Roman poet Ovid once said, “The lamp burns bright when wick and oil are clean.” Students are those lamps who will brighten up society and drive a country to its ultimate prosperity. To do that, students need to have proper education and good health. Basic, usable WASH facilities at school are a logical prerequisite for this, as students spend most of their day at school. Development Organisation for the Rural Poor (DORP) is relentlessly working to develop proper water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) facilities in schools situated in remote regions of Bangladesh. In the last two years, we have found that the lack of proper and functional WASH facilities cannot only be attributed to limited resources but also to a basic lack of awareness and the absence of accountability and participation: School Management Committees, teachers, and guardians are often reluctant to take up issues around student needs for water and sanitation in schools. SCHOOL TOILETS IN BANGLADESH: A DIRE SITUATION While most schools spend most of their budget on infrastructure, the maintenance of WASH facilities is neglected and budgets for this remain minimal. The National Hygiene Baseline Survey 2014 found that six out of every ten latrines in primary schools were locked, and only a quarter of them were clean. While 79% of all schools had at least one functional toilet, unhygienic conditions, locked doors and inadequate facilities contributed to the low use of the toilets by students. Frequently, there was no maintenance plan, no cleaning schedule and no specific responsible person to hold accountable. Bangladesh is committed to meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, including Goal 6 on access to water and sanitation. In support of this, the Ministry of Education of Bangladesh released an official order called the Secondary School WASH Facility Improvement Circular in 2015. The Circular highlights issues around WASH in educational institutions and gives 11 directives mandating schools to improve access to WASH facilities. However, most schools do not comply with the circular. A lack of awareness and coordination among all stakeholders of schools is one of the main reasons for poor compliance. A NEW INGREDIENT: SUPPORTING SCHOOL WASH WITH INTEGRITY In this context, DORP saw value in applying an integrity lens to assess and improve the situation in schools. It launched the Integrity in School WASH project with WIN in Bhola and Ramgati Upazila in 2017. Under this project, we are working with 30 schools on different activities including research, lobby, advocacy and awareness raising. The main objective of these activities is to first introduce and establish the concept of integrity among different stakeholders and to then assess developments in WASH facilities in schools. Participation of different stakeholders, including students, has been a key lever of action. THE SCHOOL WASH TEAM: MOBILIZING STUDENTS TO SUPPORT WASH IN SCHOOLS Activating what we call the “School WASH Team” has been one of the more successful approaches to ensure WASH facilities in schools are built and maintained. In every school, this team monitors the overall WASH situation in a school and reports it to the principal. The team members take part in the Management Committee meetings to share their opinion on school WASH facilities. They also share information with the rest of the students. A special badge is given to every member of the School WASH Team, to recognize and further motivate them. A School WASH Team is formed with two students from every class from grades 6 to 10. Team members are selected every three months by students and teachers through a fair process. In all co-education schools, an equal number of male and female students are selected for the team. Evidence from the integrity work in schools in Bangladesh suggests that WASH facilities improved where the pillars of integrity (Transparency, Accountability, Participation and Anti-Corruption) were assimilated and promoted in schools and taken on board by active students and stakeholders. We are currently following up on the projects and organizing a series of events to advocate for further improvements and for clarifications on budget allocations. The aim is to keep up the good practices in schools and support the development of an enabling environment built on integrity for improved WASH.

NEW STUDY: BEYOND LEAKAGES Research paper Published in 2020 by the Inter-American Development Bank By Isabelle Adam, Mihály Fazekas, Nóra Regös, Bence Tóth The importance of transparency and governance as determinants of efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of service undoubtedly occupy a key place among the most relevant lessons learned from the reforms implemented in the Water and Sanitation sector (W&S) in Latin America and the Caribbean in the last two decades. In order to support data-driven policy reform aimed at increasing efficiency in public investments, the present analysis focuses on estimating direct financial costs in terms of contract award prices and direct social costs in terms of project delivery quality (measured as frequency of delays and cancellations). The following questions are explored: i) What are the scale and types of corruption affecting W&S services?; ii) What is the effect of corruption in terms of tender completion?; iii) What is the financial impact of corruption for W&S services providers, such as high cost of infrastructure development? Considering limitations of data and measurement, the analysis suggests that a decisive policy reform reducing risks by about two-thirds (aggressive scenario) could result in substantial savings across the sector: 7-16% of prices for standardized (e.g. chairs) as well as unique goods (e.g. pipes), and 10-19% lower incidence of cancellations and delays. While these may sound modest in percentage terms, total savings from effective anti-corruption reforms are substantial, given the high value of total spending in the sector. Access paper in English and Spanish at: http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0002856

Strategy document Published: 2023 Over the past sixteen years, WIN has grown into a mature and well-respected NGO working closely together with its partners to place the issue of integrity in the water and sanitation sector higher on the global agenda. WIN has recognised that the task of building integrity takes time and commitment. As a small organisation, WIN has created a niche for itself as a catalyst for the promotion and implementation of integrity actions in the water supply and sanitation sector. We rely strongly on our partners and other stakeholders as we strive together to achieve integrity. WIN developed this Strategy 2023 - 2033 with input from our partners and key sector stakeholders through extensive interviews and focus group discussions, and under the guidance of a Steering Committee that included the Supervisory Board and a representative of the WIN members. We have decided on a 10-year strategy, to give time for integrity actions to take hold in the countries and organisations implementing them. WIN will monitor progress towards its vision along the way and make adjustments as needed. “The challenges facing the water sector are immense and no single actor can solve them alone. Only through concerted efforts by all stakeholders—including governments, public institutions, businesses, private organisations, and civil society—can these challenges be confronted.” - Barbara Schreiner, WIN Executive Director Download:

2021 saw the continuation of the pandemic across the world. COVID-19 has set back the programmes to meet SDG 6 and has pushed millions of people back into poverty. At the same time, it brought to light the critical need for better water and sanitation for those left behind and the widespread corruption in emergency responses. It lent ever more urgency to the work of WIN in promoting integrity in order to ensure that everyone has access to safe and reliable water and sanitation services. In this context, and despite the practical challenges of dealing with the pandemic especially for in-country partners, WIN continued to make progress in promoting integrity management practices around the world, as a thought leader, influencer, and convenor. View the report online: to this Sway

LESSONS FROM LUSAKA, ZAMBIA By Bill Twyman, Water and sanitation specialist at Aguaconsult and Ison Simbeye, Consultant A new research report examines urban sanitation in Lusaka, Zambia, with a focus on integrity, corruption risks and the capacity, strengths and weakness of the regulatory framework to deal with these risks. It bridges a critical gap in research on integrity in sanitation governance, highlighting new ways to strengthen the regulatory framework and ensure effectiveness of WASH systems. Download the research paper: Regulating Lusaka's Urban Sanitation Sector (pdf, EN): Infrastructure construction alone will not solve the challenges of extending and sustaining water and sanitation services in cities with growing populations facing the threat of climate change. Strong WASH systems are critical to ensure the effective and sustained delivery of urban sanitation services. That is, the effective delivery of urban sanitation services depends on the proper functioning of various actors (i.e. ministries, city authorities, regulators, public and private service providers) and factors (i.e. monitoring, institutional arrangements, regulatory enforcement, public and private finance). Strong regulators are a critical component of these WASH systems. They can help to expand safe sanitation services by creating and arbitrating the ‘rules of the game’ to balance the interests of the government, users and private sector while also limiting harmful behaviours. Effective regulation has wide-ranging benefits. These include ensuring compliance with public health guidelines and other statutory requirements, promoting efficiency gains and good performance by service providers, and limiting the opportunities for – and heightening the disincentives for – integrity failures. Conversely, where a robust regulatory system is not in place, we see that corruption and integrity failures are often prevalent. These acts occur at all levels, from skewed policy formulation to mismanagement of organisational resources, down to bribes for essential services. This severely undermines services, delaying interventions, causing the inefficient use of resources, and contributing to challenges such as high non-revenue water rates and service disruptions. However, globally, insufficient attention has been given to formulating and implementing the practical measures required to strengthen regulatory actors for urban sanitation and the broader regulatory environment to combat these acts. Lusaka – a city making considerable progress but one that remains emblematic of integrity challenges Lusaka, Zambia’s capital, is illustrative of many of the broader challenges affecting urban sanitation service delivery and the need to strengthen regulation. Like many cities in low- and lower-middle-income countries, Lusaka is experiencing rapid population growth (5% per annum). Expanding access to safe sanitation is a challenge, especially in the densely populated peri-urban areas that house 70% of the city’s inhabitants and most new arrivals. Climate change is also already affecting sanitation service delivery. Zambia has well-established institutional arrangements for regulating the urban sanitation sub-sector. Responsibilities are split between the National Water Supply and Sanitation Council (NWASCO), the Zambia Environmental Management Agency, and the Zambia Public Procurement Agency. However, all these institutions suffer capacity constraints. Zambia also has an altogether impressive regulatory environment for urban sewered sanitation. Regulators have autonomy, there are systems in place for effective participation and incentives for transparency and accountability. NWASCO reports on performance and has oversight over the Lusaka Water Supply and Sanitation Company (LWSC). Moreover, a 2018 strategic framework sets out how the non-sewered sanitation services used by 85% of Lusaka’s population are to be regulated moving forwards. Eighteen percent of Zambians who had contact with a public service in 2018 paid a bribe – this is lower than the same figures for across Africa and globally, which are both 25%. Despite this somewhat positive picture and the progress made regulating Zambia’s urban sanitation sub-sector, new evidence shows that integrity failures and corruption remain pressing challenges. Our report highlights several instances of corruption and poor integrity at different levels and involving a range of sector stakeholders. We focus on corruption in public financial management, corruption at the interface between institutions and individuals and other integrity failures. For example, there are cases where LWSC did not follow procurement protocols. Abuse of per diems is common and there are reported cases of bribery of public officials by the private sector, and bribery of public officials to obtain a service, reduce regular fees or speed-up administrative fees. These acts have delayed sanitation interventions, reduced the scope of large WASH programmes, caused scarce resources to be wasted on assets that were ultimately unused, and resulted in the inefficient delivery of services. Moving forwards – further strengthening urban sanitation regulation Corruption and integrity failures are undoubtedly common in the urban sanitation sub-sectors of many other countries, highlighting the global need to improve urban sanitation regulation. However, debates on these issues often centre on the broad need to strengthen governance. Insufficient attention is paid to developing and implementing the practical measures required to strengthen urban sanitation regulation and address these issues specifically. The regulatory environment in Zambia is strong. Nevertheless, a comprehensive set of further improvements are required to address the entrenched factors causing corruption and integrity failures and to reap the wider benefits of effective regulation in sanitation in particular. One important means to this is to ensure the effective implementation of Zambia’s e-procurement system in the water supply and sanitation sector. The capacity of regulatory actors also needs to be enhanced – for example, by further expanding NWASCO’s pool of part-time inspectors to cover all of Zambia’s districts. NWASCO could also expand the collection and reporting of data on petty corruption or corruption at the interface between institutions and individuals, including on indicators such as the percentage of the population that have paid a bribe and the rate of illegal connections and meter manipulations. Expediting the implementation of the 2018 strategic framework on regulating non-sewered sanitation is a further critical action point. More broadly, the sanitation sector must develop a better understanding of underlying integrity risks and entrenched dynamics holding the sector back. We must move away from talking broadly about the need for good governance and start pushing national governments and development partners to increase funding for the substantive and long-term interventions required to strengthen urban sanitation regulation and improve integrity in the sector. It is only then that progress will be made in moving towards meeting universal coverage of safely managed sanitation services. Download the full research paper: Regulating Lusaka's Urban Sanitation Sector (pdf, EN):