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.

The OECD Water Governance Initiative (OECD-WGI), a multi-stakeholder platform co-founded by WIN, advises governments on how water policies can be designed and implemented to improve livelihoods. The approach used by the OECD-WGI is to increase multi-stakeholder engagement and support bottom-up processes which will enable the development of policies for the water sector. For this purpose, the OECD-WGI has developed a set of principles for the sector which guide policy reform. To help government institutions and other stakeholders in different countries to monitor the implementation of these OECD principles on water governance, the OECD-WGI is developing an indicator framework. Indeed, monitoring is a crucial means to help identify where reform is needed and how it should be structured. At the Stockholm World Water Week, the President of the OECD-WGI, Peter Glas confirmed, "We all need to work towards putting in place the right conditions for efficient, effective and inclusive water governance systems at different scales. Measuring water governance is a cornerstone to achieving this objective. A proper measurement framework can help policymakers to take the right decisions and to monitor the progress towards ever-better water management." At the session co-convened by the OECD-WGI, IWMI, SIWI, UNDP-SIWI Water Governance Facility and the Water Research Commission, on how public policies can be designed and implemented to contribute to achieving water-related goals, he also called participants to join the action: ‘let’s get to work’. Building a strong monitoring framework During the interaction of the audience with the panel, composed of Transparency International, ASTEE, WIN, the International Network of Basin Organisations and SIWI, Teun Bastemeijer from WIN shared insights related to promoting water integrity and measuring the impact of good water governance programmes. Some of the questions asked were: What measures need to be put in place which promote good governance in the water sector? How can we ensure accountability and avoid corruption creeping into water governance? Indicators that measure good governance in the water sector cannot be developed in one day. The process will require the trust and engagement of stakeholders and should include the development of input, process, output and impact indicators. The effort of setting up a strong indicator framework is worth it, as it can help public institutions together with stakeholders at different levels to determine which results in areas to focus on in achieving better water governance for sustainable and equitable outcomes. Bastemeijer was clear to stress that improving good governance in the water sector ’is not just a matter of having the right indicators, but also of documenting and learning from evolving practice‘. Indicators cannot replace the documentation of best practices. What to measure Choices on what to measure need to be made in a specific country, basin and local contexts, and can relate to one or more of the twelve OECD principles that stakeholders decide to focus on. But in water governance improvement processes, more urgent attention is generally needed for monitoring of effective and efficient use of financial resources. According to the Water Integrity Global Outlook 2016 (WIGO), there is no comprehensive overview of funding levels available to the water sector and weak financial data makes it difficult to track finances and losses. Therefore, it becomes nearly impossible to ‘follow the money’, to see what exactly it is spent on, and to identify where it is lost. At the same time, we know that at least 10% of investment in the water sector is lost to corruption. This translates into billions of dollars disappearing annually. Better financial monitoring is therefore needed to ensure that water governance is “clean” and it will be key to establishing social accountability mechanisms in public financing systems for water sector financing. This may help ensure that risks or gaps are identified at an early stage. Whilst financial monitoring alone is not enough, it has to be a strong element of any comprehensive monitoring framework. What indicators are you using to measure effective water governance within your organization? Share your story in the comments section below and join the discussion to tell us what needs to be done to help promote more efficient, effective and inclusive water governance systems.

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH CORRUPTION Brief Published in 2016 with the Water Integrity Global Outlook 2016 By Peter McIntyre with inputs from Binayak Das (WIN) and Carmen Fernandez Fernandez (Associated consultant) Download (pdf, EN): Human rights are incompatible with corruption and will never be achieved in a sector where corruption is accepted as part of the landscape. The mechanisms and alliances which work to achieve the human rights to water and sanitation must be closely allied with those that work to increase transparency and protect the integrity of the sector. Efforts to combat corruption and realize human rights are always mutually reinforcing: both are necessary. The Water Integrity Global Outlook 2016 demonstrates that integrity in water sector governance is central to the delivery of sustainable development and to achieving the human rights to water and sanitation. It calls on policy-makers, governments, international agencies, institutions, citizens and the private sector to collaborate to build integrity in policies, investments, decisions, implementation and monitoring and evaluation. Delivering on global commitments to human rights goes to the core of what we mean by integrity, which is fundamentally about matching actions to words and about keeping promises. A rights-based approach has sharpened the lens through which the negative impact of corruption on water and sanitation can be evaluated (Bailat 2013). Corruption leads to loss of efficiency, sustainability and trust; it breeds cynicism, undermines public confidence and pushes up costs. It is an assault on human rights. COMMITMENTS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS TO WATER AND SANITATION The UN General Assembly declared the human right to water to be ‘essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights’ on 28 July 2010 (UN General Assembly, 2010b). In September the same year, the UN Human Rights Council clarified that the right was part of existing, binding international human rights obligations, affirming: “The human right to safe drinking water and sanitation is derived from the right to an adequate standard of living and inextricably related to the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, as well as the right to life and human dignity.” - UN General Assembly, 2010a This underlined, as many had argued, that these rights were already enshrined in international human rights law. In 2002 the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights stated: “The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights.” (CESCR, 2003) It took time for the UN to recognize the rights to water and sanitation as distinct and independent of each other. On 17 December 2015, the UN General Assembly accepted that the rights to safe drinking water and sanitation are separate rights, while maintaining that both are derived from the right to an adequate standard of living (UN General Assembly, 2016). The right to water requires “sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic use”, and the right to sanitation means having “physical and affordable access to sanitation, in all spheres of life, that is safe, hygienic, secure, socially and culturally acceptable and that provides privacy and ensures dignity…” States are required to bring about the progressive realization of these rights while eliminating inequalities for at-risk and marginalized groups. Several resolutions pertaining to the the right to sanitation have highlighted the importance of hygiene promotion, water resource management, improved wastewater treatment and reduced surface and groundwater pollution. The UN also emphasizes that such efforts need women’s leadership and full partnership in decision-making. It calls for programmes to reduce the time women spend collecting water and the threats they face including sexual violence. Lack of menstrual hygiene management in schools damages girls’ right to education. HUMAN RIGHTS NOT BEING MET In 2015, 663 million people were still without access to an improved drinking water source, while more than 2.4 billion – almost a third of the people on earth – were without access to improved sanitation facilities. The rights to water and sanitation are far from being met. The 2015 UN resolution calls on States to monitor and analyse progress towards these rights and identify patterns of failure and address structural causes of violations in policymaking and budgeting. The sector lacks capacity for monitoring and evidence-based decisions. The vast majority of surveyed countries have no comprehensive process in place to track funding to water and sanitation. Consequently, countries are unable to confirm whether funding has been directed to investment needs, nor credibly report back on whether they have met financial allocation targets (UN-Water and WHO, 2014). Fewer than half the countries reporting on the MDG goals tracked progress in extending sanitation and drinking water services to the poor (UN-Water and WHO, 2015). There is no “victim-free” corruption The main victims of corruption are the poor and the powerless, who lack the means to assert and enforce their rights. Globally, about 2,000 children under the age of five die every day from diarrhoea diseases, and 90 per cent of these linked to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) (UNICEF, 2013). Women usually manage household water but have little say in how services are provided. Poor households may be expected to bribe officials to secure water. The urban poor often pay more for water than the rich. Those who rely on land or water for their livelihoods – farmers, fishers and pastoralists – lose out when water resources are annexed or polluted. Schoolchildren, girls especially, are affected by the lack of clean water and basic sanitation in schools, including menstrual hygiene management. Discrimination in access to water is a form of corruption that disproportionately affects minorities and vulnerable groups. MEETING THE OBLIGATIONS The human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation entail three levels of obligation: the obligation to respect; the obligation to protect; and the obligation to fulfil (CESCR, 2003). Reports from UN appointed Special Rapporteurs have highlighted specific issues that block realization. In 2014, the then Rapporteur (Catarina de Albuquerque) published a series of guides to realizing these rights. In 2015, her successor identified corruption and poor governance as significant factors in increasing the cost of water and sanitation services. Léo Heller told the UN Human Rights Council: “Corruption tends to disproportionately affect poor and disadvantaged individuals and groups, as they lack the necessary power to oppose the vested interests of elites, and do not have the necessary resources to pay bribes.” - UN General Assembly, 2015 The 2010 UN Resolution noted the responsibility of states “to ensure full transparency of the planning and implementation process in the provision of safe drinking water and sanitation and the active, free, meaningful participation of the concerned local communities and relevant stakeholders”. (UN General Assembly, 2010a) TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND PARTICIPATION “Corruption violates the core human rights principles of transparency, accountability, non-discrimination and meaningful participation in every aspect of life of the community. Conversely, these principles, when upheld and implemented, are the most effective means to fight corruption.” - Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR, 2013) Transparency, accountability and participation are recognized as essential for combatting corruption and to enabling the right to development. In 2013, the Human Rights Council included the need for accountability, in guidance to States on incorporating the human rights to water and sanitation, including the means for citizens to enforce rights and seek remedies through effective courts and tribunals. (de Albuquerque and Roaf, 2012) The Special Rapporteur underlined the role of participation in a report to the Human Rights Council, noting that “participation is a human right in itself” and that “violations may arise from direct denial of participation as well as indirect, by failure to take reasonable steps to facilitate participation, including by ensuring the right to access to information.” (de Albuquerque, 2014) To be effective, participation must be active, free and meaningful. “It must go beyond mere information-sharing and superficial consultation, and involve people in decision-making, providing real opportunities to influence the planning process.” (de Albuquerque, 2011) The 2015 UN Resolution on the rights to water and sanitation emphasizes the importance of consultation and coordination with communities, civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders on the need for effective accountability mechanisms to ensure that service providers respect these rights and do not cause violations or abuses. HUMAN RIGHTS MUST BE AFFORDABLE The lead responsibility for delivering on human rights rests with governments. They remain accountable regardless of whether they are directly involved in water and sanitation service delivery or delegate this to commercialized, civil society or private providers. The UN Special Rapporteur has explained that the rights to water and sanitation do not mean that services have to be free but they do have to be affordable for all, including for those in severe poverty. Water supply tariffs should reflect the costs of producing and distributing water but also address affordability, and likewise for sanitation services. The Special Rapporteur stated: “Economic perspectives and human rights perspectives are not impossible to reconcile, but human rights require ensuring affordable service provision for all, regardless of ability to pay, and economic instruments must be (re-)designed to achieve this objective” (UN General Assembly, 2015). The Special Rapporteur pointed out that subsidies often fail to support the poor, but instead benefit the better off: ‘Subsidies are “hidden” when public financing is used to construct infrastructure and services that are intended to be used by all, but in fact are only available to middle- and high-income households’ (UN General Assembly, 2015). These are clear breaches of integrity, especially where political interference leads to reduced tariffs at election times or to neglected services in poor areas. An international grouping of CSOs that make up The Article 2 and Government Budgets Project has published suggestions for how civil society can engage with governments to ensure that budgets support human rights. It explains what is meant by key phrases such as “achieving progressively”, “to the maximum of its available resources” and “without discrimination” (Blyberg and Hofbauer, 2014). LEGAL SYSTEMS HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY The judiciary has a role to play in enforcing these rights. In Colombia, for example, article 365 of the constitution notes that addressing “unsatisfied drinking water needs” is one of the basic objectives of the state. The Administrative Tribunal of Cundinamarca declared that the Capital District had a constitutional obligation to provide services to under-served informal settlements near Bogotá, in conjunction with the public water service provider and residents (Bohórquez Forero, 2012). When States make commitments to improve their records on meeting the rights to water and sanitation, there is a need for follow-up action to be monitored. At the Sanitation and Water for All High Level Meeting in Washington in 2014, 43 developing countries made commitments, two thirds of them (35 countries) to eliminate inequalities and improve sustainability, and more than half (23 countries) to achieve universal access to water and sanitation by 2030. Government ministers, donors and development banks agreed to report annually on the progress made in implementing the commitments. In August 2015, a mid-term review reported that significant progress had been made on 56 per cent of commitments tabled at the High Level Meeting. Other sector stakeholders have an important role to play in ensuring that human rights law is followed. The UN Global Compact lists ten principles that the private sector should adopt based on human rights conventions, including: “Business should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.” The Water Integrity Global Outlook (WIGO) makes a number of recommendations that arise in part from the human rights to water and sanitation. It calls for steps to strengthen water integrity to support the implementation of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and ensure the realization of the human rights to water and sanitation. In particular WIGO highlights the need to develop and enforce water policies that incorporate transparency, accountability and participation (TAP) principles along with anti-corruption measures to meet these obligations. It calls for stronger enforcement mechanisms and cooperation between anti-corruption, judicial and water institutions. REfERENCES Baillat, A. 2013. A Human Right-Based Approach to Tackling Corruption in the Water Sector. Berlin: WaterLex and WIN. Blyberg, A., and Hofbauer, H. 2014. Article 2 and Governments’ Budgets. Washington, DC: International Budget Partnership. Bohórquez Forero, D. 2012. ‘Empresa de Acueducto y Alcantarillado de Bogotá y Otros‘. Geneva: WaterLex and WASH United. CESCR. 2003. ‘General Comment no.15 (2002): The Right to Water (Arts. 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)’. De Albuquerque, C. 2011. ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation’. New York: UN General Assembly. De Albuquerque, C. 2014. ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation’. New York: UN General Assembly. De Albuquerque, C., and Roaf, V. 2012. On the Right Track: Good Practices in Realising the Rights to Water and Sanitation. Geneva: OHCHR. OHCHR. 2013. ‘The Human Rights Case against Corruption’. UN General Assembly. 2010a. ‘Human Rights Council Resolution on Human Rights and Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation’. New York: UN General Assembly. UN General Assembly. 2010b. ‘Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly: 64/292: The Human Right to Water and Sanitation’. New York: UN General Assembly. UN General Assembly. 2015. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation. New York: UN General Assembly. UN General Assembly. 2016. ‘Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly: 70/169: The Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation’. New York: UN General Assembly. UN-Water and WHO. 2014. Investing in Water and Sanitation: Increasing Access, Reducing Inequalities: UN-Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water (GLAAS) 2014 Main Findings. Geneva: WHO. UN-Water and WHO. 2015. Investing in Water and Sanitation: Increasing Access, Reducing Inequalities: GLAAS 2014 Findings – Special Report for Africa. Geneva: WHO. UNICEF. 2013. ‘Children Dying Daily because of Unsafe Water Supplies and Poor Sanitation and Hygiene, UNICEF Says’. New York: UNICEF.

EXPERIENCES FROM PILOTS IN THE THE MENA REGION Guide Published in 2015 by The Arab Countries Water Utilities Association (ACWUA), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, and the Water Integrity Network (WIN) Association e.V. Integrity and compliance are critical to good governance in managing water resources and providing water services to citizens. Therefore, the Arab Countries Water Utilities Association (ACWUA) and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) in 2012 started a capacity development initiative on these matters by providing awareness seminars, training and advice, as well as developing tools and instructional materials, with the aim of improving integrity in water and wastewater utilities in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Based on these experiences, this Manual is written for water utilities that seek to improve their performance by implementing a change process towards higher levels of integrity. The main actors in this process are the utility’s management and staff. All water sector practitioners who support utilities throughout this process will benefit from using the Manual to guide their work. Download (pdf, EN)