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.

Integrity still does not get the attention it needs, yet lack of integrity imposes a serious burden on the functioning of societies and, in our case, the water sector. When we discuss integrity, the first question which comes up, of course, is What do we mean by integrity? You all have some idea of this – sharper or vaguer, narrower or broader. When we at the Water Integrity Network talk about integrity, however, we talk about the integrity of people when they are making decisions on water management and the integrity of the decision-making process. Integrity means that people and organisations act in the best interest of the people that they are serving, that they can be held accountable for that, that stakeholders are heard when decisions are made, and that outcomes are fair and sustainable. This may sound pretty much normal to you, and a situation that you would expect. Unfortunately, we all know that often it is not the reality. Lack of integrity results in waste of resources, rigged decisions, and often outright corruption. This can take many forms. We see embezzlement of funds at various levels, directly reducing the resources available for their purpose. We see investments being made in the wrong place because someone pays to have them there for personal benefit rather than where it is most needed. We see building with sub-standard materials. We see investments in construction and no subsequent maintenance. So much for sustainability. Again: it is known. Often people try to do something about it. Too often they do not. I will share some concrete examples — cases that we have documented in the Water Integrity Global Outlook, a report that we will publish in December of this year. These examples show both what can go wrong but also what has been done to promote integrity and reduce various forms of malpractice and illicit behaviour. I will start with an example from the city where I currently live, Germany’s capital Berlin. Germany & the case for civic action Berlin’s water utility (BWB) provides drinking water and sewage services to almost 4 million people. In 1999, despite strong opposition, the Berlin city-state government decided to privatize a 49.9 per cent share of the utility. Details of the 30-year, €1.7 billion contract were kept completely secret. A number of civil society organisations in Germany criticized the deal, claiming that it was a guarantee of high profits for shareholders at the cost of a strong increase in water prices for consumers. Only after they were able to organize a successful campaign for a referendum to return the water utility to public hands, did the citizen’s alliance, Berliner Wassertisch (‘water table’) succeed in reversing the privatization decision. In the referendum, they won a 98 per cent majority. However, despite this apparent level of public support, it took them more than a decade to get there. As a further result, contracts and documents about the purchase negotiations dating back 12 years were made public. In 2012, the German anti-trust office declared the contract to be in breach of competition law and demanded a water price cut of 19 per cent. An investigation was started to determine whether the sale also breached EU law on state aid to private companies. The Berlin case demonstrates the dangers of lack of transparency and exclusion of civil society from negotiations, through agreement on ‘confidential’ contracts for public works, manipulation of legal processes, and one-sided advantages for corporations at the expense of the public interest. However, it also demonstrates how sustained advocacy, public participation, and civil action for greater integrity can lead to success. Bangladesh & the case for community research Climate change and sea level rise are major risks for Bangladesh as a low-lying delta state. Understandably, the Bangladeshi government has created several multimillion-dollar funds to cope with these risks. But in a country where corruption is endemic, large funds obviously do not only attract the attention of those who use them for their intended purpose but also of those who see it as an opportunity for illegally generating private income. Wary of the quality of governance in the water sector, Transparency International Bangladesh decided to do an assessment of climate finance governance for 2011-2013. To this end, they developed a dedicated tool, the National Climate Finance: Governance Risk Assessment Toolkit. Through this toolkit, they: mapped and assessed of key actors in climate finance governance; tracked the implementation of climate fund projects. To track project implementation, project areas were visited and local communities were interviewed. Illicit practices which they encountered included: inflation of budgets, with budgets for instance 40 per cent higher than the final bid costs; violation of public procurement rules such as allowing sub-leases to staff of the procuring organisation; disbursement of funds without significant progress in works; and embezzlement of tens of thousands of dollars. In reaction to the findings, the Funds considered were forced to reassess a portfolio of more than 3 million dollars of water-related climate projects. And please bear in mind that these funds are meant to protect the Bangladeshi people from disasters like typhoons and floods. We say sometimes that “corruption kills”. This kind of case makes the point. India & the case for multi-stakeholder dialogue In India, in the early 1980s, the Waghad irrigation scheme was set up in Maharashtra and the Waghad dam was built. However, soon after, the scheme fell into dysfunction. To get an allocation of water, farmers had to bribe irrigation officials. On the other hand, farmers also simply tried to steal water from the system. Maintenance and performance were poor. It resulted in a situation in which there was a total lack of trust and respect between authorities and farmers. In 1991, local NGOs started to work on rectifying this situation, particularly by setting up and supporting water user associations. It was a long journey — about 15 years —but highly successful in the end. It resulted in an overall project-level users association that was tasked with the management of the scheme. Ultimately, they were able to fully recover its costs. Bringing together farmers and officials in dialogue, engaging in capacity building, and, in particular, building trust between key actors — these were all key components that led to success. Concrete steps taken along the way included: creating consensus on water allocation rules; robust monitoring and enforcement arrangements; theft deterrence mechanisms; a de-politicized and fair voting process; sound financial management. Now, farmers are involved in both decision-making and operation and maintenance. Average income rose approximately 50 times over the last 20 years. Burkina Faso & the case for integrity-led governance Fortunately, there are more and more cases, in which integrity risks are addressed early on. In Burkina Faso, the National Office for Water and Sanitation, ONEA, in close cooperation with its donors, took on managing integrity risks from the start when the Ziga Dam was developed at the beginning of this century, a $300 million project. This was addressed fundamentally by: establishing a completely new unit to manage the project; putting in place a range of proactive measures for both procurement and construction phases; setting strict procurement rules; and welcoming external international monitoring to safeguard compliance for finances as well as technical progress. All of these measures served both to prevent corruption and to ensure the timely and quality construction of the dam. What the Ziga Dam project shows is that we know how things should be done and that it can be done … if there is sufficient leadership to make it so. Water integrity global outlook As I mentioned in the beginning, the Water Integrity Network together with its partners Transparency International, Cap-Net, SIWI, IWMI, UNESCO-IHE, GIZ, and GWP will soon publish the Water Integrity Global Outlook (WIGO). Much more comprehensively than I summarized above, WIGO describes what we are learning about enhancing water integrity. Here are a few key learning points: Firstly, it is clear that ensuring integrity is essential for the effective and efficient use of resources. To make that happen, open, public accountability is key. There needs to be external scrutiny of processes. Scrutiny by stakeholders means accountability to stakeholders. Of course, this doesn’t happen by itself. Leadership is needed to make it happen. This can be leadership from the top. It is there, sometimes, and even faster, but unfortunately, too often it is lacking. But it can also come from the bottom, as we recognize in the cases I described above. Leadership from civil society, but sometimes also from managers and professionals in the sector. Public accountability requires empowerment and capacity building of both citizens and officials and professionals. More practically speaking: we must act early. Prevention is much more efficient than later correction. And finally, taking responsibility and acting responsibly lies at the basis of it all. Taking responsibility at the top level, or as a civil society leader, to generate change. But also for every individual to say No, I am not going to pay a bribe. I am not going to solicit or accept a bribe. Without ensuring integrity in public management, a few people win but the whole society loses out. I look forward to the continued discussion and to our success. The statement above was first presented at Stockholm World Water Week in August 2015. Click here to learn more about the water integrity presentations of #SWWW15.

Most people in Sierra Leone are of the notion that water is a free gift and that one should not pay a cent to afford it. The government holds the notion that to maintain water service delivery sustainability, the masses must be in a position to pay water rates and other charges, so as to pay workers, secure more machines, and also repair and construct more water resources. This conflict is adversely affecting the operations of the Water Resource Ministry in ensuring that the people, especially the poor that are in deprived communities, are accorded pure and affordable drinking. As a result of this gap between the rich and the poor in accessing water, there are a lot of social, economic, and environmental impacts on water resource management. As the struggle between the rich who can opt for all means to secure water at all times, and the poor who struggle, some business water companies and some officials are having a field day in embarking on corrupt practices that are affecting the water service delivery system in various parts of the country. Illegal water tapping It is a common practice for the youths to either divert the flow of water from the main resources to the households by illegally using rubber pipes and charging inhabitants to pay money that goes into their pockets. As a result, those paying their bills go without the service for some time. This situation has degenerated to the point that in broad daylight, along the major streets of the city, people are visible with cans or buckets in their hands destroying the pipes to scoop water. The unfortunate aspect of this situation is that most of these pipes are located in drainages that are very filthy or near poor sewage facilities, thereby polluting the drinking water or serving as breeding grounds for the transmission of water-borne diseases. This issue can be addressed if effective an monitoring mechanism is instituted to protect the structures for effective water service delivery and educate the people on the dangers involved. Illegal business practices Another disheartening corrupt activity in the water sector is the act of private water companies not going through the correct processes involved before selling their products to the masses. For a water company to be accorded the right to operate in a state, it must be registered, samples of the product tested, and later the structures evaluated. Today with the desire to exploit the masses, some of these private water companies waste no time after registration and start processing and selling untested water to the public. Recently, for example, the management of Family Care Water implicated the management of Sierra Spring Water for using their brand. According to the report, the management of Sierra Spring Company is currently being investigated by the Aberdeen Police Division on allegations ranging from forging and using Family Care Water Company brand to packeting and selling water to the public. This issue came to light when the head office of Family Care Water was stormed by the Sierra Leone Police, the media, and some customers on the grounds that some of the water plastics sold to the public contained a lot of particles that will affect the human system. With this dismal situation, a team from Family Care Water contacted [the intellectual property offices of] Roxy Building to inquire if there was any other organization or company in the country that had registered with that name. As there was none, the search team mounted an investigation. On Thursday, they were able to locate a hideout at 27 Gordon Street. In the said building, it was realized that Sierra Spring Water had a lot of packet Family Care Water bundles that were to be sold to the public. The Office of Standards Bureau was alerted to the issue. Inspector Martin attached to the Water Industry of the Sierra Leone Standards Bureau visited the scene and placed the company under lock and key with the message that the manager of Sierra Spring Water must report on Monday, 20th October 2015 to help in the investigations. The management was to explain how they acquired the brand of Family Care Water, the process of registration to establish a water company and other relevant documents. Speaking to the Public Relations Office of Standards Bureau Mr. Abu B. Bah on the said issue, it was revealed that when the matter was brought to their attention, Inspector Elvis Mohamed Koroma was dispatched to the scene and the following findings were made: The management of Sierra Spring Water was using the plastic roll (sachet) of Family Care Water to packet. It was realized that the packet water sold by Sierra Spring was not tested at the Standards Bureau so the officer was left with no option but to seal the door. Already samples have been collected for analysis and this will lead to a police investigation and charging of the matter to court. All efforts were made to get the side of the manager of Sierra Spring Water Company. This problem can be addressed if Standard Bureau embarks on massive on-the-spot checks of these water companies to ensure that they comply with the laid down procedures at all times and that defaulters are fined or have their licenses seized. Illegal contracting In the area of awarding contracts for the establishment of boreholes or standing pipes in many places, during the dry season, most of these facilities are non-functional on the grounds that the contractors failed to actually reach the water level. In a situation where this happens especially in the provincial areas, most of the pipes are either sold to scrap metal business people or criminals have a field day with this equipment. If such a situation is to be addressed, credible contractors that have vast ideas in drilling for water must be awarded the right to undertake such a venture. Reposted with permission of the author. To view the original article, visit the West Africa WASH Journalists Network. Click here to learn more about WIN’s water integrity programmes around the world.

LOOKING AT SCHOOL TOILETS IN ANDRHA PRADESH WITH AN INTEGRITY LENS By Binayak Das, WIN Programme Coordinator Published in 2014 with the Freshwater Action Network South Asia and Arghyam School children in many countries are deprived of basic sanitation and hygiene facilities despite ample funds and projects. This can happen when funds for building toilets get siphoned off; when maintenance funds go missing leaving the toilets unusable by students… School sanitation is a factor of school education completion, especially for girls, yet UNICEF estimates that more than half of the world’s schools lack clean toilets, drinking water and hygiene lessons for all school children. Official figures seem to project success while in reality the situation is dire. Take the example of Andhra Pradesh, a state in southern India which has a total of 96,277 schools. It is reported that 89% of the schools have a toilet facility according to the District Information System for Education statistics from 2010. However, this number does not indicate if the facilities are benefiting the students. Data from the State education department states that only 26% of the facilities are functional. Toilets are lying idle because of various reasons: shoddy or incomplete construction, lack of water facility, no toilet cleaning or no hand-washing ingredients. Accountability and transparency is missing from the processes of planning, constructing and maintaining toilets in schools, with as a result, a situation that runs contrary to the required standards and norms defined in the Right to Education Act. Accountability and transparency are missing from the processes of planning, constructing and maintaining toilets in schools Strengthened policy and implementation processes can go a long way in improving sanitation facilities for children and in turn empowering them with education. A lack of integrity is one of the stronger process gaps and therefore must be assessed in a thorough and reliable manner. A project initiated by the Fresh Water Action Network South Asia (FANSA) with support from Arghyam and the Water Integrity Network, aims to undertake this needed assessment. The project is focused on 225 schools in three districts of Andhra Pradesh: Kurnool, Warangal and Viskhapatnam. It uses an adapted version of the Annotated Water Integrity Scan approach as one element of the methodology to encourage discussion on root causes and risks in a non-confrontational and constructive manner. Download the report:

THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY WATER BOARDS “Our duty is to protect the forest and groundwater levels. When I took office, I pointed out that the billing system was not transparent and presented serious risks of weakening trust in the Community Water Board. […] We installed water meters to establish equity and access. This was successful.” - María del Rosario Pérez (President of the Community Water Board of Aldea San Juan, Municipio de Salamá, Guatemala) Many Community Water Boards in Central America establish their legitimacy by making sure they work honestly, transparently, and in an accountable manner, with the support of their community. Our report on Integrity and the Human Right to Water in Central America highlights their essential role in ensuring the fulfilment of the human right to water. Yet these non-profit organizations manage the capture, treatment and distribution of water often with little backing from State authorities, in unclear regulatory frameworks, and with too little capacity. Based on interviews with Community Water Board presidents in Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador and Costa Rica, and with a case study on water contamination issues around pineapple plantations in Costa Rica, the report looks into this paradox. In English In Spanish

LESSONS FROM THE FIRST AFRICA WATER INTEGRITY SUMMIT IN LUSAKA Water integrity ambassadors from 22 countries in Africa met to exchange case examples and good practices at the 1st African Water Integrity Summit in Lusaka, April 29-30 2014. Their experiences have been collated in a case book, which highlights the persistence and courage needed to promote water integrity in difficult political and organizational contexts. In their cases, the water integrity ambassadors discuss the very different methods that were helpful in promoting integrity within organizations, at local and national level: communication and advocacy, networking, monitoring and transparency initiatives, community participation and more. The cases included are: Burkina Faso – Lutte contre la pratique de la corruption dans la construction de grands barrages: l’expérience du barrage de Ziga Sierra Leone – Going Against the Cabal at Guma Valley Uganda – Dialogue Sessions Unearthing Allocation of Funds to Ghost Villages Zimbabwe – Integrity Ambassadors Changing Local Water Management Cultures Gambia – The IWRM Roadmap for Gambia Kenya – Scaling Up Water and Sanitation Services for the Urban Poor Zimbabwe – Promotion of Transparency and Integrity Systems in Local Authorities Malawi – Preventing Theft of Repair Materials to Avoid Prolonged Water Shortages Kenya – Social Accountability Approach to Rainwater Harvesting for Women in Mwhihoko Nigeria – Water Integrity in Hadejia Jamaare Komadugu Yobe Basin (HJKYB) Benin – Contribution à la reddition des comptes à l’amélioration du service publique de l’eau dans les Communes du Bénin Nigeria – Strengthening Social Accountability in Small Town Water Services Using Water Associations Uganda – Community Involvement in Rural WASH Procurement East Africa – Coordinating Transboundary Resources Management at the Horn of Africa Rwanda/Burundi – Renforcement de la résilience des communautés locales a la sécheresse Malawi – Citizen Action Initiative Supports Communities Demanding their Rights Somalia – Fostering NGO Accountability Through Remote Monitoring Sudan – Community Water Supply Management: Kebkabiya Water Supply System Case Study Tunisia – Integrité de l’eau dans le système aquifère du Sahara Septentrional (SASS) Cameroon – Campagne de sensibilisation des organisations de la societé civile, médias et élus locaux sur l’integrité de l’eau au Cameroun South Africa – Business Integrity Initiative in Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality Zambia – Integrity Management Toolbox for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises Malawi – Building Water Integrity Practices into National Water Development Plans Kenya – Human Rights-Based Approach to Sustainable Water Governance Download (pdf, EN)

THE EXPERIENCE OF BURKINABE UTILITY, ONEA CONTEXT In the early 1990s, the public Burkinabe utility, ONEA, was performing poorly and was in a difficult financial situation. The rate of access to water in Ouagadougou, the capital, was barely 50%, and the rate of access to improved sanitation around 5%. By 2011, the utility was leading the successful development of the Ziga dam project and had increased access to water rates to 80%. The utility has reformed and reorganized to improve performance, assessing integrity risks to steer some of the changes. ACTION AND OUTCOMES: ONEA REFORM The reform process of ONEA started in the 1990s with a clarification of the role of the utility as a state company. The supervisory board was expanded to include representatives from municipalities and consumer associations. Changes and improvements were made to HR management systems, accounting and quality control. A key success factor in improving performance was to give more focus to client relationships and service delivery and expand accordingly. The restructuring was accompanied by a series of measures to increase transparency and accountability on financial results. A brief integrity risk mapping exercise based on the AWIS approach was a useful in steering change. ONEA was certified ISO 9001:2008 in 2010. Find out more about the restructuring process in this ONEA case study (in French only) ANTI-CORRUPTION MEASURES FOR THE ZIGA DAM DEVELOPMENT The Ziga dam is a flagship project for ONEA and a key development to ensure wider access to water in the Burkinabe capital. Specific attention was given to anti-corruption and integrity measures and processes during project management to ensure timely and in-budget completion of the dam construction. Some of these measures included a restructuring of some of the company units to better control project management. Care was also given to integrated resource management and sustainable development strategies. The procurement project was specifically regulated and controlled to minimize risk of corruption. For example, special attention was given to defining project specifications, getting integrity commitments from potential suppliers and controlling the offer submission process. The Ziga dam is now regarded as an example of good practice in the construction of works of this scale and kind in West Africa. See the whole case study on the Ziga dam project development: in English: in French:

Brief and report Published in 2013 with Waterlex “The human right to water and sanitation encompasses procedural rights such as the right to access information (transparency), the right to participate in decision-making processes and the right to ask for remedy (accountability). For human rights advocates, access to information, participation and accountability are rights-based obligations and may trigger human rights protection mechanisms. The right to water and sanitation therefore leads to the empowerment of right-holders and has the potential to transform the balance of the power between right-holders and duty-bearers – which is fundamental for effective access to information, participation and accountability.” The international community recognized the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation in Resolution 64/292 of the UN General Assembly in July 2010. The recognition of safe drinking water as a human right means that States must respect a number of principles inherent in all human rights, specifically: non-discrimination, access to information, participation, accountability, and sustainability. In this research report and brief, Waterlex and WIN, outline how such a Human Rights based approach can provide a lens through which corruption and its negative impact on water and sanitation can be evaluated more carefully and how the fulfilment of Human Rights obligations and the promotion of water integrity can be mutually reinforcing. Download the brief: Download the full report:

Brief By Daniel Nordmann Published in 2013 with support from GIZ Although regulation of water services is not introduced per se to combat corruption, it can play an important role in improving sector and utility governance in a sustainable manner. “The design of a regulatory systems is very country-specific. In many countries such as Burkina Faso, or in Uganda […] contracts between governments and utilities which set performance targets for a multi-year period are common practice. In other countries, regulatory units are created in the water administration, or competition authorities perform regulatory functions in combination with ‘public control’ mechanisms – as in Germany. In about 57 countries worldwide, autonomous water services regulatory authorities or regulatory units in ministries have been established at national or regional levels.” This brief first outlines the corruption and integrity hot spots utilities face in their day-to-day operations before exploring how regulators, when ensuring that utilities comply with rules (for example by implementing tariff-setting procedures, licensing of utilities, public performance reporting, service standards), can develop an enabling regulatory framework that will support integrity in the water sector. Regulation can serve both as a control limiting undesirable behaviour, and as a facilitator creating an enabling environment for conduct based on integrity. The author recommends a combination of incentive-based tools, such as corporate governance guidelines and benchmarking, with cooperative approaches where partnerships with utilities, users and institutions can further “support utilities in building an integrity infrastructure.” The brief includes a note of caution. “To make a regulatory system effective and legitimate, the regulator itself must be safeguarded against corruption, capture and undue interference from stakeholders.” It then closes with a set of recommendations on first steps and measures to be implemented. Download full brief:

Campaign case study Published in 2013 with support from the Sri Lanka Water Partnership and the Network for Women Water Professsionals Sand mining is not only often carried out illegally, it can also have devastating consequences on the environment that can endanger the lives of local populations. Sand mining can lead to the degradation of river beds, erosion of banks, deterioration of water quality, reduction of ground-water availability, reduction of crops yields… In Sri Lanka, it has been convincingly proven that excessive sand mining aggravated the impact of the 2004 tsunami. Still, as sand is a crucial resource for the construction sector, sand mining is booming and continues to take a serious toll on the health of rivers and coastlines worldwide. This publication documents the efforts made in Sri Lanka to counter illegal river sand mining. In 2005, a campaign was initiated against river sand mining by the Sri Lanka Water Partnership, the Network for Women Water Professionals (NetWwater) and partners. WIN and GWP provided additional support to their efforts from 2008. The campaign is a widespread effort to engage with multiple stakeholders from civil society, government, regulatory authorities, law enforcement, religious authorities and the media to raise awareness about the impact of sand mining and encourage action and stronger regulation. This case highlights the role that law enforcers needs to play in protecting natural resources and the environment and how engaging with these stakeholders helped bring about concrete change in how illegal sand mining is addressed and limited. Already, the impact of the campaign is positive. Illegal sand mining has been banned in two river basins – Deduru Oya and the Maha Oya. A strong network of partners continues to bring awareness to the issue, facilitate change and promote alternatives to the practice. Download (pdf, EN)

Assessment guidelines Published in 2014 with SIWI and the Oslo Governance Center The User’s Guide on Assessing Water Governance is the go-to reference to develop a relevant assessment framework for water governance and water integrity. Download in English (pdf, EN) Download in Portuguese (pdf, PT)

Brief By Binayak Das (WIN) Published in 2012 with the Global Water Partnership (GWP) River basins, with a wide range of uses supporting a great diversity of people, cultures and jurisdictions, require suitable institutions, policy instruments and management strategies to ensure just and equal access to water without compromising the health of the river. This brief, developed in partnership by WIN and GWP, outlines key risk factors and integrity challenges that are specific to river basin management and points to some key measures that can increase integrity in river basin management, with examples from Indonesia, Japan, Spain, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Key risk factors include the facts that: “Decision making in river basins is dispersed across many sectors and spills into different types of agencies. Large amounts of public money flow into river management and the technical complexities of river management decreases participation and transparency.” The challenges are increased by rapid urbanization and climate change. IWRM is one important approach to improve water governance at basin level. The brief highlights the role of IWRM and its effectiveness in improving coordination to river basin scale but also points to possible “increases in corruption risks as the level of social control and administrative monitoring decreases when interactions occur outside the established systems.” Factoring in water integrity in the formulation and implementation of IWRM strategies at river basin level can improve the sustainability, equity and sustainability of such strategies. The brief concludes with examples of how including Transparency, Accountability and Participation principles -the pillars of water integrity- in basin management, have already helped strengthen institutions and increased the satisfaction of stakeholders in several worldwide river basins. Download this brief as a pdf: In English: In Spanish: In French: