Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Session 2 Why conducting an integrity vulnerability assessment in the water sector ? By Marie Laberge UNDP Oslo Governance Centre. Why is it important to tackle corruption in the water sector?
Why conducting an
assessment in the
By Marie Laberge
UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Why is it important to collect empirical evidence on the causes and effects of corruption in the water sector?
Brief overview of the proposed assessment approach (Sector Integrity Vulnerability Assessment – ‘SIVA’)
93% of the urban population has access to drinking water
But in the rural areas, where 72% of the population lives, only 47% have access to drinking water
The problem is one of governance, not availability.
Distorted site selection of boreholes or abstraction points for irrigation
Collusion & favoritism in public procurement
Falsified meter reading
Giving preferential treatment for repairs in exchange for ‘speed money’What does corruption ‘look like’ in the water sector?
Water governance spills across agencies
Viewed as a technical issue
Involves large flows of public funds
Water is scarce and becoming more so
Prevent corruption from outset
Understand local context, otherwise reform will fail
Support the poor
Reform must come from above and below
Good policy and good remedy can only come from good diagnosis
Numerous plans & strategies to improve water services have been adopted in Tajikistan, but their implementation is lagging behind
First step to demonstrate progress is to collect evidence, in order to be able to measure this progress!
No standard reporting/monitoring requirement in the water sector (except for tax & book-keeping purposes):
To inform reform strategies to reduce corruption risks (policymaking)
To raise public intolerance to corruption (advocacy)
“Reforms must come from above and below...”
Different purposes different types of data different audiences different dissemination strategies
Data to identify specific target groups, to describe local access conditions & implementation process, tomeasure performance against targets
Data showing need for service & impact of service provided
Data to define problems (to confirm requests /complaints from users)
Data on costs & resources needed
Data to identify target groups, to describe steps involved, costs & resources needed, progress & impact
Sector Integrity Vulnerability Assessment (‘SIVA’)
BUT – We are only presenting a ‘menu of options’
Does not mean simply following predefined steps like in a cookbook!
How to adapt international experiences to the Tajik context?
Evidence-based approach: To depersonalize & depoliticize the fight against corruption
Based on multiple sources of evidence (for triangulation), and mix of qualitative & quantitative research methods
Conducted in collaboration with both water consumers & providers
Create ownership through partnership
wrong institutional incentives, lack of accountability, lack of public info & transparency
4 advantages of the proposed approach:
Helps to pinpoint specific areas / interactions where corruption occurs
Provides a guide into ‘what can be done’
By ‘ranking’ risks, helps to identify priority areas for reform
Can be used for monitoring change over timeOverview of the proposed assessment approach: ‘SIVA’
Mapping the ‘potential’ corruption risks for each ‘step’ in the provision of water
Identify danger signs (‘red flags’) to watch out for: they alert decision-makers, investigators or the public to the possibility of corrupt practices
Find empirical evidence (through surveys & analysis of objective data sources) of corruption risks and ‘rank’ them based on incidence & impact
Establish a monitoring system to track the most critical ‘red flags’ on a regular basis
Develop national ownership
Partnership with government is critical
Collaborate with committed, legitimate, respected local partner
National political enabling environment
... Or else, integrity refroms can backfire and eventually even increase corruption!Preliminary lessons learned from international experience
Mapping corruption risks & identifying ‘red flags’ in two sub-sectors: WSS & WRM (irrigation)
‘Internal’ and ‘external’ methodologies for collecting evidence
How to adapt these methodologies to the Tajik context?
How to develop a sustainable monitoring system?
How to develop a mitigation plan?
How to design a communication strategy?
Next stepsOverview of the workshop agenda