Tj workshop session 2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Tj workshop session 2

on

  • 919 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
919
Views on SlideShare
915
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 4

http://www.slideshare.net 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Officials can influence the way a contract is defined, by determining the nature of a project (e.g. high capital investment) & the type of contract --- or contractors may falsify records and documentation to ensure that bids look competitive, and officials may turn a blind eye as they receive a kickback for silence.
  • Or with frequent power outages, water supply constantly interrupted, or only availabel in morning or evening – therefore rural citizens forced to pum dirty water from other ‘unimporved sources’ (srpings, wells with manual pumps, irrigation ditches, channels, rainwater collection) which are inadequate in terms of sanitation & hygiene Children are most vulnerable population group suffering from poor water quality: frequent vistims of gastric & intestinal infections caused by contaminated water – partly due to fact that more than 50% schools do not have access to safe drinking water & majority of medical institutions in country also lack access to safe water. Ecosystems suffer – bribes are paid to cove up the discharge of wastewater & toxins in water resourcesCorruption discourages investments in infrastructure – e.g. hydropower production.
  • -There are numerous reasons, but here I will only review five. -First, Water often defies legal and institutional classification, often leaving governance dispersed across political boundaries and different agencies with many loopholes to exploit-2nd, managing water is still largely approached as an engineering challenge. Consideration for the political and social dimensions of water, including corruption issues, is limited-3rd, water is more than twice as capital intensive as other utilities. Large water management, irrigation or dam projects are complex, making procurement lucrative and manipulation difficult to detect-5th, water is scarce. Even in water-richTaj, droughts are frequent & country is vullnerable to climate change & natioanl disasters. The less water available, the higher the corruption risks that emerge.
  • I will briefly present four lessons that are drawn from the 2008 Global Corruption Report that was jointly prepared by Transparency International and the Water Integrity Network-First, prevent corruption in the water sector, as cleaning it up after it is difficult and expensive. -Second, we must understand the local water context, otherwise reforms will fail. One size never fits all, but this is particularly true in the water sector. Therefore understanding local conditions and specific incentive systems that underpin corruption is a prerequisite for devising effective reforms-Third, the costs of corruption in the water sector are disproportionately borne by the poor-And finally, reform must come from above and below. Leadership from the top is necessary to create political will and drive institutional reform. But bottom-up approaches area needed by adding checks and balances on those in power.
  • PRSP, NDS, National Water Sector Development Strategy (2005-2015)More recently (2008) the govt has approved a programme which aims to provide access to drinking water to all the Tajik population by 2020
  • In rural areas, where women and children are responsible for collecting water from water sources situated 5km or more away from their places of residence.Info on population numbers with access to a centralized water supplu system not included in state reporting form.It is therefore impossible to gain a clear picture of the situation in the water sector at any time.Big gap:According to data for assessing water quality, 30 of samples nationwide do not comply with national microbiological standardsMeanwhile, health statistics show that there is an extremely high rate of water-related diseases directly resulting from very poor water quality.
  • Input indictors / process indicators / output/outcome/impact indicators
  • they are evidence based, meaning that detailed data collection and analysis was undertaken; second, the studies were undertaken in collaboration with key stakeholder groups (providers & consumers), important to get both views to validate what one group saysand third, through this multi-stakeholder partnership process, it is hoped that ownership over the data has been created
  • they are evidence based, meaning that detailed data collection and analysis was undertaken; second, the studies were undertaken in collaboration with key stakeholder groups (providers & consumers), important to get both views to validate what one group saysand third, through this multi-stakeholder partnership process, it is hoped that ownership over the data has been created
  • QUALITATIVE - Expert input: mapping study of ‘corruption risks’ based on desk research / interviews (institutions, laws & regulations)Identify red flagsQUANTITATIVE - Get feedback from water stakeholders: Nationwide ‘baseline survey’ on how water consumers and water providers experience & perceive corruption in the provision of water, in both rural and urban areas (COMPARE RESULTS!); or through buget/expenditure tracking to detect where unexplained leakages occurTo assess impact: what is the amount of resources involved? What is the effect on org reputation/credibility? What is the impact on the general public / the poor? Important to note that petty corruption (one 1 to 1 basis) may seem to have a small practice, but if they occur very frequently (high likelihood), their combined impact may be high! (may also need to revise / add some ‘red flags’!) 3) Do survey results confirm the expert mapping?
  • -To date we have learned 5 preliminary lessons based on our ongoing pilot experience of using water integrity studies in Uganda-buy in from key stakeholders is necessary from the beginning, otherwise the process could fail-without a sense of ownership over the process, momentum cannot be maintained and results will not be achieved-partnership and leadership with and by the government is fundamental. If the government is not engaged and supportive of the process, little will ever be achieved-any external partner, such as ourselves, needs to collaborate with committed, legitimate and respected local partner-and finally, without a national political environment that is conductive to addressing corruption, limited impact would ever be achievedTransparency can legitimize, and even increase, existing levels of corruption. This occurs if the disclosed activities are not condemned by the proper authorities & if the identified culprits’ punishment is perceived as negligible.
  • Given that (primary water consumers: agricultural organizations)

Tj workshop session 2 Tj workshop session 2 Presentation Transcript

  • Session 2
    Why conducting an
    integrity vulnerability
    assessment in the
    water sector?
    By Marie Laberge
    UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
  • Overview
    Why is it important to tackle corruption in the water sector?
    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’)
    Workshop agenda
  • 1. Why is it important to tackle corruption in the water sector?
  • Tajikistan is the 5th most water-rich country in the world...
    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.
  • What does corruption ‘look like’ in the water sector?
    Some typical examples…
    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’
  • Corruption in water puts lives and livelihoods at risk
    • With some 70% of all infrastructure needing reconstruction, there has been a serious deterioration in drinking water quality  health threat to the population
    • Only 40-50% of treatment systems are effective
    • As a result: Waterborne infectious diseases prevalent in rural areas
    Challenges are growing and problem is increasingly urgent
    High costs to society (human, economic & environmental)
  • Why is the water sector especially vulnerable to corruption?
    Water governance spills across agencies
    Viewed as a technical issue
    Involves large flows of public funds
    Water is scarce and becoming more so
  • What are some key lessons from tackling corruption in the water sector?
    Prevent corruption from outset
    Understand local context, otherwise reform will fail
    Support the poor
    Reform must come from above and below
  • 2. Why is it important to collect empirical evidence on the causes and impacts of corruption?
  • Because of the sensitive nature of anti-corruption reforms, credible research (rather than anecdotes) is essential.
    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!
  • Monitoring practices in Tajikistan
    No standard reporting/monitoring requirement in the water sector (except for tax & book-keeping purposes):
    Data is collected by various (6) agencies independently, without any coordination between them
    Data is collected mainly on the water supply system (water quality & quantity) – but not on access (e.g. No data collected on the distance between households and water sources)
    Data is unreliable
    Database are incomplete
    Even data collection on financial flows is unavailable
    Big gap between the picture emerging from statistics and what is actually experienced on the ground
  • Evidence can serve many purposes...
  • Evidence can serve many 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
  • 3. Overview of the proposed assessment approach:
    Sector Integrity Vulnerability Assessment (‘SIVA’)
  • Drawing from the experience of the Water Integrity Network with ‘water integrity studies’
    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?
  • Four key principles:
    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
  • Overview of the proposed assessment approach: ‘SIVA’
    Rather than measuring the incidence of corruption, let’s focus on the causes of corruption:
    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 time
  • Four steps:
    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
  • How to rank ‘corruption risks’: The risk quadrant
  • Preliminary lessons learned from international experience
    Engage stakeholders from the outset
    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!
  • Overview of the workshop agenda
    How to measure corruption: ‘the basics’
    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 steps