Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands

902

Published on

The first ever Water Integrity Forum was held in Delft, The Netherlands in June 2013. This is a comprehensive report on the forum organised by the Water Integrity Network.

The first ever Water Integrity Forum was held in Delft, The Netherlands in June 2013. This is a comprehensive report on the forum organised by the Water Integrity Network.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
902
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. REPORT | 2013 www.waterintegrityforum.com “THE FORUM SUCCEEDED IN BRINGING THE PROBLEM OF CORRUPTION OUT OF THE CLOSET INTO THE OPEN AND RAISING THE STAKES TO ADDRESS THIS CHALLENGE.”
  • 2. 2 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR OF THE FORUM TEUN BASTEMEIJER 3 BACKGROUND 4 HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE OPENING OF THE FORUM 6 SUMMARY OF THE FORUM’S WORK STREAMS 8 SUMMARY OF THE OPEN SPACE SESSIONS 24 HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE CLOSING SESSION 26 CONTINUING THE MOMENTUM 27 DELFT STATEMENT ON WATER INTEGRITY 28 CONTRIBUTORS 30 REPORT | 2013 www.waterintegrityforum.com CONTENTS Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Binayak Das, Jaap Evers, Annemiek Jenniskens, Alexandra Malmqvist, Ellen Pfeiffer and Rozemarijn ter Horst. It was edited by Stephanie Debere and designed by Jens Christiansen and Tania Dunster from onehemisphere. The logo was designed by Rustam Vania. We also would like to extend our gratitude our donors; BMZ, DGIS, SDC, and Sida. Disclaimer Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of information contained in this report. All information was believed to be correct as of August 2013. Nevertheless, the Water Integrity Network cannot accept responsibility for the consequences of its use for other purposes or in other contexts. images © cover: Hans de Lijser (3), Wim Glas, p 3: Hans de Lijser, p 4: Wim Glas, Hans de Lijser, p 5: Hans de Lijser, p 6: Hans de Lijser, p 7: Hans de Lijser, p 8: onehemisphere, p 9: Kalenderli Erkan, Tran The Vuong/IStock, Sudipto Das, p 10: Shutterstock, p 11: Shutterstock, p 12: Shutterstock, p 13: Shutterstock, p 14: Shutterstock, Michael Buckley/Istock, p 15: antikainen/Istock, Shutterstock, Shutterstock p 16: Kai Wegerich, Leontura/Istock, p 17: Joshua Hodge Photography/Istock, Sen Lin/Istock, Joshua Hodge Photography/Istock, p 18: Wim Glas, p 19: Wim Glas, p 20: Wim Glas, p 21: Wim Glas, p 22: Wim Glas, p 23: Wim Glas (3 sml), Hans de Lijser (lrge) p 24: Wim Glas, p 25: Wim Glas, p 26: Hans de Lijser, p 27: Hans de Lijser, p 28: Wim Glas, Hans de Lijser, p 30: Hans de Lijser, p 31: Hans de Lijser.
  • 3. 3 On the second day, there were also ‘open spaces’ – one hour sessions that encouraged further discussion and reflection in a more casual format, to promote interaction between participants. Discussions ranged from various tools to improve the sector and how to increase information flows, to how to engage diverse stakeholders and how to scale up action. Throughout the forum, during the workstreams and open spaces, participants recognised the importance of inviting different people from across and even beyond the water sector to create a broad platform for water integrity. The importance of linking up with the media and making information available was also a recurring theme. As participants observed, ‘information is power’. The closing session on the third day was another excellent opportunity to scale up commitment. The forum ended with summaries from the various workstream leaders and a high-level panel discussion with Her Excellency, Betty Oyella Bigombe, Kitty van der Heijden, Director of the Department for Climate, Environment, Energy and Water at the the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, András Szöllösi-Nagy, Jack Moss, Senior Advisor at Aquafed and myself. During the closing session, the forum statement was shared with participants. Creating the statement was a participatory and inclusive process, which enabled delegates to share their views and experiences. Participants expressed appreciation of the forum’s focus on practical tools and action to improve water integrity, and of the many opportunities it offered for valuable discussion and learning experiences. Now that the forum is over, it is the time to turn our words into action. We encourage you all to endorse and promote the forum statement, to help drive wide acceptance of water integrity. Our sincere thanks to the members of the forum’s organising committee, the keynote speakers, the programme committee and UNESCO-IHE – not only for helping organise the event, but for hosting it. We also extend our appreciation to the WIN team and Steering Committee members, and – importantly – the participants who made the forum such a successful and inspiring event. In June 2013, the UNESCO Institute for Water Education (UNESCO-IHE) hosted the first ever Water Integrity Forum, in Delft, the Netherlands. This event was organised by the Water Integrity Network (WIN), UNESCO-IHE and the Water Governance Centre. For WIN and our two partners, as well as the many contributors to the forum, it was a great opportunity to bring together a group of key actors in the water sector who have taken an interest in water integrity, and to take stock of participants’ varied experiences. The forum’s potential was fulfilled from the start, with an opening session led by our co-organiser András Szöllösi- Nagy, Rector of UNESCO-IHE. Full of enthusiasm, this set the tone for the forum and gave the audience a taste of what the coming days would bring. It included some excellent speakers, notably Her Excellency, Betty Oyella Bigombe, Minister of State for Water, Uganda, Christiaan Poortman, Senior Advisor, Transparency International, Aziza Akhmouch, Head of the Water Governance Program for the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Julia Bucknall, Manager of the World Bank Central Water Unit (Water Anchor). Participation being a key pillar of integrity, the audience was given the opportunity to comment during the opening session. We were very pleased by the high number of participants who joined the forum and were enthusiastic enough to share their perspectives and experiences. The forum was designed in such a way that participants would have real opportunity to contribute. We divided the programme into seven workstreams that tackled different sub-topics and areas linked to the water sector: ° river basins, ° hydropower, ° water and food, ° the media and water integrity, ° rural water supply ° urban water supply ° sanitation and hygiene. FROM THE WATER INTEGRITY FORUM CHAIR – TEUN BASTEMEIJER Water Integrity Forum, 2013 MESSAGE
  • 4. 4 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Population increase, globalisation, urbanisation, climate change and new insights into the long-term consequences of environmental change challenge traditional approaches to water management and aggravate the impacts of corruption. Improving water governance requires improving water integrity, where specifically strengthening transparency, accountability and participation is crucial. Stakeholders need to come together and bring water integrity principles into international water discourses and political and development processes. OPPORTUNITIES Over the past two decades, public awareness of the impacts of corruption on water governance has increased. The Water Integrity Network (WIN) was formed in 2006 specifically to support anti-corruption activities in the water sector worldwide. It works by forging coalitions and partnerships that can take action in ways that individuals or single organisations cannot. Since its establishment, there has been major national and international recognition of the need to address the corruption problem in the water sector. The 2008 Global Corruption Report on Water by Transparency International was a milestone in building global awareness of how corruption plays out and impacts the development of water resources management, water supply, sanitation, water for food, and water for energy. Concrete solutions and programmes now exist to promote water integrity, and more and more organisations have taken up the cause. There is a wide range of capacity-building programmes, tools have been developed and are being used, and strong networks and partnerships are forming around the topic of water governance and integrity. There is wide agreement that without increased advocacy to stop corruption in the water sector, there will be high costs to economic and human development, the destruction of vital ecosystems and the fuelling of social tension. Meeting the challenges and providing such advocacy requires broad collaboration. No actor can facilitate change alone. INCREASING THE PACE But the current pace of progress is not fast enough to solve the water crisis. Global water governance has to find answers to multiple challenges simultaneously, but this is not happening quickly enough. There are too few How humanity deals with water will determine the world of future generations. Water is essential to all facets of life, but increasing scarcity, conflicts over shared water resources, droughts and major floods in some of the world’s most densely populated areas have made access to water more complex in the last century. There is an ever-increasing demand for water, while the number and types of challenges in its supply are increasing. RISKS In many cases, a shortage of access to water is not due to a shortage of water resources, but to failures in governance, such as institutional fragmentation, lack of coordinated decision-making, corruption, and poor transparency and accountability. The water sector is vulnerable to corruption, in part because of its particular traits. Public utilities supply water in local or regional monopolies that are easily exploited. Water management is capital-intensive and large infrastructure, irrigation or dam projects are complex, making procurement manipulation lucrative and difficult to detect. Decision-making in the water sector is dispersed across many political and administrative jurisdictions, defying legal and institutional classification. This allows loopholes to be readily exploited. Clientelism and kickbacks in contracting are common in all water sectors around the world. Studies suggest that corruption decreases the efficiency of utilities in Africa by more than 60 per cent. In one case in Latin America, the cost of a hydropower project increased almost fivefold. In developing countries and emerging economies in particular, private water supply is heavily affected by rigged metering, illegal wells and connections, ‘speed-money’ for services, site selection of wells in favour of local elites, and bribery at the irrigation point and for water releases. Regulation protecting the environment or vulnerable social groups is often barely enforced. At the national level, political and economic elites can capture policy development processes and infrastructure investment schemes. Integrity issues can lead to conflicts around water at local, national and international levels, and to competing demands from the water, food and energy sectors. They also form a major barrier to achieving global targets such as the BACKGROUND
  • 5. 5 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 commitments. Substantial efforts and means are needed to meet today’s challenges and the water management targets enshrined in the MDGs and beyond. At the same time, the degradation of valuable bodies of water and the loss of productive aquatic ecosystems continue unabated. Even bigger efforts will be needed to solve the challenges of the future. Improving water integrity will require more holistic and systemic changes, increased resilience and adaptability of water management systems, and a stronger focus on preventive measures, as well as on transparency, accountability and participation. It is now critical to promote evidence-based water integrity measures to showcase the benefits of promoting greater integrity in the sector. Increasing the pace of improving water integrity requires not only specific capacity development, but also streamlining integrity in governance frameworks and supporting the scale-up of successful programmes – as well as providing the tools to do so. The 2013 Water Integrity Forum provides strategic opportunities to make inroads into major development processes, such as the post-2015 UN development agenda (Sustainable Development Goals). This emerging framework is expected to guide development priorities for many years to come. To extend the base of support for tackling corruption and promoting integrity through cooperative approaches, and to increase the pace of action, WIN, UNESCO-IHE and the Water Governance Centre came together to organise the first Water Integrity Forum. The forum aimed to harness the knowledge and experience of different water sector stakeholders, so participants could take stock, share tools, discover innovative methods to fight corruption, and build alliances to address the integrity challenges in the sector now the forum is over. 2013 is the international year of water cooperation. Overcoming the divides between many organisations is of crucial importance. Expanding the base of support by forming a strong alliance between existing actors is a necessary first step to promoting water integrity. Finding a common language and developing common understanding is a key concern of the Water Integrity Forum. The complexity of multiple geographical and institutional levels typical of water sub-sectors makes coalitions essential. The forum is an important landmark in making the case for water integrity, clarifying the various roles different stakeholders can play: who can do what to promote strong governance as a goal in its own right. The water integrity community has to engage with in this debate to be more effective. The forum also provided an opportunity to take the issue of integrity beyond the water and sanitation sector, into areas such as river basins, Integrated Water Resources Management, the nexus approach and urban water management, among others. Through these wide-ranging discussions, it helped advance the water integrity objectives and targets set at the World Water Forum (WWF) 2012, and the resulting OECD Initiative on Water Governance. It is a key stepping-stone towards these objectives ahead of the next WWF in 2015. “THE GLOBAL WATER CRISIS IS A CRISIS OF GOVERNANCE: MAN-MADE, WITH IGNORANCE, GREED AND CORRUPTION AT ITS CORE” (WANGARI MATHAI, 2008) WATER INTEGRITY The core of water integrity lies in the integrity of people and institutions governing water resources. It requires decision-making that is fair and inclusive, honest and transparent, accountable and free of corruption. The term recalls that management decisions have an ethical dimension, and that leadership needs courage as well as technical skills. TAP Transparency refers to citizens’ rights to access information. This makes citizens knowledgeable about the standards to expect from public officials and enables them to protect their rights. Accountability refers to mechanisms to hold people and institutions to account for their actions, making them adhere to set rules and standards. An individual in a public function or institution must answer for their actions. This includes political, administrative and financial dimensions. Participation means that anyone affected by a decision should have the chance of intervening in and influencing it. It fosters ownership, as decisions are increasingly accepted and implemented jointly.
  • 6. 6 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 water sector. The resulting action plan was approved in 2009 and has generated positive results, including a broad acceptance among all stakeholders that corruption is pervasive in Uganda. But the working group also faces challenges, such as a lack of resources which slows implementation of their recommendations. Ms Bigombe concluded that progress in integrity is best achieved via multi-stakeholder participation, evidence-based decision- making and sustained political will. The address was followed by three keynote speakers. Christiaan Poortman, Senior Advisor at Transparency International, described the main trends and findings in corruption and integrity, stressing that monitoring is key in achieving genuine and sustainable results. Every government and government agency needs to provide full disclosure for all public sector projects, which requires strong commitment from policy makers. Actively outlining the benefits of improved integrity helps achieve this commitment. Civil society organisations need to be granted access to information, supported in their capacity to process it, and able to exercise their right to hold to account those responsible. Aziza Akhmouch, Head of the OECD Water Governance Program, talked about the importance of governance in the water sector and the need to bring integrity and transparency to the post-2015 agenda. Integrity is a concern not only for the water sector, but for society at large. It can best be achieved through larger governance frameworks which cut across all sectors. In both rich and developing countries, trust in governments has become a major issue, prompting a cry for more transparency and accountability. Tools are available, but good practices need to be identified and scaled-up for wider impact. The OECD will emphasise the importance of integrity in water governance in upcoming publications. Julia Bucknall, Manager of the World Bank Central Water Unit (known as the Water Anchor), presented the Bank’s role in promoting transparency, access to information and accountability in the water sector. She focused on how the need for accountability increases when countries face more complex water challenges. As water scarcity grows and The organisers of the first Water Integrity Forum were proud that over 120 participants from more than 60 organisations across the world attended the opening session. One of the forum’s main goals was to set the stage for launching water integrity on the international agenda for sustainable development. The forum achieved this by sharing and improving common knowledge on corruption and integrity issues in the water sector. Its organisers believe that providing an international platform for sharing experiences and knowledge, and building alliances among practitioners and scientists, will be of great benefit for getting water integrity issues onto the global agenda. Opening the forum, András Szöllösi-Nagy, the Rector of UNESCO-IHE, reminded participants of the ever-increasing demand for safe water, but that water shortages are not due to a lack of water resources, but to failures in governance. He emphasised that integrity is key to realising the MDGs, adding that the Budapest Water Summit in October 2013 will give concrete recommendations to the UN General Assembly for the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals. He assured participants that the recommendations from the Water Integrity Forum will feed into the Budapest summit. The opening address was delivered by her Excellency, Betty Bigombe, Uganda’s Minister of State for Water and member of the African Ministers Council of Water. She stressed that a lack of coordinated decision-making, regulation, transparency, accountability and integrity are the real reasons behind the water crisis. Giving large-scale examples, she called for improvements in procurement processes and said when looking for solutions, you need to involve stakeholders from across society. Since 2006 Uganda has placed integrity high on the agenda. The Ministry of Water and Environment established a Good Governance Working Group consisting of public and private stakeholders, civil society organisations and development partners. It is tasked with identifying and recommending measures to promote and monitor transparency, accountability and good governance in the THE FIRST WATER INTEGRITY FORUM: SETTING THE STAGE HIGHLIGHTS
  • 7. 7 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 quality deteriorates, engineering and institutional solutions alone are not sufficient. The challenge becomes one of efficiency and accountability. All parties, including users, need the same information and to have an equal voice – there is no integrity where information is secret. Decisions need to be clearly explained and implemented accordingly, and people need to be able to hold those responsible accountable when their rights to water are violated. The higher countries score in accountability, the better they perform in water management. New technologies can help to improve accountability, for example through ‘hackathons’, in which talented young software programmers are brought together in one room with water professionals to develop software applications that can help monitor and meet the challenges of promoting integrity in the water sector. The results show the level of creativity that can be achieved by putting people together who do not normally interact: 75 per cent of the applications created during the 2011 water hackathon are still in use. These new technologies provide a low-cost approach to making information more transparent and accessible to future generations. However, information alone is not sufficient. Changes in behaviour and action are also needed, based on the available information. “WATER IS EMOTIONAL AND POLITICALLY HIGHLY SENSITIVE: IF YOU CUT PEOPLE OFF FROM WATER IT HAS FAR MORE CONSEQUENCES THAN CUTTING PEOPLE OFF FROM ENERGY.” JULIA BUCKNALL – MANAGER WORLD BANK CENTRAL WATER UNIT (WATER ANCHOR) The opening session of the first Water Integrity Forum was broadcasted and can be viewed here: www.waterintegrityforum.com/?page_id=495 SOME TOOLS FOR IMPROVING INTEGRITY: ° Annotated Water Integrity Scan ° Integrity Pact ° ICT tools-FLOW, WMTI, Ugatuzi, AKVO Market Place ° Irrigation and agriculture: MASSCOTTE, AQUASTAT ° Business Principles for Countering Bribery (TI); Integrity Management Toolbox (CEWAS-WIN), Benchmarking WATSAN utilities (World Bank) ° Civil Society Procurement Monitoring (CSPM) Tool, Citizen Report Cards ° Tool Resources-Water Integrity Space (www.waterintegritynetwork.net/integrityspace); Gateway toolbox (http://gateway.transparency.org/)
  • 8. 8 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 Social accountability was presented as a tool for demanding integrity. Evidence shared from Ecuador, Peru and Tanzania pointed towards the need for multi- stakeholder platforms which play a crucial role in improving transparency and accountability in water governance. The role of local populations is crucial in holding the authorities to account over water. Sometimes they will need to demand accountability which does not emerge from legal regulations. Emphasis was also laid on the performance and integrity of institutions. Various presentations identified multiple causes and supporting factors of unethical practices in the water sector: ° Power and information asymmetry ° Complexity of the sector ° The multiplicity and lack of coordination of actors involved ° Vulnerable and weak institutions. Contributors also highlighted the importance of using a rigorous analytical framework to identify the right leverage points to enhance integrity. In the case of the food-water nexus, it is crucial to consider the social-ecological system as the unit of analysis, as unethical practices might also affect vital characteristics of the natural resources which farmers need to make a living. Several actions were identified as promising for enhanced integrity: ° Building alliances by engaging multiple actors through bottom-up approaches or multi-stakeholder platforms. However, actors need mutual trust in order to engage with each other. ° Demanding accountability from below through a federation of grassroots organisations. This can be more effective than top-down legal reforms. ° Defining principles and guidelines, which can support the development of a normative framework at the policy level. ° Devolving to regulatory actors both power and capacity to achieve their mission. Fresh water is a finite resource facing a new set of challenges as those competing for it become more assertive. In a fast-developing and urbanising world, also facing the impacts of climate change, the demands for water, food and energy are increasingly competing. This makes natural resources scarcer and more valuable. Complex governance structures for water, food, energy and climate all work in their closed shells, in turn increasing opportunities for corruption. The first of two sessions under this workstream, Integrity in Water and Food Security, covered a diverse range of topics, from climate change, water and land grabbing, to solution-oriented examples focused on social accountability. Both climate change measures and the leasing of land and water (by governments and private owners) are widely discussed activities involving high-value investments, which makes them vulnerable to corruption. There is a lack of strong oversight and legal regulation both in climate finance and land dealing processes. Approximately US $1 billion per year by 2020 has been committed to climate change mitigation and adaptation programmes globally, but there remain widespread challenges. In Bangladesh, for example, a lack of coordination, inadequate disclosure and lack of capacity are hindering transparency and accountability in the implementation of climate projects. In land leasing, especially in African countries such as Ghana, there is power asymmetry in the transaction process, with land demarcation and rights issue not extending to small farmers’ customary plots. Land concessions are negotiated and agreed between private sector actors and government agencies, sometimes without significant involvement from direct line agencies or ministries. This narrow contractual agreement leads to poor compensation for farmers who lose their land. There is a need to recognise the role of communities in these processes, either in participatory decision-making (for climate measures) or through legislative reforms (for land leasing processes). The need for alternative institutional arrangements was also highlighted, especially when food production is affected via these interventions. DAY ONE: WORKSTREAM 1 INTEGRITY IN WATER FOR FOOD AND ENERGY: THE NEED FOR A COORDINATED APPROACH WATER INTEGRITY THEMES
  • 9. 9 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 The second session, Water, energy and food: promoting integrity and sustainability in hydropower and multipurpose dam projects, focused on the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol (HSAP). It also looked broadly at the issue of integrity in the sphere of interaction between water and energy. The session discussed HSAP as a framework for assessing the sustainability of hydropower projects. These assessments can identify gaps and problems, exposing a project’s weak points. Integrity is linked with sustainability in hydropower and multipurpose dam development, as the nature of the sector is one of high capital flows, the construction sector is involved, there are biases in project selection and the sector is non-transparent. Suggestions for improving HSAP included promoting good governance and anti- corruption measures through a multi-stakeholder approach. HSAP was tested in Zambia and Ghana, but there are problems in Africa regarding the costs of training and assessment, as most African utilities are small-scale. The session also included a presentation on the Inter- American Development Bank’s efforts to address corruption in water infrastructure, and the WWF presented the ‘seven sins’ of dam building, with an emphasis on environmental and safety aspects when choosing a site. The session concluded with a panel discussion which acknowledged that the problems of hydro projects are programmed as soon as the siting is complete. They occur at the very start of a project, despite efforts to minimise impact by choosing the right location. This is why the early stage assessment is very important and its findings need to be shared. Stakeholder involvement is of high interest to the regulator. The problem lies in the asymmetry between consumer and promoter, making intermediation necessary to enable communities to understand the issues at stake and raise the correct questions. Social acceptance of projects is a key concern, and is integral to their success. A joint panel discussion with participants from both workstreams concluded with a central recommendation for a more coordinated institutional response from the water, food and energy sectors, instead of each working independently to handle water integrity challenges. “COMPLEX GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR WATER, FOOD, ENERGY AND CLIMATE ALL WORK IN THEIR CLOSED SHELLS, IN TURN INCREASING OPPORTUNITIES FOR CORRUPTION.” PRESENTATIONS SESSION 1A Governance and integrity in climate change finance mechanisms, Case study from Bangladesh Zakir Hossain Khan, Transparency International-Bangladesh Unethical and inimical practices in large-scale land acquisitions in West Africa Timothy Williams, International Water Management Institute Forging accountability and transparency in water governance: lessons from grass-roots actions in Ecuador and Peru Jaime Hoogesteger, Wageningen University Social accountability and citizen agency to improve sector performance – insights from Water Witness International Nick Hepworth, Water Witness International Governance and institution dynamics in water- food-energy Detlef Klein, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit SESSION 1B Introduction to the hydro sustainability assessment protocol with a focus on project identification (early stage) and on-going activities in Africa Cameron Ironside, International Hydropower Association How does the hydro sustainability assessment protocol address governance and anticorruption issues? Donal O’ Leary, Transparency International The role of the Inter-American Development Bank in identifying and ameliorating corruption risks in water infrastructure Maria del Rosario Navia Diaz, Inter-American Development Bank Seven sins of dam building Angela Klauschen, World Wildlife Fund Power Sector: Applicability of the Hydro Sustainability Assessment to Africa Israel Phiri, Independent Consultant
  • 10. 10 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 Key points from this session included: ° Processes in river basin management or Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) should focus on creating learning communities. River basin organisations can support members to develop shared visions and long-term goals. This might help promote transparency. ° More efforts are required to share data and information in a standardised, coherent and transparent manner. ° River basin management should carefully analyse the trade-offs between sectors, and aim at optimal and equitable use of water. ° More focus is needed on raising awareness of water issues among citizens. This promotes integrity by enabling people to hold the authorities accountable and promoting political will to support transparency and information sharing. ° Participants also addressed the issue of scale when working in multi-stakeholder settings. Scale needs to fit the issue addressed. Some issues are local and some international. The workstream’s main conclusion on how principles of water integrity can contribute to efficient trans-boundary river basin management is that water integrity starts with building trust. Without trust there is no information disclosure, coordination and shared responsibilities. Building trust is a slow process which needs to be accompanied with the right mechanisms to support collaboration and coordination. These can close the gap between citizens, users and stakeholders, allowing for easier participation. Decision-making in river basin management is dispersed across many institutions, in different sectors, at different levels (from international to local). These decisions spill over into many implementation agencies, which sometimes lack capacity to carry out and enforce policies and regulations. Large amounts of public and private money flow into the operation and maintenance of river systems. The complexity of river basin governance and management makes it susceptible to corrupt behaviour. This combines with a lack of transparency and accountability in governance and management systems to aggravate unsustainable practices. River basin management faces many integrity challenges, including procurement and contracting of infrastructure, coordinating cooperation between multiple actors across several policy levels, and growing demand for scarce water resources. In the absence of effective monitoring and accountability systems, corruption continues to hamper the effectiveness of river basin land and water management. The need for good governance in trans-boundary rivers was an important focus of this session. Cross-border governance faces numerous challenges, exemplified in a presentation from the Scheldt Basin countries of France, Belgium and the Netherlands. It is important to understand the different historical, cultural, economic and political contexts of the basin countries. Sometimes, policy and legal protocols benefit the process, e.g. the European Water Framework Directive. Another example of the challenges facing river basin governance concerned illegal sand mining in Sri Lanka. The practice, both legal and illegal, is on the rise due to booming urbanisation, but sand mining has numerous negative environmental impacts. In Sri Lanka, where illegal sand mining was curbed in two river basins, participation and cooperation with multiple stakeholders was an important factor in success. Local communities, trusted leadership from political authorities and the regulatory authority all played important roles. WORKSTREAM 2 INTEGRITY IN RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT: BUILDING TRUST AMONG STAKEHOLDERS
  • 11. 11 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 “IN THE ABSENCE OF EFFECTIVE MONITORING AND ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS, CORRUPTION CONTINUES TO HAMPER EFFECTIVENESS OF RIVER BASIN LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT.” PRESENTATIONS Europe-To get transparency in transboudary governance Arnould Lefebure, International Sheldt Commission Asia-Water integrity in action in Sri Lanka Kiran Pereira, Independent consultant, Water Integrity Network
  • 12. 12 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 Through a diverse set of six presentations, this session explored two overarching themes: the human rights perspective of integrity in rural settings, and the need to empower people. A human rights approach can contribute to promoting integrity. Repackaging core water integrity issues in terms of legal rights which are already available can help improve integrity. Transparency, for example, can be easily related to the right to access information. People need to be aware of their legal obligations regarding the human right to water. Both centralised and decentralised management perspectives were also presented, based on the Guatemalan experience. Both approaches come with risks, and depend on local dynamics and what works well. Either might reduce opportunities for some types of corruption, but increase others, or benefit those who already benefit from the system even more. The discussion also covered gender rights – for example, women being sexually harassed at water provision sites by guards meant to make sure the water is equitably distributed. This problem is a critical issue of integrity. In Ethiopia, a similar issue involving water meter readers in Addis Ababa was resolved by hiring only female meter readers. The need to train local communities to monitor the construction, operation and maintenance of water systems was also emphasised. Many integrity and corruption issues are covered up as technical failures – for example, illegal water tapping is disguised as leakage. There is a need to keep seeking simple techniques that can be managed and operated by local people, and which are less vulnerable to corruption. The relation between water providers and water users needs to be based on rules, rather than personal connections. The same applies to hiring personnel at water utilities. This needs to be based strictly on skills. Rural areas in developing countries face specific challenges in achieving water integrity. Illiteracy levels are much higher than in urban areas, and people in general have less capacity (e.g. specific knowledge, financial resources) and less access to information. Many communities live according to traditional institutions, which are not corrupt per se, but might be in conflict with formal institutions. It is often overlooked that rural communities are not homogenous entities. There are large varieties in factors such as wealth, class, gender roles, ethnicity, ability and age. Rural water management is less formally institutionalised than in urban areas, therefore there is also less oversight on the state of the resource. The operation and maintenance of water and sanitation services often depend on voluntary contributions from ordinary people. Ownership by rural communities is therefore crucial for the success of whatever water service is put in place. Sanitation is a forgotten issue globally, especially in rural areas. Women are affected more by a lack of safe facilities, as they can be exposed to dangerous situations when seeking privacy. There is a range of needs to be addressed in terms of access to proper sanitation facilities. A lack of integrity results in a lack of access to safe water and sanitation in rural areas. WORKSTREAM 3 PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RURAL WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (WASH): THE RIPPLE EFFECT
  • 13. 13 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 Positive steps are being taken to strengthen integrity and empower communities. Just as the recruitment of women meter readers in Ethiopia presented a solution to sexual harassment, other innovative steps have also helped improve water integrity. In Kenya, a Water Dialogue Forum was created, to allow water users (those with a right to water) and providers (the people who bear a duty) to meet. This has resulted in stronger trust between consumers and providers, leading to increased revenue collection and a higher number of connections to the water system. Participants also agreed that rural communities are very capable of organising procurement and contracting processes. Monitoring and evaluation of construction works is also best carried out by users themselves. Similarly, projects like Community WASH (COWASH) in Ethiopia and initiatives by water sector organisations like the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre promote integrity in rural settings. The participants concluded: ° Trust is crucial in the relationship between water users and providers, and people and the government, in order to realise integrity in water and sanitation systems. However, trust is still violated frequently and in many ways. ° It is possible nowadays to address issues of corruption and integrity much more openly than previously, but caution is still required. ° It was recommended that all rural communities join alliances and empower themselves to increase integrity. They should make use of national holidays or other opportunities for advocacy to highlight their issues at a political level. “RURAL WATER MANAGEMENT IS LESS FORMALLY INSTITUTIONALISED THAN IN URBAN AREAS, THEREFORE THERE IS ALSO LESS OVERSIGHT ON THE STATE OF THE RESOURCES.” PRESENTATIONS A human rights based approach to transparency, accountability and participation Aline Baillat, WaterLex Gender and corruption in rural WASH Joke Muylwijk, Gender and Water Alliance Water integrity issues in rural Mozambique, Guatemala and Nepal Rupa Mukerji, Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation Community led processes to improve transparency, accountability and public participation in WASH in India and Bangladesh Murali Ramisetty, Fresh Water Action Network for South Asia Fighting corruption or building integrity: review and reflection on IRC and partner activities in rural WASH Cor Dietvorst, International Water and Sanitation Centre Community Managed Project (CMP) approach: an opportunity to foster integrity in rural WaSH Linda Annala, Ramboll, COWASH project Ethiopia
  • 14. 14 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 have to pay such bribes every day – and numbers multiplied by millions become important given the size of cities. Water authority employees often extort such fees on top of the official connection fee, or accept them to falsify meter readings and grant ‘rights’ to dispose of dangerous sludge without treatment. The keynote speaker put forward competition as the key ingredient in fighting corruption, as well as customer complaint services to channel pressure on people accepting bribes. The job of fighting corruption needs to be a central role in water organisations, supported by legal and accounting expertise. The lack of interaction between water and waste disposal services in urban settings was also raised, along with the difficulties of creating schemes that actually pay for the services needed in densely populated areas. Awareness-raising campaigns, informing users about their rights at all levels, and mutual accountability systems are methods that have been tried in order to involve civil society in combating corruption. Examining the role of the private sector, French-based utility company Suez Environment reported on its efforts to engage with employees to improve collective and individual integrity. At a time when the business reported good technical results, it faced strong complaints from outside. It decided to give the employees facing the criticism the chance to answer stakeholders’ questions directly. This simple action improved ethics significantly. Multi-stakeholder processes were also at the core of the approach taken by the Cities for Life Forum, an NGO from 20 cities in Peru. Establishing platforms representing the domestic sector, business and local authorities serves to create shared ownership. A panel discussion contrasted the views and experiences of private and public actors at various levels, giving a ‘reality check’ to the IUWM framework. Key points emerging from the discussion included: ° In many countries, such as Nigeria, basic laws regulating water management are still missing, creating unclear responsibilities and ample room for corruption. In such an environment, competition often leads to chaos, not higher integrity. ° The idea of an urban-specific concept for water management is important. In cities, central authorities By 2025, half the world’s population is expected to live in cities of one million or more, especially in the South, raising new integrity issues related to drinking water, sanitation services, pollution, over-extraction of surface and ground water, disaster management and the impacts of climate change. Many big cities are located on river banks and in coastal zones, where speculative land-grabs and uncontrolled urban sprawl encroach on highly productive ecosystems and wild buffer zones against natural disasters. Land use regulations are not easily applicable, often due to the absence of a coherent land-use plan and urban development strategies, as well as rapidly expanding informal settlements resulting from high rates of rural-urban migration. Technical engineering solutions are considered insufficient to fulfil all water demands, raising the prospect of distribution conflicts and water inequality. Cities concentrate political and economic power and institutions, providing them with great potential either to threaten or promote water integrity. The fourth workstream introduced the Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM) model, with the aim of analysing integrity issues specific to the urban water sector. The session highlighted that current models of urban water management have already failed, or are likely to do so, from the perspectives of cost effectiveness, technical performance, social equity and environmental sustainability. The IUWM approach includes considering the entire water cycle as one system (the resource), involving all key players (governance) and designing adaptive or decentralised systems (the service). Corruption in the urban water context was discussed in connection with procurement and service payments, but it is also present where the poor pay more for a lesser service, and where regulations protecting resources are circumvented. For example, the Karachi Water Partnership (an initiative by the Hisaar Foundation in Pakistan, which seeks solutions relevant for the water-food-livelihood nexus), found that poor people were paying 12 times more for drinking water than the affluent. Petty corruption involves only a few dollars per bribe, but millions of people WORKSTREAM 4 INTEGRATED URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT: INNOVATION IN A RAPIDLY URBANISING WORLD
  • 15. 15 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 and ministries are often in charge of water, and the population does not feel the ownership and need for involvement that communities usually do. ° Local monopolies are a frequent source of corruption, especially if the regulator’s competency and capacity lag too far behind the companies it supervises. This also limits the potential benefit of public-private partnerships, and highlights the importance of objective benchmarks and performance indicators. ° Dutch water supply company Vitens Evides shared its experience from Ghana where, with 3,000 staff and 5 million customers, the utility performed badly. This raised the question of why customers did not stand up for a better, more affordable service. Accountability mechanisms mean nothing if nobody holds providers to account. The company found activation of the customer base essential. Improving operations was not a technical issue, but a matter of staff incentives that generate a willingness to change. Transparency proved to be the core tool, especially the creation of ‘response numbers’ for customer complaints that were generated so fast that bad results could not be explained away. ° Business communities do not consider engagement in water governance a critical issue, even though many rely on water resources for production. However, they are slowly waking up to the issues and realising that corrupt behaviour is bad for businesses, causing financial losses and a poor image. This is bringing a genuine interest in stable institutions. ° Ideas about good governance involve cultural norms that are not easily imported. One person’s bribe might be another person’s tip. Legalising certain payment practices can be a solution, but it is crucial to understand why and under which circumstances individuals accept bribes. Local courts are increasingly active in protecting communities, but they are not able to penalise multinational companies that cause the degradation of local water systems. The final discussion showed that a framework for Integrated Water Management specifically targeting urban areas will need further clarification. Cities are living organisms, and existing administrative and jurisdictional boundaries often clash with the needs of user groups on the ground. Spatial information about a city is important, as is awareness of the integrity challenges posed by zoning decisions and other ‘lines on maps’ that invite corruption in order to circumvent regulations. Cities suffer from the fact that people feel less responsible for public property in urban environments, so successful models tested in smaller communities will not work, and the chances of whistleblowers exposing corruption are much lower. Some solutions are seen as highly controversial. But the discussion also highlighted that the topic of corruption in the water sector has become easier to discuss: just a few years ago, organisations with projects and partners in the public sector would not have been able to participate in such an event without political problems. “CITIES CONCENTRATE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC POWER AND INSTITUTIONS, PROVIDING THEM WITH GREAT POTENTIAL EITHER TO THREATEN OR PROMOTE WATER INTEGRITY.” PRESENTATIONS The Integrated Urban Water Management Approach Francois Brikké, Global Water Partnership Transparency - a Water Integrity Challenge at all Levels Bernard Collignon, Hydro-Conseil Lessons learned from the management contract Ghana Water Company Cor Livers, Vitens Evides International Capacity Development for Water Integrity at Local Level in Subsaharan Africa Abibou Ciss, International Institute for Water & Environmental Engineering eThekwini (Durban): Integrity needs transparency Michaela Hordijk, University of Amsterdam How to engage with employees to improve collective and individual integrity Joannie Leclerc, Suez Environnement Knowledge building in adaptation management: concertacion processes in transforming Lima water and climate change governance Liliana Miranda, Cities for Life Forum
  • 16. 16 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 decisions, and enforcement mechanisms. A crucial finding was the identification of elements in need of external oversight. The role of civil society in assessing water governance was explored through an example from Uganda. This also suggested that there is need to assess the effectiveness of the tools used, which takes time. In Uganda, results are emerging after six years. They suggest that the water sector is affected by governmental reforms such as the creation of new regions. Opportunities offered by modern information and communications technology (ICT) to assess integrity were also presented, such as sharing information concerning water online, or informing people through text messages about events such as the closure of wells. The use of ICT to make government more transparent is seen as crucial for water integrity, for example, by putting information about funding flows online. The second session under this workstream, Assessing integrity using social accountability approaches, outlined the social accountability mechanisms needed to advance integrity in water providers. Accountability entails three components: information, justification and enforceability. Accountability mechanisms can be horizontal (political, fiscal, legal), vertical (elections) or diagonal/hybrid. Social accountability relies on civic engagement, i.e. ordinary citizens and/or civil society organisations participating directly or indirectly in exacting accountability from service providers. Such approaches change the incentives surrounding the local public sector. They seek to increase the probabilities of being caught in corrupt acts and to empower citizens to reject corruption. They also contribute to the diagnosis of corruption, trigger ‘fire alarm’ mechanisms and reduce an official’s discretion. There are three different categories of social accountability mechanisms: ° those that promote transparency (citizens charters, right to information legislation and asset declarations) ° monitoring and evaluation mechanisms (expenditure tracking, report cards (see below), social auditing and contract monitoring) ° participatory mechanisms (participatory budgeting and planning, community-led procurement). Examples were shared from Viet Nam and Nepal on ‘citizen report card’ approaches, a tool that collects feedback on the Though it is impossible to quantify corruption, tools have been developed for the purposes of assessment, diagnostics, risk mitigation and capacity development in relation to corruption and integrity. These tools are designed to assess integrity and corruption in both the private and public sectors. Several organisations shared their experiences and best practices, collected through projects and case studies. In the first session, Assessing risks and opportunities, a variety of tools and their usage were explored, with examples and anecdotes. Tools such as the Annotated Water Integrity Scan (AWIS) were presented, using experience in Kenya as an example. AWIS is essentially a concept for a workshop conducted with the staff and stakeholders of water organisations, departments or agencies. It identifies a system’s strengths and weaknesses, exposing areas most resilient or vulnerable to corruption. The assessment can serve to start a constructive dialogue about integrity. An example of a hydropower integrity risk assessment from India highlighted the processes of a benefits-sharing mechanism established by a hydropower company with local communities who are affected by the project. Workshops held throughout the region of Sikkim revealed many problems created by a lack of transparency, accountability and participation. Procurement procedures allowed the government to start 28 projects, even though a study only recommended five. Anti-corruption measures existed, but citizens had no information about these measures, making mobilisation efforts critical. A key lesson learned was that an analysis of benefits sharing enabled the project to address integrity issues while avoiding a confrontational approach. The multiple dimensions of accountability in Latin America were the focus of a UNDP assessment. While investigating democratic governance for human development, the assessment found inequality and high levels of perceived corruption as two major issues, as a rising middle class is demanding better services. The importance of integrity is being recognised through the ratification of international anti- corruption conventions. The assessment tool incorporated several conceptual aspects of integrity, including distinguishing the need for accountability in both duty bearers and performance evaluators, the provision of information about TOOLS AND SCALING UP DAY TWO: WORKSTREAM 5 TOOLS TO ASSESS INTEGRITY: QUANTIFYING THE IMMEASURABLE
  • 17. 17 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 quality and adequacy of public services from users, and the challenges they face. In Viet Nam, which has almost no NGOs (only small local charities), the common perception is that standing up against corruption will have serious consequences for the person doing so. Corruption in water provision is therefore addressed only in studies, but not discussed. In Nepal, six water supply schemes were chosen for the report card approach. The study found high levels of dissatisfaction in all schemes regarding water supply timing, but high satisfaction with the simplicity of paying the tariff. The social auditing of infrastructure contracts was examined through an example from Rwanda, where the water supply and sanitation sector faces challenges. A social audit conducted at district level found that procurement staff in general have insufficient knowledge of infrastructure. The study suggested that there is political will to reduce corruption and promote integrity, but more transparency is needed, via public access to relevant information, as well as independent third-party monitoring and involvement by civil society organisations, the government and private companies. In the water sector in Oaxaca, Mexico, an approach known as ‘Action Learning’ has been employed to improve civic engagement in multi-stakeholder coalitions to address corruption risks. The approach facilitates the creation of pro- reform coalitions, and is not a fixed methodology, but is flexible and can be adapted to the needs of the various stakeholders. It has been successfully applied in areas from water to procurement procedures and even domestic violence, and has led to the initiation of a capacity-building programme. Through several case studies, a number of issues were identified as key to assessing water integrity successfully. Access to information was a critical bottleneck across the case studies, with reporting often ineffective and data kept confidential and not digitised. The establishment of standards and results frameworks was also recognised as an important component. Without benchmarks, more data does not automatically secure transparency. Political will is considered essential to improve integrity, but multi-stakeholder groups and coalitions can muster substantial strength and push for reforms much more effectively than single actors. Users want to have options available, and they become interested in governance when they feel their opinions will have impact. Participants also emphasised that the impact of projects can only be assessed over several years. “THE [ASSESSMENT] TOOLS ARE DESIGNED TO ASSESS INTEGRITY AND CORRUPTION IN BOTH THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS.” PRESENTATIONS Annotated Water Integrity Scan (AWIS) Janek Hermann Friede and Sareen Malik, Water Integrity Network and Transparency International – Kenya Assessing integrity risks in hydropower- Benefit sharing mechanism in hydropower projects in Sikkim, India Neena Rao, CapNet UNDP, SaciWATERs Assessing the multiple dimensions of accountability in Latin America Gerardo Berthin, UNDP Regional Service Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean Assessing opportunities; Water integrity mapping in Latin America and the SADC region Damian Indij, WETnet Assessing governance and Integrity in Uganda’s Water Supply and Sanitation subsector including the role of civil society Gilbert Kimanzi, Ministry of Water Resources Government of Uganda Using ICT to assess integrity Frodo Oosterveen, AKVO Social accountability mechanisms to advance Integrity in water providers Jose Maria Marin Aguirre, Transparency International Citizen engagement in tackling systemic corruption in Vietnam’s water sector Per Ljung, East Meets West Use of citizen’s report card to assess accountability in Nepal’s water sector Balkrishna Prasai World Bank /CECI Project/ Jalsrat Vikas Sanstha Social auditing of infrastructure contracts including water sector projects Albert Rwego Kataviri, Transparency International-Rwanda Civic engagement in multistakeholder coalitions in addressing corruption risks in water sector, Oaxaca, Mexico Marcelo Buitron, Public Sector & Governance Unit, Poverty Reduction & Economic Management Department Latin America & Caribbean Region, World Bank
  • 18. 18 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 Participants agreed that most cases of corruption are complex, ambiguous and vague. The role of agencies such as UNDP and GIZ, as well as other bilateral and international organisations, is to facilitate dialogue among different stakeholders – specifically government, civil society and the public at large – and try to bridge different approaches to improve service delivery and decrease corruption risks. The second parallel session focused on practical lessons regarding weak points in water systems and how to improve these in order to improve integrity. Trust again emerged as one of the keys to a functioning society or system, as well as knowledge and an institutional framework. Control and trust need to be carefully balanced. Moreover, people are not willing to change unless they experience the benefits of higher integrity and of working together. It therefore takes time to move from a vicious circle to a virtuous circle. The characteristics of human nature remained a focus in the session. Besides corruption, conflicts of interest can also lead to sub- optimal ways of working, or opportunism. A highly transparent governance model can circumvent this, preventing individuals (driven by need and opportunism) from favouring their own community. The human factor is always very important when it comes to accepting or resisting bribes. The source of corruption is subjective, i.e. making choices for all based on personal preference. Monopolies in the water sector make it difficult to find an aggregated indicator which measures performance. The session also focused on public participation and stakeholder involvement, where it is important to bring engineers, social mobilisers and public officials together. Connecting training experience with project reality is crucial. It was noted that many tools exist, but what is often missing in water integrity initiatives is the monitoring of progress against action plans. The discussions from the parallel sessions were brought together in the plenary session, through presentations and discussions about various tools. These included the toolbox on Integrity Management developed by the International Centre for Water Management Services (CEWAS), WIN and GIZ; the code of conduct of consultancy firm Royal Haskoning DHV; information systems for transparency, and UNDP experiences from regional training programmes. There are tools to support the public and civil society in raising their voices and supporting citizen action, and tools that help people put in place risk mitigation measures. Workstreams 5 and 6 focused on sharing of a wide array of tools. The session was divided into three parts, one focusing on the programmes of large organisations such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the German International Cooperation Agency (GIZ), one on practical tools and the last sharing these diverse experiences during a plenary session. The first parallel session looked at institutional interventions, with both UNDP and GIZ explaining their approach to good governance, transparency and corruption, and showcasing experiences from the field. Key messages focused on the link between governance and water integrity. Weak governance provides room for corrupt practices, but where governance is good, the delivery of services has been seen to improve. However, effective intervention mechanisms vary from case to case. It was also noted that corruption and governance issues are looked at as a process rather than as an end in themselves, for instance by focusing interventions along the lines in which government works through sectors. The development of programmes to mitigate poor integrity and governance remains a challenge, despite adequate risk assessment and the development of various tools. In order to address this challenge, interventions on integrity and good governance should be introduced not in parallel to existing governmental structures, but so as to be integrated into those structures. Using the existing structures is a must, rather than starting new processes and frameworks, and knowing the right entry points is a key factor. Institutional commitment is important for scaling up integrity interventions and working with local partners. When supporting governance interventions with partner institutions, it is important to maintain and build trust by playing the role of broker between stakeholders. WORKSTREAM 6 TOOLS TO IMPROVE, BUILD AND MONITOR INTEGRITY: TAKING A HOLISTIC VIEW
  • 19. 19 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 The plenary discussion presented different interventions implemented by organisations that aim to improve water integrity. The GIZ toolbox on Integrity Management underlined that water sector reform in Kenya was conducive to promoting improved water governance. A presentation by Royal Haskoning reinforced the idea that the private sector should first of all look into integrity issues within its corporations, and then strive for integrity outside. The issue of corporate social responsibility was also raised as a prerequisite for promoting integrity. The Office International de l’Eau (OIEAU) underlined the importance of information systems that can promote transparency. Without data, it is not possible to analyse situations objectively and devise strategies to promote integrity. The UNDP presentation on the outcomes of regional training in water integrity underlined the importance of continued capacity building for different stakeholders involved in water governance. The plenary concluded that water integrity should be viewed in a holistic way, with the availability of tools and methodologies, capacity-building initiatives, data analysis, and the integrity of governments and the private sector as critical components for promoting integrity in different contexts. “THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMMES TO MITIGATE POOR INTEGRITY AND GOVERNANCE REMAINS A CHALLENGE, DESPITE ADEQUATE RISK ASSESSMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF VARIOUS TOOLS.” PRESENTATIONS A rights-based approach to improve water integrity; Experiences from The Netherlands Herman Havekes / Maarten Hofstra, Water Governance Centre Presentation of the Dutch water safety programme - a case study Aline te Linde, Twynstra Gudde Consultants and Managers Tools for mitigating corruption-billing formats, public posting of water flow & sales information, water quality testing, open access tours of facilities, market tools David Zetland, Wageningen University Diagnostic tools and methodologies-training curriculum on community engagement for small scale agricultural water management Floriane Clement, International Water Management Institute The application of scorecard as a tool to peer- review and/or monitor progress of action plans – the case of the West Africa experience Daniel Yawson, International Union for Conservation of Nature PACDE’s sectorial approach to fighting corruption in sectors Phil Matsheza, PACDE United Nations Development Program Transparency and accountability of rural administrative associations of aqueducts in Costa Rica Rolando Castro, CEDARENA Building integrity and mitigating corruption in local water governance through participatory public finance Pamela Grafilo, United Nations Development Programme Overview of good governance approaches in the GIZ water portfolio in Sub-Saharan Africa Lotte Feuerstein, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit Fostering integrity through regulation Daniel Nordmann, Competence Centre Water, GIZ Integrity Management Toolbox for water service providers in Kenya Rose Makenzi/ Johannes Hee/ Michael Kropac/ Janek Hermann Friede, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit/ International Centre for Water Management Services/ Water Integrity Network Code of Conduct on Integrity or Corporate Social Responsibility Gerrit Jan Schraa, Royal Haskoning/DHV Gerrit Jan Schraa, Royal Haskoning/DHV Code of Conduct on Integrity or Co Information System for Transparency Daniel Valensuela, Office International de l’Eau Outcome and lessons learned on regional trainings on water integrity (SADC, WA, EA regions) Rennie Chioreso Munyayi , WaterNet & UNDP Water Governance Facility
  • 20. 20 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 Four separate coffee-table discussions then explored the question: Scaling up integrity: what does it take? Each had a specific focus question: 1. ‘What is needed to reach out to different subsectors?’ Salient discussion points included: ° There is agreement on the fact that different solutions are needed for different subsectors. ° National-level regulators play an important role and should be included in the discussions more systematically. Consumer interests should also be better represented. ° Bottom-up approaches are good, but they are not realistic in all countries. In some regions, nothing can be achieved without tackling the issues from the very top. ° The judicial system’s role is important, as it can be subject to pressures from some stakeholders. ° There is a need to reach out to sectors outside the water sector and to include opinion leaders. 2. ‘What factors need to be considered for scaling up capacity development?’ Key discussion points included: ° There is a need for flexibility and adaptability. Training materials should be adapted to meet local needs and demands. Capacity needs are context-specific – for example, some languages might not have words referring to certain concepts. ° Not only does capacity have to be built, it also has to be maintained and transferred. Finding the relevant local partners is crucial. ° Capacity building is not only about training. There is a need to embrace a more comprehensive definition that includes building people and institutions. To scale up integrity, it must be institutionalised at all levels of society (local to international) and across all water sub-sectors. Curbing corruption requires efforts that cannot be undertaken by a single organisation or group of organisations. To put a stop to corruption in the water sector, action must be scaled up through partnerships, and integrity anchored in all relevant policies and organisations with a stake in the sector. Only if integrity is considered a core responsibility by the entire sector will stakeholders be able to prevent corruption effectively. The presentations shared ideas for scaling up integrity. Outside organisations can facilitate improvements in integrity, but the driving force of the process needs to come from inside the water sector itself. The possibility of linking to other thematic areas was also highlighted: opportunities should be explored for promoting best practices in river basin management, water security and climate change programmes. Existing platforms, such as river basin committees, should be tapped into for dialogues on issues of integrity. An important presentation highlighted the need to leverage the post-2015 agenda to promote integrity. Nurturing political will is important, and picking the right path or model is crucial. It is essential to network with those involved in integrity and transparency issues, and there is a need to find entry points. These can be global commitments and conventions, or people or groups active in their respective sectors who are willing to take the agenda further. Sometimes it is not the anti-corruption card that is best played, but instead themes such as tax evasion or transparency. WORKSTREAM 7 SCALING UP WATER INTEGRITY: INCREASE THE PACE AND EXTEND THE BASE
  • 21. 21 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 ° There is a gap between the short-term timeframe of projects and the long-term scale of capacity development. It is important to ensure that expectations are not set and then not met. ° Investing in capacity building for regulators should be a priority. 3. ‘What can you and your organisation do to promote integrity?’ Salient discussion points included: ° There is a need for champions of water integrity who can influence the system at policy level. ° Evidence-based assessment is needed for effective advocacy. ° Include integrity in water governance mechanisms. ° There is a role for awards and incentives to promote integrity and transparency among stakeholders. ° Monitoring and evaluation systems need to be established, to measure progress and prove the impact of water integrity. ° People’s right to information must be fulfilled in order for effective monitoring to take place. ° Performance indicators for companies should be established. ° A code of conduct should be introduced systematically within each organisation. 4. ‘What needs to happen to trigger scaling-up?’ Key conclusions included: ° All potential opportunities to increase water integrity in the coming years should be mapped out. ° The role of regulators is critical. Different types of incentives should be provided to promote integrity. ° Subsector platforms should be established, to facilitate collaboration, networking and alliances. ° A real sense of urgency must be introduced into sector management, especially for areas overlooked in the past. ° Working on other related subsectors is important, e.g. land-use planning. There is a clear need to go beyond the water sector and work as a system with other sectors. A plenary discussion touched several issues that cut across all four areas: ° The link between human rights, water and sanitation, and integrity issues is important. ° There is also the need to work more with parliaments. Water and sanitation should be a service to the people, available to everyone for generations, and corruption is preventing the world from reaching that goal. ° Providing new data and tools can have an impact on the way governments plan activities. ° Looking for new partners not usually involved can be very successful. ° Companies need access to water and want to ensure they have their fair share of the resource. Many companies already subscribe to codes of conduct and basic principles. ° The issue of a fair price for water is not always the right one. ° Political will is one single issue that is cross-cutting. With a lack of political will, it is difficult to build integrity. ° Partnership is crucial and there is a need for platforms that bring together many stakeholders, each with strengths and weaknesses, to avoid situations where stakeholders accuse each other of weak integrity. ° Delays in projects, sometimes for years, are a big problem in the procurement chain that includes ministries and procurement offices. “TO PUT A STOP TO CORRUPTION, IT MUST BE SCALED UP THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS, AND INTEGRITY ANCHORED IN ALL RELEVANT POLICIES AND ORGANISATIONS WITH A STAKE IN THE SECTOR.”
  • 22. 22 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND OUTCOMES ° There is a need to start with small, local and tangible action whenever possible. ° Be positive, and use other words and concepts than ‘corruption’. Language matters. ° Embrace a more comprehensive definition of capacity building. ° Find allies everywhere, build entry points and coalitions. ° Map the issues, to assess what needs to be done, where. ° Cross-sectoral cooperation and cross-cutting diagnosis are important. Evidence-based assessment of progress in integrity-building is needed. ° Networking requires platforms bringing together many stakeholders, to avoid situations where they are not part of the process and later on blame each other for poor water governance. ° Learning about integrity should be fun and not too technical. ° Include integrity and governance in multi-stakeholder gatherings. Moral development is as important as networking. ° Shared vision across the sector and in subsectors is also necessary. Everybody should have fair access to water, at a fair price. ° Stay alert for political opportunities. ° Use existing platforms of dialogue, such as river basin organisations, to discuss issues of integrity. ° Work more with parliaments, and groups and individuals who are influential trend-setters. ° Find those individuals willing to take the agenda further within their own group or sector. ° Take advantage of local, internal driving forces. ° Build many different bridges and play cards other than the ‘anti-corruption’ one (e.g. promoting transparency). WORKSTREAM 7 CONTINUED RISING STAKES Water-food-energy ° 70 per cent of the world’s fresh water is used for food and biofuel ° Global food demand is forecast to double in 20 years Climate change ° US $100 billion will be at stake by 2020, post - Copenhagen Accord 2009 Water & land grabbing ° Between 445 million and 1.7 billion hectares of land have been identified for agricultural investments (World Bank 2010) Water Security, conflicts & disasters ° 276 major trans-boundary watersheds cross 145 countries (UN Water, 2013) ° 90 per cent of deaths from natural disasters, 1990-2000, were water-related (UN Water, 2013) PRESENTATIONS Achievements and requirements for capacity development: Introducing integrity in Water Utilities in the MENA Region Thomas Petermann, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit Linking to thematic areas in the water sector Francois Brikké, Global Water Partnership Linking to the political process Craig Fagan, Transparency International
  • 23. 23 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 “CURBING CORRUPTION REQUIRES EFFORT THAT CANNOT BE UNDERTAKEN BY A SINGLE ORGANISATION OR GROUP OF ORGANISATIONS.”
  • 24. 24 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 SUMMARY OF THE OPEN SPACE SESSIONS ° Music as a tool to bring youth and elders into anti-corruption work, and optimal use of the internet Ramesh Kumar Sharma, member of the WIN International Steering Committee This session showed how music can be used effectively by water users themselves to promote integrity messages at the community level. It can be a relatively low-cost and accessible tool, but there are constraints, including the will and ability to use it. The session also covered using videos and promoting them online, via channels such as YouTube, for wider outreach. These can be efficient tools, but video production can be costly. ° Water contamination in Costa Rica and the state obligation to protect the human right to water Anna Buzzoni (WIN), Soledad Castro, Centre for Environmental Rights and Natural Resources (CEDARENA) In 2004 the construction of a pineapple plantation in a community in Costa Rica caused water pollution. In 2007 the ministry responsible took action by providing drinking water by truck, but access remains difficult and delivery is not frequent, meaning that the community does not have proper access to clean drinking water. This is complicated by the fact that there is no regulation on water quality in Costa Rica. The community received legal and advocacy support from CEDARENA. ° How to organise similar events in your home country? David Zetland This session began with a list of countries suggested by the group, and these countries’ problems with transparency and corruption, as well as the action needed. The group listed Canada, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya and Nigeria. The discussion focused on how to organise small-scale events or meetings to address these needs. To get stakeholders together and decision-makers talking, suggestions included making time for the participants to meet for a few days, including food and drinks for a more informal setting, and ensuring the presence of all stakeholders (or their representatives), to prevent These one-hour sessions encouraged further discussion and reflection in a more casual format, to promote interaction between participants. ° How can the media make access to water and sanitation safer? Babalobi Babatope, Edmund Smith-Asante and Alexandra Malmqvist (WIN) Two journalists presented their experiences and views on the role of the media in promoting water integrity. Edmund Smith-Asante (Ghana Business News) presented the Ghana WatSan Journalist Network (www.gwjn.org ), launched in 2009, now with 70 members. One of its focal points is building capacity. Edmund stressed that it is important that journalists understand the core issues in the water and sanitation sector so they can report on it constructively. Babalobi Babatope (Nigeria WASH Network for Journalists) is Chair of the Water and Sanitation Media Network in West Africa. The network’s goal is to increase quality and quantity of reporting on water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). Babalobi presented initiatives the network has set up: monitoring commitments by the government, a radio programme, WASH reporting, water integrity stories, WASH photos and videos, and eWASH. The network also has a blog and has produced a media handbook to inform journalists on WASH issues. This includes the main stakeholders, key contact details and information on WASH topics. ° Improving Transparency and Accountability in the WASH Sector Peter Matthews, Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST) This session provided an opportunity to discuss issues raised elsewhere in the conference in more depth. The panellists addressed a variety of questions, including a claim that there isn’t much evidence that disclosed information is being used, and whether or not efforts to promote water integrity should focus on improving transparency and accountability among individuals or institutions. Participants highlighted that transparency is a means to an end, and that while working with institutions can have a bigger impact, if they fail, the missed development opportunities are much more significant.
  • 25. 25 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 ° How development organisations can promote integrity and avoid being part of the problem Alphons Klomberg, Umutama Consult This session was an opportunity to discuss and understand the problems that NGOs can face when it comes to corruption. Participants shared uncomfortable situations that they had experienced or heard about. Are the means always justified as a way to an end? How far can one go to get the project done? What are the alternatives to corruption to motivate people? The group acknowledged that reality is messier than project design allows. Solutions include transparency of information, context-specific procurement processes and more carefully targeted projects. ° Promoting integrity in urban contexts: the mayoral initiative Susanne Weber-Mosdorf, Francoise Ndoume (WIN), 2IE, ONEA, the African Development Bank In the challenging context of rapid urban growth, good governance and improved integrity in the water sector can considerably increase sustainability and equity in delivery of water supply and sanitation services. As custodians for public goods in their cities, mayors can play a key role in promoting integrity, so in 2012 WIN developed an initiative for mayors. The Mayors’ Integrity Network is intended to be a platform owned by mayors and facilitated by WIN. The session highlighted the importance of putting integrity onto mayors’ agendas. They have the power to address the problem of water integrity, and so must take up the issue and demonstrate political will. The network aims to build mayoral capacities to increase water integrity, and to enable members to share experiences and seek expert strategic advice. It also provides opportunities to connect to funders for programme development. claims of non-representation, as well as improve ideas and solutions. The group also discussed methods of facilitating dialogue, which included defining agendas and/or discussion topics via anonymous polls, maintaining multiple communication channels and including local authorities so they support the process. ° Integrity is more than fighting financial corruption: scientific corruption through unverifiable information and positions Henk van Schaik This session focused on the importance of information in water integrity and its influence on transparency, accountability and participation. It also looked at how WIN can contribute to supporting integrity and building strong networks in the water sector. Perceived challenges include the problem of manipulation of information, its reliability, the struggle for some people to access it, and uncertainties in forecasting (for example, climate change models). The group also identified positives, including the fact that more information is available through open-source platforms and that social media is changing the world of information. ° Tangible tools to promote integrity at the service provider level: The Water Integrity Management Toolbox Janek Hermann-Friede (WIN), GIZ and the International Centre for Water Management Services (CEWAS) This session examined a tool that helps introduce integrity into organisations and improve their performance – in particular, water utility organisations. The Integrity Management Toolbox for Kenyan Water Service Providers is a systematic bottom-up approach to tackling integrity issues facing service providers in Kenya. It focuses on how their management and boards of directors can benefit from a business point of view, by implementing integrity management tools systematically. The presenters also explained how participants are selected, how to get the process started and how to win buy-in from major stakeholders. They emphasised that although specifically developed for Kenya, this toolbox can be adapted to different contexts.
  • 26. 26 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 HIGHLIGHTS The closing session of the first Water Integrity Forum was an opportunity to capitalise on the experiences and knowledge shared over the past days, as well as to create a momentum for scaling up water integrity work. The participants were inspired and encouraged by the Water Integrity Forum. The forum brought a mix of participants with diverse backgrounds, including young professions, which the participants perceived as very positive, and gave many opportunities for participants to discuss integrity with each other. There was a lot of motivation from the participants to build alliances and to work together to scale up the work needed to improve integrity in the water sector. During the first part of the closing session, the open spaces and the workstreams were summarised with the help the audience. The participants explained that both types of sessions, the many open spaces and seven workstreams, were great opportunities to bring new ideas and to share experiences and lessons learned from a variety of perspectives. Another main highlight for many participants was the fact that they were presented with so many different tools and cases that will inspire and help them. Both assessment tools, to diagnose and understand the problem (an important first step) and tools to improve integrity in the water sector. Both complement each other. Moreover these tools need to be part of on-going processes to ensure more success. Many explained that they will bring back the knowledge that they have gained back. It was acknowledged that the water crisis is worldwide, and that it is linked to other challenges such as climate change and food security, which have to be faced by increasing efforts within and beyond the water sector. It was a forum that focused on practical solutions and cases, which gave a clear overview of tools that can be used. They were encouraged by the fact that it’s not only WIN tackling the issues of integrity in the water sector, but that all the participants were somehow involved in the work to improve integrity. There is a gradual increase of the involvement of organisations and actors that are not necessarily experts in water integrity but that have the experience and motivation to work on improving integrity in the sector. Building alliances, connecting, is a key outcome of this conference. Finally, the first Water Integrity Forum came to a successful and strong conclusion with the presentation of the Water Integrity Statement, which was created in consultation with the participants of the forum, and with a high-level panel discussion with Her Excellency, Betty Oyella Bigombe, Minister of State for Water, Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda, Kitty van der Heijden, Director of the Department for Climate, Environment, Energy and Water (DME) at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands, András Szöllösi-Nagy, Rector of the UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Teun Bastemeijer, Director of the Water Integrity Network, and Jack Moss, Senior Advisor at Aquafed. Together they agreed to continue building momentum at political level for increased attention to integrity in the water sector. They were very encouraged by the motivation and experiences that they were able to witness throughout the forum and committed to take the lead in putting water integrity in the global development agenda. During the closing session, the Forum statement was shared with the participants. Finally, Ravi Narayanan, Chair of WIN’s Steering Committee closed the event by saying that the Forum succeeding in bringing the problem of corruption out of the closet into the open and raising the stakes to address this challenge. A lot of progress has been made, but there is still a lot that needs to be done. FROM THE CLOSING SESSION
  • 27. 27 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 “THE FORUM SUCCEEDED IN BRINGING THE PROBLEM OF CORRUPTION OUT OF THE CLOSET INTO THE OPEN AND RAISING THE STAKES TO ADDRESS THIS CHALLENGE.” The first Water Integrity Forum came to a successful conclusion with the Ugandan Minister of State for Water Resources, Ms Betty Bigombe, announcing that she will jointly take the lead in raising water integrity onto the global development agenda. Together with Ms Kitty van der Heijden, Director of the Department for Climate, Environment, Energy and Water and the Ambassador for Sustainable Development at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ms Bigombe will in particular push forward the issue in ongoing processes such as the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. The forum succeeded in taking stock of progress made in addressing integrity challenges, and helped forge coalitions for expanding the base and increasing the pace of building water integrity. After intense consultation with participants, the forum also released a draft statement. One of its key messages called for moves towards a universal code of conduct for individuals and institutions in the water sector. The statement also cautioned that the costs of inaction are too high for stakeholders to remain passive. The forum and its partners called on governments, the UN and other international organisations, the corporate sector and civil society to promote water integrity throughout their policies and actions. CONTINUING THE MOMENTUM THE WATER INTEGRITY STATEMENT
  • 28. 28 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 STATEMENT To take action on promoting water integrity, the Water Integrity Network (WIN), UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education and the Water Governance Centre (WGC) joined forces to organise the first International Water Integrity Forum in the Netherlands from 5 – 7 June 2013. It was attended by more than 100 water and integrity experts from over 75 organizations across the world. Taking stock of water-related integrity issues, the conference finds that ° Water Integrity includes, but extends beyond, control of corruption. It encompasses the integrity of water resources, as well as the integrity of people and institutions. Integrity challenges come in many forms, involving financial transactions, manipulation of knowledge and information, discrimination in all forms, illegal or irresponsible water abstraction and waste discharge, as well as biased rules and processes that favour power and short-term interests over equity, fairness, societal welfare and long-term sustainability. ° Building integrity and overcoming corruption are global concerns. Water management is complex, capital- intense and often involves monopolies, providing systemic incentives for abuses of power. Decision making is dispersed across policy domains and jurisdictions, allowing rampant exploitation of loopholes. These characteristics create the need to actively promote integrity on all levels, from local to global, for national and transboundary water systems. Clear and comprehensive results frameworks, combined with transparency, form the basis of accountability and stakeholder participation. Free and easy public access to relevant, reliable and consistent data and information, including legal documents, is recognized as a key requirement. Water is a fundamental resource for sustainable development. It is essential to eradicate poverty, to secure water, food and energy for a rapidly growing population and to maintain life-sustaining ecosystems for future generations. In most countries water crises are not due to resource scarcity but primarily to governance failures. Fragmented institutions obstruct accountability in a sector with high investment and aid flows, making it particularly vulnerable to corruption. Lack of water- related integrity incurs huge cost for societies, in lost lives, stalling development, wasted talent and degraded resources. The importance of water and good governance has been recognized in preparations on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well as in numerous declarations and conventions.1 The Report of the High- Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda and the 6th World Water Forum both linked effective governance to integrity and control of corruption. Water Integrity embodies the transformative shifts identified by the High Level Panel, by incorporating a global partnership for the equitable, sustainable, and accountable management of water resources and the services these provide to all societies. It is part and parcel of the illustrative goals on Water, Good Governance, Natural Resource Management and Food Security. Eliminating corruption across water-related sectors and building integrity into policies and action plans will be essential to these ambitions. DELFT STATEMENT ON WATER INTEGRITY 1 Including amongst others the UN Millennium Declaration, the UN Conventions on Rights of the Child (CRC), on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), as well as the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions and several regional anti-corruption conventions.
  • 29. 29 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 Working towards water integrity requires concrete actions, including to ° use and expand existing networks and build new alliances between sectors to develop a broad consensus on water integrity, and use multiple communication channels to raise awareness for issues and available solutions; ° encourage organizations, including our own, to consider water integrity in the development of organizational policies, strategies and action plans; ° invest in inclusive multi-stakeholder processes that foster collaboration beyond the water sector, engaging user organisations, investors, planning authorities and core governance institutions at country level to join reform agendas; ° incorporate issues of water integrity, including standards to effectively manage integrity2 , into capacity development, professional training and teaching; ° advocate in international and regional fora, including the Budapest Water Summit 2013 and the 7th World Water Forum, for the incorporation of water integrity into post-2015 development goals related to water access, water use, good governance and natural resources management; ° make more data available in the public domain, freely accessible and easy to understand so as to promote informed engagement in decision-making by citizens; ° move decisively towards a universal code of conduct for individual and institutional behaviour based on ethical principles, values and competence. Delft, July 2013 ° Promoting water integrity requires expanding the base, recognizing the fundamental interconnectedness between water, food production and energy supply; between water, sanitation and human health; and between poverty, informal settlements and vulnerability to corruption. Expanding the base also refers to more inclusive water management. Multi- stakeholder approaches are crucial to ensuring water integrity. Such approaches have to bring the debate to weak stakeholders including the poor, to the strong but often disengaged business community, and include the environment and future generations as the ‘silent’ stakeholders. ° Promoting water integrity also requires increasing the pace, recognizing that complex new challenges posed by fast population growth, urbanization, rapid destruction of productive aquatic ecosystems and climate change all threaten to overwhelm existing structures. Large-scale funding becoming available to pay for climate change adaptation and ecosystem services creates additional integrity challenges. Increasing the pace includes efforts to scale up systems to provide data and evidence on water-related integrity, establishing effective regulatory bodies and overcoming institutional fragmentation. It also requires building trust between stakeholders, raising awareness through credible information and developing professional capacity based on clear codes of conduct. The costs of inaction are too high to remain passive. The Forum and its partners call on governments, UN and international organizations, the corporate sector and civil society to promote water integrity. Fighting corruption is an essential first step, but not sufficient. We need to facilitate the recommended transformational shifts, and start changing personal and institutional attitudes and behaviour. 2 Building on the established ISO standards 9000 for quality management, 14000 for environmental management and 21500 for project management “WATER IS A FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.”
  • 30. 30 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 CONTRIBUTORS African Development Bank AKVO Foundation Cap-Net Center for Women’s Advocacy Studies Centre for Environmental Rights and Natural Resources (CEDARENA) Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST) Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Earth System Governance Project East Meets West Foundation Fresh Water Action Network South Asia Fundación Botín Gender and Water Alliance (GWA) Global Water Partnership (GWP) Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation (HSI) Hydro-Conseil Institut International de l’Ingénierie de l’Eau et de l’Environnement (2iE) Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) International Centre for Water Management Services (CEWAS) International Hydropower Association (IHA) International Sheldt Commission (ISC-CIE) International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre (IRC) International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Jalsrot Vikas Sanstha (Nepal Water Partnership) Karachi Water Partnership Latin America Water Education and Training Network (LA WETnet) Ministry of Water and Environment, Republic of Uganda, also representing African Ministers Council on Water (AMCOW) Office International de l’Eau (OIEAU) Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du fleuve Sénégal (OMVS) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Office National de l’Eau et de l’Assainissement (ONEA) Royal Haskoning DHV South Asia Consortium for Interdisciplinary Water Resources Studies (SaciWaters) Sri Lanka Water Partnership (SLWP) Suez Environment Swiss Water Partnership TheWaterChannel Transparency International (TI) Transparency International Bangladesh (TI-B) Transparency International Kenya (TI-K) Twynstra Gudde Consultants and Managers UNDP Water Governance Facility (WGF) SIWI UNESCO-International Hydrological Programme (UNESCO-IHP) UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) University of Amsterdam Vitens Evidens International Wageningen University TO THE WATER INTEGRITY FORUM
  • 31. 31 Water Integrity Forum, 2013 WASH Network for Journalists in West Africa (WASH-JN) Water Governance Centre (WGC) Water Integrity Network (WIN) Water Utility Partnership Africa Water Witness International WaterLex WaterNet World Bank World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)
  • 32. WIN www.waterintegrityforum.com UNESCO-IHE Westvest 7, 2611 AX Delft, The Netherlands www.unesco-ihe.org Water Governance Centre (WGC) Koningskade 40, Postbox 93218 2509 AE Den Haag, The Netherlands www.watergovernancecentre.nl Water Integrity Network (WIN) c/o Transparency International Alt Moabit 96, 10559 Berlin, Germany www.waterintegritynetwork.net

×