Tj workshop session 2


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Officials can influence the way a contract is defined, by determining the nature of a project (e.g. high capital investment) & the type of contract --- or contractors may falsify records and documentation to ensure that bids look competitive, and officials may turn a blind eye as they receive a kickback for silence.
  • Or with frequent power outages, water supply constantly interrupted, or only availabel in morning or evening – therefore rural citizens forced to pum dirty water from other ‘unimporved sources’ (srpings, wells with manual pumps, irrigation ditches, channels, rainwater collection) which are inadequate in terms of sanitation & hygiene Children are most vulnerable population group suffering from poor water quality: frequent vistims of gastric & intestinal infections caused by contaminated water – partly due to fact that more than 50% schools do not have access to safe drinking water & majority of medical institutions in country also lack access to safe water. Ecosystems suffer – bribes are paid to cove up the discharge of wastewater & toxins in water resourcesCorruption discourages investments in infrastructure – e.g. hydropower production.
  • -There are numerous reasons, but here I will only review five. -First, Water often defies legal and institutional classification, often leaving governance dispersed across political boundaries and different agencies with many loopholes to exploit-2nd, managing water is still largely approached as an engineering challenge. Consideration for the political and social dimensions of water, including corruption issues, is limited-3rd, water is more than twice as capital intensive as other utilities. Large water management, irrigation or dam projects are complex, making procurement lucrative and manipulation difficult to detect-5th, water is scarce. Even in water-richTaj, droughts are frequent & country is vullnerable to climate change & natioanl disasters. The less water available, the higher the corruption risks that emerge.
  • I will briefly present four lessons that are drawn from the 2008 Global Corruption Report that was jointly prepared by Transparency International and the Water Integrity Network-First, prevent corruption in the water sector, as cleaning it up after it is difficult and expensive. -Second, we must understand the local water context, otherwise reforms will fail. One size never fits all, but this is particularly true in the water sector. Therefore understanding local conditions and specific incentive systems that underpin corruption is a prerequisite for devising effective reforms-Third, the costs of corruption in the water sector are disproportionately borne by the poor-And finally, reform must come from above and below. Leadership from the top is necessary to create political will and drive institutional reform. But bottom-up approaches area needed by adding checks and balances on those in power.
  • PRSP, NDS, National Water Sector Development Strategy (2005-2015)More recently (2008) the govt has approved a programme which aims to provide access to drinking water to all the Tajik population by 2020
  • In rural areas, where women and children are responsible for collecting water from water sources situated 5km or more away from their places of residence.Info on population numbers with access to a centralized water supplu system not included in state reporting form.It is therefore impossible to gain a clear picture of the situation in the water sector at any time.Big gap:According to data for assessing water quality, 30 of samples nationwide do not comply with national microbiological standardsMeanwhile, health statistics show that there is an extremely high rate of water-related diseases directly resulting from very poor water quality.
  • Input indictors / process indicators / output/outcome/impact indicators
  • they are evidence based, meaning that detailed data collection and analysis was undertaken; second, the studies were undertaken in collaboration with key stakeholder groups (providers & consumers), important to get both views to validate what one group saysand third, through this multi-stakeholder partnership process, it is hoped that ownership over the data has been created
  • they are evidence based, meaning that detailed data collection and analysis was undertaken; second, the studies were undertaken in collaboration with key stakeholder groups (providers & consumers), important to get both views to validate what one group saysand third, through this multi-stakeholder partnership process, it is hoped that ownership over the data has been created
  • QUALITATIVE - Expert input: mapping study of ‘corruption risks’ based on desk research / interviews (institutions, laws & regulations)Identify red flagsQUANTITATIVE - Get feedback from water stakeholders: Nationwide ‘baseline survey’ on how water consumers and water providers experience & perceive corruption in the provision of water, in both rural and urban areas (COMPARE RESULTS!); or through buget/expenditure tracking to detect where unexplained leakages occurTo assess impact: what is the amount of resources involved? What is the effect on org reputation/credibility? What is the impact on the general public / the poor? Important to note that petty corruption (one 1 to 1 basis) may seem to have a small practice, but if they occur very frequently (high likelihood), their combined impact may be high! (may also need to revise / add some ‘red flags’!) 3) Do survey results confirm the expert mapping?
  • -To date we have learned 5 preliminary lessons based on our ongoing pilot experience of using water integrity studies in Uganda-buy in from key stakeholders is necessary from the beginning, otherwise the process could fail-without a sense of ownership over the process, momentum cannot be maintained and results will not be achieved-partnership and leadership with and by the government is fundamental. If the government is not engaged and supportive of the process, little will ever be achieved-any external partner, such as ourselves, needs to collaborate with committed, legitimate and respected local partner-and finally, without a national political environment that is conductive to addressing corruption, limited impact would ever be achievedTransparency can legitimize, and even increase, existing levels of corruption. This occurs if the disclosed activities are not condemned by the proper authorities & if the identified culprits’ punishment is perceived as negligible.
  • Given that (primary water consumers: agricultural organizations)
  • Tj workshop session 2

    1. 1. Session 2<br />Why conducting an <br />integrity vulnerability<br />assessment in the <br />water sector?<br />By Marie Laberge<br />UNDP Oslo Governance Centre<br />
    2. 2. Overview<br />Why is it important to tackle corruption in the water sector? <br />Why is it important to collect empirical evidence on the causes and effects of corruption in the water sector? <br />Brief overview of the proposed assessment approach (Sector Integrity Vulnerability Assessment – ‘SIVA’)<br />Workshop agenda<br />
    3. 3. 1. Why is it important to tackle corruption in the water sector?<br />
    4. 4. Tajikistan is the 5th most water-rich country in the world...<br />93% of the urban population has access to drinking water<br />But in the rural areas, where 72% of the population lives, only 47% have access to drinking water<br />The problem is one of governance, not availability. <br />
    5. 5. What does corruption ‘look like’ in the water sector? <br />Some typical examples…<br />Distorted site selection of boreholes or abstraction points for irrigation <br />Collusion & favoritism in public procurement<br />Falsified meter reading<br />Giving preferential treatment for repairs in exchange for ‘speed money’<br />
    6. 6. Corruption in water puts lives and livelihoods at risk<br /><ul><li>With some 70% of all infrastructure needing reconstruction, there has been a serious deterioration in drinking water quality  health threat to the population
    7. 7. Only 40-50% of treatment systems are effective
    8. 8. As a result: Waterborne infectious diseases prevalent in rural areas </li></ul>Challenges are growing and problem is increasingly urgent<br />High costs to society (human, economic & environmental)<br />
    9. 9. Why is the water sector especially vulnerable to corruption? <br />Water governance spills across agencies<br />Viewed as a technical issue<br />Involves large flows of public funds<br />Water is scarce and becoming more so<br />
    10. 10. What are some key lessons from tackling corruption in the water sector?<br />Prevent corruption from outset<br />Understand local context, otherwise reform will fail<br />Support the poor<br />Reform must come from above and below<br />
    11. 11. 2. Why is it important to collect empirical evidence on the causes and impacts of corruption? <br />
    12. 12. Because of the sensitive nature of anti-corruption reforms, credible research (rather than anecdotes) is essential.<br />Good policy and good remedy can only come from good diagnosis<br />Numerous plans & strategies to improve water services have been adopted in Tajikistan, but their implementation is lagging behind <br />First step to demonstrate progress is to collect evidence, in order to be able to measure this progress! <br />
    13. 13. Monitoring practices in Tajikistan <br />No standard reporting/monitoring requirement in the water sector (except for tax & book-keeping purposes):<br />Data is collected by various (6) agencies independently, without any coordination between them<br />Data is collected mainly on the water supply system (water quality & quantity) – but not on access (e.g. No data collected on the distance between households and water sources)<br />Data is unreliable <br />Database are incomplete<br />Even data collection on financial flows is unavailable<br />Big gap between the picture emerging from statistics and what is actually experienced on the ground<br />
    14. 14. Evidence can serve many purposes...<br />
    15. 15. Evidence can serve many purposes: <br />To inform reform strategies to reduce corruption risks (policymaking)<br />To raise public intolerance to corruption (advocacy)<br />“Reforms must come from above and below...”<br />Different purposes  different types of data  different audiences  different dissemination strategies<br />
    16. 16. Data to identify specific target groups, to describe local access conditions & implementation process, tomeasure performance against targets<br />Data showing need for service & impact of service provided<br />Data to define problems (to confirm requests /complaints from users)<br />Data on costs & resources needed<br />Data to identify target groups, to describe steps involved, costs & resources needed, progress & impact<br />
    17. 17. 3. Overview of the proposed assessment approach:<br />Sector Integrity Vulnerability Assessment (‘SIVA’)<br />
    18. 18. Drawing from the experience of the Water Integrity Network with ‘water integrity studies’<br />BUT – We are only presenting a ‘menu of options’<br />Does not mean simply following predefined steps like in a cookbook!<br />How to adapt international experiences to the Tajik context?<br />
    19. 19. Four key principles:<br />Evidence-based approach: To depersonalize & depoliticize the fight against corruption <br />Based on multiple sources of evidence (for triangulation), and mix of qualitative & quantitative research methods<br />Conducted in collaboration with both water consumers & providers <br />Create ownership through partnership<br />
    20. 20. Overview of the proposed assessment approach: ‘SIVA’<br />Rather than measuring the incidence of corruption, let’s focus on the causes of corruption: <br />wrong institutional incentives, lack of accountability, lack of public info & transparency<br />4 advantages of the proposed approach: <br />Helps to pinpoint specific areas / interactions where corruption occurs<br />Provides a guide into ‘what can be done’ <br />By ‘ranking’ risks, helps to identify priority areas for reform<br />Can be used for monitoring change over time<br />
    21. 21. Four steps: <br />Mapping the ‘potential’ corruption risks for each ‘step’ in the provision of water <br />Identify danger signs (‘red flags’) to watch out for: they alert decision-makers, investigators or the public to the possibility of corrupt practices<br />Find empirical evidence (through surveys & analysis of objective data sources) of corruption risks and ‘rank’ them based on incidence & impact<br />Establish a monitoring system to track the most critical ‘red flags’ on a regular basis <br />
    22. 22. How to rank ‘corruption risks’: The risk quadrant <br />
    23. 23. Preliminary lessons learned from international experience<br />Engage stakeholders from the outset <br />Develop national ownership<br />Partnership with government is critical<br />Collaborate with committed, legitimate, respected local partner<br />National political enabling environment <br />... Or else, integrity refroms can backfire and eventually even increase corruption! <br />
    24. 24. Overview of the workshop agenda<br />How to measure corruption: ‘the basics’<br />Mapping corruption risks & identifying ‘red flags’ in two sub-sectors: WSS & WRM (irrigation) <br />‘Internal’ and ‘external’ methodologies for collecting evidence<br />How to adapt these methodologies to the Tajik context? <br />How to develop a sustainable monitoring system? <br />How to develop a mitigation plan? <br />How to design a communication strategy?<br />Next steps<br />