This document summarizes a session on conducting a risk opportunity mapping study on water sanitation and hygiene (WSS) in Uganda to address corruption issues. It describes the purpose of a vulnerability assessment to identify areas within an organization that may be vulnerable to abuse. It provides an overview of Uganda's water sector including rural and urban supply managed by various entities. The methodology for Uganda's study included a desk review and stakeholder interviews to develop a corruption risk map. The map analyzed macro-level national integrity issues and sector-specific risks within water institutions. Findings identified weaknesses in regulatory independence, procurement practices, and human/financial capacity. Discussion focused on adapting the approach to other country contexts.

1. Session 4 Internal Assessments: Risk Opportunity Mapping Study on WSS in Uganda Maria Jacobson, UNDP Water Governance Facility, SIWI Marie Laberge, UNDP Oslo Governance Centre

2. What is a Vulnerability Assessment? Purpose To clarify the different areas within an organisation/s/sector that may be vulnerable to the abuse of authority and management of resources and identify loopholes in the local system that allow corruption to occur To point out steps to be taken to reduce vulnerability, enhance transparency and strengthen integrity ‘Expert’ analysis as opposed to user survey

3. Piloting Risk Mapping Study in Uganda WSS Realisation of the need to address corruption Multi stakeholder Good Governance Working Group within MWE Risk Opportunity Mapping Study Integrity Survey Use the studies´ findings to revise the WSS Anti Corruption Action Plan

4. Overview of the Ugandan water sector Rural Water Supply District Local Governments Contractors/private firms undertake design and construction work under contract from the local and central governments Urban Water Supply National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC), large utility that manages large towns Private Operators (POs) manage piped water services in small towns and rural growth centers. NGOs, service delivery Communities, O&M

5. Purpose To develop a Corruption Risk Map for Uganda´s WSS Sector based on a qualitative analysis of macroeconomic and sectoral factors Review policies, legislation and practises to identify legal and institutional bottlenecks to effectively fight corruption Analyze accountability relationships, incentive structures and levels of transparency in decision making Document ongoing processes to strengthen integrity in WSS and map key sector stakeholders for potential ac- partnerships

6. Scope Macro level refers to the overall corruption situation in the country with regards to the capacity of national oversight/accountability institutions such as the Auditor General, the Ombudsman/Anti-Corruption Commission, the Procurement Regulator. The analysis also looks at the independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press, the political will to fight corruption etc. Sector level, refers to weaknesses/strengths within sector processes related to corruption in specific water institutions and among a variety of water stakeholders (state and non state actors, urban and rural WSS). This is based on an analysis of the policies and legislation regulating the sector and how these are applied in practise, in terms of how they either promote or discourage transparency, integrity and accountability.

7. Methodology Desk study complemented by structured in-depth interviews with key expert informants Desk study Review and analysis of relevant documents governing the sector, such as legislation and policy documents, external sector and non-sector specific governance analyses (international corruption rating indices, Public Expenditure Reviews) as well as locally produced sector and non-sector specific assessments (corruption surveys, Audit reports, evaluations, etc). Interviews To gather information about the actual practise of sector institutions. Expert informants from private and public sector, civil society and development partners in urban and rural areas.

8. Methodology Guidance by Multi Stakeholder Good Governance Working Group I. Legitimacy and ownership Should be composed of the very key stakeholders that will be affected by the study, both in terms of availing data as well as in terms of implementing the action points arising from the findings. Members should represent different interests/stakeholders in order to avoid subjective views and biased assessments. II. Quality assurance (i) approve the Terms of Reference, (ii) provide input to the consultant’s Inception Report, (iii) assist in the research and outreach (e.g. suggest key informants and workshop attendees; and (iv) review and comment on draft reports.

9. Methodology Non confrontational approach To build ownership and to reduce the risk that individuals or organizations feel threatened Includes a balanced and accurate analysis, including both positive and negative aspects without compromising the content No ‘naming and shaming’ of individuals – focus on institutional weaknesses not individual cases of wrong doing Protect the names of the informants

10. Developing a Corruption Risk Map The findings from the analysis should result in a Corruption Risk Map, where the various corruption risks are broken down to risks at macro and sectoral level. Three parts: Overall National Integrity Perspective Institutional Pillars of National Integrity Corruption Risks Within Water Sector Institutions

11. Developing a Corruption Risk Map Overall National Integrity Perspective Corruption Perception Index, National Corruption Surveys

12. Developing a Corruption Risk Map Institutional Pillars of National Integrity The Executive The Legislature The Judiciary Oversight agencies: Anti-Corruption Commission, Auditor General, Procurement Agency Civil Society Private Sector Media Development Partners

13. Developing a Corruption Risk Map Corruption Risks Within Water Sector Institutions Quality of Regulation- independence and effectiveness Ministry of Water Large utilities Local Governments Private water companies and private water operators NGOs Procurement, contract management; budgeting; political interference; human resource capacity (financial and technical) enforcement of guidelines

14. Findings Overall National Integrity Perspective TI Corruption Perception Index = 2.6 out of 10 Institutional Pillars of National Integrity Impressive institutional and legal anti corruption framework in place but huge implementation gap Water Sector Institutions No Independent Regulator – Potential conflict of interest for MWE NWSC: Bribery in relation to water connections; increasing non-revenue water; embezzlement MWE/LG: Procurement, poor contract management; political interference, abuse of office; poor budgeting; limited human resource capacity non-adherence to procurement regulations

15. Discussion 1. What are the main problems facing the water sector in Tajikistan? 2. How does corruption worsen these problems? 3. How is water-related corruption affected by the general corruption situation in the country? 4. Should a vulnerability assessment in Tajikistan focus on the general corruption situation or only on water sector institutions?  Refer to the ‘Water Actors’ handout

16. Planningahead 1. How to adapt this approach to the Tajik context?  Refer to the ‘Water Actors’ handout 2. Scope: Should the analysis include the country’s integrity institutions (anti-corruption commission, ombudsman, parliament, etc.) or water institutions only?