Integrity and Accountability at UN Water 2023

Barbara Schreiner from Water Integrity Network writes:

Integrity is a critical element of sound public governance. It assures everyone that the government is working in their interest, not just for the select few, it is the foundation of trust between government and water users from households to enterprises, and is vital for the economic prosperity and well-being of society.

WIN defines integrity as the use of vested powers and resources ethically and honestly for the delivery of sustainable and equitable water and sanitation services, and recognises that integrity is implicit in human rights obligations, explicit in the administrative justice laws of many countries, and operationalised in the governance principles of transparency, accountability, participation and anti-corruption.

Corruption is the flipside of integrity.

Dealing with corruption is critical, and yet people are still wary of talking about openly. It is getting better, but it is still seen as a ‘sensitive’ topic. But talking about corruption does not mean one is accusing anyone of being corrupt - it is simply a recognition that the water and sanitation sector is extremely vulnerable to corruption – globally.

Why? Because the sector is very dependent on infrastructure, and globally, the infrastructure sector is extremely vulnerable to corruption.

Secondly, the water and sanitation sectors are complex, with a range of entities with different roles and responsibilities, and such complexity raises the risks of corruption.

Thirdly, water provision in particular tends to be a monopoly, again, opening additional risks for corruption.

Not recognising and openly addressing this risk of corruption is a serious mistake.

It is extremely difficult to put an actual figure to the costs of corruption – it is not, after all, a transparent sector, although in contexts of systemic corruption it can be a lot more participatory than one would like! However, work done by WIN suggests that the financial costs of corruption are anywhere between 4 and 26%, and in some contexts, may be higher.

This does not take into account the social, environmental and economic costs of corruption that may play out over decades.

For example, in 2014, 68-year-old Tiyiselani Mathebula slaughtered a chicken to celebrate the Presidential launch of the Giyani water project that would bring water to 55 villages in one of South Africa’s poorest provinces.

By 2021, project costs had risen from around USD 35 million to USD 200 million amidst allegations of massive levels of corruption, and the project was not yet completed. For those who did get water, it was often brown, and Ma Mathebula still fetched water in buckets from a crocodile-infested river. The affected villages suffered from ongoing health and economic impacts due to lack of water. Additionally, the rising costs resulted in the Department of Water and Sanitation not being able to implement other planned projects, delaying the delivery of safe water to other communities.

If one looks at the impact on government budgets in developing countries of illicit financial flows and tax corruption, the costs of corruption are even higher. According to the Tax Justice Network Africa said Africa was losing $88.6 billion to Illicit Financial Flows annually. If we don’t address illicit financial flows we will see accelerated fiscal crises across a number of developing countries – with tragic implications for the already poor and marginalised.

In the UN2023 Water Conference, there will be many people talking about where to find the more than 100 million dollars needed to deliver SDGs 6.1 and 6.2. or the $1 trillion a year which the World Resources Institute estimates is needed to ensure enough usable water supply globally. Much focus will be placed on blended finance models. Far fewer people will be talking about the need to deal with corruption as a key step in meeting SDG 6.

Currently, global aid to the water sector is decreasing as a proportion of overall aid, and within that, the funding for governance is shrinking. And yet we all know that governance is absolutely critical for the delivery of affordable, equitable and sustainable water and sanitation services.

Fighting against corruption is tough work. Partly it is tough at the coal face because people around the world have been harassed, threatened and killed for tackling corruption. Partly it is tough because it is not a battle that we will ever totally win. It is not possible to permanently eradicate the desire for personal gain at the public expense. It is a never ending battle and we need to approach it with that awareness. However, it is possible to strengthen the structures, systems, champions that fight for integrity and against corruption. It is possible to significantly reduce the risks of corruption.

WIN, with its partners at the global and national level, works to keep the issue of corruption and integrity on the agenda, and to run practical, hands on, participatory, integrity change processes with, for example, regulators, utilities, small water supply systems, to identify key integrity risks and to map actions needed to mitigate these risks. We support water sector institutions to take a proactive approach to addressing corruption and other integrity risks, rather than a post-hoc clean-up process.

What we need, through the UN conference, and going on beyond this conference, is to commit not only to improved accountability, but also, very clearly and explicitly, to taking action to reduce the risk of corruption at all levels. It can be done. And it needs to be done. And accountability is a key part of it.   But we need governments and donors to recognise the importance and to put the money into this.