Session 4

Internal Assessments: Risk Opportunity Mapping Study on

WSS in UgandaMaria Jacobson, UNDP Water Governance Facility, SIWI

Marie Laberge, UNDP Oslo Governance Centre

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

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

Overview of the Ugandan water sector

Rural Water Supply District Local GovernmentsContractors/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

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

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.

•

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.

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.

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

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

Developing a Corruption Risk Map

Overall National Integrity Perspective

Corruption Perception Index, National Corruption Surveys

Developing a Corruption Risk Map

Institutional Pillars of National Integrity

The ExecutiveThe LegislatureThe JudiciaryOversight agencies: Anti-Corruption Commission, Auditor General, Procurement AgencyCivil SocietyPrivate SectorMediaDevelopment Partners

Developing a Corruption Risk Map

Corruption Risks Within Water Sector Institutions

Quality of Regulation- independence and effectiveness

Ministry of WaterLarge utilitiesLocal GovernmentsPrivate water companies and private water operatorsNGOs Procurement, contract management; budgeting; political interference; human resource capacity (financial and technical) enforcement of guidelines

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; embezzlementMWE/LG: Procurement, poor contract management; political interference, abuse of office; poor budgeting; limited human resource capacity non-adherence to procurement regulations

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

Planning ahead

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?