Strengthening monitoring and oversight
Governments are primarily responsible for establishing effective regulatory oversight of the water sector. Measures aimed at curbing regulatory capture can include capacity building and training for regulatory staff, the provision of adequate resources (human, financial, technical and administrative), the creation of a clear institutional mandate, the implementation of transparent operating principles and the introduction of a public consultation and appeals process.[1]
As monitoring and oversight mechanisms are key to ensure the enforcement of regulations, monitoring and oversight activities conducted by various institutions, such as the central audit agency, parliament, anti-corruption agency, ombudsman, complaint offices and specific sector and local government organisations, need to be robust.[2]
This requires increasing the risks of detection by conducting regular independent audits, providing transparent access to public accounts, as well as establishing effective complaints mechanisms and whistleblower protection that encourages citizens and employees to report illicit behaviour without fear of retaliation. It also requires enforcing adequate and dissuasive sanctions, as deterrence must be supported by the effective implementation of regulations.
Separating policy making and regulatory functions from the operational (provision) function has also been promoted as one approach to improving accountability and strengthening regulatory oversight in the sector and implemented in countries such as South Africa and Kenya. However, this approach is likely to effectively increase accountability only where and if the regulatory function is properly performed.[3]
Though this may involve investing in equipment and technology, monitoring mechanisms should also go beyond auditing of accounts and agent performance, and include monitoring of the water quality at each stage of the water cycle. Increasingly, such monitoring systems provide for citizen participation and input with tools such as citizen report cards, hotlines, feedback mechanisms to monitor the quality of water services provided by public and private utilities. Citizens and scientists can fill the gap in countries where governments lack the capacity to regularly monitor the water quality.[4]
Footnotes
- [1]
Transparency International. 2008. Global Corruption Report: Corruption in the Water Sector. https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/global_corruption_report_2008_corruption_in_the_water_sector
- [2]
UNDP. 2011. Fighting Corruption in the Water Sector: Methods, Tools and Good Practices. https://www.ircwash.org/resources/fighting-corruption-water-sector-methods-tools-and-good-practices
- [3]
Butterworth & de la Harpe. 2009. Improving the Framework? Institutional Reform and Corruption in the Water Sector. http://www.u4.no/publications/improving-the-framework-institutional-reform-and-corruption-in-the-water-sector/
- [4]
For more on monitoring and evaluation in the water sector see: Water Integrity Network. 2016. What Counts? Monitoring and Evaluating Water Integrity. http://www.waterintegritynetwo...
Chapters
Author
Iñaki Albisu Ardigó; Marie Chêne
Reviewer:
Matthew Jenkins
Contributing experts:
Umrbek Allakulov (Water Integrity Network)
Shaazka Beyerle (US Institute of Peace)
Simone Bloem (Center for Applied Policy)
Claire Grandadam (Water Integrity Network)
Jacques Hallak (Jules Verne University – Amiens)
Mihaylo Milovanovitch (Centre For Applied Policy)
Muriel Poisson (International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP-UNESCO)
Juanita Riano (Inter-American Development Bank)
Marc Y. Tassé (Canadian Centre of Excellence for Anti-Corruption)
Vítězslav Titl (University of Siegen)
Davide Torsello (Central European University Business School)
Patty Zakaria (Royal Roads University)
Date
01/09/2017