Who, how and for what? Accountability in the WASH sector

Corruption is deadly, but difficult to stop

About 10 percent of what is invested in the water sector alone is lost to corruption. That is the distressing figure estimated by the Water Integrity Network (WIN) [1] in their 2016 global outlook report. To put it in numbers, the sector sees nearly USD 75 billion evaporate each year, perhaps even more if one takes into account that there is still no reliable data on the financial impact of corruption in the WASH sector. But the breadth and depth of corruption goes beyond economic losses: both the environment and society — especially the most disadvantaged — suffer because of it. For instance, when authorities are paid to turn the blind eye to the discharge of untreated wastewater or to the over-abstraction of groundwater, ecosystems are stuck bearing the problem. As for people’s lives, kickbacks in construction and maintenance contracts, or embezzlement of government and foreign aid funds, often translates into inadequate and unaffordable WASH services. As encapsulated by the famous Ugandan signboard, corruption is deadly, stop it!

Stopping corruption is not that simple though, because there is no guidebook on how to do it. Among the many different concrete initiatives that have attempted to combat corruption in the WASH sector, are: integrity pact for transparent procurement procedures in the Greater Karachi Water Supply Scheme (Pakistan); citizen reports cards for service delivery assessment in Bangalore (India); community-based expenditure monitoring in Kampala slums (Uganda); or the anti-corruption hotline established by the Danish International Development Assistance (Danida) agency. Although remarkably different in their approach, all these initiatives share one goal: hold actors accountable.

Accountability in its three dimensions

Accountability [2] is thus indispensable for a strong and well-functioning WASH sector. But now the million-dollar question is: how can accountability be strengthened in the sector? Such a question entails some follow-up queries, including: who is accountable, and for what? How can these accountable actors answer for their actions? And how can they be enforced to act in a “responsible” manner? The answers, therefore, lie in the operationalization of the three major dimensions of accountability: (i) a clear delimitation of responsibility, (ii) answerability, and (iii) enforceability.

Clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of each of the actors involved is the first step to ensuring accountability. As the Special Rapporteur on the human rights to drinking water and sanitation emphasized in his 2018 report on the principle of accountability, adequate implementation of accountability requires a clear definition of who is accountable, who may hold actors accountable and what actors must be accountable for. This has particular relevance in the WASH sector because of the intricacy of the actors involved in the WASH sector — from governmental entities and international organizations, to service providers and regulators, NGOs, and civil society –, the often-complex (and fragmented) architecture of governmental institutions, the involvement of informal service providers, and, most importantly, the existence of situations where no one is identified as accountable.

The second step in this accountability approach is ensuring that these various actors provide reasoned explanations and justifications for their actions, inaction and decisions to those that they affect. Either through answering questions at the request of individuals or providing information proactively, answerability entails three key elements: (i) monitoring and reporting to collect and analyse relevant information on the actors’ actions and decisions, (ii) putting in place effective [3] complaint mechanisms to request information, and (iii) removing barriers for individuals to participate and access information.

The third and final step is enforcing compliance in order to prevent, manage and remove violations and abuses by those actors. This, according to the Special Rapporteur, is preceded by a process whereby bodies oversee actors’ compliance with performance standards that are in line with the normative content of the human rights to water and sanitation. Both national judicial and quasi-judicial mechanisms can serve as means for affected populations to hold actors accountable, but they need to be complemented by an enabling environment that empowers these populations — especially the most vulnerable and marginalized — and builds trust in these mechanisms.

All three dimensions of accountability face some challenges

None of these three dimensions of accountability — clear delimitation of responsibility, answerability, and enforceability — is spared from challenges, as noted by the Special Rapporteur in his 2018 report and summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. The three main dimensions of accountability and their practical challenges (source: summarized from the Special Rapporteur’s 2018 report on the principle of accountability).

Yet, each one of these three facets of accountability is vital for the WASH sector. This is well-illustrated in the case of corruption. Indeed, corrupt practices cannot flourish in an environment where roles and responsibilities are clearly defined, as the blame for failures or mismanagements cannot be shifted from another. Nor can it thrive in transparent environments where comprehensive and reliable information is made available to the public. And, in the case that it exists, they can be certainly uncovered and punished with appropriate enforcement and oversight mechanisms.

The conclusion? Investing in accountability as a means to ensuring the human rights to water and sanitation

As Klitgaard and his colleagues summarized in their metaphorical formula, Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion — Accountability. In other words, corruption is the result of a dire combination of monopoly power, wide latitude of discretion and the absence of accountability. Monopoly is inherent to the WASH sector, as services are generally delivered by only one provider for a given territory. Discretion is also a strong characteristic of the sector: institutions and officials involved in the planning, design, contracting, implementation, and monitoring of services often act on their own authority and judgement. Investing in accountability is thus one of the best ways to ensure that corruption stops burdening the WASH sector.

However, accountability goes beyond just combating and ending corruption. It is the hallmark of a democratic and inclusive governance of the WASH sector. It reminds us that, in a complex enterprise such as WASH service delivery, public and private actors are responsible, answerable and enforceable for their actions, inaction and decisions, and, most importantly, for their impact on people’s rights [4] to safe drinking water and sanitation. In short, investing in accountability is investing in human rights.

*This post was prepared as part of the 2020 campaign to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the UN General Assembly on the human right to water and sanitation: a campaign by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation.

For more information on the campaign see here.

Footnotes:

[1] The Water Integrity Network (WIN) is a network of partner individuals, organizations, and governments promoting water integrity to reduce corruption, and improve water sector performance worldwide.

[2] Although accountability is an often-used word, the concept of accountability is not easily understood or widely agreed on. Here, accountability is defined as “the means by which individuals and communities take ownership of their rights and ensure that states as primary duty-bearers, respect, protect and fulfill their international and national obligations”. Therefore, accountability has two functions: (i) corrective, for addressing individual or collective grievances and sanctions for wrongdoing, and (ii) preventive, for clarifying aspects of policy or service delivery as good practices.

[3] Complaint mechanisms and other non-judicial human rights grievance mechanisms should meet the following principles to guarantee effectiveness: legitimacy, accessibility, predictability, equitability, rights compatibility, and transparency.

[4] Water and sanitation were explicitly recognized as human rights since the United Nations General Assembly (resolution A/RES/64/292) and the Human Rights Council (resolution A/HRC/RES/15/9) in 2010.