Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands

REPORT | 2013
www.waterintegrityforum.com
“THE FORUM SUCCEEDED IN BRINGING THE PROBLEM OF
CORRUPTION OUT OF THE CLOSET INTO THE OPEN AND RAISING
THE STAKES TO ADDRESS THIS CHALLENGE.”

2
Water Integrity Forum, 2013
MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR
OF THE FORUM TEUN BASTEMEIJER 3
BACKGROUND 4
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE OPENING
OF THE FORUM 6
SUMMARY OF THE FORUM’S
WORK STREAMS 8
SUMMARY OF THE OPEN SPACE SESSIONS 24
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE CLOSING SESSION 26
CONTINUING THE MOMENTUM 27
DELFT STATEMENT
ON WATER INTEGRITY 28
CONTRIBUTORS 30
REPORT | 2013 www.waterintegrityforum.com
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Binayak Das, Jaap Evers, Annemiek Jenniskens, Alexandra Malmqvist, Ellen
Pfeiffer and Rozemarijn ter Horst. It was edited by Stephanie Debere and designed by Jens Christiansen and Tania Dunster
from onehemisphere. The logo was designed by Rustam Vania. We also would like to extend our gratitude our donors; BMZ,
DGIS, SDC, and Sida. Disclaimer Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of August 2013. Nevertheless, the Water Integrity Network cannot accept
responsibility for the consequences of its use for other purposes or in other contexts.
images © cover: Hans de Lijser (3), Wim Glas, p 3: Hans de Lijser, p 4: Wim Glas, Hans de Lijser, p 5: Hans de Lijser, p 6: Hans de Lijser, p 7: Hans de Lijser, p 8: onehemisphere, p 9: Kalenderli Erkan, Tran
The Vuong/IStock, Sudipto Das, p 10: Shutterstock, p 11: Shutterstock, p 12: Shutterstock, p 13: Shutterstock, p 14: Shutterstock, Michael Buckley/Istock, p 15: antikainen/Istock, Shutterstock, Shutterstock
p 16: Kai Wegerich, Leontura/Istock, p 17: Joshua Hodge Photography/Istock, Sen Lin/Istock, Joshua Hodge Photography/Istock, p 18: Wim Glas, p 19: Wim Glas, p 20: Wim Glas, p 21: Wim Glas, p 22: Wim
Glas, p 23: Wim Glas (3 sml), Hans de Lijser (lrge) p 24: Wim Glas, p 25: Wim Glas, p 26: Hans de Lijser, p 27: Hans de Lijser, p 28: Wim Glas, Hans de Lijser, p 30: Hans de Lijser, p 31: Hans de Lijser.

3
On the second day, there were also ‘open spaces’ – one
hour sessions that encouraged further discussion and
reflection in a more casual format, to promote interaction
between participants. Discussions ranged from various
tools to improve the sector and how to increase information
flows, to how to engage diverse stakeholders and how to
scale up action. Throughout the forum, during the
workstreams and open spaces, participants recognised the
importance of inviting different people from across and even
beyond the water sector to create a broad platform for
water integrity. The importance of linking up with the media
and making information available was also a recurring
theme. As participants observed, ‘information is power’.
The closing session on the third day was another excellent
opportunity to scale up commitment. The forum ended
with summaries from the various workstream leaders and a
high-level panel discussion with Her Excellency, Betty
Oyella Bigombe, Kitty van der Heijden, Director of the
Department for Climate, Environment, Energy and Water at
the the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, András
Szöllösi-Nagy, Jack Moss, Senior Advisor at Aquafed
and myself. During the closing session, the forum
statement was shared with participants. Creating the
statement was a participatory and inclusive process, which
enabled delegates to share their views and experiences.
Participants expressed appreciation of the forum’s focus
on practical tools and action to improve water integrity, and
of the many opportunities it offered for valuable discussion
and learning experiences. Now that the forum is over, it is
the time to turn our words into action. We encourage you
all to endorse and promote the forum statement, to help
drive wide acceptance of water integrity.
Our sincere thanks to the members of the forum’s
organising committee, the keynote speakers, the
programme committee and UNESCO-IHE – not only for
helping organise the event, but for hosting it. We also
extend our appreciation to the WIN team and Steering
Committee members, and – importantly – the participants
who made the forum such a successful and inspiring event.
In June 2013, the UNESCO Institute for Water
Education (UNESCO-IHE) hosted the first ever
Water Integrity Forum, in Delft, the Netherlands.
This event was organised by the Water Integrity
Network (WIN), UNESCO-IHE and the Water
Governance Centre. For WIN and our two partners,
as well as the many contributors to the forum, it
was a great opportunity to bring together a group
of key actors in the water sector who have taken an
interest in water integrity, and to take stock of
participants’ varied experiences.
The forum’s potential was fulfilled from the start, with an
opening session led by our co-organiser András Szöllösi-
Nagy, Rector of UNESCO-IHE. Full of enthusiasm, this set
the tone for the forum and gave the audience a taste of
what the coming days would bring. It included some
excellent speakers, notably Her Excellency, Betty Oyella
Bigombe, Minister of State for Water, Uganda, Christiaan
Poortman, Senior Advisor, Transparency International,
Aziza Akhmouch, Head of the Water Governance
Program for the Organisation of Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) and Julia Bucknall, Manager of
the World Bank Central Water Unit (Water Anchor).
Participation being a key pillar of integrity, the audience was
given the opportunity to comment during the opening
session. We were very pleased by the high number of
participants who joined the forum and were enthusiastic
enough to share their perspectives and experiences. The
forum was designed in such a way that participants would
have real opportunity to contribute. We divided the
programme into seven workstreams that tackled different
sub-topics and areas linked to the water sector:
° river basins,
° hydropower,
° water and food,
° the media and water integrity,
° rural water supply
° urban water supply
° sanitation and hygiene.
FROM THE WATER INTEGRITY FORUM CHAIR – TEUN BASTEMEIJER
MESSAGE

4
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Population increase,
globalisation, urbanisation, climate change and new insights
into the long-term consequences of environmental change
challenge traditional approaches to water management and
aggravate the impacts of corruption. Improving water
governance requires improving water integrity, where
specifically strengthening transparency, accountability and
participation is crucial. Stakeholders need to come together
and bring water integrity principles into international water
discourses and political and development processes.
OPPORTUNITIES
Over the past two decades, public awareness of the impacts
of corruption on water governance has increased. The Water
Integrity Network (WIN) was formed in 2006 specifically to
support anti-corruption activities in the water sector worldwide.
It works by forging coalitions and partnerships that can take
action in ways that individuals or single organisations cannot.
Since its establishment, there has been major national and
international recognition of the need to address the corruption
problem in the water sector. The 2008 Global Corruption
Report on Water by Transparency International was a
milestone in building global awareness of how corruption plays
out and impacts the development of water resources
management, water supply, sanitation, water for food, and
water for energy. Concrete solutions and programmes now
exist to promote water integrity, and more and more
organisations have taken up the cause. There is a wide range
of capacity-building programmes, tools have been developed
and are being used, and strong networks and partnerships
are forming around the topic of water governance and integrity.
There is wide agreement that without increased advocacy to
stop corruption in the water sector, there will be high costs to
economic and human development, the destruction of vital
ecosystems and the fuelling of social tension. Meeting the
challenges and providing such advocacy requires broad
collaboration. No actor can facilitate change alone.
INCREASING THE PACE
But the current pace of progress is not fast enough to
solve the water crisis. Global water governance has to find
answers to multiple challenges simultaneously, but this is
not happening quickly enough. There are too few
How humanity deals with water will determine the
world of future generations. Water is essential to all
facets of life, but increasing scarcity, conflicts over
shared water resources, droughts and major floods
in some of the world’s most densely populated
areas have made access to water more complex in
the last century. There is an ever-increasing
demand for water, while the number and types of
challenges in its supply are increasing.
RISKS
In many cases, a shortage of access to water is not due to
a shortage of water resources, but to failures in
governance, such as institutional fragmentation, lack of
coordinated decision-making, corruption, and poor
transparency and accountability. The water sector is
vulnerable to corruption, in part because of its particular
traits. Public utilities supply water in local or regional
monopolies that are easily exploited. Water management is
capital-intensive and large infrastructure, irrigation or dam
projects are complex, making procurement manipulation
lucrative and difficult to detect. Decision-making in the
water sector is dispersed across many political and
administrative jurisdictions, defying legal and institutional
classification. This allows loopholes to be readily exploited.
Clientelism and kickbacks in contracting are common in all
water sectors around the world. Studies suggest that corruption
decreases the efficiency of utilities in Africa by more than 60 per
cent. In one case in Latin America, the cost of a hydropower
project increased almost fivefold. In developing countries and
emerging economies in particular, private water supply is heavily
affected by rigged metering, illegal wells and connections,
‘speed-money’ for services, site selection of wells in favour of
local elites, and bribery at the irrigation point and for water
releases. Regulation protecting the environment or vulnerable
social groups is often barely enforced. At the national level,
political and economic elites can capture policy development
processes and infrastructure investment schemes.
Integrity issues can lead to conflicts around water at local,
national and international levels, and to competing demands
from the water, food and energy sectors. They also form a
major barrier to achieving global targets such as the
BACKGROUND

5
commitments. Substantial efforts and means are needed
to meet today’s challenges and the water management
targets enshrined in the MDGs and beyond. At the same
time, the degradation of valuable bodies of water and the
loss of productive aquatic ecosystems continue unabated.
Even bigger efforts will be needed to solve the challenges
of the future. Improving water integrity will require more
holistic and systemic changes, increased resilience and
adaptability of water management systems, and a stronger
focus on preventive measures, as well as on transparency,
accountability and participation. It is now critical to promote
evidence-based water integrity measures to showcase the
benefits of promoting greater integrity in the sector.
Increasing the pace of improving water integrity requires not
only specific capacity development, but also streamlining
integrity in governance frameworks and supporting the
scale-up of successful programmes – as well as providing
the tools to do so. The 2013 Water Integrity Forum provides
strategic opportunities to make inroads into major
development processes, such as the post-2015 UN
development agenda (Sustainable Development Goals).
This emerging framework is expected to guide
development priorities for many years to come.
To extend the base of support for tackling corruption and
promoting integrity through cooperative approaches, and to
increase the pace of action, WIN, UNESCO-IHE and the Water
Governance Centre came together to organise the first Water
Integrity Forum. The forum aimed to harness the knowledge
and experience of different water sector stakeholders, so
participants could take stock, share tools, discover innovative
methods to fight corruption, and build alliances to address the
integrity challenges in the sector now the forum is over.
2013 is the international year of water cooperation.
Overcoming the divides between many organisations is of
crucial importance. Expanding the base of support by
forming a strong alliance between existing actors is a
necessary first step to promoting water integrity. Finding a
common language and developing common understanding
is a key concern of the Water Integrity Forum. The
complexity of multiple geographical and institutional levels
typical of water sub-sectors makes coalitions essential.
The forum is an important landmark in making the case for
water integrity, clarifying the various roles different stakeholders
can play: who can do what to promote strong governance as
a goal in its own right. The water integrity community has to
engage with in this debate to be more effective. The forum
also provided an opportunity to take the issue of integrity
beyond the water and sanitation sector, into areas such as
river basins, Integrated Water Resources Management, the
nexus approach and urban water management, among
others. Through these wide-ranging discussions, it helped
advance the water integrity objectives and targets set at the
World Water Forum (WWF) 2012, and the resulting OECD
Initiative on Water Governance. It is a key stepping-stone
towards these objectives ahead of the next WWF in 2015.
“THE GLOBAL WATER CRISIS IS A CRISIS OF GOVERNANCE:
MAN-MADE, WITH IGNORANCE, GREED AND CORRUPTION AT ITS CORE”
(WANGARI MATHAI, 2008)
WATER INTEGRITY
The core of water integrity lies in the integrity of
people and institutions governing water resources. It
requires decision-making that is fair and inclusive,
honest and transparent, accountable and free of
corruption. The term recalls that management
decisions have an ethical dimension, and that
leadership needs courage as well as technical skills.
TAP
Transparency refers to citizens’ rights to access
information. This makes citizens knowledgeable about
the standards to expect from public officials and
enables them to protect their rights.
Accountability refers to mechanisms to hold people
and institutions to account for their actions, making
them adhere to set rules and standards. An individual
in a public function or institution must answer for their
actions. This includes political, administrative and
financial dimensions.
Participation means that anyone affected by a
decision should have the chance of intervening in and
influencing it. It fosters ownership, as decisions are
increasingly accepted and implemented jointly.

6
water sector. The resulting action plan was approved in
2009 and has generated positive results, including a broad
acceptance among all stakeholders that corruption is
pervasive in Uganda. But the working group also faces
challenges, such as a lack of resources which slows
implementation of their recommendations. Ms Bigombe
concluded that progress in integrity is best achieved via
multi-stakeholder participation, evidence-based decision-
making and sustained political will.
The address was followed by three keynote speakers.
Christiaan Poortman, Senior Advisor at Transparency
International, described the main trends and findings in
corruption and integrity, stressing that monitoring is key in
achieving genuine and sustainable results. Every
government and government agency needs to provide full
disclosure for all public sector projects, which requires
strong commitment from policy makers. Actively outlining
the benefits of improved integrity helps achieve this
commitment. Civil society organisations need to be
granted access to information, supported in their capacity
to process it, and able to exercise their right to hold to
account those responsible.
Aziza Akhmouch, Head of the OECD Water Governance
Program, talked about the importance of governance in the
water sector and the need to bring integrity and
transparency to the post-2015 agenda. Integrity is a
concern not only for the water sector, but for society at
large. It can best be achieved through larger governance
frameworks which cut across all sectors. In both rich and
developing countries, trust in governments has become a
major issue, prompting a cry for more transparency and
accountability. Tools are available, but good practices need
to be identified and scaled-up for wider impact. The OECD
will emphasise the importance of integrity in water
governance in upcoming publications.
Julia Bucknall, Manager of the World Bank Central Water
Unit (known as the Water Anchor), presented the Bank’s role
in promoting transparency, access to information and
accountability in the water sector. She focused on how the
need for accountability increases when countries face more
complex water challenges. As water scarcity grows and
The organisers of the first Water Integrity Forum
were proud that over 120 participants from more
than 60 organisations across the world attended
the opening session. One of the forum’s main goals
was to set the stage for launching water integrity on
the international agenda for sustainable
development. The forum achieved this by sharing
and improving common knowledge on corruption
and integrity issues in the water sector. Its
organisers believe that providing an international
platform for sharing experiences and knowledge,
and building alliances among practitioners and
scientists, will be of great benefit for getting water
integrity issues onto the global agenda.
Opening the forum, András Szöllösi-Nagy, the Rector of
UNESCO-IHE, reminded participants of the ever-increasing
demand for safe water, but that water shortages are not
due to a lack of water resources, but to failures in
governance. He emphasised that integrity is key to realising
the MDGs, adding that the Budapest Water Summit in
October 2013 will give concrete recommendations to the
UN General Assembly for the post-2015 Sustainable
Development Goals. He assured participants that the
recommendations from the Water Integrity Forum will feed
into the Budapest summit.
The opening address was delivered by her Excellency,
Betty Bigombe, Uganda’s Minister of State for Water and
member of the African Ministers Council of Water. She
stressed that a lack of coordinated decision-making,
regulation, transparency, accountability and integrity are the
real reasons behind the water crisis. Giving large-scale
examples, she called for improvements in procurement
processes and said when looking for solutions, you need
to involve stakeholders from across society. Since 2006
Uganda has placed integrity high on the agenda. The
Ministry of Water and Environment established a Good
Governance Working Group consisting of public and
private stakeholders, civil society organisations and
development partners. It is tasked with identifying and
recommending measures to promote and monitor
transparency, accountability and good governance in the
THE FIRST WATER INTEGRITY FORUM: SETTING THE STAGE
HIGHLIGHTS

7
quality deteriorates, engineering and institutional solutions
alone are not sufficient. The challenge becomes one of
efficiency and accountability. All parties, including users,
need the same information and to have an equal voice –
there is no integrity where information is secret. Decisions
need to be clearly explained and implemented accordingly,
and people need to be able to hold those responsible
accountable when their rights to water are violated. The
higher countries score in accountability, the better they
perform in water management. New technologies can help
to improve accountability, for example through ‘hackathons’,
in which talented young software programmers are brought
together in one room with water professionals to develop
software applications that can help monitor and meet the
challenges of promoting integrity in the water sector. The
results show the level of creativity that can be achieved by
putting people together who do not normally interact: 75 per
cent of the applications created during the 2011 water
hackathon are still in use. These new technologies provide a
low-cost approach to making information more transparent
and accessible to future generations. However, information
alone is not sufficient. Changes in behaviour and action are
also needed, based on the available information.
“WATER IS EMOTIONAL AND POLITICALLY HIGHLY SENSITIVE: IF YOU CUT PEOPLE OFF FROM
WATER IT HAS FAR MORE CONSEQUENCES THAN CUTTING PEOPLE OFF FROM ENERGY.”
JULIA BUCKNALL – MANAGER WORLD BANK CENTRAL WATER UNIT (WATER ANCHOR)
The opening session of the first Water Integrity Forum
was broadcasted and can be viewed here:
www.waterintegrityforum.com/?page_id=495
SOME TOOLS FOR IMPROVING INTEGRITY:
° Annotated Water Integrity Scan
° Integrity Pact
° ICT tools-FLOW, WMTI, Ugatuzi,
AKVO Market Place
° Irrigation and agriculture: MASSCOTTE, AQUASTAT
° Business Principles for Countering Bribery (TI);
Integrity Management Toolbox (CEWAS-WIN),
Benchmarking WATSAN utilities (World Bank)
° Civil Society Procurement Monitoring (CSPM) Tool,
Citizen Report Cards
° Tool Resources-Water Integrity Space
(www.waterintegritynetwork.net/integrityspace);
Gateway toolbox (http://gateway.transparency.org/)

8
Social accountability was presented as a tool for
demanding integrity. Evidence shared from Ecuador, Peru
and Tanzania pointed towards the need for multi-
stakeholder platforms which play a crucial role in improving
transparency and accountability in water governance. The
role of local populations is crucial in holding the authorities
to account over water. Sometimes they will need to
demand accountability which does not emerge from legal
regulations. Emphasis was also laid on the performance
and integrity of institutions.
Various presentations identified multiple causes and
supporting factors of unethical practices in the water sector:
° Power and information asymmetry
° Complexity of the sector
° The multiplicity and lack of coordination of actors involved
° Vulnerable and weak institutions.
Contributors also highlighted the importance of using a
rigorous analytical framework to identify the right leverage
points to enhance integrity. In the case of the food-water
nexus, it is crucial to consider the social-ecological system
as the unit of analysis, as unethical practices might also
affect vital characteristics of the natural resources which
farmers need to make a living.
Several actions were identified as promising for enhanced
integrity:
° Building alliances by engaging multiple actors through
bottom-up approaches or multi-stakeholder platforms.
However, actors need mutual trust in order to engage
with each other.
° Demanding accountability from below through a
federation of grassroots organisations. This can be
more effective than top-down legal reforms.
° Defining principles and guidelines, which can support
the development of a normative framework at the
policy level.
° Devolving to regulatory actors both power and capacity
to achieve their mission.
Fresh water is a finite resource facing a new set of
challenges as those competing for it become more
assertive. In a fast-developing and urbanising
world, also facing the impacts of climate change,
the demands for water, food and energy are
increasingly competing. This makes natural
resources scarcer and more valuable. Complex
governance structures for water, food, energy and
climate all work in their closed shells, in turn
increasing opportunities for corruption.
The first of two sessions under this workstream, Integrity
in Water and Food Security, covered a diverse range of
topics, from climate change, water and land grabbing, to
solution-oriented examples focused on social
accountability. Both climate change measures and the
leasing of land and water (by governments and private
owners) are widely discussed activities involving high-value
investments, which makes them vulnerable to corruption.
There is a lack of strong oversight and legal regulation both
in climate finance and land dealing processes.
Approximately US $1 billion per year by 2020 has been
committed to climate change mitigation and adaptation
programmes globally, but there remain widespread
challenges. In Bangladesh, for example, a lack of
coordination, inadequate disclosure and lack of capacity
are hindering transparency and accountability in the
implementation of climate projects. In land leasing,
especially in African countries such as Ghana, there is
power asymmetry in the transaction process, with land
demarcation and rights issue not extending to small
farmers’ customary plots. Land concessions are
negotiated and agreed between private sector actors and
government agencies, sometimes without significant
involvement from direct line agencies or ministries. This
narrow contractual agreement leads to poor compensation
for farmers who lose their land. There is a need to
recognise the role of communities in these processes,
either in participatory decision-making (for climate
measures) or through legislative reforms (for land leasing
processes). The need for alternative institutional
arrangements was also highlighted, especially when food
production is affected via these interventions.
DAY ONE:
WORKSTREAM 1
INTEGRITY IN WATER FOR FOOD AND ENERGY: THE NEED FOR A COORDINATED APPROACH
WATER INTEGRITY THEMES

9
The second session, Water, energy and food: promoting
integrity and sustainability in hydropower and
multipurpose dam projects, focused on the Hydropower
Sustainability Assessment Protocol (HSAP). It also looked
broadly at the issue of integrity in the sphere of interaction
between water and energy. The session discussed HSAP
as a framework for assessing the sustainability of
hydropower projects. These assessments can identify
gaps and problems, exposing a project’s weak points.
Integrity is linked with sustainability in hydropower and
multipurpose dam development, as the nature of the
sector is one of high capital flows, the construction sector
is involved, there are biases in project selection and the
sector is non-transparent. Suggestions for improving
HSAP included promoting good governance and anti-
corruption measures through a multi-stakeholder
approach. HSAP was tested in Zambia and Ghana, but
there are problems in Africa regarding the costs of training
and assessment, as most African utilities are small-scale.
The session also included a presentation on the Inter-
American Development Bank’s efforts to address
corruption in water infrastructure, and the WWF presented
the ‘seven sins’ of dam building, with an emphasis on
environmental and safety aspects when choosing a site.
The session concluded with a panel discussion which
acknowledged that the problems of hydro projects are
programmed as soon as the siting is complete. They occur
at the very start of a project, despite efforts to minimise
impact by choosing the right location. This is why the early
stage assessment is very important and its findings need
to be shared. Stakeholder involvement is of high interest to
the regulator. The problem lies in the asymmetry between
consumer and promoter, making intermediation necessary
to enable communities to understand the issues at stake
and raise the correct questions. Social acceptance of
projects is a key concern, and is integral to their success.
A joint panel discussion with participants from both
workstreams concluded with a central recommendation for
a more coordinated institutional response from the water,
food and energy sectors, instead of each working
independently to handle water integrity challenges.
“COMPLEX GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES FOR WATER, FOOD, ENERGY
AND CLIMATE ALL WORK IN THEIR CLOSED SHELLS, IN TURN INCREASING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CORRUPTION.”
PRESENTATIONS
SESSION 1A
Governance and integrity in climate change finance
mechanisms, Case study from Bangladesh Zakir
Hossain Khan, Transparency International-Bangladesh
Unethical and inimical practices in large-scale
land acquisitions in West Africa Timothy Williams,
International Water Management Institute
Forging accountability and transparency in
water governance: lessons from grass-roots
actions in Ecuador and Peru Jaime Hoogesteger,
Wageningen University
Social accountability and citizen agency to
improve sector performance – insights from
Water Witness International Nick Hepworth,
Water Witness International
Governance and institution dynamics in water-
food-energy Detlef Klein, Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit
SESSION 1B
Introduction to the hydro sustainability assessment
protocol with a focus on project identification
(early stage) and on-going activities in Africa
Cameron Ironside, International Hydropower Association
How does the hydro sustainability assessment
protocol address governance and anticorruption
issues? Donal O’ Leary, Transparency International
The role of the Inter-American Development
Bank in identifying and ameliorating corruption
risks in water infrastructure Maria del Rosario
Navia Diaz, Inter-American Development Bank
Seven sins of dam building Angela Klauschen,
World Wildlife Fund
Power Sector: Applicability of the Hydro
Sustainability Assessment to Africa Israel Phiri,
Independent Consultant

10
Key points from this session included:
° Processes in river basin management or Integrated
Water Resources Management (IWRM) should focus on
creating learning communities. River basin organisations
can support members to develop shared visions and
long-term goals. This might help promote transparency.
° More efforts are required to share data and information
in a standardised, coherent and transparent manner.
° River basin management should carefully analyse the
trade-offs between sectors, and aim at optimal and
equitable use of water.
° More focus is needed on raising awareness of water
issues among citizens. This promotes integrity by
enabling people to hold the authorities accountable and
promoting political will to support transparency and
information sharing.
° Participants also addressed the issue of scale when
working in multi-stakeholder settings. Scale needs to
fit the issue addressed. Some issues are local and
some international.
The workstream’s main conclusion on how principles of
water integrity can contribute to efficient trans-boundary
river basin management is that water integrity starts with
building trust. Without trust there is no information
disclosure, coordination and shared responsibilities.
Building trust is a slow process which needs to be
accompanied with the right mechanisms to support
collaboration and coordination. These can close the gap
between citizens, users and stakeholders, allowing for
easier participation.
Decision-making in river basin management is
dispersed across many institutions, in different
sectors, at different levels (from international to local).
These decisions spill over into many implementation
agencies, which sometimes lack capacity to carry out
and enforce policies and regulations. Large amounts
of public and private money flow into the operation
and maintenance of river systems. The complexity of
river basin governance and management makes it
susceptible to corrupt behaviour. This combines with
a lack of transparency and accountability in
governance and management systems to aggravate
unsustainable practices. River basin management
faces many integrity challenges, including
procurement and contracting of infrastructure,
coordinating cooperation between multiple actors
across several policy levels, and growing demand for
scarce water resources. In the absence of effective
monitoring and accountability systems, corruption
continues to hamper the effectiveness of river basin
land and water management.
The need for good governance in trans-boundary rivers was
an important focus of this session. Cross-border governance
faces numerous challenges, exemplified in a presentation
from the Scheldt Basin countries of France, Belgium and the
Netherlands. It is important to understand the different
historical, cultural, economic and political contexts of the basin
countries. Sometimes, policy and legal protocols benefit the
process, e.g. the European Water Framework Directive.
Another example of the challenges facing river basin
governance concerned illegal sand mining in Sri Lanka.
The practice, both legal and illegal, is on the rise due to
booming urbanisation, but sand mining has numerous
negative environmental impacts. In Sri Lanka, where illegal
sand mining was curbed in two river basins, participation
and cooperation with multiple stakeholders was an
important factor in success. Local communities, trusted
leadership from political authorities and the regulatory
authority all played important roles.
WORKSTREAM 2
INTEGRITY IN RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT: BUILDING TRUST AMONG STAKEHOLDERS

11
“IN THE ABSENCE OF EFFECTIVE MONITORING AND ACCOUNTABILITY
SYSTEMS, CORRUPTION CONTINUES TO HAMPER EFFECTIVENESS OF RIVER
BASIN LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT.”
PRESENTATIONS
Europe-To get transparency in transboudary
governance Arnould Lefebure, International
Sheldt Commission
Asia-Water integrity in action in Sri Lanka Kiran
Pereira, Independent consultant, Water Integrity Network

12
Through a diverse set of six presentations, this session
explored two overarching themes: the human rights
perspective of integrity in rural settings, and the need to
empower people.
A human rights approach can contribute to promoting
integrity. Repackaging core water integrity issues in terms
of legal rights which are already available can help improve
integrity. Transparency, for example, can be easily related
to the right to access information. People need to be aware
of their legal obligations regarding the human right to water.
Both centralised and decentralised management
perspectives were also presented, based on the
Guatemalan experience. Both approaches come with
risks, and depend on local dynamics and what works well.
Either might reduce opportunities for some types of
corruption, but increase others, or benefit those who
already benefit from the system even more. The discussion
also covered gender rights – for example, women being
sexually harassed at water provision sites by guards meant
to make sure the water is equitably distributed. This
problem is a critical issue of integrity. In Ethiopia, a similar
issue involving water meter readers in Addis Ababa was
resolved by hiring only female meter readers.
The need to train local communities to monitor the
construction, operation and maintenance of water systems
was also emphasised. Many integrity and corruption issues
are covered up as technical failures – for example, illegal
water tapping is disguised as leakage. There is a need to
keep seeking simple techniques that can be managed and
operated by local people, and which are less vulnerable to
corruption. The relation between water providers and water
users needs to be based on rules, rather than personal
connections. The same applies to hiring personnel at water
utilities. This needs to be based strictly on skills.
Rural areas in developing countries face specific
challenges in achieving water integrity. Illiteracy
levels are much higher than in urban areas, and
people in general have less capacity (e.g. specific
knowledge, financial resources) and less access to
information. Many communities live according to
traditional institutions, which are not corrupt per
se, but might be in conflict with formal institutions.
It is often overlooked that rural communities are
not homogenous entities. There are large varieties
in factors such as wealth, class, gender roles,
ethnicity, ability and age. Rural water management
is less formally institutionalised than in urban
areas, therefore there is also less oversight on the
state of the resource. The operation and
maintenance of water and sanitation services often
depend on voluntary contributions from ordinary
people. Ownership by rural communities is
therefore crucial for the success of whatever water
service is put in place. Sanitation is a forgotten
issue globally, especially in rural areas. Women are
affected more by a lack of safe facilities, as they
can be exposed to dangerous situations when
seeking privacy. There is a range of needs to be
addressed in terms of access to proper sanitation
facilities. A lack of integrity results in a lack of
access to safe water and sanitation in rural areas.
WORKSTREAM 3
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RURAL WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (WASH): THE RIPPLE EFFECT

13
Positive steps are being taken to strengthen integrity and
empower communities. Just as the recruitment of women
meter readers in Ethiopia presented a solution to sexual
harassment, other innovative steps have also helped
improve water integrity. In Kenya, a Water Dialogue Forum
was created, to allow water users (those with a right to
water) and providers (the people who bear a duty) to meet.
This has resulted in stronger trust between consumers and
providers, leading to increased revenue collection and a
higher number of connections to the water system.
Participants also agreed that rural communities are very
capable of organising procurement and contracting
processes. Monitoring and evaluation of construction
works is also best carried out by users themselves.
Similarly, projects like Community WASH (COWASH) in
Ethiopia and initiatives by water sector organisations like
the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre promote
integrity in rural settings.
The participants concluded:
° Trust is crucial in the relationship between water users and
providers, and people and the government, in order to
realise integrity in water and sanitation systems. However,
trust is still violated frequently and in many ways.
° It is possible nowadays to address issues of corruption
and integrity much more openly than previously, but
caution is still required.
° It was recommended that all rural communities join
alliances and empower themselves to increase integrity.
They should make use of national holidays or other
opportunities for advocacy to highlight their issues at a
political level.
“RURAL WATER MANAGEMENT IS LESS FORMALLY INSTITUTIONALISED THAN
IN URBAN AREAS, THEREFORE THERE IS ALSO LESS OVERSIGHT ON
THE STATE OF THE RESOURCES.”
PRESENTATIONS
A human rights based approach to
transparency, accountability and participation
Aline Baillat, WaterLex
Gender and corruption in rural WASH Joke
Muylwijk, Gender and Water Alliance
Water integrity issues in rural Mozambique,
Guatemala and Nepal Rupa Mukerji, Helvetas
Swiss Intercooperation
Community led processes to improve
transparency, accountability and public
participation in WASH in India and Bangladesh
Murali Ramisetty, Fresh Water Action Network for
South Asia
Fighting corruption or building integrity: review
and reflection on IRC and partner activities in
rural WASH Cor Dietvorst, International Water and
Sanitation Centre
Community Managed Project (CMP) approach:
an opportunity to foster integrity in rural WaSH
Linda Annala, Ramboll, COWASH project Ethiopia

14
have to pay such bribes every day – and numbers
multiplied by millions become important given the size of
cities. Water authority employees often extort such fees on
top of the official connection fee, or accept them to falsify
meter readings and grant ‘rights’ to dispose of dangerous
sludge without treatment.
The keynote speaker put forward competition as the key
ingredient in fighting corruption, as well as customer complaint
services to channel pressure on people accepting bribes. The
job of fighting corruption needs to be a central role in water
organisations, supported by legal and accounting expertise.
The lack of interaction between water and waste disposal
services in urban settings was also raised, along with the
difficulties of creating schemes that actually pay for the
services needed in densely populated areas.
Awareness-raising campaigns, informing users about their
rights at all levels, and mutual accountability systems are
methods that have been tried in order to involve civil
society in combating corruption. Examining the role of the
private sector, French-based utility company Suez
Environment reported on its efforts to engage with
employees to improve collective and individual integrity. At
a time when the business reported good technical results,
it faced strong complaints from outside. It decided to give
the employees facing the criticism the chance to answer
stakeholders’ questions directly. This simple action
improved ethics significantly. Multi-stakeholder processes
were also at the core of the approach taken by the Cities
for Life Forum, an NGO from 20 cities in Peru. Establishing
platforms representing the domestic sector, business and
local authorities serves to create shared ownership.
A panel discussion contrasted the views and experiences
of private and public actors at various levels, giving a ‘reality
check’ to the IUWM framework. Key points emerging from
the discussion included:
° In many countries, such as Nigeria, basic laws
regulating water management are still missing, creating
unclear responsibilities and ample room for corruption.
In such an environment, competition often leads to
chaos, not higher integrity.
° The idea of an urban-specific concept for water
management is important. In cities, central authorities
By 2025, half the world’s population is expected to live
in cities of one million or more, especially in the
South, raising new integrity issues related to drinking
water, sanitation services, pollution, over-extraction
of surface and ground water, disaster management
and the impacts of climate change. Many big cities
are located on river banks and in coastal zones,
where speculative land-grabs and uncontrolled urban
sprawl encroach on highly productive ecosystems
and wild buffer zones against natural disasters. Land
use regulations are not easily applicable, often due to
the absence of a coherent land-use plan and urban
development strategies, as well as rapidly expanding
informal settlements resulting from high rates of
rural-urban migration. Technical engineering
solutions are considered insufficient to fulfil all water
demands, raising the prospect of distribution
conflicts and water inequality. Cities concentrate
political and economic power and institutions,
providing them with great potential either to threaten
or promote water integrity.
The fourth workstream introduced the Integrated Urban
Water Management (IUWM) model, with the aim of
analysing integrity issues specific to the urban water sector.
The session highlighted that current models of urban water
management have already failed, or are likely to do so,
from the perspectives of cost effectiveness, technical
performance, social equity and environmental
sustainability. The IUWM approach includes considering
the entire water cycle as one system (the resource),
involving all key players (governance) and designing
adaptive or decentralised systems (the service).
Corruption in the urban water context was discussed in
connection with procurement and service payments, but it
is also present where the poor pay more for a lesser
service, and where regulations protecting resources are
circumvented. For example, the Karachi Water Partnership
(an initiative by the Hisaar Foundation in Pakistan, which
seeks solutions relevant for the water-food-livelihood
nexus), found that poor people were paying 12 times more
for drinking water than the affluent. Petty corruption
involves only a few dollars per bribe, but millions of people
WORKSTREAM 4
INTEGRATED URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT: INNOVATION IN A RAPIDLY URBANISING WORLD

15
and ministries are often in charge of water, and the
population does not feel the ownership and need for
involvement that communities usually do.
° Local monopolies are a frequent source of corruption,
especially if the regulator’s competency and capacity
lag too far behind the companies it supervises. This
also limits the potential benefit of public-private
partnerships, and highlights the importance of objective
benchmarks and performance indicators.
° Dutch water supply company Vitens Evides shared its
experience from Ghana where, with 3,000 staff and 5
million customers, the utility performed badly. This
raised the question of why customers did not stand up
for a better, more affordable service. Accountability
mechanisms mean nothing if nobody holds providers to
account. The company found activation of the
customer base essential. Improving operations was not
a technical issue, but a matter of staff incentives that
generate a willingness to change. Transparency proved
to be the core tool, especially the creation of ‘response
numbers’ for customer complaints that were generated
so fast that bad results could not be explained away.
° Business communities do not consider engagement in
water governance a critical issue, even though many
rely on water resources for production. However, they
are slowly waking up to the issues and realising that
corrupt behaviour is bad for businesses, causing
financial losses and a poor image. This is bringing a
genuine interest in stable institutions.
° Ideas about good governance involve cultural norms
that are not easily imported. One person’s bribe might
be another person’s tip. Legalising certain payment
practices can be a solution, but it is crucial to
understand why and under which circumstances
individuals accept bribes. Local courts are increasingly
active in protecting communities, but they are not able
to penalise multinational companies that cause the
degradation of local water systems.
The final discussion showed that a framework for
Integrated Water Management specifically targeting urban
areas will need further clarification. Cities are living
organisms, and existing administrative and jurisdictional
boundaries often clash with the needs of user groups on
the ground. Spatial information about a city is important, as
is awareness of the integrity challenges posed by zoning
decisions and other ‘lines on maps’ that invite corruption in
order to circumvent regulations. Cities suffer from the fact
that people feel less responsible for public property in
urban environments, so successful models tested in
smaller communities will not work, and the chances of
whistleblowers exposing corruption are much lower. Some
solutions are seen as highly controversial. But the
discussion also highlighted that the topic of corruption in
the water sector has become easier to discuss: just a few
years ago, organisations with projects and partners in the
public sector would not have been able to participate in
such an event without political problems.
“CITIES CONCENTRATE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC POWER AND
INSTITUTIONS, PROVIDING THEM WITH GREAT POTENTIAL EITHER
TO THREATEN OR PROMOTE WATER INTEGRITY.”
PRESENTATIONS
The Integrated Urban Water Management
Approach Francois Brikké, Global Water Partnership
Transparency - a Water Integrity Challenge at
all Levels Bernard Collignon, Hydro-Conseil
Lessons learned from the management
contract Ghana Water Company Cor Livers,
Vitens Evides International
Capacity Development for Water Integrity at Local
Level in Subsaharan Africa Abibou Ciss, International
Institute for Water & Environmental Engineering
eThekwini (Durban): Integrity needs transparency
Michaela Hordijk, University of Amsterdam
How to engage with employees to improve
collective and individual integrity Joannie
Leclerc, Suez Environnement
Knowledge building in adaptation
management: concertacion processes in
transforming Lima water and climate change
governance Liliana Miranda, Cities for Life Forum

16
decisions, and enforcement mechanisms. A crucial finding
was the identification of elements in need of external oversight.
The role of civil society in assessing water governance was
explored through an example from Uganda. This also
suggested that there is need to assess the effectiveness of
the tools used, which takes time. In Uganda, results are
emerging after six years. They suggest that the water
sector is affected by governmental reforms such as the
creation of new regions. Opportunities offered by modern
information and communications technology (ICT) to
assess integrity were also presented, such as sharing
information concerning water online, or informing people
through text messages about events such as the closure
of wells. The use of ICT to make government more
transparent is seen as crucial for water integrity, for
example, by putting information about funding flows online.
The second session under this workstream, Assessing
integrity using social accountability approaches, outlined
the social accountability mechanisms needed to advance
integrity in water providers. Accountability entails three
components: information, justification and enforceability.
Accountability mechanisms can be horizontal (political, fiscal,
legal), vertical (elections) or diagonal/hybrid. Social
accountability relies on civic engagement, i.e. ordinary
citizens and/or civil society organisations participating
directly or indirectly in exacting accountability from service
providers. Such approaches change the incentives
surrounding the local public sector. They seek to increase
the probabilities of being caught in corrupt acts and to
empower citizens to reject corruption. They also contribute
to the diagnosis of corruption, trigger ‘fire alarm’ mechanisms
and reduce an official’s discretion. There are three different
categories of social accountability mechanisms:
° those that promote transparency (citizens charters, right
to information legislation and asset declarations)
° monitoring and evaluation mechanisms (expenditure
tracking, report cards (see below), social auditing and
contract monitoring)
° participatory mechanisms (participatory budgeting and
planning, community-led procurement).
Examples were shared from Viet Nam and Nepal on ‘citizen
report card’ approaches, a tool that collects feedback on the
Though it is impossible to quantify corruption, tools
have been developed for the purposes of
assessment, diagnostics, risk mitigation and
capacity development in relation to corruption and
integrity. These tools are designed to assess integrity
and corruption in both the private and public sectors.
Several organisations shared their experiences and best
practices, collected through projects and case studies. In
the first session, Assessing risks and opportunities, a
variety of tools and their usage were explored, with examples
and anecdotes. Tools such as the Annotated Water Integrity
Scan (AWIS) were presented, using experience in Kenya as
an example. AWIS is essentially a concept for a workshop
conducted with the staff and stakeholders of water
organisations, departments or agencies. It identifies a
system’s strengths and weaknesses, exposing areas most
resilient or vulnerable to corruption. The assessment can
serve to start a constructive dialogue about integrity.
An example of a hydropower integrity risk assessment from
India highlighted the processes of a benefits-sharing
mechanism established by a hydropower company with local
communities who are affected by the project. Workshops
held throughout the region of Sikkim revealed many problems
created by a lack of transparency, accountability and
participation. Procurement procedures allowed the
government to start 28 projects, even though a study only
recommended five. Anti-corruption measures existed, but
citizens had no information about these measures, making
mobilisation efforts critical. A key lesson learned was that an
analysis of benefits sharing enabled the project to address
integrity issues while avoiding a confrontational approach.
The multiple dimensions of accountability in Latin America
were the focus of a UNDP assessment. While investigating
democratic governance for human development, the
assessment found inequality and high levels of perceived
corruption as two major issues, as a rising middle class is
demanding better services. The importance of integrity is
being recognised through the ratification of international anti-
corruption conventions. The assessment tool incorporated
several conceptual aspects of integrity, including distinguishing
the need for accountability in both duty bearers and
performance evaluators, the provision of information about
TOOLS AND SCALING UP
DAY TWO:
WORKSTREAM 5
TOOLS TO ASSESS INTEGRITY: QUANTIFYING THE IMMEASURABLE

17
quality and adequacy of public services from users, and the
challenges they face. In Viet Nam, which has almost no
NGOs (only small local charities), the common perception is
that standing up against corruption will have serious
consequences for the person doing so. Corruption in water
provision is therefore addressed only in studies, but not
discussed. In Nepal, six water supply schemes were chosen
for the report card approach. The study found high levels of
dissatisfaction in all schemes regarding water supply timing,
but high satisfaction with the simplicity of paying the tariff.
The social auditing of infrastructure contracts was examined
through an example from Rwanda, where the water supply
and sanitation sector faces challenges. A social audit
conducted at district level found that procurement staff in
general have insufficient knowledge of infrastructure. The
study suggested that there is political will to reduce corruption
and promote integrity, but more transparency is needed, via
public access to relevant information, as well as independent
third-party monitoring and involvement by civil society
organisations, the government and private companies.
In the water sector in Oaxaca, Mexico, an approach known as
‘Action Learning’ has been employed to improve civic
engagement in multi-stakeholder coalitions to address
corruption risks. The approach facilitates the creation of pro-
reform coalitions, and is not a fixed methodology, but is flexible
and can be adapted to the needs of the various stakeholders.
It has been successfully applied in areas from water to
procurement procedures and even domestic violence, and
has led to the initiation of a capacity-building programme.
Through several case studies, a number of issues were identified
as key to assessing water integrity successfully. Access to
information was a critical bottleneck across the case studies, with
reporting often ineffective and data kept confidential and not
digitised. The establishment of standards and results frameworks
was also recognised as an important component. Without
benchmarks, more data does not automatically secure
transparency. Political will is considered essential to improve
integrity, but multi-stakeholder groups and coalitions can muster
substantial strength and push for reforms much more effectively
than single actors. Users want to have options available, and they
become interested in governance when they feel their opinions
will have impact. Participants also emphasised that the impact of
projects can only be assessed over several years.
“THE [ASSESSMENT] TOOLS ARE DESIGNED TO ASSESS INTEGRITY AND
CORRUPTION IN BOTH THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS.”
PRESENTATIONS
Annotated Water Integrity Scan (AWIS) Janek
Hermann Friede and Sareen Malik, Water Integrity
Network and Transparency International – Kenya
Assessing integrity risks in hydropower- Benefit
sharing mechanism in hydropower projects in
Sikkim, India Neena Rao, CapNet UNDP, SaciWATERs
Assessing the multiple dimensions of
accountability in Latin America Gerardo Berthin,
UNDP Regional Service Centre for Latin America and
the Caribbean
Assessing opportunities; Water integrity
mapping in Latin America and the SADC region
Damian Indij, WETnet
Assessing governance and Integrity in Uganda’s
Water Supply and Sanitation subsector
including the role of civil society Gilbert Kimanzi,
Ministry of Water Resources Government of Uganda
Using ICT to assess integrity Frodo Oosterveen, AKVO
Social accountability mechanisms to advance
Integrity in water providers Jose Maria Marin
Aguirre, Transparency International
Citizen engagement in tackling systemic
corruption in Vietnam’s water sector Per Ljung,
East Meets West
Use of citizen’s report card to assess
accountability in Nepal’s water sector Balkrishna
Prasai World Bank /CECI Project/ Jalsrat Vikas Sanstha
Social auditing of infrastructure contracts
including water sector projects Albert Rwego
Kataviri, Transparency International-Rwanda
Civic engagement in multistakeholder
coalitions in addressing corruption risks in
water sector, Oaxaca, Mexico Marcelo Buitron,
Public Sector & Governance Unit, Poverty Reduction
& Economic Management Department Latin America
& Caribbean Region, World Bank

18
Participants agreed that most cases of corruption are
complex, ambiguous and vague. The role of agencies
such as UNDP and GIZ, as well as other bilateral and
international organisations, is to facilitate dialogue among
different stakeholders – specifically government, civil
society and the public at large – and try to bridge different
approaches to improve service delivery and decrease
corruption risks.
The second parallel session focused on practical lessons
regarding weak points in water systems and how to
improve these in order to improve integrity. Trust again
emerged as one of the keys to a functioning society or
system, as well as knowledge and an institutional
framework. Control and trust need to be carefully
balanced. Moreover, people are not willing to change
unless they experience the benefits of higher integrity and
of working together. It therefore takes time to move from a
vicious circle to a virtuous circle. The characteristics of
human nature remained a focus in the session.
Besides corruption, conflicts of interest can also lead to sub-
optimal ways of working, or opportunism. A highly
transparent governance model can circumvent this,
preventing individuals (driven by need and opportunism)
from favouring their own community. The human factor is
always very important when it comes to accepting or
resisting bribes. The source of corruption is subjective, i.e.
making choices for all based on personal preference.
Monopolies in the water sector make it difficult to find an
aggregated indicator which measures performance. The
session also focused on public participation and stakeholder
involvement, where it is important to bring engineers, social
mobilisers and public officials together. Connecting training
experience with project reality is crucial. It was noted that
many tools exist, but what is often missing in water integrity
initiatives is the monitoring of progress against action plans.
The discussions from the parallel sessions were brought
together in the plenary session, through presentations and
discussions about various tools. These included the toolbox
on Integrity Management developed by the International
Centre for Water Management Services (CEWAS), WIN and
GIZ; the code of conduct of consultancy firm Royal
Haskoning DHV; information systems for transparency, and
UNDP experiences from regional training programmes.
There are tools to support the public and civil
society in raising their voices and supporting
citizen action, and tools that help people put in
place risk mitigation measures. Workstreams 5 and
6 focused on sharing of a wide array of tools.
The session was divided into three parts, one focusing on
the programmes of large organisations such as the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the German
International Cooperation Agency (GIZ), one on practical
tools and the last sharing these diverse experiences during
a plenary session.
The first parallel session looked at institutional interventions,
with both UNDP and GIZ explaining their approach to good
governance, transparency and corruption, and
showcasing experiences from the field. Key messages
focused on the link between governance and water
integrity. Weak governance provides room for corrupt
practices, but where governance is good, the delivery of
services has been seen to improve. However, effective
intervention mechanisms vary from case to case. It was
also noted that corruption and governance issues are
looked at as a process rather than as an end in
themselves, for instance by focusing interventions along
the lines in which government works through sectors. The
development of programmes to mitigate poor integrity and
governance remains a challenge, despite adequate risk
assessment and the development of various tools.
In order to address this challenge, interventions on integrity
and good governance should be introduced not in parallel
to existing governmental structures, but so as to be
integrated into those structures. Using the existing
structures is a must, rather than starting new processes
and frameworks, and knowing the right entry points is a key
factor. Institutional commitment is important for scaling up
integrity interventions and working with local partners.
When supporting governance interventions with partner
institutions, it is important to maintain and build trust by
playing the role of broker between stakeholders.
WORKSTREAM 6
TOOLS TO IMPROVE, BUILD AND MONITOR INTEGRITY: TAKING A HOLISTIC VIEW

19
The plenary discussion presented different interventions
implemented by organisations that aim to improve water
integrity. The GIZ toolbox on Integrity Management
underlined that water sector reform in Kenya was conducive
to promoting improved water governance. A presentation
by Royal Haskoning reinforced the idea that the private
sector should first of all look into integrity issues within its
corporations, and then strive for integrity outside. The issue
of corporate social responsibility was also raised as a
prerequisite for promoting integrity. The Office International
de l’Eau (OIEAU) underlined the importance of information
systems that can promote transparency. Without data, it is
not possible to analyse situations objectively and devise
strategies to promote integrity. The UNDP presentation on
the outcomes of regional training in water integrity
underlined the importance of continued capacity building for
different stakeholders involved in water governance.
The plenary concluded that water integrity should be viewed
in a holistic way, with the availability of tools
and methodologies, capacity-building initiatives, data analysis,
and the integrity of governments and the private sector as
critical components for promoting integrity in different contexts.
“THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMMES TO MITIGATE POOR INTEGRITY AND
GOVERNANCE REMAINS A CHALLENGE, DESPITE ADEQUATE RISK
ASSESSMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF VARIOUS TOOLS.”
PRESENTATIONS
A rights-based approach to improve water
integrity; Experiences from The Netherlands
Herman Havekes / Maarten Hofstra, Water
Governance Centre
Presentation of the Dutch water safety
programme - a case study Aline te Linde,
Twynstra Gudde Consultants and Managers
Tools for mitigating corruption-billing formats,
public posting of water flow & sales
information, water quality testing, open access
tours of facilities, market tools David Zetland,
Diagnostic tools and methodologies-training
curriculum on community engagement for small
scale agricultural water management
Floriane Clement, International Water Management Institute
The application of scorecard as a tool to peer-
review and/or monitor progress of action plans
– the case of the West Africa experience Daniel
Yawson, International Union for Conservation of Nature
PACDE’s sectorial approach to fighting
corruption in sectors Phil Matsheza, PACDE
United Nations Development Program
Transparency and accountability of rural
administrative associations of aqueducts in
Costa Rica Rolando Castro, CEDARENA
Building integrity and mitigating corruption in
local water governance through participatory
public finance Pamela Grafilo, United Nations
Development Programme
Overview of good governance approaches in
the GIZ water portfolio in Sub-Saharan Africa
Lotte Feuerstein, Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit
Fostering integrity through regulation Daniel
Nordmann, Competence Centre Water, GIZ
Integrity Management Toolbox for water
service providers in Kenya Rose Makenzi/
Johannes Hee/ Michael Kropac/ Janek Hermann
Friede, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit/ International Centre for Water
Management Services/ Water Integrity Network
Code of Conduct on Integrity or Corporate
Social Responsibility Gerrit Jan Schraa, Royal
Haskoning/DHV
Gerrit Jan Schraa, Royal Haskoning/DHV Code
of Conduct on Integrity or Co
Information System for Transparency Daniel
Valensuela, Office International de l’Eau
Outcome and lessons learned on regional
trainings on water integrity (SADC, WA, EA
regions) Rennie Chioreso Munyayi , WaterNet &
UNDP Water Governance Facility

20
Four separate coffee-table discussions then explored the
question: Scaling up integrity: what does it take? Each had
a specific focus question:
1. ‘What is needed to reach out to different
subsectors?’ Salient discussion points included:
° There is agreement on the fact that different solutions
are needed for different subsectors.
° National-level regulators play an important role and
should be included in the discussions more
systematically. Consumer interests should also be
better represented.
° Bottom-up approaches are good, but they are not
realistic in all countries. In some regions, nothing can be
achieved without tackling the issues from the very top.
° The judicial system’s role is important, as it can be
subject to pressures from some stakeholders.
° There is a need to reach out to sectors outside the
water sector and to include opinion leaders.
2. ‘What factors need to be considered for scaling up
capacity development?’ Key discussion points included:
° There is a need for flexibility and adaptability. Training
materials should be adapted to meet local needs and
demands. Capacity needs are context-specific – for
example, some languages might not have words
referring to certain concepts.
° Not only does capacity have to be built, it also has to
be maintained and transferred. Finding the relevant
local partners is crucial.
° Capacity building is not only about training. There is a
need to embrace a more comprehensive definition that
includes building people and institutions.
To scale up integrity, it must be institutionalised at
all levels of society (local to international) and
across all water sub-sectors. Curbing corruption
requires efforts that cannot be undertaken by a
single organisation or group of organisations. To
put a stop to corruption in the water sector, action
must be scaled up through partnerships, and
integrity anchored in all relevant policies and
organisations with a stake in the sector. Only if
integrity is considered a core responsibility by the
entire sector will stakeholders be able to prevent
corruption effectively.
The presentations shared ideas for scaling up integrity.
Outside organisations can facilitate improvements in
integrity, but the driving force of the process needs to
come from inside the water sector itself. The possibility of
linking to other thematic areas was also highlighted:
opportunities should be explored for promoting best
practices in river basin management, water security and
climate change programmes. Existing platforms, such as
river basin committees, should be tapped into for
dialogues on issues of integrity.
An important presentation highlighted the need to leverage
the post-2015 agenda to promote integrity. Nurturing
political will is important, and picking the right path or
model is crucial. It is essential to network with those
involved in integrity and transparency issues, and there is a
need to find entry points. These can be global
commitments and conventions, or people or groups active
in their respective sectors who are willing to take the
agenda further. Sometimes it is not the anti-corruption
card that is best played, but instead themes such as tax
evasion or transparency.
WORKSTREAM 7
SCALING UP WATER INTEGRITY: INCREASE THE PACE AND EXTEND THE BASE

21
° There is a gap between the short-term timeframe of
projects and the long-term scale of capacity
development. It is important to ensure that expectations
are not set and then not met.
° Investing in capacity building for regulators should
be a priority.
3. ‘What can you and your organisation do to
promote integrity?’ Salient discussion points included:
° There is a need for champions of water integrity who
can influence the system at policy level.
° Evidence-based assessment is needed for effective
advocacy.
° Include integrity in water governance mechanisms.
° There is a role for awards and incentives to promote
integrity and transparency among stakeholders.
° Monitoring and evaluation systems need to be
established, to measure progress and prove the impact
of water integrity.
° People’s right to information must be fulfilled in order for
effective monitoring to take place.
° Performance indicators for companies should
be established.
° A code of conduct should be introduced systematically
within each organisation.
4. ‘What needs to happen to trigger scaling-up?’
Key conclusions included:
° All potential opportunities to increase water integrity in
the coming years should be mapped out.
° The role of regulators is critical. Different types of
incentives should be provided to promote integrity.
° Subsector platforms should be established, to facilitate
collaboration, networking and alliances.
° A real sense of urgency must be introduced into sector
management, especially for areas overlooked in the past.
° Working on other related subsectors is important, e.g.
land-use planning. There is a clear need to go beyond the
water sector and work as a system with other sectors.
A plenary discussion touched several issues that cut
across all four areas:
° The link between human rights, water and sanitation,
and integrity issues is important.
° There is also the need to work more with parliaments.
Water and sanitation should be a service to the people,
available to everyone for generations, and corruption is
preventing the world from reaching that goal.
° Providing new data and tools can have an impact on
the way governments plan activities.
° Looking for new partners not usually involved can be
very successful.
° Companies need access to water and want to ensure
they have their fair share of the resource. Many
companies already subscribe to codes of conduct and
basic principles.
° The issue of a fair price for water is not always the right one.
° Political will is one single issue that is cross-cutting.
With a lack of political will, it is difficult to build integrity.
° Partnership is crucial and there is a need for platforms
that bring together many stakeholders, each with
strengths and weaknesses, to avoid situations where
stakeholders accuse each other of weak integrity.
° Delays in projects, sometimes for years, are a big
problem in the procurement chain that includes
ministries and procurement offices.
“TO PUT A STOP TO CORRUPTION, IT MUST BE SCALED UP THROUGH
PARTNERSHIPS, AND INTEGRITY ANCHORED IN ALL RELEVANT POLICIES
AND ORGANISATIONS WITH A STAKE IN THE SECTOR.”

22
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND OUTCOMES
° There is a need to start with small, local and tangible
action whenever possible.
° Be positive, and use other words and concepts than
‘corruption’. Language matters.
° Embrace a more comprehensive definition of capacity
building.
° Find allies everywhere, build entry points and coalitions.
° Map the issues, to assess what needs to be done, where.
° Cross-sectoral cooperation and cross-cutting
diagnosis are important. Evidence-based assessment
of progress in integrity-building is needed.
° Networking requires platforms bringing together many
stakeholders, to avoid situations where they are not part
of the process and later on blame each other for poor
water governance.
° Learning about integrity should be fun and not too
technical.
° Include integrity and governance in multi-stakeholder
gatherings. Moral development is as important
as networking.
° Shared vision across the sector and in subsectors is
also necessary. Everybody should have fair access to
water, at a fair price.
° Stay alert for political opportunities.
° Use existing platforms of dialogue, such as river basin
organisations, to discuss issues of integrity.
° Work more with parliaments, and groups and
individuals who are influential trend-setters.
° Find those individuals willing to take the agenda further
within their own group or sector.
° Take advantage of local, internal driving forces.
° Build many different bridges and play cards other than
the ‘anti-corruption’ one (e.g. promoting transparency).
WORKSTREAM 7
CONTINUED
RISING STAKES
Water-food-energy
° 70 per cent of the world’s fresh water is used for
food and biofuel
° Global food demand is forecast to double in 20 years
Climate change
° US $100 billion will be at stake by 2020, post -
Copenhagen Accord 2009
Water & land grabbing
° Between 445 million and 1.7 billion hectares of
land have been identified for agricultural
investments (World Bank 2010)
Water Security, conflicts & disasters
° 276 major trans-boundary watersheds cross 145
countries (UN Water, 2013)
° 90 per cent of deaths from natural disasters,
1990-2000, were water-related (UN Water, 2013)
PRESENTATIONS
Achievements and requirements for capacity
development: Introducing integrity in Water
Utilities in the MENA Region Thomas Petermann,
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
Linking to thematic areas in the water sector
Francois Brikké, Global Water Partnership
Linking to the political process Craig Fagan,
Transparency International

23
“CURBING CORRUPTION REQUIRES EFFORT THAT CANNOT BE UNDERTAKEN
BY A SINGLE ORGANISATION OR GROUP OF ORGANISATIONS.”

24
SUMMARY
OF THE OPEN SPACE SESSIONS
° Music as a tool to bring youth and elders into
anti-corruption work, and optimal use of the
internet Ramesh Kumar Sharma, member of the WIN
International Steering Committee
This session showed how music can be used
effectively by water users themselves to promote
integrity messages at the community level. It can be a
relatively low-cost and accessible tool, but there are
constraints, including the will and ability to use it. The
session also covered using videos and promoting them
online, via channels such as YouTube, for wider
outreach. These can be efficient tools, but video
production can be costly.
° Water contamination in Costa Rica and the state
obligation to protect the human right to water Anna
Buzzoni (WIN), Soledad Castro, Centre for Environmental
Rights and Natural Resources (CEDARENA)
In 2004 the construction of a pineapple plantation in a
community in Costa Rica caused water pollution. In
2007 the ministry responsible took action by providing
drinking water by truck, but access remains difficult and
delivery is not frequent, meaning that the community
does not have proper access to clean drinking water.
This is complicated by the fact that there is no regulation
on water quality in Costa Rica. The community received
legal and advocacy support from CEDARENA.
° How to organise similar events in your home
country? David Zetland
This session began with a list of countries suggested
by the group, and these countries’ problems with
transparency and corruption, as well as the action
needed. The group listed Canada, Cote d’Ivoire,
Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya and Nigeria. The
discussion focused on how to organise small-scale
events or meetings to address these needs. To get
stakeholders together and decision-makers talking,
suggestions included making time for the participants
to meet for a few days, including food and drinks for a
more informal setting, and ensuring the presence of all
stakeholders (or their representatives), to prevent
These one-hour sessions encouraged further
discussion and reflection in a more casual format,
to promote interaction between participants.
° How can the media make access to water and
sanitation safer? Babalobi Babatope, Edmund
Smith-Asante and Alexandra Malmqvist (WIN)
Two journalists presented their experiences and views
on the role of the media in promoting water integrity.
Edmund Smith-Asante (Ghana Business News)
presented the Ghana WatSan Journalist Network
(www.gwjn.org ), launched in 2009, now with 70
members. One of its focal points is building capacity.
Edmund stressed that it is important that journalists
understand the core issues in the water and sanitation
sector so they can report on it constructively. Babalobi
Babatope (Nigeria WASH Network for Journalists) is
Chair of the Water and Sanitation Media Network in
West Africa. The network’s goal is to increase quality
and quantity of reporting on water, sanitation and
hygiene (WASH). Babalobi presented initiatives the
network has set up: monitoring commitments by the
government, a radio programme, WASH reporting,
water integrity stories, WASH photos and videos, and
eWASH. The network also has a blog and has
produced a media handbook to inform journalists on
WASH issues. This includes the main stakeholders, key
contact details and information on WASH topics.
° Improving Transparency and Accountability in
the WASH Sector Peter Matthews, Construction
Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST)
This session provided an opportunity to discuss issues
raised elsewhere in the conference in more depth. The
panellists addressed a variety of questions, including a
claim that there isn’t much evidence that disclosed
information is being used, and whether or not efforts to
promote water integrity should focus on improving
transparency and accountability among individuals or
institutions. Participants highlighted that transparency is a
means to an end, and that while working with institutions
can have a bigger impact, if they fail, the missed
development opportunities are much more significant.

25
° How development organisations can promote
integrity and avoid being part of the problem
Alphons Klomberg, Umutama Consult
This session was an opportunity to discuss and
understand the problems that NGOs can face when it
comes to corruption. Participants shared uncomfortable
situations that they had experienced or heard about. Are
the means always justified as a way to an end? How far
can one go to get the project done? What are the
alternatives to corruption to motivate people? The group
acknowledged that reality is messier than project design
allows. Solutions include transparency of information,
context-specific procurement processes and more
carefully targeted projects.
° Promoting integrity in urban contexts: the mayoral
initiative Susanne Weber-Mosdorf, Francoise Ndoume
(WIN), 2IE, ONEA, the African Development Bank
In the challenging context of rapid urban growth, good
governance and improved integrity in the water sector
can considerably increase sustainability and equity in
delivery of water supply and sanitation services. As
custodians for public goods in their cities, mayors can
play a key role in promoting integrity, so in 2012 WIN
developed an initiative for mayors. The Mayors’ Integrity
Network is intended to be a platform owned by mayors
and facilitated by WIN. The session highlighted the
importance of putting integrity onto mayors’ agendas.
They have the power to address the problem of water
integrity, and so must take up the issue and
demonstrate political will. The network aims to build
mayoral capacities to increase water integrity, and to
enable members to share experiences and seek expert
strategic advice. It also provides opportunities to
connect to funders for programme development.
claims of non-representation, as well as improve ideas
and solutions. The group also discussed methods of
facilitating dialogue, which included defining agendas
and/or discussion topics via anonymous polls,
maintaining multiple communication channels and
including local authorities so they support the process.
° Integrity is more than fighting financial corruption:
scientific corruption through unverifiable
information and positions Henk van Schaik
This session focused on the importance of information
in water integrity and its influence on transparency,
accountability and participation. It also looked at how
WIN can contribute to supporting integrity and building
strong networks in the water sector. Perceived
challenges include the problem of manipulation of
information, its reliability, the struggle for some people to
access it, and uncertainties in forecasting (for example,
climate change models). The group also identified
positives, including the fact that more information is
available through open-source platforms and that social
media is changing the world of information.
° Tangible tools to promote integrity at the service
provider level: The Water Integrity Management
Toolbox Janek Hermann-Friede (WIN), GIZ and the
International Centre for Water Management Services
(CEWAS)
This session examined a tool that helps introduce
integrity into organisations and improve their performance
– in particular, water utility organisations. The Integrity
Management Toolbox for Kenyan Water Service
Providers is a systematic bottom-up approach to tackling
integrity issues facing service providers in Kenya. It
focuses on how their management and boards of
directors can benefit from a business point of view, by
implementing integrity management tools systematically.
The presenters also explained how participants are
selected, how to get the process started and how to win
buy-in from major stakeholders. They emphasised that
although specifically developed for Kenya, this toolbox
can be adapted to different contexts.

26
HIGHLIGHTS
The closing session of the first Water Integrity
Forum was an opportunity to capitalise on the
experiences and knowledge shared over the past
days, as well as to create a momentum for scaling
up water integrity work. The participants were
inspired and encouraged by the Water Integrity
Forum. The forum brought a mix of participants with
diverse backgrounds, including young professions,
which the participants perceived as very positive,
and gave many opportunities for participants to
discuss integrity with each other. There was a lot of
motivation from the participants to build alliances
and to work together to scale up the work needed to
improve integrity in the water sector.
During the first part of the closing session, the open spaces
and the workstreams were summarised with the help the
audience. The participants explained that both types of
sessions, the many open spaces and seven workstreams,
were great opportunities to bring new ideas and to share
experiences and lessons learned from a variety of
perspectives. Another main highlight for many participants
was the fact that they were presented with so many different
tools and cases that will inspire and help them. Both
assessment tools, to diagnose and understand the problem
(an important first step) and tools to improve integrity in the
water sector. Both complement each other. Moreover these
tools need to be part of on-going processes to ensure more
success. Many explained that they will bring back the
knowledge that they have gained back.
It was acknowledged that the water crisis is worldwide, and
that it is linked to other challenges such as climate change
and food security, which have to be faced by increasing
efforts within and beyond the water sector. It was a forum
that focused on practical solutions and cases, which gave
a clear overview of tools that can be used. They were
encouraged by the fact that it’s not only WIN tackling the
issues of integrity in the water sector, but that all the
participants were somehow involved in the work to improve
integrity. There is a gradual increase of the involvement of
organisations and actors that are not necessarily experts in
water integrity but that have the experience and motivation
to work on improving integrity in the sector. Building
alliances, connecting, is a key outcome of this conference.
Finally, the first Water Integrity Forum came to a successful
and strong conclusion with the presentation of the Water
Integrity Statement, which was created in consultation with
the participants of the forum, and with a high-level panel
discussion with Her Excellency, Betty Oyella Bigombe,
Minister of State for Water, Ministry of Water and
Environment, Uganda, Kitty van der Heijden, Director of
the Department for Climate, Environment, Energy and
Water (DME) at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The
Netherlands, András Szöllösi-Nagy, Rector of the
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Teun
Bastemeijer, Director of the Water Integrity Network, and
Jack Moss, Senior Advisor at Aquafed. Together they
agreed to continue building momentum at political level for
increased attention to integrity in the water sector. They
were very encouraged by the motivation and experiences
that they were able to witness throughout the forum and
committed to take the lead in putting water integrity in the
global development agenda. During the closing session,
the Forum statement was shared with the participants.
Finally, Ravi Narayanan, Chair of WIN’s Steering
Committee closed the event by saying that the Forum
succeeding in bringing the problem of corruption out of the
closet into the open and raising the stakes to address this
challenge. A lot of progress has been made, but there is
still a lot that needs to be done.
FROM THE CLOSING SESSION

27
“THE FORUM SUCCEEDED
IN BRINGING THE PROBLEM
OF CORRUPTION OUT OF THE CLOSET
INTO THE OPEN AND RAISING
THE STAKES TO ADDRESS
THIS CHALLENGE.”
The first Water Integrity Forum came to a
successful conclusion with the Ugandan Minister
of State for Water Resources, Ms Betty Bigombe,
announcing that she will jointly take the lead in
raising water integrity onto the global development
agenda. Together with Ms Kitty van der Heijden,
Director of the Department for Climate,
Environment, Energy and Water and the
Ambassador for Sustainable Development at the
Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ms Bigombe will
in particular push forward the issue in ongoing
processes such as the post-2015 sustainable
development agenda.
The forum succeeded in taking stock of progress made in
addressing integrity challenges, and helped forge
coalitions for expanding the base and increasing the pace
of building water integrity. After intense consultation with
participants, the forum also released a draft statement.
One of its key messages called for moves towards a
universal code of conduct for individuals and institutions in
the water sector. The statement also cautioned that the
costs of inaction are too high for stakeholders to remain
passive. The forum and its partners called on
governments, the UN and other international organisations,
the corporate sector and civil society to promote water
integrity throughout their policies and actions.
CONTINUING
THE
MOMENTUM
THE WATER INTEGRITY STATEMENT

28
STATEMENT
To take action on promoting water integrity, the Water
Integrity Network (WIN), UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water
Education and the Water Governance Centre (WGC)
joined forces to organise the first International Water
Integrity Forum in the Netherlands from 5 – 7 June 2013. It
was attended by more than 100 water and integrity experts
from over 75 organizations across the world.
Taking stock of water-related integrity issues, the
conference finds that
° Water Integrity includes, but extends beyond, control of
corruption. It encompasses the integrity of water
resources, as well as the integrity of people and
institutions. Integrity challenges come in many forms,
involving financial transactions, manipulation of
knowledge and information, discrimination in all forms,
illegal or irresponsible water abstraction and waste
discharge, as well as biased rules and processes that
favour power and short-term interests over equity,
fairness, societal welfare and long-term sustainability.
° Building integrity and overcoming corruption are global
concerns. Water management is complex, capital-
intense and often involves monopolies, providing
systemic incentives for abuses of power. Decision
making is dispersed across policy domains and
jurisdictions, allowing rampant exploitation of loopholes.
These characteristics create the need to actively
promote integrity on all levels, from local to global, for
national and transboundary water systems. Clear and
comprehensive results frameworks, combined with
transparency, form the basis of accountability and
stakeholder participation. Free and easy public access
to relevant, reliable and consistent data and
information, including legal documents, is recognized
as a key requirement.
Water is a fundamental resource for sustainable
development. It is essential to eradicate poverty, to
secure water, food and energy for a rapidly growing
population and to maintain life-sustaining
ecosystems for future generations. In most
countries water crises are not due to resource
scarcity but primarily to governance failures.
Fragmented institutions obstruct accountability in
a sector with high investment and aid flows,
making it particularly vulnerable to corruption.
Lack of water- related integrity incurs huge cost for
societies, in lost lives, stalling development,
wasted talent and degraded resources.
The importance of water and good governance has been
recognized in preparations on the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), as well as in numerous
declarations and conventions.1
The Report of the High-
Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015
Development Agenda and the 6th World Water Forum both
linked effective governance to integrity and control of
corruption. Water Integrity embodies the transformative
shifts identified by the High Level Panel, by incorporating a
global partnership for the equitable, sustainable, and
accountable management of water resources and the
services these provide to all societies. It is part and parcel
of the illustrative goals on Water, Good Governance,
Natural Resource Management and Food Security.
Eliminating corruption across water-related sectors and
building integrity into policies and action plans will be
essential to these ambitions.
DELFT STATEMENT ON WATER INTEGRITY
1 Including amongst others the UN Millennium Declaration, the UN Conventions on Rights of the Child (CRC), on
Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), as well as the UN Convention against Corruption
(UNCAC), the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions and several
regional anti-corruption conventions.

29
Working towards water integrity requires concrete actions,
including to
° use and expand existing networks and build new
alliances between sectors to develop a broad
consensus on water integrity, and use multiple
communication channels to raise awareness for issues
and available solutions;
° encourage organizations, including our own, to
consider water integrity in the development of
organizational policies, strategies and action plans;
° invest in inclusive multi-stakeholder processes that
foster collaboration beyond the water sector, engaging
user organisations, investors, planning authorities and
core governance institutions at country level to join
reform agendas;
° incorporate issues of water integrity, including standards
to effectively manage integrity2
, into capacity
development, professional training and teaching;
° advocate in international and regional fora, including the
Budapest Water Summit 2013 and the 7th World Water
Forum, for the incorporation of water integrity into post-2015
development goals related to water access, water use,
good governance and natural resources management;
° make more data available in the public domain, freely
accessible and easy to understand so as to promote
informed engagement in decision-making by citizens;
° move decisively towards a universal code of conduct
for individual and institutional behaviour based on
ethical principles, values and competence.
Delft, July 2013
° Promoting water integrity requires expanding the base,
recognizing the fundamental interconnectedness between
water, food production and energy supply; between water,
sanitation and human health; and between poverty,
informal settlements and vulnerability to corruption.
Expanding the base also refers to more inclusive water
management. Multi- stakeholder approaches are crucial to
ensuring water integrity. Such approaches have to bring
the debate to weak stakeholders including the poor, to the
strong but often disengaged business community, and
include the environment and future generations as the
‘silent’ stakeholders.
° Promoting water integrity also requires increasing the
pace, recognizing that complex new challenges posed
by fast population growth, urbanization, rapid
destruction of productive aquatic ecosystems and
climate change all threaten to overwhelm existing
structures. Large-scale funding becoming available to
pay for climate change adaptation and ecosystem
services creates additional integrity challenges.
Increasing the pace includes efforts to scale up systems
to provide data and evidence on water-related integrity,
establishing effective regulatory bodies and overcoming
institutional fragmentation. It also requires building trust
between stakeholders, raising awareness through
credible information and developing professional
capacity based on clear codes of conduct.
The costs of inaction are too high to remain passive. The
Forum and its partners call on governments, UN and
international organizations, the corporate sector and civil
society to promote water integrity. Fighting corruption is an
essential first step, but not sufficient. We need to facilitate
the recommended transformational shifts, and start
changing personal and institutional attitudes and behaviour.
2 Building on the established ISO standards 9000 for quality management, 14000 for environmental management
and 21500 for project management
“WATER IS A FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCE FOR
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.”

30
CONTRIBUTORS
African Development Bank
AKVO Foundation
Cap-Net
Center for Women’s Advocacy Studies
Centre for Environmental Rights and Natural Resources
(CEDARENA)
Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST)
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
(GIZ)
Earth System Governance Project
East Meets West Foundation
Fresh Water Action Network South Asia
Fundación Botín
Gender and Water Alliance (GWA)
Global Water Partnership (GWP)
Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation (HSI)
Hydro-Conseil
Institut International de l’Ingénierie de l’Eau et
de l’Environnement (2iE)
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
International Centre for Water Management Services
(CEWAS)
International Hydropower Association (IHA)
International Sheldt Commission (ISC-CIE)
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre (IRC)
International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
Jalsrot Vikas Sanstha (Nepal Water Partnership)
Karachi Water Partnership
Latin America Water Education and Training Network (LA
WETnet)
Ministry of Water and Environment, Republic of Uganda,
also representing African Ministers Council on Water
(AMCOW)
Office International de l’Eau (OIEAU)
Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du fleuve Sénégal
(OMVS)
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD)
Office National de l’Eau et de l’Assainissement (ONEA)
Royal Haskoning DHV
South Asia Consortium for Interdisciplinary Water
Resources Studies (SaciWaters)
Sri Lanka Water Partnership (SLWP)
Suez Environment
Swiss Water Partnership
TheWaterChannel
Transparency International (TI)
Transparency International Bangladesh (TI-B)
Transparency International Kenya (TI-K)
Twynstra Gudde Consultants and Managers
UNDP Water Governance Facility (WGF) SIWI
UNESCO-International Hydrological Programme
(UNESCO-IHP)
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
University of Amsterdam
Vitens Evidens International
TO THE WATER INTEGRITY FORUM

31
WASH Network for Journalists in West Africa (WASH-JN)
Water Governance Centre (WGC)
Water Integrity Network (WIN)
Water Utility Partnership Africa
Water Witness International
WaterLex
WaterNet
World Bank
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD)
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)

WIN
www.waterintegrityforum.com
UNESCO-IHE
Westvest 7, 2611 AX Delft,
The Netherlands
www.unesco-ihe.org
Water Governance Centre (WGC)
Koningskade 40, Postbox 93218
2509 AE Den Haag, The Netherlands
www.watergovernancecentre.nl
Water Integrity Network (WIN)
c/o Transparency International
Alt Moabit 96, 10559 Berlin, Germany
www.waterintegritynetwork.net

Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands

Similar to Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Final report for 2013 Water Integrity Forum at delft, The Netherlands