Difference between revisions of "Water Integrity Network"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Introduction)
m (→‎Introduction and Background)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
Conversely, however, one could argue that corruption is, in the first instance, predicated on the existence of a private sector. The Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), based at the University of Greenwich, argues, “corruption is a systemic feature of privatisation processes.” They continue, “corruption happens because bribery is a method by which companies can gain higher returns: either by winning contracts or concessions which they would not otherwise have won, or by gaining contracts or concession on more favourable, and so more profitable, terms.”<ref>Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), [http://www.psiru.org/reports/9909-U-U-Corrup.doc Privatisation, Multinationals, and Corruption], accessed 18 June 2009, p.4.</ref> The World Bank itself, in an article entitled, “The Political Economy of Corruption: Causes and Consequences”, suggests, “... the privatisation process itself can create corrupt incentives.”<ref>World Bank, [http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PublicPolicyJournal/074ackerm.pdf The Political Economy of Corruption: Causes and Consequences] access 18 June 2009, p.</ref>  In other words, corruption has come to play an integral part of the privatisation process where private firms compete for billions of dollars worth of procurement contracts. Indeed, as WIN notes, public officials are often complicit in corruption schemes. However, and as the World Bank confirms, “corruption thrives in an environment where the power of individual members of society is measured in terms of access to people in power… ”<ref> World Bank, [http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE/EXTANTICORRUPTION/0,,contentMDK:20222075~menuPK:1165474~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:384455,00.html, Corruption, Poverty and Inequality], accessed 18 June 2009.</ref> In other words, wealth and power in the private sector is often defined by access to public figures in power; but again, this is symptomatic of the need for the private sector to continuously seek out higher returns. The World Bank points out, “bribes are paid for two reasons: to obtain government benefits and to avoid costs.”<ref>World Bank, [http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PublicPolicyJournal/074ackerm.pdf The Political Economy of Corruption: Causes and Consequences] accessed 18 June 2009, </ref>
 
Conversely, however, one could argue that corruption is, in the first instance, predicated on the existence of a private sector. The Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), based at the University of Greenwich, argues, “corruption is a systemic feature of privatisation processes.” They continue, “corruption happens because bribery is a method by which companies can gain higher returns: either by winning contracts or concessions which they would not otherwise have won, or by gaining contracts or concession on more favourable, and so more profitable, terms.”<ref>Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), [http://www.psiru.org/reports/9909-U-U-Corrup.doc Privatisation, Multinationals, and Corruption], accessed 18 June 2009, p.4.</ref> The World Bank itself, in an article entitled, “The Political Economy of Corruption: Causes and Consequences”, suggests, “... the privatisation process itself can create corrupt incentives.”<ref>World Bank, [http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PublicPolicyJournal/074ackerm.pdf The Political Economy of Corruption: Causes and Consequences] access 18 June 2009, p.</ref>  In other words, corruption has come to play an integral part of the privatisation process where private firms compete for billions of dollars worth of procurement contracts. Indeed, as WIN notes, public officials are often complicit in corruption schemes. However, and as the World Bank confirms, “corruption thrives in an environment where the power of individual members of society is measured in terms of access to people in power… ”<ref> World Bank, [http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE/EXTANTICORRUPTION/0,,contentMDK:20222075~menuPK:1165474~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:384455,00.html, Corruption, Poverty and Inequality], accessed 18 June 2009.</ref> In other words, wealth and power in the private sector is often defined by access to public figures in power; but again, this is symptomatic of the need for the private sector to continuously seek out higher returns. The World Bank points out, “bribes are paid for two reasons: to obtain government benefits and to avoid costs.”<ref>World Bank, [http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PublicPolicyJournal/074ackerm.pdf The Political Economy of Corruption: Causes and Consequences] accessed 18 June 2009, </ref>
  
−
There is a disproportionate analyses of corruption in terms of ‘governance’ rather than within the bidding, acquisition, leasing or concession processes, in other words, the processes of commercialisation. And though WIN notes that governance and corruption are both public and private sector problems, it would seem that WIN overwhelmingly employ these terms (corruption and governance) in reference to public sector management and Third World countries. For example, in the “Advocating for Integrity in the Water Sector” policy paper, WIN suggests, “The water sector, especially in the developing world, has certain fundamental characteristics, some shared by public service generally, which make it prone to corruption...”<ref>Water Integrity Network (WIN), [http://www.waterintegritynetwork.net/content/download/3754/69654/file/Advocating%20for%20integrity%20in%20the%20water%20sector.pdf Advocating for Integrity in the Water Sector], accessed 19 June 2009.p.4.</ref> Such a statement, clearly, paints the public sector with a broad brush and, moreover, is constructed in such a way that readers may come away perceiving the public sector, and in particular the public water sector, especially within Third World countries, as unfavourable and/or undesirable. Similarly, WIN suggests that “a large flow of public money” is an additional dimension which makes the water sector “particularly susceptible to corruption.”<ref>Water Integrity Network (WIN), [http://www.waterintegritynetwork.net/content/download/3754/69654/file/Advocating%20for%20integrity%20in%20the%20water%20sector.pdf Advocating for Integrity in the Water Sector], accessed 19 June 2009.p.4.</ref> One may draw the conclusion, then, that this is the rationale, support or justification for increased privatisation; for what are the other options other than to keep water, and indeed large amounts of public funds that are much needed for construction and improvement projects in the water sector, in public hands? Surely the answer is increased commericalisation of public institutions or full-scale privatisation. Furthermore, readers may come away with a sense that corruption is an issue that can indeed be addressed by the private sector. In the same document WIN suggests, “Private investment in water is growing in countries already known to have high risks of corruption, posing particular challenges for international investors...” <ref>Water Integrity Network (WIN), [http://www.waterintegritynetwork.net/content/download/3754/69654/file/Advocating%20for%20integrity%20in%20the%20water%20sector.pdf Advocating for Integrity in the Water Sector], accessed 19 June 2009.p.4.</ref> There perception is that there is more concern here about the needs of private investors than the need for water and its provision to stay in public hands. This analyses, it should be said, is carried out at the expense of a more holistic view of corruption that would explore corruption as a systemic problem. Indeed, it is important to note, as WIN does, that corruption is a problem that affects both the private and public sector; however, a holistic view would explore the systemic nature of the problem of corruption and view corruption as symptomatic of the nature of the privatisation process.
+
There is a disproportionate analyses of corruption in terms of ‘governance’ rather than within the bidding, acquisition, leasing or concession processes, in other words, the processes of commercialisation. And though WIN notes that governance and corruption are both public and private sector problems, it would seem that WIN overwhelmingly employ these terms (corruption and governance) in reference to public sector management and Third World countries. For example, in the “Advocating for Integrity in the Water Sector” policy paper, WIN suggests, “The water sector, especially in the developing world, has certain fundamental characteristics, some shared by public service generally, which make it prone to corruption...”<ref>Water Integrity Network (WIN), [http://www.waterintegritynetwork.net/content/download/3754/69654/file/Advocating%20for%20integrity%20in%20the%20water%20sector.pdf Advocating for Integrity in the Water Sector], accessed 19 June 2009.p.4.</ref> Such a statement, clearly, paints the public sector with a broad brush and, moreover, is constructed in such a way that readers may come away perceiving the public sector, and in particular the public water sector, especially within Third World countries, as unfavourable and/or undesirable. Similarly, WIN suggests that “a large flow of public money” is an additional dimension which makes the water sector “particularly susceptible to corruption.”<ref>Water Integrity Network (WIN), [http://www.waterintegritynetwork.net/content/download/3754/69654/file/Advocating%20for%20integrity%20in%20the%20water%20sector.pdf Advocating for Integrity in the Water Sector], accessed 19 June 2009.p.4.</ref> One may draw the conclusion, then, that this is the rationale, support or justification for increased privatisation; for what are the other options other than to keep water, and indeed large amounts of public funds that are much needed for construction and improvement projects in the water sector, in public hands? Surely the answer is increased commericalisation of public institutions or full-scale privatisation. Furthermore, readers may come away with a sense that corruption is an issue that can indeed be addressed by the private sector. In the same document WIN suggests, “Private investment in water is growing in countries already known to have high risks of corruption, posing particular challenges for international investors...” <ref>Water Integrity Network (WIN), [http://www.waterintegritynetwork.net/content/download/3754/69654/file/Advocating%20for%20integrity%20in%20the%20water%20sector.pdf Advocating for Integrity in the Water Sector], accessed 19 June 2009.p.4.</ref> There perception is that there is more concern here about the needs of private investors than the need for water and its provision to stay in public hands. This analysis, it should be said, is carried out at the expense of a more holistic view of corruption that would explore corruption as a systemic problem. Indeed, it is important to note, as WIN does, that corruption is a problem that affects both the private and public sector; however, a holistic view would explore the systemic nature of the problem of corruption and view corruption as symptomatic of the nature of the privatisation process.
  
 
==Affilliations==
 
==Affilliations==

Revision as of 19:40, 19 June 2009

Introduction and Background

Water Integrity Network (WIN) is a coalition of individuals and organisations self-purportedly “support(ing) anti-corruption activities in the water sector worldwide...” and promoting “solutions-oriented action and coalition-building between civil society, the private and public sectors, media and governments.”[1][2] WIN notes on their website, “If corruption in water worldwide is to be successfully contained, it requires the establishment and sustained functioning of local, national and international cross-sector coalitions made up of all stakeholders.”[3] WIN uses itself as a “primary example” of one of these coalitions. Indeed WIN does link itself with various stakeholders, notably however, with many pro-privatisation agencies such as the World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP), Aquafed – an international water industry lobby group described by the now Senior Water Advisor to the President of the UN General Assembly and National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, Maude Barlow, as a “player in the elite transnational water policy network.”[4][5] Additional high-profile partners and organisations with a pro-privatisation persuasion, which WIN claims make “good partners” include: Global Water Partnership (GWP), World Water Council, and Cap-Net.[6]

Corruption takes many forms and occurs in both the public and private sector as WIN does indeed suggest. However, WIN’s emphasis and focus concerning corruption is on the individual or the individual misdemeanour, or that corruption is somehow indicative of the public sector in general. What is missing from WIN’s analysis of corruption, and this is evident from a survey of their ‘Glossary and Acronyms’ index, which serves to define the parameters and nature of corruption as understood by WIN – and they do this by defining frequently used concepts in the water governance community - is a systemic analyses of the reasons for and nature of corruption.

For example, to explore WIN’s ambiguity over the private sector, especially in terms of WIN's ambiguous position concerning the private sector's profit motive as the primary source corruption, we turn to WIN’s definition of integrity. Integrity, as defined by WIN refers to “the need for public officials to be honest in carrying out their functions and to ensure that they are immune from being corrupted. It requires that holders of public office do not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to individuals or organisations that may influence them in the performance of their duties”[7] From this definition one may deduce that integrity, according to WIN, is a question of confidence only concerning public officials and that corruption originates and arrives in the form of public corruption.

Conversely, however, one could argue that corruption is, in the first instance, predicated on the existence of a private sector. The Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), based at the University of Greenwich, argues, “corruption is a systemic feature of privatisation processes.” They continue, “corruption happens because bribery is a method by which companies can gain higher returns: either by winning contracts or concessions which they would not otherwise have won, or by gaining contracts or concession on more favourable, and so more profitable, terms.”[8] The World Bank itself, in an article entitled, “The Political Economy of Corruption: Causes and Consequences”, suggests, “... the privatisation process itself can create corrupt incentives.”[9] In other words, corruption has come to play an integral part of the privatisation process where private firms compete for billions of dollars worth of procurement contracts. Indeed, as WIN notes, public officials are often complicit in corruption schemes. However, and as the World Bank confirms, “corruption thrives in an environment where the power of individual members of society is measured in terms of access to people in power… ”[10] In other words, wealth and power in the private sector is often defined by access to public figures in power; but again, this is symptomatic of the need for the private sector to continuously seek out higher returns. The World Bank points out, “bribes are paid for two reasons: to obtain government benefits and to avoid costs.”[11]

There is a disproportionate analyses of corruption in terms of ‘governance’ rather than within the bidding, acquisition, leasing or concession processes, in other words, the processes of commercialisation. And though WIN notes that governance and corruption are both public and private sector problems, it would seem that WIN overwhelmingly employ these terms (corruption and governance) in reference to public sector management and Third World countries. For example, in the “Advocating for Integrity in the Water Sector” policy paper, WIN suggests, “The water sector, especially in the developing world, has certain fundamental characteristics, some shared by public service generally, which make it prone to corruption...”[12] Such a statement, clearly, paints the public sector with a broad brush and, moreover, is constructed in such a way that readers may come away perceiving the public sector, and in particular the public water sector, especially within Third World countries, as unfavourable and/or undesirable. Similarly, WIN suggests that “a large flow of public money” is an additional dimension which makes the water sector “particularly susceptible to corruption.”[13] One may draw the conclusion, then, that this is the rationale, support or justification for increased privatisation; for what are the other options other than to keep water, and indeed large amounts of public funds that are much needed for construction and improvement projects in the water sector, in public hands? Surely the answer is increased commericalisation of public institutions or full-scale privatisation. Furthermore, readers may come away with a sense that corruption is an issue that can indeed be addressed by the private sector. In the same document WIN suggests, “Private investment in water is growing in countries already known to have high risks of corruption, posing particular challenges for international investors...” [14] There perception is that there is more concern here about the needs of private investors than the need for water and its provision to stay in public hands. This analysis, it should be said, is carried out at the expense of a more holistic view of corruption that would explore corruption as a systemic problem. Indeed, it is important to note, as WIN does, that corruption is a problem that affects both the private and public sector; however, a holistic view would explore the systemic nature of the problem of corruption and view corruption as symptomatic of the nature of the privatisation process.

Affilliations

The private lobbyist Aquafed is a valued member of the Water Integrity Network. Donal O'Leary, Senior Advisor at Transparency International (TI), which hosts the WIN Secretariat, stated when Aquafed joined, "I want to highlight the importance of tackling corruption in all areas of the water sector. This multi-stakeholder coalition can play an important role in initiating and supporting pro-poor actions to combat corruption. I am very happy that Aquafed is on board, as this organisation can make a valuable contribution to the anti-corruption efforts of the WIN" [15]. The co-founders of Aquafed, Suez and Veolia, have both been implicated in cases of corruption [16] [17] [18] [19]. Jack Moss, of Aquafed, is a steering committee member of the Water Integrity Network and a contributor to the Global Corruption Report [20].

Organisations partnering the Water Integrity Network are all listed on their Forming Coalitions for Advocacy Page. Partners include the World Water Council and the Global Water Partnership [21].

Founding Members

According to WIN:

WIN was founded in 2006 by some of the most active and well-known international water sector organisations and the leading global anti-corruption organisations. The founding members are:

  • IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre The IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre is a globally known water and sanitation organisation and has facilitated the sharing, promotion and use of knowledge so that governments, professionals and organisations can better support poor men, women and children in developing countries to obtain water and sanitation services they use and maintain.
  • Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) The Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) is a policy institute that seeks sustainable solutions to the world’s water problems. SIWI manages projects, synthesises research and publishes findings and recommendations on current and future water, environment, governance and human development issues. SIWI also hosts one of the other WIN partners, the Swedish Water House, a government-funded initiative that promotes network-building among Sweden-based internationally oriented academic institutions, consultants, government agencies, civil society organisations, and other stakeholders.
  • Transparency International (TI) Transparency International, the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption, brings people together in a powerful worldwide coalition to end the devastating impact of corruption on men, women and children around the world. The TI secretariat is based in Berlin and is host to the WIN secretariat.
  • Water and Sanitation Program-Africa (WSP-AF) The Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) is a multi-donor partnership of the World Bank with the goal of helping the poor gain sustained access to improved water supply and sanitation services. The program disseminates best practices across regions and places a strong focus on capacity building by forming partnerships with non-governmental organisations, governments at all levels, community organisations, private industry, and donors.




People

The steering committee of the Water Integrity network appears to compose multi-stakeholder representation. There is a UN representative, institute members, government related members, research centre members, community and national representatives, a World Bank official, a private sector lobbyist and a Transparency International representative. Some could argue that the stakeholders represented on the steering committee are not as multi-faceted as could be. For instance, there is no Trade Union nor public utility representation. Moreover, the steering committee membership is disprortionately made up of people linked to organisations with a record of desiring an increase in private sector participation in the water and wastewater sector. Notably, the World Bank who have links to several of the members in shape or form.

Donal O'Leary was a World Bank official, prior to his appointment as Senior Water Adviser to Transparency International [22]. Jack Moss represents the private lobbyist Aquafed. Janelle Plummer is an adviser to the World Bank, she has written extensively on corruption. John Butterworth represents the International Water and Sanitation Centre, amongst others they enjoy partnerships with the Global Water Partnership and the World Bank sponsored Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP). The Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Fund Development Board, (Nepal), is funded by the World Bank [23]. Moreover, the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Fund Development Board are undoubtedly in favour of private sector solutions in the provision of water and wastewater services' Stating, "The main objective of the Government to establish and operationalize the Board is to gradually transfer the water supply and sanitation service delivery responsibility to the private sector. With this objective, the Board is designed to operate in partnership with SOs and communities, and obtain the services of national SAs to provide it technical, institutional, and operational assistances in various stages of scheme implementation" [24].


WIN Steering Committee

Website

Water Integrity Network

References

  1. ↑ Water Integrity Network (WIN), About Us, accessed 18 June 2009.
  2. ↑ Water Integrity Network (WIN), What is WIN?, accessed 18 June 2009.
  3. ↑ Water Integrity Network (WIN), What is WIN?, accessed 18 June 2009.
  4. ↑ Water Integrity Network (WIN), What is WIN?, accessed 18 June 2009.
  5. ↑ Maude Barlow, (2007) ‘Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle For the Right to Water’, Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Ltd., p.51.
  6. ↑ Water Integrity Network (WIN), Forming Coalitions for Advocacy, accessed 18 June 2009.
  7. ↑ Water Integrity Network (WIN), [1], accessed 18 June 2009.
  8. ↑ Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), Privatisation, Multinationals, and Corruption, accessed 18 June 2009, p.4.
  9. ↑ World Bank, The Political Economy of Corruption: Causes and Consequences access 18 June 2009, p.
  10. ↑ World Bank, Corruption, Poverty and Inequality, accessed 18 June 2009.
  11. ↑ World Bank, The Political Economy of Corruption: Causes and Consequences accessed 18 June 2009,
  12. ↑ Water Integrity Network (WIN), Advocating for Integrity in the Water Sector, accessed 19 June 2009.p.4.
  13. ↑ Water Integrity Network (WIN), Advocating for Integrity in the Water Sector, accessed 19 June 2009.p.4.
  14. ↑ Water Integrity Network (WIN), Advocating for Integrity in the Water Sector, accessed 19 June 2009.p.4.
  15. ↑ Veolia Environement Veolia Joins the Water Integrity Network Accessed 19th June 2009
  16. ↑ Polaris Institute, Corporate Profile Suez Accessed 29th November 2008
  17. ↑ Polaris Institute [http://www.polarisinstitute.org/files/veoliapdf.pdf Out from the Shadow of Vivendi Universal: A Profile of the Water Services Corporation: Veolia Environment] Accessed 19th June 2009
  18. ↑ Public Citizen, A Report By Public Citizen, Suez a Corporate Profile Accessed 28th November 2008
  19. ↑ Public Citizen Veolia A Corporate Profile, (2005) Accessed 19th June 2009
  20. ↑ Water Integrity Network Global Corruption Report Accessed 19th June 2009
  21. ↑ Water Integrity Network Forming Coalitions for Advocacy Accessed 19th June 2009
  22. ↑ Donal O’ Leary Transparency International The Role of Transparency International in Fighting Corruption in Infrastructure Accessed 19th June 2009
  23. ↑ Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Development Board, Accessed 19th June 2009
  24. ↑ Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Fund Development Board Program Concept Accessed 19th June 2009
  25. ↑ Water Integrity Network International Steering Committee Accessed 27th May 2009
Retrieved from "https://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Water_Integrity_Network&oldid=91063"