The theme: “Costs of Corruption in the WASH sector” was explored during Day 1 of IRC’s 3 day Symposium – Pumps, Pipes and Promises (16-18 November). Thought provoking papers were presented and discussed regarding the act of corruption in the sector, along with what is in place and what is needed to prevent it.
During the break out discussion session, an example was given of engineers starting their own company in Sub-Saharan Africa, who would ask for money for mid-sized springs, but would then really only pay for small-sized springs for the community, and therefore pocket the difference. This opened up the floor to questions about what are the causes and drivers of corruption, and what can be done to diminish these causes.
Factors such as: need/greed, low salaries in local governments, and poor accountability of government donors were among several causes that were named. And so, the question was raised of whether it was wise to keep giving money to the local government through the sector wide approach. Would it be better to give money to NGOs in order to deliver better services?
But then of course, this brings up issues of wanting to keep services sustainable for the long term. And so, wouldn’t local governments have to be involved in the process in the end anyway?
And who is to say that NGOs are free from corruption?
This leaves one to wonder whether or not more actors need to get involved in order to prevent the actual act of corruption. But in the end who will police these actors and what system will be in place?
Other questions were raised to further explore the concept of corruption itself in the WASH sector. But one question in particular which I found intriguing was: Can corruption be tolerated at a certain level? And, when do we need to take action?
Obviously, when it comes to society there is never a clear yes or no answer. We are always in the grey area. This was made apparent when Symposium participants were divided in their schools of thought. Should there be a zero tolerance policy or should some corruption be allowed in order to permit the actual funding and provision of WASH services? Does the end justify the means?- leaving one to ponder: Will implementing a zero tolerance corruption policy mean ruining it for the “rest of the group”? ….is it better to have 10% leakage, and be able to provide services with the other 90%?
Though the discussion became very complex, it was exciting to see the discourse of corruption being brought up, as it is not often discussed and identified as an issue in the Western World. The bottom line is: corruption happens everywhere! So perhaps talking about it more openly is a step towards mitigating the negative consequences and raising the integrity of the sector.
What are your thoughts on this subject matter? Do you have any examples of corruption in the WASH sector, and how were they identified/addressed?
No comments:
Post a Comment