**It is an abridged version of the paper contributed by the author to the All India Seminar on Integrated Water Resources Management held in New Delhi on 22 December 2009 under the aegis of the National Productivity Council in collaboration with Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Water Resources.
This paper pleads for the need of introducing social audit mechanism in India’s water sector to help tackle the problems related to water. While doing so, it presents a brief overview of developments leading to the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change held in December 2009 in which issue of water was excluded. Thenceforth it proceeds to briefly appraise the concept of social audit, its essential ingredients, and adoption of social audit in NREGA in Indian context and the need for application of this concept in India’s water sector.
Great expectations were anticipated from flurry of hectic diplomatic activities that presaged the convening of the 15th International Summit on Global Climate Change at Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December 2009 with regard to inclusion of water in the agenda. However, these expectations have been belied as water sector has been ignored in the draft treaty. The international water groups have been haunted by the simmering discontent at the tone tenor of various rounds of negotiations that ensued for over a year in the lead up to Copenhagen-15. Water experts throughout globe have been pleading persistently to include water in the agenda of Copenhagen summit and their pleas seemingly fell on deaf ears.
The 2009 World Water Week was convened in Stockholm during the third week of august 2009 in which participants unanimously said that water must be included in the COP-15 climate negotiations scheduled to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009. At various sessions throughout the Week, a number of organizations and officials had articulated the reasons why water needed to be an integral part of the negotiation process on climate change and adaptation. Those reasons became key points of the “Stockholm Statement” which the assembled participants of the 2009 World Water Week unanimously supported at the final plenary session this morning.
Water is a crucial factor in climate change and as such its inclusion in the Copenhagen summit was essential. Experts are unanimous on the view that the effects of climate change on water resources will be among the most devastating consequences of continued global warming pollution. Floods, droughts, water pollution, and other impacts will affect communities at home and across the globe.
Notion of Social Audit
Broadly speaking, social audit is a mechanism that empowers the people – the ultimate beneficiaries of any scheme, programme, policy or law – to audit such schemes, programmes, policies and laws. As an ongoing process, the social process ensures the involvement of the potential beneficiaries and other stakeholders of an activity or project from the planning stage to the monitoring and evaluation of that activity or project. In this manner it endeavours to make certain that the activity or project is designed and implemented in a way that is most congenial for the existing (local) conditions, aptly mirrors the priorities and preferences of those affected by it, and serves public interest most effectively.
Viewed in a broad spectrum, social audit affords an opportunity for checking and verification of a programme/ scheme implementation and its results by the community with the active involvement of the primary stakeholders. It encompasses the quantity and quality of works in relation to the expenses incurred/disbursement made, number of works/ materials used and also selection of works and location of works. The avowed objective is to ensure effective implementation and control of irregularities. It devolves on the administrative machinery to extend full support to the community in conducting a social audit.
Transparency, participation, and accountability constitute the basic principles of social audit. These are briefly described below:
(a)Transparency
It involves complete transparency in the process of administration and decision-making, with an obligation on the government to suo moto provide the people full access to all relevant information.
(b) Participation
It calls for a right-based entitlement for all the affected persons, and not just their representatives, to take part in the process of decision making and validation. However, representative participation can be allowed in those rare cases where options are pre-determined out of necessity, the right of the affected persons to give informed consent, as a group or as individuals, as appropriate.
(c) Accountability
It means immediate and public answerability of elected representatives and government functionaries, to all the concerned and affected people, on relevant actions or inactions.
Social Audit in India
In the wake of the implementation of various welfare programmes and with the increasing awareness among the common people, both government and private organizations are confronted with increasing demand for more accountability for their work. With the passage of time, people have become conscious about their rights and are trying to influence the government decisions for making it more people-centric.
As a sequel to the introduction of the Right To Information (RTI) Government departments, Civil Society Organizations, as well as the private organizations are under increasing pressure of providing information and alternatively remaining accountable, to what they are doing. Owing to this mounting pressure as well as recent developments in various fields, the legislators, and civil society organizations, implementing organizations have embarked on the mission of undertaking social audits to monitor and verify their social performance.
Broadly speaking, the very basic objective and the underlying idea behind social audit is not to find fault with the individual but to assess and evaluate the performance in terms of the social, environmental, economical goals of the organizations. In this manner major emphasis always remains on social aspects then on economic aspects. Based on the views of stakeholders, it also provides an assessment of the impact of an organizations’ non-financial objective. It is an ongoing activity that is required to be carried out both in a formal and informal way.
The person who undertakes social audit can choose different methods or techniques and sequence to capture both qualitative and quantitative information from the respondents. However, it is equally significant to ensure the follow up action taken on the social audit report and the interest on the part of the concerned department to adopt the recommendations in the report. The auditors are usually expected to suggest the modalities for improving the performance based on the feedback received from different stakeholders. The following basic steps which are followed in the social audit, inter alia, include:
Preparatory activities involving review of programmes;
Defining audit boundaries and identification of the stakeholders;
Social accounting and book-keeping
Understanding the social milieu;
Dissemination of the results; and
Feedback and institutionalization of social audit.
The use of social audits in India has been pioneered by a civil society, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan. The MKSS called these social audits as Jan Sunwaias or “People’s Hearings”. Primarily, it is a process through which government expenditure details at the local level (usually at the village level) are obtained and discussed in a public hearing attended by both the service providers and the people who have benefited from that particular government program. The first step in the process is to get the information on expenditure incurred on the concerned government program. Meetings are organized where elected representatives, local government officials and the community which was supposed to benefit from the program are present. In the meeting, the expenditures booked as per the records are read out and the concerned beneficiaries are asked whether they actually received the benefit from the program.
Through this form of cross –verification any misappropriation of funds is exposed. For example, such a process exposes corruption if a particular person has been listed as a beneficiary of a poverty alleviation scheme but has not received the payment. Another example of an expose would be that payments have been made to contractors but works have actually been not taken up. This process enables citizens to not only obtain information on government programmes but use this information to enforce accountability of public officials.
The social audits carried out by MKSS brought forth many cases of systematic corruption due to the nexus between the local politicians, local government officials and the local powerful elite like the contractors, traders etc. Though everybody knew about such a nexus it was extremely difficult to expose. The social audit exposes this by relying on information at hand and providing verifiable evidence. The findings of social audits helped MKSS to successfully lobby with the state and central governments on having more transparency and accountability in the implementation of government programs for the poor.
Parivartan is another civil society which has successfully used social audit to expose corruption and lobbied for greater transparency in the implementation of government programmes. In August 2002, Parivartan obtained copies of all the civil works done by Municipal Corporation of Delhi in two major residential areas in Delhi inhabited by lower income groups. In the public hearing, the contracts were read out and local residents verified the extent to which these contracts were actually carried out. It came to light that out of works worth Rs 13 million about Rs 7million were siphoned off. Responding to the findings, the Delhi government passed several orders to ensure that information regarding public works was systematically displayed to the public and that public hearings were carried out in other areas of Delhi.
However, some studies like the one by Banerjee et al, on the primary education programme implemented by government of India, in the state of Uttar Pradesh, have shown that increasing awareness of the citizens and building their capacities may not result in improved programme outcomes. However, Social audits go beyond increasing awareness and building capacities, and involve a post-programme evaluation that includes a direct engagement between the programme beneficiaries and the service providers. With this particular form of social audit, which includes programme evaluation and direct engagement, the experience in India has been generally positive.
It is noteworthy that keeping in view the demonstrated utility of the process of social audits, the Government of India while launching the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, stipulated the use of social audits as part of continuous monitoring and evaluation of the programme.
Social Audit in Water Sector
Water sector in contemporary India is riddled with many problems. Apart from the depleting water resources, both surface and underground, and growing problems of pollution of major rivers in India, scarcity of drinking water is assuming serious proportions. This author earnestly feels that there is lack of adequate knowledge about rational use of water. More water is wasted than used. Besides, the water sector is afflicted with the malaise of corruption. This situation calls for need of social audit in water sector. The successful application of social audit in NREGA proves the fact this notion can help resolve many water-related problems if it is made mandatory in various water-related legislations, both at the Centre and in States on the NREGA model.
Conclusion
Undoubtedly, the process of social audit is gaining importance in contemporary India. Nevertheless, the entire process of social audit requires dedication and commitment from key players from within the organization, which is lacking here. It has been observed that the Government agencies which formulate programmes often commit the fallacy of relying on traditional official systems of information, which includes government accounts and government methods of reporting. The civil societies which can effectively facilitate social audit are generally kept at bay. Such an eventuality provides a hazy, ambiguous and incomplete system which is never helpful in taking corrective measures as and when required.
The success of social audit in NREGA has been confirmed by many recent studies. A recent study undertaken about NREGA in Andhra Pradesh reveals that social audits are indeed an important tool in building social awareness which results in a greater demand for work which translates into increased size of the programme.11 Successful application of the concept of social audit in NREGA is encouraging. At the same time it is noteworthy that social audit is mandatory under NREGA. The NREGA model of social audit can be emulated in the water sector as well. This call for reformulation of National Water Policy in which added emphasis on social audit should be incorporated in a legal form. Such a move will go a long way to mitigate water-related problems to a large extent.
By Dr Arvind Kumar, President, India Water Foundation
