Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Danny Bradlow, Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria

The World Bank made history in 1994 by creating the Inspection Panel, the first independent accountability mechanism at any international organisation. Its function is to investigate complaints from communities who allege they were harmed because the bank failed to comply with its own policies and procedures.

By establishing the three-member Inspection Panel, the World Bank showed support for a democratic vision of international governance based on the rule of law and the rights of individuals to take part in development decisions that affect their lives.

To date, the panel has received 186 complaints. Fifty-two have been from Africa. They involved projects in 56 countries, including 26 African countries. The complaints have raised issues such as the World Bank’s failure to comply with its own policies regarding public consultations, environmental and social impact assessments and involuntary resettlement in the projects that it funds.

The board has expanded the bank’s accountability process to include both compliance reviews and dispute resolution processes. Today, the World Bank Group has three independent accountability mechanisms:

• the Inspection Panel, which focuses on compliance reviews in public sector projects

• a separate dispute resolution mechanism for public sector projects

• the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman, which offers both compliance reviews and dispute resolution services for private sector projects, primarily funded by the International Finance Corporation.

These accountability mechanisms have operated with mixed success. There have been some wins, for example in a case in Uganda involving risks for women and children associated with the building of a road. And some failures. An example is the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman finding against the International Finance Corporation for noncompliance in a coal fired power plant in India that was ignored.

We were involved, as legal academics and working with civil society organisations, in the establishment of the Inspection Panel. We have been following the activities of these independent accountability mechanisms for over 30 years. We are concerned about their future.

The World Bank Group is seeking to become a “bigger and better” bank. This involves promoting more collaboration between the five entities that make up the group. It is doing so under the banner of “One WBG”. This is an important development because the World Bank is the only global multilateral development bank. It offers developing countries both financial and advisory services. For example, it is the biggest funder of development projects in Africa.

The increasing collaboration between the different institutions in the bank raises concerns about which of their policies are applicable to a particular project. It also raises the issue of whether the bank should integrate the group’s independent accountability mechanisms so that there is no question about which mechanism is applicable to the project.

We believe that resolving this issue offers the bank’s board an opportunity to improve the structure of its independent accountability mechanisms and their contribution to the bank’s operations.

The dangers

The board appointed a two-person task force in September 2025 to advise it on the feasibility of integrating the three organisations in a way that does not reduce their independence, accessibility and effectiveness. The task force prepared a thorough and well-reasoned draft report.

The report was finalised after public consultations and is being considered by the board. It shows that integration of the mechanisms is a feasible, but complex exercise. The existing mechanisms have different operating cultures, policies and practices and human resource needs. The report describes various models for integrating the existing mechanisms.

The report also demonstrates that if mishandled, the exercise could result in a less independent and less effective accountability mechanism. To avoid this risk, we propose that the board adopt a model consisting of two separate independent accountability mechanisms. One to cover compliance reviews across the entire group. The other to cover dispute resolution across the group. This will enable both functions to operate independently and efficiently.

Our proposal raises four issues.

First, it is important that each mechanism is independent of the bank’s management. Each mechanism must have sufficient resources to undertake effective compliance reviews or dispute resolutions. Their processes must also be robust enough to result in meaningful outcomes for the complainants.

Second, the new compliance mechanism must retain a three-member panel appointed by and reporting to the bank’s board. The panel should have a permanent chair serving a six-year term. The chair must have the authority to decide which cases need the panel’s attention. The other two panel members should also serve staggered six-year terms.

A three-person panel allows for some geographic, technical and experiential diversity. Gaining a consensus among the panel members improves the quality and increases the credibility of the panel reports. A three-member panel is better able to withstand pressure from the bank’s management and other stakeholders than is a mechanism headed by one person.

Third, the dispute resolution mechanism should be headed by an experienced dispute resolution professional at the vice-president level. This official should report to the president of the bank. Our view is that this arrangement could encourage the institution to play a more proactive role in resolving disputes.

To ensure that the unit has some independence it should also have regularly scheduled meetings with the board. The head of the unit should also be able to request a meeting with the board whenever they deem it necessary and without requiring the prior approval of the bank’s president.

Fourth, the process of consolidating accountability mechanisms will be complex. Consequently, the board should first decide on the basic structure: a compliance review unit headed by a three-member panel and a separate dispute resolution unit headed by a senior professional.

It should delay any decisions on the policies, principles and practices of the mechanisms until it receives advice from a multi-stakeholder working group that includes external stakeholders and management and is co-chaired by one person from each of the units being merged.

An opportunity to fix things

The bank has the opportunity to strengthen its development mission. The changes it makes should be designed to:

• help make the bank a better institution that supports higher quality projects

• make the bank a learning institution that openly accepts criticism and looks to implement solutions

• ensure it becomes an institution that recognises that people affected by bank-funded projects are stakeholders in its operations who may be forced to risk their well-being for the greater good.

– The World Bank wants to change the way it manages complaints: the fixes that could make it better
– https://theconversation.com/the-world-bank-wants-to-change-the-way-it-manages-complaints-the-fixes-that-could-make-it-better-282695

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Nyashadzashe Chiwawa, AIA Research Co-ordinator in the College of Law and Management Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal

Across many cities and towns in South Africa, turning on a tap no longer guarantees water. Instead, trucks – known as water tankers – arrive to deliver water to communities facing shortages.

Water tankers have shifted from being an emergency stopgap to a routine feature of water provision by municipalities. In many communities, especially informal settlements and areas affected by repeated outages, residents now depend on trucks to deliver water for months at a time.

---

Read more: Access to water has a long racial history in Durban: I followed the story in the city’s archives

---

This reliance has grown over more than 10 years as ageing pipes, leaking networks, failed pumps, power cuts and poor maintenance have made supply increasingly unreliable.

Water tankering has also become a lucrative municipal business. Johannesburg Water, an entity owned by the City of Johannesburg, reportedly spent R130.5 million (US$8 million) on tankers in the 2024/25 financial year. Although this is only about 0.16% of Johannesburg’s combined R83.1 billion operating and capital budget for 2024/25, it is a large recurring outlay for what is meant to be an emergency service. It is also about 1.8% of the city’s R7.4 billion capital budget, money that could otherwise support longer-term infrastructure investment.

In Johannesburg, the tankers are largely supplied through private contractors appointed by Johannesburg Water. They deliver water from Johannesburg Water’s own supply.

---

Read more: The lack of water in South Africa is the result of a long history of injustice – and legislation should start there

---

The water tanker contracts have also attracted controversy: a R263 million (about US$16 million) Johannesburg Water contract for 70 water tankers was declared invalid and set aside by the Gauteng High Court in December 2025 because of irregularities in the tender process.

South Africa’s growing reliance on water tankers reflects a deepening collapse in municipal water systems. A 2023 government report found that 46% of water supply systems in the country had poor or bad microbiological water quality, compared with only 5% in 2014.

---

Read more: Community dialogue can show the way to meeting water needs: a South African case

---

Water lost through leaks, faulty meters, illegal connections, poor billing or uncollected revenue rose from 37% in 2014 to 47% in 2023. This is far above the international average of about 30%.

By 2025, 47% of audited wastewater treatment systems were in a critical state, up from 39% in the previous assessment. Water systems rated excellent or good fell from 14% to 8%.

Together, these reports point to a long-running deterioration in municipal capacity: infrastructure is ageing, maintenance budgets are inadequate, skilled staff are in short supply, and many municipalities are losing treated water faster than they can reliably deliver it.

---

Read more: Water in the dams, but South Africa’s taps are dry: essential reads on a history of bad management

---

As a researcher working in public governance and service delivery, I conducted a study aimed at understanding what happens when a temporary water solution becomes permanent. I wanted to find out how this shapes the lives of people forced to collect their only water supply in buckets from tankers over long periods.

My research explored how tanker-based water provision affects fairness, environmental sustainability, and trust in government in the eThekwini Municipality (formerly known as Durban), a coastal city in South Africa.

---

Read more: Sewage leaks put South Africa’s freshwater at risk: how citizen scientists are helping clean up

---

The findings reveal a troubling pattern. Marginalised communities, particularly those in informal settlements or peri-urban areas, receive irregular and unreliable water deliveries. Some wait hours or even days for water, while others have more consistent access.

The key findings of my research are that water tankering:

• delays real solutions to water shortages

• is the result of top-down decisions that communities haven’t been part of

• has a negative impact on the environment

• makes inequality much worse.

The challenges seen in eThekwini are not unique. Cities around the world are facing similar pressures from climate change, urbanisation and ageing infrastructure. Relying on short-term fixes like tankering is becoming more common. But understanding its consequences is critical for avoiding larger crises in the future.

On the ground

I spoke directly to people affected by water shortages and those responsible for managing supply: municipal officials, engineers, community leaders, activists and residents living in water-scarce areas. My aim was to record real life stories about how people receive water, how they perceive the system and what challenges they face.

The problems identified included:

• delays in real solutions to water shortages. Instead of investing in infrastructure like pipes, reservoirs and treatment plants, municipalities are relying on tankers as a stopgap. Over time, this delays tackling the root causes. As one participant described, tankering becomes a “Band-Aid” rather than a cure.

• a lack of community involvement. Decisions about water distribution are often made without input from those most affected, leading to mistrust, frustration and a sense of exclusion. When people feel they have no voice in how water is managed, it undermines both governance and social cohesion, as one person I interviewed told me:

I advocate for community-driven solutions such as rainwater harvesting systems or decentralised water treatment facilities. These approaches empower communities to manage their water resources sustainably and reduce dependence on external interventions like water tankering.

• environmental impact. The tankers use diesel, which causes carbon emissions and pollution. Extracting and transporting water at scale can strain natural resources, especially in already water-stressed regions. As another person I interviewed said:

It’s not a sustainable solution for ensuring water security. It’s costly, energy-intensive, and can have negative environmental impacts.

• inequality. Water is essential to life, health and dignity. When access to water is unequal, it affects everything from education and employment to public health. Children in water-scarce households may miss school. Families may spend hours collecting water instead of working. Poor water quality can lead to disease. These are not isolated issues. A community member told me that getting water from tankers instead of from the tap is frustrating and demoralising:

We feel like second-class citizens, constantly at the mercy of erratic delivery schedules and uncertain water quality. Ethically, we deserve access to reliable, clean water just like any other community. The current situation undermines our dignity and perpetuates a cycle of poverty and dependence.

What needs to happen next?

First, governments must shift from reactive to proactive solutions. This means investing in long-term water infrastructure rather than relying on emergency measures. Pipes, treatment plants and storage systems may require large upfront costs, but they provide sustainable and equitable access to water over time.

Second, governance must improve. Transparency, accountability and anti-corruption measures are essential to ensure that resources are used effectively. Public funds spent on repeated tanker contracts could often be better invested in permanent systems.

---

Read more: Stormwater harvesting could help South Africa manage its water shortages

---

Third, communities must be included in decision-making. Local knowledge and participation can lead to more effective and context-specific solutions, such as rainwater harvesting or decentralised water systems. When people are involved, they are more likely to trust and support water management strategies.

Finally, policymakers need to treat water access as a matter of justice, not just logistics. This means recognising water as a basic human right and ensuring that policies prioritise the most vulnerable populations.

– Water tank delivery in South Africa has stopped pipes getting fixed and opened the door to corruption – research
– https://theconversation.com/water-tank-delivery-in-south-africa-has-stopped-pipes-getting-fixed-and-opened-the-door-to-corruption-research-281752