9. Investing in monitoring and oversight

Summary of recommendations

Ensure that monitoring and oversight are part of international programme design and implementation from the very beginning. Help build up host nation oversight and audit capability in order to close off space for corruption.

Introduction to key mitigation

Monitoring and oversight of international interventions – especially where transfer of money or materiel is involved – is not only key to determining the effectiveness of the programming, but also to preventing and detecting fraud, abuse and diversion. Keeping track of materiel helps ensure it gets to where it is supposed to go; monitoring expenditure and checking up on project implementation limits opportunities for corrupt networks to divert financial resources. Monitoring and oversight systems can play both a preventive and a reactive role: their presence (and that presence being known) acts as a deterrent, but also encourages reporting and investigations to follow suspicions of corruption.

Costs and benefits

Monitoring and oversight require expertise and resources; as such, they are likely to increase an intervention’s price tag. They also tend to add time to project timelines. In conflict-affected environments, deploying auditors and inspectors to oversee distribution of materiel and implementation of projects can involve security concerns and they might require military escort.

The key benefit, in the short term, is the prevention of asset diversion and an ability to uncover irregularities when they do occur, which can also enable cost recovery. In the long term, the benefits could be less tangible, but no less important: a focus on oversight in international programmes helps stem the flow of resources to corrupt networks, preventing them from getting stronger. It also provides a potential point of contact for those who wish to report wrongdoing, strengthening integrity-based models of behaviour.

Constituent mitigations for:

9. Investing in monitoring and oversight

These constituent mitigations provide further guidance on effective anti-corruption mitigation measures for military operations.

9.1 Overseeing donor funds: Inspector General systems

Inspector Generals, dedicated to particular missions and responsible for monitoring and verifying assistance delivery, can reduce the opportunity for funding or assistance diversion.

Explore Constituent Mitigation

9.2 Overseeing donor funds: End-use monitoring of equipment

Donor-led monitoring schemes for materiel can help limit the opportunities of diversion and fraud, and help ensure that donated equipment gets to frontline units able to use them

Explore Constituent Mitigation

9.3 Strengthening host nation oversight

Including host nation institutions in overseeing the provision and distribution of security assistance materiel can improve their capacity and help introduce anti-corruption safeguards.

Explore Constituent Mitigation

9.4 Supporting external oversight bodies

Establishing independent oversight institutions, backed by the international community, can help hold powerful governments and officials to account.

Explore Constituent Mitigation