3. General approaches (2). Preparatory measures and planning for anti-corruption

Summary of recommendations

Ensure anti-corruption is a consideration in analysis, planning and force generation from the very outset. Avoid compromising accountability and oversight while prioritising short-term outcomes.

Introduction to key mitigation

In past operations, anti-corruption measures have not been included in initial mission tasks or responsibilities. Even though they could well be thought of as implied tasks – given that corruption would make achieving other goals related to peace, security and development more difficult – the lack of explicit tasking meant that they were usually overlooked. This approach has often meant that missions went into theatre unprepared for the risks that corruption was going to create and ill-equipped to respond to them, especially in volatile environments.

As mission staffs prepare to deploy, corruption risks should be part of the operational threat assessment. Responses to identified threats, be that in the form of mitigation measures or readiness to track risks, need to be translated into standard operating procedures and included in operational- and tactical-level instructions.

Costs and benefits

Consideration of corruption as an element of the environment, as well as of links between mission activities and corrupt practices, could require some additional time and expertise from planning staff and the Command Group. However, many militaries already consider corruption as a factor in their threat and mission assessments, usually under the ‘governance’ heading; what could therefore be needed is an effort to tease out the impact of corrupt practices, rather than a wholesale change in how planning is done. Intelligence analysts should also be able to adapt their usual practice – especially the analysis of networks and individual motivations – to include issues related to corrupt practices.

Explicitly addressing corruption in the planning process from the outset will help create a fuller picture of the operational theatre and of the deployed force, meaning that stakeholder actions can be interpreted more accurately, and motivations better discerned. It can also help draw attention to longer-term consequences of mission actions that could otherwise be overlooked, and help design better-focused operations with more realistic goals and timelines.