About the Planning Guidance

Experience from previous operations, from Iraq and Afghanistan to UN peace operations, indicates that unless corruption issues are noted and mitigation measures planned prior to the start of the operation, it becomes very difficult to insert them once the deployment occurs. The purpose of the planning section is to show how to insert an assessment of the risks that corruption poses to a mission and the planning of mitigation measures into existing political-military planning processes.

Addressing corruption can be either a specified or an implied task. A specified task usually involves an explicit identification of corruption as a threat to mission goals and implies a more active stance, such as tackling corruption issues or corrupt networks directly, and mitigating identified corruption risks. In other contexts, corruption could be an implied task due to force protection issues – for example corrupt networks attacking mission convoys – or due to the necessity to preserve mission integrity or to limit the negative consequences of the international presence for host nation civilians.  An implied task can evolve into a specified task if corruption proves to be a significant risk and requires more active, directed measures from the mission.  In both cases, whether as a specified or implied tasks, countering corruption and mitigating corruption risks contributes to achieving long-term mission success.

This planning guidance consists of the following parts:

• Note to Commanders: explains why and how corruption poses a risk to the mission and suggests considerations directing planning and force generation
• Intervening without Corruption – Political–Military Guidance: places the military mission within a larger civilian and political approach and advises on civil-military cooperation in mitigating corruption risks and addressing corrupt practices
• Generic guidance: this document guides you through a sample planning process, showing how and where identification of corruption risks and corrupt practices could fit in, and how to think about mitigation measures.
• Specific example based on the NATO Comprehensive Operational Planning Directive.

Where appropriate, we include two options to guide the planners’ work. Their utility and applicability are dependent on the mission’s mandate, resources and scale of ambition.

• Option 1: preventive, focused on mitigating any risks the mission’s presence might cause and limiting the creation of opportunities for corruption
• Option 2: proactive, focused on actively tackling corruption.

Both options can involve specified or implied tasks.

Comprehensive planning requires time and resources, and both can be lacking if the mission in question is a response to a fast-moving crisis. However, these guidelines can also be applied to horizon scanning and crisis monitoring in peacetime, which in turn would help gather relevant information that can be accessed at short notice. Including corruption as a factor in everyday military activity can help mitigate the requirements of unexpected situations that need a quick response.