Search for something:

Interventions Anti-Corruption Guidance I A C G

About
Planning
Exercises
Case Studies
Tools

Back to Corruption and the Planning Process

Operational Planning Guidance
About the Planning Guidance
Note to Commanders
Political Military Guidance
Operational Planning Guidance
Nato Planning Guidance

Main Menu

Home
About
Planning
Exercises
Case Studies
Tools

Planning

Operational Planning Guidance

Jump to guidance

Introduction

Missions throughout the spectrum of engagement – including operations in defence of a state’s territory (this includes NATO Article V operations), stabilisation and crisis management with varying degrees of kinetic activity, peace support missions and security assistance – start with the political decision to intervene and with guidance issued to the armed forces. Given that corruption and conflict tend to be bedfellows, each mission threat analysis and planning process ought to flag corruption issues. This should not be limited to fragile and conflict states and needs to be a central concern in all operations. Even in countries where the impact of corruption is controlled, conflict is likely to weaken governing structures and open doors to more corrupt networks and practices, and missions should be prepared for that.

Especially where one or more of the following considerations apply, corruption needs to be a primary consideration for missions:

In countries with high corruption risks or levels, as assessed by the Corruption Perceptions Index, Global Corruption Barometer, or the World Governance Indicators [note that not all countries are assessed in these indices – for those which are not, alternative sources of data need to be sought]
In countries where corruption risks in the defence and security forces are high (as assessed by the TI Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index)
For multinational missions which are likely to receive troop contributions from countries where overall corruption levels or corruption risks within defence and security forces indicate heightened corruption risks within mission forces themselves
For missions which are at risk of injecting a significant amount of resources into a fragile environment which might not be able to process or absorb them
For large-scale, potentially long-lasting operations in both developing and developed countries (including NATO Article V operations), especially where kinetic operations result in the creation of ungoverned spaces and/or spaces in need of stabilisation activities.

Injecting corruption-related considerations into planning (generic)

Based on the stages of a generic planning process, the guidance below illustrates ways of inserting corruption-related considerations into different types of operations. We have included separate examples for operations that involve significant presence of international troops on the ground (stabilisation and peace operations and territorial defence), and for those where security assistance and defence capacity building are the primary focus, and which therefore involve a lighter footprint. However, these examples should be treated as illustrative; they can apply to planning for all kinds of operations.

Operational Planning Guidance

Planning Phase

Operations

Security Assistance

1. Assess the significance of corruption issues to the political and security situation in the JOA.

Example: the impact of state capture on security, stability, development and social cohesion

2. Using the five pathways for guidance and referring to the possible anti-corruption preparatory actions, understand the significance of corruption in the context of mission tasking.

Example: does corruption make the mission’s goals more difficult to achieve? Will the mission need to counteract corruption in order to achieve the desired end state, or should it focus on not creating opportunities for corruption? Does it have the mandate and resources to implement appropriate actions?

3. Provide direction and guidance to include corruption issues in the planning process.

4. Assess the potential impact of an operation on the level and manifestations of corruption and corruption on the mission.

Example: would an injection of resources through local sustainment and/or political support to particular actors provide resources and opportunities to corrupt networks?

5. Map other actors’ and networks involvement in corrupt practices (in political, economic, information and social domains).

1. Using the five pathways for guidance, analyse and assess corruption risks and manifestations in partner forces and their impact on the effectiveness and legitimacy of the force

Example: impact of ghost soldiers on operational efficiency; impact of equipment diversion on overall capacity; and impact of civil-military relations on the force’s legitimacy and operational effectiveness

2. Provide direction and guidance to include corruption issues in the planning process

3. Map other actors’ and networks’ involvement and interaction. This step should include those performing security sector oversight (audit institutions, parliaments, civil society), as well as political or factional networks exerting influence on the armed forces.

1. As part of the overall development of potential courses of action, understand the impact that corruption can have on each potential approach.

Example: if a potential course of action assumes reliance on partner forces, does the existence of ghost soldiers affect its feasibility?

2. Analyse the impact of each potential course of action on the severity and impact of corrupt practices:

Example: if an option requires extensive local sustainment, does this create opportunities for corrupt networks?

3. Using the mitigations playbook as guidance, develop options for mitigating corruption risks and/or countering corrupt practices for each proposed course of action.

Example: actions could range from due diligence in contracting to prevent flow of resources to corrupt networks to actively supporting anti-corruption initiatives through providing security.

4. Assess the force generation and expertise requirements: will specialist expertise be needed? How can it be accessed?

Example: does the mission have access to sufficient financial expertise, or does it need to bring in reservist capacity? Is it feasible to establish Inspector General systems?

1. As part of the overall development of potential courses of action, understand the impact that corruption can have on each potential approach and on the success of specific security assistance programmes.

Example: how does the existence of ghost soldiers influence training and equipment transfers?

2. Analyse the impact of each potential course of action on the severity and impact of corrupt practices:

Example: Will training provided to particular units strengthen the hand of corrupt networks? Can the risks be mitigated?

3. Using the mitigations playbook as guidance, develop options for mitigating corruption risks and/or countering corrupt practices for each proposed course of action. In particular, assess the feasibility of conditionality in security assistance programmes.

Example: actions could range from supporting a comprehensive SSR programme (usually with a non-military lead) to specific solutions tackling problems such as equipment diversion or abuse of civilians.

Example 2: if security assistance focuses on donating equipment, should the release of particular types and amounts of equipment be tied to improvements in materiel storage and tracking systems? Should instances of corruption result in assistance being withheld or delayed?

1. Following option selection, design measures of effectiveness and measures of performance that consider the impact of mission activities on corruption.

Example: for local sustainment and contracting, include the scale of resource diversion by corrupt networks as a measure of effectiveness.

Example 2: include the mission’s ability to support change agents and marginalise spoilers as a measure of effectiveness.

Example 3: include the mission’s ability to support other anti-corruption efforts (for example prosecutions of corrupt officials) as a measure of effectiveness.

2. Establish measures of effectiveness and performance, assessing the effects of the mission on levels and severity of corruption.

Example: track the flow and use of financial resources originating in the mission; track the behaviour of mission partners.

3. In assessing performance, include metrics related to preventing corruption through mission activities.

Example: data on contractor vetting and verification, improvement of standards among subcontractors.

1. Following option selection, design measures of effectiveness and measures of performance that consider the impact of mission activities on corruption.

Example: include the mission’s ability to address corrupt practices (ghost soldiers, resource diversion) as a measure of effectiveness.

2. Establish measures of effectiveness that can assess long-term institutional changes.

Examples: has the training or equipment donation been sustained by the recipient? If not, what role did corruption play?

Were trainees placed in positions that made good use of their training and enabled them to contribute to institutional development?

Did the operational effectiveness and legitimacy of the force increase?

1. Coordinate with civil and military actors to either contain or actively counter corruption.

Example: explore cooperation with civilian actors in monitoring mission- funded projects; provide security to anti-corruption bodies; share information with anti-corruption bodies.

2. Invest in independent oversight systems for both the donor and host nation.

Example: put in place Inspector General system and support the host nation in establishing independent oversight.

3. Ensure that mechanisms protecting whistleblowers and enabling investigations are in place.

Example: establish external whistleblowing hotlines.

1. Coordinate with independent oversight institutions and development actors to support comprehensive SSR programmes; lead on specific Security Force Assistance (SFA) anti-corruption measures you can deliver.

Example: pair training delivery with improvements in recruitment and promotions policy.

2. Invest in independent oversight systems for both the donor and host nation.

Example: introduce end user monitoring of equipment.

1. Establish information gathering and reporting mechanisms at the tactical and operational levels.

2. Compile red flag/black lists and ensure they are well known.

3. Use data gathered to refine the implementation of mission activities.

Example: if monitoring indicates diversion of resources through contracting, cooperate with civil society to establish independent monitoring.

1. Establish information gathering and reporting mechanisms at the tactical and operational levels.

2. Compile red flag/black lists and ensure they are well known.

3. Use data gathered to refine implementation of mission activities.

Example: if monitoring indicates that training opportunities are allocated in exchange for bribes, establish donor hiring panels and apply strict merit-based criteria.

Please view this tool on a desktop-sized screen or increase the size of your browser window.

View Operational guidance for:

Operations

View Operational guidance for: