Anti-Corruption Measures (Risk Mitigations)

That said, however, measures designed to limit corruption and model integrity-based behaviours have been employed, and there are practices that can be adapted and built on. This paper pulls together some key initiatives introduced in the context of military interventions, in the hope that they will become food for thought for intervention planners. While not all of these approaches would work in every mission, many general principles behind them could, provided that they are adapted to specific conditions and appropriately resourced.

This guidance does not lay out a path to designing a comprehensive national anti-corruption programme, which requires a wide-ranging, comprehensive approach involving civilian agencies and requiring commitment of the host government. Rather, our point of reference are operations aiming at improving security and stability in the host nation. These are likely to encounter different manifestations of corruption and need to be on the lookout for what their own actions might mean for mitigating or exacerbating corruption risks. What we put forward here is a compendium of potential mitigation measures that have been applied in operational and fragile and conflict-affected contexts, and which can be adapted for future interventions. Meant to stimulate thought rather than provide an exhaustive list, we hope that this analysis will give planners some idea as to where to start and what could be done, depending on the prevalence and severity of particular risks.

For specialised personnel, including those working in contracting and conducting audits, this guidance will only be an introduction and will not replace deeper expertise. But for planning and command staffs, as well as those transitioning into operational contracting, this guidance (as well as the suggestions for further reading) will provide a handrail, a way to think about the measures to be implemented. It can be used for planning at tactical, operational, and strategic-political levels, as long as users scale the measures up or down and match them with where risks are and what tools they have at their disposal.

Preventing and countering corruption is a complex, long-term endeavour that requires subject matter expertise and knowledge of the host nation structures, history and government. Tackling existing corrupt and criminal networks will take up significant amounts of resources and involve a number of different approaches, from preventive to punitive measures. Effective anti-corruption measures usually need a way to shape incentives in favour of inclusive behaviour based on integrity and away from corrupt practices; the levers that the international community can utilise to shape that calculus range from political pressure to trade policies and cross-national punitive measures, from prosecutions to asset seizures and visa bans.

Security assistance missions will most likely focus on reforms of the host nation security forces, while crisis management deployment will need to counter issues in relations with the host nation and assistance to civil power. Larger-scale peace and stabilisation operations with significant presence will face issues related to local sustainment and contracting, and most forces – but especially multinational ones bringing together troops with varying integrity standards – will be exposed to corruption risks in their own ranks.

Whatever the intensity of the engagement, however, corruption risks will be present and anti-corruption measures do need to be introduced as early as possible. Conflict and the presence of international forces is likely to open up opportunities for corrupt networks and the early phases of conflict can be used by malign actors to consolidate their influence and profit from wartime economies; these considerations should therefore be present in mission planning from the very beginning.

Most anti-corruption measures fall into the following two categories:

• Preventive measures and risk mitigation: these measures limit the space for corrupt activities by increasing transparency and oversight, tackling motivations for corruption, and careful distribution of resources that denies corrupt networks access to additional resources. Transparency includes access to government decision-making processes and documents such as policies and budgets; oversight over decision-making and implementation reduces the space for arbitrary decision-making and therefore the space for corruption. Tackling motivations for corruption can include addressing the needs that lead individuals to corrupt practices, or the motivations and justifications that accompany corruption. Finally, distribution of resources – both material and immaterial, such as political support – should avoid strengthening corrupt networks, and support those who try to reform corrupt systems. Preventive measures are especially important for international missions, whose presence can create new opportunities for corruption through the injection of resources, and who can model alternative behaviours based on integrity and transparency of decision-making.
• Responsive measures and tackling corruption: these measures help address existing corrupt practices by increasing accountability, i.e. the ability to hold corrupt individuals and networks to account and recover proceeds of corruption. They can focus on reporting, investigations and sanctioning of those involved in corruption; protecting those who blow the whistle on corruption; and on recovering assets stolen through corruption. International military missions can assist with these measures chiefly through supporting others’ efforts within the host nation, and through ensuring that corruption tied to their own projects is investigated and sanctioned.

Most cases will require a combination of prevention and response for best effects. Many measures in fact have a dual effect: they can reduce the risk of corruption and curtail the severity and reach of existing corrupt practices at the same time. For example, strengthening oversight institutions will increase the likelihood of detecting corruption, helping tackle existing problems; it can also deter others from engaging in corrupt practices, thus playing a preventive role. Specific measures such as payroll reform can help tackle existing corrupt practices and prevent others from arising. Better accountability, from investigations to sanctions, can help change the balance of deterrents and incentives shaping behaviours: by making detection more likely and sanctions tougher and more consistently applied, it can make corruption riskier and therefore diminish its appeal.

Prevention and sanctioning thus go in lockstep and are likely to produce best results when implemented together. In some contexts, however, one type of measures can be prioritised over others if the environment warrants it. For example, environments with high levels of impunity might need a primary focus on sanctioning, in order to communicate the unacceptability of corrupt practices and open up the space for preventive measures.

Equally importantly, implementing responsive measures such as whistleblower protection or investigations does not mean that a mission should wait until it sees signs of corruption to put together a response. To be able to use a responsive measure when necessary, missions will need structures and policies – from whistleblower-related procedures and reporting hotlines to a capacity to conduct investigations – which should be in place from the start, as they can be difficult to create once the mission has begun. This is a key reason why anti-corruption should be a consideration for mission planners from the get-go, especially where assessments suggest high corruption risks either in the host country or among potential mission personnel.