Joint Evaluation of Anti-Corruption Efforts

1. Key Findings, Lessons and Recommendations from the Synthesis Report Derek Poate and Charlotte Vaillant Oslo, 18th October 2011 Joint Evaluation of Anti-Corruption Efforts

2. Presentation today Background Five Key Messages List of Recommendations Conclusion

3. Background • Purpose of the evaluation • 5 donors • 5 countries • Our approach • UNCAC • Donor behaviour • Limitations

4. 5 Key Messages • Donors could do far more to strengthen, use and disseminate evidence on AC • Donors’ interventions are broadly in line with UNCAC and host country priorities but there are still some significant gaps and inconsistencies • Donors could build on emerging good practices to make links with AC more effective • Donor commitment to PD principles and their response to aid misuse can help • Supporting AC requires a more sophisticated and honest approach to risk

5. Key message 1: Donors could do far more to strengthen, use and disseminate evidence on AC • Lack of country AC strategy (except for Denmark and Asian Development Bank) • Infrequent analysis of corruption by donors (more recently risk of corruption assessed as part of FRAs) • Incomplete analysis: • Focus on country systems, policy and legislative measures • Little use of national data • No analysis on petty corruption • No differentiated analysis across sectors • No analysis on link between corruption and poverty • Limited analysis on the drivers of corruption

6. Key message 1: Donors could do far more to strengthen, use and disseminate evidence on AC In the absence of a comprehensive, regular, and evidence-based analysis of corruption in partner countries, donors’ approach to AC cannot inform policy-making in a convincing way. National surveys can be used to prioritise actions (Zambia, integrity committees) Building the country’s evidence base • … combined with public dissemination • …. can help raise public debate and awareness

7. Key message 2: Donors’ programmes are broadly in line with UNCAC and host country priorities but there are still some significant gaps • Donors support a broader range of interventions / actors with a role to fight AC – not just AC Commissions.. • Donor efforts can be mapped against UNCAC Articles • Move to Programme-based approach has strengthened focus on PFM • Some support to CSO, civil service, police, private sector, and justice sector reforms • yet… • Focus on strengthening systems and institutions - no specific objectives on integrity/anti-corruption • UNCAC focus on promoting integrity and transparency is missed. • Some exceptions: police (Nicaragua, Bang), GGP (Bangladesh)

8. Key message 2: Donors’ programmes are broadly in line with UNCAC and host country priorities but there are still some significant gaps • Donor alignment to country priorities • Donors have helped to draft national AC plans • Yet inconsistent support to the fight against grand corruption

9. Key message 3: Donors could build on emerging good practices to make links with AC more effective • Combining support for evidence gathering with external communication (Key message 1) • Combining capacity building and system strengthening with AC integrity measures (Key message 2) • Investing in inter-agency partnership to strengthen collective actions and accountability • Investing in grassroot monitoring to promote corrupt-free service delivery.

10. Key message 3: Building on good practice: Investing in inter-agency partnership Many examples illustrate the importance of partnership working: • Positive experience : AC Commissions and CSOs; Zambia’s Task Force; Nicaragua AC Fund (information sharing); Supreme Audit Institutions and Parliamentary Committees • Negative experience: AC Commissions and police/judiciary … a new way of working for donors ?

11. Key message 3: Building on good practices : Investing in grass-root quality monitoring Many positive examples: Concerned Citizens Committees (education, health – Bangladesh); Haki Elimu (education – Tanzania); role of parents association (Bangladesh) Key characteristics: • A sectoral approach • About empowering local communities with information and knowledge; through platforms for discussion • Focus on positive incentives (improving quality of services) rather than negative incentives (fight corruption head-on) • Need for careful selection of CSOs (preferably membership-based with good representation at grassroot levels)

12. Key message 4: Donor commitment to PD principles and their response to aid misuse can help Donor coordination has varied greatly from one country to the next, depending on the “like-mindedness” of donor agencies. Donors have become increasingly sophisticated in combining financial support with dialogue with government, using a mix of complementary platforms. Useful leverage or last push for a change of direction in government policy when domestic conditions are ripe.

13. Key message 4: Donor commitment to PD principles and their response to aid misuse can help • Donor response to aid-related, public sector corruption scandal: • Use and support domestic accountability processes to investigate and respond to corruption scandals • Remain committed to alignment with country systems, while introducing short-term safeguard measures where necessary. • Recognise that grand corruption leaks could be a sign of improving rather than deteriorating governance.

14. Key message 5: Supporting AC requires a more sophisticated and honest approach to risk • Programming: • How new programmes may reinforce existing corruption practices and create new ones • Which existing corruption practices may hinder performance in good governance and AC interventions • New aid delivery mechanisms • Increased donor vulnerability to financial malpractice in the public sector • Pressure to remain engaged may lead to some leniency • Sudden aid stoppage can have nationwide effect

15. Some conclusions • Donor approach responsive to country circumstances • Yet… limited understanding / analysis of all forms and drivers of corruption has reduced their ability to provide genuine guidance • Some positive contributions • By keeping AC high on the agenda for dialogue • ... and producing results at intermediary levels… • Yet prone to reversal • And no impact on level of corruption nationwide • Reputational risk cannot be overlooked

16. 8 Recommendations (and practical steps) Make donor approaches to AC more explicit, coherent, and evidence-based. Invest in evidence gathering and public dissemination. Make good governance and AC-specific interventions more joined-up and risk-aware. Take a sectoral approach to AC, with special emphasis on poverty and gender. Stop working with institutions in isolation and start promoting inter-agency partnerships.

17. 8 Recommendations (and practical steps) Adopt a more coordinated approach to AC. Use the opportunity of short-term, reaction-driven inputs to reinforce long-term, preventive interventions. Adopt a ‘do no harm’ approach to aid, acknowledging that aid can perpetrate corrupt practices

18. Evaluation lessons • Evaluability • Non-existent or weak results-chains • Poor project level M&E • Programme coherence • Joint programmes; shared objectives • Policy coherence • Modes of operation; relations with government

19. End