PREVENTING CORRUPTION IN HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE

1. PREVENTING CORRUPTION IN HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE Transparency International Ireland Executive Education Workshop Dublin, June 24, 2008 Roslyn G. Hees Senior Advisor Transparency International Secretariat

2. TI PROJECT ON CORRUPTION IN HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE Project objectives: • Identify the risks of corruption in the planning and delivery of humanitarian assistance • Engage key humanitarian organisations in addressing corruption risks within their own programs • Compile and analyse measures that can reduce corruption risks in humanitarian assistance and present best practices in a user-friendly format • Strengthen the capacity of humanitarian organisations to integrate anti-corruption practices into their assistance activities

3. BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT • Response to the Tsunami – massive funding and pressure to spend quickly • Sexual exploitation scandals in West Africa – not just financial corruption • Hurricane Katrina – not just a problem in the third world • Little public knowledge about corruption in humanitarian assistance • A degree of taboo about publicly confronting corruption in humanitarian action

4. THE FIELD RESEARCH • Partnership with seven leading humanitarian INGOs • Technical assistance by research consultants from Feinstein International Center (Tufts Univ.) and Humanitarian Policy Group (ODI) • Staff interviews in HQs and selected field operations of all seven partner agencies • Synthesis research report reviewed and cleared by partners in interagency workshop May 2008 • Complemented by case studies in Sri Lanka and Uganda on perceptions of aid recipients

5. PERCEPTIONS OF SCOPE OF CORRUPTION TI definition: Abuse of entrusted power for private gain • No clear consensus on the extent of corruption – quantification not possible • Often had to remind respondents that “corruption” is broader that “fraud” – non-financial corruption seemed to get less attention • Practices such as nepotism/cronyism and sexual exploitation not perceived as corruption in some societies

6. PERCEIVED CONSEQUENCES OF CORRUPTION • Harms the international reputation of the agency (and subsequent fundraising ability) • Undermines staff morale and organizational culture • Affects the quality of programs; failure to achieve humanitarian mission • Damages the local reputation of the agency, especially with the beneficiary population • Increases security risks • Wastes management time; liability/ legal issues

7. CORRUPTION RISK MAP Initial assessment, decision to respond, programme design Fundraising and allocation of funding Finance, Personnel, Administration

8. CORRUPTION RISKS: OVERVIEW Corruption Risk Map basically validated • High risk for new, rapid start-ups or when existing programs have to be scaled up rapidly – the system is suddenly flush with resources • Corruption remains something of a taboo topic – some staff mentioned just having a “safe place” talk it was a useful contribution of the study. • The environment may corrupt aid but aid may also corrupt the environment – no conclusion, but something to think about • Urgency of humanitarian response vs. controls

9. CORRUPTION RISKS IN PROGRAM SECTORS AND PROCESSES • Food aid • Cash transfers • Shelter/construction • Health programs involving high-priced drugs • Assessment, targeting and registration processes • Local partners • Outsourcing to agents and contractors • “Gatekeepers”, especially armed militias

10. CORRUPTION RISKS IN PROGRAM SUPPORT PROCESSES • Procurement • Human resources • Finance • Logistics and supply-chain management • Storage and distribution • Fleet management: vehicles and fuel

11. MEASURES TO ADDRESSCORRUPTION RISKS Lots of existing practices – although their impact not evaluated: • Whistle blower mechanisms • Preparedness procedures that include analysis of corruption risks and mitigation measures • Codes of conduct: values, SEA • Guidelines for emergency process “overrides” • Specific policies for HR, procurement, audits • Resource tracking and supply chain management • Improving downward accountability

12. OBSTACLES TO ADDRESSING CORRUPTION • Monitoring is critical – but may be constrained by financial or staff resources • Risk preparedness can help – but analysis of corruption risks and of the political economy of providing assistance is limited • Staff perception of taboo, fear of “whistle blowing” and limited incentives to report corruption • HQ policies not always known or implemented fully in the field • External corruption - outside the agency’s control

13. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HUMANITARIAN AGENCIES • Provide management leadership in addressing corruption: work to reduce the “taboo” in discussing corruption in humanitarian assistance and promote greater transparency in reporting corrupt abuse of aid • Clarify to staff that corruption extends beyond fraudulent financial practices to “non-financial corruption” (such as nepotism, SEA, coercion or intimidation, targeting biases) • Improve the transparency of information (resource flows, assessments, targeting criteria, recipient lists, etc) • Communicate to staff that preventing corruption is an important part of the current focus on program quality and accountability, through incorporating corruption in induction and capacity building

14. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HUMANITARIAN AGENCIES (cont) • Incorporate corruption risk analysis into emergency preparedness and disaster risk reduction strategies and strengthen surge capacity • Ensure that agency policies and procedures that can mitigate corruption are effectively disseminated and implemented at field level and adapted for emergencies • Give greater attention to setting up good financial, administrative, procurement and human resources systems from the very beginning of an emergency response • Address corruption risks in the selection and monitoring of partners

15. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HUMANITARIAN AGENCIES (cont) • Allocate greater resources to program monitoring, especially physical field monitoring • Strengthen downward accountability to empower aid recipients to prevent and detect corruption • Deepen the scope of audits beyond ‘the paper trail’ to include forensic objectives and practices • Increase the use of independent external evaluation, including peer review mechanisms • Encourage inter-agency coordination at national and international levels for information sharing and for joint action on corruption emanating from the external environment

16. NEXT STEPS • Dissemination of research report as means for generating interest in the wider humanitarian community, including donors • Dissemination of complementary case studies on perceptions of corruption among aid recipients • Preparation of draft Handbook of anti-corruption tools and best practices • Anti-corruption advocacy and intensive promotion of Handbook among the wider humanitarian community • Possible adaptation of Handbook for use by other humanitarian actors