Table: 10th Principle Basic Reporting Elements

Element Evidence

B1 – Commitment and policy: publicly stated commitment to work against corruption in all its forms, including bribery and extortion

Provide your organisation’s statement against corruption. Describe where the statement can be found publicly (eg, website, corporate citizenship report).

B2 – Commitment and policy: commitment to be in compliance with all relevant laws, including anti-corruption laws

Provide a public written statement that you are committed to be in compliance with all relevant laws and indicate where this statement is published.

Describe your procedures and efforts with regard to that statement.

B3 – Implementation:

translation of the anti-corruption commitment into actions

Report on the existence and the elements in your anti-corruption programme.

Describe the assignment of responsibility to oversee and implement the anti-corruption programme.

B4 – Implementation: support by the organisation’s leadership for anti-corruption

Describe the organisation’s leadership message. Describe the form of expression (eg, CEO declaration, corporate social responsibility report, speaking at employee events).

B5 – Implementation:

communication and training on the anti-corruption commitment for all employees

Describe internal communication of the programme, such as anti-corruption campaigns, management communications, departmental meetings, publications, business conduct guidelines, internet or intranet resources. Provide monitoring measures, such as results of surveys of employee attitudes, publications in local languages. Describe the frequency of such communications (eg, quarterly, annually).

B6 – Implementation: internal checks and balances to ensure consistency with the anti- corruption commitment

Describe specific internal checks and balances, such as approval policies and processes, audit plans, expense and invoicing guidelines, aimed at detecting and/or preventing corruption and how these support your anti-corruption commitment.

Describe how often you review these internal checks and balances.

B7 – Monitoring: monitoring and improvement processes

Describe the process in place to undertake monitoring and continuous improvement, who is responsible for the process, how often it takes place and how results are taken into account, including review and oversight by senior management and/or the board or appropriate board committees.

Describe the procedures for internal and external communication of the monitoring and improvement process and the results.

3.3

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance

Committee (DAC)

Learning Objective

5.3.3 Understand the work the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC) performs in relation to fighting corruption

The development assistance group (DAG) was created in 1960 as a forum for consultations among donors on assistance to developing countries. Following the establishment of the OECD 1961, the DAG became the development assistance committee (DAC), holding its first meeting on 5 October 1961. The OECD development department was created, consisting of two branches; which are now the Development Assistance Directorate (DAD, 1969) and the Development Co-operation Directorate (1975), which acts as the operational arm of the DAC.

DAC operates as a policy, guidance, co-ordinating and recording centre for its members. Using task teams or networks, it undertakes a range of initiatives. For example, one initiative was persuading donors to untie aid, where tied aid meant recipient countries stipulated that official grants or loans must be used to purchase services, goods or works from companies in the donor country. Another is the work of one of its working parties which led to the 2010 Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness, whose principles are:

• ownership – developing countries set their own strategies for development, improving their institutions and tackling corruption;

5

information to avoid duplication;

• managing for results – developing countries and donors focus on producing – and measuring – results;

• mutual accountability – donor and developing country partners are accountable for development results.

Within that context, the DAC undertakes a number of studies and initiatives relating to corruption, beginning in 2003 with its report on donor practices, which noted that, overall: there are relatively

few success stories in fighting corruption. While it acknowledged the work of donors, it argued that the

positive gains were being diluted by a failure to address the context of: the systems and institutions of

partner countries. In proposing new approaches, such as untying aid, and the work of domestic and

international NGOs, the DAC identified three emerging issues:

• Political corruption, in the form of both political financing and unfair imbalances in elections, is a growing concern.

• Service delivery and sectoral corruption. The tendency to approach corruption as a governance issue has meant that efforts have focused on the governance agencies, such as the judicial system and oversight agencies. There have been promising efforts to attack the intertwined problems of inefficiency and corruption in service delivery sectors, such as health and education.

• Concerns that low public sector remuneration can contribute to corruption (and inefficiency) are not new, but reoccurred frequently in the corruption literature and in the video conferences. Several examples of attempts to increase salaries were cited, but there appear to be very few evaluations that put these attempts in the context of public sector reform and reducing corruption. All recognised that this is a complex area and there are no easy, quick fixes.

Since then, the DAC has developed three Principles:

• Principle No. 1 – we will collectively foster, follow and fit into the local vision; • Principle No. 2 – we will acknowledge and respond to the supply side of corruption;

• Principle No. 3 – knowledge and lessons should be marshalled systematically and progress needs to be measured.

In 2007 it published a policy paper on donor priorities and co-ordination after DAC ministers of development co-operation and heads of agencies agreed a collective agenda for action against corruption.

Subsequently, the DAC network on governance (GOVNET) has worked on a framework for joint responses. To inform this work the anti-corruption task team (ACTT) of the GOVNET commissioned a study of three countries – Afghanistan, Indonesia and Mozambique. This was intended to provide coverage of a range of corruption situations, different donor architectures, different aid delivery mechanisms, varying degrees of donor harmonisation and a geographical spread of countries in Africa and Asia, including one conflict or post-conflict state, to see how donors responded to corruption in practice in the past, so as to understand better the opportunities, constraints and incentives for more effective collective responses.

The recommendations (from the Mozambique study, but intended to be of use beyond the specific country context and inform development of a code of conduct for collective donor responses), are as follows:47

• donors’ joint response mechanisms can improve but also distort accountability mechanisms; • specific dialogue mechanisms on corruption are important;

• accountability to home constituencies influences prospects for joint responses; • maintaining joint donor mechanisms is complex; and

• donors respond according to their corporate priorities.

3.4

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Learning Objective

5.3.4 Understand the work of the United Nations Development Programme in combating corruption The UN, and notably the UNODC and the UNDP, as key agencies, with a mandate in anti-corruption, are committed to responding to the growing international demand for support for UNCAC self-assessments.

UNODC acts as the secretariat to the conference of the state parties to the UNCAC (see Section 2.2) and has played a leading role in developing the UNCAC self-assessment checklist to assist state parties, as well as in developing the peer review process.

UNDP, with its decades-long anti-corruption programme experience at the country-level and ongoing anti-corruption programmes in 112 countries within its democratic governance group (DGG), and at the regional level, also has a keen understanding of the importance of broad-based participation for national anti-corruption reform and stakeholder involvement in UNCAC self-assessment processes. Thus, it takes a much broader approach to corruption, within its wider remit of pro-poor policies, increased public participation in decision-making, and monitoring of government services, infrastructures and budgets by mainstreaming anti-corruption in existing UNDP work and other development processes.

Its work is both specific and general, ranging from specific toolkits (for example, on assessing anti- corruption agencies (ACAs) or on UNCAC reviews) to programmes such as PACDE (Global Programme on Anti-Corruption for Development Effectiveness), which is currently concentrating on developing the internal capacity of UNDP country offices (COs) to provide quality anti-corruption technical assistance. It includes both regional networks – such as the anti-corruption practitioner’s network, which is a group of people committed to the fight against public corruption in the Eastern European and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries – and a Community of Practice (CoP), which are anti-corruption focal points for staff, who have been identified and trained at global, regional and CO levels.

47 OECD DAC Network on Governance – Anti-Corruption Task Team. (2009) Working Toward Common Donor Responses to Corruption: Mozambique Case Study. Paris: OECD. pp.8-9

5