Figure 20.2 Example of overall governance surface diagram, showing corruption risk level by customs process step and category of mitigating action Corruption risk level
30–40 20–30 10–20 0–10
40 30 20 10
it
t xpor Re-e
ousin
g
Procedure Post verifi release catio ns C u s inves to tigat ms ions
Customs process step
Ware h
Tran s
Exit
g
HR capacity
adju
dica Process tion of vioing and latio ns Asse ssm ent Paym ent o f dut y
and repo rtin
ntrol
ecks
ction Dete
Com plian ce c h
stom s co
edia te cu Imm
Arriv
al/la ndin
g/rep ortin
g
0
Institution Policy
Functional (governance) dimensions of mitigating action
Source: Authors’ construction.
The GAAP can therefore be used as a monitoring tool. In addition, when combined with performance indicators devised for the TTFSE (clearance performance at local level, overall departmental performance), it can provide quantitative data on any specific result that might be sought as part of the overall reform. For example, figures 20.4 and 20.5 show what the overall surface diagram would look like before and after mitigating actions for border infrastructure and related upstream mitigating actions are 40 percent implemented. (Shading denotes corruption risk level ranges.)
Integrity risk modeling in the border management context
20
Setting priorities
The GAAP helped to identify and set priorities for needed mitigating actions from a systems perspective (table 20.6). For Afghanistan the tool showed that 10 high priority, indispensable categories of mitigating action could achieve 60 percent of desired results (table 20.7). Ease of implementation, the expected level of difficulties anticipated to address a particular risk, is then calculated by multiplying a value assigned to each governance dimension5 with the sum of whether it is within the prerogative of the customs department to change or whether it requires concerted action or action by other agencies. 356
B O R D E R M A N A G E M E N T M O D E R N I Z AT I O N
Based on the ease of implementation and the aggregate risk level (reflecting the importance of addressing a given customs process step), priorities for implementation were determined. They are charted in figure 20.6 as a Gartner magic quadrant.6 In the top right corner are high priority customs process steps, those that are highly vulnerable to corruption risk and are easiest to implement. In the bottom right corner are medium priority process steps that are less vulnerable to corruption risk but are expected to be among the easier steps to implement. In the top left corner are other medium priority process steps that are highly vulnerable to corruption risk, though they are expected to be more difficult to implement. In the bottom left corner are long term priorities, those that have lower vulnerability to corruption risk and are expected to be more difficult to implement (requiring substantial resources to overcome resistance and challenges). Decisionmakers can use such a diagram to identify high priority steps in a given political context. Identifying reform ownership
In many countries several agencies, and representatives of provincial governors and local power holders, are present at the borders. Such presences can