6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
.
lj1 dt (State Mechanism) (Extreme pain makes no cry)
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
7
lj1 dt 6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
8 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
lj1 dt
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
9
lj1 dt
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
10 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
lj1 dt
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
11
lj1 dt
(Doctrine of Victimology) (Doctrine of Victimology) (Victimology) 6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
12 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
lj1 dt (Adequate) (Rehabilitation) Judgment Law
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
13
cfn]v
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
14 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
cfn]v
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
15
cfn]v
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
16 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
cfn]v
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
17
cfn]v
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
18 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
cfn]v
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
19
cfn]v
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
20 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
cfn]v
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
21
cfn]v
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
22 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
cfn]v
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
23
cfn]v 6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
24 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
cfn]v
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
25
k|ltj]bg
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
26 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
k|ltj]bg
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
27
k|ltj]bg
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
28 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
k|ltj]bg
(Sectoral Basis) 6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
29
k|ltj]bg
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
30 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
k|]; lj1lKt
Corruption Perception Index (CPI)-2015 CPI- 2015 www.transparency.org/cpi 6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
31
k|]; lj1lKt
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
32 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
ultljlw
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
33
ultljlw
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
34 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
ultljlw
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
35
ultljlw
gu/f}F, gu/fcf}F, g;xf}FM e|i6frf/ b]zsf nflu clt pQd xf] ;bfrf/ 6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
36 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
ultljlw
gf]l6; af]8{ ;le{; gf]l6; af]8{ ;]jf !^!*)!$$& %!!@ 6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
37
ultljlw
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
38 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
ultljlw
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
39
ultljlw
e|i6frf/ lj?4 cfh}af6 ;lqmo xf]cf}+ . 6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
40 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
ultljlw
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
41
ultljlw
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
42 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
ultljlw
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
43
ultljlw
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
44 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
ultljlw
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
45
ultljlw
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
46 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
cGtjf{tf{
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
47
cGtjf{tf{
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
48 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
cGtjf{tf{
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
49
k'g/fjnf]sg
ALACDP - An Attempt to Ease Public Service Delivery ď € Tumburu Gautam
he ALACDP is an acronym of Advocacy and Legal Advice Centre (ALAC) and Development Pact (DP). While ALAC is an approach to persuade and support the people to demand transparency, accountability and responsibility from public officials. These officials are entrusted to provide public goods and services effectively and with ease. Whereas, the DP is a tool of civic engagement to make public officials responsible to their deeds and duties. The ALACDP was implemented in Nepal under the aegis of Transparency International Nepal (TIN) with financial support of the European Union (EU). The duration of this project was for forty-five months (Initial agreed 42 months plus 3 months on no-cost extension).
T
It was commenced on May 2012. ALACDP was introduced in Nepal by TIN to consolidate social movements to achieve good governance, to enhance integrity and to curb corruption at all levels of society. Local Community Based Organizations (CBOs) facilitated to assess and understand the situation at the grassroots level. So that they can achieve targeted actions through a constant monitoring mechanism of representatives of government offices and local civic society. Following 15 districts were covered in 3 phases to implement ALACDP project: Chitwan, Ilam, Rupandehi, Udaypur, Dhanusha, Kaski, Kathmandu, Dhading, Gulmi, Surkhet, Kailali, Morang, Sindhuli, Parsa and Sunsari. See map below. The ALACDP emphasizes an active role of
Figure 1. ALACDP implemented 15 Districts of Nepal
6ÂŤfG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
50 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
k'g/fjnf]sg local people to tackle squarely on corruption and to maintain good governance in the public sector in a meaningful and sustainable manner. Therefore, it mobilizes people to put pressure on the government and its officials to provide better public goods and services. It is the crux of this initiative. In retrospect, after signing agreement with the European Union, ALACDP of TIN had set-up field offices and had initiated activities which expanded to 15 districts of Nepal. In this regard, project staffs were recruited, and Project Steering Committee and Project Advisory Committee were created to oversee the project action. An official launch of project action at district level was held wherein the project objectives and modus operandi of the action program were imparted. Chief District Officers, Local Development Officers and Chief of government offices at the district level with presence of local citizens and the media provided feedbacks on those occasions. Its purpose was to ensure an effective implementation of the project action without any obstacles. On the other hand, local people were made aware of entitlements to public goods and services. They were regularly provided with legal/administrative guidance via toll-free hotline and in person. ALACDP as a pilot project contributed to improving good governance, delivering smooth public amenities and holding government offices accountable to local citizens. For the last four years, several activities were carried out at national and local level to sensitize the stakeholders about ALACDP and overall anti-corruption agenda. Activities such as orientations, community consultations, interactions, meetings, baseline surveys, public satisfaction surveys, DP signing, miking (open public announcements), mobile ALACs, grievance collection and media fellowships heightened public awareness. Thus it resulted in seeking commitments of the government offices and pressurized them to cater timely services. ALAC services through hotline call centers were established in all project districts. Orientations were provided to volunteer members and project staffs. Training of Trainers (ToT), refresher trainings, exposure visits and field monitoring visits were conducted to build capacity of local partners and staffs. There were interactive discussions during annual review and planning meetings as well. All these activities were instrumental in achieving
project action of ALAC. Public advocacy, information dissemination and pressure tact were undertaken through rallies, public events, office visits, letters, press releases, quarterly bulletins, publicity materials, TIN-website, and media were generated across the country. As a result, government offices made remarkable improvements. Thus, public offices were alerted on to provide efficient public amenities, to depute information/nodal officer, to update Citizens' Charter and to put complaint-box in its premises.1 ALACDP of TIN effectively used both conventional and innovative media and technology to promote awareness, to help identify sectors that require changes and reforms and to conduct targeted capacity-building of the partner organizations and other important stakeholders at the local level. Major interventions done under the program at local level were grievance collection, outreach activities, orientations, Citizen's Charter placement, DP signing and participation, civic meetings, media partnership, etc. These programs provided suggestions to civil servants. Public officials were made accountable. It empowered and supported victims and witnesses of corruption. Local leaders were trained to be versed in governmental procedure and process. As ALACDP project was accomplished, it has grown as a popular civic movement in recent years. The broad objectives of ALACDP were to expand public awareness, establish ALACs to address maladministration and corruption, implement DPs, build capacity of TIN along with its partners and stakeholders and execute advocacy through civil society engagement. These objectives were met at the end of the project timeline that was spanned for 45 months.2 ALACDP as an advocacy and intervention programme set a benchmark in anticorruption, transparency, accountability and ethics in civic engagement with the government offices. Simultaneously, it enabled and empowered the victims and witnesses of corruption to lodge their corruption related grievances to TIN and concerned public offices. Networks of community-based advocacy units were set up to pressurize authorities to address the grievances lodged by the service recipients and maintain high standards of public services and good governance. This approach emerged as a strategic tool to structure a comprehensive national program in the future. At a national seminar
1
Literature review of programmes launched under the ALACDP, November 2015.
2
Management Association of Nepal, Review of Advocacy and Legal Advice Centre and Development Pact (ALACDP) Programme, December 2014.
6ÂŤfG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
51
k'g/fjnf]sg convened in Kathmandu on December 24, 2015 entitled "Promoting National Integrity," an observer remarked that "service delivery institutions have realized that they should be ready to respond to the grievances of the people on time and in an appropriate manner."3 Figure 2. Intervention wheel for change
On the backdrop of adverse political situation, prolonged transition, and continuous instability, there is a higher dissatisfaction amongst the citizenry at large about the inadequacies and deteriorating quality of services provided by the state. ALACDP intervened to reverse this situation to promote good governance. Efforts were simultaneously made to involve both the demand and the supply side with local citizens (service recipients) representing the former and government officials (service providers) the latter. The ALACDP enabled both parties to realize that it is essential to reach a common understanding to improve service delivery in practice. To that effect mutual cooperation and coordination is a necessary and must. Thus, a paradigm shift has occurred in the pilot project districts through the intervention over the time. To understand the situation of governance in public service delivery institutions prior to the project intervention, a baseline survey was conducted in each district among service providers and local citizens. Realizing public expectations on public
3
Interview with an anti-corruption activist in Kathmandu, 14 November 2015.
4
Interviewer with a former Chief District Officer on 28 October 2015.
6ÂŤfG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
52 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
service sector, continuous intervention was deemed necessary to improve government status. On the prospects of these interventions by civic society like TIN, regular dialogues and interface with stakeholders were organized at district level. During several instances public officials confessed to the limitations of resources and the difficulties to implement action due to the absence of elected local representatives. However, they cooperated with ALACDP program in civic interests. There were 21 government offices from 9 districts signatory to ALAC DP program. Furthermore, a monitoring and evaluation team was engaged in regular oversight of the signatory party of DP. Management Association of Nepal (MAN) as an external evaluator conducted a review of ALACDP which had vindicated tangible and substantive outcome at grassroots. This program served as a catalyst to make both citizens and state responsive to reform and improve public service delivery. Citizens' knowledge and information on governance widened and local CBOs and civil society were capable to demand an enabling and proactive state. Thus, project action which has envisaged results in the midst of challenges and problems set an example of maintaining good governance together as citizens and state. "The knowledge, expertise, experience, project management capacity and efficiency of TIN contributed to steer ALACDP to its focused goal and achievements," said a senior anti-corruption activist at a Kathmandu seminar on December 24, 2015. ALACDP, at the end of the project, proved beneficial to many public and private institutions as well as individuals. It prepared an institutional base for TIN to approach and reach out communities and to raise a barometer of good governance and accountability. It provided not only a platform to speak out common problems and raise issues but also offered opportunities to sensitize on anti-corruption. ALACDP provided assistance in reorienting service providers to resolve and accomplish tasks of service recipient. It offered invaluable data to policy makers on the status of perception and experience of corruption, and maintain good governance and accountability in the country. Finally, ALACDP presented guidelines to anti-corruption community to create and implement integrity schemes and strategies.4
;j]{If0f
Governance in Public Service Delivery of Nepal
A Long Way to Go Md. Rabiul Islam
n third world countries like Nepal, good governance is very important issue to discuss. Governance failings cause lots of problems including corruption. Governance refers to the way of making and implementing decisions in any public or private sector. When all decisions are taken in a transparent, participatory and unbiased manner, then good governance can be up held. Governance in public service delivery is much crucial things to deal, because in third world countries like Nepal, most of the service recipients from public sector are poor, illiterate and marginal people and impact of governance failure like corruption, directly hit the socioeconomic conditions of those service recipients.
I
A recent study (unpublished) on governance in public service delivery on 12 districts of Nepal, conducted by Transparency International Nepal (TI-Nepal), showed that, the governance situation of public service delivery of those districts is not in satisfactory level.1
66 percent of the total respondents. Again, 64 percent of the respondents have taken service from Municipality offices, followed by 57 percent from health sector.
According to the study, 61 percent of the respondent households were faced different types of irregularities and corrupt practice while seeking service from 13 selected service sectors. In that study, 2330 people were selected as respondents from 12 districts randomly. The survey findings showed that, most of the households surveyed received services from Electricity office during the last one year, which is 1
Title of the study was “Satisfaction Survey on Public Service Delivery 2015”. The study was conducted as a part of ALACDP project of TI-Nepal to explore project achievement.
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
53
;j]{If0f From sectoral analysis the survey found that the level of corruption was the highest in Land Reform & Revenue – 51% of the households who received services from this sector were victims of one or the other form of corruption. Land Survey (47%) and Transport (42%) sector occupied the second and the third position respectively in the level of corruption. Service recipient households in important sectors like Water (23%) and Health (25%) were victims of corruption and irregularities. In districts based analysis survey findings showed that the level of
corruption was the highest in Rupandehi. Among the service recipient households of Rupandehi, about 82 percent were victim of one or the other forms of corruption. Dhanusha (78%) and Udaypur (71%) district occupied the second and the third position respectively in the level of corruption. This is significantly higher than the overall percentage. Among the surveyed districts, service recipients of Chitwan faced lowest corruption than the others. Only 39 percent household faced corruption in Chitwan, followed by Gulmi (45%) and Morang (47%) districts respectively. An alarming finding of that survey shows that, bribery is the most common among different types of corruption or irregularities experienced by service recipients. It was observed that 61% of the households that received services from different sectors became victims of corrupt practices. The practices include taking money more than what was agreed upon (57%), harassment by brokers (6%), negligence or delay (36%). Some households were victim of bribe with other sorts of corrupt practices as well. Among different service sectors, bribery incidence rate is the highest in DAOs (74%) and the service recipients of Surkhet districts were forced to pay unauthorized money at the highest rate 6ÂŤfG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
54 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
(90%), where as bribery incidence rate is the lowest for Ilam district, where only 2 percent of the service recipients were forced to pay unauthorized money. People were asked that, what the reason for paying unauthorized money was. According to the survey, among the bribe paying households, the largest number of households (59%) had to pay bribe to make the work or service fast. On the other hands 24 percent household were compelled to give bribe, which is much crucial, followed by 10 percent as a gift. Despite the evidence that 61 percent had to face some type of corrupt practices, respondents were reluctant to lodge corruption complaints. Overall 86 percent of the respondent who faced corruption in the last one year did not report the incident of corruption anywhere. Only 14 percent reported the case of corruption. Why such a large portion of the corruption victim was not compliant against their suffering? Why they are so reluctant to lodge corruption complaints? The answer of the question was much shocking as most of the victims thought it is useless, it will not bring any change or no action will be taken, rather their suffering in future will be increased. That means the governance failure has reached at such stage that people are afraid or frustrated on accountability mechanism prevail among public service delivery agencies. What are the reasons behind corrupt practice, what do the people think about it? According to the survey findings nearly half of the respondents, 48 percent, viewed politics or political party as the main factor behind promoting corruption. Again 18 percent viewed bureaucracy (government)
;j]{If0f as main factor behind promoting corruption. Lack of political will and dishonesty or negligence of citizen are considered as main factor behind promoting corruption by 15 and 10 percent respondents respectively. Combating corruption is a multi-stakeholder’s endeavour. Government is in position to lead the society’s response to combat corruption, to set
improved as per the expectation level of the country. Appropriate measures needs to be taken to fight corruption. Some recommendations have been made in the study based on the findings of the survey: Public officials engaged in corrupt practices must be undertaken to trial. On the other hand initiative needs to be taken to increase their skills and capacity regarding service delivery. Every institution must adopt its own Code of Conduct. Accountability and transparency must be ensured on this basis. Steps should be taken for providing both positive and negative incentives to prevent corruption. Benefits of government officials must be increased in accordance with the cost of living to prevent ‘corruption out of needs’. At the same time reward and punishment must be ensured on the basis of performance of public officials in providing services.
standards, to put anti-corruption laws in place and ensure they are implemented successfully. Besides this, the roles of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are considered as vital to fight against corruption. There are so many government agencies which are directly involved in combating corruption like CIAA, NVC, Police etc. These government agencies fight against corruption according to the anticorruption laws enacted by government. Effectiveness of government actions to combat corruption is entirely depends on transparency, accountability and capacity of those agencies, judicial system and all above the political willingness of ruling party. Are government actions enough to fight corruption? Most of the respondents (43%) think that the government actions are neither effective nor ineffective. Figure 4.3.1 shows the data. Only 29 percent of the respondents considered the actions to be either very effective or somewhat effective. Again 28 percent thinks government actions are to be either very ineffective or somewhat ineffective. From the above discussion it is clear that, in spite of several sorts of measures taken by different government and non-government agencies to combat corruption, the corruption situation has not
Digitization of Service Delivery System and implementation of Citizen's Charter for all the service-providing institutions. The concerned institutions (law inforcement agencies, judiciary) must act professionally to establish the rule of law. Establishing an Independent and Effective Anticorruption.
Increasing the Roles of Civil Society and media Above all, the political will is very much necessary to fight against corruption by all political party. In doing so it should act beyond any bias or fear.
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
55
k|ltj]bg
Global Corruption Report: Sport and results of new poll on fan distrust of FIFA 69% OF FANS POLLED HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN FIFA On the day Transparency International launches its Global Corruption Report: Sport, an in-depth report looking at why sport has become so corrupt and what can be done to stop this, the anti-corruption group is also announcing the results of a new poll that shows just how much fans distrust FIFA, football’s governing body. “As fans we have a love affair with football. When our teams win we are ecstatic, when they lose we are devastated. But when results – whether of games, or rights for hosting events, elections, etc. - are driven not by fair competition, but by corruption, we feel betrayed,” said Cobus de Swardt, managing director of Transparency International. “Sport should be a force for good in the world but the latest scandals not only in football, but in athletics and tennis, have exposed just how vulnerable it is to corruption. This must stop now,” added de Swardt. “Public trust will only be restored in FIFA, the IAAF and the world of sport if large-scale reforms are not only implemented, but are seen to be implemented
transparently. We expect real and irreversible change in 2016,” said Gareth Sweeney, editor of the Global Corruption Report: Sport. The Transparency International/Forza Football poll in FIFA, half said it had a chance to restore its reputation: 50 per cent said that FIFA had a chance to restore its reputation. 43 per cent said the scandals are affecting how they enjoy football 60 per cent would not choose any of the current candidates standing in the FIFA presidential election this week 25,000 fans took the poll on the Forza Football app in 28 countries. (See below for full poll results). “FIFA should take this message to heart. Unless it acts more fans will turn away from football. The trust levels are low but the fans will give FIFA a chance if it acts now,” said Sweeney.
Corruption Perceptions Index 2015: Corruption still rife but 2015 saw pockets of hope Transparency International calls on people everywhere to speak out against corruption Berlin, 27 January 2016 – 2015 showed that people working together can succeed in the battle against corruption. Although corruption is still rife globally, more countries improved their scores in the 2015 edition of Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index than declined. Overall, two-thirds of the 168 countries on the 2015 index scored below 50, on a scale from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 100 (perceived to be very clean). Yet in places like Guatemala, Sri Lanka and Ghana, citizen activists in groups and on their own worked hard to drive out the corrupt, sending a strong message that should encourage others to take decisive action in 2016. “Corruption can be beaten if we work together. To stamp out the abuse of power, bribery and shed 6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
56 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
light on secret deals, citizens must together tell their governments they have had enough. “The 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index clearly shows that corruption remains a blight around the world. But 2015 was also a year when people again took to the streets to protest corruption. People across the globe sent a strong signal to those in power: it is time to tackle grand corruption,” said José Ugaz, Chair of Transparency International. Grand corruption is the abuse of high-level power that benefits the few at the expense of the many, and causes serious and widespread harm to individuals and society. It often goes unpunished. This year Transparency International is calling on all people to take action by voting at unmaskthecorrupt. org. We want to know which cases the public most believe merit urgent attention to send a message that we will take a stand against grand corruption. Brazil was the biggest decliner in the index, falling 5
k|ltj]bg The Global Corruption Report: Sport Tackling corruption in sport is possible. The Global Corruption Report: Sport provides a comprehensive overview of the root causes of corruption across sport and outlines evidence-based recommendations done to clean up sports. The report stresses the need for greater participation of all those involved from the fans who buy tickets, the athletes who provide the entertainment to the sponsors and broadcasters who fund sports activities and the citizens of countries and cities that host big event. The Global Corruption Report: Sport addresses corruption risks over 60 articles from a broad range of contributors, including the International Olympic Committee, UNESCO, government bodies, players’ organisations, athletes past and present, supporters groups, civil society, academics and journalists. Topic covered include political interference in Asian football, corruption trends in African sport, and corruption risks in the football transfer market labour rights in Qatar, the World Cup legacy and Olympics, following the World Cup money in Russia, political control of football in Hungary, governance of cricket in Bangladesh, ownership of football clubs in the UK, corruption in US collegiate points and dropping 7 positions to a rank of 76. The unfolding Petrobras scandal brought people into the streets in 2015 and the start of judicial process may help Brazil stop corruption. Good news stories on the fight against corruption can be found on our website here about Mongolia, here on Guatemala and here on whistleblowing and include successes from our network of more than 100 chapters.
The results The index covers perceptions of public sector corruption in 168 countries. Denmark took the top spot for the 2nd year running, with North Korea and Somalia the worst performers, scoring just 8 points each. Top performers share key characteristics: high levels of press freedom; access to budget information so the public knows where money comes from and how it is spent; high levels of integrity among people in power; and judiciaries that don’t differentiate between rich and poor, and that are truly independent from other parts of government. In addition to conflict and war, poor governance,
sports and more. The Global Corruption Report: Sport puts forward a series of detailed recommendationsincluding: Increased independent oversight in international sports governance. Stringent and transparent criteria for eligibility, decision-making positions. associations, the money they make and how it is disbursed, far beyond minimum legal requirements of host countries. Citizen engagement in bids for major sporting events and the need for formal safeguards to stop corruption and all human rights, labour, environmental and social sustainability abuses. The need for sponsors to promote integrity and hold sports organisations to the same standards that they apply to their supply chain. Further exploration of the need for a global anticorruption sports agency. Transparency International calls for these recommendations to be applied to all international sports organisations, particularly those facing corruption scandals such as the IAAF in athletics. It will also use them as a checklist for FIFA reform elected on 26 February.
weak public institutions like police and the judiciary, and a lack of independence in the media characterise the lowest ranked countries. The big decliners in the past 4 years include Libya, Australia, Brazil, Spain and Turkey. The big improvers include Greece, Senegal and UK. The Corruption Perceptions Index is based on expert opinions of public sector corruption. Countries’ scores can be helped by open government where the public can hold leaders to account, while a poor score is a sign of prevalent bribery, lack of punishment for corruption and public institutions that don’t respond to citizens’ needs. ### Transparency International is the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption. Media contacts: Chris Sanders T: +49 30 34 38 20 666 E: press@transparency.org For daily anti-corruption updates follow us on: Twitter: twitter.com/anticorruption Facebook: facebook. com/transparencyinternational Google Plus: plus. google.com/+transparencyinternational Or subscribe to: transparency.org/getinvolved/stayinformed 6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
57
;"rsfÍ Corruption Perceptions Index 2015
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
58 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
;"rsfÍ Corruption Perceptions Index 2015
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
59
;"rsfÍ Corruption Perceptions Index 2015
Act Against Corruption Today 6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
60 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
ah]6÷vr{
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
a}zfv @)&# . kf/bzL{
61
sljtf
joshiumab@gmail.com
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
62 kf/bzL{ . a}zfv @)&#
12
6«fG;k/]G;L OG6/g]zgn g]kfnsf] a'n]l6g
kf/bzL{ . df3 @)&@