PROMISE TO PRACTICE Monitoring Global Progress of the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit Commitments
Transparency International is the world’s leading non-governmental anti-corruption organisation. With more than 100 chapters worldwide, Transparency International has extensive global expertise and understanding of corruption. Transparency International UK (TI-UK) is the UK chapter of Transparency International. We raise awareness about corruption; advocate legal and regulatory reform at national and international levels; design practical tools for institutions, individuals and companies wishing to combat corruption; and act as a leading centre of anticorruption expertise in the UK.
Acknowledgements: Authors: Lucas Amin & Jameela Raymond Editors: Rachel Davies Teka, Maggie Murphy Design: Jon Le Marquand © 2018 Transparency International UK. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in parts is permitted, providing that full credit is given to Transparency International UK (TI-UK) and provided that any such reproduction, in whole or in parts, is not sold or incorporated in works that are sold. Written permission must be sought from Transparency International UK if any such reproduction would adapt or modify the original content. This report was originally published September 2017, however, this revised version is published May 2018. ISBN: 978-1-910778-73-9 Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All information was believed to be correct as of Juy 2017, with the exception of the USA and Russia, where information is believed to be correct as of December 2017. Nevertheless, Transparency International UK cannot accept responsibility for the consequences of its use for other purposes or in other contexts. Transparency International UK’s registered charity number is 1112842.
PROMISE TO PRACTICE Monitoring Global Progress of the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit Commitments
1 Promise to Practice: Monitoring Global Progress of the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit Commitments
I. INTRODUCTION In May 2016 the then UK Prime Minister David Cameron convened 43 countries and six international organisations at an Anti-Corruption Summit, in London. The Summit generated a communiquÊ and a Global Declaration Against Corruption, but went even further in encouraging countries and organisations to pursue ambitious individual action plans. Governments made 648 promises to promote integrity and defend against corruption across 20 areas of work. The purpose of this report is to highlight what the Summit’s participants have since achieved. A great deal has changed since 2016 and new leaders with different priorities are at the helm of key countries. Have countries kept their promises? Following the Summit, Transparency International chapters (and a network of partner organisations) began monitoring the implementation of a selection of 399 pledges made by governments and 69 by international organisations. The Summit announced the 2017 United Nations General Assembly as a point in which leaders would meet again and progress would be reported; it is timely to take stock of what the Summit has delivered so far, and what anticorruption impetus remains. Transparency International’s pledge-tracking database is published as open data, and available for download, for those who wish to review thematic- or country-specific progress.1 This short report presents a high-level briefing on a handful of key issues, using notable country and thematic studies to provide an overview of performance in fulfilling pledges. The first section of this report summarises the results, and the second section highlights some experiences of implementation from around the world. Section three reviews the progress made in the three areas which attracted the most pledges; beneficial ownership, asset recovery and public procurement. Section four highlights the areas that did not receive enough attention at the Summit and still require greater attention. Finally, Transparency International offers recommendations on what further things need to happen to ensure that the effort since the Summit lives up to its promise.
1 Search through the full findings at our interactive website: www.anticorruptionpledgetracker.com
Transparency International UK 2
II. SUMMARY Immediately after the Summit, Transparency International counted and analysed government pledges from 41 countries and the European Commission.
•
Pledges were classified as ‘ambitious’, ‘somewhat ambitious’ or ‘not ambitious’.
•
Pledges were graded as ‘new’, ‘somewhat new’ or ‘not new’.
•
Pledges were categorised as ‘concrete’ or ‘somewhat concrete’. All ‘not concrete’ commitments were excluded from the final analysis.
Of the 648 commitments in this original sample, a selection of 399 pledges across 27 countries were later analysed and categorised according to their progress:
•
Inactive – there is no publicly available evidence of progress, or there is evidence of inactivity
•
Ongoing – a pledge has no fixed end-date but progress has started
•
Complete – the commitment has been fully delivered
•
Underway – the work to implement the pledge is not yet finished
•
Overdue – not completed by the deadline stated by the government
2. SUMMARY
The majority of the 399 commitments made by governments at the Summit have made some progress: either coming to completion, still ongoing or with efforts just getting underway. The results are encouraging, but it is too early to call the Summit a resounding success. Only 17 per cent of pledges have actually been completed, according to our network’s analyses. Table one shows a summary by anti-corruption issue. This table and overview does, however, highlight the issue areas in which governments appear to be taking most action to tackle corruption since the Summit. It should be noted that there is no direct comparability between commitments even within the same theme, as the pledges vary in strength and focus.
Total
Complete
%
Ongoing
%
Underway
%
Inactive
%
Overdue
%
Anti-Corruption Environment
12
1
8%
5
42%
3
25%
1
8%
2
17%
Anti-Money Laundering
29
4
14%
10
34%
8
28%
7
24%
0
0%
Asset Recovery
50
12
24%
12
24%
7
14%
18
36%
1
2%
Beneficial Ownership Transparency
68
10
15%
8
12%
13
19%
36
53%
1
1%
Bribery
2
0
0%
2
100%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Defence and Security
4
0
0%
3
75%
0
0%
1
25%
0
0%
Denial of Entry to the Corrupt
7
1
14%
2
29%
0
0%
4
57%
0
0%
Innovation
11
1
9%
0
0%
2
18%
7
64%
1
9%
International Anti-Corruption Architecture
25
4
16%
8
32%
5
20%
8
32%
0
0%
Law Enforcement
18
4
22%
4
22%
2
11%
7
39%
1
6%
Natural Resources
17
1
6%
3
18%
4
24%
9
53%
0
0%
OECD
4
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
4
100%
0
0%
Open Data for Transparency
10
1
10%
2
20%
5
50%
2
20%
0
0%
Private Sector Integrity
8
1
13%
0
0%
4
50%
3
38%
0
0%
Public Procurement
43
7
16%
11
26%
18
42%
7
16%
0
0%
Public Sector Integrity
10
3
30%
3
30%
2
20%
2
20%
0
0%
Sports
18
1
6%
7
39%
2
11%
8
44%
0
0%
Tax
34
12
35%
1
3%
9
26%
11
32%
1
3%
Training and Assistance
14
0
0%
4
29%
2
14%
8
57%
0
0%
Whistleblower/Civil Society Space Protection
15
6
40%
2
13%
3
20%
2
13%
2
13%
Total
399
69
17%
87
22%
89
22%
145
36%
9
2%
Table 1: Overview of progress by issue
4 Promise to Practice: Monitoring Global Progress of the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit Commitments
POLITICAL WILL WAS A KEY TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION Political will was an important factor in delivering Summit commitments. When governments demonstrated that they wanted change, by making ambitious pledges, they were more likely to achieve it. Commitments judged to be ambitious had the highest progress rate, with 40 per cent assessed as complete or ongoing. Furthermore, 63 per cent of commitments categorised as both new and ambitious were judged to be complete, ongoing, or underway. Yet there also proved to be value in finishing old projects. Of all the commitments considered ambitious but not new, 69 per cent had seen activity or completion since the Summit.
Total Ambitious
Complete
In contrast, sitting on the fence did not yield results. Somewhat ambitious and somewhat new pledges – which reflect a lack of intent - had much poorer implementation rates. Just four per cent of these commitments have been completed, and 69 per cent of these haven’t been started at all. The data on ambitious pledges also suggests that the format of the Summit led to some success. The Summit broke with the practice of other consensus-based, multilateral forums such as the G7 and G20, where all participants must subscribe to a single declaration. This allowed some, although not all, governments to be ambitious in their individual country statements. And, generally, we found ambition to be associated with subsequent action.
Ongoing
Underway
Inactive
Overdue
136
23
17%
32
24%
34
25%
43
32%
4
3%
New
65
10
15%
14
22%
17
26%
22
34%
2
3%
Not New
64
12
19%
18
28%
14
22%
18
28%
2
3%
Somewhat New
5
1
20%
0
0%
2
40%
2
40%
0
0%
Other
2
0
0%
0
0%
1
50%
1
50%
0
0%
116
16
14%
21
18%
21
17%
57
49%
2
2%
New
46
4
9%
6
13%
9
20%
25
54%
2
4%
Not New
44
11
25%
12
27%
7
16%
14
32%
0
0%
Somewhat New
26
1
4%
3
12%
4
15%
18
69%
0
0%
80
15
19%
12
15%
22
26%
32
40%
0
0%
New
11
1
9%
1
9%
3
27%
6
55%
Not New
59
13
22%
7
12%
17
29%
22
37%
0
0%
Somewhat New
10
1
10%
4
40%
1
10%
4
40%
0
0%
Other
20
6
30%
7
35%
1
5%
4
20%
2
10%
No Information
47
9
13%
15
30%
13
28%
9
19%
1
2%
399
69
17%
87
22%
89
22%
145
36%
9
2%
Somewhat Ambitious
Not Ambitious
Total
0%
Table 2: Status of ambitious and new pledges
Transparency International UK 5
III. AT A GLANCE: COUNTRY CASE STUDIES INDONESIA Total commitments: 19 Complete: 16 Ongoing: 3 TI Indonesia has assessed that its government has completed 84% of its commitments; 16 of the 19 pledges that were made. The remaining three are assessed as ‘ongoing’, meaning that Indonesia is one of two countries which has started activity on each of its Summit commitments. But it is worth a pause before celebrating Indonesia’s successes. Of the 16 commitments which were completed, 14 were considered ‘not new’ – meaning that they were commitments which had been made at least once, before the Summit even took place. TI Indonesia also judged 12 of the completed commitments as either ‘not ambitious’ or ‘somewhat ambitious’. Among these unoriginal, unambitious but ‘complete’ commitments are pledges to ‘explore’ establishing public registers of beneficial ownership, and to ‘work toward’ implementing the G20 Anti-Corruption Open Data Principles.
JORDAN Total commitments: 8 Inactive: 8 Jordan is one of the few countries with all of their commitments still marked as ‘inactive’. Whilst Rasheed, our chapter in Jordan, has received some anecdotal confirmation of progress across a number of the pledges, there is a lack of publicly accessible evidence to support these claims. Notwithstanding, it is notable that all of Jordan’s commitments were seen as ‘ambitious’ or ‘somewhat ambitious’, and only two – to strengthen asset recovery legislation and to explore public registers of beneficial ownership information – were ‘not new’. The originality and ambition of the government in making these commitments may have played a role in why it is yet to demonstrate it is taking action in the same way as others.
SOUTH AFRICA Total commitments: 1 Ongoing: 1 South Africa’s only commitment – that the government was ‘working towards the redrafting of a National Anti-Corruption Strategy’ – was deemed unambitious, unoriginal and vague by TI’s chapter in country, Corruption Watch. Since the Summit, however, the process of redrafting the strategy was taken forward by a university-based research organisation, which regularly consulted with Corruption Watch for strategic direction on the new Strategy. The revised Strategy was published in 2017, with the government calling on the public to participate in the process through a series of public consultations. The new Strategy is built around nine strategic pillars which are mutually supportive, including supporting citizen empowerment in the fight against corruption, strengthening oversight and governance mechanisms in government and developing sustainable partnerships with stakeholders to reduce corruption and improve integrity management.
SPAIN Total commitments: 27 Complete: 16 Ongoing: 4 Underway: 4 Inactive: 3 TI Spain has also assessed that the majority of its government’s pledges have been started or completed, with only 11% remaining inactive. All of Spain’s commitments were judged as either ‘ambitious’ or ‘somewhat ambitious’, although a significant amount – 14 of the total 27, or 10 of the 16 completed – were ‘not new’. These old commitments may have been easy wins for Spain, and the less ambitious among them include pledges to ‘continue’ a range of efforts. Spain’s commitments to explore ways of sharing information about corrupt bidders across borders and to participate in an Innovation Hub remain inactive.
6 Promise to Practice: Monitoring Global Progress of the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit Commitments
USA2
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
Total commitments: 29 Complete: 6 Inactive: 2 Ongoing: 20 Underway: 1
Unlike the commitments made by governments and the European Commission, which were assessed by TI chapters and national contacts, the remaining international organisations self-reported on their progress. These organisations were not judged on how new or ambitious their commitments were.
Activity has started on 89% of the USA’s pledges, which is notable also because of the range and volume of commitments made. A number of the USA’s commitments were seen as new and ambitious, including to establish a global anti-corruption consortium to support journalists and civil society in collaborating together to achieve anti-corruption impact, and to facilitate global efforts in returning recovered assets to the citizens harmed by corruption. However, 18 of the USA’s commitments were ‘not new’. A significant portion of the USA’s country statement was around ‘continuing’ existing efforts, and some specific pledges were not commensurate with the country’s leading role in world affairs.
Less than half of the 69 international organisation pledges are reported as ongoing or complete, many relating to the continuation, promotion or expansion of existing anticorruption initiatives. The UN is responsible for more than half of the underway commitments – while the World Bank owns another five underway pledges. Only when these pledges are completed will we be able to see clearly whether these two organisations have made a success of the Summit. Yet these organisations have had many opportunities to uphold the anti-corruption agenda since the Summit, and we should expect them to create and take advantage of similar opportunities in the future. The World Bank’s Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (StAR) supported the inaugural meeting of the Global Forum on Asset Recovery in December 2017. The OECD hosts an annual Anti-Corruption and Integrity Forum in Paris, where the themes most prevalent at the Summit should be given space for further discussion. The Commonwealth Summit, in the UK in April 2018, was a missed opportunity for the Commonwealth Secretariat to showcase its international anti-corruption work on a global platform.
Total Commonwealth Secretariat
Complete
Ongoing
Underway
Inactive
13
2
15%
3
23%
1
8%
7
54%
European Commission
1
0
0%
0
0%
1
100%
0
0%
International Monetary Fund
8
2
25%
6
75%
0
0%
0
0%
OECD
12
0
0%
8
67%
3
25%
1
8%
United Nations
23
0
0%
7
30%
13
57%
3
13%
World Bank
12
1
8%
0
0%
5
42%
6
50%
Total
69
5
7%
24
35%
23
33%
17
25%
Table 3: Status of pledges by international organisations 2 A previous version of the report incorrectly stated the USA was one of the poorer performers in this analysis. This has been revised with new evidence coming to light since that initial publication.
Transparency International UK 7
IV. KEY ANTI-CORRUPTION THEMES
In his closing remarks for the Anti-Corruption Summit, then-UK Prime Minister David Cameron said that public registers of beneficial ownership information were the “gold standard”, and every country should establish them. Three African states who announced their register pledges at the Summit have since taken promising steps towards implementation. Ghana amended its company law in August 2016 to mandate the company registrar to collect data and maintain a register of beneficial owners. But the register is not yet public. A provision in a new bill, which would correct this, has been drafted and civil society groups hope it will be read in Parliament before the end of 2017.
BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP TRANSPARENCY Total commitments: 68 Complete: 10 Ongoing: 8 Underway: 13 Inactive: 36 Overdue: 1
The Ghanaian bill’s success will depend on the support of the New Patriotic Party and its leader Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, who was elected President in January 2017. In opposition, Afuko-Addo said it was necessary to “lift the veil off public officials who hide behind cronies to amass wealth”. Ghana and the international community are now watching to see if President Afuko-Addo and his party will deliver a public register.
Sixty eight of the government pledges relate to beneficial ownership, which makes it the issue to have received the most attention (17 per cent of all commitments were on the issue of beneficial ownership transparency). Again, the strength of these commitments varied in specificity, originality and ambition, but Table Four offers a snapshot of the delivery status of these pledges broken down by focus theme.
PUBLIC REGISTER PROMISES Among the most significant commitments at the Summit were the 10 pledges to create or explore the creation of public registers of information on the people who ultimately own or control companies (known as “beneficial owners”). Public registers of beneficial ownership are effective tools because they facilitate the work of domestic and international law enforcement, as well as civil society and the media, by guaranteeing free and immediate access to data.
Beneficial Ownership
Total
In Kenya, a bill to introduce a register of beneficial company ownership had its third reading in June; however, it does not currently include commitments to make the register public. Nigeria, meanwhile, is preparing a bill on beneficial ownership after it sent a delegation to the UK in February 2017 to exchange information and learn about register design. These countries, if they can push through their Summit pledge to implement public registers, will set a precedent on the African continent.
Complete
Ongoing
Underway
Inactive
Overdue
Central Register
7
2
3
2
Global Beneficial Ownership Register
1
1
Public Contracting / Property
17
2
5
10
Public Register
10
1
3
2
3
1
Other
33
7
3
3
20
Total
68
10
8
13
36
1
Table 4: Status of Beneficial Ownership commitments
8 Promise to Practice: Monitoring Global Progress of the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit Commitments
BEYOND NATIONAL BORDERS: PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY Seventeen commitments focused on creating registers of beneficial ownership for all companies, domestic and foreign, involved in public contracting and buying property. With government contracts worth trillions of dollars each year, contracting is government’s top corruption risk. Similarly, vast amounts of illicit wealth flow into property markets around the world via the use of anonymous shell companies, entrenching the corruption which keeps citizens in poor countries poor, robs them of their futures and threatens global stability. Introducing transparency over the companies which bid for these government contracts and buy property will shine a light on the corrupt individuals and groups which seek to hide their stolen assets at the expense of vulnerable citizens.
OPEN OWNERSHIP: STANDARDIZING DATA FOR QUALITY AND COMPARABILITY Open Ownership is a global civil society initiative that was created in the wake of the Summit. It has three functions. Firstly, it links beneficial ownership data from multiple sources to create a single, global source of information which is easily accessible to stakeholders. Secondly, it develops a common data standard so that information from multiple jurisdictions meets a commonly defined norm and can be linked and compared. Finally, it provides technical support to help stakeholders with implementation and best practice. Open Ownership currently hosts data from the UK, Slovakia and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – a global standard for disclosing information about oil, gas and mining sectors that now has 52 government signatories. Colombia, the only country to make a Summit pledge to provide data to Open Ownership’s global register, has not yet submitted any information. In May, however, Ukraine became the first country to agree to integrate its beneficial ownership data with the global register.
THE UK’S BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP TRANSPARENCY JOURNEY The UK made two beneficial ownership commitments at the 2016 Summit:
Establishing the register was a major step for the UK’s anti-money laundering regime, but such a tool is only useful if the information it provides is accurate.
1) To launch a public central register of company beneficial ownership information for all companies incorporated in the UK, and;
2) To establish a public register of company beneficial ownership information for foreign companies who already own or buy property in the UK, or who bid on UK central government contracts. The UK launched its public register of UK company beneficial ownership information in June 2016, making it the first G20 country to do so. Although the commitment was reiterated at the Summit, legislation to establish the register had been passed in March 2015. The company information is free to access and is available as searchable open data – allowing it to be used as part of the Open Ownership Register. Companies are required to update the UK register within 28 days of any change, but some weaknesses remain around the verification of the data held in the register.
Transparency International UK has identified £4.2 billion worth of property that was bought with suspicious wealth in London alone. The owners of these properties were only brought to light due to leaks and court documents, and the true number of potentially illicit funds in the UK property market may be much higher than current estimates. The UK government ran a public consultation in spring 2017, and legislation for its public register of foreign company beneficial ownership was intended to be introduced by April 2018, but has since been delayed. The current schedule indicates that the public register of foreign company beneficial ownership will not be established until 2021.
Transparency International UK 9
ASSET RECOVERY
sovereignty and the accountable management of returned assets, including the rights of other states to impose conditions on them.
Total commitments: 50 Complete: 12 Ongoing: 12 Underway: 7 Inactive: 18 Overdue: 1 Asset Recovery was another major theme of the Summit and attracted 50 of the 399 government commitments, and over 60 per cent of asset recovery commitments are now in play. Table Five shows the delivery status of these pledges broken down by focus theme.
Asset recovery initiatives are often costly, long-term, multiparty, multi-jurisdictional efforts that end in failure. At the Summit, four countries and two international organisations pledged to participate in the Global Forum on Asset Recovery (GFAR), which aims to improve outcomes by addressing the need for strong political commitment, international cooperation and practitioner interaction. The inaugral GFAR meeting was originally scheduled for July 2017 but was then postponed until December 2017. It focused on assisting recovery in four countries; Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Tunisia and Ukraine. The US and the UK cohosted this major meeting with support from the World Bank and UNODC. Nigeria’s priority was the return of the ‘Abacha loot’ - the estimated US$5 billion which the former military dictator appropriated in the 1990s and hid in numerous offshore locations. Two of the many obstacles the recovery has faced include a US legal challenge to the asset forfeiture (dismissed in February 2017) and a bill in the US Congress that stipulated the returned money should support victims of Boko Haram. The latter triggered a debate about national
Accountable Repatriation
ACCOUNTABLE REPATRIATION More than one-third of asset recovery pledges were on accountable repatriation: the process of sending seized or frozen assets back to the country from which they were stolen in a transparent, just and accountable manner.
THE GLOBAL FORUM ON ASSET RECOVERY
Asset Recovery
The Abacha case reflects many of the common challenges in asset recovery cases. Nearly 20 years after the dictator’s death, Nigeria has had returned only a fraction of the money which was laundered through Europe and America. For the GFAR to work in the long run, its hosts and participants will need to step up their ambition and cooperation.
Total
Ten of these commitments were focused on the development of “internationally endorsed guidelines for the transparent and accountable management of stolen assets”. Given the lack of progress so far, it is timely that the World Bank and UNODC looked to use the GFAR to begin devising an international framework to assist the drafting and adoption of new guidelines.
UNEXPLAINED WEALTH ORDERS The Summit generated six commitments around strengthening domestic asset recovery legislation through the potential introduction of non-conviction based asset forfeiture and unexplained wealth orders (UWOs). Until recently, little could be done by authorities to act on highly suspicious wealth (e.g. property or luxury items valued significantly higher than the individual’s income) unless there is a legal conviction against the relevant individual in the country of origin. And in cases where the origin country is in crisis, or the individual holds power within a corrupt government, this conviction can take decades to happen - if it even happens at all. UWO legislation requires the individual to explain the lawful origin of their assets, making it easier for law enforcement to act
Complete
Ongoing
Underway
Inactive
Overdue
18
4
5
3
6
Global Forum on Asset Recovery
5
1
12
12
2
Unexplained Wealth Orders
5
1
1
1
2
1
Other
22
6
5
3
8
Total
50
12
12
7
18
1
Table 5: Status of Asset Recovery Commitments
10 Promise to Practice: Monitoring Global Progress of the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit Commitments
OPEN CONTRACTING IN HEALTH
on that suspicious wealth. The UK completed its commitment around consulting on UWOs, and established UWO legislation in April 2017.
Four governments committed to implementing open contracting in their healthcare sectors at the Summit and there is encouraging progress to report.
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT
Argentina’s Ministry of Health began using a transparent e-Procurement system in January while Nigeria’s new open contracting portal - co-created with civil society will be piloted by the Ministry of Health and the National Primary Health Care Development Agency. Mexico has made progress through its whole-government approach described above - while Malta, the fourth country to make a healthcare pledge, is not among those whose progress is tracked here. The UN made a pledge to work with the WHO to strengthen global, regional and country initiatives on open contracting in health, but this is currently inactive.
Total commitments: 43 Complete: 7 Ongoing: 11 Underway: 18 Inactive: 7 The third major theme at the Summit was public procurement, which attracted 43 of the 399 commitments. Table Six shows the delivery status of these pledges broken down by focus theme.
DEBARMENT AND CORRUPT BIDDERS Fifteen pledges looked at strengthening procedures for debarring corrupt companies from public tenders primarily by creating or improving central databases and sharing data across borders. Only two commitments were ambitious and, instead, most pursued commitments that sought to “explore ways of sharing information”. 30 per cent of the pledges on debarment are currently inactive, but even among the active countries, it does not appear that any government has found a strong solution to the challenge of debarring bidders and sharing information effectively. The World Bank’s pledge to share information on its efforts to debar bidders and share information, which is underway, could be instructive when completed.
Public Procurement
Total
Complete
Corrupt Bidders
6
Debarment
1
Debarment Database
8
Open Contracting
6
Open Contracting Data Standard
9
Open Contracting in Health
Ongoing
Underway
Inactive
Overdue
2
4
1
1
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
4
1
3
1
2
Other
10
4
1
5
Total
43
7
11
18
7
0
Table 6: Status of Public Procurement Commitments
Transparency International UK 11 .
MEXICO: AN EMERGING LEADER IN OPEN CONTRACTING Mexico is emerging as a global leader within the growing field of open contracting. The country is making good progress on its six procurement pledges with two complete, one ongoing and three underway according to TI’s chapter in Mexico, Transparencia Mexicana. Mexico has successfully implemented the Open Contracting Data Standard (OCDS) in its flagship infrastructure project, the New International Airport for Mexico City, worth US$13 billion. Data and documents from the tender and awards of US$7.3 billion worth of contracts, in 291 procedures, are now accessible on an intelligently designed platform. The country’s second flagship open contracting project, a Public Private Partnership (PPP) in the telecoms industry worth approximately US$392 million, launched in June. With support from the World Bank, the project is piloting the first PPP extension of the OCDS. The Mexican government is now aiming to scale the implementation of OCDS to all federal public contracts and planned to launch the beta version of a new procurement platform before the end of 2017. Mexico was also a founding member of the Contracting 5 (C5) - a global network for governments to share procurement ideas and innovations. Mexico was the C5’s first President and has led on website development and accession processes for new country members.
12 Promise to Practice: Monitoring Global Progress of the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit Commitments
V. LOOKING AHEAD Numerous issues did not receive the attention they deserved at the London Anti-Corruption Summit in May 2016, or in the months that have followed. Four areas that still require greater action are sport, law enforcement, professional enablers and whistleblowing.
LAW ENFORCEMENT Total commitments: 18 Complete: 4 Ongoing: 4 Underway: 2 Inactive: 7 Overdue: 1 Most cases of grand corruption are cross-border and the inability of law enforcement bodies to operate in multiple jurisdictions has, for a long time, been a major obstacle to the pursuit of effective prosecutions. Twelve countries sought to address law enforcement cooperation at the Summit and made pledges towards creating or supporting the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre (IACCC). The Centre was formally launched in July 2017 by the UK’s National Crime Agency, which will host the centre until 2021, with the participation of bodies from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore and the US. Switzerland and Germany were involved in the design and establishment of the IACCC and will remain observers. The IACCC is a forum for sharing intelligence between jurisdictions in which stolen assets are laundered and for coordinating cross-border law enforcement investigations in countries where companies are known to bribe for public contracts. It also accepts referred cases of grand corruption from external law enforcement bodies. The IACCC could be the catalyst for change towards a new chapter of greater international cooperation between law enforcement bodies. Its success will hinge on securing intelligence sharing commitments from governments that regulate global financial centres. Although Switzerland has participated in the development of the Centre, and completed its somewhat ambitious pledge, its government has not committed to full participation and the sharing of intelligence. Interpol also joined the Centre later in 2017. The IACCC will also require meaningful participation from countries where bribes are paid for public contracts. Political will and robust resources are crucial for intelligence agencies to function at their full potential. Law enforcement bodies from across the world, with different
levels of funding and expertise, will need to collaborate pragmatically to pursue prosecutions.
PRIVATE SECTOR Total commitments: 8 Complete: 1 Underway: 4 Inactive: 3 To steal, hide and spend corrupt money, criminals rely on networks of lawyers, bankers and estate agents, but the regulation and enforcement against these ‘professional enablers’ is patchy and weak. The Summit participants in the sample did not effectively address professional enablers of corruption. In the context of tax evasion, France, Mexico and Nigeria pledged to review or enhance penalties against professional enablers but the latter two pledges are inactive while France’s is still underway. Despite a growing acknowledgement of the problem in the run-up to the Summit, these three pledges were the sum-total of action against enablers. The difficulties of developing and enforcing workable regulations are leading to a debate about whether a shift in focus would be productive. A small but growing number of countries are introducing banking regulations that ensure senior company executives can be held individually accountable for the non-compliance of their companies with anti-money laundering regulations. This principle of executive accountability could be deployed more widely to promote a reappraisal of the risk of handling tainted money in the professional services.
SPORT Total commitments: 18 Complete: 1 Ongoing: 7 Underway: 2 Inactive: 8 Events in recent years have reminded the world that sport is still at huge risk of corruption. As a multi-billion dollar business with close ties to political and private interests, international stakeholders must work closely together to minimise that risk. The Summit saw governments make 18 commitments around sport, specifically on governance, integrity in sport, and the development of an International Sports Integrity Partnership. The International Sports Integrity Partnership, now renamed as the ‘International Partnership for Anti-
Transparency International UK 13 Corruption in Sport (IPACS), was launched in February 2017 in Lausanne, Switzerland, and plans to help prevent the risk of corruption in sport, enable better cooperation between the key stakeholders and ensure a coordinated approach to the implementation of dedicated measures. Afghanistan, France, Georgia, Jordan, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland and the UK pledged to support or join the Partnership. However, the concrete steps that the Partnership intends to take are yet to be made public. People from all backgrounds, all around the world, have a stake in keeping sports clean. Sponsors, athletes, supporters, governments, journalists, businessmen, and those within sporting organisations could form a powerful partnership for sending a strong message that integrity in sport is non-negotiable. It will be important to watch IPACS closely, measuring its effectiveness further down the line.
WHISTLEBLOWERS Total commitments: 15 Complete: 6 Ongoing: 2 Underway: 3 Inactive: 2 Overdue: 2 The clear consensus among anti-corruption experts is that whistleblowing serves an important democratic function, but many of those who speak out in the public interest continue to face professional persecution, as well as civil and criminal lawsuits. There are whistleblowers in jail in all regions of the world. At the Summit, six governments made seven pledges to protect whistleblowers, and other commitments were made around protecting space for civil society to operate. France, having completed both its whistleblowing pledges, stands out for the right reasons. The anti-corruption law 2016-1691 (9 December 2016), which is also known as ‘Sapin II’ after the Finance and Economy Minister Michel Sapin who drove it through Parliament, enshrines several protections for whistleblowers. This includes the exoneration of criminal responsibility for disclosing public interest information under certain conditions, the opportunity for whistleblowers to seek guidance and assistance from an independent body (called the Defender of Rights), and criminal and civil sanctions that guard against reprisals and defamation.
In 2015, the UN Special Rapporteur for the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, David Kaye, conducted the UN’s first major review on whistleblower and source protection, while the OECD also conducted a review in 2016 of whistleblower protection frameworks in its member countries. There is, then, a model for governments to use when reviewing their existing whistleblowing frameworks.
14 Promise to Practice: Monitoring Global Progress of the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit Commitments
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Anti-Corruption Summit has proven to be a successful forum for tackling many issues. While there has been a high rate of implementation across the board, some countries have dropped the ball on delivering commitments, even those that were recycled and unambitious. And though the Summit deserves credit for the high standard it set and the quantity of anti-corruption commitments it generated, the long-term impact of those commitments remains to be realised. Looking ahead, there are major international opportunities for governments to showcase their commitment to anticorruption by reaffirming existing pledges or making new and ambitious ones: Argentina will host the 2018 G20 meeting, and the International Anti-Corruption Conference will be hosted by the Danish Government in October 2018. At both events the global anti-corruption community and stakeholders will be watching closely, and leaders should use these opportunities to demonstrate they are serious about tackling corruption.
Recommendation 1: Governments should embed anticorruption commitments into relevant accountable national procedures such as anti-corruption strategies or OGP National Action Plans.
Recommendation 2: Governments should ensure that anti-money laundering reforms are approached in a coordinated manner, with specific emphasis on beneficial ownership transparency, professional enablers, asset recovery, visa denial and robust law enforcement.
Recommendation 3: Governments should implement the Open Contracting Data Standard, and learn from the leaders in the Contracting 5.
Recommendation 4: Governments and international organisations should fulfil their existing anti-corruption commitments, and proactively publish information on when and how progress is made.
Recommendation 5: Governments and international organisations should be ambitious and concrete in developing new anti-corruption commitments, ensuring they are time-bound, with clarity over which departments or public bodies are responsible for delivering them.
Recommendation 6: Governments and international organisations should collaborate with civil society, business and other stakeholders in the formation and delivery of new anti-corruption commitments, ensuring that fresh commitments to anti-corruption efforts remain a
priority on global agendas
Recommendation 7: Governments and international organisations should ensure that major anti-corruption meetings bring together leaders with genuine political will, and are open, multi-stakeholder and transparent, as was the 2016 London Anti-Corruption Summit.
Transparency International UK 15
ANNEX: METHODOLOGY The original edition of this report was revised in light of inconsistencies when implementing the methodology in its first iteration. As corrections have since been made, statistics and findings in this version will differ from the original. Transparency International UK acknowledges those oversights. This paper is based on data collection up to July 2017, unless stated otherwise. Between May 2016 and July 2017 Transparency International UK worked with 28 TI national chapters or partner organisations and 5 international organisations to track progress on the Anti-Corruption Summit commitments since they were announced.
of progress in areas or across themes that are not addressed. We were unable to monitor progress in all countries, and emphasise that direct comparisons should not be made between different country’s reported progress. The definitions of the categories ‘inactive’, ‘overdue’, ‘ongoing’, ‘underway’ or ‘complete’ are outlined below.
Complete This commitment has been completed, based on publicly available evidence.
Underway Activity has started on delivering this commitment, based on publicly available evidence.
Chapters and partner organisations were asked to:
Ongoing
1. Select the commitments to monitor:
Commitment has no clear end point and activity has started, based on publicly available evidence.
•
Go through the relevant country commitments and eliminate which were too vague to track.
2. Contact and work with government: •
Identify government department responsible for delivering each commitment
•
Inform the responsible department that their progress will be monitored
•
Identify expected timeline for delivering each commitment
3. Track the commitments: •
Look for and provide public evidence1[1] for each commitment where progress had been made
•
Make a note of which commitments were ‘inactive’, ‘overdue’, ‘ongoing’, ‘underway’ or ‘complete’
International Organisations were asked to provide an internal analysis of progress on each commitment, providing public evidence for each and making a note of which commitments were ‘inactive’, ‘overdue’, ‘ongoing’, ‘underway’ or ‘complete’. Bearing this methodology in mind, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this project.
Overdue This commitment was not completed by deadline.
Inactive No activity has taken place on this commitment OR there is no accessible public evidence of activity having taken place on this commitment.
Strength of Summit Commitments In September 2016 TI released an assessment of the strength of Summit commitments. Each commitment was assessed as to how ‘concrete’, ‘new’ and ‘ambitious’ it is. Concrete commitments are those with measurable language such as “we commit to join’, or “we commit to establish’. ‘Somewhat concrete’ commitments include language that signal intent to make progress without there being an easily measurable outcome. This includes phrases such as “we commit to explore’ or ‘we support’. Commitments identified as ‘other’ are those indicating existing actions that can be monitored, such as ‘we will continue’ or ‘we are in the final stage of’. “New” commitments were defined as those generated by the Anti-Corruption Summit. “Somewhat new” commitments are those that are facilitated by or reinvigorated by the Summit but had been previously discussed. “Not new” commitments were already in place prior to the Summit. “Other” commitments refers to pledges that were already on the table but it is unclear when the commitment was made official.
Whilst the selection used is large (around 60 per cent of the total commitments counted in September), it is still only a selection, and should not be seen as indicative 1 Publicly available evidence could be a link to a government website, an online letter, a media article or blog – something that is publicly available and supports the chapter’s assessment that progress has started.
16 Promise to Practice: Monitoring Global Progress of the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit Commitments National civil society organisations took national context into consideration when assessing the level of ambition. For this reason similar commitments in different countries receive different assessments. Where we were unable to receive a response from civil society on a certain national issue in the available time, the commitment is marked as ‘no information available’.
Organisations or institutions credited for monitoring their relevant governments2 Afghanistan
Integrity Watch Afghanistan
Argentina
Poder Ciudadano
Australia
Transparency International Australia
Brazil
Transparency International Brazil
Bulgaria
Transparency International Bulgaria
China
Transparency International China
Colombia
Transparencia Colombia
European Commission
Transparency International EU
France
Transparency International France
Georgia
Transparency International Georgia
Germany
Transparency International Germany
Ghana
Ghana Integrity Initiative
Indonesia
Transparency International Indonesia
Japan
Transparency International Japan
Jordan
Rasheed
Kenya
Transparency International Kenya
Mexico
Transparencia Mexicana
Nigeria
Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre
South Korea
Transparency International Korea
Romania
Transparency International Romania
Russia
Transparency International Russia
South Africa
Corruption Watch
Spain
Transparency International España
Sri Lanka
Transparency International Sri Lanka
Switzerland
Transparency International Switzerland
Trinidad
Trinidad and Tobago Transparency Initiative
UK
Transparency International UK
Ukraine
Transparency International Ukraine
USA
United States of America State Department
2 The Norwegian Government was not responsive to Transparency International Norway’s attempt to monitor its Anti-Corruption Summit commitments. Norway is therefore not included in the database.
Transparency International UK 17
Transparency International UK 7 - 14 Great Dover Street, London, SE1 4YR www.transparency.org.uk twitter.com/transparencyuk