Corruption in Humanitarian Assistance

It's difficult to think a topic that's more taboo than corruption - especially when it comes to discussing the issue publicly.  According to Alex Jacobs, the director of Management Accounting for Non-Governmental Organizations (MANGO): "All agencies have suffered some of corruption, but there is a reticence to talk about."

Two recent reports look at what programmatic activities are most vulnerable, and offer a critique of existing prevention mechanisms. A few observations from Preventing Corruption in Humanitarian Assistance, the more in-depth of the reports, caught my eye:

First, "[t]he issue of corruption, however, is sensitive not least because aid agencies raise large proportions of their funding from appeals to the general public, with the consequent fear that reports of corruption could undermine public trust."

Understandable, not to mention that large donors like USAID and DfID also tend to look somewhat askance at any signs of fraud or similar abuse.

Which makes the following finding all the more interesting: "the majority of staff interviewed across most of the participating agencies did not rate prevention of corruption high on the priorities of the agency. Corruption was generally perceived as an unavoidable part of the emergency environment and the prevention of corruption was often considered as just another routine part of doing business."

A statement which isn't quite as counter-intuitive as it might seem, given the pressures on staff in the field to deliver life-saving assistance.

Inevitably, discussions about corruption are discussions about balancing the need to act against the need to ensure that effective safeguards are in place.

For instance (and to over-simply somewhat), do you go ahead with a food distribution in an IDP camp even if you know that the registration isn't perfect, and that camp leaders will probably re-distribute or tax the food later that day?

If you don't have time to read through Preventing Corruption in Humanitarian Assistance, then it's at least worthwhile to take a look at Need and Greed, a new seven page policy brief by HGP.

Need and Greed defines corruption as "'the abuse of entrusted power for private gain', including financial corruption such as fraud, bribery and kick-backs.  It also encompasses non-financial forms of corruption such as the manipulation or diversion of humanitarian assistance to benefit non-target groups; the allocation of relief resources in exchange for sexual favours; preferential treatment in the assistance or hiring processes for family members or friends; and the coercion or intimidation of staff or beneficiaries to turn a blind eye to or participate in corruption."

Some key findings include:

- "Food aid, construction, and other highly valued assistance [e.g. the distribution of medicines, fishing boats and tents] are perceived as at highest risk of corruption."

- "Whereas aid agencies are most concerned about 'inclusion errors' because this diverts their resources, recipients themselves are more concerned about exclusion. For people affected by crisis, being registered as a camp resident, for a food ration card, for home reconstruction or other assistance is the primary entry-point in accessing aid."

- "Among programme support areas, procurement and financial management provide numerous possibilities for fraud and collusion...The greatest risk in human resources is the favouring of certain groups in hiring."

- "Corruption poses a threat in any process that passes through gate-keepers - people or groups who control access to information and assistance."

- "Working through local partners builds local capacity to respond to emergencies, can increase local accountability and might provide greater knowledge of local power relations, but partnerships may also decrease oversight in comparison to direct implementation of programmes."

- "Engaging through communities elected by crisis-affected populations opens these groups to potential control by local elites, while local leaders, often an asset in reaching people in need because of their influence and intimate knowledge of their communities, can use this power to divert assistance to unintended recipients."

And, on that note, would love to hear people's views on which anti-corruption measures have proven most effective in the field.

Useful resources:

- Preventing Corruption in Humanitarian Assistance (Feinstein International Center, HPG and Transparency International, 2008)

- Need and greed: corruption risks, perceptions and prevention in humanitarian assistance (HPG Policy Brief #32, September 2008)

- HPG panel discussion on corruption in humanitarian assistance (September 17th, 2008), including an audio podcast of the discussion

- Case studies on Afghanistan, Liberia, Northern Uganda, and Sri Lanka

- The Sphere Project: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response

- Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP)

Image from www.internationalrivers.org