Integritetsutfordringer i militære operasjoner
Transparency International sin Government Defence Index er publisert. Norge scorer godt påen rekke områder, men har også utfordringer å ta tak i.
Norway, 2015, Country Summary
Norway’s GI ranking in Band B places it in the low category for corruption in the defence andsecurity sector. Norway scored higher for Political and Personnel, which score in Band A(very low risk of corruption). The highest risk area is Operations, which fell in Band D (highrisk of corruption).
Enhancing Integrity of Procurement
With a robust system of parliamentary oversight over the defence sector supported bycapable audit institutions, Norway makes a large amount of information of defence budgetand policies available for public scrutiny. Norway is also home to the Centre of Integrity inthe Defence Sector, which provides expertise on anti-corruption to the Norwegian andpartner armed forces through the NATO Building Integrity programme. The Norwegiandefence sector could build on this anti-corruption expertise by ensuring that offset contractregulation seeks to minimise corruption risks. We recommend that procurement proceduresrestrict the incidence of single-source -- and therefore non-competitive tender procedures --as well as nudge companies bidding for defence contracts towards adopting comprehensivecompliance and anti-corruption programmes.
Approach to Anti-corruptionSince the Action Plan on Attitudes, Ethics and Leadership expired in 2012, the NorwegianMOD has guided its departments to adopt anti-corruption training and standards into theirroutine management practices. This appears to be a promising approach and will makeanticorruption activities a part of everyday operations. We encourage the MOD to keeppromoting, monitoring, and reporting on these developments in order to ensure that theyare successful. It would also be beneficial to institutionalise regular corruption riskassessments to ensure solutions put in place address the most important issues.
Building Integrity in Military Operations
Norway’s experience in Afghanistan has brought recognition that corruption is an importantvariable affecting the stability and good governance in international operations. However,this recognition has yet to yield a detailed anti-corruption doctrine for operations. Whilethere appears to be some anti-corruption training for commanders and some guidance oncontracting is in place, it is not clear if either are tailored to operational challenges, such ascontracting in complex environments. Specialist corruption monitors are also not deployedin operations. Norway could build on its experience in Afghanistan and specialist expertisewithin CIDS to ensure that anti-corruption guidance becomes part of pre-deploymentguidance and training. Not only would this benefit Norwegian armed forces, it would helpenhance NATO’s institutionalisation of recent anti-corruption experience. Given itsleadership role within the Building Integrity programme, Norway is well placed to assist theAlliance on this issue.
Reducing Procurement Risks in Offset Contracts and Subcontractors
While there is no evidence of corruption within offset arrangements, it appears that offsetcontracts regulations do not impose due diligence and/or audit requirements that wouldhelp prevent corruption risks or foster good practice. However, the Norwegian governmenthas made known its intention to address the issue of offsets in a new White Paper,forthcoming in late 2015. We welcome this development and the opportunity of introducingmore robust regulations.Norway requires that companies bidding for defence contracts show that they have notbeen convicted of corrupt practices. The government could build on this to ensure thatcompanies bidding for defence work have anti-corruption programmes in place and that thisrequirement trickles down the supply chain to subcontractors.