Presentation by Jan van Dijk
Chief, Crime Reduction and Analysis Branch
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
Hungarian National Integrity meeting
Budapest, 20 March 2003
Only fifteen years ago the topic of corruption in the public domain was rarely discussed within the framework of the United Nations. Those who raised it were suspected of ulterior political motives.
At least one reason for this state of affairs was that Cold War ideologies prevented an objective assessment of the phenomenon. Unsurprisingly, countries experiencing high levels of corruption, and those who backed them, were not ready to discuss these problems in an international forum. Allegations that large percentages of foreign development aid were siphoned off to foreign banks were hotly denied by both the recipient and the donor countries.
This position has now radically changed. Since the mid-1990s at the annual meetings of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in Vienna, representatives of many countries underline the need to address problems of corruption in their own countries - as well as across the globe.
In a short space of time then the international debate on corruption - and what to do about it - has not only opened up, but assumed a new sense of urgency. Member States now want concerted action against corruption. They also have turned increasingly to the UN to provide them with guidance and technical assistance on how to defeat corruption.
It is against this background that the Office on Drugs and Crime launched in 1999 its Global Programme against Corruption (GPAC). This was a unique initiative at the time, and we could not have envisaged how quickly the programme would grow.
From the outset we were aware that the mere acknowledgment by a country that corruption exists, did not necessarily imply a real commitment on the part of governments to tackle it. Indeed, such acknowledgments may well be a form of political window-dressing or a ploy to undermine the credibility of political opponents - without in fact taking the necessary steps, many of which might undermine the position of the political elite itself.
For these reasons, the approach taken by the global programme is that national counter-corruption strategies must be based on facts; non-partisan; comprehensive; transparent; and, inclusive.
The key building block for any anti-corruption strategy must be the first of these elements - ascertaining just how extensive is the problem of corruption, and which sectors of the government and economy are worst affected.
Therefore, national strategies in our view should always be evidence or facts based. The foundation of the strategy must be a thorough assessment of the current situation. Such assessment provides guidance for the setting of priorities and a rational allocation of resources. Its results also provide a benchmark against which the impact of measures taken can be determined.
There can be little doubt that an objective assessment of the corruption problems requires political courage. The results of such studies are seldom "good news" for government, and indeed, often simply provide ammunition to their opponents. The results will almost always confirm that much needs still to be done.
In several of our country projects our counterparts at the central or local level have been reluctant to take the medicine of an objective corruption report. But, while such medicine may be difficult to swallow in the short term, there is little doubt that a transparent assessment of the extent of corruption will have critical long-term benefits.
In recent years, our ability to measure the nature and extent of corruption has improved reinforcing our ability to provide objective assessments. Let me provide you with some examples from this region - Central and Eastern Europe.
UNODC, in partnership with others, has over the years carried out surveys among samples of the general population asking about experiences of crime and corruption. The crime component of these surveys has now been fully integrated in the national policing strategy of Hungary under the leadership of the new High Commissioner of the National Police, Dr Laszlo Salgo. UNODC has recently conducted such surveys in some 30 European countries, including 15 Central and Eastern European countries.
Corruption remains an issue of concern in most Eastern European countries. In the Russian Federation, for example, 16 percent of the public reported to have been asked for a bribe by an official in the course of last year. In Romania this percentage is 19 percent and in Albania 59. Such percentages were also found by UNODC in some developing countries. In Central Europe the average rate is below ten percent. Hungary conforms to the average with 9.8 percent. In contrast, much lower percentages were found in Western Europe.
These findings confirm that Hungary, as with other countries in the region, still has a long way to go in the eradication of corrupt practices in everyday life.
Yet, it must also be acknowledged that important steps have been taken by Hungary, which was literally the first state that approached UNODC with the proposal to take part in the global programme as a pilot country.
An objective corruption assessment was carried out by Gallup under the supervision of the UNODC. These results showed a wide range of corrupt practices. Later today the results will be released of a repeat survey carried out by Gallup this year.
The Hungarian government must be commended for its unwavering support for our evidence-based approach and our commitment to transparency. The very fact that the Hungarian government pursues this evidence-based approach is a model for others - those who now have less courage to pursue such a strategy.
It must be a key aim of our global programme to persuade states that an open approach to the problems of corruption is the best and only approach. But, let me now elaborate on the content of our global programme so that you can judge our efforts for yourselves. As indicated by Mr Costa the Programme aims at helping Member States in preventing and controlling corruption through:
Let me turn to the first area, that of advancing knowledge.
The proposed UN Convention against Corruption will serve as the centre piece for corruption-related efforts and our programme will provide assistance in promoting measures prescribed by the Convention. It will provide advisory services including training to help close the gap between that which exists and what will be called for or codified as standards in the new Convention.
For this purpose the global programme has produced several tools to promote a common understanding of UN policy and enhance Governments' capacity to build integrity to fight national and trans-national corruption. These tools include:
The UN Anti-Corruption Tool-Kit. This is a set of some fifty continually refined tools and case studies to 'fix' corruption problems of all kinds, available in hard copy and on our website.
The draft UN Manual on Anti-Corruption Policy. The manual is a guide for policy makers on legal instruments addressing corruption.
Finally, a draft UN Handbook for Prosecutors and Investigators has been developed in close collaboration with the US Department of Justice.
The second key element of the programme, as I have suggested already, is a growing array of country projects.
Hungary is important as it was our first pilot project - a critical step for both you and us.
Here, UNODC, in collaboration with UNICRI, carried out a comprehensive corruption assessment that was widely disseminated. You will recall that a National Anti-Corruption Decree was adopted by the Hungarian Council of Ministers in 2001. A broad-based National Integrity Steering Committee has been established and a National Integrity Meeting takes place today. This meeting will provide input to a comprehensive corruption strategy and action plan.
The global programme has also been active elsewhere, in places where the problems of corruption are truly endemic.
One of the other most prominent projects is conducted at the request of Nigeria. Here the focus is on strengthening Judicial Integrity in the court system in three regions of the country. As always the project started with an objective assessment, in this case a survey among court users about their experiences with corruption in the judiciary and a self-assessment by the judges.
Some other examples of ongoing projects include:
South Africa -- assisting the Government of South Africa in its efforts to prevent, detect and fight corruption and promote the rule of law within the country
Colombia -- strengthening the rule of law at the sub-national level and national level by increasing the integrity of local governments.
Indonesia -- strengthening judicial integrity and capacity, following the model of the project in Nigeria.
Iran -- strengthening the effectiveness, transparency and accountability of Iran's judiciary.
By 2005 the GPAC plans to manage 15-20 technical assistance projects supporting Member States in preventing and controlling corruption. These projects mainly focus on strengthening judicial integrity, a unique strategic niche, with potentially high impact. UNODC would be ready to also carry out such project for the Hungarian judiciary.
I must emphasise again here, however, how important the work in Hungary has been. It has become a critical foundation for our work elsewhere, and we have drawn important lessons which can be applied to a range of other countries where the problems are significantly more serious.
Finally, a key focus of the global programme has been to enhance collaboration amongst the variety of stakeholders working on countering corruption.
Since 2000, GPAC, in collaboration with Transparency International (TI) and the British Department for International Development (DFID) supports Chief Justices from Common and Civil Law Countries, the Judicial Group, in identifying and applying best practices in strengthening judicial integrity and capacity.
The outcome of this process has been a:
The draft code of conduct for judges is a unique document designed by and for judges, outlining the standards of integrity for judges covering areas such as conflict of interest, declaration of assets and disciplinary measures.
We cannot however preach corruption prevention, without taking active steps ourselves.
In December 2001 the GPAC was requested to enhance coordination and cooperation across all organizations internationally active in anti-corruption policy, advocacy and operations, in order to avoid undue duplication and to ensure effective and efficient use of existing resources.
Subsequently, the GPAC has been requested to take the lead in establishing an Interagency Anti-Corruption Coordination Mechanism that will assure better coordination and cooperation across UN and other agencies active in the field of anti-corruption work and to support our internal audit structures in developing an Organizational Integrity Initiative aimed at mainstreaming ethics throughout the UN system.
I have provided a relatively detailed outline of some of the initiatives that we are engaged in to provide some context to the challenges that we as the UN are facing in countering corruption. I must emphasise, however, that we do not claim to have all the answers nor is the problem the same in all countries where we work - far from it. If we are to be successful, we require active cooperation with partners such as yourselves.
Our approach therefore must be to learn lessons from action-orientated strategies adopted in particular countries. For us, therefore, it has been a privilege to act as partners with the Hungarian Government in countering corruption.
We realise, of course, as I stated at the outset, that a simple acknowledgement that corruption exists is not enough. That acknowledgement must be followed by concerted and sustained action. We believe this will be the case in Hungary and once again I congratulate you for your efforts. It is our firm belief that corruption can be defeated - I sincerely hope, as I am sure you do, that Hungary will be held up in the future as a shining example of a country where integrity and transparency triumphed over bribery and nepotism.
I thank you.