Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) from the perspective of fighting corruption and the role of audit and anti-corruption institutions: Sharing UNDP’s global experiences and lesson learned By Anga Timilsina, Programme Manager UNDP Global Anti-corruption Initiative (GAIN) 15 December 2016, Santiago, Chile We know that corruption is bad. This is the reason why we call corruption using various names such as a cancer, a virus, a bacteria and so on. We do have evidence that it acts like a cancer.

Outline Background: Where are we globally in terms of fighting corruption? SDGs from the perspective of fighting corruption The role of audit and anti-corruption institutions tin the context of the SDGs and fighting corruption

Global context: Are we winning or losing the battle against corruption

Dridi (2014): A unit increase in corruption reduces school enrolment rates by almost 10 percentage points. World Bank, up to 80 % of non-salary health funds never reach local facilities; WHO: about 6 % (over US$300 billion) of global health exp lost to corruption

On the other hand, controlling corruption has a high dividend in terms of achieving development outcomes. Those countries, which seem to be better at controlling corruption are also seem to be better at achieving higher human development. However, now the question is: how are we doing overall all in terms of fighting corruption? Are there any example of countries, which have achieved a lot in terms of fighting corruption recently or those usual suspects are at the top and not many other countries has progressed that much recently?

Gloomy picture in terms of success in fighting corruption? Corruption scandals are also making headlines all over the world. Two powerful women leaders have been impeached and now under investigation. By the way, I used to think that women are better leaders but looking at these two leaders, now I have to rethink myself, Maybe it’s politics after all.

Trends in governance progress over a decade

Winning or losing the battle against corruption: Depends on who you ask (Academia vs. practitioners) Depends on how you define and measure success (corruption vs. advocacy & awareness; corruption a moving target) In econometrics, usually the null hypothesis is a statement of 'no effect' or 'no difference’ Evaluating success of AC is similar to evaluating the overall development effectiveness (e.g., governance reform – a long term process) It is hard to attribute success to one factor, when many factors are in play at the same time. It is also not a good idea to put all countries together or all areas together. We do have some successes in some areas. Since the LDC category was initiated in 1971, only three countries have graduated to developing country status (Botswana – 1994, Cape Verde – 2007 and Maldives – 2011).

Overall: significant progress, but challenges still remain on anti-corruption Increased global advocacy; transparency movement (open data; Open government, access to information) UNCAC, regional instruments; AC policies, legislations, institutions Proliferation of technology, connectivity, networks Panama papers/IIFs and need for collective action Corruption part of development discourse (no longer a taboo) Huge gap between laws, policies and their enforcement (AC laws, access to info law, Conflict of Interest, asset declaration, private sector) Two communities: anti-corruption and development Integration of AC in national development processes Role of SAIs/ACAs on monitoring services is still weak (quantity vs. quality monitoring) Progress on civil society, private sector engagement not quite there

Establishing corporate liability for foreign bribery offences; Whistleblower protection in the private sector; Freedom of information; conflict of interest; etc. In Latin America and the Caribbean countries, now there are more than 16 countries with freedom of information/access to information laws, but their enforcement is still to be seen many countries. Procurement, construction, private sector, conflict of interest foreign bribery offences

Overall: significant progress, but challenges still remain on anti-corruption Increased global advocacy; transparency movement (open data; Open government, access to information) UNCAC, regional instruments; AC policies, legislations, institutions Proliferation of technology, connectivity, networks Panama papers/IIFs and need for collective action Corruption part of development discourse (no longer a taboo) Huge gap between laws, policies and their enforcement (AC laws, access to info law, Conflict of Interest, asset declaration) Two communities: anti-corruption and development Integration of AC in national development processes Role of SAIs/ACAs on monitoring services is still weak (quantity vs. quality monitoring) Progress on civil society, private sector engagement not quite there “Breaking silos, working cross sectors”, Mr. Somavia (during the opening panel). But “everything is sectorized”. Working with the business sector on the SDGs.

Budget, planning ministry “Missing middle” problem still exists in bringing together the governance/anti-corruption and development agendas (UNCAC implementation, SDG implementation) parliament ACCs Anti-corruption Audits Line minstries Budget, planning ministry SDGs

Overall: significant progress, but challenges still remain on anti-corruption Increased global advocacy; transparency movement (open data; Open government, access to information) UNCAC, regional instruments; AC policies, legislations, institutions Proliferation of technology, connectivity, networks Panama papers/IIFs and need for collective action Corruption part of development discourse (no longer a taboo) Huge gap between laws, policies and their enforcement (AC laws, access to info law, Conflict of Interest, asset declaration) Two communities: anti-corruption and development Integration of AC in national development processes Role of SAIs/ACAs on monitoring services is still weak (quantity vs. quality monitoring) Progress on civil society, private sector engagement not quite there

Gaps specifically related to audit and anti-corruption institutions Issue of right model/mandates to fight corruption: Multi-agency model vs, one powerful institutions (prevention vs. enforcement) Issue of independence: Do we an independent audit, anti-corruption institution to be effective? (e.g., Nepal; Chile, Singapore) Issue of capacity (e.g., sectoral audits), resources, national anti-corruption strategies; local level engagement; coordination is easier said than done

SDGs from the perspective of fighting corruption From MDGs to SDGs: Very encouraging (because of Goal 16 & anti-corruption targets) Global indicators; national indicators; monitoring mechanisms, etc. Compared to the MDGs, many countries moving faster: “glocalization”, national alignment, localization, institutional mapping, global + national indicators, monitoring mechanisms, multi-stakeholder consultations Gaps: Prioritization; measurement and monitoring (16 case studies)

Moving forward: Audit and anti-corruption institution should Take the ownership of Goal 16 (specially anti-corruption targets: 15.5 and 15.6: measurement/mainstreaming) (Anti- corruption is not just about Goal 16, it’s about all SDGs) Play important role to monitor the SDGs: Becoming part of Goal 17 SDG audits, budget audits (e.g. Coordinated audits of OLACEFs) Performance auditing of the institutional framework for fighting corruption (e.g., INTOSAI, ACRC) Linking AC strategies with SDG strategies (“Breaking silos, working cross-sectors”) Fighting corruption is just about achieving Goal 16 (achieving peaceful, just and inclusive societies) but fighting corruption is also about eliminating humger, reducing inequality, achieving goals on health, education, water, infrastructure and environment. Corruption impacts all SDGs.

“What gets measured gets managed” 16.5 Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms 16.5.1 Proportion of persons who had at least one contact with a public official and who paid a bribe to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by those public officials, during the previous 12 months 16.5.2 Proportion of businesses that had at least one contact with a public official and that paid a bribe to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by those public officials during the previous 12 months 16.6 Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels 16.6.1 Primary government expenditures as a proportion of original approved budget, by sector (or by budget codes or similar) 16.6.2 Proportion of the population satisfied with their last experience of public services

Thank you !