Integrity pact

Last updated

An integrity pact is a multi-party agreement by a public body seeking to procure goods and services of significant value. As a tool for preventing corruption in public contracting, companies interested in bidding to supply the goods and services give a third party organisation, such as a civil society organisation, a role in monitoring compliance with the pact.

Contents

The agreement includes a written commitment by all parties to respect specific integrity standards during the procurement process. [1] It typically also includes a process for reporting concerns about corruption and fair competition. Some integrity pacts also include sanctions mechanisms. [2]

According to the European Commission, the objectives include: [3]

Integrity pacts are promoted and supported by a German-based anti-corruption organisation, Transparency International, [4] which first developed the concept in the 1990s.

Background and application

Integrity Pacts have been applied in at least 32 countries [5] to hundreds of procurement projects in a range of sectors including infrastructure, transport, health and defence. In India, Mexico and Pakistan, Integrity Pacts are a legal requirement for procurement above a certain value. [6]

The European Commission launched a pilot project in 2015/2016 entitled Integrity Pacts - Civil Control Mechanism for Safeguarding EU Funds, covering 17 EU-funded projects in 11 Member States with a total value of over EUR 920 million. [7] The pilot is coordinated by the Transparency International Secretariat, which maintains a status report on each project. [8] The aim of the pilot is to evaluate the effectiveness of Integrity Pacts in achieving their intended objectives of safeguarding procurement projects from corruption, fraud and other irregularities, as well as draw out best practice for future implementation.

The project was launched at an international conference which was organised by the Transparency International and supported by the European Commission and held on 5 May 2015 in Brussels. [9] A Mid-Term Learning Review published in November 2018 [10] referred specifically to the necessity of political will and to the value of implementing Integrity Pacts early in the pre-tendering phase. The project received the European Ombudsman's Award for Good Administration 2019 in the category "Excellence in open administration". [11] The G20 has also recommended the use of Integrity Pacts in their 2019 Compendium of Good Practices for Promoting Integrity and Transparency in Infrastructure Development. [12]

Costs and benefits

The average total cost of implementing an Integrity Pact in an infrastructure project over one year is estimated to be up to US$100,000. [13] This figure depends on many variables including market conditions, the country in which it is implemented, the size of the project and whether Integrity Pacts are already regularly used in that context. [14]

The development and implementation of an Integrity Pact is often funded by the contracting authority or a project investor such as an international financial institution. In the case of the EU Integrity Pacts - Civil Control Mechanism for Safeguarding EU Funds project, the European Commission has budgeted over EUR 7.2 million across the four-year pilot. [15] In other cases, bidders must contribute to the costs of the Integrity Pact as part of the bidding requirements.

The use of Integrity Pacts is credited with achieving significant cost savings in certain projects where effective monitoring and evaluation systems have been used. For example, an Integrity Pact applied to procurement related to the Greater Karachi Water Supply Scheme in Pakistan in 2001 contributed to saving around a fifth of the total contract price. [16] Subsequent projects implemented by the same monitor, Transparency International Pakistan, also resulted in cost savings and Integrity Pacts are now mandatory in Pakistan for all public procurement projects above a certain threshold.

Other countries with particularly successful experiences of Integrity Pacts include Mexico, where the concept is known as Testigo Social (Social Witness) and implemented by Transparencia Mexicana. [17] This concept was first applied to the construction of the El Cajón and La Yesca dam projects in 2002 and 2006/7 and is now mandatory in procurement above a certain threshold. [18]

There is evidence that even when an Integrity Pact "fails" to guarantee a procurement process free of corruption, it nevertheless contributes to transparency and the highlighting of fraud and other irregularities. This is the case in the Berlin Brandenburg Airport construction project, where the monitor Transparency International Germany formally withdrew in 2015 stating that "corruption has not been taken seriously". [19] The monitor appointed to oversee an Integrity Pact for a tramline project in Riga, Delna, also publicly withdrew from the process in 2019 due to "suspicions of fraud, mismanagement and unacceptably high risks". [20]

In January 2014, the Government of India cancelled a US$630 million deal with AgustaWestland for purchasing 12 AW 101 helicopters citing "breach of the Pre-contract Integrity Pact and the agreement by AWIL (AgustaWestland International Ltd)". [21]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Investment Bank</span> Investment bank of the European Union

The European Investment Bank (EIB) is the European Union's investment bank and is owned by the 27 member states. It is the largest multilateral financial institution in the world. The EIB finances and invests both through equity and debt solutions companies and projects that achieve the policy aims of the European Union through loans, equity and guarantees.

Transparency International e.V. (TI) is a German registered association founded in 1993 by former employees of the World Bank. Based in Berlin, its nonprofit and non-governmental purpose is to take action to combat global corruption with civil societal anti-corruption measures and to prevent criminal activities arising from corruption. Its most notable publications include the Global Corruption Barometer and the Corruption Perceptions Index. Transparency International serves as an umbrella organization. From 1993 to today, its membership has grown from a few individuals to more than 100 national chapters, which engage in fighting perceived corruption in their home countries. TI is a member of G20 Think Tanks, UNESCO Consultative Status, United Nations Global Compact, Sustainable Development Solutions Network and shares the goals of peace, justice, strong institutions and partnerships of the United Nations Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG). TI is a social partner of Global Alliance in Management Education. TI confirmed the dis-accreditation of the national chapter of United States of America in 2017.

Procurement is the process of locating and agreeing to terms and purchasing goods, services, or other works from an external source, often with the use of a tendering or competitive bidding process. The term may also refer to a contractual obligation to "procure", i.e. to "ensure" that something is done. When a government agency buys goods or services through this practice, it is referred to as government procurement or public procurement.

Government procurement or public procurement is undertaken by the public authorities of the European Union (EU) and its member states in order to award contracts for public works and for the purchase of goods and services in accordance with principles derived from the Treaties of the European Union. Such procurement represents 13.6% of EU GDP as of 2018, and has been the subject of increasing European regulation since the 1970s because of its importance to the European single market.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Government procurement</span> Purchases by a government body

Government procurement or public procurement is the procurement of goods, services and works on behalf of a public authority, such as a government agency. Amounting to 12 percent of global GDP in 2018, government procurement accounts for a substantial part of the global economy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Armenia</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Armenia has decreased significantly in modern times, but remains an ongoing problem in the country. Despite this, fighting corruption following the 2018 Armenian revolution has recorded significant progress. Armenia is a member of the Council of Europe's Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO) and the OECD's Anti-Corruption Network and Armenia's anti-corruption measures are regularly evaluated within their monitoring mechanisms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pakistan–European Union relations</span> Bilateral relations

European Union–Pakistan relations are the international relations between the common foreign policy and trade relations of the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Papua New Guinea</span>

Corruption is rife in Papua New Guinea (PNG). According to The Economist, "PNG's governments are notorious for corruption, and ever run the risk of turning the state into a fully-fledged kleptocracy".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Romania</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Romania has decreased in recent years. In particular since 2014, Romania undertook a significant anti-corruption effort that included the investigation and prosecution of medium- and high-level political, judicial and administrative officials by the National Anticorruption Directorate. The National Anticorruption Directorate was established in 2002 by the Romanian government to investigate and prosecute medium and high-level corruption related offenses, using a model of organization inspired by similar structures in Norway, Belgium and Spain. Adrian Zuckerman, the US Ambassador in Romania, has stated in 2021 that "the rule of law has been strengthened in Romania". Since 2022, the effectiveness of the investigation and sanctioning of high-level corruption further improved, including by advancing on cases that had been pending for years for procedural reasons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Belgium</span> Institutional corruption in the country

In general, Belgium has a well-developed legal and institutional framework for fighting against corruption.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Lithuania</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Lithuania describes the prevention and occurrence of corruption in Lithuania.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Sweden</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Sweden has been defined as "the abuse of power" by Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå). By receiving bribes, bribe takers abuse their position of power, which is consistent with how the National Anti-Corruption Unit of the Swedish Prosecution Authority specifies the term. Although bribes and improper rewards are central in the definition of corruption in Sweden, corruption in the sense of "abuse of power" can also manifest itself in other crimes such as misuse of office, embezzlement, fraud and breach of trust against a principal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in the Netherlands</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in the Netherlands in all major areas—judiciary, police, business, politics—as the country is considered one of the least corrupt within the European Union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in the Czech Republic</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in the Czech Republic is considered to be widespread by a majority of the Czech public, according to Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Georgia</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Georgia had been an issue in the post-Soviet decades. Before the 2003 Rose Revolution, according to Foreign Policy, Georgia was among the most corrupt nations in Eurasia. The level of corruption abated dramatically, however, after the revolution. In 2010, Transparency International (TI) said that Georgia was "the best corruption-buster in the world." While low-level corruption had earlier been largely eliminated, Transparency International Georgia since 2020 has also documented dozens of cases of high-level corruption that remain to be prosecuted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital Requirements Regulation 2013</span> EU banking law

The Capital Requirements Regulation(EU) No. 575/2013 is an EU law that aims to decrease the likelihood that banks go insolvent. With the Credit Institutions Directive 2013 the Capital Requirements Regulation 2013 reflects Basel III rules on capital measurement and capital standards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Bulgaria</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Bulgaria has decreased in recent years, after a series of reforms implemented through EU guidance. Among recent improvements, amendments to the constitution in 2015 brought about a reform of the Supreme Judicial Council and a stronger judicial inspectorate. Furthermore, the broader legislative framework has seen a number of reforms over the years, in particular through the amendments of the Judicial System Act in 2016 and of the Criminal Procedure Code in 2017.

Anti-corruption comprises activities that oppose or inhibit corruption. Just as corruption takes many forms, anti-corruption efforts vary in scope and in strategy. A general distinction between preventive and reactive measures is sometimes drawn. In such framework, investigative authorities and their attempts to unveil corrupt practices would be considered reactive, while education on the negative impact of corruption, or firm-internal compliance programs are classified as the former.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Basel Institute on Governance</span>

The Basel Institute on Governance is an independent, international non-profit organisation dedicated to preventing and combating corruption and other financial crimes and to strengthening governance around the world. The organisation was established in Basel, Switzerland in 2003 by Professor Mark Pieth.

Maritime anti-corruption initiatives have emerged in the last decades as a response to the growing threat of transnational corruption in the maritime domain, specifically in the shipping industry which is responsible for around 90% of world trade. In the past, paying bribes at ports to pass through customs was perceived as normal behavior, but such activities resulting in higher operational costs lead to increasingly stricter national and international anti-corruption regulations being put in place.

References

  1. ↑ "Integrity Pacts in public procurement: an implementation guide". Transparency international. 15 April 2014. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  2. ↑ "Content of an Integrity Pact". B20 Collective Action Hub. Basel Institute on Governance. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  3. ↑ "Improving how funds are invested and managed: Integrity Pacts". European Commission. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  4. ↑ Transparency International, Integrity Pacts, accessed 15 June 2016
  5. ↑ "Integrity Pacts around the world". B20 Collective Action Hub. Basel Institute on Governance. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  6. ↑ "Regulations and policy support". B20 Collective Action Hub. Basel Institute on Governance. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  7. ↑ "Improving how funds are invested and managed: Integrity Pacts". European Commission. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  8. ↑ "Integrity Pacts – state of play". Transparency International EU. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  9. ↑ Conference "Integrity Pacts - Safeguarding EU Funds" - Brussels, 5 May, accessed 15 June 2016
  10. ↑ "Mid-Term Learning Review of TI Integrity Pacts: Civil Control Mechanism for Safeguarding EU Funds Project" (PDF). Organisation Development Support. 26 November 2018. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  11. ↑ "Ombudsman announces Award for Good Administration 2019 winners". European Ombudsman. 27 June 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  12. ↑ "G20 Compendium of Good Practices for Promoting Integrity and Transparency in Infrastructure Development" (PDF). OECD. 2019.
  13. ↑ "Learning Review: Transparency International's Integrity Pacts for Public Procurement" (PDF). Basel Institute on Governance / Blomeyer & Sanz. 2015. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  14. ↑ "Integrity Pacts: Funding and costs". B20 Collective Action Hub. Basel Institute on Governance.
  15. ↑ "Improving how funds are invested and managed: Integrity Pacts". European Commission. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  16. ↑ Syed Adil Gilani (November 2006). "TI Pakistan experience with the Integrity Pact – Cases, Impact and Impact Measuring" (PDF). International Anti-Corruption Conference. Transparency International Pakistan. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  17. ↑ "Posicionamiento de Transparencia Mexicana sobre el monitoreo independiente que realiza como Testigo Social y su participación en procedimientos de licitación pública" (in Spanish). Transparencia Mexicana. 3 April 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  18. ↑ "Integrity Pact case study in Mexico: Social Witnesses". B20 Collective Action Hub. Basel Institute on Governance.
  19. ↑ "Korruption nicht ernst genommen – Transparency Deutschland beendet Kooperation mit BER". Transparency International Germany (in German). Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  20. ↑ "Corruption risks in city-managed infrastructure projects offer bitter lessons". Delna. 11 June 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  21. ↑ Rs 3,600 crore VVIP chopper deal with AgustaWestland scrapped in view of bribery allegations accessed 15 June 2016
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.