How does corruption occur in the process of getting humanitarian assistance to people in need? What kinds of corrupt practices can occur, and at which stages of the process? Who might be involved, and how can corruption be prevented?

Seeking answers to these critical questions, Transparency International recently released Mapping the Risks of Corruption in Humanitarian Action, a report that pinpoints the areas where humanitarian assistance is most at risk of being diverted from its intended beneficiaries through corruption. The report demonstrates that provision of relief and reconstruction support is a process, and begins long before an humanitarian agency transfers money or goods to a community.

The process of relief delivery can be broken down into clear stages:

• needs assessment
• fundraising and allocation of funding
• selection of local partners
• procurement of goods and services
• targeting and registration of beneficiaries
• distribution of assistance
• finance, administration and human resources
• project monitoring and evaluation.

The report is innovative in setting out the various elements of the humanitarian assistance supply chain in tabular form, to map where various types of corruption may occur.

Corruption: broadening the definition
There are many ways in which corruption can occur along the process of assistance delivery, and while they may be less dramatic than a despotic leader siphoning funds to a foreign bank account, each diverts money from people who desperately need the food, shelter and social programmes that assistance is intended to provide. In breaking down the activities where corruption may be possible, the report identifies each exact risk, and who would stand to gain from the corrupt activity. This detailed structure makes it easier to monitor aid activities and prevent diversion of funds.

The report shows that the range of individuals involved in corrupt activities and the definition of corruption itself can be broader than assumed. Many more opportunities for corruption surface in the chaotic management environments that follow a natural disaster, conflict or political crisis. Moreover, the primary objective of humanitarian agencies is to provide relief as quickly as possible to minimise suffering, often referred to as the “need for speed”. Though corruption affects the poor and needy the most, in situations of mass suffering humanitarian workers may feel that a debate on corruption is irrelevant.

The humanitarian dilemma
A common dilemma faced by humanitarian workers is whether or not to pay a bribe at a checkpoint to get relief supplies across a border to needy populations.

This leads straight to the question of who is involved in corrupt practices. The report identifies the possibility of corruption involving government officials, businesspeople providing goods and services, local elites, customs officials, aid organisations, local or partner organisations and the beneficiaries themselves. This expands the view of who may be responsible for corruption in such situations.

Similarly, the definition of corruption - “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain” - suggests that the benefit of a corrupt act may not always be financial: enhanced reputation, political capital, or most disturbingly, sexual favours may also be gained.

Mapping the Risks of Corruption in Humanitarian Action is a valuable assessment tool. It goes straight to the source - humanitarian assistance professionals - to ask where they believe corruption exists. TI’s national chapters and the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) carried out interviews with humanitarian practitioners, including staff of UN agencies, local and international civil society organisations and government officials, in several countries that have experienced natural disasters or civil conflict (Bangladesh, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Burundi, Guatemala, Indonesia, Kenya, Niger, Pakistan, Sierra Leone and Zambia). The interviews helped to verify that the main elements of the risk map framework did indeed reflect the realities in emergency contexts.

Humanitarian practitioners explain
Specific examples of corruption in the assistance process were garnered through the interviews. In Pakistan, local community leaders complained that recovery assistance was only provided to families who supported local elected officials. In Zambia, interviewees noted that members of parliament pressured humanitarian agencies to adjust food aid distributions to favour campaign areas for upcoming elections; and in Bangladesh, government officials were believed to create fake names and addresses for beneficiaries in order to siphon off the relief allocations for themselves.

The interviews also noted that local people may see humanitarian agency staff as corrupt, due to “comparatively lavish spending on management and administration costs and the use of NGO assets for private as well as agency purposes, for example, using a car in the evening for social purposes”.

Good management makes a difference
The interviews not only illustrate the risks of corruption; the people interviewed also suggested how to mitigate its risk. The general consensus: good management! It is important to bring all those affected into the process and make it much more participatory. The real challenge is that “committed staff at all levels who believe in the humanitarian objectives of the organisation, and disaster-affected populations who understand what they are meant to be receiving, can participate in its planning and implementation and can complain if relief is corruptly abused”.

Other suggestions included taking decisions in teams rather than individually, developing an independent monitoring capacity, establishing a mechanism for handling complaints within organisations, peer review, and sanctions or penalties to deter corruption.

What's next?
There has been reluctance in the humanitarian community to speak openly of corruption. However, according to Dr. Namawu Alolo of the relief and development agency Islamic Relief, this reluctance must be overcome: “The secrecy that has surrounded corruption in humanitarian assistance has partly fuelled aid fatigue, apprehension and misgivings among donor communities. We have to break the circle of secrecy. We have to develop standards of practice, and propose guidelines for the conduct of humanitarian assistance agencies”.

A core dilemma facing aid workers is how to get relief as quickly as possible to those who need it. Balancing that need with minimising the risk of corruption requires tools.

Developing tools specific enough to recognise the risks in different steps and activities of the process will be the second phase of work in this area. The study’s findings are intended to contribute to the development of a toolbox of measures to minimise and tackle corruption.

TI will continue work in this area in partnership with a number of humanitarian agencies, including Islamic Relief. Next steps are to share, document and implement examples of good practice organised around the humanitarian relief processes set out in the Risk Map. Examples of best practice are expected to form the basis of tools for minimising the risks of corruption, with field staff as the ultimate target users.

It is important to note that this study was not undertaken because a great deal of corruption was found in the relief process. But it is not immune to corruption, either. Identifying where risks may lie will make it easier to identify tools to combat and, eventually, prevent corruption and ensure that desperately needed funds reach the people they are intended to help.