CoSP11: A critical moment for shaping the future of integrity worldwide

Public confidence in fair governance continues to buckle. Around the world, people are confronting elections shaped by hidden influence, public resources that aren’t properly safeguarded, and institutions struggling to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated corruption risks.

International Anti-Corruption Day brings these pressures into sharp focus – and this year it does so on the eve of the 11th session of the Conference of the States Parties (CoSP11) to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, where governments will gather in Doha from 15-19 December.

Held every two years, the Conference is the main decision-making body of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), bringing together governments and other stakeholders to review its implementation, discuss emerging challenges and trends, and adopt resolutions on key issues. Commitments made under UNCAC carry significant weight: they shape global anti-corruption standards, guide national reforms and create a basis for civil society to hold governments to account for the promises they make on the international stage.

The agenda in Doha will be wide-ranging. Against this broader landscape, Transparency International will direct its advocacy at CoSP11 towards three key areas where decisive progress can shift the global fight against corruption: strengthening integrity in political finance, fighting environmental crime through transparency, and raising the standards on the regulation of professional service providers who enable illicit funds to move.

The integrity of political systems depends on transparency about who funds parties, candidates and campaigns. Yet in many countries, political finance remains one of the weakest points in the integrity landscape. Loopholes, inconsistent rules and limited oversight create space for wealthy individuals, private interests and, in some cases, foreign interests to shape electoral competition and policy outcomes without scrutiny. The consequences are clear: distorted democratic processes, diminished public trust and policy decisions that serve the well-connected rather than the public.

This year, CoSP11 presents an unprecedented opportunity to correct course. Although when UNCAC entered into force in 2005 it contained a commitment on political finance – calling for transparency in the funding of candidates and political parties – implementation has been uneven in the two decades since, leaving serious gaps that continue to undermine the integrity of political systems.

Against this backdrop, Norway, Albania, Ghana and Mongolia have tabled the first-ever CoSP resolution dedicated specifically to political finance. It offers governments the chance to set clearer, stronger international expectations for transparency and accountability. Its value lies not only in the standards it advances, but in the signal it would send: that political influence should be exercised in the open, not channelled through hidden networks of undisclosed money. But for meaningful progress, several reforms are essential.

First, political parties and candidates should be required to disclose their finances in a timely, accessible and comprehensive manner. That includes identifying donors, detailing expenditures and ensuring the information is published online in formats the public can understand and use ahead of elections. Disclosure is only effective when it is accessible.

Second, the gaps that allow illicit or inappropriate money to enter politics need to be closed. That includes requiring companies that donate to be transparent about who actually owns and controls them, banning the use of shell companies or other middlemen that hide where money really comes from, and ensuring that all political payments go through the banking system so there is a clear, traceable record. Strong rules on donations from abroad and on anonymous contributions are also essential to protect elections from hidden outside influence.

Third, oversight institutions must be empowered to enforce the rules. Effective monitoring requires independence, resourcing and the ability to impose sanctions where violations occur. Without enforcement, even the strongest rules risk becoming symbolic.

Fourth, societies benefit when scrutiny comes from multiple sources. Election observers, civil society organisations, journalists and the general public all contribute to the integrity of political systems. Strengthening their ability to analyse and monitor political finance – and protecting those who speak up – reinforces transparency and accountability.

Finally, the spiralling cost of contesting elections needs to be addressed. Excessive spending can deter participation, especially by women, fuel dependency on unaccountable donors and entrench inequalities. Measures such as spending caps, equitable public funding and affordable nomination fees help ensure politics is not limited to those with the deepest pockets.

Agreeing an ambitious resolution at CoSP11 would establish political finance as a cornerstone of integrity worldwide. It would also empower states to take concrete steps at home to confront the opaque financial networks that disproportionately shape their political systems.

Environmental crime is a global emergency accelerating climate breakdown, biodiversity loss, and widespread human rights violations. From illegal logging and mining to land grabbing and pollution, these crimes flourish where corruption enables impunity. At this year’s CoSP11, there will be a full day dedicated to environmental and climate issues for the first time. Governments have a historic opportunity to act decisively.

A new resolution on crimes that affect the environment – tabled by Brazil and Namibia, alongside a complementary initiative from Small Island Developing States – could be a turning point. It’s crucial that States Parties adopt robust, forward-looking resolutions that recognise corruption as a central driver of environmental destruction and climate harm, and that strengthen enforcement and prevention at national and global levels.

Proposals by Transparency International, developed with the UNCAC Coalition’s Environmental Crime Working Group, call for concrete national commitments, stronger cross-border cooperation, and the integration of anti-corruption measures into environmental and supply-chain governance. This includes open contracting for climate and environmental funds, beneficial ownership transparency of companies receiving contracts and licenses, and oversight mechanisms that prevent corruption in land allocation, natural resource management, and climate finance.

The human cost of corruption-driven environmental crime is stark. In Honduras, the Garífuna communities of Cristales and Río Negro - despite holding ancestral land titles for more than a century - are facing dispossession, intimidation and environmental devastation linked to expanding palm oil interests. An investigation by Revistazo, the media outlet of Transparency International’s chapter Sociedad más Justa, documents how corporate capture, weak rule of law and corruption facilitate unlawful land seizures, dried riverbeds and violence against community leaders resisting these abuses. Their struggle illustrates a global pattern highlighted in our recent paper on environmental defenders and business integrity: corruption enables destructive activities, retaliation against those who resist them, and impunity for perpetrators.

To be effective, CoSP11 must establish the corruption–environmental crime–climate nexus, strengthen cooperation across enforcement agencies, tackle the role of enablers regulate lobbying to prevent undue influence and conflicts of interest, and ensure the meaningful, safe participation of civil society, Indigenous peoples and environmental defenders.

There is a rare chance in Doha to elevate environmental crime within the global anti-corruption agenda. By adopting strong resolutions on climate and environment, States Parties can protect ecosystems, uphold human rights, and ensure transparent, accountable environmental and climate governance.

Professional service providers – company and trust agents, lawyers, accountants and real-estate agents – sit at the junctions where illicit wealth is created, moved and made usable. They can prevent corruption and organised crime – including crimes that affect the environment – or, if not closely watched, enable the concealment, transfer and enjoyment of illicit proceeds.

UNCAC recognises the need for governments to act. Article 14 of the UNCAC calls for comprehensive regimes for financial institutions and “other bodies particularly susceptible to money laundering”. At CoSP10, States went further in the resolution on corruption and organised crime, explicitly naming “legal, accounting, real estate and corporate service providers”. Yet gaps persist. As the Opacity in Real Estate Ownership Index released by Transparency International and the Anti-Corruption Data Collective earlier this year showed, in many countries real estate transactions can still be handled by unregulated professionals – a major loophole that frustrates detection and asset tracing.

There is political momentum to fix this. The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) called for more effective regulation of professional service providers across borders. CoSP11 should build on this consensus and translate it into practical commitments.

States should start by being clear that regulation should target high-risk services, not just professional labels. That means services that raise, transfer, hold or manage client assets; create and administer companies and trusts; and broker property sales and purchases. Lawyers should not be exempt when performing financial or administrative activities. Clarifying that legal professional privilege cannot be used to avoid duties to prevent money laundering and reporting suspicious transactions – and only protects core legal advice and representation – will close a frequently exploited loophole.

Supervision is another crucial matter. Self-regulation and under-resourced public oversight have too often left professionals off the hook. States should forge consensus that, across the board, we need stronger and more stringent supervision by independent and empowered agencies. This is crucial to improve both the quantity and quality of suspicious transaction reports to financial intelligence units, and allow them to generate more useful financial intelligence and actionable leads for the law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies. That means faster freezing of suspicious funds and assets, more effective confiscation and, ultimately, return of stolen wealth.

This agenda cuts across the concerns that bring States to CoSP – from preventing environmental crime to strengthening financial intelligence and asset recovery. CoSP11 is the moment to start closing the gap left by the Convention and earlier commitments by agreeing a clear, comprehensive package on professional service providers. The momentum is real – it should not be wasted.

What happens in Doha will matter long after delegates leave the room. CoSP11 is a chance for governments to prove that the global anti-corruption framework can still push states beyond comfortable rhetoric and towards decisions that close real vulnerabilities. The challenges are well-known, and geopolitical tensions have made collective action more difficult – but that is precisely why decisive commitments now would signal renewed intent rather than drift.

Alongside new resolutions, this CoSP will also determine the next phase of the UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism (IRM) – the backbone of how states assess progress and follow through on their commitments. A more transparent, inclusive and effective IRM would allow governments, civil society and oversight bodies to better track whether reforms are actually happening in practice, identify where support is needed, and sustain momentum beyond Doha. Strengthening the mechanism now would help ensure UNCAC remains a living instrument rather than a set of static promises.

This moment calls for choices that demonstrate resolve, not ceremony. Governments do not need to search for new priorities – they need to confront the weaknesses they have allowed to persist and turn promises into practice.