U4 Helpdesk Query

U4 helpdesk reply

The term 'observatory' has been used in a number of contexts to describe an entity formed to support anti-corruption efforts, generally at national level. The nature of these entities has varied considerably from country to country - from mainly civil-society led observatories, to those established directly by government. A common element, however, is that such observatories aim to strengthen anti-corruption efforts by facilitating both information exchange and awareness-raising in relation to corruption. Observatories also generally have at their core an information or knowledge management system geared to provide support to broader anti-corruption activities within a particular society.

Examples of anti-corruption observatories, as well as evaluations of their effectiveness and transferability, are still relatively limited.

This reply focuses on a number of entities that broadly follow the observatory model, though sometimes use a different name. A final section addresses the feasibility of transfering the observatory model from one country context to another.

• National Corruption Observatory, Morocco
  
• Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres (ALACs), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Romania
  
• Anti-Corruption Resource Centres (ACRCs), Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union
• Anti-Corruption Observatory, Cameroon
• Feasibility of transfering between countries

[top]

National Corruption Observatory, Morocco

Morocco's National Corruption Observatory was opened in Casablanca in June 2001. The observatory was created by Transparency Morocco, with financial support from USAID, in the framework of the country's network of associations working against corruption. Its two main objectives were to make information about corruption more freely available to the Moroccan public and raise awareness about the problem among government officials, but also among the public at large. This was to be done by establishing a central depository for information about corruption, allowing the systematic collection of data for further dissemination.

Establishment and Structure
The observatory was established by first forming an orientation committee composed of the different associations involved in the country's fight against corruption. This committee - whose task was to oversee the observatory's development - then elected a three-person executive responsible for the observatory's day-to-day management. Both the committee and the executive were unpaid. An office staffed by one full-time person was then set-up in order to collect and process corruption data. This person was later joined by an information specialist and a number of trainees.

Activities
The main activity undertaken by the observatory was the collection and dissemination of information about corruption and means to address it. Around 400 pieces of information were captured and summarised each month, primarily from media sources. This information was disseminated in a number of ways, including via a monthly bulletin, via press conferences and via an annual report. The observatory also established working relationships with a variety of relevant actors, including the media, academics, public officials, bar councils, financial control bodies and elected bodies engaged in investigative work against corruption. Other activities included the collection of books and articles in a library, as well as production of a press review database.

Effectiveness
The observatory project created a watchdog body to monitor acts of corruption covered by the media in Morocco. It was successful in terms of the amount of information collected and the manner in which this information was disseminated to the public. After one and a half years, however, the project ended when its initial funding ceased. This meant that plans to extend the role of the observatory in terms of monitoring corruption in the election process and the establishment of a hotline for reporting corruption cases, could not be realised. Despite this, TI-Morocco believes the project was a very valuable awareness-raising exercise and, in addition, was helpful in structuring and informing their work.

For further information, please contact Azeddine Akesbi of TI Morocco via email at: azakesbi@menara.ma.

[top]

Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres (ALAC), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Romania

In 2004, Transparency International national chapters established Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres (ALACs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Romania. The centres' primary aim is to provide legal advice to victims of corruption to enable them to file and pursue complaints with state authorities. More broadly, they aim to raise public awareness about corruption, encourage citizen empowerment and support policy and institutional reform against corruption. Though not called 'observatories', the centres nonetheless exhibit a number of characteristics that are in keeping with the observatory model.

Establishment and structure
The TI national chapters involved in the ALAC project initially undertook to familiarise themselves with existing mechanisms for addressing public complaints against corruption in their respective countries. This step was followed by a preparatory workshop to share experiences on existing models and to develop plans for implementation of the project. Partnerships with a range of government counterparts were also established, providing a basis upon which the ALACs could intervene in cases of corruption. Each centre recruited a mixture of full time staff, contracted legal advisors/experts and volunteers, located either on existing TI national chapter premises or new, separate premises.

Each ALAC involves the following elements: a telephone hotline for reporting corruption; a website, explaining the role and purpose of the ALAC and providing practical information for pursuing corruption cases; a citizens' guide to assist ordinary people in understanding and defining corruption; a library of publications related to corruption for use by legal experts, volunteers and ALAC clients; as well as a database of complaints received, from which statistics can be drawn and trends identified.

Activities
The ALACs undertake three-tiers of activity when advising clients on how to pursue corruption cases. Volunteers, usually law students or recent law graduates, are tasked with the role of screening out cases that have no apparent connection to corruption related issues. Many of the initial contacts are not accepted for further investigation. ALAC legal experts - usually trained lawyers, some of whom have prior experience in the offices of the state prosecutor - then conduct face-to-face interviews with persons whose complaints are deemed to have a high likelihood of legitimacy. Another part of the overall caseload is dropped where preliminary interviews fail to turn up adequate evidence of corruption or a strong suspicion of corruption. In accepted cases, the citizen filing the complaint is given specific advice on how to pursue the complaint, often with direct support from the ALAC in the form of a covering letter or phone contact. ALAC staff follow-up on such cases either by contacting the relevant authority at the time of filing or by seeking clarification when there is no response to the citizen's complaints.

Effectiveness
An external evaluation conducted in 2004 found that the centres were extremely successful and a valuable contribution to the fight against corruption at national level. In particular, they were seen to be providing a much needed public service in an exceedingly cost-effective manner. They were also found to be catalysing elements of civic activism, stimulating the consolidation of an increasingly strong civil society. Finally, they were seen to go beyond their original mandate of assisting citizens to make official corruption complaints by serving as a forum for public awareness about corruption and instigating the kind of legal and institutional reforms that are key to corruption prevention.

For further information, please contact Ben Elers of the TI Secretariat via email at: belers@transparency.org

[top]

Anti-Corruption Resource Centres (ACRCs), Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union

Establishment and structure
The ACRCs were established by the local Transparency International national chapter of the countries in question, in cooperation with the Transparency International Secretariat and with funding from the European Union. The overall aim of this 30 month program was to help reduce corruption in the countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The ACRCs are essentially knowledge management centres that provide information to help improve understanding of corruption and the means to act against it. They are intended to help make anti-corruption efforts better organised, more coordinated and efficient - benefiting NGOs, the private sector, media, policy makers as well as the general public.

Activities
The ACRCs are open to representatives of NGOs, students, researchers, journalists, public officials and others engaged in researching corruption-related issues. The main activities undertaken are as follows: participation in an international information network; analysis of anti-corruption legislation and anti-corruption activities in the international context; and the motivation of different social groups to maintain an active interest in corruption/ anti-corruption issues.

The ACRCs provide the following services to their users: a library and media archive; support to users of the library in terms of corruption queries; internet provision for access to online anti-corruption resources; an email request service and a copying service. All of these services are provided free of charge.

Effectiveness
An independent evaluation of the project, conducted in 2004, concluded that the ACRCs provided a unique repository of information on anti-corruption at national level. Though regional cooperation between the individual national centres was minimal, the centres nonetheless served as a key means of public outreach within their respective countries. One area where there has been some shortfall was in relation to private sector involvement: private sector representatives generally did not seek ACRC services in large numbers. NGOs and other civil society organisations were among the main ACRC clients in most countries. Indeed, many of the TI national chapters participating in the project made a conscious effort to use the ACRCs as a means to help build a network of small-scale civil society watchdogs that form the core of an anti-corruption movement in their countries. Independent NGOs in some of these countries have confirmed that the ACRCs were highly valued in efforts to influence anti-corruption legislation.

For further information, please see:
Anti-Corruption Resource Centre in Lithuania
Anti-Corruption Resource Centre in Moldova
Anti-Corruption Resource Centre in Russia
Anti-Corruption Resource Centre in Slovakia

Alternatively, please contact Ben Elers of the TI Secretariat via email at: belers@transparency.org

[top]

National Anti-Corruption Observatory, Cameroon

As part of anti-corruption measures initiated in 2000-2001, the government of Cameroon established a National Anti-Corruption Observatory to monitor its anti-corruption programme. The focus of this 15 member body is to raise awareness of corruption issues and investigate actual corruption among government officials. By mandate, the National Anti-Corruption Observatory also submits investigative reports to the competent government authorities but does not have the power to sanction culprits of corruption. Unlike the examples listed above, therefore, the role of Cameroon's national observatory extends somewhat into the anti-corruption enforcement arena.

Under the leadership of the office of the Prime Minister, the national observatory has been complemented by sectoral observatories in the Finance, Education and Transport Ministries - involving public officials as well as members of civil society. Information on the activities undertaken by the national observatory and by the sectoral observatories is limited, but it would appear that no knowledge management component has, as yet, been established to support the national fight against corruption.

Effectiveness
It would appear that both the national and sectoral observatories in Cameroon have met with limited success. This is, in part, due to a lack of sufficient resources for meeting their respective mandates. The National Anti-Corruption Observatory, for instance, received no financing in 2004 as the Ministry of Finance and Budget refused to obligate the funds allocated to it in the state budget. The observatories' apparent lack of success may also lie, however, in their departure from the 'traditional' observatory model. Rather than retaining a focus on awareness raising, knowledge-sharing and networking, Cameroon's observatories have partially entered the law-enforcement field, though without sufficient powers of sanction. Investigations undertaken by the national observatory, for instance, often result in individuals who have been convicted of wrongdoing having to wait at least a year before receiving any sanction, if at all. Sanctions are often delivered in the absence of publicity and may themselves be inappropriate to the nature of the crime (e.g. administrative and not disciplinary sanctions).

[top]

Feasibility of transferring between countries

The key strengths of the observatory model appear to be their independence and inclusiveness. Some of the most successful examples listed above, though initiated by civil society, nonetheless extended beyond NGOs to engage with public officials and other social actors. The least successful example highlighted here, that of Cameroon's National Anti-Corruption Observatory, is primarily a governmental body with limited independence and a somewhat confused mandate.

Awareness-raising, knowledge sharing and networking are important elements for any anti-corruption campaign. Anti-corruption observatories can potentially make an important contribution to the fight against corruption in these three particular areas. Their success, however, depends on a range of complex factors, including a clear mandate, adequate funding, formal and practical independence, and the presence of staff with specialised anti-corruption expertise.

[top]