There are no guidelines for corruption risks in contracting for operations [1]. Given that Albanian contingents have served under the command of other partner countries, logistics and services have been provided by those countries [2]. However, there are cases such as the deployment of the Albanian Naval Force personnel deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean as part of Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 to which no specific guidelines on corruption risks were provided [3].

No training is conducted [1].

No evidence was found indicating that there are guidelines or staff training on addressing corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed operations; also see the country’s last assessment (1). The website of the Defence Ministry does not provide any information in this regard (2). Also, the Anti-Corruption Law (3) and the Statute of Military Personnel (4) do not mention any guidelines on addressing corruption risks in contracting whilst deployed on operations. A review of the laws and decrees issued since 2016 did not provide any evidence that such a policy has been introduced (5).

No evidence was found that there is training provided on corruption risks in procurement or any general corruption risks in the defence institution and with regards to deployed operations or peacekeeping missions. The ONPLC has reportedly provided training for public officials exposed to fraud risks in the public procurement process during the last few years (1), (2) but no information could be found whether this also included officials involved in defence procurements.

There is no evidence that such guidelines exist (1), (2), (3).

There have been no reports of specific anti-corruption training being provided to Angolan Armed Forces personnel either before or during operational deployments.
Angola’s armed forces intervened in the Republic of the Congo in 1997 and in the DRC in 1998, and have reportedly never left and are still training Congolese soldiers and police. Troops were also deployed for security sector reform in Guiné-Bissau (MISSANG 2010-11) From 2010, Angola has deployed contingents to the SADC Brigade and Standby Force as well as ECCAS brigades, participating in joint exercises. However preventive anti-corruption training does not appear to be a priority within these regional military engagements. The 2001 SADC Protocol that entered into force in 2003 hasn’t yet been operationalized (in September 2017, a draft five-year SADC strategic & action plan was submitted to the member states for approval) (1), (2), (3).

It cannot be ascertained whether there are specific guidelines and training on corruption risks in the contracting processes for peacekeeping operations or missions for the personnel of the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces. Training around the fight against corruption takes place at the higher levels. However, officers to be deployed abroad are taught how to make tenders, what requirements to fulfill, and what steps to follow. It should also be noted that the resources are so scarce and there are multiple vulnerabilities so there is a very small margin for acts of corruption by the same intra-forces social control. The Joint War School offers subjects related to the hiring processes in its Masters. However, these degrees are optional. [1] [2]

Regarding training, the National Contracting Office (ONC) has a training plan for the actors involved in the purchasing process, whose purpose is to provide technical and operational knowledge to ensure efficiency and transparency in contracting. CAECOPAZ, as a specific education center for personnel participating in the United Nations missions, teaches different pre-deployment courses, but none specific on the risks of corruption in hiring operations or peace missions. [1] [2] At the United Nations level, training regarding the risks of corruption in hiring is still pending. Since 2013, Transparency International has indicated that there is no general peacekeeping policy on corruption and that the Centres do not include specific training on the subject. [3]

There is no evidence of the existence of relevant guidelines for corruption risks in contracting and nothing available on the relevant websites [1, 2, 3].

There is not enough evidence to score this indicator.The NATO-Armenia Individual Partnership Action Plan’s (IPAP) 2014-2016 clause 1.3. is about the fight against corruption. A portion in the paragraph states, “Armenia is determined to combat corruption and to undertake practical measures by ensuring transparency and accountability through conducting training and raising awareness for public officials and further strengthen the enforcement of anti-corruption laws” [1]. However, no public information is available about the implementation of measures to combat corruption.

No specific guidelines exist addressing corruption risks in contracting in relation to operations and peacekeeping, though there are general guidelines and legislation on probity and ethics in procurement and contracting, which apply equally during operations. The legislative framework guiding government and Defence procurement and contracting is underpinned by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2014 [1], giving legal authority to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules [2], issued by the Department of Finance and which apply to all Defence procurement. Defence policy on procurement is further clarified by the Defence Procurement Policy Manual (DPPM) [3], along with other non-public procurement guidelines like the Complex Procurement Guide and the Simple Procurement Process Tool (the existence of which are alluded to in the DPPM [3, p9]. The publicly available documents and guidelines demonstrate a concern towards and awareness of general corruption risks in contracting and procurement, including issues raised by conflicts of interest and hospitality and gifts [4], and provide general guidelines on when a probity plan or outside probity advisor may be appropriate [3, p22-23]. But these policies do not address any of the operations-related issues – asset disposals, local power brokers, contract delivery monitoring, security of equipment and personnel.

Procurement and contracting is carried out by Defence officials, who are required with some level of frequency and detail to attend training to “promote… a strong ethical culture” [1] in the context of fraud and anti-corruption, though it is unclear to what extent corruption risks while contracting on operations are covered in this training, and if specific training pertaining to operations is offered. One respondent said that, to their knowledge, modules on ethics (and anti-corruption as a component of ethics) were a very large part of training for operations [2].

The participation of Azerbaijani servicemen in peacekeeping operations is based on The Law on the Participation of the Republic of Azerbaijan in the Peacekeeping Operations (1) and Parliament’s Resolution “On giving consent to the deployment and participation in the relevant operations in Afghanistan of Azerbaijan peacekeeping contingent under the general command of the Turkish Armed Forces and NATO Structures” (2).
According to the law, the financial obligations of the Republic of Azerbaijan on participation in peacekeeping operations are fulfilled at the expense of the state budget, as well as other sources established by the legislation (10.3).
Article 10.4 states, the relevant executive power body shall submit its opinion on the necessary costs, indicating the sources of funding for participation in peacekeeping operations to the relevant executive authority. At the same time, the opinion on the allocation of additional funds for these purposes should be submitted to the relevant executive authority. The relevant executive authorities also resolve issues related to the payment of the military and civilian personnel participation in peacekeeping operations by the United Nations, international regional organizations and individual states, as well as the guarantees, concessions and compensations of peacekeepers and their family members.
Article 10.5 states, the relevant executive authority shall submit an annual report to the Milli Majlis of the Republic of Azerbaijan on the participation of the military and civilian personnel in peacekeeping operations. The report describes the goals, bases, scale and forms of participation of the Republic of Azerbaijan in peacekeeping operations, analyses the actual progress of the operations and the results obtained, information about sources, volumes and actual distribution of finance in operations, losses. This law does not contain any information or guidelines on corruption risks. At the same time, no report on peacekeeping forces has yet been submitted to the parliament (3). There are guidelines for addressing corruption risks in contracting in peacekeeping operations, but they are very general according to security experts or military personnel who participated in those operations (4).

There are general corruption risks training for officers and soldiers who are deployed on foreign missions (1). There is no information available on the official website of the Defence Ministry about that. At the same time, there is no official information about assessments and investigations of corruption risks (2, 3).

There is not enough evidence to score this indicator, as such it has been marked ‘Not Enough Information’. Following a search of several websites and after being verified by interviews, no information on this topic publicly available. There is no M&E or similar guidance, but there are some documents that have some elements to counter nepotism and misconduct, but they are not called corruption [1].

Following a search of several websites and after being confirmed through interviews, no information on this topic publicly available. There is no training on corruption risks in procurement or other corruption risks. There is, however, some military training or additional courses, but corruption is not a part of them [1, 2].

The assessor’s research yielded no evidence of relevant guidelines for corruption risks in contracting during peacekeeping operations [1].

There is no training provided on corruption risks in procurement or on any general corruption risks during peacekeeping operations [1]. The courses offered by the Bangladesh Institute of Peace Support Operation Training do not include any modules on ‘corruption’ [2].

There is Not Enough Information to score this indicator. Guidelines for operations exist, and address the following risks associated with contracting in operations: asset disposals, local power brokers, contract delivery monitoring, security of equipment and personnel [1]. However, they are not made public and therefore this has not been verified [2].

There is Not Enough Information to score this indicator. Pre-deployment training is provided and includes training on corruption risk when deemed necessary for the mission [1]. This training is adapted to the circumstances of the mission. However, the details of the training are not publicly available and therefore it has not been verified [2].

The Building Integrity in Peace Support Operations Course, implemented by Peace Support Operations Training Centre (PSOTC) has aimed to deliver a skill set to selected military and police officers to enable them to identify and counter the various types of corruption that undermine mission success in multinational peace support operations (PSOs)[1]. There are two NATO accredited courses related to the integrity in peacekeeping operations for officers deployed to peacekeeping operations [1]. One is designed for senior officers and has following course subjects: Corruption, its nature and prevalence in the personal and functional context; Function of the rule of law and its role in building integrity and its function in countering corruption; Roles and functions of major organizations, domestic and international, involved in defence integrity building and anti-corruption activities; Personal conduct and how this can be reinforced; Corruption risks within defence procurement and disposal process; Corruption risks and challenges on a mission [2, 3].
The second for junior officers cover the following areas: Corruption elements; Personal and Professional Integrity; Legal Framework; Personnel Issues; Interactions within Host Nation/AOR and Values-Based Stability Operations; Unit Assets; Contracting; Building Sustainable Trust in AOR; Developing Host Nation Capacity in Transparency, Good Governance and Ethics; Capstone Exercise [4, 5].

According to the government reviewer, the MoD, in cooperation with partners, conducts training on public procurement and logistics issues. Within the program with CIDS, training was organized with all participants in public procurement commissions, For example, in 2015, training was organized according to Decision No. 10-33-2-2033/15 of 27.05.2015. It should be noted that the Council of Ministers of BiH has appointed two experts in the field of Public Procurement to the Commission to amend the Law on Public Procurement, who are employed in this ministry, and based on the assessment of others, a great contribution was made to the creation of preconditions to improve the PPL.

All staff that is deployed on international missions has training before deployment. This training is designed following the specifics of the operation [1]. Before being deployed in peace support missions abroad, AFBiH’s personnel receive pre-deployment training. In addition to professional military training and training related to the specific duties to be performed on the mission, pre-deployment training curriculum includes a module on integrity and risks of corruption in peace support missions. This part of pre-deployment training is delivered in the Centre for Training in Peace Support Operations in Butmir, Sarajevo, which is part of AF BIH’s Training and Doctrine Command. The centre runs two NATO-accredited courses devoted to integrity and anti-corruption (one for officers and one for NCOs) [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. A Pre-deployment training module on integrity and risks of corruption in peace support missions includeS the following topics:
– Code of conduct and integrity
– The nature of corruption and its impact on society
– The risk of corruption in the procurement process
– Excerpts of the mandates as per UN resolutions relating to the UN missions involving members of AFBiH.
This training module is compulsory for all personnel being deployed in overseas missions regardless of their assigned duty [7]. There are no other sources to confirm this statement.

There are no specific guidelines save for the provisions in the BDF Act and those provided in the DCEC Act [1]. Botswana rarely participates in peacekeeping missions [2]. Therefore, as a matter of practice in the few peacekeeping missions that Botswana has participated in has witnessed no deployment of professionally trained in corruption issues [2].

Training on corruption risks is provided in general and not specifically for military personnel that are deployed on operations or peacekeeping missions [1, 2, 3, 4]. It follows that , there no specialised guidelines, and staff training, on addressing corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions.

There is no mention of training specifically focused on corruption [1], however, there is mention to the words legallity and probity. Training for peacekeeping operations is clearer for peace operations than for other types of operation – CCOPAB (Joint Center for Peace Operations) offers training in logistics and reimbursment – the training description does not mention corruption risks [2], but according to the Transparency Report of the Ministry of Defence, this course tackles corruption risks tangentially.

The CCOPAB (Joint Center for Peace Operations) offers training in logistics and reimbursment but in the training description there is no mention to corruption risks [1, 2]. According to the Transparency Report of the Ministry of Defence, this course tackles corruption risks tangentially.

Most of the guidelines available for mission staff members are not relevant to corruption risks in procurement and contracting. According to TI-DS (2016) “at the mission level Conduct and Discipline Teams have developed training and raised awareness of the issues, and OIOS has been responsible for investigating serious allegations that represent a major risk to a mission, which include corruption” (1). The available code of conduct addresses issues broadly, it has very limited insights on corruption risks and contracting. This makes it difficult for the mission staff members to deeply comprehend the issue of corruption. The lack of appropriate information at the mission level inevitably nurtures corruption risks and can fuel war (LeBillon 2003) (2), (3), (4).

Usually, UN Peacekeeping Mission’s staff members do not attend training specifically on corruption risks in procurement and contracting (1). According to Transparency International training and awareness-raising materials have been developed at the mission level, to help with investigating potential risks that could undermine the mission, including corruption (2), (3). Furthermore, the military involved in peacekeeping missions may register to get the Peacebuilding Operations Training Institute (POTI)’s online materials on a variety of subjects, including corruption. However, the guidelines available at the mission level, as well as on the POTI’s website remain incomplete and are not well-documented to successfully address corruption (3).

The 2017 US State Department Human Rights Report states: “In the context of the fight against Boko Haram, local sources indicated that corruption-related inefficiencies and diversion of resources from their intended purposes continued to represent a fundamental national security vulnerability” [1].

No evidence has been found to suggest guidelines or training specific to corruption risk in contracting during operations / peacekeeping missions.

The 2017 US State Department Human Rights Report states: “In the context of the fight against Boko Haram, local sources indicated that corruption-related inefficiencies and diversion of resources from their intended purposes continued to represent a fundamental national security vulnerability” [1].

No evidence has been found to suggest guidelines or training specific to corruption risk in contracting during operations / peacekeeping missions.

There are no clear guidelines or staff training on addressing corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed/peacekeeping operations. [1] The only guidelines are those outlined in The Code of Service Discipline (CSD), although these are not specific to contracting. [2] However, DAOD 5009-1 Personnel Readiness Verification (PRV) Screening outlines the process by which the readiness of a military member for a designated tasking, posting or deployment is confirmed in terms of qualifications, physical and mental health, and domestic factors – regardless of the duration or degree of notice. In addition, Part 2 of the PRV is specific to Unique Military Occupation and Environment-Specific Requirements. This includes military finance and procurement/contracting officers. [3]

There are no clear guidelines or staff training on addressing corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed/peacekeeping operations. [1] The only consistent guidelines are those outlined in The Code of Service Discipline (CSD). [2] However, Military Logistics supply and procurement officers that are deployed are trained and experienced in contracting, including in recognising corruption risks. [3] In essence, other than in the deployed environment, Canadian military Logistics Supply Officers work in the same manner and are held to the same standards, regardless of whether they are at home or deployed abroad.

There is no evidence of guidance specifically regarding contracting risks during operations or peacekeeping missions.

There is no evidence of training provided on corruption risks in contracting operations or any general corruption risks, whilst on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions by the government or the Ministry of National Defence. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. There is formal training concerning compliance with United Nations standards of conduct, integrity, probity and cultural awareness, but the government and the Ministry of National Defence do not seem to provide specific training on risks in contracting in operations. Corruption risks are addressed in general terms, in the form of codes of conduct, and are codified as issues of cultural and ethical awareness [10]. This training is part of a United Nations training program, and it does not seem to operate through specific training by the government or the Ministry of National Defence.

Τhere are no publicly available guidelines on contracting during operations, but this does not mean that they do no exist internally. In fact the PLA has announced special regulations for its staff participating in UN peacekeeping operation (PKO) missions. [1] In 2017, China announced the establishment of a standby peackeeping force, which means that more institutionalisation can be expected to take place in the future, including in the sphere of anticorruption training, as China will have to adhere to UN PKO regulations and practices. [2]

There is no evidence of relevant corruption in contracting training taking place, apart from what the UN Department of Peackeeping Operations already provides. [1] It can be reasonably inferred that general anticorruption training exists for some UN PKO staff as there is evidence of relevant training for selected staff in various levels of the Army. [2]

Starting in 2011, the Colombian National Army began a process of internal transformation. This process included generating and updating guidelines and training for military personnel. [1, 2] In order to comply with transparency policies, the Directorate for the Application of Transparency Regulations of the National Army (DANTE), embeds an officer directly responsible for the implementation of transparency measures, liaising also at the brigade and tactical level. [3] According to Interviewee 2, [4] this generates a high level of commitment by the Commanders and leaders of the units. Other guidelines such as the manual of ethical generalities, consider corruption as a serious problem within the armed forces. To combat the risks of corruption, they identify principles and values that strengthen military action, in addition to recognizing the related regulations. [5] Finally, documents such as the Contracting Manual apply to all areas of the army and operations in territories. The Manual defines the correct way in which contractual processes should be carried out. The Inspection Manual recognises the hiring role of all levels of command, and defines a series of procedures or good practices that are audited by the army inspections. [5] It does not, however, cover deployed troops specifically, even if its provisions could potentialy be applied to such cases.

Given the context of conflict and post-conflict in Colombia, the Army units located in the different territories of the country have the objective of defending the national territory against various groups that fall outside the law, including dissidents of the FARC, criminal groups, drug traffickers, etc. In order to fulfil their role in territory, the members of the units and brigades, as well as the military personnel that are being trained in the different military schools, receive training in matters of transparency, corruption, and ethics in operational and administrative military actions. According to Interviews at the Ministry of Defence and the National Army, some of these trainings are conducted through the NATO Cooperation Agreement, allowing military and officials to access training on issues of transparency and integrity. The Defence Academy of the United Kingdom and Bosnia and Herzegovina provide support. [1] There are also trainings developed by DANTE or the Army Doctrine Center (CEDOE), [2, 3, 4] where the personnel attending these processes are Captains, Officers, lower ranking officials and professional soldiers. [5] Therefore, training occurs not only in the territories where military personnel are located, but in each of the schools that this entity has.

There is no evidence of specific guidelines for corruption risk in the contracting procedures for deployed operations or peacekeeping missions. The Public Procurement Code (Decree No. 2009-259 of August 6, 2009) regulates all public procurement, including defence institutions. However, because it is not specific to defence contracting, it can only serve as a general policy for contracting public services. The Code covers corrupt acts by public officials (agents publics) and bidders (soummissionnaires) in Title 10 (Sanction des violations de la réglementation des marchés publics), Articles 184-187. There is no material in these articles that can be construed as serving as a guideline to address corruption risk in field contracting (1). Likewise, there is no information in Order No. 202/MEF/DGBF/DMP (Portant conditions et modalités de résiliation des marchés publics) of April 21, 2010, suggesting that there are specific guidelines to address corruption risk in field contracting involving asset disposals, local power brokers, contract delivery monitoring or security of equipment and personnel (2). The Public Procurement Code and other legislation cannot be used as evidence since they serve only as general policy codes for public procurement.

There is no evidence in open sources indicating that staff are trained on corruption risk during contracting that takes place when troops are deployed or on a peacekeeping mission. As in 55A, the Code des Marchés Publics (Decree No. 2009-259 of 6 August 2009) serves a public procurement policy for state procurement, and defence institutions fall within its scope of application. However, because the code is not specific to the MoD operations, none of its articles refers to the types of corruption risk that deployed troops or peacekeeping missions may face. No article in the Public Procurement Code relates to this type of corruption training, and the code is a general policy not specific to the defence industry.

There is not enough evidence to score this indicator, as Danish forces do not perform contract activities during missions. Research found no indications that official guidelines and/or staff training on addressing corruption risks in general, nor concerning contracting specifically [1, 2]. A source reported that contracting activities will usually not be placed within Denmark’s area of responsibility, but referred to a larger contributing nation (typically the United States), which is why guidelines and/or training may not be necessary [2]. Research indicates that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has anti-corruption policies and guidelines in place that could be of relevance in the military domain in a “comprehensive approach” scenario [3].

There is not enough evidence to score this indicator, as Danish forces do not perform contract activities during missions. Research found no indications that official guidelines and/or staff training on addressing corruption risks in general nor concerning contracting specifically [1, 2]. A source reported that usually contracting activities will not be placed within Denmark’s area of responsibility, but usually refered to a larger contributing nation (typically the United States), which is why guidelines and/or training may not be necessary [2].

Normally the defence sector is subject to the same rules of procurement and contracts as applies to the general government. The defence sector though enjoys considerable exceptions as stipulated in Article 77 of Law no. 182 (2018) which allows the MoD and the MMP to grant contracts by direct order. There is also no evidence in the relevant laws, by-laws and media platforms of the existence of guidelines that are specific to corruption risks in contracts while the armed forces are deployed on operations (1), (2).

According to our interviews, the Egyptian army does not train its personnel who will be sent to missions abroad on corruption and corruption risks. Corruption is not considered a strategic issue in the Egyptian army’s operations (1), (2), (3). Egypt has 3000 personnel deployed around the world in peacekeeping forces which means it has the 7th largest peacekeeping operation in the world (4). It is understood that the UN Peacekeeping forces receive some training on corruption risks in general, but it is not clear whether there is specific training for corruption risks in contracts (5). However, after having surveyed and reviewed relevant laws and media platforms, namely that of the Training Authority of the Armed Forces (6), there is no evidence that there is staff training on corruption risks in contracting while on deployed operations.

There are guidelines applied to the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions. Generic Standards of Behaviour for CSDP Missions and Operations include a detailed description of corruption, gifts and benefits. The document covers almost all the issues relating to the topic, some with less detail. [1] These standards apply to all members of CSDP civilian and military missions and operations of the European Union, including Estonia. Cooperation with the EU is considered highly important in the context of national security in Estonia and therefore, these guidelines can be considered important. [2] There is no document published only for the purpose of Estonian operations and missions that would cover corruption risks.

In accordance with the CSDP standards of behaviour, all personnel is expected to become acquainted with the guidelines and other relevant documents such as codes of conduct and discipline. This includes attending required training. [1] There is no clear overview as to how thoroughly this is done in Estonia and how acquainted servicemen are with the guidelines. Based on the interview with a former military flag officer, during pre-mission training Estonian servicemen get general training that could include corruption as an issue. [2]

According to a written response provided by the Headquarters of the Defence Forces, corruption risks in contracting are touched upon in military crisis management rotation training as incorporated in legal educational themes. [1] No publicly available informatio could be found.

According to a written response provided by the Headquarters of the Defence Forces, corruption risks in contracting are touched upon in military crisis management rotation training as integrated in legal educational themes. [1] However, no publicly available information on this issue could be found.

Contracting in operations is under the responsibility of the deployed directors of the Armed Forces Commissioner Service (Service du commissariat des armées), who are bound by ethics rules as stated as 2016 law on Anti-corruption. [1]

Purchases in external operations are not strictly subject to the general rules of public procurement. A ministerial instruction from the Ministry’s legal affairs department [2] ensures the management, stating that they must respect the general principles of public procurement, which are the principles of freedom of access to public procurement, equal treatment of candidates, and transparency of procedures. The payment of expenses in external operations (OPEX) is carried out within the framework of a financial network associating the Public Treasury through the Paymaster general to the armies, who is a public accountant specialised in expenses relating to military operations. The latter supplies funds to the accounts of the military commissioners and controls their financial operations. [3]

Apart from these formal provisions, no precise guidelines addressing corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployment or peacekeeping missions were found.
Numerous examples of mishandling of subcontracting deals during the Barkhane operation speak for themselves. [4]

However, it is notable that the Ministry of the Armed Forces (MOAF) undertook in 2020 a “corruption-risk mapping” (with a broader definition of corruption than defined the Penal Code, encompassing embezzlement and misappropriation of funds), [5] in the form of two separate questionnaires: one sent to over 60 departments at risk of corruption-exposure (procurement, subcontracting, exports, subsidies, HR, etc. [6] [6bis]) within the Ministry, and a second one, anonymous, sent to operators working with the Ministry. The “contrôleur général des armées” and “ethics chief” of the MOAF, Jean Tenneroni, indicated that this risk mapping would feed into the development and subsequent publication of the new Code of Conduct published in December 2020. [5]

The main provider for the armed forces abroad is a public institution with legal personality under the supervision of the MOAF. This is the “Economat des Armées”, [1] headed by a general commissioner and staffed by a public accountant. This industrial and commercial public establishment, given its revenue of more than 100 million Euros, falls under the “enterprise” (large company) category, which, under article 17.1.2 of the “Sapin 2” law, [2] requires the establishment of an anti-corruption package that is controlled and enforced by the French Anti-corruption Agency (AFA). Contracting in operations is under the responsibility of the deployed directors of the Armed Forces Commissioner Service (Service du commissariat des armées). [3] The commissioners are trained in the principles and rules of public contracting. There is some evidence that awareness raising seminars are held on OPEX procurement prior to deployment [4], but further information could not be found in the public domain.

However, the numerous examples of mishandling of subcontracting deals during the Barkhane operation [5] tend to show that there is room for progress on anti-corruption staff training. [6] In addition, an interview with an anonymous soldier deployed on OPEX over several missions confirmed that, to date, no training on corruption risks in procurement, or any general corruption risks was offered to soldiers deployed on OPEX. [7]

It is notable that the Ministry of the Armed Forces (MOAF) is currently undertaking a “corruption-risk mapping” (with a broader definition of corruption than defined the Penal Code, encompassing embezzlement and misappropriation of funds), [8] in the form of two separate questionnaires: one sent to over 60 departments at risk of corruption-exposure (procurement, subcontracting, exports, subsidies, HR, etc. [9] [9bis]) within the Ministry, and a second one, anonymous, sent to operators working with the Ministry. The “contrôleur général des armées” and “ethics chief” of the MOAF, Jean Tenneroni, announced that this risks-mapping will be conducted and will result in an anti-corruption Code of Conduct before the end of 2020. [8]

Under German public procurement law, the public purchaser can exclude companies from an award procedure if a person working for that company or the company itself has been found guilty of certain crimes relating to corruption (see Section 123 of the Act against Restraints of Competition – GWB) or if the company has tried to influence the public purchaser’s decisions in an impermissible way (see Section 124 of the GWB) [1]. During the award procedure, companies are requested to declare that there are no reasons to exclude them from the award procedure under Sections 123 and 124 of the GWB. The German Federal Audit Office (BRH) has the right to examine the (budgetary) management of the Federal Government.

Personnel involved in procurement for missions or during missions, as well as those supervising or making contracts, are subject to national procurement legislation. Should procurement regulations in the country of deployment be more strict, these take precedence. Compliance with procurement regulations for/during deployment is regularly monitored, at least once annually [1,2].

Guidelines on corruption risks specifically for operations (A1-110/0-8020 – ‘Korruptionsprävention in Einsatzkontingenten’) have been released by Joint Operations Command Germany (Einsatzführungskommando der Bundeswehr) [3]. However, it is unclear to what extent this regulation addresses corruption risk in contracting. Aside from the general national procurement guidelines that apply during missions, there are no specific guidelines addressing corruption risks in contracting during operations in particular.

Before deployment, military staff are instructed about/sensitised to about issues of corruption and corruption prevention. In particular, staff are informed about the regulations on preventing corruption, accepting rewards and gifts, as well as sponsoring [1].

Procurement and contracting is only carried out by specially trained personnel (Einsatzwehrverwaltungsstellen – EinsWVSt). Personnel concerned with procurement are educated on corruption issues during their professional training and advanced qualification courses. During the mission, they are briefed on a daily basis on contextual circumstances, including risk of corruption and possible effects on the safety of personnel and material [1].

During peacekeeping missions, GAF personnel adhere to the Command Policy Guidelines issued by the commanding officer and the UN Code of Conduct (1). However, the guidelines are not made publicly available by the MOD or the GAF, and therefore it is impossible to assess whether or not these address corruption risks in contracting specifically. Recruits being deployed on peacekeeping missions are sent for basic training, but no evidence confirms specific training on corruption risks.

Recruits deploying to peacekeeping missions go for general training. However, there is no systematic training for anti-corruption awareness for either civilians or military representatives in operations. The Kofi Anna International Peacekeeping Centre (KAIPTC) provides training to military and police personnel before deployment. However, the training does not specifically address corruption risks (1).

There are no relevant guidelines for corruption risks in contracting during operations or peacekeeping missions. [1] [2]. [1, 2].

There is no training provided on corruption risks in procurement or any general corruption risks [1, 2].

The main framework of preparing soldiers for mission participation is Decree 220/2015 of Commander of the Hungarian Defence Forces (HDF) Joint Forces Command [1]. This document is not public; however, it reportedly mentions corruption risks, though it does not provide any specific guidelines on how to counter them, nor does it prescribe regular practical anti-corruption training. The situation is the same in the Peacekeeping Handbook (Békefenntartó kézikönyv), published in 2010 [2], as well as with the numerous operational theatre handbooks [3]. Though they theoretically mention corruption as a risk, there is no practical training involved at all, thus it is not easy for the soldiers to internalize this knowledge. This applies to contractors as well.

Anti-corruption training is part of the general training before deployment [1]. However, this training is only theoretical and also reportedly very general, with no threatre-specific particularities. Further, when it comes to the higher echelons of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), all military personnel serving in MoD, at central defence agencies and military organization with public authority have to pass the public administrative exam. This exam contains the topics of integrity and ethics participation in the NATO Building Integrity Programme, which has also yielded training schemes. The problem is that all the training is largely theoretical [2].

As discussed in previous questions, the Armed Forces do not have a doctrine that specifically addresses corruption. Each branch has an Act which serves as the foundation for training [1[[2]. As per the Acts, corruption is a punishable offence and there is evidence of anti-corruption training workshops for all personnel [3]. There is a possibility that guidelines relating to corruption in procurement apply to the context of operations but this is not explicitly mentioned anywhere.

India contributes to UN peacekeeping missions. There is an Anti-Fraud and Anti-Corruption Framework for the UN Secretariat, including all personnel that is also translated into training for peacekeepers [4]. There are training programmes including the mandatory online UN training on corruption and fraud. Direct and indirect anti-corruption measures exist, focusing both on the peacekeepers behaviour but also the environment they work in. It is however, questionable whether the trainings topics are really transferrable into everyday peacekeeping practice [5].

As mentioned above, as per the Acts, corruption is a punishable offence and there is evidence of anti-corruption training workshops for all personnel [1][2]. There is a possibility that guidelines relating to corruption in procurement apply to the context of operations but this is not explicitly mentioned anywhere and the degree of training is not ascertainable.

With regards to peacekeeping missions, all peacekeepers are trained in corruption risks. The ‘Ten Rules/Code Of Personal Conduct For Blue Helmets’ is the guideline and is included in mandatory training. It has several references to acts of corruptions such as, “have pride in your position as a peacekeeper and do not abuse or misuse your authority” [3].

In the 2015 Ramos-Horta led UN High Level Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO), the need for UN peacekeeping operations to ensure that its country analysis encompasses the dynamics and drivers of corruption, advocating for appropriate attention to corruption and providing political support to those providing technical assistance in that area, were identified. It was recommended that civil society efforts to support transparency and accountability should be included. Any future complementary framework should take this into consideration [4][5].

Corruption is mentioned as a special crime in Law No. 31/1997 concerning Military Justice. Enforcement in these cases is conducted cooperatively by multiple agencies. The prosecutor is the Military Oditur (Otmil) and Military Police Corps (POM), while the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) acts as a supporting agency [1]. The guidelines for peacekeeping missions are issued through Presidential Regulation No. 86/2015 concerning the Delivery of Peacekeeping Missions and Minister of Foreign Affairs Regulation No. 5/2015 concerning the Roadmap Vision of 4,000 Peacekeepers 2015-2019 [2]. These guidelines explain the situational context of and the legal basis [3] for the peacekeeping force but do not explain the ethical standards that members of the force must uphold. It is unknown whether there any specific guidelines for addressing corruption risk when contracting or dealing with third parties. Arguably, in the absence of such specific guidelines, peacekeeping personnel will adhere to the domestic law concerning procurement, which also regulates contracting [4].

Additional training for troops due to be deployed on peacekeeping missions is held at the Peace Maintenance Mission Centre (Pusat Misi Pemeliharaan Perdamaian/PMPP) prior to deployment, in line with the UN mandate. The material provided in this training is in alignment with the Core Pre-Deployment Training Materials (CPTM) [1] or Specialised Training Materials (STM) issued by the UN. This training material mentions the Code of Ethics of UN personnel, who are obliged not to carry out illegal acts, including corruption, on the assignment. [2]. The Agency for Education and Training Ministry of Defence (Badiklat Kemhan) does not provide any additional training beyond language for peacekeeping. Two interviewees said on separated occasions that they did not remember being given any training that specifically addressed anti-corruption issues prior to deployment on peacekeeping missions [3,4]. However, one interviewee suggested that there is actually a low risk of corruption due to the type of contract with the UN and the latter’s oversight [3]. Indonesia is one of the largest contributors to peacekeeping that usually participates on the basis of ‘contingent own equipment’, meaning the contingent brings its own equipment into the peacekeeping mission, to be reimbursed by the United Nations. With regard to procurement of equipment, the PMPP office only formulates requirements, whereas the procurement process is conducted by TNI Headquarter. Since neither PMPP nor the deployed contingent are involved in the procurement of large items, the risk of corruption is reduced. As for the oversight of peacekeeping operations (PKO), there are two types of operational oversight. The first is conducted by the Joint Headquarters TNI Verification Team, which is deployed annually during the operation period. This supervisory team consists of personnel from the TNI Headquarters and the forces headquarters. It was not possible to verify whether they receive anti-corruption training prior to deployment. The second type of oversight is conducted by the United Nations, which carries out an arrival inspection, an operational readiness inspection (once every six months), a repatriation inspection and other types of verification activities [5]. Arguably, supervision of the contingent readiness is very tight because a shortage in operational readiness will affect the amount of reimbursement given by the UN to the contingent.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) anti-corruption guidelines have been translated into Farsi, but these are unlikely to address corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed operations [1]. There is no evidence of relevant guidelines for corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions [2, 3].

Some training is provided on general corruption risks in Iran; however, this training is provided in the private sector, not to military officers and commanders [1, 2]. The UNODC also provides training in drug control for police officers, but there is no evidence they receive anti-corruption training [3, 4].

There are no signs of existing guidelines that address or assess corruption risks in the context of military operations, as confirmed by two interviewed sources (1), (2). The Arabic-speaking websphere is replete with stories (3), (4), (5), (6) that would imply that members of the army and other state-backed security actors have gained notoriety for extorting money from civilian populations former under ISG control. While in the above-mentioned case necessary steps were taken, countless cases may or not be covered where no legal action is taken

Two sources confirmed that no training exists (1), (2).

There are guidelines for addressing corruption risks but these ones are very broad as part of the general guidelines (1). As such, there aren’t any specific guidelines against corruption risks in contracting but the soldiers know what is wrong from the general guidelines they receive (2) (3).

The IDF soldiers are not specifically trained in relation to corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions, but they do receive general corruption training (1) (2) (3). That means that there aren’t any specific training against corruption such as simulations of cases but the guidelines and the general training it receives, on moral issues covers corruption as well (4).

Corruption risk in contracting whilst on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions is not dealt specifically by the Ministry. Nevertheless, guidelines and staff training of the armed forces against the risk of corruption in contracting at national level apply also whilst on operations [1].

Training for personnel employed in sectors more vulnerable to corruption is established in the Corruption Prevention and Transparency Plan 2020-2022. The latter is, thus far, the most detailed strategic document produced by the Ministry of Defence as far as corruption prevention training is concerned. Indeed, training activities are developed on three levels, involving the National School of Administration and the single Armed Forces [1]. While such efforts towards the prevention of corruption appear consistent, there is no evidence that the personnel will be trained on issues of corruption that are not eminently domestic but rather attaining to the operations or missions they are deployed on. Instances of training of personnel in issues of corruption also appeared in the 2016-2018 Corruption Prevention Plan and included the support of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) operating in relevant sectors, however, once more, the training appears to have focused more on domestic issues [2]. Moreover, one can list training opportunities given to portions of the Armed Forces personnel on specific occasions: for instance, the Army’s Comando per la Formazione e Scuola di Applicazione conference on anticorruption and organised crime in February 2019 [3] and the Air Force’s conference on transparency and lawfulness organised by the University of Salerno in 2018 [4].

No evidence was found that there are guidelines for addressing corruption risks in contracting in operations on the webpages of the Japan Peacekeeping Training and Research Center of the Joint Staff College [1] or the International Peace Cooperation Activities Training Unit of the GSDF, [2] nor was such evidence found on the website of the Ministry of Defence. [3] A retired higher Marine Self-Defence Force (MSDF) officer, who commanded an MSDF regional headquarters, stated [4] that procedures for contracting in operations are determined in laws and regulations listed in the Compliance Guidance. [5] These laws and regulations apply to all Japanese contracting, whether it be done inside or outside Japan. Furthermore, when a Japanese operation is a part of an international cooperative effort, laws and regulations for that cooperation may apply in addition to Japanese ones. [6]

SDF staff receive training to prepare them for international operations, according to the websites of the main institutions dispensing such training. [1] [2] However, these institutions do not provide information about training on corruption risks in contracting in operations on their websites, nor was any information about such training found on the website of the Ministry of Defence. [3] A retired higher MSDF officer, who commanded an MSDF regional headquarter, confirmed that staff receive the necessary training before deployment abroad. With regard to contracting, he referred to training in regulations that apply to all contracting by the SDF. [4]

There are internal guidelines within the units, brigades, and the offices of the armed forces on how to deal with and report corruption cases. However, these guidelines are not complete, and they are ineffective [1,2]. In addition to that, Law No. 35 of the year 1966, Officers Service Law of the Armed Forces specifically prohibits the involvement of armed forces personnel in commercial or trade activities that affect their official duty, however, it allows purchasing and owning shares in private companies [3]. Despite the existence of some articles relevant to prohibitions around defence contracting, the law does not even provide any contracting-specific guidelines, let alone a specific one for deployment [4].There is no evidence to support that there are relevant guidelines for corruption risks in contracting.

There are many training sessions provided for the military personnel who work in the offices, especially the financial and procurement units. However, corruption is a small part of such training and is not provided always. It is externally enforced by NGOs or when foreign donor requires such training to be included in the programmes. In fact, evidence points out that collaboration between the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission and the general security department is recent and that a training engagement had not been in place before [1]. In addition to that, trainings provided by foreign embassies or organisations are usually irregular in nature and do not provide any transferrable skills to address corruption in general, let alone specifically in contracting and procurement [2,3,4].

Details on how corruption risks in contracting are addressed are limited. As public officers, military personnel are guided by the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003, which contains the Armed Forces Code of Ethics that officers should follow at all times once deployed. [1] Other than this Code of Ethics, there is no evidence that the Ministry of Defence provides specific guidelines for its officers during deployement, intended to minimise corruption risks.

The office of the Attorney General and Department of Justice has previously noted in a sessional paper that training and awareness of public officials on corruption prevention mechanisms remains critically under-resourced, and has limited reach and effectiveness. [1]

In that regard, it suggests that monitoring agencies, such as the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Agency, increase resources to educate and train officials on monitoring corruption. Nonetheless, the Ministry of Defence provides limited information on the training of personnel on specific types of corruption risks that are prevalent in deployment operations. Section 3 of the Kenya Defence Forces Act stipulates that the KDF shall be committed to preventing corruption and promoting transparency in its operations. [2] Thus, while there may be some general training on conduct intended to prevent corruption within the KDF, there is limited information on specific training on corruption risks.

The Ministry of Defence and the Kosovo Armed Forces have not yet established a military approach to anti-corruption operations due to the fact that the Kosovo Security Forces is still not participating in peacekeeping operations [1].

The Ministry of Defence and the Kosovo Armed Forces have not yet established a military approach to anti-corruption operations due to the fact that the Kosovo Security Forces is still not participating in peacekeeping operations [1].

There are no guidelines for corruption risks for operations, an activist close to the Government and an Interior Ministry official said said (1 and 2).

The heads of departments and other senior officials do receive training but it is not while they are deployed on any kind of mission, the activist and officials said (1, 2, 3 and 4). This training is superficial and mostly consists of reiterations that integrity is important.

Latvian soldiers are deployed under the command of other NATO memeber states and they have to follow the guidelines of the lead nation. [1] These guidelines, however, are not enshrined in domestic law.

There are no specific guidelines, but soldiers who are leaving the mission inform the next group of soldiers on corruption risks and anti-corruption measures. [1]

No corruption guidelines in contracting adopted at the LAF level (risks in contracting in operations of asset disposals, local power brokers, contract delivery monitoring, and security of equipment and personnel) were found (1). However, as indicated Q48, international military education programs conducted with partner nations tied to financial management, procurement, and acquisition all emphasize anti-corruption best practices- such as the U.S. International Military Education and Training (IMET) program and other similar bilateral training engagements (2), (3). Procurement contracting is conducted under Decree No. 11574 (4) while the delivering country often monitors asset disposal (5). For example, the US’s End-Use Monitoring (EUM) that varifies the end-use transfer of equipment and its compliance with the agreements signed (5). According to the US, the LAF has had an excellent track record with EUM (6).

The LAF indicated that it does not conduct specific training concerning corruption risks in contracting while deployed on operations (1). Furthermore, the LAF does not participate in peacekeeping missions (2).

There is no evidence that such training is provided in peacekeeping missions [1].Permission for Lithuanian servicemen to take part in international operations and peace-keeping missions is granted by the Parliament. In December 2019 it gave the mandate to take part in the NATO, EU and UN international operations and training missions. Lithuania also sent 60 servicemen and civil personnel to provide military training in Ukraine [1]. Apart from overall anti-corruption training that all servicemen need to be provided in line with the Action Plan, there is no publicly available information about any special anti-corruption guidelines offered for this group

There is no evidence that such training is provided in peacekeeping missions [1].Permission for Lithuanian servicemen to take part in international operations and peace-keeping missions is granted by the Parliament. In December 2019 it gave the mandate to take part in the NATO, EU and UN international operations and training missions. Lithuania also sent 60 servicemen and civil personnel to provide military training in Ukraine [1]. Apart from overall anti-corruption training that all servicemen need to be provided in line with the Action Plan, there is no publicly available information about any special anti-corruption guidelines offered for this group

Officers interviewed stated that staff are given guidelines and training on addressing corruption risks during regular anti-corruption and integrity-building training and seminars. [1] [2] [3] [4] Guidelines for mitigating corruption risks are also set out in the Armed Forces Integrity Plan. [5] However, there is no specific guideline on addressing corruption risks in contracting whilst deployed on operations or peacekeeping missions. Guidelines in the Integrity Plan are general in nature and encompass overall military operations, thus it can be assumed that internal integrity-building and anti-corruption training is also general and does not address specific operations or risks.

Personnel are introduced to the Armed Forces Integrity Plan, [1] which provides a general guide on anti-corruption, but there are no specific guidelines on addressing corruption risks in contracting whilst deployed on operations or peacekeeping missions. However, the scenarios of operations or peacekeeping missions are incorporated as examples of cases in anti-corruption training. [2] Officers interviewed [3] [4] [5] stated that staff are also given guidelines and training on addressing corruption risks during regular anti-corruption and integrity-building training and seminars, but these are assumed to also be general in nature.

There is no indication that any guidelines exist or that any training has been provided that specifically addresses corruption risks in contracting when deployed to the field.
Some general guidance on contracting does exist, but this is not even sector-specific, let alone tailored to military operations. The Penal Code which applies to all Malian personnel outlaws the solicitation or accepting of gifts or presents during contracting (article 129).⁵ The Alioune Blondin Beye school of peacekeeping in Bamako offers a wide range of training programmes, including an ethics course that includes guidelines on “integrity and not soliciting or accepting material reward, honour or gifts”, and which is specific to officers on peace-keeping missions.² The school’s basic programmes are based on United Nations Core Pre-deployment Training Materials (CPTMs), which also address corruption risks in peacekeeping operations. The school also offers a course on UN policing that similarly deals with corruption risks.² These materials are used by MINUSMA to train its peacekeepers before deployment.
The Alioune Blondin Beye school trains about 1,000 individuals from all over Africa each year, with the majority of trainees coming from ECOWAS countries.² This means that the number of Malian soldiers, gendarmes and police officers receiving training at the school is under 1,000 – a mere fraction of the Malian security forces, which comfortably exceed 10,000 individuals.
Moreover, as TI has previously found, training efforts in Mali up until now have paid insufficient attention to corruption-specific matters.³ The police, gendarmerie and national guard are receiving regular anticorruption training from the EU’s EUCAP Sahel Training Mission.⁴ Reforms are designed to create a more effective and transparent human resources system. Training is designed to install a citizen’s ethic into the police to discourage them from preying on the population and demanding bribes.⁴ However, a security expert in Bamako confirmed that the EU’s military training mission (EUTM) – the largest and most important training programme currently operating in Mali – focuses overwhelmingly on military tactics and contains no anticorruption component.1,⁶ Indeed, the EUTM is operating in Mali at the request of the Malian government. Therefore, it does not have an executive or mentoring mandate. It can only deliver what the Malian authorities want.⁶

The Alioune Blondin Beye school of peacekeeping in Bamako offers a wide range of training programmes, including an ethics course that includes teaching on “integrity and not soliciting or accepting material reward, honour or gifts”, and which is specific to officers on peace-keeping missions.² The school’s basic programmes are based on United Nations Core Pre-deployment Training Materials (CPTMs), which also address corruption risks in peacekeeping operations. The school also offers a course on UN policing that similarly deals with corruption risks.² These materials are used by MINUSMA to train its peacekeepers before deployment. The Alioune Blondin Beye school trains about 1,000 individuals from all over Africa each year, with the majority of trainees coming from ECOWAS countries.² This means that the number of Malian soldiers, gendarmes and police officers receiving training at the school is under 1,000 – a mere fraction of the Malian security forces, which comfortably exceed 10,000 individuals.
Moreover, as TI has previously found, training efforts in Mali up until now have paid insufficient attention to corruption-specific matters.³ The police, gendarmerie and national guard are receiving regular anti-corruption training from the EU’s EUCAP Sahel Training Mission.⁴ Reforms are designed to create a more effective and transparent human resources system.1 Training is designed to install a citizen’s ethic into the police to discourage them from preying on the population and demanding bribes.⁴
However, a security expert in Bamako confirmed that the EU’s military training mission (EUTM) focuses overwhelmingly on military tactics and contains no anticorruption component.⁵ Indeed, the EUTM is operating in Mali at the request of the Malian government. Therefore, it does not have an executive or mentoring mandate. It can only deliver what the Malian authorities want.⁵

There is no evidence of specific guidelines for personnel addressing corruption risks in contracting during peacekeeping missions. [1] [2] [3]

There is no evidence of personnel receiving training on corruption risks during peacekeeping missions. [1] [2] [3]

The government does not provide training, guidelines nor monitoring before deploying their troops under a foreign country’s command. [1][2]

The government does not provide training, guidelines nor monitoring before deploying their troops under a foreign country’s command. [1][2]

According to the MOD reviewer, there is a comprehensive training concerning corruption issues that is delivered as part of military education in pre-deployment training for all NATO, EU and UN-led operations. Apart from in-house training, military personnel attend the NATO certified courses for Building Integrity in peace-keeping operations an BI courses for Senior Leaders, organized together with the UK Defence Academy or PSOTC (Peace Support in Operations Training Center) Sarajevo. The topics covered in this training adress procurement as well. All the evidence could not be verified.

Although there are no training courses authorised by the command, meetings and discussions about anti-corruption have been held in respective regiments [1]. Another interviewee said that, according to his knowledge, he has no experience of any such anti-corruption meetings as his posting is in urban military hospitals [2]. However, there is no evidence of any specific guidelines for mitigating corruption risks in contracting during operations.

Although training on corruption issues has been provided for senior military personnel at the National Defence College, this training focusses on general corruption awareness and the comparative study of anti-corruption policies in other countries. The training does not specifically address corruption risks in contracting [1].

Different guidelines apply to missions compared to general military service at home, but they do not address corruption in contracting specifically [1]. Very general guidelines on corruption risks in contracting are included in the pre-deployment training for commanders and, additionally, personnel who might need to engage local actors for contracting and procurement receive training and on how to deal with corruption [2,3].

Aside from commanders and those who may engage local actors for procurement, deployed personnel are not trained specifically on corruption risks in contracting [1,2]. General corruption training is part of the pre-deployment training for all personnel [3].

According to the NZDF, compliance forms a key component in a majority of Headquarters Joint Forces New Zealand’s J4 Branch’s Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs), where the processes in the operational environment generally reflect those stated in Defence Force Orders and Instructions [1]. The DFO(A) provides instructions for including special clauses into contracts to ensure contractors comply with all relevant law and regulations, which would include corruption [2]. There is additional guidance on Unit Internal Control Procedures that are designed to eliminate non-compliance with logistic regulations. This includes expectations that responsible personnel enforce compliance with policy by subordinate personnel, which by extension also incorporates contractors. Evaluators outside of the direct process are appointed to conduct these assessments [3]. The Internal Control Check Programme contains sections on, but not limited to, disposals, purchasing, security (including health and safety), and receipt of stores. Contractors are not specifically mentioned but if they are involved then they would fall under the internal checklist. Failure to comply could all fall under corruption. Special attention is paid to contractor compliance when handling hazardous substances, including the movement of weapons [4]. No evidence was found of guidelines addressing local power brokers, but these could exist.

In terms of contracting, there is currently no NZDF course or qualifying process on Contract Management (CM). Formal training is obtained through the completion of the Australian Defence Force’s Operational Contract Managers Course (OCMC). This course is specifically targeted at CM at the working level in an operational theatre. The NZDF attendees are either J4 Branch Planning personnel or those logisticians who are to have specified CM duties while on deployment [1]. Despite no formal course existing, the NZDF advises that training on corruption issues relating to contract management is provided during pre-deployment training (see Q52). Asset disposal, contract monitoring, equipment, and personnel security are all elements included in current training modules, but it is unclear to what extent these are tailored to mission specific deployments.

Specialist contracting training is provided as part of mission specific pre-deployment training to those who require it. This is complemented by the JFNZ SOPs on contracting in the mission area already supplied. An example of this in action was when the NZDF personnel were running the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Bamiyan. Staff responsible for managing the locally employed staff and local contracts were often logistics and supply professionals who were given specialist training on top of their normal subject matter training and qualifications. [2].

The assessor found no evidence of guidelines on how to address corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions (1). The lack of readily available information is also noteworthy in terms of transparency and oversight.

The assessor found no evidence of staff training on addressing corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions (1).

There is no evidence of corruption risk guidelines during contracting. The guidelines which exist are of general application. Although the general guidelines which exist may touch on corruption, it is not sufficiently detailed to say that corruption risks in contracting are a key aspect of the guidelines. Peacekeeping Support Operations doctrine has existed since 2007. Guidelines issued by the army state that military personnel on peacekeeping missions are governed by Nigerian law. While on peacekeeping missions they will be expected to adhere to the conduct rules of the army and national laws regarding corruption. The ambiguity as to whether the PPA 2007 applies to military acquisition and procurement processes also arises in this context (1).

There is no evidence of corruption risk training on contracting or procurement while troops are on deployment. However, there is credible evidence of corruption training in more general terms. “Another major problem identified is that of training and doctrine associated with PSOs.” (1) The quality and availability of training for personnel on PSO missions have been identified as a considerable problem which undermines the effectiveness of such missions. This has led to a downgrade of Nigeria’s contribution to peacekeeping missions. “Sources told The Authority newspapers that in February 2017, the MOD awarded a contract for the refurbishing and relocation, but this time, to a contractor who had no prior experience in installation of Level 2 Hospital and didn’t pass through the initial procurement process of the Bureau for Public Procurement (BPP) (2). This contract was awarded after the MOD had gotten a Presidential approval for the contract in the name of another contractor. The side-lined contractor was said to have handled the 2008 installation of Nigeria’s Level 2 hospital currently in operation under the UNAMID operation in UNAMID, Sudan” (3). The various cases reported demonstrate that it is not solely the absence of training or the content of the training which contributes to the high levels of corruption reported but also collusion between public officials and contractors and failure to implement or apply procedures and policies stated in the law.

No explicit guidelines for addressing corruption risks during the contracting of missions exist. However, on a general level, the Ministry of Defence and the Army operate within a comprehensive system of rules which take into account the risk of corruption in contracting. These rules are stipulated in the Rulebook on Conducting Financial Processes; the Rulebook on Financial Bookkeeping; the Rulebook on Material Work in the Ministry of Defence and Army and the Rulebook on Work of the Financial Departments of the Ministry of Defence and Army [1]. These are internal documents and not publicly available on the Ministry of Defence website.

Due to the small scope of missions abroad and their incorporation into multinational logistic frameworks, there is no specific training relating to risks of corruption in contracting. However, mission staff officers and each Chief of Mission must have undergone general anti-corruption training prior to being deployed. This training can either be part of their general military education or integrated amongst their various types of integrity trainings [1].

There is generally very little local contracting on international military operations [1]. There are no specific guidelines on corruption risks in contracting while on deployed operation or peacekeeping missions. Overall procurement regulations (including the “Ethical Guidelines for Contact with Business and Industry in the Defence Sector” and the Norwegian Defence Material Agency’s employee code of conduct) apply to contracting on operations as well [2, 3].

The Action Plan “Attitudes, Ethics and Leadership” describes contacts with business, including local business in operations, as one of the fields that training and decision-making need to encompass [1]. Training on the types of corruption risks in contracting that are prevalent during operation or peacekeeping missions is included as part of the general training on corruption issues which is covered during military education and which forms part of the mandatory pre-deployment training for deployed personnel [2]. The training covers issues such as cultural and religious understanding, gender, international law, international humanitarian law and rules of engagement and the code of conduct [1]. Due to its broad scope, it is unclear to what extend training programmes are tailored to the specific operational context.

There is a guideline relevant to corruption risks in contracting; however, it is general and does not define corruption or bribery and lacks specific provisions for contracting while deployed or on peace-keeping missions. The Oman Authority of Partnership for Development established by RD 9/2014 and affiliated with the Ministry of Commerce and Industry was set up to ensure offset obligations applied to civilian and military procurement contracts (1). However, no legislative guidelines exist addressing corruption when deployed or on peacekeeping missions (2), (3), (4). The MoD’s secretary-general has its own Secretariat Tender. However, no information regarding corruption risks is made available; similarly, the state tender board does not address corruption or bribery within Tender Law (the primary procurement law) (5), (6).

No anti-corruption training was found. The State Audit Institute has held anti-corruption training within other ministries, according to its website, there is no information on training in the Ministry of Defence, including the Royal Armed Forces (1). There is no information regarding training, including procurement corruption risk, on the Royal Armed Forces or MoD websites (2), (3). As outlined in the above sub-indicators, the Omani Royal Armed Forces are not currently deployed in operations or peacekeeping missions. According to our sources, even military personnel who are high ranking and whose units are at a higher level of corruption risk are not trained (4).

There are no guidelines. Armed and security forces can not contract other private companies that provide security services. It has never happened (1). Furthermore, the PA has not ratified the Montreaux Document as it is under an external power and has no sovereignty to contract or even exercise its sovereignty over its area. However, there can be some contracts for local companies to build, provide food, and other needs. There are no specific guidelines other than the procurement guidelines of the Ministry of Finance.

In general, no training is provided. However, in 2017 there was training for senior officers on corruption, transparency and accountability issues (1), (2). Usually, local NGO (Aman) provides training, but no reports in the media or public mentioned that. In the PACC 2017 and 2016 reports (3), they mentioned that many workshops, training and meetings were organized on different themes related to anti-corruption efforts (4), (3), (2). From 2016 to 2017, there was only one training course on anti-corruption that included the armed forces; in 2018, there was one organized by Aman (4).

In August 2020, the Philippines deployed 26 military personnel to UN missions, majority as military observers in South Sudan [1]. In preparation for their deployment, a Specialised Training on UN Military Observers Course (UNMOC) was provided by the AFP Peacekeeping Operations Center [2]. Unlike other forces, UNMOC are not normally deployed with logistical support; these must be requested through a complicated system comprised of lead national support task, civilian contracts, and force logistics and administrative unit [3]. The guidelines in the military observers course addresses the risks in operations at the contracting level: involving contracts (e.g. local resources – language assistants and security escorts) [3,4]. Meanwhile, the Force headquarters Support Unit of the Philippines is one of units that contributed to the development of a Specialised Training Materials on Military Logistics Unit for UN Peacekeeping Operations [5]. The module addresses the risks in contracting such as arrangements for the use of local resources, accountability of assets, and security of equipment and personnel [5].

With funding from the U.S. State Department, the AFP Peacekeeping Operations Center is established to provide training and administrative service to military personnel participation in peacekeeping operations, in support of the Philippines’ international commitments [1]. The Center provides the ff. UN courses: Civil-Military Coordination, Course Staff Officer Course, Military Observers Course, and the Logistics Officers Course [2]. As noted in 55A, these courses talk about the risks prevalent during operations or peacekeeping missions. However, while training makes reference to anti-corruption , it is mostly in a general sense (ethics and conduct) and not specifically on contracting [3,4].

In April 2019 MoD issued recommendations for reducing corruption risk in public procurements awarded during operations and peacekeeping missions. [1]
It is worth noting, that Polish contingents are mainly supplied directly from Poland or pay for the supplies contracted by mission command. [2]

The Inspectorate of Support for the Armed Forces is responsible, among others, for contracting in operations. There are examples of anti-corruption training provided for its personnel by military police:
– in 2017 for inspectorate’s management staff and commanders of military units [1],
– in 2018 for inspectorate’s internal trainers which train the inspectorate’s personnel [2].
In May 2019 the defence minister signed decision no 71 on additional preventive anti-corruption measures for military and civilian personnel designated for foreign operations. It obligates all commanders to participate in a general anti-corruption e-learning course and all personnel to study rising awareness materials. [3].

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the branches of the military were contacted in order to provide information regarding procurement and corruption in operational settings, but they were not forthcoming.

There is no evidence that extensive training is provided [1, 2] and guidelines on risks [3], but none of these apply to all military personnel, and there is no evidence that risks are explicitly connected to corruption. Portugal is a member of NATO, and there is evidence that NATO conducts training on corruption risks [4], while an existing assessment of corruption risks in peacekeeping operations suggest that Portuguese staff may be trained [5], although no concrete evidence was found.

The MoD and the military branches were contacted in order to provide information concerning procurement and corruption in operational settings but were not forthcoming.

Existing descriptions of procurement in deployed operations [1, 2] suggest that no training is conducted and that the existing curricula of courses offered to commanding officers do not include modules on procurement or corruption in operations [3, 4, 5], nor do courses for highly ranked officers [6, 7]. Portugal is a member of NATO, and there is evidence that NATO conducts training on corruption risks [8], while an existing assessment of corruption risks in peacekeeping operations suggest that Portuguese staff may be trained [9], although no hard evidence was found.

There are no relevant guidelines for corruption risks in contracting or while on deployment. Research has revealed that the defence sector and the armed forces do not fall under the parameters of Law No. 26 (2005) Central Tender Committee Law, which states ‘The Armed Forces and the Police, in respect of procurement of materials and contracts deemed to be of a confidential nature, for their identification and regulations of conditions of tenders and contracts thereof a decision from the Emir.’ [2] This means that almost all matters related to the armed forces, including contracting, fall directly under the authority of the Emir. In accordance with Article 65 of the Constitutions, the Emir is considered the chief commander of the armed forces. [1] Moreover, our sources on the ground confirm that such guidelines do not exist. [3,4]

There is no training provided on corruption risks for personnel who are part of operations. Such training is not provided for peace operation missions as there are none currently. [1,2]

Although there is a general outline for anti-corruption work by senior personnel, which includes anti-corruption measure while contracting, there is no specific guidelines for fighting corruption in contracting during deployed operations. [1]

There is no specific training in relation to corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions, but the instructional guidelines for the recruitment process for high-risk positions [1] and the code of ethics for federal civilian personnel [2] provide general anti-corruption guidelines for recruitment. The general anti-corruption training for recruitment also includes the obligation to adhere to the list of military and civilian positions for which candidates are required to provide a full income report to avoid conflicts of interest [3].

In terms of general anti-corruption training, there is sketchy information about such events that have been conducted in accordance with the regular anti-corruption plan. In summer 2019, for example, more than 200 anti-corruption training events, lectures and meetings on petty bribery were organised with low- and medium-level commanders and their deputies [4]. 11 MoD civil servants took part in a course designed for personnel of anti-corruption units [5]. In addition, classes on anti-corruption obligations were included in the professional training of all military units and more than 3,500 civil servants and employees took part in classes on assets declarations and conflicts of interest in 42 command and control bodies [6].

According to our sources, there are no such guidelines in deployment. As one source confirmed, “During our mission in Yemen, we never had such guidelines or knew of such guidelines even inside KSA” (1). Guidelines training are implemented to address corruption risks in contracting while on deployed operations does not exist (2). Saudi Arabia rarely takes part in peacekeeping missions, with the one instance of its participation in a peacekeeping mission in Somalia in 1993 (3).

According to our sources, there is no training provided on corruption risks in procurement for personnel on missions (1). However, the source confirmed that some personnel, especially in financing and procurement receive general training at the main headquarters (1), (2).

Guidelines for monitoring corruption risks are set by an internal order of the Peacekeeping Operations Center of the SAF General Staff [1]. There are no records of specific guidelines on tackling corruption risks in contracting in multinational operations.

The MoD organises training aimed at addressing corruption risks in procurement; however, not as a part of the preparation for deployment to multinational operations. Namely, in 2017, 45 MoD and SAF representatives attended training necessary to obtain a certificate for a public procurement officer in accordance with the instruction envisaged by the Public Procurement Office [1]. Additionally, MoD and SAF representatives occasionally participate in courses abroad with a focus on public procurement [2].

There is not enough evidence to score this indicator. Contracting personnel remain subject to applicable anti-corruption regulations in overseas missions [1, 2]. However, there is no public information on whether there are specific guidelines that inform contracting activities during overseas missions.

Personnel have received general corruption training at various stages of their career, but it is unknown if they received specific instruction on corruption risks for deployments [1].

There are visits by specialist teams during pre-deployment training and then follow-up visits by Defence Intelligence during deployment progress. Specific information on guidelines and risks involved in the training is not disclosed [1]. There is not enough available evidence to score this indicator, as such it is marked ‘Not Enough Information’.

According to interviewee 4, staff are trained on specific corruption risks while deployed, both by the procurement team and Defence Intelligence.

The United Nations Peacekeeping Operations Participation Act contains guidelines for addressing corruption risks under a foreign country’s command, but they are very general. Article 4 of the Act states that “the contingent and personnel participating in peacekeeping operations shall observe international laws and faithfully perform their missions within the authority and guidelines granted by the United Nations”. [1] However, it does not address potential corruption risks in detail. The Directive of Overseas Troop Deployment also requires soldiers deployed abroad to follow training prior to their deployment at the International Peace Operation Centre, a governmental institution in charge of providing relevant training for overseas troops. The Directive does not specify what kind of training should be provided to soldiers in order to tackle potential corruption in operation. [2]
While corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions are not addressed in details, each armed force provides guidelines and staff training by addressing corruption risks in general. For instance, the ROK Army conducts regular anti-corruption training for soldiers by sharing examples of potential corruption risks in military service. [3]

A review of legislation and guidelines suggests that soldiers and staff receive general training related to operations in the field rather than anti-corruption training. Article 21 of the Directive of Overseas Troop deployment requires that the General of overseas troops ensures officers deployed in a foreign country take basic courses suggested by the United Nations at the International Peace Operation Centre. [1] Article 12 of the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations Participation Act includes the provision of training for officials who are scheduled to participate in peacekeeping operations abroad. [2] However, neither policy addresses specific training related to corruption risks in the field. The International Peace Operation Centre has programmes designed for overseas troops, but they focus on pre-deployment guidance on regional politics, languages and cultural awareness instead of anti-corruption training. [3]

There are guidelines in the Procurement Act that oblige the Defence Ministry to have measures in place to counter corruption in contracting processes. [1] Army departments involved in contracting must have a committee, a verification and acceptance committee, a procurement unit plus an evaluation committee. [2] Nevertheless, these are all general in nature and do not specifically address the issue of contracting while in operations.

No publicly available data exists to score this indicator; as such, it is marked ‘Not Enough Information’. Sources contacted were not knowledgeable about it. Furthermore, there have been no public-facing initiatives by the Defence Ministry to show that it is taking this issue seriously and wants to address it.

Apart from Law 9/2017, which introduced a special rule on the fight against corruption and prevention of conflicts of interest [1], there was no public evidence about the existence of relevant guidelines for corruption risks in contracting prior to the recently approved Instruction 23/2020 of the Secretary of Defence, on the Ethical Code and Code of Conduct of Personnel Related to Purchasing, which affects to both military and civilian staff in the purchasing areas of the Ministry of Defence, and covers aspects related to bribery, gifts and any benefit, as well as conflicts of interest [2]. This instruction foresees the distribution and guidance on the conduct on purchasing.

There is frequent training prior to deployment in military operations abroad [1]. However, there is no public evidence about the existence of training on corruption risks in procurement or any general corruption risks. However, due to the relevance of such training for key personnel on contracting, it is expected that such training exits, for instance, at the “Curso de Alta Gestión del Recurso Financiero” (Course on High Management of Financial Resources) [2], but not in relation to the context in which the operations take place. Corruption is a concern in the countries where Spanish soldiers are deployed, so it is assumed that some sort of measures are taken regarding local interlocutors.

Most Sudanese forces – such as those previously operating in Yemen and Libya – are deployed through highly opaque arrangements that themselves entail or are the result of corrupt or off-the-books deal-making with foreign partners [1]. It is therefore unsurprising that no evidence could be found of any guidelines for addressing corruption risks in contracting while deployed. Sudan’s Procurement Act of 2010, which offers some minimal guidance on contracting services (not specific to any particular sector of government or contracting), does not contain any text specifically requiring training or offering guidelines for addressing corruption risks in contracting while military forces are deployed [2].

Most Sudanese forces – such as those previously operating in Yemen and Libya – are deployed through highly opaque arrangements that themselves entail or are the result of corrupt or off-the-books deal-making with foreign partners [1]. It is therefore unsurprising that no evidence could be found of any guidelines for addressing corruption risks in contracting while deployed. The International Budget Partnership’s 2017 Open Budget Survey for Sudan scored Sudan’s transparency 2 out of 100, its public participation 0 out of 100 and its budget oversight 31 out of 100 [1]. Sudan’s security and defence activities are exceptionally secret and opaque.

The SAF ‘Code of conduct’ [1] states generically that they disassociate themselves from ‘crimes such as corruption’. Staff are however not trained on specific corruption risks that are prevalent during international operations, such as asset disposals, local power brokers, contract delivery monitoring, security of equipment and personnel.

Ahead of international operations or peacekeeping missions, staff receive only general training which aims to enhance their ‘cultural understanding’ of the mission area or country, including potential occurrence of corruption therein [1]. Staff are however not trained on specific corruption risks that are prevalent during international operations, such as asset disposals, local power brokers, contract delivery monitoring, security of equipment and personnel.

Although no specific guidelines for operations abroad were found the same rules that apply to the Swiss military, in general, apply to operations overseas. There is the Code of Conduct for Federal Employees (COC) that applies for the professional members of the armed forces [1], the rules on compliance at the Group “Defence” [2, 3] and the general Swiss laws that prohibit active and passive bribery. [4].

Participants in peace promotion missions (the only operations permissible abroad) receive specific training (Article 66.2 MG) [1]. The training is delivered by the Swiss Armed Forces International Command (SWISSINT) which defines its mission as “to prepare each course participant for deployment on a professional, ethical and moral level” [2]. An explicit part of the mandate of Swiss Armed Forces in Kosovo (SWISSCOY) (the only operation of that size) is the fight against corruption in Kosovo, so at least part of the training is likely to cover the issue; however, no specific mention was found in the course guides [3].

Political Warfare Officers and Security Officers perform a wide range of duties within various fields, including anti-espionage, anti-sabotage, counter intelligence, and anti-corruption. General guidelines are issued for anti-corruption [1]. Staff training on anti-corruption measures related to contracting and outsourcing are conducted by Political Warfare Officers during training, deployment, and operations during both peacetime and wartime [1].

There are different mechanisms of professional training, development, and schooling for Political Warfare Officers and Security Officers concerning anti-corruption measures related to contracting and outsourcing in both peacetime and wartime [1]. This military doctrine of the “Political Warfare Outlines” is the major guideline for Taiwan’s armed forces’ anti-corruption efforts in terms of deployments and operations. Anti-corruption training and education at the operation levels of company and battalion are designed as a module within political warfare training. The risks of corruption related to asset disposals, local power brokers, contract delivery monitoring, security of equipment and personnel are only discussed in a general manner in this military doctrine of the “Political Warfare Outlines”.

A review of open source online documentation revealed no evidence of domestic guidelines concerning contracting for the military specifically. In principal, guidelines produced by the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority would apply. [1] They also are likely to follow SADC (South African Development Community) guidelines while deployed in operations. [2]

A review of open source online documentation revealed no evidence of the provision of training specific to the military with regards to contracting.

Relevant guidelines for corruption risk mitigation in contracting do not exist. Corruption risks in contracting or deployment are not mentioned in the Strategic Plan on Corruption Prevention and Suppression of the Ministry of Defence, the National Strategy on Corruption Prevention and Suppression or the Strategic Plan on Corruption Prevention and Suppression of the Ministry of Defence 2018-2021 [1]. According to the Indo-Pacific Defence Forum, the Peace Operations Center under the Royal Thai Armed Forces is fully responsible for pursuing peace operations in a holistic manner, by which the troops deployed to U.N. peacekeeping operations are selected, generated, equipped and trained in accordance with U.N. standards. However, there is no specific training on corruption issues in the center’s training programme for peacekeeping operations or civil relief efforts [2].

Training for corruption risks in contracting does not exist. The only corruption training required in the Strategic Plan on Corruption Prevention and Suppression of the Ministry of Defence, the National Strategy on Corruption Prevention and Suppression or the Strategic Plan on Corruption Prevention and Suppression of the Ministry of Defence 2018-2021 is for corruption risks in general [1]. According to the Indo-Pacific Defence Forum, even though the troops deployed to U.N. peacekeeping operations are trained in accordance with U.N. standards, there is no specific training for corruption issues in peacekeeping operations or civil relief efforts [2].

According to our sources, there are no guidelines that cover corruption risks in contracting (in all operations, units and procurement practices)(1,2). The Ministry of Defence did not communicate on this issue and a review of the Tunisian press does not provide evidence of the existence of relevant specific guidelines for corruption risks in contracting whilst deployed on operations or peacekeeping missions (3,4).

According to our sources, there is no training provided on corruption risks in procurement or any general corruption risks specifically for contracting. The only training provided is in cooperation with DCAF it is general training, as mentioned above(1,2).

Interviewee 4, who served in Kabul/Afgahnistan in 2010 as the head of the finance department of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission there, suggested that there are guidelines and written regulations issued by the service commands that address corruption risks in contracting, but these are general executive orders known within the Turkish military as ‘Operational Regulations’ [1]. He said that some sections of these Operational Regulations include anti-corruption and integrity-related issues, written by the Finance Department of the Turkish Land Forces (Army), in order to regulate the Turkish military’s financial activities and auditing processes abroad. He said that this 12-page regulation includes anti-corruption and integrity-related articles, but in a very broad fashion. He also emphasised that, in cases of violation of these articles about anti-corruption and integrity-related issues, the offending personnel is charged with the crime of disobeying the chain of command and orders. Article 82 of the Turkish Military Penal Code defines this as a severe crime that is punishable by a prison sentence lasting a minimum of one year [2]. This shows that the Turkish military is inclined to define anti-corruption and integrity-related violations and crimes abroad within Article 82 of the Turkish Military Penal Code defining disobedience to commanders and orders.

As explained before, the top anti-corruption and integrity-related document for all military and civilian personnel working in the sector as civil servants is the Civil Servants Code of Conduct (2005) [3]. All military personnel serving on the ground, both within Turkey and abroad, are obliged to adhere to this framework document. In particular, the second and third sections of this framework document are directly related to the operational setting. Interviewee 6 suggested that all personnel are made to read this document and asked to deliver signed papers of consent to prove that they have read all articles of the document and fully consent to them [4]. It seems that there are some corruption-related rules for some operations, but these are not generalised or transparent (these rules seem to follow war ethics) [5].

Interviewee 4 suggested that, during his 8-month deployment in Afghanistan, he did not participate in any training about corruption or anti-bribery measures [1].

The assessor spent his three years of military service abroad and he did not hear anything about any training on corruption, integrity or anti-bribery measures. According to Interviewee 4, in several operations, personnel are learning these regulations and codes of conduct from their peers during rotations [1].

The Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) Act provides for the code of conduct of all officers to guide and discipline members of the UPDF in Article 118 [1]. The UPDF Act does not, however, specifically address contracting. Those who have been found guilty of corruption are dealt with using the UPDF Act, which is the overarching law/policy regarding any operations or peacekeeping missions. Article 124 of the UPDF Act also warns against personal interests endangering operation efficiency [2]. Sections b-e speak against soldiers misusing funds, food or supplies for personal interest or taking goods captured from the enemy for personal gain. Article 126 of the same act outlines offences relating to operations and that all these are subject to military law. Additionally, Sections 39-41 of the UPDF Act focus on the deployment of peacekeeping troops and highlights that all deployed troops are subject to Ugandan law, and if any UPDF personnel commits an offence, they are repatriated for trial in Uganda.

There is no specific training given to the UPDF personnel who are being prepared for deployment which is directly related to corruption in contracting. For example, in his speech, the former Chief of Staff for Land Forces, Brig Katsigazi Tumusiime[1] indicated that the training given to the soldiers generally equips them to solve not lament about problems. By extension, this could imply that the training is adequate in equipping UPDF personnel with specific skills on dealing specific problems. During the same function, the outgoing Commandant at the Junior Command and Staff College, Brig Godfrey Golooba, recognised that it is through training that the capability and the determination of an officer is gauged. “Once that is done as a result of the training, then promotion to other responsibility is in order”. In his opinion, such training is necessary to be undertaken which is sufficient to guide them through their deployment. However, there is no specific or specialised training on corruption.

There are no guidelines specific for contracting while deployed on operations. Military procurement in Ukraine can be divided into centralized (carried out by the MoD) and decentralized (carried out by particular military units) procurements [1, 2]. Decentralized procurements (they make up a small part of all military procurements, only like food or services of premises renovations [3]) are not subjected to any special anti-corruption regulations except for those which generally apply for all procurements carried out by public officials. Asset disposals are carried out by state-owned enterprises empowered by the CMU and not by individual military units.

There is no special staff training on corruption risks in contracting while deployed on operations or peacekeeping missions. However, the MoD Anti-corruption Program provided training on corruption prevention and combatting while on peacekeeping missions [1]. The same provisions are also incorporated in the draft of the MoD Anti-corruption Program for 2018-2020 [2].

Despite the fact that the UAE has engaged in operations in Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria (1), and in addition to its involvement in peacekeeping missions, there is no evidence of guidelines addressing corruption risks in contracting on deployment. There are very few regulations that address the conduct of military personnel in general, let alone during deployment. Regulations related to contracting within Federal Laws No. 6 and 7 of 2004 address general military conduct with some articles specifically addressing corruption, but none of these articles are related to corruption while in deployment (2), (3), (4).

There are general anti-corruption training courses for particular departments within the armed forces, such as procurement and the financial department. However, these training courses are not only on corruption, but are general training courses on accounting, and advocacy, but they include a module or two on corruption/anti-corruption. As a source pointed out, “We are invited to participate in an entire training course. But in reality we participate only superficially; we attend in order to get out of work. The trainers don’t require full participation.” (1), (2).

There are some guidelines for addressing corruption risks in contracting during operations, which refer to monitoring contract implementation — however, they are not particularly detailed [1]. The MoD, as part of a response to the previous assessment, states that guidance is also provided on the subjects of bribery, gifts and hospitality when operating alongside contractors [2]. Nevertheless, it appears that aspects such as asset disposals are not covered.

Staff are specifically trained on corruption risks within contracting. The Defence Logistic Contract Management course contains specific training on this matter [1]. The MOD provides Fraud Bribery and Corruption training via the Defence Gateway platform, which is accessible to all MOD employers via the internet on all devices, and contains training on how to operate alongside contractors. This also covers the subject of bribery, gifts and hospitality. Once they complete the training, each officer receives a certificate/profile badge for evidence. Each military officer must complete this training before they can engage with contractors on deployed operations [2].

Additionally, the MoD delivers a number of training packages focused on the delivery of contracts which cover elements of acknowledging corruption risk and best practice. These courses are scaled in accordance to the exposure a service person has to contract management:

1. Managing Defence Contracts
Contractor Support to Operations. These are DLE Based (accessed via Defence Gateway).

2. The Contract Management Capability Programme (CMCP)
The latest government-wide contract online training package, which is to be completed by MoD personnel involved in contract management.

3. Defence Logistics Contract Managers Course
Designed to give contract managers the skills and awareness, inclusive of corruption risks, when initiating and maintaining contracts.

4. Tailored, Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Training
Provided to audiences up to 250 via Skype [2].

MoD Commercial Officers, as part of the Civil Secretariat teams who will undertake placement and determination of contracts within the theatre of operations, must also complete this training. MoD Commercial Officers must also undertake all the training required to gain a MOD Commercial Licence [2].

There is no indication that aspects such as asset disposals and local power brokers are covered during the training.

Contractors have played a substantial supporting role in US troop operations, both in terms of the number of contractors used and the type of work being contracted out [1]. During recent US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, contractors frequently accounted for 50% or more of the total DoD presence [2]. There are several publications which provide guidelines for operational contract support, which focus on contractors who deploy with the US armed forces in operations. Joint Publication 4-10 on Operational Contract Support is the most extensive document on contracting in operations, and includes a section on the prevention of fraud, waste and abuse. The ‘post-contract award oversight responsibility matrix’ provides details on the responsibilities of contract monitoring. The Joint Publication also includes a section on preventing ‘fraud, waste, and abuse’. On this issue, it states that commanders should ensure the assignment of adequately trained contracting officer’s representatives (CORs) and qualified subject matter experts who can monitor contractor performance. The administrative contracting officer should take swift action to address contractual nonconformities [3].

Furthermore, the ‘Multi-Service Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Operational Contract Support’ document states: ‘Commanders and supporting contracting officers are collectively responsible to ensure the appropriate command climate and training exists covering procurement integrity, conflict-of-interest, and ethics in order to mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse of government resources’ (see pages 1-8) [4]. However, no specific guidelines are provided. Finally, DoD Instruction 3020.41 on Operational Contract Support does not make any reference to ‘corruption’ or fraud, waste and abuse [5].

Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) are US service members or civilians nominated by the contracting officer. They act as a liaison between the contracted activity and the contracting officer. The COR personnel have to complete certain training, which includes a mandatory module entitled ‘COR in a Contingency Environment’ for CORs supporting contingency operations. COR personnel also have to undertake annual ethics training. Competencies for CORs include the ability to identify and prevent unethical conduct and instances of fraud, waste and abuse [1,2].

Contractors receive deployment training, however, it is not clear that general military personnel also undertake training related to contracting in the field [1]. The Joint Publication referenced in 55A states: ‘All US military and DoD civilian personnel dealing with contracted support matters should be trained to look for and report FWA indicators’ (see Chapter 1, section 8, Iine 16) [3]. This sentence does not link to related guidance, nor is this request codified. The ‘Multi-Service Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Operational Contract Support’ document refers to the training undertaken by service members and DoD civilian personnel as per the Joint Ethics Regulations as part of general ethics training, but does not reference specific training regarding contracting in operations [4,5]. Ethics training is not specifically anti-corruption training.

There are no particular guidelines for contracting within the framework of operations in which the National Bolivarian Armed Forces (FANB) are mobilised. The Organic Law of National Security only states that the budget needed for mobilisations shall be adjusted by the president according to the state of emergency [1]. Meanwhile, neither the Defence Sector Procurement Committee (CCSD) nor the Office of the Comptroller General of the National Bolivarian Armed Forces (CONGEFANB) have specific regulations for this type of contracting.

Following the 2016 declaration of a state of economic emergency and its ratification in 2019, acquisitions for the economic emergency are currently governed not only by ordinary mechanisms – the Public Procurement Law (LCP) – but also by the “Constitutional Law against the economic war, for rationality and uniformity in the acquisition of goods, services, and other public works”. Although this law could be applied to procurement and acquisitions justified by the defence sector on the basis of the established conditions of exception [2], it does not provide any specific measures regarding contracting before and during FANB mobilisations.

There is no evidence of any particular training on the monitoring of corruption risks when planning or during FANB operations. The training for which information is available relates generally to defence sector procurement and contracting [1]. Within the context of operations, only military-technical training information has been made public [2].

There are no relevant guidelines for corruption risk in contracting. There are general briefs before deployment, which may speak about some issues of misconduct which can be defined as corrupt behaviour, but corruption will not be a key focus area since the objective is general discipline [1]. During deployment, contracting is through the normal channels involving the procurement units based in Zimbabwe, the deployed forces do not deal with contracting [2].

There is no specific training relating to corruption risk for those involved in procurement and asset disposal during periods of deployment [1]. The general guidelines on domestic procurement and asset disposal as guided by relevant statutes, including the need to practice good corporate governance, apply during deployments [2]. According to inside sources in both the military and intelligence services, peacekeeping missions are money-making schemes for the military, therefore, procurement opportunities are manipulated to benefit military elites. Corruption risk training would, therefore, be the antithesis to the profit-making agenda [2].