Operational Risk:

Very High

Score:

25/100

Next Risk Category Right Arrow
Left Arrow Back to Estonia Overview

Disregard of Corruption in-Country

Collapse
Q51 63/100

Do the armed forces have military doctrine addressing corruption as a strategic issue on operations?

View Question
Military doctrine Score: 25 / 100
Corruption is a topic covered by the military doctrine, but only briefly and indirectly. It does not cover corruption explicitly within the defence sector.…
Explore
Transparency Score: 100 / 100
There is an easily accessible list of the most important documents on the Ministry of Defence website. [1] One of them is the National…
Explore
Q52 25/100

Is there training in corruption issues for commanders at all levels in order to ensure that these commanders are clear on the corruption issues they may face during deployment?

View Question
Score: 25 / 100
Officers receive special leadership training that covers to a certain extent ethics, morality and responsibility. [1] In addition, the Estonian Internal Security Service organises…
Explore
Q53 0/100

Is corruption as a strategic issue considered in the forward planning of operations? If so, is there evidence that commanders at all levels apply this knowledge in the field?

View Question
Forward planning Score: 0 / 100
Tackling corruption is not considered a priority in the forward planning in the defence sector, based on the government’s strategy. [1] Part of the…
Explore
Application Score: 0 / 100
One of the biggest missions where Estonian Defence Forces’ units were deployed was in Afghanistan. [1] According to an Estonian colonel’s assessment, corruption as…
Explore

Corruption within Mission

Expand
Q54 0/100

Are trained professionals regularly deployed to monitor corruption risk in the field (whether deployed on operations or peacekeeping missions)?

View Question
Corruption monitoring Score: 0 / 100
There is no evidence of expert personnel monitoring corruption within deployed missions and there is no indication of this being planned for the future…
Explore
M&E policy Score: 0 / 100
There is no evidence of monitoring and evaluation guidance for the missions by the Defence Forces.
Explore
Transparency Score: NA / 100
This indicator has been marked Not Applicable. There is no evidence that Defence Forces write or publish reports on corruption risks during operations or…
Explore

Contracting

Expand
Q55 38/100

Are there guidelines, and staff training, on addressing corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions?

View Question
Comprehensiveness Score: 75 / 100
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…
Explore
Training Score: 0 / 100
In accordance with the CSDP standards of behaviour, all personnel is expected to become acquainted with the guidelines and other relevant documents such as…
Explore

Private Security Companies

Expand
Q56 NS/100

Are private military contractors employed and if so, are they subject to a similar level of scrutiny as for the armed forces?

View Question
Policies Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. There is no legal framework or policy for using PMCs in Estonia and Estonia’s…
Explore
Scrutiny Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. There is no evidence of scrutiny of PMCs in the context of operations. In…
Explore
Enforcement Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. There is no legal framework or policy for using PMCs in Estonia and Estonia’s…
Explore