Does the country have an openly stated and effectively implemented anti-corruption policy for the defence sector?
7a. Anti-corruption policy
Ukraine score: 100/100
There is no anti-corruption policy, or there is one but it explicitly does not apply to the defence sector.
There is an openly stated anti-corruption policy, but it is unclear if it applies to the defence sector or the government is in process of developing one that applies to the defence sector.
There is an openly stated anti-corruption policy that applies to the defence sector.
There is an Anticorruption strategy adopted by the CMU and aims to create an effective national system of prevention and counteraction of corruption . The strategy provides anti-corruption measures for three years (2015-2017); a new one should have been adopted in 2018 and has been already approved by the National Agency for Corruption Prevention . Based on the anti-corruption strategy, each executive authority develops its specific anti-corruption programme aimed at adherence to the requirements of anti-corruption legislation as well as the implementation of the anti-corruption strategy. Ukraine does not have an explicit anti-corruption policy for the defence sector. Yet each executive authority (like the Security Service of Ukraine, Ministry of Interior etc.) has developed and adopted explicit anti-corruption programmes. The MoD developed one as well and adopted its anti-corruption programme for 2015-2017 . It has already published a draft anti-corruption programme for 2018-2020 .
The first specialized anti-corruption unit within the MoD was created in 2009 in pursuance of the Resolution of the CMU on the establishment of the specialized units (assignment of persons) for corruption detection and prevention in central and local executive authorities. At first, it was a separate section (three employees), then division (five employees) being a part of the department of internal audit. From 2014 to 2016 there was a separate directorate for corruption detection and prevention (11 employees) subordinated directly to the minister of defence. After reducing the MoD by 200 employees in July 2016, the directorate transformed to department consisting of seven employees. The department’s activities are regulated by the Resolution of the CMU № 706 “On approval of Model provisions on the authorized unit (person) for corruption detection and prevention” (2013). Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine № 706 “Issues of corruption detection and prevention” (2013) . This resolution, like the previous one of 2009, provides for the existence of such units or designation of the named civil servant in all agencies of central and local executive authorities.
In 2016 aiming at strengthening of the integrated system of corruption prevention in the MoD and AFU, according to the general directive of the MoD and GS AFU organizational measures were taken and five regional territorial subdivisions (territorial groups) for corruption detection and prevention with three military servants in each of them were formed. Territorial subdivisions were created in Dnipro, Kyiv, Odesa, Lviv, Kharkiv.
1. “CMU Resolution No. 265, On Approval of the State Program on Implementing the Principles of State Anti-Corruption Policy in Ukraine (Anticorruption Strategy) for 2015-2017,” Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, April 29, 2015, accessed April 11, 2018, http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/265-2015-%D0%BF.
2. “Anticorruption program of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine for 2015-2017,” Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, accessed April 11, 2018, http://www.mil.gov.ua/content/public_discussion/project_antikr_08072015.pdf.
3. “The NACP approved the Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2018-2020,” National Agency for Corruption Prevention, accessed April 11, 2018, https://nazk.gov.ua/news/v-nazk-zatverdyly-antykorupciynu-strategiyu-na-2018-2020-roky.
4. “Draft Anticorruption program of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine for 2018-2020,” Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, accessed April 11, 2018, http://www.mil.gov.ua/content/public_discussion/Proekt_Anticorup_progr_MOY_2018-2020.pdf.
5. “Cabinet of Ministers of Ukrain Decree No. 706, Issues of prevention and corruption,” Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, September 4, 2013, http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/706-2013-%D0%BF.
7b. Effective implementation
Ukraine score: 75/100
There is no action plan to implement the policy, nor have any actions been taken.
There is an action plan at the ministry level but it is superficial, and does not address the institutional weaknesses in the system, OR there efforts to implement an action plan at the national level.
There is an action plan at the ministry level that reflects the institutional weaknesses in the system, but no actions have been taken to implement it.
There is an action plan at the ministry level that reflects the institutional weaknesses in the system. While steps have been taken to implement the plan, it is either behind schedule, or implementation is not addressing the priority items in the action plan.
The action plan at the ministry level reflects the institutional weaknesses in the system, and implementation has progressed according to the estimated timeline.
The anti-corruption action plan at the level of the MoD is Annexe 1 to the MOD Anticorruption programme for 2015-2017 . Annexe 1 also addresses institutional weaknesses in the system, which the MoD planned to overcome through the development of anti-corruption programmes, the introduction of a systemic approach to preventing corruption based on the results of corruption risks analysis, and establishment of departments responsible for corruption prevention . An active MoD officer stated that the MoD Anti-corruption Action Plan for 2015-2017 was 90% implemented . The detailed measures for effective implementation of anti-corruption policy in MoD can be found in the report of MoD anti-corruption unit about the fulfilment of the anti-corruption program in 2017 .
1. “Tasks and actions on the implementation of the Anti-corruption Program of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine for 2015-2017,” Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, accessed April 11, 2018, http://www.mil.gov.ua/content/coruption/zavd_zahodu.pdf.
2. Interviewee 1, Active MoD officer 2 May 2018, Kyiv.
3. “Anti-corruption Strategy 2015-2017,” Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, http://www.mil.gov.ua/content/coruption/antikor-17042018.pdf.
Compare scores by country
Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.
|Country||7a. Anti-corruption policy||7b. Effective implementation|
|Albania||75 / 100||25 / 100|
|Algeria||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Angola||0 / 100||NA|
|Argentina||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Armenia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Australia||25 / 100||NA|
|Azerbaijan||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Bahrain||50 / 100||NA|
|Bangladesh||0 / 100||NA|
|Belgium||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Bosnia and Herzegovina||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Botswana||0 / 100||NA|
|Brazil||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Burkina Faso||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Cameroon||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Canada||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Chile||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|China||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Colombia||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Cote d'Ivoire||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Denmark||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Egypt||0 / 100||NA|
|Estonia||75 / 100||NA|
|Finland||25 / 100||NA|
|France||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Germany||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Ghana||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Greece||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Hungary||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|India||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Indonesia||50 / 100||NA|
|Iran||50 / 100||NA|
|Iraq||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Israel||50 / 100||75 / 100|
|Italy||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Japan||0 / 100||NA|
|Jordan||50 / 100||NEI|
|Kenya||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Kosovo||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Kuwait||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Latvia||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Lebanon||50 / 100||NA|
|Lithuania||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Malaysia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Mali||0 / 100||NA|
|Mexico||75 / 100||25 / 100|
|Montenegro||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Morocco||25 / 100||NA|
|Myanmar||0 / 100||NA|
|Netherlands||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|New Zealand||75 / 100||NEI|
|Niger||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Nigeria||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|North Macedonia||75 / 100||75 / 100|
|Norway||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Oman||0 / 100||NA|
|Palestine||0 / 100||NA|
|Philippines||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Poland||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Portugal||0 / 100||NA|
|Qatar||0 / 100||NA|
|Russia||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Saudi Arabia||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Serbia||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Singapore||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|South Africa||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|South Korea||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|South Sudan||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Spain||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Sudan||0 / 100||NA|
|Sweden||25 / 100||NA|
|Switzerland||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Taiwan||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Tanzania||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Thailand||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Tunisia||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Turkey||0 / 100||NA|
|Uganda||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Ukraine||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|United Arab Emirates||50 / 100||NA|
|United Kingdom||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|United States||25 / 100||NA|
|Venezuela||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Zimbabwe||100 / 100||NEI|