BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
Presentation 4.2 Procurement and integrity pacts
1. Module 4. Taking action
Session 4.2 Procurement best
practice and integrity pacts
Training Workshop
6-7 Apr 2010
Strengthening transparency, integrity and accountability IRC International Water
and Sanitation Centre
2. Types of corruption
• Bribes or kickbacks: payment of a fixed sum,
% of a contract or in-kind favours.
• Fraud: manipulation or distortion of information,
facts and expertise for private gain by people
entrusted to cater to the public good (purposeful:
does not include unwilling misconduct or
negligence.)
• Favouritism, clientalism, cronyism and
nepotism: use of entrusted power to provide
preferential treatment to friends, family, kin etc
3. Contents
• the Lesotho Highlands project: bribery in
procurement
• why is procurement a hot spot for
corruption and bad decision-making in
WASH?
• best practice examples in procurement
• the principles of integrity pacts
4. Lesotho Highlands
Water Project
“Massive corruption was discovered on the
LHWP in 1999, when more than 12
multinational firms and consortiums were
found to have bribed the CE of the project.
After the CE himself was found guilty,
three major construction firms were put in
the dock; thus far, three have been found
guilty and charged, and one has been
debarred at the World Bank” (IRN website,
2005)
5. Lesotho Highlands
Water Project
• Largest international water
transfer from Lesotho-
South Africa
• Construction contracts
awarded fraudulently
• Foreign companies paid
bribes through agents and
international accounts
• Successful prosecutions
of both givers and takers
set precedents Source: Earle & Turton
6. LWWP: implications
• Precedents from prosecution
– Jurisdiction can be taken where the impact is
felt
– Giver and taker are equally responsible
– Bribes are still illegal even if not acted on
after corrupt agreement reached
– courts could gain access to Swiss bank
accounts
7. Collusion in India
• “A group of [contractors] meet on the weekend in the office. We
have a list of contracts being offered by [the public W&S agency].
We draw names out of a bag to see who will be the winner for each
contract. That person decides what he will bid for the contract, and
everyone else bids something higher than that.”
• pre-determined winners of contracts reimburse the
losers for their bidding fees.
• values of winning bids estimated 15% higher than in a
competitive environment
Source (Davis)
8. Why a hot spot?
• Government procurement is10-15% GDP!
• High levels of procurement of products
and services in WASH
• Construction sector
• Complexity
• High levels of competition
• Tight operating margins
• Few other ways to develop advantage
9. Why a hot spot?
• Representatives
• Weak capacity to regulate and monitor
• Bribery (kickbacks), fraud (Collusion or
bid-rigging)
• Consequences: Higher costs, poor quality
construction and lack of sustainability
14. Possible anti-corruption
actions
• (Some) firms (Givers)
– Active implementation of a no corruption policy
– Business Integrity Management System
– Joining international initiatives (WEF, FIDIC)
– Termination of corruption prone activities
– Blacklisting of clients, governments, partners
• (Some) clients/governments (Takers)
– Rules and regulations
– Sanctions (blacklisting of firms, legal actions, …)
• (Some) facilitators
– Starting public debate
– Rules and regulations
– Control
– Sanctions
15. Best practice examples
• Conflict of Interest Laws
• E-procurement
• Disclosure of Income and Assets
• Whistleblower Protection
• Business Principles for Countering Bribery
(BPCB)
• Business Integrity Management System
• Integrity pacts
16. Integrity pacts
• To reduce high costs of corruption in
public procurement
• binding agreement (pact) between the
awarding agency and bidders for contracts
• Companies pledge to abstain from bribery,
government agrees not to solicit bribes
• Disclosure of payments e.g. to agents
• Code of conduct and compliance
programme
Notas do Editor
Million cubic metres per year: Sufficient to cover foreign debt
Chief executive of LHDA (Lesotho Highlands Development Authority) Mr Sole was prosectuted. Initial investigation based on suspected misuse of cars, expenses etc. Appealed against dismissal.
Companies also strongly resisted prosecution including through name changes and takeovers to try and escape liability. Representative agreements provided veneer of respectability. One debarred by world bank.
Successful prosectuion by Lesotho despite high cost and limited initial support. Payments to agents were linked to payments to Mr Sole. Over a million dollars over 9 years. 11 charges bribery, 15 years in jail
Trial showed multinational companies can be held to account, even by a small country with limited resources
Also concerns e.g. cost and support needed for such trials. Should donors fund? WB wouldn’t pay.