Corruption prevention

From budgets to bridges: how better public finance management improves lives in Peru and beyond

How public money is managed at the local level has a direct impact on people's lives – from whether children get their school books to the conservation of local environments on which many communities depend for their health and livelihoods. For more than a decade, the Basel Institute on Governance and the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs SECO have partnered with regional and municipal governments across Peru to strengthen public financial management and improve public service delivery. Through the Programa GFP Subnacional, a dedicated team combines practical technical assistance with innovative approaches, including data analytics, digital tools and behavioural interventions. Together, these help governments make better decisions, use resources more effectively and communicate better with the people they serve. In this Q&A, Programme Director Carlos Vargas explains how Programa GFP Subnacional – the Subnational Public Finance Management PFM programme – works, what it has achieved and why its lessons matter beyond Peru. How does the programme help governments deliver better services? Broadly speaking, the programme aims to enhance processes for public service delivery and improve the capacity of subnational governments to use public resources responsibly. In practice, this means really hands-on assistance with things like tax management or budget planning that both covers the required resources e.g. teaching materials and considers what’s needed to deliver a service e.g. enough vehicles to distribute the materials to schools . This in turn ensures that citizens receive public services in the quantity and quality they need and projects are completed within budget and on time. In other words, the programme aims to make a real difference in people's lives – particularly in areas like education, health, biodiversity conservation and the fight against climate change. Our advisors work hand-in-hand with local officials, providing technical assistance, training and support with technology in line with national priorities and systems. What difference has the programme made in terms of revenue generation? The results have been significant. One of the clearest examples comes from Tarapoto in the San Martín region. Through automated WhatsApp reminders, streamlined processes and a new online payment system, the municipality increased property tax collection. The additional revenue helped fund a bridge that now provides around 800 pupils with safe, direct access to their school. In the Municipality of Piura, we helped automate tax collection processes using algorithms and artificial intelligence to better understand taxpayer behaviour. This allowed us to group taxpayers into categories and design tailored communication strategies for each, which helped increase property tax revenue – funds governments need to invest in public services. How about in education or conservation? In education, we have assisted regions to ensure that around 95 percent of school materials now arrive on time before the start of the school year. The programme has also contributed to the timely delivery of vaccines and medicines. On biodiversity conservation, we have supported three regional governments in Peru to establish a baseline for deforestation, drawing on 24 years' worth of data to identify zones that are particularly vulnerable to deforestation and other illegal activities. Based on this, we have developed an early warning system that enables regional governments to act more quickly and direct their limited resources towards the most critical areas rather than trying to cover vast territories. Why are regional and municipal governments so important? In Peru, public spending is highly decentralised – around 35 to 45 percent of the budget is allocated to regional governments and municipalities. These are the entities closest to citizens. If this final link in the chain does not work well, citizens will not receive the services they need. How does better public finance management reduce corruption risks? By improving the efficiency and transparency of processes within public bodies, we limit discretionary power and reduce opportunities for corruption. The programme has generated concrete evidence of this. The regional government of Loreto – Peru’s largest region – for example, rose from 18th to 4th place in the national ranking of corruption prevention capacity after becoming a programme beneficiary. This kind of progress matters, because corruption ultimately undermines the delivery of public services and the responsible use of public resources. What can other countries learn from Peru's experience? We see the Programa GFP Subnacional as a laboratory for public finance innovation. Over more than a decade, it has generated proven tools and approaches that improve efficiency, reduce losses and help ensure the quality of public services. This body of evidence – tested and refined over time – represents a form of global learning. The lessons and best practices the programme generated can be shared not only across Peru but also with other countries, where they can be adapted to local needs. In this sense, the Swiss government's investment in the programme goes beyond impact in a specific region: it is an investment in generating knowledge and innovations that can inform public financial management reforms and help improve public services and the lives of citizens elsewhere.

There’s a gap between what laws say and what people do. How is that useful for anti-corruption work?

In episode 37 of the podcast Sophie au pays des possibles, host and anti-corruption expert Sophie Lemaître conversed with Claudia Baez Camargo, Director of Prevention, Research and Innovation at the Basel Institute on Governance. Claudia leads a specialised team of researchers who leverage behavioural science, political economy analysis and field research to design context-sensitive anti-corruption strategies. Among others, they advance approaches based on understanding and targeting social norms. This Q&A is an edited extract of their discussion on why top-down laws often fail against local realities and how practical, bottom-up solutions can empower citizens to drive real change. Sophie Lemaître: What are social norms, and why is it essential to consider them when addressing corruption? Claudia Baez Camargo: Essentially, social norms are what we perceive as typical, expected or socially accepted behaviour in a given context. For example, if a traffic officer stops you in Mexico – where I was born and grew up – most would offer a bribe to get out of the predicament. Or when accessing healthcare services, people might give a “gift” or bribe before receiving care. If they don't, they fear they won't receive the service or the correct medicine. Even if they are personally against corruption and know the law forbids it, the social expectation can push them to do it anyway. Understanding these expectations is key to designing effective anti-corruption interventions. Sophie: I've heard statements like "Corruption is part of the culture of this country." Can we say some cultures or countries are more corrupt than others? Claudia: I've often been told, across Africa, Latin America, the Balkans or Asia, "Oh, Claudia, it's in our culture. What are we going to do?" But these regions have such vastly different cultures that I doubt culture is the defining factor. In my view, the real drivers are structural. - First, there are resource constraints: living in poverty and unmet need drives corruption. - Second, there are weak state institutions. When the state fails to deliver, it generates incentives to bypass the law just to solve problems, make money or access services. Culture simply adapts around these realities, absorbing corrupt practices through local names and jokes. Social norms apply to concrete, narrow situations – they dictate what we're expected to do. Culture is something we all have an emotional stake in, so calling a culture corrupt is self-degrading and ignores how rich cultures are. I prefer to focus on social norms because they provide a concrete entry point where we can actually act and change things. Sophie: Have you noticed people saying that addressing corruption is a Western thing? Claudia: Government and anti-corruption officials across the board have assimilated the language of good governance, largely because their laws follow UN Conventions. At that level, a Westernised view definitely prevails. At the grassroots, it's completely different. In research in Uganda and Tanzania, we used fictional "vignettes" to ask citizens about their perceptions of public officials, presenting two characters: - One who strictly abides by the law and refuses bribes. - Another who uses their authority to extract resources, but distributes them to their family and community. Stealing in order to share, like Robin Hood. Almost without exception, people said the one stealing and sharing was great, loved and respected, while the law-abiding official was called a traitor who ignored his community responsibilities. From this view, the "corrupt" ones are those who fail to use power to look after their network. Ultimately, there is vast room for interpretation regarding what corruption is, depending entirely on social norms, cultural environments and practical needs. Sophie: How can we induce behaviour change to create a culture of integrity when the situation involves so many social norms, informal practices and other drivers? Claudia: A lot of anti-corruption projects and investments are still very prescriptive. Focusing purely on top-down "best practices" and laws creates an "implementation gap": countries with excellent laws on paper but terrible results in practice. To achieve sustainable change, we must go bottom-up. Working at the subnational or municipal level shows a lot of promise, because it allows local governments to engage directly with constituents, jointly identify priorities and co-design solutions. As scholar Yuen Yuen Ang argues in her work on adaptive political economy, you cannot expect context-defying behaviours to emerge just because you pass a law. We need to use what is already there – local practices, social networks and community groups – to solve problems sustainably without corruption. It does not have to be a textbook Western "best practice", as long as it works. Sophie: Do you have a success story or promising initiative you could share? Claudia: On success stories, once I worked on a project on a remote island in the Philippines where the mayor was a true champion for his community. He even gave his personal mobile number to every citizen. It was a very poor community, but because things were decided collectively, their few resources were visibly used in the best interest of everyone. On promising initiatives, I'm currently supporting a Swiss-funded project in Moldova that takes this bottom-up approach seriously: its first year is dedicated purely to building trust among local stakeholders. Without trust, people can't collaborate or identify joint priorities. Investing in trust, then letting the community take the driver's seat, is essential for sustainability. Otherwise, once funding dries up, everything regresses. Sophie: Anti-corruption progress is slow, and we’re experiencing a global backlash. What keeps you motivated? Claudia: What I love about my job is going to different countries and speaking with mayors, citizen groups, civil society organisations and the private sector – the real people on the ground whose lives would be transformed if there were less corruption. That's what motivates me. Corruption remains a devastating barrier to development and poverty reduction. We often hear we need to "raise awareness", but that isn't true; in almost every context, people already know what's corrupt, suffer from it and dislike it. We simply cannot give up. The climate can be demotivating, but if we're passive spectators, we can say goodbye to the institutions we've fought for. With our actions, we can intervene and change the course of events. Sophie: One final question: how can we as individual citizens play a role in fighting corruption? Claudia: First, by understanding our duties. Good governance is fundamentally linked to democracy, and whether you live in an established or fragile democracy, the legal framework almost always gives citizens instruments to engage with their representatives. If we normalise using these tools to question authority and demand accountability, we strengthen the rule of law and put corrupt actors under scrutiny. If enough people do this, a lot can change. Learn more ::: links - Quick Guide: Social norms and corruption - Research Case Study: Harnessing behavioural approaches against corruption - Blog – Bridging the gap: How behavioural science can strengthen anti-corruption and crime prevention - Article – Corruption and Social Norms: A New Arrow in the Quiver - Episode 37 of Sophie au pays des possibles :::

Corruption in the age of networks, data and influence – does the EU's new Anti-Corruption Directive rise to the challenge?

This article by Dr Jacopo Costa is one of two Basel Institute commentaries on the EU's new Anti-Corruption Directive. While the companion piece by Rita Simões examines the directive's legal and institutional implications, this article takes a political economy perspective. It considers what the directive reveals about changing understandings of corruption, how corruption risks are evolving in an increasingly interconnected and technology-driven environment, and where future EU anti-corruption efforts may need to focus. The key message is that the directive represents an important advance in legal harmonisation, but that effective anti-corruption policy will also require stronger strategic thinking, greater use of data and technology, and closer attention to emerging corruption risks linked to procurement, border security and financial infrastructure. April 2026, the European Union formally adopted Directive 2026/1021 on combatting corruption. Following years of negotiations, political disagreements and institutional bargaining, the EU now has a comprehensive anti-corruption framework establishing common definitions, offences, sanctions and preventive measures across its member states. This is a landmark achievement. But it would be a mistake to view the directive as the culmination of the European anti-corruption journey. In fact, its adoption marks the beginning of a much larger challenge: turning a legal framework into an effective EU Anti-Corruption Strategy that can address the evolving forms of corruption emerging in an increasingly complex geopolitical and technological landscape. Why the directive matters For years, the EU lacked a coherent anti-corruption framework. Although member states had their own legislation, there were significant differences in how corruption offences were defined, investigated and punished. These discrepancies created loopholes that could be exploited by corrupt individuals and hindered cross-border cooperation between national authorities. The new directive aims to address these issues by introducing common minimum standards across the EU. In particular, it: - harmonises the definitions of bribery in the public and private sectors, trading in influence, misappropriation, obstruction of justice, illicit enrichment and the concealment of criminal proceeds; - introduces common standards for criminal sanctions, corporate liability, statutes of limitation, whistleblower protection, anti-corruption strategies and specialised anti-corruption bodies; and - broadens the definition of public officials to encompass not only national officeholders, but also senior EU officials and individuals performing public duties on behalf of public institutions. This reflects the reality of contemporary governance, where public services are increasingly delivered through hybrid public–private arrangements. It is the most ambitious attempt yet to establish a shared European anti-corruption framework. A more modern understanding of corruption One of the directive's most significant strengths is its recognition that corruption is not confined to the traditional notion of an envelope stuffed with cash being exchanged. We welcome this change in perspective greatly, because our research demonstrates clearly that contemporary corruption is increasingly networked, sophisticated and relational. It often relies on intermediaries, influence brokers, hidden financial channels, luxury gifts, preferential treatment, future career opportunities and informal exchanges of favours. Including offences such as trading in influence, illicit enrichment, concealing criminal proceeds and aiding or abetting corruption schemes shows an understanding of how corruption operates in modern societies. This evolution is important because anti-corruption frameworks often struggle to keep up with the evolving nature of corruption. The directive is a valuable attempt to address this issue and close the resulting gap. The price of political compromise Legislation is never produced in isolation from politics. Significant disagreements emerged among EU institutions and member states during the adoption process. Several governments expressed concerns about subsidiarity and the potential consequences of criminalising particular behaviours. So, the final directive is less ambitious than the original proposal. One example concerns the offence previously known as “abuse of office”. Following intense political resistance, particularly from countries such as Germany and Italy, the final text replaced it with the more cautious formulation of “unlawful exercise of public functions”. The compromise facilitated agreement, but introduced ambiguity that could hinder enforcement. Similarly, criminal sanctions and limitation periods were reduced during negotiations. Maximum prison sentences were reduced, and statutes of limitation were scaled back considerably compared to earlier drafts. These compromises highlight a recurring dilemma in policymaking not only in Europe but everywhere: achieving consensus often necessitates compromising on ambition. The result is a directive that establishes a common baseline, yet leaves considerable room for interpretation among member states. The missing security lens Perhaps the most significant limitation of the directive is its relatively little guidance on what anti-corruption efforts should look like in today's rapidly changing security environment. This is because corruption is increasingly also a geopolitical and security issue. Foreign influence operations, sanctions evasion schemes, strategic corruption, illicit financial networks, organised crime infiltration and the manipulation of critical supply chains all represent corruption-related risks affecting European security and resilience. Yet these challenges remain largely outside the directive's core focus. There is a risk that anti-corruption efforts will continue to focus on traditional forms of misconduct while underestimating emerging threats linked to geopolitical competition and hybrid forms of influence. The technology gap Considering the hype around artificial intelligence in society generally, the most striking omission in the directive is the limited attention devoted to technological innovation. Over the past decade, governments, international organisations and researchers have been exploring how artificial intelligence, big data analytics, risk indicators, predictive modelling and open-source intelligence can bolster anti-corruption initiatives. Technology is now essential for identifying suspicious procurement patterns, pinpointing conflicts of interest, tracing illicit financial flows and exposing corruption networks. Yet the directive contains almost no strategic vision regarding the role of technology in anti-corruption governance, which is surprising. Research conducted under the EU-funded FALCON project – of which the Basel Institute is a consortium member – demonstrates that effective anti-corruption systems are increasingly dependent on digital infrastructures capable of collecting, integrating, analysing and cross-referencing large volumes of information. Without these capabilities, many corruption risks remain invisible until significant damage has already occurred. It’s important to stress that adopting new technologies – purchasing software, etc. – is the easy part. EU states also need to create the institutional and data infrastructures that allow these technologies to function effectively. Digitisation, interoperability, standardised datasets, machine-readable information and cross-border information sharing are all prerequisites for the next generation of anti-corruption systems. Three areas that deserve greater attention From our research in the following areas, we can say for sure that they deserve particular attention in the EU’s Anti-Corruption Strategy and future initiatives: 1\. Public procurement Public procurement remains one of the sectors most vulnerable to corruption. This issue is exacerbated by Europe's increased investment in defence, critical infrastructure, energy security, technological innovation and strategic industrial policies. Central priorities should include strengthening transparency, reducing direct awards, improving oversight of sub-threshold contracts, and introducing AI-based risk assessment tools. 2\. Border governance Managing borders and customs procedures is another critical challenge, as research at the Port of Rotterdam and the Kapitan Andreevo crossing demonstrates. Corruption at the border facilitates a wide range of criminal activities, including smuggling, trafficking, evasion of sanctions, tax fraud and the movement of illicit goods. Greater automation, data integration and harmonisation of border management systems across member states could significantly reduce opportunities for corruption and strengthen the EU's capacity to detect emerging threats. 3\. Financial infrastructures Modern corruption relies heavily on financial infrastructure. Complex financial networks, shell companies, professional intermediaries, offshore structures and, increasingly, cryptoassets can facilitate the movement and concealment of illicit funds. The future of anti-corruption policy hinges on strengthening the links between anti-corruption and anti-money laundering frameworks, and on developing new approaches that can address digital financial ecosystems. Will the EU’s Anti-Corruption Strategy help put the directive into action? The adoption of Directive 2026/1021 sends an important message that corruption remains a priority issue for the European Union. The directive establishes a much-needed common foundation and introduces valuable innovations to improve both prevention and enforcement. It provides a stronger legal framework than the fragmented system that existed previously. But legal harmonisation alone will not be enough. The directive's effectiveness will ultimately depend on how member states implement its provisions, and on whether the European Union can develop a broader strategic vision capable of addressing emerging corruption risks. This is where the forthcoming EU Anti-Corruption Strategy could play a decisive role. To be effective and not just a paper exercise, it must be adaptive, technology-driven and security-conscious. This strategy must respond to current corruption and anticipate its potential evolution. And it needs to be based on a participative process that considers the valuable research and perspectives of civil society organisations, academics and others outside of government. If the directive provides the legal architecture, the strategy can provide the direction. Together, they could form the basis of a more adaptive and forward-looking European anti-corruption framework – one that is able to keep pace with a rapidly changing world.

Advancing Malawi’s efforts against corruption and environmental crime

Malawi’s forests and wildlife are under growing pressure from illegal exploitation, driven by rising demand for natural resources and enabled by corruption and illicit financial flows. From illegal logging to wildlife trafficking, environmental crimes not only threaten biodiversity and local livelihoods, but also weaken public institutions and deprive the country of vital resources for sustainable development. Charcoal illustrates the complex challenges involved: According to Malawi’s National Charcoal Strategy 2017–2027, 97% of households rely on illegally and unsustainably sourced charcoal and firewood for cooking and heating. In response to the resulting deforestation and forest degradation, the government has tightened enforcement against illegal wood harvesting and charcoal production while promoting alternative cooking fuels. Building on several years of collaboration with government partners in Malawi, the Basel Institute on Governance is launching a new project to strengthen the country’s response to environment-related financial crime and corruption. The three-year initiative, Mainstreaming Malawi’s progress in tackling environment-related financial crime and corruption, is funded by the UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs DEFRA and implemented through the Basel Institute’s Green Corruption programme. Activities have commenced on the ground and will run through to June 2028. A joined-up approach: enforcement and prevention The project supports Malawi’s Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Department of Forestry and Anti-Corruption Bureau in strengthening both enforcement capacities and corruption prevention systems linked to wildlife and forestry crimes. Rather than focusing solely on individual criminal cases, the initiative takes a broader institutional approach. It combines financial investigation techniques and case-based mentoring with efforts focusing on prevention to strengthen internal controls, improve inter-agency coordination and reduce corruption vulnerabilities within environmental agencies themselves. Among the planned activities are: mentoring investigators and prosecutors working on corruption and money laundering cases linked to wildlife and forestry crime; supporting the development of digital case registration and tracking systems to strengthen case management from investigation to prosecution; helping Institutional Integrity Committees and internal auditors identify and mitigate corruption risks; and developing training, practical guidance and knowledge products to support long-term institutional capacity. Dr Amanda Cabrejo le Roux, Deputy Director of Green Corruption and the project lead, said: This project represents a significant step forward in our efforts to support environmental agencies in protecting Malawi’s wildlife and natural resources, while also reinforcing institutional integrity. By combining financial investigation techniques with robust prevention systems, we help our government partners create a sustainable framework for countering financial crime linked to the environment. Building on proven partnerships The project expands on earlier DEFRA-funded work implemented jointly by the Basel Institute and the Lilongwe Wildlife Trust, which helped strengthen anti-corruption responses to wildlife crime through a combination of enforcement support and corruption prevention measures. Through this and over a decade of engagement in Malawi, we enjoy strong working relationships with Malawi’s Anti-Corruption Bureau, Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Department of Forestry and Malawi Police Service – partnerships that now provide the foundation for broader and more ambitious work on environment-related financial crime. The initiative also connects to the Basel Institute’s wider Green Corruption programme, which supports governments and partners around the world in addressing corruption linked to environmental crime, climate change and the global energy transition. As global demand for timber, minerals and other natural resources increases, corruption risks linked to environmental exploitation are becoming more complex and transnational. Through our work in Malawi and beyond, the Basel Institute aims to strengthen the governance systems needed to protect natural resources, safeguard communities and ensure environmental policies can be effectively enforced. Learn more Find out about the Green Corruption programme. Interested in corruption and governance in the environmental space? Join the Countering Environmental Corruption Practitioners Forum, a global community of practitioners jointly led by the Basel Institute on Governance, Transparency International, WWF and TRAFFIC.

From seedlings to saplings of hope: updated report on promising efforts to address environmental corruption

The diversity of activities to prevent and combat corruption that harms the environment is laudable. But it is far from the scale needed to tackle today's corruption and environmental challenges. Adopted in 2019, UNCAC Resolution 8/12 – Preventing and combating corruption as it relates to crimes that have an impact on the environment – urges States Parties to the UN Convention Against Corruption UNCAC to prevent, investigate and prosecute corruption offences where they may be linked to crimes that have an impact on the environment. In 2023, the Basel Institute on Governance published its Working Paper 50, Seedlings of hope , providing a panorama of emerging and promising initiatives across the world since the adoption of Resolution 8/12. The new Working Paper Saplings of hope , prepared for the 11th Conference of the States Parties CoSP in Doha, Qatar in December 2025, highlights what progress has been achieved since then. The report was made possible by the generous support of the Principality of Liechtenstein. Below are the main takeaways, but we urge you to read the full Working Paper for concrete examples from Bolivia, Canada, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Namibia, Ukraine and other countries. Corruption prevention measures States have implemented a host of initiatives to strengthen integrity systems. Most commonly, this included the revision and adoption of internal control policies, more dedicated risk management efforts, including through the establishment of corruption prevention committees, and a range of capacity building efforts to strengthen environmental agencies’ ability to mitigate their own corruption risks, such as workshops on ethics codes and other integrity measures. Whistleblower protection programmes were increasingly designed, implemented and promoted. Corruption risk assessments were conducted in sectors such as wildlife management, forestry and fisheries. Promising corruption prevention interventions include: Conducting regular corruption perception and experience surveys among staff. This can help assess both progress and the effectiveness of corruption prevention measures. It can also create baselines against which to measure progress. Not enough interventions and reform efforts start with such a baseline, which means they then struggle to assess progress. Involving high-level management and leadership at each stage of the corruption prevention approach. This can help develop ownership and accountability. Explaining how integrity efforts support the strategic and political priorities of the leadership is crucial to achieve this. It requires adapting technocratic approaches to be relevant to the institutional leadership. Stipulating a mandatory budget for corruption prevention across ministries, agencies and departments. This can help ensure that minimal investments in integrity and anti-corruption activities are effectively prioritised and implemented. Sanctions for not respecting the mandatory budget should be imposed. Launching awareness-raising campaigns to promote knowledge of anti-corruption measures. This is an important first step to their effective implementation. Developing whistleblowing mechanisms. They can help increase reporting and detection of corruption. To achieve their potential, whistleblower mechanisms require a strong system, reliable protections and an institutional culture that welcomes such feedback. Peer-to-peer learning for government representatives from different countries and institutions to exchange on corruption prevention actions. This can be relevant, as anti-corruption officials often struggle with similar institutional challenges. Peer exchanges can help people and institutions to learn from each other’s successes and challenges and jointly identify effective mitigation measures. Enforcement actions Several countries have investigated and prosecuted corruption cases linked to crimes that have an impact on the environment. Financial investigations and money laundering legislation are more frequently used to tackle these crimes. The systematic seizure and confiscation of assets is still just beginning, as is the creation of multi-agency and interdisciplinary task forces, nationally and internationally. However, enforcement actions on corruption as it relates to crimes that have an impact on the environment are still limited. Promising enforcement interventions include: Assessing the economic, social and environmental losses from cases of corruption linked to crimes that have an impact on the environment – and using these to calculate associated penalties and fines – can help compensate and restore some of the harm done. Combining calculations of losses due to corruption with those of losses due to the environmental crimes can result in stiffer sentences and penalties. Seizing and confiscating proceeds and instrumentalities of crime bank accounts, real estate, vehicles, machineries, etc. through the diverse legal instruments available in jurisdictions can help ensure that crime does not pay. It also removes the resources needed to continue activities that harm the environment, thereby halting ongoing destruction. Exploring legal avenues outside the anti-corruption field can help strengthen enforcement. These include legislation on money laundering and tax offences as well as the social re-use of seized and confiscation assets, sanctions and visa bans. Essential role of civil society and the media Alongside States, civil society organisations and the media have played an essential role in increasing our understanding of the relationship between corruption and crimes that have an impact on the environment. Their efforts span investigative reporting, publishing evidence-based research, capacity building, creating networks to bridge the gap between anti-corruption and environmental practitioners, as well as initiating strategic litigation cases. Their involvement is all the more commendable given that they are facing an increasingly repressive environment. The way forward As the Working Paper highlights, various activities are taking place to tackle corruption linked to crimes that have an impact on the environment. The paper picks out those that show significant promise. The diversity of engagements is laudable, but it is far from the scale needed to make a systemic difference to both societal corruption and environmental challenges. States Parties need to adapt and scale up initiatives that are effective or look promising, by, among other things: Ensuring more robust staffing and prioritisation of corruption prevention systems in government and state-owned enterprises tasked with conserving, managing or trading natural resources. Developing specialised knowledge and expertise of governmental institutions and agencies to better address corruption that impacts the environment. Incorporating anti-corruption measures into environmental and natural resource policies and strengthening environmental governance structures to include anti-corruption internal controls and mechanisms. Dedicating greater resources for specialised law enforcement to pursue complex financial flows linked to corruption and crimes that have an impact on the environment. Increasing inter-agency collaboration and conducting joint operations on corruption that has an impact on the environment. Making use of legal frameworks and testing new legal avenues to hold individuals and legal persons accountable, including through asset recovery and remedies to repair the damage. Engaging in platforms for representatives from governments, civil society and other stakeholder groups to exchange experiences and know-how in tackling corruption that has an impact on the environment. Sharing knowledge, case law, success stories, etc. Ensuring that this issue is integrated in all relevant United Nations processes such as the ones related to climate and biodiversity. Protecting and defending civil society space, press freedom and human rights defenders working on the environment and corruption-related issues. As these initiatives have now been conducted for six years, there is a sufficient body to scrutinise their effectiveness and efficiency. It is therefore essential to rigorously assess these measures, especially in an environment of increasingly scarce financial resources. Addressing corruption that has an impact on the environment The Working Paper also makes a case for moving from the concept of “corruption as it relates to crimes that have an impact on the environment” to “corruption that has an impact on the environment”. Focusing solely on corruption linked to crimes that have an impact on the environment overlooks situations where corruption causes environmental harm without an associated criminal offence. It does not take into consideration pressing issues such as corruption linked to climate finance, renewable energy and the exploitation of critical minerals. Adopting a holistic approach is crucial to address all forms of corruption that affect the environment, and thus to protect the environment and people. Learn more Read the full Working Paper 61: Saplings of hope: Addressing corruption that has an impact on the environment in line with UNCAC Resolution 8/12 and beyond View the recordings of the "Environment Day" at the 11th CoSP. Learn more about our Green Corruption programme

Research Case Study 3: Exposing the networks behind transnational corruption and money laundering schemes