Transcript
MIHAELA STOJKOSKA: That is a very difficult question to answer among other reasons because there is no proper data, there is very little research that has been done that can provide empirical evidence about how severe or what is the status but that is not specific for the Pacific this is generally a challenge to establish globally but I have to say the Pacific is being even less, how to say, there has been even less research compared to other regions. So most of the information would be based on anecdotes or personal impressions.
KOROI HAWKINS: And what are the anecdotal evidence or the personal impressions that you have heard saying?
MS: Well I think mainly it is also not a surprise and it is a global thing I would say that mainly people refer to bribery and nepotism as main forms of corruption which is also what he would expect also from interactions in other regions. Perhaps these are the most obvious forms for people to recognise that it is corrupt behaviour.
KH: Yes but with the Pacific Islands being such, operating on such small budgets and with so much aid coming in from outside to shore up governments and help services just basic services get off the ground. Surely the impact of corruption in the Pacific island countries is significant?
MS: Absolutely, definitely you have a point there that the most vulnerable are always the most to suffer first and most. And the complexity in the Pacific that you just described only increases how important, the relevance of our program because definitely every dollar lost even if in comparative global terms is not even properly measured lets say, is very significant for the life of the Pacific citizen because every dollar lost in corruption means less infrastructure less services. Less health and less education and so on and so forth. So definitely you are right to point that the overall context in the Pacific definitely implies that the impact of corruption is probably even higher than in other regions.
KH: And given it is difficult to measure, there is not enough indicators, statistics. How can you measure or say that you are making a difference?
MS: Well first of all the initial focus of the project was quite focused on the policy work, so setting up the stage, unpacking the issue of corruption so to speak, definitely very clear indicators are facts like countries are acceding to ratifying the United Nations (Convention) Against corruption. Then also the work that we do through capacity development and then translating to anti-corruption related policies that have been adopted by the nations and the institutions that have been established and became operational. But also the work that I mentioned we do with civil society whereas through civil society organisations we have managed to reach out to the grassroot level. And we have feedback testimonies from participants in these exercises about awareness raising about how to say, increased capacities in terms of how they understand and how they are willing to tackle corruption. So to wrap up this project is not about eradicating corruption as such but to provide tooth and instruments for the country to deal with this evil phenomenon through their own structures.
KH: Finally from me is just looking at the political will we have had issues in Papua New Guinea setting up a corruption task force and then having a political interference in that, sacking and locking out corruption staff. We have had the Solomon Islands struggling to bring a political integrity bill into parliament. In Vanuatu I think the most dramatic with I think 14 MPs arrested in the last parliament. Do you think there is political will towards eradicating corruption or enough political will?
MS: Well political will is definitely one of the main factors for pursuing this policy forward. And I have to say in this region there are countries who have demonstrated that will and as I mentioned earlier that can be seen in terms of their willingness to ratify the convention and their diligence in terms of pursuing the peer review process and also adopting the necessary measures legislation, investing in institutions. And also there are examples such as the ones you mentioned that have shown often practical terms. In terms of how they combat corruption in terms of repression and trying to eradicate this kind of behaviour. So definitely there is a momentum building I would say. Of course within 15 countries we have our unique situations but overall we are very happy to see that there is growing awareness and growing interest to deal with this issue.
The Pacific Regional Anti-Corruption project aims to support Pacific Island countries strengthen their national integrity systems in order to promote 'clean' governments and to create an enabling environment for trade, business, investment and sustainable development.
The project covers 15 countries and territories: the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, the territory of Tokelau, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
Funded by the Australian Government, UN-PRAC is directly implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Pacific Office in Fiji, and the United Nations Office on Drugs Crime (UNODC).
