Centre for Integrity in the Defence Sector (NO0031)

The centre will operate as a resource for the Norwegian defence sector, and will also
work closely with our allies in NATO, NATO partner nations, and relevant national and
international organizations. As such, it will be an important Norwegian contribution to
further progress in this vital area; building integrity, increasing transparency and
reducing the risk of corruption.

20. Centre for Integrity in the Defence Sector

Commitment Text:

As part of the Ministry’s strong emphasis on integrity, transparency and accountability, the Ministry of Defence has established the Centre for Integrity in the Defence Sector in Oslo.

The centre will be a knowledge and competence centre and will focus on the development of good governance by building integrity, especially in terms of institution building and preventive anti-corruption efforts.

COMMITMENT DESCRIPTION

The centre will operate as a resource for the Norwegian defence sector, and will also work closely with our allies in NATO, NATO partner nations, and relevant national and international organizations. As such, it will be an important Norwegian contribution to further progress in this vital area; building integrity, increasing transparency and reducing the risk of corruption.

Responsible institution: Ministry of Defence

Supporting institution(s): None

Start date: Ongoing           End date:  Ongoing

Policy Aim

This commitment aimed to “establish the Centre for Integrity in the Defence Sector (http://cids.no) as a resource nationally and internationally” for promoting anti-corruption and integrity in the defence sector. The IRM researcher has not been able to identify a more specific policy problem this commitment sought to address.

Status

Mid-term: Substantial
Given no specificity of the commitment language it is difficult to evaluate what specific activities were intended under this commitment. The centre has engaged in a number of activities including publications on good governance, an international conference, and the implementation of a NATO training course.

End-of-term: Substantial
In the second year of implementation, the centre conducted more activities that could be construed as promoting anti-corruption and integrity: it published an article on integrity in the defence sector^{[Note 109: Bård B. Knudsen, “Integritet i forsvarssektoren: mer enn gode hensikter,” Norsk Militært Tidsskrift (NMT) nr. 4 2015, accessed September 9, 2016, http://sifs.no/?page_id=4693. ]} and held a risk seminar on integrity and corruption.^{[Note 110: “Integrity and corruption-risk seminar,” Senter for integritet i Forsvarssektoren, accessed September 9, 2016, http://sifs.no/?page_id=4693. ]} Focal points for this commitment described broad international activities, especially trainings for military actors in NATO countries. However, despite repeated requests and communications, they were not able to provide additional information on the national activities referenced in this commitment (e.g., participants or agendas), nor any documentation of additional activities carried out in this action plan’s implementation period.

Did it open government?

Public accountability: Did not change

The vague wording of this commitment makes its status difficult to evaluate. Despite extended correspondence, the IRM researcher was unable to obtain from the centre a list of users of its services, who could have confirmed the value of those services. Speaking to users would have made it possible to assert whether the centre had achieved its objective of becoming a resource.

Activities under this commitment were primarily focused on international partners, however, and did not primarily engage with governance and openness in Norway. This commitment’s affirmation of the center’s mandate to act as a resource does not appear to have had any significant impact on the quality of open government in Norway, or public accountability more specifically. It is also worth noting that the Norwegian defense sector, and Ministry of Defense more specifically, have struggled to maintain a reputation for openness and accountability and have at times been criticized for a lack of transparency and unsatisfactory responses to FOIA requests.^{[Note 111: “Innsyn i dokumenter om Forsvarets salg av fartøy - spørsmål om taushetsplikt for opplysninger om lovbrudd,” Sivilombudsmannen (August 25, 2015), accessed September 8, 2016, https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/uttalelser/innsyn-i-dokumenter-om-forsvarets-salg-av-fartoy-sporsmal-om-taushetsplikt-for-opplysninger-om-lovbrudd-article3962-114.html. ]}

Carried forward?

This commitment has not been carried forward in the Norwegian government’s third national action plan, which is available on the OGP website.^{[Note 112: ”Norway’s third action plan Open Government Partnership (OGP),” Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, accessed September 4, 2016, http://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Norway_2016-17_NAP.pdf.]}