- Rutinane skal bli betre

Det kjem fram i ein e-post til ABC Nyheter frå den norske ambassaden.

På bakgrunn av rapportane, vil den norske ambassade krevje betre rutinar frå Inpesca og vurderer støtta fortløpande.

Les heile svaret her:

- Two reports, the MTR of Norwegian assistance to the fishery sector in Nicaragua and the evaluation report Norwegian development co-operation in the Fisheries sector, concludes that the fishery co-operation with INPESCA lack a clear anti-corruption focus. We are also aware that routines for payment have been broken and that there are was a danger that aid money has been used for political gain. What steps have been taken to ensure that Norwegian aid money is not mis-used?

The payments made to INPESCA have been based on progress reports, financial reports and audit reports. The MTR report did not find that Norwegian funds had been misused for political gains. However, INPESCA is a very new organization and we are strengthening the financial management procedures as a follow-up of the MTR evaluation.

The MTR evaluation recommended that the approval by the Comptroller Generals Office of the Financial Procedure Manual should be of the highest priority. The Embassy has transmitted to INPESCA that no more disbursement will be carried out before the approved official manual and the audit report for the year 2007 are presented to the Embassy. With regards to audit reports the MTR report recommended that an International auditing firm should be hired to audit the use of the remaining funds. The Embassy has followed up on this recommendation and we are in the process of identifying the audit firm.

- Lack of trust and lack of a capacity assessment on the part of INPESCA led the Danish Danida to withdraw their support for INPESCA in 2007. Why did not the Norwegian government come to the same conclusion, given the money was transferred through the same institute?

The reasons for the Danish withdrawal have not been made fully official. The MTR report says two things about the Danish withdrawal: on Page 14 it says that Denmark withdrew their support to INPESCA in 2007 for reasons that remain confidential then on page 17 it says that Given that there is no significant anti-corruption measures in place for the Norwegian Assistance to the Norad Program, there is a general feeling that having such measures in place would be an good way to protect INPESCA and the Technical Committees good reputation, especially after Danida withdrew their support to the fishery sector in 2007 (partly because anti-corruption measures were lacking).

The Embassy felt that lack of anti-corruption measures was caused by INPESCA being a relatively new entity and that it had no financial procedure manual (as mentioned above). Furthermore, the first audit of the program (made by a national audit firm) did not report any major findings that would indicate corruption. However, the Embassy feel that the MTR came at the right time to recommend any changes needed for improving the execution of the Program by INPESCA. Therefore the recommendations made by the MTR report are considered important to the Embassy and we made sure that INPESCA are following them up.

- The Norwegian government has a policy of zero tolerance towards corruption in its international development cooperation. How is it then possible to continue co-operation in a project in which there is a concrete risk of corruption?

At this moment there is no concrete evidence that the Norwegian resources are being/have been misused. If INPESCA implement all the recommendations made by the MTR and the audit reports confirm that there is no misuse of the Norwegians funds, the Embassy will consider continuing the cooperation with INPESCA. The Embassy is of the opinion that what has occurred in the first stage of the Program (prior to the MTR review) is a lack of routines in term of the administration of the Program

If the MTR (or upcoming audit report) had given clear indications the Norwegian funds were being misused the program would, based on the zero tolerance policy, have been cancelled as soon as we had received the final report. Furthermore, the role and opinion of CDCF (Havforskningsinstituttet) as the technical Norwegian counterpart is of crucial importance for the Embassy if we were to take a decision of cancelling the Program. CDCFs analysis of the problems in the administration of the program by INPESCA coincides totally with that of the Embassy which has been more or less summarized in the MTR recommendations and in the answers to these questions.

- Norway cooperates with Nicaragua to combat corruption. At the same time several organisations, including Transparency international, consider corruption to be an increasing problem in Nicaragua. How does the embassy judge the results of the Norwegian anti-corruption partnership?

The Government of Nicaragua has expressed its political will to fight corruption. It has designated the General Prosecutors Office as a counterpart for the Anti-Corruption Fund (ACF) of the donors, showing high-level interest in the work of this fund. Some short and medium term priorities for the fight against corruption have also been identified. The government ordered the Prosecutor General to start proceedings to bring some public officials from the past government to trial. President Ortega has talked about the countrys commitment to fighting drug trafficking and in 2007 the Supreme Court suspended two Appeals Court magistrates after they were accused of illegally revoking sentences against three major drug dealers.

The previous government presented a comprehensive Anti-Corruption Strategy (ACS) at the end of its term. Some steps have already been implemented by the current government such as: strengthening the Office of the General Prosecutor for investigating and processing corruption cases; the implementation of the majority of recommendations from the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption; and, the participation of Nicaragua in the Financial Action Group of the Caribbean (GAFIC). The Office of the General Prosecutor has also strengthened the Office of the Criminal Prosecutor and has consolidated coordination with the corruption and financial unit of the National Police. The Public Complaints Office has reopened and citizens can now present their complaints in writing, by email, or in person. The position of Special Financial Prosecutor has been created and selected cases are being followed, reviewing public bidding and procurement processes

It is clear for donors that gains in the fight against corruption at times are accompanied by losses. However, Norway believes that corruption is an issue too important to be put aside. The fight against corruption is a process to be developed throughout several years. This process is supported by two main elements: political will, and a proper institutional framework. It is on this second element that the ACF which is led by Norway is focused, by supporting the General Prosecutor´s Office, the National Police, the Attorney Generals Office, the Ministry of the Interior, the Public Ethics Office and the Ministry of Education.

- Norway is among one of the few countries to maintain direct budget support to Nicaragua. What guarantees does the Norwegian government that the money will not be mis-used? What is the reason why this support is maintained?

In Nicaragua, as in other recipient countries, general budget support (GBS) has been a major tool for harmonisation, alignment, and appropriation. The current government accepted in the principles laid down in the Joint Financial Agreement (JFA) with the donors and committed itself to the implementation of National Development Plan and to financing it through the national budget. Over the last few years, budget support has contributed to creating better conditions for dialogue between donors and government, which we believe in turn has led to important reforms and to better results in the administration of the development funds.

The current tense situation between some donors and government is a result of perceived electoral irregularities of November 08. Norway contributed budget support from 2004 2008, but has not yet taken a decision on whether to enter into an agreement on further budget support for the current year.

Regarding the question about guarantees of proper use of the funds: the Financial Administration Law is an important step forward for improving audits since it establishes the legal responsibility of the Comptroller Generals Office (CGR) to audit budget spending. This so far has resulted in the CGR conducting and presenting, for the first time in the history of Nicaragua, to the National Assembly, government, and donors a final audit report on the 2005 and 2006 budget execution The reports were considered to be professional and in keeping with international practice. The CGR is already engaged in the execution of the 2007 audit. The instrument to indirectly measure the effectiveness of the budget support is the bi-annual evaluation of the progress made in relation to the Performance Assessment Matrix of the JFA.