TI suggests that the Spanish Government relies less on contingency funds and that financing for international missions is calculated “to minimize disparities”./ Photo: Ministry of Defence
The Diplomat. Madrid
The Government Defence Anti-corruption Index published by Transparency International (TI) establishes that Spain is at the European level in the moderate category for corruption risks in the sector and the institutions of defence and security.
This report assesses the risk of corruption in the fields of politics, finance, staff, operations and acquisition in the military administrations of the NATO members and partner states. The highest risk area in Spain is operations.
In the area of legislative oversight, Transparency International regards as positive aspects the fact that the Congress debates the general provision of defence policy, authorizes international military treaties and the deployment of international missions, and that the Defence Committee meets regularly and debates issues which are later published on the Internet and of free access.
However, it warns that Parliament does not play “an important role” shaping the Directive of Military Planning and the concept of Military Strategy, since none of them is available to the public.
[hr style=”single”]
There is an average difference of 14% between planned and executed budgets
[hr style=”single”]
TI focuses, later on, in the fact that Spain has not conducted a “thorough” assessment of corruption risk in the Military, so it sees as “essential” to train military personnel and commanders. “That will ensure independent and critical personnel trained to monitor and warn of what happens during missions, particularly on peacekeeping missions, and personnel responsible for contracting on mission, where the highest rates of corruption in the defence system are”, it points out.
In relation to budgets, TI notices “difficulties” for the Defence Committee when examining the Ministry’s numbers. “The budgetary breakdown is not the most appropriate. Neither important military expenditure nor extra-budgetary items are detailed. These are often included in the budgets of other ministries such as those of Industry, Education, Economy or Foreign Affairs”, this association complains.
There is, for example, an average difference of 14% between planned and executed budgets, reaching 30% in some years. TI suggests that the Spanish Government relies less on contingency funds –excepts in cases of unpredictable emergency- and that financing for international missions is calculated “further in advance so as to minimize disparities between planned and real spending”.
