Towards a National Integrity and Transparency System in Peru

Executive summary

Since the first OECD Integrity Review of Peru in 2017, the country has made significant progress in the areas of integrity and transparency. These advances include the establishment of specialised bodies within the Executive, measures at the organisational level to implement integrity and transparency guidelines in each public entity, and inter-institutional co-ordination mechanisms to ensure a comprehensive and synergistic approach in the fight against corruption, which remains one of the problems of greatest concern to Peruvian society.

In this context, this report seeks to strengthen the country's institutional architecture to address the issues that hinder the proper functioning of a system of integrity and transparency. The recommendations provided seek to clarify and strengthen the leadership and configuration of a system that brings together the dimensions of integrity, transparency and data protection.

Key findings

Currently, the governing bodies of integrity and transparency in Peru are the Secretariat of Public Integrity (SIP) and the National Authority of Transparency and Access to Public Information (ANTAIP), both of which are part of the Executive. The SIP and ANTAIP, along with other entities, play a key role in preventing and sanctioning corruption. However, their effectiveness and credibility need to be strengthened to foster a culture of integrity and transparency within, and outside, the public administration and to establish their leadership in this field. For instance, international comparisons show the importance of having transparent modalities for the selection and removal of the heads of anti-corruption agencies to ensure their independence, resilience and credibility, which is not always the case in Peru.

Another challenge identified for the proper functioning of an integrity and transparency system in Peru is the poor inter-institutional co-ordination that exists in practice, both among the entities that make up the High-level Anti-Corruption Commission (CAN) and among the Institutional Integrity Offices (OII) and the Officers Responsible for Access to Public Information (FRAIP), units that mainstream integrity and transparency policies in the public administration. Moreover, there are ambiguities about the responsibilities of each entity, as well as a lack of legitimacy, administrative support and adequate human, material or financial resources for the entities to fulfil their mandate.

Key recommendations

Based on a detailed analysis of the Peruvian context and on a participative process involving key actors for integrity and transparency, the following recommendations are proposed:

• Address contextual elements. It is fundamental to create the effective conditions for the adequate functioning of an integrity and transparency system. This entails, for example, consolidating complementary elements of meritocracy and internal control and audit to strengthen public management and continuing the implementation of civil service reforms to promote greater job stability and continuity in the public service.

• Create a National Integrity and Transparency System (SNIT) centralising the areas of integrity, active and passive transparency, and personal data protection. The SNIT could take the form of a hybrid solution combining: (1) the transversality, obligation of compliance across the public sector, and ability to establish clear and uniform standards of administrative systems and (2) the co-ordination among actors −governmental or not− around a defined policy problem that characterises functional systems.

• Create a National Authority of Integrity, Transparency and Personal Data Protection (ANITAP) as the co-ordinating agency of the SNIT, bringing together the leading agencies for integrity (the current SIP), transparency and access to information (the current ANTAIP) and personal data protection (the current National Authority for Personal Data Protection, ANDP). The ANITAP could be a specialised technical body attached to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and would include a decision-making body on transparency and data protection, the current Tribunal of Transparency, Access to Public Information (TTAIP), whose jurisdiction could be extended. The structure of a specialised technical body would allow the new ANITAP to enjoy an appropriate level of budgetary and functional autonomy and provide greater stability and resilience to political change. It will be important to ensure that ANITAP has the necessary resources and capacities to fulfil its functions. It could have an Executive Council as its governing body, an Executive President, a General Management and four General Directorates that would respond to the thematic areas under its responsibility. To ensure the effectiveness, credibility and independence of ANITAP, the modalities of appointment, tenure and removal of the President and board members should be transparent.

• Promote inter-institutional co-ordination at the strategic level within the SNIT. Consideration could be given to reforming the CAN as a more effective, focussed and preventive body. It is proposed that, under the leadership of ANITAP as co-ordinator and technical secretariat, the CAN bring together the National Authority of Civil Service, the Secretariat of Public Management, the General Archive and the State Attorney General’s Office, as well as the Ombudsman's Office and the Comptroller General as participants with a voice, but without a vote, to maintain their independence as supervisory bodies. The SNIT should maintain effective co-ordination with other related systems −Archives, Control, Justice, Electoral and Contracting– and with relevant and complementary actors for integrity and transparency, including the legislative and judicial branches, constitutionally autonomous bodies, regional governments and municipalities, the private sector and civil society. Such co-ordination could be ensured through the CAN and through regular mechanisms for consultation and interaction, such as working groups, discussion forums, and joint committees.

• Promote the implementation of integrity and transparency policies. A new SNIT provides an opportunity to strengthen OIIs and FRAIPs, to review and refine the Integrity Model, and to foster co-ordination among integrity and transparency functions. One possibility would be to incorporate the FRAIPs as part of the OIIs, which could be renamed ‘Integrity and Transparency Offices’ (OITs). These OITs could have professionalised staff in integrity and transparency, and report directly to the head of the entity and to the new ANITAP. To preserve the preventive nature of the OITs, the function of receiving complaints could be transferred elsewhere. Finally, it is advisable to increase the mechanisms for dialogue and co-operation among the OITs and to adapt the mandatory criteria for the implementation of integrity and transparency policies to the realities and capacities of local governments.