22 September 2025 – by Pablo Herrera, UNCAC Coalition Regional Coordinator for Latin America and the Caribbean

International support is a lifeline for anti-corruption initiatives around the world, especially in regions like Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), and Africa. Development aid and cross-border cooperation have enabled crucial reforms that would be difficult to achieve in isolation, particularly when it comes to strengthening justice institutions or empowering watchdog groups. Today, this international backing is more important than ever. Global challenges and shifting priorities, from pandemics to geopolitical crises, risk diverting attention and resources, yet corruption remains a pervasive threat to development, stability, and trust in governance.

Sustained cooperation across borders is essential to prevent backsliding and to uphold the commitments that virtually every country has made under the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). Indeed, the adoption of the UNCAC “represents a historic milestone” as it reflects a shared commitment by countries to fight corruption through preventive measures, law enforcement, international cooperation, and asset recovery.

International cooperation and aid: A pillar of anti-corruption efforts

International cooperation and development aid have underpinned many of the anti-corruption gains in LAC over the past decades. Often, domestic champions of reform – be it a civil society coalition, a journalists’ network, or a new anti-corruption agency – have relied on technical assistance, funding, and political support from abroad to sustain their work. As one regional civil society leader aptly noted, “we take our local struggles to the global stage, and bring global support back to our local struggles”. This two-way exchange highlights how global networks and donor support bolster local anti-corruption initiatives, providing resources, knowledge-sharing, and diplomatic backing that amplify the impact of civic activism.

Such cooperation is not a one-sided endeavor; it is rooted in mutual interest and obligations. The UNCAC, with 191 States Parties, codifies the idea that corruption is a transnational problem requiring collective action. Under UNCAC’s framework, countries have pledged to help each other through measures like extradition of corrupt fugitives, asset recovery across jurisdictions, and information exchange, because no nation can curb corruption alone. Development aid programs specifically targeting good governance and anti-corruption have helped translate these principles into practice. They have funded the creation of anti-corruption bodies, cross-border investigative projects, whistleblower protection systems, and other reforms that enable civil society to work across borders in holding power to account. In short, international aid and partnerships have been a pillar of anti-corruption progress globally, ensuring that reformers do not stand alone against well-entrenched corrupt interests.

Funding cuts in LAC and worldwide: A dangerous setback for reformers, but an opportunity for change

The impact of recent funding cuts on civic space in different regions and how the abrupt cutoff of resources is being acutely felt on the ground, has been continuously addressed. CSOs throughout LAC report that budget freezes and aid cuts are forcing them to scale back or terminate key anti-corruption initiatives.

And it is not only donor decisions that are disrupting the flow of support: some governments in the region have taken steps to choke off foreign assistance to civil society through a set of  restrictive laws. Venezuela’s 2024 “NGO oversight” law, and a recent Peruvian bill limiting foreign funding for NGOs exemplify this trend. These laws typically impose caps on foreign grants or create stigma for NGOs receiving international support. Such restrictions directly undermine UNCAC Article 13 (which calls for participatory anti-corruption efforts) by hindering civil society’s ability to operate and cooperate across borders. The combined impact of funding withdrawals and governmental clampdowns is severe: local CSOs find themselves with fewer resources and less freedom to act at the very moment when corrupt networks are regrouping.

Yet it also can’t be ignored that the concept of “foreign aid” was always fundamentally flawed. If anything, the financial over reliance orchestrated by wealthy nations, primarily in the Global North, has now proven to be detrimental to the localized running of systems in less wealthy countries, whether by direct impact or political influence, as illustrated by Venezuela and Peru.
In light of the funding cuts, the solidarity and resilience emerging amongst civil society should be seen as an opportunity to direct that mobilization towards reconceptualizing what international expenditure could look like for tackling global issues on the ground. Too often “foreign aid” has been bundled up into an opaque package labelled “international development”. Two terms which are inherently ambiguous in their meaning, and when conflated, too frequently fail in what they were set out to do.
There is no denying that sustained international funding and cooperation is vital in advancing anti-corruption work, but financial support channels need more local governance for a lasting impact, and to sever the “donor” vs “recipient” approach that has perpetuated a narrative of domination and control.  Reform-minded CSOs and officials may feel abandoned, while those benefiting from corruption are emboldened by the weakening of oversight. To avoid this, international partners and CSOs must work together to find viable, sustainable solutions to providing support, that remain immune to changing political winds, and incorporate contingency plans so that critical anti-corruption and governance programs are not abruptly stranded.

A shared commitment that must not waver

In light of changing global dynamics, the fight against corruption remains a shared priority and legal obligation for virtually every country, something that must not be deprioritized. Governments agreed through UNCAC to implement common standards and to help each other do so, recognizing that failure in one country ultimately harms others. This shared commitment is a cornerstone of the international anti-corruption regime. Backing away from it now, whether by cutting support or by neglecting an effective implementation, would be a historic mistake.

The failure of foreign aid lies in the hands of corrupt individuals and governing bodies, who have diverted funds and undermined institutions for decades. The European Union and other international actors have reaffirmed in various forums that aiding anti-corruption efforts and protecting civic space are essential for sustainable development and peace. They stress  that supporting these values abroad aligns with strategic interests: stable partners, fair markets, and reduced drivers of conflict and migration.

Above all, the human dimension of corruption’s toll keeps the issue urgent. When corruption goes unchecked, it is ordinary people who suffer: hospitals lack medicines, schools crumble, jobs vanish, and public trust erodes. The populations of LAC, like others, have voiced strong demands for accountability. Civil society in these countries has shown incredible resilience and bravery in responding to those demands, even in the face of adversity, retaliation and systematic oppression or closure of civic space. They are keeping the flame of reform alive. 

Protecting activists and whistleblowers: No tolerance for retaliation

It is sadly commonplace in parts of LAC that those who exercise their civic duty to expose corruption face retaliation. Speaking out often comes at a high cost; individuals have lost their jobs or been SLAPPed with spurious legal charges for raising corruption concerns, and in more extreme cases have been prosecuted, have disappeared, or even been killed for their bravery. In many countries, to denounce corruption is to risk one’s safety or livelihood, a reality that gravely undermines the public’s right to accountability.

In 2023 alone, 123 human rights defenders and 166 environmental activists and social leaders, many of whom were acting as corruption whistleblowers in their communities, were assassinated in Latin America. Each of these murders is an attack on accountability and an indictment of authorities’ failure to protect their citizens’ basic rights. Beyond physical violence, countless other civil society actors endure harassment, they are smeared as ‘traitors’ or ‘foreign agents’, hit with onerous audits, or targeted by restrictive laws simply for engaging in legitimate advocacy. For example, Nicaragua and Venezuela have used broadly worded “foreign agent” laws to shut down independent NGOs and intimidate activists, effectively criminalizing civic participation. When anti-corruption offices are shuttered or civic actors are silenced, it sends a message to the public that speaking out against corruption can carry heavy personal costs. These setbacks “embolden corrupt actors and deepen impunity,” as was noted in a recent regional civil society meeting. No society can successfully combat corruption if those demanding integrity are muzzled or terrorized.

An inclusive and effective UNCAC Review

Over the last couple of months, governments have convened for sessions of the UNCAC Implementation Review Group (IRG) to negotiate the next phase of UNCAC’s Implementation Review Mechanism (IRM). The discussions are considered a pivotal opportunity to strengthen how the UNCAC is implemented on the ground. The IRM, essentially a peer-review system where countries evaluate each other’s anti-corruption efforts, has been a valuable tool to identify gaps and share good practices. But it has also faced well-documented shortcomings in transparency, efficiency, and inclusiveness. As the IRG debates how to design the next cycle of reviews, the international anti-corruption community (from country delegations to civil society observers) is advocating for an IRM that remedies those weaknesses and lives up to UNCAC’s ideals.

Civil society organizations, including the UNCAC Coalition, have put forward clear recommendations for an IRM that is more accountable, transparent, efficient, and participatory. In particular, there are widespread calls to end the exclusion of CSOs from the review process.

The vision for the next IRM can be summarized in some core principles which have been reflected in our recommendations to governments:

• Accountability – featuring a robust follow-up mechanism so that countries are held responsible for making progress on UNCAC obligations (no more “tick-box” reviews that end with reports sitting on shelves).
• Transparency – with full disclosure of review documentation and open sharing of information, enabling public scrutiny and learning across countries. Every UNCAC review report and government self-assessment should be published in a timely manner, as transparency builds trust.
• Efficiency – optimizing the process with clear timelines and better coordination, so that reviews are regular and prompt. A predictable global review calendar will keep everyone on track and prevent momentum from being lost.
• Inclusivity – meaning meaningful civil society participation at all stages. From the national self-assessment consultations to the international IRG meetings, civil society and other stakeholders should have avenues to contribute their insights. This includes granting CSOs observer status in the IRG and considering their parallel reports during country examinations.

Prioritizing a united front against corruption

As diplomats, international agencies, national delegates, and civil society representatives prepare for the upcoming UNCAC meetings, and the 11th Conference of the States Parties, the message of this moment is one of shared responsibility and unity. The fight against corruption transcends borders; it is fundamentally a fight for sustainable development, fair governance, and public trust everywhere. We have seen how effective anticorruption initiatives can flourish with adequate aid and cross-border solidarity – and conversely how they suffer when support is withdrawn. Let us heed those lessons. Development partners should ensure that anti-corruption funding is long-term, and that multilateral development banks cease to dictate how funds are used without consulting those on the ground, allowing for governance of development aid to become more localized– insulating critical programs from political swings. Governments in LAC and beyond must reaffirm that civil society is an ally in building integrity, not an enemy. Rather than restricting or retaliating against civic activists, states should implement UNCAC Article 13 in good faith – creating environments in which citizens can engage in reform efforts without fear.

The ongoing negotiations on the UNCAC review mechanism are a chance to course-correct and fortify global anticorruption efforts for the next decade. An open letter, coordinated by the UNCAC Coalition and with over 409 signatories, is calling for a more effective, transparent and inclusive review mechanism. The letter remains open for endorsement and can be accessed here.