Story

Uzbekistan adopts “Islands of Integrity” to strengthen local anti-corruption efforts

Transparency and integrity are vital for local governments to uphold the rule of law, democracy, protect human rights, build citizen trust, and foster development. As a result, anti-corruption efforts are key to global local governance. This article features Uzbekistan’s adoption of the “Islands of Integrity” methodology to show how local government anti-corruption efforts can significantly impact the health of the institution.

Background: Uzbekistan’s ongoing anti-corruption effort

Anti-corruption has been a central pillar of the Uzbekistan government’s transformation agenda since the country’s political transition in 2016. In 2020, the Anti-Corruption Agency was established to coordinate and implement related policies.

The  “Improving Governance in Uzbekistan” initiative is a European Union consortium under the leadership of the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ) and the United Development Programme Uzbekistan(UNDP Uzbekistan). Its action plan outlines activities to implement legal and institutional reforms, strengthen law enforcement, and enhance social responsibility in anti-corruption efforts by increasing citizen engagement.

Within this framework, two projects were launched:

Together, these two projects cover all 14 regions in Uzbekistan.

Credit: Anti-Corruption Agency of Uzbekistan

Problem and solution

The UNDP Uzbekistan project “Strengthening the National Anti-Corruption Ecosystem in Uzbekistan” found that corruption was especially deeply rooted at the regional and local levels. The team noted a gap between anti-corruption reform effectiveness at national and local levels, making strengthening local systems a priority.

With the objective of enhancing the integrity capacity of regional, district, and local governments to expand anti-corruption efforts and promote an integrity culture at regional and local levels, the team adopted the “Islands of Integrity” methodology as a pilot approach.

Developed by the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA), “Islands of Integrity” is an innovative methodology to identify and change public policies and organizational systems prone to corruption through a strategic and participatory process. This methodology enables mayors and local leaders to act as change makers by fostering shared understanding of risks and solutions from insiders, which boosts commitment and sustainable reform.

The approach has been deployed in 11 countries across Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe, implemented in 30 local governments, and received recognition from the UN Public Service Award in 2011.

Steps and implementation

The methodology involves the following steps:

  1. Situational analysis.
  2. Drafting an integrity strategy and action plan.
  3. Ensuring public consultation and feedback.
  4. Submitting drafts for approval.
  5. Implementation of documents, procedures, and mechanisms in specific regions.
  6. Training, outreach, and advocacy.
  7. Verification of results.

Between December 2024 and January 2025, over 60 local government representatives took part in a structured series of workshops designed to identify corruption risks, develop solutions, and create strategic action plans for 2025–2026.

As a result, the concept is planned to be implemented in the Altiarik district, Fergana region, Denau district, Surkhandarya region, and Muynak district, the Republic of Karakalpakstan.

Credit: UNDP

Turning concept into action

Under this initiative, the “Transparent Cities” and “Municipalities of Integrity” programmes were introduced to operationalize the “Islands of Integrity” approach.

These two programs put focus on identifying, preventing, and eliminating corruption risks in government agencies by promoting transparency, accountability, and self-regulation.

They diagnose the existing risk identification process by adapting international standards to Uzbekistan’s context. They establish a high integrity zone within local governance, enforcing standards of integrity, transparency, and ethics, and excluding corruption within government bodies and organizations. 

These two programmes have been implemented in the Mirzo Ulugbek District in Tashkent, Jizzaka City, and Vobkent District in the Bukhara region since December 2024.

Local implementation: the case of Vobkent District

By May 2025, The Vobkent Distrct has conducted prior assessment of corruption risks and proposed action plan in prevention of corruption.

To support implementation, the team invited methodology author Ana Vasilache to train and mentor anti-corruption practitioners. These practitioners then worked with 27 local officials in Vobkent to analyze corruption-prone areas like permits, procurement, utilities, and inspections.

These efforts help create Vobkent’s Strategic Roadmap for 2025-2026. The roadmap aims to foster transparent, accountable, and citizen-oriented governance at the district level. Key actions include:

  • Establishing digital oversight and independent monitoring of public procurement to ensure transparency.

  • Enhancing staff integrity with incentives and training.

  • Enhancing citizen feedback and engagement in governance.

Credit: European Union

Lessons learnt

Drawing on Uzbekistan’s experience, several lessons have emerged on how to translate anti-corruption commitments into local action.

  • Localisation is essential for systemic reform: national anti-corruption strategies achieve greater impact when adapted to the local context. 

  • Collaboration and capacity-building promote integrity: the partnership between international organizations, national agencies, and local authorities—supported by technical mentoring—shows that cross-level collaboration and ongoing learning are essential for turning anti-corruption principles into action.

  • Structured diagnosis promotes actionable change: the “Islands Integrity” methodology highlights the importance of risk mapping and diagnosis in anti-corruption efforts.

These insights reaffirm that integrity reforms succeed when local governments are empowered to own, adapt, and operationalise them within their unique governance contexts.

References: