Review of UNCAC implementation -Going beyond the Minimum

Review of UNCAC implementation

“Going Beyond the Minimum” approach

Vienna, 10-11 November 2011

Prevention

InternationalCooperation

AssetRecovery

Criminalization

UNCAC


Review mechanism – Terms of reference WHO? Intergovernmental peer review:‐ 1 State under review ‐ 2 reviewing States (1 from same region)

Country pairings determined by drawing of lots

States nominate governmental experts (up to 15) & a focal point for coordination

Guiding Principles Transparent, efficient, non‐intrusive,

inclusive and impartial

Constructive: no ranking; emphasis on assistance & exchange of knowledge

Steps Selection of the experts Based on self‐assessment using

OMNIBUS software Desk review of self‐assessment by the

reviewing state parties Constructive dialogue between State under review and reviewing States

May be other steps (country visit or meeting in Vienna)

Results “Country review report” (agreed &

confidential) Executive summary (translated & publicly

available) Thematic implementation report (analytical)


Review mechanism – Phases

Process in phases:2 cycles of 5 years each ¼ of States Parties reviewed each year

1st cycle (2010‐2015)Chapter III –Criminalization and law enforcement Chapter IV – International cooperation

2nd cycle (2015‐2020)Chapter II –Preventive measuresChapter V – Asset recovery


ECIS countries - review scheduleYear 1 (2o1o-2o11)

Year 2 (2011-2012)

Year 3 (2012-2013)

Year 4 (2013-2014)

BulgariaCroatiaLithuaniaUkraine

AzerbaijanEstoniaGeorgia*KazakhstanMontenegroRussiaSerbiaSlovakia

ArmeniaCyprusHungaryLatviaFYR MacedoniaRomaniaSlovenia

AlbaniaBelarusBiHKyrgyzstanMoldovaPolandTajikistanTurkmenistanUzbekistan

2nd session of the Implementation Review Group: 30 May – 3 June 2011

*deferred from previous year


Introducing GBMThe Minimum Beyond the MinimumDesignate Focal PointUNCAC Self-Assessment Checklist

Stakeholder involvement (Gov Depts, Parliament, CSOs, etc)

Two chapters Comprehensive

Compliance-f0cused Capacity-focused

Confidential report and public summary of review process

Public report, media


Guidance Note

•Developed by UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok

•Endorsed at global level by UNDP and UNODC

Key IssuesPolitical Will Stakeholder

involvement National ownership Keep the public

informedFollow-up


Methodology Three preliminary steps:

1) Designation of a Lead Agency2) Establishment of a Steering Committee3) Identification of a Team of Technical Experts

Six phases:1) Initial stakeholder workshop to launch and plan the

process2) Data collection: document gathering and consultations3) Analysis and drafting of the report4) Validation workshop and finalization of the reports5) Publication and dissemination of the reports6) Follow-up


Timeline

Preparation

• Designation of Lead Agency

Month 1

• Establishment of Steering Committee

• Preparation for Stakeholder workshop

Month 2

• Stakeholder Workshop

• Document gathering and translation

Month 3

• Document gathering and translation

• Compile intitial results

Month 4

• Stakeholder consultations/on-site visit

• Draft Self-Assessment reports

Month 5

• Draft Self-Assessment reports

• Preparation for Validation workshop

Month 6

• Validation workshop/Report finalization

• Report publication and dissemination

Follow-up

• Development of national strategy and action plan

• Implementation of reforms


• UNCAC is not end in itself even less is the review processultimate objective is to effectively fight corruption

• Negotiations: lowest common denominator• UNCAC opened up space for AC, but review

mechanism applied at minimum standards may reduce itGBM takes full advantage of UNCAC as platform for

comprehensive action and stakeholder engagement corruption needs to be tackled comprehensively, partial review

focus may distract attention from key areas not under review (prevention, asset recovery)

opportunity for promoting the AC agenda and broad stakeholder mobilization is best used with GBM


But… Why bother? – strategic considerations

• “The State party under review shall endeavour to prepare their responses to the comprehensive self assessment checklist through broad consultations at the national level with all relevant stakeholders, the private sector, individuals and groups outside the public sector.” (TOR of review mechanism, para.28)

• Stimulates national involvement in anti-corruption• encourages inter-institutional dialogue and

cooperation• helps consensus building


Why bother? – strategic considerations (cont’d)

• Provides policy makers with detailed information and analysis• e.g. for developing national AC strategy (Serbia)• useful for other obligations and external monitoring

(e.g. EU progress reports)• Provides a benchmark to measure progress over time• Provides clear overview of technical assistance needs

• IRG noted that all TA needs under UNCAC should be addressed

• Fulfills international obligation to report under UNCAC

• Facilitates sharing of knowledge and expertise with other countries, partnerships with donors


Why bother? – strategic considerations (cont’d)

• By adopting GBM, a country signals political will and openness

• Opportunity to mobilize the administration on AC agenda

• Opportunity to engage with CSOs, build trust• …and avoid / reduce criticism,

shadow reports• Get more support for AC initiatives


Why bother? – tactical considerations

• For ACA, opportunity to take leading role with other stakeholders• gain visibility, recognition (some ACAs

are new institutions and have problems with positioning vs others)

• expand partnerships• external partners are in search of AC

“champions” to support• UNDP committed to support countries

undertaking self-assessment with GBM (TA/experts, process facilitation)


Why bother? – tactical considerations

Thank you!

Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011

[email protected]://europeandcis.undp.org/anticorruption

Review of UNCAC implementation -Going beyond the Minimum

Self Improvement

Transcript of Review of UNCAC implementation -Going beyond the Minimum