review of uncac implementation “going beyond the minimum” approach bratislava, 28-29 march 2011
Post on 30-Dec-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Prevention
InternationalCooperation
AssetRecovery
Criminalization
Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011
UNCAC
Review mechanism – Terms of reference
Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011
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
Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011
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
Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011
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 Capacity Assessments
Confidential report and public summary of review process
Public report and media
Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011
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
Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011
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
Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011
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
Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011
But… Why bother?
Justification has several layers:from general development perspectivefrom UNDP programming perspectiveadvocacy with national partners (CO to take
lead): high political leadership focal institution (ACA)
Almaty 9-11 March 2011
Development perspective
• UNCAC is not end in itself • even less is the review process
• Negotiations: lowest common denominator• UNCAC opened space for AC, but review
mechanism applied at minimum standards may reduce it
• “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)
Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011
Development perspective (cont’d)• Stimulates national involvement in anti-corruption• Encourages inter-institutional dialogue and
cooperation• Helps consensus building• Provides policy makers with detailed information and
analysis• Provides a benchmark to measure progress over time• Provides clear overview of technical assistance needs• Fulfills international obligation to report• Facilitates sharing of knowledge and expertise with
other countries.
Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011
Why is GBM important for UNDP?• Creates multiple entry points for:
• engagement with stakeholders• follow-up programming
• As a promoter / facilitator of GBM, UNDP reaffirms and strengthens its distinctive niche with UNCAC
• GBM includes Prevention (UNCAC Chapter II), which is not part of cycle 1 of formal review mechanism; corruption prevention is UNDP’s area of strength, links with its broader Governance work
• The minimum standard review limits access of UNDP & other development partners• political process (CoSP, IRG) mostly through diplomatic
interaction, development actors marginalized• tendency of Secretariat to use review mechanism for
controlling / centralizing AC work (TA, corruption assessments…)
Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011
Advocating GBM with political leaders• By adopting GBM, country signals political
will and openess• branding, PR, set example• EU has high(er) expectations
• Opportunity to mobilize the administration on AC agenda
• Opportunity to engage with CSOs, build trust• …and avoid / reduce criticism, shadow reports
• Get comprehensive picture status of AC efforts, gaps, TA needs…
• Get more support for AC initiativesBratislava, 28-29 March 2011
Advocating GBM with Lead Agency (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• Offer support (TA/experts,
process facilitation)• Best argument: have to do it /
‘Govt wants you to do it’
Some early lessons:• sequencing • timing
Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011
top related