Review of UNCAC implementation

1. Review of UNCAC implementation “Going Beyond the Minimum” approach Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011

2. Prevention Criminalization Asset Recovery International Cooperation UNCAC Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011

3. 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 • 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) • Guiding Principles • Transparent, efficient, non‐intrusive, inclusive and impartial • Constructive: no ranking; emphasis on assistance & exchange of knowledge • Results • “Country review report” (agreed & confidential) • Executive summary (translated & publicly available) • Thematic implementation report (analytical) Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011

4. 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 measures Chapter V – Asset recovery Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011

5. ECIS countries - review schedule *deferred from previous year 2nd session of the Implementation Review Group: 30 May – 3 June 2011 Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011

6. Introducing GBM Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011

7. Guidance Note • Developed by UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok • Endorsed at global level by UNDP and UNODC • Key Issues • Political Will • Stakeholder involvement • National ownership • Keep the public informed • Follow-up Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011

8. Methodology • Three preliminary steps: 1) Designation of a Lead Agency 2) Establishment of a Steering Committee 3) Identification of a Team of Technical Experts • Six phases: • Initial stakeholder workshop to launch and plan the process • Data collection: document gathering and consultations • Analysis and drafting of the report • Validation workshop and finalization of the reports • Publication and dissemination of the reports • Follow-up Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011

9. Timeline Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011

10. But… Why bother? • Justification has several layers: • from general development perspective • from UNDP programming perspective • advocacy with national partners (CO to take lead): • high political leadership • focal institution (ACA) Almaty 9-11 March 2011

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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 initiatives Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011

15. 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

16. Thank you! Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011