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

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

3. 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)

4. Review mechanism – Phases Process in phases:  2 cycles of 5 years each  ¼ of States Parties reviewed each year Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011 1 st cycle (2010 ‐ 2015) Chapter III –Criminalization and law enforcement Chapter IV – International cooperation 2 nd cycle (2015 ‐ 2020) Chapter II –Preventive measures Chapter V – Asset recovery

5. ECIS countries - review schedule Year 1 (2o1o-2o11)Year 2 (2011-2012)Year 3 (2012-2013)Year 4 (2013-2014) Bulgaria Croatia Lithuania Ukraine Azerbaijan Estonia Georgia* Kazakhstan Montenegro Russia Serbia Slovakia Armenia Cyprus Hungary Latvia FYR Macedonia Romania Slovenia Albania Belarus BiH Kyrgyzstan Moldova Poland Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011 2 nd session of the Implementation Review Group: 30 May – 3 June 2011 *deferred from previous year

6. Introducing GBM The MinimumBeyond the Minimum Designate Focal Point UNCAC Self-Assessment Checklist Stakeholder involvement (Gov Depts, Parliament, CSOs, etc) Two chaptersComprehensive ComplianceCapacity Assessments Confidential report and public summary of review process Public report and media 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: 1) Initial stakeholder workshop to launch and plan the process 2) Data collection: document gathering and consultations 3) Analysis and drafting of the report 4) Validation workshop and finalization of the reports 5) Publication and dissemination of the reports 6) Follow-up Bratislava, 28-29 March 2011

9. 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

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) S timulates 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