Reports
Report on the Hybrid Listening Session: Enhancing the UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism

Report on the Hybrid Listening Session: Enhancing the UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism

Introduction:

A hybrid listening session on enhancing the UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism (IRM) was held in Vienna on 15 October, 2024. The event brought together various non-governmental stakeholders to discuss key improvements to the next phase of the UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism.

The session presided over by Christine Cline, President of the Conference of the State Parties to UNCAC and US government representative, brought together a diverse range of stakeholders such as Mathias Huter, Managing Director of UNCACOALITON; Yonatan Yakir, Programme Manager on UN Affairs, UNCACOALITON; Victoria of UNODC, other civil society organizations (CSOs), NGOs, and anti-corruption experts to provide feedback on making the review process more effective, transparent, and participatory.

The discussion revolved around six main areas: follow-up review process, assessment of implementation effectiveness, measurement of relevant data, improving executive summaries, the value of the country review report, and dissemination of outcomes. Present at the impactful hybrid meeting was ANEEJ Executive Director and Co-chair of the UNCAC coalition, Rev. David Ugolor.

A key theme was the challenge posed by diplomats with limited field experience negotiating improvements in the IRM. Civil society representatives provided crucial practical insights to inform the discussions and advocate for actionable changes.

Opening Remark

Christine Cline set the tone for the event emphasizing that the goal of the session is to gather diverse perspectives from participants, including lessons from various anti-corruption and regional review mechanisms, to inform the thinking of member states regarding the UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism.

The meeting commenced with UNCAC Coalition, Managing Director, Mathias Huter introducing the UNCAC Coalition as a global network of over 400 NGOs working to promote anti-corruption reforms. He emphasized the interconnection between the UNCAC and the UNTOC and the importance of civil society’s participation in shaping review mechanisms to meet practical needs on the ground.

Key Issues and Discussion Areas

1. Follow-Up Review Process

Participants noted that a formal follow-up mechanism is missing from the IRM, leaving gaps in tracking progress after initial reviews. Various recommendations were proposed to institutionalize follow-ups, including adopting annual or biannual updates and leveraging lessons from other review mechanisms such as the OECD framework and others.

• Malta’s Representative: The speaker emphasized the need for direct data input from member states alongside peer reviews to provide deeper insights into real implementation challenges.

• Rev. David Ugolor stressed that online platforms could help broaden civil society participation in reviews, particularly in countries with logistical challenges like Nigeria.

2. Measuring Implementation Effectiveness

There was a consensus that the current IRM overly emphasizes legal frameworks without adequately capturing practical implementation outcomes. Participants reflected on the difficulty of defining appropriate metrics that are both comprehensive and easy to track.

• Angela’s Perspective: Drawing from OECD’s foreign bribery evaluations in Germany, Angela highlighted how detailed statistical data collection improves assessments. She advocated for greater data transparency, especially regarding corruption-related court decisions.

• Site Visits: Participants praised site visits as a valuable tool, with 98% of countries opting for them. There were suggestions to extend the duration of these visits to allow for more meaningful interactions with stakeholders.

3. Executive Summaries and Full Reports

Only 70% of countries publish full review reports, limiting transparency. The executive summary is often the only public document, but its content lacks clarity and detail. Participants recommended improving the structure of executive summaries to enhance their usefulness.

• David Ugolor: He called for more awareness-raising efforts at diplomatic levels, noting that even embassy officials are often unaware of the review process.

• Participants recommended that governments consult with civil society while preparing executive summaries to ensure they reflect ground realities.

4. Civil Society Engagement and Capacity Building

Participants stressed that meaningful civil society engagement is essential but often faces barriers. Several participants highlighted frequent turnover of government focal points, which disrupts collaboration and continuity.

• Overcoming Hesitancy: Some CSOs hesitate to engage with government representatives, fearing that their input may not be valued. The discussion emphasized the need to foster trust through regular dialogue between governments and civil society.

• Challenges in Nigeria: Ugolor noted that many Nigerian CSOs remain unprepared when review teams visit, as they lack prior knowledge of the review process and technical support from agencies like USAID.

Participants agreed that governments should provide more technical assistance to empower local CSOs and include them in all phases of the review process—from self-assessment to follow-ups.

5. Data Collection and Transparency

The availability and accessibility of corruption-related data were recognized as critical for ensuring the effectiveness of the IRM. Several participants raised concerns about the inconsistent availability of data across countries and the limited use of available information.

• Angela’s Recommendation: Governments should publish self-assessment checklists and reports to increase transparency. She cited Germany’s practice of sharing questionnaires with CSOs as a model to follow.

• Long Legal Proceedings: Participants noted that corruption cases often take years to resolve, undermining public trust in the justice system. There was a call for better tracking of case durations and regular updates on enforcement actions.

6. Dissemination and Visibility of Review Outcomes

Participants discussed ways to make review outcomes more visible and accessible to the public. The disconnect between global forums and grassroots activists was highlighted as a barrier to achieving meaningful impact.

• Press Releases and Media Engagement: Participants suggested that press releases should accompany the publication of reports to raise awareness.

• Local Consultation: Governments were encouraged to engage with local communities through workshops and online platforms, ensuring that review findings inform national reforms.

Reflections and Recommendations

  1. Institutionalizing Follow-Up Processes: Regular follow-up reports, annual updates, and peer reviews should be introduced to maintain momentum in the implementation process.
  2. Strengthening Site Visits: Site visits should be extended and better coordinated to allow for meaningful civil society participation and facilitate deeper insights.
  3. Improving Reporting and Transparency: Governments should publish full reports whenever possible and involve civil society in executive summary preparations to ensure they are relevant and accurate.
  4. Technical Assistance for CSOs: Development agencies must provide targeted technical assistance to empower local organizations and strengthen anti-corruption efforts at the national level.
  5. Awareness-Raising Among Diplomats and Governments: Diplomatic missions should be better informed about the review process to facilitate collaboration with civil society.
  6. Enhanced Data Collection and Publication: Governments must systematically collect and publish data on corruption cases, legal proceedings, and non-prosecution orders to increase accountability.

Conclusion and Way Forward

The hybrid session in Vienna provided valuable insights and practical recommendations for strengthening the UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism. Participants underscored the importance of collaboration between governments, civil society, and international organizations to promote transparency and accountability.

Rev. David Ugolor emphasized the need for better preparation and awareness among stakeholders to ensure effective participation in future reviews. Christine Cline noted his recommendation and closed the session by thanking all participants and reaffirming the commitment to refine the IRM for greater impact.

Next Step

As a next step, stakeholders were invited to join a follow-up webinar on 24 October to discuss the UNODC’s new statistical framework and explore further opportunities for engagement.

SHARE THIS POST
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x