Civil society organisations have an important role to play in intergovernmental monitoring. First, they can actively promote prompt introduction of such monitoring, a design that assures effectiveness, maintenance of the system and provision of adequate and secure resources for the process. Further, civil society can contribute their own independent views about country performance to the review process, thus helping to ensure that the inputs into the process are balanced. Finally, they can work to ensure that the outputs in the form of country assessments and recommendations are publicly known and receive follow-up.

With regard to the OECD monitoring process, TI has played an active role in campaigning to ensure that this has been adequately resourced. Further, TI National Chapters have been combating to the OECD Working Group review process since it began in 1999. In the first round of Phase 1 reviews, 20 National Chapters submitted written reports evaluating national legislation implementing the requirements of the OECD Convention. TI National Chapters in many countries have contributed to the ongoing Phase 2 review process on Convention enforcement by preparing written submissions to the OECD Working Group on Bribery and/or by contributing to discussions with review teams during on-site visits and sometimes also by organising civil society fora during the on-site visits.

TI and its National Chapters were instrumental in the development of the OAS Convention Follow-up Mechanism, and have also been contributing to the review process. TI National Chapters have also contributed regularly to the review process of GRECO.

Monitoring can also be done by civil society organisations independently of government reviews. While this is no substitute for intergovernmental monitoring, it can serve to exert public pressure on governments in the absence of institutionalised monitoring. Moreover, even where an intergovernmental monitoring system is in place, independent civil society monitoring can usefully supplement this by providing a different perspective, covering topics not yet covered by monitoring processes and offering conclusions and recommendations in a form more accessible to the public.

Civil Society monitoring can take a variety of forms including:

• summary information about the status of ratification
• detailed desk studies on implementation into law of all or a range of convention provisions
• detailed expert reports on country performance with respect to enforcement or application of laws, taking account of multiple expert views and subject to expert review
• summary expert reports on implementation into law and/or enforcement or application of laws.
• polling of public as to their perceptions with regard to the performance standards established in the convention

The greatest challenge in connection with such monitoring lies in developing indicators for country performance, which will generally involve interpreting the standards and requirements laid down in the convention. It is often no easy task to interpret convention provisions. This process can be made more manageable by reference to:

• Guidance material prepared by the negotiating conference or by the secretariat responsible for follow-up
• Questionnaires and indicators developed as part of monitoring processes
• International standards developed by international intergovernmental organisations, especially the one responsible for follow-up
• International standards developed by other respected international bodies or organisations
• International best practice or model legislation developed by respected institutions