Transparency International makes the following recommendations for action by the Conference of States Parties to the UN Convention against Corruption in Jordan 10-14 December 2006. The recommended actions are important in order to transform the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) into an effective global framework for combating corruption.

TI’s recommendations address:

• Effective Monitoring Programme
• Asset Recovery
• Technical Assistance
• Transparency and Participation

This is our key recommendation. Conventions without implementation are just pieces of paper. Experience with other anti-corruption conventions has demonstrated the importance of a systematic follow-up mechanism to ensure timely and effective implementation by national governments. Numerous actions by national governments are needed to implement UNCAC. Assurance of action by all parties is crucial because failure by some governments to act will encourage inaction by other governments.

Adoption of an effective follow-up monitoring programme by the Conference of States Parties (COSP) will send a clear message that the parties are committed to making UNCAC work as the pre-eminent global weapon against corruption. Failure to approve a monitoring programme would undermine UNCAC’s public credibility.

An effective monitoring programme will require the following:

• Strong Secretariat

The monitoring programme should be managed by UNODC, subject to overall policy direction from the COSP. UNODC has successfully managed the negotiations leading to the adoption of UNCAC and the work since the Merida signing conference in promoting ratification and preparing for the COSP. Experience with other monitoring programmes has demonstrated that a strong secretariat is necessary. That will be even more critical for UNCAC because of its broad scope and very large number of parties. It would not be practical for the COSP, with up to 140 parties and meeting only every two years after 2007, to manage the monitoring programme.

• Dependable Funding

Funding for the monitoring programme should come from the UN budget, and not from special contributions. Special contributions cannot be depended on as a long-term source of funding. The OECD monitoring programme began with special contributions but had to change to funding from the OECD budget in 2002. In addition, concerns about impartiality of monitoring could be raised because special contributions would probably come from a small number of wealthy countries.

• Status Survey in 2007

The COSP should instruct UNODC to undertake a status survey in early 2007. The objective of the survey would be to provide benchmarks that would serve as a guide for the planning of subsequent reviews and identify technical assistance needs.

Governments should report on: (a) current status of implementation; (b) plans and priorities for further implementation; (c) obstacles to implementation; and (d) technical assistance needed to overcome obstacles to implementation. The questionnaire should be as simple as possible to provide a realistic overview. The credibility of government reports would be enhanced by civil society involvement.

UNODC should report on the results at the December 2007 COSP. The report could then guide COSP decisions regarding implementation reviews in 2008-2009. Because there will be no COSP in 2008, action at the 2007 COSP is important to avoid a two-year delay.

• Pilot Programmes

The COSP should instruct UNODC to initiate a number of pilot programmes in 2007 to develop and test monitoring methods. Participation in the pilot programmes should be voluntary, but should have sufficient diversity to provide meaningful results. The pilot programmes should cover selected articles from different UNCAC chapters, e.g. preventive measures, criminalization, etc. Pilot programmes should test different monitoring methods, including peer reviews, expert reviews, and regional cooperation. The objective of the pilot programmes would be to develop experience for UNODC and the parties before undertaking broader reviews.

• Cooperation with other Monitoring Organisations

The COSP should instruct UNODC to undertake discussions with organisations monitoring implementation of other anticorruption conventions. The objective should be to develop plans for cooperation and coordination designed to avoid duplication, take advantage of available experience, and ensure the best utilisation of limited monitoring resources. UNODC should report back to the 2007 COSP on the discussions with other monitoring organisations, including recommendations for 2008-2009 actions.

This is the most critical issue for many countries. The COSP should instruct UNODC to begin a pilot programme in 2007 because UNCAC’s asset recovery provisions are innovative and untested. A manageable pilot programme should include several of the leading banking centres -- Switzerland, the UK and the US -- and a small number of countries with large claims for repatriation of stolen assets. Reforming asset recovery procedures will be a key indicator for the success of UNCAC.

The success of UNCAC will require commitments from leading donor organisations to provide adequate funding of technical assistance to enable developing countries to implement UNCAC. The status survey and monitoring should assist in identifying TA requirements.

Going forward, it is important that governance reforms and associated development assistance are country-led and owned. UNCAC provides a global framework to inform these efforts.

The COSP should instruct UNODC to work with leading donor organisations to encourage adequate and coordinated funding of technical assistance. Such discussion should include UNDP, the World Bank, OECD-DAC, the regional development banks, as well as major bilateral donors and private foundations. To facilitate such discussions it may be useful to organize a joint working group. UNODC should report to the 2007 COSP on the progress of discussions with donors, including any recommendations for 2008-2009 programmes.

There are compelling reasons for making the monitoring programme transparent and involving civil society, the private sector and trade unions. Most importantly, the public interest in reducing corruption is the strongest political driver for overcoming obstacles to the reforms required by UNCAC. A transparent monitoring programme is necessary to bring the public interest into play.

Because corruption is always conducted in secrecy, it is difficult to obtain reliable information on levels of corruption and the effectiveness of anti-corruption programmes. For that reason, it is important that monitoring programmes obtain information not only from governments but also from civil society, the private sector and trade unions. Obtaining inputs from multiple sources is particularly critical in countries with widespread corruption, where it is most difficult to implement the reforms called for by UNCAC.

The COSP should instruct UNODC to undertake discussions with leading civil society, private sector and trade union organisations to obtain their suggestions for making the monitoring programme transparent and accountable. Subjects for discussion should include the role NGOs and the private sector could play in monitoring reviews, arrangements for ongoing consultation, and civil society, private sector and trade union views on priorities for UNCAC implementation. UNODC should report back to the 2007 COSP on the discussions with civil society, private sector organisations and trade unions, including recommendations for 2008-2009 actions.

Huguette Labelle, Chair David Nussbaum, Chief Executive
10 December 2006