Resource Guide as of 19 nov 13

INTEGRATING ANTI-CORRUPTION INTO THE UN PROGRAMMING PROCESS RESOURCE GUIDE

Contents PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.

Introduction to Anti-Corruption ............................................................................................ 4 1.1. Corruption: Interpretations of corruption ................................................................................... 6 1.1.1. What is corruption? .............................................................................................................. 6 1.1.2. Does the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) define corruption? ...... 9 1.1.3. Common typologies of corruption ........................................................................................ 9 1.1.4. Causes and symptoms of corruption .................................................................................. 11 1.1.5 Most Common Forms of Corruption .................................................................................... 15 1.2 Frequently asked questions ........................................................................................................ 17 List of References .............................................................................................................................. 21

2.

Corruption-Development Nexus .......................................................................................... 26 2.1 Corruption窶電evelopment nexus ................................................................................................. 28 2.1.1 Anti-corruption accelerates the progress on the MDGs ...................................................... 31 2.1.2. Anti-Corruption and MDGs ................................................................................................. 33 2.1.3 Sectoral Approach to Corruption ......................................................................................... 36 2.2 Frequently asked questions ........................................................................................................ 43 List of References .............................................................................................................................. 45

3.

Anti-corruption in the national development context .......................................................... 51

4.

Anti-corruption and the National, Regional and International Normative Frameworks ......... 52 4.1 Laws & Regulations at National level .......................................................................................... 54 4.2 Regional level .............................................................................................................................. 56 4.2.1 Regional Conventions: ......................................................................................................... 57 4.3 International/Global level ........................................................................................................... 64 4.3.1 United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) ....................................................... 65 4.3.1.1 Content ............................................................................................................................. 65 4.3.1.2 Governing body ................................................................................................................. 70 4.3.1.3 UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism (IRM).......................................................... 70 4.3.1.4 UNCAC Self-assessment: going beyond the minimum ..................................................... 73 4.3.2 Value of UNCAC for UN Programming ..................................................................................... 74 4.3.2.1 Comparative advantages for UN System .......................................................................... 74 4.3.2.2

UNCAC as entry point for dialogue ............................................................................... 77 1|Page

4.3.2.3 UNCAC as a programming framework for bilateral and multi-lateral donors .................. 79 4.3.2.4 UNCAC as a programming framework .............................................................................. 81 4.4 Frequently asked questions ........................................................................................................ 84 List of References .............................................................................................................................. 86 5. The value of UNCAC ............................................................................................................... 92 6-7. The UNDAF Process: 4 steps and key elements. .................................................................... 93 6-7.1 The UNDAF Process ................................................................................................................. 94 6-7.1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 94 6-7.1.2 Key Steps of the UNDAF Process ...................................................................................... 96 6.2 Measurements & Assessments of Corruption to inform Country Analysis and Strategic Planning ........................................................................................................................................................ 120 6.2.1 Various types of measurements/assessments................................................................. 120 6.3.Frequently Asked Questions ..................................................................................................... 126 List of References ............................................................................................................................ 126 8.

UNDAF Process Step 3: Strategic Planning Linking Analysis with Results ............................. 131

9. Challenges to Anti-Corruption Programming ......................................................................... 133 6.1 Political sensitivity regarding anti-corruption programming .................................................... 134 List of References ............................................................................................................................ 141 ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................. 142 ANNEX 1: Broader Rule of Law and Governance Assessment Tools and Resources: ..................... 142 ANNEX 2: Key Publications on Anticorruption ................................................................................ 151 ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 155 Attachment 1: FAQ on UN Common Country Programming and UNDAF Guidance ...................... 155 Attachment 2: The Human Rights Case Against Corruption ........................................................... 186

2|Page

PREFACE The UN system is operating in a world facing numerous multifaceted challenges. As we draw nearer to the MDG target date of 2015, accelerating progress towards achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) calls for concerted efforts of UN organizations and the programme countries.

The Quadrennial comprehensive policy review (QCPR) of UN operational activities for development, adopted by the UN General assembly on 21 December 2012 (A/RES/67/226) sends a clear message: Member States would like to see a strong UN development system which is strategically relevant, nimble, and ready and able to help deliver sustainable development results.

The resolution reaffirms the eradication of poverty as the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. The QCPR emphasizes that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing and stresses the need for strengthening normative and operational linkages within the United Nations system, directing particular efforts to building national capacity for inclusive, equitable, participatory, transparent and accountable national development processes, to target and empower the poor and people in vulnerable situations.

The QCPR underlines the importance of improving the effectiveness of the Resident Coordinator (RC) system and, for the first time, there is intergovernmental recognition of the Delivering as One model. The UN development system is called upon to further strengthen joint programming processes, improve the UNDAF as a strategic framework and simplify the UNDAF process, simplify and harmonize agency-specific programming instruments, and consolidate a host of support services at the regional and country levels.

Unlike some other UN programming principles (such as the Human Rights-based Approach) and themes (such as conflict prevention), progress in strengthening the UN system’s capacity to respond to system-wide demands for training on anti-corruption has been uneven.

This Resource Guide reflects the interagency commitment led by the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and facilitated by the UN System Staff College (UNSSC) to bring the latest thinking on anti-corruption to UN staff members, with a view to more systematically integrate anti-corruption into the UN programming process, beginning with the Country Analysis and UNDAF processes and throughout the programme cycle.

This Resource Guide is a compendium of inter-agency agreed substantive information on anticorruption that shall serve as a structured guidance note on anti-corruption programming for development results. The purpose of the Guide is to strengthen the capacity of UN staff in the application of anti-corruption programming approaches and principles that can be applied by all staff in a multidisciplinary manner to all programme areas and should be regarded as a critical tool for achieving sustainable development outcomes. To complement the resource guide trainers will also have access to a facilitation manual to help them prepare and deliver in-country workshops.

3|Page

1. Introduction to Anti-Corruption Introduction This session aims at ensuring a common level of understanding about what constitutes corruption and at grasping the different forms in which it manifests itself.

This section will therefore ask:

What are corruption and anti-corruption?

This will be achieved by analysing definitions of corruption (or the lack thereof), looking into the causes of corruption, and focusing on the different types, symptoms, manifestations and forms of corruption and the terminology used to refer to those.

Session Objectives By the end of this session participants will be able to: 1. Understand what constitutes corruption; 2. Describe the types of corruption as well as different forms in which corruption manifests itself; 3. Understand the different approaches to identify causes of corruption from a political, economic, institutional and social angle.

Trainer’s note The first thematic session of the training should be used to bring everyone on the same page and to set the stage for the following days. The participants should develop an understanding of the subject “corruption”, its different types and the fact that there is no universally applied definition. 1 Participatory exercises will in most cases reveal the difficulty of finding a common definition and show that it is easier to talk about specific behaviours. The discussion could at a later stage lead to a symptom or causes debate. Although this is certainly an interesting field, the trainer should keep in mind that the training cannot provide an in-depth scientific analysis of this question. S/he should be

1

However there are definitions of corrupt behaviour, for example in the UN General Assembly, (resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003) United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), (UNODC, 2004).

4|Page

ready to offer further reading material and links to interested participants and to answer common questions.2

Key Messages 1. There is no exhaustive or universally accepted definition of corruption; 2. Corruption is a phenomenon that has evolved with human history and is

continuously influenced by political, economic, social or cultural contexts; 3. There are multiple causes and symptoms of corruption with a complex

interaction among political, economic, institutional and social factors; 4. A solid analysis is needed to determine the immediate, underlying and root

causes of corruption 5. There are different manifestations and types of corruption such as the

following (non-exhaustive): bribery, fraud, money laundering, abuse of public function, and all these typologies may differ in scope in different national anticorruption laws.

2

See the “Frequently asked questions� section at the end.

5|Page

1.1. Corruption: Interpretations of corruption 1.1.1. What is corruption?

There is no exhaustive or universal definition of corruption.

Corruption is a phenomenon that has evolved with human history and is continuously influenced by political, economic, social, or cultural contexts.

The discussion to define corruption has evolved as such:

A moral and ethical discussion on corrupt behaviours

A strict legal definition anchored on criminalized activities

A “governance deficit” definition that looks at institutions and systems’ vulnerability to corruption

A broader concept that recognizes corruption as the misuse of entrusted power for private gain

These varying areas will be now be discussed in line with their definitions of corruption.

1) Etymologically, the word corruption comes from the Latin word “corruptus” which literally means to decompose, disintegrate, lose value, or become putrid and useless. The prevalence of corruption thus is often viewed as a latent decay in ethical values and morality.3 Ethics and morality are comprised of the standards and values of an individual or a group of individuals. Questions can therefore be raised about whose ethics and whose culture we are using to define standards. However,

“corruptus” (Latin): to decompose, disintegrate, lose value, or become putrid and useless

despite cultural diversity, common grounds can be found. The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) is a primary example of international consensus which has been ratified by 168 States parties as of September 2013; see next section for more information.

3

Ochulor, Chinenye Leo & Bassey, Edet Patrick, “Analysis of Corruption from the Ethical and Moral Perspectives”, European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.44 No.3 (2010), pp.466-476.

6|Page

2) A strict legal definition from various national legislations defines corruption or acts of corruption as a criminal offense. These corruption offences are often thought of as a subcategory of economic or “white collar crimes”. However, a strict legal definition anchored on criminalized activities ignores the greater implications of corruption, which may have a larger development impact on issues such as social injustice, exploitation of the vulnerable, denial of basic services, and economic opportunities.

3) Some definitions look at the vulnerability of institutions and systems to define corruption.

4

For example, American economist Professor Robert Klitgaard defines corruption as: “Corruption = (Monopoly + Discretion) – (Accountability)”, a formula which was later enriched by two further factors to: “Corruption = (Monopoly + Discretion) – (Accountability + Integrity + Transparency)” According to this formula, competition is less vulnerable to corruption than monopoly. In sum, this formula suggests that the absence of accountability, transparency and integrity (primarily as a consequence of weak governance) in addition to monopoly and discretion result in corruption.

Hence, in this definition, corruption is principally a failure of governance.5

4) A definition that had been used for many years in anti-corruption literature and practice, from the Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences , defines corruption as “the misuse of public power for private

profit”.6 However, critics argue that this definition is limited as it considers corruption as a sin of government and public servants, but does not take into account the fact that corruption also prevails in the private, non-profit and non-governmental sectors nor the role of these sectors in fostering corruption in the public sector.7 Another criticism is that this definition focuses too heavily on the “demand” side – on public officials – and does not sufficiently focus on the “supply” side, or bribegivers.

4

Klitgaard, Robert, Controlling Corruption (University of California Press, 1988).

UNDP, Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Interventions for Poverty Reduction, Realization of the MDGs and Promoting Sustainable Development (December 2008); UNDP, Mainstreaming Anti-Corruption in Development, Anti-Corruption Practice Note (December 2008).

6 Senturia, Joseph. J., Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences Vo. VI (1993).

7 Similarly, sexual extortion is a form of corruption but it is not usually taken into account in compilations of corruption indices.

5

7|Page

To address these concerns and corruption in the public, private, non-profit and non-governmental sectors, the definition has been broadened to:

“the misuse of entrusted power for private gain” This definition is now widely used by anti-corruption practitioners.8 It serves as a practical analysis of the locations of corruption, its relationships, context of authority relations, and other non-fiduciary personal gains.9

NOTE: It should be kept in mind that none of these definitions are propagated and that there is no universally agreed definition. The aim is to develop an understanding for the ongoing discussion and acknowledge that there is a risk that the definitions do not cover all aspects of corruption and its dynamic nature.

8

UNDP, Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Interventions for Poverty Reduction, Realization of the MDGs and Promoting Sustainable Development (December 2008).

9 Vasavakul, Thaveeporn, “Anticorruption entry points for programming,” Anti-corruption Course: Session Text (UNDP Virtual School, 2011) ; Also noteworthy is the principal-agent theory of Rose-Ackerman, Susan, Corruption – A Study in Political Economy (US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub, 1978).

8|Page

1.1.2. Does the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) define corruption?

Despite many attempts to create an appropriate definition, none are sufficiently inclusive of all new forms of corruption that emerge every day. Corruption as a phenomenon has proven to be multifaceted, multidimensional and dynamic over time and as such it is difficult to develop an all-encompassing and universally accepted definition. This is also the reason why Member States during the negotiation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) refrained from adopting a definition of corruption, despite several proposals; instead they opted for the definition of individual

offences

which,

in

their

combination,

UNCAC’s definition of corrupt conduct (constituting of individual offences) “illustrates” corruption, but does not provide a final definition of the term.

represents the current universal understanding of corrupt conduct.10 Therefore through this definition on the most common forms of corruption, the UNCAC approach is the “illustration” of corruption instead of the agreement on a final definition of the term corruption.11

1.1.3. Common typologies of corruption There have been many efforts to categorize corruption. However, no clear-cut consensus has yet emerged. One reason for this is that often different types of corruption exist in parallel, on different scales, which may also vary from sector to sector.

The most commonly referred typologies include:12 

Political corruption  a misuse of political power for private gain.

This misuse can be for the preservation or strengthening of power, personal enrichment, or both. Political corruption can take place while entering public office, during the policy making process, or in the allocation of state resources.

Common forms of political corruption include: vote-buying, election-rigging, illegal political campaign financing, nepotism, cronyism, trading in influence, or abuse of public property.

10

See UNCAC, supra note 1 This, therefore, might limit the discussion. Further details about the broad and comprehensive approach of UNCAC will be explained in other sessions.

12 UNDP, Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Interventions for Poverty Reduction, Realization of the MDGs and Promoting Sustainable Development (December 2008), p. 9; UNDP, “Definitions of Technical Terms”, Tackling Corruption, Transforming Lives: Accelerating Human Development in Asia and the Pacific (Macmillan Publishers India, 2008), pp.228-231.

11

9|Page



Bureaucratic corruption  corruption that takes place in public administration or at the implementation end of the policies.

In most countries, the two forms of corruption (political and bureaucratic) go hand-in-hand and reinforce one another.

In most systems of one-party rule, the two typologies of

corruption are intertwined as there is no clear separation between elected politicians and bureaucratic officials. 

Grand corruption/Political corruption  large scale corruption that takes place at the highest levels of government.

Usually occurs at the policy formulation level, as well as in large scale public projects and public procurement. Grand corruption is often used synonymously with political corruption.

Common forms of grand/political corruption: Vote-buying; election rigging; non-transparent/illegal political campaign financing; abuse of public



property;

biased

decision-making

for

personal

interest.

Petty corruption  everyday forms of corruption.

This occurs when citizens, businesses, and officials make personal gains, beyond official duty, in the process of delivering public services of various types. Bureaucratic corruption, administrative corruption and petty corruption are often being used synonymously in the anticorruption literature.



Endemic/Systemic corruption  when corruption is an integrated aspect of the economic, social, and political system.

In extreme cases, it can be in the form of “state capture”. The major institutions and processes of the state are routinely dominated and used by corrupt individuals and groups.

Corruption can be so widespread that the people may not know how to contain it.

Corruption is always evolving

10 | P a g e

1.1.4. Causes and symptoms of corruption

Key Questions that need to be answered: Why is corruption perceived to be more widespread in some countries than others?

Why does the level of perceived corruption varies from locality to locality?

Why are there certain government agencies that are more corruption-prone than others?

There are multiple causes of corruption. In practice, there is no single cause at work. Causes are inter-related and reinforce one another, generating and perpetuating corrupt practices and networks.

The following causes are the most commonly mentioned in the literature: 

Political Environment: All forms of government are vulnerable to corruption yet some are more vulnerable than others. In addition, the political environment and how socio-economic groups interact with state officials affect the perception and prevalence of corruption. In some countries, public officials are dominant actors while in other countries private actors are more powerful. The relative power of these groups affects their overall bargaining ability and the impact corruption can have on the distribution of private gains among principals, agents, and clients.

The concept of “state capture” is a phenomenon in which outside entities (often the private sector, special interest groups, political lobbying groups and organized crime networks) are able to use their power to influence state laws, policies, and regulations to their benefit, including through corrupt transactions with public officers and politicians.



Economic and Structural Policies: Literature concerned with economic causes of corruption has mainly focused on individuals’ behaviour and motivations, or known as “principle-agent framework”. From this “principle-agent framework” point of view, corruption arises when agents - public officials - take advantage of power entrusted to them and use it for their own interest. The framework helps to place an analysis on corruption in a specific context of authority or political-economic relations with concrete actors. It also helps creating a good

11 | P a g e

starting point to identify motivations behind corruption-prone or corruption-averse behaviours of the actors involved.

On the other hand, economic writings identified that incentives might also be related to structural policies such as: the size of the public sector, government spending patterns, regulatory policies, levels of economic competition, forms of government expenditure, and regulatory quality. All these economic factors are linked with bribe-giving, especially for both grand and petty corruption.



Institutional and Organizational Structures:13 o Institutional analyses of the causes of corruption focus on the presence or absence of particular cross-organizational arrangements that help mitigate corruption practices. o Organizational analyses, on the other hand, focus specifically on structural strengths and weaknesses of individual organizations.

An often-cited institutional and organizational

approach is Robert Klitgaard’s formula (as seen in the section above) outlining the causes and solutions for corruption.

Decentralization reduces corruption?

It is also sometimes argued that the decentralization and devolution of power, resources and authority may be conducive for reducing corruption. However, it should also be noted that without effective anti-corruption policies, mechanisms and structures at the local level, there is also a chance of corruption being decentralized or localized.

Decentralization does not automatically result in a reduction of corruption. On the contrary, experience shows that decentralisation in corruption-prone environments can even lead to an increase or perceived increase of corruption. In particular, this occurs when the increased powers and responsibilities at the local level do not go hand in hand with a respective increase of accountability structures: more people have the opportunity for corrupt practices within their scope of powers, responsibilities. Therefore anticorruption measures need to be an integral part at all levels.

13

UNDP, Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Interventions for Poverty Reduction, Realization of the MDGs and Promoting Sustainable Development (December 2008), pp. 9-10.

12 | P a g e



Weak Rule of Law: Fearing no consequences for corrupt acts, there is no deterrence to their actions. This can result in the view that ‘everyone can do it” or that bribes to public officials is the only way to achieve something even when it is a legal act. The larger the scale that this practice occurs without consequences, the greater the chance for corruption to increase and weaken the rule of law and the public confidence in the justice system.

A resourceful and independent judiciary represents an obstacle to corrupt practices. In those jurisdictions where corruption is prevalent, there are usually patters of ineffective justice institutions characterized by lack of coordination; scarce resources; low salaries; lack of capacity building or career prospects; regular interference; budget constraints; and in some instances interference of judicial councils overseeing the work of justice actors.

1.1.4.1 Symptom or a cause?

Corruption is as much a symptom as a cause of weak governance, instability and lack of development. The data and history of economic development shows that the prevalence of corruption generally decreases as a country prospers.14 However, the huge variations between countries at similar levels of development suggest that corruption is not just a symptom related to a lower level of development. It could also be a cause of poverty and inequality and more can be done to ease the problem than merely waiting for economic growth – which may never take place due to corruption.15

14

See Collier, Paul & Hoeffler, Anke, “The Economic Costs of Corruption in Infrastructure”, The Global Corruption Report 2005 (TI, 2005), pp.12-19.

15 UNDP, Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Interventions for Poverty Reduction, Realization of the MDGs and Promoting Sustainable Development (December 2008), pp. 13-16.

13 | P a g e

Research from the World Bank found that, …there is a '400% governance dividend' of good governance and corruption control: countries that improve on control of corruption and rule of law can expect (on average), in the long run, a four-fold increase in incomes per capita. Thus, a country with an income per capita of US$ 2,000 could expect to attain US$ 8,000 in the long run by making strides to control corruption. Similarly, such a country could expect, on average, a 75% reduction in child mortality.

Furthermore, …the business sector grows significantly faster where corruption is lower and property rights and rule of law are safeguarded. On average, it can make a difference of about 3% per year in annual growth for the enterprises.

Daniel Kaufmann, “Six Questions on the Cost of Corruption with World Bank Institute Global Governance”, The World Bank: News & Forecast

Corruption operates more at ease in those jurisdictions where:  perpetrators and would-be perpetrators perceive an ineffective rule of law system and/or  the law is applied impartially mostly, if not only, to those that have no connection with powerful administrations or governing elites.

Similarly, corruption is both a symptom and a cause of bad governance. It is widely accepted that corruption fosters an anti-democratic environment characterized by uncertainty, unpredictability and declining integrity and disrespect for constitutional institutions and authority. A previous study on how political corruption impacted on Caribbean development concluded that high levels of political corruption have a major economic effect on developing countries in the Caribbean as it decreases overall economic output (GDP per capita) and reduces capital formation. It has also a major effect on a state’s rule of law – the more corruption the weaker the rule of law.16

16

Collier, Michael, “The Effects of Political Corruption on Caribbean Development”, Caribbean Studies Association annual conference (Latin American and Caribbean Centre, Florida International University, May 2002).

14 | P a g e

More details about the effects of corruption on development (the so called corruption-development nexus) will be discussed in chapter 3.

1.1.5 Most Common Forms of Corruption As explained above, corruption manifests itself in a multitude of different ways and behaviours.

Although some acts of corruption can be committed by a single individual without further involvement of others (e.g. some cases of embezzlement), most acts of corruption involve two parties and consist of a “trading” component of a bribe against an advantage. The actors can be

referred to as the corruptor and the corrupted.

The initiative for the act of corruption can stem from either side – the demand or the supply side.

Thus a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy is required to address both sides.

The table on the next two pages shows the most common forms of corruption and economic crimes described in general terms.17

Bribery is the act of offering someone money, services or other valuables to persuade him or her to do something in return. Among the common synonyms for bribes are kickbacks, baksheesh, payola, hush money, sweetener, protection money, boodle, and gratuity.

Fraud is a misrepresentation done to obtain unfair advantage by giving or receiving false or misleading information.

Money laundering involves the depositing and transferring of money and other proceeds of criminal activities, to hide the illicit origin or ownership of these proceeds.

Extortion is the unlawful demand or receipt of property, money or sensitive information through the use of force or threat. A typical example of extortion would be when armed police or military men demand money for passage through a roadblock. It is also called blackmail, bloodsucking and extraction.

Cronyism/clientelism refers to the favourable treatment of friends and associates in the distribution of resources and positions, regardless of their objective qualifications.

Nepotism is a form of favouritism that involves family relationships. Its most usual form is when a person exploits his or her power and authority to procure jobs or other favours for relatives.

17

Session 4 will show in more detail where to find key legal definitions in national law and explain regional and international standards.

15 | P a g e

A kickback is a form of bribe referring to an illegal secret payment made as a return for a favour or service rendered. It may involve inflating the prices to create a profit margin that can be then returned to the beneficiary of the service. The term is often used to describe in an ‘innocent’ way the returns of a corrupt or illegal transaction or the gains from rendering a special service.

Influence peddling occurs when an individual solicits benefits in exchange for using his or her influence to unfairly advance the interests of a particular person or party. The aim of transparency and disclosure laws is to expose such agreements.

Patronage refers to the support or sponsorship by a patron (a wealthy or influential guardian). Patronage is used, for instance, to make appointments to government jobs, facilitate promotions, confer favours, and distribute contracts for work. Patronage transgresses the boundaries of political influence and violates the principles of merit and competition because providers of patronage (patrons) and receivers (clients) form a network bypassing existing lawful systems, through which access to various resources is obtained.Insider trading involves the use of information secured by an agent during the course of duty for personal gain.

Speed money is paid to quicken processes caused by bureaucratic delays and shortage of resources. It normally occurs in offices where licences, permits, inspection certificates and clearance documents are processed.

Embezzlement is the misappropriation of property or funds legally entrusted to someone in their formal position as an agent or guardian.

Abuse of public property/functions refers to the inappropriate use of public financial, human and infrastructure resources. For example, public labour might be diverted to individual use while public properties get hired out for private gain. Such abuse is more common with respect to services offered freely or at subsidised rates by the state and its subsidiaries where such services are either scarce or beyond the reach of the majority of the people. It also tends to be more prevalent where there is no citizens’ oversight facilities and where there is obvious monopoly of power by public officials, which is exercised with impunity.

Source: UNDP, Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Interventions for Poverty Reduction, Realization of the MDGs and Promoting Sustainable Development (December 2008).

Under the framework of the UNCAC, which has been ratified as of September 2013 by 168 States parties and which is steadily progressing towards near universal ratification, a set of 11 criminal offences defined in articles 15 to 25 were agreed upon. In regards to some of these offences, States Parties are obliged to criminalise them (M – mandatory), and for some others, the criminalisation 16 | P a g e

needs to be considered, but it is not mandatory. Therefore, the offences criminalised by UNCAC are broad enough to capture all common forms of criminal conduct as described above.

UNCAC’s set of 11 criminal offences Article 15. Bribery of national public officials (active and passive) (M) Article 16. Bribery of foreign public officials and officials of public international organizations (Para. 1 M) Article 17.Embezzlement, misappropriation or other diversion of property by a public official (M) Article 18. Trading in influence Article 19. Abuse of function Article 20. Illicit enrichment Article 21. Bribery in the private sector (active and passive) Article 22. Embezzlement in the private sector Article 23. Laundering of proceeds of crime (M) Article 24. Concealment Article 25. Obstruction of justice (M)

Further information on UNCAC and its Implementation Review Mechanism will be provided in Section 4.3.1.

1.2 Frequently asked questions Q: What is the difference between corruption and lobbying?

Both are ways of obtaining help from policy makers in exchange for a favourable decision. In short, one could argue that lobbying in some instances is just a special form of corruption focused on legislative bodies or some other rule-making agency. But this view is too simplistic and does not reflect the democratic process which foresees and encourages public participation, debate and formation of interest or pressure groups. For this reason, it can be challenging at times to set a line between, on the one hand, the right to petition to authorities, which is acknowledged by many state constitutions, and engagement in political dialogue and, on the other hand, exercising undue influence.

17 | P a g e

Q: What is the difference between corruption and mismanagement?

Sometimes, mismanagement is a euphemism for corruption, especially where there is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction in a court of law against the suspects. However, there is a difference between corruption and mismanagement. First, corruption is deliberate. Mismanagement can be either deliberate or unwitting (e.g., genuinely due to lack of knowledge and skills). Mismanagement applies to the performance of public and private duties, while corruption refers more to the abuse or misuse of power and authority.

Mismanagement may amount to a corruption crime, such as

abuse of power and authority, but not necessarily always.

Q: What is the difference between gift-giving practices and bribery? Does corruption depend on culture? Is corruption culturally relative?

Gift-giving is a prevalent social custom in almost all cultures and has been practiced for centuries in dealing with all walks of lives, including political authorities, social institutions and business people.

Although some would argue that it is very difficult to know when it is proper to give or receive a gift, what sort of gift is appropriate, or what social obligations gift-giving imposes, people can easily differentiate what is a “gift” and what is “bribery”. What is important, however, is that clear and transparent rules and a system for declaration of gifts must be established to reduce instances of corruption: for example, based on the amount and the intention with which it is given. State institutions might have codes of conducts or regulations which specify the issue of gifts, defining threshold amounts and specific rules depending on the function of an officer (e.g. for contract and procurement officers).

In the case of UN staff, the regulations say that staff members may occasionally accept, without prior approval, minor gifts of essentially nominal value which relate to the duty station concerned, provided that all such gifts are promptly disclosed to the head of the office, who may direct whether the gift be entrusted to the Organization or returned to the donor. The assessment of what is of “essentially nominal value” must be left to the judgement of the staff member and the head of the office in the light of circumstances at the duty station concerned.18

18

For more guidance on UN staff code and conduct, please see: UN, (ST/SGB/2009/6) Staff Regulations (UN, New York, 2009); UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN General Assembly, 10 December 1948) 217 A (III); UN (ST/SGB/2002/13) Status, Basic Rights and Duties of United Nations Staff Members (1 December 2002); and the UN, Code of Ethics for United Nations Personnel.

18 | P a g e

Q. What is the difference between illicit financial flows and money stashed away via corrupt means?

The term “illicit financial flows” refers to a form of capital flight and occurs when money is illegally earned, transferred, or utilised. This money is intended to disappear from any record in the country of origin, and earnings on the stock of illicit financial flows outside of a country do not normally return to the country of origin. Illicit financial flows can be generated through a number of means that are not revealed in national accounts or balance of payment figures, including trade mispricing (e.g. over-invoicing exports and under-invoicing imports), bulk cash movements, hawala transactions, smuggling and more). Bribery, kickbacks, money laundering and the proceeds of corruption thus can form part of the illicit financial. However, at present there is no agreed definition on what constitutes illicit financial flows nor an accepted methodology for assessing such flows.

To be differentiated from illicit financial flows, is the term “illicit enrichment” which refers to a situation in which officials cannot explain their wealth in relation to the income they lawfully earn.

The wealth that is not explicable may be the proceeds of a bribe or a form of stealing such as embezzlement, misappropriation, concealment of property, money laundering or false accounting.

Q: Is corruption always illegal?

Not all corrupt acts are always illegal. For example, not all countries have a provision in their national law in regard to bribery in the private sector.

Q: What is the interface between corruption and organised crime?

Instrumental violence, corruption and money laundering are regarded as key defining characteristics of organised crime. Evidence indicates frequent collusion between organised criminals and corrupt officials at all levels of government. Through corruption, criminals can obtain protection from public officials, influence political and public sector decision-making and infiltrate state structures and legitimate businesses. Case studies of Nigeria, Mozambique and South Africa illustrate the specific characteristics of organised criminal groups in Africa and how corruption is used as part of their modus operandi to facilitate their criminal activities, avoid punishment and infiltrate public institutions.19

19

See Chêne, Marie, “Organised Crime and Corruption”, U4 Expert Answer (U4, 2008).

19 | P a g e

Q: Do low salaries cause corruption?

Several studies show that low pay is one of the incentives for corruption where these salaries are not enough to survive on or to make a decent living. However, without an effective mechanism to monitor, detect and deter corruption, without a strong preventive mechanism and a real chance of penalties, and without a merit-based and efficient civil service system, raising wages alone is not likely to make a difference.20 In some instances corruption on the part of public officials has more to do more with a sense of being above the law and hence feeling entitled to demand undue payments (bribes) without major consequences.

Q. Who should be seen to be more corrupt, the bribe-taker or the bribe-giver?

The bribe-taker and the bribe-giver both benefit, whether it be in terms of money or an undue advantage. Sometimes the ‘advantage’ gained by the bribe-giver may not be ‘undue’ or clear cut but it is nonetheless an advantage. For example, in a corrupt society where the right to access public services, such as health or education, can be only secured by paying a bribe, those who can afford to pay have an advantage over those who cannot. In such circumstances the bribe-givers’ ‘benefit’ is merely that which is his or her rightful due and bribe-takers receive an advantage for carrying out functions that they are obliged to perform anyway.21 The UNCAC as well as many national anti-corruption laws treat the bribe “offering”, “promising” and “giving” in the same manner. For instance, the Zambia Anti-corruption Commission (ACC) defines corruption under its Act of 1996 (No.42) as: "[t]he soliciting, accepting, obtaining, giving, promising or offering of gratification by way of a bribe or other personal temptations of inducement or the misuse or abuse of a public office for private advantage or benefit."22

20

See Savedoff, William D., “Pay for honesty? Lessons on wages and corruption from public hospitals”, U4 Brief no.13 (CMI, May 2008).

21 See the following link for more details: U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, The basics of corruption, http://www.u4.no/articles/the-basics-of-anti-corruption/ 22 See Gwai, Ganizani, “Definitions of Corruption”, Taking it Global: Panorama (25 May 2002).

20 | P a g e

List of References Primary Sources Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (CAC/COSP/2009/CRP.2) “Quantitative approaches to assess and describe corruption and the role of UNODC in supporting countries in performing such assessments”, Third session Doha, 9-13 November 2009, available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-andanalysis/statistics/corruption/Pape_measurement_corruption_CRP2.pdf ------- (CAC/COSP/WG.4/2010/4) “Methodologies, including evidence-based approaches, for assessing areas of special vulnerability to corruption in the public and private sectors”, Openended Intergovernmental Working Group on the Prevention of Corruption, Vienna, 13-15 December 2010 (8th October 2010), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-andanalysis/statistics/corruption/WG4_doc-4-FINAL.pdf General Assembly, (resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003) United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), (UNODC, 2004) available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/index.html#UNCACfulltextù Human Rights Council Resolution 7/11, "The role of good governance in the promotion and protection of human rights", available at: http://nhrc.nic.in/documents/A_HRC_RES_7_11.pdf UN, (ST/SGB/2002/13) Status, Basic Rights and Duties of United Nations Staff Members (1 December 2002), available at: http://www.unops.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Ethics%20documents/SGB-200213%20EN.pdf ----- (ST/SGB/2009/6) Staff Regulations (UN, New York, 2009), available at: http://www.un.org/esa/cdo/hr/RULES%20AND%20REGULATIONS/Staff%20Regulations%20JY 9.pdf ------ Code of Ethics for United Nations Personnel, available at: http://www.unicef.org/videoaudio/PDFs/Code_of_Ethics.pdf UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNGA, 10 December 1948) 217 A (III), available at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

21 | P a g e

UNODC, Legislative Guide for the Implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption, 2nd ed.

(UN, April 2012) available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/legislativeguide.html ------ Technical Guide to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UN, 2009), available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/technical-guide.html Secondary Sources Amundsen, Inge, Corruption: Definitions and Concepts (Chr. Michelsen Institute Development Studies and Human Rights, January 2000) Chêne, Marie, “Organised Crime and Corruption”, U4 Expert Answer (U4, 2008), http://www.u4.no/publications/organised-crime-and-corruption/ Collier, Paul and Hoeffler, Anke “The Economic Costs of Corruption in Infrastructure”, The Global Corruption Report 2005 (TI, 2005), pp.12-19, available at: http://archive.transparency.org/publications/gcr/gcr_2005 Collier, Michael, “The Effects of Political Corruption on Caribbean Development”, Caribbean Studies Association annual conference (Latin American and Caribbean Centre, Florida International University, May 2002), available at: http://www.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2009/02799.pdf Gwai, Ganizani, “Definitions of Corruption”, Taking it Global: Panorama (25 May 2002), available at: http://www.tigweb.org/youth-media/panorama/article.html?ContentID=380 International Council on Human Right Policy (ICHRP), Corruption and human rights: making the connection (ICHRP, 2009), available at: http://www.ichrp.org/files/reports/40/131_web.pdf International Council on Human Right Policy (ICHRP), Integrating Human Rights in the AntiCorruption Agenda: Challenges, Possibilities and Opportunities (ICHRP, 2010), available at: http://www.ichrp.org/files/reports/58/131b_report.pdf Kaufmann, Daniel, “Six Questions on the Cost of Corruption with World Bank Institute Global Governance” , The World Bank: News & Forecast, available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20190295~menuPK:344 57~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html Klitgaard, Robert, Controlling Corruption (University of California Press, 1988)

22 | P a g e

Lambsdorff, Johann Graf, “Causes and Consequences of Corruption: What Do We Know from a Cross-Section of Countries?” in Susan Rose-Ackerman, International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption (MA: Northampton, 2006), pp. 3-51 Ochulor, Chinenye Leo & Bassey, Edet Patrick, “Analysis of Corruption from the Ethical and Moral Perspectives”, European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.44 No.3 (2010), pp.466-476, available at: http://share.pdfonline.com/161e2bc3df74401ab0ac20ffd223716e/Analysis%20of%20Corrupti on%20from%20the%20Ethical%20and%20Moral%20Perspectives.pdf Rose-Ackerman, Susan, Corruption – A Study in Political Economy (US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub, 1978) ------- Corruption and Government. Causes, Consequences, and Reform (Cambridge University Press, 1999) Savedoff, William D., “Pay for honesty? Lessons on wages and corruption from public hospitals”, U4 Brief, no.13 (CMI, May 2008), http://www.cmi.no/publications/file/3032-pay-for-honestylessons-on-wages-and-corruption.pdf Senturia, Joseph. J., Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences Vo. VI (1993) Treisman, Daniel, “The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-National Study,” Journal of Public Economics (76, 2000): 399-457, available at: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/treisman/Papers/causes.pdf UNDP, Illicit Financial Flows from the Least Developed Countries: 1990-2008, Discussion Paper (May 2011), available at: http://content.undp.org/go/cmsservice/download/publication/?version=live&id=3275486 ------- Guidance Note: UNCAC Self-Assessments, Going Beyond the Minimum (October 2010), available

at:

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-

governance/anti-corruption/guidance-note---uncac-self-assessments-going-beyond-theminimum/ ------- Mainstreaming Anti-Corruption in Development, Anti-Corruption Practice Note (December 2008), available at: http://www.pogar.org/publications/ac/books/practicenote08-e.pdf ------- Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Interventions for Poverty Reduction, Realization of the MDGs and Promoting Sustainable Development (December 2008), available at:

23 | P a g e

http://www.unrol.org/files/2%20Primer%20on%20Corruption%20and%20Development_2008 .pdf ------- “Definitions of Technical Terms”, Tackling Corruption, Transforming Lives: Accelerating Human Development in Asia and the Pacific (Macmillan Publishers India, 2008), pp.228-231 Vasavakul, Thaveeporn, “Anticorruption entry points for programming,” Anti-corruption Course: Session Text (UNDP Virtual School, 2011)

UNODC Country Reports: UNODC, Afghanistan: Corruption in Afghanistan: Bribery as reported by the victims (UNODC, January 2010), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-andanalysis/Afghanistan/Afghanistan-corruption-survey2010-Eng.pdf UNODC, Nigeria: Business survey on corruption - Executive summary (UNODC, October 2009), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-andanalysis/statistics/corruption/Nigeria_report_exsum_2009.pdf UNODC, Western Balkans: Corruption in the western Balkans: Bribery as experienced by the population (UNODC, 2011), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-andanalysis/statistics/corruption/Western_balkans_corruption_report_2011_web.pdf UNODC, Corruption in Albania: Bribery as experienced by the population (UNODC, 2011), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-andanalysis/statistics/corruption/Albania_corruption_report_2011_web_small.pdf UNODC, Corruption in Croatia: Bribery as experienced by the population (UNODC, 2011), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-andanalysis/statistics/corruption/Croatia_corruption_report_web_version.pdf UNODC, Corruption in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Bribery as experienced by the population (UNODC, 2011), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-andanalysis/statistics/corruption/Corruption_report_fYR_Macedonia_FINAL_web.pdf UNODC, Corruption in Montenegro: Bribery as experienced by the population (UNODC, 2011), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-andanalysis/statistics/corruption/Montenegro_corruption_report_web.pdf 24 | P a g e

UNODC, Corruption in Serbia: Bribery as experienced by the population (UNODC, 2011), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-andanalysis/statistics/corruption/Serbia_corruption_report_web.pdf

Websites The

World

Bank,

Anti-corruption

readings:

Costs

and

Consequences

of

Corruption,

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE/ EXTANTICORRUPTION/0,,contentMDK:20221941~menuPK:384473~pagePK:148956~piPK:2166 18~theSitePK:384455~isCURL:Y~isCURL:Y~isCURL:Y,00.html U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, The basics of corruption, http://www.u4.no/articles/the-basicsof-anti-corruption/ UNDP, UNDPAntiCorruption YouTube Channel, http://www.youtube.com/user/UNDPAntiCorruption ------- “Interview with Geraldine Fraser UNDP Democratic Governance Director: progress on anticorruption” Video (Nov.2012), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPWXOkM6XN0 UNODC, Data and Analysis, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-andanalysis/index.html?ref=menuside)Policy -------- TRACK Portal – Tools and Resources for Anti-Corruption Knowledge, http://www.track.unodc.org/Pages/home.aspx -------- “Anti-corruption Academic Initiative (ACAD)”, TRACK, available at: http://www.track.unodc.org/Academia/Pages/Home.aspx -------- Documents, publications and tools: Prevention and Fight Against Corruption, available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/publications.html

25 | P a g e

2. Corruption-Development Nexus Introduction This session describes the link between corruption and development. It aims at articulating:

Why corruption is a bottleneck to development, especially in achieving the MDGs The session, furthermore, describes three major events that reinforced the resurgence of governance and anti-corruption measures for sustainable development. Finally, it explains the benefits and the emerging issues of a sectoral approach to corruption.

Session Objectives By the end of this session participants will be able to: 1.

Understand how corruption affects various aspects of development, for example economic growth, poverty, energy and environment, human rights, gender, governance, rule of law, armed conflict, and HIV/AIDS;

2.

Understand why anti-corruption is currently seen as a global, regional and ntional concern, particularly in the context of the post-2015 agenda;

3.

Provide a perspective on how the ‘corruption- development nexus’manifests in the national development context.

Trainer’s note This session is meant to give participants an understanding about the impact corruption has on development. Trainers will need to keep abreast of updates regarding on-going discussions on the Post-2015 development agenda and its final outcome, to be able to provide participants with updated information related to the corruption-development nexus discourse.

26 | P a g e

Key Messages 1. Corruption is a major bottleneck in achieving the MDGs. It diverts resources away from basic social services and limits access to health, education and water and sanitation. It thus enhances the inequality in access to basic services and fundamental rights; 2. Corruption hinders sustainable economic development by reinforcing social inequality (discourages foreign and domestic investment); 3. Corruption impacts on the realization of human rights.

Corruption hinders universal access to public services recognized as a human right. Corruption in judicial systems is proven to violate the basic right to equality before the law and deny procedural rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights conventions.

4. Corruption undermines public trust and the rule of law and can fuel instability and armed conflict. Corruption thrives wherever there is weak transparency and accountability, but can also cause deterioration of governance.

5. As the post-2015 agenda evolves and takes shape, it is imperative to recognize the effect of governance/corruption bottlenecks to the achievement of development outcomes and to address them.

27 | P a g e

2.1 Corruption–development nexus “Corruption undermines democracy and the rule of law. It leads to violations of human rights. It erodes public trust in government. It can even kill - for example, when corrupt officials allow medicines to be tampered with, or when they accept bribes that enable terrorist acts to take place.”

Ban Ki-Moon, United Nations Secretary-General in his statement at the launch of the ‘Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative’ th

(17 September 2007)

“Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government's ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice, and discouraging foreign investment and aid.”

Kofi Annan, Former United Nations Secretary-General in his statement on the General st Assembly’s adoption of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) on 31 October 2003.

Both literature and empirical evidence show that corruption and underdevelopment are intrinsically linked. Corruption is likely to flourish where there is wide spread economic, social and political inequality, including gender inequality, where there are few institutional checks on power, where decision making process is obscure, where civil society is weak and where economies have suffered from severe environmental degradation.23 Corruption hinders economic growth in various ways. Firstly, it discourages foreign and domestic investment by increasing opportunities for rent-seeking, creating uncertainty and reducing incentives for both foreign and domestic investors. Secondly, corruption exacerbates poverty by

23

For more information on the linkages between corruption and development please see UNDP, Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Interventions for Poverty Reduction, Realization of the MDGs and Promoting Sustainable Development (December 2008).

28 | P a g e

turning government investment away from socially valuable services, such as education and health care, and impairs the access to, and the quality of, existing services and infrastructures; for example, the availability of heath care to those who are in a position and willing to pay bribes. Furthermore, corruption exacerbates income inequality by allowing some to benefit more than others by distorting economic as well as legal and policy frameworks. “In one World Bank survey, more than 150 high-ranking public officials and top citizens from over 60 developing nations ranked corruption as the biggest impediment to economic development and growth in their countries.

Corrupt practices drain government coffers, play havoc with free trade and scare away investors.

The World Bank estimates that corruption can reduce a country's growth rate by 0.5 to 1.0 percentage points per year. IMF research has shown that investment in corrupt countries is almost 5 per cent less than in countries that are relatively corruption-free.

Standard and Poor's, the bond rating agency, gives investors a 50 to 100 per cent chance of losing their entire investments within five years in countries with various degrees of corruption. Such odds make long-term investment, which is of most benefit to a country, risky and unlikely.�

Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders available at: http://www.un.org/events/10thcongress/2088b.htm

Corrupt bureaucrats will utilize resources to issue contracts to companies that pay significant bribes.

Other corrupt individuals do not pay or collect revenues to/from the Government or they take government resources for their own purposes. The primary incentive driving these peoples’ actions is no longer to act in the best interest of citizens. These activities lead to funds being redirected into sectors most profitable to the individual, to inflate prices being paid for goods or services which are sub-standard, and payments being made for goods and services that are not delivered. All of these actions impact adversely on the delivery of services to the poor. Some examples of specific manifestations of these actions will be given in the sections that follow.

Fighting corruption and protecting human rights are inextricably linked. When the government of a country fails to curb or contain corruption, it also fails to fulfil its obligation to promote and protect the human rights of its citizens. Corruption impairing the ability of governments to fulfil human rights, particularly the economic and social rights of the most vulnerable and marginalized, creates discrimination in access to public services in favour of those who are able to influence authorities to 29 | P a g e

act in their personal interest. Corruption can also weaken democratic institutions and affect enjoyment of civil and political rights. Similarly, corrupt judicial systems are proven to violate the basic right to equality before the law and deny procedural rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights conventions. Corruption also disproportionately affects women, as not only do they form the majority of the poor, but they also suffer from the denial of access to, or deprivation of control over productive resources such as land, credit and education. Moreover, empirical evidence shows that gender bias in the judicial system hurts women severely.24 Trafficking is seen to also be more likely in a corrupt environment.

Once Corruption occurs it further weakens institutional foundations and dilutes the accountability, transparency and integrity of public institutions. Corruption can also undermine trust in the legitimacy of the State, as very openly demonstrated during the Arab Spring.25

If citizens lose

confidence in the state, in the delivery of basic services and democratic rules, this can weaken moral values at all levels and result in the unwillingness to pay taxes and/or to address the formal justice system in case of disputes. This ultimately threatens state security, as seen in Sierra Leone ahead of the Civil War.

Relationship between Corruption and Development Economic Growth

Poverty/ Inequality

Governance

Human Rights

Gender

Environment

Conflict

 Increasing sexual extortions

 Worsening environmental governance and reducing the stringency of environmental regulations

 Fuelling war when, in the absence of a legitimate political regime, certain social groups are favoured in the allocation of resources, thus fuelling grievances among marginalized groups.

Corruption Impact Through:  Discouraging investment and aid

 Undermining efforts to achieve MDGs

 Adding unpredictabili ty in business environment

 Increasing the cost of public services and lowering their quality

 Distorting economic policies

 Worsening income and other inequalities

 Distorting rule of law and weakening moral values  Undermining government legitimacy by reducing public trust in government  Weakening institutional foundation by worsening ATI

 Perpetuating discrimination  Denying rights to social services  Weakening democratic institutions  Undermining delivery of justice

 Affecting women disproporti onately in terms of access to essential public services

Source: UNDP, Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Interventions for Poverty Reduction, Realization of the MDGs and Promoting Sustainable Development (December 2008).

24

UNDP, Seeing Beyond the State: Grassroots Women’s Perspectives on Corruption and Anti-Corruption (UNDP, New York, 2012).

25 al-Nashif, Nada & Tzannatos, Zafiris, “Only Fair”, Finance and Development , Vol. 50, No. 1 (March 2013).

30 | P a g e

2.1.1 Anti-corruption accelerates the progress on the MDGs Over the past decade, notable progress has been made on each individual Millennium Development Goal (MDG). Such success shows that the MDGs can be achieved. Yet progress is uneven between and within regions and countries, and often too slow to meet the 2015 deadline. Some countries may not reach all of the MDGs without renewed commitment and concerted action to address the major bottlenecks such as leakages of resources. Evidence shows that it is crucial to address the issues of resource leakages to accelerate progress on the MDGs.26 In many countries and regions, the much needed funds to achieve the goals have been stolen by corrupt elites. The Joint World Bank/ UNODC Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative established databanks which provide summaries and updates of large scale corruption cases including cases where members of the corrupt elite have been caught and prosecuted.27 No one disputes that these cases are only the tip of the iceberg.28 All the numbers of funds diverted from poor countries that could have been used to help achieve the MDGs are disputed. However, there is no dispute that huge amounts are involved.

The following estimates also suggest that fighting corruption facilitates development: 

Corruption is estimated to raise the household price of water by as much as 30% and the general price of goods by 20%;29



Malpractice of frontline providers such as absenteeism and low quality fertilizers are estimated to have even greater consequences on poverty reduction;30



Petty corruption, for example in health or education services, imposes disproportionate costs on the poor. It is estimated, for example, that 50% of allocated funds do not reach clinics and hospitals in Ghana.31

26

See UNDP Global Thematic Programme on Anti-Corruption for Development Effectiveness (PACDE), Protecting the Public Purse (UNDP, 2011).

27 The main StAR database on asset recovery cases is the Asset Recovery Watch which compiles, systematizes and publishes information about completed and active asset recovery efforts around the world. In so doing, StAR Asset Recovery Watch aims to help further active recovery cases and to foster policy and legal reforms in the area of international asset recovery (StAR, StAR Assest Recovery Watch: http://www1.worldbank.org/finance/star_site/star-watch.html). There is also a Grand Corruption Case Database, a compilation of large-scale corruption cases from 1980 to 2011, involving the misuse of at least one legal entity or legal arrangement (StAR, StAR Corruption Cases Search Center: http://star.worldbank.org/corruption-cases/assetrecovery/?f[0]=bundle%3Apuppet_masters).

28 See UNDP brochure: Protecting the Public Purse, supra note 26 29 Transparency International, Global Corruption Report: Corruption in the Water Sector (Cambridge University Press, 2008).

30 The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2010 (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/the World Bank, 2010).

31 | P a g e

Illicit financial flows (IFFs)32 also majorly divert money that could have been used for

US$1 trillion per year is lost in the developing world through illicit financial flows.

development projects. Illicit financial flows, between

1990-2008,

from

the

Least

Developed Countries (LCDs) “have increased from US$9.7 billion in 1990 to US$26.3 billion in 2008”.33 As cited before, resources lost by the developing world through illicit financial

This amount is more than enough to fund the resources required to meet the MDGs.

flows is estimated at US$1 trillion per year,34 which is more than enough to fund the approximated resources required to meet the MDGs. That is money which could have otherwise been used to give education to every child, to assist all mothers in giving birth safely, and to expand access to basic healthcare, better nutrition, clean water and sanitation for all. According to the estimates, US$30 billion is required globally to meet the MDG target for education for all; and an additional US$39 billion and US$25 billion per year are required to meet the income poverty goal and all the healthrelated goals, respectively.35 See table below:

•

•

Illicit financial flows

Resources required annually for the MDGs

(Global Financial Integrity estimates in USD)

UN estimates in USD

all

•

Education for all targets: USD 30bn

developing countries estimated annually at

•

HIV/Aids: USD 25bn

USD 1 trillion (10 times OECD-DAC ODA)

•

Water and sanitation: USD 18bn

•

Infrastructure

Illicit

capital

outflows

from

Estimates of the funds held offshore USD 11.5 trillion

•

investment

(Sub-

Saharan Africa): USD 55bn

Annual loss of tax revenue USD 250 bn 36

31

Transparency International, Global Corruption Report: Corruption and Health (Pluto Press, 2006).

N.B. Corruption and IFFs are different (even if overlapping) concepts.

33 UNDP, “Illicit Financial Flows from the Least Developed Countries: 1990–2008”, Discussion Paper: Poverty Reduction & Democratic Governance (UNDP, May 2011).

34 Baker, Raymond, ‘Introduction’, in Dev Kar and Sarah Freitas, Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries Over the Decade Ending 2009 (Global Financial Integrity, December 2011), i.

35 See UNDP brochure: Protecting the Public Purse, supra note 26; UNODC, “Special events”, Fourth session of the Conference of States Parties to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (October 2011).

36 World Bank, Fact Sheet: Infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa, available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/0,,contentMDK:21951811~pagePK:146 736~piPK:146830~theSitePK:258644,00.html 32

32 | P a g e

2.1.2. Anti-Corruption and MDGs Four major events have reinforced the importance of governance and anti-corruption measures for sustainable development:

1) The MDG Summit in 2010; 2) The global financial and economic crisis; 3) Major political events such as the “Arab Spring”; 4) Rio + 20 and the Post-2015 discussions Back in 2000, when Member States discussed and agreed on the Millennium Development Goals, they did not identify corruption as a bottleneck for achieving the millennium goals. Until the MDG Summit 2010, the discourse regarding the MDG achievements tended to focus on up-scaling the quantity and quality of financial resources into developing countries through, for example, increases in ODA and/or development of innovative finance schemes. Less attention was paid to the governance bottlenecks such as corruption, lack of and/or insufficient governance, or outright bad governance at local, national, and regional levels that impede the achievements of the MDGs. In 2010, among the 17 MDG country reports, almost all of them did not mention corruption and other governance related issues as major threats to development.

This was largely because the

Millennium Declaration 2000 acknowledges the importance of good governance and transparency in the financial, monetary, and trading systems in meeting the MDGs, yet it did not set targets to measure the progress made against the pledges of 189 member states for good governance, transparency, and accountability.37 Today´s discussions regarding the acceleration of progress

Today the importance of governance and anticorruption is recognized in discussions regarding the acceleration of progress to achieve the MDGs by 2015 and post-2015 global development agenda.

to achieve the MDGs by 2015 and post-2015 global development agenda recognize the importance of governance and anti-corruption as a lesson learned, and have included governance issues and anti-corruption measures as part of the strategy to accelerate the achievement of the MDGs.38 Success in meeting the MDGs by 2015 will therefore largely depend on the level of effectiveness,

efficiency,

and

equity

in

resource

37

UNGA, A/res/55/2 United Nations Millennium Declaration (September 2000).

UNGA, A/64/L.72 “Keeping the promise: United to achieve the Millennium Development Goals”, Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly (10 September 2010).

38

33 | P a g e

generation, allocation, and management on the one hand, and also the strength and effectiveness of anti-corruption capacities and institutions to prevent corruption and haemorrhages of resources.

The high-level Plenary Meeting of the UN General Assembly, held from 20 to 22 September 2010, adopted the MDG Summit Outcome Document titled “Keeping the promise: United to achieve the Millennium Development Goals”. In this document, States recognized corruption as a serious barrier for human development and for achieving the MDGs by 2015, and committed to the following actions in the fight against corruption:

“We stress that fighting corruption at both the national and international levels is a priority and that corruption is a serious barrier to effective resource mobilization and allocation and diverts resources away from activities that are vital for poverty eradication, the fight against hunger and sustainable development. We are determined to take urgent and decisive steps to continue to combat corruption in all of its manifestations, which requires strong institutions at all levels and urge all States that have not yet done so to consider ratifying or acceding to the United Nations Convention against Corruption and begin its implementation.”

It further states that “…Implementing measures to curtail illicit financial flows at all levels, enhancing disclosure practices, and promoting transparency in financial information. In this regard, strengthening national and multinational efforts to address this issue is crucial, including support to developing countries and technical assistance to enhance their capacities. Additional measures should be implemented to prevent the transfer abroad of stolen assets and to assist in the recovery and return of such assets, in particular to their countries of origin, consistent with the United Nations Convention against Corruption.”

United Nations General Assembly A/65/L.1 (17/09/10) “Keeping the promise: United to achieve the Millennium Development Goals”, Article 52 & 78 (j)

34 | P a g e

Also, in October 2011, the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption addressed this subject in its resolution 4/3, the Marrakech declaration on the prevention of corruption:

“Recalling paragraph 52 of the outcome document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on the Millennium Development Goals, in which the Assembly stressed that corruption diverts resources away from activities that are vital for poverty eradication, the fight against hunger and sustainable development, the Conference urged the States that had not yet ratified or acceded to the UNCAC to consider doing so and to begin implementing the Convention.”

Furthermore, Member States are “strongly encouraged, in addition to integrating anti-corruption policies in broader crime prevention and criminal justice reform strategies and public sector reform plans, in line with Conference resolution 3/2, also to undertake similar action with regard to development programmes, strategies and action plans.”

CAC/COSP 4 Resolutions and Decisions, Resolution 4/3 Marrakech declaration on the prevention of corruption

The Convention should serve as a framework for tailored anti-corruption safeguards in sectors which may present a greater vulnerability to corruption. Further recommendations were also given in regards to collaborating with the business community as well as civil society.

Recent events have also brought corruption issues into sharper focus. In many countries, political transitions have seen citizens reinforce their demand for more effective anti-corruption measures both by individual states as well as the international community as a whole. In particular, across parts of the Middle East and North Africa, the changes taking place have fostered the resurgence of governance and anti-corruption issues in the agenda of new governments. These developments have brought new momentum and urgency to the need to address corruption across all sectors of society, and the engagement of the United Nations in this process is crucial to the long-term sustainability of the desired reforms.

35 | P a g e

Finally, the “Rio+20” provided an opportunity to set the path for sustainable development in all its dimensions and include governance issues into the discussion. Rio+20 left us with clear commitments and greater momentum to put the post-2015 agenda on a sustainable foothold.

There is less disagreement concerning how unsustainable the current patterns of consumption and production have become. And, democratic norms, practices and institutions that underpin a responsible, judicious and sustainable use of earth’s finite resources are needed more than ever.

Promoting accountability, transparency and anti-corruption is not just the right thing to do, but it is what makes development effective. Decency and socio-economic costs are two converging values that result in anti-corruption strategies and underpin its moral exigency. Implementing the Rio+20 commitments and realizing ‘the future we want’ will, to a large degree, depend on the quality of governance and institutional arrangements in place to promote these values.

The post-2015 development framework must harness the strengths and overcome the weaknesses of the MDGs which lacked the multi-stakeholder engagement (civil society, academia, parliaments, business sector) as well as developing governance indicators to ensure transparency and accountability in the development agenda.

The international community should build on the MDGs but future goals must reach beyond traditional development thinking. The post-2015 development agenda should be aligned with international human rights and anti-corruption standards and principles, including existing transparency and accountability mechanisms at sub-national, regional and global levels. Many governance variables are now measurable and can be included in the new agenda.

2.1.3 Sectoral Approach to Corruption The preceding sections have looked at cross-cutting challenges posed by corruption. Increasingly, it has been recognized that the manifestations of corruption have the most visible impact at a sectoral level. Therefore it is essential to look at corruption from a sectoral perspective, such as strengthening anti-corruption measures in the health, education and water sectors.

A sectoral approach has various advantages: 1. Focusing on a particular sector helps inform more concrete approaches to the problem of corruption, and it helps to target specific sectors where MDGs are lagging behind. The sectoral approach recognizes the importance of principles of proper management of public

36 | P a g e

affairs and public property, fairness, responsibility, and equality before the law and the need to safeguard integrity and foster a culture of rejection of corruption.

2. The sectoral approach is useful to find entry points for programming interventions even in a situation where there is no political will at the macro level.

However, the sectoral approach also poses some challenges. Strengthening integrity, transparency and accountability in individual sectors may prove difficult to sustain in the long run if corruption is not addressed in a comprehensive fashion eventually addressing all components of the public and private sector. Thus, there is a need to integrate sectoral anti-corruption efforts into a broader national anti-corruption architecture.

Corruption in:39 - The Health Sector The Health Sector is plagued by both high level and petty corruption. High level corruption typically evolves during construction of hospitals, the procurement of goods and equipment, service contracts and during the health service staffing process. Another example is accepting counterfeit medicines while paying for genuine medicines. This later abuse kills people.40 At a petty level, medical staff may ask for bribes to provide services or medicines and even for basic free-of-charge services.

So prominent is the issue of high level corruption in the health sector that the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria has been forced to create its own independent investigative unit.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) is also committed to reduce corruption in the medicines chain through its Good Governance for Medicines (GGM) programme, launched in 2004.41 The GGM programme provides support for countries to curb corruption, through a three-step process to assess their vulnerabilities to corruption, and through developing and implementing specific programmes that maintain efficient health-care systems by making sure they are not undermined by corruption.42

These initiatives are examples of how corruption in the health sector can be

addressed.

39

It is worth noting that some of these examples relate directly to abuse of money specifically provided by development partners to enable work towards achieving to MDGs. 40 For example, Zambia, in 2004, convicted a senior official for procuring expired and counterfeit medicines.

41 See Baghdadi-Sabeti, Guitelle & Serhan, Fatima, “WHO Good Governance for Medicines programme: an innovative approach to prevent corruption in the pharmaceutical sector - Compilation of country case studies and best practices”, World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, No 25.

42 WHO, “Medicines: corruption and pharmaceuticals”, Fact sheet N°335 (December 2009).

37 | P a g e

43

- Roads and Infrastructure Projects The corruption in this sector generally involves collusion between companies and officials or collusion between companies bidding for contracts. The impact is generally either the quality of deliver being below specification or the price being inflated. Proof that this type of corruption is common is seen in the growing number of transnational bribery cases being prosecuted. High profile cases in this area include the Lahmeyer case and Lesotho Water Highland Case.44

43

WHO, Figure: Key steps of the medicine supply chain and unethical practices in the pharmaceutical sector, available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/images/medicines_20091209.gif 44 The World Bank, World Bank Sanctions Lahmeyer International for Corrupt Activities in Bank-Financed Projects, available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21116129~pagePK:64257043~piPK:4373 76~theSitePK:4607,00.html; StAR, Lesotho Highlands Water Project (Canada), available at: http://star.worldbank.org/corruption-cases/node/18540

38 | P a g e

- Education In the education sector, corruption takes place in the procurement of material and labour for school construction and in the handling of school textbooks, desks, blackboards, and other supplies. It also occurs in contracts for cleaning services and meals. For example, McMillan and 2 subsidiaries of Oxford University Press have been sanctioned by the World Bank in 2011 and 2012 respectively in cases involving bribery to obtain World Bank Contracts to supply text books to Eastern African Countries; in late 2012, the South African Press was flooded with allegations of procurement abuses leading to text books not being available in schools in Limpopo Province. Other common abuses in the education sector include the sale of exam papers by teachers for money, goods or in extreme cases sex. Also seen are teachers’ demands for bribes to admit a child to school or even to teach a lesson.

- The Environment/Climate It is calculated that illegal deforestation in Indonesia occurs at a rate of 4-7 football pitches per minute.45 This illegal deforestation is fuelled by, inter alia, bribery to obtain licences, bribery to turn a blind eye to where trees are being felled, bribes to inspectors. The same issues around corruption effect all types of natural resources, wildlife products, minerals and rare plants.

The success of climate change adaptation and mitigation

Bribes play a role in turning a blind eye to illegal deforestation…

In Indonesia, illegal deforestation occurs at a rate of 4-7 football pitches per minute.

finances depends on whether these resources are utilized in transparent, efficient and judicious manner. There are immense corruption risks in these financing mechanisms, including REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries). It has been estimated that a 5 % reduction in illegal deforestation in Indonesia could yield REDD + payments of US $ 765 million per annum.46 A number of recent studies by UNDP and other partners

have argued for addressing corruption rather as a broader governance issue which requires a holistic approach. For instance, effective enforcement or control of deforestation depends not only on the 45

UNODC, “Corruption, Environment and the United Nations Convention against Corruption”, Papers from Impact of corruption on the environment and the United Nations Convention against Corruption as a tool to address it, Fourth Conference of States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, Marrakesh, Morocco, 26 October 2011 (UNODC, February 2012) 46 Barr, Rhona F., Fankhauser, Samuel & Hamilton, Kirk, The allocation of adaptation funding (Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London UK, 2010).

39 | P a g e

ability of the forestry agency to detect and identify illegal logging, but also on the ability of law enforcement bodies to take appropriate actions. Similarly, any gap in the working arrangement between forest agencies and revenue collection authorities could allow corruption to take place.

Broadening the debate to look at the way different institutions are co-ordinated could go a long way in ensuring effective forest protection and conservation.47

- The Justice and Security sector While corruption in the justice system has always been a concern, only recently has the implications for the rule of law been fully acknowledged. Respect for and enjoyment of all rights ultimately depend upon the proper administration of justice. Corruption within the judiciary,

Any corruption in the police service or justice system threatens independence, impartiality and fairness.

prosecution service and police undermines the proper and

↓

effective functioning of these institutions, and inhibits citizens’ access to justice. It threatens the independence, impartiality and fairness of the justice system. This ultimately undermines the rule of law which is a key prerequisite for economic growth and the eradication of

This undermines the rule of law – a key prerequisite for economic growth and the eradication of poverty.

poverty. Effective protection of human rights and human security require a well-functioning justice system, with integrity, that is capable of enforcing the law and administering justice in an equitable, efficient and predictable manner.

- The Economic Sector The economic sector can suffer from corruption but can also be a player in corruption crimes.

Examples include corruption in the issuance of licences for businesses and professions, in the control of standards and regulations, and access to tenders. Corruption can also occur within the private sector in private to private business. Companies are encouraged to develop codes of conduct and compliance systems to mitigate the risk of corruption. Anti-corruption initiatives can, for instance, be carried out in specific industry sectors.

- Financial and International aid: Local authorities take advantage of emergency relief programs to enrich themselves when aid agencies relax normal procedures under pressure to move and spend quickly. Post-conflict aid also 47

UNDP, Staying on Track : Tackling Corruption Risks in Climate Change (UNDP, 2010).

40 | P a g e

leads to corruption when a temporary peace is purchased at the expense of allowing antagonistic forces to share aid. This means that corrupt officials establish themselves in the post-conflict political system.48 Mainstreaming anti-corruption is a critical step to ensure that development assistance actually serves its purpose to improve community livelihoods and at the same time help governments to sustain benefits of projects through a proper administration of resources.

These examples above involving international aid funds demonstrate just some of the ways internal funds - ultimately tax-payers money - intended to support social development abroad can be misused and fail to achieve its purpose. International development staff must increasingly be attentive to scenarios such as these. They need to evaluate what can be done to prevent or mitigate these circumstances in aid assistance projects and also reflect on how to ensure that funding serves best its purpose; for example, ways that communities actually benefit and national governments properly administrate resources to sustain those benefits.

Examples of corrupt activities in financial/international aid: 

Double charge of expenses: instances have been identified where donor funds cover workshop materials and catering services but national officials still manoeuvre to charge from the State Budget for the same items. To prevent situations like this, donors have increased their public reporting of funding indicating the activities of budget support or even inserting the donor funds in the national budgets which are available for Parliamentarian oversight;



Other instances involve project assets such as cars, computers or office furniture that have been donated to support national governments but that unfortunately resulted in registrations or private use of public officials rather than the intended use for public service;



Conflict of interests evidenced during hiring of project personnel, This example also exemplifies a corrupt act that could have been avoided through a sound preventative regulatory framework;



Resorting to a single source (direct) procurement of goods or services on the argument of emergency to note that procured goods are stored for months without serving the intending beneficiary.

48

See Kramer, W. Michael, “Corruption and Fraud in International Aid projects”, U4 Brief, n.4 (U4, 2007).

41 | P a g e

- Post-conflict and Recovery processes: While there has been a lot of discussion on how corruption impacts fragile states and post-conflict environments, the global discourse on the strategies to rebuild post-conflict and recovery countries tends to centre more on establishing peace and security by maintaining the political balance among different factions of the society, and less on strengthening anti-corruption institutions, systems and processes. However in reality, such as in Afghanistan and other post-conflict countries, corruption has been recognized as one of the major challenges for post-conflict reconstruction and recovery as it can easily have destabilizing effects. Thus, there is a growing consensus that anti-corruption systems and measures have to be integrated in reconstruction and recovery programs from the very beginning rather than focusing only on peace and security.49

- Corruption and gender: Corruption has a negative impact on women’s empowerment and participation.

There are

significant ways in which the effects of corruption are particularly harsh on women. Because women often face social, cultural, political and institutional discrimination, they are at risk of facing even more repression in a corruption-ridden society. On the other hand, empowered women who have an opportunity for participation in decision-making are able to more actively contribute to fight against corruption.

Although, the links between corruption and gender equality have been acknowledged, the challenge is that there are not enough tools, methodologies, experiences, or case studies informing the development community on how to build synergies and how to fight corruption taking into account the gender equality aspect. Understanding and producing evidence on how women across multiple sectors and circumstances experience corruption on a day-to-day basis is crucial to understanding and addressing poverty and governance overall.

49

UNDP, Fighting Corruption in Post Conflict and Recovery Situations: Learning from the Past (UNDP, 2010).

42 | P a g e

2.2 Frequently asked questions Q: Are there any positive impacts from corruption?

Some literature cites some considered positive impacts of corruption, such as a reduction in transaction costs.50 The proponents of ‘efficient corruption’ claim that bribery may allow firms to get things done in an economy plagued by bureaucratic hold-ups and bad rigid laws. However in the long-term, corruption erodes the system and institutions, and reduces the overall productivity by allocating licenses and government contracts to inefficient firms which pay bribes.

For example, Collier and Hoeffler estimate that in Italy, a modest reduction in corruption would increase growth by 0.3 percentage even with unchanged investment.51 If laws and regulations are unnecessarily burdensome or ineffective, the answer lies in improving the system and not in allowing the economy to become dependent on non-transparent favours and payments that are inconsistent with the transparency requirements of a modern society.

Q: How do we really know what the effects of corruption are beyond anecdotal evidence?

The simple way to know the direct effects of money lost through corruption is to see how the lost money could have made a difference. For example, the estimated amount of money lost due to corruption is in the hundreds of billions of dollars which could otherwise have been used to help children go to school, mothers give birth safely, and greater access to basic healthcare, better nutrition, and clean water and sanitation for all. Furthermore, corruption can erode public trust in the government which may lead to lower voter turn-out, weakening of public engagement in democratic processes or, in extreme cases, violent protests and unrest.

Impact can also be measured through the victimization survey that can be conducted with a random sample of the population asking about their experiences with corruption (both in terms of incidence and frequency). If the poor and vulnerable section of the population pays more bribes for basic public services such as education, health and water, then we can say with confidence and evidence that corruption impacts the poor and marginalized population disproportionately.

Q: Corruption is prevalent in many fast growing economies At what stage does corruption reverse? Is there a stage, when corruption is perceived as acceptable or harmful?

50

Svensson, Jakob, “Eight Questions about Corruption”, Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol. 19:3 (Summer 2005), pp. 19-42.

51 Collier, Paul & Hoeffler, Anke “The Economic Costs of Corruption in Infrastructure”, The Global Corruption Report 2005 (TI, 2005), pp.12-19.

43 | P a g e

When countries are growing economically, the focus is on increasing the level and quality of public services and creating opportunities for jobs, and therefore fighting corruption may not be perceived among the top priorities. However, the history of development also suggests that the demand for governance reforms, including anti-corruption reforms and therefore creating greater transparency and accountability, increases as nations prosper economically and is essential to sustainability of growth.

There is nothing such as the acceptable level of corruption at least from the perspective of global normative values and standards, which demand zero tolerance to corruption. As mentioned in the UNCAC, corruption is universally considered as an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. Thus, even for those countries which have managed to grow with a relatively high prevalence of corruption, the economies of these countries would have grown even more if there had been less corruption.

For information on how human rights principles can help in fighting corruption, see Attachment 2.

44 | P a g e

List of References Primary Sources: Annan, Kofi, Secretary-General Statement On The Adoption By The General Assembly Of The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (New York, 31 October 2003), available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/background/secretary-general-speech.html CAC/COSP 4 Resolutions and Decisions, Resolution 4/3 Marrakech declaration on the prevention of corruption, available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/CAC-COSP-session4resolutions.html Ki-Moon, Ban, (SG/SM/11161) Secretary-General, At Launch of ‘Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative’, Says Measure is Major Step Forward in Collective Efforts to Address Corruption (United Nations Department of Public Information, 17 September 2007), available at: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/sgsm11161.doc.htm UNCJIN, (DPI/2088/BC) Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (United Nations Department of Public Information, February 2000), available at: http://www.un.org/events/10thcongress/2088b.htm UNGA, A/res/55/2 United Nations Millennium Declaration (September 2000), available at: http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm UNGA, A/64/L.72 “Keeping the promise: United to achieve the Millennium Development Goals”, Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly (10 September 2010), available at: http://www.un.org/en/mdg/summit2010/pdf/Draft%20outcome%20document.pdf UNODC, “Special events”, Fourth session of the Conference of States Parties to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (October 2011), available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/CAC-COSP-session4-specialevents.html United Nations General Assembly A/65/L.1 (17/09/10) Keeping the promise: United to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, Article 52 & 78 (j), available at: http://www.un.org/en/mdg/summit2010/pdf/mdg%20outcome%20document.pdf

45 | P a g e

Secondary Sources: Act Against Corruption Today, Corruption and Development, available at: http://www.actagainstcorruption.org/documents/actagainstcorruption/print/materials2012 /corr12_fs_DEVELOPMENT_en.pdf al-Nashif, Nada & Tzannatos, Zafiris, “Only Fair”, Finance and Development , Vol. 50, No. 1 (March 2013), available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2013/03/nashif.htm Baker, Raymond, ‘Introduction’, in Dev Kar and Sarah Freitas, Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries Over the Decade Ending 2009 (Global Financial Integrity, December 2011),i, available at: http://www.gfintegrity.org/storage/gfip/documents/reports/IFFDec2011/illicit_financial_flow s_from_developing_countries_over_the_decade_ending_2009.pdf Bardhan, Pranab “Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues,” Journal of Economic Literature (35. no.3, September 1997): 1320-46, available at: http://www.relooney.info/3040_517.pdf Barr, Rhona F., Fankhauser, Samuel & Hamilton, Kirk, The allocation of adaptation funding (Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London UK, 2010), available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/30161/ Collier, Paul and Hoeffler, Anke “The Economic Costs of Corruption in Infrastructure”, The Global Corruption Report 2005 (TI, 2005) pp.12-19, available at: http://archive.transparency.org/publications/gcr/gcr_2005 StAR, StAR Corruption Cases Search Center, http://star.worldbank.org/corruptioncases/assetrecovery/?f[0]=bundle%3Apuppet_masters ------ StAR Assest Recovery Watch, http://www1.worldbank.org/finance/star_site/star-watch.html Svensson, Jakob, “Eight Questions about Corruption”, Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol. 19:3, pp.

19-42 (Summer 2005), available at: http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/anticorrupt/Svensson%20Eight%20Questions%20A bout%20Corruption%20(JEP%20Vol%2019,%20No%203%202005).pdf StAR, Lesotho Highlands Water Project (Canada), available at: http://star.worldbank.org/corruptioncases/node/18540

46 | P a g e

The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2010 (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/the World Bank, 2010), available at: http://data.worldbank.org/datacatalog/world-development-indicators/wdi-2010 ------- World Bank Sanctions Lahmeyer International for Corrupt Activities in Bank-Financed Projects, available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21116129~pagePK:6425 7043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html ------ Fact Sheet: Infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa, available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/0,,contentMDK:21951 811~pagePK:146736~piPK:146830~theSitePK:258644,00.html UNDP, Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Interventions for Poverty Reduction, Realization of the MDGs and Promoting Sustainable Development (December 2008), available at: http://www.unrol.org/files/2%20Primer%20on%20Corruption%20and%20Development_2008 .pdf ------- Staying on Track : Tackling Corruption Risks in Climate Change (UNDP, 2010), available at: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environmentenergy/climate_change/mitigation/staying_on_tracktacklingcorruptionrisksinclimatechange0/ ------- Fighting Corruption in Post Conflict and Recovery Situations: Learning from the Past (UNDP, 2010), available at: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democraticgovernance/anti-corruption/fighting-corruption-in-post-conflict---recovery-situations.html UNDP Global Thematic Programme on Anti-Corruption for Development Effectiveness (PACDE), Protecting the Public Purse (UNDP, 2011), available at: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-governance/anticorruption/protecting-the-public-purse-anti-corruption-for-mdgs/ UNODCCP (CICP-17) “Empowering the Victims of Corruption through Social Control Mechanisms�, Global Programme Against Corruption: Research and Scientific Series (Prague, October 2001), available at: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/gpacpublications/cicp17.pdf ------- Handbook on Good Practices for Promoting Responsible and Professional Reporting on Corruption in the Media (forthcoming) ------- Promoting UNCAC as a framework to mainstream anti-corruption safeguards related to the organization of major public events (forthcoming)

47 | P a g e

Private Sector UNCITRAL, Model Law on Public Procurement (2011), available at: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/procurement_infrastructure/2011Model.h tml UNIDO & UNODC, Fighting Corruption: Corruption Prevention to Foster SME Development, Providing anti-corruption assistance to small businesses in the developing world Volume I (UNIDO & UNODC, 2007), and Volume II (UNIDO & UNODC, 2012) available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/Publications/2012/UNIDOUNODC_Publication_on_Small_Business_Development_and_Corruption_Vol1.pdf http://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/Publications/2012/Corruption_prevention_to_ foster_small_and_medium_size_enterprise_development_Vol_2.pdf UNODC-UN Global Compact, Anti-corruption e-learning tool for the private sector, available at: http://thefightagainstcorruption.unodc.org

Criminal Justice Integrity UNODC, United Nations Handbook on Practical Anti-Corruption Measures for Prosecutors and Investigators (September 2004), available at: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/corruption/Handbook.pdf ------ “Assessment of the Integrity and Capacity of the Justice System in Three Nigerian States”, Technical Assessment Report (UN, January 2006), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/publications_nigeria_assessment.pdf ------ “Assessment of Justice Sector Integrity and Capacity in two Indonesian Provinces”, Technical Assessment Report, (UN, March 2006), available at: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/corruption/publications_indonesia_e_assessment.pdf ------ Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (UNODC, Sept 2007), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/publications_unodc_commentary-e.pdf ------ Resource Guide on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Capacity (UN, 2011a), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/Publications/ResourceGuideonStrengthe ningJudicialIntegrityandCapacity/11-85709_ebook.pdf ------ “Handbook on police accountability, oversight and integrity”, Criminal Justice Handbook Series (UN, 2011b), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prisonreform/crimeprevention/PoliceAccountability_Oversight_and_Integrity_10-57991_Ebook.pdf 48 | P a g e

UNODCCP (CICP-12) “An Economic and Jurimetric Analysis of Official Corruption in the Courts”, Global Programme Against Corruption: Research and Scientific Series (May 2011), available at: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/gpacpublications/cicp12.pdf -------- (CICP-13) “Investigating the Links Between Access to Justice and Governance Factors”, Global Programme Against Corruption: Research and Scientific Series (May 2011), available at: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/gpacpublications/cicp13.pdf

Environment Act Against Corruption Today, Corruption and Environment, available at: http://www.actagainstcorruption.org/documents/actagainstcorruption/print/materials2012/c orr12_fs_ENVIRONMENT_en.pdf Transparency International, Global Corruption Report: Climate Change (Earthscan, 2011), available at: http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/global_corruption_report_climate_change UNODC, “Corruption, Environment and the United Nations Convention against Corruption”, Papers from Impact of corruption on the environment and the United Nations Convention against Corruption as a tool to address it, Fourth Conference of States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, Marrakesh, Morocco, 26 October 2011 (UNODC, February 2012), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/southeastasiaandpacific/indonesia/publication/Corruption _Environment_and_the_UNCAC.pdf

Health Azfar, Omar & Tugrul Gurgur, “Does corruption affect health outcomes in the Philippines?”, Economics of Governance, Volume 9: 3 (July 2008), pp 197-244 Baghdadi-Sabeti, Guitelle & Serhan, Fatima, “WHO Good Governance for Medicines programme: an innovative approach to prevent corruption in the pharmaceutical sector - Compilation of country case studies and best practices”, World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, N.25, available at: http://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/25GGM.pdf DFID, How to Note: Addressing Corruption in the Health Sector (November 2010), available at: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/How-to-Note-corruption-health.pdf

49 | P a g e

Transparency International, Global Corruption Report: Corruption and Health (Pluto Press, 2006), available at: http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/global_corruption_report_2006_corruption_an d_health WHO, “Medicines: corruption and pharmaceuticals”, Fact sheet N°335 (December 2009), available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs335/en/index.html ------ Figure: Key steps of the medicine supply chain and unethical practices in the pharmaceutical sector, available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/images/medicines_20091209.gif Video: Anti-corruption in the health sector. Experience in Colombia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nse2H7US6ps

Gender UNDP, Seeing Beyond the State: Grassroots Women’s Perspectives on Corruption and AntiCorruption (UNDP, New York, 2012), available at: http://huairou.org/sites/default/files/Grassroots%20women%20and%20anti-corruption.pdf ------- UNDPAntiCorruption, Gender & Corruption Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEBErfkkxw

Aid Transparency International, Making Aid-Effective, An Anti-Corruption Agenda, Policy Position #06/2011 (2011), available at: http://archive.transparency.org/publications/publications/policy_positions/pp6_making_aid_ effective_16_nov_2011 Kramer, W. Michael, “Corruption and Fraud in International Aid Projects”, U4 Brief, n.4 (U4, 2007), available at: http://www.u4.no/publications/corruption-and-fraud-in-international-aidprojects/

Water Transparency International, Global Corruption Report: Corruption in the Water Sector (Cambridge University Press, 2008), available at: http://archive.transparency.org/publications/gcr/gcr_2008#open 50 | P a g e

3. Anti-corruption in the national development context Introduction This session aims at creating a shared understanding of the national development priorities and how well these priorities address corruption challenges in the country.

Session Objectives By the end of this session participants will: 1. have been updated about the general trends in the development and (anti)corruption situation of the country; 2. Participants have identified the key documents and instruments that will inform their application of anti-corruption measures at country level.

Trainer’s note This session is optional, depending on the availability of a resource person from the UNCT or a UN agency and/or country resource person(s) from government or civil society. They should prepare and deliver the material.

The session will provide an overview of major national development priorities and strategies, from the National Plan or PRS, or other key reports. Depending on the country situation and interests of the UNCT, the presentation could focus on a particular sector or theme.

See Facilitation guide.

51 | P a g e

4. Anti-corruption and the National, Regional and International Normative Frameworks Introduction This session focuses on the norms and standards in anti-corruption at different levels – national, regional and international. It will also provide an overview of the content of UNCAC and its different chapters.

This session will therefore ask:

What are the available norms and standards of anti-corruption?

Session Objectives By the end of this session participants will: 1. Identify national, regional and international frameworks relevant for anti-corruption; 2. Recognize the sources of anti-corruption norms and standards at different levels which are relevant to their country; 3. Understand the content of UNCAC and its different chapters. They will become familiar with the basic concept of the review mechanism and self-assessment, and know where to find further information in regard to these;

Trainer’s note This session is meant to give participants a brief introduction and overview of norms and standards in anti-corruption and the different levels (national, regional, international). It is not yet focusing on the link between the documents and entry points for technical assistance (TA) and how UNCAC can be used concretely in connection with UNDAFs. Although such entry points and opportunities can already be highlighted during this session, this will be elaborated in more detail in Session 5 (“Value of UNAC for UN programming”).

52 | P a g e

The trainer should prepare her/himself for this session depending on the country/region in which the training will take place. Not all regional instruments listed in the resource toolkit need to be presented, but at least the ones relevant for the country the training is taking place in.

More information regarding legislation can be found via the anti-corruption portal TRACK (Tools and Resources for Anti-Corruption Knowledge).52 TRACK is a learning, information and practice sharing portal, and also features the Legal Library on the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). The Legal Library is a unique gateway to an electronic database of legislation and jurisprudence relevant to UNCAC from over 175 States systematized and clustered in accordance with the requirements of the different articles of the Convention.53 National Anti-Corruption Policies and Strategies and/or National Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS) making reference to anti-corruption aspects are other important documents at the national level which shall be considered. They might comprise additional information about laws and legal reforms and also about implementation and “de facto� aspects, such as number of irregularities in auditor reports, number of cases, conviction rates etc. Nevertheless, those documents do not define norms and standards! Details and how to use them for UNDAF and programming will be discussed later.

More information on country level programmes, strategies and documents on anti-corruption is available through the UNDP-led global anti-corruption portal.54

52

UNODC, TRACK Portal (Tools and Resources for Anti-Corruption Knowledge), available at: http://www.track.unodc.org/Pages/home.aspx 53 UNODC, TRACK Portal (Tools and Resources for Anti-Corruption Knowledge): The Legal Library: http://www.track.unodc.org/LegalLibrary/Pages/Home.aspx 54 http://www.anti-corruption.org/default.aspx

53 | P a g e

Key Messages

1. It is essential to conduct a comprehensive review of the legal

instruments on anti-corruption. Tools exist to help UN staff do so; 2. Norms are in place related to the prevention, detection, investigation

and sanctioning of acts of corruption. Most regional Conventions were created prior to UNCAC. They do not usually cover as much ground on corrupt practices, their language is shorter in regards to prevention and combating corruption, and most of them do not include provisions dealing with the specific challenge of recovering the proceeds of corruption at the international level; 3. UNCAC is the only all-inclusive legally binding corruption instrument

of international law; 4. UNCAC provides solutions to challenges posed by corruption and can

form the basis for UN programming and technical assistance; 5. UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism provides an opportunity

for intervention and technical assistance programming.

4.1 Laws & Regulations at National level First and foremost, the existing rules and regulations at national level are decisive. National legislation will provide information regarding the current “de jure” situation in a country, such as which acts of corruption are criminalised and how investigation and law enforcement are regulated.

Respective norms are commonly to be found in the Criminal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and/or in more specific laws, for example on Corruption and Money Laundering, access to information legislation, procurement laws, budget laws; civil service regulations, or institution-specific codes of conduct.

Aside from such anti-corruption laws, other national legislations which are of relevance for anticorruption include: 

norms and regulations for public sector employment;

54 | P a g e



procurement and auditing standards;



public finances



candidature and election to public office;



prevention of conflicts of interest;



the establishment of anti-corruption bodies and auditing authorities;



access to information rights;



laws;



codes of conduct for public officials (either general or specialised for certain sectors);



procedural regulations in the public.

These laws and regulations are also pertinent for the private sector.

In order to find out strengths and weaknesses of the overall institutional arrangement, one should look at all these laws and regulations to get a comprehensive view of anti-corruption in a country.

Many countries have by now specialised legislation in the area of anti-corruption. The UNODC Legal library on the TRACK portal is one possibility to research for relevant legislation according to subject.55 New legal instruments dealing with the topic of anti-corruption were developed in the late 1990s, that were more specific towards anti-corruption measures for prevention and investigation and also more comprehensive in terms of current corrupt practices, such as money laundering or bribery of foreign public officials. However, new anti-corruption frameworks have been issued that challenge the harmonization and consistency of these criminal codes and other legal instruments. Therefore, at the national level, having a comprehensive review of legal instruments on anti-corruption becomes essential in order to synchronize them, particularly on custodial and fiduciary sanctions and penalties of corrupt behaviours.

55

UNODC, TRACK Portal (Tools and Resources for Anti-Corruption Knowledge): The Legal Library: http://www.track.unodc.org/Pages/home.aspx

55 | P a g e

Examples of Anti-Corruption National Laws: Singapore’s Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA): Enacted in 1960, it defines several offences, establishes the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau charged with investigating corruption within the public sector and makes provisions for investigation and prosecution of corruption offences. It also combines preventive measures with strict sanctions and penalties.

Hong Kong’s Prevention Of Bribery Ordinance 1970 (POBO): It is a comprehensive piece of legislation that covers all types of bribery both in the public and the private sectors. It defines several corruption related offences including possession by a public servant of unexplained property.

South Africa´s Prevention and Combating of Corruption ACT (2004): Criminalizes corruption in the public and private sector and it is supported by other complementary legislative instruments such as the Public Finance Management Act, the Promotion of Access to Information Act and the Protected Disclosures Act. Chêne, Marie, “International good practice in Anticorruption Legislation”, U4 Expert Answer n.233 (U4 Anticorruption Resource Centre, 24 February 2010

4.2 Regional level The international and regional conventions and treaties on anti-corruption are of different scope (regionally and thematically). They establish international frameworks of agreed rules and standards for countering corruption, in addition to serving as an expression of high-level political commitment.

Their objective is to produce better policies, standards and practices in and among Member States in the prevention, detection, investigation, and sanctioning of acts of corruption. These international and regional anti-corruption treaties encompass obligatory standards to which States Parties need to adhere to and which need to be implemented into national law56 and/or optional regulations and recommendations. Furthermore international codes of conduct were developed in order to prevent corruption and assure a common minimum standard.

56

This is when comparative analysis is necessary to see if national legislation and practice is fulfilling the required standards.

56 | P a g e

The first steps towards the development of an international legal anti-corruption regime were made through such regional conventions (see 4.2.1 below). The topic of corruption and anti-corruption emerged gradually during the 1980s and 1990s. As most regional conventions were created prior to UNCAC, they were not inspired by the global discussion that took place during the UNCAC negotiations in 2002-2003. They generally do not cover as much ground in terms of criminalising corruption offences, their provisions dedicated to prevention are significantly less detailed and comprehensive, and they do not include a comparably extensive chapter on international cooperation, neither do they address the issue of the international recovery of the proceeds of corruption.

In addition, countries´ responses to regional or global frameworks, especially from the developing and transitional countries, have been conditioned to the economic and political incentives they found by ratifying them; for example, the incentive of being able to join the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the access to resources from the Millennium Challenge Corporation and access to the European Commission.

Trainer’s note Partner countries in which UNDAFs are being prepared might have ratified some of those instruments. They should be known and can be used as an entry point for discussion as well as for reference in regards to norms and standards.

4.2.1 Regional Conventions:57 Inter-American Convention against Corruption (IACAC): The first international convention in the anti-corruption field was the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (IACAC) of the Organization of American States (OAS), which was adopted on 29 March 1996 and came into force on 6 March 1997.58 It obliges States Parties to implement a series of measures on corruption prevention, criminalization, international cooperation for extraditions and investigations.

57 58

See Annex for a Comparison of the UN Convention Against Corruption with other Multilateral Conventions.

OAS, Inter-American Convention against Corruption (IACAC) (29 March 1996).

57 | P a g e

By 2001, an inter-governmental Mechanism for Follow-Up on the Implementation of the InterAmerican Convention against Corruption (MESICIC) was adopted (peer-review approach).59 Evaluations by experts of the States Parties (Committee of Experts) look into a selection of articles, addressing the implementation of recommendations of previous reports and they also receive responses and documents from civil society.60

European Union’s norms and standards on anti-corruption: The following are the norms and standards adopted by the European Union: 

Convention on the Fight against Corruption involving Officials of the European Communities or Officials of Member States of the European Union (1997);61



Council of the European Union framework decision on combating corruption in the private sector (2003);62



Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (entered into force on 17 October 2002)63 & First Protocol and Second Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests;64 the First and Second Protocols came into force on 17 October 2007 and 19 May 2009, respectively.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)’s convention : The OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions65 and the initial Revised Recommendation of the Council of the OECD on Combating 59

OAS: Department of Legal Cooperation, What is the MESICIC?: http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/mesicic_intro_en.htm 60 For more information, see OAS: Department of Legal Cooperation, Anti-Corruption Portals of the Americas, available at: http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/FightCur.html 61 European Union, 41997A0625(01), ”Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 (2) (c) of the Treaty on European Union on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union”, Official Journal C 195 (25/06/1997), pp. 0002 – 0011.

62 European Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on “Combating corruption in the private sector”, Official Journal L 192 (31/07/2003), pp. 0054 – 0056.

63 European Council Act of 26 July 1995, “Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests”, Official Journal C 316, (27.11.1995).

64 European Council Act of 27 September 1996, “Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests”, Official Journal C 313 ( 23.10.1996); European Council Act of 19 June 1997, “Second Protocol of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests”, Official Journal C 221 (19.7.1997).

65 OECD, Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions (CIME), DAFFE/IME/BR(97)20 Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Officials in International Business Transactions and Related Documents (Paris: OECD Publishing, 10/04/1998).

58 | P a g e

Bribery in International Business Transactions were adopted in 1997 and entered into force on 15 February 1999.66 This OECD Convention seeks to criminalize the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions and provides a framework for OECD countries and some additional States Parties to the OECD convention. A focus is on the supply side of bribery and therefore on a group of countries that account for the majority of global exports and foreign investment. The States parties to the Convention (38 including Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Mexico and the United States) commit not only to penalizing foreign bribery but also to cooperate with other countries in matters of mutual legal assistance and extradition. States parties also commit to establishing preventive mechanisms such as accounting and auditing guidelines for business.

Countries’ implementation and enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and the Revised Recommendations is monitored by the OECD Working Group on Bribery composed of representatives of all signatory states – a peer-review monitoring system.67 Although not a regional convention, there is also the ADB-OECD Anti-Corruption Action Plan for the Asia-Pacific Region which supports the fight against corruption in this region.68 It consists of three pillars of action: 1.

the first pillar is the development of effective and transparent systems for public service;

2.

the second pillar strengthens anti-bribery actions and promotes integrity in business operations;

3.

the third pillar supports active public involvement.

This initiative adopted “Strategic Principles and Future Activities of the ADB/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative”,69 which effectively replaced the action plan in 2011 to bring their activities in line with implementation of the UNCAC.

Council of Europe - Conventions on Corruption:70

66

See entry into force and status of ratification – OECD, Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions: Ratification Status as of 20 November 2012.

More recent recommendations have also been made, see OECD, Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Officials in International Business Transactions and Related Documents (OECD Publishing, 2011).

67 OECD, Anti-Bribery Convention: OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions, available at: http://www.oecd.org/investment/anti-bribery/antibriberyconvention/oecdworkinggrouponbriberyininternationalbusinesstransactions.htm 68 OECD & ADB, ADB/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific: Combating Corruption In the New Millennium (OECD Publishing, 2001).

69 OECD & ADB, “Strategic Principles and Future Activities of the Initiative”, ADB/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific (OECD, 2010).

59 | P a g e



The Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption (1999) focuses on the definition of common international rules in the field of civil law and corruption.71 This includes effective remedies for persons who have suffered damage as a result of corruption and the protection of whistle-blowers;



The Council of Europe - Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (1999) deals with coordinated criminalization of a large number of offences and effective sanctions;72



The Agreement Establishing the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) in 1999 aims to improve its Member States’ capacities in the fight against corruption and at monitoring States’ compliance with the Council of Europe’s anti-corruption standards;73



Monitoring is done through ad hoc teams of experts which evaluate the undertakings of Member States. The evaluation rounds cover different topics such as specific provisions of the multi-disciplinary Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight against Corruption.74 The level of implementation of recommendations is assessed at a later stage in the so-called compliance procedure.

The African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (adopted in 2003):75 The African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption adopted in 2003 covers a wide range of criminal offences. It covers both public sector and private sector corruption and is unique in containing mandatory provisions with respect to private-to-private corruption. There is also a noteworthy article in the Convention that seeks to ban the use of funds acquired through illicit and corrupt practices to finance political parties.

70

Several conventions of the Council of Europe have also been opened for signature to non-member states.

Invitations to sign and ratify relevant conventions of the Council of Europe on a case-by-case basis are sent to different groups of non-member entities.

71 Council of Europe, Civil Law Convention on Corruption, (Strasbourg, 4.11.1999).

72 Council of Europe, Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (Strasbourg, 27.01.1999).

73 Council of Europe, Agreement Establishing the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) (Strasbourg, 12.05.1999).

74 Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers, (Resolution (97) 24) Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight against Corruption (6 November 1997).

75 African Union, African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (11 July 2003).

60 | P a g e

No specific monitoring mechanism exists, but an advisory board on Corruption within the African Union is established for documentation, analysis and advice regarding the progress of implementation and developments.76 It incorporates provisions that should guarantee access to information and the participation of civil society and the media in the monitoring process.77

The African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption is unique as it contains mandatory provisions with respect to private-toprivate corruption.

Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Protocol on the Fight against Corruption: There are two protocols of ECOWAS related to anti-corruption: 

Economic Community of West African States Protocol on the Fight against Corruption was signed on 21 December 2001 and has not yet entered into force (as of March 2013);78



Economic Community of West African States Protocol relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security (adopted in 1999).79

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol against Corruption: The Southern African Development Community was adopted in 2001 and became operational in July 2005. Thirty days after its ratification by two thirds of the SADC membership, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol against Corruption was created to promote the development of anti-corruption mechanisms at the national level, cooperation in the fight against corruption by States Parties, and harmonization of anti-corruption national legislation in the region.80

The Arab Anti-Corruption Convention (AACC):81

76

The advisory board has 11 members.

See Unione Africaine website for list of treaties conventions protocols, and charters, available at: http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/documents/treaties/treaties.htm 78 ECOWAS, Economic Community of West African States Protocol on the Fight against Corruption (21 December 2001).

79 ECOWAS, Protocol relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security (1999).

80 Southern African Development Community, SADC Protocol against Corruption (14 August 2011).

81 League of Arab States, Arab Anti-Corruption Convention (21 December 2010).

77

61 | P a g e

The newest addition to the range of regional anti-corruption instruments is the Arab AntiCorruption Convention (AACC). This new instrument, signed on 21 December 2010 by 21 Arab countries which is not yet in force (requires 7 ratifications), outlines a broad range of requirements to States Parties, with many of its provisions closely reflecting those of the UN Convention. The AACC convention is largely consistent with UNCAC, mirroring the same structure and many of the same provisions. It includes a Conference of the Parties that may consider creating a review mechanism.

Preventive Measures As regards the prevention of corruption, it is the UNCAC, with some minor exceptions, which places the broader and more significant obligations on States Parties.

Both the UNCAC and the AACC place a broad obligation on States Parties to establish coordinated and effective measures to prevent corruption and to clearly allocate institutional responsibility for the implementation of those measures. Furthermore, both instruments require that States parties involve a broad range of stakeholders in the fight against corruption, although the UNCAC contains more specific ideas as to how this should be done, such as through providing access to information, facilitating the reporting of acts of corruption by the media and raising awareness through educational campaigns.

A specific obligation is also placed on States Parties under the UNCAC, but not reflected under the AACC, to take measures to enhance transparency in public administration including in relation to its organization, functioning and decision-making processes.

Articles 7 to 9 UNCAC outline a detailed framework for introducing transparency in public sector governance.82 The range of issues covered by these provisions is broad, covering, inter alia, the recruitment of civil servants, the funding of electoral candidates, the facilitation of the reporting of acts of corruption by public officials and the management of public procurement and public accounts.

While the AACC contains provisions covering some of these areas of public administration, it is the UNCAC which provides the more comprehensive framework for action and a significantly broader range of obligations. Similarly, it is the UNCAC that contains the broader and more significant obligations as regards the prevention of corruption in the private sector.

82

Articles 7 – 9 UNCAC, supra note 1.

62 | P a g e

Both the UNCAC and the AACC also contain provisions relating to the integrity and independence of the judiciary and prosecution services. While their formulation of requirements in relation to this area under the respective instruments is asymmetrical, they do not in practice give rise to significantly different forms of obligation.

Finally, the UNCAC mandates an overarching preventive structure in relation to money laundering.

While the AACC does address money laundering in terms of criminalisation, it does not mandate the sort of preventive measures required under the UNCAC.

Criminalisation and Law Enforcement The UNCAC and the AACC both place a broadly similar range of obligations regarding the criminalisation of specific corruption offences, the application of adequate sanctions where such offences are committed, and the establishment of the appropriate institutional mechanisms to ensure that the laws established in this regard are effectively enforced.

As regards the criminalisation of corruption offences, the AACC contains the exact same breadth of offences as those detailed under the UNCAC. Two key differences can however be identified in this regard. Firstly, the AACC appears to place a mandatory obligation to criminalise all of the offences listed within it. Consequently, whereas under the UNCAC States parties are only required to consider criminalising some offences such as bribery in the private sector or illicit enrichment, States parties to the AACC will now be required to do so.

The second key point of difference in the field of criminalisation is the absence in the AACC of any actual definitions of the offences that States parties are required to introduce. Whereas the UNCAC sets out in some detail the key elements of each offence, the AACC merely lists the offences that States parties are required to criminalise with no attempt to define their specific nature or scope. In light of this absence of definition in the AACC, States parties should continue to be guided by the definitions provided under the UNCAC. As regards ensuring the application of appropriate sanctions, the assertion and limits of criminal jurisdiction and the establishment of effective and well-resourced law enforcement authorities, the AACC broadly reflects the pre-existing requirements of the UNCAC. Some minor differences that may have a limited impact on States parties implementation requirements are explored in more detail below.

International Cooperation 63 | P a g e

The UNCAC and the AACC place broadly similar requirements on States parties as regards international cooperation. In some areas, such as the transfer of sentenced persons, the transfer of criminal proceedings, joint investigations, and the use of special investigative techniques the exact wording of the UNCAC has been reproduced in the AACC. In the key areas of mutual legal assistance and extradition, the provisions of the AACC also very closely reflect those of the UNCAC. Where slight differences do arise, such as in relation to the issue of dual criminality, it is the UNCAC which places the greater obligation on States. Thus, a State party to both Conventions should seek to ensure full compliance with the UNCAC as a minimum and, in doing so, will also meet the requirements imposed on them by the AACC. The provisions of the UNCAC itself closely reflect the provisions on international cooperation in the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC).83 As such, States Parties to both the UNTOC and the UNCAC who are in the process of ratifying or have ratified the AACC are unlikely to require any significant changes to their existing international cooperation regimes in order to comply with the requirements of this most recent Convention.

Asset Recovery Both the UNCAC and the AACC identify the return of assets as a fundamental principle of the respective instruments and require States parties to offer one another cooperation and assistance in this regard.84 To that end, both instruments seek to lay out requirements in relation to the prevention and detection of proceeds of corruption crimes, the recovery and confiscation of such proceeds and their eventual return to the requesting State party.

The provisions of the AACC broadly reflect those of UNCAC in relation to each of these elements of asset recovery. Some distinctions can be drawn however between the requirements imposed by the respective instruments regarding the institutional and legislative structures States should put in place to respond to requests for assistance in this area. Where such divergence can be identified, it is the UNCAC that has higher requirements. States parties should therefore continue to use the UNCAC as their guiding standard in relation to asset recovery.

4.3 International/Global level The main international convention focusing on anti-corruption is UNCAC (see section 4.3.1).

Another important convention that should also be noted is the United Nations Convention against 83 84

UNODC, United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto (UN, 2004).

Article 51 UNCAC, supra note 1; Article 27 AACC, supra note 82.

64 | P a g e

Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC),85 adopted in 2000. This aimed mainly at the fight against organized crime, but also includes several provisions related to corruption. Amongst others, it foresees the criminalization of the corruption of public officials and promotes the concept of integrity. There are also other international instruments aside from treaties at global level, for example: 

The United Nations Declaration against Corruption and Bribery in International Commercial Transactions (1996);86



The International Code of Conduct for Public Officials includes general principles for the professional conduct of public officials, as well as principles concerning the prevention of conflicts of interest, the disclosure of assets, the acceptance of gifts, the handling of confidential information and involvement in political activity;87



The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) adopted by ECOSOC in its resolution 2006/23).88

4.3.1 United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) 4.3.1.1 Content

UNCAC is the first and only all-inclusive legally binding anti-corruption instrument of international law.

UNCAC was adopted by the UN General Assembly resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003 and entered into force on 14 December 2005.

Its significance is due to several factors. In comparison to other international anti-corruption instruments, UNCAC has reached unprecedented scope as it is the broadest and the only truly global international treaty on corruption. With currently 168 States Parties (as of September 2013), the Convention is steadily advancing towards the goal of universal adherence. Thematically, UNCAC

85

UNTOC, supra note 84. UNTOC has 175 State Parties as of 08.04.13.

UN General Assembly, (A/RES/51/191) United Nations Declaration against Corruption and Bribery in International Commercial Transactions (16 December 1996).

87 UN General Assembly, (51/59, 1996) Action Against Corruption – Annex: International Code of Conduct for Public Officials (28 January 1997).

88 ECOSOC, (2006/23) Strengthening basic principles of judicial conduct – Annex: The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2006).

86

65 | P a g e

pursues a very broad and comprehensive approach to the topic of anti-corruption recognizing the complexity of the matter, the commonality of the corruption problem among all nations and the shared responsibilities in terms of devising ways and means to effectively prevent and combat corruption.

Its substantive content is clustered in five chapters (briefly outlined below), dealing with prevention, criminalization, international cooperation, asset recovery and technical

UNCAC has been ratified, as of September 2013, by 168 States parties and more announced their ratification at the 5th session of the COSP. It is steadily progressing towards near universal ratification.

assistance.

Even within its individual chapters, UNCAC goes beyond the regional instruments mentioned above. For example, in the area of prevention, it comprises a multitude of measures in relation to public and private sectors as well as including provisions on the participation of civil society.

Furthermore, the provisions on asset recovery were an absolute novelty, and many observers claim that it is also the reason for why so many developing countries have signed the UNCAC.

Chapter II: Preventive measures First and foremost, corruption should be prevented. Corruption thrives in contexts that provide opportunities to engage in illicit conduct, as there are widespread motives to take advantage of such opportunities and weak controls. Effective prevention should therefore minimize opportunities, encourage integrity, allow and ask for transparency, enhance accountability safeguards, and provide an

Effective prevention should minimize opportunities for corruption, encourage integrity, allow and ask for transparency, enhance accountability safeguards, and provide

integrated

platform

for

collective action by stakeholders from the public sector, private sector and civil society.

UNCAC

devotes

chapter

to

an

prevention,

entire with

an integrated platform for collective action by

measures directed at both the

stakeholders from the public sector, private

public and the private sector.

sector and civil society.

Many of the provisions deal with principal transparency,

questions integrity

of and

66 | P a g e

accountability within the public sector and are therefore spread into all different public sector areas and programmes. Being an essential element of good and effective governance and due to the crosscutting nature, these topics should be addressed at high-level national policy dialogue as well as in sector processes and at the decentralised level.

Furthermore, UNCAC recognises that corruption may also involve the private sector. its provisions therefore set out a number of requirements to prevent corruption practice that occurs in the private sector.

UNCAC’s mandatory provisions cover the following aspects:

- Preventive anti-corruption policies and practices (Article 5); - Establishment of specialized anti-corruption bodies (Article 6); - Public Sector, including amongst others human resource management and conflict of interest regulations (Article 7); - Codes of conduct for public officials, reporting of acts of corruption etc. (Article 8); - Public procurement and management of public finances (Article 9); - Public reporting (Article 10); - Measures relating to the judiciary and prosecution services (Article 11); - Private Sector, e.g. corruption prevention with the private sector, accounting and auditing standards, cooperation with law enforcement authorities, codes of conduct. Regulations such as subsidies and licences, book-keeping (Article 12); - Participation of society, e.g. contribution of public to decision making processes, access of information, reporting on corruption (Article 13); - Measures to prevent money-laundering (Article 14).

67 | P a g e

An open-ended intergovernmental Working Group on Prevention has been established by the Conference of the States Parties (COSP) at its third session, held in Doha from 9 to 13 November 2009 by resolution 3/2 entitled "Preventive measures". The Working Group comes together once a year to discuss the implementation of different articles, to serve as a platform for knowledge exchange and to provide advice to the COSP. Prior to the meetings, the States are invited to submit information on the implementation of the articles under discussion.89

Chapter III: Criminalization and Law Enforcement90 The second crucial point is the criminalization of corrupt practices and effective law enforcement to reinforce trust in the rule of law, encourage people to counteract and report cases, and to deter future acts of corruption. UNCAC comprises a catalogue of mandatory provisions defining acts of corruption which must be criminalized by States Parties. Further provisions define offences which should be considered to be criminalized. In this regard, UNCAC goes beyond previous anti-corruption instruments and offers not only a platform for harmonization of national law, but also ensures a minimum level of deterrence world-wide through specific provisions on prosecution, adjudication and sanctions in corruption-related cases; for example, regulations regarding freezing, seizure and confiscation, and bank secrecy.

Chapter IV: International Cooperation In many cases, corruption does not stop at borders and is actually a transnational crime. Therefore, international cooperation is essential to effectively prevent and control corruption. UNCAC incorporates extensive provisions on international cooperation, dealing with issues such as extradition, mutual legal assistance in investigation and prosecution. While many of the regulations are based on the precedent Palermo Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, in some instances UNCAC goes beyond the regulations of this former Convention; in particular in regards to the provision of some forms of mutual legal assistance in the absence of dual criminality.91

89

All answers from States parties as well as all other documents, reports and the multi-annual work plan of the Working Group are available online at: UNODC, Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Prevention, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/working-group4.html 90 Please note, both Chapters III and IV are currently under review. For details please refer to UNODC, Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption – Basic Documents (UN, 2011).

91 See UNODC, CAC/COSP 4 Resolutions and Decisions: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/CACCOSP-session4-resolutions.html. The Conference of the States Parties (CoSP) decided in resolution 4/2 to establish future open-ended intergovernmental expert group meetings on the topic of international cooperation.

68 | P a g e

Chapter V: Asset Recovery In what has been recognized as a major breakthrough and innovation, UNCAC contains a comprehensive chapter on asset recovery (the return of the proceeds of crimes of corruption) as a self-standing form of international cooperation in corruption-related cases. In addition to traditional forms of mutual legal assistance in criminal proceeding for the seizure and confiscation of the proceeds

Asset recovery is a unique and very important element of UNCAC that clearly states that assets which are proceeds of embezzlement must be unconditionally returned to the country of origin

of corruption, it also regulates measures allowing for the direct recovery of corruption proceeds through civil action and mutual legal assistance in case of non-conviction based asset forfeiture proceedings. It clearly states that assets which are proceeds of embezzlement must be unconditionally returned to the country of origin. In the case of bribery and other offences regulated by the Convention, the assets need to be returned if the county concerned can establish damages; nevertheless, in all cases, priority consideration is still to be the return of the proceeds of corruption.

Effective asset recovery is a major concern for many

developing countries where high-level corruption has plundered the national wealth, and where resources are badly needed for reconstruction and the rehabilitation of societies under new governments.92 There is also a Working Group on Asset Recovery,93 which was established by the COSP at its first session, held in Amman from 10 to 14 December 2006, through resolution 1/4 entitled "Establishment of an intergovernmental working group on asset recovery".94

Chapter VI: Technical Assistance and Information Exchange From the very beginning of the drafting of UNCAC, technical assistance was considered an intrinsic part of the comprehensive approach to anti-corruption.

States Parties should, for instance, consider helping each other conduct evaluations and studies on the forms, causes and costs of corruption in specific contexts, with a view to developing better policies for combating the problem. Due to the important role of technical assistance, this topic has

92

See UNODC’s and the World Bank’s joint partnership StAR - Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative, available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/StAR.html and http://www1.worldbank.org/finance/star_site/ 93 UNODC, Open-ended intergovernmental working group on Asset Recovery, available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/working-group2.html 94 UNODC, (Resolution 1/4) Establishment of an intergovernmental working group on asset recovery (10-14 December 2006).

69 | P a g e

also been linked to the review process. Given its importance, technical assistance has also been linked to the review process.

4.3.1.2 Governing body The governing body of UNCAC is the Conference of the States Parties (CoSP),95 established to improve the capacity of, and co-operation between, State Parties to achieve the objectives set forth in the Convention and to promote and review its implementation. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) acts as secretariat to the CoSP and its subsidiary bodies (e.g. the Working Groups).

4.3.1.3 UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism (IRM)96 During the 3rd Conference of the States Parties (2009) in its resolution 3/1, based on Article 63 of the Convention, a review mechanism was established.

The implementation review is an inter-

governmental peer-monitoring process whereby each state party is reviewed by two peers.

Roughly described, the Review Mechanisms comprise of 3 phases: 97

1.

The Self-Assessment of the State Party under review;

2.

A dialogue phase during which the reviewing States Parties make a preliminary assessment including observations and clarification requests (this phase normally includes various forms of dialogue via email, conference call and a country visit);

3.

The final reporting phase, during which the report is drafted and agreed upon.

98

The resolution 3/1 included terms of reference and

Technical assistance offered by UNCAC is an intrinsic part of the comprehensive approach to anti-corruption.

guidelines

regarding

the

review

process

and

the

comprehensive self-assessment checklist. Moreover, it established an Implementation Review Group (IRG) to have an overview of the review process in order to identify challenges and good practices and to consider technical assistance requirements in order to ensure effective

95

UNODC, Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/CAC-COSP.html 96 UNODC, Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption – Basic Documents (UN, 2011).

97 See UNODC, Comprehensive Self-Assessment Checklist on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/self-assessment.html Please also see the power-point presentation on UNCAC. 98 All steps of a country review are illustrated in the accompanying power point presentation (ppt 4)

70 | P a g e

implementation of the Convention.

99

The group meets approximately twice a year in Vienna.

The review of the implementation of the Convention is an on-going and gradual process.

Consequently, the Mechanism shall endeavour to adopt a progressive and comprehensive approach.

The Mechanism shall: (a) Be transparent, efficient, non-intrusive, inclusive and impartial; (b) Not produce any form of ranking; (c) Provide opportunities to share good practices and challenges; (d) Assist States parties in the effective implementation of the Convention;(…)

The first cycle of reviews (2010-2015) deals with Chapters III and IV, and the second (2015-2020) will look into Chapter II and V. Thus, each State Party will review and be reviewed by its peers once every five years. At the beginning of the review cycle a list was established by drawing of lots to choose which country will come under review in which year. At the beginning of each new review year, the reviewing States Parties are selected – also by drawing of lots. One country is selected from the same region as the country under review; the second country is selected randomly. Key steps of the review mechanism are the self-assessment phase, the dialogue phase – such as including different forms of active dialogue and an optional country visit – and the report phase.

The guiding principles governing the IRM are defined in the terms of reference.100 Some of those basic principles are listed below:

Moreover the IRM follows the principles of equality and sovereignty of States Parties, and the review process shall be conducted in a non-political and non-selective manner. The Mechanism shall take into account the levels of development of States Parties, as well as the diversity of judicial, legal, political, economic and social systems and differences in legal traditions.

99

UNODC, CAC/COSP 3 Resolutions and Decisions: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/CAC-COSPsession3-resolutions.html 100

UNODC, Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption – Basic Documents (UN, 2011).

71 | P a g e

NOTE: Relevant information per country can be found on the UNODC: Country Profile page available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/country-profile/index.html This page includes, amongst other information, the year in which the country will be under review. Experience has shown that timely preparation for an upcoming review even prior to the review year is a good way to assure a successful review process.

Before the review, the specific States Parties and ministries can be advised to discuss an upcoming review at Sector level in relevant Working Groups to support the national anti-corruption dialogue, effective collaboration and compilation of material. It must be kept in mind that the State party under review is in the driver seat and will decide which actors to involve in the review process.

However, discussion with the counterparts could reflect the involvement of donors and Technical Assistance providers in the review process as their participation could increase the opportunity for follow-up initiatives depending on the recommendations and TA needs identified in the review. In case there is willingness from the side of the States party to involve stakeholders like civil society or the private sector in the review process, those stakeholders should be informed as soon as possible about the form of the review to be able to provide specific input to the articles under review.

Issues: UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism: There are two major contentious issues regarding the UNCAC implementation review mechanism that are often criticized:101  Limitations regarding the participation of civil society Although the review process encourages inclusiveness, for example in Paragraph 28 and 30 of the Terms of Reference, it is up to the discretion of the State Party under review if, in which form, and at which stage of the review, civil society is involved in the process.102 The topic of collaboration with civil society and the important role civil society plays in 101

See “Frequently asked questions" from this section.

UNODC, Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption – Basic Documents (UN, 2011).

102

72 | P a g e

combating corruption is not only reflected in the Convention itself,103 but was once more stressed in resolution 4/3 of the 4th CoSP.104 The separate resolution 4/6 recognizes the continuing deliberations to build confidence in the role of non-governmental organizations in the review process. It decided to conduct briefings on the outcomes of the review process, including on the technical assistance needs identified,105 and to use the briefings to continue constructive dialogue on the contribution of non-governmental organizations to the Mechanism for the Review of the Implementation of the Convention.  Confidentiality of the review process Only the summary of the review is published. Publishing of the full report or the selfassessment checklist is up to the discretion of the State Party.

The Executive Summaries of the Implementation Review Reports are published on the pages of the CoSP or IRG meetings.106

4.3.1.4 UNCAC Self-assessment: going beyond the minimum Self-assessments (full or in part) in regard to the implementation of the Convention can also be carried out outside of the review cycle by any state who may wish to reflect on its implementation of anti-corruption standards, for example by Bangladesh, Indonesia and Kenya.

Another useful document to assist the UNCAC Self-Assessment is the ‘Guidance Note: UNCAC SelfAssessments – Going Beyond the Minimum’ created by UNDP in partnership with UNODC, GTZ, Basel Institute on Governance (Switzerland) and Institute of Governance Studies, and BRAC University (Bangladesh).107 It is a practical guide to undertake a self-assessment of UNCAC implementation, going beyond the minimum requirements. It provides a methodology for multistakeholder engagement and a participatory approach, support to States who would like to integrate civil society at the Self-Assessment stage, and encourages Member States to make the full report of the review publicly available. The guide, which has been used by several Member States, such as Bhutan, Lao PDR, Mongolia, and Vietnam, encourages broad national stakeholder consultations to promote national anti-corruption reform and to prepare the country for review under the UNCAC Review Mechanism.

103

Art. 13 UNCAC, supra note 1.

UNODC, CAC/COSP 4 Resolutions and Decisions, supra note 92.

105 Although no specific country situation shall be mentioned during briefings.

106 UNODC, Fourth session of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (Marrakech, 24 to 28 October 2011).

107 UNDP, Guidance Note: UNCAC Self-Assessments – Going Beyond the Minimum (October 2010).

104

73 | P a g e

The UNCAC Self-Assessment offers key advantages for identifying programming entry points: 1.

It is a nation-driven process whereby national actors, both public and non-public, are involved.

2.

It encourages multi-stakeholder national dialogues and cooperation.

3.

It provides policy makers and practitioners with information and analysis as policy inputs.

4.

The Self-Assessment results can be used as a basis for assessing state capacities to respond to the UNCAC requirements.

5.

Overall, the results support further focusing of national anti-corruption strategies, as well as the detailed formulation and implementation of action plans.

UNDP, Guidance Note: UNCAC Self-Assessments – Going Beyond the Minimum (October 2010).

All of us have a responsibility to take action against the cancer of corruption.

The United Nations is helping countries combat corruption as part of our broader, system-wide campaign to help bolster democracy and good governance. The United Nations Convention against Corruption is a powerful tool in the fight. I urge all governments that have not yet ratified it to do so without delay. I also call on governments to include anti-corruption measures in all national programmes that support sustainable development.

Ban Ki-Moon, United Nations Secretary-General in his statement on International AntiCorruption Day 2011109

4.3.2 Value of UNCAC for UN Programming 4.3.2.1 Comparative advantages for UN System Corruption is recognized widely as a serious threat to global security and development. Thus it has been among the top priorities in the UN system and is leading the United Nations normative agenda on anti-corruption through the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

74 | P a g e

Unique value added by the UN system in fighting corruption: 

The field presence of the UN system all over the world and the many years of experience in engaging with governments, civil society and other actors provide a unique opportunity for a multi-stakeholder engagement, which is much needed for fighting corruption.

Global, regional and national level partnerships facilitate

knowledge sharing and exchange in the fight against corruption; 

Political impartiality for promoting normative values (such as UNCAC) at global, national and regional levels provides more legitimacy than any other technical assistance providers that promote anti-corruption reforms;



Accumulated technical experience in assisting countries in the compliance of global norms and standards, such as human rights and gender, helps to effectively engage on anti-corruption;



More specifically, the information gathered through the UNCAC Self-Assessment and Review processes will help guide the technical assistance to Member States. The driving force behind the use of the results of the reviews will be the respective State Party; however, the UN system present in the country, specifically UNODC and/or UNDP, is in an ideal position to support the government in such attempts.

Opportunities include discussion of the reviews with a broader audience and the involvement of other technical assistance providers at the country level to: 1. Promote and use the Convention as a framework guiding the development, implementation, and monitoring of an evaluation of all technical assistance in the field of anti-corruption; 2. Support the alignment of assistance to national priorities and strategies; 3. Implement projects, provide technical expertise to projects of other agencies or implementers, establish links, etc.



Comprehensive expertise in other co-existent challenges along corruption such as organized crimes; terrorism financing; drug and weapons trafficking; as well as justice and governance reform challenges. This all enables the organization to have a comprehensive approach to corruption rather than seen it in isolation.

Corruption is seen to be an important focus of many UN agencies. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) serves as the Secretariat for the Conference of the States Parties (CoSP)

75 | P a g e

to the UNCAC and is the lead agency in regard to the normative agenda. UNDP, with its long experience on governance, anti-corruption and field presence in more than 166 countries, works closely with UNODC to provide technical support and to mainstream anti-corruption in various development processes at the national level. Other UN agencies such as WHO, UNICEF, UN-Women and UNESCO are also working on anti-corruption in their respective areas. The interagency collaboration coordinated by UNODC at the global level, and UNDP’s work through the resident coordination systems at the country level, aims to enhance consistency, coherence and quality in the delivery of technical assistance in support of UNCAC.

Agency

Governance Approach

UN Habitat

The urban legislation, Land and Governance

UN Women

UN Women’s work is advancing women’s political participation and good governance, to ensure that decision-making processes are participatory, responsive, equitable and inclusive.

UNCDF

Public Finance for local development by supporting decentralization and building local governments capacities.

UNEPS

Environmental Governance. Strengthened environmental governance should be in place at all levels to respond quickly and effectively to emerging environmental challenges, and to address agreed environmental priorities Planning and managing education. UNESCO has provided technical assistance and capacity-building support for national education administrations in conducting education sector analyses and reviews.

Such support has often led to the formulation of robust education sector plans, programmes and projects Gender equality through women’s empowerment and Advancing Human rights

UNESCO

UNFPA

UNICEF

Bringing Children’s rights to the centre of public policy

UNOPS

UNOPS assists governments and civil society organizations in building institutions that underpin democratization and modernization.

UNPAN

UNPAN aims to build the capacity of regional and national institutions, so that they can access, process and disseminate relevant information by means of up-to-date information and communication technologies (ICTs) for the promotion of better public administration.

76 | P a g e

4.3.2.2 UNCAC as entry point for dialogue As of September 2013, UNCAC has been ratified by 168 States, making it one of the international treaties with the fastest ratification rate. Once a Member State ratifies or accedes to the UNCAC, it provides an entry point to engage with the members states on anti-corruption because of three main reasons:

1. Comprehensiveness of UNCAC: UNCAC touches all aspects of anti-corruption and thus, can be used as a framework and practical guidance for any anti-corruption initiative, be it preventive measures within a specific sector or very specific aspects of law enforcement.108 Moreover, UNCAC encompasses a number of mandatory requirements as well as multiple options to go beyond these minimum requirements.

Even in countries which have not ratified the Convention, UNCAC can be used as an entry point to provide support to the countries to conduct gap analysis and prepare these countries to ratify UNCAC.

2. Implementation of UNCAC and its Review Mechanism: In case of operations and strategic UN programming processes in States which have ratified the Convention, the implementation of this international treaty is an ideal entry point for discussion – even more in countries which are undergoing or have already undergone the implementation review.

Assistance during the review process can encourage broad and

participatory consultations, enhance stakeholder coordination and dialogue at the national level and lead to effective identification of implementation gaps. Once reviews are completed, although the Terms of Reference of the Implementation Review Mechanism of UNCAC allow for the confidentiality of the country review reports (paragraph 37), the executive summaries to the reports are translated into the official languages of the United Nations and made available publicly (paragraph 36). Executive summaries of review reports continue to be published on the home page of UNODC,109 and some States parties release the entire report to the public. Besides an analysis of the implementation of the provisions of UNCAC, the reports as well as the executive summaries have sections on technical assistance needs raised by the State Party under

108

UNODC, Legislative Guide for the Implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption, 2nd ed. (UN, April 2012); UNODC, Technical Guide to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UN, 2009).

109 See UNODC, Implementation Review Group of the United Nations Convention against Corruption: www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/IRG-sessions.html

77 | P a g e

review and/or recommended technical assistance by the reviewing States parties. This assistance can be used for programming purposes and the development of new ideas.

3. Technical Assistance as part of UNCAC: From the very beginning of the drafting of UNCAC, technical assistance was considered an intrinsic part of the comprehensive approach to anti-corruption. Articles 60, 61 and 62 of Chapter VI (Technical Assistance and Information Exchange) therefore emphasize the importance of technical assistance as an integral instrument to ensure the full implementation of UNCAC. Already during the negotiations of the Convention, a shared understanding among Member States emerged that the Convention of this nature could only be adopted and subsequently ratified if developing countries, in particular, were provided with technical assistance once they had done everything within their own capacities to implement the provisions of the Convention.

This is also the reason why technical assistance has been integrally linked to the review process.

The Terms of Reference of the UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism110 specify that a fundamental purpose of the review process is to help States Parties identify and substantiate specific needs for technical assistance, and promote and facilitate the provision of technical assistance to strengthen compliance with the Convention.

The guiding principle for technical assistance delivery is a country-led and country-based, integrated and coordinated approach endorsed by the Conference of the States Parties to UNCAC in resolution 3/4. Nevertheless the assessment after the 1st year of the current review cycle made clear that a multi-level approach from a substantive point of view will take global and regional trends into more consideration and will foster greater exchange and collaboration. From a programming perspective it will help to maximize efficiency and thus impact. For example, the first analysis of self-assessment results gathered as of 21 May 2011, showed that 16 out of 22 Member States indicated that they would need technical assistance to help them to implement UNCAC.111 An updated analysis will be prepared for the next session of the IRG in May 2013 and published thereafter.

110

The Implementation Review Mechanism was adopted in the third Session of the Conference of the State Parties in resolution 3/1 and is overviewed by the Implementation Review Group. It is a review among peers, which means that the State Party under Review is reviewed by experts of two other State Parties. The mechanism does not establish a ranking system, is inclusive and impartial. Further key principles and details are defined in the terms of reference of the mechanism - For more information see UNODC, Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption – Basic Documents (UN, 2011) 111 From the 5 different groups - African, Asian and Pacific, Eastern European, Latin American and Caribbean, and Western European and Other States - no country belonging to the Group of Western European and Other States reported technical assistance needs. For more details, refer to Conference of the States Parties to the

78 | P a g e

4.3.2.3 UNCAC as a programming framework for bilateral and multi-lateral donors The implementation of the UNCAC has several benefits for donors pursuing a diverse range of commitments. The Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation from 2011112 is the latest international non-binding declaration stating a set of common principles (see Figure 3).113The principles are intended to guide the work towards increasingly effective development cooperation.

The declaration also underlines the commitment to intensify the joint efforts to fight corruption and illicit financial flows.114

115

Figure 3. The Common Principles of The Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation.

The principles mentioned above resonate particularly well with principles outlined in the UNCAC such as national-ownership and nationally-led process, international cooperation and asset recovery

United Nations Convention against Corruption (CAC/COSP/IRG/2011/3) Integrating technical assistance in the review process (22 March 2011).

112

Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, Busan Republic of Korea (29 November – 1 December 2011).

113 See paragraph 11 of the Busan Partnership Declaration, supra note 114.

114 See paragraph 33 of the Busan Partnership Declaration, supra note 114.

115 More information is provided in Fredrik Eriksson, Training and Advocacy Manual on the Use of UNCAC as a Programming Tool for Development Partner, 2012 (upcoming).

79 | P a g e

(to reinforce the mutual accountability), focus on results and impacts by strengthening preventive measures to prevent the leakages of resources. More specifically, 

UNCAC can be very useful for donors, who are currently engaged in governance/anti-corruption assessment as the country review and self-assessment provide useful information in many areas such as public sector reform, procurement, judicial integrity, private sector, etc; if the country is encouraged to make the information public.



The information can also be very helpful to those donors who are interested in using political economy analysis and theories of change as the basis for realistic and effective approaches to development programming (such as focus on results).



UNCAC self-assessment and review also identifies the capacity gaps and recommends areas for technical assistance (e.g., capacity of law enforcement agencies).



Through multi-stakeholder consultation on UNCAC implementation, UNCAC could provide an opportunity to harmonize technical assistance among development actors and thus reinforce transparency and accountability in aid management for development results.

Donor Harmonization: Although UN Agencies are not donors, they have nevertheless a unique role as implementers and should pay special attention to the design of UNDAF and the programmes for the division of labour between the different TA programmes of bilateral and multilateral donors. The framework and key guidance for any technical assistance is set out by the UNCAC. UN program officers must carefully ensure any TA is provided in line with it. Depending on the need for intervention and the engagement of other donors priority areas should be defined; for example, some countries attempt to assign donors and implementers within the justice sector to different institutions, namely support to the police, prosecution, courts, ombudsman etc. Such distribution is not fruitful if all donors support the development of different systems in every organization, which do not work well together in the criminal justice chain.

It can be equally counterproductive if five or more donors and implementers work with one organization, which already faces challenges in its human resource capacities in order to implement daily work, and constantly send personnel for trainings. Different messages transported, logics which are not aligned, and increased absence of personnel can cause more challenges than they resolve. Unfortunately these cases still happen far too often.

In many countries collaboration between national organizations within a sector or from national to local level is a challenge. Donors need to be aware of this problem and address it with the partner organizations, for example through regular exchange, a smaller number of donors per sector and a lead donor.

80 | P a g e

4.3.2.4 UNCAC as a programming framework UNCAC is a unique instrument that provides a comprehensive framework and guidance for its implementation and assessment both in the area of prevention and enforcement.

UNCAC contains a comprehensive set of provisions on corruption prevention, criminalization, law enforcement, international cooperation, and asset recovery.

These provisions emphasize

institutional, legal and operational inputs necessary to prevent, detect, sanction, deter and hereby minimize the occurrence of corruption. Any State Party that has not yet developed anti-corruption reforms can rely on the comprehensive guidance aimed at helping countries comply with the UNCAC´s provisions.

The following figure illustrates possible areas of international cooperation for preventing and combating corruption tied to development, highlighting the importance of a complementary approach between prevention and enforcement mechanisms.

The UNCAC framework plays a crucial role in providing detailed guidance for programming. The table below provides areas, around which a UN country team can develop anti-corruption interventions under the measures of the UNCAC, which reflect generally accepted principles of good governance.

UNCAC, as a universal framework against corruption, covers almost all areas of governance 81 | P a g e

(particularly under preventive measures), which traditionally have been promoted under the governance portfolio. For example, strengthening public institutions and formulation of public policies have been a part of UN country programming for a long time and UNCAC in its preventive measures provides guidance for civil service reform, public procurement, and public reporting.

Although UNCAC provides no definition of corruption, it defines the roles and responsibilities of public officials, stressing integrity, accountability and the proper management of public affairs and public property. Similarly, articles five and six of UNCAC provide guidance on how to develop coordinated policies and independent institutions.116

UNCAC Articles

Demand for programming (in different sectors or throughout public sector) Chapter II – Preventive measures Article 5: AntiPolicy framework, legal framework/legislative drafting, strategies, Corruption Policies coordination and consultation processes, establishment and use of monitoring and evaluation system of anti-corruption measures Article 6: Independene of anti-corruption bodies

Technical assistance to establish and strengthen oversight institutions and dissemination of knowledge about the prevention of corruption

Article 7: Civil service capacity-building

Pubilc sector reform (e.g. introdution of fair procedures for the election and promotion of civil servants, career system, adqeuate salaries and training, regulations on funding of parties and candidates)

Article 8: Codes of conduct

Promotion of integritgy, honesty and responsibility among public officials; technical assistance to introduce codes of conduct and systems for preventing conflict of interest, asset declaration systems etc.

Article 9: Public procurement and management of public finances Article 10: Public reporting

Promote the introduction of a transparent effective system of public procurement and public finance management

Increasing demand for anti-corruption efforts, civil society empowerment: access to information, inclusive participation, awareness raising, efficient running of public institutions, role of media (capacity development for investigative journalism)

116

See UNDP, Framework on Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Guidance Note (UNDP, August 2008).

82 | P a g e

Article 11: Integrity in the Judiciary and prosecution services Article 12: Private sector

Strengthen Judicial Integrity and prevent corruption in the justice system.

Role of private sector in anti-corruption, regulations on accounting and auditing standards, codes of conducts and cooperation projects

Article 13: Participation Participation of civil society, right to effective and timely access to of society information etc.

Article 14: Measures to Strengthening of regulatory and supervisory regime for banks and prevent money- financial institutions, reporting systems of suspicious transactions, laundering collabortion with law enforcement institutions etc.

Chapter II – Criminalisation and Law enforcement Article 15-29, 41-42: Support in legislative drafting and harmonisation of laws, capacity Criminal offences and building general penal law provisions including criminal record and jurisdiction Prosecution, adjudication Strengthening of the capacities of law enforcement agencies, and sanctions; cooperationinvestigation techniques and facilities, specialisation, coordination with law enforcement and competencies of agencies in regard to corruption relaged authorities (art.30, 37), offences (e.g. legal and institutional framework, case management, Specialised authorities andequipment etc.) inter-agency coordination (art.36,38, 39) Protection of witnesses andE.g. Establishment or support to witness protection regimes and reporting persons (art.32, protection of reporting persons 33) Consequences of acts of corruption; compensation of damage (art.34,35) Freezing, seizing and Legislative drafting, capacity buidling of law enforcmenet authorities confiscation; bank secrecy (art.31, 40) Chapters IV and V: International Cooperation and Asset recovery Articles 44-50, 51-59 Legistlative drafting and capacity building in regard to asset recovery regimes, and international cooperation (e.g. extradition, mutual legal assistance, support in recovery of stolen assets through StAR initiative)117 117

World Bank & UNODC, Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (StAR): http://star.worldbank.org/star/

83 | P a g e

4.4 Frequently asked questions Q. How can I use the UNCAC Review report for UNDAF and programming if it is not public?

The most important findings of the country reports are reflected in the Executive Summary. The Executive Summaries are published on the UNODC homepage and can offer a first entry point for discussion with the Partner County. Switzerland has published its report and some States Parties such as Brazil have published their Self-Assessment Checklist.118 Furthermore, several States Parties have already signalled that they would consider publishing the full report.

Moreover, access to the report or part hereof could also be brought up during the dialogue with the partner country in the preparation of UNDAF or in discussions with donors.

Q. Is the involvement of other stakeholders in the review process neglected?

Other stakeholders from the private sector, civil society, and others, can be involved at different stages of the review process. The States Parties are free to include representatives from this group into their list of governmental experts.119 Furthermore, wide participation of other stakeholders is promoted in Paragraph 28 and 30 of the Terms of Reference of the Review Mechanism in regard to the Self-Assessment and the Country Visit.

NGOs also have the opportunity to participate as observers in the Conference of the States Parties (details are regulated in the Rules of Procedure of the CoSP). During the IRG in June 2012 a briefing for non-governmental organizations was organized in accordance with resolution 4/6 of the COSP entitled “Non-governmental organizations and the Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption”.

Another opportunity to stimulate dialogue with other stakeholders, provided the country under review agrees, is during the consultations around the completion of the Self-Assessment Checklist as well as part of the country visits.

Q. I am working in a totally different field (e.g. health, education, environment, economic development). How can UNCAC be of relevance to such programmes?

Chapter II of UNCAC is dealing with Prevention measures which are of relevance for all different sectors. The anti-corruption standards in regard to human resource management, conflict of interest, codes of conduct, procurement, etc., are valid for public service in general. They can

118

UNODC, Country Profile: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/country-profile/index.html See Paragraph 21 Terms of Reference of the Review Mechanism in UNODC, Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption – Basic Documents (UN, 2011).

119

84 | P a g e

be tailored to fit the respective sector. The so called “Technical Guide to the UNCAC”120 is a useful source to find more details on the specific regulation and how it can be put into practice.

Apart from this, there is a multitude of programme examples and literature in regard to specific sectors produced by UNDP, UNODC, and other organizations (e.g. U4).121 Also see 3.1.3 which addresses the sectoral approach.

Q. Which instrument is more useful- global or regional (e.g., UNCAC or the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption)?

UNCAC is a comprehensive global instrument, but the regional instruments vary in scope and they are at a different level of implementation. The issue is not whether one should choose one over the other, but the issue is that the assessments of this instrument provide useful information that can feed into the assessment and analysis phases of UNDAFs. For example, information gathered from both APRM processes and UNCAC self-assessment could inform the discussion on the effectiveness of institutions and legal frameworks.

120

UNODC, Technical Guide to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UN, 2009).

UNDP, Anti-corruption – Latest Publications: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-governance/anti-corruption.html; UNODC, Documents, publications and tools: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/publications.html 121

85 | P a g e

List of References Primary Sources Ki-Moon, Ban, (Secretary-General SG/SM/13993, OBV/1062) Everyone Has Duty to Stamp Out ‘Cancer of Corruption’, Says Secretary-General In Message, Urging All to Crack Down on It, Shame Those Who Practise It (UN Department of Public Information, 5 December 2011), available at: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sgsm13993.doc.htm African Union, African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (11 July 2003), available at: http://www.africaunion.org/official_documents/Treaties_%20Conventions_%20Protocols/Convention%20on%2 0Combating%20Corruption.pdf Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (CAC/COSP/IRG/2011/3) Integrating technical assistance in the review process (22 March 2011), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReviewG roup/30May-3June2011/V1181487e.pdf (CAC/COSP/IRG/2011/4/Add.2 ), Report of the Implementation Review Group on its continued resumed second session, held in Marrakech, Morocco, on 25 October 2011 (2 May 2012), available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/IRG-session2-continued-resumed.html Council of Europe, Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (Strasbourg, 27.01.1999) http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/173.htm Agreement Establishing the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) (Strasbourg, 12.05.1999), available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/documents/1999/Greco(1999)1_EN.pdf Civil Law Convention on Corruption, (Strasbourg, 4.11.1999), http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/174.htm Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers, (Resolution (97) 24) Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight against Corruption (6 November 1997), available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/documents/Resolution(97)24_EN.pdf ECOSOC, (2006/23) Strengthening basic principles of judicial conduct – Annex: The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2006), available at: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/corruption/corruption_judicial_res_e.pdf ECOWAS, Economic Community of West African States Protocol on the Fight against Corruption (21 December 2001), available at: http://archive.transparency.org/global_priorities/international_conventions/conventions_inst ruments/ecowas_protocol

86 | P a g e

Protocol relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security (1999), available at: http://www.iss.co.za/af/regorg/unity_to_union/pdfs/ecowas/ConflictMecha.pdf European Council Act of 26 July 1995, “Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests”, Official Journal C 316 (27.11.1995), available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995F1127(03):EN:NOT of 27 September 1996, “Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests”, Official Journal C 313 (23.10.1996), available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996F1023(01):EN:NOT of 19 June 1997, “Second Protocol of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests”, Official Journal C 221 (19.7.1997), available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31997F0719(02):EN:NOT European Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on “Combating corruption in the private sector”, Official Journal L 192 (31/07/2003), p. 0054 – 0056, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003F0568:EN:NOT European Union, ”Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 (2) (c) of the Treaty on European Union on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union”, Official Journal C 195 (25/06/1997), p.0002 – 0011, available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:41997A0625(01):EN:HTML Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, (Busan, Republic of Korea, 29 November – 1 December 2011), available at: http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/49650173.pdf International Conference on Principles of Anti-Corruption Agencies, Jakarta Principles for AntiCorruption Agencies (2012), available at: http://www.undppogar.org/publications/ac/aciac/JAKARTA%20STATEMENT%20-%20Principles%20for%20AntiCorruption%20Agencies%20-%2026-27%20November%202012.pdf League of Arab States, Arab Anti-Corruption Convention (21 December 2010), available at: http://star.worldbank.org/star/sites/star/files/Arab-Convention-Against-Corruption.pdf OAS, Inter-American Convention against Corruption (IACAC) (29 March 1996), available at: http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/b-58.html OECD, Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions (CIME), DAFFE/IME/BR(97)20 Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Officials in International Business Transactions and Related Documents (Paris: OECD Publishing, 10/04/1998), available at: http://www.oecd.org/site/adboecdanti-corruptioninitiative/39360623.pdf Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Officials in International Business Transactions and Related Documents (OECD Publishing, 2011) available at: http://www.oecd.org/investment/anti-bribery/anti-briberyconvention/38028044.pdf

87 | P a g e

Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions: Ratification Status as of 20 November 2012, available at: http://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/antibriberyconventionratification.pdf Southern African Development Community, SADC Protocol against Corruption (14 August 2011), available at: http://www.issafrica.org/cdct/mainpages/pdf/Corruption/International%20Instruments/Proto cols/SADC%20Protocol%20Against%20Corruption.pdf UN General Assembly, (A/RES/51/191) United Nations Declaration against Corruption and Bribery in International Commercial Transactions (16 December 1996), available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/51/a51r191.htm (51/59, 1996) Action Against Corruption – Annex: International Code of Conduct for Public Officials (28 January 1997), available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan010930.pdf UNODC, United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto (UN, 2004), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNTOC/Publications/TOC%20Convention/TOCeb ook-e.pdf (Resolution 1/4) Establishment of an intergovernmental working group on asset recovery (1014 December 2006), available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/CAC-COSPsession1-resolutions.html#resolution14 Fourth session of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (Marrakech, 24-28 October 2011), available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/CAC-COSP-session4.html Secondary Sources Chêne, Marie, “International good practice in Anticorruption Legislation”, U4 Expert Answer n.233 (U4 Anticorruption Resource Centre, 24 February 2010), available at: http://www.transparency.org/files/content/corruptionqas/233_International_good_practice_ in_anti_corruption_legislation.pdf Eriksson, Fredrik, Training and Advocacy Manual on the Use of UNCAC as a Programming Tool for Development Partner (upcoming).

Hechler, Hannes, “UNCAC in a Nutshell: A quick guide to the United Nations Convention against Corruption”, U4 Brief September 2010:6 (CMI, September 2010), available at: http://www.u4.no/publications/uncac-in-a-nutshell-a-quick-guide-to-the-united-nationsconvention-against-corruption-for-embassy-and-donor-agency-staff/ An Ambassador’s Guide to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UN AntiCorruption Resource Centre, July 2010), available at: http://www.u4.no/document/publication.cfm?3907=an-ambassadors-guide-to-the-unitednations

88 | P a g e

Hussmann, Karen, “Anti-corruption policy making in practice: What can be learned for implementing Article 5 of UNCAC? Report of six country case studies: Georgia, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Tanzania and Zambia”, U4 report 1:2007 (U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre ,2007), available at: http://www.u4.no/publications/anti-corruption-policy-making-inpractice-what-can-be-learned-for-implementing-article-5-of-uncac-2/ Hussmann, Karen & Peñailillo, Miguel, “How can technical assistance support the implementation of UNCAC?”, U4 Background Paper (CMI, May 2007) Hussmann, Karen, Hannes Hechler & Miguel Peñailillo, “Institutional arrangements for corruption prevention: Considerations for the implementation of the UNCAC Article 6”, U4 Issue 2009:4 (U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, 2009), available at: http://www.u4.no/document/publication.cfm?3343=institutional-arrangements-forcorruption Klemenčič, Goran, & Janez Stusek, Specialized Anticorruption Institutions. Review of Models. (OECD, 2008), available at: http://www.oecd.org/corruption/acn/library/39971975.pdf Institute for Security Studies, A Comparative Analysis: - SADC Protocol Against Corruption (2001) - AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (2003)- UN Convention Against Corruption (2003) (ISS, November 2004), available at: http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/Other/CorruptHandbookNov04/Contents.htm OECD & ADB, ADB/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific: Combating Corruption In the New Millennium (OECD Publishing, 2001), available at: http://www.oecd.org/site/adboecdanticorruptioninitiative/meetingsandconferences/35021642.pdf “Strategic Principles and Future Activities of the Initiative”, ADB/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific (OECD, 2010), available at: http://www.oecd.org/site/adboecdanti-corruptioninitiative/46461043.pdf Peñailillo, Miguel, “How prepared are we to assess real implementation of anti-corruption conventions? Lessons from the Americas”, U4 Issue 3:2009 (U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, 2009), available at: http://www.cmi.no/publications/file/3331-how-prepared-are-weto-assess-real-implementation.pdf Transparency International, “Effectively Monitoring the United Nations Conventions against Corruption (UNCAC)”, Policy Position #01/2008 (TI, 2008), available at: http://archive.transparency.org/publications/publications/policy_positions/ti_pp_01_08_unc ac UNDP, Guidance Note: UNCAC Self-Assessments, Going Beyond the Minimum (October 2010), available at: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democraticgovernance/anti-corruption/guidance-note---uncac-self-assessments-going-beyond-theminimum/

89 | P a g e

Mainstreaming Anti-Corruption in Development: Anti-Corruption Practice Note (UNDP, December 2008), available at: http://www.pogar.org/publications/ac/books/practicenote08e.pdf Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Interventions for Poverty Reduction, Realization of the MDGs and Promoting Sustainable Development (UNDP, December 2008), available at: http://www.unrol.org/files/2%20Primer%20on%20Corruption%20and%20Development_2008 .pdf UNDP Framework on Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Guidance Note (UNDP, August 2008), available at: http://www.unrol.org/files/3%20AC%20Guidance%20Note_2008.pdf Institutional Arrangements to Combat Corruption: A Comparative Study (UNDP, 2005).

UNODC, Technical Guide to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UN, 2009), available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/technical-guide.html Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption – Basic Documents (UN, 2011), available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/IRG.html Legislative Guide for the Implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption, 2nd ed.

(UN, April 2012) available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/legislativeguide.html Websites Act Against Corruption Today, Anti-Corruption Links: http://www.actagainstcorruption.org/actagainstcorruption/en/resources/index.html OAS: Department of Legal Cooperation, Anti-Corruption Portals of the Americas, available at: http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/FightCur.html What is the MESICIC?: http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/mesicic_intro_en.htm OECD, Anti-Bribery Convention: OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions, available at: http://www.oecd.org/investment/anti-bribery/antibriberyconvention/oecdworkinggrouponbriberyininternationalbusinesstransactions.htm UNCAC Coalition – Information material including training videos on UNCAC, the review mechanism and possibilities for CSOs to engage, available at: http://www.uncaccoalition.org/uncacreview/uncac-review-mechanism UNDP, Anti-Corruption Global Portal: http://www.anti-corruption.org Anti-corruption – Latest Publications: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-governance/anticorruption.html Unione Africaine, OAU/AU Treaties, Conventions, Protocols, Charters: http://www.africaunion.org/root/au/documents/treaties/treaties.htm 90 | P a g e

UNODC, TRACK Portal – Tools and Resources for Anti-Corruption Knowledge, http://www.track.unodc.org/Pages/home.aspx TRACK Portal (Tools and Resources for Anti-Corruption Knowledge): The Legal Library Map: http://www.track.unodc.org/LegalLibrary/Pages/map.aspx TRACK Portal (Tools and Resources for Anti-Corruption Knowledge): The Legal Library: http://www.track.unodc.org/LegalLibrary/Pages/Home.aspx “Anti-corruption Academic Initiative (ACAD)”, TRACK: http://www.track.unodc.org/Academia/Pages/Home.aspx Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Prevention: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/working-group4.html CAC/COSP 3 Resolutions and Decisions: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/CACCOSP-session3-resolutions.html CAC/COSP 4 Resolutions and Decisions: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/CACCOSP-session4-resolutions.html Comprehensive Self-Assessment Checklist on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/selfassessment.html Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/CAC-COSP.html Country Profile: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/country-profile/index.html Documents, publications and tools: Prevention and Fight Against Corruption: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/publications.html Open-ended intergovernmental working group on Asset Recovery: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/working-group2.html Implementation Review Group of the United Nations Convention against Corruption: www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/IRG-sessions.html World Bank & UNODC, Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (StAR), Publications available at: http://star.worldbank.org/star/ & http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/StAR.html

91 | P a g e

5. The value of UNCAC

Introduction To learn about the value of using UNCAC as an entry point for dialogue with country stakeholders and about the comparative advantage of the UN in engaging in or facilitating such dialogue.

Session Objectives By the end of this session participants will: 

Understand the importance of UNCAC and why UNCAC is a major entry point for dialogue at the national level.



Understand how UNCAC can serve as a guide for anti-corruption programming.



Value the addition of the UN system on anti-corruption.

Trainer’s Note Depending on the available time and style of the trainer, sessions 4 and 5 can be merged. If the sessions are merged, the trainer should strive to cover the key messages of session 5 contained in slides 4, and 7 to 9. Furthermore, the trainers should use the opportunity for the practical exercise! (see Facilitation Guide) Distinction between session 4 and 5: The logic of two different sessions, 4 and 5, is that session 4 prepares the groundwork. It is very heavy on content and provides a broad overview on various legal instruments. The next step, session 5, is to bring it down to the practical level and to explain (e.g. in a short recap) how the work at country level can use the tools which were presented in session 4.

This is the main opportunity to familiarize the participants with UNCAC and to use it as basis for practical programming work.

92 | P a g e

6-7. The UNDAF Process: 4 steps and key elements.

Introduction This session focuses on the UNDAF cycle and its principles and provides entry points for mainstreaming anti-corruption into all phases of the programming process. It aims at articulating:

How does anti-corruption link to the UN programming process?

Session Objectives By the end of this session participants will be able to: 1. Undertake a causality analysis of development challenges to identify the immediate, underlying and root causes of the problem at stake related to anti-corruption; 2. Build on their causality analysis to identify claimants and their claims, and accountable actors and their corresponding obligations; 3. Use this role analysis to identify the critical capacity gaps that prevent claimants from claiming what they are being denied of, and accountable actors from meeting their obligations; 4. Apply the anti-corruption normative frameworks to strengthen their overall analysis.

Trainer’s Note This session should be used to ensure participants are fully aware and confident with the UN programming process, and the linkages to anti-corruption processes and tools. This will be of importance to enable strategic communication to amplify the anti-corruption lens.

93 | P a g e

Key Messages 1. The Anti-Corruption lens in the UNDAF process provides for an invaluable

diagnostic tool for contextualization of the development situation, and helps to determine the space available to respond through UN Programmes;

2. The Anti-Corruption lens in the UNDAF process will further amplify the

understanding of formal and informal linkages between different, equally important, components of the development architecture.

3. It will be critical to link the anti-corruption lens to the programming

principles as well as broader processes such as context analysis.

Such linkages will assist in identifying challenges and opportunities and guide the process of making ‘informed choices’ through which development effectiveness will be enhanced.

6-7.1 The UNDAF Process 6-7.1.1 Background The UN system is operating in a world facing numerous multifaceted challenges. Accelerating the progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 calls for concerted efforts of UN organizations and the programme countries.

The Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review (TCPR) of operational activities for development of the United Nations system (A/RES/62/208) in 2008 affirmed the importance of the UNDAF as a key instrument for the efficient and effective coordination of the operational activities for development of the United Nations System.122 The landmark adoption of the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (QCPR) on 21 December 2012 (A/Res/67/226) by the UN General Assembly has mandated the UN System from 2013 onwards to support programme countries in building national capacity

122

UN General Assembly, A/RES/62/208 Triennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system (14 March 2008).

94 | P a g e

“for inclusive, equitable, participatory, transparent and accountable national development processes�.123 Based on the experiences of the Delivering as One UN pilot countries in the recent years the UN system recognises that having a high-quality UNDAF is a key to strengthen the quality and coherence of country-level programming, and maximize the impact of the UN development assistance in each country.

The UNDG produced a package of guidance materials for improving coherence, simplifying common country programming processes and improving the strategic positioning of the United Nations at the country level. This UNDAF Guidance Package contains simplified UNDAF guidelines with technical guidance, and a UNDAF Action Plan focusing specifically on implementation.124 These guidelines offer flexibility to UN Country Teams (UNCTs) on how to adapt the process in varying national contexts, while maintaining the principles of national ownership, alignment with national priorities, inclusiveness of the UN system, integration of interrelated programming principles and themes, and mutual accountability for development results.

The UNDAF is the strategic programme framework that describes the collective response of the UN system to national development priorities. In designing it, the UN is required to ensure greater alignment with national priorities and country systems, harmonisation among development actors, including shared analysis, simplification, transparency and accountability in aid management for development results.125 Moreover, UNCTs must support countries in the development of capacities to lead their development processes to pursue poverty reduction, sustained economic growth, peace building, rule of law, human rights, gender equality and international standards and norms in support of global public goods. The sheer breadth of the UN mandate at country level thus warrants an extensive, open-minded, in-depth country diagnostic if the UNCT is to be strategic and successful in developing and implementing its interventions.

123

UN General Assembly (A/RES/67/226) Quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system (22nd January 2013), Paragraph 58.

124 UNDG, UNDAF Guidance Package, available at: http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=4 125 UNDG, How to Prepare an UNDAF: Part (I) Guidelines for UN Country Teams (UNDG, January 2010) and How to Prepare an UNDAF: Part (II) Technical Guidance for UN Country Teams (UNDG, January 2010).

95 | P a g e

6-7.1.2 Key Steps of the UNDAF Process

There are four mandatory steps in the process of developing an UNDAF: (1) The design of a road map; (2) The development of a country analysis; (3) Strategic planning; (4) Monitoring and Evaluation.

The anti-corruption lens is relevant to all four steps, but will be of particular importance at the country analysis and strategic planning stage.

The UNDAF and its Results Matrices capture the collective contributions of UN agencies, funds and programmes within a coherent and integrated programming and monitoring framework for delivering development results at the country level. It is estimated that, between 2010 and 2013, over 90 countries have prepared new UNDAFs, and used the UNDG Guidance on Preparing UNDAFs (2010) which outlines four mandatory steps.126 Each step offers important entry points for multistakeholder coordination, collaboration and consultation to ensure UN support is anchored in key UN programming principles, and directed to strategically respond to key national development priorities. The four mandatory steps are illustrated below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Mandatory steps in UNDAF process

126

UNDG, UNDAF Guidance Package, supra note 126.

96 | P a g e

6-7.1.2.1 Step 1 – Road Map127 UNCTs are required to develop a road map outlining the preparation process of the UNDAF. The UNCT and the government coordinating body prepare and agree on a road map clearly aligning to the national development planning process, and lay out the steps and milestones for the UNCT’s contribution to country analysis and UNDAF preparation.

The Road Map, prepared and agreed to by the UNCT & the government, should be aligned with the national development planning process.

At the same time, the UNCT reviews and draws, as

It lays out how the UNCT will contribute to the country and UNDAF preparation.

assessments, or integrated planning processes. These

appropriate, on existing joint or collaborative UN frameworks and strategic partnerships; for example the Education for All global action plan, the ILO Decent Work Country

Programme,

Understanding

signed

existing by

Memoranda agencies,

of

strategic

can be used to support country level action and increase coherence in the UNDAF. The road map identifies support needed from regional offices and headquarters. Once finalized, the Resident

Coordinator sends the road map to all national partners and also to the Regional Directors’ Teams/Peer Support Groups, headquarters of all UN agencies and the UN Development Operations Coordination Office (DOCO). National stakeholders, as well as staff from non-resident and specialized agencies, are included in the development of the road map. The UNCT also agrees on how to share costs. In transition settings, the UNCT needs to consult on the road map with the Integrated Mission Task Force or Integrated Task Force to ensure coordination with other UN actors.

Options of mechanisms: As part of the road map, the UNCT and national stakeholders agree on a consultative process of their choice for conducting the country analysis and for validation and review of the draft UNDAF. For increased

The duration and timing of the UN programming process, including the UNDAF, should be synchronized with the national planning cycle, and ideally the UNDAF begins when the national plan commences.

ownership by all relevant stakeholders, the consultative

127

UNDG, How to Prepare an UNDAF: Part (I) Guidelines for UN Country Teams (UNDG, January 2010) and How to Prepare an UNDAF: Part (II) Technical Guidance for UN Country Teams (UNDG, January 2010).

97 | P a g e

process needs to be inclusive. UNCTs may identify appropriate coordination mechanism(s) for implementing the road map.

Timing of an UNDAF: Planning and programming frameworks of the UN, including the UNDAF, need to be fully aligned with the national development planning cycles, whenever possible, and that they make use of and strengthen national capacities and mechanisms. The duration and timing of the UN programming process, including the UNDAF, is therefore synchronized with the national planning cycle, and ideally the UNDAF begins when the national plan commences. The timeframe of the country analysis and UNDAF in transition settings responds to the special circumstances of the country, and takes into account other planning processes, particularly relating to mission planning. In highly politically unstable contexts, UNCTs can have similar flexibility.

Toolkits & frameworks for the Analysis Phase: There are UN inter-agency toolkits and frameworks, which need to be consulted and used to support assessment and analysis. These include, inter alia: 

the CEB Toolkit on Mainstreaming Employment and Decent Work, which has been further identified by UN agencies as an example of promoting inter-linkages between the five programming principles;



the UNDG Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues;



the Education for All Global Action Plan;



the Cultural Lens Programming Tool;



the Inter-agency Framework for Conflict Analysis in Transition Situations;



the UNDG Guidance Note on Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction into CCA/UNDAF;



UNCT Performance Indicators for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment;



the HLCP/CEB Resource Guide on Trade and Capacity Building;



the Aid for Trade and Human Development Guide;



the UNDG Position Statement on Capacity Development.

128

Advice on alignment and agreement on shortening or extending an UNDAF cycle is taken by the government and UNCT in consultation with the RDTs. DOCO and individual agencies are also kept informed.

128

See section “Analysis Phase” in List of References for this chapter.

98 | P a g e

Anti-corruption assessments could provide useful information at the roadmap stage because a comprehensive anti-corruption assessment plays an important role in: 

Encouraging multi-stakeholder participation in the assessment;



Promoting pro-poor and gender-sensitive assessments;



Strengthening evidence-based policy making;



Aligning governance/anti-corruption assessment with national development plans.

Engagement of key stakeholders during the consultative process of the UNDAF: Depending on their role, the most important stakeholders, which will be a part of the steering and implementation process, would need to be consulted as early as possible. The process per se is an important first step in regard to capacity development and creation of ownership.

At the international and regional levels, key partners are: 

UN Agencies;



Bilateral development institutions (DFID, Norad, AusAID, GIZ, etc.);



OECD, which coordinates donor activities in the area of anti-corruption;129



Transparency International, which is a leading NGO in the area of anti-corruption, has more than 100 national chapters and organisations on the way to become chapters;130



International finance institutions such as the World Bank, ADB and AFDB which finance anticorruption programs;



Human rights institutions;



Academic agencies;



Anti-Corruption Resource Center (U-4), which carries out research projects and provides knowledge products.131

National and local stakeholders also need to be addressed. The table below shows potential stakeholders at this level and suggests their possible roles in anti-corruption.

129

OECD-DAC (DCD/DAC/GOVNET/RD(2005)1/RD2) DAC Revised Principles for Donor Action in Anti-Corruption th (24 March 2005).

130 Transparency International, http://www.transparency.org/ 131 U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, http://www.u4.no/

99 | P a g e

List of Potential Stakeholders and Roles:132 Stakeholders

Possible Roles in Anti-Corruption

Central government leadership (President or

Policy

Prime Minister’s Office)

preparation of draft laws and regulations for

making,

coordination,

monitoring,

legislation Local

government

(State/provincial

leadership Enforcement of anti-corruption measures at the governments; local

level,

especially

municipalities, etc.)

transparency, and integrity

-Sector committees and commissions

Policy

making

-Sector ministries and agencies at central and implementation local government levels

conducting

for of

relevant

policies

vulnerability

accountability,

to

as

sectors; mandated;

corruption

or

corruption risk assessments.

Public administration

Maintenance

of

integrity

in

policy

implementation, delivery of public services Law Enforcement (police, prosecutor’s office, Enforcement of the rule of law, investigation, etc.) and Judiciary (including Ministry of prosecution and adjudication of corruption cases Justice or Justice departments) Anti-corruption agency (e.g., Anti-Corruption Arms of the government in policy making, Commission)

coordination, and monitoring

Auditor General

Enforcement of good financial management

Ombudsperson

Handling of complaints

Other agencies assigned corruption control Roles as assigned functions The Media

Awareness raising, accountability enforcement, transparency, participation in governance reform

Civil society

Awareness raising, accountability enforcement, transparency, internal governance reform

Private sector with emphasis on human Internal governance reform; transparency in development service delivery provision

lobbying; promotion of business ethics

Citizens

Awareness raising, social audit

Magistrate

&

Prosecutorial

Councils

/

Oversight work of the judiciary; Disciplinary

132

Drawn from UNDP, Mainstreaming Anti-Corruption in Development, p. 35. Please note that this list is neither exhaustive nor mandatory but gives different options for consideration.

100 | P a g e

Superior Disciplinary Councils

Councils / Ethics / Codes of Conducts / Appointment / Promotion and/or Removal of judges; prosecutors; public defenders.

Civil Service Commission

Conditions of Service; Ethics; Code of Conducts, Disciplinary system applied to civil servants.

Audit Court (civil Law)

External financial oversight

Inspector General / Internal Auditor’s

Internal financial oversight

Bar Association / Association of Professional

Ethical standards ; prevention in involvement in

Bodies (Accountant’s , Engineering, etc)

laundering proceeds of crimes;

reporting

obligations

6-7.1.2.2 Step 2 – Country Analysis For more than 25 years, and notably since Amartya Sen’s publication “Development as Freedom”, the UN system has recognized the need to reflect on the linkages between economic opportunities, political freedoms, social facilities, transparency guarantees and protective security.133

The

programmatic translation of this has proven to be challenging however.

Recent work highlights the need to focus on the interaction of political and economic processes in a society: the distribution of power and wealth between different groups and individuals, and the processes that create, sustain and transform these relationships over time”.134 For the UNDAF process it is the reflection of that interaction that will provide important insights for better, more strategic and enhanced UN development effectiveness.

Typically “politics” is concerned with the study of

Good analysis includes identifying areas where the country has not been able to reach internationally-agreed development goals and commitments to international norms and standards, and how to assist the country to do so.

power and authority, and the exercise of power and authority, whilst “economics” is concerned with ‘the optimal use of scarce resources (technical)’. In reality, policy choices are not always based on ‘optimal use’, and this is where it becomes critically

133

Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Random House, 1999).

Collinson, Sarah (ed.), “Power, Livelihoods and Conflict: Case Studies in Political Economy Analysis for Humanitarian Action‟, Report 13, (Overseas Development Institute, Humanitarian Policy Group, London, 2003).

134

101 | P a g e

important to incorporate an anti-corruption lens; a classic example to show its importance is the almost standard increase of social spending in a pre-election year.

UNCTs are provided with three options to conduct the country analysis: 1. Participate in Government-led analytical work and use of government analysis, including sector reviews and analyses; 2. Develop complementary UN-supported analytical work focusing on gaps in existing analysis; 3. Do a full Common Country Assessment.

Please note: the decision on what type of analysis will be carried out by the UNCT will/may have an impact on the strategic nature of the outcome, and all options therefore warrant careful study.

According to the UNDAF Guidelines, a country analysis will contribute to the articulation of highquality development objectives and priorities within the UNDAF. In that regard, the country analysis must inform the strategic planning step of the UNDAF. In addition, and notwithstanding the flexibility given to UNCTs, the requirements for a good analysis do not change. Any UN conducted country analysis should live up to certain minimum criteria to ensure that a complete picture of the country is available to inform subsequent decisions. In other words, while the process to compile the analysis may differ depending on the option chosen, the substantive requirements do not change!

Good analysis includes identifying areas where the country has not been able to reach internationally-agreed development goals and commitments to international norms and standards, and how to assist the country to do so. A clear comparative advantage that the UNCT can bring to a country’s analytic work is to help identify priority development problems. The UNCT communicates these as interrelated and ensures a balanced understanding of their economic, social, environmental and institutional causes, as well as the capacity gaps that may prevent action.

The UNDAF country analysis phase must situate possible future UN development interventions within an understanding of the prevailing political, social and economic processes in society. It looks at incentives, relationships, and the distribution and contestation of power between different groups and individuals as all of these have a significant impact on development outcomes. All together it will provide a means toward facilitating ‘informed choice’.

102 | P a g e

The UNDAF Guidelines do not go into too much detail regarding the country analysis, but based on practice, and with a view to enhance strategic planning it will be helpful to look at the country analysis as a process of three interrelated phases:

1.

A ‘gathering information phase’,

2.

An ‘assessment phase’

3.

An ‘analysis phase’.

The first speaks for itself even though considerable thought should be given to the level of detail required; the second is a process for determining which problems exist as well as identifying opportunities and achievements; and the third is the process for determining the causes of problems and relations among them.

1. Gathering Information: Before any assessment and/or analysis is carried out, sufficient attention must be paid to the process of information gathering. Grounded in the

Start country analysis research with the examination of data and information already existing and available at the country level.

If it does not exist, then use this absence of data as an entry point for dialogue with the partner country.

notion(s) of national ownership, contribution to national priorities and challenges, as well as the efforts to implement the broad UN system agenda, UNCTs must fully comprehend what makes a country ‘tick’ the way it does. It is at this stage that the results from AC assessments, UNCAC reviews, policy statements and commitments etc. are brought to the fore.

To illustrate the interrelated elements for programming a bit more, the above picture with circles may be useful. It serves to highlight the different determinants, and their

103 | P a g e

resulting influence on the country and its people. The strength of the analysis will however, above all, rest in the depth of the linkages studied.

The Assessment Phase focuses on how the country really operates, determining the problems and identifying the opportunities & achievements.

 Where does the information come from?  Triangulation of data is important  Don’t reinvent the wheel

2. The Assessment Phase: Following the process of information gathering the UNCT commences the assessment phase. This can be done on the basis of information coming from Government led work, complementary analyses and/or a full-fledged CCA. The assessment is a process for determining which problems exist, as well as identifying opportunities and achievements. Partners review where the country is in terms of the national development situation and in achieving the goals of international conferences and conventions. The assessment phase is typically descriptive in nature, describing the situation that exists compared to the situation of past years. It will moreover provide the base-line for planned programming processes.

The Assessment Phase provides the baseline for planned programming processes.

The assessment phase is where one looks at the mix of determinants in a country. It is the moment to take note how the country really operates/functions. A patriarchal political system may for instance clarify inequalities in the economic sphere, whilst corruption can well be fed by the

‘outside forces at work’ (in for example the extractive industry). Taking the outcome of the conceptualising process of the assessment phase into account will help in clarifying the different 104 | P a g e

options a UNCT may have with regard to the identification of priority challenges and opportunities to focus on. Anti-corruption concerns will frequently be referred to as cross-cutting challenge to be analysed and tackled.

3. The Analysis Phase: Further to the information gathering and the assessment to establish the base-line, UNCTs must begin the actual analysis of development challenges. The analysis is a process for determining the causes of problems and relations among them. It involves probing in depth into development challenges, and establishing trends in development. The focus of the analysis will be to determine the immediate, underlying causes and root

The Analysis Phase is a process for determining the immediate, intermediate and root causes of the development challenges and the relations/trends among them

causes of the development challenges, and typically this phase is programmatically guided by the causal analysis, the role/pattern analysis and the capacity gap analysis.

To unpack the causes of a Problem Problem

Immediate Causes

Underlying causes

Root Causes

105 | P a g e

Key components to integrate anti-corruption into the analysis: For country analysis, research should begin by an examination of data and information already existing and available at the country level. First of all the existing legislation - criminal code, procurement/tendering laws, public service135 - as well as regulations and processes within the institutions of different sectors should be examined. If the country is a States party to UNCAC information on the country review should be checked. The same is valid of reviews under other Conventions. The various chapters of UNCAC outline a comprehensive anti-corruption approach.

Chapter II for instance, provides guidance on national policies, institutional arrangements and other aspects of preventive measures; for example, rules that are of relevance to prevent corruption should be in place in all public sector institutions. Also a functioning criminal justice system is essential, as all allegations of corrupt practice would need to be reported and investigated by the justice sector institutions.

It is also important to acknowledge that different governmental and non-governmental entities might have already collected data, generated statistics or conducted surveys and studies that are relevant for anti-corruption analysis. These statistics and studies from law enforcement agencies, auditor general, anti-corruption bodies, ombudsman, NGOs, etc., also should be included in the country analysis.

National policies and/or strategies and their evaluations might also encompass such information and provide further details (e.g. regional or sectoral specifics). The availability or even the absence of such data can be used as an entry point for dialogue with the partner country. In the absence of data or if the quality of data is insufficient,136 support to enable more coherent data collection could be one aspect of a comprehensive capacity-building strategy.

135

UNODC, Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit (UN, 2006).

136

Verification of the collection methods and cross reference of data might reveal insufficiencies and/or problems between departments and institutions etc.

106 | P a g e

From an anti-corruption perspective, every ‘Country Analysis’ should at least contain information about: 

Normative standards (national, regional and international level);



Reviews and Self-Assessments (e.g. for States parties of UNCAC or under other relevant Conventions);



Institutional Framework in the Field of Anti-Corruption (Actors and responsibilities);



Existing regulations and mechanisms;



Statistical data;



Perception studies (if available)C;



Extra ideas: The corruption narrative of the country; level of political will; legal framework; institutional framework and capacities; independence, effectiveness and efficiency of institutions.

6-7.1.2.3 UN Programming Principles Agreement about the five programming principles (human rights-based approach - HRBA, gender equality, environmental sustainability, capacity development and results-based management) emerged from inter-agency discussions in 2006 to revise the UNDAF Guidelines. It is widely agreed that all five are necessary for effective UN-supported country programming that must balance the pursuit of international norms and standards with the achievement of national development priorities.137

A principle gives a basis for reasoning and action. For the UNDAF, this means a principle is:

1. Universal, applying equally to all people in all countries; 2. Based in law, internationally agreed development goals and treaties, and national laws and commitments; and 3. Relevant to government-UN cooperation, everywhere and always. This sets principles apart from priorities and goals, which are influenced heavily by contextual factors.

137

UNDG, UNDAF Guidance Material, available at: http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=1532

107 | P a g e

The principles bring value to country analysis, and they help to identify possible strategies and programme responses. Among the principles, it is important to distinguish between:

Five Programming Principles (I) 

Three normative principles: human rights and HRBA, gender equality, and environmental sustainability;



Two enabling principles: capacity development and results-based management.

The two enabling principles offer means to make the normative principles operational in the UNDAF. These principles help to demonstrate effectiveness and accountability for the use of UN system resources. All five principles provide a lens, both individually and in combination, for UN engagement with and support to other national development planning processes and frameworks, such as poverty reduction strategies (PRS), sector-wide approaches (SWAPs), and joint assistance strategies.

Anti-corruption linkages with the programming principles: Anti-Corruption, as a cross-cutting issue, and the programming principles are to be treated as two complementary sides of the UN development effectiveness coin, as together they enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and the legitimacy of UN action at country level.

UN Programming Principles

AntiCorruption

The following two tables on the next pages identify the linkages between anticorruption and the programming principles.138

138

International Council on Human Right Policy (ICHRP), Integrating Human Rights in the Anti-Corruption Agenda: Challenges, Possibilities and Opportunities (ICHRP, 2010); UNDP, Mainstreaming Anti-Corruption in Development: Anti-Corruption Practice Note (December 2008); UNDP, Guidance Note: UNCAC Self-Assessments – Going Beyond the Minimum (October 2010); UNDP, Methodology for Assessing the Capacities of AntiCorruption Agencies to Perform Preventive Functions (UNDP, 2011).

108 | P a g e

Anti-corruption linkages with UNDAFs normative principles:

UNDAFs

Examples of ant-corruption Entry

Programming

Corruption Linkages

points with respect to the UNDAF

Normative

Programming Principles

principles Human Rights-

 Corruption denies access to public services  A legally mandated and enforced line of

Based Approach (HRBA)

in favour of those able to influence

accountability

authorities to act in their personal interest.

obligation to deliver public services.

 Corruption generates discrimination. 

Corruption in the judicial system

Corrupt political systems deny the right

to

democratic

Corruption expenditures

Environmental Sustainability

have

the

to public information, transparency and accountability into all public sectors.

citizens and civil society organizations to strengthen accountability measures for the use of public resources.

participation. 

who

 Participation and collective action from

before the law.

fundamental

those

 Legislation that guarantees the right to access

violates basic human rights to equality 

of

reduces

especially

on

public  Strengthening education,

safeguards

legislative

and

justice

processes,

legal

mechanisms

for

health, and social protection while also

vulnerable groups to fight corruption as well

affecting the quality of services.

as ensure human rights of vulnerable groups.

 Corruption is used for land expropriations.  Corruption deprives citizens in general, yet

 Incorporation public hearings of new projects subject to environmental and social impact.

especially those with a low-income, of their

 Empowering

rights to services such as water, electricity,

resources

and environmental safety.

incentivizing resource control and protection.

 Private companies may pay state officials to shape the laws, policies, and regulations.  State capture may happen through legal methods such as lobbying and donationgiving to political parties.

local

communities

sustainably

and

to

use

thereby

 Making communities aware of the corruption risks in REDD+ mechanism by strengthening the rights of indigenous population  Promoting consumer awareness and collective action.  Strengthening

policy

for

environmental

management by enhancing access to data and information, greater inclusion of stakeholders, and

supporting

the

integration

of

environmental analysis into anti-corruption strategies.

109 | P a g e

Gender

 As corruption affects poorer sections of a population, women are likely to be affected

Equality

Gender bias in the judicial system

Trafficking is more likely in a corrupt

mechanisms aimed at protect women´s rights.  Consult and involve women´s organization in

environment. 

corruption strategies.  Promote special accountability tools and

hurts women. 

corruption assessments.  Consult women´s organization national anti-

more severely. 

 Use gender disaggregated data in risk and

Sexual corruption in the workplace

gender sensitive anti-corruption strategies.

affects women. 

Corruption hinders gender equality.



Corruption is an obstacle for women participation in the decision making.

Anti-corruption Linkages with UNDAF enabling principles:

UNDAFs

Anti-corruption Linkages

Enabling Principles Results-based Management (RBM)

 An analysis of corruption problems, possible causes, and consequences provides the required baseline information on a corruption.  A selection of entry points based on a sound analysis of country’s national anticorruption instruments and the actors will help clarify priorities and sequence short, medium, and long-term priorities.  Follow up and sustainability: Corruption evolves and changes over time and thus, the analysis of corruption should be considered an on-going process.  Tracking progress by utilizing assessment tools helps measure the effectiveness of programmes.

Capacity Development

 The capacity development approach is central to anti-corruption programming. For example, support to increase state/institutional capacity on anti-corruption has to look at three levels: 1. enabling environment (legal and institutional frameworks, political environment, etc.); 2. mandates and organizational capacity of relevant anti-corruption institutions (e.g., anti-corruption agencies, prosecutor’s office, etc.); and 3. capacity of civil society and media.

110 | P a g e

 Capacity Assessment of Anti-Corruption Bodies under the UNCAC Framework: Strengthening of anti-corruption bodies should start with a capacity assessment and be followed by the implementation of capacity development plan to address the issue of independence, degree of authority, functions, internal organization, and coordination with relevant public and private-sector organizations.  Strengthening civil society and the Media to support anti-corruption is a key element in anti-corruption

programming.

Capacity-strengthening

methods

may

include:

awareness-raising; training of civil society members and journalists; increasing the participation of civil society and the Media in policy formulation; or supporting good governance principles in CSO organizations.

6-7.1.2.4 Step 3 – Strategic Planning In addition to the Country Analysis, the Strategic Planning phase will be of equal importance to ensure anti-corruption concerns are fully taken into account. It is at this stage where UNCTs, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, must agree on a set of outcomes to support selected national development priorities/challenges. Bringing in the right partners at country level will be fundamental.

Strategic Planning is the stage where UNCTs, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, agree on a set of outcomes to support selected development priorities.

The UNDAF must reflect the comparative advantage of the UN by emphasising the thematic competence of the agencies involved, without necessarily highlighting their specific mandates. It should show where the UN system can bring its unique strengths to bear in advocacy, capacity development, programming and cutting edge knowledge and policy advice, for the achievement of the internationally agreed standards and development goals, including MD/MDG related national

Anti-corruption concerns need to have been highlighted in the earlier steps. If not, they will not be identified as key challenges to development in the Strategic Planning stage.

139

priorities.139 In the area of anti-corruption, the UN has a very firm comparative advantage as elaborated in Chapter 4.3.2.

The country analysis may have processed a lot of information

and identified different causes of

corruption. But this does not mean everything should

UNDG, UNDAF Guidance Material, supra note 140

111 | P a g e

be and can be addressed. Prioritization and sequencing must be

UNDAF Action Plan

done against the backdrop of the specific country context. The UN system, including specialised agencies and non-resident

complements the

agencies, and stakeholders, led by the government, participate in

UNDAF by setting out

the prioritisation exercise. The aim is to relate the comparative

‘how’ the UN system

advantages of the UN system to specific national development priorities in a particular country, as well as the collective resources

agencies will work

of the UN system in relation to other resources available to the

with national

government, such as through national budget, private sector,

partners and each

international financial institutions and bilateral aid (ref. Chapter IV

other to achieve the

of the Technical Guidance for Preparing UNDAFs). Strategic priority setting thus requires an informed understanding of the country situation, and will have to rely extensively on the quality

results identified in the UNDAF.

of the country analysis. In other words, if anti-corruption concerns have not been integrated in the earlier steps, it is unlikely that the partners will identify anti-corruption concerns as prime challenges to be tackled (either sectoral and/or cross-cutting).

The prioritisation exercise will subsequently form the basis for drafting the results matrix, the UNDAF document, and for identifying potential joint programmes. It will, by extension, also inform the UNDAF Action Plans that will increasingly be rolled out.

UNDAF Action Plans An increasing number of UNCTs have gone the route of developing an UNDAF Action Plan. The UNDAF Action Plan complements the UNDAF by setting out ‘how’ the UN system agencies will work with national partners and each other to achieve the results identified in the UNDAF. What is critical in the development of the UNDAF Action Plan (from an internal UN perspective) is that it will replace UN system agency specific country programme action plans (CPAPS) and other similar operational documents with a single document for the coordinated implementation of the UNDAF. By replacing the operational documents of multiple UN funds, programmes or specialised agencies with a single operational document, the UNDAF Action Plan advances the harmonisation and simplification of UN operations. (Even though the UNDAF Action Plan is not a tool for approval or allocation of resources by governing bodies for UN system agencies’ country programmes.

Country Programme Documents (CPD) serve this purpose and will continue to do so.)

112 | P a g e

113 | P a g e

The success of the UNDAF Action Plan will rest on the quality of work done in the design of the UNDAF. If done properly, the UNDAF Action Plan will bring: 

greater clarity and transparency of the full extent of the UN system’s activities and resources in country;



increase coherence and accountability for specific results; and



increase synergy and reduce duplication of efforts.

Sufficient rigour to the analysis and strategic planning processes are of paramount importance. A well understood and widely shared UN System analytical process, with an anti-corruption perspective, must ensure that: 

There is a shared understanding of the economic, social, and political context; based on data specific to corruption and institutional integrity in the country;



There is a clear understanding of the situation of institutional integrity and corruption of specific sectors;



Identify data that can be used to create a baseline index for program monitoring and evaluation.

6-7.1.2.5 Step 4 – Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) According to the UNDAF Guidelines, an M&E plan, an annual review, and an evaluation are required. UNDAF Monitoring and UNDAF Evaluation are linked but distinct processes. In line with the principles of Managing for Development Results, UNCTs ensure that they:

 capitalize on existing national M&E systems whenever possible and feasible;  provide support to areas where further strengthening of national systems is required, while avoiding an excessive burden on partner countries with UNDAF-specific M&E requirements.

Monitoring tracks progress towards the results agreed in the matrix, and checks if the assumptions made and risks identified at the design stage are still valid or need to be reviewed. Thus it helps the UNCT and implementing partners to make mid-course corrections as an integral part of programme management.

114 | P a g e

The results expected from UNDAF monitoring are: • Regular assessments of progress towards the outcomes in the matrix; • Continued identification of partners’ capacity development needs, particularly for data collection, analysis, monitoring and reporting; • Improved results-based reporting on UNDAF achievements; and • Improved teamwork among UN agencies and greater ownership of the UNDAF among implementing partners.

Evaluation determines whether the results made a worthwhile contribution to national development priorities, and the coherence of UNCT support.

While it makes an essential

contribution to managing for results, it is an external function that is separated from programme management.

The results expected from the UNDAF evaluation are: • A considered judgement about the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of UNDAF results and strategies, as well as alternatives that could have more effective used the UNCT resources and comparative advantages, particularly for capacity development; • Improved positioning of UNDAF results and lessons to influence the national development framework, and inform country analysis and planning in the next cycle; • Better accountability and more effective use of lessons learned to inform management decision-making and build knowledge for enhanced programmes, plans and policies.

6.1.2.6 UNDAF M&E Plan140 The UNDAF M&E plan is a requirement. It is designed, with the full involvement of government and other partners, at the same time as the results matrix, which is the basis of the M&E plan. It may draw on the national M&E plan, of the national development framework, where available.

140

UNDG, UNDAF Guidance Material, supra note 139.

115 | P a g e

The M&E plan highlights mechanisms or modalities for monitoring the achievement of outputs and the contribution towards achievement of outcomes. In developing the M&E plan, UNCTs consider the following key factors: • Most of the data for the indicators on results are drawn from national systems; where data from national systems is not available, baseline studies can be supported. Each UN agency is responsible and accountable for monitoring and evaluating respective programme outputs and contribution to outcomes, while strengthening existing national M&E systems and mechanisms.

• When preparing the M&E plan, UNCTs determine major gaps in terms of required data. The M&E plan then spells out how these gaps are filled, for example through strengthening M&E in key projects or building government’s capacity to operationalize its own M&E systems, wherever feasible.

The M&E plan may be reflected by the UNCT in a table or in the narrative of the UNDAF document.141

Monitoring and Evaluation of Anti-Corruption Work: Monitoring is a management tool. Indicators are not an end in themselves but are useful only if used to monitor if certain defined outcomes and outputs are reached. Activities are carried out in order to reach the outcomes and outputs Indicators shed light on an aspect which is measurable and allows for conclusions to be drawn on the progress/achievement in regard to the outcomes and outputs. Indicators must be chosen for which you already have a baseline or are able to establish a baseline within a short time frame.

For monitoring and evaluating progress in AC related areas, certain sets of indicators are needed.

Some key examples of indicator sets include the following:142 1. Indicators related to an understanding of anti-corruption frameworks, including: 

UNCAC and the human development objectives;



Linkages between corruption, human development, and governance.

141

For guidance on the M&E plan, refer to Chapter V of UNDG, How to Prepare an UNDAF: Part (II) Technical Guidance for UN Country Teams (UNDG, January 2010).

142 Drawn from UNDP, Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Interventions for Poverty Reduction, Realization of the MDGs and Promoting Sustainable Development (Dec 2008), p. 42.

116 | P a g e

2. Indicators related to the capacities of relevant stakeholders to formulate and implement an anti-corruption program include: 

Stakeholder capacities to identify entry points and mainstream anti-corruption programs;



Internal organizational capacities of the national anti-corruption agency;



Coordination capacities of national and local-level anti-corruption agencies;



Capacities of relevant actors in the justice sector (e.g. criminal police, prosecution, judiciary, defence lawyers) in regard to corruption related offences.

3. Indicators related to coordination are: 

Among national agencies at various levels;



Between the UN and other international agencies;



Between the UN and national government agencies;



Communication planning.

4. Indicators related to the phenomenon of corruption are: 

Most frequently found corruption forms;



Anti-corruption progress or lack of progress based on clearly stated benchmarks.



Corruption specific aspects in different sectors including private sector

5. Indicators on demand for anti-corruption  Knowledge of the Media and CSOs on anti-corruption;  Participation of the Media and CSOs in anti-corruption;  Demand for accountability.

Indicators and information may be drawn from both international and national systems.

Because the Result matrix of UNDAF is on a very high level, it does not provide sufficient room to integrate very concrete aspects of the individual programmes. Those can only be addressed within the respective programme documents per agency programme.143 Therefore UNDAF outcomes need to be formulated in a broad enough way so as to leave room for different forms of initiatives. Some possibilities are given below.

143

Also in this regard UNDP and UNODC can provide support how to integrate more concretely anti-corruption into programmes. UNCAC can be used as basis.

117 | P a g e

Examples of Outcomes, Outputs and Indicators:144

Result

Indicator

UNDAF outcome:

No. of accountability (horizontal and social) mechanisms implemented at the local and national level.

By 2013, Increased transparency and accountability of public institutions with emphasis on decentralized bodies or

or

Zero-tolerance environment to corruption in all spheres of society

Compliance with UNCAC provisions on corruption prevention

Agency outcomes:

- # of bills tabled at parliament

Regulatory framework for respective public institutions established and capacities for implementation strengthened.

- % of posts filled in staffing requirements of independent commissions and funding secured in national budget - # of trained staff for specialists functions in place and able to carry out their tasks -The rate to which the reorganized or recently established institution is providing services 9e.g., processing request, time taken by the criminal justice proceeding from police report to final decision)

144

Examples have been adapted from other UNDAFs.

118 | P a g e

Outputs: Technical support for the laws and regulations to strengthen legislative and regulatory framework for public sector reforms and public institutions, particularly in the areas of public administration and anti�corruption.

# of bills ratified/amended

Draft laws address gaps in the UNCAC implementation (according to the UNCAC Gap analysis).Civil service, based on the recommendations from the capacity assessment of the civil service, has improved and reporting mechanisms are functional.

X articles in relevant new laws and draft laws address gaps in UNCAC implementation.

Improved access of vulnerable groups to x service (in case those were specifically threatened by corruption) Reporting mechanisms are established in X key services and increasingly used by citizens (e.g. % of annual clients).

Citizens are aware of their rights and feel confident to report corruption

Survey amongst X persons (youth, vulnerable group, cross cutting group of society) in x districts.

Survey on % of victims who reported their victimization to the police / or other anticorruption body (UN Rule of Law Indicators No. 8)

Criminal justice system has improved and officers in the criminal justice chain (including prosecutors, judges) are better capable of managing corruption related cases

E.g. Number of cases, conviction rate, average time from reporting to sentencing

Access to information has improved in regard to public expenditures

# of Multi-stakeholder consultations for anticorruption reform increased (# of consultative meetings; dialogue between civil society and government, parliament and anti-corruption institutions)

Assist in the training and awareness programmes that will promote transparency and accountability in independent institutions, Parliament, government officials, civil service and civil society organizations.

Support on strengthening project management capacities and supply chain management systems and processes.

% of responses by authorities to demands for information within x months (depending on regulation)

Risk assessment reports of the individual departments National Strategic Action Plan drafted # of trained staff in independent commissions Annual reports of independent commissions operational manuals /investigation & Audit checklists developed.

119 | P a g e

6.2 Measurements & Assessments of Corruption to inform Country Analysis and Strategic Planning In an ideal situation, anti-corruption programmes would be based on a sound foundation of corruption risk assessments and measurements of the extent that corruption has permeated the public and private institutions. In reality, however, this is easier said than done. Measuring corruption is a complex endeavour,145 and it is infused with a high risk of inaccuracies as well as political controversy.

Fortunately, there has been tremendous progress in the development of indicators to measure or assess different aspects of anti-corruption, such as integrity, transparency, governance, and the rule of law. One of the foundational documents in this regard is the 2008 Users’ Guide to Measuring Corruption, developed by the UNDP and Global Integrity.146

6.2.1 Various types of measurements/assessments147 Diagnostic tool(s) may be used to identify three aspects: 1. Perception of corruption;148 2. Experiences of corruption (incidences and prevalence);149 3. Weaknesses/bottlenecks within the service delivery system that present opportunities for corruption.150 Note that a corruption assessment is broader than just a risk assessment. A risk assessment is used for identifying areas in which potential risks may occur and the impact of such risks, should they occur. Also, distinct methodological approaches used in the deployment of these various tools should be kept in mind when using indicators and data comparison tools.

145

E.g. illicit behaviours are generally hidden, which makes them more difficult to identify and describe.

Corruption is often underreported; e.g. victims might be, to some extent, co-responsible for the crime or fear retaliation. Moreover, national legislation, which is not fully consistent with UNCAC, could blur the boarders between licit and illicit etc. Therefore data on reported crime will not provide enough information to assess the scope of the phenomenon.

146 UNDP, A Users' Guide to Measuring Corruption (UNDP, 2008); see also UNODC and the Centre for the Study of Democracy, Workshop on Measuring and Monitoring Corruption and Anti-Corruption (17-18 June 2005) 147 For more in-depth information refer to the UNDP (2008) A Users’ Guide to Measuring Corruption 148 For example, Transparency International, Corruption Perception Index 2012 149 For example, the Vietnam Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI)) 150 Such as Republic of Korea, Integrity Assessment of Public Administration

120 | P a g e

Moreover assessments should look into normative aspects; for example if the legal provisions are apt to tackle corruption, if the institutions’ collaboration is working effectively, if the capacities of institutions to prevent corruption are monitored correctly and how the cases of corruption are reported. Means of measuring these areas might be available - reports and statistics of institutions and can be discussed and developed with partners (e.g. assessment of results of trainings, capacity building measures, improvement of processes). Such information and data is not only important for on-going monitoring but also for the initial analysis, assessment and creation of baselines (see also 5.2.2.3. and 5.1.2.5).

6.2.1.1 Aggregate Indicators Transparency International’s flagship indicator is the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).151 The CPI ranks countries according to the perceived levels of public sector corruption using a scale that goes from zero (lowest level of perceived corruption) to 100 (highest level of perceived corruption). 152 Another indicator to be aware of is the World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI).153 Both the CPI and the WGI are “aggregate” indicators that combine several sources of information into a single index to assess a broad concept (perceptions of public sector corruption) and compare it across different countries. These two indicators use similar sources of information from assessments of experts and businesspeople, but the WGI also uses assessments from households. In the case of the WGI, the scores for a country can also be compared across time.

Aggregate indicators are broad indicators that have several disadvantages. They do not inform us about the magnitude of the risk, the form a problem will take, or where to look further. They do not help to identify specific corruption prone areas in detail (procedures or positions at risk) or to monitor trends in these specific areas. Aggregate indicators do, however, help companies prioritize their efforts. Furthermore they are easy to understand and provide readers with a general sense of the issue and primary information.

The CPI and the WGI are a good place to start, but should not be the only source to draw conclusions, because when looked at in isolation they can lead to incorrect conclusions. Both these indicators are also based mostly on perceptions-based data, which provides only a subjective and 151

CPI, supra note 151.

For TI’s further adjustments of the methodology, including a widening of the scale, see Johnsøn, Jesper, “Theories of change in anti-corruption work: A tool for programme design and evaluation”, U4 Issue 2012: 6.

153 The World Bank, Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) 152

121 | P a g e

indirect indicator of corruption. However, perception-based indicators are still in use for a number of reasons, including: 1. complexity of corruption (several forms); 2. difficulty of direct measures (evidence-based); 3. need to produce easy-to-understand results; 4. advocacy; 5. cost of traditional data collection tools (surveys).

Perceptions are not always based on people’s direct experience but a result of a complex progress of information- and experience-gathering and interpretation. Therefore perceptions certainly provide important information, but they should be read in the context of an understanding that the underlying information can be influenced by multiple external factors, such as, for example, a lack of enforcement and reporting being perceived as an absence of corruption or a major scandal shaping public perceptions. For this reason it is also not advisable to use perception-based indicators as key indicators to measure success of government strategies. Such information has to be seen in context in order to provide useful information.154 Similarly, the aggregate data could easily mislead the conclusion as agreeing on how much weight to give to a particular indicator to come up with an aggregate indicator is not easy. For example, just looking at the World Bank’s Governance indicators, it is hard to make comparison among countries.

For instance, China’s score is higher than India’s on the “Government Effectiveness” indicator, but India scores higher than China on “Voice and Accountability”. If these two indicators have to be aggregated, it is hard to come up with a generally accepted rule on the weights given to these respective indicators.

Other risks of using aggregate indicators include: •

Methodology (data aggregation, information used to measure the construct);

•

Not appropriate for policy guidance (using data for legal and institutional reforms);

•

Name and shame (comparing apple and oranges);

•

‘Allergic reaction’ to any corruption measure.

6.2.1.2 Targeted indicators

154

For example, increased efforts in fighting corruption could result in an increased case load as well as increased perceived corruption.

122 | P a g e

There is a second group of targeted indicators, which serve to assess and compare a specific issue across several countries. Although they are still perception based, they have the advantage of being relatively concrete and narrow. The Transparency International Bribe Payers Index (BPI),155 the World Bank Doing Business Project (DB),156 and the Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) from the World Economic Forum are a few examples.157 The BPI ranks 28 leading economies according to the propensity of their companies to engage in bribe-related activities when operating abroad. The DB assesses specific aspects of business regulations in 183 countries to identify where opportunities for corruption may arise. The GCR takes responses from businesspeople to analyze (among other aspects) the transparency of a country’s policy-making process and the frequency of irregular payments or bribes in 139 countries.

As with the aggregate indicators, these tools are useful for tracking a particular issue, such as corruption in the construction sector, in a country-based context, yet they can overlook important risk factors if used in isolation to assess the likelihood of corruption to occur, such as institutional arrangements or barriers, or how other sectors interact on a larger scale. It is therefore important to include in any corruption analysis, the larger framework within which the various sectors operate or do business.

6.2.1.3 Other sources of corruption and anti-corruption data There are multiple open sources from which data can be drawn from with a view to obtaining an insight into the corruption and anti-corruption situation of you country. All of these assessments cover both perception and experience related data. Please note that these sources and tools should not be used in isolation, but rather, as part of the assessment approach to gather as much relevant information as possible in developing a comprehensive approach to anti-corruption programming.

Corruption related indicators: Country specific corruption assessments exist for many countries. Typically they are produced by academic institutions, international or bilateral organisations, and or NGOs, including the national chapter of Transparency International, the World Bank, UNODC, UNDP and U4 Anti-Corruption resource centre.

155

Transparency International, Bribe Payers Index (BPI), http://bpi.transparency.org/results/ World Bank Doing Business, Economy Rankings, http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings 157 Schwab, Klaus, The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011 (World Economic Forum, 2010).

156

123 | P a g e

What follows is an illustrative list of some of the most commonly used reports:  The Business Anti-Corruption Portal provided by the Global Advice Network.

158

This portal

provides summary analyses of different existing corruption related indicators and also studies by country and sector for 62 countries;  The Gateway Corruption Assessment Toolbox of Transparency International provides a

comprehensive database on existing studies and tools by thematic and geographic area;159  The Global Corruption Barometer of Transparency International which covers 86 countries and

includes experience and perception related data concerned with the prevalence of corruption in various institutions;160  The Global Integrity Report covers more than 100 countries.161 The Global Integrity Report assesses the strengths and weaknesses of national-level anti-corruption systems. Combining journalism with quantitative data gathering, the Report's country assessments are prepared by local teams of in-country journalists, academics, and researchers;  Country Reports produced by Transparency International using the National Integrity System Methodology.162

Anti-Corruption Assessment Tools: With a view to assessing the effectiveness of measures taken by countries to prevent and combat corruption, sources can be assessed through various intergovernmental peer review mechanism, including:  The Implementation Review Mechanism for the United Nations Convention against Corruption;163  The Mechanism for Follow-Up on the Implementation of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (MESICIC);164  The African Peer Review Mechanism;165  The Group of States against Corruption of the Council of Europe;166 158

Global Advice Network, Business Anti-Corruption Portal, http://www.business-anti-corruption.com/ Transparency International, Gateway, http://gateway.transparency.org/ 160 Transparency International, Global Corruption Barometer, http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gcb 161 Global Integrity Report, The Global Integrity Report: 2011, http://www.globalintegrity.org/report 162 Transparency International, National Integrity System Assessments, http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis 163 UNODC, Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption – Basic Documents (UN, 2011).

164 OAS: Department of Legal Cooperation, What is the MESICIC?, http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/mesicic_intro_en.htm 165 African Peer Review Mechanism, Publications, http://aprm-au.org/e-library 159

124 | P a g e

 The Review Mechanism for the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention;167  USAID, Tools for Assessing Corruption & Integrity in Institutions: A Handbook (2005).168

166

Council of Europe: Human Rights and Rule of Law, Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO): Third Evaluation Round, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/ReportsRound3_en.asp 167 OECD, Bribery in international business: Country monitoring of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, http://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/countrymonitoringoftheoecdanti-briberyconvention.htm 168 USAID, Tools for Assessing Corruption & Integrity in Institutions: A Handbook (August 2005).

125 | P a g e

6.3.Frequently Asked Questions See Attachment 1

List of References Primary Sources UN General Assembly (A/RES/67/226) Quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system (22nd January 2013), available at: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/226 -------- (A/RES/62/208) Triennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system (14 March 2008), available at: http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/476/25/PDF/N0747625.pdf?OpenElement

Secondary Sources Collinson, Sarah (ed.), “Power, Livelihoods and Conflict: Case Studies in Political Economy Analysis for Humanitarian Actionâ€&#x;, Report 13, (Overseas Development Institute, Humanitarian Policy Group, London, 2003), available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/papers/hpgreport13.pdf International Council on Human Right Policy (ICHRP), Integrating Human Rights in the AntiCorruption Agenda: Challenges, Possibilities and Opportunities (ICHRP, 2010), available at: http://www.ichrp.org/files/reports/58/131b_report.pdf OECD-DAC (DCD/DAC/GOVNET/RD(2005)1/RD2) DAC Revised Principles for Donor Action in AntiCorruption (24th March 2005), available at: http://www.oecd.org/site/adboecdanticorruptioninitiative/regionalseminars/35167935.pdf Sen, Amartya, Development as Freedom (Oxford University Press, 2001) UNDP, A Users' Guide to Measuring Corruption (UNDP, 2008),available at: http://www.agoraparl.org/sites/default/files/undp_users_guide_to_measuring_corruption.pdf ------ Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Interventions for Poverty Reduction, Realization of the MDGs and Promoting Sustainable Development (UNDP, December 2008), available at: http://www.unrol.org/files/2%20Primer%20on%20Corruption%20and%20Development_2008 .pdf

126 | P a g e

------- Mainstreaming Anti-Corruption in Development: Anti-Corruption Practice Note (UNDP, December 2008), available at: http://www.pogar.org/publications/ac/books/practicenote08e.pdf ------- Guidance Note: UNCAC Self-Assessments, Going Beyond the Minimum (October 2010), available at: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democraticgovernance/anti-corruption/guidance-note---uncac-self-assessments-going-beyond-theminimum/ -------- Methodology for Assessing the Capacities of Anti-Corruption Agencies to Perform Preventive Functions (UNDP, 2011), available at: http://europeandcis.undp.org/uploads/public1/files/ACPN/ACA%20%20Methodology/Metho d_ACA%20Assessment%20_June%202011.pdf UNODC, Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit (UN, 2006), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prisonreform/cjat_eng/CJAT_Toolkit_full_version23Mar10all.pdf ------ Thematic Programme: Action Against Corruption, Economic Fraud and Identity-Related Crime (2012-2015), (CEB/DTA, 2012), available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/Thematic_Programme/Thematic_Programme_ on_Corruption_-2012-2015_sept12.pdf UNODC and the Centre for the Study of Democracy, Workshop on Measuring and Monitoring Corruption and Anti-Corruption (17-18 June 2005), available at: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/corruption/publication_sofia_workshop.pdf ------- Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption – Basic Documents (UN, 2011) Vasavakul, Thaveeporn, “Anticorruption entry points for programming,” Anti-corruption Course: Session Text (UNDP Virtual School, 2011)

UNDAF UNDG, UNDAF Guidance Package, available at: http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=4 ------- How to Prepare an UNDAF: Part (I) Guidelines for UN Country Teams (UNDG, January 2010), available at: http://www.undg.org/docs/11096/How-to-Prepare-an-UNDAF-(Part-I).pdf ------ How to Prepare an UNDAF: Part (II) Technical Guidance for UN Country Teams (UNDG, January 2010), available at: http://www.undg.org/docs/11096/How-to-Prepare-an-UNDAF-(Part-II)---Technical-Guidance-for-UN-Country-Teams1.pdf 127 | P a g e

------- Guidance Note on the Application of the Programming Principles to the UNDAF (UNDG, January 2010), available at: http://www.undg.org/docs/11096/Five-Programming-Principles.pdf ------- Checklists to assess the quality and strategic positioning of the UNDAF: Update for 2010 UNDAF Roll-Out (UNDG, August 2010), available at: http://www.undg.org/docs/11096/QSAChecklists.pdf ------- UNDAF Action Plan Guidance Note (UNDG, October 2010), available at: http://www.undg.org/docs/11096/UNDAF-Action-Plan-Guidance-Note.pdf More UNDAF Guidance Material available at: http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=1532

Analysis Phase ILO, CEB Toolkit for Mainstreaming Employment and Decent Work, 2nd ed. (ILO, 2007), available at: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/dgo/selecdoc/2007/toolkit.pdf UN Chief Executives Board for Coordination High Level Committee on Programmes: Working Group on Marketing Efficiency and Integration, Trade Capacity Building Resource Guide (2010) UNDG, UNDG Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues (UNDG, February 2008), available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/docs/guidelines.pdf -------- Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction into CCA/UNDAF: A Guide for UN Country Teams (2009), available at: http://toolkit.ineesite.org/toolkit/INEEcms/uploads/1123/Integrating_DRR_in_CCA_and_UND AF_EN.pdf ------- Enhancing the UN’s contribution to National Capacity Development: A UNDG Position Statement (UNDG, October 2006), available at: http://www.undg.org/docs/7144/UNDGPosition-Paper-on-CD---FINAL-sent-out-21-Dec-2006.pdf UNDG/ECHA, Interagency Framework for Conflict Analysis in Transition Situations (UNDG/ECHA Working Group on Transition, 2004) UNDP, Aid for Trade and Human Development: A Guide To Conducting Aid For Trade Needs Assessment Exercises (UNDP, 2008), available at: http://web.undp.org/geneva/docs/tradeAFT%20web.pdf UNESCO, Global Action Plan: improving support to countries in achieving the EFA Goals, available at: http://portal.unesco.org/education/es/files/52642/11743104505EFA_GAP_v04.pdf/EFA_GAP _v04.pdf ------- The Cultural Diversity Lens: A practical tool to integrate culture in development -Pedagogical

128 | P a g e

guide (UNESCO, 2011), available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/The%20Cultural%20Diversi ty%20Lens_Pedagogical%20guide.pdf ------ UNCT Performance Indicators for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (25th February 2008), available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/BSP/GENDER/PDF/Gender-ScoreCard.pdf

Indicators: Global Advice Network, Business Anti-Corruption Portal, http://www.business-anti-corruption.com/ Global Integrity Report, The Global Integrity Report: 2011, http://www.globalintegrity.org/report Johnsøn, Jesper, “Theories of change in anti-corruption work: A tool for programme design and evaluation”, U4 Issue 2012: 6 (CMI, 2012), available at: http://www.u4.no/publications/theories-of-change-in-anti-corruption-work-a-tool-forprogramme-design-and-evaluation/ PAPI, Vietnam Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI), http://www.papi.vn/node/93 Schwab, Klaus, The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011 (World Economic Forum, 2010), available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_201011.pdf Transparency International, Corruption Perception Index 2012, http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results -------- Bribe Payers Index (BPI), http://bpi.transparency.org/results/ -------- Gateway, http://gateway.transparency.org/ -------- Global Corruption Barometer, http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gcb -------- National Integrity System Assessments, http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis World Bank Doing Business, Economy Rankings, http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings Worldwide Governance Indicators, The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Project, available at: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp

129 | P a g e

Anti-Corruption Assessment Tools: African Peer Review Mechanism, Publications, http://aprm-au.org/e-library Council of Europe: Human Rights and Rule of Law, Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO): Third Evaluation Round, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/ReportsRound3_en.asp OAS: Department of Legal Cooperation, What is the MESICIC?, http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/mesicic_intro_en.htm OECD, Bribery in international business: Country monitoring of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, http://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/countrymonitoringoftheoecdantibriberyconvention.htm USAID, Tools for Assessing Corruption & Integrity in Institutions: A Handbook (August 2005), available at: http://www.irisprojects.umd.edu/anticorruption/Files/IRIS_Assessment_Handbook.pdf

Resources & Tools to guide the integration of AC Principles Act Against Corruption, Call to action Matrix, available at: http://www.actagainstcorruption.org/documents/actagainstcorruption/print/materials2011/c all2action/corr11_call2action_A4_EN.pdf GSDRC, Anti-Corruption Resources, available at: http://www.gsdrc.org/go/gateway-guides/anticorruption Republic of Korea, Integrity Assessment of Public Administration http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/workinggroup4/2011August-22-24/Replies_to_CU_2011_45/20110901_South_Korea_3_English.pdf Transparency International, Gateway: Corruption Assessment Toolbox - Tools, http://gateway.transparency.org/tools UNODC, TRACK Portal (Tools and Resources for Anti-Corruption Knowledge): The Legal Library: http://www.track.unodc.org/LegalLibrary/Pages/Home.aspx

130 | P a g e

8. UNDAF Process Step 3: Strategic Planning Linking Analysis with Results Note: This session is not substantially covered in the resource guide, the information provided bellow is a basic summary covered in relation to the PowerPoint presentations. Most of the content of session 8 of the presentations has been covered in session 6-7 of the resource guide.

The formulation of planning, measurements and indicators are in session 6-7 part 6.1.2.4 and onwards. Other content based on RBM and other information relevant to session 8 is highlighted and elaborated at the end of the RG in the attachments.

Session Objectives: To show participants how to formulate results and indicators that are drawn from the analysis conducted in session 7.

By the end of this session participants will: 1. Participants will be able to identify key anti-corruption entry points in the strategic planning phase.

2. Participants reach a common understanding of the fundamentals of RBM approach to measure progress on anti-corruption 3. Participants will be able to discuss the pros and cons of different type of indicators to measure corruption and anti-corruption 4. Formulate anti-corruption result statements (outcome, output) and indicators according to RBM principles as a key tool to accelerate national development processes

131 | P a g e

Key Messages 1. RBM practice; 2. Helps us to connect the analysis of country challenges to evidence about progress to date and lessons-learned 3. Enables us to engage partners to formulate SMART results, and develop mechanisms and processes to ensure regular monitoring and reporting on UNDAF performance 4. Demands working mechanisms for UNDAF monitoring and reporting and the use of UNDAF performance information by the UNCT and partners for decision-making 5. In all the above, an anti-corruption lens during the analysis phase brings depth and credibility to our practice of UN programming processes by telling us 6. The kinds of changes we should be aiming for: measure, monitor, and report on changes in behaviours, performance and capacities.

132 | P a g e

9. Challenges to Anti-Corruption Programming Introduction Challenges to designing an effective anti-corruption programme need to be recognised. By acknowledging the challenges before designing and implementing anti-corruption into UN programmes, prepared strategies can be created in advance to avoid or reduce the impact of these possible challenges. This session will discuss the potential issues that could have an effect on development programming and how to handle expectations in management or influencing project execution on the part of beneficiaries.

Session Objectives By the end of this session participants will have: 

Discussed some of the most common questions related to sensitive issues around anti-corruption programming.



Looked at some of the options to respond to the sensitive issues.



Understood some of the Dos and Don’ts of sensitive issues.



Explored options, entry points and practical next steps to better integrate anticorruption principles into the country’s UNDAF process.

Trainer’s Note This is a facilitation session that provides an open space for sensitive issues and challenges to anticorruption programming to be discussed by participants. The trainer will facilitate a discussion that has no black or white answers, and therefore enough time needs to be left for reflection on these issues. To assist the guidance on some challenges that may be brought up, a non-exhaustive reference (mainly regarding political sensitivity issues) is provided below.

This is an evolving topic, with people bringing differing experiences to discussions, that highly benefits from continued updates by trainers after their workshops. It is therefore highly recommended that the trainer takes note of the issues that are brought up by the participants to

133 | P a g e

assist in their own future training and to add to the range of issues for other trainers to consider while facilitating this session.

Key Messages 1. Corruption normally occurs within complex economic and political networks in which personalities of the economic and political elite are engaged.

2. The UN is in a unique position to address anti-corruption issues because of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, the Review Mechanism and its follow-up mandate.

3. It is critical to identify what are the interests and incentives of the opposition, business sector or ruling party regarding a particular scandal.

4. It is always advisable for the UN system to monitor the domestic politics and anti-corruption programming as it could still be sensitive.

5. The ultimate goal of eradicating poverty will not be achieved unless challenges posed by corruption are addressed. Not addressing corruption as part of UN programming bears both operational as well as credibility risks to the mission of the UN.

9.1 Politicalsensitivity regarding anti-corruption programming Where an enabling political environment does not exist for the freedom of expression and assembly, rights to information, freedom of media and access to information and protection of witnesses and whistle-blowers, anti-corruption is often viewed as a sensitive topic.

134 | P a g e

Indeed, for many years corruption was considered a domestic and "politically sensitive" topic and beyond the mandate of organizations like the United Nations or the World Bank. However, since the mid-1990s corruption has gained increasing prominence on the international agenda, and is no longer considered a taboo subject for international organizations. The international focus culminated in negotiation and adoption of the United Nations

Since the mid-1990s corruption has gained increasing prominence on the international agenda.

It is no longer considered a taboo subject for international organizations.

Convention against Corruption in 2003, and the issue has remained on the agenda of the General Assembly of the United Nations (among others) with regular resolutions adopted unanimously on the subject.

Below are some questions and issues that could be brought up during the discussions:

What should be done in a political environment where anti-corruption actors (civil society, media, and anti-corruption agencies) feel threatened or worry about their security?

Corruption usually involves powerful personalities of the economic and political elite. Corruption normally occurs within complex economic and political networks in which personalities of the economic and political elite are engaged. Corruption is generally a crime that involves political and well-connected people. In this context, fearing that corruption will fight back, oversight authorities, the media and even civil society organizations could be reluctant to unravel and investigate corruption cases that are evident for everybody.

These cases are more likely to occur in the midst of privatization processes, large procurement process or negotiations with the extractive industry sector in which large sums of money and political connections are at stake. Moreover, in post conflict situations the peace brokers may have been involved in crimes related to corrupt practices such money laundering and embezzlement. In those situations, analyst and technical support may have to consider necessary trade-offs between impunity and an effective negotiate settlement of the conflict.

Corruption in some countries is linked to organized crime that has also captured the state and the justice system. In these context authorities, media and normal citizens feared to cooperate and engage in initiatives where their lives can be threatened.

In this situation, a number of solutions could be recommended:

135 | P a g e

1.

Utilize UNCAC and other international norms and standards as an entry point.

As described in session 4, the UN is in a unique position to address anti-corruption issues because of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, the Review Mechanism and its follow-up mandate. Country reports and executive summaries can be used as entry points for engagement.

Particularly for countries that have ratified or acceded to the UNCAC, the state party has an obligation to implement its provisions. Moreover, many challenges regarding anti-corruption can be demystified if the issue of corruption is squarely kept on the development agenda. For example, if the Ministry of Education is approached from a point of view of identifying corruption risks in education sector and to help the Ministry in implementing a risk reduction plan, the perceived sensitivity around the topic can be reduced. UNODC as guardian of the Convention and UNDP as the Coordinator of the UN resident system can be contacted for information and technical support.

As mentioned in the “Going Beyond the Minimum Guide�, the self-assessment tool can be used in regard to any chapter or article of the Convention whether or not they are currently subject to review. Countries have used and use it to proactively assess their level of compliance and to strengthen national legislative frameworks and institutions.

2.

Critical and in-depth reading of the changing political context where corruption is discussed.

The UN system needs to be well aware of who are the political actors and their interests before engaging in collaboration on new standards and frameworks and providing anti-corruption technical support.

In addition, there is always an excitement when a new government comes to power claiming to be the champion of the fight against corruption. Today, corruption has become a common platform for every politician but indeed it is used as platform to prosecute the opposition or former governments, misleading the attention on their own practices.

Country analysis needs to go beyond the surface. It is critical to identify what are the interests and incentives of the opposition, business sector or ruling party regarding a particular scandal. It may be a case of politicization of corruption in which it could be better for the UN System to pull back because the backlash can be negative for the image of the UN. On the other hand, it could also be the case that UN could wait until the period of high political sensitivity is over.

Anti-corruption programming in hostile environments: 1.

Identify why It is important to them (win-win scenario)

2.

Identify a strategic partner – one who opens doors

136 | P a g e

3.

Build on national egos – build on issues that are considered of national interest/pride

4.

Avoid supporting activities that are politicized

5.

Look for more licalized interventions (small vs. bi fish)

6.

Terminology matters – e.g, do not use words like “anti-corruption champions/defenders” or

“informal power structures”

3.

Don’t individualize an institutional problem.

A technical assistance partner should not take an approach that perceives the whole country as corrupt. Under certain contexts, existing laws and standards are unreasonable and impossible to follow by citizens; in such cases a careful analysis of the status and nature of corruption is critical to understand underlying causes. On the other hand, corruption when it is rampant can become accepted and normalized and people tend to forget about its negative impact and neglect the need to address it. In any case, an institutional approach puts an emphasis on strengthening systems rather than depending more heavily on fixing individual problems. For example, when a big fish is declared corrupt, it is accepted to neglect the justice process, and find shortcuts eroding the justice system. The side effects of these practices are very harmful for the justice systems.

4.

The fight against corruption is more than a mere moral problem.

Corruption is an emotional subject because of the criminal and moral connotations and it usually involves tax payers’ money, in particular money that should go to improve the lives of the poorest.

This is one of the main reasons why the public would like to catch the powerful actors that deal in corruption. However, those in power tend to blame a society’s morale or ethics for the corrupt acts by politicians or rulers, or by the society at large. Thus, raising awareness and education can be a part of a comprehensive strategy. There should also be a balance between prevention, enforcement and education.

5. The anti-corruption agenda is perceived by the country as an offence by the UN System.

Anti-corruption could be perceived by the UN senior management as a sensitive issue to discuss with the national counterparts that can end up eroding the collaboration. It can be perceived as an attack or aggression towards the government, yet its discussion usually happens more openly and directly than what can be expected. Today corruption has been acknowledged by different parties and players and it is a genuine political discussion. The ratification of the UNCAC by more than 160 states is an example of the openness and readiness of governments to discuss it. Also, ‘[i]nternational

137 | P a g e

cooperation can help national leaders develop political resolve.169 However, it is always advisable for the UN system to monitor the domestic politics and anti-corruption programming as it could still be sensitive.

Please see below a case study from a country X:

A practical case from a country X (Name of the country omitted) Following a highly publicized and contested case in country X, a former president was sentenced to 2.5 years on corruption charges. This all happened during the 2012 election year, fuelling complaints (national and international) of human rights abuses and political manoeuvring. The anti-corruption agency initiated the arrest and came under a lot of criticism. The former president’s party has joined the new coalition government but political sensitivities remain. There will be presidential elections in June 2013 and the political environment will naturally be changed. In the meantime, there are informal reports that IAAC is pursuing other high profile case.

In this context, any work that UNDP does on anti-corruption, especially with the anticorruption agency, carries a political and reputational risk, which needs to be managed very carefully. UNDP and UNODC wanted to provide support to the anti-corruption acts (for UNCAC implementation) but the resident Coordinator advised the following to manage the sensitivity: a) The UN will not advise on the cases under investigation; b) The UN senior management needs to be informed of the development of any missions and advisory support from the HQ and the regional centres; c) No public statements will be allowed by the mission teams.

Corruption is an integral part of the culture, and it is not going away. In fact raising the matter will only politicise UN programming, and how does that help our mission of poverty eradication?

Corruption is not intrinsic to any culture. UNCAC provides a powerful testimony to the universality of the values of integrity, transparency, accountability, equality and justice. Examples from different parts of the world help to show that corruption is not a cultural issue but a governance deficit.170

169

Klitgaard, Robert, “International Cooperation Against Corruption”, Finance & Development, Vol.5:1 (March 1998), p.6.

170 See UNODC, TRACK Portal (Tools and Resources for Anti-Corruption Knowledge): The Legal Library: http://www.track.unodc.org/LegalLibrary/Pages/Home.aspx

138 | P a g e

The ultimate goal of eradicating poverty will not be achieved unless challenges posed by corruption are addressed. Not addressing corruption as part of UN programming bears both operational as well as credibility risks to the mission of the UN.

Double standards reduce the credibility of a development partnership!

Minimize risks, address criticism and be proactively transparent.

The time of UNDAF should also be used to reflect if the internal anti-corruption measures within the UN agencies are up to standard and how to counter criticism. The UN is a very visible and well known technical assistance provider and partner, which regularly has to face criticism (e.g. for its bureaucratic apparatus, corruption in regard to hiring of national and international personnel, staff members who never resign from their government positions and therefore have several full-time positions simultaneously, procurement and taxes related issues, most efficient use of resources, etc.). Trust of the partner country and the target group are paramount in the implementation of effective programmes. Therefore integrity, internal scrutiny, transparency and accountability need to be promptly addressed. UN officials should consider explaining concisely to national officials and beneficiaries on internal mechanisms to ensure integrity among its staff and proper administration of funding and resources. Regular monthly-bimonthly meetings with aid receivers can provide an opportunity to evaluate if there is on-going corruption or lack of integrity concerns among beneficiaries.

Corruption is considered a very politically sensitive subject in the country and there is a perception that there is no real political will to fight corruption. Can we still do any work in this area?

The level and form of possible engagement in the area of anti-corruption in the absence of real political depends on the context and the ability of donors and implementers engage in a dialogue on the subject.

However, even in the absence of political will, the UNDAF can focus on legal reforms and enhancing capacities at technical level in the framework of UNCAC which could be utilized once political will is in place. Countries that have ratified or acceded to UNCAC can be assisted in meeting their

139 | P a g e

obligations, and countries that have not ratified or acceded to the Convention can be encouraged or assisted in the process of joining the Convention.

What should be done when there are threats to the coherence of Technical Assistance?

These are some of the issues that can threaten the coherence of technical assistance:        

Competing interests of donors Multi-mandates among international players Member States shop for best deals Too much cash to favourite countries with little capacity (e.g., Afghanistan) Limited expertise in the area of anti-corruption Technical assistance being state centric Lack of leadership at country level among donors Poor monitoring

NOTE: Anti-corruption programmes in countries with endemic corruption levels will have limited impact as long as they do not address the fundamental problem of the lack of political will.

In those cases, real efforts to tackle corruption should be part of the negotiation dialogue and be tied to conditions. Donors backed-up by implementers should address these aspects jointly in order to increase leverage. However, even in the absence of political will, in certain circumstances, support can focus on possible legal reforms and enhancing capacities at technical level which could be utilized once political will is in place. Sectors most affected by corruption or processes with the highest risk should be addressed first.

140 | P a g e

List of References Klitgaard, Robert, “International Cooperation Against Corruption”, Finance & Development, Vol.5:1 (March 1998), pp.3-6 UNODC, TRACK Portal (Tools and Resources for Anti-Corruption Knowledge): The Legal Library: http://www.track.unodc.org/LegalLibrary/Pages/Home.aspx

141 | P a g e

ANNEXES ANNEX 1: Broader Rule of Law and Governance Assessment Tools and Resources:

There are many general rule of law and governance assessment tools and resources in the public domain that can provide a wealth of corruption-related information and data. They rely on various research methodologies, including targeted surveys, data gathering, and qualitative analysis. As such, it is important to take the various strengths and limitations of each source into account when evaluating its usefulness to the anti-corruption programming process. Below is a list of many of the major such tools and resources, some of which are more global in scope, while others are more regionally limited. 

The United Nations Rule of Law Indicators Project, http://www.un.org/en/events/peacekeepersday/2011/publications/un_rule_of_law _indicators.pdf Building and strengthening the “rule of law” in developing nations, particularly countries in transition or emerging from a period of armed conflict, has become a central focus of the work of the United Nations. As a result, there is growing demand throughout the United Nations system to better understand the delivery of justice in conflict and post-conflict situations and the impact of developments in this area. The United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in cooperation with other United Nations departments, agencies, funds and programmes, developed an instrument to monitor changes in the performance and fundamental characteristics of criminal justice institutions in conflict and post-conflict situations.

The instrument consists of a set of indicators, the United Nations Rule of Law Indicators, including a specific basket of indicators addressing transparency, integrity and accountability of rule of law institutions. The Guide describes how to implement this instrument and measure these indicators. The Guide provides step-by-step instructions on how to implement the instrument, with United Nations support, in a

142 | P a g e

conflict or post-conflict setting. It is meant for first-time users of the instrument who have a general knowledge of the United Nations system, previous experience working in such situations, a good knowledge of criminal justice institutions and a familiarity with social sciences research methods. 

Corruption in the Western Balkans, http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-andanalysis/statistics/corruption/Western_balkans_corruption_report_2011_web.pdf A survey of bribery as experienced by the population of 7 jurisdictions, UNODC.



Analysis by the Coalition: Governance Ratings in the Americas 2009, http://www.ruleoflawcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/GovernanceRatings-in-the-Americas-20091.pdf A consolidated list of four different Governance/Rule of Law ratings for countries in the Americas, broken down by country as compared to the regional average.



The World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index, http://www.worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/ The Rule of Law Index is a new quantitative assessment tool designed by the World Justice Project to measure the extent to which countries around the world adhere to the Rule of Law. The Index provides detailed information regarding a variety of dimensions of the Rule of Law, which enables policymakers and other users to assess a nation’s adherence to the Rule of Law in practice, identify a nation’s strengths and weaknesses in comparison to similarly situated countries, and track changes over time."



Freedom House's Country at the Crossroads, http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/countries-crossroads/countries-crossroads2011 Countries at the Crossroads is an annual survey of government performance in 70 strategically important countries worldwide that are at a critical crossroads in

143 | P a g e

determining their political future. The in-depth comparative analyses and quantitative ratings – examining government accountability, civil liberties, rule of law, anticorruption efforts and transparency – are intended to help international policymakers identify areas of progress, as well as to highlight areas of concern that could be addressed in diplomatic efforts and reform assistance. 

The Fraser Institutes's Economic Freedom of the World, http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html The index published in Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) is designed to measure the consistency of a nation’s institutions and policies with economic freedom. Put simply, institutions and policies are consistent with economic freedom when they provide an infrastructure for voluntary exchange and protect individuals and their property from aggressors. The rankings is out of 130 nations.



The Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, http://www.heritage.org/index/default The Index of Economic Freedom covers countries around the world, ranking them with an economic freedom score based on 10 measures of economic openness, regulatory efficiency, the rule of law, and competitiveness. The basic principles of economic freedom emphasized in the Index are individual empowerment, equitable treatment, and the promotion of competition.



The World Bank's Doing Business Report, http://www.doingbusiness.org/reports/global-reports/doing-business-2012 The Doing Business project provides objective measures of business regulations and their enforcement across 183 economies and selected cities at the sub-national and regional level. Economies are ranked on their ease of doing business, from 1 – 183, with first place being the best.



The Association of American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America's Annual Member Survey Findings: Policy Objective Question,

144 | P a g e

http://www.ruleoflawcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Surveys-byCountry.pdf The Association of American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, conducted a survey of its 23 member American Chambers of Commerce (AmChams), which represent over 80% of U.S. investment in Latin America and the Caribbean. More than 900 respondents from 22 countries participated in the survey. 

USAID's Achievements in Building and Maintaining the Rule of Law, http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pn acr220.pdf This publication is a summary of regional syntheses produced by USAID’s Office of Democracy and Governance. These syntheses look at achievements in the rule of law arena across Africa, Asia and the Near East, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe and Eurasia during the 1990s.



Freedom House, Freedom in the World, http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/index.htm Annual comparative assessment of the state of global freedom, measured by evaluations of political rights and civil liberties. Assessments are made by teams of regional experts and scholars. (Annual since 1978. Global, 192 countries and 18 territories.)



Freedom House, Nations in Transit, http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/nattransit.htm Annual evaluation of the state of political rights and civil liberties based on assessments made by country experts and a central panel of experts. Rating categories include the electoral process, civil society, independent media, governance, constitutional, legislative, and judicial framework, and corruption. (First published in 1995. Global, 27 countries.)

145 | P a g e



World Bank, The Business Environment & Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS), http://info.worldbank.org/governance/beeps2002 Jointly developed by the World Bank and the EBRD, the survey provides comparative measurements of quality of governance, investment climate, and competitive environment based on a survey of managers and owners of firms across Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Turkey. Indicators include corruption, state capture, lobbying, and business environment. (Published in 1999 & 2002. Covers 27 transition economies.)



World Bank, World Business Environment Survey, http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/economics.nsf/Content/ic-wbes Administered to over 10,000 firms, the survey focused on the quality of the investment climate as shaped by domestic economic policy; governance; regulatory, infrastructure, and financial impediments; and assessments of the quality of public services. (Administered in 1999-2000. Global, 80 countries.)



Business Environment Risk Intelligence, Qualitative Risk Measure, http://www.beri.com/qlm.asp A financial ethics index that measures factors that have a direct influence on meeting international obligations that cannot be assessed through regularly published statistics. Financial professionals with experience in a particular region submit their assessments each year. Senior staff members of the firm also contribute their viewpoints, which produce country ratings. (Annual since 2000 but also provides ratings for 1985, 1990, 1995, 1997-2000. Global, 115 countries.)



Columbia University, State Failure Take Force Report, State Capacity Project, http://www.irisprojects.umd.edu/anticorruption/Files/State_Capacity_Project.pdf The State Failure Task Force Report is the third report in a series. It identifies measurable characteristics that can affect the risk of state failure. Data collection began in 1994 and provides information on over 1,300 political, economic, demographic, environmental, and social variables.

146 | P a g e



European Bank for Reconstruction & Development, Transition Report, http://www.ebrd.com/pubs/index.htm Offers assessments of macroeconomic indicators — such as social reform, corruption, democracy, and agriculture — and analyses the transition to market economies and macroeconomic performance. Data on governance-related indicators are based on assessments done by Freedom House and the Economist Intelligence Unit. (Annual since 1996. Central & Eastern Europe, 26 countries.)



United States State Department & Amnesty International, Human Rights Dataset, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c1470.htm http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/index.html These reports highlight global human rights practices and conditions. Data can be accessed through the State Department’s Country Report on Human Risks Practices 2004 and Amnesty International’s Annual Report 2004. (State Department data has been prepared annually since 1977 and covers 196 countries. Amnesty International data has been prepared annually since 1993 and covers 149 countries.)



Reporters Without Borders, Worldwide Press Freedom Index, http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715 A global press freedom index comprised of information provided by journalists, researchers, and legal experts on topics such as censorship, pressure, punishment/murder of press members, and regulation of the media. (Published in 2002 & 2003. Global, 138 countries.)



Institute for Management Development, World Competitiveness Yearbook, http://www.prsgroup.com/icrg/icrg.html The Yearbook analyses countries’ competitive environments based upon objective data and surveys on the perceptions of over 4,000 local and foreign enterprises.

(Published since 1987. Global, 49 countries.)

147 | P a g e



PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Opacity Index, http://www.irisprojects.umd.edu/anticorruption/Files/PWC_OpacityIndex.pdf Estimates the adverse impact of opacity on the cost and availability of capital (the cost of borrowing funds). Provides a composite “O” factor based upon data gathered from five different areas that affect capital markets, including corruption, the legal system, economic and fiscal policies, accounting standards and practices, and the regulatory regime. Estimates are created by surveying corporate leaders, banking executives, and equity analysts; generating individual scores for each country; and analyzing those scores in conjunction with data on international capital flows.

(Published in 2001; conducted in 35 counties.)



Bertelsmann Foundation, Bertelsmann Transformation Index, http://en.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/index.html The Bertelsmann Transformation Index is a measuring instrument that examines and evaluates the development and transformation process in 116 countries. The index measures the conditions of democratization and the opening of free markets, and how well countries have managed their transformations. Data are summarized in two indices: the status index and the management index. (Last published in 2003.

Global, 116 countries.)



International Research & Exchanges Board, Media Sustainability Index, http://www.irex.org/msi/ The Index analyses freedom of speech, plurality of media available to citizens, professional journalism standards, business sustainability of media, and the efficacy of institutions that support independent media. The report features country-bycountry rankings using a proven methodology and detailed input from local and international media professionals. The annual study also highlights and compares trends from 2001 to 2004 to show where countries have improved, where backsliding has occurred, and what can be expected for the future of independent media in the region. (Annual since 2001. Southeast Europe & Eurasia, 20 countries.)

148 | P a g e



Merchant International Group, Grey Area Dynamics, http://www.merchantinternational.com/MIG/services.html Grey Area Dynamics (GAD) are forecasting and risk prediction tools that are used to design risk strategies. GAD tools can assess the economic and political stability of a country, investment, or project. (Constructed in 1994. Global, 155 countries.)



World Bank, World Development Report, Investment Climate Surveys, http://rru.worldbank.org/investmentclimate/ A survey of over 26,000 firms worldwide that asks about regulation, governance, access to finance, and infrastructure services. Data is gathered from senior managers and accountants and includes both objective (the time required to complete processes) and perception data (perception of potential constraints and assessments of risks). (Launched in 2001. Global, 53 countries.)



CIVICUS, Civil Society Index, http://www.civicus.org/new/overview.asp?c=FD8912 Includes country reports and expert assessments detailing four dimensions of civil society: structure, environment, values, and impact. (First published in 2004. Global, 35 countries.)



OECD, Development Indicators, http://www.bellanet.org/indicators/index.cfm?intro=no A joint project by the OECD and World Bank to provide a database and discussion forum on outcome indicators can be used as tools to promote development and the Millennium

Development

Goals.

Examples

of

indicators

include

fiscal

decentralization, surveys of public’s perception of governance, and difficulty in pursuing valid legal claims. (Timeline and geographic coverage varies for indicator.) 

Open Society Institute & Tocqueville Researcher Centre, Indicators of Local Democratic Governance in Central & Eastern Europe Project, http://www.t-rc.org/ProjectActivities/Indicators/IndicatorsDescription.html http://www.t-rc.org/

149 | P a g e

A project that evaluates the quality of local democracy in Central and Eastern Europe based on mail surveys on rule of law, media, citizen trust, political parities, administrative system, etc. Outputs include a dataset of surveys and local democracy reports. (Timeline varies for indicators used. Covers Eastern & Central Europe — Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, and Slovakia.) 

Centre for Public Integrity, Public Integrity Index, http://www.publicintegrity.org/ga/ii.aspx A survey of selected country experts that focuses on public sector corruption prevention measures. Provides a way to monitor the existence and effectiveness of mechanisms that prevent abuses of power and promote public integrity, as well as citizens’ access to their government. (Last published in 2004. Global, 25 countries.)



WHO Good Governance for Medicines (GGM) Programme, http://www.who.int/medicines/ggm/en/index.html http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs335/en/index.html http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/policy/goodgovernance/documents/en/index. html WHO is committed to reducing corruption in the medicines chain through its Good Governance for Medicines (GGM) programme, launched in 2004. By applying transparent, accountable administrative procedures and by promoting ethical practices, GGM provides support for countries to curb corruption. The programme assists countries through a three-step process of assessing their vulnerabilities to corruption, and developing and implementing specific programmes to maintain efficient health-care systems that are not undermined by the abuse of corruption.

150 | P a g e

ANNEX 2: Key Publications on Anticorruption

I. Key publications: In case of limited time, these key publications should be considered in order to integrate Anti-Corruption Aspects into UNDAF Programming: a. Guidance Note - UNCAC Self-Assessments: Going Beyond the Minimum (English and Spanish) This Guidance Note provides a methodology for national stakeholders on how to conduct a comprehensive and participatory Self-Assessment of UNCAC implementation. Based on previous country experiences, every UNCAC Self-Assessment process is expected to provide an opportunity for national dialogue on anti-corruption policies and programmes and further stimulate reforms to curb corruption in the interest of sustainable human development. This practical guide was published by the UNDP Asia-Pacific Regional Centre in partnership with UNODC, GTZ, Basel Institute on Governance (Switzerland) and Institute of Governance Studies, BRAC University (Bangladesh). b. A Users' Guide to Measuring Corruption (English, French, and Spanish) [20/06/08] A Users' Guide to Measuring Corruption, jointly produced by UNDP and Global Integrity, is one of the first attempts to explore how best to use existing tools to measure what is increasingly viewed as one of the major impediments to development: corruption. c. Training Manual for Measuring Corruption (in English) This manual offers hands on tools and guidance to measuring corruption at the country level. Based on the Users' Guide to Measuring Corruption (2008), it has been developed to help meet the growing global demand for capacity development in this area. The manual is written for trainers, and provides step-by-step guidance and materials for adapting and delivering the training in any country.

II. Sector/context specific: Furthermore each sector might consider its sector specific aspects through the following publications: d. Staying on Track : Tackling Corruption Risks in Climate Change (English, French and Spanish) Maximizing the effectiveness of climate finance must include steps to reduce the potential for corruption, as large influxes of resources coupled with an imperative to spend can create conditions ripe for corruption. This report thus identifies the corruption risks in relation to two elements of the climate change response of particular importance to developing countries: adaptation, and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+). Adaptation is 151 | P a g e

particularly important for developing countries in view of their vulnerability, limited capacity to adapt and lesser historical responsibility for the causes of climate change. e. Fighting Corruption in Post Conflict & Recovery Situations Based on empirical research in 5 countries (Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iraq, Sierra Leone and Timor-Leste), the "Fighting Corruption in Post Conflict and Recovery Situations: Learning from the Past" report explores the dynamics between corruption and post-conflict situations and looks at the effectiveness of anti-corruption programming in that context. The report is UNDP’s flagship initiative to bring specific attention to reviewing, understanding and developing. anti-corruption approaches in post-conflict settings and has generated a great deal of interest. f.

Corruption, Accountability and Gender: understanding the connections. Primers in Gender and Democratic Governance

This primer argues that understanding corruption’s linkages to gender equality issues and how it impacts women’s empowerment is part of the broader process of advancing women’s rights and understanding the gender dimensions of democratic governance. It examines the available evidence on how corruption affects women’s access to public services and the resulting impacts on their wellbeing and social status. Also, it suggests strategic entry points for UNDP and UN Women staff to address gender issues throughout their anti-corruption and governance work. g. Fighting Corruption in the Health Sector: Methods, Tools and Good Practices This publication is part of a series of UNDP-sponsored studies that present methods, tools and good practices to map corruption risks, develop strategies and sustain partnerships to address challenges and tackle corruption in the education, health and water sectors.

Commentary on the Bangalore principles of judicial conduct http://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/publications_unodc_commentary-e.pdf Several publications of relevance for programmes in the justice sector can be found on the UNODC homepage, which will be revamped in summer 2012. On the homepage also the Omnibus selfassessment checklist can be found http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/selfassessment.html

152 | P a g e

III. Further publications: There are a number of other readings that allow for more in-depth study h. Corruption and Development: A primer (In English, French and Spanish) This primer explores the relationship between corruption and development including economic growth, poverty, human rights, gender, governance, human development, environment and sustainable development. It considers how UNDP could integrate anti-corruption principles and strategies with its technical assistance to reduce poverty, realize the MDGs and promote sustainable development. i.

Mainstreaming Anti-Corruption in Development (in English, French and Spanish)

This Practice Note helps clarify UNDP's position by building on internal knowledge mapping, as well as reflecting and refocusing UNDP's anti-corruption priorities within its mandates and with respect to new developments in this field. j.

Asia Pacific Human Development Report - Tackling Corruption, Transforming Lives

Asia Pacific Human Development Report 2008 - Tackling Corruption, Transforming Lives: Corruption is increasingly being challenged as unacceptable across Asia and the Pacific. This report shows why eliminating corruption that plagues people’s daily lives must become a priority. The police, social services, and environment are areas countries should consider focusing on. Successes are emerging, alongside growing international commitment. k. Illicit Financial Flows from the Least Developed Countries 1990-2008 (English) This paper explores the scale and composition of illicit financial flows from the 48 LDCs. This issue has been recognised by the UN as important for development and the MDGs. Illicit capital flight is a major hindrance to the mobilisation of domestic resources for development. Through the UN, the international community has committed to strengthen national and multilateral efforts to address it. more... l.

Methodology for assessing the capacity of AC Institutions (English, French, Arabic and Russian)

UNDP has developed a methodology for assessing capacities of anti-corruption agencies to perform preventive functions. The Methodology has been utilized in conducting capacity assessment of anticorruption bodies in Montenegro, Kosovo, Turkey. The methodology, which is currently being expanded and tested to include the assessment of those anti-corruption bodies with enforcement mandates, will be launched in Morocco at the annual conference and general meeting of the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities to be held in October 2011.

153 | P a g e

m. Quantitative approaches to assess and describe corruption and the role of UNODC in supporting countries in performing such assessments http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-andanalysis/statistics/corruption/Pape_measurement_corruption_CRP2.pdf n. Methodologies, including evidence-based approaches, for assessing areas of special vulnerability to corruption in the public and private sectors http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/corruption/WG4_doc-4-FINAL.pdf

154 | P a g e

ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: FAQ on UN Common Country Programming and UNDAF Guidance

UN Common Country Programming and 2010 UNDAF Guidance Package Frequently Asked Questions

The questions and answers below are sorted according the four steps of the UNDAF process. Please be advised that all UNDAF guidance materials can be found at www.undg.org/undaf.

Roadmap

What is the purpose of the road map?

UNCTs develop a road map to outline the preparation and finalization process of the UNDAF. As the name suggests, it maps out the route, along with a timeline, that the UNCTs and its partners will take in developing their UNDAF, including actions and dates for the country analysis, strategic planning exercise, UNDAF Action Plan or country programme action plans, the M&E plan, etc. The timeline is essential in order to ensure that by meeting its deadlines (including those for CPD submission to governing bodies) the UNCT will be ready to begin UNDAF implementation on time.

When should the road map be developed?

UNCTs develop the road map at the earliest possible stage, ideally in January of the penultimate year of the UNDAF programming cycle, if not before, and, if possible, it should be a natural outcome of the UNDAF evaluation exercise for the previous UNDAF.

Is there a format for the road map?

No, there is no prescribed format for the road map. This is mainly because UNCTs found the previously suggested 2004 and 2007 road maps (contained in the former UNDAF guidelines) complicated and inflexible. In response, UNDG members agreed to remove it from the 2010 UNDAF

155 | P a g e

Guidance Package in order to give UNCTs more flexibility in designing the UNDAF process at the country level in line with the national planning cycle.

In the absence of a UNDG prescribed or suggested road map format, the new guidance package simply indicates the four main mandatory steps that must be reflected in the road map: 4.

designing the road map,

5.

conducting country analysis,

6.

strategic planning, and

7.

monitoring and evaluation

The UNCT decides how it will approach each step based on national consultations and the key considerations highlighted on page 9 of the 2010 guidance package.

The UNDG Toolkit offers examples of road maps designed by different countries at UNDG Toolkit: Road Map. NB: The former ‘Plan of Engagement’ is no longer used in the 2010 guidance note as its content is now subsumed into the road map.

Should the PSG review and provide feedback on the roadmap?

Yes, the Resident Coordinator sends the draft roadmap to all national partners, regional UNDG teams, peer support groups, UN agency headquarters and DOCO. Early, consistent involvement of the PSGs can help to make a difference in improving engagement with stakeholders like nonresident and specialized agencies, encouraging government ownership of the UNDAF process, identifying capacity needs of UNCTs, and sharpening the overall country analysis approach and UNDAF preparation.

Should the roadmap be updated throughout the process and shared with the PSG? No, there is a priori no reason to update your road map – unless, of course, there is a radical change in your approach owing to extra-ordinary circumstances in the national political scene, the emergence of conflict or a substantially modified development context. However, if the road map does need to be changed, then the revised version should be shared with the PSG as indicated in question 2 above.

Should NRAs be engaged in the preparations of the road map?

156 | P a g e

Yes, non-resident and specialized agencies are included in the development of the road map. The involvement of NRAs from the outset of the programming process is critical. It helps ensuring their buy-in in different stages of the process and ownership of results of the process. Their involvement is also important as they can bring missing and necessary expertise and even resources in support of the programming process. It is therefore critical that they be involved at an early stage when the country team discusses and develops the road map.

Should partners and stakeholders be engaged in the preparation of the road map?

Yes, the UNCT engages with national partners and stakeholders during road map development in order to build partnerships with key local actors, obtain the broadest picture of the country’s development situation, and assess the role stakeholders can play in common country programming.

As part of its engagement with stakeholders, the UNCT undertakes a ‘stakeholder analysis’ to gauge the internal and external environment in order to identifying key stakeholders and their priorities and position vis-à-vis UN support to national priorities.

In the UNDAF Guidelines, ‘stakeholders’ refer to governments, including line ministries; social partners, including workers and employers organizations; other development partners relevant to a country context; civil society; and NGOs

Country Analysis

Is the country analysis mandatory?

Yes, the country analysis is one of the four mandatory steps of the UNDAF process that includes: road map, country analysis, strategic planning and monitoring and evaluation.

Opting out of any type of analysis is technically not an option. The risks are too great to forego serious analysis of the development situation on the ground. Experience and the guidelines make it very clear that the quality of the UNDAF hinges largely on the quality of the analysis preceding it and on which it is based.

Possible implications of not doing a thorough analysis include: 

Key national priorities are not addressed;

157 | P a g e



UN assistance overlaps with activities of other actors



UN support is not effective and relevant, resulting in little impact;



UN support is scattered and not strategically focused, thus spreading thin the available capacities and prompting competition between UN agencies;



UN support does not target the most needy populations or reaches a very limited group of people.

When should the country analysis be undertaken?

UNCTs undertake a country analysis as the second step of the UNDAF process following the finalization of the UNDAF road map. Given the need to produce a final draft of the UNDAF by December of year four of the programming cycle, it is suggested the country analysis take place from March to September of year four after the road map is finalized in January and February.

What are the most important components in the country analysis?

Country analysis is a broad term that describes step 2 of the UNDAF process. It focuses on how the UNCT makes its analytical contribution, which feeds into the UNDAF. The ultimate aim of this exercise is to strengthen national analytical capacities, processes and products by identifying national capacity gaps in analysis and developing programmes within the UNDAF to build them. The CCA is one option a UNCT can pursue in making that analytical contribution.

The three main components of the country analysis include: 1.

Reviewing existing analytical processes and products;

2.

Making an analytical contribution;

3.

Determining the UNCTs comparative advantages.

The 2010 guidance package provides detailed information on how the UNCT is to conduct these exercises.

What are the options for undertaking the country analysis?

Letter ‘b’ above – making an analytical contribution – pinpoints three options from which each UNCT chooses:

Option 1. UNCT participation in government-led and harmonized donor analytical work and use of government analysis, including sectoral reviews and analyses;

158 | P a g e

Option 2. Complementary UN-supported analytical work, with a focus on gaps in the existing analysis; and Option 3. A full Common Country Assessment (CCA).

The three main components of the country analysis indicated in point 1 above are mandatory. The only difference falls under letter ‘b’ (making an analytical contribution). Here, the UNCT has the option to do a full-fledged CCA (option iii) or the two other options (i + ii).

The main difference between options (i+ii) and option (iii) above is that the CCA refers to, rather than duplicates, data and information contained in other reliable national information systems.

This is to say that in options (i+ii) the UNCT and partners determine that the national information systems are reliable and the UNCT simply needs to contribute to nationally led analytical work. In option (iii) the UNCT and its partners determine that there are few high quality documents and that planned exercises are not sufficiently analytical – the UNCT thus opts for a full-fledged CCA. In this case, the UNCT takes the lead in doing the analytical exercise.

How does the country analysis help to develop the UNDAF? Whatever option it chooses, the UNCT must ensure that the analysis will allow it to determine the country’s major development challenges, the potential role of key actors and the UNCT comparative advantages. Based on country analysis, the UNCT targets its support to areas where it can make the biggest difference.

The country analysis helps to shape the UNDAF Outcomes – this is your main connection to the UNDAF. The wealth of knowledge generated through the country analysis should naturally lead to identification of UNDAF Outcomes. Identifying these outcomes is an important product of the analysis.

What are the key considerations when undertaking the country analysis?

Page 25 of Part II (technical guidance) of the 2010 UNDAF Guidance Package identifies criteria for assessing the quality of country analysis. In addition, DOCO has developed detailed checklists for each of the mandatory four steps of the UNDAF programming process, including for the country analysis. These checklists are available on the UNDG website at UNDAF Checklists 2010.

159 | P a g e

These criteria are in essence minimum standards that can contribute to the more locally informed perspective of the country team. The knowledge of the country context and its development process directs country teams in making qualitative decisions, together with the government, which should be involved early in the process. Based on these consultations, which should set the government overview of the priority areas where the UN should focus and what kind of support to provide, country teams then assess the available materials in connection to those priority areas.

Should the country analysis process begin after the UNDAF evaluation?

Yes, the country analysis should ideally begin after the UNDAF Evaluation is done. That said, there are cases in which, owing to time constraints, the two are done in parallel, since the UNDAF Evaluation is an independent exercise. What is important, however, is that the results of both the country analysis and the UNDAF Evaluation are available at the time of the strategic planning exercise of the UNDAF.

Is it mandatory to apply the UN programming principles to the country analysis?

Yes, the programming principles are a starting point and guide for the country analysis, as well as for all stages of UNDAF formulation, including results planning, implementation, and M&E. There are specific guidelines for each programming principles on the UNDG website as well as a guidance note on applying them in an integrated manner: Guidance Note on the Application of the Programming Principles to the UNDAF.

Are there generic terms of reference for the country analysis?

No, generic terms of reference for conducting a country analysis does not exist. Since the CCA is considered a UN internal process, UNDAF theme groups are assigned a key role throughout the process. The hiring of external expertise for conducting the analysis is generally not advisable and therefore not foreseen in the guidance. Hence, there are no generic ToRs for hiring external assistance.

The 2010 UNDAF Guidance Package gives UNCTs significant flexibility in conducting the country analysis according to the country context – as long as certain minimum quality standards are observed.

160 | P a g e

The CCA itself is a very flexible tool that allows the UNCT to adjust each step to its specific requirements. The second part of the UNDAF Guidelines – How to Prepare an UNDAF (Part II): Technical Guidance for UN Country Teams – provides a detailed description of the generic elements of a CCA (starting on p. 20).

When do you undertake a capacity assessment for the UNCT? Assessing UNCT capacities takes place at the country analysis stage (step 2) when the UNCT undertakes its comparative advantage exercise. To facilitate this exercise, UNCT are encouraged to conduct a SWOT analysis – an assessment of the UNCT’s Strengths and Weaknesses, and the Opportunities and Threats. The UNCT can, however, choose another comparable methodology if it sees fit. Section II of the Technical Guidance includes information on how to conduct a SWOT analysis within the context of defining UNCT comparative advantages.

Should the country analysis go through regional PSG review?

UNCTs are not required but highly encouraged to share the country analysis with the PSG. According to the guidelines, neither the review of country analysis, nor products emerging from options I or II are required to be reviewed by the PSG. Only when a CCA is prepared is the PSG review required.

Strategic Planning

If the UNCT decides all its activities are reflected in the UNDAF, can chapter 3 of ‘Initiatives outside the UNDAF’ be removed?

In effect, if the UNCT manages to incorporate all activities in the UNDAF there is no need to complete the section on 'Initiatives Outside the UNDAF'. The UNCT will be able to fit everything into the UNDAF based on an UNDAF strategic prioritization exercise whereby the UNCT identifies and agrees to focus on those areas where it has a clear comparative advantage and eliminate anything that does not adhere to this principle. The 2010 guidance package, in line with current thinking, stresses the importance of prioritizing UNCT work in the light of its comparative advantages.

What happens to the UNDAF in the event of a sudden crisis or emergency?

161 | P a g e

It is difficult to prescribe a precise course of action and in fact there is no standard response or guidance material to share. The truth is that what happens to the UNDAF in the advent of a crisis depends largely on the local context. This is one reason why the UNDAF is kept flexible -- to enhance its adaptability to different contexts, including crisis and post-crisis contexts.

The primacy of 'context' means that the UNCT decides what to do with the UNDAF based on the particularities of each country case.

There are some basic conditions that will help the UNCT to make a decision. For example, will current development activities continue or be put on hold during the crisis period? If they continue, the UNDAF can coexist with humanitarian planning instruments such as the CHAP, CAP and flash appeals, with perhaps the UNCT looking into the possibility of expanding early recovery activities.

If the crisis is of such magnitude that the development activities will be put on definitive hold, then humanitarian activities would be implemented and development activities suspended. When the time is ripe -- the crisis subsides and development activities can foreseeably be resumed -- a review of the UNDAF would most likely be appropriate. The same principle stands for CPAPs. It is also possible to extend UNDAF and CPAP cycles through a crisis if it is felt that activities would continue or pick up but within a longer timeframe. Obviously, the UN would also have to look at what the government plan of action would be in the crisis context and be as responsive as possible to its immediate priorities, timelines, etc.

The timeframe of UNDAF under new guidelines in made flexible; however, the submission of CPDs for Ex. Boards stays the same. This means that the UNDAF draft needs to be available by the time CPDs are drafted and finalized – as a result, there is no timing flexibility in finalizing UNDAFs. How can this be explained?

The CPD submission to the Executive Boards is the only deadline that concerned agencies need to respect and consequently also the UNCT. The requirement does limit the timing flexibility. Two points to mention here: Development of CPDs can be begin simultaneously with the finalization of the UNDAF; development of the CPAP or UNDAF Action Plan can also be started earlier (without waiting for the final approval of the CPD). At the time the CPD is approved, the UNCT and agencies will be ready with the launch of the CPAPs or UNDAF Action Plan.

162 | P a g e

In its resolution 64/289 of 2 July 2010, the GA approved the development of a common country programming document (CPD) to replace individual agency CPDs. Countries opting to undertake a common CPD should use the Interim Guidance on the Common CPD.

With whom does the UNCT need to share the draft UNDAF? The UNCT is required to share a draft of the UNDAF with the QSA Convening Agency for final review by the PSG. The Convening Agency provides consolidated comments from the PSG within 15 working days. The UNCT then reviews and updates the UNDAF based on the comments and concerns received (UNDAF Guidance Part 1, p. 11). The tool offered for this review is a checklist to assess the quality and strategic positioning of the UNDAF (UNDAF Guidance Part 2, p. 33).

Is there any other review mechanism in place after the PSG has reviewed the UNDAF? Once the UNDAF is reviewed by the PSG there is no requirement for further review and quality assurance at the regional level before government signature, in accordance with the 2010 UNDAF guidance package. That said, it must be clear that ultimate responsibility for the quality of the UNDAF lies with the UNCT. The final UNDAF is only submitted to respective agency Executive Boards or governing bodies for information in accompaniment of the CPD. The Boards do not approve or comment on the UNDAF -the UNDAF is a country focused document agreed and approved by the stakeholders involved at the country level.

163 | P a g e

UNDAF options (See UNDAF Options paper for detailed information)

How and when should the UNCT present the different UNDAF options to the government?

The UNCT presents the options to the government at the earliest stages, i.e., when developing the road map. These options are presented to the government in order to ensure national ownership and joint decision-making. The UN has to take account of how the Government sees the UN’s role and the way it works in the country. Government ownership of the programming process is key, especially when referring to the UNCT decisions to apply elements of the Delivering as One approach.

What are the benefits of a simplified UNDAF? The main showcased benefit of the ‘simplified’ UNDAF is flexibility, which makes it easier to align with the national planning cycle. It is important to note that the term ‘simplification’ describes the UNDAF process. (The substantive development of the UNDAF nevertheless remains the same.) Here simplification of the process means that, within each of the four steps, UNCTs have different options. That decision should however be based on a concern for quality. Instead of a prescriptive process, UNCTs have the liberty to choose from the different options based on its judgement of how good the analysis, strategic planning and M&E are from a substantive viewpoint.

Are outputs optional?

Yes, outputs are optional at the UNDAF level. They must however appear in the UNDAF Action Plan or at the agency level in individual agency operational documents (CPAPs or other). A UNCT can opt to do only an Outcome level UNDAF Matrix (option 1a) – without adding the Action Plan. In this case, outputs would have to appear in agency country programme action plans (CPAPs).

How does the simplified UNDAF affect RBM and the chain of results?

The new guidance package does not modify the results chain significantly. The only difference is reducing the outcomes to one level. The results chain – Impact (goal), Outcome, Output, Activities,

164 | P a g e

Inputs – remains intact. The intention is that reducing the outcomes to one level will lead to greater clarity and focus at the outcome level, which in turn will mean more targeted outputs.

Under the previous UNDAF guidelines, UNDAFs included two levels of outcomes – UNDAF outcomes and country programme (CP) outcomes. The rationale was that while UNDAF outcomes were a collective “promise” of the UN to deliver support to national development priorities, country programme outcomes were more agency-specific. However, in past UNDAFs the overwhelming majority of CP outcomes were addressed collectively by more than one agency, which only caused complications, confusion and lack transparency.

The 2010 guidance package removes the former ‘UNDAF level outcome’ leaving only what was formally called ‘country programme outcomes’, which are now simply called ‘outcomes’. The results chain thus reads: Goal (or national priority) > outcome > output. According to this logic, there will be more outcomes than in the past. It is important to note that in the new matrix there are more outcomes falling under each ‘goal’ and they will consequently be more focused.

Guidance on how to formulate outcomes and outputs remains the same as per previous RBM guidance.

Is it correct to assume that one level outcome (in simplified UNDAF) should be replicated in agency CPDs/CPAPs? Yes, outcomes and outputs should be repeated – taken as they are in the UNDAF and placed in agency CPDs and country programme action plans (CPAPs). If UNCTs follow the UNDAF Action Plan option, thus replacing their CPAPs (for funds and programmes) and agency projects/programmes, UNDAF outcomes and outputs have to be repeated in the UNDAF Action Plan, thereby creating a strict link between the two documents and clearly maintaining the results chain.

What is the link between the simplified UNDAF and UNDAF Action Plan?

The UNDAF is UNDAF strategic framework, which does not provide programme and budget-specific details, while the UNDAF Action Plan is the operationalization document for the UNDAF strategic framework. As such the UNDAF Action Plan is the legal agreement (and thus binding) between the Government and the UN system in the country for the UN’s development related work. It therefore replaces the agency country programme action plans (CPAPs) or operational documents. The Action

165 | P a g e

Plan provides specific legal language based on agency CPAPs and operational documents and provides greater level of operational details, including:



Management and coordination arrangements – the Action Plan articulates very clearly what management/coordination structures will be set up and what will be the role of each involved actor;



Resource requirements – a clearer picture of what is needed and what is available and/or needs to be mobilized, as well as agencies’ commitments to make those funds available;



Joint resource mobilization – a good basis (since the funding gap is clearly identified) for UNCT decision on whether joint or agency-specific resource mobilization is required.

If a UNCT chooses to do a conventional UNDAF, does it then also prepare an operational plan/one budgetary framework or how do you ensure programme coherence?

When opting for a conventional UNDAF (option 1b), the UNCT can undertake either an UNDAF Action Plan or agencies’ CPAPs. Both are equal options for operationalization of the UNDAF from which the UNCT can choose.

That said, programme coherence is best achieved through the UNDAF Action Plan because it makes clear links to UNDAF outcomes and outputs, when applicable, and is a comprehensive – UN-wide – picture of the UN’s development operations at the country level (thus ensuring transparency). The UNDAF Action Plan is the basis for a Common Budgetary Framework in Annex III of the UNDAF Action Plan. Based on the level of results detail it provides, costing of UNDAF outcomes is made much easier. The one budgetary framework only really makes sense when a UNCT opts to undertake an UNDAF Action Plan.

How does the UNCT involve non-resident agencies (NRAs) in a simplified UNDAF process and how do they contribute practically in the absence of outputs? Where and when exactly should NRAs come in?

The UNCT should involve NRAs at the earliest stages (road map) of UNDAF development. NRA involvement is not in any way modified but reinforced conceptually in the 2010 UNDAF guidance package.

In the absence of outputs, NRA involvement early on in the development of the UNDAF – by identifying how their technical assistance can address national priorities – will guarantee them a role in UNDAF implementation. These can be then fleshed out in a coordinated manner in agency CPAPs 166 | P a g e

and in joint programmes or in an UNDAF Action Plan. In addition, any UN outputs that fall outside the scope of the UNDAF can still be described in a separate section of the UNDAF document and fleshed out in greater detail in agency annual work plans.

NB: ‘Outputs’ are never absent from the UNDAF per se. The UNCT may choose to do an Outcomeonly UNDAF; however, outputs must still be developed either in the UNDAF Action Plan or the agency CPAPs or operational documents.

If UNCTs are expected to develop both the UNDAF and UNDAF Action Plan, which are process heavy, how does this explain simplification efforts?

The 2010 UNDAF guidance package is ‘simplified’ in so much as it makes it easier for government and partners to work with the UN – by reducing transaction costs through the development of a single operational document, the UNDAF Action Plan. For UNCTs, the guidelines are not so much simplified as flexible, as explained in point 16 above.

UNCT are not expected to produce an Action Plan. They are given options for both how they do the UNDAF matrix and whether or not to follow the Action Plan route. The Action Plan is a good option in that it ensures greater coherence in the operationalization of the UNDAF and maintains a tight link in the results chain from UNDAF outcomes down through outputs and ultimately key activities, which would be included in the one budgetary framework. The Action Plan also includes a more detailed indicative budget.

In terms of the process, it is simplified for UNCTs should they choose to develop an Outcome-level only UNDAF (1a) and stop there. The onus will then be on the agencies to develop outputs and corresponding activities, ensuring to maintain the results chain with the UNDAF.

UNDAF Action Plan

What are the benefits of the UNDAF Action Plan?

The UNDAF Action Plan has been introduced in response to demands by UNCTs for a programming tool that would enable them to ensure the maximum level of coherence in operationalizing the UNDAF, including a tighter results chain from UNDAFs through to country programme action plans,

167 | P a g e

and to reduce transaction costs for government and partners. (The demand came in part through the experience of Delivering as One pilot countries that sought to develop one operational document.)

In effect, the UNDAF Action Plan replaces funds and programmes’ country progamme action plans (CPAPs) and specialized agency operational plans – and serves as the main legal document for multiyear programming signed by both the Government and the UNCT. More than an operational tool, the UNDAF Action Plan is a legally binding agreement between the Government and UNCT. Furthermore, the Action Plan also reduces transaction costs by serving as the sole legal/operational document that the Government will sign with the UNCT, thereby eliminating the need for agencyspecific CPAPs or other operational documents. (NB: By adding the common budgetary framework, UNCTs can further round out the information in the Action Plan with ‘key activities’ and the indicative budget per year.) For further information, see section 3, page 6 of the UNDAF Action Plan Guidance Note.

What is the difference between a common operational document and an UNDAF Action Plan?

The common operational document (or COD) was created by Delivering as One pilot countries and existed before the creation of the UNDAF Action Plan as a common document to operationalize the UNDAF. With the advent of the UNDAF Action Plan and the common budgetary framework, the common operational document is no longer used as a tool to operationalize the UNDAF. The main differences and qualities of the UNDAF Action Plan are the following: 

UNDG endorsement: the UNDAF Action Plan was fully approved by all agencies members of the UNDG;



Legal content: the UNDAF Action Plan includes specific legal text for UNCTs to include verbatim in the Action Plan;



Replacement of CPAPs: when a UNCT decides to develop an UNDAF Action Plan, agencies no longer need to prepare separate country programme action plans (CPAPs) or operational plans.

When should a UNCT develop and sign an UNDAF Action Plan?

The 2010 guidance package recommends that UNCTs draft the UNDAF Action Plan at the moment the UNDAF is signed, at the end of the on-going cycle; but UNCTs have the flexibility to decide to draft it at the same time the UNDAF is being prepared, an approach that is indeed encouraged to better ensure continuity between the UNDAF and the Action Plan. The UNDAF Action Plan is finalized only after the Executive Boards or governing bodies approve resources for the agency 168 | P a g e

country programmes, after which the UNDAF Action Plan is modified to reflect Executive Board or governing body decisions. The UNDAF Action Plan can only be signed once the Executive Board or governing body decisions have been taken and CPDs approved. This means the UNDAF will be signed earlier (or whenever completed) and then the UNDAF Action Plan will be signed subsequently.

Is it possible to produce an UNDAF Action Plan when only a group of UNCT members are willing to do it?

It is possible for only a group of agencies to undertake the UNDAF Action Plan, although this approach runs counter to the coherence spirit of the Action Plan. One of the main purposes of the UNDAF Action Plan is to reduce the risk that UN system agencies’ programmes become fragmented and, together with the UNDAF, to provide the government the opportunity to determine how UN system agencies will best support the achievement of national development priorities.

If the UNDAF Action Plan is attempted, does it leave the agencies (especially the funds and programmes) with less autonomy in their programme implementation?

On the contrary, increased UN agency accountability for specific results is one of the key expected benefits of the UNDAF Action Plan. There should usually only be one accountable agency per output.

Outputs should only be shared by two or more agencies and their implementing partners only if they indicate a clear opportunity for joint programmes. Since the Action Plan will provide a transparent overview of the UN system's activities and resources, it is expected that agencies will actually take on increased levels of ownership for their outputs as well as their contribution towards UNDAF outcomes. The Action Plan provides a joint format for compiling information that would otherwise be contained in agency CPAPs (or equivalent) – the format itself does therefore not impact on the autonomy of individual agencies.

It is important to note that the Action Plan identifies a ‘Government coordinating authority’, with which the UNCT collaborates in developing the UNDAF and Action Plan and which formally ‘represents’ all line ministries involved in the process. In this sense, the counterparts for UN system agencies in the government may shift – from individual line ministries, with which individual agencies traditionally work to, for example, the Ministry of Planning or another ‘coordinating authority’. It is therefore advisable to pay special attention to ensure adequate representation of line ministries under the Action Plan, where they should be listed in an annex and, if necessary for legal reasons, sign on the signature page along with the ‘Government coordinating authority’.

169 | P a g e

Can the RC sign the UNDAF Action Plan on behalf of the UNCT? No, all participating agencies must sign the UNDAF Action Plan. If a UNCT decides to develop an UNDAF Action Plan, all UN system agencies that have signed the UNDAF ideally participate in the process. As the UNDAF Action Plan will serve as an accountability mechanism among UN system agencies, each participating UN system agency is required to sign the UNDAF Action Plan. Depending on the make-up of the UNCT, the mechanisms to ensure that the UNDAF process is inclusive should also be used to ensure that the development of the UNDAF Action Plan is also inclusive.

Who signs the UNDAF Action Plan from the Government side?

According to the 2010 Guidance Note, the Government determines the authority/authorities to sign the UNDAF Action Plan on behalf of Government. It is important to mention that the focus of both the UNDAF and the UNDAF Action Plan is the achievement of national development priorities. The leadership of Government is paramount and section 8 of the UNDAF Action Plan sets out the commitments of the Government to achieve those national development priorities which the UN system agencies are supporting. Many of these commitments relate to the leadership and coordination role of Government. In this context, ‘Government’ will usually mean the ‘Government coordinating authority’ identified in Section V on “Programme Management and Accountability Arrangements” in Annex 2 of the Guidance Note. But it may also be useful to refer to the roles of UN system agency-specific Government coordinating authorities (for example specific line ministries) if these are not the same as the overarching coordinating authority.

NB: In the event that government line ministries or other government entities wish to sign the UNDAF Action Plan alongside the ‘Government coordinating authority’ (for legal or other reasons) they can do so on the ‘Signature Page’ of the standard UNDAF Action Plan template found in annex 2 of the UNDAF Action Plan Guidance Note. The ‘Government coordinating authority’ would thus sign on top with the subsequent line ministries listed below with their signatures.

Should other partners be involved in the process of developing the UNDAF Action Plan? Should they also sign it?

All partners involved in the UNDAF Action Plan can be mentioned in Section 3 “Partnerships, Values and Principles”. Section 4 of the UNDAF Action Plan “Programme and Actions and Implementation Strategies” should also include the partnership strategies and agreements with NGOs/CSOs on how

170 | P a g e

to jointly work for the achievement of national development priorities. Non-government/civil society partners, however, do not sign the UNDAF Action Plan.

Please indicate why the new guidelines suggest the presence of a strong civil society be taken as one criterion for opting for an UNDAF Action Plan.

Effective engagement (including capacity development) with civil society and other stakeholders is critical to ensure broad-based national ownership of the development process in general and UN programming in particular.

The requirement to partner with all relevant stakeholders is not exclusive to the UNDAF Action Plan but applies to all stages of the UNDAF process. As a neutral partner and convener, the UN has a clear potential comparative advantage in this regard but the track record of previous UNDAF cycles suggests that effective engagement with civil society remains an area for improvement for UNCTs as a whole.

Anecdotal evidence from the Delivering as One pilots suggests that strong engagement with civil society has had a positive impact on the effectiveness of UN programmes.

The UNDAF Action Plan provides UNCTs with a framework for jointly engaging with implementing partners. The setting up of a joint government/UN steering committee, in which civil society partners can participate as observers is another opportunity in this regard.

The UNDAF Action Plan process may risk to engage fewer national partners than if agencies would follow their own individual planning processes. A strong and vibrant civil society is therefore highlighted in the guidance as one of the "basic conditions for success in making strategic choices and implementing change initiatives together, including the UNDAF Action Plan."

However, this does not mean that a strong civil society should be seen as a necessary prerequisite for developing an UNDAF Action Plan. A high level of commitment to UN coherence among UNCT members (and corresponding capacity!) and strong government leadership are arguably the decisive factors when considering this option.

Can specialized agencies with bi-annual plans sign the (5 year) UNDAF Action Plan?

Yes, all agencies that have signed the UNDAF can also sign the UNDAF Action Plan. For those UN system agencies working with a two-year programming cycle, indicative commitments may be made as is done for the UNDAF itself. Note that for all UN system agencies the resource commitments noted in the UNDAF Action Plan are based on approval from their Executive Boards and governing bodies; additional

171 | P a g e

funds are dependent on the UN system agencies’ ability to raise funds (such resources may also come in the form of technical advisory services).

What is the difference between the UNDAF Results Matrix and the UNDAF Action Plan Results Matrix?

The UNDAF is the strategic programme framework that describes the collective response of the UN System to national development priorities. The UNDAF results matrix is the collective, coherent and integrated tool that identifies the programming and monitoring framework for country-level contributions.

The UNDAF Action Plan specifies the modalities of how the agencies (individually or jointly) are going to achieve the strategic results agreed to in the UNDAF framework. It specifies the outputs and strategies that agencies will use to achieve the results. The UNDAF Action Plan results matrix defines more in detail than the UNDAF what partners the UN agencies will work with; identifies the financial modalities (e.g., application of HACT) that will be used for the transfer of funds to partners; and stipulates the M&E processes and mechanisms to be used in order to implement the UNDAF M&E plan.

What to do when an agency has actions outside the UNDAF framework? Do they need to be reflected in the UNDAF Action Plan?

Following the strategic prioritization exercise, the UNCT, in agreement with the government and individual UN agencies, may determine that certain initiatives fall outside the strategic scope of the UNDAF. In such cases, these initiatives are mentioned in Section 3 of the UNDAF narrative entitled, “Initiatives Outside the UNDAF Results Matrix” (see page 30 of Part II of the UNDAF guidance package).

The initiatives and expected results are briefly described, along with the agency responsible and the estimated budget and timeline. However, these initiatives do not appear in the UNDAF results matrix or the UNDAF Action Plan results matrix. They are however fleshed out in the annual work plans of the individual agencies that are responsible for these initiatives.

What role do RDT/PSG play in the design and implementation of the UNDAF Action Plan?

The UNCT is required to share a draft of the UNDAF, including the Action Plan when applicable, with the QSA Convening Agency for final review by the PSG. The Convening Agency provides consolidated comments from the PSG within 15 working days. The UNCT then reviews and updates the UNDAF and Action Plan based on the comments and concerns received. The tool offered for this review is a UNDAF checklist to assess the quality and strategic positioning of the UNDAF posted on the UNDG website. This

172 | P a g e

same rule applies if the UNCT chooses to develop the Action Plan only after the UNDAF has been developed.

If the UNCT decides to do an UNDAF Action Plan, is it also mandatory to develop annual work plans (AWPs) or project documents?

Yes, the results logic of the UNDAF and UNDAF Action Plan must continue to agency-specific work plan (such as AWPs) or project documents. The UNDAF Action Plan can only replace the country programme action plans (CPAPs). Agencies must therefore continue to produce AWPs and project documents as per their agency programming regulations.

What exactly are the pro’s and con’s between the two UNDAF options and the four modalities below and how should UNCTs be guided: 

Conventional UNDAF + CPAPs



Conventional UNDAF + UNDAF Action Plan



Simplified UNDAF + CPAPs



Simplified UNDAF + UNDAF Action Plan

For details on the pro’s and con’s of the UNDAF options, please refer to the paper entitled ‘Options for developing an UNDAF results matrix and UNDAF Action Plan’ available on the UNDG website.

Section 5 of the UNDAF Action Plan “resources and resource mobilization strategy” includes a table that specifies core/regular resources and non-core/other/extra-budgetary resources from each agency. Should this table include Government resources?

The common budgetary framework is an instrument that aims to present a comprehensive, accurate picture of the UN support being brought to the country. This helps the Government in their aid coordination activities and the UN in their planning, prioritization and monitoring of such assistance. At the planning stage (i.e., 1st year when indicative figures are used to have an estimation of available UN resources that UN agencies bring to the table and resources that would need to be jointly mobilized in order to be able to deliver on the agreed results), the CBF is an estimation of needs through costing the programmatic results. At the end of the 1st year of implementation (and subsequently for other years), these estimations will have to be reviewed – (i) Were the committed UN core/regular and non-core resources made available? (ii) Has the UN been able to mobilize all required resources? and (iii) What is still the gap against the joint AWPs?

173 | P a g e

The Government’s cost-sharing for specific programmes and projects usually comes to specific agencies and should be seen as agencies non-core funding. It means that both at the planning stage and at the review stage, Government’s cost-sharing contribution should be reported by the Agencies and reflected in the ‘non-core/other/extra-budgetary’ column of the CBF.

For the UNDAF Action Plan, on page 5, section 2 “alliances, values and principles” the verbatim text states the existing agreements between the government and the different agencies. Now, we have the agreements signed between most agencies but cannot locate any with several NRAS. If these NRAS don’t have a specific agreement signed then they do not appear in this section but does not mean that they cannot sign the action plan? Is this correct?

Annex 1 (p. 5) provides suggested text only for UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCR, WFP, UNFPA, UNIDO and FAO. It is recommended that all other agencies seek advice on specific text from their respective headquarters.

Even though these agencies may not have general assistance agreements with the Government, they may nevertheless wish to decide to include some text on key principles of their relationship with Government partners. As this information is highly agency specific, DOCO cannot provide a standardized text.

The section on “Programme Management and Accountability Arrangements” states that “the programme will be nationally executed under the overall coordination of…” We understand “nationally executed” as NEX. Is that correct?

The National Execution or NEX is known as a non-harmonized terminology; what is being used now (at least by UNDP, but I understand by all the others who are part of the common country programming process) is National Implementation. The National Implementation is defined by the fact that the implementing partner is a government entity, i.e., the one signing the UNDAF Action Plan and consequently the annual work plans. Even if the UNDAF Action Plan is signed by a government entity, specific programmes and projects may be executed through direct implementation. This, however, has to be clearly spelled out in the Action Plan or defined as part of the annual reviews. Furthermore, various agencies have different procedures for adopting direct implementation, usually very tough (for UNDP, please follow the link http://content.undp.org/go/userguide/results/ppm-overview/implementingpartner/ ) – but this is completely under individual agencies’ purview.

174 | P a g e

How specific should the UNDAF Action Plan be? How to address the multiplicity of outputs?

The UNDAF Action Plan has two results levels: outcomes and outputs. Key activities, on which the outputs are based, are fleshed out in the agency annual work plans. For the sake of clarity and accountability, the UNDAF Action Plan guidance note includes a tool (p. 23, Annex I) to monitor and adjust outputs against key activities during the annual review process, thereby ensuring continuity in the results chain.

NB: Some Delivering as One pilot countries opted to include ‘key activities’ in the UNDAF Action Plan matrix/common budgetary framework to ensure clearer definition of resource requirements, stronger accountability for results and better monitoring. However, this is not currently an option for developing the UNDAF Action Plan.

On the multiplicity of outputs, the UNDAF guidance package specifically encourages UNCTs to assign one agency per output unless there is a real intention for developing a joint programme. Likewise, the Standard Operational Format for Reporting Progress on the UNDAF specifies that monitoring of outputs is the task of the agency responsible for that particular output based on the agency-specific activities on which the realization of the output rests, following the results chain logic of outcomes > outputs > activities. Agencies therefore track progress for each of their designated outputs as part of their standard agency annual reviews of their activities and outputs. This output level monitoring in turn would inform progress against the UNDAF outcomes, which is the responsibility of the Inter-agency UNDAF M&E Groups at the country level.

How much flexibility do UNCTs have for the structure of the Action Plan?

UNCTs have the flexibility to modify the format of the UNDAF Action Plan in terms of sequence of chapters, number of signatures, etc. There more important flexibility in content -- the 2010 UNDAF Action Plan guidelines distinguish between 'mandatory' and 'suggested' text. UNCTs must include the 'mandatory' text in the UNDAF Action Plan while they may choose to use the 'suggested' text or not or some version of it.

The guidelines have text boxes suggesting national execution (annex i &ii, p. 7) and the use of the fund authorization and certificate of expenditures form and process (p.17). Is this mandatory and would thus apply to all agencies signing the Action Plan?

The text boxes you are referring to are indeed mandatory elements of the UNDAF Action Plan. However, they may not apply equally to all UN agencies and UNCTs should clearly indicate this in the document.

Annex I (p. 2) provides some guidance in this regard:

175 | P a g e

"There are also some clauses relating to the Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers (HACT) that are mandatory for UN system agencies applying HACT. The UNDAF Action Plan should specify which UN system agencies are applying HACT and note in each instance, where text refers to HACT processes, that the HACT-specific mechanisms apply only to those UN system agencies following HACT procedures.

As far as the references to national execution (Annex I & II, p. 7) are concerned, the text distinguishes between national execution under the overall coordination of a Government Coordinating Authority and programme implementation by Government Ministries, NGOs, INGOs and UN system agencies. In other words, these national execution clauses do not prevent UN agencies from implementing programmes and projects directly, even though this modality should be kept to a minimum so as not to undermine national ownership.

Consequently, the use of direct implementation has to be clearly spelled out in the UNDAF Action Plan or defined as part of the annual reviews. In addition, agency-specific rules and regulations for using direct implementation apply.

Parts of the results matrix of the UNDAF Action Plan are not very clear to us. Which type of information do you expect under “monitoring process” and “monitoring mechanisms”? Would be grateful if you could clarify. We also noticed that there is not space foreseen for indicators, baselines and targets for the different outputs… as we consider these elements essential, we are planning to add a respective column.

The sections in the matrix on monitoring processes and mechanisms are defined as follows: The monitoring processes are activities undertaken (e.g. studies, surveys, monitoring systems, reviews and evaluations) and need to be described separately for each UNDAF outcome area (and noted in the UNDAF Action Plan results matrix). There should also be an indication of how these monitoring processes relate to the UNDAF evaluation.

Details of the performance monitoring mechanisms, which need to be linked to national monitoring mechanisms of development effectiveness (implementation of national policies, strategies and plans; MDG monitoring) and allow for dialogue between national partners (Government, including line ministries as well as non-governmental organizations and civil society) and the UN system. These mechanisms need to be described separately for each UNDAF outcome area (and noted in the UNDAF Action Plan results matrix). They may include theme groups, programme coordination groups, etc.

176 | P a g e

If the Action Plan is to be reviewed annually and thus the importance of developing a valid and realistic M&E system, does that mean that the document has to be officially signed annually between the Government and UN agencies?

The Common Budgetary Framework presents an Annual CBF format that should be prepared annually and defined on the basis of key activities drawn and consolidated from the AWPs. This information, subsequently summarized at the output and outcome levels, is important for ensuring that the Annual CBF is as realistic as possible, as well as fully transparent. It is also critically important that this summarized information is certified by agencies and supported by their AWPs, which should be made available for review and consideration by the UNCT to maintain robustness of allocation processes.

A thorough annual review of the UNDAF Action Plan together with national partners is absolutely critical for reflecting on challenges and identifying lessons learned. Obviously can only be effective if the UNCT and partners are open for making necessary adjustments and agreeing on a change of course in the light of emerging evidence. This is why the UNDAF Action Plan should contain a statement that the document may be modified by mutual consent (see UNDAF Action Plan Guidance Note Annex 1, p. 19). So as long as all concerned parties of the UN system and the Government mutually agree on any changes and this is documented in the annual review, there is no need to formally re-sign the document.

However, in this context it is important to note that any changes at the outcome level will significantly affect agency-specific CPDs. If this is the case, CPDs would have to be re-submitted to agency Executive Boards in line with agency-specific rules and regulations.

Are there examples of UNDAF Action Plans?

There are only very few countries that have used the Action Plan since it did not formally exist before the new guidance note was issued in January 2010. However, there are countries that have developed common operational documents. These include 8 pilot countries and 9 “self-starter� Delivering as One countries, all of which were recommended by the regional UNDG teams and approved by the Steering Committee for the Expanded DAO Funding Window.

Contact undaf.helpdesk@undg.org for the newest examples.

177 | P a g e

UNDAF Action Plan & Delivering as One

What does “one programme” mean?

The term 'one programme' can be confusing. It is not a term used in the UNDAF guidelines. The 'one programme' is often used in coherence language and in countries following the Delivering as One approach to designate the combination of the UNDAF and the UNDAF Action Plan into one document, including the common budgetary framework. There is no official guidance for such a combination.

CPDs and Common CPDs

What is the process of submitting the CPD to the Executive Boards?

Since CPDs/country programmes are agency-specific documents it is the responsibility of the individual agencies to check with their HQs on the exact processes for submission of CPDs/country programmes. As things stand, these procedures differ for each agency, although UNDP. UNICEF, UNFPA and WFP do have similar procedures. UNCTs are not usually involved in CPD development since CPDs are essentially used by agencies to solicit funding for their country programmes through their executive boards. CPDs are HQ/governing body-focused whereas the country programme action plans (CPAPs) are country focused, serving as a legal agreement between the agency and the national government.Individual agencies should therefore check with their HQs to determine the process for submitting CPDs to their Executive Boards.

For 2011 Roll-out countries, when are the deadlines for submitting the draft CPDs? It is the responsibility of the individual agencies to check when exactly the CPD needs to be submitted to their own agency. The usual tentative deadlines to submit the draft CPDs for the former ExCom agencies are: 

UNDP: beginning to mid-February of ultimate year of current UNDAF cycle



UNFPA: beginning to mid-February of ultimate year of current UNDAF cycle



UNICEF: beginning of March of ultimate year of current UNDAF cycle

178 | P a g e



WFP: beginning of March of ultimate year of current UNDAF cycle

The deadlines are usually set in February/March so that the draft CPDs can be prepared and translated to be tabled at the June sessions of the boards and approved in September.

For exact CPD submission dates and procedures, agencies should contact the Secretaries of their respective Executive Boards: UNDP - Rekha Thepa (rekha.thapa@undp.org) UNFPA - KwabenaOsei-Danquah (danquah@unfpa.org) UNICEF - Nicolas Pron (npron@unicef.org) WFP - Erika Joergensen (erika.joergensen@wfp.org)

Can the CPD be submitted to the Executive Board prior to the UNDAF signature?

Since CPDs must directly follow from the UNDAF, agencies are encouraged to develop their CPDs while the UNDAF is being finalized and to submit their CPDs to their respective HQs once the UNDAF is signed. However, in exceptional cases where the UNDAF has been finalized but not yet officially signed it is possible to submit a final UNDAF draft together with the CPD to the Executive Board.

Can the agencies present their CPDs to different executive board sessions in the same year? For example, UNICEF´s CPD is presented to the UNICEF EB in June while UNDP and UNFPA present their respective CPDs to the SEPTEMBER EB session?

This is theoretically possible since the CPD submission requirements are agency-specific. However, in practice this rarely happens since late submissions (Sep EB session) need to be approved by the Regional UNDG and exceptions are usually not made for only one agency. However, this may be a viable option in case one agency is affected by high/critical staff turnover or the absence of an agency representative.

Will the new UNDAFs need to be formally approved by the executive boards or are they shared for information of the boards so that it is used as a basis to approve the CPDs? UNDAFs are not submitted to agency executive boards or governing bodies for approval. However, individual UNCT members (agencies) do send the UNDAF along with agency CPDs (for UNDP,

179 | P a g e

UNICEF, UNFPA, WFP) to the individual agencies' executive board secretariats (EBS) through their regional bureauxas a supporting document for CPD approval by the boards. The EBSs then post the UNDAFs on their websites so that Executive Board Member States can access them when reviewing agency CPDs.

UNDAF Action Plan and One Programme documents: can only be signed after CPD approval, correct? So what if the UNDAF and UNDAF Action Plan are combined in one document – when is the UNDAF signed? Only after CPD approval?

A combined UNDAF and UNDAF Action Plan (a single document) can only be signed once the CPDs have been approved by the Executive Boards.

However, this also means that the UNDAF parts needs to be endorsed to by the government and the UNCT by the time of CPD submission as major changes to the UNDAF after that would require changes to the CPD.

Is there a possibility to submit the CPDs past the deadline? Where do agencies request permission to do so?

Agencies must inform their regional bureaux at HQ should they be unable to submit their CPDs by the deadline established by the Executive Boards. Should agencies need to submit at a subsequent session of the Board, they must first obtain the approval of the Regional UNDG Team.

Please note that submission at a later session of the Board (and subsequently later approval) of the CDP will lead to a delay in agency access to funding and a delayed start of UNDAF implementation!

For example: if agencies submit their draft CPDs in May or June of the ultimate year of the current UNDAF cycle, they will only be tabled for the boards in the September session and only be approved in the January session of the year that the UNCT would like to start implementation. Since CPD approval is necessary for agency access to funding this means that the UNCT will not be able to start implementation on time.

What is the common country programme document (cCPD)?

The common CPD was approved by the General Assembly in its resolution 64/289 of 9 July 2010 (A/RES/64/280). It resembles the conventional individual CPDs which agencies have traditionally

180 | P a g e

sent to their Boards for approval with the exception that the common CPD is a single document developed by all interested agencies and thereby replaces agency-specific CPDs. Current information on how to develop and submit a common CPD is available in the Interim Guidance Note on the common CPD which can be found here on the UNDG website.

What are the process, format and timeline for developing a common country programme document?

An interim guidance note on the process and content of the common CPD is available at www.undg.org/undaf.

Monitoring and Evaluation

UNDAF progress report – Standard Operational Format

How often does the UNCT need to report on the UNDAF/strategic frameworks and how is this coordinated with the government?

The UNCT reports to government on UNDAF results on an annual basis and submits a formal UNDAF progress report to the government at least once per cycle. It may choose to produce more than one UNDAF progress report per cycle should it deem useful.

The government is fully involved in conducting and documenting the annual reviews and in producing the UNDAF progress reports. The M&E coordination mechanisms are planned and determined by the UNCT in collaboration with the government when developing the UNDAF and they are reflected in the UNDAF M&E Plan. This includes the elaboration of the governance structure for monitoring and evaluating the UNDAF over the five year cycle (including the setting up of inter-agency UNDAF M&E groups), how UNDAF annual reviews will be conducted, the frequency of UNDAF progress report and the timing of the end-of-cycle evaluation report. The M&E Plan will also identify the central role of government and national partners and the indicative budget for UNDAF M&E activities.

181 | P a g e

Peer Support Group

When does the PSG get involved?

PSG members need to be involved as early as possible in the process, and particularly during the discussion on the UNCT’s analytical contribution, as well as the lead-up to, and during, the strategic planning phase of the UNDAF. Furthermore, the Quality Support and Assurance System (QSA), including through the PSG mechanism, is designed to help UNCTs contribute effectively to country analysis and develop strategic UNDAFs that maximize the comparative advantages of the UNCT. Regional PSGs have emphasized the importance of road map preparation as an entry point for the provision of quality support and assurance. Early, consistent engagement often makes a difference in terms of improving engagement with stakeholders like NRAs and specialized agencies, encouraging government ownership of the UNDAF process, identifying capacity needs of the UNCT, and sharpening the overall approach for country analysis and UNDAF preparation.

Does the PSG provide support to mid-term reviews? Or only the roadmap, country analysis and UNDAF/strategic framework documents?

NB: Mid-terms reviews no longer exist. UNCTs conduct and document annual reviews and produce an UNDAF progress report at least once per cycle (or more) based on the information culled from the annual reviews.

The generic TORs for the Convening Agency and for the PSG indicate that the PSGs are responsible for the “UNDAF development process”, and the Convening Agency for “overseeing preparation…, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.” However, it would be beneficial for PSGs to be involved during the entire UNDAF process in order to connect planning lessons to implementation experience and to support countries through aspects of managing for UNDAF results. It is also implicit in the use of the programming principles, especially RBM. However, in practice, PSG involvement only takes place at the

182 | P a g e

What is the basis of UNDAF quality reviews?

The guidelines make clear that the ultimate responsibility for the quality of an UNDAF lies with the UNCT. That said, the Regional UNDG Teams with the support of the peer support groups play a key substantive role in ensuring the institutional quality support assurance structure. UNCTs should contact their regional teams and PSGs directly or through their regional coordination officers to gauge the type of technical/specialist support available, which includes feedback on each step of the UNDAF process, providing a readers’ group for the review of the UNDAF, identifying technical experts and facilitators.

There are also specific terms of reference for the roles of the PSG and the Convening Agency on the UNDG website. DOCO has also set up an UNDAF Helpdesk that serves as a second port of call specifically for UNDAF roll out countries by writing directly to undaf.helpdesk@undg.org. In addition, DOCO has developed a set of checklists for each of the mandatory UNDAF steps – see 2010 UNDAF Checklists.

Do agencies have to share their internal documents with the RC Office to help them report on progress?

No, agencies do not have to share their internal documents with the RC Office. They do, however, work through M&E task teams for each UNDAF Outcome during the annual reviews where they provide information on how the UN is working through its outputs in making progress against the UNDAF outcomes. These in turn form an integral part of the annual review documentation and the UNDAF progress reports, issued at least once per cycle.

How is the PSG support different from the DOCO/UNSSC support and how is this different kind of support linked?

Below are the general parameters outlining the different support roles. Definitions of roles and responsibilities are still evolving and not always clear. Recent work probing the capacity of the regional UNDG teams, including the PSGs, to deliver the requisite support will be further elaborated in 2010. In the meantime, UNCT queries should be directed to all quality support and assurance entities mentioned below: 

Regional UNDG Team: Guidance on regional context



Regional Peer Support Group (PSG): Provide technical support and oversight of quality



UNSSC (Staff College): Training methodology, train trainers and resource persons, prepare and support teams for UNDAF workshops



UNDOCO: Policy guidance, overall strategy for support, respond to country requests for support, consolidate lessons, financial support

183 | P a g e

Could you please provide links to the all relevant and updated guidance on UNDAF evaluations?

UNEG and DOCO have recently developed FAQs for UNDAF Evaluations. UNCTs can also find information on how to conduct UNDAF evaluations in the 2010 UNDAF guidance package on the UNDG website and in particular pages 16 to 19 of Part I. On page 19 you will find the links to the relevant documentation: (1) UNEG Norms for Evaluation in the UN System; (2) UNEG Standards for Evaluation in the UN System; and (3) UNDAF Evaluation Standards. The latter document dates to 2007 and provides a overview of the steps and issues to consider when conducting an evaluation.

How best to prepare a good M&E framework with a manageable set of indicators – can the UNSSC or the PSG help?

Developing a good M&E framework goes beyond the task of filling in the UNDAF results matrix and UNDAF Action Plan and, for that reason, cannot be addressed fully in this section. The entire UNDAF guidance package provides the overall parameters in which UNCTs can develop a strong M&E framework and especially sections IV and V of How to Prepare an UNDAF Part II. For example, only through a solid country analysis will the UNCT, in collaboration with the government, be able to identify priority areas and the UN’s comparative advantage. From here UNCTs can then begin to build their UNDAF outcomes and subsequently outputs owned by a single agency, unless a joint programme is envisioned.

The soon-to-be-issued UNDG RBM Handbook sets out the internationally agreed common approach and common principles for applying RBM in the UNDAF context. The handbook has been developed based on UN agency common RBM principles and practices as well as the OECD/DAC Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and RBM. For specific guidance on formulating results statements and developing indicators, UNCTs should be guided by the technical briefs available on the UNDG website on: (i) risks and assumptions; (ii) indicators; (iii) outputs; and (iv) outcomes. These technical briefs offer detailed guidance on how to develop strong results statements, including checklists and examples for each. Further points to look out for are available in the 2010 UNDAF Checklists.

For quality support, UNCTs can revert to their peer support groups through their regional coordination officers who are able to put UNCTs in contact with RBM specialists when developing the UNDAF results matrix and UNDAF Action Plan.

184 | P a g e

List of references International Council on Human Right Policy (ICHRP), Integrating Human Rights in the AntiCorruption Agenda: Challenges, Possibilities and Opportunities (ICHRP, 2010), available at: http://www.ichrp.org/files/reports/58/131b_report.pdf UNDP, Corruption and Development: Anti-Corruption Interventions for Poverty Reduction, Realization of the MDGs and Promoting Sustainable Development (UNDP, December 2008), available at: http://www.unrol.org/files/2%20Primer%20on%20Corruption%20and%20Development_2008.pdf ------- Mainstreaming Anti-Corruption in Development: Anti-Corruption Practice Note (UNDP, December 2008), available at: http://www.pogar.org/publications/ac/books/practicenote08-e.pdf ------- Guidance Note: UNCAC Self-Assessments, Going Beyond the Minimum (October 2010), available at: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-governance/anticorruption/guidance-note---uncac-self-assessments-going-beyond-the-minimum/ -------- Methodology for Assessing the Capacities of Anti-Corruption Agencies to Perform Preventive Functions (UNDP, 2011), available at: http://europeandcis.undp.org/uploads/public1/files/ACPN/ACA%20%20Methodology/Method_AC A%20Assessment%20_June%202011.pdf

UNODC, “Monitoring and Evaluation�, Anticorruption Tool kit. No. 7 (11 November 2002), available at: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/toolkit/f7.pdf

185 | P a g e

Attachment 2: The Human Rights Case Against Corruption

By OHCHR In recent years, a number of international documents signed under the auspices of both the United Nations and regional organizations have acknowledged the negative effects of corruption on the protection of human rights and on development. Moreover, the treaty bodies and special procedures of the United Nations human rights system in their examination of states’ compliance with international law have commented on the inability of states to comply with their obligations as a result of corruption.

Human rights are indivisible and interdependent, and the consequences of corrupt governance are multiple and touch on all human rights — civil, political, economic, social and cultural, as well as the right to development. Corruption leads to violation of the government’s human rights obligation “to take steps… to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the [International] Covenant [on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]”. The corrupt management of public resources compromises the government’s ability to deliver an array of services, including health, educational and welfare services, which are essential for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. Also, the prevalence of corruption creates discrimination in access to public services in favour of those able to influence the authorities to act in their personal interest, including by offering bribes. The economically and politically disadvantaged suffer disproportionately from the consequences of corruption, because they are particularly dependent on public goods.

Corruption may also affect the enjoyment of civil and political rights. Corruption may weaken democratic institutions both in new and in long-established democracies. When corruption is prevalent, those in public positions fail to take decisions with the interests of society in mind. As a result, corruption damages the legitimacy of a democratic regime in the eyes of the public and leads to a loss of public support for democratic institutions. People become discouraged from exercising their civil and political rights and from demanding that these rights be respected. Electoral fraud and corruption in the funding of political parties are other, more direct corrupt practices related to the enjoyment of civil and political rights.

In countries where corruption is pervasive in the rule-of-law system, both the implementation of existing legal frameworks and efforts to reform them are impeded by corrupt judges, lawyers, prosecutors, police officers, investigators and auditors. Such practices compromise the right to equality before the law and the right to a fair trial, and especially undermine the access of the disadvantaged groups to justice, as they cannot afford to offer bribes.

Importantly, corruption in the rule-of-law system weakens the very accountability structures which are responsible for protecting human rights and contributes to a culture of impunity, since illegal actions are not punished and laws are not consistently upheld.

How human rights principles can help in fighting corruption?

186 | P a g e

Human rights principles and institutions are essential components of successful and sustainable anti-corruption strategies. First, anti-corruption efforts are likely to be successful when they approach corruption as a systemic problem rather than a problem of individuals. A comprehensive response to corruption includes effective institutions, appropriate laws, good governance reforms as well as the involvement of all concerned stakeholders in and outside the government. Thus, the adoption of legal frameworks or anti-corruption commissions may not be effective if there is no strong and engaged civil society or a culture of integrity in State institutions. Likewise, civil activism against corruption needs the assistance of a strong legal framework and an open political system to achieve its goals.

Second, and given the above, the battle against corruption, similar to human rights projects, is often a long-term process requiring profound societal changes, which include a country’s institutions, laws and culture. Consequently, an efficient anti-corruption strategy can benefit from and be informed by key human rights principles. Elements like an independent judiciary, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, transparency in the political system and accountability are essential for a successful anti-corruption strategy.

The role and characteristics of institutions that have contributed effectively to anti-corruption efforts need to be identified. Furthermore, the role of the judiciary, ombudsmen and national human rights institutions in addressing corruption and the potential for their cooperation with national and international anti-corruption agencies merit examination as well. The efforts of the judiciary and the rule-of-law system in general both in advocating the adoption of relevant laws and in implementing the existing legal framework are also relevant to this discussion.

Transparency and accountability are key principles of a human rights-based approach to development that are also integral to successful anti-corruption strategies. Some of the measures that can enhance transparency and accountability and contribute to sustainable anticorruption measures are the adoption of laws ensuring the public’s access to information on governmental processes, decisions and policies as well as institutional reforms which strengthen transparency and accountability, for example through reform in the operating procedures and decision-making processes of institutions, including elected institutions and the institutions responsible for the delivery of services.

An engaged civil society and media that value and demand accountability and transparency are vital in addressing corruption. Lessons can be learned from the experience of the human rights movements in raising civil society’s awareness of the adverse consequences of corruption and in building alliances with state institutions and the private sector in support of anti-corruption efforts. Both civil society and the private sector can play a determining role in affecting institutional reform to strengthen transparency and accountability.

UN human rights mechanisms and anti-corruption United Nations human rights mechanisms are increasingly mindful of the negative impact of corruption on the enjoyment of human rights and consequently of the importance of effective anti-corruption measures. The Human Rights Council and its Special Rapporteurs and Universal Periodic Review Mechanism, as well as Human Rights Treaty-monitoring bodies

187 | P a g e

(notably the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on the Rights of the Child) addressed issues of corruption and human rights on numerous occasions.

In 2003, the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights appointed a Special Rapporteur with the task of preparing a comprehensive study on corruption and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights. The mandate ended in 2006 when the Sub-Commission was replaced by the Advisory Committee. As requested by the then Commission on Human Rights, in 2004 OHCHR organized jointly with UNDP a seminar on good governance practices for the promotion of human rights, including anti-corruption, in Seoul, the Republic of Korea (the report is contained in document E/CN.4/2005/97). Subsequently OHCHR published in 2007 a booklet on Good Governance Practices for the Protection of Human Rights (HR/PUB/07/4). In 2006, OHCHR organized a conference on anti-corruption measures, good governance and human rights in Warsaw, Poland (the report is contained in document A/HRC/4/71). In follow-up to this conference OHCHR is developing, jointly with UNODC and UNDP a guide book on human rights and anti-corruption for practitioners.

In 2012, Morocco on behalf of 134 States made a cross-regional statement on corruption and human rights at the 20th session of the Human Rights Council. The statement called for deepening reflection on the close connection between human rights and anti-corruption measures and urged the anti-corruption and human rights movements to work together in combating corruption. Subsequently, the Human Rights Council decided to convene a panel discussion on the negative impact of corruption on the enjoyment of human rights (resolution 21/13) which OHCHR organized in March 2013. The report of the panel will be considered by the Human Rights Council in June 2013.

Three key messages of OHCHR: 1) Corruption is an enormous obstacle to the realization of all human rights — civil, political, economic, social and cultural, as well as the right to development.

2) The core human rights principles of transparency, accountability, nondiscrimination and meaningful participation, when upheld and implemented, are the most effective means to fight corruption.

3) There is an urgent need to increase synergy between inter-governmental efforts to implement the United Nations Convention against Corruption and international human rights conventions. This requires strengthened policy coherence and collaboration between the intergovernmental processes in Vienna, Geneva and New York, UNODC, UNDP, OHCHR and civil society.

Relevant Human Rights Council documents: •

HRC res. 7/11 and 19/20 “The role of good governance in the promotion and protection of human rights”

•

HRC res. 19/38 “The negative impact of the non-repatriation of funds of illicit origin to the countries of origin on the enjoyment of human rights, and the importance of improving international cooperation” 188 | P a g e

•

HRC res. 21/13 “Panel discussion on the negative impact of corruption on the enjoyment of human rights”

Further resources online: • Statement of High Commissioner for Human Rights on anti-corruption http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13131&LangID=E • Human rights and anti-corruption http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/AntiCorruption.aspx • Social media campaign: The human rights case against corruption http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/HumanRightsAgainstCorr uption.aspx • Good Governance Practices for the Protection of Human Rights http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/Publications.aspx • Selected documents on human rights and anti-corruption http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/Documents.aspx

189 | P a g e

190 | P a g e