For the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) to live up to its potential, stakeholders have pointed out the need to reform some elements of its Implementation Review Mechanism (IRM). While crucial to meeting the Convention’s goals, systematised follow-up measures are not yet in place in the IRM. This is despite an urgent request by civil society actors in 2023.

To contribute to feasible changes that could be adopted in the next phase of the IRM, we interviewed seven government officials and non-governmental organisation (NGO) representatives from six different countries that are committed to the Convention. We also conducted a desk review to identify features of other anti-corruption mechanisms that are seen to add to effectiveness.8fc934678911 The mechanisms that have been used as benchmarks are the OECD’s Anti-Bribery Convention, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the Group of States against Corruption of the Council of Europe (GRECO), and theFollow-Up Mechanism for the Implementation of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (MESICIC).

UNCAC’s first review is currently underway. It has two cycles: the first covers Chapters III and IV of the Convention; and the second covers Chapters II and V. A follow-up process can guarantee that the IRM’s next phase will explicitly address the recommendations made in the first phase. This process is also like an intra-cycle follow-up, where a country commits to submit updates on the status of the implementation of recommendations after a fixed period, regardless of a new phase being underway.9616867a3f3e

The Convention foresees a follow-up process between phases. The IRM’s Terms of Reference (ToR) explicitly state that, in the subsequent review phase, state parties should submit information on 'progress achieved in connection with the observations contained in its previous country review reports' (ToR, Chapter IV, §40). No further specific guidance has been published.

Discussions that aim to reassess part of the IRM’s framework for the next phase have been held within UNCAC’s formal structures. The Convention’s Secretariat – the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) – commissioned studies to assess the lessons learned from other peer review mechanisms on topics related to anti-corruption. In October 2023, UNODC published a note analysing the IRM’s performance, with considerations on the future of the mechanism. Also, the Political Declaration of the General Assembly against corruption (UNGASS) commits to 'fully and effectively following up on the conclusions and observations from the review process', and welcomes 'the efforts by the Conference of the States Parties to the Convention to assess the performance of the Mechanism and adapt, where appropriate, procedures and requirements for the follow-up'. There is a consensus that the second phase of the IRM should consider the experiences, challenges and shortcomings observed during the first phase of the mechanism.

Learning from other anti-corruption reviews

To see the potential changes that UNCAC’s IRM could adopt, we looked at other review mechanisms on anti-corruption – in particular, the specific features that other mechanisms contribute to enhancing the effectiveness of their respective conventions. However, some characteristics are distinctive to UNCAC and will frame any discussion about reform. First, the Convention establishes principles of transparency, efficiency, non-intrusiveness, inclusiveness, and impartiality as its cornerstones. The tone of these principles is to be non-punitive. This means that some of the more forceful measures adopted by other mechanisms– such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD’s) Anti-Bribery Convention and the FATF – fall beyond UNCAC’s spirit and scope of action.

These principles frame what is known as the Vienna Spirit of Consensus, which marks the“willingness of delegates to work towards consensus even on difficult topics”. However, these principles make it difficult for topics viewed as controversial by some state members to move forward in the reform agenda. Therefore, reaching a consensus among 190 signatory parties can be challenging.

UNCAC’s most challenging feature is its wide reach, which could cause its IRM to be less effective than other anti-corruption mechanisms. However, this scope is also where its greatest potential for change lies. UNCAC was able to establish a global consensus on anti-corruption, allowing countries to be held accountable on a quasi-universal reach (98.5% of UN countries are signatories). Its universality makes it a distinctively legitimate mechanism, and the fact that it is driven by member states adds to this legitimacy. As the legally binding anti-corruption convention of the UN – the most representative of the multilateral organisations – it enjoys high-level representation. With its large number of signatories, it is the most complete anti-corruption convention.

While other anti-corruption mechanisms tend to focus on more specific themes, UNCAC has the advantage of covering a wide range of topics. The commitments celebrated under UNCAC also have immense potential for scalability. This could add additional challenges when it comes to passing bold and ambitious reform ideas. However, it is important to keep these ideas on the discussion agenda, to gradually generate consensus on their validity among all relevant stakeholders.

With the second review cycle slowly coming to an end (albeit delayed), it is a good time to advocate for the terms to followup in the next phase. A better-suited and more effective IRM should aim to enable willing countries to better implement the Convention by incentivising and facilitating their reporting duties, rather than penalising them. This could be achieved by gaining positive publicity for examples of good practice.

Guiding principles for our reform suggestions

Here are some suggestions that could be implemented in the IRM’s next phase.

The following suggestions are based on information compiled from the interviews and desk research. They reflect approaches we consider feasible and effective, given the nature of UNCAC’s IRM. They are based on three guiding principles:

• Establishing a standardised follow-up process is key to the fulfilment of the Convention.
• Facilitating the review process for government staff will result in better quality reports.
• Enhancing the visibility of the process will raise the chances of actions being followed up.

Standardising follow-up can ensure that accountability to final recommendations is not voluntary, but rather a part of the formal process, and something that all member states comply to. However, government interviewees reported that rigid standardised frameworks are one of the elements that make reporting burdensome. We take this to mean those reporting activities that are repetitive, not relevant, or seen as adding no value to the process. One hypothesis is that this worsens the overall quality of the reports. Therefore, the goal should be to radically improve transparency throughout the reporting process. Some of these elements might be difficult to reach consensus on, so we propose to enhance visibility on some key milestones to ensure follow-up and accountability.

Suggestions for the next review phase

With the three guiding principles in mind, we firmly believe that some adaptations should be adopted in the next phase of the IRM. Their implementation will contribute to UNCAC’s effectiveness, and prevent countries from paying lip service to their commitment to the Convention. Here is a more detailed breakdown of the step-by-step process.

1. During the review process set-up

Challenges in the current way of working

Focal points nominated by each reviewed country are currently not disclosed publicly. There is usually no proper team or unit dedicated to UNCAC in the reviewed countries – only a sole civil servant. This may affect the review process in a few ways: understaffing leaves the process vulnerable – when other priorities emerge, the sole reporter can be distracted from the work; staff rotation might lead to discontinuity; lengthy questionnaires in the report are seen as adding a significant amount of work for the one reporter; and reviewer countries delays in submitting their reports can add time to reporting cycles.

Suggestions for the next phase

1. UNODC should disclose focal points’ names on the country profile page to enhance transparency.
2. To show reporting status, a review tracker should be included in the country profiles on UNODC’s website. This should also include a calendar with relevant dates highlighted for events such as country visits. This would enhance transparency on the current status of the review, and allow for civil society to actively become involved with the review process. The FATF has a good example of a transparent review calendar.
3. To accelerate the overall process, governments should consider ways to expand the review teams.

2. Self-assessment checklist

Challenges in the current way of working

The extensive self-assessment questionnaire includes topics that are sometimes irrelevant to the review country’s situation. The Omnibus reporting software also has limitations: it does not allow multiple parties – such as different civil servants or third parties from civil society – to work on the same document; if the same checklist is used in the first and second reporting cycles, some questions could be obsolete; and there is no space for respondents to comment on observations made in the first cycle.

Suggestions for the next phase

These changes aim to improve the efficiency and speed of the overall process, and reduce the barriers for government officials to involve other stakeholders in the reporting process. The self-assessment checklist should refer to recommendations made in the first review phase, including:

1. The status of implementation of the first reports, to make sure that state parties are held accountable to the previous recommendations
2. Whether or not recommendations made in the first phase remain valid, to guarantee relevance and actuality of the report.
3. Technical assistance needed for further implementation of the Convention’s provisions, which could incentivise a broader adherence to UNCAC technical assistance

The follow-up self-assessment should focus on new developments and include important changes that have occurred since the first report, (which, in some cases, was finalised more than ten years ago). For example, see MESICIC.c671d406441c

Changes to the Omnibus software could improve the reporting duty and the quality of the reports. UNODC should adopt a more user-friendly software that allows for cross-references – for example, linking to other reports in the framework about other anti-corruption mechanisms, such as the MESICIC questionnaire that allows state parties to refer to information they have provided to other mechanisms. The software should also allow for contributions by different stakeholders, such as civil service organisations, on specific questions, as is the case with the software adopted by the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC).

3. Country visit

Challenges in the current way of working

When the optional country visits do not take place, reviewers are left with a narrower view of countries’ implementation of the Convention. The lack of information about country visits beforehand prevents interested non-state parties from engaging with the process.

Suggestions for the next phase

Country visits should:

1. Be mandatory (as is the case inGRECO, FATF, MESICIC, and the OECD’s Anti-Bribery Convention)093f4d46fc70
2. Include mandatory consultations with non-governmental parties
3. Identify technical assistance needs to help countries overcome implementation challenges. Government officials interviewed for this research have found that country visits are beneficial to the final quality of the report. Guaranteeing a country visit as part of every country’s review process would elevate the reporting standard, as would expanding the breadth of actors heard in the process.

4. Country reports

Challenges in the current way of working

The reports submitted largely focus on the legal framework and do not assess effectiveness. Also, the UNCAC process does not include a plenary discussion, unlike most other anti-corruption mechanisms.

Suggestions for the next phase

The country reports should:

1. Assess countries’ compliance to the previous recommendations, indicating whether they were fully, partially, or not implemented (as currently in reports submitted as part of the OECD’s Anti-Bribery Convention, GRECO and MESICIC)
2. Point to new developments since the first report, including new or updated general and technical assistance recommendations
3. Assess the effectiveness of the changes implemented (for instance, FATF has a methodology to assess effectiveness)
4. Be presented and discussed at Implementation Review Group meetings, to shed light on best practices and lessons learned to promote mutual learning, as in the GRECO and FATF review processes0ef11856ce4b
5. Disclose details on stakeholder engagement throughout the review process, such as which, when, and how stakeholders have been involved in the review. This will enable countries to show their commitment and accountability for their involvement of civil society. Stakeholder engagement should also be disclosed in the executive summary of the country report and on the country profiles.

5. Additional steps: developing and promoting an action plan

Challenges in the current way of working

The current review cycle ends with the completion of the full report. The final reports are very comprehensive documents, generally including numerous recommendations and observations for reviewed countries to follow up. Promotion of reports is optional. Reviewed countries are not required to make any clear statement about which recommendations they will prioritise. Technical assistance is provided either on a bilateral or an ad-hoc basis, and there is no record of where this is occurring.

Suggestions for the next phase

1. With the help of an external expert or official technical assistance, the reviewed country should draft an action plan based on the full report. The action plan should state what the priority recommendations are, with a committed timeframe for implementation. This document should not be a substitute for the review report; it should add to it. This would give countries a tangible, prioritised and tailor-made commitment to use for follow-up work. The focus would shift from merely describing the country’s legislation to defined UNCAC implementation. As a reference, GRECO’s and FATF’s review processes include an extra step after the completion and adoption of the review reports.
2. As for the executive summary, this document should be made available to the public, and action plans should be launched with proactive outreach to media outlets.
3. A platform should be established to match countries with technical assistance to fill gaps and help them meet their implementation commitments.