0
Preventing corruption: A Toolkit for Parliamentarians (Draft – developed with GOPAC,  the Global Organization of Parliamen...
Outline <ul><li>Why this Toolkit? </li></ul><ul><li>How to use it?  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Summary Toolkit </li></ul></ul><...
<ul><li>1. Why this toolkit?  </li></ul>
Context <ul><li>UNCAC ‘self-assessment checklist’:  UNODC has developed a computer-based tool to enable State parties to r...
Context <ul><li>But –  might become yet another mandatory reporting exercise  to an outside body  (UNODC),  detached from ...
Context <ul><li>The Conference of State Parties encourages States to prepare their responses to the self-assessment checkl...
Context <ul><li>But  –  checklist process tends to be  led by the Executive , with little input from the Legislative and a...
Context <ul><li>Beyond the Checklist…  </li></ul><ul><li>There are numerous  tools for assessing specific corruption topic...
 
Context <ul><li>Beyond the Checklist…  </li></ul><ul><li>And there are other  tools for assessing parliamentary performanc...
Context <ul><li>However, there is no tool at the intersect of  parliamentary performance  and  corruption.  </li></ul><ul>...
What this Toolkit is, and  what this Toolkit is  not <ul><li>This Toolkit is  not  intended to gather information on what ...
Objectives of the Toolkit <ul><li>To highlight the important  role of parliamentarians in preventing corruption (UNCAC Cha...
<ul><li>2. How to use this Toolkit?  </li></ul>
Three ‘versions’ of the Toolkit <ul><li>1. Summary Toolkit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A ‘quick’ needs assessment tool useful fo...
Three ‘versions’ of the Toolkit <ul><li>2. Main Toolkit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More in-depth  diagnostic </li></ul></ul><ul...
Three ‘versions’ of the Toolkit <ul><li>3. Main Toolkit  with assessment criteria </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Allows for the ass...
How to use the Toolkit <ul><li>How to initiate the process:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>An assessment initiated by the presiden...
How to use the Toolkit <ul><li>Who should participate:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Self-assessment should be  non partisan , in...
How to use the Toolkit <ul><li>Sources of data:   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ongoing work:  Will list ‘likely’  existing inform...
How to use the Toolkit <ul><li>Suggested  ‘assessment criteria’:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To enable a more objective, eviden...
Assessment criteria – an example <ul><li>Is the budgetary process conducted in a  transparent  manner in the debating stag...
<ul><li>3. Practical example </li></ul>
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Preventing Corruption: a Toolking For Parliamentarians

2,377

Published on

Summary presentation: Preventing corruption: A Toolkit for Parliamentarians (Draft – developed with GOPAC, the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption) , Oslo, 2 February 2010 Marie Laberge, UNDP Oslo Governance Centre

Published in: News & Politics
1 Comment
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,377
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
123
Comments
1
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • GOPAC CTF on the UNCAC Workshop in Bratislava – how can MPs support the mechanism to review the implementation of UNCAC, which was adopted in Doha Also greater emphasis on prevention of corruption (chapter 2) – why Effective implementation of prevention requires effective parliamentary oversight – hence our interest in working with GOPAC to develop a tool that would help MPs play a more active role in the prevention of corruption. GOPAC has regional chapters – SEAPAC Southeast Asian Parliamentarians Against Corruption – established in Manila in 2005 – executive committee member: (National Assembly, Vietnam) HE Ngo Anh Dzung – but seems no longer to be a member, He was a very impressive member and if there were some way to engage him, that would be excellent. Also working on this with UNODC We want your feedback! Could this be useful to you?
  • Confusion, et inutilite de telles evaluations pour les parties nationales 3. Systeme qui soit alimente par des sources et types de donnees multiples, issues par ex: de questionnaires destines aux experts, questionnaire plus accessible pour les non-inities, donnees administratives issues des services gouvernementaux, donnees deja collectees par cellule de suivi de l’INDS, etc.) Analyse rigoureuse demande un croisement des donnees issues de differentes sources.
  • Confusion, et inutilite de telles evaluations pour les parties nationales 3. Systeme qui soit alimente par des sources et types de donnees multiples, issues par ex: de questionnaires destines aux experts, questionnaire plus accessible pour les non-inities, donnees administratives issues des services gouvernementaux, donnees deja collectees par cellule de suivi de l’INDS, etc.) Analyse rigoureuse demande un croisement des donnees issues de differentes sources.
  • Checklist process designed to give the lead to govt in answering questions This point is important: experience shows that if assessment results are not locally owned and embedded in ongoing national development processes, they will likely be shelved and will not feed into policy-making processes.
  • Checklist itself is designed at global level UNODC: Secretariat to the Convention Completed as quickly as possible, while involving as few actors as possible But this info can be of even more value at national level!
  • This is also an important point, as all governance institutions play a role in fighting corruption and their different roles contribute to a complete picture of the anti-corruption situation.
  • Just loike planning &amp; monitoring of anti-corruption reforms are generally led by the Executive, with little input from the Legislative This can lead to more positive accounting of executiev activities, and might not capture what is happening in other areas of govt (misperceptions)
  • IPU: This tool may be used by parliaments to help identify their strengths and weaknesses against international criteria, in order to determine priorities for strengthening the parliamentary institution.
  • to identify gaps, and related needed actions, in their capacity to being effective in helping to prevent corruption in their own countries. to develop a better sense, from the perspective of parliamentarians, as to what sorts of new mecanisms / procedures / assistance they might need to play their corruption prevention roles more effectively.
  • 1. To raise awareness of parliament’s contribution to governance and fighting corruption (underappreciated) 2. So far, these processes are led by Executive; e.g. this tool can be used for a parliament to contribute to the formal UNCAC reporting exercise, by generating data on its own performance in preventing corruption. E.g. The information generated by this self-assessment tool could also be used as an input to a new national anti-corruption strategy. 3. identify areas for technical assistance to strengthen parliamentary capacity in preventing corruption, 4. Dialogue to build a consensus on an action plan for AC
  • Main Toolkit with assessment criteria
  • (given the political sensitivities of conducting such an assessment, this aspect is not negligible) N.B. While the gathering of this evidence for each question will require more time than will be required with the summary version of the toolkit,
  • Example: Is there parliamentary oversight of the national AC Commission? Helpful to look at both existence of a legal framework guaranteeing such oversight (in law, does the parliament have an oversight role?), AND the actual implementation of this legal framework in practice (in practice, does it do anything with it?) Here, evidence can be found about public hearings held by paraliment about the performance of ACA, numebr of requests for reports from such ACA made by parliaments, numebr of investigatiosn conducted into misconduct by members of these ACA)
  • Transcript of "Preventing Corruption: a Toolking For Parliamentarians"

    1. 1. Preventing corruption: A Toolkit for Parliamentarians (Draft – developed with GOPAC, the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption) Oslo, 2 February 2010 Marie Laberge UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
    2. 2. Outline <ul><li>Why this Toolkit? </li></ul><ul><li>How to use it? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Summary Toolkit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Main Toolkit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Main Toolkit with assessment criteria </li></ul></ul><ul><li>3. Practical example </li></ul>
    3. 3. <ul><li>1. Why this toolkit? </li></ul>
    4. 4. Context <ul><li>UNCAC ‘self-assessment checklist’: UNODC has developed a computer-based tool to enable State parties to report on their implementation efforts & identify needs for technical assistance (endorsed in Doha, Nov. 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>This provides an opportunity for national ownership of assessment (in contrast to many corruption assessment tools that are based on external information or are donor-driven) </li></ul>
    5. 5. Context <ul><li>But – might become yet another mandatory reporting exercise to an outside body (UNODC), detached from country processes </li></ul><ul><li>Also – Checklist responses are confidential: Up to Government to choose to publish them or not </li></ul><ul><li>Accountability for checklist responses </li></ul><ul><li>to UNODC </li></ul><ul><li>OR </li></ul><ul><li>to citizens? </li></ul>
    6. 6. Context <ul><li>The Conference of State Parties encourages States to prepare their responses to the self-assessment checklist through broad consultations at the national level with all relevant stakeholders. </li></ul><ul><li>This opens the possibility for parliamentarians to actively seek a strong role in the self-assessment exercise. </li></ul>
    7. 7. Context <ul><li>But – checklist process tends to be led by the Executive , with little input from the Legislative and almost none from non-state actors </li></ul><ul><li>Also – international reporting tends to focus on legal compliance, rather than measuring actual changes resulting from the implementation of UNCAC </li></ul><ul><li>The self-assessment exercise may provide a new opportunity for dialogue and cooperation between the three States’ powers (legislative, executive and judicial) on actual implementation of anti-corruption reforms. </li></ul>
    8. 8. Context <ul><li>Beyond the Checklist… </li></ul><ul><li>There are numerous tools for assessing specific corruption topics. </li></ul><ul><li>For example, each article in Chapter 2 of UNCAC on ‘Preventive Measures’ can be assessed with a different tool (and sometimes many !) </li></ul><ul><li>See p. 13 in “Maximizing the potential of UNCAC implementation: Making use of the self-assessment checklist”, U4 Issue 2009 http://www.cmi.no/publications/publication/?3484=maximising-the-potential-of-uncac-implementation </li></ul>
    9. 10. Context <ul><li>Beyond the Checklist… </li></ul><ul><li>And there are other tools for assessing parliamentary performance ‘at large’ (representativeness, legislative capacity, oversight capacity, accountability, etc.): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The IPU Self-Assessment Toolkit for Parliamentarians </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recommended benchmarks for democratic legislatures, by UNDP/WBI/CPA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Etc. </li></ul></ul>
    10. 11. Context <ul><li>However, there is no tool at the intersect of parliamentary performance and corruption. </li></ul><ul><li>This toolkit is an attempt to fill this gap. </li></ul>Parliamentary performance assessment tools Corruption assessment tools
    11. 12. What this Toolkit is, and what this Toolkit is not <ul><li>This Toolkit is not intended to gather information on what parliamentarians think about the government’s performance; </li></ul><ul><li>This Toolkit is not intended to rank parliaments and compare their performance on an international index; </li></ul><ul><li>It is to provide a framework for parliamentarians to discuss their own performance in preventing corruption. </li></ul>
    12. 13. Objectives of the Toolkit <ul><li>To highlight the important role of parliamentarians in preventing corruption (UNCAC Chapter 2) and track parliamentary performance in this regard; </li></ul><ul><li>To facilitate a more active parliamentary involvement in the design, implementation, oversight and monitoring of UNCAC and/or national AC strategies; </li></ul><ul><li>To identify gaps where parliamentary strengthening may be needed; </li></ul><ul><li>To facilitate dialogue between the Executive and the Legislative branches on anti-corruption reforms; </li></ul><ul><li>To help identify areas where new coalitions of parliamentarians, government officials, international agencies, and civil society organizations can lead to positive actions in the prevention of corruption. </li></ul>
    13. 14. <ul><li>2. How to use this Toolkit? </li></ul>
    14. 15. Three ‘versions’ of the Toolkit <ul><li>1. Summary Toolkit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A ‘quick’ needs assessment tool useful for the identification of entry points for technical assistance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MPs can do the assessment on their own… </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… but also useful as a tool for MPs to engage with other actors (other oversight institutions, CSOs, academics, etc.) and to build political coalitions on issues related to corruption prevention </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>BUT : Open-ended questions make it harder to define with precision what a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ really means </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>AND : Harder to track progress over time (i.e. a ‘yes’ this year might mean something else than a ‘yes’ next year…) </li></ul></ul>
    15. 16. Three ‘versions’ of the Toolkit <ul><li>2. Main Toolkit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More in-depth diagnostic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allows for a wider range of actors (MPs, parliamentary staff, government, Anti-Corruption Commission/Supreme Audit Institution, research institutions, CSOs, etc.) to take part in the assessment, some as ‘data providers’ (i.e. information sources) and others as ‘data users’ (i.e. actors who will be in a position to draw from assessment results to build multi-stakeholder coalitions to address specific issues, to propose legislative/policy reform, or…) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Therefore can provide a platform for a national dialogue on corruption prevention efforts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>BUT same caveats as for the Summary Toolkit… </li></ul></ul>
    16. 17. Three ‘versions’ of the Toolkit <ul><li>3. Main Toolkit with assessment criteria </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Allows for the assessment to be based on evidence / on objective criteria , to maximize the credibility & robustness of assessment results (which will increase likelihood that results are used in planning & decision-making) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allows for tracking progress over time in a given country, using the same objective criteria to repeat the assessment periodically </li></ul></ul>
    17. 18. How to use the Toolkit <ul><li>How to initiate the process: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>An assessment initiated by the president or speaker of the parliament is likely to carry the greatest political weight; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Could also be initiated by a parliamentary committee on anti-corruption, or an ad hoc parliamentary group established specifically for conducting this assessment (such as a national GOPAC /SEAPAC chapter) </li></ul></ul>
    18. 19. How to use the Toolkit <ul><li>Who should participate: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Self-assessment should be non partisan , involving parliamentarians from both opposition and ruling parties. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inviting other actors to take part in the assessment, such as civil society groups, journalists, government officials, academics, national experts, etc. is likely to provide valuable perspectives that may enrich the process (‘national expert group’ to check reliability of results & help formulate recommendations) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In some cases, the use of external facilitators such as UNDP at the country level or GOPAC at the regional level may be considered. </li></ul></ul>
    19. 20. How to use the Toolkit <ul><li>Sources of data: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ongoing work: Will list ‘likely’ existing information sources which could be used for each question, e.g. info from the parliament’s secretariat, the national anti-corruption commission, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ongoing work: Will provide guidance on how to use complementary data (e.g. input vs. output; de jure vs. de facto ; etc.) in order to obtain a more complete picture of parliamentary efforts in preventing corruption </li></ul></ul>
    20. 21. How to use the Toolkit <ul><li>Suggested ‘assessment criteria’: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To enable a more objective, evidence-based assessment by pointing to specific aspects of a question which should be considered before responding ‘yes’ or ‘no’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Countries should revise the ‘ suggested’ assessment criteria to fit their particular country context (no one-size-fits-all criteria!) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Where more research is required in order to address a particular question, parliamentary staff or other experts may be engaged to help </li></ul></ul>
    21. 22. Assessment criteria – an example <ul><li>Is the budgetary process conducted in a transparent manner in the debating stage (i.e. before final approval), with active involvement by parliamentarians ? </li></ul><ul><li>What is deemed a ‘transparent process’ for one person may be seen as a lack of disclosure for another! </li></ul><ul><li>Some assessment criteria which may be considered to earn a ‘yes’ score : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Budget debates are open to parliamentarians </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nearly all budget negotiations are conducted in these official meetings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Records of these proceedings are easily accessible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Authors of individual budget items can easily be identified </li></ul></ul>
    22. 23. <ul><li>3. Practical example </li></ul>
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×