Here are a couple of observations and comments mentioned in the coverage of the CPI that I found very valuable and would like to share with you:

After the flawed outcome of the negotiations for an effective review mechanism of the only global legal anti-corruption framework, the UN Convention against Corruption, the Financial Times noted:

“The three big emerging markets – which are all criticised for their failure to give stronger backing to global anti-corruption rules – have all finished below 75th place in annual rankings of 180 countries by the campaigning group Transparency International. The results are likely to add to worries that the lack of tough rules against bribery will lead to damaging free-for-alls between states and multinationals competing for official contracts and resources in Africa and other parts of the world.”

In general, however, the focus of much coverage (such as the BBC) was on the high levels of perceived corruption in war-torn nations, and especially on Afghanistan (Reuters) with a look towards the challenges of President Karzai’s second term.

A good background to understanding the challenging situation in Afghanistan and the link of poverty and corruption is based on a new report by Oxfam The Cost of War. Ian Timberlake of the Agence France-Presse writes that according to the surveyed opinions of more than 700 Afghan men and women:

“Seventy percent of those surveyed named unemployment and poverty as major driving factors for the war, and 48 percent identified the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Afghan government as a major cause.”

The report says

“the Afghan government must demonstrate a stronger commitment to addressing corruption, increasing transparency and improving the rule of law.”

For a good analysis on how to tackle the “corruption curse” in African countries take a look at Mark John on Reuters Blog. He writes:

“But amid the gloom are some interesting developments compared to last year’s table, suggesting the right mix of anti-corruption policy – plus a dose of rosy public relations – can help individual countries shake off the kind of reputation that scares investors off.”

Finally, I liked the feature on the Huffington Post asking to rate the most surprising rating of the CPI. In a way, the comments and ratings show people’s perceptions of the perceptions of the country experts and businessmen surveyed by the polls included in the CPI.

And while we have found that they usually agree, individual experiences and incidences of corruption may very much vary. The needed complement is given by Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer, which asks people in more than 60 countries around the world about their experiences.

More news coverage can be found here.

Since 1995 Transparency International has published each year the CPI, ranking countries on a scale from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 10 (perceived to have low levels of corruption). The results of the 2009 edition, as every year, are sobering. No region or country in the world is immune to the damages of corruption, the vast majority of them score below 5.

The CPI has played a critical role in branding the issue of corruption on the world’s conscience. It sends a powerful message and national governments have been forced to take notice and act. The demand for public sector governance that keeps the interests of its citizens first with openness and accountability is not limited to a country or region – this is a common goal that transcends borders and cultures.

The public sector is just one side of a multi-faceted problem though. Transparency International conducts an array of global research, such as the Global Corruption Barometer, a world wide public opinion survey, and the Bribe Payers Index, which measures the likelihood of firms from leading exporting countries to bribe abroad, which taken together enables us to better comprehend the many sides of corruption.

Corruption is notoriously difficult to measure. The complexity and secrecy that shroud corrupt deals mean that it is virtually impossible to quantify the financial cost of corruption. The human expense is clear to see though, and it is the poorest that are most vulnerable. The diversity of victims that seek help from one of TI’s Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres shows that corruption can affect anyone. As we support these individuals, their personal triumphs are translated into systemic change – proving that corruption can be fought and beaten.

It may be that the CPI scores are just a number to you, but for many people around the world it is their daily reality. It need not be so. As Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International, notes, “These 180 countries in our index are your countries, and their perceived levels of corruption will remain as such until you demand accountability.”

What does that number mean to you?

Call on governments: Be accountable!

It was not entirely unexpected that the countries that are opposed to an effective review process scored all the points and we ended up with Resolution L9 on the Review Mechanism. Why? Because they held the better cards. Blocking is the easier course when the rules of the game say there has to be consensus. And consensus is the general rule at these UN meetings on UNCAC. Unless you want to force a vote. But that’s a whole other can of worms.

So what was the upside of Doha?

The Coalition’s efforts there sent a message to governments: We are here. We are informed. We are watching. And we are not going to give up on advancing the cause of transparency and accountability nationally and globally. We came away stronger, more united and more determined.

And looking at another positive side, let’s remember to commend a few Governments that included NGO representatives in their delegations to the Doha meeting, namely, the Governments of Benin, Guatemala, Kuwait and Morocco. By doing that, they helped to chip away at the barriers of secrecy that ironically have characterised UNCAC-related meetings. But sadly, representatives of many smaller countries were themselves excluded in Doha from major parts of the “informal informal” negotiations, so that the deal-making was also hidden from their view.

Apart from that — the fact that there is now a review mechanism, albeit flawed, is a small step forward in a process that can evolve. We can turn this lemon into lemonade. It’s up to us now, citizen’s groups around the world, to make sure that our governments do the right thing, don’t opt out from transparency and civil society participation. It’s up to us to do the hard work of making independent assessments to input into the review process — and since we may not be able to input them directly to review teams, we’ll have to make sure to publish them on our websites. If our conclusions are different from the official “summary reports” then we’ll need to make sure to highlight that too. The five-year review cycles established by Resolution L9 mean that about 30 countries will be reviewed per year — and the focus in the first round will be on crime and punishment, on what states are doing to penalise acts of corruption and how they are cooperating in international law enforcement.

Citizen’s groups around the world should also keep in their sights the planned annual meetings of the UNCAC Implementation Review Group that will take place in Vienna as well as the next Conferences of States Parties scheduled to take place in Morocco in 2011 and Panama in 2013 – all of them potentially big talk-shops of mainly touristic interest. And then there will be an additional six meetings in Vienna of working groups on preventive measures, asset recovery and technical assistance, between now and the 4th CoSP in 2011. Let’s bring to those meetings our reports on country compliance. Let’s report on which countries are doing the right thing in the review process. Let’s put a spotlight on those events like we did in Doha.

Perhaps it’s apt to conclude with a couple of sayings from the African continent in relation the issue of civil society participation in the UNCAC review process.

A Kenyan delegate in Doha told us: “The eye sees but cannot see itself.”

A Cameroonian Justice Ministry official who was there said: “Il est bon de pouvoir entendre plusieurs sons de cloche.” (It is good to be able to hear many bell sounds.)

There are many ways of saying it. Let us hope that this irresistible logic gains an irresistible momentum and that governments exercise the option to make the UNCAC review mechanism becomes as transparent and inclusive as an anti-corruption mechanism ought to be.

The work of curbing corruption globally is too serious a business to sit back while some governments try to make a mockery of a landmark anti-corruption treaty. Corruption kills trade and development. Corruption kills jobs. Corruption kills people. With stakes that high, we’re not giving up.

It appears that the mechanism will be missing or making optional the features civil society has pushed for, including country visits by other nations to assess anti-corruption progress and the publication of the reports. Involvement of civil society is another key aspect of an effective review mechanism that has been ignored by some governments even ahead of the conference by excluding civil society representatives from Georgia and Algeria.

While the results of this third session appear to be disappointing, I’d also like to highlight a side-fact mentioned in the Guardian, who reported yesterday night on the deadlock in the negotiations after six years of effort:

“In the six years since UNCAC was mooted, nearly 1,000 representatives of dozens of governments have flown to conferences in Jordan and Bali, staying for days at expensive hotels while they attempted to reach agreement. Hundreds of others have taken part in sessions in Vienna.”

The final text will be published in a couple of hours. Watch out.

In the meantime, I would like to share with you two statements we recorded during the conference. Yesterday’s plenary session on asset recovery was moved to today. For you we did a quick interview with Adrian Fozzard, Coordinator of the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (StAR), an initiative by the World Bank and UNODC

And yesterday we interviewed Toby Mendel of Article 19, who discusses the importance of transparency and access to information.

Después de tres días de negociaciones en Doha, aún los países de la región no han podido llegar a un consenso sobre las características del mecanismo de seguimiento de la Convención.

La mayoría de los Estados de América Latina apoya la implementación de un mecanismo que contemple la publicación completa de la información que se recabe en los informes de los países; la participación relevante de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil; y está de acuerdo con que haya revisiones entre pares con visita a los países evaluados.

Sin embargo, hay una minoría de países –entre los que se encuentra Venezuela- que no es flexible en acercar posiciones con la mayoría.

Aunque todos los países (menos uno) de las Américas ratificaron la Convención, y 28 de ellos participan hace 8 años del mecanismo de seguimiento de la Convención Inter-Americana contra la Corrupción de la OEA, parece que no pueden convencer a la minoría de sumarse a un acuerdo regional que tendría más fuerza en las negociaciones.

Quedan dos días para que los representantes puedan llegar a algún consenso. Habrá que esperar el resultado de las reuniones informales que están teniendo los países para saber si la mayoría cederá ante la negativa de unos pocos o si podrán convencerlos de adoptar una actitud más en relación con los compromisos que asumieron al momento de firmar el tratado.

Estamos en Doha reunidos por un mecanismo de seguimiento que permita apoyar y comprobar el avance de los países en la lucha contra la corrupción.

Tres posiciones resumen las diferencias en relación con la forma de abordar la lucha contra la corrupción:

1. Países pro evaluación transparente, que están de acuerdo y promueven con energía la aprobación urgente, en esta Conferencia de un mecanismo eficaz, incluyente y transparente. Aquí se encuentran entre otros Noruega, Finlandia, Brasil, Estados Unidos, Uruguay, Chile, muchos otros. Esta es la posición de la Coalición de Sociedad Civil en la UNCAC.

2. Los países que bloquean no están de acuerdo con la aprobación de un mecanismo transparente para luchar contra la corrupción por considerar: a. que atenta la soberanía nacional y el mecanismo es un acto de intromisión en políticas interna; b. deben ser un asunto entre gobierno y no incluir a la sociedad civil. En esta posición hay siete países activos, entre ellos Rusia, China, Irán, Venezuela.

3. Los países inseguros, donde están un importante grupo de países que navegan en el mar de la indecisión. Quieren un mecanismo de seguimiento, pero advierten que hay que seguir discutiendo algunos temas que requieren aclararse, por lo que podría posponerse la aprobación en la próxima conferencia o se puede aprobar un mecanismo más suave, progresivo, sin urgencias. Otros en este tercer grupo argumentan que es mejor que el mecanismo se concentre en la prevención y no en sanción y persecución.

Urgencia de aprobación

El representante de Noruega en su intervención dejo claro el costo de la corrupción para los países industrializados: 100 millones de dólares al año. Otros se han referido a otro tipo de costos en violencia, inequidad, débil garantías a los derechos humanos, efectividad de la gestión de servicios y calidad de vida de las comunidades en todo el mundo. El representante de Uruguay recordó las altas expectativas que tiene el mundo te tener resultados concretos y efectivos en esta conferencia. Nos encontramos, entonces, ante una importante encrucijada: o se aprueba en esta conferencia o se pospone. ¿Quién pagará los costos de la falta de decisión?

Otros tres temas conexos completan las divergencias en Doha: Recuperación de activos, apoyo técnico y financiamiento del mecanismo. Algunos representantes se han referido a asuntos específicos de gran impacto: lavado de dinero, confiscación de delitos, recuperación de activos, extradición.

Intervenciones destacadas

La Conferencia comenzó con buen augurio con las palabras del Director ejecutivo de la UNCAC, el Dr. Costa, estableció la urgencia del avance en el cumplimiento de la UNCAC para la calidad vida de gente en todo mundo, abogando por la aprobación de un mecanismo de seguimiento que cumpla el espíritu de la Convención con transparencia e inclusión, y recordó el papel de la corrupción en la crisis mundial.

Los representantes de Brasil y Uruguay han sido hasta ahora los más claros en su planteamiento a favor de una aprobación urgente del mecanismo. México dio el apoyo sin embargo destacó la necesidad de respetar a los países que tengan dudas.

La ministra Brax de Finlandia en reunión con la coalición de sociedad civil. Se mostró optimista en relación con la posibilidad de contar con un mecanismo efectivo seguimiento al cumplimiento de la Convención contra la corrupción de Naciones Unidas.

Llama la atención algunas coincidencias entre países muy diferentes. Por ejemplo Uruguay y Yemen comparten la conciencia de que la corrupción es un problema que trasciende las fronteras nacionales y requiere apoyo y participación internacional. Esta visión es compartida con muchos otros.

Tendremos que aumentar nuestros esfuerzos antes del viernes para tener decisiones positivas.

Mercedes de Freitas

Fletch your teeth!

The second day of the conference has started.

The key issues in the discussions on the UNCAC review mechanism are on the table. Two positions have crystalized, two draft resolutions are on the table. I will be trying today to get hold of them to put them up here on the blog.

While one position is very much in align with the position of civil society, key differences emerge around the key issues of country visits and external expert and civil society input, as well as the publication of the review reports.

One of the questions in the rooms today is if the financing of technical assistance will become the carrot for getting a review mechanism that includes these fundamental aspect giving it the teeth to effectively fight corruption? The discussions starting today on this issue may bring some insight.

Of course, there is much talk of compromise. All parties seem to be determined to reach an agreement. Maria Antonia Costa, Executive Director of the hosting UN secretariat UN Office of Drugs and Crime gave out the direction to “seal the deal”.

That’s why it is so important to ensure that the review mechanism will not wind up toothless.

Be accountable. Be inclusive. Go public.

Action by civil society during the plenary session of the conference on the UN Convention against Corruption.  More on the UNCAC Coalition here.

The preparations included discussions with the UN representative of the UNCAC secretariat, Elsa Gopala Krishnan, as well as government representatives. Lilian Ekeanyanwu of the Government of Nigeria gave a quick insight into the discussion taking place among the states party to the UNCAC.

Two issues I’d like to highlight:

1) I think it is fundamental that we make clear what the effects of the corruption are.
One important number to keep in mind throughout the following days is US$ 40 billion. According to Okonjo-Iweala, a former Nigerian finance minister:

“There’s an estimate that $20-$40 billion a year, in terms of corruptly stolen assets, leaves developing countries to go to developed countries each year.”

With effective legislation within the framework of the UN Convention in place, this money would not be lost.

2) The key aspect to remember is that the success of the negotiations is not only important for the anti-corruption movement, but also for companies concerned with running efficient operations and organisations fighting for issues from climate change to human rights. This is shown by the variety of organisations that signed the civil society statement. This has also been highlighted by Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International at the sixth Global Forum on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity, that is taking place prior to the Conference of States Parties where she addressed the leaders on the role of civil society and global public-private partnerships.

As my colleague Craig Fagan points out in his post on the convention:

“Partnership and collaboration reaches to the root of why conventions are needed on overseeing global issues such as corruption.”

Once again to use the words of Anthea Lawson, a campaigner at anti-corruption group Global Witness, who said in the Observer today:

“Uncac needs a review mechanism that involves consultation of civil society, country visits, and full publication of the reports. Without this, it’ll be a system where countries can peer review each other without external oversight, which effectively means governments will be able to scratch each others’ backs and the public will be no wiser about whether they are really fulfilling their commitments to tackle corruption.”