EU Statement at the second resumed 15th session of the UNCAC's Implementation Review Group, 4 November 2024
Madam President,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina[1] and Georgia, the EFTA country Iceland, member of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this statement.
The following countries align themselves with this statement: North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Iceland.
Madam President, in this statement, I would like to address a few issues under agenda item 2, on the future of the Implementation Review Mechanism (IRM). Let me start, however, by thanking the Secretariat for the excellent organisation and preparation of the meeting and the hard work that has gone into the background papers. We also wish to underline, as expressed during the August session, our continuous concern over the detrimental impact of the many wars, conflicts and humanitarian crises raging in different parts of the world on the implementation of the UNCAC and anti-corruption work more generally.
According to the workplan for the implementation of Conference Decision 10/2 that was adopted at the last session of the Implementation Review Group (IRG), this session will continue discussing the scope and thematic sequence of the next review phase; and begin deliberations on follow-up (i) and technical assistance (ii); as well as on the outcome documents of the reviews (iii).
Concerning, first, follow-up, we already stated last time that, in line with the panel discussions, the next Phase should indeed include, but not be limited to, a follow-up on the implementation of recommendations made during the first Phase. However, a strengthened follow-up process regarding recommendations that will come out of Phase 2 should also be considered. Currently, States parties, on a voluntary basis, may provide information on measures they have taken to implement recommendations. Only a few States actually publish some information on the UNODC website. Additionally, there is no review of the follow-up information provided by the State party. While one needs to take into account the amount of work that would be required to follow-up on recommendations for all 191 parties to UNCAC, the impact of our recommendations is greatly improved by discussing their implementation. A practical solution for this time-costing effort could be to consider reviewing key recommendations only and within a specific timeframe. One could also incorporate in Phase 2 a review of technical assistance that has been provided since the country review – instead of including a review of chapter VI of UNCAC in the scope/thematic sequence of Phase 2 country reviews.
Second, concerning technical assistance, we believe that there needs to be substantial change from Phase 1. We keep hearing that the IRM was designed to support the implementation of the Convention, but the process for identifying technical assistance certainly needs improvements. All technical assistance should be needs-based and demand-driven. Further details could be provided, for instance by better identifying which specific technical assistance would be required, instead of – as it currently is – linking technical assistance needs to whole articles. To provide an example: when a country under review indicates that they would need technical assistance in implementing article 9, which sub-provision is it relating to? Is assistance needed in particular on public procurement, or management of public finance; and which aspect of procurement. UNODC's regional and country offices play a useful role in ensuring country ownership, as they bring together all stakeholders, including independent institutions, ministries and other public agencies, and civil society.
Third, on outcome documents of reviews: we would welcome increased communication around the release of the country report, including a presentation in the IRG, followed by a Q&A session. We could also envisage a press release for country report publications and an evolution of the content of the executive summary, which is already public. Including more elements from the report into the summary could help increase the amount of information available to the public. We would also welcome a re-design of the country report towards a more concise and substantive document. The text of the country’s legal provisions can be included in an annex to improve the readability and added-value of the report. The focus of the report itself should be on the measures taken by the country and an analysis of their effectiveness at reaching the goals set out in the convention. The inclusion into the report of the views of civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders that have participated in the country review would also bring an additional value to the report and improve its impact.
Let me now briefly turn to the review of the EU.
The review of the EU under the 1st cycle is almost complete. We are currently reviewing comments from the EU institutions. Once this has been done and the report has been finalised, we look forward to sharing some of the successes and good practices, as well as the challenges, highlighted by the reviewers in the final report. At this point, we would like to underline once more how enriching the inclusion of other stakeholders was during the on-site visit and that this element should be strengthened in the second phase of the Mechanism.
Thank you, Madam President.
[1] North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.