Gillian Dell - Transparency International

19 December 2011. The fourth session of the UNCAC Conference of States Parties that met in Marrakech in October 2011 (CoSP4) was the biggest ever - with over 1500 delegates from 125 countries, including over 200 representatives from civil society organisations, most of them part of the UNCAC Coalition. Unfortunately, it was a missed opportunity. No major initiatives were taken to advance the global anti-corruption agenda. Nor was there a real exchange of views on any substantive issues. Despite growing public outrage at how corruption is damaging our societies, world leaders and the international press showed little interest in the meeting.

Divided into thematic sessions (Review of the implementation of the UNCAC, Technical assistance, Prevention and Asset recovery), the plenaries showcased government statements that included strong support for civil society participation in anti-corruption efforts. The main action was in informal discussions closed to civil society observers. These reportedly saw some heated disagreements about how to provide technical assistance to implement UNCAC and about proposals to increase funding for the UNCAC review mechanism. The outcomes on these issues were reflected in a resolution adopted on the review mechanism, proposed by the Chair of the Implementation Review Group (IRG). This appeared to tighten IRG oversight of the budget.

But the fundamental fault line at the conference was about transparency and participation in the IRG, the oversight body of the review mechanism. The Russian Federation seized the initiative at the conference with a draft resolution aimed at blocking civil society organisations from attending IRG meetings as observers. The Russian offensive was reportedly backed by Algeria, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Iran, Pakistan and Zimbabwe. Their objective was to override language agreed at CoSP3 that allowed CSO observers in the IRG. Prior to CoSP4, the Russian-led group had already achieved temporary exclusion of CSOs from IRG meetings pending a decision at CoSP4. This "status quo" was established at the IRG's start-up session in June 2010 and continued even after the UN Office of Legal Affairs issued an August 2010 opinion confirming CSO observer status. Thus, the CSO observer issue became the main focus of informal conference negotiations, sometimes acrimonious. The result was a sorry compromise that postponed a decision on the observer issue and provided in the meantime for a briefing and dialogue with CSOs on the margins of IRG meetings. This step backwards cast a cloud over the CoSP and contrasted with much oratory about the lessons of the Arab Spring.

The UNCAC Coalition during the 4th UNCAC Conference of States Parties. © Andrea Figari

On the substantive side, CoSP4 adopted two resolutions, one on prevention (from Morocco) and one on asset recovery (from Egypt). These contained little that was new. However, the asset recovery resolution underlined the need for mutual legal assistance to countries in the Middle East and North Africa, signalling concerns in this area. And, in an important advance on the CoSP3 resolution on asset recovery, it also emphasised the need for strong regulatory action towards financial institutions to ensure they work harder to catch suspicious transactions. It was complemented by another resolution from Egypt calling for expert meetings on international cooperation in criminal law enforcement. This is potentially a significant development if the meetings are practical and constructive.

In addition, a surprise invitation from the Russian Federation to host the sixth CoSP was endorsed by the Conference. It was promptly followed by an EU proposal to hold the seventh CoSP at UNODC headquarters in Austria, based on the EU's longstanding proposal for alternating between Vienna and other venues. (The fifth CoSP in 2013 will take place in Panama.)

An unsettling backdrop to the Marrakech discussions was that only six of the first twenty-six country reviews had been completed by the time the Marrakech meeting took place, almost 18 months after the start of the UNCAC review process. Concerns on this score were reflected in the resolution on the review mechanism noting the "unresponsiveness of several States parties with regard to their obligations under the terms of reference and guidelines" for the country reviews. The thematic reports prepared by UNODC made up a little for that gap by providing some discussion points, but they did not receive much attention at the conference.

UNCAC Coalition members © Andrea Figari

In the end, apart from the resolution on expert meetings on international cooperation, arguably the most positive development at the Conference was the inclusion in the official conference documentation of a collection of civil society review reports submitted by the UNCAC Coalition (see below). That established an official space for civil society views about country performance in UNCAC implementation. The otherwise slow-paced conference was also enlivened by civil society actions and advocacy activities, including a series of awareness-raising games that opened the door for some friendly and informative discussions with country delegates.

Despite a rather unproductive CoSP4, those committed to anti-corruption efforts are not likely to give up and will be working hard in the next two years to ensure that the 5th conference in Panama in 2013 is not a repeat performance. One lesson learned is that governments and other stakeholders, including civil society, should start their preparations for the conference much earlier.

Consult the full report on the Conference from UNODC, including all the resolutions and decisions.