Preventing Corruption: a Toolking For Parliamentarians
•Télécharger en tant que PPT, PDF•
2 j'aime•790 vues
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
![Outline ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (18)
En vedette
En vedette (13)
Similaire à Preventing Corruption: a Toolking For Parliamentarians
Similaire à Preventing Corruption: a Toolking For Parliamentarians (20)
Plus de Governance Asssessment Portal
Plus de Governance Asssessment Portal (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Preventing Corruption: a Toolking For Parliamentarians
- 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
Notes de l'éditeur
- 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 & 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)