In-Depth Evaluation of the United Nations Global Programme Against Money Laundering, Proceeds of Crime and the Financing of Terrorism (GPML)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing In-depth evaluation of the for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperationUnited • managing Nations for results Global • sustainability Programme • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownershipagainst • international Money cooperation Laundering, • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordinationProceeds and partnership of Crime • efficiency and • nationalthe ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownershipFinancing • international of Terrorism cooperation (GPML) • managing for results • sustainability • INDEPENDENT EVALUATION UNIT UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna In-depth evaluation of the United Nations Global Programme against Money Laundering, Proceeds of Crime and the Financing of Terrorism (GPML) GLOU40 (GLOB79 until 31 March 2008) Independent Evaluation Unit February 2011 UNITED NATIONS New York, 2011 This report was prepared by an evaluation team consisting of John Mathiason, External Lead Evaluator, Punit Arora, External Evaluator and Adriana Holtslag-Alvarez, External Evaluator and Subject Matter Expert, in coop- eration with the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). The Independent Evaluation Unit of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime can be contacted at: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Vienna International Centre P.O. Box 500 1400 Vienna Austria Tel.: (+43-1) 26060-0 Email: [email protected] Website: www.unodc.org Independent Project Evaluations are scheduled and managed by the project managers and conducted by external independent evaluators. The role of the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) in relation to independent project evaluations is one of quality assurance and support throughout the evaluation process , but IEU does not directly participate in or undertake independent project evaluations. It is, however, the responsibility of IEU to respond to the commitment of the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) in professionalizing the evaluation func- tion and promoting a culture of evaluation within UNODC for the purposes of accountability and continuous learning and improvement. Due to the disbandment of the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) and the shortage of resources following its reinstitution, the IEU has been limited in its capacity to perform these functions for independent project evalu- ations to the degree anticipated. As a result, some independent evaluation reports posted may not be in full compliance with all IEU or UNEG guidelines. However, in order to support a transparent and learning environ- ment, all evaluations received during this period have been posted and as an on-going process, IEU has begun re-implementing quality assurance processes and instituting guidelines for independent project evaluations as of January 2011. © United Nations, September 2011. All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication has not been formally edited. Publishing production: English, Publishing and Library Section, United Nations Office at Vienna. CONTENTS Page Executive summary ......................................................... vii Management response ....................................................... xi I. Introduction ......................................................... 1 Background and context ................................................ 1 Purpose and scope of evaluation .......................................... 2 Executive modalities of the programme .................................... 2 Methodology ........................................................ 6 Limitations of the evaluation ............................................ 9 II. Major findings ....................................................... 11 Relevance of the programme ............................................ 11 Attainment of the programme objectives, outcomes and outputs ................. 12 III. Conclusions ......................................................... 37 Outcomes, impact and sustainability ...................................... 38 Lessons learned and best practices ........................................ 39 IV. Recommendations .................................................... 41 V. Overall conclusions ................................................... 43 Tables 1. Allotments by object of expenditure ......................................... 5 2. Interviews by stakeholder group ............................................ 8 3. Survey participant information ............................................. 9 4. Familiarity with GPML products and services .................................. 14 5. Number of CBT training centres ............................................ 17 6. AMLID users by region ................................................... 19 7. Downloads on IMoLIN by type (2005-2008) .................................. 24 8. National legislation with the largest downloads (2008) ........................... 24 iii Page Figures I. GPML contributors (1997-2010) ......................................... 4 II. GPML expenditures (2005-2010) ........................................ 4 III. Contributors to GLOU40 (2008-2010) .................................... 5 IV. Activity participation information ........................................ 13 V. Familiarity with products and services ..................................... 14 VI. Familiarity with the FATF recommendations ................................ 15 VII. IMoLIN and AMLID downloads by the year ................................ 18 VIII. IMoLIN downloads by type and year ...................................... 18 IX. Concepts and skills learned by the respondents .............................. 20 X. Use of training by the respondents ........................................ 21 XI. Strengths of training provided ........................................... 21 XII. What makes GPML unique? ............................................ 22 XIII. Weaknesses of the training provided ....................................... 22 XIV. Making GPML more effective and useful? .................................. 23 XV. Future needs assessment ................................................ 25 Annexes I. Summary matrix of findings, supporting evidence and recommendations .......... 45 II. Short biographies of the external evaluators ................................. 51 III. Terms of reference for the evaluation of the Global Programme against Money Laundering, Proceeds of Crime and the Financing of Terrorism (GPML) ..... 53 IV Desk review: Preliminary list of documents to be consulted ..................... 69 V. Details of plenary and field mission ....................................... 71 VI. Preliminary list of interviewees ........................................... 73 VII. 2004 evaluation