U4 PRACTICE INSIGHT 2011: 2 Vera Devine Lessons learned Anti-Corruption Consultant from the evaluation of five UK Council of Europe projects How successful are donor supported anti-corruption reforms? In this Practice Insight, the author takes a look projects and gives an insight as to why we might not be as successfulat the evaluation as we wish: of five Anti-corruption large-scale technical projects assistance are often fraught with activities to be delivered in a relatively short is not always an acknowledgement of achieved impact, andtime that frame. donors In addition, need to it better shows understand that fulfilling how indicators to build capacity in the area of anti-corruption. Anti- Corruption Resource Centre www.U4.no U4 Practice Insight Lessons learned from the evaluation 2011:2 of five Council of Europe projects i. Standard-setting – the Council of Europe How successful are donor supported anti- has created a comprehensive corpus of corruption reforms? In this Practice Insight, the criminal and civil law instruments against author takes a look at the evaluation of five large- corruption: conventions, as well as soft law scale technical assistance projects and gives an recommendations on issues such as insight as to why we might not be as successful as political party financing;2 and we wish: Anti-corruption projects are often fraught with activities to be delivered in a ii. Monitoring – through the Group of States relatively short time frame. In addition, it shows against Corruption (GRECO)3 member that fulfilling indicators is not always an states to the above mentioned instruments acknowledgement of achieved impact, and that participate in a process of peer review to donors need to better understand how to build assess their compliance with them. capacity in the area of anti-corruption. For candidate and aspirant candidate countries to the European Union (such as the countries of the Background: the Council of Western Balkans and Turkey), GRECO and the Europe’s Anti-Corruption technical assistance projects have a specific importance, as the European Commission’s Engagement annual Progress Reports – which assess countries’ The Council of Europe (CoE) has been involved progress in meeting the various EU accession in technical assistance projects in the area of anti- criteria – are, inter alia, informed by the results of corruption and money laundering for over a the projects, and GRECO evaluation reports. The decade. Projects have been implemented by the Council of Europe also has substantial political Corruption and Fraud Unit in the Directorate of weight in other member states, such as those of Co-operation within the Directorate General for the Caucasus region. Human Rights and Legal Affairs, and It is for the above reasons – the fact that it sets organisational structures preceding it.1 The standards and hosts GRECO, and because of its implementing mechanisms are similar for all political weight in member states and its projects: an international advisor, who is also an importance for the EU accession process – that expert in at least one of the subject areas covered, donors have, over the past decade, found in the is in charge of leading the project in the partner Council of Europe, an implementing partner for country, assisted by a national expert and a their technical assistance projects. The five limited number of national administrative support staff; the team is backed up by the Council of 2 Europe secretariat in Strasbourg, which is also in These are the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and its Additional Protocol; the Civil Law Convention on charge of managing the project budget. Short-term Corruption; Resolution (99) 5 of the Committee of Ministers national and international experts are hired on an of the Council of Europe on the Establishment of the Group of States against Corruption; Resolution (97) 24 Establishing activity basis. the 20 Guiding Principles of the Fight against Corruption; Recommendation R (2000) 10 on Codes of Conduct for The Council of Europe understands its technical Public Officials and Model Code of Conduct for Public assistance projects as one of the three strands of Officials; Recommendation R (2003) 4 on common rules its work on anti-corruption and money laundering. against corruption in the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns. The other two strands are: 3 For an overview of GRECO, see their site at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/default_EN.asp. A comparative discussion of the GRECO monitoring mechanism can be found in the U4 Expert Answer 1 See an overview of past and current information at ‘Comparative assessment of anti-corruption conventions’ http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/economiccrime/corrupt review mechanisms’ ion/default_en.asp. http://www.u4.no/helpdesk/helpdesk/query.cfm?id=163. 1 U4 Practice Insight Lessons learned from the evaluation 2011:2 of five Council of Europe projects projects that form the basis of this Practice Insight including curriculum development and training- have been funded by Sida (Moldova, Western of-trainers for a nationwide training program, and Balkans), USAID (Azerbaijan), the Kingdom of contributed to capacity building of the already the Netherlands (Georgia), and the European existing Ethics Council. TYEC also aimed at Commission (Moldova, Turkey). supporting broader anti-corruption efforts, such as steps toward drafting a national anti-corruption Since 2006, the Council of Europe has made a strategy. continued effort to capture the impact of its work through independent evaluations. At the time of MOLICO: Project against Corruption, Money writing, five evaluations4 had been completed, Laundering, and the Financing of Terrorism in while an additional one was in the process of Moldova: the project focused on support for being finalised. This Practice Insight highlights implementation of the national anti-corruption the most important issues emerging from these strategy and on strengthening the government evaluations. institution responsible for the fight against corruption. It also covered anti-money laundering Description of the measures. MOLICO was co-funded by the European Commission, the Council of Europe, Interventions and Sida, with an overall financial envelope of The following projects were evaluated: €3.5 million over the course of 36 months (2006- 2009).6 PACO Impact: ‘Implementation of Anti- Corruption Plans in South-Eastern Europe’: A AZPAC: Support to the Anti-Corruption Strategy multi-country project implemented from 2004 to of Azerbaijan: the 24-month (2007-2009) 2006 in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, project’s objectives were to strengthen the Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro strategic framework against corruption in (including Kosovo), funded with €1.5 million by Azerbaijan in line with GRECO the Swedish International Development Agency recommendations, to improve legislation, (SIDA).5 The project supported participating strengthen corruption prevention capacities, and countries’ elaboration of national anti-corruption assist in establishing a functioning regime against strategies, and aimed at strengthening countries’ money laundering. The project was co-funded by institutions responsible for the fight against USAID and the Council of Europe (total: US$0.8 corruption. The project also assisted countries in million).7 improving their anti-corruption legislation. GEPAC: Support to the Anti-Corruption Strategy TYEC: ‘Ethics for the Prevention of Corruption of Georgia: implemented over a period of 32 in Turkey’: A €1.5 million project mainly funded months from 2007 to 2010, this project aimed at by the European Commission and implemented supporting the Georgian authorities in drafting between 2007 and 2009. It focused on and implementing a national anti-corruption strengthening the public service ethics framework strategy and strengthening the legal framework in as part of the preventive aspect of the fight against the fight against corruption, as well as the corruption in Turkey. The project provided capacities of, and the cooperation among law support for implementation of the Code of Ethics, enforcement agencies on corruption-related 4 One of the four evaluations has been a mid-term evaluation. It has been included here because it has yielded insights into 6 For a project summary, see project design and the formulation of impact indicators. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/economiccrime/Money Laundering/Projects/MOLICO/Molico_en.asp. 5 For a project summary, see http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/economiccrime/corrupt 7 For a project summary, see ion/Projects/PACO%20Impact/Summary%20of%20Project% http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/economiccrime/Money 20Implementation.PDF. Laundering/Projects/MOLICO/Molico_en.asp. 2 U4 Practice Insight Lessons learned from the evaluation 2011:2 of five Council of Europe projects issues. The project had a budget of €700.000 and duration, had a work plan comprising 143 was funded by the government of the activities.9 PACO Impact implemented, in 24 Netherlands.8 months, a staggering number of around 70 activities. The evaluations highlight that such an Analysis and Lessons learned ambitious agenda leaves little time for sufficient preparation or thorough follow-up across all For improving future project design, the following covered areas. lessons learned can be extracted from a comparative reading of the evaluations for the five For example, during the project design stage, projects. PACO Impact agreed the project objectives