Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Annual Report

2016

2

This document is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

About the OECD

The OECD is a forum in which governments compare and exchange policy experiences, identify good practices in light of emerging challenges, and promote decisions and recommendation to produce better policies for better lives. The OECD’s mission is to promote policies that improve economic and social well-being of people around the world. www.oecd.org

About the OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Established in 1998, the main objective of the Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ACN) is to support its member countries in their efforts to prevent and fight corruption. It provides a regional forum for the promotion of anti-corruption activities, the exchange of information, elaboration of best practices and donor coordination via regional meetings and seminars, peer-learning programmes, and thematic projects. ACN also serves as the home for the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan. Find out more at www.oecd.org/corruption/acn/.

Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, the Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States provided voluntary contributions that made this work possible in 2016.

3

ACN Secretariat

Mrs. Olga Savran

ACN Manager

Phone: +33 (0)1 45 24 13 81

E-mail: Olga.SAVRAN@oecd.org

Ms. Tanya Khavanska

ACN Project Managers, Manager of Ukrainian Project

Phone: +33 (0)1 45 24 91 39

E-mail: Tanya.KHAVANSKA@oecd.org

Ms. Lioubov Samokhina

Legal Expert (seconded from GRECO)

Phone: +33 (0)1 45 24 13 19

E-mail: Lioubov.SAMOKHINA@oecd.org

Mr. Andrii Kukharuk

ACN Project manager, Deputy Manager of Ukrainian Project

Phone: +33 (0)1 45 24 94 43

E-mail: Andrii.KUKHARUK@oecd.org

Mr. Dmytro Kotliar

Consultant, ACN Project Manager

Phone: +38 (050) 31 068 66

E-mail: dmytro.kotliar@gmail.com

Mrs. Rusudan Mikhelidze

Consultant, ACN Project Manager, Manager of Kyrgyz Project

Phone: + 33 (0)7 83 36 87 69

E-mail: rusudan.mikhelidze@gmail.com

Mrs. Antonina Prudko

External Consultant, Local Advisor in Ukraine

Phone: +38 (097) 32 228 18

E-mail: antonina.prudko@gmail.com

Ms. Maryna Tsapok

External Consultant, Local Advisor in Ukraine

Phone: +38 (097) 96 173 46

E-mail: maryna.tsapok@gmail.com

Ms. Martina Limonta

Administrative Assistant

Phone: +33 (0)1 45 24 78 31

E-mail: Martina.LIMONTA@oecd.org

Ms. Tamara Shchelkunova

Administrative Assistant

Phone: +33 (0)1 45 24 91 05

E-mail: Tamara.SHCHELKUNOVA@oecd.org

4

Table of contents

Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia ..................................................... 5

Main Activities in 2016 .......................................................................................................................... 6

The Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan ......................................................................................... 8

Thematic Studies ................................................................................................................................. 13

Law-Enforcement Network ................................................................................................................ 16

Country Projects .................................................................................................................................. 17

Funding of Activities Implemented in 2016 ...................................................................................... 22

Outputs, Results and Impact .............................................................................................................. 24

5

Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Established in 1998, the Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ACN) is one of

global relations programme of the OECD Working Group on Bribery with the Secretariat in the Anti-

Corruption Division. The ACN covers 25 countries in the region and in addition involves the OECD

member countries. Government representatives, international organisations, as well as civil society

organisations, and business representatives take part in the ACN activities. The ACN is guided by its

Steering Group composed of National Coordinators from all countries as well as of representatives of

partner organisations.

The ACN provides its members with a regional forum for the promotion of anti-corruption reforms,

exchange of experience, and elaboration of good practices. In 2003, the ACN launched the Istanbul Anti-

Corruption Action Plan (IAP) to support anti-corruption reforms in nine ACN countries through country

peer reviews. In 2009, the ACN started the programme of thematic peer learning, including expert

seminars and cross-country studies on prevention and criminalisation of corruption, and later in 2012, a

study on business integrity. In 2010, the ACN established the Law-Enforcement Network for

investigators and prosecutors dealing with corruption cases. In 2007 the ACN started its first country

programme in Ukraine. Another country project for Kyrgyzstan was launched in 2016, and a smaller

country project was implemented for Romania in 2016.

The ACN activities are funded by voluntary contributions from OECD countries and other donor

countries and co-funded by countries and organisations that participate in the ACN. The ACN

fundraising strategy adopted in 2016 foresees also annual fees from member countries. The OECD

provides the core funding for general supervision, management, and a part of administrative support.

Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action

Plan Donors Partners

Albania

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Belarus

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Croatia

Estonia*

Georgia

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Latvia*

Lithuania**

FYRO Macedonia

Moldova

Mongolia

Montenegro

Romania

Russia

Serbia

Slovenia*

Tajikistan

Turkmenistan

Ukraine

Uzbekistan

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Georgia

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Mongolia

Tajikistan

Ukraine

Uzbekistan

United States

Switzerland

United Kingdom***

Lithuania

Latvia***

Liechtenstein

Slovak Republic*** Sweden

UNODC

UNDP

OSCE

EBRD

World Bank

Council of Europe/GRECO

Regional Anti-Corruption Initiative

(RAI)

EU/SIGMA

Transparency International

National NGOs and

business associations

* These countries are also members to the OECD ** This country is the candidate for accession to the OECD *** These countries provided financing for the current ACN Work Programme in previous years

6

Main Activities in 2016

Summary Report

Upon the completion of the Work Programme for 2013-2015 and the 3rd

round of the Istanbul Action

Plan, the Secretariat prepared report entitled "Anti-Corruption Reforms in Eastern Europe and Central

Asia, Progress and Challenges, 2013-2016" that summarises progress achieved in the region over the past

years and challenges for the future. It covers three broad areas of anti-corruption reforms, including anti-

corruption policies and institutions, criminalisation of corruption and law-enforcement, and measures to

prevent corruption in public administration and in the business sector. The report includes examples of

good practice from various countries, comparative cross-country data and regional policy

recommendations which establish the directions for the ACN future work and benchmarks for the next

round of monitoring. The report also highlights the role that the OECD Anti-Corruption Network for

Eastern Europe and Central Asia played in supporting anti-corruption reforms in the region. Draft report

was presented at the High-Level Meeting of the ACN in April 2016 and the final report was launched at

the ACN Steering Group Meeting in September 2016. Read the Summary Report in English and Russian.

Mr. Rintaro Tamaki, OECD Deputy Secretary General, and Mrs. Enery Quinones, Chair of the ACN Istanbul Action Plan, at the launch of the Summary Report, 14 September 2016

High Level Meeting

On 21 April 2016, during OECD Integrity Week, the ACN hosted the high-level meeting of anti-

corruption decision-makers from the Eastern Europe and Central Asia. It brought together over 100

participants: Ministers, Ambassadors, Heads and Deputy Heads of anti-corruption agencies, Deputy

Prosecutor Generals from 25 country delegations, 11 international organisations, 13 NGOs,

representatives in business and academia. Participants discussed achievements and challenges in anti-

corruption policy implementation; existing tools to prevent corruption in the public administration;

measures to promote business integrity and enforcement of criminal responsibility for corruption. The

delegates reaffirmed commitment to stronger enforcement and joint action against corruption and

endorsed the 2016-2019 ACN Work Programme.

7

Mr. Drago Kos, Chair of the OECD Working Group on Bribery, Mr. Daniel Yohannes, US Ambassador to the OECD, Mr. Rintaro Tamaki, OECD Deputy Secretary General, Mr. Patrick Moulette Head of the OECD Anti-Corruption Division, and Mrs. Olga Savran, ACN Manager at the opening of the High-Level Meeting of the ACN, 21 April 2016

New Work Programme

The Work Programme for 2016-2019 includes the following directions: the 4th round of monitoring under

the Istanbul Action Plan, thematic work on prevention of corruption in the public administration,

business integrity and criminalisation, the Law-Enforcement Network and country projects. The novelty

of this Work Programme is that it includes performance indicators for its monitoring and assessment, as

well as a Fundraising Strategy that among other funding sources includes annual fees of the ACN

countries. Read the Work Programme for 2016-2019 in English and Russian, the Fundraising Strategy in

English and Russian.

Steering Group

The 20th Steering Group Meeting took place back to back to the ACN High Level Meeting on 22 April

2016. It has adopted the new Work Programme, the methodology for the 4th round of monitoring under

the Istanbul Action Plan and the performance indicators. It also discussed the outline of the fundraising

strategy. The Summary Record of the 20th ACN Steering Group meeting in English .

The 21st Steering Group Meeting took place on 14 September 2016 back to back with the monitoring

plenary. Adoption of the fundraising strategy was the main outcome of this meeting. The meeting

featured the Tour de Table on selected anti-corruption sectoral reforms in ACN members from South

Eastern Europe and presentation of evaluation of Romania’s Anti-Corruption Strategy implementation,

conducted with the support of the ACN. The meeting also provided a possibility for various OECD

directorates and other international organizations presented their updates. The Summary Record of the

21st Steering Group meeting will be posted on the ACN site after its adoption at the next meeting foreseen

for 14 September 2017.

8

The Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan

Monitoring Plenary Meeting

The first monitoring meeting under the 4th round of Istanbul Action Plan took place on 14-16 September

2016. The meeting adopted monitoring reports on Azerbaijan and Georgia, and progress reports on

Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan were adopted at

the monitoring meeting. All reports are available at OECD website.

The ACN Steering Group and Istanbul Action Plan Monitoring Plenary, September 2016.

9

Fourth Round of Monitoring of Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan made progress in preventing corruption in several sectors such as public services delivery, traffic police and education. Azerbaijani Service and Assessment Network (ASAN) centres have contributed to eliminating the conditions that are conducive to corruption when delivering various administrative services to the public. The performance of the Anti-Corruption Directorate improved. However, serious and complex corruption challenges have yet to be tackled. Azerbaijan should strengthen its central body for prevention of corruption, the Commission on Combating Corruption, and implement comprehensive, evidence-based anti-corruption policy, addressing sectors prone to high corruption risks. The report further recommends that Azerbaijan should:

• Ensure the open participation of civil society in anti-corruption reforms and create an enabling environment for investigative journalism and media reporting on corruption;

• Pursue civil service reform, adopt conflict of interest legislation and ensure effective coordination and implementation of the reforms;

• Take effective measures to ensure transparency and integrity in public procurement;

• Strengthen prosecutorial and judicial integrity and independence, ensure objective, merit-based and transparent recruitment of prosecutors and judges;

• Introduce without delay criminal procedure for enforcing corporate liability and step up enforcement of new forms of corruption offences;

• Prioritize resources to investigate complex, systemic and high-level corruption cases;

• Further prevent and fight corruption in the education sector by measuring impact and using a consultative, inclusive and evidence-based approach to planning and implementing reforms.

Fourth round of monitoring of Azerbaijan was launched in February 2016 with the selection of the area

for in-depth anti-corruption evaluation. Based on the survey of stakeholders, education was selected for

such evaluation. The monitoring questionnaire was sent to the ACN National Coordinator, Anti-

Corruption Directorate with the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

The on-site visit to Baku took place on 21-24 June 2016. The Azerbaijani authorities organised thematic

panels with representatives of public agencies. The OECD Secretariat arranged meetings with

representatives of civil society, business and international organizations. Constitution Research

Foundation hosted meetings with representatives of NGOs, Entrepreneurs’ Confederation hosted and co-

organised the meetings with the business community and the Swiss Cooperation Office for the South

Caucasus hosted and co-organised meeting with international community.

The monitoring team consisted of: Mrs. Enery Quinones, Chair of the OECD/ACN Istanbul Anti-

Corruption Action Plan; Mrs. Anca Jurma, Chair of the Law Enforcement Network of ACN, Chief

Prosecutor, DNA Romania; Mrs. Mari-Liis Sööt, Ministry of Justice, Estonia; Mr. Dirk Plutz, Associate

Director, Policy Advisor at the Procurement Policy Department, European Bank of Reconstruction and

Development; Mrs. Aziza Umarova, Advisor on Public Sector Innovation, UNDP Global Centre for

Public Service Excellence; Mr. Batuhan Aydagül, Director of the Education Reform Initiative, Turkey;

Mr. William Loo, Deputy Head of the OECD Anti-Corruption Division; Ms. Tanya Khavanska, Project

Manager, OECD/ACN; Mrs. Rusudan Mikhelidze, Project Manager, OECD/ACN; Mrs. Kateryna

Obvintseva, Analyst, OECD Directorate for Education and Skills.

The fourth monitoring round report on Azerbaijan was adopted at the ACN Plenary Meeting on 16

September 2016 at the OECD, in Paris. It contains compliance ratings and new recommendations. Out of

10

20 previous recommendations Azerbaijan was found to be not compliant with 4 recommendations,

partially compliant with 11 recommendations, largely compliant with 2 recommendations and fully

compliant with 1 recommendation. Two recommendations of the previous round (pubic financial control

and audit, political corruption) were not evaluated, as the fourth monitoring round does not cover

relevant topics. The fourth round monitoring report includes 29 new recommendations; 2 previous

recommendations were recognised to be still valid. Review of Azerbaijan was conducted in partnership

with the OECD Directorate for Education and Skills, which prepared the chapter 4 of the report, in-depth

anti-corruption evaluation of the education sector.

The return mission to Azerbaijan was organized on 20 February, 2017. The Anti-Corruption Directorate

convened a large conference to present the findings of the report to the government agencies and the civil

society. The ACN Secretariat made a presentation followed by brief interventions from the audience to

comment on the report and recommendations.1 Read the full report on Azerbaijan and the OECD/ACN

press release.

OECD/ACN monitoring team during the on-site visit, June 2016, Anti-Corruption Directorate, Baku, Azerbaijan.

1 See news article: https://report.az/en/domestic-politics/reporting-meeting-holding-on-fourth-round-

evaluation-of-fight-against-corruption-in-azerbaijan/

11

Fourth Round of Monitoring of Georgia

Georgia has achieved remarkable progress in eliminating petty corruption in the public administration and should now focus on combating high-level and complex corruption. Georgia has established a commendable mechanism for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of its Anti-Corruption Strategy and Action Plan as well as ensured the important role to civil society in this process. It also started a comprehensive civil service reform in line with the OECD/ACN recommendations; it needs pass the remaining legislation necessary for the implementation of civil service reforms and strengthen the Civil Service Bureau and HR units in state bodies.

• Georgia was recommended to develop anti-corruption actions in line ministries, agencies and local self-governments based on risk assessment; boost the enforcement of conflict of interests, anti-corruption restrictions and integrity rules among MPs, ministers, executive bodies and at the local self-government level; study business integrity risks, train companies and public officials, and implement anti-corruption programmes for state- and municipally-owned enterprises; adopt a modern access to information law. Georgia should also continue reforms aimed at strengthening independence and integrity of judges, enhance the transparency of the High Council of Justice and integrity of its members, improve regulation in the primary law of the procedure for selection, appointment, promotion, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary liability of judges and prosecutors; increase the role of the prosecutorial self-governance in the decision-making on careers of prosecutors.

The fourth round of monitoring of Georgia took place from February till September 2016. The

Government of Georgia submitted its responses to the country-specific questionnaire in May 2016. Based

on the methodology of the fourth round of monitoring, alternative replies to the questionnaire and

additional information were obtained from the NGO Transparency International Georgia, NGO Institute

for the Development of Freedom of Information, NGO Human Rights Education and Monitoring Centre,

USAID-funded project Georgia Good Governance Initiative. Public procurement for infrastructure

projects was selected as the sector for in-depth evaluation.

The monitoring team consisted of: Ms. Mary Butler (USA), Mrs. Tetyana Kovtun (Ukraine), Mr. Jaka

Kosmac, (Slovenia), Mr. Evgeny Smirnov (European Bank of Reconstruction and Development), Mr.

Davor Dubravica (Croatia), as well as Mrs. Olga Savran (ACN Manager, OECD/ACN Secretariat) and

Mr. Dmytro Kotlyar (consultant, OECD/ACN Secretariat, Team Leader).

The on-site visit to Tbilisi, Georgia took place on 21-24 June 2016. The Georgian authorities organised

thematic panels with representatives of various public authorities of Georgia; the OECD Secretariat

arranged for separate meetings with representatives of civil society, business and international

organisations. Transparency International Georgia hosted and co-organised meetings with representatives

of NGOs and business community; the EU Delegation in Georgia hosted and co-organised meeting with

international representatives.

The fourth monitoring round report on Georgia was adopted at the ACN Plenary Meeting on 15

September 2016 at the OECD, in Paris. It contains compliance ratings and new recommendations. Out of

15 previous recommendations Georgia was found to be not compliant with 1 recommendation, partially

compliant with 8 recommendations, largely compliant with 2 recommendations and fully compliant with

2 recommendations. Two recommendations of the previous round were not evaluated, as the fourth

monitoring round does not cover relevant topics (Pubic financial control and audit, Party financing). The

fourth monitoring round report includes 19 new recommendations; 3 previous recommendations were

recognised to be still valid (fully or partly).

12

A return mission to present the report took place on 7 March 2016 in Tbilisi. During the visit, the

Georgian authorities organised a joint conference with government and civil society representatives to

present the findings of the monitoring report and examine further actions to implement the

recommendations. The report was presented by ACN OECD Secretariat. The EU Delegation in Georgia

hosted a special session with the international community to discuss support to the implementation of

recommendations.

Read the report on Georgia in English; OECD press release.

OECD/ACN monitoring team during the on-site visit, June 2016, Ministry of Justice of Georgia, Tbilisi, Georgia

Third Round of Monitoring of Uzbekistan

Third round monitoring report for Uzbekistan was adopted in 2015, the return mission to present the

report took place on 21-22 January in Tashkent. The report was presented by OECD/ACN Secretariat

and the review expert from the UNODC. During the visit, the Uzbek authorities organised a joint

conference with government and civil society representatives to present the findings of the monitoring

report and examine further actions to implement the recommendations. They have also organised a press-

conference. The UNDP hosted a special session with the international community to discuss support to

the implementation of recommendations.

Read the report on Uzbekistan in English and in Russian; OECD press release.

13

Thematic Studies

Corruption Prevention in Public Administration

Expert Seminar “Impact of corruption prevention measures at national and sectoral level” took place on

26-27 May 2016 in Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyzstan as a part of the series of corruption prevention seminars

conducted under the ACN Work Programme. The seminar focused on effectiveness and impact of

corruption prevention measures at national and sectoral level and prevention of corruption in sectors of

education and the extractive/resource industry. The event was organised by the OECD/ACN together

with the Secretariat of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)/ Office of the

Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities and hosted by the Government of

Kyrgyzstan and the OSCE Centre in Bishkek. The representatives of the United Nations Development

Program (UNDP), Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and Open Society Initiative (OSI)

participated as well. About 46 participants included the representatives of 12 countries and international

organisations. The participants ranged from state bodies responsible for the fight against corruption,

public education and natural resources, to civil society groups engaged in corruption prevention in these

sectors. See the proceedings of the seminar here.

As a follow-up to the Issyk-Kul seminar, the Secretariat prepared a study to provide additional tools to

support policymakers and other stakeholders in preventing corruption at sector level. The study covers

such sectors as public education, extractive industries and police. It identifies corruption types and risks

in the three sectors, shares good practices from the ACN countries in tackling corruption in these sectors

through specific tools. Read the Study in English and in Russian.

14

The thematic studies are available on the ACN website: http://www.oecd.org/corruption/acn/preventionofcorruption/ http://www.oecd.org/corruption/acn/businessintegrity/ http://www.oecd.org/corruption/acn/ACN-Liability-of-Legal-Persons-2015.pdf

Interests and Asset Disclosure

In December 2016, the ACN Secretariat launched preparatory work for the elaboration of the thematic

study "Implementation and Effectiveness of Systems for Interests and Asset Disclosures". The study will

build on the 2011 OECD/ACN publication “Asset Declarations for Public Officials - A Tool to Prevent

Corruption” that focused mostly on the legal framework and institutional arrangements for such systems.

The new study will review country experiences in the implementation and enforcement of such systems

in practice and will highlight new tendencies in terms of on-going evaluations and impact assessments. A

systematic study of the existing national experiences will allow for the identification of good practices

and recommendations which can be applied by governments and international organisations to assess and

further reform systems for disclosing interests and assets at a country level. In 2016, the ACN Secretariat

carried out research and developed a concept paper for the project. An expert seminar on this subject is

foreseen in June 2017; the study should be finalized in the second half of 2017.

Business Integrity

The study on Business Integrity was launched in 2013; its preparation involved data collection through

on-line questionnaires, its analysis and validation through case studies and country seminars, including 3

seminars in 2016 – in FYRO Macedonia, Ukraine and Romania, as well as a business integrity session

with the Prime Minister of Kazakhstan organised by AmCham. The study "Business Integrity in Eastern

Europe and Central Asia" was published in 2016. It examines current practices of companies and

governments aimed to prevent corruption in the business sector, and formulates recommendations on

how business integrity can be boosted through specific actions, such as establishing channels for

companies to report about corruption, introducing anti-corruption plans in SOEs, and many others. To

disseminate the Study and to promote the implementation of its recommendation, in 2016 the Secretariat

started preparations for the regional seminar that took place in January 2017 in Ukraine, and for the joint

capacity building project with the EBRD that was launched in that seminar. Read the Study in English

and Russian.

15

Criminalisation

The thematic study "International Co-operation in Corruption Cases" is the third study in the series of the

ACN criminalization reviews. The aim of the study is to create a practical tool to assist relevant

authorities in their everyday work in international cooperation. The study’s specific objectives are (1) to

analyse the state of play in international cooperation for corruption cases, including legal and

institutional arrangements as well as practical experience; (2) to identify good practices and common

problems (including through case studies of good practice in selected countries) and to develop

recommendations; (3) to identify capacity building and training needs for the relevant authorities; and (4)

to contribute, along with other ACN follow-up activities, to establishing the contacts among

professionals to support efficient mutual legal assistance. The scope of the study includes mutual legal

assistance, direct law enforcement cooperation, the use of joint investigative teams, cooperation in

special investigative measures and various modern mechanisms for cooperation in criminal matters. To

prepare the study, the Secretariat invited ACN countries to provide data by filling out a questionnaire.

The draft study was circulated for written review and then discussed during the ACN 7th Law

Enforcement Network meeting in December 2016 in Astana. On the basis of these discussions and

subsequent comments from the countries the study will be finalized in 2017.

16

Law-Enforcement Network

The 7th Law Enforcement Network (LEN) meeting “Investigation and prosecution of corruption:

international cooperation, confiscation of proceeds and independence of prosecutors” took place on 19-

21 December 2016 in Astana, Kazakhstan. The meeting was financed and co-organised by the by

Agency for Civil Service Affairs and Anti-Corruption of Kazakhstan. LEN participants discussed the

study on international cooperation in corruption cases and engaged in working groups to resolve a

hypothetical case that involved international cooperation. To use the opportunity provided by the LEN to

improve international cooperation on actual cases, LEN participants agreed that Secretariat will develop

and maintain a matrix of cases with unreasonably pending MLA requests among ACN countries; these

cases will be discussed within special sessions of consequent LEN meetings. To boost professional

contacts among LEN participants, the Secretariat will also create a permanent and regularly updated list

of LEN contacts. Finally, participants agreed the outline of the next study on confiscation of proceeds

from corruption. The agenda and list of participants of the meeting are available upon request.

7th Law Enforcement Network meeting “Investigation and prosecution of corruption: international cooperation, confiscation of proceeds and independence of prosecutors”, December 2016, Astana, Kazakhstan

17

Country Projects

Anti-Corruption Project for Ukraine

The pilot stage of the OECD Project "Support to Ukraine in the area of Anti-Corruption" was completed

successfully and ACN decided to continue with this country-specific initiative. The next phase of the

Project with financial contributions from Sweden and Lithuania was therefore launched in 2016 and will

continue through the end of 2017.

The main goal of the project remains the same - to strengthen Ukraine’s legal and institutional capacity

to effectively detect, investigate and prosecute high-profile and complex corruption. It was achieved by

providing support to Ukraine’s key anti-corruption institutions, which strove to demonstrate practical

results in combating corruption.

To this end in 2016 the Project continued to focus on providing assistance to the National Anti-

Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP), and the

Business Ombudsman Council (BOC), as well as on supporting national anti-corruption expert capacity

and donors’ coordination in the anti-corruption area. The main outcomes of these activities in 2016

include:

Around 2.800 admission tests have been reviewed and updated and 50 new

admission tests have been developed to allow NABU to select around 150 new

detectives. These tests helped ensure that selection of new recruits was again done

through an open and professional competition. To date, NABU’s detectives earned

reputation of the most proactive and independent detectives in the law

enforcement system of Ukraine.

Direct contacts between NABU and SAP leadership, as well as working level

contacts between the detectives and prosecutors, and their counterparts from the

anti-corruption institutions of other countries have been established. To establish

such contacts the Project supported participation of the NABU and SAP

leadership, as well as of their detectives and prosecutors, in various international

meetings and fora (e.g. ACN High Level meeting, plenary sessions of ACN and

meetings of the Law Enforcement Networks, global and regional).

Such contacts helped NABU and SAP to obtain advice on how to overcome

challenges they are facing, both at the political and operational level. It also

provided NABU and SAP with opportunity to show-case their own results and

achievements, building good reputation for these institutions, which is

indispensable for international support and cooperation. And finally, such contacts

helped build working-level relations necessary for success of the investigation and

prosecution of concrete transnational corruption cases. Such advice, support and

cooperation are especially timely at this stage of building up of these specialised

anti-corruption institutions. They will be equally important in the nearest future as

these institutions become more effective and meet resistance from within the old

criminal justice system and may face attacks from parts of political elite affected

by their investigations and prosecutions.

18

Capacity of BOC to carry out its functions effectively has significantly grown in

2016. In particular:

BOC’s Case Management System has been improved based on the

recommendations stemming from analysis conducted with direct support from

the Project.

IT capacities of the BOC office have been upgraded and key business

processes associated with BOC complaints handling have been automated.

Project provided for the necessary training of the BOC’s IT manager and the

system is now in use.

Direct contacts between the BOC and the Ontario Ombudsman Institution,

which is considered to be a benchmark complaint mechanism in the world,

have been established. This allowed agreeing on future cooperation, possible

trainings for the BOC’s staff, information exchange, and international

cooperation in the framework of the professional associations, etc.

Investigative skills of the BOC’s investigators have been further honed.

Namely, four BOC’s investigators were trained in the Ontario Ombudsman

Office.

Conflict resolution and mediation skills have been also developed in the BOC

office. In particular, 15 inspectors and 2 Business Ombudsman deputies have

undergone training on basic conflict resolution and mediation to ensure that

BOC inspectors when appropriate can engage parties in a collaborative

negotiation process and mediation avoiding lengthy and costly court

proceedings.

Analytical capacities of the BOC office have been also improving over time.

Project consistently provided support on this through, for instance,

involvement of its Criminal Justice Anti-Corruption Advisory Group (CJAG)

and organising expert discussions on ways to implement recommendations of

the BOC.

Therefore, the Project directly contributed to BOC becoming an institution which

is (a) trusted by the business community (the number of complaints to BOC has

grown from 585 in 2015 to 868 in 2016); (b) effective in handling of their

complaints (in 2015 28 % of cases have been successfully closed compared to 66

% in 2016); and (c) has the capacity to identify flows in the existing system and

propose practical solutions (in 2015 – 81 % of the recommendations issued by

BOC have been implemented, and in 2016 such percentage grew to further 87).

Ukrainian experts have been actively involved in various activities of the ACN,

providing assistance in legislation drafting, devising and conducting trainings, as

well as development of ACN thematic studies. The need to find appropriate

avenues to support such expert community in the country became only more

evident through activities of the Project in 2016. One such possible avenue was

explored in 2016, namely, the creation of the Criminal Justice Advisory Group

(CJAG) composed of more than 30 prominent, progressive national experts,

including judges, prosecutors, investigators, other law enforcement practitioners,

19

academics, and representatives of think tanks. The CJAG members have been

involved in all activities of the Project but still CJAG didn’t take off as a self-

sustainable group. Other avenues might need to be explored as the Project moves

forward.

The model of donor coordination, originally conceived by the Project, has been

continued by the Project throughout 2016. The Project organized, in partnership

with the UNDP, 5 donor coordination meetings dedicated to different essential

aspects of implementation of the anti-corruption reform in the country. Anti-

corruption donors in Ukraine have been developing joint messages, discussing

emerging challenges and coming up with responses to them in a consistent and

coordinated manner. Ukrainian partners have also benefited from a platform

where they can address their needs to all donors at once. The donor coordination

contact list now comprises over a hundred and forty contacts and is regularly used

for all donor communication. This model proved such success that it is being

replicated by donors in other areas and is appreciated by those working in the

country and outside.

In addition, responding to the specific request from the Ukraine's Vice Prime Minister for European and

Euro-Atlantic Integration, the Project developed a new component on support to the National Agency for

Detection, Tracing and Management of Proceeds from Corruption and other Crimes (ARMA).

Although the main activities on supporting the launch of ARMA are planned for 2017, the urgent and

preparatory activities took place already in 2016. In particular, the Project contributed to the Third

Annual Asset Recovery Conference, organized donor coordination meeting devoted to the launch of

ARMA, and initiated development of the ARMA’s hiring procedures and the most important bylaws.

In the framework of the ACN Plenary

Meeting in September 2016 the

Project organised the roundtable on

“Anti-corruption reform and

strengthening integrity in Ukraine”. It

brought together Ukrainian high-level

officials, Ambassadors and other

representatives of the OECD

delegations, as well as representatives

of ACN countries, international

organisations and the OECD

Secretariat for a frank discussion of

failures, challenges and opportunities

in further anti-corruption

transformations in Ukraine. Ukrainian

delegation encouraged the OECD and

other international partners to provide

their further support to the leading

anti-corruption institutions.

Director of NABU Mr. Artem Sytnyk and Director of the OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Mr. Pierre Poret during the roundtable “Anti-corruption reform and strengthening integrity in Ukraine”, September 2016, OECD Headquarters, Paris, France

All of that enabled the OECD to prepare project proposal for 2017 and secure funding for the

continuation of its work in the area of anti-corruption in Ukraine.

20

Anti-Corruption Project for Kyrgyzstan

In 2016, the ACN with the funding of the US Department of State's Bureau of International Narcotics

and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) launched a project for Kyrgyzstan. The project has two objectives:

to support overhauling anti-corruption criminal legislation of Kyrgyzstan to bring it closer to the

international anti-corruption standards, and to build capacity of the law enforcement agencies to

efficiently detect, investigate and prosecute complex corruption cases. Main counterpart of the project is

the Office of the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan.

In 2016, the analysis of compliance of the draft criminal code and criminal procedure code of Kyrgyzstan

with the international anti-corruption standards. The analysis confirmed that responding to the

recommendations of the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan monitoring Kyrgyzstan introduced the

liability of legal persons for corruption offences in its criminal legislation. While several shortcomings

remain in the laws, the main challenge is the very low level of awareness of the new legislation among

the law-enforcement practitioners.

To prepare Kyrgyz authorities for implementation of new legislation the ACN conducted the expert

workshop and roundtable discussion on 31 October – 1 November in Bishkek. The workshop brought

together the drafters of the legislation and the criminal justice practitioners in Kyrgyzstan, including

prosecutors and judges. Participants discussed the forthcoming legislation, existing legislation gaps,

needs for capacity building, challenges and solutions for practical implementation the liability of legal

persons for corruption offences. The Ambassador of the United States to Kyrgyzstan and the Deputy

Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan delivered welcoming remarks. Experts from Latvia and Ukraine

shared their experiences. The workshop included a group work on a hypothetical case. As a conclusion,

the participants agreed on a roadmap to help Kyrgyzstan start implementation of the liability of legal

persons.

In addition, broad representation of law enforcement of Kyrgyzstan was ensured at the 7th Law

Enforcement Network meeting in Astana, Kazakhstan in December 2016. The Kyrgyz project is

expected to be completed in 2017.

Anti-Corruption Strategy of Romania

Upon the completion of the current National Anticorruption Strategy 2012-2015 (NAS), and before

embarking on the elaboration of the new strategy, the Government of Romania decided to assess the

achieved results and to identify priorities for the future. In addition to self-evaluation, the Romanian

Ministry of Justice decided to conduct external evaluation. The Ministry reached out to the ACN

Secretariat with the request to assist in the conduct of the external evaluation, which was fully financed

by Romania. The ACN Secretariat assisted in developing the methodology for the external evaluation,

identified external consultants from Estonia and Latvia, took part in the evaluation missions, and

reviewed the final report.

The report stressed that Romania has achieved impressive progress in its fight against corruption. The

main factors of success included strong enforcement by the National Anti-corruption Directorate and the

National Integrity Agency; training, risk assessment and other preventive measures by the General Anti-

corruption Directorate; cooperation platforms with stakeholders and thematic evaluation missions

coordinated by the Ministry of Justice in selected state bodies.

While the above achievements have helped to bring down the perceived level of corruption, which was

the main objective of the NAS, the success was less that aimed for. This may be due to the following:

21

preventive measures have not been implemented in a systematic way across the public sector; low level

of political will among the elected officials to uphold integrity; no conclusive evidence of fundamental

improvement in public procurement.

The report included recommendations that were used in the development of the new Anti-Corruption

Strategy of Romania that was adopted at the end of 2016.

22

Funding of Activities Implemented in 2016

The ACN activities are part of the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business

Transactions Programme of Work and Budget. As with other activities involving OECD non-Members,

the ACN is financed largely through voluntary contributions provided by OECD Member countries. It

also benefits from a limited funding from the OECD core budget and co-funding by ACN countries and

partners. The table below summarises ACN funding in 2016.

ACN Funding in 2016

Donor Programme activity Year (OECD ref. no) Spent in 2016, Euros

ACN regional work

Switzerland ACN (2013-15

programme)

2013 (DI130423) 9 800

Switzerland ACN (2016-19

programme)

2016 (DI160526) 282 261

United States ACN (2016 programme) 2016 (DI160928) 89 119

United States ACN (2016 programme) 2016 (DI160934) 1 422

Liechtenstein ACN (2016 programme) 2016 (DI161148) 1 153

Sub-total: 383 755

ACN country projects

Sweden Ukraine 2015 (DI151427) 390 073

Lithuania Ukraine 2016 (D00032) 1 536

Sweden Ukraine 2016 (D00075) 77 101

United States Kyrgyzstan 2016 (DI160240) 127 160

Sub-total: 595 870

In-kind funding Estimate by ACN

Secretariat

ACN countries self-

funding

ACN High Level Meeting 2016 40 000

OSCE Kyrgyzstan Issyk-Kul seminar 2016 30 000

Kazakhstan LEN meeting in Astana 2016 40 000

Romania Romania country project 2016 15 000

Sub-total: 125 000

OECD core funding

Staff and operational

costs

ACN region 2016 261,518

Total: 1 241 143

23

Overall, the funding raised by the ACN Secretariat was sufficient to implement all key activities foreseen

by the Work Programme for 2016. However, the amount of voluntary contributions fall short of the

estimated needs (budget needs were estimated at 1,456,233 EURO for 2016, while total actual funding

was 1 241 143 EURO, leaving the gap of about 215,000 EURO). As a result, the ACN Secretariat was

not able to hire an additional project manager, which resulted in the increased work load for the existing

staff. At the same time, the ACN was able to raise an important co-funding and self-funding of its

activities by partner organisations and member countries, as well as significant funding to the country

projects, which allowed financing operational costs of all key activities provided by the Work

Programme.

In order to improve the sustainability of the ACN funding and to ensure sufficient resources to

implement the Work Programme in full, as recommended by the external assessment of ACN conducted

in 2015, the ACN Steering Group in September 2016 adopted the ACN Fundraising Strategy, which

includes a broad range of possible approaches to increase ACN funding, including the annual fees for the

ACN countries. To help ACN countries that are not member of the OECD to secure domestic funding for

such fees, the ACN Secretariat started the preparation of a model Memorandum of Understanding

between the ACN countries and the OECD that could provide a legal basis for the payment of the fees.

This work will continue in 2017.

24

Outputs, Results and Impact

Selection of success stories

Armenia: in 2016 Armenia has established the office of Information Commissioner as an enforcement mechanism for the Access to Information Law. Armenian NGOs and the newly appointed Information Commissioner noted that this success would not have been possible without the continuous peer pressure from the OECD/ACN.

Azerbaijan: As of 2016, about 15 million people have been served by the Azerbaijani Service and Assessment Network (ASAN) centres. This contributed to eliminating the conditions that are conducive to corruption when delivering various administrative services to the public.

Georgia: according to the 2016 monitoring report, Georgia has included the issue of business integrity in its national anti-corruption strategy and involved business associations in this work, as recommended by OECD/ACN.

Kazakhstan: Kazakh government takes serious efforts to reform the anti-corruption legislation according to the OECD/ACN recommendations. For example, on 1 January 2016, Kazakhstan enacted a new Law on Access to Information which was advocated was the OECD/ACN for a long time. Kazakhstan also introduced new rules on payment of court fees for lawsuits against mass media that could decrease the number of disproportionate claims against investigative media and journalists. New rules on the confiscation of criminal assets were enacted in line with the OECD/ACN recommendation.

Kyrgyzstan: In 2016, NGO "Result" with the US funding conducted a high quality shadow monitoring of Kyrgyzstan, following the IAP methodology. This shadow monitoring not only demonstrated the excellent capacity of the civil society to contribute to the anti-corruption reforms, but also helped to raise key issues of reforms to the attention of the pubic and of the government. In December 2016, Kyrgyzstan adopted the new criminal legislation introducing the liability of legal persons for corruption offences, as recommended by the OECD/ACN.

Latvia: Latvia became the member of the OECD in 2016, and completed its Phase 1 review by the Working Group on Bribery.

Mongolia: Mongolia is a member of the OECD/ACN and also of the Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia-Pacific supported by the OECD and the ADB; in October 2016 Mongolia hosted the annual meeting of this initiative and made a presentation of its ACN monitoring report, which was a useful demonstration of the value and impact of peer reviews. At that meeting the Law-Enforcement Network for Asia-Pacific was launched, modeled on the ACN LEN; contribution of ACN speakers, such as the Romanian Anti-Corruption Prosecution, was an important factor of the success of the meeting. In 2016, Mongolia reformed its administrative law by enacting a new General Administrative Law and the Administrative Procedure Law, in line with OECD/ACN recommendation.

Tajikistan: following the training that the OECD/ACN provided to NGOs in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan on shadow monitoring, the involvement of civil society groups from these countries in the Istanbul Action Plan had increased dramatically. Two Tajik NGOs provided their shadow reports in 2016. While the quality of these reports need further improvement, this major increase shows that NGOs are capable and eager to contribute to the anti-corruption reforms, if they are provided a useful policy framework where their inputs are considered seriously and where they see the real impact of their work.

Ukraine: building of the effective National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) as well as the Business Ombudsman Council (COI) were the key success stories in Ukraine to which the OECD/ACN provided direct and practical inputs. Reform of traffic police and the creation of the e-procurement system ProZorro were two other important reforms,

25

which all together constituted a small anti-corruption revolution in the country.

Uzbekistan: following the OECD/ACN recommendations on civil service and building on the decisions of the seminar on this issue that was organized by the OECD/ACN in 2015, the Uzbek government has adopted a concept of creating the civil service in the country that includes the key principles of modern civil service systems in 2016.

Performance indicators in 2016*

Data for performance indicators was collected by the ACN Secretariat and provided by the ACN

countries in the form of answers to the questionnaires prepared by the Secretariat. Many countries

signalled difficulties in collecting data, as this required additional research, and due to the

methodological challenges (e.g. how to express anti-corruption reforms and measures in measurable

terms, e.g. how to count measures to provide training or to prevent conflict of interest – by counting

individual seminars or participants, by counting individual cases of conflict of interest, or larger policy

measures). The ACN Secretariat did not conduct any assessment of the data provided.

Output indicators Performance in 2016

1. Istanbul Action Plan

number of monitoring reports 2: Azerbaijan, Georgia

number of progress updates 7: Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

number of shadow reports 9: Armenia (3), Kazakhstan (1), Kyrgyzstan (2), Tajikistan (2), Ukraine (1)

number of on-site visits 2: Azerbaijan, Georgia

number of return missions 1: Uzbekistan

number of plenary meetings 1

number of summary reports 1: "Anti-corruption Reforms in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Progress and Challenges, 2013-2015"

other 1 methodology for 4th

round of monitoring

2. Law-Enforcement Network

number of meetings 1: LEN meeting hosted by Kazakhstan in Astana

number of countries 21, including ACN countries plus Denmark, Israel, UK and US

number of experts 67

number of reports 1: "International Cooperation in Corruption Cases in Eastern Europe and Central Asia" (forthcoming)

3. Prevention in public administration

number of meetings 1: Issyk-Kul seminar

number of countries 12: this seminar was for Russian speaking IAP countries

number of experts 46

number of reports 1: "Corruption Prevention at the Sectoral Level in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Cases of Education, Extractives and Police" (forthcoming)

4. Business Integrity

number of meetings 4: FYRO Macedonia, Ukraine and Romania, Kazakhstan

number of countries 4

number of experts 105: FYROM (30), Ukraine (30), Romania (30), Kazakhstan (15)

number of reports 1: "Business Integrity in Eastern Europe and Central Asia"

26

Result indicator

1. Implementation of IAP recommendations

Trend/number of implemented rec./progress

121: implemented (fully, largely, partially)/progress

53: not implemented/no progress

2. Implementation of recommendations on prevention measures in state institutions

Trend/number of measures Including the top performing countries per category:

Research, risk assessment. 254 (e.g. 19 in Albania, 80 - Latvia, 55 - Lithuania, 14 - Slovenia)

Sector/local plans 1039 (e.g. 27 in BiH, 29 - Croatia, 127 – Mongolia, 701 – Montenegro)

Coord./monitoring 125 (e.g. 34 in BiH, 21 in Mongolia, 12 in Ukraine)

Engaging CSO 78 (e.g. 9 in Moldova, 10 in Ukraine)

A-c/ethics raining 1 918 (e.g. 139 in Kyrgyz, Lithuania, 635 – Moldova, 527 – Mongolia)

Awareness raising 171 (e.g. 24 in Mongolia and Ukraine)

Preventing CoI 3 700 (e.g. 216 - Latvia, 306 – Mongolia, 843 – Serbia, 2263 – Ukraine)

Prevention in pub. finance 699 (e.g. 665 in Ukraine)

Role of audit 113 (e.g. 68 in BiH)

E-services 308 (e.g. 217 in Albania, 23 in Uzbekistan)

Access to info 10 873 (e.g. 609 in Albania, 10 000 in Ukraine)

Whistleblowers 104 (e.g. 34 in Georgia, 28 in Lithuania)

Other/new measures 67 (e.g. 17 in Latvia, 16 in Slovenia)

3. Prevention in public administration

Trend/number of measures

By governments, total, incl.:

206 (47 in Croatia, 37 in Lithuania, 15 in Slovenia, 14 – Kyrgyzstan)

Risk studies/guidance 76 (15 – Slovenia, 14 – Kyrgyzstan)

Compliance as defence 22 (17 in Croatia)

Policy focus on BI 8 (Georgia – 8)

Consult business 9 (Lithuania -4, Moldova -3)

BI in SOEs 7 (Croatia - 3, Lithuania -2, Mongolia -2)

BI for SMEs 13 (Lithuania – 11)

E-tools 20 (Lithuania – 9)

Disclosure of beneficial owner 3 (Croatia – 3)

Awards for BI 1 (FYROM)

Reporting, whistleblowers 18 (Croatia – 8, Lithuania – 6)

Role of audit 7 (Croatia – 5)

By business associations, incl. awareness-raising, assisting w/compliance programmes, dialogue w/government, collective actions.

62 (Estonia/Kyrgyz. -4, Georgia -8, FYROM -10, Mong.-14, Serbia -13)

By companies, incl. risks assessment, compliance programmes.

24 (Estonia – 4, Georgia – 8)

27

4. Business Integrity

Trend/number of cases on

legal persons, total, including

Including the top performing countries per category

425 (34 in Alban., 30 – Latvia, 110 – Montenegro, 128 – Romania, 100 – Serbia)

opened cases 295

cases sent to courts 81

sentences 49

foreign bribery, total, incl. 23 (1 per Albania, Latvia, Lithuania, FYROM , Slovenia; 16 in Montenegro**)

opened cases 18

cases sent to courts 0

sentences 5

MLA, total, including*** 1 298 (527 in Armenia, 66 in Georgia, 148 in Romania, 308 in Ukraine)

Requests received 328

Assistance provided 284

Assistance requested 749

Assistance obtained 492

IAP countries in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI Score)

Notes: A higher score means ‘less corrupt’. “ACN (not IAP)” reflects the average scores of Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, FYRM, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Slovenia. Source: Transparency International, CPI, http://goo.gl/1Ag4HZ.

30 29

33

18 19

30

18

39

57

24 22

29

21

18

28 30 30

38

18 20

25 23

25

29

24

18

21

35

39

46

CPI 2003 CPI 2008 CPI 2016

Sco

re

Georgia

Mongolia

Armeni

Uzbekist

Azerbaijan Kazakhstan

ACN (not IAP)

Tajikistan

28

Impact indicators

Level of corruption perception/experience based on TI indexes****

‒ 15 ACN countries have improved CPI index (Slovenia, Georgia, Latvia, Romania, Montenegro, Serbia, Belarus, Albania, BiH, Kosovo, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan)

‒ 4 ACN countries remained stable (Bulgaria, Estonia, Russia, Kyrgyzstan)

‒ 6 ACN countries' CPI have slightly declined (Croatia, Lithuania, Mongolia, FYROM, Armenia, Tajikistan)

Level of trust in government institutions/Level of tolerance of corruption based on results of domestic surveys*****

‒ 8 ACN countries do not conduct national surveys (Armenia, Azerbaijan, BiH, Georgia, Macedonia, Serbia, Ukraine , Uzbekistan)

‒ 11 ACN countries conduct surveys, commissioned by the government, financed by donors or conducted by NGOs

‒ In 7 countries, the surveys show positive trend (Albania, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia)

‒ In 2 countries the survey show that the perceived level of corruption remains the same, but citizens are less tolerant to corruption (Moldova, Montenegro)

‒ In 1 country – Mongolia - the survey of trust of citizens to state bodies showed a negative trend in 2016, but shows a high integrity perception among children

‒ In 2 countries, no data was provided over a time period to show trends (Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia)

* Data was provided by all countries, except Belarus, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan ** Possible mistake in qualification of the cases *** Data regarding MLA was not provided by Albania **** This data refers only to TI CIP, see graph above; for other international ratings please see graphs 1-7 below ***** Data from national surveys, including surveys commissioned by the government or conducted by NGOs

29

Figure 1. Country ranking in TI Corruption Perception Index and WEF Global Competitiveness Index

Source: Transparency International, CPI, http://goo.gl/1Ag4HZ; World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Index, https://goo.gl/hnzRDH.

GE

FYRM

TUR

MNT

SRB

BiH

ARM

MLD

ALB

AZ

KAZ

KGZ

RUS

UKR TAJ

EST LIT

SLO

LAT

CRO

BLG

ROM

MNG

OECD

IAP ACN

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170

GC

I 20

16

-20

17

CPI 2016

30

Figure 2. Most important problems facing the country – Corruption/bribery mentioned by respondents

Source: Global Corruption Barometer, Transparency International, 2015/16, https://goo.gl/Eqd0c9.

Figure 3. «Have you paid a bribe to any one of 8 services in the past 12 months?», % «Yes» of those who had contact with the service

Note: The eight services covered by the survey were: Public education (Primary or secondary), Public education (vocation), Civil courts, Public health system, Road police, For official documents, For unemployment benefits, For other social security benefits. Different services covered in Mongolia: Public schools, Hospitals, ID documents, Police, Courts.

Source: Global Corruption Barometer, Transparency International, 2015/16, https://goo.gl/Eqd0c9.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

GeorgiaTajikistan

AzerbaijanTurkey

UzbekistanEstonia

HungaryMontenegro

EU+Albania

FYR MacedoniaCommonwealth of Independent States

LatviaBulgariaArmenia

KazakhstanSlovak Rep.

RussiaSerbia

Czech Rep.Kyrgyz Rep.

RomaniaCroatia

LithuaniaBosnia and Herz.

UkraineSlovenia

KosovoMoldova

42 38 38

30 29 29 27

24 24 22 22

18 17 15

13 12 12 10 10 10 9 7 5 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Mo

ldo

va

Kyr

gyzs

tan

Ukr

ain

e

CIS

Ka

zakh

sta

n

Ro

ma

nia

Bo

snia

an

d …

Lith

ua

nia

Arm

en

ia

Serb

ia

Hu

nga

ry

Tu

rke

y

Bu

lga

ria

Latv

ia

Mo

ngo

lia

Slo

vaki

a

FYR

Ma

ced

on

ia

EU

+

Ko

sovo

Cro

ati

a

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Ge

org

ia

Est

on

ia

Slo

ven

ia

31

Figure 3. IAP, EU and OECD countries in the TI’s Corruption Perception Index (2016, Score)

Note: Higher score means ‘less corrupt’. Source: Transparency International, CPI, http://goo.gl/1Ag4HZ.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

OECD Average

EU Average

Georgia

Mongolia

Armenia

IAP Average

Kazakhstan

Azerbaijan

Kyrgyzstan

Ukraine

Tajikistan

Uzbekistan

32

Table 5. Corruption Perception Index, Transparency International, Eastern and Central Europe, Central Asia

Global Country

Rank 2016

Country CPI 2016 Score

CPI 2015 Score

CPI 2014 Score

CPI 2013 Score

CPI 2012 Score

CPI 2008

Score**

CPI 2003

Score**

22 Estonia 70 70 69 68 64 66 55

29 Poland 62 62 61 60 58 46 36

31 Slovenia 61 60 58 57 61 67 59

38 Lithuania 59 61 58 57 54 46 47

44 Georgia 57 52 52 49 52 39 18

44 Latvia 57 55 55 53 49 50 38

47 Czech Republic 55 56 51 48 49 52 39

54 Slovakia 51 51 50 47 46 50 37

55 Croatia 49 51 48 48 46 44 37

57 Hungary 48 51 54 54 55 51 48

57 Romania 48 46 43 43 44 38 28

64 Montenegro 45 44 42 44 41 34 23

72 Serbia 42 40 41 42 39 34 23

75 Bulgaria 41 41 43 41 41 36 39

75 Turkey 41 42 45 50 49 46 31

79 Belarus 40 32 31 29 31 20 42

83 Albania 39 36 33 31 33 34 25

83 Bosnia and Herzegovina

39 38 39 42 42 32 33

87 Mongolia 38 39 39 38 36 30 -

90 FYR Macedonia 37 42 45 44 43 36 23

95 Kosovo 36 33 33 33 34 - -

113 Armenia 33 35 37 36 34 29 30

123 Azerbaijan 30 29 29 28 27 19 18

123 Moldova 30 33 35 35 36 29 24

131 Kazakhstan 29 28 29 26 28 22 24

131 Russia 29 29 27 28 28 21 27

131 Ukraine 29 27 26 25 26 25 23

136 Kyrgyzstan 28 28 27 24 24 18 21

151 Tajikistan 25 26 23 22 22 20 18

154 Turkmenistan 22 18 17 17 17 18 -

156 Uzbekistan 21 19 18 17 17 18 24

Notes: A higher score means ‘less corrupt’. Until 2013, the CPI score was calculated differently (on 0-10 scale); to enable comparison, the CPI 2003 and 2008 scores were converted to 0-100 scale. Source: Transparency International, CPI, http://goo.gl/1Ag4HZ.

33

Figure 4. Ranking of IAP countries in global ratings

Note: A higher value indicates a lower rank. Source: World Bank, Doing Business 2017 (DB); World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Index, 2016-

2017 (GCI); World Bank, Worldwide Governance Indicators, 2015 (WGI); Transparency International, Corruption Perception Index, 2016 (CPI).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

DB 2017 GCI 2016-2017 WGI 2015 CPI 2016

Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan

Mongolia Tajikistan Ukraine Uzbekistan

34

Figure 5. ACN countries in the Index of Public Integrity

Judicial Independence

Administrative Burden

Trade Openness

Budget Transparency

E-Citizenship

Press Freedom

Source: Index of Public Integrity, European Research Centre for Anti-Corruption and State-Building, http://integrity-index.org/.

35