Developing a Methodology for Monitoring Progress in Implementation of Integrity Systems by the Civil Society (Through Tools for Social Responsibility) (MK0068)

Developing a methodology for monitoring progress in implementation of integrity systems by the civil society (through tools for social responsibility)

X. Anti-Corruption: Integrity Standards 

Commitment 4.3: Integrity System Pilots  

Commitment Text: .. 4.3. Introducing guidelines to the integrity system and their further piloting in the municipalities and central level institutions.

Commitment 4.4: Methodology for Risk Assessment

Commitment Text: 4.4. Defining a methodology for assessing the risks of corruption by updating the concept of integrity.

Commitment 4.5: Local Self-Government Integrity Index  

Commitment Text: .. 4.5. Developing a methodology for monitoring the progress of implementation of integrity systems (integrity index) for local self-governments.

Commitment 4.6: CSO Integrity Monitoring 

Commitment Text: 4.6. Developing a methodology for monitoring progress in implementation of integrity systems by the civil society (through tools for social responsibility).

Responsible institution(s): State Commission for Prevention of Corruption

Supporting institution(s): Units of Local self-government, UNDP and OSCE

Start Date: 1/1/2014   End Date: 31/12/2015

Commitment aim

These four commitments attempted to build upon previous efforts by the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption to introduce integrity systems in Macedonia.^{[Note 70: Group of authors. Promoting Transparency and Accountability in Public Institutions (Skopje: OSCE, 2012), accessible at: http://bit.ly/1uFd7Et.]} Integrity systems should provide a framework for assessing risks and employing measures to ensure that those risks are mitigated system-wide, with the involvement of stakeholders.^{[Note 71: Specifically, they are the systems in an organisation or bureaucracy that combine the tools, actors, and processes to define, monitor, and enforce the norms and values of public integrity. Towards a Sound Integrity Framework: Instruments, Processes, Structures and Conditions for Implementation (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 2009), available at: http://bit.ly/214PZB8.]}

Status

Midterm

Commitment 4.3: Limited

Commitment 4.4: Complete

Commitment 4.5: Substantial

Commitment 4.6: Substantial

The IRM midterm review found limited progress on commitment 4.3. In the first year of implementation, 47 (out of 81) municipalities signed the declaration for anti-corruption,^{[Note 72: IRM interview with officials from the State Anti-Corruption Commission, and national news coverage during the international day for fight against corruption, 9 December 2014. See, for example, http://bit.ly/1PzUWxS.]} but no national, central level institutions joined the process. For this reason, only limited progress had been made toward the commitment.

Commitment 4.4 was completed in 2013 with the adoption of the Common Assessment Framework.^{[Note 73: Introduced in 2013 with the adoption of the Law Introducing a System of Quality Management and Common Assessment Framework, published in the Official Gazette No. 69, 14 May 2013. The law prescribed the obligation for all state bodies to start implementing CAF from 1 January 2014.]}

Commitment 4.5 sought to develop a local self-government integrity index. In the first year of implementation, the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption, in cooperation with CSOs, developed two different indices; the first was based on information that was proactively available, the second on the integrity framework. Since the commitment sought only to develop the indices, it was assessed by IRM as substantially completed.

The final commitment within this group (4.6) had substantial progress. CSOs developed and piloted a methodology with interested public enterprises to improve their integrity systems.^{[Note 74: IRN National Consultations Forum.]}

For more information, please see the 2014-2016 IRM midterm report.

End of term

Commitment 4.3: Limited

Commitment 4.5: Substantial

Commitment 4.6: Substantial

The government did not report additional progress on commitment 4.3, and the IRM researcher was able to confirm this during the review.

Commitments 4.5 and 4.6 related to the development of a methodology for monitoring integrity systems at the national and local levels. As assessed in the midterm report, different indices were developed to measure the implementation of mandatory responsibilities for risk management introduced in 2013. However, in practice, implementation was limited only to pilot institutions.^{[Note 75: Sladjana Taseva et al., National Integrity System: Assessment of Macedonia, (Skopje: Transparency International, 2016), available at: http://bit.ly/2iy6inY [In Macedonian].]} In December 2015, the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption adopted a new state program in which the integrity system was one of the key priorities.^{[Note 76: Commission for Prevention of Corruption, State Program for Anti-Corruption 2016-2019 (Skopje: 2015), available at: http://bit.ly/2cF4uGN [in Macedonian] and http://bit.ly/2pVr3OH [in English].]} From a review of the program by the IRM researcher, it was possible to (1) determine the Commission’s plans to revise the legislation; (2) provide new guidance for the integrity systems; (3) develop a concept model for institutional integrity; and (4) come up with a methodology for monitoring the implementation of the systems.^{[Note 77: Ibid, 31-33.]} This suggests that the results achieved within this cluster of commitments were not final. Therefore, progress is considered substantial.

Did it open government?

Public Accountability: Marginal

Civic Participation: Marginal

Widespread corruption remains one of the key challenges for Macedonia. It was at the heart of the biggest political crisis in the country during the implementation of the second national action plan.^{[Note 78: Emina Nuredinoska et al., Report for the Assessment of Corruption in Macedonia, (Skopje: MCIC, 2016), available at: http://bit.ly/2dv81gL [In Macedonian]. ]} The European Commission reported that corruption was a serious and prevalent problem in many areas of Macedonia, characterizing it as ‘state capture.’^{[Note 79: European Commission, Annual Progress Report for 2016 (Brussels: EC, 2016), 4-5, available at: http://bit.ly/2jeI2Jk.]} The U.S. Department of State stated in 2016 that the most significant human rights problems stem from high levels of corruption.^{[Note 80: US State Department, Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015 (Washington: 2016), 19-20, available at: http://bit.ly/2dwrjhn. ]} An independent assessment in 2016 noted that about 74.8% of the Macedonian people consider the sudden enrichment of public officials to be the leading factor in widespread corruption.

Additionally, 70% of Macedonians believed the lack of administrative control and an inefficient judiciary were main reasons for corruption.^{[Note 81: Emina Nuredinoska, Marija Sazdevski, Borjan Guzelov, Misa Popovic, Report for the Assessment of Corruption in Macedonia 2016, (Skopje: MCIC, 2016), available at: http://bit.ly/2dv81gL [in Macedonian].]} The government aimed to bolster the fight against corruption by systematically introducing mechanisms, tools, and measures to promote the integrity of public institutions.

Despite a significant completion rate, the commitments only marginally improved government practice regarding civic participation and public accountability. In 2016, an independent civil society assessment of the efficiency of the national integrity system stated that the institutions responsible for preventing and combating corruption were neither effectively managed nor sufficiently independent to tackle corruption, and lacked integrity.^{[Note 82: Sladjana Tasev, National Integrity System Assessment Macedonia, (Skopje: Transparency Macedonia, 2016), 26, available at: http://bit.ly/2deBqbe. ]} The EC also noted the structural shortcomings of the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption and the political interference that minimised its impact. According to Transparency International, political elites have too much power in Macedonia, and there are few ways to hold the corrupt accountable.^{[Note 83: Andy McDevitt, Fighting Corruption in the Western Balkans and Turkey: Priorities for Reform, (Transparency International: 2016), available at: http://bit.ly/2itucpf.]} Furthermore, an assessment of the work of the Commission by civil society pointed to a lack of efficiency, independence, relevance, and transparency.^{[Note 84: Martin Duvnjak, Assessment of the Work of the Commission for Prevention of Corruption, (Skopje: MCIC, 2016), available at: http://bit.ly/2deDH6a [in Macedonian].]}

Civil society organisations provided a foundation for the further development of the cooperative model. The Commission recognized the newly-established civil society “Platform against Corruption,” as a viable platform for their future activities.^{[Note 85: The Platform against Corruption has signed a cooperation agreement with the Commission, and has engaged with it in the development of the new State program for fight against corruption.]} However, the impact of this cooperation has been limited so far. This should be further promoted by both sides to boost the preventive role of the Commission, which was significantly reduced during the reporting period.^{[Note 86: As reported by the EC, in 2015, “the SCPC slowed down its corruption prevention activities significantly. It filed only two requests to prosecutors to initiate criminal proceedings (compared with 7 in 2014). It carried out checks on asset declarations of only 43 elected and appointed officials. It also initiated 7 misdemeanour proceedings for failure to declare assets (51 in 2014). The SCPC asked the Public Revenue Office to conduct asset examination procedures in only 10 suspicious cases (58 in 2014).”]} 

Carried forward?

The new action plan includes one commitment to promote integrity systems and transparency at the local level. The commitment has two milestones. The first focuses on local governments adopting anti-corruption policies and integrity systems, and the second commits to regular monitoring using the two indices developed within the second action plan.